No Amount of ‘Context’ Justifies Killing Babies

Hamas apologists can offer only incoherent arguments in defense of terrorism.

By
440
Family photos and personal items are scattered among the rumble of a destroyed house near the border with Gaza on October 11, 2023, in Be'eri, Israel. More than 100 civilians were killed at Kibbutz Be'eri which is about 12 percent of the kibbutz's population. (Photo by Alexi J. Rosenfeld/Getty Images)

I don’t pay a lot of attention to George Takei, but I think this is a useful perspective for our purposes. Over the course of two tweets, he said:

The Israeli government has cut off food, water, and fuel to 2 million people inside Gaza. Collective punishment is not only contrary to international law, it is inhumane and illogical. How will this deescalate the violence rather than radicalize many more? It is madness.

It is what my community once endured in World War II, all because of the actions of others who happened to share our ethnicity. Have we learned nothing?

Now, I could have picked from literally scores of more radical statements out there, but I think this is more useful because Takei is much more of a conventional, mainstream progressive than a lot of the fringier folks getting all of the attention. He’s expressing the sort of reflexive view of the overeducated, but mostly ill-informed, critics of Israel.

More to the point, I find it instructive that Takei is not making the point he thinks he is. I don’t mean his objections to blockading the Gaza Strip. I think he’s just merely wrong there. The cutoff of water and utilities isn’t really for “collective punishment” (nor is it “genocide,” passionate claims to the contrary). It’s a necessary military first step when you’re at war with the terrorists running Gaza. 

This content is available exclusively to Dispatch members
Try a membership for full access to every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism.
Start Your Free Trial
Already a paid member? Sign In
440
By
Comments (440)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Davemh333

    This is far and away the most cogent and compelling responsible to the terror apologists. It needs a wider audience than just us paid Dispatch subscribers. Have you considered a NYT editorial?

    Collapse
  2. Johnsondm03

    Welcome to the pro-life movement, Jonah.
    We're glad to have you on our side.

    Collapse
  3. Deleted Comment

    This comment has been deleted

  4. Deleted Comment

    This comment has been deleted

  5. Jpsagaser

    I have read hundreds of your G-Files.

    This was the first that moved me to tears.

    Collapse
  6. Hubcap_90808

    Thank you. Given Takei’s argument, I thought a better example might be Korea under Japanese occupation before and during WWII. Japan definitely committed atrocities… What was the Korean response to their occupation?

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    James McDermott

    Seeing some comments about how the Jews stole the land of Israel from the Palestinians. A cursory review of modern history refutes this. The development of the Zionist movement in late nineteenth century England was the result of ages long anti-Semitism in Europe. The Zionists got a sympathetic ear with British Foreign Secretary Alfred Balfour, Lord Rothschild, who convinced his government in 1917 to issue a declaration that expressed the need for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, then under Ottoman rule and at war with Britain and the Allies. During the rise of the Nazis and Fascists, Jews began migrating to Palestine in great numbers. Following WW II, the British convinced the nascent UN to allow Britain to rule Palestine under a UN mandate until a solution to a growing Arab-Jew conflict could be worked out, but the Arabs were intractable to any solution other than expulsion or elimination of the Jews. When Britain finally pulled out of Palestine in 1947, four Arab armies Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon) attacked Palestine to crush the Jews, but the Jews defeated each Arab army in detail, declaring independence as the fighting was still on-going. The US and the Soviet Union were the first nations to recognize the new state of Israel which was then confirmed by the UN. So, who are the rightful owners of Palestine? Why the Canaanites, of course, whose claim goes back over four millennia until they were overrun by the Sea Peoples we now know as the Philistines, from whose name we get Palestine, and the Philistines were challenged by desert tribes known as Hebrews who settled in former Canaanite lands A succession of empires then conquered Palestine: the Assyrians, Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Western and Eastern Romans, Moslem Armies of the Prophet and his successors, and in the end the Ottoman Turks. So which group has a greater claim? My vote is the Canaanites, if we can find any of them, but for now, I think the Israelis have the right by beneficial possession, having done what ages of previous owners never did, i.e., turn the desert into a garden of Eden and create a democratic government of liberal values with respect for human rights, something unknown in Moslem lands.

    Collapse
    1. Pohl

      Now do Native Americans and see what happens. I’m just curious.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        James McDermott

        The native Americans were too busy fighting among themselves and committing atrocities on each other to focus attention on the arrival of European settlers There was never a unified native nation to claim the land and oppose the settlers who claimed the land by right of beneficial possession. There is a similarity between the native tribes and the individual Canaanite city states that failed to unify in the face of Philistine and Hebrew conquest, in that their lack of unity made conquest a lot easier, but I think you missed my point that trying to tie the right of land possession in Palestine to historical possession is a fruitless game. That Israel was granted official statehood by the United Nations following World War II is a historical fact which the Arabs refuse to accept, but the Palestinian Arabs themselves have no greater historical claim to the land than the Jews or, for that matter, the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, etc. In fact, the Arab lands in the Middle East are mostly the invention of the Western European victors of World War I who carved up Middle East into protectorates to accommodate allies and provide a continuing source of oil. Britain may have been all too ready to dump Palestine on the Jews as it had no oil or other commercial or strategic value. The Jews, however, turned the barren lands into their Promised and of Milk and Honey after less than half a century.

        Collapse
        1. Pohl

          Thanks for the reply. I was being a little mischievous there as I have used similar argumentation to yours towards indigenous people. I don’t think I missed anything as I largely agree with your original post. Israel, whatever problems or strange artificiality at its genesis, is a fait accompli. Likewise, the Palestinians aren’t going anywhere. Pick our crops and then go back to your 70-year-old refugee slum is an arrangement whose days are numbered. I’m hoping that is something good that may come of this new conflict—the end of Hamas and the beginning of something better for all parties.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            James McDermott

            Let's all hope for peace and justice for all parties in this troubled land.

            Collapse
    2. Wes Nichols

      Wow! Impressive rendering of the historical context.
      A little like Wotan’s monologue in Act II of Die Walkure.

      Collapse
  8. Mary Stine

    People who are committed to brutal terrorist acts do not care who dies: babies, innocent adults, blameless pets and wildlife..the more blood and horror, the better. What Hamas and other terrorists care about is creating terror and anarchy. This current brutality was clearly designed to provoke a severe, brutal response from Israel,
    allowing Palestinian sympathizers "legitimate" complaint. The fact that Palestine attacked Israel first seems to have been ignored.
    The history of the region is a terrible long tale of violent overthrow by many different powers. Following WWII Israel was carved out of Palestine by nonPalestinians for the benefit of the Jewish people primarily. Legacy farmers and landowners in that region who were not Jewish claimed they were forced to vacate, usually without recompense, and often after enduring violent attack. That is the foundation for most contemporary complaints, including the ongoing complaint that Israel continues to encroach upon Palestinian territory, effectively diminishing Palestine and increasing Israel. None of that makes the murder and torture of babies okay.
    When the news media is covering this journalists ought to be asking questions about the financial support flowing to Hamas and who the sources are. There are obviously players here whose interest is beyond religion or settling feuds. Who gains by the region blowing up and being a rudderless anarchy? Who gains if Israel is crippled?

    Collapse
  9. Yikes

    Just a blue collar guy here, but I am left wondering. Who the fudge looks at the horrors these animals committed in Israel and thinks, "yeah, those are my team. Whatever their cause is, I am hundo p behind it".

    Collapse
  10. Norbertmllr

    Mr. Goldberg:

    Thank you for your analysis/take on this situation. I largely agree while at the same time I think that your criticism of the George Takei snippet is, shall we say, a bit overcooked. (My thanks to the Dispatch writer, whoever he or she is, who introduced me to the culinary analogy.)

    I have two reasons for writing this comment. The first is that I fear your overstating of the case can hurt your credibility. My second reason will be covered below. Now, I love the Dispatch and it is both the intellectual viewpoints of various writers here as well as their ability to report in a much more calm and detached way than .... well, most other media that keeps me reading.

    I've never even heard of Takei before reading this column, let alone read him. Any reading of his writings is likely much larger than mine, which consists solely of the quote in your column.

    The Hamas attack, of course, cannot be justified - of course not. No, really, it can't. Of course not!! Do I make myself clear? I don't see that as a serious question to even be pondered. But you know what? Notwithstanding Mr. Takei's weird choice of comparing the current situation with the WWII U.S. internment camps of Japanese Americans (in which the oppressed group behaved exactly opposite of Hamas) I don't think he's wrong by pointing out that the history of Israel's treatment of Gaza and its inhabitants might just eventually lead to or at least encourage an eventual political/military/terrorist blowback. When things get heated, it's unfortunately only too likely that the reaction will tend be disproportionate.

    Mr. Goldberg, how can you claim that "“This is what happens when you treat people like this” suggests that Gaza’s civilian population is utterly sympatico with Hamas’ worst killers?" I simply cannot see the logical connection. That's because it only takes a small percentage of the population to be in sympatico with Hamas' worst killers. Given a very young population ... well, we've seen how some of our own college kids from the comforts of Harvard et al. react(ed) to the attack; is it so hard to see that in a population of a couple million that slants toward being youthful, a bunch of young men with guns rather than computers might react the way they did? And by the way, OF COURSE IT'S NOT JUSTIFIED!!! (Did I mention that yet?)

    Is it "collective punishment" or necessary military first step? Why not both, depending on one's perspective? I think, were I a Palestinian living in Gaza - one not "in utter sympatico with Hamas' worst terrorists," that is - it might just feel like punishment. But I've never visited the area, don't know any of the languages, and to the best of my recollection have never even met an actual Gazan. So I realize I might be missing something, and I mean this quite seriously and not facetiously.

    Regardless of his progressive leanings and any other writings of his, I just don't see Mr. Takei implying, let alone stating, the kind of conclusions which you seem to think he is, except that his comparison (with the WWII Japanese internment) doesn't fly. In the "context" (HA!) of this newsletter, or "newsletter," as you like to call it, I think you've overstated the case against him.

    Now to my second reason. It seems to me that we (as a culture? as Americans? as Westerners?) really like to think in binary terms, and this has really affected our ability to communicate with others whose opinions run counter to our own.

    Overstating or misstating our case tends to produce nonequal and opposite reactions and this kind of idiot thinking renders communication much more difficult. In the current case, it's not so much the boringly prosaic left/right or progressive/conservative divide, but one which seems to strongly lean to supporting either the Gazan Palestinians and thus Hamas, or Israel. I do appreciate the political/military alliance we have with Israel and so of course we must support them. I don't know if that means we should support the cutting off of power, water, etc. but realize that it's probably necessary or at least expedient from a military perspective.

    I believe I mentioned that the attack by Hamas wasn't justified (scrolls up to double-check ... yeah, good!). But given the history; given that Israel is much more powerful than Gaza; yes, given the awful "context" - is the Hamas attack really terribly surprising?

    And that social media can bring out the worst in people shouldn't be surprising either. I wonder - would those Hamas terrorists would have behaved quite so badly had they not had the ability to broadcast their evil deeds? I don't know, but I'm certainly open to that possibility.

    And because they did, now it's their turn to face the consequences, likely as not disproportionate, which probably already have killed off, and will continue killing or leading to the death of, many of the very people they claim to represent.

    This isn't any kind of either/or. Everybody loses.

    Collapse
    1. Davemh333

      Your assumption that it's just a small percentage of the population that's sympatico isn't consistent with facts on the ground or survey results. How do you think that Hamas planned this without at least implicit cooperation? Do you assume that "ordinary" Palestinians don't choose to allow Hamas military operations to be located in their neighborhoods and next to their schools. Do you ignore the "ordinary" civilians out celebrating in the streets at innocent Israeli deaths?

      Collapse
      1. Norbertmllr

        Good morning, Dave:

        You are correct - I am assuming. But you are assuming the surveys are consistent with reality. I am not. Why? Because I'm a cushy American who can pretty much say what I want without fear of governmental, or pseudo-"governmental," reprisal - but I'm keenly aware that other people in other places might not enjoy this same luxury. Please correct me if I am wrong, but if I were a Gazan Palestinian and were asked whether or not I support a group like Hamas might I not fear for my safety should I answer in a way that would be perceived as unfavorable? How do I know that the pollsters aren't secret agents? THAT's what I base my assumption on.

        I don't put too much stock in polls conducted here in the U.S. because I don't trust them for various reasons, so I put even less faith in polls conducted in a place where the rules are all different.

        I'm open to correction; for example, if you have spent time in Gaza and have a different perspective I would tend to lean pretty strongly on your experience ..... unless, of course, I found you had some kind of political agenda you were pursuing and what you said strongly supported it. Then I'd have serious doubts.

        Are "ordinary" civilians celebrating the deaths? They may well be. But they may also find themselves in a situation where they fear that failure to show support to the terrorists could end poorly for them. I imagine people thinking along the lines of "Gee, social media is pervasive, so if I'm seen on a video I might want to make sure I don't look like I'm actually disapproving what's going on ... besides, those people are dead already so I'm not hurting them any more. A guy's gotta do what he's gotta do, and I'd never kill anyone myself, even those d**ned Israelis/Jews, so what's the harm in a little acting?"

        I gather that Gaza is rather poverty-stricken. If that's the case, many Gazans likely are much more focused on meeting their day-to-day needs rather than helping plan some kind of attack - and if they did help plan it was likely as not because it paid off in helping with immediate needs.

        Ordinary Palestinians may "choose" to allow Hamas military operation in their neighborhoods. But I wouldn't bet on it - most likely weren't aware of it until those operations are already there. The way you word it suggests that Hamas runs some public service announcement proclaiming that they're coming and want to know what the locals think .... BEFORE they set up camp. Even if they did, and I doubt they do, I'm going to suggest that they (Hamas members) might not be too open to suggestions contrary to their wishes.

        So, Dave, that's my answer; hopefully I've addressed your concerns. I've come to believe strongly in the value of walking the mile in the other's shoes, and that's whether or not I agree with them.

        All that's needed for evil to prevail is for the good to do nothing. Here in the U.S. we vilify the party we hate and give a free pass to our chosen party - I mean the Democrat and the Republican political parties. If we here cannot even see clearly enough to kick those morons out of Washington and send some representatives with integrity, how can we possibly expect the Palestinians to oppose a group like Hamas? Just going out on a limb, I believe the stakes might just be a bit higher for them than they are for us here.

        Collapse
    2. RexDoodis

      Your point is very well stated. However, what is left out of the argument by progressives is that the only reason Gaza is confined is because the people who run it refuse any solution but complete genocide of the Jews in Israel. If Hamas and the other terrorist factions and regimes were to accept the existence of Israel under Jewish management and stop lobbing explosives and sending terrorists in to kill Jews, can anyone doubt that there would be instant peace? Without factoring that into the weighing of just solutions, every attempt at both-sidesism is completely irrational. "Put down your weapons so we can kill you and then we will take your land in peace" is an unacceptable solution and yet that is the reality of the Palestinian position in accord with the rogue regimes that sponsor their terrorism.

      Collapse
      1. Norbertmllr

        Right. If I want to destroy you and you are more powerful than me .... well, that puts things in a bit of a bind where good and just solutions are unlikely to flourish. These things tend to escalate rather than dissipate.

        Regarding the history of mutual atrocities, if I may put it that way, it's pretty natural to give oneself or one's own side a lot more consideration than one's enemies; the atrocities of the enemy will always tend to be viewed as greater evils. I am merely making a psychological/social observation and am not taking sides here and actually am familiar with the history of the region only in the sense that I'm aware that some kind of fighting has gone on in that part of the world since Old Testament times.

        But isn't that the same mode of thinking that afflicts so many partisans in the here in the West? I mean thinking our political "enemies" are so far worse than our own chosen party. I have a friend who used to get terribly overwrought over the shenanigans of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her Democrat ilk but genuinely couldn't see or was at least able to overlook/minimize that other clown show as exemplified by Marjorie Taylor Greene. And you know what? I think he was sincere! He hasn't worked himself into a lather like that since I (rather forcefully) pointed out what I think are far greater similarities than differences between GOP and Dem nut-jobs. But he's still a rank partisan ... he wants to distance himself from the GOP but since he's so anti-Democrat and there's only two parties, it's hard to believe he's being quite honest with himself.

        I see a lot of that even here in the Dispatch comments, where partisans often have a hard time seeing that their chosen party can sincerely be viewed as the poorer of two choices. You know, whataboutism and all that. And that's why our political situation is quite the train wreck. I would go so far to say that the social unrest perpetrated by bad politics is a significant contributor to social problems like drug abuse. Even if that is stretching believability, I don't think it's a stretch to claim that our current state of (U.S.) politics is failing to contribute positively to our sense of peace and tranquillity.

        Of course, none of our political problems hold a candle in severity to actual physical violence as perpetrated by Hamas.

        But I find the parallel striking. It starts in childhood - "Mommy - he hit me back!! Wahhh!!!" "Well, Junior, you hit him first, didn't you?" "Yeah, but he deserved it!!" Etcetera. Growing up is hard work.

        Maybe I'm giving myself too much credit for having grown up, but this kind of thing really bothers me. I really enjoy Mr. Goldberg's "newsletters" but I hate to see him attack George Takei based only on the quote he gave. I just can't see Takei's comment as saying or even implying that "mistreatment or collective punishment inexorably leads people—in this case Hamas “militants”—toward unspeakable acts of violence." If any Dispatch readers are in sympathy with Mr. Takei, Mr. Goldberg has, in his rather skewed reading, given them a good excuse to ignore him.

        Collapse
        1. Davemh333

          It starts with the all-consuming desire to destroy. That's difficult to deal with or negotiate with, regardless of relative power. I may be bigger and stronger than another individual, but if that individual is bent on killing me, and unconstrained by values or conscience, that confers an advantage to them, doesn't it?

          Collapse
          1. Norbertmllr

            Exactly. It's pretty easy to see how this kind of dynamic encourages disproportionate response. And you know what? In this case, I could hardly blame Israel. And given the nature of the Hamas attack, it's far from easy to decide what kind of (Israeli) response is appropriate, justified, or whatever, and how much is excessive.

            Collapse
        2. RexDoodis

          I agree with most of what you wrote. Except that I was ignoring Mr. Takei before Jonah was born and will likely continue to do so for my remaining years. What I know from history is that there is little correlation between being victimized by oppression and becoming the kind of people who slash the throats and cut off the heads of women, children, and babies. Not to mention all of the other atrocities that the terrorists videoed themselves perpetrating--all the while celebrating as if they had scored a great victory. It's pretty much unique to people who adhere to one belief system. And adherents of that belief are the ones dancing in the streets all over the world while civilized people look on in horror. Hamas apologists are complaining that Israel is cutting off power and water. But they don't stop to ask themselves why, if they are such oppressors, have they been supplying water and power to a nation that is committing terror on Israeli citizens daily? My belief is that, if Islamists stop murdering Jews, the measures that their apologists call oppression but Israel calls necessary for survival would stop immediately. And Israel would like nothing better. If anyone thinks that Israel wouldn't love to have the terror stop and deal with reasonable honorable people who can be trusted to abide by a peace agreement, then that person has a very loose grasp on predicting behavior based on past performance and cultural values.

          Collapse
          1. Norbertmllr

            Good morning again, Mr. Wilkinson:

            Please be assured that I am in no way trying to minimize the current atrocities. And I do quite confidently agree that there is at worst minimal correlation between oppression and maximally brutal retaliation.

            Howsoever .... from a psychological point of view, if someone is in their view being unnecessarily oppressed, or victimized, or even merely inconvenienced, is it not true that there is often a tendency to strike back disproportionately in response? My reading of the George Takei quote suggests he meant no more than this. I believe Mr. Goldberg read too much into it.

            Two rather prosaic examples spring to mind. At the individual level we have road rage .... "he cut me off so I lost it and rammed him." At the broader social level is our U.S. political situation, where people "take sides" because we're so obviously sunk if the "other side" wins. In either case, it's a calm response that is wanted and sorely lacking. I wonder ... if enough people had voted "neither" in the last election - by handing in a blank ballot, for example, would the parties keep presenting us with the dorks we've been given to choose from?

            Whether on the road or in the ballot box, the heat is WAAAYYY too high ... never mind global warming, I mean "heat" in a psychological rather than literal way! How can it be otherwise in Gaza?

            You state that you think "if Islamists stop murdering Jews, the measures that their apologists call oppression but Israel calls necessary for survival would stop immediately." I would hope you're right about this, but I can't seem to share your level of confidence. I definitely doubt that the everyday Gazan would see it the way you do.

            You also mention that Gazans "don't stop to ask themselves why, if [Israelis] are such oppressors, have they been supplying water and power to a nation that is committing terror on Israeli citizens daily." Of course they don't - because I don't think they see themselves as a "nation that is committing terror on Israeli citizens" at all, let alone on a daily basis! As I said before, it's very easy to overlook one's own faults.

            Aren't we all a bit that way? I understand that here in the U.S. people go so far as to choose friends or even move to areas based on partisan (D vs. R) reasons. Isn't that extreme? And if we Americans find it hard to trust or love or even tolerate based on mere party, can we really expect Gazans to trust those who see the Israelis as their oppressors?

            Does Israel want peace? You seem to be quite confident about this, and I would tend to agree, perhaps with less confidence than the tone of your writing suggests. However, I don't think I'd expect the Palestinians in Gaza to believe that.

            My hope is that enough of the same everyday Gazans who I see as generally distrusting of Israeli intentions will be repulsed enough of the Hamas atrocities that there will be a bit of a cooling effect, but that may be a bit optimistic, or extremely so.

            I appreciate this exchange. I had thought myself as old based on being Mr. Goldberg's contemporary, but you've REALLY managed to label yourself as an old (*bleeps out intestinal gaseous discharge reference*) by referring to the long-ago time prior to Jonah's birth ... my heart goes out to those who never get to my age or yours just because of the politics of their homeland. Here's wishing you a fine day!

            Collapse
Load More