E Pluribus Unum

I'm a little unclear how bombing Gaza power plants and homes is related to the war for survival.

dpu:

How do I put this?

Our North American notion of compromise is irrelevant in that part of the world. The idea that you're going to sit down around a table, split the difference and come up with a solution is, unfortunately, not realistic.

The only thing people understand and respect is strength.

I am simplifying, but not by much.

The only thing people understand and respect is strength.

Still not sure how bombing Gaza to the point that the population is running out of food and water is a war for survival.

Not really arguing, but just pointing out that as quickly as this thing escalated, if it continues on this breakneck pace it will engulf the entire region. The Big One. The one everybody has been trying to avoid because it's too scary to comprehend.

It scares what little is left of the BeJebuz outta me.

Where does it end Ara? How does it end?

I get why Isreal has to be an armed camp that takes no shit. There are only about 5 million jews in Israel (out of a total 6.5 million total population) against a world-wide muslim population of 1.7 BILLION. Syria alone has three times as many people as Israel.

They will never know peace, and the best we can ever hope for is that they keep the thing down to a dull roar.

dpu:

Still not sure how bombing Gaza...

Strength. And the futility of counter-attack.

You saw The Untouchables, right? Remember Sean Connery's famous speech?

Unfortunately, he ended up dead, which happens -- collateral damage and all.

War is hell. But consider the alternative.

Mark:

Where does it end Ara? How does it end?

I wish I knew Mark. You don't think I like this, do you?

The only sure ways I know of to end the war are:

1. Someone, (say the U.S.) gives Israel some land (preferably coastal) over which they are sovereign and all the Jews in Israel to leave.

2. Israel and her allies kill some tens or hundreds of millions of Muslims, conquer the Muslim nations, destroy Mecca and Medina, and so humiliate Islam that it changes it's character entirely, like Judaism did in 70 AD.

3. Create real democracies all over the Middle East.

Number one isn't going to happen. Number two is horrifying, isn't going to happen, I pray, and I would work fervently to prevent. Number three is possible, but will take either lots of time or lots of blood and treasure.

Get used to war between Israel and her neighbors. It won't stop. There isn't anything Israel could do to make it stop. There is something the U.S. could do, but it involves imposing democracy over all the states around Israel, including Iran, and I think you've rejected that strategy.

I'm very happy with the Israeli response. They've done everything they can to show they want to let Palestinians rule themselves. It's clear Israel wants peace. And it's clear their enemies don't.

Yours,
Wince

I forgot number four:

Jews in Israel continue to avoid reproduction. Arabs in Israel continue to breed, not like rabbits, but at least more like humans always have. Arabs soon outnumber Jews. Arabs vote the rest of the Palestinians in. The 2050 version of Hamas is elected. And a campaign of pogroms begins. Then either the Jews flee Israel, and the war is over, or the Jews suffer a second Holocaust, and the war is over.

Yours,
Wince

I think Wince has a point. I say give Israel West Texas. Climate, geography, think about it. I'm sure that Shrub wouldn't mind living in occupied territory.

You saw The Untouchables, right? Remember Sean Connery's famous speech?

That was a movie, Ara. And as far as projecting strength, would it be a display of strength to simply line up the villagers and shoot every second male?

Yeah, possibly. But when the world sees little Palestininan kids being buried, the question becomes "why is an Israeli kid's life more valuable than a Palestinian kid's?"

Like Mark, I fully support Israel's right to exist and be well armed, and I appreciate the humanitarian nature of their armed forces. That doesn't mean they're beyond criticism, and IMO what has occurred in Gaza is plain wrong.

Lebanon? Jury's still out, depends what they're up to. But it's a dangerous game.

Wince:

The only sure ways I know of to end the war

You missed a couple:

1. Israel makes Abbas stronger.
   
2. Israel makes Hamas weaker.

Same goes for Lebanon's head of state and Hezbollah.

Unfortunately, this formula won't work (yet) in Syria.

Iran -- well that's another matter entirely.

dpu:

That was a movie, Ara.

Movies are our literature, my friend.

And as far as projecting strength, would it be a display of strength to simply line up the villagers and shoot every second male?

I understand that Olmert has rejected (for now) the advice of his generals and forgone a ground war in Gaza and/or Lebanon. Perhaps we'll see that his life experience as a civilian (unlike Sharon and the founding fathers of Israel) will carry the day.

P.S. Your argument is, surprisingly, a straw man.

it's a dangerous game.

All too true. But I think I already pointed that out: North Americans have no real grasp of the mindset of those exercising power in the Middle East. Perhaps we've had it too easy for too long.

"North Americans have no real grasp of the mindset of those exercising power in the Middle East."

Sadly, Ara, I have to conclude that you are trapped by that mindset - as are the neoconservatives and many other North Americans. You do realize that it is an authoritarian mindset, do you not?

shep, I'm simply asking you to put yourself in the other guy's shoes. Once you do that you might find that the situation looks different.

They don't think like us -- that's one reason Bush is finding it impossible to "spread democracy" in the region.

I think he's naive and it comes from thinking that everyone thinks about things and sees things like Americans do.

They do not. (And BTW, this has nothing to do with Islam).

Need I say more? I'd be happy to debate this with you.

"They don't think like us"

"Need I say more?"

No, nothing more. I understand completely.

Wince, you're partially right when you remembered #4, because your number 3 is hopelessly naive -- forgetting that Hamas is the elected governement of the Palesinians, and Hizballa has some democratic legitimacy.

Ara, you have every right to be a Zionist, but the end of Zionism is the only thing that will end the conflict short of genocide by one side of this or another.

It sucks, but so does my lack of a filled horse corral.

Mark,

Democracy is more than elections. I'm talking about full-fledged democracies, with multiple parties, changes of power, and human rights guarantees. Those have never made war on each other.

Yours,
Wince

Mark:

the end of Zionism is the only thing that will end the conflict short of genocide by one side of this or another.

I've been thinking about that a lot.

There are two nations that were formed expressly for the purpose of providing sanctuary to (lower case P) pilgrims.

One is the US. The other is Israel.

But here's the difference:

The US put religion and governing on separate tracks and Israel has not.

Now, bear in mind that Judaism is more than just a religion. It is a way of life, a culture, a system of ethics, and so on. Many Jews are totally secular, even atheists. They come from all over the world, simply because they had been driven out of their ancient home and dispersed to every corner of the globe.

And when they came home they looked and acted different. That's what makes Israel (and America) so great -- E Pluribus Unum indeed.

Come on -- it's a cliche: "Funny you don't look Jewish."

Anyway, getting back to the point:

This crucial aspect of separation of church and state is thrown into even greater relief now that it's apparent that we in America have thrown it over the side during this administration.

That's too bad because you know what Sandra O'Connor said:

"At a time when we see around the world the violent consequences of the assumption of religious authority by government, Americans may count themselves fortunate: Our regard for constitutional boundaries has protected us from similar travails, while allowing private religious exercise to flourish...Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly."

There is nothing that might prove that she was referring to Israel, or any particular state. She didn't have to -- we know she's right. And we know that she was issuing a warning to Americans too.

That said, Israel is closer to the ideal we aspire to than any other state in the area.

And that's why I have hope that they'll navigate successfully through the next 50 years.

And that's why I support them.

By the way, I think your choice is a false one:

End of Zionism, or

Genocide

Not buying that. Sorry.

Ahh...so you nibbled on the bait a little. OK, since I desparately don't want to argue this point with Ara, but need to make it anyway, you're the perfect foil/sounding-board. If you still want to play, here goes.

By supported the extreme right-wing of the Knesset, the gang I've been admonished for calling the Republikuds, haven't the Israelis invited the equal and opposite reaction in the Palestinian territories, and to a lessor degree in Lebanon, who balanced the right extreme with a leftist extreme of their own?

In the eye-for-an-eye world of Middle Eastern power struggles, less may be more.

Geez, here we go, Ara bats me outta the park, and Wince doesn't show.

Okay, false choice, you're right Ara. There is a lot of middle ground to cover between the two extremes. I have to emphasize that I was only talking about the end to conflict, not a prerequisite for survival of the State of Israel.

How about this for an idea. If once, just one fucking time Russia would back us up in the region, with gusto, would that stop the crap?

This war game scenerio, minus the gratutitous conspiracy theory, makes too much sense to me.

By supported the extreme right-wing of the Knesset

Not sure who you're referring to. Likud is a shell of its former self. The ruling coalition is Sharon's new Party, Kadima, and Labor.

This war game scenerio...makes too much sense to me.

I presume you envision Israel's air force neutralizing the reactors?

The logistics are daunting.

How does Israel get there (and back again) without being blown out of the sky?

And once they get to Iran, how do they destroy the reactors? I thought everything was underground...?

All is not lost my friend. On this subject, we are completely simpatico.

Mark,

I was on deck, but, hey, Ara won the game.

Ara,

If we think a little longer term, the Jews in Israel have made a crucial error. They allowed non-ethnic Jews living in Israel to vote, and then they failed to have enough kids. They are going to get outvoted, and the Jewish state of Israel will cease to exist.

But maybe it's not too late. We all know how to start the process, and they generally take nine months to produce, faster if you can have twins!

Yours,
Wince

The ruling coalition is Sharon's new Party, Kadima, and Labor.

A neocon by any other name still smells fishy. Anyway, while what you say is true, the stage was set for this before the split. Like I said, I'm still trying to think this through to an end game that makes it ok for tourists and pilgrims again.

As for the technical stuff, you don't think that Mossad wasn't taking very good notes about our bunker busting R&D? Besides, I don't think that it escalates that far without us getting involved, at least in the manner of logistical support.

We do have Iran conveniently surrounded. What's a little borrowing between friends. They lend us a cup of sugar, we give them some air-space, refueling, and a couple of 3 ton penetrator munitions and look the other way.

You're talking about the folks who went to Uganda and back like they were picking up their dry cleaning. This is doable.

Wince:
There you go again, fucking around and thinking that everything will be just fine. ;-)

“And we know that she was issuing a warning to Americans too.”

Although I take that warning quite seriously, I’m not sure I see why religious plurality matters much to the subject at hand. US and Israeli foreign policy are practically indistinguishable from one another – even though we have different strategic interests and goals, Ray Close’s point. The US slavishly supports Israel’s every action and has even modeled it by created its own West Bank in Iraq.

Look, if they “think differently” than we do, it’s that they appear to be a hell of a lot smarter. Hamas, and Hizbolla, and al Qaeda all know exactly how to provoke their perceived enemies into strengthening them. Every violent overreaction gives sustenance to their ideology and recruits for their cause. Today’s Hizbolla and Hamas are direct products of Israeli policies in Lebanon and the West Bank and Gaza, for God’s sake. Do the math.

Another thing, the utter failure to represent the real and expressed interests of their peoples is identical in both governments, as are the reasons. Strategic occupations publicly and falsely sold on the basis of security need can’t sustain the moral and public support they need to succeed. Ideologues wouldn’t have to launch them dishonestly if the rational world thought they could.

And these uncalibrated “shows of strength,” whether for the benefit of your enemies or your electorate, are little more than adolescent displays of their cajones that only show insecurity and/or stupidity, again, strengthening the long-term interests of the enemy. The fact that they temporarily strengthen right-wing politicians against their perceived domestic political enemies makes them all the more selfish and harmful.

Today’s Hizbolla and Hamas are direct products of Israeli policies in Lebanon and the West Bank and Gaza, for God’s sake. Do the math.

I think that was what I was talking about. Kind of like Newton's second law applied to politics.

Shep:

Today’s Hizbolla and Hamas are direct products of Israeli policies in Lebanon and the West Bank and Gaza, for God’s sake. Do the math.

Sadly enough, Shep, you are mistaken. It has nothing to do with math or Newtonian physics. I wish it did -- math and physics are relatively logical.

History shows that Israelis have been facing hostility and direct physical attacks from Arab neighbors looooooooong before the policies you mention were put into effect. From Wikipedia.com:

The first wave of modern immigration to Israel, or Aliyah (עלייה) started in 1881 as Jews fled persecution, or followed the Socialist Zionist ideas of Moses Hess and others of "redemption of the soil". Jews bought land from Ottoman and individual Arab landholders. After Jews established agricultural settlements, tensions erupted between the Jews and Arabs.

There's more:

Jewish immigration resumed in third (1919–1923) and fourth (1924–1929) waves after World War I. Arab riots in Palestine of 1929 killed 133 Jews, including 67 in Hebron.

In 1939, the British introduced a White Paper of 1939, which limited Jewish immigration over the course of the war to 75,000 and restricted purchase of land by Jews, perhaps in response to the Great Arab Uprising (1936-1939). The White Paper was seen as a betrayal by the Jewish community and Zionists, who perceived it as being in conflict with the Balfour Declaration of 1917. The Arabs were not entirely satisfied either, as they wanted Jewish immigration halted completely.

According to documentation from the Nuremberg and Eichmann trials, the Nazi Germany SS helped finance al-Husseini's efforts in the 1936-39 revolt in Palestine. Adolf Eichmann actually visited Palestine and met with al-Husseini at that time and subsequently maintained regular contact with him later in Berlin.

So, no, that kind of ugliness long predates any Israeli policies on the West Bank.

Israel's policies in the West Bank are just the latest excuse provide by the antagonists in a century-long story of Arab hatred for any Jews living among them.

“ History shows that Israelis have been facing hostility and direct physical attacks from Arab neighbors looooooooong before the policies you mention were put into effect.”

According to your own reference, since about the time Israelis started taking land that was traditionally* Arab and employing their own terrorist bombings and mob violence to do so. Who would or should acquiesce to that? As you pointed out in the previous post, “[n]o peace treaty has been signed.”

(*Let’s agree to a 1,000-year rule here, shall we? It gets a little silly if we start challenging the legitimacy of all borders for all time.)

If you really believe that Hizbolla would have birthed and thrived without Israel's occupation of Lebanon, you've proven that you have a horribly biased understanding of the history.

since about the time Israelis started taking land that was traditionally* Arab

"Taking?" Jaysus, Shep.

"Jews bought land from Ottoman and individual Arab landholders."

If you really believe that Hizbolla would have birthed and thrived without Israel's occupation of Lebanon, you've proven that you have a horribly biased understanding of the history.

Yeah. Well.

You'd think unilateral withdrawal might have improved the situation between the two parties. But it didn't, did it?

“Are you disputing the historical record?”

Nope. This difference here is that I’m not selecting parts of the record which fit my beliefs and dismissing or arguing the facts that don’t (you, of all people, ought to know better). The belief that Israel has clean hands in this conflict is every bit as insane as the idea that George Bush is a moral leader for invading Iraq. Just look who agrees with you.

"You'd think unilateral withdrawal might have improved the situation between the two parties. But it didn't, did it?"

“We could have withdrawn from Gaza through negotiations and coordination, while strengthening the existing Palestinian leadership, but we refused to do so. And now, we complain about "a lack of leadership?" We did everything we could to undermine their society and leadership, making sure as much as possible that the disengagement would not be a new chapter in our relationship with the neighboring nation, and now we are amazed by the violence and hatred that we sowed with our own hands.”

-Gideon Levy
Who Started? (Ha'aretz)
July 15, 2006

http://billmon.org/archives/002533.html

I’m not selecting parts of the record which fit my beliefs and dismissing or arguing the facts that don’t...

Shep, old friend, the roots of conflict in the Middle East go back much, much further than 2003 or 1991 or 1982 or 1973 or 1967 or 1948 or 1939 or 1929 or 1922 or 1881 or even further than that. That's the historical record, whether you accept it or not.

And every step along the way, Jews have met with enmity and resistance and hostility and violence. That is also the historical record.

We can certainly debate why that is; but it isn't debatable that it has actually happened.

As for Gideon Levy, his is one view of the situation. I accept that he has his own viewpoint. There are others, as you well know. As I've said before, the Israelis might have done two things re: Abbas. They could have strengthened him, or they could have weakened his opposition. Israel passed on the former and chose the latter.

Can you blame them? Rabin bet on Arafat when he rolled the dice at Oslo -- and it came up snake-eyes.

Why do that again?

P.S. You raise some good questions, as do I (nothing new there, yes?)

Read this article and get back with me. Plenty of meat there for both of us.

I know the history, Ara. And I agree, it explains much – I would say the pathological behavior of both sides in the conflict. How long should the policies of the present attempt to address the grievances of the past, and how far past?

You see, I simply don’t believe in anything innate about the way they think. That’s very nearly a pure product of their life experience. And Israel’s problems are to a great extent a product of the role they’ve played in the life experiences of their enemies, along with whatever indoctrination has been effected on both sides. Don’t like it, the only power available to Israel is to change the role she plays in creating her own observable reality. Would that they had done so for the last 40 years as they have held the power to do, observable reality taking its time in overcoming indoctrinated hatred and still demanding great moral purity to do so.

A very interesting article, nicely juxtaposed to the Sunday talkabouts. The remarkable thing – I take some issue with Greenwald on this – was how center-left commentators such as Eleanor Clift and George Mitchell felt free to point out Israel’s overreach in bombing Lebanese civilians and infrastructure while those facing elections were uniform in their inability to utter such apostasy. Obviously, it’s still political suicide to challenge the Lukid in America. How sad for us, and Israel, and the rest of the world.

And Israel’s problems are to a great extent a product of the role they’ve played in the life experiences of their enemies

Sounds like you're suggesting that if Israelis simply pulled up stakes and moved to West Texas this would all be over. I don't buy it.

along with whatever indoctrination has been effected on both sides.

I don't buy the moral equivalency of what Israel teaches in its schools and what Hamas teaches in its schools. I guarantee you there is no comparison.

Obviously, it’s still political suicide to challenge the Lukid in America.

Come on Shep -- Likud is a shadow of its former self. I would think that anyone could (and has) punctured Likud's bubble with impunity.

Do I like what's happening in Lebanon today? No, I don't. My kids have one grandmother whose brother lives in Lebanon and another grandmother whose brother lives in Israel. I'm really torn here. But I do know this: that Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorist groups bent on the destruction of Israel. And no sovereign nation should be expected to sit back and let itself be destroyed, whether all at once or by degree.

On your last point, we agree completely. My only complaint is that “defensive” action should scrupulously target only Hizbullah and Hamas fighters.

And I’ve always only suggested Israel pulled up stakes and moved out of the West Bank (because it’s the right and the smart thing to do), please don’t straw man my position.

With regard to the moral equivalency of what is taught to children, if it’s propaganda that demonizes a people (e.g., “they don’t think like us”), I am unable to discern a moral difference.

My only complaint is that “defensive” action should scrupulously target only Hizbullah and Hamas fighters.

I'm not a military man, so I don't have any advice on how you go about doing what you suggest.

And as for Israel pulling back unilaterally from some or all of Gaza/West Bank, I give them credit for that. I wish the US-CinC would follow that example.

Unfortunately, in the case of Israel, the results have been discouraging. Same goes for what happened after they pulled out of Lebanon.

Lastly, you seem to be dangling my previous comment ("They don't think like us") as though I might deny or repudiate the idea.

I won't.

Fact is, the culture there is different than the culture here. So is the history. It's all different. I know this first-hand.

Americans like to believe they can sit around a table, discuss the issues, and negotiate a deal by splitting the differences.

It just doesn't work that way there, especially not on this and certainly not now.

I'm not demonizing anyone by saying this, nor am I pushing any kind of propaganda about "them" being different than "us."

It is what it is. And I think our leaders have been far too naive for far too long in thinking otherwise.

The results speak for themselves.

P.S. Someday, we'll get a third grade schoolbook from an Israeli classroom and a third grade schoolbook from a Hamas classroom.

Want to make a bet on how they compare and contrast?

"It is what it is. And I think our leaders have been far too naive for far too long in thinking otherwise."

What does it matter, our leaders pay Israel $7 billion a year to do whatever it wants to do.

The results speak for themselves.

Oh, and be sure to retrieve that Palestinian textbook, personally, from one of the many West Bank refugee camps. You might learn something new.

Will do.

P.S. Foreign aid to Israel is just under $3 billion. For reference purposes, foreign aid to Egypt is just under $2 billion.

OK, in return I'll accept the direct aid figure. Why quibble - three billion here, three billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money.

P.S. We're borrowing it from China to give to Israel.

three billion here, three billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money.

Thank you, Senator Dirksen!

:^)

We're borrowing it from China to give to Israel.

Then let's blame this entire mess on the Chinese!

By the way, check out the results of a DailyKos poll I "commissioned." You're in good company Shep!

Heh. Never even registered there, now I'm a Kossack.

Loved your first two questions.

Loved your first two questions.

I also considered a "cowboys and Indians" meme but discarded it at the last minute.

now I'm a Kossack.

See you in the funny papers!

My only complaint is that “defensive” action should scrupulously target only Hizbullah and Hamas fighters.

Get Jim (The Waco Kid)!

Fantasy is wonderful, fanstasy is funny, but fanstasy isn't feasible.

Frankly, Israel may in fact be scrupulously targeting only Hizbullah and Hamas fighters and their military assets. Are we certain Israel didn't possess credible intelligence that the Gaza power plant wasn't being used to store rockets? If they did, would they tell us?

Yours,
Wince

"Fantasy is wonderful, fanstasy is funny, but fanstasy isn't feasible.

Frankly, Israel may in fact be scrupulously targeting only Hizbullah and Hamas fighters and their military assets."

You're being ironic again, aren't you Wince?

Funny man.

shep,

I just can't match the irony of this concept: scrupulous war.

I can't even get people to make scrupulous blog comments, or scrupulous blog posts.

Yours,
Wince

“I just can't match the irony of this concept: scrupulous war.”

That must mean that you find the concept of a moral war – “acting in strict regard for what is considered right and proper” – completely incongruous. Considering the last half century of warfare as well the present circumstances, it's hard to disagree with you there.

That must mean that you find the concept of a moral war – “acting in strict regard for what is considered right and proper” – completely incongruous.

Not incongruous. Merely one of those perfectionistic ideals that make perfect sense and are never achieved.

People have have pitched a perfect game though.

Considering the last half century of warfare as well the present circumstances, it's hard to disagree with you there.

Half century? I'm hard pressed to consider World War II or World War I as scrupulously fought. Woodrow Wilson involved us in the stupid bloody mess that was World War I for no good reason, and so botched the peace by insisting on the League of Nations rather than a fair settlement for Germany that he was a significant contributing cause to World War II.

And as far as World War II goes, it was the war in which civilian populations were targetted for mass destruction. Nothing scupulous about that.

I'm not sure we can name any wars which were scrupulously fought.

Yours,
Wince

Were Ara and Bill Maher seperated at birth?

Yours,
Wince

Ha!

His nose is too big to have been a part of my family.

[Hey you, Miss Julie, stop laughing back there!]

At least Miss Julie thinks you are funny.

Yours,
Wince