If Israel wanted to eliminate all Gazans, the IDF could have done so in about 5 minutes. Ok, ok, I exaggerate: 10 minutes, tops. How long did it take them in 1967? Six days. Instead, the IDF drops leaflets, tells Gazans where to go to escape bombing, etc. They do anything and everything they can to spare Gazan lives. They do more to reduce collateral damage than ANY other army has ever done in the entire history of warfare. Yet, they are widely hated for so doing. Talk of ingratitude

But it is difficult to save Gazan lives, given that Hamas uses them as shields. So far, several hundred IDF soldiers have perished doing this, and I greatly regret every single loss of life from this quarter. But that is the price you must pay in order to reduce collateral damage. Is Israel thanked for this? No so that anyone would notice.

Take a peek at these two cartoons; they are far more incisive than anything I can say:

The Israeli goal is NOT to engage in genocide. It is, rather, to conquer Hamas, and to rescue the prisoners/hostages they now hold. Israel is involved in a defensive effort, not an offensive one. I am shocked that so many people cannot tell the difference between offense and defense.

The way to determine who is intent upon genocide is with the following scenario: what would happen if each side won this battle? If Hamas defeated Israel, they would vastly expand on what they did on October 7, 2023. Not only would they murder each and every Jew in Israel, they would do it in the most despicable manner possible. Then, they would seek to dispatch Jews all around the world. If that is not genocide, it is difficult to know what is genocide.

Now, posit that the IDF overcame Hamas. They would put these criminals in jail. They would not even execute them, if we can extrapolate from their past behavior. As to the population of Gaza, the Israelis would bring them food, water, electricity, medical services, etc.

Do, please, tell me who you really think is intent upon genocide.

The Hatfield-McCoy analogy of endless war is invalid — at least from the Jewish side. Here is how that works: Israel supposedly justifies its genocide from the point of view of a blood feud. If Hatfield1 robs McCoy1, McCoy1 may retaliate. Best to kill McCoy1. But then McCoy2 may seek revenge. McCoy3 is a kid, but he will grow up and may attack the Hatfields two decades later. McCoy4 is a woman, but she will give birth to a child who may also pose a threat. Best to eliminate the entire McCoy family just to be safe. Likewise, the “Amalek” may hate Israel for Israel’s atrocities and cause future mischief unless the entire nation is wiped out.

This is nonsense on stilts. If the Israeli government felt that way, there simply would not be any Arabs around, anywhere. The IDF fights with one and three quarters hands behind its back. If they were to unleash their full power, they have the ability to lay full waste to their enemies. On the other hand, this is an excellent analogy on the other side. Yes, this is roughly how Hamas thinks and acts.

I further reject the analogy to black people in the US. This community makes important contributions to US society, culture, economy; as a group, they have no desire to entirely murder any other category of person. And this includes even their rabid anti-Semites such as Louis Farrakhan. Even they are not calling for death of all Jews, as is Hamas. Malcolm X, one of my heroes by the way, even in his most racist period, never made any such threat. Other black heroes of mine are Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Clarence Thomas. Where are the Arab equivalents? Nowhere.

Yes, blacks have a higher crime rate than other demographics. But this is due, to a great degree, to their abuse at the hands of white liberals, starting with President Johnson’s so called Great Society. His massive welfare scheme subsidized the black father out of the household (read Charles Murray on this). At present, some 75% of black children are brought up in female-headed households. Without black dads present, young boys go adrift. This is nothing at all like the situation in Israel. There, Arabs prey on Jews, not their fellow co-religionists. In contrast, a great number of victims of black crime are other black people.

In any case, even if we stipulate, arguendo, that there is a certain class of people who if absent would lead to “life here would become immeasurably better,” it is simply grotesque to kill them all. That would be mass murder, surely one of the worst things to ever occur.

Should the US continue its “support” of Israel? As we have seen, recently, what with Biden’s “Over the top” criticism of that country, and Blinken’s continual attempt to undermine the IDF war against Hamas, this “support” is more that of a puppet master than anything else.

Yes, indeed, America should butt out, entirely, of anything occurring in the Middle East (ditto for Russia-Ukraine, China-Taiwan, etc.) The sole goal of the US military should be to protect its own country against foreign invasion. When we’ve tried to be policeman of the world, we’ve spread as much devastation as we have democracy.

It cannot be denied that the US gives more foreign aid (apologies to Peter Bauer) to Israel than it does to any other single country. However, it donates more to all the Arab countries put together than to the single Hebrew Nation. It should stop, forthwith all such disbursements. It is a difficult empirical issue, but a case can be made that Israel would be better off, not worse off, without “aid” from the US. For it comes with strings attached. In the present context, the war with Hamas might already been won and the hostages already released, were it not for US threats to withhold support when the IDF pursues Hamas too strongly. Now, the US is even further prolonging the war by attempting to break the siege, and feed the enemy. The US did not drop food packages on its enemies in World War II.