Israeli Government: Spring Rain is about More than Shalit
The Israeli government is saying it...
The cabinet statement listed the goals of the current operation as "the release of abducted Cpl. Gilad Shalit and the ending of the firing of rockets and mortars from Gaza." The security cabinet reiterated Israel's refusal to negotiate a release of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Shalit.
... but we're quite sure that few people are listening. When Shalit is finally taken from the Palestinian criminals and warmongers who kidnapped him, there will be a united global outcry that Israel's goals have been accomplished and that the IDF must now quit Gaza. The groundwork for this tactic is already being prepared.
We anticipate hundreds of headlines like:
* "Despite soldier release, Israeli attack on Gaza continues"
* "Two days after kidnappers release soldier, Israeli attacks continue"
* "Israeli PM: Invasion of Gaza to continue despite Palestinian concessions"
* "Palestinian leaders broker soldiers' release despite Israeli invasion"
These headlines are premised on the assumption that Shalit’s kidnappers are not - God forbid - stupid enough to murder him. Not that such an outrage would change the headlines much - you just substitute "soldier’s body" for "soldier" and the stories will still insist that Israel got what it came to Gaza for, and that it should now get out. That a bound, captured soldier would have actually murdered in cold blood will make hardly a difference.
There are two things to remember.
The first is that, even if Israel's invasion of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip was originally instigated only by Shalit's kidnapping (which it wasn't), Israel would still be under no obligation to stop waging war against Hamas once Shalit was free. That's how war works - once a country starts one, they don't get to call a time-out when it starts going badly for them (Arab experiences in the United Nations notwithstanding). Once an act of war has been committed against a country, that country is free to - you know - wage a war. This isn't a tit-for-tat snowball fight. After Pearl Harbor was bombed, the Japanese didn't get to say "now you get to bomb one of our bases, and then you have to stop because that's all we did to you". And there's a reason for this: starting a war shouldn't be a zero-cost proposition to the aggressor. Otherwise there would be no disincentive to starting wars, and that's a bad thing.
The second thing to remember is that even if the invasion of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip was originally instigated by Shalit's kidnapping, as of yesterday it's about much, much more. Major Israeli cities are now being bombed with regularity by an enemy committed to destroying the state. Demanding that Israel do anything less than launch a full-scale attack against the government that did this would be equivalent to telling Churchill that Britain could only respond to the rocket attacks on London by taking out German rocket centers, but not the rest of the German military.
The Palestinians should not get to commit outrages and then hide behind the world's skirts. Acts of war should carry consequences.
[Cross-posted at IsraPundit]
The cabinet statement listed the goals of the current operation as "the release of abducted Cpl. Gilad Shalit and the ending of the firing of rockets and mortars from Gaza." The security cabinet reiterated Israel's refusal to negotiate a release of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Shalit.
... but we're quite sure that few people are listening. When Shalit is finally taken from the Palestinian criminals and warmongers who kidnapped him, there will be a united global outcry that Israel's goals have been accomplished and that the IDF must now quit Gaza. The groundwork for this tactic is already being prepared.
We anticipate hundreds of headlines like:
* "Despite soldier release, Israeli attack on Gaza continues"
* "Two days after kidnappers release soldier, Israeli attacks continue"
* "Israeli PM: Invasion of Gaza to continue despite Palestinian concessions"
* "Palestinian leaders broker soldiers' release despite Israeli invasion"
These headlines are premised on the assumption that Shalit’s kidnappers are not - God forbid - stupid enough to murder him. Not that such an outrage would change the headlines much - you just substitute "soldier’s body" for "soldier" and the stories will still insist that Israel got what it came to Gaza for, and that it should now get out. That a bound, captured soldier would have actually murdered in cold blood will make hardly a difference.
There are two things to remember.
The first is that, even if Israel's invasion of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip was originally instigated only by Shalit's kidnapping (which it wasn't), Israel would still be under no obligation to stop waging war against Hamas once Shalit was free. That's how war works - once a country starts one, they don't get to call a time-out when it starts going badly for them (Arab experiences in the United Nations notwithstanding). Once an act of war has been committed against a country, that country is free to - you know - wage a war. This isn't a tit-for-tat snowball fight. After Pearl Harbor was bombed, the Japanese didn't get to say "now you get to bomb one of our bases, and then you have to stop because that's all we did to you". And there's a reason for this: starting a war shouldn't be a zero-cost proposition to the aggressor. Otherwise there would be no disincentive to starting wars, and that's a bad thing.
The second thing to remember is that even if the invasion of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip was originally instigated by Shalit's kidnapping, as of yesterday it's about much, much more. Major Israeli cities are now being bombed with regularity by an enemy committed to destroying the state. Demanding that Israel do anything less than launch a full-scale attack against the government that did this would be equivalent to telling Churchill that Britain could only respond to the rocket attacks on London by taking out German rocket centers, but not the rest of the German military.
The Palestinians should not get to commit outrages and then hide behind the world's skirts. Acts of war should carry consequences.
[Cross-posted at IsraPundit]
