NewsWithViews on Pinterest NewsWithViews on Google+

Additional Titles


ISIS, Hamas, Hitler and the Policy of Appeasement










By Cathy Sherman
December 31, 2014

Whenever the Israelis begin to respond seriously to Arab attacks, a hue and cry is heard from the leaders of the world for Israel to use “restraint”. Do we really need another article about the condemnation of Israel for using “disproportionate use of force”? A review of the first 28 of 1,690,000 results in an internet search of the term “disproportionate use of force” revealed that around 90% were about Israel. Exceptions included a police incident in Tennessee and an incident in India.

Because many of the results were in regard to past wars involving Israel, it seems not much has changed. It appears, without doing a real survey, that just about any time that Israel starts winning a war against Muslims, the world – the UN, EU, and US – starts condemning Israel’s disproportionate use of force. Thus, it’s apparent that the message isn’t getting through to the world, that deterrence involves such disproportionate use of force, even if the country accused of such force is Israel. There’s a deeper message here and the revelation of a noxious agenda against the Jewish state.

Just about anyone would agree that to keep peace, i.e. absence of war, nations strive to reach a position of possessing deterrence. . Every sports coach knows that the best defense is a good offense. Dr. Paul Eidelberg has defined deterrence as consisting of holding overwhelming military power plus the willingness to use it ruthlessly.

Therefore, one can conclude that deterrence means an ability to use military power ruthlessly. In Israel’s case, the use of force could hardly be called ruthless. It’s been documented repeatedly that in the past few wars with Gaza, Israel has warned Gazan citizens of impending attacks. A ruthless military would not warn the enemy of an impending strike, which weakens the attack by eliminating the element of surprise. Ruthless would describe the blitzing of London by the Germans in WWII, or the use of an atomic bomb in Hiroshima. Ruthless is the use of power without regard to collateral damage. In the most recent operations of Israel in Gaza, there was admittedly collateral damage, but it cannot be blamed solely on Israel due to Hamas’ use of human shields.

It is fitting to mention a little more about the use of human shields by Hamas and other Islamic militants. Occasional quotes from actual citizens willing to serve as human shields are published, such as the story of the Kawari house. Clearly the occupants were warned to leave by the IDF, but they stayed in an attempt to protect the home with their bodies. One volunteer reported that even if she was killed, it would be worth it because such a martyr’s death would mean a reward in the next world. One boy interviewed said, “We love the resistance. We want to die as Martyrs. Long live the Martyrs...The Israeli occupation understands only resistance. We always love the resistance, to liberate our nation Palestine. And among us, the Martyrs are loved. Applause for the Martyrs...”

The question of the age is why? Why doesn’t the UN, EU and US leadership speak up and condemn this disproportionate use of brainwashing? It doesn’t because the agenda clearly is the weakening of Israel, even if that means the strengthening of Hamas and militant Islam.

Why do the world’s leaders want to strengthen a terrorist organization in Gaza, while simultaneously fighting a brother terrorist organization in Iraq? Why acknowledge the importance of deterrence for the US defensive strategy, while telling Israel they can’t rely on deterrence because their use of force is forbidden? How many leaders strongly condemned the US for disproportionate use of force in Afghanistan where many civilians died as human shields? This obvious double standard also reveals a hidden agenda against Israel.

There’s an irony that the only “democratic state in the Middle East” is condemned for unwillingly killing civilians in a defensive war, while Hamas, a terror organization, is not condemned as strongly for instructing its people to serve as shields. Where ruthless willingness to use power is okay for the US, it is not okay for Israel, though they are fighting the same enemy. As Netanyahu has stated, Hamas is IS and IS is Hamas. There is no difference.

So if Israel is denied the ability to use deterrence as a defense, how would a war with Islamic fanatics play out? Keeping all deaths in proportion, there would never be a winner, unless Israel could find a way to destroy the rocket launchers without harming the people gathered around the weapons. This could possibly be accomplished with a ground war - determined to be too costly in terms of the soldiers’ lives - as it offers the best ability to target only the launchers and not the people. This also contradicts the whole point of deterrence.

In a rational world, the fact that Israeli strength can decimate a much weaker Gaza would deter Hamas from attacking Israel militarily. In fact this is the reason the PA switched to propaganda as the favored weapon. In the Operation Protective Edge, it appeared that Hamas was using a two-pronged approach in partnership with the PA. The PA issued propaganda and threats of going to the UN, while Hamas fired missiles into Israel.

Subscribe to NewsWithViews Daily Email Alerts

*required field

At present, the tit-for-tat retaliation of Israel for missiles fired into its territory, coupled with the propaganda of the PA, has resumed as the status quo. Abbas is indeed attempting to steal the center of Israel for his state, while Hamas prepares for the next military battle by building weapons and tunnels. A stronger win against Gaza might have helped weaken Abbas and his threats, but now the battle is being waged on the UN front. Whatever the results for Abbas’ strategy, it’s clear there will be more wars between Israel and Hamas until Hamas is totally destroyed. Israel must be allowed to use disproportionate force in order for future deterrence to work to forestall more wars. Failure of the world powers to allow this will prove once again that the powers prefer instability and continuous war in the Middle East over one clear powerful democracy possessing deterrence.

� 2014 Cathy Sherman - All Rights Reserved

Share This Article

Click Here For Mass E-mailing


Cathy Sherman is a freelance writer with a major interest in natural health. She wrote many articles on healthy living. An interest in the fascinating subject of water inspired her to write her recently published children’s book, Drew Drop and the Water Cycle.

After moving to Israel, she realized the need to clarify some of the incorrect and misunderstood narratives surrounding Israel and its conflict with Arab neighbors.




In a rational world, the fact that Israeli strength can decimate a much weaker Gaza would deter Hamas from attacking Israel militarily. In fact this is the reason the PA switched to propaganda as the favored weapon.