The May 11, 2011 Wall Street Journal editorial “Engaged to Hamas” at first glance seems like the type of clear thinking on the Middle East that is missing from The Washington Post and The New York Times. The conclusion of the editorial stated:
There’s no way for any donor or for Israel, which transfers customs and other receipts to the Palestinian Authority, to ensure that money won’t be used by Hamas to launch more rockets on Israeli school buses.
Good, right? But here’s the problem – and it’s a big one – everything in that last line is correct, it is what is not being said that is the key to why the entire Arab-Israeli conflict goes unresolved. Even if Hamas does not “launch more rockets on Israeli school buses” assumes that Hamas is not evil and both needs and serves to be utterly and completely destroyed. Destroyed because it is evil. The moral thing to do is to destroy evil when it poses a “clear and present danger” or likely will again.
When the Allies after World War Two conducted a systematic effort of denazification it was not because the Nazi Party or Nazi ideas were going to be threat in 1946 or 1947 but because the Nazis’ ideas were dangerous enough that if not outlawed and fought and vanquished on the battlefield of ideas then the Allies had every right to believe that they might have to return to combat on the actual battlefield in the 1950s or 1960s and fight the Nazis again.
The purpose of war is to permanently eliminate the threat coming from your enemy. Far too often history has revealed that wars are things that must be won decisively or they will cause subsequent conflicts that grow in both intensity and the degree of devastation. Evil must be confronted and evil must be destroyed. Hamas is evil. Hamas is the enemy. Hamas must be eliminated.
Destroying Hamas is the right thing to do.
Destroying Hamas is a necessary thing to do.
Destroying Hamas is possible to do.
Those who argue that it is wrong to want to destroy Hamas do not accurately understand what Hamas is all about. Those who argue that it is unnecessary to destroy Hamas do not comprehend the threat that a well-armed Iranian proxy within a morning’s drive to Tel Aviv really means. Would any U.S. administration allow an al-Qaeda guerilla army to train and prepare for war in northern Mexico? Those who argue that it is impossible to destroy Hamas may have a strong argument. It will not be easy. Finding and killing bin Ladin was not easy. But it was well worth it.
And be sure these subjects are closely connected:
DATELINE: GAZA, September 11, 2001
Mass dancing and celebrating has been seen throughout the streets of Gaza after news reports of the Islamic terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon were first heard here. Hamas celebrated in the hours after the attacks by distributing candy to Gazan school children.
DATELINE: WASHINGTON DC, September 11, 2001
President Bush stated in his address to the nation that: We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them … America and our friends and allies join with all those who want peace and security in the world, and we stand together to win the war against terrorism.
DATELINE: WASHINGTON DC, September 20, 2001
President Bush stated in his address to the United States Congress that: “We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”
DATELINE: GAZA, May 2, 2011
Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas prime minister in Gaza declares “We condemn the assassination of an Arab holy warrior … and the continuing American policy … of shedding Muslim blood.”
Calling for support of the Hamas/Fatah alliance is a wrong move for U.S. foreign policy makers. The idea rejects the Bush Doctrine that Americans so strongly embraced in the days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Asking Israel to accept the new Hamas/Fatah arrangement is no different that asking the American people to agree to a truce with al-Qaeda now that Osama bin Laden has been eliminated.
Moreover, it must be remembered that Hamas and al-Qaeda share an identical world view, strategy and are allied. Just read the pledge of Hamas as it is revealed in their official covenant (constitution): Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Koran its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah is its highest belief.” Compare this to Bin Laden’s infamous August 1996 Fatwa:” Those youths know that their rewards in fighting you, the USA, is double than their rewards in fighting someone else not from the people of the book. They have no intention except to enter paradise by killing you. An infidel, and enemy of Allah like you, cannot be in the same hell with his righteous executioner.”
Hamas and al-Qaeda share a bloody, genocidal and megalomania driven philosophy. Israel’s opposition to Hamas rule in Gaza is an extension of America’s war against Islamic terrorism.
Let’s remember the words of Cal Thomas from January 2009 “Hamas, a group designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department, are the Nazis of modern times. Israel is right to pound military targets inside Gaza.”
Secretary of State Clinton has been wrong to not rule out U.S. talks with Hamas. If U.S. policy states that Israel cannot defend herself against Hamas than on what grounds does America have the right to target al-Qaeda? There is a lot more at stake here than “Israeli school buses” and both Team Obama and the WSJ need to internalize that and soon.