Friday, September 9, 2011


By Schmoel Yitzhak

The surest bets in the world these days are as follows:

1. The sun will rise in the East; 2. Up to twenty Syrian citizens will be murdered by the Assad regime; 3. Arab countries will react to these crimes against humanity as if they are taking place somewhere on the Planet Krypton.

Ah, but assume for a moment if the tables were turned and the Israeli police, border guards or the IDF slaughtered its Arab citizens with the rapidity, continuity and zeal of the Assad Gang.

Conservatively speaking, the response to any roughly equivalent Israeli assault would be mammoth, to say the least.

l. The Arabist Ban Ki-Moon, who runs the United Nations would suffer severe conniptions before convening an emergency session of his Security Council.

2. The American delegation -- just awaiting an opportunity to dethrone Benjamin Netayahu -- would demand immediate sanctions against the Middle East's only democracy.

3.In Ankara, Erdogan would commandeer every rowboat in Turkey and order another flotilla to rescue the Arab victims.

Well, you get the point; and if you don't I'll simply spell them out for you. In contemporary world politics the Double Standard of yesteryear has given way to a Triple Standard that goes this way:

* STANDARD ONE -- According to the European Union, The Quartet and most UN members, virtually every move Bibi makes is wrong, even when he's right.

* STANDARD TWO -- Berserk Arab dictators such as Assad are to be severely punished by either a slap on the wrist, a declaration of "Isn't that terrible" or sanctions that have the effectiveness of wet tissue paper.

* STANDARD THREE -- When all else fails, blame Israel.

The recently published Palmer Report serves as Exhibit A, B and C.

In reviewing last year's Flotilla Incident, the probe -- initiated, mind you, by Turkey -- clearly stated that Israel was fully within its rights in halting the incitement-seeking boats. Strike One against Erdogan.

Palmer also clearly asserted that the IDF members, confronting the illegal entrants with no-harm paint guns, were attacked with force -- in other words, intent to kill; otherwise why assault with knives and other butcher-block cutlery. Strike Two against Erdogan.

Now put yourself in the IDFers shoes. You try to obtain some form of decorum with paint guns and that doesn't work. You then are attacked -- with clear intent to kill -- by what now is clearly a most hostile enemy and your life is on the line.

Do you fire more harmless paint? No

Do you call off the confrontation and suggest matters be settle by a round of gin rummy? Doubtful.

Do you now fight back? Well, if you enjoy living, that would seem to be an appropriate response. Quickly. Very, very quickly.

In a police action such as that in virtually any country of the civilized world, the Israeli reply would have been deemed reasonable.

Yet the Palmer Report criticized the IDF for using "excessive force."

What were the Israelis supposed to do; drop their guns so that they could be killed? Palmer thought so and thus we now have the Triple Standard in vogue.

In Syria there is one slight difference; the protestors do not have killing guns nor even paint guns; they've got their fists and voices. Assad's gang boasts tanks, helicopters and just about any destructive weapon necessary to murder his foes.

The anti-Assad bloc is not winning because the Arab League, the Useless American President and the Peace-At-All-Costs-As-Long-As- Israel-Pays EU believe that the best way to erase the Syrian killing fields is to shout "TSK! TSK!"

Just imagine for a moment if what is happening in Assad-land was happening on Bibi's turf.


1 comment:

  1. So what does Bibi have to lose by intervening in Syria? He saves Arab/Muslim lives and dethrones a tyrant. Can Moon, Obama or even the f***ing Arab League say anything against that???