The Blog

The So-Called Resistance

11:03 AM, Jan 27, 2009 • By MICHAEL GOLDFARB
Widget tooltip
Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts

A reader sends along this quote that appeared last week in the Guardian:

Ahmed Tafwiq, 27, a civil servant from Shujaih, said: "I am totally against the so-called resistance, because it proved a total failure. We used to hear these slogans of how strong our resistance is. I believed the slogans. But when the war started, nothing happened. I live in an area close to the border with Israel. I used to see hundreds of Hamas and other factions' gunmen waiting for Israeli troops who might storm Gaza. But, since the first day of the war, none of them appeared. And Hamas still talks about a resistance that did nothing to protect our people."

A McClatchy reporter once lectured me on the failures of "the Bush administration's so-called war on terror." Those failures alone, as so many on the left see it, make the war irredeemable (never mind that those policies coincided with the absence of any further attacks on U.S. soil). Yet somehow that logic doesn't carry over in the assessment of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, which fail completely to protect their people from "state-terrorism" as they keep pursuing military solutions to what is (of course) a diplomatic problem.

Just once it would be nice to see opponents of the war on terror train their rhetorical fire on terrorist groups for the terrorists' criminal incompetence, but I can't recall ever seeing any such thing. Instead, the tactics employed by a completely overmatched Hamas are condemned just before being explained away as the only means available to the so-called resistance.