–
Madeleine Albright, in her recent interview on CNN, seems to be confused about which war she is talking about; the recent armed hostilities between Hamas and Israel or the war waged by both groups to grab global approval. The former Secretary of State under President Clinton, who faced her own battle with public approval when she claimed to have discovered for the first time during the vetting process to join the Clinton Administration that she had Jewish parents who were Holocaust survivors (critics implied she had attempted to conceal her Jewish roots), seems to have cognitive dissonance between which is the war of world opinion and what is actually happening on the ground.
Will you offer us a hand? Every gift, regardless of size, fuels our future.
Your critical contribution enables us to maintain our independence from shareholders or wealthy owners, allowing us to keep up reporting without bias. It means we can continue to make Jewish Business News available to everyone.
You can support us for as little as $1 via PayPal at [email protected].
Thank you.
While she demands a ceasefire, she says Israel’s actions have questionable proportionality (a favorite word used about Israel when it defends itself against attack). Of course, most people want a ceasefire. Except for Hamas, which has rejected two ceasefire proposals, even as it claims it has an undue number of casualties. A ceasefire would be excellent for both sides in terms of public opinion, but the reality on the ground is that the one who has rejected the various ceasefires has to agree rather than to keep firing. No small order, as when Israel ceases, Hamas fires.
While Albright acknowledged Netanyahu’s statement that Hamas is using civilians as human shields, she says that those “innocents” who are being slaughtered (The Slaughter of Innocents—what does that remind me of—could it be the tale of the bloodthirsty Herod, king of Judea—although a Roman appointee?), and at the same time, she adds Hamas’ use of human shields is:
“hurting Israel’s moral authority. I do think it looks as though they’re overdoing, which I why I think there has to be more emphasis on the fact that they have accepted a ceasefire.”
Now it can’t be that Hamas’ “sacrifice” of its own citizens really hurts Israel’s moral authority. The only way that can be true is in the world court of public opinion, but not by any yardstick of any kind of morality worthy of that name. She says that Israel should reiterate that it accepted a ceasefire, because apparently, that minor detail keeps getting lost in the shuffle. Or in the failed unilateral ceasefire attempts. Okay, so now she is giving strategic advice to fight the war for public opinion, because, concerning the war on the ground, these tactics would make no sense.
Then it gets all mixed up. She says a ceasefire has to happen, and then shifts gears to the subject of a two-state solution, which Israel had accepted and Hamas had rejected, if memory serves. Well, a two-state solution can’t be a pre-condition of a ceasefire; there just isn’t time. A two-state solution won’t happen while Hamas continues to fire missiles into Israel. At least not at the same time. Oh, for that we need a ceasefire, but Hamas hasn’t accepted one, so here we go again. Then, later in the interview, she speaks favorably about Secretary of State John Kerry. Well, different Secretary of State, same old waltz.
