The term “Hobson\’s choice” comes from a 16th century British liveryman named Thomas Hobson, who had 40 horses. If someone wanted to use one of them, that person was told to take the horse in the closest stall to the door…or leave. In other words, even if the customer did not like the horse, it was the only one he/she was getting; no choice at all.
My congratulations to the leaders of hamas, for re-inventing this no-choice situation in the current conflict with Israel…and of using it so effectively to twist world opinion – which by all logic would be condemning them as the terrorist murderers they are – into condemnation of Israel instead.
This weekend, Israeli bombs apparently hit near the entrance to a UN school in Rafah. Several days before, Israel hit a UN school in the Jabalia “refugee camp” (you might wonder how, after 67 years, this could still be called a “refugee camp”: if so, you\’re definitely catching on).
Why would Israel hit near these schools – in which Gazan children are taught (what they are taught is beyond sick, but that is for another blog) and residents seek refuge?
Because hamas makes a point of launching its attacks from schools. And hospitals. And other clearly civilian sites. That\’s why.
There is absolutely no doubt about this. At least two times in the past weeks we have been told, by the United Nations Relief Works Administration (UNRWA) itself, that it discovered missiles being stored in schools (In case you\’re wondering where UNRWA\’s sentiments lie, it allowed hamas to retrieve the missiles for use against Israel). And just yesterday I blogged about a Finnish reporter who, to her subsequent, chagrin (it got in the way of her anti-Israel narrative), told us that hamas was firing rockets from Shifa hospital, which Israel hit, killing some number of people there.
So what choice is hamas giving Israel? Here are its two options:
-Israel can decline to respond when hamas launches attacks from schools and hospitals. That means hamas, using the most vulnerable Palestinian Arabs it can find (children, sick people) as human shields, is free to keep firing and kill as many Israelis as it can.
-Israel can attempt to protect its citizens by firing at the launch sites, thus maximizing prospects of hitting schools and hospitals…..and giving hamas what it wants: visuals of dead children, sick people, etc. to show the world.
That is Israel\’s Hobson\’s Choice – which has been updated to a hamas\’s choice: the only way to defend itself is to act in a way that is sure to result in being condemned by the UN and much of the world as inhumane barbarians…
…when, in fact, hamas has killed those people as surely as if it had fired the rockets itself.
Congratulations, again, to hamas. The strategy is brilliant. All that is needed is a complete indifference to the safety and well being of your own people, and a world that, as it has for over 5 millennia, is happy to blame Jews whenever the opportunity arises.
=======================================================================
UPDATE: It turns out that Israel did not hit the Rafah school at all – it hit a target in the street and left the school untouched. There were casualties because – despite the war going on – schoolchildren were sent outside the grounds to buy candy (why would they be allowed outside under these circumstances? Where is the common sense?)
And, in case you doubt how biased the news reporting is, when you read the article which provides this information, you will see that the headline is “Gaza school attacked as children queue for sweets”. Only if you read deep into the article do you find out that “In contrast to that strike, which wrecked a classroom full of sleeping woman and children, the physical destruction this time appeared minimal: just a small but deep hole in the road where the missile had landed.”
Got that? The headline tells people the school was attacked. But in reality, it was an attack in the street, which put a hole in the road and no damage of any kind to the school.
This, of course, follows on the heels of that Finnish reporter telling her audience that hamas was firing rockets on the grounds of Shifa hospital, then complaining that Israel supporters pointed out that hamas was doing so because it meant her report – which obviously could be used to explain and justify Israel\’s response to being fired at – was being used as propaganda.
Anyone still wonder why talk about how biased the reporting is?
