"But I ask each of you to pay attention to the details of what was being shouted.  Especially by the young women screaming, "Jews to the ovens." No jihad in America, huh? Do we want such immigrants in our country?  Well, John, do we?"

ndmackenzie's answer would be, yes.

After he is a British immigrant who supports Islamo-Nazis.

Like George W. Bush, John Judis is not into reality-based thinking. There could 200,000 Arab immigrants demanding Jews be sent to the ovens, not 200 - and John Judis would not budge. He is a regular fanatic.

The only problem Peretz, is this: why the fuck did you hire him? Why the fuck did you hire Spencer Ackerman, or Michael Crowley? Or Peter Beinart, who spends his time with his mirror-image nincompoop Joshua Goldberg?

Your judgment, Peretz, is remarkably stupid. The falafel guy outside my building has better and sounder judgment than the airhead journalists -pardon the pleonasm- you have chosen.

"mirror-image nincompoop", eh, sleepy? Boy, you can insult with the best of them. You beat Marty on that score, and he's good at finding inventive ways to insult people. I'd love to borrow some of your insults, please. Just in case I get into one of those ciber brawls with, say, jack.

Happy new year, dude.

I know that federal courthouse on the corner of Broward Boulevard and 3rd Ave well, having been called up for jury duty a number of times there.  It once housed the Federal Labor Board, where I was always logging futile complaints.  It's the standard location for most every medium to small protest in Fort Lauderdale.  Everybody who comes home from work down Broward Boulevard always gets to spend a little extra time in traffic whenever some group has a protest on that corner.  

The Fort Lauderdale cops just love that stuff, controlling crowds along a major thoroughfare, trying to keep people from getting killed by the traffic whizzing by.  The police department is only a couple of blocks away making it easy to call in extra help should they need it, but these things are always a huge headache for everybody. I'm surprised that the cops let the Jews and Palestinians get so close to one another, that's a recipe for disaster.  But you don't really want to mess with Fort Lauderdale cops, that department has always been old-school, if you know what I mean.  :-)

That video makes me miss downtown Fort Lauderdale, which was my home longer than any place else in the US.

I saw one of the Palestinian protesters had an Obama hat on, let's hope that our next president can make some progress in this area, because the stagnation and regression we've seen for decades is affecting everyone everywhere.  We need to get a handle on this issue and start moving forward toward lasting peace and an end to the hate and violence.

Thanking AaronBBrown for ''contextualizing' this video for us. To be sure, such a nonchalant shrug of indifference tosuch obscenity is very reassuring:

www.youtube.com/watch

I think the original artlcle by Judis was pointing out that in the U.S., in contrast to Britain, there is a much more integrated and non-alienated Muslim community, and that (I'm adding this as my thought) even the "Arab-American" adjective is more complex here as many if not most of them are in fact Christian.  He concluded that there is some basis for believing that Arab/Muslim immigrant or long-resident groups, whatever about certain individuals, are unlikely sources for terrorist acts (that the record, in fact, is anything but "substantial")

Colin Powell, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs and former Sec. of State, commented on TV back in October that while there is no truth to the fantasy that Obama was a "secret" or indeed overt Muslim, it should in fact be irrelevant if he were one or not.  He asked, what is wrong with a young American Muslim boy or girl thinking that he or she could be president some day?  Powell drew the interviewer's and the audience's attention to a photo on a major magazine cover of the young widow of a deceased Muslim-American soldier mourning over his grave in a VA cemetery.

Probably giving his life for his country was just another Muslim trick, I guess.

John Judis once read Marx more sympathetically.....back in the days when DSOC merged with 10 other "democratic socialist" factions and became DSA. Somehow Judis fit into all that. Mostly I recall he was met with scorn for abandoning the purest of pure socialism.

And talk about anti Zionism!!

Back then Yasser Arafat, Fatah, the PFLP and the DRLP had little or nothing to do with Islamism, jihad or the conflicting sunni/shia bullshit. But they did indeed pummel Zionism---with simplistic caricatures that are not unlike the way in which you caricature some Muslims.

And who wouldn't agree that the collapse of Lehman Brothers will not bring Marx into the White House or the Congress. At the same time Karl would have marveled at the way in which "socialism for the rich" is so institutionized it has all but become synonymous with American foreign and domestic policy.

As for "freedom" and "necessity", the genius of modern capitalism is how successfully it has excised those words from the language of elections and politics. Marx [and, yes, the folks at Monthly Review] always emphasized the manner in which liberties and needs are sown tightly into the fabric of political economy. Nowadays you are free to watch American Idol instead playing a video game; and there is nothing anyone really needs that can't be turned into a commodity, right?

As for the scriptual mandate of Islamic jihad, I suspect you can read the Scriptures of any major religion and find lots of things written back then that don't exactly fit too snuggly into our modern world.

Jihad in America? What else would you call Manifest Destiny if not a mandate to destroy the Indian nations?....to create an apartheid system by putting them on reservations?

And please note some of the "pockets" of Muslim jihadists you are convinced posed a great threat to America. Are you referring to the men who were going to "invade" Fort Dix? Jose Padilla? the guys who were going to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge? the guys who wanted new boots from an FBI undercover agent so they could blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago? On the contrary, what really frustrates the "terrorists are under every bush" crowd is that almost all of these so-called "plots" were contrived and "executed" by local morons.

And for every lunatic out there protesting the Israeli attacks in Gaza by screeching "Jews to the ovens" you know damned well there are hundreds more who genuinely believe the Israeli retaliation is far, far out of proportion to the crimes committed against Israel.

george walton

It is strange how Marty's old-school liberalism blinds him to the rabid anti-Zionism (i.e. anti-Semitism) of postmodern Reds like Judis, so that he is perpetually surprised by its manifestations. Strange too, how he makes the connection between Ayers and the Camden jihadi cell (i.e. both wanted to blow up Fort Dix), yet could not bring himself to question the sainted Obama's tight friendship with the unrepentant American terrorist.

There is no blindness more tragic than the willful variety.

A lot of thoughtful American Jews, recognizing the present-day incompatibility between liberalism and Zionism, have faced facts and parted company with the Left. When will you face facts?

I think it's a mistake, strategically and morally, to compare the lethal jihad against Israel to the failed bunglings of a handful of nincompoops.  It trivializes the threat facing Israel and exaggerates a modest policing problem

I also don't share your lack of desire to curb protests that seem to me to be clearly calling for violence against Jews.

"And for every lunatic out there protesting the Israeli attacks in Gaza by screeching "Jews to the ovens" you know damned well there are hundreds more who genuinely believe the Israeli retaliation is far, far out of proportion to the crimes committed against Israel."

A sovereign nation is attacked repeated by a mob outside its borders, a mob that no one is willing to contain or control.  What, pray tell, is that nation supposed to do?  The Israeli solution for the past several years has been to whimper and beg, send food, send power, turn a blind eye to arms smuggling all intended to make the mob's attacks more threatening and potentially more lethal, all the while trying to find someone in the mob willing to talk peace.  

As soon as the mob decided to stop playing nice (i.e., limit rocket attacks to a few per day), the onslaught of missles increased to hundreds per day.  

Seems like the "proportional" approach hasn't worked very well.

"I also don't share your lack of desire to curb protests that seem to me to be clearly calling for violence against Jews."

Indeed. Where does protest end and violence begin. Is a cmoment like "to the ovens" a protest or a threat? Is burning a cross on a lawn a protest or a threat?

And what about this?

"Bernard Henri Levy among 6 Jews said targeted by Islamist group"  

By Haaretz Service  

"Jewish-French philosopher Bernard Henri-Levy was listed by a Belgium-based Islamist group as a target for assassination alongside other leading Jewish personalities in Europe, the Belgian daily La Derniere Heure reported earlier this week.

The planned assassination was apparently thwarted after group leader Abdelkader Belliraj, a Belgian of Moroccan ascent, was arrested last February in Morocco, the newspaper reported.

Belgian authorities found the list during a raid on homes of local Muslim community members last November, according to the report.

The hit list mentioned the names of five other well-know Jewish figures in Belgium and France: Josy Eisenberg, producer of the A Bible ouverte (Open Bible) television program on FR2; Simone Susskind, a leader of Belgium's secular Jewish community; attorney Markus Pardes, president of the International Association of Jewish lawyers and jurists; Belgian writer Jean-Claude Bologne and La Derniere Heure reporter Edmond Blattche.

Belliraj is scheduled for trial next week over charges of assassinating and orchestrating the murders of six people in Belgium during 1980s, as well as for charges of arms trafficking."

www.haaretz.com/.../PrintArticleEn.jhtml

AaronBBrown “I saw one of the Palestinian protesters had an Obama hat on, let's hope that our next president can make some progress in this area, because the stagnation and regression we've seen for decades is affecting everyone everywhere.  We need to get a handle on this issue and start moving forward toward lasting peace and an end to the hate and violence.”

It’s not up the US I am afraid.

Hamas is only one group in the resurgence of Islam and it will take more than a local settlement to stop the hatred and violence.

The mistake many people make is in thinking that if we can resolve this or that grievance by Muslims then global peace will follow. This is a dangerous illusion.

"And for every lunatic out there protesting the Israeli attacks in Gaza by screeching "Jews to the ovens" you know damned well there are hundreds more who genuinely believe the Israeli retaliation is far, far out of proportion to the crimes committed against Israel."

Indeed we know that the difference between the one " screeching  "Jews to the ovens"" and the "hundreds more who genuinely believe the Israeli retaliation is far, far out of proportion to the crimes committed against Israel." is not a difference of substance but of degree. The underlying logic and motivation are identical. Jews have to understand that their fate is completely dependent on others' will and if those others decide that they should die, then it becomes criminal for Jews to live...

For what does it mean, that Israel is forbidden to retaliate to murderous attacks because not enough Jewish kids, as yet, were killed by them?

ironyroad, I failed to see the point in your comment. What is it you want to say? That for every crazed woman shouting "go to the ovens" there is a Muslim widow mourning for her dead Muslim soldier husband? How does the one exactly undo the evil of the other?

There are many Muslim soldiers in Israel, did you know? And many who lost their life for Israel's battles. And many of these soldiers are reviled in their own communities as traitors while honoured by the Jewish majority for their sacrifice. How does that relate or relieve the Hamas' genocidal charter I'm not exactly sure. Perhaps you will explain.

In "Catcher in the Rye" the transition of Holden Caulfield to adulthood begins when he realizes that after having vested a lot of time and energy to erasing "F___ You" graffitti every time he sees it he comes to the realization that he can't erase all the "F___ You's" in the world.  

Do I want immigrants like that woman in Ft. Lauderdale in America?  No, I don't, but there are a LOT of people both immigrant and non-immigrant alike that I don't want in America.  Unfortunately, I can't get rid of all of them.  All I can do is not indulge their exaggerated sense of self importance.  I trust that if they do indeed have an intention to commit an act of violence that our authorities can deal with them.  Taking the opposite attitude is what leads to violent tragedies that in turn leads to still more violent tragedies.  Pointing to one idiot in a mob and a small group of comically inept "terrorists" in New Jersey is not "evidence" of a worldwide global jihad.  It's evidence that there are extremists and morons in this world, which is something that shouldn't surprise anybody.  They come in all religions, ethnicities, and races.

I am going to draw on what rozenson mentioned a few threads back about the need for a counter-demonstration protest at these mobbish Hamas-inspired gatherings.  I think that any successful PR campaign in the streets needs to remind those watching TV that the very same forces who condemn Israel turn a blind eye to Darfur, and that those forces support governments who seek to bolster Sudan's current government.  Too much of a jump to highlight the struggle of Darfur's populace in the context of aggressive Middle Eastern governments?  Tell that to those who suffer in Darfur.

Yglesias today:

"Noah Pollack of Commentary deems J-Street’s statements on the fighting in Gaza “contemptible.” And good for him. Personally, I find Pollack and Commentary fanatical and the whole point of J Street is to give progressive Jews an opportunity to reclaim the conversation over Middle East policy from the sort of rancid rightwingery represented by the Commentary crowd.

But then along comes his ponderous conclusion:

It is time that thinking people started calling J Street what it actually is — an anti-Israel group.

This kind of thing really pisses me off. One simply doesn’t talk about any other country this way. Countries implement policies. In democratic countries, like Israel, those policies are subjected to debate and criticism. To have a disagreement about policies is to be engaged in political debate. But here in the United States we see this constant campaign to label political disagreement about Israeli policy or about US policy toward Israel as “anti-Israel” or even anti-semitism. It’s offensive, it’s nonsense, it’s contemptible, and it ought to stop. A person who’s opposed to the existence of Israel is “anti-Israel”; a person expressing disagreement with something the Israeli government does is criticizing public policy. It’s very hard to see how eliding the difference between the two helps the Zionist cause. The label is a useful bludgeon for Pollack to try to wield against J Street, but the blowback around the world of convincing everyone who dislikes something or other the Israeli government does that they ought to adopt an “anti-Israel” self-conception is enormous."

Hear, hear.

I know you agree with me Jack.

mpolman,

Tell that to the Jews around the world who are afraid to gather with other Jews right now.  It is not new knowledge that mobs produce diabolical fervor, but not taking heed would be disasterous.  Remember, the Mumbai attacks were wrought by charged Jihadists who were not connected to Al Qaeda or the usual suspects.  It is not much of a stretch to believe that something like that could occur here.  

"A person who’s opposed to the existence of Israel is “anti-Israel”; a person expressing disagreement with something the Israeli government does is criticizing public policy."

I cannot disagree with this statement.  for example, There are many critics of Israel's policies from the right (and even from the center), who have been very loud about their position that Israel is almost criminally indictable for not protecting Israeli citizens from Hamas terrorism. I have seen one or two critics  calling them anti-Israel but they were the exception.

There is a difference, though. Those who demand Israel's more aggressive response understand the problem, and suggest a solution. The critics from the J-street style Left do not seem to have the same grasp on reality and they never offer a solution that takes into account the facts (Hamas' Charter, qassams). They criticize Israel's RIGHT to defend itself. They erect a fence around the right of a nation to defend itself, thus making a mockery of that right. Limiting one's self-defense means limiting one's right to survive and prevail. What does that mean in realistic terms? A subliminal desire, or at least non-opposition,  to seeing Israel weakened, and to tolerate (indeed, one could almost claim to urge)  more Israeli dead.

So indeed, J-street is not ostensibly anti-Israel. it is merely anti Israel's  inalienable, UN Charter enshrined, right to self-defense. And Noah Pollack should be exposed for the fanatical Zionist that he is, for not getting to the bottom of this nuance.

"And for every lunatic out there protesting the Israeli attacks in Gaza by screeching "Jews to the ovens" you know damned well there are hundreds more who genuinely believe the Israeli retaliation is far, far out of proportion to the crimes committed against Israel. " george walton

Used to be everyone wanted to be a comedian. Now everyone wants to be a lawyer.

Let's save the discussion of proportionality for another day.

The idea that any thing can justify or even mitigate chants like "to the ovens" is absurd.  (Talking about disproportiante responses.)

People don't get up in the morning and decide because some Jews killed some Arabs (justified or not) that all Jews should be gassed. Such a mindset preexisted the events in Gaza. Gaza was just an excuse.

This isn't the first time this has happened. Here is an account of a pre Gaza anti-Israel demonstration in Gaza where Jews were taunted with the Nazi salute:

"Anti-Zionist Jews can’t have it both ways"

www.jewishsf.com/.../displaystory.print

"At the Sunday, July 23 Israel Solidarity Rally in San Francisco, a few dozen anti-Zionist Jews — self-proclaimed anti-Zionist Jews with cardboard placards to prove it — were on the scene.

Jews criticizing the very existence of Jewish state are making a calculated statement. Their Jewishness is intended to provide some sort of moral authority.

Again, that is their right, even if we vehemently disagree with them. But at this rally, any cloak of moral authority the anti-Zionist Jews were wrapping themselves in unraveled in short order.

Just an arm’s length from the troupe of extreme Jewish critics of Israel, a group of youthful Arabs bedecked in kaffyehs and red, green and white Palestinian accoutrements chanted their support for Hezbollah and showered the pro-Israel crowd with Hitlerian salutes while shouting “Seig Heil,” cupping their hands to their faces to imitate hooknoses and shouting about how Jews supposedly smelled like excrement.

It’s a bit of a tautology, but anti-Semitic bigots do anti-Semitic, bigoted things. It’s sad, it’s maddening, but it’s no surprise.

What was surprising was that, as far as we could see, none of their Jewish brothers-in-arms stepped in and did a damn thing about it or made any effort to disassociate themselves from a textbook display of Jew hatred."

This goes for so called J Street also.

Here is an editorial from the Jewish Chronicle in Great Britain on Jewish non reactoins to antisemitism:

"Time to articulate our hurt in the war on hate"

www.thejc.com/.../time-articulate-our-hurt-war-hate

Oh, btw, I'm sure very few people actually know or read the Hamas Charter, so here is a link:

"G. The Attempt to Isolate the Palestinian People

Article Thirty-Two

World Zionism and the colonialist powers attempt, by clever maneuvering and meticulous planning, to pull the Arab states, one by one, out of the circle of the conflict with Zionism, so as to ultimately isolate the Palestinian people. It has already taken Egypt out of the circle of conflict to a large extent through the treacherous Camp David Accords [of September 1978], and it is trying to pull additional [Arab] countries into similar agreements so that they leave the circle of conflict.

The Islamic Resistance Movement calls upon all the Arab and Muslim peoples to strive seriously and diligently to prevent this horrible scheme, and to alert the masses to the danger inherent in leaving the circle of the conflict with Zionism. Today it is Palestine, and tomorrow some other country or countries, for the Zionist plan has no limits, and after Palestine they want to expand [their territory] from the Nile to the Euphrates, and when they finish devouring one area, they hunger for further expansion and so on, indefinitely. Their plan is expounded in TheProtocols of the Elders of Zion, and their present [behavior] is the best proof for what we are saying.

Leaving the circle of the conflict with Zionism is an act of high treason; all those who do this shall be cursed. "Whoever [when fighting the infidels] turns his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intending to join another [fighting] company, he incurs Allah's wrath, and his abode shall be hell. Most unfortunate is his fate." (Koran, 8:16) "

memri.org/.../articles.cgi

Wasn't it Freud who explained why humans tend to  repress, deny that a certain element even exists? The repressed element is blocked, minimized, displaced or projected, because dealing with it as it is can be potentially too disruptive to our well being, to our level of comfort with ourselves. This might explain why so many do not even for a moment take this document seriously.

noga, great response to iggy.

dkrieger: A lot of thoughtful American Jews, recognizing the present-day incompatibility between liberalism and Zionism, have faced facts and parted company with the Left.

That is nonsense. For one you make Zionism sound negative, when Zionism is simply Jewish people living in their ancestral homeland and having a country, it is not unique, Ireland is for the Irish, France is for the French, etc. I see no reason to debate the necessity of nation states based on culture, why the hell does anyone do it with Jewish people. And leftism is not the same as liberalism although they can share many aims. What, are you saying Jews who support Israel should now forget working with Liberals to provide health insurance to the millions who do not have it out of your sense of pique? I am a liberal and I support Israels right to defend itself for the exact same reason I supported Bosnians defending themselves against Serbians or Kosovars against Serbians.

Moreover, I think your rhetoric only alienates. "tight friendship with an unrepentent terrorist" is just rank stupidity. I lived in China for 7 years, I knew many Communists, was even friends with some of them to a far greater extent than Obama was with Ayers, am I now perpetually suspect as well?

Reality Noga?

Let's stretch our heads a bit. Outside of The Spine space-time continuim.

How about the February elections? Does this have anything to do with the bombing?

How about Mossad's role in helping create Hamas in the first place?

According to the Israeli weekly Koteret Rashit (October 1987), "The Islamic associations as well as the university had been supported and encouraged by the Israeli military authority" in charge of the (civilian) administration of the West Bank and Gaza. "They [the Islamic associations and the university] were authorized to receive money payments from abroad." The Islamists set up orphanages and health clinics, as well as a network of schools, workshops which created employment for women as well as system of financial aid to the poor. And in 1978, they created an "Islamic University" in Gaza. "The military authority was convinced that these activities would weaken both the PLO and the leftist organizations in Gaza." At the end of 1992, there were six hundred mosques in Gaza. Thanks to Israel’s intelligence agency Mossad (Israel’s Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks) , the Islamists were allowed to reinforce their presence in the occupied territories. Meanwhile, the members of Fatah (Movement for the National Liberation of Palestine) and the Palestinian Left were subjected to the most brutal form of repression."

Talk about blowback.

How about...actually I'd better stop there. Rozenson's cracking his knuckles again.

Are we seriously saying, as The Spine collective, that J-Street is an anti-Israeli organisation?

Seriously?

All right Roz, I know the drill. Hey! Easy on the arm. At least let me get my jacket....watch me head!

(Door slams shut as Iggy is thrown into J-Street on top of Mac)

"That is nonsense. For one you make Zionism sound negative, when Zionism is simply Jewish people living in their ancestral homeland and having a country, it is not unique,..."

blackton

Excellent, Blackton.

Moreover, Zionism is not a single ideology like Islamicism, Communism,  National Socialism,  or even liberalism.

There are liberal Zionists (in Israel the vast majority), Communist Zionists and yes Fascist Zionists. Just as you had members of all such groups represented among Irish nationalists.

There were even Zionists like Brit Shalom which wanted a binational State in the 20's, 30's and 40's, but the Arabs rejected that at that time.

Hence to use a phrase such as "zion-nazi" is not only hateful and ignorant; it's contradictory.  It's like saying Democractic-Nazi, or demo-nazi for short: it's an oxymoron.

15 seconds:

sderot.aish.com/.../15Seconds.php

" And in 1978, they created an "Islamic University" in Gaza. "The military authority was convinced that these activities would weaken both the PLO and the leftist organizations in Gaza."

This is a caricature of what happened.

Israel is about as much responsible for empowering Hamas as the US is for empowering  the Soviet Union though its alliance aganst Nazi Germany.

Both Communism and Islamicism are world ideologies which didn't need the support of either country to take hold and thrive.

Its the corrupt Fatah regime of Arafat which allowed it to grow.

Fatah too was and oftenis a murderous organization.

(Iggy on his knees in the freezing cold, speaking through the front door letterbox.)

Psssst! Jack, over here.

Interesting interview back in Feb 08 with former Israeli intelligence chief Efraim Halevy.

I'll just slip this URL under the Spine door.

www.motherjones.com/.../israel-mossad-out-of-the-shadows.html

Shekel quote:

"Hamas is not al Qaeda and, indeed, al Qaeda has condemned them time and time again. Hamas may from time to time have tactical, temporary contact with al Qaeda, but in essence they are deadly adversaries. The same goes for Iran. Hamas receives funds, support, equipment, and training from Iran, but is not subservient to Tehran."

rjchq.org/.../newsdetail.aspx

_________

igpo asks:

"How about the February elections? Does this have anything to do with the bombing?"

Actually, this is a much more plausible explanation for the timing of the attack on Hamas:

"Israel received approval from Congress to purchase 1,000 units in September and defence officials said on Sunday that the first shipment had arrived earlier this month and was used successfully in penetrating underground Kassam launchers in the Gaza Strip during the heavy aerial bombardment of Hamas infrastructure on Saturday. It was also used in Sunday's bombing of tunnels in Rafah.

The GPS-guided GBU-39 is said to be "one of the most accurate bombs in the world."

www.theglobeandmail.com/.../WBSpector

Everyone who understood anything about anything knew that it was just a matter of time before the IDf would have to take up the Qassams. The question was always; why the delay?  And the answer; they are waiting for something.

You, igpo, think they were waiting for the February elections.

The way I see is this:  since the qassam provocation has never stopped and the tunnel the IDF took out in November clearly indicated that Hamas was getting ready for some  more "martyrdom operations" to demoralize and terrorize the israeli people, the only thing that delayed a military response was the concern about Palestinian civilian casualties. The arrival of the bombs just a couple of weeks before, made it possible to launch it, upon the next (fully anticipated) provocation. Needless to say, if Hamas had stuck to the ceasefire, it wouldn't have happened,

_____

Igpo also asks: "How about Mossad's role in helping create Hamas in the first place? "

Yes, indeed, it was very stupid of Israel to try to encourage a religious movement to counter the terrorist PLO, in the hope that Hamas  would concentrate on charity and health.  Maybe not as stupid, though, as the role of Jimmy Carter in the creation of Al-Qaeda.

"The anti-communist rebels also garnered support from the United States. As stated by the former director of the CIA and current Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, in his memoirs From the Shadows, the American intelligence services began to aid the rebel factions in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet deployment. On July 3, 1979, US President Jimmy Carter signed an executive order authorizing the CIA to conduct covert propaganda operations against the communist regime."

en.wikipedia.org/.../Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan

By the same logic, then, the US had no business responding to 9/11 by going after the Taliban and Bin laden in 2002.

___________

At this point, I find this quote from "Charlie Wilson's War" quite insightful, though not particularly enlightening:

"Gust Avrakotos: There's a little boy and on his 14th birthday he gets a horse... and everybody in the village says, "how wonderful. the boy got a horse" And the Zen master says, "we'll see." Two years later The boy falls off the horse, breaks his leg, and everyone in the village says, "how terrible." And the Zen master says, "We'll see." Then, a war breaks out and all the young men have to go off and fight... except the boy can't cause his legs all messed up. and everybody in the village says, "How wonderful."

Charlie Wilson: Now the Zen master says, "We'll see."

-- Zeev Sternell, historian at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, "Israel thought that it was a smart ploy to push the Islamists against the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO)".

-- United Press International 06/18/02:

"Israel and Hamas may currently be locked in deadly combat, but, according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years...

...Israel "aided Hamas directly -- the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization)," said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies.

Israel's support for Hamas "was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative," said a former senior CIA official.

"According to U.S. administration officials, funds for the movement came from the oil-producing states and directly and indirectly from Israel. The PLO was secular and leftist and promoted Palestinian nationalism. Hamas wanted to set up a transnational state under the rule of Islam, much like Khomeini's Iran.

Ignorant Bigot little antisemitic clownish tic:

"Shekel quote"

Then he quotes out of context:

"Hamas is not al Qaeda"

So? Stalin wasn't Hitler and yet they both killed millions.

Hamas is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood which is also not al Kaida. Yet they share similar aims just as Soviet Communists and Maoists shared a similar aim while criticizing each other.

Another simple minded post, by Ignorant Bigot.

From "Natural born Killers":

Old Indian: Once upon a time, a woman was picking up firewood. She came upon a poisonous snake frozen in the snow. She took the snake home and nursed it back to health. One day the snake bit her on the cheek. As she lay dying, she asked the snake, "Why have you done this to me?" And the snake answered, "Look, bitch, you knew I was a snake."

____

"The Farmer and the Viper" is a fable attributed to Aesop. The story concerns a farmer who finds a viper freezing in the snow. He takes pity on it and picks it up and places it within his coat. The viper, revived by the warmth, bites the farmer. The farmer cries out that he should have seen it coming.

In some versions, the farmer brings the viper home and his children go to pet it. The viper gets ready to bite the children when the farmer cuts off the viper's head."

en.wikipedia.org/.../The_Farmer_and_the_Viper

Jack - got to head out tonight...because I, you know, have a life.

That simple minded quote is quoted DIRECTLY from  Efraim Halevy—who served three Israeli prime ministers as chief of Mossad.

Try turning your modem off and sticking your head out of your over priced NY apartment. You might even see sentient New Yorkers like Wandrey out and about walking and talking SANELY to other flesh and blood humanoids.

Now, I'll dust myself off here and try and retain some dignity as I wish you all a Happy New Year and exit in quiet, sobriety, which won't last long.

I am not a scholar on the Koran. People can if they wish interpret it as requiring muslims to commit violence against non-muslims. They can also read the Old Testament as requiring that gays be executed. But if a Muslim says in good faith as many do that they don't interpret the Koran in this way, then that ought to be given as much credence as the Jews and Christians who say they don't read the bible to require the execution of gays. To say to the millions of good peace loving Muslims that they are secretly planning our destruction is not any kind of realism. It is slander and paranoia. Hamas has a great deal of responsibility for the death of Palestinians in Gaza, but these deaths were not of evil people who had it coming. They are a tragedy and one which I believe Isreal's actions are helping to continue. Its hard to respond to an enemy who wishes your destruction, but which cannot be destroyed by madness. I understand why Isreal is doing what it is doing and some who support it have good intentions, but it is not the correct response.

Ignorant Populist,  You shouldn't exert yourself so much. We accept that "...Israel "aided Hamas directly -- the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO".

What's that got to do with the current of situation, though? How does that mitigate for Hamas' genocidal Charter, or its terrorist campaign against Israelis?  What exactly do you want to say with this reminder? Are you trying to say that Israel is complicit in Hamas' crimes and should bomb itself?

fuck off bigot.

rhoneyman writes:

A sovereign nation is attacked repeated by a mob outside its borders, a mob that no one is willing to contain or control. What, pray tell, is that nation supposed to do? The Israeli solution for the past several years has been to whimper and beg, send food, send power, turn a blind eye to arms smuggling all intended to make the mob's attacks more threatening and potentially more lethal, all the while trying to find someone in the mob willing to talk peace.

George responds:

Narratives like yours [and mine] almost never reflect the way in which all the complex variables unfold from day to day; based, in turn, on all the even more complex variables that have intertwined over the years and decades. And it is because there are so many ways in which all of these relationships can be configured and reconfigured into a nearly infinite numbers of circumstantial permutations that virtually any rationalization can be concocted to produce and defend virtually any point of view that sanctions or reinforces what most already believe anyway.

And that is made all the murkier because so few of us are actually there to record in detail what is happening on the ground. Add to that the nearly impossible task of substantiating the intentions of those on both sides of the conflict and it is a recipe for arguments that are based almost entirely on hearsay "evidence".

That's why the thrust of my own anecdotal accounts focuses first and foremost on debunking the metaphysical bullshit behind the chronologies of dogmatic, doctrinaire True Believers [both sacred and secular].

But after that we can only rely on images and reports coming out of the various media. You seem to believe that Israel is responding in a justifiable manner and I do not. The relationship is not even close.

george walton

jackson writes:

People don't get up in the morning and decide because some Jews killed some Arabs (justified or not) that all Jews should be gassed. Such a mindset preexisted the events in Gaza. Gaza was just an excuse.

This isn't the first time this has happened. Here is an account of a pre Gaza anti-Israel demonstration in Gaza where Jews were taunted with the Nazi salute:

"Anti-Zionist Jews can’t have it both ways"

George responds:

Having a discussion with you about Israel's fate today is undoubtedly as futile as it must have been for Jews to have discussions with the Romans about their fate 2,000 years ago.

I support Israel whole-heartedly in the defense of its very survival. There is no way in which Americans can easily grasp what it must be like to be literally surrounded by people and nations that want only to destroy you. We got merely a slice of that reckoning on 9/11/2001.

But over and again others [including many citizens of Israel] have pointed to policies pursued and then sanctioned by the Israeli government [in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and in Jerusalem] that have aggravated rather than extenuated the danger the nation faces.

You either include that premise in your argument or you don't

george walton

noga1 writes:

From "Natural born Killers":

Old Indian: Once upon a time, a woman was picking up firewood. She came upon a poisonous snake frozen in the snow. She took the snake home and nursed it back to health. One day the snake bit her on the cheek. As she lay dying, she asked the snake, "Why have you done this to me?" And the snake answered, "Look, bitch, you knew I was a snake."

George responds:

Ah, of course, Palestinians by their very nature are snakes.

But just out of curiosity, are all Arabs and Palestinians born that way? Or is this just the poisonous kool-aid....handed down from generation to generation....that all the children of Gaza are given to  drink day after day?

Of the approximately one and a half million Gazan citizens [almost all of which are descendants of refugees seeking to escape the consequences of the 1948 war] how many are the Israeli governemnt certain have either launched rockets into Israel or sympathize with it? Are the bombs being dropped on Gazan smart enough to make this distinction? Are we to believe that, just as the Bush administration assured us that "collateral damage" was kept to a minimum, these assurances from the Israeli government are equally trustworthy?

Fianlly, just from a more purely theological point of view, what is the fate of civilians who are dying in Gaza right now? You know, on Judgment Day? If, say, a 10 year old child born and raised as a Muslim is blown to pieces by a bomb this day, is he or she condemned to Hell for believing the wrong version of your God's loving, just and merciful agenda?

george walton

george:

I brought the fable as a response and an attempt at explanation  to Ignorant Populist's repeated reminder that : "...Israel "aided Hamas directly -- the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO".

Apparently, you think that when we ( genuine Israel supporters)  speak of Hamas, we refer to all Palestinians. You might wish to explain why you would make that assumption.

Noga, the discussion has taken other turns, but just to clarify, I wasn't commenting on Powell and the story of the muslim soldier and his widow in order to comment in any way on Hamas.  I was raising the issue because MP had suggested that Judis's article on the non-alienation and robustness of Muslim-American loyalties was a kind of deluded liberal fairy tale and the true state of affairs was being revealed by these (somewhat dubious, imo, in terms of result) terrorist trials.  I think Marty is wrong, and Judis is right, or closer to the target area, at least.

I'm aware, although not in detail, that the IDF deploys an increasingly diverse body of soldiers, including non-Jews.  This speaks of course very well for the IDF, but Israel isn't America, and I think the presence of others (in the "Other" cap-O sense) is much more readily greeted as normal in Israel.  At least that's my impression.

"I was raising the issue because MP had suggested that Judis's article on the non-alienation and robustness of Muslim-American loyalties was a kind of deluded liberal fairy tale and the true state of affairs was being revealed by these (somewhat dubious, imo, in terms of result) terrorist trials.  I think Marty is wrong, and Judis is right, or closer to the target area, at least."

Both sides are simplistic: one example doesn't make a truth.

In any case. There are brave Muslims who would fight for this country and there are Muslim immigrants who yell at Jews: "to the ovens."

The issue is which example is part of the norm?

Tell me, ironyroad, why is it that Muslim rage is accepted with such sympathy and understanding, while Jews are not allowed to feel, let alone express, rage? Why are Jews placed like bugs under a microscope and have their every gesture and word magnified and inspected for clealiness or some hidden taint? What would be the reaction if a religious  Jewish woman  in a demonstration repeatedly called for Arabs to be exterminated? Would it not make the national news? Would the blogosphere not have erupted in a macabre dance of denunciation for that woman? So how come there are people here who try to explicate this obscenity by somehow blaming the Jews for being so hated?

Quote from Jean Paul Sartre: "Anti-Semite and Jew"

".. the Jew ... has passionate enemies, and defenders lacking in passion. The democrat professes moderation; he blames or admonishes while synagogues are being set on fire. He is tolerant by profession; he is, indeed, snobbish about the tolerance and even extends it to the enemies of democracy. Wasn't it the style among radicals of the Left to consider Mauras a genius? How can the democrat fail to understand the anti-Semite? It is as if he were fascinated by all who plot his downfall. Perhaps at the bottom of his heart he yearns for the violence which he has denied himself.

In any case, the struggle is not equal. If the democrat were to put some warmth into pleading the cause of the Jew, he would have to be Manichean too, and equate the Jew with the principle of Good. But how could he do this? The democrat is no fool. He makes himself the advocate of the Jew because he sees him as a member of humanity; since humanity has other members who he must also defend, the democrat has much to do; he concerns himself with the Jew when he has time. But the anti-Semite has only one enemy, and he can think of him all the time. This it is he who calls the turn. Vigorously attacked, feebly defended, the Jew feels himself in danger in a society in which anti-Semitism is the continual temptation. This is what we must look at more closely."

In any case, the struggle is not equal. If the democrat were to put some warmth into pleading the cause of the Jew, he would have to be Manichean too, and equate the Jew with the principle of Good. But how could he do this? The democrat is no fool. He makes himself the advocate of the Jew because he sees him as a member of humanity; since humanity has other members who he must also defend, the democrat has much to do; he concerns himself with the Jew when he has time. But the anti-Semite has only one enemy, and he can think of him all the time. This it is he who calls the turn. Vigorously attacked, feebly defended, the Jew feels himself in danger in a society in which anti-Semitism is the continual temptation. This is what we must look at more closely."

scrubby, Happy New Year to you too!

noga, ironyroad:

You both have interesting points. Now you have to understand that much of the world intellectual agenda is driven by Europeans. They feel Jews should be better. Since Europe committed the Holocaust - Europe, not Germany - it knows it is guilty. The fastest way to get out of the guilt is to hold the Jews to such impossible standards (standards that they themselves have never met) that they will necessarily be failures. "Sure, we killed the Jews, but look at them now how bad they are. They are just as bad -or worse- as we were."

Moreover, Europeans assert that Jews should know better and not be brutal, especially since Jews were the quintessential victims. You see the logic? "we educated you by murdering you - so how could you not learn?" We Jews should be grateful to Europeans for murdering us - you see, they gave us an education. We should know, since they were so graceful as to kill us.

Noga writes:

Apparently, you think that when we ( genuine Israel supporters) speak of Hamas, we refer to all Palestinians. You might wish to explain why you would make that assumption.

George responds:

Okay, as a "genuine" Israeli supporter [unlike ersatz supporters like me] how many Palestinian civilians in your view can be justifiably killed before the Israeli government might grudungly be nudged to at least think about possibly ending the bombing campaign? Do we have to get a bit closer to the February general elections before the polls show more definitively what it is okay or not okay for the governemnt to do?

george walton

Jackson writes:

In any case. There are brave Muslims who would fight for this country and there are Muslim immigrants who yell at Jews: "to the ovens."

The issue is which example is part of the norm?

George responds:

No, the issue is this:  How do those inhabiting the highest rungs on the ladder of wealth and power [whether in Israel, Gaza or America] mold and manipulate the media narratives so as to dupe as many on the lowest rungs to blindly embrace policies that almost never involve those on top of the ladder when the casualties are listed and later embossed on memorials to honor "our brave sons and daughters who fought and died valiantly for the Motherland".

Indeed, in this respect I appauld Israel because it makes military service mandatory. At least if you are a Jew or a Druze. Indeed, you remain a reservist up until [I believe] the age of 40. But [of course] there will always be ways for some to gain exemptions.

Like, for example, being an Israeli citizen and an Arab at the same time.

george walton

sleepy writes:

Moreover, Europeans assert that Jews should know better and not be brutal, especially since Jews were the quintessential victims. You see the logic? "we educated you by murdering you - so how could you not learn?" We Jews should be grateful to Europeans for murdering us - you see, they gave us an education. We should know, since they were so graceful as to kill us.

George responds:

Is there a gene in the human genome whereby, if you have it at birth, you are a Jew or a Muslim or a Christian or an atheist?

No, of course not.

These religious concoctions are entirely manmade.

They are, however, stories built up around actual historical events that actual Jews, Muslims and Christians have been killing each other over now for hundreds of years regarding which interpretation of the same God gains you access to Heaven or to Hell.

Let's consider, for example, a hypothetical bottom line.

Let's suppose that four babies are born on the same day to a Jewish, Muslim, Christian and Atheist mother. Let's suppose that each mother takes a baby not of her own faith [or lack thereof] but raises the baby in her own faith. Do you actually imagine that, say, 18 years later, these four young adults would somehow naturally revert back to the religion of the mother who gave birth to them?

Religions have always been the sort of narrative human communities concoct because it is the ultimate way in which to explain why everything is as it is in the world and not something completely different. Indeed, you don't have to even con children to believe this. You simply have to believe it yourself and pass it down to the next generation. It's sort of analogous to an economic Ponzi scheme except its not money but spiritual values that keep the thing ever growing.

Indeed, if you want to see a more or less real-time microcosm of how this works watch a few episodes of Lockup or Lockdown---shows about prison life.

Over and again you see the ridiculous lenghts to which the prison population will go to be separated by race. The things they are then forced to those not of their race [even if they are not racists] are so mindbogglingly stupid you are stuptified watching it all unfold. But what people forget is that even in prison everyone wants and needs some sort of "code of behavior" to make their lives meaningful. In prison it is all about race. In the MIddle East it is all about religion.

In the end, it is all mindless bullshit of course but mindless bullshit that is driven into your head for years and years is almost impossible to extrude.

Especially with narratives in here.

george walton

Europeans certainly have guilt complex over Jews and that is directly impacting their attitude towards Israel. It works something like this:

Israel is a criminal entity, founded on the ashes of 400 Palestinian villages and 700,000 refugees who are now 5 millions second, third and fourth generation refugees. Israel, being a criminal entity, is not allowed to act like a normal state. It has no rights. And its one and only duty is not to protect its own citizens but to protect the Palestinian population from which the highly moral terrorist resistance is launching its attacks. Furthermore, Israel’s duty is to offer its citizens up for slaughter. It is the only decent thing Israel can do if it wants:

a) to erase the shame of 1948 (the greatest crime against humanity ever committed) and

b) re-instate European guilt for what Europe did to Jews just prior to 1948. (though that particular privilege will depend upon the number of Jews killed by Palestinians, to restore justice to Palestinians. It had better be high, or we will continue to punish the Jews for the Holocaust until such time as we are satisfied that they paid in full).

It's kind of disingenuous (but not at all ambiguous)  for george to ask "how many Palestinian civilians in your view can be justifiably killed before the Israeli government might grudungly be nudged to at least think about possibly ending the bombing". The counting of dead bodies by way of  satisfying a lust for revenge is something the rancid left does, not Israelis.  It is clear, from the non-stop reminder that more Palestinians are killed than Israelis that this is a very important factor. And that for the blood-thirsty anti-war poseurs, the only factor that matters.

By this logic, no war is ever just unless you let your enemy kill as many of you as you kill of them. A formula, I'd say, for perpetuating war for ever. And, may I add, a rule that was invented especially for Israel.

Go figure the perverseness of such thinking.

____________

The new rules of war (for Israel):

Rule I. War is a tit-for-tat game, where fairness is defined as killing no more than you lose.

Rule II. The age of uniforms and battle lines is over, replaced by the civilian shield as the best mechanism of defense against Western mastery of traditional arms.

Rule III: Just copy any group that sets up shop on an American campus free speech area, and the resulting sympathy is worth a division.

pajamasmedia.com/.../2

Say, George, a lot of French civilians were killed by the Allies in driving the Nazis out of France.  Certainly the Allies were not trying to kill French civilians; indeed it was the last thing they wanted to do.  But there was no way to win the battle without doing so.  You can be sure they tried to minimize civilian casualties consistent with achieving the military objective and so do the Israelis.  In fact, Israel is a helluva a lot more careful about civilian deaths than any other nation at war, specifically including the United States.  The Russians leveled Grozny with unrestrained artillery bombardment -- no targeted anything -- and it didn't provoke as much gnashing of teeth as the Israeli action in Gaza.  

The answer to your question about "how many Palestinian civilians can justifiably be killed" is, No more than is necessary to put a stop to Hamas missile attacks on Israel.  It is not perplexing George unless you choose to make it so.

noga writes:

Israel is a criminal entity, founded on the ashes of 400 Palestinian villages and 700,000 refugees who are now 5 millions second, third and fourth generation refugees. Israel, being a criminal entity, is not allowed to act like a normal state. It has no rights. And its one and only duty is not to protect its own citizens but to protect the Palestinian population from which the highly moral terrorist resistance is launching its attacks. Furthermore, Israel’s duty is to offer its citizens up for slaughter. It is the only decent thing Israel can do if it wants:

a) to erase the shame of 1948 (the greatest crime against humanity ever committed) and

b) re-instate European guilt for what Europe did to Jews just prior to 1948. (though that particular privilege will depend upon the number of Jews killed by Palestinians, to restore justice to Palestinians. It had better be high, or we will continue to punish the Jews for the Holocaust until such time as we are satisfied that they paid in full).

It's kind of disingenuous (but not at all ambiguous) for george to ask "how many Palestinian civilians in your view can be justifiably killed before the Israeli government might grudungly be nudged to at least think about possibly ending the bombing". The counting of dead bodies by way of satisfying a lust for revenge is something the rancid left does, not Israelis. It is clear, from the non-stop reminder that more Palestinians are killed than Israelis that this is a very important factor. And that for the blood-thirsty anti-war poseurs, the only factor that matters.

By this logic, no war is ever just unless you let your enemy kill as many of you as you kill of them. A formula, I'd say, for perpetuating war for ever. And, may I add, a rule that was invented especially for Israel.

Go figure the perverseness of such thinking.

George responds:

The obvious flaw embedded in your worst-case assessment of how you imagine the enemies of Israel view the fact of Israel's historical birth, linked as it was to the actual bloody [and at times heartbreaking] collisions that occured between real flesh and blood men, women and children is that you want them to recognize their rendition is far from the truth while at the same time implying that Israel has already honestly owned up to the part that she played in the agony and the ecstacy embedded in all the convoluted trade offs that were forced on so many people decades ago.

And your emotional ejaculation about the "rancid left" speaks volumes regarding just how much contempt you have for people who won't put Israeli policy in Gaza today up on the pedestal of Truth, Justice and the Word Of Almighty God. By the way, what part DID God play in the relationship between Holocaust and the birth of Israel?

Similarly, to pretend that the large number of dead in Gaza when compared to the much smaller number of dead in Israel is ultimately of no real importance is just as irresponsible as someone insisting it is the only thing that matters.  

Israel does what it does in Gaza because it CAN do it. And it can DO IT knowing full well there isn't a damned thing the million and a half people in Gaza can do about it. Indeed, if one day Planet Earth were to die, the most appropriate epitaph to inscribe on the tombstone would be MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.

But then that might prompt you to stop and wonder from time to time how that is all reconciled with verses in, say, Psalms 37:10:11

"For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.

"But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace."

So, which folks strike you as the meekest over there now? On the other hand, I've never really been all that clear about how one differentiates the Christian God, The Jewish God and The Islamic God when noting the manner in which [so far] the meek never seem to inherit much more than the crumbs that fall off the tables of those who get write the history books. And the Scriptures.

But then you sure hit the nail on the head in reminding us that so much of the horrific human pain and suffering we see in the world today can be traced back to the manner in which Third World countries across the globe were colonized and then brutally exploited by Europeans hell bent on carving up the world to suit the needs of their own political economies.

I guess that is God's way of making the meek so wretchedly miserable now. they will enjoy the Earth they inherit "down the road" all that much more, right?

george walton

I don't know if anyone mentioned it, but the most important part of that video in Fort Lauderdale that we should all be paying attention to, is a woman who held up the sign that read "nuke Israel".

As a Jew, oven rhetoric doesn't bother me, it hardly gets my attention. Long ago I became immune to those kind of inflammatory declarations.  But nuclear weapons and their destructive potential must be taken very seriously, and in the long run the threat they pose is certainly the greatest threat that the Israelis have ever faced.

Pakistan has nuclear weapons, Egypt probably has nuclear weapons already as well, and it's only a matter of time before the Iranians, Iraqis, the Sunni and Shi'ites will all one day certainly have nuclear weapons.  That is the reality we had all better face.  Before that happens we better get control over this situation, because if we don't, if we wind up with renegade governments which allow terrorists to get their hands on even a tactical nuclear weapon, which is already a real possibility today, you know what will happen eventually, it's no longer a question of if, only a question of when.  Someone will drive a van into Tel Aviv, or perhaps even Jerusalem, and you know they will detonate.

Once you've reached the point where you've excepted that reality, then it's just a matter of time before you must conclude that if we are to avoid and all out war in the Middle East that could draw the entire world into a conflagration that could consume us all, we must find a way to achieve peace, we must find a way to promote governments in the Islamic world that act responsibly, governments that find common cause in preventing the annihilation of everyone.

It's a simple equation, we find a way to stop the cycle we see happening in Israel right now, where terrorists are attempting to provoke governments into a conflict and succeeding, succeeding by doing nothing more than building what is the equivalent of model rockets and launching them in the general direction of their supposed enemy.  Model rockets that have enough destructive potential to take out a tank, but they are nothing more than toys in comparison to modern weapons.  

Are we really going to allow unruly children with a toy rockets to provoke governments into invasion and open war? Obviously the Israeli government believes it's enough provocation.  They're going to send troops into Gaza and perhaps kill thousands as opposed to finding another solution.  Perhaps someone should come up with a method for shooting down these model rockets.  Supposedly we have the technology to bring down intercontinental ballistic missiles and low level SCUD missiles, but all the technologies of the West can't stop home built toy rockets with contact fuses from reaching Tel Aviv.  Are you kidding me.

Israel is going into Gaza, and the rocket attacks will be halted or diminish for time, and then they of course will resume, sooner or later, we all know they will resume because there's no one in Gaza who feels invested enough to stop it.  In fact quite the opposite, many feel it is their only means of expression and gaining attention from the world community. Perhaps they're correct, perhaps not, but the reality of these rockets and what they represent is inescapable.

One day Hamas will have the capability of putting a tactical nuclear warhead on the end of one of those model rockets, so the only question becomes, what are we willing to do to stop that eventuality. We've got a few years to think about it, with the state of technology and how quickly it's progressing I'd say 20 at most.  So it's high time that the adults to solved this problem.  

We saw what happened when we put an infant in the White House, and don't any of you trolls tell me that the president of the United States, the most powerful man on earth, heading the most powerful government and military on earth can't do anything to put the Middle East on a road to peace. The only people who really believe that are those who still continue to support George W. Bush a traitor to the United States and a traitor to the all the peoples of the world. Such people are infants themselves and have no place in this conversation or at the table with adults.  Time for all of us to grow up and step up and DO THE RIGHT THING. We must do this because if we don't, what's coming will be far more horrible than anything we could possibly imagine.

roidubouloi writes:

Say, George, a lot of French civilians were killed by the Allies in driving the Nazis out of France. Certainly the Allies were not trying to kill French civilians; indeed it was the last thing they wanted to do. But there was no way to win the battle without doing so. You can be sure they tried to minimize civilian casualties consistent with achieving the military objective and so do the Israelis. In fact, Israel is a helluva a lot more careful about civilian deaths than any other nation at war, specifically including the United States. The Russians leveled Grozny with unrestrained artillery bombardment -- no targeted anything -- and it didn't provoke as much gnashing of teeth as the Israeli action in Gaza.

The answer to your question about "how many Palestinian civilians can justifiably be killed" is, No more than is necessary to put a stop to Hamas missile attacks on Israel. It is not perplexing George unless you choose to make it so.

George responds:

Show me a brutal and bloody war and I'll show you how the men who started it....and it is almost  ALWAYS men, eh?.... measure success by how much misery they inflict on others in proportion to how little they inflict on themselves. Especially when viewed from, say, the loftier perches of political power.

We didn't drop those atomic bombs in Japan as a preamble to the Cold War. No, we dropped them only in order to save the lives of American troops. Same with the fire bombing of Dresden. And someday, when all the truly righteous souls who chose to worship the only truly righteous God get to Heaven, the Lord Himself will confirm this once and for all. Maybe He will even have a DVD of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Emperor Hirohito writhing in agony in the deepest bowels in Hell.

Yes, yes, that is just psychologism, true; or, perhaps, a cliche? But I think we both know there isn't any metaphysical narrative of human nature we can grasp by way of debating the morality of the conflict playing out in Gaza right now. On the other hand, there certainly seem to be plently of metaphysical religious narratives to fill in the gap.

Thank God for that, right? Otherwise millions of people on both sides of the debate wouldn't have a clue as to how to interpret it.

george walton

On speaking "as a Jew":

"IJV wasn't about justice for Palestinians, it was about antisemitism. It was formed to reassure the British intelligentsia and the British left that hostility to Israel could have no knock-on effect against Jews in general. IJV’s purpose is to deny that there is a threat of contemporary antisemitism. Even though many Jews do feel that hatred of Israel may lead to hatred of Jews, IJV offers an explicitly Jewish denial, in the name of Jews. It offers a succession of high profile Jewish celebrities, political activists and academics who will testify, ‘as a Jew’, that left-wing or liberal hostility to Israel is, in every case you care to examine, free from racist menace. They may offer scholarly caveats in small-print, but the IJV message is clear: in any particular case where it is alleged that there is a threat of antisemitism, IJV finds anti-Zionists not-guilty. It is not surprising that some people take these self-styled Independent Jewish Voices seriously, and take them as representatives of ‘progressive’ Jews."

www.engageonline.org.uk/.../article.php

"Pakistan has nuclear weapons, Egypt probably has nuclear weapons already as well, and it's only a matter of time before the Iranians, Iraqis, the Sunni and Shi'ites will all one day certainly have nuclear weapons.  That is the reality we had all better face. "

Nuclear weapons are a real threat, I doubt though that Egypt has nuclear weapons.

The desire to nuke Israel is in keeping with the desire to send Jews to the ovens. Both are at this point fantasies, but they tell us a great deal both about the people who are attacking both Israel and Jews world wide and about those in West who either go along with it such as many people on the extreme left and right or those refuse to take such threats seriously.

First Peretz came for Yglesias, Ackerman and Klein. Then Peretz came for Judis.

It is long past time that Franklin Foer finally took full editorial control of this magazine and shoved this demented bigot out the door.

ndmackenzie "First Peretz came for Yglesias, Ackerman and Klein. Then Peretz came for Judis."

Mackensick is back.

Me thinks this ignorant ass would be happier posting elsewhere.

Noga, sleepy:

In general terms I would agree that the the kind of molecular anti-semitism currently roving the world is, especially in Europe, rooted in a configuration of guilt-resentment-dislike for having enabled the establishment of Israel for legitimate historical and ethical reasons and now being embarrassed because it acts like a sovereign state and not like the Romantic rolled-up-shirtsleeves political project that attracted so much affection in its first 20 years of pioneering existence.

[Those kibbutzim were so cool!  And kind of sexy.  Where'd that all go, eh?]

Britan is an odd case in this context, however, as they have some basis for not seeing themselves as part of the "Europe" that tolerated or cheered on the genocide in different tones from Belguim to Romania, and for regarding themselves as having contributed in a major way to the defeat and destruction of Nazism.  I get the impression that in the UK it's a kind of English (not necessarily Scottish or Welsh) dislike of Jews -- some clannish distaste that still runs in the cultural bloodstream..  But more importantly, I think the British left is unique in being able to draw its position from an anti-colonialist history -- despite the political and military conflicts in Palestine, it was in many ways Britain that enabled Israel in the final years of its imperial glory and the Palestinian case in the UK has often been put in terms of a last act of high-handed colonialism that the Brits are especially responsible for.  

To that extent, the Brit anti-Israel camp has an easier job because the truly anti-semitic elements are easier to disguise than in, say, France or Germany.  Again, oddly, up to the 1970s Israel was often seen as a kind of socialist country, and I recall positive stories of Israel among older Trotskyite lefities whom I met when I lived there for a couple of years.

Not sure where this is going -- in any case I'm off out to enjoy my last evening in New Orleans.  Guys, if you ever get a chance to try crawfish and chorizo cheesecake (yes, I know, the name is off-putting, like e.g. "garlic ice-cream," but it's really a sort of flan thing with a cheesecake-y texture), go for it!

Speaking of antisemitism in the "cultural bloodstream:"

Antisemitism in Spain:

“Spain’s ‘Jewish Problem’” by Soeren Kern

pajamasmedia.com/.../spains-jewish-problem

“But more importantly, I think the British left is unique in being able to draw its position from an anti-colonialist history -- despite the political and military conflicts in Palestine, it was in many ways Britain that enabled Israel in the final years of its imperial glory and the Palestinian case in the UK has often been put in terms of a last act of high-handed colonialism that the Brits are especially responsible for.”

This is ironic, isn’t it, since the British left in the main supported the Jewish State in its early years. The British establishment talked a good game but when it left Palestine in 1947-48 it actually supported the Arab cause. Many English officers and non commissioned officers volunteered to fight on the Arab side.

The head of the Arab League was a British officer.

The current stance against Israel among the left in Britain and elsewhere in Europe has less to do with anti-Imperialism, no matter what they say, but with a conscious decision to cast their lot with the millions of Arabs now in Europe, hoping thereby to gain power with their help.

The amount of anti-Israel, antisemitic hatred in Greece has always amazed me. Unlike, say Spain, very few Jews ever lived in Greece and hence the visceral hatred is astounding.

“Protests over Gaza turn violent in Athens”

The Associated Press

“ATHENS, Greece - A protest march at the Israeli embassy in Athens has turned violent as protesters throw stones and fire bombs at riot police, and they retaliate with tear gas and stun grenades.

An estimated 5,000 protesters marched from the city center to the Israeli embassy on Saturday demanding that Israel end its week-old bombardment of Gaza. Police cordoned off the embassy.

Most of the protesters were Palestinians but leftist organizations and union members also joined in. Outside the embassy, anarchist youths joined the fray, targeting Greek police rather than the embassy. An Israeli flag was burned by demonstrators.

The march to the embassy, located 3 miles (5 kilometers) from the city center, had passed without major incident. Some protesters threw stones at the U.S. embassy without causing damage.”

URL: www.msnbc.msn.com/.../28421149

ironyroad: I don't think I'll take you up on that recommendation. Perhaps you can suggest some beverage, an Orleannaise cocktail or something... Right now I'm sipping my most recent favourite; Lemoncello. Very lemony.

Two points:

I think many, if not most,  older Trotskyite lefities are Eustonites, and are still very much supporters of Israel, with caveats which I generally agree with, though not for the same reasons.

www.drinksoakedtrotsforwar.com  

transmontanus.blogspot.com    (If you don't know this guy, you should. You two share a few things, an Irish pride and a facility with words, to name but two )

_____

" I get the impression that in the UK it's a kind of English (not necessarily Scottish or Welsh) dislike of Jews -- some clannish distaste that still runs in the cultural bloodstream.."

I'm sad to hear my own impression confirmed by someone who is (plainly speaking) not Jewish. Shalom Lappin wrote a short history which corrects some myths that British Jews like to remember differently.

www.yale.edu/.../lappin_yiisa072.pdf

"Many English officers and non commissioned officers volunteered to fight on the Arab side. "

John Roy Carlson's 1951 work, Cairo to Damascus, is one eye-witness source for that:

Carlson's 1951 work, Cairo to Damascus, in which Carlson travels the Middle East during Israel's War of Independence

I think I forgot to add the link. Here it is:

www.solomonia.com/.../cairotodamascus.shtml

Marty, have you read this?

"Fatah officials in Ramallah told The Jerusalem Post that Hamas militiamen had been assaulting many Fatah activists since the beginning of the operation last Saturday. They said at least 75 activists were shot in the legs while others had their hands broken.

Wisam Abu Jalhoum, a Fatah activist from the Jabalya refugee camp, was shot in the legs by Hamas militiamen for allegedly expressing joy over the IDF air strikes on Hamas targets.

"Hamas is very nervous, because they feel that their end is nearing," a senior Fatah official said. "They have been waging a brutal campaign against Fatah members in the Gaza Strip."

Meanwhile, sources close to Hamas revealed over the weekend that the movement had "executed" more than 35 Palestinians who were suspected of collaborating with Israel and were being held in various Hamas security installations."

www.jpost.com/.../Satellite

Have no fear: the more brutally the Hamas act against their own people, the more the usual bathetic mitigations  for the desperation of an oppressed people  will be flowing their way, by the auctioneers of self-pity.

Just out of curiosity, how do ecclesiastics of the Jewish faith view those who do not worship the Jewish God?

What are the practical consequences of dying [from their perspective] if you die as a Christian or a Muslim?

Is the Jewish God omniscient? If so, how then do ecclesiastics reconcile this with human autonomy? If the Jewish God is everywhere, knows everything and has the power to change anything at any time, how then could it possibly matter what happens in, say, the Gaza Strip right now....given that everything and anything can only be an inherent manifestation of God? Including the words we exchange.

And in the Hebrew Bible [known as the Old Testament to Christians] Jews are seen as God's "chosen people". If that is so, does that mean that Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Shintos etc. are....are what [in relation to God]?

Also, the Amish in America see themselves as a religious order separate from all others....they interact only within the boundaries of their own community. How do you imagine the Jewish God will judge them....with the Salvation of their very souls on the line?

In other words, how important is it that Jews strictly follow the tenets of the ecclesiastics in the synagogues? How can you know with any degree of certainty how to and how not to behave?

george walton

George this isn't a thread about theology.

Jackson, you are right, but allow me to indulge myself for a little bit.

George -- Whereas Christians focus on being saved so that they can enter heaven, Jewish focus is put in this world, this life. Afterlife in Judaism and its meaning for non-Jews is really not a concern of Jewish theology.

There IS a belief in Orthodox and Conservative Judaism that a messiah descended from David at some point will appear and bring the World to Come, a messianic age of sorts. (Some Reform Jews also believe in a messianic age.) The World to Come has a place not just for Jews, but for non-Jews as well. In fact, any human being is assured a place in the World to Come as long as they follow the Seven Laws of Noah. (These are: prohibitions of murder, idolatry, theft, adultery, blasphemy, cruelty to animals, and the establishment of a just and fair legal system.)

jacksondyer writes:

George this isn't a thread about theology.

George responds:

This is just a guess, but I suspect that if you were confident enough to answer my questions, it would be.

george walton

rozenson writes:

Jackson, you are right, but allow me to indulge myself for a little bit.

George -- Whereas Christians focus on being saved so that they can enter heaven, Jewish focus is put in this world, this life. Afterlife in Judaism and its meaning for non-Jews is really not a concern of Jewish theology.

There IS a belief in Orthodox and Conservative Judaism that a messiah descended from David at some point will appear and bring the World to Come, a messianic age of sorts. (Some Reform Jews also believe in a messianic age.) The World to Come has a place not just for Jews, but for non-Jews as well. In fact, any human being is assured a place in the World to Come as long as they follow the Seven Laws of Noah. (These are: prohibitions of murder, idolatry, theft, adultery, blasphemy, cruelty to animals, and the establishment of a just and fair legal system.)

George responds:

You would have fit in quite comfortably with pre socratics like Gorgis, Hippias, Thrasymachus and Protagoras.

Only their own sophistry would have been considerably more self-conscious.

My queries are being dodged not addressed. Or maybe I am being unfair. In any event, I genuinely appreciate and respect your attempt to explain it to the best of your ability.

Or perhaps you are not privy to the wisdom of those ecclesiastics who spend all their days pondering and then rationalizing questions like mine. And I do not mean that perjoratively.

But when you think about it, far, far too much is at stake for any serious religious apologists not to speak clearly regarding what any man or woman should believe is the necessary path to Salvation. And in so addressing these spiritual parameters, he must also be familiar with the strictures embedded in Scripture that direct believers to the fate of those who shum the true path. I was just curious how ecclesiastic Jews overlap or differentiate from the postulations of many evangelical Christians in America who condemn to Hell all those who are not born again.

It also seems extraordinary that Jewish theologists would find the fate of those who worship different Gods [or no God] of little concern. In fact, that point of view [to me] seems more congruous with the cafeteria style ecumenical ministries who bascially embrace the idea that all Gods are interchangable in the end.

As for the prohibitions engrained in the seven laws of Noah, I will just presume that, as in all other religions, the actual instantiation [and judgments] of murder, idolatry, theft, adultery, blasphemy, cruelty to animals, and the establishment of a just and fair legal system are open to broad exceptions that are flexable in the extreme.

But there is one point you did not touch on that enthralls me most of all. And that is the relationship between an omniscient God and human autonomy. To defend and embrace both is profoundly contradictory to me. If God knows all [and he must in order to be omnipotent] then history plays out as the best of all possible worlds because it is the only possible world. And once you grasp the ontological and the teleological consequence of that you are left with acknowledging that anything we exchange here about the conflict in Gaza is no more freely done than are the choices made by Hamas and the Israeli fighters in doing battle right now.

Even Rabbi Kushner grasped the terrible consequence of a loving, just and merciful Creator who watches over the folly of human strife and yet is helpless to intervence because He set in motion a Creation He is no longer able to control. But if this is so He is still a God to be loved and worshipped. Why? Because what we do to each other breaks His heart in ways mere mortals cannot even begin to grapple with. And it seems that those who grasp this would do everything in their power to lessen the suffering that human conflict causes God to bear.

george walton

You're asking the wrong guy. I'm an agnostic.

Here's what a weak Israeli government gets us with their airstrikes.  Yet another generation of Palestinians who are all to willing to crawl over the bodies of their dead children just so they can kill a few more Israelis.

Bodies of Hamas leader's children paraded as group promises 'painful' revenge for their deaths

www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Bodies-Hamas-leaders-children-paraded-group-promises-painful-revenge-deaths.html

The day after the war

gaza-sderot.blogspot.com

[That evening I returned home. My wife and kids remained in the north and are there until this very moment.

The past 6 days have been extremely troubling. Israel has been continuously bombing Gaza. The sounds of the attacks can be clearly heard in Sderot. For the first 2 days only very few rockets were launched from Gaza towards Israel and then the counter attack came. The whole southern part of Israel covering areas with several large cities (Ashkelon, Beer Sheva, Ashdod) have been targeted. Between 60 and 100 rockets a day have been fired from Gaza. In these attacks 4 people have been killed dozens wounded and thousands of people that previously had not been regarded in the range of the rockets are in shock.In Gaza over 400 people have been killed and thousands wounded. The air force and navy have been targeting hundreds of targets.]

[The war was a great mistake, however it is no wonder that so many people in Israel support it.

The ongoing reality of rockets falling in Sderot and other places for 8 years is a terrible reality. Many people of our region have left it for good over the years. Bringing up children in such a reality seems almost abusive and certainly irresponsible.

There is a feeling in most of the Israeli society, that there was no choice but to attack Gaza and stop the rockets once and for all. This is an expected human reaction to the on going situation.

With that said, I personally think it is a terrible mistake that could have been avoided. For 5 months there was an almost complete cease fire. Instead of taking advantage of this long period of quiet to reach a long term agreement, both sides spent their time preparing for this war by planning and arming. No serious efforts were made to start a dialog. The siege by Isreal continued and the smuggling of arms by the Hamas continued. It was a cease fire but only to prepare for the next terrible round which we are experiencing this very moment.]

[What me and others are doing is continuing the dialog with friends in Gaza. We are working to widen and deepen this dialog with more people on both sides. The day after the war we want to start finding ways to work together and create a normality. We are only several kilometers apart and that will never change. It is extremely important to widen our dialog and create trust between those that are willing to talk. To share our stories, fears and hopes. The day after the war we need a new beginning. Let's start planting seeds of humanity and trust now. ]

Propaganda war: trusting what we see?

news.bbc.co.uk/.../7809371.stm

Here is something that I have a feeling is just the kind of stuff George will like:

"Would it not be that after the Shoah you [ Israeli Jews ], the descendents of European assimilated Jews, allied yourselves with the exterminators in a dark pact dictated by terror and have all become, in a manner of speaking, Judeo-Christians? Because let’s be honest, the Third Reich has prolonged itself in the form of the Fourth Reich of the American Empire.  It’s obvious that they’d prefer to ignore it because the state of Israel serves - as we Latin-American Jews know - the Christian-Imperial power of the United States. Or are we supposed to believe that the United States and European fought the Nazis to save the Jews? [ … ] Aren’t they [Jewish Israelis] at all affected by acting as the merciless armed wing of powerful Christian capitalists, against a besieged and murdered (sic) people which has dared to defend itself against the limitless expropriation of territory that should be shared?""

blog.z-word.com/.../gaza-crisis-an-original-interpretation

"This is just a guess, but I suspect that if you were confident enough to answer my questions, it would be."  george walton

Taunt away, I am not biting.

This isn't the and now is not the time to discuss sophmoric religious issues.

Try some religious blog.

AaronBBrown, dialogue is a good thing, however, it can't the place of self defense.

Of course, Hamas will indoctrinate the next generation of Gazans to hate Israel. However, they don't need the war in order to so. This has been an ongoing project of theirs since at least the 80's and their parent organization The Muslim Brotherhood, has been doing it since the 1920's.

As for the claims of the BBBC they are laughable. They have been and are in the forefront of disseminationg pro Arab propaganda.

An internal BBC report found a few years back that the news organization was biased and antisemitic.

For all you diologists, there is hope yet:

"WATCH: Amid Gaza violence, Israeli and Palestinian doctors save baby's life "

www.haaretz.com/.../1052566.html

"As rockets rained down in Israel and Gaza, doctors from both sides united in a successful bid to keep a two-week-old Palestinian baby boy alive."

Interesting stuff:

"The media war"

www.hurryupharry.org/.../the-media-war

George Walton writes:

"It also seems extraordinary that Jewish theologists would find the fate of those who worship different Gods [or no God] of little concern. In fact, that point of view [to me] seems more congruous with the cafeteria style ecumenical ministries who basically embrace the idea that all Gods are interchangeable in the end."

It is extraordinary, isn't it, George?  But that's because you spend so much time in the company of religious bigots and zealots who imagine that they have the One True Faith ergo everyone else is wrong.  There are no doubt some strains of thought in the history of Judaism of similar ilk, but they are insignificant.

The Jewish view about the relationship to other faiths, to the extent that it is considered at all, is that Judaism is A Way offered by God to all people who choose it.  It is also the Jewish view that the Jews were the first in history to whom it was offered (hence Chosen) and that they chose, freely, to accept it.  This is their covenant with God.  The view of "proselytizing" sects such as the Lubavitcher Chasidim is that all Jews, by virtue of the original covenant with God, have a responsibility to observe Jewish law.  They do not believe that non-Jews have such an obligation and they do not address themselves to non-Jews; they proselytize Jews who are non-observant to return to an observant way of life.  (I myself am barely observant, but I don't mind them asking so long as they are not too aggressive about it.  I have no difficulty seeing them as part of my own community and appreciate that they see me the same way even if they think I am a slacker.)    

Jews do not believe that God is not free to talk to others in a different way, and I think you would find very, very few Jews who believe that "Righteous Gentiles" will be be punished by God because they are not Jewish.  They, after all, are also part of God's creation.  This is not at all, however, what you describe as "cafeteria-style" religion.  Because Jews do not believe that God speaks only to them does not imply that they believe that anything anyone believes to be revelation therefore is.  But they have a certain circumspection about advising other people that their way is not authentic, both as a matter of prudence and out of respect for the limits of their own knowledge.  As you are a Christian, this sort of intellectual and religious modesty is also alien to you.

George also writes:

"How do you imagine the Jewish God will judge them [non-Jews]....with the Salvation of their very souls on the line?"

As difficult as it may be for you to believe, George, even the very concept of Salvation that you take for granted in your question is alien to Judaism.  It is not a Jewish belief that we are here on earth in order to earn our way into heaven.  We are here on earth to participate in God's creation and to "redeem" it as a whole, not specifically ourselves, by our righteous acts.  Life is an opportunity that we, as thinking beings with an ethical capability, are offered to participate in God's creation.  The point is not to save yourself, but to share in God's gift.  Admittedly, this last interpretation owes more to a certain strain of Hasidic thought, but the fact is that personal Salvation of the sort with which you are familiar is simply not much discussed or thought about Judaism.  It is a largely alien idea.  Life itself, not some after-life, is considered to be the most magnificent gift from God, to be enjoyed and lived well and righteously because it is a gift from God.  There is nothing that resembles the Christian preoccupation with after-life and its implications.

Jews believe that God loves all of his Creation and that He loves righteous behavior.  That does not by any means exclude non-Jews who have just as much opportunity as Jews to behave righteously, or not.  This must indeed be a perplexing idea for one steeped in Christian thought.  As for what constitutes righteous behavior, a non-Jew came to the great Torah sage Hillel and wanted him to explain all of Judaism as he stood on one foot. The answer from Hillel: "What is hateful to you do not do to others. The rest is commentary. Go and learn."

Because we supposedly share a "Judaeo-Christian tradition," I imagine you assume that Judaism is sort of like another flavor of Christianity in its theological and intellectual structure, about the way the Methodists differ from the Presbyterians.  But it isn't.  While the ethics may be held in common, the framework is quite different which is why Jews do not have anything like the view of non-Jews that you seem to expect.  We do not imagine ourselves to be the judges of the whole world, although we, as ethical human beings, are obliged to have opinions and certainly do.  But we are responsible for ourselves.  The judge of the whole world is the Almighty and it would be blasphemous to pretend to his throne.

Now I would expect Jews far more knowledgeable than I to take issue with everything I have just said.  That is part of Judaism too, an endless debate over everything.  We expect it (see, e.g., TNR).  

rozenson writes:

You're asking the wrong guy. I'm an agnostic.

George responds:

Yes, on most days I am too. On other days, however, when the headlines scream of religious jihads [and all denominations have their own rendition of that] I become more clearly convinced that:

1] A God said to be loving, just and merciful is just a psychological defense mechanism

2] A God said to be loving, just and merciful exists but is not omnipotent [Kushner's God]

3] A god said to be loving, just and merciful does not exist....but a God that is one mean and sadistic son of a bitch does

Indeed, I often wonder if the New Testament was invented precisely because some folks back then read the Old Testament with its pogroms and mass extinctions and great floods and decided to make God a bit more lovable than the fire and brimstone rendition before. The addition of Jesus perhaps was merely a way in which to embody the new and improved version.

george walton

Fortunately, we need not to decide the nature of God in order to determine that Israel in Gaza is defending itself from perpetual rocket attacks by Hamas.

I should have written, "Fortunately, we need not decide  the nature of God .  .  . "

"Jews do not believe that God is not free to talk to others in a different way, and I think you would find very, very few Jews who believe that "Righteous Gentiles" will be be punished by God because they are not Jewish."

I am surprised you got into a discussion about Judaism with someone who knows very little about that faith.

In any case, for Jews there is such a thing as the noahic covenant which antedates the law given at Mt. Sinai. It even antedates that Abrahamtic covenant.

It enjoins all mankind to follow a small number of precepts, such not to murder and if these are observed than they will be viewed with favor by god.

This covenant is valid for all mankind without exception. Jews are given the additional obligation to follow some 500 plus commandments given on Mt. Sinai. To be chosen means to follow these commandments it has no other meaning.

Most modern Jews, such as myself,  do not follow all or most of the commandments and from a strictly Orthodox point of view are lapsed Jews.

In any case, this is no more relevant to a discussion about self defense than would be a discussion about Christianity after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

George, who seems to miss his sophomore college days,  has nothing better to do than engage in irrelevancies.

Well, jackson,

It seemed to me that, precisely because Mr. Walton does not know a lot about Judaism, it was worth pointing out a few things, particularly about his incorrect assumption that Jewish attitudes towards other faiths mirror their attitudes towards Jews and others.  As well, I imagine there are other readers whose direct knowledge of Judaism is similar to his.  I think it unhealthy that such assumptions go without a response.  They allow those who don't know better to assume that the Israeli Jews and the Arab Moslems are little more than mirror images of each other vying for religious supremacy, and this is not so.

It is certainly open to anyone to follow the Noahic precepts although we moderns may get into trouble with someone's notion of blasphemy.

A small point:  I don't think it proper to describe non-observant Jews as "lapsed" in the manner of lapsed Catholics.  For Christianity, faith in certain essential dogmas is the core criterion for membership.  Not so for Judaism.  A self-identified Catholic who does not believe that Jesus was the "only begotten Son of God," was crucified and died "for the sins of humankind," and rose from the dead on the third day to walk upon the earth, thence to ascend to heaven to rejoin the godhead, would have difficulty persuading observant Catholics that he or she is still a Christian, let alone a Catholic.  I would have a hard time persuading the Lubavitchers (they always know who I am when I pass them on the street) that I am in any sense "not a Jew" no matter how I spend Yom Kippur.  Similarly regarding the Law of Return.  My Yiddishe mama makes it so.

roidubouloi said:

Fortunately, we need not to decide the nature of God in order to determine that Israel in Gaza is defending itself from perpetual rocket attacks by Hamas.

George responds:

That's exactly how it works, doesn't it? God can be whatever you want him to be. And you can use Him to defend and justify whatever you've done, are doing now, or ever will do. Just as others can use Him to condemn whatever you've done are doing now or ever will do.

So, in the Summer of 2006, God wanted the war in Lebanon to be perceived in Israel as a, uh, tie?

a defeat?

Hmm...

What lesson do you suppose Israelis were meant to learn from that?

Well, they sure learned it, right? Because now in the Winter of 08/09, it is beginning to look more and more like a massacre in Gaza. Let the Muslims learn the lesson this time.

But they never do, right? They just don't seem to get it. They worship and adore the wrong fucking God!!

And even though some of the the men and women holding down the highest positions in the American government also worship and adore the wrong God, the Hebrew God has....what?....duped them into supplying the Israelis with tons and tons of military aid each year?

But talk about duped.....

Below is an article from the web site Jewish Voice For Peace. These guys [and I ain't making this up] actually believe that the right God is one that wants Israelis and Palestinians to live together in peace.

Brace yourself, okay? These guys have got to be the mother of all wackos.

george walton

"Peace, U.S. Military Aid and Israel

"Why we urge the U.S. government to suspend military aid to Israel until it ends its 37-year occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem.

"U.S. military aid to Israel has a dramatic effect on Israel's policies towards the Palestinians. It has increasingly been used not to pay for defense but to finance the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. It keeps Israel from facing the difficult but necessary challenges of building a more democratic society, and encourages solving deep-rooted problems by military rather than peaceful and more effective means.

"The U.S. funding that pays for the guns and ammunition, F-16 bombers, and Apache helicopters that are used to carry out Israel's occupation of Palestinian land and people serves neither Israelis, Palestinians, nor Americans.

"In short, Israel cannot build a society based on the principles of democracy, human rights, and compliance with international law while brutally occupying another people and their land. The United States is currently paying for that occupation with its annual aid. That's why Jewish Voice for Peace urges the U.S. government to suspend military aid to Israel until Israel ends its 37-year occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem."

I don't think God has anything to do with this, George, one way or the other.  Nor do I think the opinions of others about what God thinks or should think or would think depending on what sort of god God is has anything to do with it.

Surely, George, you do not believe along with the article you quote that it is Israel's occupation that is the cause of Palestinian violence rather than Palestinian (and before that Arab) violence that is the cause of Israel's occupation?  ndmackenzie believes that, until Israel withdraws to the lines that he believes are appropriate, the Palestinians can justly engage in any violence against Israel that they want.  That is contrary to international law and morality. but apparently his God, the god of Lenin and Goebbels, countenances such.

Time for you to educate yourself, George.  The lines prior to the Six Day War were not borders; they were the 1948 Armistice Lines and explicitly were never intended to be permanent borders because, as the UN representatives who negotiated the armistice have said, they are merely the lines where the respective armies stood on a particular date in 1948.  The Arabs made sure that there were no Jews left in any part of the territory they controlled upon that day.  If Israel had done the same, there would be no Arabs living in Israel today.  There is not the slightest reason why those 1948 lines are or should be regarded as sacrosanct except that they serve the rhetorical purposes of the über-hypocrites who hate Israel and want to see it destroyed.

Israel gave the Palestinians a chance to demonstrate that occupation was the cause of the violence, and not the other way around, by withdrawing from Gaza and southern Lebanon.  The Arabs took that opportunity not to demonstrate that they want to build their own societies rather than destroy Israel but to prepare for more war and continue to make war -- and they are not even shy about it.  They proclaim for all the world that this is exactly what they intend to do.  There is no longer any argument to be made the occupation is causing the violence.  None.  If the violence ends, the occupation will cease to be harsh and will soon enough come to an end, although the borders will not be those as will satisfy the Israel-haters like mackenzie.  It is simple.  It really is.

By the way, George, Jews, unlike others, don't generally use God as a device to justify whatever they want to do.  They take responsibility for what they are doing.  The Jewish nuts who declare that this, that, or the other thing is the will of God are, thankfully, a tiny minority.

"transmontanus.blogspot.com    (If you don't know this guy, you should. You two share a few things, an Irish pride and a facility with words, to name but two )"

Noga, great blog -- thanks for the link!  He's funnier than I could ever manage, though.

roid writes:

I don't think God has anything to do with this, George, one way or the other. Nor do I think the opinions of others about what God thinks or should think or would think depending on what sort of god God is has anything to do with it.

George responds:

If, as the overwhelming majority of religionists passionaitely believe, God is omniscient and omnipresent and omnipotent how could He NOT have something to do with, well, EVERYTHING? Indeed, the part that boggles my mind is how religionists can peruse the bloodbath that is human history and in turn....without a shred of inflected irony....call natural disasters "acts of God"!!!

And the opinions others have about God have everything to do with the entire history of the Middle East for the past 2000+ years. It only becomes more labyrinthian when trying to unmask politicians and ecclesiastics who won't admit they use religion as a tool merely to further their own short term interests. The political montebanks in particular have been sending the flocks of sheep to the slaughterhouses century after century. The most intriguing question therefore is trying to figure out who has more blood on their hands, the true religious fanatics or the politically expedient fakers. In the 20th century, of course, it was the secular ideologues. But the fear now [for some] is that the relgious nutjobs will come out of the woodwork again and take advantage of any catalyismic economic upheaval.

Roid writes:

Surely, George, you do not believe along with the article you quote that it is Israel's occupation that is the cause of Palestinian violence rather than Palestinian (and before that Arab) violence that is the cause of Israel's occupation? ndmackenzie believes that, until Israel withdraws to the lines that he believes are appropriate, the Palestinians can justly engage in any violence against Israel that they want. That is contrary to international law and morality. but apparently his God, the god of Lenin and Goebbels, countenances such.

George responds:

Well, I do think folks like this are a double bogey short of a hole in one. Some [maybe] 299 pins short of a perfect game. But this sort of rabid reductionism is applicable to so many people who think they can untangle the mountainous accummulation of rhetorical knots that IS the history of the Middle East. In my view, it is less about whether the chicken or the egg comes first and more about people who are willing to kill or be killed to defend one rendition rather than the other. And, again, all those charlatons [from a zillion sides] intent only on grabbing as many chickens and eggs as they can before someone figures out how to do it better.

Roid writes:

Time for you to educate yourself, George. The lines prior to the Six Day War were not borders; they were the 1948 Armistice Lines and explicitly were never intended to be permanent borders because, as the UN representatives who negotiated the armistice have said, they are merely the lines where the respective armies stood on a particular date in 1948. The Arabs made sure that there were no Jews left in any part of the territory they controlled upon that day. If Israel had done the same, there would be no Arabs living in Israel today. There is not the slightest reason why those 1948 lines are or should be regarded as sacrosanct except that they serve the rhetorical purposes of the über-hypocrites who hate Israel and want to see it destroyed.

Israel gave the Palestinians a chance to demonstrate that occupation was the cause of the violence, and not the other way around, by withdrawing from Gaza and southern Lebanon. The Arabs took that opportunity not to demonstrate that they want to build their own societies rather than destroy Israel but to prepare for more war and continue to make war -- and they are not even shy about it. They proclaim for all the world that this is exactly what they intend to do. There is no longer any argument to be made the occupation is causing the violence. None. If the violence ends, the occupation will cease to be harsh and will soon enough come to an end, although the borders will not be those as will satisfy the Israel-haters like mackenzie. It is simple. It really is.

George responds:

Oh, come on, Roid. Are you actually trying to convince me [or, perhaps, yourself?] that narratives revolving around social, political, economic and religous boundaries are as decipherable to historians [or eccleiastics!! or politicians!!] as the laws of nature are to chemists or physicists? Well, maybe regarding quantum mechanics, it might be. After all, down there things really are true or false depending on the spontaneous real-time relationship between the viewer and the view. Maybe we should hire some string theorists to superimpose the Heisenburg uncertainty principle on the fighting in Gaza.

Hey, but who am I kidding, right? I do the same damn thing.  

Still, you and I both know that you can take the arguments I broach and find very intelligent men and women knowledgable about the Middle East who will debunk these relationships and sequences, just as I can take your arguments and find very intelligent and men and women knowledgable about the Middle East who will debunk your relationships and sequences.

Thus the only realistic approach is to have both sides acknowledge how immensely [i.e. hopelessly] complex all these constantly shifting and changing historical, cultural, political, social, economic, geopolitical, and religious relationships and sequences are. And then....

.....and then I for one will gladly admit there is not a snowball's chance in hell of this ever happening. At least not in my lifetime.

Hell, all one has to imagine is just how different the Middle East would be today if there was absolutely no oil there at all.

george walton

And while we wait for everyone to have the epiphanies that you, George, believe are necessary for any resolution of anything in the Middle East, Israel will continue to defend itself as necessary.  I hope her tactics will be devastatingly effective.

A narrative that says, "We intend to destroy you and will fight to the last drop of our blood to do so" isn't really all that complex.  I think I understand what it means.  Nor does one have to understand "shifting and changing historical, cultural, political, social, economic, geopolitical, and religious relationships and sequences" to understand what to do when the narrator, however weak, acts violently to try and realize the stated objective.  You just have to know how to use your armed forces effectively.

roidubouloi writes:

And while we wait for everyone to have the epiphanies that you, George, believe are necessary for any resolution of anything in the Middle East, Israel will continue to defend itself as necessary. I hope her tactics will be devastatingly effective.

george responds:

Epiphanies are fewer and farther between these days. After all, how many different ways can the really big playersy move the really big pieces on the board.

On the other hand, if you own the board you can call damn well anything you do an epiphany. Even perhaps a miracle.

And, of course, you can call it moral and just too. It's "the right thing to do" because no one can stop you from doing it.

Alas, you have all that but you're still not content until you obliterate even the pawns on the board. Even the children of the pawns if the trajectory of the cconflict is tweaked by the fog of war.

And Israel isn't defending itself so much as setting up the pieces on the next board so that the politicians and the political parties and the arms manufaturers can profit all the more at the next checkmate.

The Bush/Cheneys of this world have taught you well. Even now they still call Iraq a great victory for democracy.

george walton

"On the other hand, if you own the board you can call damn well anything you do an epiphany."

Is this another way of saying what you did some time ago, that "you Jews run the world" or something like that?  If you can't rebutt  the argument, the next best thing is to ventilate by resorting to  time-honoured cabals.

Israel's legitimate actions can only be seen as such  not because they make sense and are indeed legitimate and moral legible, but because the clever Jews make them appear so, due to their mysterious domination over the minds of people.

I wonder how george manages to withstand Svengali's chimeras? What's his secret?

Well, George, you have achieved a first -- lumping me in with Bush and Cheney.  If that's the best you can do, I take it you are plumb out of anything to say and are just babbling.

If anyone ever comes to kill you and your family, I am sure you will sit them down for a preliminary discussion of the meta-ethics of the situation lest there be any confusion about what is occurring and its place in the scheme of history, religion, whatever.   I wouldn't, and wouldn't urge anyone else to do so, but feel free.

roidubouloi writes

:

A narrative that says, "We intend to destroy you and will fight to the last drop of our blood to do so" isn't really all that complex. I think I understand what it means. Nor does one have to understand "shifting and changing historical, cultural, political, social, economic, geopolitical, and religious relationships and sequences" to understand what to do when the narrator, however weak, acts violently to try and realize the stated objective. You just have to know how to use your armed forces effectively.

George responds:

You know what this rationalization reminds me of? It reminds me of the self serving hypocrisy  neoconservatives [and supporters of Israel in the US] used when they shifted gears on Iran after the election of Ahmadinejad. Before Ahmadiniejad, his predecessor, Mohhammad Khatami was much more moderate and reform minded. So, whenever this was pointed out to the warmongers, they would insist that Khatami was just a figurehead [like the Queen of England], not the real power in Iran; the Ayatollahs were. But then when the conservative Ahmadinejad won the presidency suddenly the warmongers kept insisting that we must listen only to his inflammatory rhetoric. It was as though the Ayatollahs had completely disappeared.

This, of course, is how the mind of a secular ideologue and a fanatic religionist works. They interpret world events such that they see only what they already know and refuse to probe deeply in order to accummulate more knowledge to clarify what they see.

george walton

noga1 writes:

"On the other hand, if you own the board you can call damn well anything you do an epiphany."

Is this another way of saying what you did some time ago, that "you Jews run the world" or something like that? If you can't rebutt the argument, the next best thing is to ventilate by resorting to time-honoured cabals.

Israel's legitimate actions can only be seen as such not because they make sense and are indeed legitimate and moral legible, but because the clever Jews make them appear so, due to their mysterious domination over the minds of people.

I wonder how george manages to withstand Svengali's chimeras? What's his secret?

George responds:

Site the post where I stated outright [or even insinuated] that "Jews run the world". I may have stated something to that effect ironically, but never literally. I am not a racist, nor do I harbor any prejudice against those who embrace a religion, an ideology, an ethnicity, a political party etc. different vthan my own.

Instead, in reacting to folks like that I take exception only when it appears to me they are using their own value judgments to forcibly proselytize others....or when they use their value judgments to exploit, do actual physical harm to or wage war in order to subjugate others.

And please expresss in some detail the manner in which you hold in esteem [or in contempt] Palestinians, Muslims, atheists or those who insist that Palestinian grievances, while not necessarily the most rational narrative about the conflict in Gaza, are not inherently irrational either.

george walton

Here is video narrative of the conflict which is historically factual:

www.terrorismawareness.org/what-really-happened

"Site the post . . . "

Sorry to be a persnickety comp prof type, but it's "Cite the post . . ."  From "citation."

"Site the post . . . "

george: I didn't think you would stoop to denying your own words. You take such pride in your honesty. And I'm not going to sift through your hundreds of ponderous comments here to find the post.  I'm sure you remember it, since,  as I recall, you went to a great deal of trouble and words to try to prove that the words did not really mean what they said.

Of course, no one admits to being an antisemite. But that rather depends on one's definition of antisemitism.

I'm reading this, in Alan Furst's novel "Kingdom of Shadows":

"The last week, in May, the Hungarian parliament had passed a law restricting Jewish employment in private companies to twenty percent of the workforce.

"Shameful," Morath said "But the government had to do something, something symbolic, or the Hungarian Nazis would have staged a coup d'etat"

Balki read further. "Who is count Betlen?"

"A conservative. Against the radical right." Morath didn't mention Bethlen's well-known definition of the anti-Semite as "one who detests Jews more than necessary."

Blackton wrote: "That is nonsense. For one you make Zionism sound negative, when Zionism is simply Jewish people living in their ancestral homeland and having a country, it is not unique, Ireland is for the Irish, France is for the French, etc."

I say: You misunderstand me. I did not intend to make Zionism sound negative. I use it to describe those people who believe that the Jewish state is a legitimate national entity (as opposed to anti-Zionists, who think it is a criminal enterprise.)

Blackton wrote: "What, are you saying Jews who support Israel should now forget working with Liberals to provide health insurance to the millions who do not have it out of your sense of pique?"

I say: I think that the existential question of whether you hate me and mine (i.e. Jews) precedes all other political questions. I will not make common cause with anyone who hates me and mine.. Health insurance doesn't rate nearly as high as this. And it's not pique. It's a sense of self-preservation.

Blacton wrote: "Moreover, I think your rhetoric only alienates. "tight friendship with an unrepentent terrorist" is just rank stupidity. I lived in China for 7 years, I knew many Communists, was even friends with some of them to a far greater extent than Obama was with Ayers, am I now perpetually suspect as well?"

I say: Did your communist friends in China participate in random murders or attempted random murders to foment a social revolution? If so, they are no better than Ayers, and you are no better than Obama.

"(as opposed to anti-Zionists, who think it is a criminal enterprise.)"

That would depend on which "anti-Zionists" you have in mind. There were, historically, anti-Zionists who never harboured any ill-will towards the Hebrew state. They just thought they could be just as comfortable being Diaspora Jews.

Hannah Arendt was a ZIonist at one point in her life and then she became non-Zionist later on. She understood herself very well. I think it is quite befitting to quote this from a famous interview with Gunter Gaus on German TV, 1964:

"..one pays dearly for freedom. The specifically Jewish humanity signified by [Jewish] worldlessness was something very beautiful... it was something very beautiful , this sundering aside of all social connections, the complete open-mindedness and absence of prejudice that I experienced... Of course a great deal was lost with the passing of all that. One pays for liberation. I once said in my Lessing speech. . .

Gaus: Hamburg in 1959 . . .

Arendt: Yes, there I said that "this humanity... has never yet survived the hour of liberation, of freedom, by so much as minute" You see, that has also happened to us.

Gaus: You wouldn't like to undo it?

Arendt: No. I know that one has to pay a price for freedom. But I cannot say that I like to pay."

George, I do believe you don't even understand what constitutes ideology.  When someone says they intend to kill you, illegally accumulates weapons for that purpose, and then starts firing them at you, what sort of ideology do you fantasize is necessary in order to conclude that you should defend yourself? And that reminds you of the neo-conservative line on Iran?  Is there a thought process there that can be communicated to other sentient beings, or do you just make this stuff up on the fly?

You do nothing but attempt to mystify and confuse.  I am not sure whether this reflects genuine confusion on your part or has some purpose.

You say you think Israel has the right to defend itself; you say that you only question whether the tactics are excessive for that purpose; you fail to offer a single alternative that you believe would achieve the objective of stopping rocket attacks at a lower cost; despite your own inability to offer an alternative, you conclude that the Isreali response to Hamas is all about electoral politics, a fanciful military-industrial complex, or a failure to appreciate your own deep view about the place of religion in the modern world.

That's just not coherent, George.

  roidubouloi, I am really surprised that you are spending so much of your valuable  time debating this cynical post modernist skeptic. His views which are an amalgamation of ignorant pronouncement weighed down by clichés border on the incoherent.

Take away the cliché’s and there is nothing there.

You can't wrestle in the mud without being spattered all over with the same muck.  

Noga says: "There were, historically, anti-Zionists who never harboured any ill-will towards the Hebrew state. They just thought they could be just as comfortable being Diaspora Jews."

This is the definition I grew up with, and as a teen perfectly happy living in the diaspora, I can remember puzzling over this non-dilemma. But in postmodern times, the question of whether a Zionist can live in the diaspora is moot. The question becomes can Israel survive?

jackson, leave the cretin alone. iambiguous/george walton is an idiot. Even trading shouts with ndmackenzie is more interesting, That guy is at least interesting - in the way a Nazi who would murder you, (as I have no doubt ndmackenzie would to a good many Jews) is. He's vicious and evil, but not stupid. iambiguos/george walton is so feeble-minded it's not even funny.

jackson,

As with all such debates, Mr. Walton is not really the intended audience.  We don't know who reads these things.  For those who follow the security affairs of Israel closely, I don't think any commentary on Mr. Walton's oeuvre is necessary; they get it without need of any.  But for those who don't pay close attention, I think there is the potential for his posts to create confusion.  That should be avoided to the extent possible.  I consider it a public service.  Similarly with regard to ndmackenzie.  The knowledgeable, know his stuff is risible.  Not everyone is that knowledgeable.

dkrieger,

This goes back to the historical debate over whether a Jew could be a Zionist and not make aliyah.  In my opinion, yes, and that is the more modern position.  But there was a period where that view was in the minority or at least was not the prevailing view.  I had to reprise that debate with someone here a few months ago, but I cannot remember who it was.

roidubouloi --

Yes, well I see this debate as meaningless now. All Jews (and non-Jews), whether in Israel or the diaspora, who regard Israel's continued existence <i>as a Jewish state</i> favorably, indeed, passionately, qualify as Zionists. All those opposed, whether Jews in israel or Jews in the diaspora, or Arabs in Gaza, or skin-heads in Amsterdam, are anti-Zionists. No further parcing is necessary.

I believe we need to reclaim Zionism as a respectable movement. Since the UN's notorious "Zionism is Racism" formula, the term has been reduced to a nasty slur. In polite circles, to call someone a Zionist is a low blow. To combat this semantic creep, I call myself a Zionist whenever I can. I do it proudly, no apologies or cowering allowed. Labels matter. (Incidentally, I find it fascinating that in letters and speeches by Golda Meir from the mandate period, she invariably refers to herself and her fellow Zionists as "Palestinians." This was no verbal tactic or deep ruse. It was purely descriptive of their geographical location and political limbo.)

Today, the word Palestinian means something entirely different, and no Jew would dream of claiming the label -- though there's no legitimate reason why they shouldn't. Think of what a redundancy it is to call someone a Palestinian Israeli ... what other kind is there?

Furthermore, I think that ceding the label "Palestinian to the non-Jews of the region (whatever their proximate origins) was a serious political blunder. It legitimized the false premise that the region's non-Jews were somehow its indigenous peoples, and that its Jews were interlopers. Nothing could be further from the truth, as we know, but the semantics have made it nearly impossible to win this point in any debate.

I too refer to myself as a Zionist at every opportunity for exactly the same reasons.  Although I have sort of given up, for a long time I was careful to refer only to Palestinian Arabs.  In one post in the last couple of days, I did refer both to Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews.

From the Arab point of view, Palestine really does encompass Jordan, although they no longer want to admit it for propaganda reasons -- to make it appear that the Jews have the lion's share of "Arab Palestine."  In fact, the Arabs have something like 85% of Arab Palestine while the Jews have something less than that of Judaea and Samaria.  If one were divvying up, a fair split would be to give the Jews the same percentage of their land as the Arabs have of theirs, which would probably come out darned close to Israel behind the Green Line plus metro Jerusalem and the settlement blocs.  Also for the reasons you cite, there is no reason why Jewish residents of the West Bank should not be permitted to remain as residents under eventual Arab rule, just as Arabs are a minority in Israel.  The problem is that the Arabs would kill them.  Some peace, some settlement.

"Your spokespeople are making much ado about the breaking of the six month truce. Who is the occupier? Who is the most powerful military force? Who controls and blocks the necessities of life? Who has sent raiding missions across the border most often? Who has sent artillery shells and missiles at close range into populated areas? Who has refused the repeated comprehensive peace offerings of the Arab countries issued in 2002 if Israel would agree to return to the 1967 borders and agree to the creation of a small independent Palestinian state possessing just twenty two percent of the original Palestine?"

Ralph Nader on Gaza.

Any thoughts?

"Who has refused the repeated comprehensive peace offerings of the Arab countries issued in 2002 if Israel would agree to return to the 1967 borders and agree to the creation of a small independent Palestinian state possessing just twenty two percent of the original Palestine?"

Conveniently forgeting the RoR clause that would render any peace proposal null and void, as far as Israel is concerned.

Forgeting the derision flowing from Amr Mussa's mouth when Prime Minister Sharon offered to come to Beirut and respond, in person, the Arab League convention which had gathered there to concoct  that "Peace proposaL".

People who are serious about peace make serious proposals. They don't make mock proposals for PR sake, and then act all sanctimonious and outraged when it is rejected.  

Iggy,

Ralph Nader is a narcissist of the worst kind and, in his dotage, confused.  This "20% of the original Palestine" is hogwash.  The Arabs already have 80% of Mandatory Palestine in Jordan.  With most of the West Bank and Gaza, they would have about 85% of it, not to mention that the Arab nation, of which the Palestinians are an indistinguishable part less distinct from Syrians or Jordanians than New Yorkers are from Texans, inhabits millions of square miles that constitute a substantial portion of the entire inhabited earth.  The only reason "Palestine" is of any importance to the Arab world is because it belonged to the Jews.  But for its Jewish character, and until the assertion by the Jews of their patrimony there, the Arabs took exactly zero interest in it as anything distinctive within the greater Arab world or nation.  That's why none of them complained when Jordan annexed the West Bank and Egypt annexed Gaza in the aftermath of Israel's war of independence.  The entire concern of the Arabs with the 1947 partition was with what the Jews would get that they would no longer control.  There was no interest at all in the establishment of yet another Arab state in the midst of 20.

As far as Arab peace plans, the only thing consistent about them is that they are always so unrealistic as to be dead-on-arrival, the purpose being solely to cultivate western opinion without actually having to make peace.  They have given up on trying to turn the clock back to 1947 and undo the outcome of their loss of the 1948 war they started because the Western response to that possibility is a flat no.  So now they propose to turn the clock back to just before their loss of the 1967 war that they also started. The pre-1967 lines were the armistice lines of 1948, never intended to be permanent borders according to the very UN officials who negotiated the armistice.  The were explicit that those lines just "happened to be where the armies stood on a particular day in 1948" and could not be expected to be secure for anyone.  The Arabs expelled all the Jews from the portion of Palestine left in their control.  The Jews did not expel the Arabs from Israel where they are a substantial minority.  Some of the Jewish communities in the West Bank, particularly Hebron, dated back thousands of years.  There is zero reason for Israel to agree again to uproot the entire Jewish presence in the West Bank, and I am sure that you would object to any proposal that, as part of a peace settlement, all the Arabs in Israel move to Arab-controlled territory.  The Arabs love to talk about their history in this place, but it is not the Jews who moved to Syria, or Mesopotamia, or the Arabian peninsula.  It is Arab conquerors who moved into Judaea and Samaria, the historic home of the Jews and the place were they became a nation while Europe was still illiterate.

In any case, the Arabs have no right to use violence to try and settle what, in its most charitable interpretation (meaning ignoring the Arab threats to destroy Israel), is a border and political dispute by two peoples who claim the same territory.  The most advantageous possible outcome for the Arabs would be achieved if they forswore violence and offered, not to abandon their claims, but to pursue them exclusively by peaceful means.  Under those conditions, they would find Israel far more willing to accommodate them -- as friends rather than as enemies sworn to destroy them.  For example, if Israel did not have to uproot several hundred thousand Jews from the West Bank but could allow them to remain as citizens of an Arab state there, just as Arabs are citizens of Israel, without having to worry that they would quickly be murdered, the entire discussion of borders and every other issue of contention, including Jerusalem, would be much more easily addressed.

Why don't the Arabs ever consider peace as a priority for its own sake?  Why is it assumed that Moslems must have political control over every inch of territory in which the reside?  There are thousands of minority populations all over the world, including many Jewish minorities.  How has it come to be uncritically accepted that Moslems cannot live as a responsible minority anywhere even though they control a vast portion of the globe that they call home?  How has it come to be uncritically accepted that Moslems can be sovereign in lands with shrines of deep importance to other religions, such as the Hagia Sofia in Istanbul, a Christian shrine that is the model for Moslem architecture, or the ancient Buddhist shrine that the Taliban destroyed in Afghanistan, but that any Moslem shrine must be under Moslem sovereignty even if it happens to be in the single place considered most holy by another faith?  How exactly did these people become entitled to some sort of unique priority over everyone else on the planet?  Tell me, please.

Amen, roidubouloi. Of course, the notion of leaving the Jewish settlers safe in Palestinian hands is no option, because no one -- not even pie-eyed Eurocrats and multinational peace processors – believes they would be any safer than pre-schoolers in Sderot. That is, sitting ducks.

In what way are Eurocrats "pie-eyed" and what are "multinational peace processors" and why am I meant to regard them with dislike or contempt?

I think many things can be multnational, often to our advantage as citizens of different nations, and processing peace seems like a legitimate activity for a human being.

"Pie-eyed" is a little obscure, however.

Israel is demographically doomed. It must kill the majority of its Arab neighbors soon, or it will cease to exist as a Jewish state. This is not difficult to notice, despite the sentimental attachments of fans like Mr. Peretz.

nicholas78 said:   "Israel is demographically doomed. It must kill the majority of its Arab neighbors soon, or it will cease to exist as a Jewish state. This is not difficult to notice, despite the sentimental attachments of fans like Mr. Peretz."

You are insane, nicholas.

I am coming to this thread late (my attentions have been absorbed elsewhere), but I think it might be illuminating for many to give a brief history of the term and usage of "Palestine".

Until 136 CE the region west of the Jordan river was known as Judea, for obvious reasons.  When the Romans defeated the Great Revolt of the Jews in the year 70 CE (with the destruction of the 2nd Temple which modern day Palestinians deny ever existed) the Romans minted coins to honor the occasion with the inscription "Iudea Capta" ("Judea has been defeated" in free translation).

Although Jews were banned from Jerusalem (except for the 9th of Av to commemorate and mourn the destruction of the 2nd Temple) the Romans permitted the Jews to continue to live in their towns, villages & cities in Judea, the Galilee, and Golan Heights (ruins of many synagogues can be found in the Golan as well as the 2nd Temple era city of Gamla where the Great Revolt started).

In 133 CE, led by Simon Bar Kokhba (a.k.a., Simon Bar Kuziba) the Jews of Judea revolted against the Romans again, and briefly re-established Jewish sovereignty in their ancestral land (best exemplified by minting their own coins over Roman coins).  After great effort, the Romans defeated the Jews in the year 136 CE.  To make sure that the Jews did not rebel again, the Emperor Hadrian orders that Judea (but not the Galillee or Negev) be made Judenrein and so every town, village, city etc. in Judea was destroyed and its inhabitants killed or sent into slavery (to this day, when ancient Jewish villages are excavated, extensive archeological evidence is found of the Roman destruction, including skeletons with evidence of decapitation.)

As part of his effort to erase any vestige of Jewish Judea, Hadrian ordered that the name of the region be changed to Palestine (or its Latin variant).  The name itself (or a variant) first appears in Herodotus and was used to refer to the southern coastal plain of Judea where the Philistines (פלישטים or Plishtim in Hebrew).  The last of the Philistine cities were destroyed and the inhabitants dispersed into exile by the Babyloninan king Nechubadnezar around 586 BCE as part of the same military campaign where he destroyed the first Jewish Temple and exiled the Jews to Babylonia (today's Iraq).

The name "Palestine" may have persisted locally until the Moslem conquest of the 7th century.  The Arab conquerors instead referred to the region as the "Land of the Sun" or "Land of the Jews" (oddly enough).  Later conquerors used a variety of terms but generally not "Palestine" (possible exception -- the Crusaders; but I don't know).  The term itself persisted only in Europe and in the usual church writings.

With the renewed interest and activities by 19th century Europeans in the Holy Land, the name Palestine was effectively dusted off, brought back and re-imposed.  However the borders of Palestine never really existed until after the breakup of the Ottoman empire and the division of the spoils between the Brits and the French.  Until Israel's war of independence in 1948, the only group that consistently referred to themselves as Palestinians were the Jews of Palestine (another great irony of history).  With a few exceptions, the Arabs called themselves Arabs or at most Southern Syrians (the name "Syria" itself is a 20th Century resurrection of a name that at least in the Talmud, probably refers to the Western Golan Heights, but that is a different story.)

After the 1948 War, the new country dropped the name Palestine & Palestinian, becoming Israel and Israelis.  It was only in the 1950's the Arabs in the "West Bank" (a term invented by the Jordanians in the early '50s) started calling themselves "Palestinians".  And the rest is history.

One more thing I forgot to comment on.  Who were the Philistines and where did they get their name?  The Philistines were a mix of "sea people" (another way they are known in some sources) who invaded the coastal region in the bronze age, coming from Crete, elsewhere in Greece, and apparently from as far as the Balkans.  Being the first in the region to master iron-making technology, and with it the ability to make the long straight sword, they were regarded as a fierce and warlike people with superior military technology.  The term Hebrew term "Plishtim" ("Philistines"), may well not have been how they referred to themselves.  Some scholars argue that Plishtim is a derivative of the Hebrew root PLSh (or פלש) which means "to invade", i.e., the Plishtim were the invaders.  So the modern day word "Palestinians" derives from "The Invaders".

Hershel Ginsburg

(proud and worried father of an IDF soldier fighting in Gaza)

Jerusalem / Efrata

jackson dyer,

If you got Benny Morris drunk enough, I'm pretty sure he would agree with me. The Israelis have three choices: (1) allow the creation a Palestinian state and live side by side until the Arab world acquires nukes, at which point the Israelis will live in fear and be in danger of a "second holocaust" (2) declare war on the arab world before they acquire nukes (3) leave after being offered full citizenship by the United States. My vote for Israel is (3). Israel's vote for Israel vote is (2), even if they don't know it. The polite world only speaks of (1).

פלישטים

I believe the word is spelled with a tav  ת

Noga for the post of the week!

Oh, you flatterer!

nicholas78, I dn't care what Benny Morris would say.

These are not the only alternatives.

Political history can't be reduced to a neat set of logical alternatives.

Hershel, I am told that the term for Ethiopian Jews Falasha means stranger in Amharic, a semitic language.

Any linguistic kinship between the term plishtim and falasha.

It is spelled with a tav.

פְּלִשְׁתִּי

"(proud and worried father of an IDF soldier fighting in Gaza)"

Hershel may your son return safe and sound to the bosom of his family.

nicholas78, you have wished the Israelis to lose their country.

Liste to me carefully: in whichever country you live, I wish you-YOU PERSONALLY- to lose your home and your country. May this happen in your lifetime: to yourself and all those whom you hold dear.

To nicholas78:

Nick here is another alternative you haven't thought of:

"Solving the Palestinian Problem"

By Daniel Pipes

frontpagemag.com/.../Printable.aspx

sleepyavl: That's very sobering but unlikely to happen as I am an American. Second, many Palestinians have lost their homeland and live and die in abject humiliation for you to have your country. Thus my sympathies for you losing your country are limited as you got it by displacing a native population (yes, I know we Americans largely murdered our native population, which is probably why we are not in the same mess you are in. I understand this hypocrisy. Two wrongs do not make a right.) Also, I have a vested interest in this situation as my tax dollars are paying for the upkeep of your country. If you received no US aid, I would care far less what your country did with their American made military equipment, though I would still care from an ethical point of view. That said, I would prefer you come to be my neighbor in my country rather than getting blown up in Israel, or blowing up the entire Middle East.

In the near future, I think there should be two states, as most but the Likud and the Peretz/Pipes' of the world do. The Palestinians cannot have a non-contiguous state (West Bank and Gaza). Cede Gaza to Israel, and give the Palestinians a larger portion of the West Bank. Cease and abandon ALL settlements in the West Bank. That will the Palestinian state. This has not yet been tried or offered so it can't be rejected as an already attempted failure and no Israeli or their supporters can whine that the Palestinians rejected it: they have not rejected such a proposal. But I doubt this will happen. If Israel to exist in fifty or one hundred years, its borders will be much farther apart than their current demarcations, so as to give itself some breathing room. And that breathing room will have been aided by the United States, which we will barely be thanked for.

jacksondyer: That's a more rational article than I am used to from Daniel Pipes, but it will not work as Egypt and Jordan have enough troubles without an impoverished population.

Noga & JacksonDyer,

Thank you for the spelling correction.  I wrote that post at 1 in the morning after several days of emotional tension and finally some relief yesterday. My son's tank unit came out for refueling, repair & a few hours of R&R before heading back into Gaza & he was able to call us.  We hadn't spoken to him since Thursday.  The IDF collected all the cell phones from all of the soldiers before heading in to Gaza (rightfully so).  One of the field security lessons learned from Lebanon2.

I forgot to add to the post that not all scholars agree with the "invaders" root to the term Plishtim; some do & some don't.

Jackson, I am awed (and envious) by your apparent linguistic abilities & your ability to teach yourself languages.  I don't think there is a connection between Falsha & Plishtim as I am under the impression that Amharic is not a Semitic language.  Cute idea though.

To St. Nick - Israel has was and will be grateful to the aid it receives from the USA.  But Israel does give things in return in the security & intelligence arena.  Unfortunately most of these cannot be publicized.  And the Jews are the native, indigenous people here.  Indeed, while the Jewish population waned and waxed over the centuries the Land of Israel (or "Palestine" for the impurists) was never completely Judenrein, at least for the past 3,000 years (+/-), although not for lack of trying.

Hershel Ginsburg

(proud and worried father of an IDF soldier fighting in Gaza)

Efrata / Jerusalem

Nicholas, you are obviously an antisemite whose mind has been made up about Israel.

You have accepted the Arabs claims about "the Palestinian Arabs" having lost their country." They didn't and as long as you hold to that view there is no reason to take you seriously.

I wouldn't count Israel out if I were you. It's going to be around long after you are dead even if you are only ten years old which how sound with your comments.

Here is an article about what really happened in 1948 by a well respected historian:

"1948, Israel, and the Palestinians: Annotated Text"  Efraim Karsh

www.commentarymagazine.com/.../1948--israel--and-the-palestinians--annotated-text-11373

It want make any difference to our friend good old Nick, but others with a more open mind  might find it enlightening.

For those who don't like to read long texts here is a video about Arab Israeli conflict:

"What Really Happened In The Middle East"

www.youtube.com/watch

I am copying part of a post of mine from the "Truth About Gaza" thread, that is also relevant to this thread:

If you want to get a rough idea of what life is like in Sderot, I suggest you view these two short videos which were produced during the ostensible "calm" (pseudo-cease fire) that ended 19 December:

www.youtube.com/watch

and

www.youtube.com/watch

And while you are at it, consider reading Richard Cohen's OpEd piece in the Washington Post:

media.washingtonpost.com/.../AR2009010502343.html

Keep in mind that Cohen never hesitates to criticize Israel, arguably excessively so.

And last but not least, given the flippancy with which the term "disproportional" or "excessive" is thrown out, please see Alan Dershowitz's analysis based on international law that appeared in the Wall Street Journal:  online.wsj.com/.../SB123085925621747981.html

hg

Falasha means to break a piece of one thing and take it elsewhere,  and is used to denote the term "immigrant". So I was told by an Ethiopian friend who is a Christian and well acquainted with the Jews of Ethiopia. He also introduced me to "injera", which is a sort of Ethiopian soft flat bread made of sourdough. Goes nicely with stews.

Ginzy: My thoughts are with you for your son's safe return.

_____________

I'll tell you the truth, guys, I'm much less concerned with the fulminations of closeted and not-so-closeted antisemites, or just run of the mill Jew detesters. I care much more about the meaning of  such silence and sidelineship from those who know better.  As in:

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity. "

What shriber1, said.

From the link above:

"A Conflict Hamas Caused"

By Richard Cohen

"Nearly a year ago, I was in the southern Israeli city of Sderot, where, on almost any day, you could see the current war coming. "The next Middle East war may start over Sderot," I wrote back then. I came by my prescience the hard way -- in a bomb shelter. That day, three Qassam rockets had hit the city. It took no genius to see the imminence of war. It takes real stupidity to blame it on Israel."

www.washingtonpost.com/.../AR2009010502343_pf.html

Richard Cohen says:

"It takes real stupidity to blame it on Israel."

That, and Jew hatred.

Mackenzic friends, at work:

“Report: Islamist site compiling list of U.K. Jews to target over Gaza op ” By Haaretz Service

“An Islamic extremist Web site is believed to be drawing up a list of prominent British Jews to target over Israel’s offensive against Hamas in Gaza, The Sun reported on Wednesday.

According to the British newspaper, Amy Winehouse record producer Mark Ronson and Foreign Secretary David Miliband were among names discussed on the online forum Ummah. ”

www.haaretz.com/.../1053520.html

Just as Mackenzie stalks  after Peretz so so his Islamic buddies threaten Jews in England. Could the US be far behind. Mackenzie after all is British.

Interesting responses to that Nader quote. Too busy in work to adequately respond, apart from saying that the narrative that Jordan is Palestine hasn't seeped through to the average European's mindset. If I told my friends that, they'd stare blankely at me and wonder if I was feeling all right.

Ginzy - we may disagree on pretty much everything related to that region but I do hope your son returns safely and you have my sympathies during this difficult time for your family.

"Yes, it's anti-Semitism"

By Jeff Jacoby,

www.boston.com/.../yes_its_anti_semitism

Nicholas78 said:

"(yes, I know we Americans largely murdered our native population, which is probably why we are not in the same mess you are in. I understand this hypocrisy. Two wrongs do not make a right.)"

In other words, Nicholas tells us that Americans can do (displacing a native population) is not permitted to the Jews. What is wrong with this - where do  begin? First we Jews ARE the native population, whether you like it or not. Second, we didn't kill the Arabs, while YOU did kill the Indians.

Third, because you are a fundamntalist anti-semite you believe that Jews don't have the rights that you do. Classic American anti-Semite.

Tell you what: I'm willing to consider your suggestion the day after you surrender San Francisco and Houston to the state of Mexico and let the Mexican army and administration come back. Or, better, the Indians.

Until then, fuck off, Jew-hater.

" Also, I have a vested interest in this situation as my tax dollars are paying for the upkeep of your"

Go fuck yor tax dollars, OK? You also pay as much money for Egypt, who sent you five 9/11 suicide bombers. But you don't remember that for the simple reason that you're a hard-core anti-Semite.

You also paid much more in the past with the Marshall Plan to rebuild Western Europe, where they shit on your face wen you say you're American. You also lost 500,000 Americans soldier for liberating Europe, who shit on you. You protected Europe with nuclear arms for 45 year, so that they don't get invaded by Soviet Russia. Yet they pit on you. You lost not one soldier for Israel or for the Jewish people (you didn't even bomb Auschwitz so as to not seem too friendly to us). You fought none of our wars. Still, we are your friends. You Americans have no others. Look around and you will see how much the world hates the US, especially the people you put 500,000 of your sons to die for.

You're a fool - and a hard-core anti-Semitic fool at that. Thank God you're just a jerk who is not typical US citizens.

Many of you bring up important and certainly relevant historical and current facts, but let's cut to the heart of the matter.

Hamas - and the rest of the Arab world - want Israel dead.  Gone.   No more Jews in the Middle East - and hopefully, gone from the rest of the world, too.  This is not so-called Jewish paranoia - it's fact, codified in the charters of Hamas, Hezbollah, and who knows how many other Islamic terrorist organizations.  

To whoever it was above who wrote that Israelis/Jews are held to impossible standards, I'd like to shake your hand, because it is absolutely true.  We're supposed to let rockets rain down on Sderot, Gedera, and other towns, let families live in fear of constant attack - but never, ever dare throw a rock, a Molotov cocktail, or God forbid, let the IDF fire back in defense of the country.  Because that would be disproportionate.  I have no less than forty relatives living in Gedera, and waking up Tuesday morning to reports that several rockets hit the town was a terrifying experience.  Luckily, no one was hurt.  Do I feel sympathy for the children of Gaza, the frightened and the dead?  Of course I do.  But mostly, I feel pity for them, because their parents have long had the ability to try and change their children's world, and they've chosen to educate them in the ways of violence and murder instead.  If the Palestinians want to blame anyone for their predicament, they should look to Arafat, who spent several decades cheating, lying, and stealing from his own people, exploiting them for his own gain.  Or perhaps they should look to themselves - because when Israel pulled out of Gaza two years ago, they had ample opportunity to try and build an infrastructure for their society.  But they didn't, because Hamas prevented it, insisting Israel could and would be overthrown.  So instead of tossing out the party of death, the people chose terrorism over progress and education.  After years of watching the Palestinians make the same choice, it becomes harder to sympathize with their plight.  Without question, Israel would have supported any attempt at building a real working society - but that's not likely to happen at this point, not with Iran pulling the strings.

Let's get real.  Hamas is not a political party, it is a terrorist organization with buckets of blood on its hands, the blood of its own people, its own children.  Why shouldn't Israel fight back, to protect its borders and its people, its very right to exist?  Because that is what this battle is really about, and no one should forget that.

And to those - especially those Jews - who dismiss the woman chanting "Jews to the ovens," I can't believe you'd really let this roll off your back.  You sound like the yekkes, the educated and socially responsible German Jews back in the day, who thought "nothing will happen to us."  Yes, nukes are a HUGE concern, and growing more ominous daily, especially in that part of the world (and with protestors waving signs such as "Israel is cancer - radiate it" and "nuke Israel" we have got to be vigilant, because this is a diaster in the making.)  But it is no less dangerous to ignore the rantings of those who would send us back to the ovens, because make no mistake - if they could do it, they probably would.  Remember, at the end of the day, the common perception is that Israel=Jews, and Islamic organizations very cleverly exploit this to their advantage.  (See those atrticles from the UK papers about the Islamic organizations compiling lists of famous Jews to target, or Hamas' charge to Muslims around the world to target innocent Jewish children.)

To all,

You may have misunderstood me. I am not a hardcore anti-semite, despite your hopes. I do hope Israel defeats Hamas, as Hamas shoots rockets from UN schools and then manufactures photo-ops for collateral damage. With that said, the Palestinian people have been screwed for far too long. They deserve a state of their own. Also, Americans should cease all aid to Israel and all aid to Egypt to appear truly impartial. No, sleepyavl, I have not forgotten we give the same amount of aid to a corrupt government in Egypt that has no ability to maintain power over its own people other than proclaiming hatred of Jews and America. You would be wrong if you think I have a rosy picture of the intentions of Arab world, or of their lack of accomplishments over the past 1000 years.

I am for the Israeli people. They are rational and far more honest of the situation in their own country than we are in America. Most of them are far more secular than the average American, and as a secularist, I am closer philosophically to them than to many in my own country. Many of Israel's so-called friends in America want them to stay only so Jesus can return and have them converted.

But demographic trends make it very difficult for Israel to continue on its current course. If you cannot see this, you are blind. Soon enough, the decision will be to stay and wage war against the Arab world, or to leave. I hope I am wrong and the Israeli give the Palestinians their mini-state and then the Arab world recognizes Israel and makes peace with its continued existence in the region, but I doubt it.

nicholas78 said:

"To all,

You may have misunderstood me. I am not a hardcore anti-semite, despite your hopes. I do hope Israel defeats Hamas, as Hamas shoots rockets from UN schools and then manufactures photo-ops for collateral damage. With that said, the Palestinian people have been screwed for far too long. They deserve a state of their own. "

Is that it?!?

Following all that has been said - *all you have said* - in this thread, that is a truly remarkable statement!

Unbelievable.

slitman said:

"Let's get real.  Hamas is not a political party, it is a terrorist organization with buckets of blood on its hands, the blood of its own people, its own children."

Moreover, it is a terrorist organization that is the *democratically elected government* of the Palestinian people who elected it; which declares it has one purpose, is dedicated to one goal: the destruction of Israel.

So simple, so straightforward. So abominable.

Nicholas,

Next you will say "I really feel your [Israelis'] pain."

What an ass.

tomeg,

Wow, this is quite an echo chamber in here. I'll leave you to feel each other's pain. Maybe you can keep the Palestinians in mind too. They are human beings.

But what we need is for these human beings in Palestine to decide that killing themselves and their children just so they can continue to threaten and kill Jews isn't really worth it.  Instead of relieving their own suffering by just stopping their attacks, they would rather attack and suffer.  They are human beings, but terribly distorted human beings.

nicholas78, this isn't an echo champer. If you want an echo chamber,try this:

www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx

It's probably more to your taste.

No one here denies the humanity of the Palestinians. You on the other hand have denied the humanity of Zionists.

For half a century, Palestinian leaders have fed their people the belief that something that cannot happen -- the destruction of Israel -- is going to happen if only they wait and have faith.  The potential energies and identity of a Palestinian nation-state have been wasted in lunging after a chimera.  Intelligent Palestinians understand this, but it cannot be said because the cause has taken on sacred rather than secular significance.

This happened and continues to happen in nationalist struggles.  Luckily, however, most national groups reach some kind of arrangement with reality, often involving a split in movements between those who want practical gains to work with, and those who will not tolerate anything short of the ideal.  Some, like the Irish, handled it pragmatically and kept the idealists from dragging the rational compromise into a spiral of destruction.  Some, like Slovaks and Czechs, said goodbye to each other and parted company within the same century in which they won their independence together.  Others, like the Algerians, could not keep a democratic culture alive.  Others again, like Belgians, have serious national problems even though they were a colonialist rather than a colonized society.

The secular Fatah failed to solve the problem of feeding the heart on fantasy, now Hamas is doing so with the higher stakes of religious absolutism.  But whether secular or sacred, the flaw at the heart of the Palestinian society is a deadly willingness to sacrifice today's possibility for tomorrow's fantasy.  Nations are mostly contingent and messy, rather than pristine and eternal, and intelligent nationalist thinkers and leaders have known that.

I see Marty has some allies who've picked up the story, Fox propaganda.

Protester Calls for Jews to 'Go Back to the Oven' at Anti-Israel Demonstration

www.foxnews.com/.../0,2933,477450,00.html

And I happen to connect to TNR using a different IP address, and I noticed that many comments don't appear the way they do from my computer.  It seems you people at TNR are playing IP games with your commenters and readership, if that's the case then screw you!  If you don't have the guts to participate in an open and honest debate of the issues without resorting to censorship, then I won't be commenting here any longer. I've noticed this phenomenon before, but assumed it was an anomaly so I said nothing.  But if my suspicions are proven, rest assured I will go out of my way to expose you and this publication to everyone on the net.

Here's some more dead babies in Gaza, to brighten your day.

Israeli strikes hit UN schools - 06 Jan 09

www.youtube.com/watch

There is no excuse for doing this to civilians, none, and I will accept none from anyone here, or anyone in the US government, or anyone in the Israeli government.  Doing what the terrorists do and and calling it self-defense is not acceptable.  If we do like they do, we don't win, instead we become just like those we're fighting.  That is what the terrorists want, to bring us down to their level so they can claim moral equivalency.  Our idiot president fell into this trap with a totally unnecessary invasion of Iraq, and it looks like the morons in the Knesset have decided to following suit.

There's a reason why Israel has kept Western journalist out of the war zone, it is a specific attempt to control the message and the information that reaches the West. It's a despicable disgraceful tactic which is totally unacceptable.  What next, will the Israeli government allow Joe the Plumber into the war zone to give some slanted right wing evaluation of dead Palestinian civilians?  

For the record, I don't begrudge Israel the right to protect its people, but an all-out offensive such as this is not only way out of proportion, it's extremely damaging to the Israeli government's already badly battered integrity and moral standing and it's also extremely counterproductive for international politics. The longer it goes on the more damage will be done to the state of Israel's image on the world stage.  This incursion only highlights how weak the Israeli government has become, perhaps the weakest government in the history of the Jewish state.  And their actions are leaving an ugly scar upon the soul of the Israeli people and Jews everywhere.  The only thing this incursion says to the world is that Palestinian and Muslim lives have no value, and that they can be carelessly expended in the name of Israeli security.  I submit that this action will not make Israel more secure or Israelis safer, it will only serve to further isolate the state of Israel, and increased the divide between Jews and Muslims.

And I personally am ashamed, deeply ashamed when I see dead children who were slaughtered for nothing. I took my Obama button off the other day before going out, the first time I've gone out without it in more than a year.  I think it is a mistake for Barack not to speak out and try to do something to stop the killing. Instead we see the media pushing this Illinois Senate appointment controversy BS which is being used to distract the American people from far more pressing issues like the war in Gaza.

We know that George W. Bush won't do anything to stop what's happening in Gaza, quite the opposite in fact, it seems that George lives to kill Muslims, and he's not too particular about which Muslims he kills, women, children old people, to Georgie they're all subhuman "assholes" who deserve what they get.  Doubtless history will record the little Georgie Porgy managed to slaughter more innocent Muslims than any other president in US history.  And in fact it is he and his policies and the policies of the neocons (false Jews) who are directly responsible for what we see happening in Gaza today, make no mistake about that.  A last little parting gift from the filthy traitorous swine who don't know how to do anything but kill and destroy indiscriminately.  And I will have no peace in this life until those bastards go on trial for treason and crimes against humanity.  I've come to expect such despicable behavior from our vile, rotten to the core, worm of a president, but I expect better of President-elect Obama, much better.

AaronBBrown says:

"For the record, I don't begrudge Israel the right to protect its people, but an all-out offensive such as this is not only way out of proportion, it's extremely damaging to the Israeli government's already badly battered integrity and moral standing and it's also extremely counterproductive for international politics. The longer it goes on the more damage will be done to the state of Israel's image on the world stage."

All very moving.  Now, since you don't begrudge Israel the right to protect its people, would you care to tell us what tactics it should employ that will actually serve to protect its people, by stopping the missile attacks, as opposed to "proportionate" but pointless retaliation that kills Moslems but protects no one in Israel?

And while you are at it, perhaps you can explain why indiscriminate rocket fire by Hamas into Israel does not damage the image of the Palestinians on the world stage.  When you have accomplished that, perhaps you will understand what is going on in this world.

My soul does not feel scarred, Aaron.  I am however sickened by people who willingly send their children to death for no better reason than so that they can continue to try to kill other people's children.  Aren't you worried about the scars on the souls of all Moslems?  Aren't you disappointed that President-elect Obama has not stopped Hams from firing missiles into Israel?  Can you explain to us why Hamas attacks do not further isolate Moslems?  Do you believe that Hamas' attacks make the Gazans safer?  If not, why doesn't that concern you?  Where's your outrage, Aaron?

"And I happen to connect to TNR using a different IP address, and I noticed that many comments don't appear the way they do from my computer.  It seems you people at TNR are playing IP games with your commenters and readership, if that's the case then screw you!  If you don't have the guts to participate in an open and honest debate of the issues without resorting to censorship, then I won't be commenting here any longer. I've noticed this phenomenon before, but assumed it was an anomaly so I said nothing.  But if my suspicions are proven, rest assured I will go out of my way to expose you and this publication to everyone on the net."

Aaron, you really are paranoid.

I have been posting here for years and have no idea what you are talking about.

I have a hunch that most poster here don't either.

What is an IP address and why would it matter on how posts appear.

I sometime access this blog from a different computer (library, office, etc) and the posts appear just the same.

So, please explain yourself.

"There is no excuse for doing this to civilians, none, and I will accept none from anyone here, or anyone in the US government, or anyone in the Israeli government. "

Aaron, why do you assume that the report is correct as reported by the al Jezera video clip?

Here is another version of same event:

"Witnesses: Hamas fired from school"

www.jpost.com/.../Satellite

You discount any posts that tells of anti-Israel's demonstrator's Jew hatred but then you accept al Jezera verions of events.

You have no credibility here, Aaron

OK OK OK!

Enough.

I can't live this LIE any longer!  The secret has been slowly killing me, KILLING ME I tell you!

I am jacksondyer.

[ironyroad bursts into a flood of tears and collapses over the sink]

Irony,

Ok, you can be me for a day.

But if you are to be me, then am I to be you?

And if we merely change identities what have we gained.

I get to speak all those languages you know.

If we do Friday, you get to teach Henry James at 10.

The American.  First four chapters.

ironyroad, you may remember in the old pub, the quesion of double and triple identities was uppermost on some posters' minds. The funny thing was, that those who whined most about it were those who actually had double or triple identities (I could tell, since I was moderator for a time and could check their IP's).  

"If we do Friday, you get to teach Henry James at 10.

The American.  First four chapters."

I prefer the Ambassadors, or The Portrait...." always found the plot too melodramatic.

What else do I get to do with your students?

I saw The Wings of the Dove a couple of nights ago with Helena Bonham Carter in it and who all. (I haven't read the book.) If I promise to watch the last 20' of it--I kind of drifted off and then snapped to attention to catch Anderson The Spider Silva on the MMA channel--who can I be to teach it where?

p.s. I didn't catch who plays the dove.

basman:  That would have been Casey Affleck in a very early role!

JD:  "The Ambassadors" is a better novel, I agree, but almost 30 years had elapsed between "The American" and the later work.  He's still a young-ish writer trying stuff out in 1876.

Noga:  yes, that's true, I remember an "Atticus 66" flamewar of some kind, and the peculiar rupture that occurred when someone accidentally let slip that they lived in San Francisco.

For all we know, it might have been williamyard.

"JD:  "The Ambassadors" is a better novel, I agree, but almost 30 years had elapsed between "The American" and the later work.  He's still a young-ish writer trying stuff out in 1876."

Are you teaching the original 1877 edition or the revised edition of 1910?

It's the Penguin Classics edition which is essentially, according to the Note on the Text, the 1879 Macmillan edition, but with some very minor emendations.

ironyroad: A66 did not have a double identity. I do recall the fictional "Emily B. Watson" having at one time 4 identities conversing with each other.  I don't remember the incident about SF.

...Are you teaching the original 1877 edition or the revised edition of 1910?...

Such an evasion: such an inability to confront the issues: the central issue remains--who played the dove? It decidedly was not Casey Affleck. He was gone baby gone.