I won't step into this dispute whole hog (sorry, Israel), but it's ridiculous to say that the term "kidnap" can only be accurately applied to children. There's certainly nothing in the legal definition of kidnapping that limits it in that fashion. Grown-ups can be kidnapped, and all too often are. One's great-great grandmother can indeed be kidnapped. To kidnap is simply to take someone against their will to an undisclosed location, generally to seek ransom (financial or other concessions) from those who are bothered by their absence (parents, spouses, governments, whatever). At least you haven't suggested the term should be limited to the abduction of young goats!

Are you referring to the X part of it? It's the "cross of saint Andrew" because he was crucified on an X shaped cross. Andrew (Peter's brother) is the patron saint of Scotland. After the English conquered Scotland they incorporated into their flag.

I think you're confusing "In God We Trust" of the Coinage Act of 1864 with the insertion of the "under God" phrase into the Pledge of Allegiance. The original Pledge did not have it, but it was added during the early 1950s and you're right that it supported by the Knights of Columbus.

Robert Meyer


[This message has been edited by Robert Meyer (edited July 28, 2006).]

Mike Carlton is a respected Australian journalist and a gifted radio satirist. THis article published by "The Sydney Morning Herald" says some of what many of us would like to say.
Janet

Kevin Kevin Bo Bevin, Banana Fanna Fo Feven,

Having two distinct charges of wheedling pending, I thought I'd go for the hat trick. But you really need to find a synonym for "wheedling."

On to more weighty issues:

The insane assertion that Israel is a theocracy -- despite the influence of the religious parties in items such as marriages, divorces, "blue laws," etc. -- is once again, only valid in a vacuum. Christians - or Jews - can produce and sell unkosher food; Nobody is forced to pray in synagogues; there are no stonings of homosexuals, unless they happen to be driving on the sabbath in certain ultraorthadox neighborhoods (and it's the driving that does it, not the homosexuality). You're evidently of the opinion that if you say "theocracy" enough it's true. Well, it isn't.

But the insane assertion is itself beside the point. The U.S. does have a theocracy as an ally in the region, and it's not Israel. Saudi Arabia, home of the veil and the beheading, is a real theocracy.

Is your contention now that for Israel to have a right to self-defense, she must be a liberal democracy without parallel, without the faintest vestige of religion in the public sphere -- despite the contrary examples in the U.S., Europe, and elsewhere?

Your fight against Zionism gains no credence from the baseless assertions that 1) Israel is a theocracy or 2) Israel must be measured against different standards than other democracies.

As for your flag-design skills, you may try running your alternatives past the Israeli government, to see which they like best. Be prepared to explain why religious and ethnic emblems are perfect for the flags of Europe and the Middle East, but are offensive if Jews use them.

You've trotted out one double-standard, and when it was unsuccessful, you explained through recourse to a second double standard, then gone on to say that crosses aren't really Christian, and "In God We Trust" does not really refer to God. Meanwhile, Israel is really a theocracy, even though she has secular laws and courts.

Your double standards are pure vintage antisemitism: a gentile can do thus, but a Jew can not. When a gentile is doing thus, he is not really doing it. A Jew is doing it even if he is "sort of" doing it, and we needn't dwell on definitional niceties. It's not politics, it's not poetry, it's just plain ugly.

I'm not going to belabor kidnapping versus capture in battle. Taking hostages for the express purpose of using them as bargaining chips -- not as a concommitant of battle -- is every bit as forbidden as U.S. drumhead trials for Gitmo inmates. If you are another of those "Geneva, Shmeneva" types, then of course terrorism itself is fine and dandy by you. Otherwise, the distinctions of just war doctrine must have meaning. Take your pick. Just don't get too excited about abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, if you believe the Geneva Conventions have no meaning in the Israeli context.

If Lebanon can not disband a militia -- as Lebanon's Prime Minister claims -- the obvious conclusion is they need a little help. Israel is providing it. More likely, Syria does not want a hand laid on Hezbollah. This, from a Lebanese perspective, carries a lot of weight, especially given Israel's absence from South Lebanon for six years. From the Israeli point of view, it does not matter which is the case. Lebanese forces are attacking Israel. Israel is responding. The fact that Lebanon has the option of moving against Hezbollah before it comes to this point is only important from a Lebanese perspective. When you allow rocket volleys against your neighbor's territory, it is an act of war. If your complaint is that you do not exercise sovereignty over those areas attacking your neighbor, you have no complaint if your neighbor assists you in fulfilling your international obligations.

Really nice try on the out-of-context smear.

First of all, “Never Forget” is not a national slogan of Israel. It is, if anything, best known as a slogan of Clan Campbell of Scotland in its Latin form, “Ne Obliviscaris” (Forget Not.) I know this because I researched the term for use on a medal issued in the United States.

“Never Again,” the phrase you’re probably thinking of, is also not a national slogan of Israel, at least not to my knowledge. It’s possible, of course, that an official document states otherwise. Regardless, the phrase is as appropriate as ever, as is evident by the faddish embracing of anti-Semitism by the political left so prominent in what I will generously term your own thought.

Once more:
What you’re suggesting is that a people’s refusal to die out, is an offense and a danger to those who would plan future exterminations.

In your world, it’s a two-edged sword to remember a tremendous wrong done in the past, because others will remember your pettiest mis-steps – such as defense of borders – as atrocities. In your world, because Israelis have suffered atrocities, any act of self-defense on the part of Israel can be considered an atrocity. Now that’s creepy.

Understand this, Kevin, and spread the word among those who share your views, demanding that Israel be “holier than thou,” “more secular than thou,” “more peaceful than thou,” etc.: Consistently choosing to make points regarding Israel’s cultural and religious identity, without considering the identities of other nations, clearly singles out that nation’s identity for special treatment. Ignoring the parallel cases of Christian and Muslim states, you attack the single Jewish state, not on political grounds, but on the grounds of its Jewishness.

This year, the symbol of the Magen David Adom – the Israeli equivalent to our “Red Cross” – was finally recognized by the international Red Cross. The Star of David – unlike the Red Crescent or Red Cross – must be surrounded by a second design.

Your anti-Semitism is similar to the IRC’s. I doubt you walk around with seething hatred for the Jew who is your friend or coworker. You do, however, accept the current fads among the left (of which I am a “member,” on other issues,) and come to anti-Semitic conclusions.
These conclusions are no less anti-Semitic because they are in vogue.

Since you are concerned about “wheedling implications,” Kevin, here is what you want. Your views are anti-Semitic, full stop. It’s not that you oppose Israel; it’s that you oppose Israel’s right to do what every other nation does, and you base your case on Israel’s specifically Jewish character (though it is no sin for a state to be of a Muslim or a Christian character.)

Yours in…

Oh that’s right.

Yours,
Dan

Ah, thanks. I knew they were responsible for one of them.

And thanks, also, for the help on the Cross of St. Andrew. We already know it repels Dan--even if it's only the symbol of the crucifixion of St. Peter's brother, as opposed to an upright Jesus-style crucifix--but does it repel vampires too? I'm asking because the St. Andrews cross is obviously incorporated into the Stars-and-Bars, so what would happen if Bo and Luke were to chase Dracula with the General Lee?

No, Kevin. Anti-Semitism repels me. Crosses don't repel me, unless they're presented along with a sermon against the display of the Mogen David. Or if you bend the ends at right angles. That bothers me too.

HUH??? Isn't it the Salvation Army which rings bells in front of the supermarkets? And isn't the Knights of Columbus a catholic organization which was founded by a catholic priest in 1882 to render financial aid and assistance to members and their families?

http://www.fathermcgivney.org/mcg/li...line/index.cfm

Just to further muddy these here waters.....Robert M. is entirely correct - "In God We Trust" first appeared on the U.S. 2cent coin in the year 1862, and shortly after that on all US minted coins ....a full twenty years before The Knights of Columbus even existed....and almost 3/4 of a century before McCarthism reared its ugly head and the K of C became involved in adding "Under God" (which is no way similar to the words "In God We Trust" other than both phrases happen to contain the word God...but then again, "goddamn you" and "godbless you" are equally similar but hardly anyone ever confuses the two) to the Pledge of Allegience in 1954.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fac...we-trust.shtml

One of us is either playing with facts or is just plain confused here.....and I don't think it's me.

Lo

All militias, world wide, are criminal organizations and must be destroyed. A real military acts on the orders of a civilian government, but militias have no accountability and therefore are more akin to the Charles Manson 'family' or the Mafia: the McViegh / Nichols gang, the Crips, the Bloods, the KKK, the so-called Catholics and so-called Protestants in Northern Ireland, Hezbollah, all of them. I wonder how these 'tough guys' would handle a stroke?

Robert Meyer

ps: thanks Lo.

[This message has been edited by Robert Meyer (edited July 28, 2006).]

Dan,

Entertainingly enough, I have here over my desk a 1920s OUIJA board that prominently displays <cite>both</cite> a cross with the ends bent at right angles <cite>and</cite> a Star of David. Back from the 1920s mind you, when the first symbol meant "Good Luck" and the second meant "Magic."

But symbolism and perception is what it's all about. I once had a housemate from Korea who walked out of her room wearing a necklace with a little gold charm in the shape of the same bent cross. I asked her what it meant and she promptly replied, "Good luck!" since it still means that in the East. I had to inform her that unfortunately it no longer meant that in the West, and she shouldn't wear it outside the house or some people would flip out.

As for double standards, I hold Israel to the same benchmark that, faddish liberal, I did with South Africa in the early 90s. I still remember getting flamed over the phone by some guy from the South African consulate over how the awful awful USA did not have socialized medicine, unlike the wonderful South Africa, even if they did have apartheid, and why was I concerning myself with some other country's business?

Of course disapproving of South Africa wasn't anti-semitic, since only Israel gets to hand out free anti-semitism cards if anyone dares to criticize its policies or politics.

With the Red Cross, I wasn't even aware that there'd been any trouble with having a red Star of David, since I'd seen that up on the wall of all the Red Cross locations here in California, along with the Red Crescent and the rest of the crew. Though looking it up on Wikipedia now, I do have to say that the new Red Crystal design does solve the problem of multiple symbols.

But anyway, back to the double standards. You want me to compare Israel to Saudi Arabia? Fine. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy with theocratic laws which could most charitably be described as pickled in amber since the 18th century. Women can't vote, not that there'd be much to vote for anyway, with a monarchy and clerics, and they can't drive either. No one in the west would want anything to do with Saudi Arabia except for all the oil wealth they have. But visit there let alone live there? Bwahaha! Surely you jest. Note: Special circumstances might make me visit, but still wouldn't want to live there.

Israel? Democracy set up with religious and racial limitations on immigration, the military and identity cards. Other than that, reasonably nice, apart from sporadic terrorism and continual border disputes. Know folk from there. As with most things, like the people, dislike the government. Would I visit? Have no plans or interest, but would change my mind for the right reasons.

The "crystal" or "diamond" or whatever the hell it is will now be put around the red cross and the red crescent as well, I assume? No? I see how this "solves the problem" as you see it.

So let's see, you were against Apartheid, where a government of whites ran a whole country for the benefit of a minority white population.

You are against Israel because a majority Jewish population shares in the government of a majority Jewish nation, with no restriction on Muslim or Christian voting rights.

No wait, I know. It's because Israel occupies areas which, when Israel leaves, attempts to murder her citizens.

No wait don't tell me...

Never mind, it's hard to expect logic regarding your hatred of Israel, given your first few attempts. I've seen enough of the ilk to get it... the argument doesn't need to hold water. It just needs to be in vogue.

Dan

Probably the makers of the board were randomly looking at Indian and Tibetan art. Mandalas and Yantras occasionally use variations of both of the symbols, as well as crosses with equidistant arms, with no political meanings.

Robert Meyer

Robert Meyer: "All militias, world wide, are criminal organizations and must be destroyed. A real military acts on the orders of a civilian government, but militias have no accountability and therefore are more akin to the Charles Manson 'family' or the Mafia: the McViegh/Nichols gang, the Crips, the Bloods, the KKK, the so-called Catholics and so-called Protestants in Northern Ireland, Hezbollah, all of them."

But surely the sanction of a "civilian government" is hardly sufficient to ensure the virtue of a regular army, any more than the lack of such sanction implies the evil of a "militia." That's like saying established authority is Good, dissidence & rebellion are Evil. Is that what you really meant?

Dan Halberstein: I've enjoyed your spirited posts in this thread, but it seems to me you are wanting to polarize the issue into clear black-&-white in a way that does not do justice to the actual present situation. Of course, responding to tendentious (& mischievous) polarizers such as Kevin, that's understandable. But still, it would be nice to see a nuanced evaluation of Israel's actions from your point of view. Do you think what Israel is doing now is wise, regardless of whether or not it is "justified" from the all-or-nothing point of view of the embattled apologist? Do you think that the present course of action will, in the long run, be better for Israel (& therefore wiser), than a policy of conspicuous restraint in the face of provocation might have been? Do you not think that Israel is making new enemies & strengthening old enmities with its present policy?

Of course, it's exactly what Hezbollah wanted: isolate Israel, make it morally untouchable, just at the point in time when it was ready to concede a Palestinian state. Don't you think Israel is foolishly playing into Hezbollah's (Syria's; Iran's) hands? Aren't Israel's reckless actions a dream come true for her enemies?

These are partly rhetorical, but partly real, questions. It's a muddy river.

P.S., hadn't read the most recent 3 posts when I wrote this.

Of course it is not a sufficient condition (just look at all the evil governments), but I think it is a necessary condition. When dealing with an evil government I think "dissidence" (passive resistance) is not only good, but a moral imperative; but "rebellion" (as in violent revolution) is always wrong.

Robert Meyer


[This message has been edited by Robert Meyer (edited July 28, 2006).]

There was an article in Vogue about how to hate Israel? When did I miss that?

Anyway, glad to be told that I "hate Israel." I can put that right alongside all the times I "hate America" for not mindlessly waving the flag in support of all of Bush's policies.

I just did a longer post, which somehow didn't take, but the nutshell is that you can say "Minority" and "Majority" all you like, but that ends up making you look up the percentages. According to Israel, according to Wikipedia, 77% of Israel's population is Jewish, 18.5% is Arab, with the rest assorted. That's a pretty significant minority to not allow in the military and to treat as second-class citizens. And yes, if there are different rights, that is the textbook definition of "second-class."

How well are they treated? Would you listen to the BBC?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/newsnight/1507840.stm

Perhaps an article from CNN:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/m....ap/index.html

I don't hate Israel, but I think, Dan, that you love her so much that you make it your business to gloss over her faults. That's rather the textbook definition of an apologist.

Good questions, AE. I wonder about the same things, and at first I thought surely Israel is doing itself more harm than good by its "overreaction." And maybe my first impulse was correct. On the other hand, it's pretty scary to contemplate the scope and size of the Hezbollah arsenal that has been revealed over the last few weeks, along with the apparent fact that the arsenal was financed and arranged by Iran, a country that has declared that Israel ought to be destroyed. Hezbollah, not being a government, does not, itself, have any legitimate need or right to amass tens of thousands of missile and rocket launchers, particularly when it does so inside territory of a government that purportedly agreed to disarm all militias in its boundaries. The fact that these armaments were supplied by Iran, a country desiring Israel's destruction, surely gives Israel not just the right but every incentive to destroy the aresenal, no less than the United States would obviously not hesitate to destroy an Al Quaeda arsenal being amassed in Tijuana or Montreal.

When the situation is reduced to its undeniable basics, the Hezbollah arsenal and trained fighters are pretty much the same as an Iranian army on Israel's border, and Iran's goal, by its own words, is to destroy Israel. When the surrogate Iranian army does not merely build up its arms and loom threateningly on the border, which by itself might be causus belli, but crosses the border and attacks and, yes, "kidnaps" Israeli soldiers, a strong Israeli response can be condemned only if one disagrees with the premise that Israel is a legitimate, sovereign nation that is entitled, like all legitimate, sovereign nations, to protect itself from acts of war and threats to its existence.

It is simplistic to say that Israel's response has been "disproportionate" to the Hezbollah attack that brought it about, since the damage of that attack was not just on the three individual soldiers affected (one dead, two taken), but confirmation, if any was needed, that the non-governmental arsenal amassed on Israel's border was there for no other purpose than to threaten Israel, and the threat was ultimately coming from Iran, a nuclear power bent on Israel's destruction. What alternatives did/does Isreal have to remove a threatening non-governmental army, which is a surrogate Iranian force, from its border?

The question right now isn't whether you like Israel, are happy about the fact that Israel was created back in 1948, or whether you feel the Palestinians are oppressed victims, on the whole, rather than terrorists and anarchists. Israel exists, and the realistic question is whether it is reasonable to expect any country, even one you don't like, to exercise "restraint" when faced with a nearby army that is financed and trained by a major power whose policy is to destroy that country.

So those who condemn Israel should get their complaint straight and say what they mean. Anything Israel does or doesn't do is illegitimate if you start with the premise that Israel is illegitimate, and any effort to attack or build an army to attack Israel is legitimate if you start with that premise. But under universal legal principles, accepted in virtually all nations, even the worst criminal has the right to defend himself if attacked. Draw a gun on a convicted rapist, for example, and the convicted rapist, under the law, can fire back and kill his attacker, and it's no less legitimate just because the right is being exercised by someone despicable. So go ahead, if you like, and consider Israel to be a lowlife criminal enterprise with the moral integrity and worth of a rapist. That's beside the point. Israel happens to be a country and has the same right to defend itself as countries you may like better, and its government has the same obligation to protect its citizens as any other government has to protect its own.

Oh, this is sort of a fill-in multiple-choice type question. Let's see, I believe that Israel has taken this option:

A. Bomb the shit out of south and central Lebanon then invade yourself, hoping that Hezbollah will come out and fight you in a pitched battle rather than running around doing guerilla tactics.

Since this has already been done, Israel doesn't get to pick any other options, but I believe they would include the following:

B. Have all the diplomats make a very large stink with the UN and pressure the Lebanese government to actually try to disarm Hezbollah, and if they can't, let in UN peacekeeping forces to do it for them. Ask the US to stand next to you for sabre-rattling purposes. (The US isn't going to commit any troops given the current mess in Iraq, but they're always useful to look fierce and even slightly psycho given current world events.)

C. Decide that two can play the sneak-across-borders game and send in some covert black ops group to rescue the "kidnapped" soldiers. Kill whatever Hezbollah cell members you like along the way and claim a great triumph when you get back.

D. Decide that a secret prisoner exchange could be to your advantage in regards to Hezbollah. Trade your soldiers for whatever prisoners Hezbollah wants, but make sure to rectally insert some variety of GPS device beforehand. Then have your black ops forces from option C go and track down the Hezbollah forces you were after to begin with.

You can add more options to all this, of course, and feel free to criticize any of these alternatives as unlikely or impractical. Then review periodically as the Israel-Lebanon war drags on and the body count mounts.

Originally posted by Kevin Andrew Murphy:

"Meanwhile Britain, while it does have a state religion, has the Church of England which has become the stuff of Eddie Izzard's "Cake or Death" skit."

Ha! Your mind is so inclusive, Kevin. Now, integrate Ali G into this debate.

I can envision a negotiating team of Izzard, G, and Stephen Colbert to help the Middle Easterners sort out their animosities, make their choices, and come to a reasonable agreement. Something "permanent," as Ms. Rice might say.

Shameless O'Clawson

I've decided that I'm antisemitic. I think the Jews and Arabs are acting like lunatics.

A few days back, on NPR, I heard an Israeli say that his country's response was not over the top. He felt that Israel had to show its enemies that it wouldn't be perceived as weak and vulnerable, that its reaction to any incursion would be robust retaliation.

Could anyone in the Middle East not have already known this? Isreal has launched enough robust retaliations in the past half century to make its point. Do the Arabs not get it?

Given that history, must the point be made again? Where's it getting them? The Arabs prick the Jews. The Jews hammer them. So, the Arabs lie low for a while, build force and nerve, then prick the Jews. The Jews hammer them.

It's a Punch and Judy show. Dumb Semites.

Shameless O'Clawson

Kevin, I had no idea your military training made you the equal of the IDF brass, not to mention Mossad! An "inclusive" mind indeed! Nevertheless, I'll leave tactics to the pros, thank you very much. And it seems you've given up on the "Israel shouldn't be there in the first place" contention. You and RJ have a good time together at the next wine-and-cheese-cross-burning, or whatever it is you do at the local poet nazi gathering. By the way, Ali G's Jewish, so be careful about bringing him along.

AE, thanks for bringing up the real questions. I have no desire to become an "apologist" for Israel, but a sane man has few choices when the right of Israel to exist is the only matter on the table.

As to the wisdom of her actions in the last few weeks, of course I've questioned it. This, again, comes back to tactics. It's not lost on me that Iran was being discussed before the U.N. when Israel let fly. It's not lost on me that the U.S. seems quite pleased to let Israel ping away at Iran's local henchmen. It's also not lost on me that Sharon lays dying, with nobody sure of Olmert's version of "disengagement". Sharon, after all, had been a war hero up until Lebanon, and a war criminal thereafter (by my lights) -- then a peacemaker at the end. Hardly an ideal resume, and hardly unusual in the region (his opposite number in the PLO was quite satisfying from a literary point of view. Not a mirror image, but close enough.) But Olmert may well have felt that with him calling the shots, "disengagement" in Gaza and withdrawl from Lebanon, had already fallen into a synonym for "hostage-taking rocket staging free-for-all."

Yes, the current situation is more nuanced that what I've been drawn into with the local bigots on this board. I do, however, still assert Israel has the right to have taken the actions we're discussing, whether or not we believe ourselves to be superior tacticians to the Israeli mililtary and intelligence leadership.

Israel went down a long difficult road with the PLO, specifically on the premise that "you make peace with your enemies, not your friends." Israel worked for decades in fits and starts, to get to recognition from the PLO. Enter Hamas. A few years later, Hamas is the government, and the PLO is the opposition. Now it is Hamas which swears Israel should, shall, must be destroyed.

Peacemaking with one's enemies is difficult, but, as has been shown, can be done (at least with some small success.) What's been missed, however, is that in the Israeli case, the "enemy" you've made peace with, just establishes a suicide bombing wing (Al Aqsa, for Fatah.) And/or a more popular party -- also replete with terrorist membership -- takes the place of the "peaceful" enemy you're working with.

Israel, with the election of Kadima, has decided to handle its issues by withdrawing where prudent, and striking when withdrawl is taken advantage of. Again, you may question the wisdom of such a policy, but Israel has taken this course specifically because AGAIN, no negotiating partner recognizes her existence (after decades of work to achieve this most basic requirement in the first place).

Eventually, anybody but an utter simpleton would see himself left with the military options. I am not the skilled tactician -- or more likely, devoted reader of Tom Clancy books -- that Kev is. And I am unfortunately less able than RJ to say "dumb semites" and wave it all off, especially having witnessed the behavior of the "dumb Japhethite" coalition in Iraq for the last four years. The dilletantes have spoken on the matter, and it probably has about the same value as the New Israeli Flag Committee's recent critique.

The wisdom of particular military actions is certainly something for the Israeli citizenry to hold their leaders accountable for. In fact, we may discuss the wisdom of Israeli actions to our hearts' content as well. As an American, I am more concerned with the justice (or lack thereof) of Israeli actions.

Me? I find the integrity of the Israeli position to be quite high, much as this galls dilletantes who do not bother to familiarize themselves with the history and the conduct of the conflict.

I'm of a mind to once again ask two questions in this case:

1) Did Israel have a legitimate Casus belli, or reason to go to war? I think either Mr. Slater or Mr. Meyer has treated this question well enough. I don't think Britain would look with equanimity upon a French claim that France "cannot control Brittany and Normandy," while rockets were launched across the channel by IRA operatives. Tactics aside, Britain would be justified in going to war. Hell, Britain went to war over the Falklands. Israel had left Lebanese territory on condition of her own security (as demonstrated by the disbanding of militias and the cessation of crossborder attacks.) Israel did not act on these attacks for six years. AE, this is what I call restraint.

2) Has Israel behaved justly in the conduct of the war, that is, the question of jus in bello? Again, the answer is yes.
- Israel purposefully attempts to contact at-risk civilian populations advising them of imminent attacks. Israel does this at the sacrifice of the element of surprise, therefore putting her own forces at a disadvantage, specifically to minimize collateral damage.
- Israel makes every attempt to minimize the effect of the guerilla/irregular nature of Hezbollah, that is, to attack only combatants despite the combatants' preference for using populated areas as thickets in which to hide.
- Israel has made it clear that the beginning of negotiations is the return of the two kidnapped soldiers. It is within Hezbollah's power at any point in this drama to begin negotiations with Israel, by returning the Israeli nationals.

Hezbollah, Hamas, and their allies ruthlessly attack civilian venues one day, and the next day the Lebanese government complains about civilian casualties, when the Israelis finally counterattack. The terrorists' acts must have painful consequences to the terrorists. Israel makes every effort not to strike civilians.

But you cannot have it both ways. If you're happy to have rogue bands attacking your neighbor's civilian populace intentionally, from your territory, you can hardly expect that there will be no consequences to this policy. And part of the consequence has been the unintended deaths of Lebanese civilians -- or "martyrs", as Hezbollah likes to call them.

What is Israel's wisest move in my opinion? Pick the first Hamas or Hezbollah leader to come forward and say "Israel has every right to exist within Israel's territory. Terrorism is not a valid tactic. Here are the names and locations of every terrorist in my organization," and consider that individual a negotiating partner immediately.

Until that time, these two organizations -- as well as Islamic Jihad and he rest who spout and act upon the Death-to-Israel party line -- have thereby invited Israeli action against them.

AE, I think the crux of your question is this: Does Israel risk more by ignoring/encouraging terrorist actions, or in responding to them?

Through the 1990s, I thought the greater peril was in responding to these provocations. Having witnessed what happens to "negotiating partners," from the point of view of an Israeli/Palestinian peace activist, I've come to the opposite conclusion in recent years, to wit, the actions of terrorists must have consequences for the terrorists, and the consequences must be unacceptable to the terrorists.

Restraint is clearly an option on all sides, but "Restraint" cannot replace protection of a nation's populace, as the bedrock responsibility of a nation's government; In Israel's case, "restraint" is a characteristic that guides and tempers a policy of self-defense, which is closer to the sine qua non of the modern nation-state.

We've often heard that "justice must be tempered by mercy." (I believe the Lurianic system would say G'vurah must be balanced by Chesed.) The reverse is also the case; any idiot can give the car dealer $100,000 for a Yugo. Any moron can sentence a rapist to an afternoon supervising the local high school cheerleader car-wash for his crime. This is not kindness, it is stupidity.

Yes, these terrorists should be hit, and hit hard. If it's currently the fashion hereabouts to bleat "apologia" when one does not support terrorist causes, by all means call my position apologia. In my opinion, however, the current course of action is in fact the best of Israel's options. This is not necessarily the case for every action Israel ever takes or has ever taken, of course. In this particular case, however, my opinion is that it is not wiser to "sit back and take it".

Again, the terrorists can change the reality on the ground very simply, by returning the kidnapped Israelis in question, as a prelude to negotiation. But for negotiations to go anywhere, the terrorists will have to, in effect, stop being terrorists.

It's okay to say this of the IRA. It's okay to say we will never negotiate with Al Qaeda, regardless of future changes of heart. I think it's okay to say this of Hamas and Hezbollah.

Thanks,

Dan

(paraphrased) About a year ago I suggested we should decapitate Iran’s leadership and bomb shut all the doors to their nuclear facilities that we knew about. This would draw the Iranian army down to protect those facilities—leaving an already unhappy population to their own devices. I was roundly criticized.

We are in an asymmetric war. For every dollar the Islamo-fascist spends we spend 10 thousand (WTC cost us 40 billion). Israel, in her attempt to be fair to the civilian population, warns the Hezbollah they are going to bomb, (so their leadership can scurry out of harm’s way). This is ridiculous. We are letting the enemy set the rules of engagement. The UN watched Hezbollah fortify southern Lebanon and said nothing yet Kofi Annan is all over TV criticizing Israel and nobody in the media has the guts to ask him why nobody at the UN said anything—even though that was their job.

Israel is our proxy. Until we can make Syria and Iran pay two dollars for dollar they spend funding terrorists it will go on until we’re broke. Everything else discussed here should begin with that realization.

Dick Morgan

Dan,

I call "Godwin's law" on your "nazi poet wine and cheese cross burnings" (though I'll admit I'm intrigued by how you burn a cross of wine and cheese--is it a sort of fondue?). And also "Ad hom" on "bigot" and "antisemite," though of course I realize these are free cards you usually get to throw down whenever someone disagrees with you. But we're supposed to be having a civilized debate, or at least that's the general idea.

I've made no secret of my assertion that I find the founding of Israel to have been a rather wacky idea. You think it's less wacky. Whatever, I think we can both agree that it's here now and as such has a right to exist, if simply based on the fact that people have been living there for multiple generations, have lives and property, etc.

Of course, the same should hold true for the people of southern Lebanon who are currently being bombed and told to flee and where have we heard that routine before? I think Israel has expansionist designs and while I'd be happy to be wrong about this, I don't think I am, given the situation and given the history.

I'd be interested to know how many participants in this thread have changed their minds as a result of the arguments advanced here.
(Dr Quincy, I urge you to leave your qualifications at the door when you enter here, in accordance with Erato's custom and practice.)
Best regards,
David

David, I've found this thread thought-provoking, and a couple of the posts have in fact influenced my opinion somewhat. It's good to see these matters being discussed out in the open as opposed to each side muttering among themselves. I suppose you could see it as an unpleasant confrontation, but you could also see it as a coming-together of intelligent, fundamentally decent people who probably aren't going to butcher or even hate each other despite their differing views. Would that life were always like that.

Rose is right. I was appalled when the thread started but the discussion has been very considerate and muted.

My only contribution was to link an article by a journalist who is noted for his lack of bigotry.

We use the word "war" to cover unspeakable atrocities committed in the name of many things.

I would like the manufacturers of weapons to be placed in the front lines.

Janet

That's something I've often wondered about Dan, and not just in relation to the Israeli military. One would think that any advanced military intelligence network is best-placed, with the resources (and intelligence), to figure the way out of any potential conflict. But if we apply this to (say) the Pentagon, should we just keep schtum, shut up and let the hawks get on with their hawkish doings? I think many not particularly intelligent people could SEE that Iraq was a disaster in the making, not least because the reasons put forward for the war were painfully obvious lies. No comfort that we've been proved correct; it didn't take a high IQ to see where it all was heading. And sorry, but the relentless bombing of Lebanon seems very much of the same mindset. I know, I am nattering about this from my privileged perch in Dublin, but from what I've seen and read it does seem to me that the Israeli government, with all its awesome resources in military intelligence, experience, etc. may well be disasterously WRONG in this instance. They can't be merely wrong of course. And so the exercise looks more likely to be politically cynical, perhaps even as cynical as the initial capture of those Israeli soldiers.

David--

Consider the qualifications checked.

Kevin, Dan--

I'll wade into the discussion a bit, but only a bit. My own opinions fall much closer to Kevin's as a rule, but neither of you seems to be quite on the right track about what Israel is or is not.

Let's start with the idea of the "Jewish State." I the abstract, this can potentially mean several things:

1. A state that is specifically Jewish in religious outlook. (Though I think Kevin overstates the case with his talk of "theocracy," there is an element of truth to that, in that the official rhythms of Iraeli life are, to varying extents, tied to Jewish observances.)

2. A state that looks out for, in the first instance, its Jewish citizenry. (This strikes me as probably the closest to what Israel is. Unlike apartheid South Africa, where black people were always an integral part of the economy, the Zionist project foresaw--and created--a state in which not only the upper and administrative classes were Jewish, but the working class as well, mostly through the dispossession and forced removal of Palestinian Arabs.)

3. A state that represents all the Jewish people in the entire world. (This is, I think, the claim of Zionism, more or less conflated with #2, and falsely assumes a national identity for Jews, on which more anon.)

Now all of this is somewhat fictive. States represent the interests of the dominant class in the first place, ultimately protecting those interests by violence or the possibility of violence. But you catch my drift.

On to my main point, though, which concerns nations--not the same thing as nation-states. The Jews of the world were not, by most definitions, a nation in the early 1900s. Regardless of the continued sacral importance of Hebrew, they lived in widely scattered parts of the world, spoke different languages, had differing customs, differing types of interaction with society at large, etc. An Ashkenazic Jew in Vilna lived a very different life than a Sephardic Jew in Thessaloniki or an Ethiopian Jew or a Yemani Jew.

But since 1949, with successive generations growing up in Israel, speaking Hebrew as their native tongue, etc., I think we can speak of a Hebrew-speaking Israeli nation with a valid claim to the land on which they live--a claim that wasn't valid in the same way for their immigrant ancestors. The Israeli grandson of a Polish immigrant has no particular ties to Poland, any more than I do to Germany--or that immigrant Polish couple did to Palestine.* You push that Israeli out of Israel, and he or she has been dispossessed. Again, this goes for those from Israel, not for Jewish Brooklynites.

BUT... the Palestinians who were pushed off of the land or forced into enclaves have their own, valid, conflicting claim to the same land--and they are the ones whose very presence in their own country is under threat.

(And no, the Arab regimes in the area didn't give a shit about Palestinian self-determination in 1949, either.)

And that's what makes it so damn hard. I suspect that the situation will only improve when things shift for the better in the region as a whole--which won't come from mullahs or kleptocratic U.S. puppets or the remnants of Pan-Arab nationalism. But in the short term, it's a fairly hopeless situation.

Quincy


*Titus's sacking of Jerusalem aside, it seems, from what I've read, that most of ancient Palestine's Jewish population probably stayed put, converted to Christianity and then Islam, and gradually became Palestinians.

[This message has been edited by Quincy Lehr (edited July 29, 2006).]

Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:

"You and RJ have a good time together at the next wine-and-cheese-cross-burning, or whatever it is you do at the local poet nazi gathering."

The ad hom stuff makes your argument less eloquent.

"By the way, Ali G's Jewish, so be careful about bringing him along."

Can a Jew not negotiate?

"It's not lost on me that the U.S. seems quite pleased to let Israel ping away at Iran's local henchmen."

"Ping?" The U.S. likes the big ones. Loves strategic bombing. Referring to WWII, this from the New York Post:

"Didn't the willingness of their leaders to inflict mass casualties on civilians indicate a cold-eyed singleness of purpose that helped break the will and the back of their enemies?"

Awk!

"It's also not lost on me that Sharon lays {sic} dying,"

Just helping. Each of us needs an editor.

"Yes, the current situation is more nuanced that what I've been drawn into with the local bigots on this board."

Repeat, ad hom doesn't help your argument. Into what has this anti-Semite drawn you? Is the bombing of civilians on either side nuanced? I find it barbaric. Yes, just as barbaric as suicide bombers, the lopping of heads, and torturing prisoners of war.

"And I am unfortunately less able than RJ to say "dumb semites" and wave it all off,"

Wave it off? What can I do but gape in horror?

"...especially having witnessed the behavior of the "dumb Japhethite" coalition in Iraq for the last four years.""

Oh, relax, Dan. We're just witnessing the birthpangs of The New Middle East. (Note to self: clarify position on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.)

"- Israel purposefully attempts to contact at-risk civilian populations advising them of imminent attacks. Israel does this at the sacrifice of the element of surprise, therefore putting her own forces at a disadvantage, specifically to minimize collateral damage."

Question: are 800,000 displaced people not "collateral damage"? If that phrase actually means "killed" or "wounded" by bombs, it would be good to shift back to the older meaning and to save "collateral damage" for those who have become filthy, starving, depressed refugees.

"- Israel has made it clear that the beginning of negotiations is the return of the two kidnapped soldiers. It is within Hezbollah's power at any point in this drama to begin negotiations with Israel, by returning the Israeli nationals."

This is true. It would be even better if Israel agreed to exchange prisoners.

"Hezbollah, Hamas, and their allies ruthlessly attack civilian venues one day, and the next day the Lebanese government complains about civilian casualties, when the Israelis finally counterattack."

Strike "finally."

"What is Israel's wisest move in my opinion? Pick the first Hamas or Hezbollah leader to come forward and say "Israel has every right to exist within Israel's territory. Terrorism is not a valid tactic. Here are the names and locations of every terrorist in my organization," and consider that individual a negotiating partner immediately."

Why just the first to come forward? In a dream like this, you should envision a swarm of these pigeons.

"Until that time, these two organizations -- as well as Islamic Jihad and he rest who spout and act upon the Death-to-Israel party line -- have thereby invited Israeli action against them."

True, just as in the past. That's why I "wave it off" as dumb. Neither side sports a good track record.

"AE, I think the crux of your question is this: Does Israel risk more by ignoring/encouraging terrorist actions, or in responding to them?"

Wait a minute, is it "nuanced" or not?

"Through the 1990s, I thought the greater peril was in responding to these provocations. Having witnessed what happens to "negotiating partners," from the point of view of an Israeli/Palestinian peace activist, I've come to the opposite conclusion in recent years, to wit, the actions of terrorists must have consequences for the terrorists, and the consequences must be unacceptable to the terrorists."

Dan, do you think there's been a change in the terrorists' attitudes since the end of the 1990's? What could have happened since 2000 to have so emboldened them? It seems that the entire region is boiling with hatred. Unlike we dilletantes, you've bothered to study the history of the conflict. Am I failiing to identify an ingredient that may have greatly intensified this conflict?

"In this particular case, however, my opinion is that it is not wiser to "sit back and take it"."

Has anyone advised Israel to do so?

"But for negotiations to go anywhere, the terrorists will have to, in effect, stop being terrorists."

Yes, I think this is so. Yet I must question whence cometh terror? Is it an Arab specialty? Was, say, "Shock and Awe," designed to terrorize, to break the will of the Iraqi army and populace? And has it worked, or does it just take more time?

Respectfully,

Bob



[This message has been edited by Robert J. Clawson (edited July 30, 2006).]

I'll take the oft-given advice to relax on the subject; fortunately, we're a bunch of poets with political opinions, rather than people in positions to affect outcomes.

I'll try to do this next bit without stomping anybody's buzz. First, in response to the oft-recycled number of "800,000 forcibly displaced" Arab Palestinians:

To put it simply: There were barely 800,000 Arabs to expel from Israel in 1948, and 160,000 remained as Arab citizens of Israel. Beyond that, the vast majority did not leave at gunpoint or anything like it. The Lydda and Ramleh expulsions actually have that name, because they were the exception. There were no "Jerusalem expulsions," "Haifa Expulsions," or "Jaffa Expulsions," for example. In the vast majority of cases, Palestinian Arabs (as they later decided to call themselves,) left at the urging of invading Arab armies, or of their own volition, when the fighting had started. It's estimated that over 2/3 of them never laid eyes on a Jewish soldier; hardly a "forcible" expulsion.

The following web-page is certainly open to debate, and is from a Jewish source. However, I think it may provide food for thought to those who lament the plight of the Palestinian people, and continually do so with no sense of proportion or context.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/.../refugees.html

Back and forth, back and forth. I know. It never ends. But it's worth noting that the Arab nations of Southwest Asia and North Africa encouraged and in some cases sponsored pogroms of their own Jewish populations, until more Jews left their homes in those nations, than Arabs left Israel during the War of Independence.

These were communities who had centuries-long roots in these states. Do we hear demands that Iraq, Syria, Tunisia, Algeria, et al. pay them reparations, or repatriate them in Jewish statelets within Arab countries? No. Because Israel absorbed these refugees. Arab states -- many of them oil-rich -- never took any such stand on behalf of Arab refugees from the 1948 war. Does this not enter into the mind of the pro-Palestinian "analyst," when he considers the ongoing crisis that has been the middle east?

I do aim to educate those who seem happiest when being glib about others' lives and ethnic and national identities, although it's a losing battle. It is all quite funny to many here, which is telling commentary. Blithe disregard for real human suffering speaks for itself. To take such voices seriously is folly, since they do not take the conflict itself seriously.

And those who embrace Anti-Semitism as part of a fashionable political agenda -- and then cry "Ad Hom!" when they are described as what they are -- can be refuted and lectured, but never really swayed in the least. In such cases, the Anti-Semitism is clothed as Anti-Zionism, until the real colors begin to show (as we've lately seen.) This isn't some sort of "card" I am playing, it is the obvious implication of inconsistent yardsticks used to measure Jews and parallel groups, whether ethnic or religious. It is quite simple: when you measure Jews by more stringent standards, when you demand Jews do more to reap lesser rewards, when you deny the rights of Jews where you would gladly grant those rights to non-Jews, you are an Anti-Semite.

Apropos, to discuss whether there needs to be an Israel, is dependent on the behavior of the 299/300ths of the world that is not Jewish. Thus far, that behavior has suggested that the 1/300th of the world which is Jewish has a right, a responsibility, and an obligation to make certain that, if only on one very small patch of land, the Jewish people will be protected from those who desire their destruction.

Neither the terrorists who currently oppose Israel (and slaughter Israelis) in the Middle East, nor the peoples of Europe who unwittingly contributed so much to Israel's fighting resolve, have shown themselves responsible "protectors" of the Jewish people. Over the millennia, one thing is clear -- the only responsible stewards for the world's Jewish population are Jews themselves. This goes hand in hand with Wilsonian self-determination.

So, as noted, arguments against a Jewish state, democratic though it may be, secular though it may be, will not wash. This is a matter of guaranteeing survival. Our erstwhile fellow semites have chosen the wrong people to threaten with extermination.

Quincy, I'll address this last bit to you. You take issue with Jewish nationhood (but evidently not with Palestinian national identity -- although there has never been a Palestinian state, unless you count Jordan, and Palestinians began identifying with a "nation" of Palestine in the 1960s...) I respectfully differ; I do believe there to be a Jewish people, which rises to the status of a "nation" as distinct from a nation-state, as that term is commonly used. In some examples below, I'll cite nations which also enjoy statehood, which should keep things simple.

First, on the "Nationhood" of Jews, in this sense of the word: A Sephardic Jew in Sao Paulo could discuss the most important things in his world, in a common language, with an Ashkenaz in Minsk; then the two could have a lively debate about it with Chinese, Indian, or African Jews -- and this has been the case for thousands of years. They have and have always had a common culture, an ethnic kinship bond, a common language, and a common religion. One of these features is considered enough for any other people to be a nation (as distinct from a nation-state.) For example, although Serbocroatian is one language, the Catholic Croats and the Orthodox Serbs are considered ethnically separate. Even more tellingly, Montenegrans, who do not differ ethnically from Serbs at all, are considered a separate people. I would like to say I am surprised that these conditions are less than sufficient in the Jewish case -- but at this point, it is not surprising, which is much worse. But no matter. If a Jew considered himself a Frenchman (like Dreyfus,) a German, a Russian, a Ukrainian, a Pole, an Arab, an Iraqi, Jordanian, or a Syrian, the "real" peoples of those nations always set him straight on the subject in short order. This is not something a few words of civilized debate will erase.

Regarding expansionism: Israel routinely attempts to withdraw from territories won in war. What other nation do you know of that does this? There's a phrase in the Israeli vocabulary, "The Lebanon Mud." I doubt very seriously that Israel aims to mire itself therein beyond a limited several-week-long engagement. You may be right, but I think you're seeing parallels to Iraq, where there aren't any.

Finally, I hope for those patient, civil, and well-spoken souls watching the back-and-forth and chiming in, that I am not too terribly vitriolic in my point of view -- the last thing I would want to do is put off those people in the "middle," among whom I usually count myself regarding this issue. Despite needing "and editor" [sic] from time to time, and despite my distaste for the fraternity house style of Israel-bashing, I really do see other sides to the present crisis than the Zionist basics you're seeing me discuss here.

Oh, and if anybody surprised I'm happy to say I'm a Zionist... it's not a dirty word.

Dan

Dan--

Look, I'm not going to deny that there is something distinctive in the Jewish tradition, although I was under the impression that Sephardic Jews generally spoke Ladino rather than Yiddish--neither of which is nearly as widespread as heretofore for reasons of both genocide and assimilation.

As far as a nation goes, I'd define it as needing the following:

1. A common territory
2. A common culture
3. A common social structure (even if overlaid by a conqueror's)
4. A common language

This last is the optional one. Most Irish people spoke English as their primary language by 1916, a hell of a lot of Ukrainians speak Russian, etc. but it doesn't hurt. Moreover, though Serbian and Croatian are pretty durn similar as languages and though there is a fair degree of interpenetration, Serbs do tend to live in Serbia and Croats in Croatia.

The Jews (versus the Israelis) meet (to a degree) number two. As for number four, being able to mutter your way through a bar mitzvah does not equal a common language. (How many American Jews are actually fluent in Hebrew?)

You'll notice that I don't include previously having had a nation-state as part of the definition of a nation--which should make Czech, Slovenian, and Kurdish readers happy, I suppose.

The Palestinian national identity was, of course, forged in the face of being driven out of their own country (by and large).* But see the point above--there really hadn't been a Czech nation in the Middle Ages, but did that make Czech aspirations for national self-determination in lands they'd occupied for centuries illegitimate? Of course not!

One does wonder what the Near East would look like if the French and the British hadn't decided to carve up the eastern Mediterranean--probably would have saved us a shitload of trouble--much as it would if the U.S. fucked off for a change. (I'm not holding my breath for the latter one.) But the question is academic. Maybe, without Israel, there would be an Arab state including Israel Palestine, much of Jordan, and at least part of Lebanon. But the act of dispossession forged the Palestinians--who hadn't really picked any particular fights until the Zionists started driving them off their own land--into a nation.

Likewise, the creation of Israel forged a fairly disparate group of immigrants into a nation.

Both of these groups have a legitimate claim to the territory by living on it and having done so for some time, to the point where they share a common language (Hebrew or Arabic), culture (Israeli or Palestinian), and so on.

Where we'll probably continue to disagree is on the matter of whether one, by being Jewish (as opposed to Israeli) has a particular right to the rather small area in question. My answer would be a definite no.

No, the situation isn't much like Iraq, in which there is a foreign occupier. Neither side in this one is "foreign." But, though I disagree with some of the formulations Kevin uses, I do think he has a point about a "Jewish state"--a point, by the way, that comes up quite frequently in the Israeli press. Defining the state as Jewish--even if the definition is loose and there aren't formal discriminatory clauses in place, it does rather cut against egalitarian notions. Why should a quarter-Jewish resident of Minsk be able to immigrate to Haifa, say, with little difficulty, yet the grandchild of a Palestinian family driven out of Haifa less than a century ago be unable to do so?

Quincy

*Yes, I know that there's an Israeli Arab minority, but you can't deny that a lot of people were dispossessed. Yes, I know that it's party line to say that it wasn't a forcible dispossession, but hey, the Cherokees signed a treaty to give up their lands in the Southeast and move to Oklahoma. Yes, it was "peaceful" but it was still coerced.

[This message has been edited by Quincy Lehr (edited July 30, 2006).]

As I understand it, not enough Jews speak enough Hebrew for the Jewish people to be a "nation," but Israelis are a nation, and therefore Israel is a nation, by this definition. You've decided to talk about Yiddish and Ladino, although all the populations I mentioned had the common language of Hebrew.

It's a fine definition, by the way, except that it is only a smidgen away from the definition of nation-state. In fact, you've pretty much finished the job and wiped out all Native American nations living outside of the reservations, or speaking languages other than their ancestral tongue. Well done. You've also presented the Palestinians with a chicken-and-egg problem of their own, which I suppose is only fair. Palestinians living abroad, after all, are not part of a Palestinian "nation." As you've noted, Ukrainians speaking Russian as a first language are out, provided there are also Ukrainians speaking Ukrainian (after all, they need a common language.) Etc., etc., etc.

I think we're down to nit-picking, at this point. As you say, you see Israel as a nation. You see Palestine as a nation, but not as a nation-state. I think you're right, and I think Palestine should attend to the matter of becoming such a state, rather than the matter of attempting to erase or delegitimize the state next door. And the first order of business, again, is to have a single central authority. No terror bombing brigades, no militias, etc. But that's for Palestine to work out, nu?

As for Israel, her responsibility is to her citizens. Those who know the history of the last century, understand the events that led to Israel's current status. Her existence is not on the bargaining table; therefore, if Palestinian Arabs, dispossessed by the invasions of other Arab nations, insist on the death of Israel as a condition for the birth of Palestine, their national aspirations are destined to be frustrated. The PLO came to understand this in the 1980s and 1990s. Hamas has not.

The Palestinian people do need a state. Israel does need to live in peace within her borders. I agree, you agree, and I daresay the Kadima leadership in Israel agrees; their whole electoral platform was on unilateral disengagement from occupied territory.

Who does that leave?

Dan

Okay, you're saying my yardsticks are inconsistent. It sounds like it's time for yardstick callibration then.

I said I considered the premise for the founding of Israel as "Fairly Wacky." The only benchmark I gave for comparison was the Mormon pioneers, who I believe I measured as "even wackier."

What was wrong with this yardstick? Was I supposed to rate the two as "equally wacky"? Or perhaps rate the Zionists as "even wackier than the Mormons"? Why? It's a personal opinion, and the yardstick is a personal yardstick of how wacked out I find a particular religious belief to be. If I had to give an expanded scale, here it is, with "<" meaning "less wacky than":

Zionists < Mormon Pioneers < High Rank Scientologists

Is this Anti-Semitic because I ranked Zionists lower on the Wacky-meter than other groups, or is it Anti-Semitic because I put them anywhere on it when there are people who take the whole thing so deadly serious and will mau-mau and attack anyone who dares to conceive of it as anything other than the paragon of grace and reason? For the record, I have LDS (meaning Mormon) friends who take exception to me giggling about their religion's assertion that ancient Jews not only settled the Americas but rode tapirs.

As for the Israeli flag, I'm going to have to explain my yardstick as the "Red Notebook" rule. I used to do some substitute teaching. In some schools, they had problems with students belonging to gangs and wearing gang colors, and in others, they didn't actually have a gang problem, but they had administrators who were getting extra discretionary funds to crack down on it anyway. In yet other schools, there was no gang problem, so there was a discrepancy in dress codes and what colors students were allowed to wear or not wear. Of course this wasn't as effective as it might be, and then kids with Crip or Blood affiliations began carrying Mead notebooks with red or blue covers respectively. So then the school started banning colored notebooks, but only in the poor schools that had a gang presence, not in the richer suburban schools that didn't.

Double standard? Not precisely. The basic rule goes that if you are in a school where people are crazed enought to kill you for the color of your notebook, you don't get a notebook of any of those colors. Whereas if you are at a school where nobody would kill anyone over the color of a notebook, you can have a notebook of whatever color you want.

Now on to Israel: Given the crap that's going on there, it's my assertion that having a flag that can double as Hannukuh paper is perhaps not the brightest idea. "But Mr. Murphy, the Swedes have a cross on their flag! If we have to take the Star of David off ours, they have to take the cross off theirs too!" "The Swedes have had their flag for ages and nobody is killing anyone over it. Besides which, most of them are atheists." "Wah! You're a mean anti-semite and a bigot too! And you burn crosses made of wine and cheese!"

It would be nice to be able to use the same yardsticks for everyone and everthing, but the trouble is is that much of everything is situational and conditional, and you have to make judgement calls. Israel gets judged against European and American democracies, not against various middle eastern monarchies and dictatorships. Why? Because it's closer to the former than the later.

Kevin wrote: OK, Kevin, hypothetical scenario: A powerful terrorist/“militia” group operating from Mexico has “captured” some US soldiers and is killing Americans by firing explosive rockets into San Diego and other areas of southern California. What is the right US response, if the Mexican President claims to have no control over these people (let’s suppose they’re financed and supported by Cuba) — or even if he genuinely does have no control?

Would it be wrong or excessive for US forces to retaliate and to pursue the aggressive group, which in effect would mean waging a limited war against Mexico?

If you give criminals sanctuary in your house, from the windows of which they proceed to lob grenades at people over the street whom they don’t like, you shouldn’t be surprised when grenades are lobbed back, damaging your house and injuring or killing your family.

Henry, I'm open to correction, but I believe this was the sequence of events:

The PLO kidnapped an Israeli army corporal and held him in Palestine.
Israel retaliated with strikes on Palestine aimed at disabling the infrastructure and so forcing the corporal's release.
Hezbollah retaliated, to Israel's surprise, with rocket attacks on Israel out of Lebanon.
Israel retaliated with strikes on Lebanon aimed at disabling Hezbollah strongholds and cowing the civilian population.

It seems a pretty heavy escalation, and I'm reminded of Bismarck's comment about the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier.

I do believe that Hezbollah began by testing the resolve of the Israeli Government following the recent changes.

Also that a deep hole has now been dug, and it won't be easy to dig a way out.

Best regards,
David

Kevin, the arguments on both sides of the Middle East conflict are complicated and people of good faith can honestly align themselves on either side. One need not be an anti-Semite to criticize Israel, to be sure. But this is not to say that one who cricitizes Israel may not also be an anti-Semite. Criticizing Israel does not excempt one from a charge of anti-Semitism, despite the fact that the anti-Semite can always try to confuse the issue by reflexively claiming, "You're just calling me an anti-Semite because I am criticizing Israel."

Believe it or not, while many (or even most) of Israel's most intense critics are not anti-Semites, some of them are. Criticizing Israel is, of course, a natural temptation to anyone who is anti-Semitic, even if you don't have to be an anti-Semite to criticize Israel. One would expect to find a disproportionate number of anti-Semites among dedicated Israel-bashers than among the general population, even though the Israel-bashers include a large number of people who are not at all anti-Semitic. The question is how to tell the difference.

Someone who suggests that the Israeli flag should be changed because it's no different from a teenage gang provocation to violence is giving us a clue of the highest magnitude in their own particular case.

Now, of course, if the provocation of the flag were a giant middle finger above the motto, "Fuck you, Palestinians," your analogy might be apt, but since it is merely a benign symbol of an honorable religion (not, by the way, a symbol of Zionism, per se, but of Judaism), to say that it should not be displayed lest it provoke others who do not care for that religion is to say that Israel really ought to be more tender toward the feelings of anti-Semites. Suggesting that the flag should be changed so as not to anger or provoke anti-Semites, I suggest, is anti-Semitic, whether you like it or not.

It is not, I repeat, anti-Semitic to be critical of Israeli policies, even stridently so, but this business about the flag is another story. What's next, ban the display of the Mogden David on synagogues in Israel, since it is distasteful for Palestinians to be reminded that there are actually Jews in the neighborhood? Perhaps stop Israelis from eating gefilte fish on Passover, since the fishy aroma so characteristic of Jewish ceremony might justifiabily provoke a Palestinian teenager with a backpack? Maybe you should change your name to something other than Murphy, lest the Irishness of your name serve as a provocation to Protestants?

Your suggestion is ridiculous for yet another reason. It has about as much relevance to the current situation in the Middle East as the flag-burning amendments in the US have to life in the US. It is merely a bad way of making a bad point about those who disagree with you. The bad point, of course, is that the Jewishness of Israel, and its insistence, say, of observing blue laws on Saturday instead of Sunday (the day when every Christian knows God rested), is somehow in a different category from the religiosity of dozens of other countries in the world who get to keep their flags, or, say, the Islamic bent of the Palestinians whose struggle to create their own theocracy is considered noble enough to justify actions that are condemned when they are employed by Jews or Chechnens?

But I get it. No one blows up buses over the Swedish flag, so they can keep it until such time as someone does, and then the cross has to come off it? Yeah, of course, that's how sovereign nations should conduct themselves.

David:


Correction:

June 25: The PLO kidnapped an Israeli army corporal and held him in Gaza.
Israel retaliated with strikes on Gaza aimed at disabling the infrastructure and so forcing the corporal's release.

June 27: PLO activists abduct a second Israeli youth from his home area in the West Bank. The abducted youth is found shot dead in the West Bank. As Israel suspends a ground offensive expected in northern Gaza, Egypt tries to mediate a solution, stating that Hamas agrees to secure the soldier’s release, but only under certain conditions.

July 4: A nighttime air raid kills a Hamas activist in northern Gaza while troops advance into the area in a “limited” operation seeking the captured soldier.
Hamas fires a rocket into Ashkelon, a southern Israeli coastal city. There are no casualties.

July 6: Israel enters deeper into the northern Gaza Strip seeking the soldier. The UN Security Council debates a draft resolution demanding an immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces and the release of detained Palestinian officials. The United States describes the resolution as “unbalanced.”

July 12, 2006: Hezbollah kidnaps two Israeli soldiers patrolling along the northern Israel border (on the Israel side).

Thereafter, matters escalated.

Not quite the same sequence.
--------------
Interestingly:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/...C-RSSFeeds0312

note the date: 2005



[This message has been edited by Seree Zohar (edited July 30, 2006).]

David, has Israel claimed an intention of “cowing the civilian population”? Of course it’s the tragedy of war that many of its victims are innocent people, including children.

I don’t think the abduction of that one soldier would have started this on its own. You omitted several significant steps from the chain of incidents, as Seree has pointed out. Also, when the two Israeli soldiers were abducted another three were killed. But the flash-points for these conflicts are always disputed. Anything one side points to as an initial provocation, the other can claim was actually a “response” to something done to them first. And later stages of escalation always look disproprtionate to earlier ones.

The Lebanese Government have allowed Hezbollah to operate from their territory with support from outside. They agreed to disarm Hezbollah but they have failed to do so. Since the Israelis withdrew from Lebanon 6 years ago, Hezbollah — with an estimated force of 7,500 fighters — have been preparing underground tunnels across South Lebanon and have built up a well-stocked armory. What does anyone suppose all this preparation has been for, if not to wage war against Israel?

My comment was on the principle of Israel’s response rather than its scale. But I will say that it looks as if Israel has “overreacted” in a calculated way. They probably feel that restraint has already been given a good trial. I don’t know if their heavy escalation will eventually prove counterproductive or not. I’m sorry for the ordinary civilians caught up in this, on both sides.

Mark A, are you familiar with the direction, “Light blue touchpaper and retire”? ;)




[This message has been edited by Henry Quince (edited July 30, 2006).]

Hi Seree,

I haven't followed the dates of the escalating sequence of events all that closely, but you seem to have missed a rather important one (and, of course, I too am open to correction).

After the first or subsequent capturing of Israeli soldiers, didn't the Israeli Army retaliate by capturing (or 'kidnapping') and holding some Labanese (or PLO?) government officials?

Mark, I recognize this question is directed at Seree, but I'll jump in (since it's been a few hours since I stirred the pot in any way.)

During the recent incursions into Gaza, Israel did in fact take prisoner a large number of legislators, primarily of the Hamas party (although I would not call it out of the question that some were members of Islamic Jihad, or more radical members of Fatah.)

You know what comes next: the difference between terrorist and... and we're back to square one.

Let's put it this way: although the Israelis immediately denied that this was an act of retaliation, it can hardly be looked upon otherwise. Those arrested may have blood on their hands, or may simply be members of a "political wing" analagous to Sinn Fein.

Regardless, in my view, the arrests were very clearly an indication that the previous arithmetic -- remains of three dead Israelis for release of hundreds or thousands of criminals -- would not pertain.

This is one move whose wisdom I would question. I'm also bearing in mind that we'll have something like answers in a year or two. Palestinians and other Arabs, as well as Jews, are beginning to recognize how games like these are started, and how they play out. Hezbollah's Nasrallah immediately stated after the kidnapping of the two soldiers in Northern Israel, that they had pulled this before, and it worked. Something tells me that making the same move again will involve a different calculation now.

So yes, Israel arrested terrorists from the Hamas-dominated Palestinian legislature. Yes, the case is different from the abductions which (I believe) precipitated these captures. And no, I do not believe -- at present -- that this was a wise move.

Again, though, the jury is out, if you ask me.

(Awaiting the requested response from Seree... sorry to be obsessive on this!)

Dan

I didn't say "no different" but I did mean "similar to." Gang colors, national flags, and for that matter sports mascots all have their roots in medieval heraldry which in turn has its roots in the colors worn by ancient warbands. It's all a basis of us and them, inclusion and exclusion.

Innocent symbols can also get tainted by association with political causes. Happens all the time. If someone, for example, has his friend killed by people displaying the Star of David, what is he supposed to think?

I'll quote a snippet from a Salon article:

While Moran and her friends sank into a state of confusion, the world for Bashar Iraqi, a 16-year-old Israeli Arab and friend of Asel's who joined Seeds of Peace last summer, seemed never to have been so clear.

"Before, we knew [the Israeli Jews] had something against us, but we didn't know what. We finally saw it in these demonstrations," he said. "We're supposed to be Israeli citizens but they don't treat us that way. We would have been treated better if we were animals."

Like Asel, Bashar has had to navigate the shoals of a dual, conflicting identity. "We treat them as friends, buy from them, pay taxes and try to be loyal [to Israel] although their national anthem and flag don't represent us," he said. As part of Israel's 18 percent Arab minority, Bashar goes to a school where classes are taught in Hebrew and he carries an Israeli ID card. But by blood, tradition and mother tongue, he is a Palestinian Arab.

http://archive.salon.com/news/featur...el/index1.html

If you have 18% of your population feeling unrepresented and disenfranchised by the device on your flag, you have a problem. If people are getting killed, then you really have a problem.

As for comparing teenage gang fights to battles between nation states, I think many teenage gang fights have better logic and reasoning behind them.

General information (a matter of perspective?) - what is left of real Lebanon? or perhaps, a map of what the UN peacekeeping force hasn't noticed happening at all....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13847361/
--------------------------


For the full version of events leading to current situation, including -


June 29: Israel detains dozens of Hamas officials, including a third of the Palestinian cabinet and several lawmakers.

The abducted settler is found shot dead in the West Bank.

As Israel suspends a ground offensive expected in northern Gaza, Egypt tries to mediate a solution, stating that Hamas agrees to secure the soldier’s release, but only under certain conditions.

[url=http://www.realtruth.org/news/rtalert-060713-war.html?gclid=CL7VlpeouYYCFRGBQwodAgZ9Rw]http://www.realtruth.org/news/rtalert-060713-war.html?gclid=CL7VlpeouYYCFRGBQwodAgZ9Rw[/ URL]

Only when dozens of Hamas officials were held, were three items of information disclosed:

as above -- 1. the whereabouts of the abducted youth was provided 2. Egypt stepped in to attempt to convince Hamas to forego the whole episode, and 3. Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said he would free the Israeli soldiers only in a prisoner swap, adding that he was open to a package deal that would include the release of the soldier held in Gaza.

The concept / imlications of a Nasrallah directed 'package deal' serves to indicate that the Hamas kidnap was initially Hezbollah directed.

----------------
Might concluding that "If you have 18% of your population feeling unrepresented and disenfranchised by the device on your flag... " based on a snippet of one teenager's opinion, be considered misapplication of statistics, or of language, or of both?

It would be interresting to examine how well represented Christian Arabs feel by the Palestinian Authority flag.




[This message has been edited by Seree Zohar (edited July 30, 2006).]