Civillian Casualties, Egypt and other thoughts

The general assumption is that whenever Israel kills a civillian it means that this is a bad thing. However, if you have towns which harbor terrorists low civillian casualties are a necessary evil. For one thing if you have perfect bombs which only hit terrorists then there is no reason for a town to resist the terrorists. There must be some cost given to Lebanon for their apathy towards Hizbullah’s bloodless capture of their South. Of course it would be better to have only property damage but a complete avoidance of civillian casualties is not only impossible but undesirable.

Because of these attacks the right is saying that their policy of “No Land For Peace” is clearly desirable. This may be true for Gaza and Oslo but Begin’s treaty with Egypt is showing itself to be an immensely valuable pact.  Imagine Egypt sending its longerange missiles into any city it chose to. Imagine a real airforce which could shoot down Israeli jets. Just ponder this for a few minutes before you reject the next peace plan out of hand with the argument that these plans never work.

Finally, how much egg are those liberals eating when they attacked SDI. Of course they’re not eating any but they should be. Consider a world where any time Iran wanted to level New York they can. Consider a world where Tel-Aviv is leveled the second Achmandinajad (sp???) gets trigger happy. Consider a world with Mecca gone the moment Tancredo somehow gets elected (remember the cancel password is OPE). But of course that crazy cowboy Reagan suggested it so it was Star Wars and undesirable. We still don’t have a perfect defense but we’ve at least got a fighting chance against an ICBM and Israel can still block a Scud.

2 Responses to Civillian Casualties, Egypt and other thoughts

  1. Tobie says:

    Excellent points. A couple observations.

    1)The line between civilian and enemy is remarkably narrow in this particular war. Many of the “innocent civilians” who are being killed not only tolerated the presence of terrorists in their country, but are also passively or actively aiding the terrorists- hiding missiles under their beds, etc. Making life unpleasant for them is not necessarily something that I regret.

    2)Giving land to Egypt is not entirely analogous to giving land to Palestinians. Egypt is an actual country, which has a pretty decent level of control over its citizens. Palestine, like Lebanon, really doesn’t, so it’s unlikely that they could enforce a peace even if they really meant it.

    3)Those who should be eating crow are too busy babbling about “disproportionate retaliation” to do anything else.

  2. mike529 says:

    1) I would say that my post would apply to children casualties as well.
    2) Egypt started out before the deal in a position analogous to the Palestinians at Oslo. They mostly had control but didn’t choose to use it. Arafat was the same. If he had wanted to stop terror he could have.
    3) Yes eating egg makes no sense it was a mixed metaphor. Eating crow is a much better term.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: