Many years ago, on my first trip around the world, I was struck by how the children in the Middle East — Arab and Israeli alike — were among the nicest-looking little children I had seen anywhere.
It was painful to think that they were going to grow up killing each other, but that is exactly what happened.
It is understandable that today many people in many lands just want the fighting between the Israelis and the Palestinians to stop. Calls for a cease-fire are ringing out from the United Nations and from Washington, as well as from ordinary people in many places around the world.
According to The New York Times, Secretary of State John F. Kerry is hoping for a cease-fire to “open the door to Israeli and Palestinian negotiations for a long-term solution.” President Obama has urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to have an “immediate, unconditional humanitarian cease-fire” — again, with the idea of pursuing some long-lasting agreement.
If this was the first outbreak of violence between the Palestinians and the Israelis, such hopes might make sense. But where have the U.N., Mr. Kerry and Mr. Obama been during all these decades of endlessly repeated Middle East carnage?
The Middle East must lead the world in cease-fires. If cease-fires were the road to peace, the Middle East would easily be the most peaceful place on the planet.
“Cease-fire” and “negotiations” are magic words to “the international community.” But just what do cease-fires actually accomplish?
In the short run, they save some lives. In the long run, though, they cost far more lives, by lowering the cost of aggression.
At one time, launching a military attack on another nation risked not only retaliation, but annihilation. When Carthage attacked Rome, that was the end of Carthage.
However, when Hamas or some other terrorist group launches an attack on Israel, they know in advance that whatever Israel does in response will be limited by calls for a cease-fire, backed by political and economic pressures from the United States.
It is not at all clear what Israel’s critics can rationally expect the Israelis to do when they are attacked. Suffer in silence? Surrender? Flee the Middle East?
Or — most unrealistic of all — fight a “nice” war, with no civilian casualties? Gen. William T. Sherman said it all, 150 years ago: “War is hell.”
If you want to minimize civilian casualties, then minimize the dangers of war, by no longer coming to the rescue of those who start wars.
Israel was not only attacked by vast numbers of rockets, but was also invaded — underground — through mazes of tunnels.
There is something grotesque about people living thousands of miles away, in safety and comfort, loftily second-guessing and trying to micromanage what the Israelis are doing in a matter of life and death.