Sep 28, 2011

Israel's Self Defense

Vincent Stravino portrayed himself as an honest broker for peace in his September 24th Your View column. He visited the Holocaust Museum in Israel, and "understands the fear" Jews have for their survival. What Stravino doesn't understand is that the Israelis are not afraid of Nazi ghosts from 70 years ago, they are afraid of the real Arab hatred for them in 2011. He writes about various Israelis who are sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians, but he doesn't write a word about Palestinians sensitive to Israeli concerns, they would be hard to find. He writes about "widespread violence" by Israeli settlers, but doesn't mention the family massacred this past summer. I don't know exactly what Stravino means by "violence", but I know that no Palestinian family had their throats slit, including an infant, as did a Jewish family. He feels the Israeli reprisal against the crude rockets fired from Gaza was disproportionate. Although thousands of rockets were fired over five years, not that many Israelis died. Stravino doesn't mention the recent anti-tank missile intentionally fired at a yellow school bus. Lastly, Vincent Stravino is concerned that United States support of Israel is misused to finance aggression against innocent people. Since when is the right to self defense aggression?
Michael Molovinsky
the above piece appeared today as a letter to the editor in The Morning Call


  1. The right to self-defense is aggression when one of two parties has nuclear weapons, jet fighters, submarines and backed by the military might of the only great world power, while the other has knives, rifles and suicide bombers. Yesterday's settlement of 1100 Israelis in East Jerusalem is an act of aggression. MM, Israel will never have peace by playing the victim. It is the stronger force and seem more than happy to keep the Palestinians in the ghetto!

  2. gary, israel's army was not created to fight the palestinians, but to defend itself from the five arab armies that attacked 6 times since it's creation in 1948. the west bank designated for the palestinians at that time was rejected by them, favoring instead to destroy israel (still their preference). in those years, between 1948 and 1967, the arabs never said that the territory was "occupied" by jordan, although jordan was in control. because of the embargo israel has succeeded in seizing numerous missiles shipped to gaza through iran. the same situation exists in lebanon, also proxy for iran and syria. you can accept jews as bloody victims, but otherwise, they are aggressors

  3. Oppression is oppression. The Palestinians are using whatever means they have to fight for their homeland. The Israelis are doing the same thing (in fact Israel used terror to fight for their homeland in the forties) The only difference today is the Israelis have control and will not cede it. There will be no peace until the Likud Party is out of power and braver more courageous men and woman control the Knesset.

  4. gary, although I take exception to your comment, i will not respond; this is a pro-israel blog. rather than bicker and defend israel, i refer you to the hundreds of websites that are anti-israel. i wrote the letter because i felt stravino's editorial in the paper required some response. i printed it here for the edification of my readers who may not read letters to the editor.

  5. So only pro-Israel posts? That is enlightening and courageous on your part, MM.

    Happy New Year.

  6. "Since when is the right to self-defense aggression?"

    I could tell you exactly when, Mr. Molovinsky, but the all the people who traditionally support the Dummycrats would become very, very upset --- a circumstance that must be avoided at all costs in the name of Civility.

    I would love to ask Imam Binzley why is it that Hamas, the ruling authority of Palestine, openly calls for the destruction of Israel in its charter --- but that would only generate MORE lies and left-wing Propaganda depicting radical, bloodthirsty terrorists as nothing more than helpless victims willing to use their own children as suicide bombers in a favorable light.

    Personally, I've got better things to do today than argue with an idiot.


    "Ich bin Stolz, ein Deutscher zu sein --- Ich bin auch Stolz, mit Israel zu stehen!"

  7. ...referring me to a website that is anti-Israel is part of the problem, MM. If people only hear the views of others who agree with them how does that help? The pro-Israel folks gin up their anger and outrage about terror and the anti-Israel folks point out all the oppression that has existed for decades. If one truly wants peace (and I am not sure you do) then we must listen to both sides of issues. I am strongly in favor of Israel's existence and its right to have safe and secure borders. I am disgusted with suicide bombers and senseless attacks on Jews in our Holy Land. I desperately want peace in this part of the world.

  8. gary, i will not dialogue with you point by point. you find the israelis aggressive, oppressive and lacking courage. i find them a light onto the world. we had many exchanges on this topic on numerous posts on this blog. we apparently are not capable of changing even each other's opinion, much less that of a greater audience. you did have an effect on this blog. this summer i added the israeli ensign flag to the sidebar, and acknowledge that this blog is pro-israel. i will leave it to more informed and articulate advocates to debate the issues.

  9. Binzley,

    Nice little speech.

    But, you (intentionally?) failed to answer a direct question --- why does the Charter of Hamas specifically call for the destruction of Israel?

    You will NOT be allowed to tap dance around and spin your way out of directly addressing exactly what is in Hamas' Charter --- that is, IF you expect anyone to take you seriously when you yak on about how committed to peace you and the rocket-lobbing Palestinians are.

    Kindly gin a proper answer up sometime when you get a spare moment, please.

    Vielen Dank.

    Hab ein schoenes Tag,


  10. Ironpigpen: language calling for the destruction of the state of Israel is a negotiating point. Any final agreement between Palestine and Israel will state the right of each state to exist. If the Palestinians give up this language now they will have less to negotiate with. ===common sense here.

  11. Binzley,

    Don't know about you, Buddy ...

    Call me quirky, but I never do business with people who require me to "negotiate" my right to exist first.

    And you probably wonder why more people than you would be willing to acknowledge are not willing to take either you or the Palestinians seriously.


  12. "language calling for the destruction of the state of Israel is a negotiating point."
    Can I come over to your house and threaten you with death as a negotiating point when we debate an issue as important as the right for each of us to exist? You are a sick man! Please seek help!

  13. "The right to self-defense is aggression when one of two parties has nuclear weapons, jet fighters, submarines and backed by the military might of the only great world power, while the other has knives, rifles and suicide bombers"

    If I had a gun and you had a knife, would it be OK if I threatened your existence?
    Your thinking is in line with the terrorists! No surprise to me!