Those Who Don't Want Israel To Retaliate For Terrorism Are Indeed Anti-Israeli

My commentator Paul Yoder is seriously off-base when he writes, on my criticism of Steven Spielberg and his appeasement movie, "Munich," that just because he opposes Israel's retaliation policies for terrorism doesn't mean he's anti-Israeli.

He is anti-Israeli.

Those who take the position that Israel and other countries, such as the U.S., should turn the other cheek and not respond to terrorism, would leave those countries in a defenseless position, open them to more psychopathic attacks and ultimately could destroy them. They are anti-Israeli, anti-American or whatever.

Yoder adds in responding to my December blog, "I don't believe that any government or people is above the courts, whether it is that of international law or public opinions."

But even the weak United Nations Charter gives every country the right of self-defense and it doesn't say they have to first go to the courts.

The courts take a long time to respond, if they ever do. When it comes to military action, that must often take place in lieu of the courts.

Yoder also refers to Israel as "continually abusing" Palestinian rights, and, says, properly, "Not all Palestinians are terrorists."

But when the Palestinian Authority refuses to take decisive steps to stop rocketing of Israeli territory, then Israel has every right to respond, just as the U.S. was correct over this weekend trying to kill the terrorist Ayman al-Zawahiri. There is nothing in international law that says Israel, or the U.S., must commit suicide rather than to respond to attacks against them.

Yoder represents the mixed-up liberal view of turning the other cheek. We don't have to sit around and let our people be murdered, as they were at the Munich Olympic Games, and the World Trade Center.

I called for a boycott of the Spielberg movie, and am delighted it is not doing particularly well. It's a lousy and biased movie that sides, implicitly, with the terrorists.