If the Israelis tried to avoid civilian casualties, how come so many died?

ON Tuesday last, Caroline Glick, deputy managing editor of the Jerusalem Post, was interviewed on RTÉ.

She called for the removal of Ehud Olmert as prime minister of Israel because he agreed to a ceasefire in Lebanon. Unfortunately, the interviewer did not mention that Ms Glick used to be a foreign policy adviser to former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of the Likud opposition.

Her interview was as offensive as it was insensitive. “We should never have let anyone to begin discussing a ceasefire,” she declared, as she denounced Olmert.

“Huge numbers of civilians were being killed, especially in the Lebanon,” the interviewer remarked.

“Who cares?”, Ms Glick replied. “You guys can clamour as much as you want internationally.”

She contended that the Israeli army did everything it could to avoid civilian casualties, but if it did, then the hundreds of innocent civilians who were killed should be considered a testament to that army’s inefficiency. More than 1,000 people were supposedly killed in an effort to rescue the two kidnapped Israeli soldiers.

Now they seem to be forgotten, but they were never more than a convenient excuse anyway.

Ms Glick was born and reared in Chicago, and in 1991 earned a bachelor’s degree in political science from Columbia University in New York before moving to Israel where she served in the army.

The Jewish people have suffered greatly, and they — more than any other people — should understand the kind of suffering they have been inflicting on innocent civilians.

Unfortunately, much of the world probably adopted the ‘who cares?’ attitude when the Jewish people were being persecuted in Nazi Germany. This country, like so many others, could have done much more for Jewish refugees, but we were too concerned that they might upset our religious homogeneity, or that they would take jobs from our own people.

Oliver J Flanagan probably made the most offensive remarks ever heard in the Dáil in November 1943 when he complained about “the Jews who crucified Our Saviour 1,900 years ago”. He went on to compliment the Nazis for routing the Jews out of Germany, and he added that we should drive the Jews out of this country. Later he apologised for those comments, which he excused on the grounds of ignorance rather than bigotry. He was grossly out of order on both counts.

The Holocaust was the greatest outrage against humanity in all of recorded history. It was so bad that people living in the comparative sanity of this country could hardly be blamed for not anticipating the lunacy of Hitler or his henchmen. But we still sat by in mute indifference while the greatest outrage was being perpetrated.

The big question is what are we going to do now? Will we support the peacekeeping efforts of the United Nations with more than mere platitudes? The Government took a strong stand in denouncing both the Hezbollah provocation and “disproportionate” Israeli response.

“What would you say to politicians, such as the Government of this country who felt that Israel’s actions were disproportionate?”, Ms Glick was asked in the RTÉ interview.

“I would say shame on you”, she replied. “I would say, ‘how dare you think that?’

“I would say that when a country you are supposedly friendly towards is being attacked in this way, for you to attack us is immoral and if you want to act, you should have said ‘how can we help you to beat these people?’ because these people are evil.”

That we ‘attacked’ Israel would have come as news to Irish people, but then some Americans have always been inclined to think that those who are not with them are against them.

Our Government took an appropriate moral stand, but Ms Glick’s attitude would suggest that sending our soldiers to Lebanon to help keep the peace would undoubtedly endanger their lives. Of course, she wants war, and if the likes of her have their way, there will be a real war.

When this country decided to join the UN we went in with our eyes open. If the League of Nations had decided on military action against Italy following the invasion of Ethiopia in 1936, de Valera explained that he would have felt the country would have been obliged to take part. Before applying to join the UN, therefore, he wanted all the ramifications clearly understood.

THE UN afforded a collective means of defending our freedom, but he candidly warned that membership would involve a certain loss of independence because it carried with it responsibilities under the UN charter that could lead to involvement in military conflicts.

“The difference between a war such as may arise under the obligations of the charter and other wars,” he said, “is that that type of war would be a war of enforcement, enforcement of obligations and also enforcement of rights. If there is ever to be a rule of law, nations must make up their minds that they will take part in such enforcement because, if there is not enforcement, then, of course, the duties and rights that are guaranteed will be thrown aside.”

Caroline Glick argued that: “Due to the incompetence of the Olmert government, and due to the Olmert government’s concern about what other people think about us when we were fighting for our lives, we didn’t prosecute the war successfully.”

She added: “Unfortunately, what’s awaiting us now is a forced battle in a much more dangerous situation. The danger against this country is much greater as is the danger against the entire free world from the forces of jihad who want to destroy the free world.”

She has some gall to lecture people about freedom and at the same time say not only that Israel should “never have allowed anyone to discuss a ceasefire”, but also to suggest nobody cares about the deaths of many hundreds of innocent civilians.

In addition, she took offence that our ministers should “dare” to think, and she denounced their criticism of the Olmert government as an attack on Israel. But this is also the woman who accused Olmert of being incompetent and denounced him for considering international opinion.

In short, she does not want people to be allowed to talk, to think, or to listen unless they agree with her views. Anyone who criticises the Israeli government is accused of attacking Israel, with the exception of herself, of course. She has a perverse and hysterical concept of freedom.

Yet ultimately she may well be right about the international danger, but for the wrong reason.

Israel may be in greater danger now not because the war was stopped, but because it was started. The Hezbollah is more popular than ever.

We know the impact of Bloody Sunday on this island in 1972, but the Lebanese people have just witnessed and endured a whole month of Bloody Sundays. They were not the enemy, but now they are, and it will probably take decades for those passions to subside. The need for an effective peacekeeping force is greater than ever. Our army has never lacked volunteers for such missions. The danger may be great, but the need is even greater.