Restraint no virtue in response to terrorist outrage

Marshall H. Tanick
·2 min read
1

Although it was swiftly deleted, the social media posting by Secretary of State Antony Blinken calling for a “cease fire” in the immediacy of the horrendous attack by Hamas on Israel Oct. 7 was quite revelatory.

Israeli soldiers carry the flag-covered coffin of Shilo Rauchberger at the Mount Herzl cemetery in Jerusalem Oct. 12. Rabbis worked around the clock at Shura military base in Israel to identify and count the dead civilians and soldiers gunned down in the Hamas attack.
Israeli soldiers carry the flag-covered coffin of Shilo Rauchberger at the Mount Herzl cemetery in Jerusalem Oct. 12. Rabbis worked around the clock at Shura military base in Israel to identify and count the dead civilians and soldiers gunned down in the Hamas attack.

That he would reflexively contemplate and urge Israel not to respond to the ghastly assault on its land, its people, and others in the country there, including many Americans, reflects gross initial miscalculation of the perfidy of the assaulting force and the unfavorable precedent set by a failure to strike back.

Marshall H. Tanick
Marshall H. Tanick

It didn’t take long for others of a similar mindset to echo his view, like leftist Congress member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  After the obligatory expression of regret, she also cautioned against any armed response by Israel.

Fortunately, the Biden administration’s  initial position of passivity has given way to full support for Israel, including military aid to respond to the war and its accompanying inhumanity launched against it.

What Blinken, AOC, and others of their ilk initially overlooked is that beseeching Israel not to push back is equivalent to seeking a cease fire arrangement with Japan on December 8, 1941, following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, or with the Taliban on September 12, 2001, after its terrorists attacked our country.

It’s one thing to turn the other cheek; it’s another to give a band of cutthroats and murderers a free pass after their villainous deeds. They and other like-minded  groups need to appreciate that there is a heavy toll to be paid for their perfidy that is antithetical to the victim not responding in kind, or more, to the outrage inflicted by the wrongdoers.

Muhammad Ali perfected the Rope-A-Dope tactic in defeating George Foreman in the classic Rumble-in-the-Jungle  nearly 50 years ago by leaning against the ropes for most of each round and then fighting back furiously near the end of the segment, not sauntering to his corner before the round-ending bell. His strategy worked with an 8th round knockout that regained the heavyweight championship.

No cease-fire there.

Israel has the resources, capability, and widespread international support to emulate the Champ without even leaning on the ropes.

It can — and should — deliver a knockout blow to Hamas, its supporters, and those who tolerate its existence or benefit from it.

To be sure, diplomacy, statecraft and adherence to the extent feasible to  international law have their place. But not at the expense of urging the victim to take its lumps and let the aggressor go scot free with a stern admonishment and little else.

As for Blinken’s initial impulse and the similar views of AOC and their fellow travelers, restraint is often a virtue. But in this case, it’s a vice, and Israel is entitled to squeeze it hard to deter others from perpetrating the same type of outrage or even worse.

Marshall H. Tanick of Naples is a constitutional law attorney.

This article originally appeared on Fort Myers News-Press: Restraint no virtue in response to terrorist outrage