Friday, October 05, 2012
While I wasn't particularly surprised, I was disappointed yesterday to read US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton express her outrage (yes, that was the word she used) at Syria having fired a mortar (yes, that is correct, a single mortar) into Turkey.
Naturally Turkey responded militarily by firing artillery into Syria, and not surprisingly there were no calls by the EU, UN or US for them to show restraint or to consider the safety of civilians in their response.
It is worth mentioning that Hillary Clinton has never used the word outrage in reaction to the thousands of missiles and mortars that have been fired at Israel civilian population centers, and any mention of such belligerent acts is always accompanied by a standard formula that urges Israel to temper its response.
Now this is where some of you jump in and explain why Hillary's remarks were not only appropriate, but the perfectly timed, balanced response necessary to promote peace in our time*.
* Extra credit to anyone who knows where those last four words were last used in diplomacy.
Posted by David Bogner on October 5, 2012 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Misplaced Outrage:
Just a guess but Hillary used it last to describe Jews building in Jerusalem.
Posted by: Independent Patriot (@LibertysSpirit) | Oct 4, 2012 3:19:51 PM
Oppsy..misread your post...Chamberlain of course... but the other comment holds to I think.
Posted by: Independent Patriot (@LibertysSpirit) | Oct 4, 2012 3:20:46 PM
Posted by: Harvey | Oct 4, 2012 3:51:20 PM
Can't believe that nobody's said it since Chamberlain, even in irony... perhaps the question ought to be phrased differently?
Posted by: bratschegirl | Oct 4, 2012 7:04:27 PM
It's frightening how often we hear those words ("Neville Chamberlain") thrown around lately.
Posted by: Baila | Oct 5, 2012 4:52:01 PM
The Chamberlain reference is so well known - and so poisonously evocative of capitulation in the face of a threat - that no politician or statesman with more than twenty functioning brain cells would dare use those four words.
As my friend Meryl Yourish says, "Welcome to Jewish Double Standard Time - it's any day that that ends in a 'y.'"
Posted by: Elisson | Oct 5, 2012 6:09:44 PM
I think that the US is looking for an invitation to intervene in Syria. Turkey, a NATO state can issue that invitation.
As for Israel, well, the real winners in the I/P conflict are the arms suppliers, and if Israel should deal a decisive defeat (or suffer one) that money supply would dry up.
Posted by: Rich | Oct 5, 2012 7:19:38 PM
Upon his return from Munich, Neville Chamberlain said "My good friends, this is the second time there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Now I recommend you go home, and sleep quietly in your beds."
In the House of Commons, Churchill lamented "England has been offered a choice between war and shame. She has chosen shame, and will get war."
History has shown us, again and again, that the majority of people want to "feel good" about their lives, their culture, and their world. They think that peace is the absence of war and that peace is always preferable to war. Pragmatists see that evil exists in the world. They know they can't wholly defeat evil, but they must do their best to contain it, to minimize it, to illuminate it. That's the only way to stop its influence upon the lands. The pragmatist knows that peace comes from strength, not appeasement.
Posted by: ProphetJoe | Oct 9, 2012 10:11:59 PM
"Peace in our time"? Isn't that the name of the protest group which thinks Israel should make more concessions to the Palestinians? Oops, my bad - that's "Peace Now." How could I possibly have confused the phrases?
Posted by: Russell Gold | Oct 10, 2012 3:32:56 PM