Another popping-in point.

AE, I would agree with you that's likely the "strategy" on Clawson's part; hence, the abhorrence of Nazism and the embracing of anti-Semitism in the same breath. Of course, I am not a mindreader, and for all I know Clawson gets off the subway car after seeing a woman with a Mogen David necklace, and curses "damn Jews" all the way home. I have no idea.

However, taking for granted that Bob is having fun with language, I see the inherent disrespect to Jews, or to Arabs and Jews collectively, as an obvious exercise in -- you guessed it -- anti-Semitism. If the point is to deny the world this term, it would seem more apt to deny the world opportunity for this term to have meaning. At the very least, one could do so by example if not activism on the point.

I would think having no personal experience of anti-Semitism might give one pause when evaluating one's ability to consider it a moot point, and to ridicule its existence in the bargain.

If indeed this is Mr. Clawson's intent, the only difference is that he is unaware he's speaking the truth.

Mature (and I would hope, accurate) reading on your part; thanks.

Dan

Just a general comment on the debate:

The purpose of this debate in not to discover whether Bob in an anti-semite (in the traditional sense of the word). He may disclose any bias he may have if he thinks it will further his argument; it’s his prerogative. Not to put words into his mouth, but his stance in the debate is that Israel are the aggresive warmongers, and those who chose to fight (with whatever means available to them) Israel’s injustices, are the underdogs who deserve our understanding/support. Bob will correct me if I’m wrong.

Stephen

Bob,

How did you find the MySpace pictures of me and Lilith? But you have to admit that she's totally hot. Adam was a loser for dumping her, since she was hot even back in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Kevin

RJ

from a Sept 09 post:

From the comment concerning accuracy, I sense that their very inaccuracy implies they have no more effective value than terrorising?

I state factually: high inaccuracy does not equate with only the 'terror tactic' aspect. High inaccuracy killed, maimed, ruined, damaged and shattered. Fortunately for the Israeli side (and sorry for repeating points already made a long way back) there was perhaps less killing simply because not one single building of any kind whatsoever is allowed to be constructed throughout all parts of Israel, without highly efficient bomb shelters, and it is a sad fact per se that this is how a country needs to operate, but it is a fact not emulated by the Lebanese and others of Israel's neighbours and if it were to be applied, would go a long, long way to reducing unnecessary civilian loss of life (and one wonders, indeed, why these countries leave their civilian population in a state of possible insufficient protection...).

However, there was so much damage and ruin, but which simply did not interest the media sufficiently to warrant the kind of coverage Lebanon merited. In any event, it is not my intention to balance the kind or scope of damage each country suffered; but Israel did NOT 'take out' (a term I've seen employed elsewhere) the new Rafik alHariri International Airport, or other important/strategic/newly reconustructed sites or areas of Lebanon, because decimation of Lebanon at large was not its goal.

Nor did Israel, at any time, during or prior to this last bout of war, take captives -- an important point to keep in mind, being that same issue which triggered the whole messy and bloody and ruinous sequence of events.

Now: it is time for an admission. During this war, and with much family and many friends in northern Israel, I decided to go visit and spend a full week boosting morales, and another almost 2 weeks ferreting goods and people up and down, north south, to the best of my ability. Interestingly, we got a lot done at night, as Hezbolla rarely fired after nightfall (about 8.45 pm) so that infra red equipment couldn't pick out their positions.

I can therefore give you first hand facts: because of the high inaccuracy of Katyushas, WHEN it was possible to track their inflight, we had from 5 to 50 seconds to find shelter. (Humor always helps. You have just gone to shower, all soaped and shampooed... ooopsie, what to do as the WOOOOOO of the siren gets closer and louder?? If it's not smoke gets in your eyes, it's soap gets in your eyes...)

But more often it was zero seconds - first we heard the tremendous screech in the sky, then the massive boom, and then it was time to say 'whew, that one was close' and continue going about whatever we were up to or checking the vicinity to see who needs help. Within the first couple of days, I lost count of how often it was 'inaccurately' necessary to dash for cover ...

Another real life fact: it is hot in that area. It never rains the whole summer. Summer can be 9-10 months long. The ashpalt on the road never cools off during that whole time. What do you do if you are travelling and happen to pass an inhabited area and hear the sirens? IDF Home Front Guidelines: You stop the car, throw yourself on the ground, arms around your head as best as possible. This is because Kathyushas carry thousands of metal pellets, nuts, nails, screws and bolts, and sharpened slivers of metal, all intended not only to blow you apart but to make it as gory and painful as possible. Therefore, by rules of physics, a Katyusha landing close to you will scatter its array of gory possibilities in an arc and hopefully you will be out of the range of that arc... but yes, they are inaccurate, so you have a 50/50 chance at any given time. Therefore, before you travel, you toss a blanket or such into the car, one per person, to try and grab with you as you brake suddenly (while trying not to cause a traffic accident) , throw yourself down and slam your face down ASAP, and more-or-less position the blanket so that you don't get 3rd degree burns on the delicate skin of face and arms, as you try to stay alive. And what do you do if you are travelling country roads and don't hear the sirens? Ignorace can be bliss....

One story of the many many I could describe: At the moment, two little girls I personally know, aged 6 and 8, are undergoing psychotherapy because, when they returned to their home in the north, not far from the border, the <u>only</u> room in their family home that entirely disappeared when a Katyusha landed on it, was <u>their bedroom</u> and they clearly understood what the outcome could have been, if they had remained one more day in their house... indeed a fascinating age and way to understand one's fragile mortality.

I think I have made it clear in earlier posts that I am sorry for all losses of life that are unnecessary, but a Katyusha is as deadly a weapon as they come, in fact, with the added factor of being 'inaccurate' and thus harder to track; a weapon not to be taken lightly and dismissed as nothing more than a tool for terrorising. It kills, it maims, and it does so horribly. And it has been doing so for six whole years.... (or perhaps, Israel should just grin and bear it for Kevin's suggested six more...)



[This message has been edited by Seree Zohar (edited September 10, 2006).]

Thanks for the vivid and interesting post Seree, always good to get on the ground impressions that bring those abstractions to horrifying life. Two things that snagged at me though:

That word, 'wonders', might seem innocent enough, but, as I'm sure you're aware, it carries in this instance a whole freight of speculation, some of it rather smug, along the lines of: 'Do those countries really care about their civilians? Naw, not as much as the Israelis do about theirs.' And I know you're not actually saying that Seree, but it IS in there, isn't it? And that makes ME wonder. Because, why wonder in the first place? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine Isreal's superior resources and organisation (and MONEY) have at least something to do with this particular inequality. No? Do you believe then, that the Lebanese care less about their civilians than the Israelis do about theirs? And if you DON'T believe that, why not suggest at least one alternative, rather than leave us wondering...?

This discussion of the finer points of weaponry seems like another attempt to claim a moral high ground for the IDF. Why? From what you've said Katyushas, at their worst, are about as evil as the mines sown by the IDF, apparently illegally, which children are so fond of playing with.



[This message has been edited by Mark Granier (edited September 10, 2006).]

Mark:

What a shame you choose to mis-read my words. So here is one possible, accessible, doable option to balance

-- what percentage of the world population is the Jewish population? (sorry, insufficient time to backtrack and check the figure though it did appear here); and of that world Jewry figure, what percentage actively identifies with Israel and supports it?

well, that percentage of world wide Jewry is multiplied many, many times by the equivalent world wide Christian and/or Muslim Arab populations. So, one can only wonder why these brethren feel the need to fund terror in millions and billions and gadzillions of dollars, rather than build up equivalent resources, education and so on. It is my humble suggestion that you approach leaders of these Arab world populations and request your answer, of why they don't share more good and beneficial support, direct from them.

Mark,

“the Lebanese care less about their civilians”

By “the Lebanese” who are you referring to? I thought you were concerned about precision in language. You are too quick to read whatever you choose to in the comments of the opposing argument, and woefully unable to see what is inferred in the comments from those you choose to align yourself with.

Why is that?

Stephen

Mark:

Further to my above point (sorry, had to go away for a couple of minutes...) - I would wonder, first, why leave a citizenry unprotected in general by maintaining a terrorist presence in its midst; and if terror warfare is to be engaged in, (why else would the terror organisation be there, otherwise...), why not protect the citizenry?


Mis-read #2:
and a most interesting mis-read too, (and a most disappointing one) and surely not purposely directed that way, particularly after I specifically stated my comments are relative to Katyushas being termed a tool for terrorizing and their efficacy nothing more than that.


----------

RJ:

Little problem: picture this - farmhouse in the olive grove; two families in 12 rooms, one room dedicated to Hezbolla arsenal or being actively appropriated as a position from which to target the other side. Little problem, no? I would be interested in hearing your possible rational solution. (BTW, the picture is not fictitious nor isolated or occasional; it is real and it is a norm; and even if the host family is against its home being used thus, the host has little say in the matter).

[This message has been edited by Seree Zohar (edited September 10, 2006).]

Stephen, although far too much time and attention has been given to Mr. Clawson's anti-Semitism, it does indeed bear on the need to take his discussion of the matter seriously or not; hence my last post. I also did look back and see myself having proclaimed that I'd not waste another word on the bigot; but obviously, I was not up to the task http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/wink.gif

Still guests in town, and Lo is saying "Dan..." in that way that makes me wonder if I'm in for the naughty chair.

Will return,

D

Seree, my apologies if I misread you re. the specifics of the discussion. But you can see where I'm coming from, can't you? Anyway, I'll be more careful to read the relevant posts if I make any similar criticisms in future.

Stephen, I am curious that you would think to question me, since you haven't deigned to answer any of the questions I put to you, not one. Surely you don't think ALL of them impertinent? But I guess you won't answer that one either.

[This message has been edited by Mark Granier (edited September 10, 2006).]

Mark,

I will trawl back from the beginning of the thread to see if I can add anything in reply to your comments that hasn’t already been covered. As far as any playground theatrics are concerned, I’m afraid you will find me a very dull playmate.

Interesting choice of poets in the Musing thread, by the way.

Stephen

You're far too modest Stephen. Your very first post indicated that you're at least as potentially theatrical as the most gregarious little 'uns here, and subsequent posts have borne this out. You'll fit right in.

PS

Glad you found the poems interesting.



[This message has been edited by Mark Granier (edited September 10, 2006).]

Originally posted by Stephen Foot:

"Bob,

Small point, but pertinent to your stance in this debate....You failed to qualify your data which in this debate is crucial."

The Economist's Middle East Correspondent whom I cited earlier.

"According to the Israeli military they made 7,000 air strikes.... 3,699 Hezbollah rockets have landed in Israel (same source)."

How'd you tap into the Israeli military? Do they exercise a freedom of information act? The Pentagon doesn't. It's exempt from our law.

Bob

Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:

"I take it that you, Mr. Clawson, both embrace your anti-Semitism, and virulently oppose Nazi organizations. So again, I stand corrected. Bob Clawson is anti-Semitic; the Nazis are also anti-Semitic; it does not, however, follow that Bob Clawson is a Nazi, merely that he is an anti-Semite."

Yes, that's correct. Otherwise the implied syllogism would be fallacious.

"Having never suggested that Japethite genes or culture were resposible for the first or second world wars, I can not condone your attitude that, since Semites are involved in armed conflicts, they are therefore stupider than other peoples."

Well, you don't have to condone it because I never even implied it.

"As for "demonizing" you, Mr. Clawson, I see no reason to, were I even of a mind to engage in that sort of thing (which I am not). You show yourself to exhibit many of the traits I'd need to "foist upon you" to create a demon, and you publicly embrace those traits. Were I seeking to demonize you, the work would already be done for me."

Then you ARE "of a mind to engage in that sort of thing."
You, just, as Emily, do it slant.

"And yes, I am very, very sober."

Good to hear. One "very" will do. I heard Ned Rorhem use FOUR today: "Very, very, very, VERY delicate."

Shameless O'Clawson

Bob,

“The Economist's Middle East Correspondent whom I cited earlier.”

I see, straight from the horse’s mouth, then.

“How'd you tap into the Israeli military?”

Don’t you know? Speak to the little brown fox, if he doesn’t know there’s always the BBC.

“Do they exercise a freedom of information act?”

No, but they do exercise their freedom.

Next.

Stephen

Originally posted by AE:

"Bob,

I've noticed 2 or 3 times in my occasional visits to this thread that you profess "anti-Semitism"; and here you interpret this as representing your belief that "both the Arabic Semites and the Jewish Semites are behaving badly.""

Well, that's been my position throughout, not just "here".

"This is a curiously provocative exercise in language-twisting by one who has tried to focus discussions on public abuses of language."

Excellent point, if you think it's twisting. Here, I take an opposite point of view, to which I'll get.

"In current usage, the term "anti-Semitism" denotes a prejudice against Jews, not against Jews & Arabs -- and not against what Jews are doing at the moment, but against what Jews inherently are."

That may be so, but I've applied it not to Jews in general, but to how Israel has reacted in the current situation. In that "Semite" includes the Jews and Arabs, I've used it in that way, and have clarified that my attitude is defined by the policies of each side in the current dispute, not by the qualities of the civilians on either side. I've tried to apply the qualities of "stupidity" and "lunacy" to the leaders of the war.

"That is the current meaning of the term, as you no doubt are aware..."

"Current meaning" is a slippery concept, but I'm aware of this: it's an accusation that can arise in any discussion about Israeli policy. The only time I've been accused of it is on Able Muse. I laughed it off as absurd. I answered that I had many Jewish friends. My accuser answered, "I've heard that one before" and further enriched the accusation.

So, here are a few facts about Herr Clawson. My chemistry partner in high-school was Teddy Bluestein. I had a crush on Teddy Litner. My best friend in my first trip to college was Shelly Berler. On my return to college from a hitch in the service, one of my close friends was Jim Weymark. I dated Sally Rich. I played poker and drank with Mike Reingold (who in later years became a business associate and tennis partner). My lawyer, Ira Deitsch, persuaded me to teach in a Moses Maimonides school. Stewart Rose has been a close friend for many years. He persuaded me to use Ira. My wife and I shared a home with a couple back in the 70's. We remain close friends and have attended temple services with them. I've dined with Carol Goodman, Ellen Goodman, and Sarah Goodman. Joan Blair, Don Schuler's wife, just finished two years as president of her temple. They're all Jewish.

I could go on. I once counted and discovered that just over 50% of the people with whom we break bread are Jewish.

But, having already experienced, "Oh, I've heard that one before," I thought it better to alert those who might be trigger-happy with the word by making it clear from the outset that that word has no impact on me personally. When it comes up in a purportedly civil discussion at the outset, you know, despite the frequent claims to logic, that the ad hominem fallacy is at work.

"...a meaning which extends ultimately to the murderous racism of the Nazis."

Well, that's your take. I could say that it "extends ultimately" to Shem, son of Noah. The Nazi accusation arose early on this thread also. How civil. How wholesome. How utterly enlightening.

"How thrilling for you, then, to paint yourself with such a terrible word, while, as it were, having your fingers crossed behind your back."

Well it hasn't been thrilling. I once pleaded for Harvey Keitel to hose me down.

"That you disagree with both Arab and Israeli policies in the present Middle East would be no big deal -- "fools on both sides!" is one of Shakespeare's more durable lines -- but to name this position "anti-Semitic" & thus invite the odium which this term inevitably provokes seems perverse."

Well, more than I've been accused of being antisemitic, I've been called impish. Yes, the imp of the perverse, I guess I'd have to acknowledge that it sometimes inhabits my mind.

"Yeah, we get the point -- Arabs & Jews are both "Semitic." But the "ism" in "anti-Semitism" was never meant to apply to a contingent political position: "ism"s always imply absolutes (even in the case of "relativism")."

Good case. The perfect word. No kidding.

Or facism, creationism, catholicism, absolutism. What does "antisemitism" absolutely mean? I find it a highly charged word, but too often the charge arises out of emotion, not the purported "logic" of these discussions about the situation in the Middle East.

"Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think your conceit of being "anti-Semitic" is in very bad taste."

I can accept that. Taste, as beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I'm pleased that you used but one "very." I feel you nearly let me off the hook.

"I guess you were trying to stir the pot. But some words have too much historical weight to be treated so lightly."

I agree. They should be used with great sensitivity. With restraint. I can say this: in my life I've never called anyone antisemitic.

I appreciate your linguist's approach to this. Particulary in that you noted I've been interested in spin. Words are maleable. One never knows when they'll alter in meaning. Or who'll initiate the change. In current usage, we now have permission to use a triple "very." Sounds like a figure-skating jump.

Bob



[This message has been edited by Robert J. Clawson (edited September 11, 2006).]

Originally posted by Stephen Foot:

"Not to put words into his {Bob's} mouth, but his stance in the debate is that Israel are the aggresive warmongers, and those who chose to fight (with whatever means available to them) Israel’s injustices, are the underdogs who deserve our understanding/support. Bob will correct me if I’m wrong."

I think Hezbollah made a seriously stupid mistake to provoke Israel when recent history shows that it doesn't pay to mess with Israel. I think Israel made an equally stupid mistake to resort to air-power and blitz Lebanon.

In the argument about who claims "Victory!" I think neither side won anything worth cheering about.

Bob

PS: I suspect that Hezbollah may have been had by Iran.

I don't actually think I ever said a Katyusha wasn't a deadly weapon. As for enduring anything six more years, I didn't suggest but asked "Why not six more years?" Your response, Seree, is a very fair response, and I'm glad that you and everyone you mentioned is all right. But I do have a couple of other questions: How do you separate between "all losses of life that are unnecessary" (which you are sorry for) and the other losses of life which, by inference, you find both necessary and you are not sorry for? And are there any grey areas in between and what about those?

Also, in your opinion, given that there have been unnecessary deaths, do you think the blowback from those will outweigh any tangible benefit resulting from the necessary deaths? Or, more simply, do you think the recent bombing of Lebanon will lead to less bombing of northern Israel, both in the short term and the long term?

Originally posted by Seree Zohar:

"From the comment concerning accuracy, I sense that their very inaccuracy implies they have no more effective value than terrorising?"

No. Sorry about that. I consider terrorizing to include killing, especially the kind of killing against which you have great difficulty defending.

"I state factually: high inaccuracy does not equate with only the 'terror tactic' aspect. High inaccuracy killed, maimed, ruined, damaged and shattered."

Yes, undoubtedly. Air war excells at that.

"...it is a fact not emulated by the Lebanese and others of Israel's neighbours"

Maybe the U.N. should fund air-raid shelters to the poorer neighbors. It might create a deterrent.

"(and one wonders, indeed, why these countries leave their civilian population in a state of possible insufficient protection...)."

Have they had time to catch their breath?

"Nor did Israel, at any time, during or prior to this last bout of war, take captives -- an important point to keep in mind, being that same issue which triggered the whole messy and bloody and ruinous sequence of events."

That's wise. Also, as I understand it, Israel had returned all but a couple prisoners, one of whom had murdered a mother and child.

"This is because Kathyushas carry thousands of metal pellets, nuts, nails, screws and bolts, and sharpened slivers of metal"

The amount varies. Lighter loads travel farther. The ones loaded to the hilt are short range missiles. I don't intend that to comfort anyone.

I respect your account. You should send it to The New Yorker or the Washington Post. NPR might run it as a feature, especially if you called them and they could hear your voice.

Bob

Originally posted by Seree Zohar

RJ:

[quote] Send patrols into, or helicoptors over, the olive groves, or bomb the olive groves, not the farmhouses.

"Little problem: picture this - farmhouse in the olive grove; two families in 12 rooms, one room dedicated to Hezbolla arsenal or being actively appropriated as a position from which to target the other side. Little problem, no?"

No, BIG problem. That's why I used patrols first. The job's one for foot soldiers, night patrols, very cautious, costly work.

Although helicopters are considered close-air-support, they're noisy and relatively easy to shoot down. Losing just one and its crew costs a bundle.

Bob



[This message has been edited by Robert J. Clawson (edited September 11, 2006).]

Originally posted by Stephen Foot:

“The Economist's Middle East Correspondent whom I cited earlier.”

I see, straight from the horse’s mouth, then.

From a reporter on the ground. Incidentally, he's not the only reporter using that figure. But, they do get replicated.

“How'd you tap into the Israeli military?”

Don’t you know? Speak to the little brown fox, if he doesn’t know there’s always the BBC.

Come on, answer my question. I answered yours.

“Do they exercise a freedom of information act?”

No, but they do exercise their freedom.

So, how'd you get the dope?

Curious Bob

Sorry, double post.

[This message has been edited by Robert J. Clawson (edited September 11, 2006).]

Oops, double post. Don't know why.


[This message has been edited by Robert J. Clawson (edited September 11, 2006).]

Bob,

Is there some way you can clean up your double posts? Heaven knows this thread is long enough!

“From a reporter on the ground.”

He must have been a busy boy.

“Come on, answer my question. I answered yours.”

Like I said, the figures were taken from the BBC. They quote their source as the Israeli military.

“So, how'd you get the dope?”

How anyone else does, it comes from the poppy fields in the Bekaa Valley, you just need to find a Syrian middleman.

Stephen

Bob, let me talk to you man to man (I trust those engaged in the wider debate will forgive me). I thank all that’s good in the world for those who shout loud and clear that all war is a catastrophe, for those who stick flowers in gun muzzles. Who knows if the Lebanese boy still buried under the rubble of his home may not have been the next Picasso or Mozart? The tragedy goes beyond words, but it’s absolutely crucial that one does not confuse that voice with the voice of those who just hate Israel (I would not be so presumptuous as to include you). How does one discriminate?

Sincerely,

Stephen

Originally posted by Stephen Foot:

"Like I said, the figures were taken from the BBC. They quote their source as the Israeli military."

Thanks.

RJ:
it's all relative, in't it? With the enormous expanses Americans become used to, is 55 km (about 37 miles?) 'short range' or 'long range' ?

One monstrosa that landed just beyond the backyard of one of the places I was in (and which is about 55km from the border and <u>by Israeli scales of distance, considered really quite far from the border !</u>) was 4meters long. We were lucky. It did a perfect nose dive into a soft, recently turned agricultural field which is why, I was informed, we were spared it spewing its contents everywhere. I wish I could post the pic of the guys bringing it in so the IDF could deal with it.... very much a 'whew' moment. Three that flew so low (a few moments later) over us that we could almost touch them, having no advance warning that we ought to scoot, ripped out the road and some neighbor's homes....shredded them to bits.

----------

Kevin - "all right" is relative too. Is it better to be alive and badly maimed for life, or.... no, everyone I mentioned or know is not all right at all, but that's another issue.

Nor did I imply you made any statement specifically about Katyushas but that your statement referenced 'six years' and 'waiting'.

As for separating re loss of life: I will keep my points relative to the current discussion, concerning Israel: I am just tremendously saddened by the continued warring and refusal by Israel's near and far neighbors, to accept Israel's right to exist.

If (to paraphrase what has been noted on this thread in various forms) it is clear to all that it's not really worth messing with Israel, then why is it not clear that the way to "not mess" is to clear up the dispute through negotiation and release of old-time hatred? (You may recall tht Israel's concessions re the Oslo accords was far from being just lip service, but those too were rejected, and instead, a new and more severe intifada was the 'reward' / result).

But that brings us back to square one: the hatred exists, and has for centuries, and hate-mongers have waged war, and have for centuries, whether by persecution during periods when Jews did not formally live in the area known since Biblical times as Israel, or whether by direct war since '48 and war-mongering forays (fedayeen) pre-'48. Even recently, the PA used UN funding to produce textbooks for school children, blatantly teaching hatred; and set up 'summer capmps' where youngsters were taught to use guns.

I am sorry, then, that the powers that drive dispute which in turn drives war, are not in turn sufficiently sorry themselves over the loss of life.

And the cycle continues.... the only loss of life I can truly accept, in a nonetheless not entirely accepting way, is loss incurred in self defense. So, if the Israelis recently captured were to escape by killing their captors, yes, that would be entirely acceptable. When a plane load of innocent travelers was hijacked to Entebbe and their release involved the death of certain terrorist-hijackers, I consider that in the range of acceptable. It falls into the sphere of self defense (unprovoked, you attacked me; ipso facto I am entitled to release myself in whatever way ensures I stay alive).

We all have the same drive to live, and right to live. Jordan and Egypt understood that their citizens have a right to live, and more importantly, the way to keep their finances directed toward betterment of 'home' is to simply accept that Israel exists, has a right to exist, that borders sometimes move, adapt, but that in general they are not going to gain, in the loooooooong run, by constant attack.

In fact, Jordan especially gained tremendously by fast turnover trade with Israel, including huge numbers of Israelis visiting there; Egypt also enjoyed such conditions until it made clear to Israelis that wandering its cities is highly dangerous and no protection will be offered; but Sinai is still a huge attraction, despite a couple of horrific terror attacks over the last few years.

And as a final note: I cannot fix humans who use their brainpower, superior to that of the animal kingdom, for behaving the way they do, but I keep in mind these two instances: when the Hebrews were led out of Egypt, their persecutors drowned while trying to follow, we are told. When Miriam breaks out in song, it is not to rejoice the deaths of the enemy but to celebrate the fact that the Israelites survived.

Similarly, much later, in Greater Persia, King Ahasuerus decreed that on a specific day, in accordance with advice received by his trusted advisors, all Jews in the kingdom were to be annihilated. When Jews celebrate the festival of Purim, it is not to celebrate the fact that a certain number of the enemy was killed (even though those deaths occured in self defence, by virtue of a second royal decree allowing the Jews to take up arms in defense) but that the people as a whole survived. These two examples are representative of my approach, too, in regard of your question.

and now it is September 11th, a day on which Americans were attacked, simply for being America. May widsom penetrate the minds of all humans, overcoming ego, and may there be a speedy end to all such sorrows. Sorry for the lengthy meander....



[This message has been edited by Seree Zohar (edited September 11, 2006).]

If this alone were the case: and have clarified that my attitude is defined by the policies of each side in the current dispute, not by the qualities of the civilians on either side then you would not be identifying yourself as "antisemitic" with such vehemence and apparent glee, Mr. Clawson, you would simply state that you disliked and disagreed with the politics and the politicians of The Middle East. The all-encompassing word "antisemitic" would never have entered the picture.

"Anti-Semite" includes all members of the race, Bob, not just the "leaders." You dislike and disagree with Bush, his government and his politics, correct? And yet, I've not heard you describe yourself as "Anti-American" because of it.

To brand yourself "antisemitic" over and over again and then attempt to explain it as nothing vmore than a hatred of Middle Eastern leaders is just not working, Bob, it just isn't....and it won't work no matter how often you continue to repeat it in each post.

To annouce yourself "Anti-a-whole-race" is just not the same thing as saying "the leaders of the country they happen to live in are idiots."

If that were the case, every last American and possibly every last Englishman would be universally hated....and it would be justifiable.


Lo

[This message has been edited by Lo (edited September 11, 2006).]

Mark--why don't you take a tour through Jane's Defense and look at "Cluster bombs". You constantly go for "Moral Equivalence"

your quote: This discussion of the finer points of weaponry seems like another attempt to claim a moral high ground for the IDF. Why? From what you've said Katyushas, at their worst, are about as evil as the mines sown by the IDF, apparently illegally, which children are so fond of playing with.

Cluster bombs are bombs--not mine laying devices. It some cases they are shaped charges designed to penetrate armor. Not all of them detonate as designed. Several of our cruise missiles aimed at Osama landed almost pristine and were immediately sold to the Chinese or Russians to be reverse-engineered. Nothing ever works a hundred percent.

Shameless: Humint is "Human intelligence". Our dearly departed President Clinton all but destroyed all our humint funding and relied mostly on "technical means". (Netscape article today describes a 4 gigapixel camera with the resolution of showing every blade of grass in four football fields. If this is in the open I can imagine what resolution is in the KH series of satellites.) The KH series are Hubbles that point down.

IMO Hezbullah will talk peace if the IDF depleted their weaponry to the point they need time to resupply. This will continue until we hit Iran and Syria and change the symetry.

Seree: Your account of your relationship with the Katyushas is a novel and I hope you live to write it!

Love to Dick. Will you hold my hand?

Eh? If that means what I THINK it means everyone here is at it, not least (by any means) your good self.

I never said they were mines or mine-laying devices. I had in mind such statements as the following:

'More than 130,000 Israeli anti-personal (AP) and anti-tank (AT) mines, per UN figures, are polluting South Lebanon.

Tens of thousands of unexploded ordnance UXO (bomblets, cluster bombs, missiles, etc.)

From May 2000 until December 2001, Israel submitted maps for less than 70,000 mines areas of the former occupied land.

From May 2000 until December 2001, 21 people died and 158 were maimed or severely injured by Israeli mines and UXO.

Seventy percent of the casualties of Israeli mines in South Lebanon are children (under 16-year-old).

There are more than 3 Israeli mines / UXO's per child in South Lebanon.

Israel is not a signatory of the Ottawa Treaty, which prohibits the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of AP mines.'

the wikipedia mentions mines as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Is...banon_conflict

Seems to me there a big difference between ordinance that merely fails to work 100% and ordinance that tends to mostly kill children (or teens).

BTW Dick, I already apologised to Seree for misreading her post (if that is in fact what I did). I am more than happy to apologise for my own stupidities or incidences of jumping the gun (or jumping ugly). Can't recall you ever doing the same (though I may be wrong; this thread is WAY too long to check).

Kevin:

re:
Also, in your opinion, given that there have been unnecessary deaths, do you think the blowback from those will outweigh any tangible benefit resulting from the necessary deaths? Or, more simply, do you think the recent bombing of Lebanon will lead to less bombing of northern Israel, both in the short term and the long term?

---------
This is going to sound a bit dumb, after all the other posts, but I have learned to 'think' less, and 'do' and 'hope' more. Not being privy to all the info I would need towards supporting a clearly balanced opinion (the IDF is hardly going to say, ok girl, whatever you want to know to explain to eratosphereans, well, let us make your wish come true!), I am left with little option but the retrospect form of gaining information: to listen carefully, read between lines, and for the most, support groups that are involved in dialogue, or integrated activity. Thus, I follow the actions of various organisations supported by Israeli and world Jewry, (because Muslim and other Arab organisations try to boycott these activities rather than support them or set up independent ones of their own) run by women, for women: that conduct courses for Arab women in Israel, teaching them a range of capabilities: how to critically review attitudes and approaches, how to use natural or ethnic skills to set up cottage industry, how to respect (understand) and apply western business ethics while maintaining their cultural ethics, how to learn and then teach their children to respect otherness, and so on. Or the many and varied groupsand organisations that run integrated summer camps, study groups, debating and other activities for Israeli Jewish and Arabic youth, all geared to breaking down barriers and reaching for, at least, some kind of bridge where the both can stand and chat peacably.

As I already mentioned, there is usually a lot more behind- the-scenes diplomacy going on than ever makes most news items, overseas especially. The MidEast is like a boiling cauldron: a tiny change in the heat, and the contents either stop cooking altogether (stagnation), simmer (6 years of Katyushas, for example; tunnels under the southern borders for arms smuggling, etc) or suddenly bubble furiously (capture of Israelis; and the aftermath of those moves). Only prob is, one never knows who is going to be changing the heat level. From what appears to be any moment to the next, there may be a/several sudden secret diplomatic move/s that will alter the WHOLE picture temporarily or permanently. I hardly imagine Sadat popped over for one visit, all was decided over a frap, and papers signed to announce peace. But it was all so hush that when announcements were made, it seemed as though it had happened overnight. I happened to be in Israel when Sadat made his official visit there, too. The sense of elation, of relief, of hope for a better future, not only had people laughing but crying with joy.

Yes, it is a highly sensitive kind of peace these days, one Israel is loth to unbalance by making stronger moves against Egypt for allowing the tunnel digging etc from Egyptian jurisdiction - that is how much Israel just wants to co-exist (see my earlier comments relating to nothing more than status quo). It is hard to imagine other nations of the world simply accepting these kinds of tunnels and sending its own people in to dismantle them, at high risk.

So, as far as the immediate and the longterm situation in northern Israel, I HOPE there will be 'peace'(read: military inactivity) long enough to actualise an authentic peace, I HOPE Hezbolla realises it perhaps went a bit too far, I HOPE Iran and Syria understand that 'even, just' the capture of 'only a couple' of Israelis, after years of harrassment, is more than Israel is prepared to tolerate, as Israel believes its people have a right to feel safe at least within Israel's own borders which, until officially changed by negotiation, should be respected as such; and more than anything, I HOPE no organisation does anything else stupid to trigger another whole series of events causing bloodshed and other forms of damage. But Kevin, honest? Tomorrow is another day, and anything could happen in Israel or its surrounds, and probably will.

Mark:

re:
'More than 130,000 Israeli anti-personal (AP) and anti-tank (AT) mines, per UN figures, are polluting South Lebanon'


I do not have official figures. Therefore I cannot refute or support the above.

But I have 'experience'.

The most predominant: Terje Larsen, a UN official, stood smiling with Arafat and declared in the name of the UN that Israel conducted a massive massacre in Jenin. Which turned out to be an utter lie. (It took many, many months to get any kind of official staement fm the UN - not an apology, mind you - 'correcting that initial mis-impression'). Kofi Annan stood smilingly shaking Nasralla's hand in 2000 and thanking him for maintaining law and order in southern Lebanon, thus bypassing the official government, and despite Hezbolla being considered a terror organisation.

There are many other instances of UN-'sourced' info coming from dubious sources, and UN officials being seen or heard making statements or moves that do not comply with truthfulness and authenticity and what the UN is supposed to stand for. Maybe in this case they are right. But maybe they are wrong. Over the last few years it has become abundantly clear that everything UN originating in regard of Israel needs to be taken not with a grain but a heaped spoonful of salt and rechecked several if not many times over a lengthy period, until "the real truth" can be verified.

Here's an interesting thing, Fisk being criticised for being too critical of Hezbollah etc. Sure, the writer is biased himself, we can see where he's coming from. But it does seem to support the contention that Fisk may be (at least a good part of the time) trying to be as fair-minded as possible. No?
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article5681.shtml

Sad but true. And those words really echo with today especially.

Here's to hoping.

Kevin

Originally posted by Lo:

"If this alone were the case: and have clarified that my attitude is defined by the policies of each side in the current dispute, not by the qualities of the civilians on either side then you would not be identifying yourself as "antisemitic" with such vehemence and apparent glee, Mr. Clawson, you would simply state that you disliked and disagreed with the politics and the politicians of The Middle East. The all-encompassing word "antisemitic" would never have entered the picture. {My emphasis, RJC.}

Well, I'm sorry, it did, Lo. To wit:

Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:

"Now then, for the detractors here:

...please, please enlighten me as to why every other country on the face of the Earth has the rights I enumerated in previous posts.... Why is that principal okay within the "rules of war" and "just war theory" -- until we reach the Israeli case?

I know I can get persistent on this subject, but the double standard has always struck me as ludicrous, and born of political faddism if not (oh no! The "a" word!) Antisemitism." {My emphasis, RJC.}

For verification and full context, see Dan's post on the first page of this thread.

""Anti-Semite" includes all members of the race, Bob, not just the "leaders.""

Am I not allowed to qualify my usage? Am I not allowed to dispel the imminent accusation, to try to remove it from the table? Am I not allowed to shed light on a word too often used as a cudgel?

"You dislike and disagree with Bush, his government and his politics, correct?"

You bet.

"And yet, I've not heard you describe yourself as "Anti-American" because of it."

He and his administration persistently imply Anti-Americanism to chill his detractors. I wouldn't call myself Anti-American, but I'll readily admit to being an Embarrassed American.

(Incidentally, Dan sounds MUCH brighter than George.)

"To brand yourself "antisemitic" over and over again and then attempt to explain it as nothing vmore than a hatred of Middle Eastern leaders is just not working, Bob, it just isn't....and it won't work no matter how often you continue to repeat it in each post."

You may have something there. I've certainly been stubborn and relentless. But I don't recall expressing hatred. I'm generally careful about using that highly charged word.

"To annouce yourself "Anti-a-whole-race" is just not the same thing as saying "the leaders of the country they happen to live in are idiots.""

Well, I've tried to contain my wonderment at the stupidity to the current situation, the topic of the thread, not to the two "races." I don't believe I've wandered off the subject except for a few trips to 1948 to set some context, perhaps a Biblical reference or two.

"If that were the case, every last American and possibly every last Englishman would be universally hated....and it would be justifiable."

I can't argue this way. It's a hypothetical case based on my announcement of being "Anti-a-whole-race," when I've already been accused of "twisting" the word rather than shedding light on its usage.

I keep trying to remember who on Able Muse first called me antisemitic. I wish I had an electronic slave that would locate that exchange. It's easy to recall emotionally, but the actual source eludes me.

As with Dan's joke about "Pale Steen," my claim doesn't appear to have worked, and, as always, it would be tasteless to blame it on the audience.

Well, I'll not defend my usage any further, and I beg no conditions for this concession.

Shameless O'Clawson






[This message has been edited by Robert J. Clawson (edited September 11, 2006).]

Originally posted by Seree Zohar:

"...it's all relative, in't it?"

At the risk of offending the Chinese, Seree, it's same sing: death and destruction. The U.S. sold the cluster bombs to Israel. Do you ever wonder about the minds of people who invent these weapons? Would that we could gather a representative group of them in a Ted Koppel setting and try to plumb their depths.

Bob

Originally posted by Dick Morgan:

"Shameless: Humint is "Human intelligence"."

Thanks. Sounds like a breath mint.

"IMO Hezbullah will talk peace if the IDF depleted their weaponry to the point they need time to resupply. This will continue until we hit Iran and Syria and change the symetry."

Oh, boy, can't wait. I'm almost out of gas.

Mark,

A promised, I’ve come back to give you some specific responses to the questions you put to me. The core issue, it seems to me, is your objection to the comments I made about, your/the liberal, philosophy that under-girds the plank of the anti-Israeli position and from which position you make your argument. No, I didn’t attempt a mindmeld when I identified what your philosophy was as you had already provided the information way back in this thread. It’s a position all liberal people take when the issue of Israeli aggression is discussed, both generally and in regard the Lebanese conflict in particular, namely:

Your position is that all fair minded, humane and reasonable people could sign their name to this. It is, broadly speaking, the liberal position regarding Israel’s conflict with Hezbollah. It’s strongly implied that those who can not put their name to it are beyond the pale, religious nutters, etc, etc, with whom it would be impossible to come to any agreement.

I have made my position clear in regard to my bias in favour of Israel, at which you expressed such ironic surprise. Perhaps I was too reticent; if you had called me a Zionist I would not have blanched. I have intimated in an earlier post how I came to hold such views and which subsequently provoked a degree of ridicule. Although I am no longer a member of the Brethren Movement and I am now what some describe as a ‘devout atheist’, I still have some respect for their beliefs, one of which was a high regard for the Jewish people, their traditions and culture. Their sympathetic attitude is primarily based on the theory of Dispensationalism, but that’s another story. It leads me to my point- no member of the Brethren could sign up to your Liberal Charter because they are pacifists, many of whom refused to fight against Hitler in W.W.II, who shouldered the same hatred the other Conscientious Objectors endured.

The pacifist position is the only, truly tenable, neutral stance to take, you should not confuse their voice with yours or mine; neither you or I belong on that hallowed ground. What we have to do is decide which shit stinks the most and deal with it. So, first hole in your neutral Liberal Charter.

Not all people think Israel has the right to exist. Not all of them are religious nutters and ideologues but intelligent and reasonable people. They believe the whole idea of Jewish sovereignty is an aberration and an absurdity, given how many generations of Jews have lived under the sovereignty of others. They believe, given the magnitude of the injustice they inflicted on the Palestinian people, that there is just cause for the dismantling of the Jewish state. There are some who think it preposterous that you even have to mention Israel’s right to exist in the first place. Second hole in the Liberal Charter.

Genocide is bad, war is bad, murder is bad, rape is bad, dropping litter is bad... yes, we all agree on what’s bad, but we don’t all agree on how to differentiate between the really bad shit and the not so bad shit. We can’t differentiate between such things on a linear curve until we reach a point when we all agree it’s as bad as it gets. We can’t open with a Katusha and raise the bid with a cluster bomb as if we’re playing a game to rules and there’s some referee somewhere.

The only statement that holds water is number 6.

Far and few, far and few,
Are the lands where the Jumblies live;
Their heads are green, and their hands are blue,
And they went to sea in a Sieve.

Stephen

According to James Zogby, on C-Span, Egypt,to date, has had ten thousand books translated into Arabic. Spain translates 10,000 books A YEAR into Spanish. How can anyone support cultures that impose such ignorance on their subjects, or do what they do to their women in the name of Allah?

Dick

With all respect to those who devote their lives to gaining poli knowledge or taking sides, and though I've hardly been able to skim this bulky thread, I feel a need to say I think it sucks.
Is an energy sucker. A vacuum. An oxygen thief.
There is very little wisdom to be found here, not much listening or tendering,
no meaningful healing or enlightenment or understanding taking place, just the self-indulgent sound of
scoring points, catching game, playing to win. And like
history, it only repeats itself. I've just come from the Met board
where Marion Shore says to someone in peripheral kindness, We are a literary, not a politcal forum.
The excess of this thread came to mind.

I don't suggest we turn away from politics and war and all the other stuffs of life here in General Talk.
Indeed I find many of the political discussions and head crashes intelligent, even enlightening
at times, but not this one. We can choose not to read here, and yet,
it still sucks. Literally. Is an energy sucker. A vacuum. An oxygen thief. This is not a plea to cease and decist, but some small morsel
of food offered at the o so unstable table of All Things in moderation.
Where wisdom breathes may we all be, but from here, I only see
Dan H loves playing king, Shameless is the jester, Kevin is the passion police, and war is. Next. The new guy suits up, wants
to find a role, wants, like everyone else, to win. Perhaps
there'something to learn about war, about the tribe,
and about how humans
discuss war or listen to one another, but I suspect such learning can only come when the win
is no longer the most important thing.
Nothing personal, people. I've nothing against
spectacle, but endless spectacle....


Yours in Pollyana clothes. And of course,
a poem.


A Brief for the Defense

Sorrow everywhere. Slaughter everywhere. If babies
are not starving someplace, they are starving
somewhere else. With flies in their nostrils.
But we enjoy our lives because that's what God wants.
Otherwise the mornings before summer dawn would not
be made so fine. The Bengal tiger would not
be fashioned so miraculously well. The poor women
at the fountain are laughing together between
the suffering they have known and the awfulness
in their future, smiling and laughing while somebody
in the village is very sick. There is laughter
every day in the terrible streets of Calcutta,
and the women laugh in the cages of Bombay.
If we deny our happiness, resist our satisfaction,
we lessen the importance of their deprivation.
We must risk delight. We can do without pleasure,
but not delight. Not enjoyment. We must have
the stubbornness to accept our gladness in the ruthless
furnace of this world. To make injustice the only
measure of our attention is to praise the Devil.
If the locomotive of the Lord runs us down,
we should give thanks that the end had magnitude.
We must admit there will be music despite everything.
We stand at the prow again of a small ship
anchored late at night in the tiny port
looking over to the sleeping island: the waterfront
is three shuttered cafés and one naked light burning.
To hear the faint sound of oars in the silence as a rowboat
comes slowly out and then goes back is truly worth
all the years of sorrow that are to come.


-- Jack Gilbert