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).]