[Stephen Foot]

Mark,

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

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

Stephen

[Mark Granier]

As far as any playground theatrics are concerned, I’m afraid you will find me a very dull playmate.

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

PS

Glad you found the poems interesting.



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

[Robert J. Clawson]

Originally posted by Stephen Foot:

"Bob,

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

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

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

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

Bob

[Robert J. Clawson]

Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shameless O'Clawson

[Stephen Foot]

Bob,

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

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

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

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

“Do they exercise a freedom of information act?”

No, but they do exercise their freedom.

Next.

Stephen

[Robert J. Clawson]

Originally posted by AE:

"Bob,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good case. The perfect word. No kidding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bob



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

[Robert J. Clawson]

Originally posted by Stephen Foot:

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

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

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

Bob

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

[Kevin Andrew Murphy]

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

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

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

[Robert J. Clawson]

Originally posted by Seree Zohar:

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

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

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

Yes, undoubtedly. Air war excells at that.

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

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

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

Have they had time to catch their breath?

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

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

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

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

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

Bob

[Robert J. Clawson]

Originally posted by Seree Zohar

RJ:

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

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

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

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

Bob



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