Fetterman Backlash May Be Unwarranted

Let me be clear. I generally do not support democrat senator John Fetterman. But then, do I really support people? Or do I support positions? Because regardless of whether or not I am a conservative republican, positions and policy are things I have always said, that for me, trump all other considerations.

Fetterman has, of course, received quite a bit of backlash over a comment he made on X regarding the Israel-Palestine clash over the recent attack by Hamas against Israel that has now escalated to cause the deaths of thousands on both sides.

Many of those deaths are unfortunately innocent people and children. The cost of war is real and there are always innocent bystanders who get caught in the crosshairs. And no one, including me, is calling for more death and destruction. However, there is a caveat here.

Essentially, Fetterman has said that there should be no ceasefire. I tend to agree with what he said on the basis that Hamas initiated this war and what Israel is doing is simply responding to that attack. Israel did not ask to be fired upon. But Hamas and Palestine did. 

Ultimately, I think there needs to be a strong message sent. If you attack us, there will be a price to pay. We may disagree on the underlying basis, in the eyes of Hamas, for the attack itself. But nonetheless, we were attacked, and we are going to respond.

Any country that finds itself under attack has to respond in the interest of protecting its citizens overall. And making it clear to anyone who wants to launch an attack that there will be consequences if that action is taken.

You might say that Israel has made its point. The death toll is double for Palestine than it has been for Israel. Israel has essentially won if you only go by the numbers. So, why not end it there? And maybe there is an argument to be made on that basis.

However, it's not the first time that Hamas has done this. This has been an ongoing conflict dating back decades. It's both a religious war as well as a land war. It is a disagreement between two nations about who has the claim to the Gaza strip ever since land lines were redrawn post 1967.

Ultimately, there has to be a consequence for Hamas. There has to be a consequence for Palestine. There has to be a reason for them to reconsider attacking Israel the next time they may plan to launch one. And because the attacks have been ongoing for so many years, right now Israel has a strong interest in sending a very strong message that the terrorist activities of Hamas will simply not be tolerated.

In a way they are saying, "We can have this debate behind closed doors, hashed out reasonably and sensibly in a diplomatic way. But the minute you decide to hash out this dispute with shells and bombs, we are going to respond similarly."

And they have a right to do so. Israel is well within their rights to react.

I think part of the backlash against Fetterman's comment is because there are sides who think that a ceasefire is the answer to the problem. Just stop the fighting and have both sides go about their days. Of course, most of us know that's not true. Nothing will change in the minds of either side if a ceasefire happens today, and it will only be a matter of time before we are having this discussion again.

There comes a time when anyone who is constantly under attack is going to say, "We've had enough and are tired of being your target." Thus, Israel's response to the most recent attack.

I wish that both sides could simply come to an agreement. I have stated in the past that I strongly agree with the policy of the United States to support a two-state solution and divide land lines between both Israel and Palestine along the Gaza strip to the way they were prior to 1967.

Both sides oppose this, and thus they continue to fight for what each sides think is theirs. And of course, the Palestinians don't like the Jews. They don't think that Jews should exist at all. So, here we are in this locked position with no real foreseeable resolution.

The question becomes, if a ceasefire happens today does it do anything to truly stop the carnage? Not today. But tomorrow. When the next attack happens and the fight surges on once again? If you think about it, sometimes war deters future action and saves lives.

It's been shown in wars of the past and in severe actions taken by our own country against Japan in WWII.

The entire situation is a sad one. I understand principally the stance on both sides. I wish there was a workable solution. I wish we could simply call for a ceasefire and call it done. But I am not sure a ceasefire really does anything but kick the can forward and put more future lives in peril.

When should it end? I don't know. I do know, however, that we cannot coddle terrorism and allow it to happen without consequence. There has to be a response and there has to be a strong one. And that response needs to be strong enough to send a very clear message.

Perhaps what should end this is for Israel to simply tell Palestine, "This ends now. The warring. We must now sit at the table and talk. And until that happens, we will continue to respond in the manner in which we are now."

If the war is to truly be won, the only way to truly end it, is to sit down and talk about their differences, air them out, and be willing to compromise to find a solution that may not give both sides entirely what they want, but one that ultimately is acceptable.

Fetterman gets a pass from me on this one. 

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on YouTube and Facebook.