Peter Wehner writes his analysis of the Gaza crisis in big, thick crayon:
It is as if a bully on the playground repeatedly assaults another child who is quietly playing on the swings. When the second child fights back, the teacher [read: the international community] criticizes both children for fighting. The problem is that one is fighting in self-defense while the other one is fighting out of aggression. To extend the analogy even further: in this instance, the bully is assaulting a child who set aside a section of the playground to give to the bully, in the hopes that he would be satisfied. Yet it turns out this only fueled his aggression.
I think reasonable people can disagree — even vehemently — on the historical contours of the Israel-Palestine conflict while still agreeing that Wehner’s analogy is deeply silly, and more than a little dishonest. I’m tempted to draw it out even further, going into the history of who kicked who off the jungle gym first, and acknowledging the competing claims to the sandbox, but I suppose it’s sufficient to say that a country which maintains a strangling blockade while aggressively expropriating land for illegal settlements cannot credibly be said to be “quietly playing on the swings.” Wehner’s playground analogy is apt only in the sense that it seems like something he came up with while riding the short bus.
Photo explanation here.