Images of suspected Syrian nuclear site
Look who’s talking
Claims that Syria bombing was nothing but political spin oddly one-sided; a response to B. Michael
Extremists and fanatics come in all shapes and sizes, but usually share one trait: A tendency to view the world through a narrow prism that grants them a monopoly on truth, morality, and wisdom. A fine example of this attitude is B. Michael’s opinion piece,
“Satellite photos don’t lie,” where he argues that reports of an Israeli aerial assault on a suspected Syrian nuclear site were nothing but a political spin.
In his piece, Michael makes use of a unique magnifying glass: One that is only able to identify apparent doubts and flaws that support his argument, but stops functioning in the face of any other evidence. Ironically, his “spin-exposing” column reads very much like a spin.
Michael’s argument is puzzling partly because he admits to be ignorant of the “behind the scenes” facts, yet uses this ignorance to promote his theory. He refers to Google Earth satellite photos to prove that the bombed Syrian facility existed for at least 5 years, and wonders “what exactly happened that made the operation so urgent and essential?” Well, we don’t know that, do we, Mr. Michael?
It appears the only way to convince Michael that the operation was ordered for good reason is to personally present him with detailed intelligence information, the names of agents who provided it, and the Air Force’s full battle plans. Anything short of making him an honorable member of the security cabinet would not do. Yet to Michael’s chagrin, some things will remain classified, and thankfully so.
Michael proceeds to point to several question marks that he says cast doubt on the veracity of various bombing reports. Curiously, but not surprisingly, he completely avoids discussion of no less troubling facts that seem to contradict his own theory.
Why did Syria erase any trace of bombing?
For example, why did North Korea rush to condemn the Israeli bombing from half way across the world, while virtually all Arab states, not known for their love of Zionism, chose to remain silent? And why did the official Syrian version of events change several times in the days following the attack?
Most significantly, Michael’s hypothesis seems to be at odds with Syrian actions following the bombing, and particularly the mad rush to erase any trace of the site reportedly hit by Israel. If Air Force jets indeed targeted a giant agriculture facility devoid of any evil intentions, wouldn’t it be in Syria’s interest to prompt the world to closely examine “Israel’s foolish mistake?”
After all, we know that some Arabs excel in the art of public relations to the point of magically turning innocent stories into grave Israeli war crimes. Wouldn’t this be a golden opportunity to score some easy anti-Zionist points? And yet, Bashar Assad decided to rush bulldozers to the scene and turned the bombed mystery structure into a giant parking lot with admirable speed. Why?
Truth be told, I don’t know what exactly happened that night deep in Syrian territory. Yet as opposed to Michael, I’m careful about rushing to conclusions or claiming that I’m the only one who “gets it” while implying that anyone who thinks otherwise is a naïve fool. Many years ago, Our Mishnah sages said that “a fence to wisdom is silence” (Pirkei Avot, 3:17). That is, the wise man’s greatest tool is the ability to stop, observe, and reconsider before making judgments, lest he made a mistake. It is a lesson well worth learning, even for Michael.
