The war against the Jews (6)

This morning’s Times leader seemed remarkably confused, not to mention falling smartly into the by now well-rehearsed trap (see multiple posts below) :

And so Israeli politicians, responding to public frustration, have spoken of ever more serious consequences, even unwisely threatening Gaza with the emotive word shoa, the normal Hebrew word for Holocaust.

Groan.

And then it went on:

Israel's friends, including Britain, have reaffirmed the country's right to defend itself. But Western public opinion regards the deaths of more than 100 Palestinians for three Israelis, whatever the extenuating circumstances, as disproportionate. And when these Palestinian casualties are caused by the Israeli Defence Forces, the very idea of self-defence is brought into question. Over time that is disastrous for the credibility of Israel's claim to the right of self-defence. Israel's action is both legitimate and counter-productive.

Eh?? Why does using its armed forces bring the very idea of self-defence into question? True, the western world clearly doesn’t think Israel should exercise any military self-defence and should never under any circumstances kill any Arabs, regardless of their aggression; but since when did the Times agree with that? As for the next sentence:

The brutal fact is that all sides have more interest in war than peace

how can they possibly assert that Israel has no interest in peace? Do they really believe that, after sixty years of living under siege from the annihilatory Arab onslaught, Israel actually wants more of the same?

The Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP. All Articles and Content Copyright ©2007 by The Spectator (1828) Ltd. All Rights Reserved