Euro-amnesia
Faced with Israel’s attack on Hamas in Gaza, the leadership of France and Britain condemned Hamas attacks against Israel and called on Hamas to stop. It was rather pro-forma though, and it appears the reason they did it was to get to the other end of the sentence so they could tell Israel what to do.
Faced with Israel’s attack on Hamas in Gaza, the leadership of France and Britain condemned Hamas attacks against Israel and called on Hamas to stop. It was rather pro-forma though, and it appears the reason they did it was to get to the other end of the sentence so they could tell Israel what to do.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said, “Israel needs to meet its humanitarian obligations, act in a way to further the long-term vision of a two-state solution, and do everything in its power to avoid civilian casualties.” His opposition, Conservative Party leader David Cameron, said that though he understood Israel’s right to protect its citizens, both sides must show restraint. “In the end, the only progress will be political progress and a settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. That is what’s desperately needed.” French President Nicolas Sarkozy said he “firmly condemns the irresponsible provocations that have led to this situation, as well as the disproportionate use of force.”
It was Sarkozy’s remark that reminded us of an (apocryphal?) incident more than 25 years old. During Operation Peace for Galilee, precipitated by a rain of Katuysha fire from PLO positions, then-Congressman Charlie Wilson was talking with a French journalist. The Frenchman agreed that the Palestinians were the aggressors and that Israel was within its rights. “But I wish they could have done it some other way,” he is alleged to have said. “What way?” asked Wilson. “Without all the bombing.” “Oh,” said Wilson, “We could have done Normandy without all the bombing, too, but the effect wouldn’t have been the same.”
We’re fairly serious students of history and war, and we don’t remember the French president calling for humanitarian assistance to the residents of Dresden. We don’t remember the British – in power or in the opposition – saying that in the end, a political process with Hitler would produce political progress. Who called the Allied response to Hitler’s “irresponsible provocation” “disproportionate”? [Well, actually, if you read Andrei Cherny’s The Candy Bombers (you should), you find the Germans really unhappy about the “disproportionate” allied bombings of German cities. They complained bitterly to the occupying forces in 1945. Having ended the war, the Allies didn’t care much.]
There was a time when even Europeans understood that naked aggression requires a response and that a government is ultimately responsible for the safety and security of its own people, not those who actively work to kill them. It was necessary for the allies – our fathers and grandfathers – to slog through Italy, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and ultimately Germany, pushing back the Nazis until they controlled the territory from which the terror had come and making the rules for the future.
It is disconcerting to hear the descendants of Hitler’s non-Jewish victims demand of Israel the opposite of what they wanted when they were under the gun.
Interestingly, German Foreign Ministry spokesman Martin Jaeger declined to criticize Israel even when repeated pushed to do so, saying only, “We are confident that the Israeli government will carry out with responsibility the decision it has taken.”