What I haven't "absorbed" is that it is primarily an intentional weapon rather than an accidental one
Well, you should. Seriously. I don't know if it was originally planned as a weapon, but the day the Palestinians figured out that many, many reporters would take their complaints about human rights abuses very seriously, without ever saying awkward things like, "Where do you get off complaining about human rights abuses? Your entire terrorist campaign is one big human rights abuse from start to finish!", they knew they had been handed an enormous gift, and were smart enough to take advantage of it.
From then on, the rule was, praise the slaughter of Jews to the skies in Arabic, distance yourself from it in English (call it 'an unfortunate reaction to Israel aggression. spontaneous. uncontrolable. etc.'), while complaining about Israeli "agression" and "human rights abuse" at the top of your lungs. Ignore anyone who points out that most of what you're complaining about was a reaction to terrorism. Play the aggrieved innocent, and if pushed, play the moral equivalency card. The reporters from BBC and Le Monde will lap it up. You can call this affirmative action applied to warfare.
This lesson has been studied and absorbed by terrorists everywhere. You do have to pick your enemies well. This tactic doesn't work against the Russians or Chinese, they don't care about accusations of human rights abuse. But against Israelis or Americans, it works like a charm.
And the reason to keep howling into the wind about it is that the more people understand how this tactic is being applied, the fewer will fall for it. |
