Posted on 10/09/2015 11:02:02 AM PDT by SJackson
Much has been made of the apparent double standard the State Department has applied to the Israel Defense Forces as against the U.S. military.
Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition by email and never miss our top stories Free Sign up!
Last summer, the IDF reportedly shelled an UNRWA school in Rafah, an act condemned immediately by the State Dept., before any investigation had taken place, as disgraceful and appalling. The rationale was that the suspicion that militants are operating nearby a site like this does not justify strikes that put at risk the lives of innocent civilians.
With the U.S. bombing of a Doctors Without Borders facility in Afghanistan this week, the spokesperson was asked whether that act should be similarly described on the same grounds. The spokesperson was left dumbstruck, appealing to reporters to wait for investigations to be completed a mercy that Foggy Bottom had not afforded Israel a year prior.
This double standard is remarkable because it is so glaring (watch the video: its cringeworthily).
But yet more remarkable is that it seems to fall foul of the State Departments own definition of antisemitism. That definition provides examples of the way in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel, and among those examples is applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
No doubt the U.S. government will show contrition over this bombing if, following investigations, it is deemed to have been unwarranted. But the question is whether the rationale the State Dept. used to condemn Israel that the proximity of civilians must thwart military objectives which is a rationale to which State presumably believes Israel should adhere, will also be adopted by all U.S. military and other agencies in future. If they do not, then it presumably qualifies as behavior demanded only of Israel and thereby falls within the definition. So will it now also guide all U.S. operations from here on out?
That seems doubtful. And thats because it is a profoundly foolish approach. While civilian causalities should always be minimized, when your enemies deliberately fight in areas densely populated with civilians and consider as one of their chief objectives to maximize civilian casualties including of locals to comply with the State Departments reasoning would mean paralysis in the face of terror. The United States likes to insist that it does not negotiate with terrorists; yet what the State Department is advocating is even worse: simply succumbing to them.
Last summer, the administrations posture of hostility toward Israel was unprecedented in recent memory, demonstrated by, among other things, knee-jerk reactions like this. In the administrations eagerness to condemn the Jewish State, it has put its own integrity and possibly also U.S. servicemen and women, and ultimately the American civilians they serve to protect, in jeopardy.
It was not Israels act that was disgraceful or appalling but the State Departments response. As if that was not enough, it now turns out that that response may have been, by that bodys own reckoning, also antisemitic.
Is the UN antisemitic?
“Is the UN antisemitic?”
Is a bear Catholic? Does the Pope poop in the woods?
Some answers are perfectly obvious.
It is the question that is sometimes confusing.
John Kerry probably has architectural blueprints for the Auschwitz main camp framed on the wall of his den at home.
If youd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
By the administration's standard, yes.
This double standard is remarkable because it is so glaring
Is the EU antisemitic?
Exactly
Clearly, by the State Department’s own definitions, the State Department is indeed antisemitic.
When I was stationed in Saudi Arabia years ago, I was told of a Foreign Service Officer who had recently departed post. He was a non-practicing Jew who DEMANDED to be sent to Jeddah. After some months of being ignored by the Saudis, with whom he was supposed to interact, he DEMANDED to have his tour cut short and to be reassigned elsewhere.
effeminate, sweaty palms, soiled pantyhose, grinding teeth,
irrational and totally emotional, able to lie and smile simultaneously, illogical, feel that jobs will solve the muslim jihadi issue, left/commie, anti amerika, are you a psaki like or harf like indiviual, are you glbt or gender confused or hit ac/dc... HEY YOU JUST PASSED THE STATE DEPT ENTRY QUIZ....
you could be a foggy bottom talking head and the get drafted to the WH.... if you are mentally disabled and willing to look like the southbound end of a northbound horse... giddyap
if the Muslims weren’t already anti=Christian and anti-Jewish, they could learn how excellently from the Snake Department
Is a duck’s ass watertight?
No, it’s just pro-jihadi. ;p
Is James Brown dead?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.