American Journalists Decry Israel’s Ability to Defend Itself as Blocking Peace
The Washington Post has a major article explaining that while, on one hand, the Iron Dome missile defense is a good thing because it blocks missiles that would otherwise kill and injure Israelis as well as cause damage it is also a bad thing. Tom Friedman made similar claims. Why?
“For a nation that longs for normalcy and acceptance, one question being debated here is whether Iron Dome will motivate Israel’s leaders to pursue peace with the Palestinians and the wider Arab world or insulate them from having to do so.”
In other words, if a lot more Israelis were being killed and wounded by attacks then Israel would have more incentive to make peace with the Palestinians and Arabs. But since they are only being attacked and their lives paralyzed but not killed, Israel just isn’t interested in making peace.
I’ll cut a little more deeply - or maybe just a little more bluntly - into the @#$% of this argument than Rubin does. This “argument” masks two resentments: fewer Jews will be killed by Arab Pali rockets; the nation Israel will be a little less insecure. As Rubin points out, the idea that Israel will be more amenable to make concessions to the Arab Palis if the threat to Israel is greater is the diametric opposite of what has happened in recent history. It’s the kind of irrational and counter-factual argument people concoct when they hate Jews and assume a Jewish pride and arrogance worthy of hatred.