Naiveté is Not a Shield Against Evil

Somehow liberals have developed the notion that there is “strength through weakness.” Many of them seem to believe that if you are nice enough, and non-threatening enough, others will reciprocate by being equally nice. In their view, peace is the result of people behaving peacefully; hence they intend to initiate a peace offensive.
One of the more egregious consequences of this mentality has been on display in the recent travails of the Israeli Defense Forces. As flotillas of peaceniks approached the Gaza coastline, the Israeli government decided to intercept them. But in enforcing this blockade, nine of the “demonstrators” were killed when they resisted.
Immediately there arose an international hue and cry against this barbarity. After all, the offending vessels were only bringing humanitarian relief to the sorely beset Palestinians. What right had the Israelis to visit violence on non-violent proponents of peace and justice?
Shortly thereafter Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, defended his country’s actions by observing that his military was instantly judged guilty even before being found guilty. According to his nation’s critics, there was no excuse for shedding blood no matter what the circumstances.
But as almost everyone is aware, the circumstance here is Hamas’ expressed intension to destroy the state of Israel. Given access to the armaments that might perhaps be floated in from the sea, there is little doubt that these would eventually be employed to make good on that threat.
This, however, did not matter to the friends of the demonstrators. As “good” people who favored peace, the long-term implications of blockade running were irrelevant. That perhaps millions of innocents might later be killed paled in comparison with their desire to be peaceful humanitarians.
Yet isn’t this naiveté on stilts? Isn’t it childish to suppose that thwarting the big, bad Israelis will convince them to cease self-defense and ultimately allow their enemies to throw them into the sea? And isn’t it just as artless to suppose that Hamas will suddenly grow nonviolent because Israel has been cowed into submission?
Nevertheless, this seems to be the mentality of the Obama administration and its most vociferous supporters. Remember, when he was a candidate, one of our president’s most effective ploys was to promise his base that he would bring peace to the mid-east simply by ending our participation in the hostilities. Remember also that he vowed to improve our relations with Iran merely by sitting down and talking with its leaders.
This, however, was remarkably simplistic. Indeed, it goes against common sense. As I learned years ago when working as a counselor at a methadone maintenance program, bullies are unimpressed by efforts to be reasonable. They take these as signs of weakness and hasten to take advantage of them. Similarly, although the peace activists may be sincere, the Iranians, North Koreans, and Hamas do not care.
In the same vein, prior to World War II Hitler was encouraged to test his adversaries because he knew they were reluctant to go to war. He could march into the Rhineland or seize the Sudetenland because democracies such as England and France thought they could buy him off with promises of peace.
Tragically, the peace movement, in places like Britain, made it impossible for politicians to rearm the nation when faced with German belligerency. This meant that Hitler could begin hostilities secure in the knowledge that he had more tanks and planes than the allies.
Which brings us back to today. The Obama administration has not condemned Israel, but neither has it been energetic in its defense. To their credit, unlike Western European liberals, American officials have not fallen all over themselves to denounce the warmongers in Jerusalem. Rather, they have sought to be “even-handed.”
But being even-handed in the face of deliberate provocations is an invitation to trouble. A failure to denounce disingenuous efforts to portray Israel as unacceptably aggressive encourages further provocations. In fact, naively moralistic efforts to force one side of a conflict to disarm are not a prelude to peace, but to war.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University