Tel-Chai Nation

Yaakov Menken makes clear why it's offensive to say Israel should act restrained when dealing with barbarism:

Barring a life-threatening emergency, observant Jews do not use electronics or telephones during the Sabbath and holidays — so although reports of the attack trickled through the Jewish community here in America, we were unable to read the news until Sunday evening. There was one thing, though, I knew to expect: calls for “restraint.” They come after each terrorist atrocity against Israel, and this case was no different.

Hamas, of course, never acts with restraint. Restraint entails, among other things, trying to avoid killing civilians, and Hamas targets civilians. What spokesmen for Egypt, the UAE, Russia, China, Australia, South Africa, and the UN secretary-general have called for, then, is “restraint” in Israel’s response to the worst massacre of Jews since the Nazi Holocaust. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her colleague Rep. Cori Bush used a still more offensive term: “de-escalation.”

These calls are not merely inappropriate and one-sided, but genuinely evil. This pogrom transpired precisely because Israel was pressured into listening to previous calls for “restraint.”

Think about it: Not once have world leaders called for restraint from Ukraine. History records no cries for de-escalation as British and American bombers reduced Dresden to rubble while fighting the Nazis, allied forces pummeled Iraq, or American troops hunted Osama bin Laden. Nor should there have been. None of the aforementioned world leaders or members of Congress call for restraint when fighting totalitarians or terrorists — unless the victims are Jews.

Tellingly, the documentary series “The Unauthorized History of the Vietnam War,” pillories President Lyndon Johnson’s war policy as “fatal restraint.” Restraint is how you lose wars. Restraint is how you allow a vicious enemy, driven by hate, to rebuild its capabilities and learn new and crueler ways to inflict violence and terror.

Here’s another word bound to come up in the coming days: “proportionality.” A correct, moral “proportion” is for every terrorist to be neutralized, with minimal casualties among their intended civilian targets. Yet global media sources routinely denounce Israel for not permitting the number of Jews killed to equal or exceed the number of terrorists and their supporters dispatched. It should sicken anyone with a functioning moral compass.

No matter where it comes from, whether the UN or other such sources, it's obscene in the extreme, especially when it comes to the moral equivalence factor, stealthed or otherwise. That too is truly offensive, and those who espouse it are a disgrace and shame. Why, it's hard to buy they really care about Ukraine and other such countries if that's how they're going to go about. Many of these reprehensible "moralists" also couldn't care less than only so many of the "palestinians" who may now be making their way to the USA are some of the most bigoted people around, to the point, where Florida governor Ron deSantis opposes welcoming them:

Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis stated the U.S. should not be welcoming refugees from Gaza fleeing the Hamas-initiated conflict to come to the states at a campaign event Saturday in Creston, Iowa.

The 2024 presidential candidate declared, “We cannot accept people from Gaza into this country as refugees,” Politico reported. “If you look at how [people in Gaza] behave, not all of them are Hamas, but they are all anti-Semitic,” DeSantis continued.

[...] DeSantis conceded “none of the Arab states are willing to take any of them,” but said nations in that area of the world should be responsible for accepting refugees given their geographical proximity.

“You don’t fly people and import them into the United States of America,” DeSantis concluded.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what Joe Biden and company have surely done already, and it's bound to complicate and endanger the USA's situation even more.

Update: some experts are acknowledging that what the Hamas did constitutes genocide, though they don't come quite close enough:

In an expert opinion by dozens of leading international law experts from Israel and around the world, at the request of the Hostages and Missing Families Forum headquarters, it was determined that the actions of Hamas are crimes against humanity and constitute war crimes; The expert opinion also stated that "As these widespread, horrendous acts appear to have been carried out with an “intent to destroy, in whole or in part” a national group – Israelis - they most probably constitute an international crime of genocide”.

The expert opinion is signed by senior experts from the world's leading universities - including Oxford, Harvard, King's College, and Columbia University, as well as Israel's leading international jurists.

The experts come from many countries such as the USA, Britain, Germany, Poland, and Israel.

The expert opinion states, among other things, that "the taking of hostages is defined as a war crime" and that "Hamas must provide under international law information regarding the hostages, including their medical condition, and provide them with the necessary medical care".

"Probably" isn't good enough. It has to be definitely, and it is.

Update 2: the dhimmi apologists for Hamas are bound to be unconcerned about the terrorist organization's efforts to block Gazans from evacuating to the south.

Update 3: a legal expert named Mark Goldfeder explains why Israel's siege of Gaza is entirely legal under global law. Joel Pollak also comments.

Update 4: Robert Arvay also points out the double-standard LGBT activists otherwise have when it comes to Islamic hostility to the former's ideology.

Labels: anti-semitism, communications, dhimmitude, Europe, Florida, islam, Israel, jihad, military, misogyny, Moonbattery, msm foulness, political corruption, Russia, sexual violence, terrorism, United States, war on terror