Things That Don't Meaningfully Exist: Divisions Among Arab Terrorists, Divisions Within the Arab Public, and Unicorns
The Washington Post doesn't seem to realize that Hamas controls the Palestinian government. Seriously, will someone please send a fax or something:
By pounding the Beirut airport and other civilian targets yesterday, the Israelis have taken a step back in time - to tactics that have been tried repeatedly in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories without much success... the outcome is likely to be similar to what has happened in Gaza over the past several weeks: Israeli attacks to free a captured soldier further weakened the Palestinian Authority without much damaging the terrorists.
The Palestinian Authority is controlled by Hamas, who are... wait for it... yes, the terrorists who kidnapped the soldier. This paragraph represents a flavor of the "divisions among Arab groups that want to destroy Israel (should be exploited)" theme that provides the fodder for shallow cocktail and hallway conversations among self-styled sophisticates.
A more explicit version of the "division among Arab groups" theme is that weird LA Times pipe dream qua assertion qua blind quote that Hamas and Hezbollah are in competition. We'll pass on the same NYT link that Slate did when they talking about this article - the one that carefully explains the lines of financing, training, and support between the groups.
As to this mass political movement in the Arab public against anti-Israel violence: sure, there might be divisions between different Arab groups or between any particular Arab group and a particular part of an Arab country. But those are all debates and dynamics that happen on the margins. The main dynamic is this: a majority of Palestinians just voted for Hamas in a democratic election, while Hezbollah is Lebanon's largest political party. There might be reasons for Israel not to massively retaliate against Hamas and Hezbollah, but this fantasy that there is some kind of mass, public opposition that Israel is setting back is not one of them.
We're almost beginning to suspect that all of the bad arguments against Israeli self-defense are being driven not by clear-headed analysis, but rather as a desperate search for... reasons Israel's shouldn't defend itself.
By pounding the Beirut airport and other civilian targets yesterday, the Israelis have taken a step back in time - to tactics that have been tried repeatedly in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories without much success... the outcome is likely to be similar to what has happened in Gaza over the past several weeks: Israeli attacks to free a captured soldier further weakened the Palestinian Authority without much damaging the terrorists.
The Palestinian Authority is controlled by Hamas, who are... wait for it... yes, the terrorists who kidnapped the soldier. This paragraph represents a flavor of the "divisions among Arab groups that want to destroy Israel (should be exploited)" theme that provides the fodder for shallow cocktail and hallway conversations among self-styled sophisticates.
A more explicit version of the "division among Arab groups" theme is that weird LA Times pipe dream qua assertion qua blind quote that Hamas and Hezbollah are in competition. We'll pass on the same NYT link that Slate did when they talking about this article - the one that carefully explains the lines of financing, training, and support between the groups.
As to this mass political movement in the Arab public against anti-Israel violence: sure, there might be divisions between different Arab groups or between any particular Arab group and a particular part of an Arab country. But those are all debates and dynamics that happen on the margins. The main dynamic is this: a majority of Palestinians just voted for Hamas in a democratic election, while Hezbollah is Lebanon's largest political party. There might be reasons for Israel not to massively retaliate against Hamas and Hezbollah, but this fantasy that there is some kind of mass, public opposition that Israel is setting back is not one of them.
We're almost beginning to suspect that all of the bad arguments against Israeli self-defense are being driven not by clear-headed analysis, but rather as a desperate search for... reasons Israel's shouldn't defend itself.
