I just love this op-ed piece by Friedman. It shows so very clearly why this widely followed writer can't be taken seriously. Consider his "four takeaways." (It's no longer "conclusions,"it's now "takeaways.")
Freedman's takeaways are as follows:
1. Fayyad's departure will cost the PA dearly in terms of gaining statehood.
2. Hamas and Israeli settlers both take great joy in the departure of Fayyad. (Notice how cleverly Friedman links Hamas and the "settlers." Nothing partisan about Friedman.)
3. Financial cutoffs by Congress and the Israeli government were in great measure responsible for undermining Fayyad. (Actually, these financial cutoffs were a consequence of Abbas having sought recognition for the PA as a state from the UN, an action that violated the Oslo agreement between the PA and Israel. Abbas was well aware of the consequences his actions would have. He had been warned repeatedly.)
4. This fourth, and last last takeaway is essentially a recap of Friedman's first takeaway with a bit of explanation added as to the reason's for Fayyad's failure.
This departure of Fayyad and what it says about the PA, is presented far more clearly and honestly in my blog, "Fayyad's Failure Is Another Failure For The Palestinians," April 17 But, that's not my point. What it actually shows any fair minded reader is that world famous Thomas Friedman is a fraud who will sell snake oil to whoever is willing to buy it.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Sunday, April 21, 2013
The Enemy Combatant -- The What?
Why do we need this new term, "the enemy combatant?" I do understand that when one wants to deviate from accepted legal practice, it can be helpful to find a unique exception such as the description of the perpetrator. And, maybe that's the reason we now have "enemy combatant." So what is an "enemy combatant?" Is he (or she) the soldier of a nation with whom we're at war? Weren't such people always called simply "the enemy?" Don't we have a military code for dealing with such combatants without finding it necessary to coin this new term,?
We've had a number of individuals who, with greater or lesser success, attempted to assassinate one, or more, of our presidents. These perps were never called enemy combatants. If we caught them, and we generally did, they were put on trial as a part of our justice system.
We now face a new phenomena; namely, enemies of the American people, not connected with a specific foreign country. Such people will set up a base of operations in a country incapable of governing, let alone bring to justice individuals operating within its borders. We have no expectation of extraditing terrorists from such countries for the simple reason that such countries lack the means for doing so. Also, we generally can't send in a sheriff because of the dangers that would face the sheriff and his deputies. That being the case, why not simply eliminate such terrorists with a drone? Now, of course, if the party that's taken refuge cries out, "I'm innocent. I didn't do it." That's one situation. But, if he goes on YouTube, and proclaims, "I did it and I'm proud of it," it becomes an entirely different situation. Such a person would obviously be an international terrorist -- but enemy combatant?
Let's consider motivation. If getting money is the object of terrorist behavior, the perp is little more than a robber. The legal means of addressing that sort of crime have been well established. Other motivations include personal revenge for perceived wrongs done the perp, psychotic behavior and other manifestations of mental illness, jealousy, and on and on.
Another motivation for terrorism is religious and cultural intolerance. It's clearly the motivations for many of the attacks on American citizens. It is not, of course, the only motivation for such behavior. McVeigh felt that the government's raid on a religious compound where young girls were being abused was an abuse by the government of its powers. Blowing up a building and the consequent death of many innocent citizens was, in his warped mind, an appropriate way of addressing the government's bad behavior
But today. the attacks on the U.S. are largely motivated by disgust with American culture as seen through the eyes of an Islamist, a Muslim who is in the process of devoting his life to Mohammad's teachings as they are understood by extremist imams (Salafists). The religious component of terrorism is nothing new. Hundreds of thousands died horrible deaths when Pakistan separated from India, the Hindus and Muslims having failed to resolve their differences. And, indeed, Pakistan still seeks to inflict terror on India. Technically, their dispute now centers on Kashmir, but in the absence of their religious differences this dispute could have been resolved years ago.
Religious wars are nothing new. What is new is that they can now be engaged in across great distances. If we are to deal with the mayhem resulting from religious intolerance, we must begin to deal with the problem as it is. We desperately need secular Muslims to lend us a hand. No, that's not correct. We need them to lead the assault on Islamic terrorism. Our use of a term like "enemy combatant" is unproductive and gets us nowhere.
We've had a number of individuals who, with greater or lesser success, attempted to assassinate one, or more, of our presidents. These perps were never called enemy combatants. If we caught them, and we generally did, they were put on trial as a part of our justice system.
We now face a new phenomena; namely, enemies of the American people, not connected with a specific foreign country. Such people will set up a base of operations in a country incapable of governing, let alone bring to justice individuals operating within its borders. We have no expectation of extraditing terrorists from such countries for the simple reason that such countries lack the means for doing so. Also, we generally can't send in a sheriff because of the dangers that would face the sheriff and his deputies. That being the case, why not simply eliminate such terrorists with a drone? Now, of course, if the party that's taken refuge cries out, "I'm innocent. I didn't do it." That's one situation. But, if he goes on YouTube, and proclaims, "I did it and I'm proud of it," it becomes an entirely different situation. Such a person would obviously be an international terrorist -- but enemy combatant?
Let's consider motivation. If getting money is the object of terrorist behavior, the perp is little more than a robber. The legal means of addressing that sort of crime have been well established. Other motivations include personal revenge for perceived wrongs done the perp, psychotic behavior and other manifestations of mental illness, jealousy, and on and on.
Another motivation for terrorism is religious and cultural intolerance. It's clearly the motivations for many of the attacks on American citizens. It is not, of course, the only motivation for such behavior. McVeigh felt that the government's raid on a religious compound where young girls were being abused was an abuse by the government of its powers. Blowing up a building and the consequent death of many innocent citizens was, in his warped mind, an appropriate way of addressing the government's bad behavior
But today. the attacks on the U.S. are largely motivated by disgust with American culture as seen through the eyes of an Islamist, a Muslim who is in the process of devoting his life to Mohammad's teachings as they are understood by extremist imams (Salafists). The religious component of terrorism is nothing new. Hundreds of thousands died horrible deaths when Pakistan separated from India, the Hindus and Muslims having failed to resolve their differences. And, indeed, Pakistan still seeks to inflict terror on India. Technically, their dispute now centers on Kashmir, but in the absence of their religious differences this dispute could have been resolved years ago.
Religious wars are nothing new. What is new is that they can now be engaged in across great distances. If we are to deal with the mayhem resulting from religious intolerance, we must begin to deal with the problem as it is. We desperately need secular Muslims to lend us a hand. No, that's not correct. We need them to lead the assault on Islamic terrorism. Our use of a term like "enemy combatant" is unproductive and gets us nowhere.
Friday, April 19, 2013
Love Maureen Dowd, But Don't Let Her "Ensorcel" You
You can't but help love Maureen Dowd's wit and style. Also, if you love words, Maureen won't disappoint. In her op-ed piece, "The C.I.A.'s Angry Birds," I was introduced to "ensorcelled, " as in the line, "Our sophisticated, sleek, smart, detached president was ensorcelled by our sophisticated, sleek, smart, detached war machine." (Ensorcelled: bewitched.)
I just love it.
But, if you're looking for substance in her columns, forget about it.
Consider her the "The C.I.A.'s Angry Birds," just referenced above. Her message in the op-ed seems to be that drones are bad because, at best, they turn the president, the C.I.A director, and counterterrorism advisors into a star chamber that runs a war beyond war zones. She points out that David Petraeus was the first to conduct a robo-targeted killing of an American citizen. And, she asks whether the drone strikes might not be creating more terrorists than we are killing?
She also objects to the C.I.A. conducting military operations, and, with equal vigor, the army being engaged in collecting intelligence.
But, what are the bases of her many objections to the way the U.S. is currently conducting war?
Are we, in fact, creating more terrorists than we are killing? Good question. I suspect the non-combatants are well aware of why the combatants are shooting at one another. I further suspect that their sympathies lie with one side or the other. And, if that's true, how exactly do we create more terrorists than what we started with, even when truly regrettable incidents of injury or destructions of innocent parties occur? Did we produce more more hostility towards America than what already existed when we firebombed Tokyo or Dresden?
As to intelligence: there are two types; namely, operational intelligence (intelligence that informs us as to where enemy troops are located and what sort of weapons they have), and that which can penetrate the thought process of the enemy. In his book, "The Best And The Brightest," David Halberstam explains that we got into the Vietnam debacle largely because we had such poor understand of the motives of the North Vietnamese. As it turned out, our domino theory proved to be total nonsense.
But, understanding people and nations and determining their true intentions has traditionally been under the purview of the state department. I see no harm, however, in allowing the C.I.A. and the army and anyone else to second-guess the state department and offer alternative theories.
As to drones: They are simply another evolution in weaponry. And, they won't be the last. They follows in the foot steps of other weapons, such as the machine gun, the fighter plane, the submarine, the land mine, and the stinger missile. There are aspects of drones not to be overlooked. For example, they can be tethered to any command location by electronics. It allow them to spy as well as fire ordnance without endangering the life of any American, unless he's in the field of fire.
After the Vietnam War, it was decided not to let the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. speak to one another. That proved to be a nonsensical restriction and was changed after 9/11. The roles of the army and the C.l.A. may well continue to evolve over time. Such changes may be fostered by changes in how future wars will be conducted. There is no reason that a particular pattern should endure for all time.
And, finally, war is not something generally anticipated between people who share the same values. When such values are found in a onstitution, people can turn to the constitutional institutions -- institutions for which they will all, presumably, show respect. When we confront people with no respect for our values, we may well find ourselves in a state of war.
And, that's leads to one of the problems that Maureen Dowd doesn't come near to addressing.
How do we deal with people who are Americans, but who have chosen to move to a foreign country, whose hostile environment makes it difficult for our law enforcement people to penetrate. And, there we find such people openly developing plans for taking American life; indeed, people who not only do that, but gloat over it in public forums?
Yes, Maureen Dowd, let us hear from you.
I just love it.
But, if you're looking for substance in her columns, forget about it.
Consider her the "The C.I.A.'s Angry Birds," just referenced above. Her message in the op-ed seems to be that drones are bad because, at best, they turn the president, the C.I.A director, and counterterrorism advisors into a star chamber that runs a war beyond war zones. She points out that David Petraeus was the first to conduct a robo-targeted killing of an American citizen. And, she asks whether the drone strikes might not be creating more terrorists than we are killing?
She also objects to the C.I.A. conducting military operations, and, with equal vigor, the army being engaged in collecting intelligence.
But, what are the bases of her many objections to the way the U.S. is currently conducting war?
Are we, in fact, creating more terrorists than we are killing? Good question. I suspect the non-combatants are well aware of why the combatants are shooting at one another. I further suspect that their sympathies lie with one side or the other. And, if that's true, how exactly do we create more terrorists than what we started with, even when truly regrettable incidents of injury or destructions of innocent parties occur? Did we produce more more hostility towards America than what already existed when we firebombed Tokyo or Dresden?
As to intelligence: there are two types; namely, operational intelligence (intelligence that informs us as to where enemy troops are located and what sort of weapons they have), and that which can penetrate the thought process of the enemy. In his book, "The Best And The Brightest," David Halberstam explains that we got into the Vietnam debacle largely because we had such poor understand of the motives of the North Vietnamese. As it turned out, our domino theory proved to be total nonsense.
But, understanding people and nations and determining their true intentions has traditionally been under the purview of the state department. I see no harm, however, in allowing the C.I.A. and the army and anyone else to second-guess the state department and offer alternative theories.
As to drones: They are simply another evolution in weaponry. And, they won't be the last. They follows in the foot steps of other weapons, such as the machine gun, the fighter plane, the submarine, the land mine, and the stinger missile. There are aspects of drones not to be overlooked. For example, they can be tethered to any command location by electronics. It allow them to spy as well as fire ordnance without endangering the life of any American, unless he's in the field of fire.
After the Vietnam War, it was decided not to let the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. speak to one another. That proved to be a nonsensical restriction and was changed after 9/11. The roles of the army and the C.l.A. may well continue to evolve over time. Such changes may be fostered by changes in how future wars will be conducted. There is no reason that a particular pattern should endure for all time.
And, finally, war is not something generally anticipated between people who share the same values. When such values are found in a onstitution, people can turn to the constitutional institutions -- institutions for which they will all, presumably, show respect. When we confront people with no respect for our values, we may well find ourselves in a state of war.
And, that's leads to one of the problems that Maureen Dowd doesn't come near to addressing.
How do we deal with people who are Americans, but who have chosen to move to a foreign country, whose hostile environment makes it difficult for our law enforcement people to penetrate. And, there we find such people openly developing plans for taking American life; indeed, people who not only do that, but gloat over it in public forums?
Yes, Maureen Dowd, let us hear from you.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Fayyad's Failure Is Another Failure For The Palestinians
Salam Fayyad had to throw in the towel and submit his resignation to Abbas. It signals another in a long list of Palestinian failures. Let me explain.
First, who is Salaam Fayyad?
He was originally appointed by Arafat to serve as Minister of Finance. This under considerable pressure from the Bush administration. Within a few months, Fayyad had sent home 40,000 superfluous PA bureaucrats and shut down dozens of Hamas charitable institutions that were little more than fronts for the political and terrorist activities of Hamas. Regrettably, he failed to win the favor of the Palestinian people who consistently favored terrorists.
Fayyad's resume includes the following:
Phd from the University of Texas
The Federal Reserve of St Louis
The International Monetary Fund
The Arab Bank
Fayyad's Plan -- To responsibly, efficiently, and with transparency work toward creating an independent Palestinian state in the West Banbk. He had hoped to do this within two years. Institutions would be built, foreign investment would be encouraged, infrastructure would be put in place. This would include an international airport in the Jordan Valley and rail links to neighboring states. The education system was to be revamped using the latest information and communication technologies.
Fayyad never had a chance. Fatah leaders leaders have only one dream and that is to return to the days of Yasser Arafat, when they were able to steal international aid earmarked for helping Palestinians.
The dream of Fayyad for the Palestinian people is essentially that which Ben-Gurion had for the Jews. The difference is that Jews of all political stripes shared Ben-Gurion's dream. Regrettably the same can not be said for the Palestinian people.
The details provided on this subject in this blog were taken from an editorial appearing in a Jerusalem Post dated 4/10/13
First, who is Salaam Fayyad?
He was originally appointed by Arafat to serve as Minister of Finance. This under considerable pressure from the Bush administration. Within a few months, Fayyad had sent home 40,000 superfluous PA bureaucrats and shut down dozens of Hamas charitable institutions that were little more than fronts for the political and terrorist activities of Hamas. Regrettably, he failed to win the favor of the Palestinian people who consistently favored terrorists.
Fayyad's resume includes the following:
Phd from the University of Texas
The Federal Reserve of St Louis
The International Monetary Fund
The Arab Bank
Fayyad's Plan -- To responsibly, efficiently, and with transparency work toward creating an independent Palestinian state in the West Banbk. He had hoped to do this within two years. Institutions would be built, foreign investment would be encouraged, infrastructure would be put in place. This would include an international airport in the Jordan Valley and rail links to neighboring states. The education system was to be revamped using the latest information and communication technologies.
Fayyad never had a chance. Fatah leaders leaders have only one dream and that is to return to the days of Yasser Arafat, when they were able to steal international aid earmarked for helping Palestinians.
The dream of Fayyad for the Palestinian people is essentially that which Ben-Gurion had for the Jews. The difference is that Jews of all political stripes shared Ben-Gurion's dream. Regrettably the same can not be said for the Palestinian people.
The details provided on this subject in this blog were taken from an editorial appearing in a Jerusalem Post dated 4/10/13
NGO's: Today's Neo-Colonials
I must credit Seth J. Frantzman and his editorial in the Jerusalem Post that I read today, 4-17-13, for alerting me to the insidious nature of NGO's. What had I known of NGO's prior to this informative editorial? Only that they promoted various causes in various countries all over the place. And, if the cause was just, wasn't that a good thing?
Well, as it happens, the answer is "mostly NO."
If there is some cause in Russia or in India, that an NGO needs promoting, why is it that the funds for such an NGO generally come overwhelmingly from foreign sources? Aren't there some really, really wealthy people in Russia, in India? If so why aren't the NGO's more successful raising money locally?
That then raises the questions relating to how and why these funds are raised from the donors. Clearly, donors, e.g. George Soros, the European Union, etc., feel strongly about their various issues. But, if the issue is indeed worthy, why isn't there greater support for it in the local community, support that would win greater local funding? And, if there is little support for it locally, how successful can the NGO hope to be regarding whatever issue it is they're supporting?
And, if the NGO enters a foreign country with gobs of money to promote a cause that can find pitifully little support within that country, isn't that a form of neo-colonialism? Isn't it saying to the country within which the NGO is operating that "we know better than you what's good for you than you do?"
That is not to say that outsiders can't go into a country to promote their ideas. Religions that proselytize have done that for ages. If their message resonates with the local citizens it will be accepted. If not, it won't. The new message will, of course, generally be opposed by the religious institutions that already exist there.
NGO's, similar in some ways to religions, generally have the whole hearted support of the nations from which their funds come. The various NGO's that operate in Israel, generally promote the agenda of the Palestinians and have little support within Israel. So why operate as some kind of neutral organization? The question answers itself. People generally favor fair minded (neutral) presentations of issues. But, it's a fraud. There is nothing neutral about the positions of many of these NGO's.
There is one more problem with NGO's that deserves mention; namely, the very process by which they raise their funds. Good fundraisers are well paid. If you wanted to raise millions, who do you hire; an attractive person with no connections, or a person with access to the rich and powerful? If you want access you've got to pay for it.
The end result is that the movers and shakers of NGO's spend their time wining and dining with the movers and shakers in Europe and in the States. That's who they spend most of their time with. Little remains for the locals who presumably are their raison d'etra.
Well, as it happens, the answer is "mostly NO."
If there is some cause in Russia or in India, that an NGO needs promoting, why is it that the funds for such an NGO generally come overwhelmingly from foreign sources? Aren't there some really, really wealthy people in Russia, in India? If so why aren't the NGO's more successful raising money locally?
That then raises the questions relating to how and why these funds are raised from the donors. Clearly, donors, e.g. George Soros, the European Union, etc., feel strongly about their various issues. But, if the issue is indeed worthy, why isn't there greater support for it in the local community, support that would win greater local funding? And, if there is little support for it locally, how successful can the NGO hope to be regarding whatever issue it is they're supporting?
And, if the NGO enters a foreign country with gobs of money to promote a cause that can find pitifully little support within that country, isn't that a form of neo-colonialism? Isn't it saying to the country within which the NGO is operating that "we know better than you what's good for you than you do?"
That is not to say that outsiders can't go into a country to promote their ideas. Religions that proselytize have done that for ages. If their message resonates with the local citizens it will be accepted. If not, it won't. The new message will, of course, generally be opposed by the religious institutions that already exist there.
NGO's, similar in some ways to religions, generally have the whole hearted support of the nations from which their funds come. The various NGO's that operate in Israel, generally promote the agenda of the Palestinians and have little support within Israel. So why operate as some kind of neutral organization? The question answers itself. People generally favor fair minded (neutral) presentations of issues. But, it's a fraud. There is nothing neutral about the positions of many of these NGO's.
There is one more problem with NGO's that deserves mention; namely, the very process by which they raise their funds. Good fundraisers are well paid. If you wanted to raise millions, who do you hire; an attractive person with no connections, or a person with access to the rich and powerful? If you want access you've got to pay for it.
The end result is that the movers and shakers of NGO's spend their time wining and dining with the movers and shakers in Europe and in the States. That's who they spend most of their time with. Little remains for the locals who presumably are their raison d'etra.
Friday, April 12, 2013
Jordan's Arabs Make It Clear -- We Hate Jews.
As reported in The Jerusalem Post, 4/12/13, 110 Jordanian parliamentarians out of a total of 120 petitioned for the release of the Muslim who murdered seven Israeli schoolgirls, injured 5 others and also a school teacher in 1997. The Muslim was Ahmed Daqamseh, a Jordanian Army Corporal. He was sentenced by a Jordanian military tribunal to life in prison at hard labor. He avoided the death penalty only because the tribunal determined he was mentally unstable.
This is the man who 91.7% of Jordanians now want freed, a man who has expressed no remorse for his actions. In 2004, he was recorded as saying, "if I could return to that moment, I would behave exactly the same way. Every day that passes, I grow srtonger in the belief that what I did was my duty."
In 2011, Jordanian Justice Minister Hussein Mjali called Daqamseh a hero and added that "if a Jew murdered Arabs, they (the Israelis) would build him a statue."
And, this is who 91.7 % of Jordanian parliamentarians now want freed!
Note 1: The majority of Jordanians are Palestinians.
Note 2: I have read elsewhere that the total Jordanian parliamentarians number 150, not 120.
That would mean that the 110 Jordanian parliamentarians favoring the release of a man who murdered 7-year old school girls numbers 73.3% of all Jordanians.
This is the man who 91.7% of Jordanians now want freed, a man who has expressed no remorse for his actions. In 2004, he was recorded as saying, "if I could return to that moment, I would behave exactly the same way. Every day that passes, I grow srtonger in the belief that what I did was my duty."
In 2011, Jordanian Justice Minister Hussein Mjali called Daqamseh a hero and added that "if a Jew murdered Arabs, they (the Israelis) would build him a statue."
And, this is who 91.7 % of Jordanian parliamentarians now want freed!
Note 1: The majority of Jordanians are Palestinians.
Note 2: I have read elsewhere that the total Jordanian parliamentarians number 150, not 120.
That would mean that the 110 Jordanian parliamentarians favoring the release of a man who murdered 7-year old school girls numbers 73.3% of all Jordanians.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Cold Peace Is No Peace
Diplomates and others will attempt various solutions to various problems. The "cold peace" between the Egyptians and the Israelis was one such effort by America to solve a diplomatic problem. They wanted Egypt on their side. And, they also wanted a situation that Israel could live with. The peace agreement hammered out between Sadat and Begin seemed to be the solution. It was highly favorable to Egypt. It had great benefits for Israel. And, it provided benefits for the U.S.
But, in reality it was no peace; it was a truce. Sadat was assassinated and with that ended all movement toward a friendship between Israel and the Egyptians. The truce was a good thing, but we now see it was not nearly enough.
A people will work for a better nation only if they share a common vision as to what they want for their nation. If they want human rights, if they want to see corruption lowered, if they want their economy to grow and benefit its citizens, the leadership must work with the people and educate them as to what they must all do to achieve their goals. This never happened in Egypt.
The two poles in Egyptian politics were the Muslim Brotherhood and Mubarak and his military staff. As the economy continued to suffer, the people rose up. But, their struggle for independence has been exceedingly messy. Had there been a real peace between Israel and Egypt, Israel could have shown the Egyptians the path to a better life. But no foundation for a more lasting peace was ever built. Ordinary Egyptians are denied the right to visit Israel. And with the current struggles between the religious fundamentalists and the secular Muslims, Egypt is not a place that Israelis would want to visit.
Cultural exchanges between the Arabs and the Israelis under the auspices of both nations is critical if real peace is ever to be achieved. This prescription for peace is equally valid if peace is to be achieved between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
But, in reality it was no peace; it was a truce. Sadat was assassinated and with that ended all movement toward a friendship between Israel and the Egyptians. The truce was a good thing, but we now see it was not nearly enough.
A people will work for a better nation only if they share a common vision as to what they want for their nation. If they want human rights, if they want to see corruption lowered, if they want their economy to grow and benefit its citizens, the leadership must work with the people and educate them as to what they must all do to achieve their goals. This never happened in Egypt.
The two poles in Egyptian politics were the Muslim Brotherhood and Mubarak and his military staff. As the economy continued to suffer, the people rose up. But, their struggle for independence has been exceedingly messy. Had there been a real peace between Israel and Egypt, Israel could have shown the Egyptians the path to a better life. But no foundation for a more lasting peace was ever built. Ordinary Egyptians are denied the right to visit Israel. And with the current struggles between the religious fundamentalists and the secular Muslims, Egypt is not a place that Israelis would want to visit.
Cultural exchanges between the Arabs and the Israelis under the auspices of both nations is critical if real peace is ever to be achieved. This prescription for peace is equally valid if peace is to be achieved between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Sunday, April 7, 2013
A Peace Agreement With The Palestinians! -- Am I Missing Something?
There are peace agreements and there are peace agreements. After WW II, a number of peace agreements were hammered out. We had one with Japan. Another with Germany. But, those were with countries we had defeated. We also had peace agreements after WW I. They proved disasterous.
There are peace treaties that never get consummated. China still wants to take over Taiwan which they will never permit to be admitted to the UN. Russia and Japan still haven't come to terms over the Sakhalin Islands and Argentina hasn't dropped its claims on the Falklands. And, that's probably not the half of these ongoing disputes.
I would add that lots of people want their independence from brutish oppressors. In this category one finds the Tibetans, the Kurds, and the South Sudanese. Your odds of gaining independence are best if you're dealing with a democracy, like the Slovakians who wanted to separate from the Czechs. Or, if you have some natural resource like the South Sudanese and their oil. And, some hundreds of years ago, Portugal gained its independence from Spain only because its English sponsors had a stronger military than Spain's ally, France. And, so it goes.
We now look at that sorry collection of Arabs; namely, the Palestinians. First off, they pretend to be willing to live in peace with Israel. Really? Their problems require red herrings and their constant contentiousness with Israel suits that requirement to a T. So what are the problems of the Palestinians. Perhaps first and foremost is the struggle between Hamas and Fatah. Hamas won first elections ever in Gaza (let's see when they again have elections) because the people there viewed Fatah as corrupt. But while the Gazans were happy to see Fatah defeated, it's questionable as to whether they were pleased to see Hamas execute so many followers of Fatah. C'est la guere.
But, Fatah did maintain control over the west bank. And that raises an important question. Are there to be two Palestinian nations, or one? We know that Fatah and Hamas have been having a great number of meetings to find a way of merging their interests and presenting themselves as a single nation. But, there's a problem. Hamas, in Gaza, has a constitution. It calls for the elimination of Israel. If one part of the Palestinians has that sort of constitution, how can we pretend that there's a single Palestinian nation? So, let's put the Gaza matter aside and pretend that we can deal with Fatah as the single Palestinian entity.
Now the problems just begin. We can't disregard history and what we say unfold when Israeli communities were removed from Gaza. We can't not see the horrible disintegration of Syria. Imagine if Israel in its pursuit of peace had returned any part of the Golan to Syria. Every country surrounding Israel has massive problems. To the north there is Lebanon with Hezbollah, a client of Iran, on Lebanon's southern border. Syria has been referred to. Jordan is already largely Palestinian. The only reason their king hasn't been deposed is that its identity as a Palestinian state would become overt. With Jordan identified as Palestinian, the claims of the Palestinians on the west bank would be seriously undercut. Finally, to the south, we have Egypt. Does Israel really want to see another Jew-hating state to its east?
If Fatah really wanted a state -- something they could actually have had a long time ago had they been willing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state -- they would now have to give up a great number of their demands. The demand that Israel accept the return of Palestinians simply can not be satisfied. Dividing up Jerusalem between the Palestinians and the Israelis is also out of the question. (Would Saudi Arabia allow non-Muslims to reside in Mecca or Medina?)
There are really only three factors that make the Israeli-Palestinian conflict worthy of anyone's attention.
First, there is the overlarge role played by Islamic oil. The overwhelming influence of oil has can be seen in the UN, where utterly ruthless nations sit on human rights committees. Second, there is the overlarge role played by dysfunctional nations and their oil wealth that harbor a hatred of the US. Here we find the Latin America countries that have been propped up by Venezuela. Nations in this cohort include Cuba, Ecuador, Peru and Nicaragua. These UN enemies of Israel are joined by countries that would seek greater voting strength in the UN by allying themselves with the above mentioned countries.
Perhaps the saddest nations are the many European countries opposed to Israel and delighted to see Israel struggle with the Palestinian tar baby. Some of these nations have histories that go back to WW II, when they remained neutral in the face of the great struggle between the British and the Americans and their allies on one side and the Nazis on the other. Ireland fits in in this category. And, which country in Europe, at one time or another, did not torment its Jewish population in much the same way they continue to torment gypsies. What a wonderful opportunity these countries now have to show the Jews what happens when they get too uppity.
And, last, but hardly least, is the hostility of the secular left. There is the leftist view that holds that the world would be a better place of all nations and all people subscribed to the same codes of belief and behavior. For them, cultural differences are something to be eliminated. The violence in Muslim lands confirms their belief that cultural eccentricities can only lead to dysfunctional behavior. Israel, a nation that arose on a Zionist foundation, flies in the face of leftist theology. That a nation committed to a Jewish belief system can prosper; and, more than prosper, actually show within their nation how Christians, Jews, Moslems, blacks, whites, straights and gays can all live together in peace is something leftists find intolerable.
How can there be peace when the belief system of so many nations finds Israel's success so intolerable?
There are peace treaties that never get consummated. China still wants to take over Taiwan which they will never permit to be admitted to the UN. Russia and Japan still haven't come to terms over the Sakhalin Islands and Argentina hasn't dropped its claims on the Falklands. And, that's probably not the half of these ongoing disputes.
I would add that lots of people want their independence from brutish oppressors. In this category one finds the Tibetans, the Kurds, and the South Sudanese. Your odds of gaining independence are best if you're dealing with a democracy, like the Slovakians who wanted to separate from the Czechs. Or, if you have some natural resource like the South Sudanese and their oil. And, some hundreds of years ago, Portugal gained its independence from Spain only because its English sponsors had a stronger military than Spain's ally, France. And, so it goes.
We now look at that sorry collection of Arabs; namely, the Palestinians. First off, they pretend to be willing to live in peace with Israel. Really? Their problems require red herrings and their constant contentiousness with Israel suits that requirement to a T. So what are the problems of the Palestinians. Perhaps first and foremost is the struggle between Hamas and Fatah. Hamas won first elections ever in Gaza (let's see when they again have elections) because the people there viewed Fatah as corrupt. But while the Gazans were happy to see Fatah defeated, it's questionable as to whether they were pleased to see Hamas execute so many followers of Fatah. C'est la guere.
But, Fatah did maintain control over the west bank. And that raises an important question. Are there to be two Palestinian nations, or one? We know that Fatah and Hamas have been having a great number of meetings to find a way of merging their interests and presenting themselves as a single nation. But, there's a problem. Hamas, in Gaza, has a constitution. It calls for the elimination of Israel. If one part of the Palestinians has that sort of constitution, how can we pretend that there's a single Palestinian nation? So, let's put the Gaza matter aside and pretend that we can deal with Fatah as the single Palestinian entity.
Now the problems just begin. We can't disregard history and what we say unfold when Israeli communities were removed from Gaza. We can't not see the horrible disintegration of Syria. Imagine if Israel in its pursuit of peace had returned any part of the Golan to Syria. Every country surrounding Israel has massive problems. To the north there is Lebanon with Hezbollah, a client of Iran, on Lebanon's southern border. Syria has been referred to. Jordan is already largely Palestinian. The only reason their king hasn't been deposed is that its identity as a Palestinian state would become overt. With Jordan identified as Palestinian, the claims of the Palestinians on the west bank would be seriously undercut. Finally, to the south, we have Egypt. Does Israel really want to see another Jew-hating state to its east?
If Fatah really wanted a state -- something they could actually have had a long time ago had they been willing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state -- they would now have to give up a great number of their demands. The demand that Israel accept the return of Palestinians simply can not be satisfied. Dividing up Jerusalem between the Palestinians and the Israelis is also out of the question. (Would Saudi Arabia allow non-Muslims to reside in Mecca or Medina?)
There are really only three factors that make the Israeli-Palestinian conflict worthy of anyone's attention.
First, there is the overlarge role played by Islamic oil. The overwhelming influence of oil has can be seen in the UN, where utterly ruthless nations sit on human rights committees. Second, there is the overlarge role played by dysfunctional nations and their oil wealth that harbor a hatred of the US. Here we find the Latin America countries that have been propped up by Venezuela. Nations in this cohort include Cuba, Ecuador, Peru and Nicaragua. These UN enemies of Israel are joined by countries that would seek greater voting strength in the UN by allying themselves with the above mentioned countries.
Perhaps the saddest nations are the many European countries opposed to Israel and delighted to see Israel struggle with the Palestinian tar baby. Some of these nations have histories that go back to WW II, when they remained neutral in the face of the great struggle between the British and the Americans and their allies on one side and the Nazis on the other. Ireland fits in in this category. And, which country in Europe, at one time or another, did not torment its Jewish population in much the same way they continue to torment gypsies. What a wonderful opportunity these countries now have to show the Jews what happens when they get too uppity.
And, last, but hardly least, is the hostility of the secular left. There is the leftist view that holds that the world would be a better place of all nations and all people subscribed to the same codes of belief and behavior. For them, cultural differences are something to be eliminated. The violence in Muslim lands confirms their belief that cultural eccentricities can only lead to dysfunctional behavior. Israel, a nation that arose on a Zionist foundation, flies in the face of leftist theology. That a nation committed to a Jewish belief system can prosper; and, more than prosper, actually show within their nation how Christians, Jews, Moslems, blacks, whites, straights and gays can all live together in peace is something leftists find intolerable.
How can there be peace when the belief system of so many nations finds Israel's success so intolerable?
Saturday, April 6, 2013
The Jewish Apple -- A Middle East Fable
In the midst of the Abbas vegetable garden stood a robust apple tree. About it grew lettuce, broccoli, peas, carrots, and tomatoes. As the apples ripened, they were plucked, and sent to market. However, the farmer, Abbas, missed one of this juicy apples and that night it fell from the tree, quite near the tomatoes. Although little love was lost between the vegetables and the apples, the friction between them never amounted to much more than name calling.
"Yah, yah," said one of the tomatoes nearest to the fallen apple. "You're going to rot. Yah, yah ... yah, yah."
The apple was unperturbed. "Just this morning Abbas sprayed us apples to protect us against bugs. The weather's cool. I'll be just fine. Tomorrow they'll find me and I'll be on my way along with the other apples."
"No, you won't," continued the tomato. "You're going to rot. Yah, yah. You're going to rot."
"You're just jealous of us fine fruits," replied the apple. "You're a grit-hater."
The tomato darkened in indignation. "Don't you call me a fruit-hater, you nincompoop. I'm a fruit too."
Replied the apple, "Yes, botanically speaking, you, Mr. Tomato, are a fruit. But, no one will ever serve you up in a fruit bowl. You may be listed in some botanist's manual as a fruit, but non-botanists, everywhere, see you as a fruit hating vegetable. Indeed you're marked by your hatred of frurit. You'll never be served up in the same dish with an apple, or a pear , or a pineapple."
Abbas woke from his dream. "What a silly dream that was," he thought. "To think I'm just like the tomato! Technically a Semite -- yet finding Jews repugnant. I guess I'm just a Semitic anti-Semite."
"Yah, yah," said one of the tomatoes nearest to the fallen apple. "You're going to rot. Yah, yah ... yah, yah."
The apple was unperturbed. "Just this morning Abbas sprayed us apples to protect us against bugs. The weather's cool. I'll be just fine. Tomorrow they'll find me and I'll be on my way along with the other apples."
"No, you won't," continued the tomato. "You're going to rot. Yah, yah. You're going to rot."
"You're just jealous of us fine fruits," replied the apple. "You're a grit-hater."
The tomato darkened in indignation. "Don't you call me a fruit-hater, you nincompoop. I'm a fruit too."
Replied the apple, "Yes, botanically speaking, you, Mr. Tomato, are a fruit. But, no one will ever serve you up in a fruit bowl. You may be listed in some botanist's manual as a fruit, but non-botanists, everywhere, see you as a fruit hating vegetable. Indeed you're marked by your hatred of frurit. You'll never be served up in the same dish with an apple, or a pear , or a pineapple."
Abbas woke from his dream. "What a silly dream that was," he thought. "To think I'm just like the tomato! Technically a Semite -- yet finding Jews repugnant. I guess I'm just a Semitic anti-Semite."
Thursday, April 4, 2013
"Top US Jews ........"
The full headline of the piece in the Jerusalem Post read, "Top US Jews urge PM to make sacrifices for peace." And, who, you may ask, were these people listed as "top US Jews"? They included people like Rick Jacobs. In short, they were Jews of the left, people from George Soros's J Street. And, who, exactly is urging Abbas to make sacrifices for peace? Who knows? The question never seems to come up.
"Top Jews" is like "big doctors." For example, Abe brags to Sam, "I've got a really big doctor. He's so big I can only get to see him three times a year."
"So you think that's a big doctor?" replies Sam. "I've got a much, much bigger doctor. He's so big he won't see you ever. Rick Jacobs -- a top US Jew! Give me a break.
"Top Jews" is like "big doctors." For example, Abe brags to Sam, "I've got a really big doctor. He's so big I can only get to see him three times a year."
"So you think that's a big doctor?" replies Sam. "I've got a much, much bigger doctor. He's so big he won't see you ever. Rick Jacobs -- a top US Jew! Give me a break.
Monday, April 1, 2013
Ms. Victoria Buhler's Problem
In David Brooks's column, "The Empirical Kids," that appeared in the NY Times, March 29, 2013, we find David being bowled over by the insightfulness of one of his students at Yale's Jackson Institute for Global Affairs. The opinion expressed by Ms. Buhler that left such a profound impression on David was that today's youth have reverted to an empiricist mindset. They are now showing a tendency to think in economic phrases like "data analysis," "opportunity costs," and "replicability," which Ms. Buhler and David deem demoralized economic phrases. They find today's students have a tendency to dismiss other "more ethical and idealistic vocabularies." To which I say, thank God.
I have no problem with David giving Ms. Buhler an A for putting her finger on a current trend. It's his disparagement of the direction he and Ms. Buhler find today's youth now going in to which I object. I keep gong back to David Halberstam's book, "The Best And The Brightest." (If you never read it, or if you've forgotten the key disclosures made in this book, by all means open it up again.) It shows in painful detail how a president, who spoke using a lofty and idealistic vocabulary sent America down one of its darkest roads.
Apparently, Ms. Buhler also finds the American model of democratic capitalism wanting. (It "created all men equal but allowed some to rise above others through competition.") I find the phrase "democratic capitalism" off putting. Capitalism (free markets) does indeed require democratic institutions. But I'm left wondering as to what is meant by "democratic capitalism"? Is it intended to suggest that there are other kinds of capitalism?
I can't help but think of Chile's Pinochet in connection with "democratic" capitalism. He acquired power by ruthless means, although his opponents were hardly less ruthless. But he did seek to improve the lot of the Chilean people. He was persuaded that the theories of Milton Freedman regarding free markets were the answer. This did indeed prove to be the case. The Chilean rate of poverty went from 40% to 14% and Pinochet was removed from power in a peaceful manner.
Further cited in Ms. Buhler's paper was Sept. 11 and Bush's moralistic language regarding the war on terror. I would agree. There is indeed a problem with language that cites abstract terror as being the problem. It's not nearly specific enough. It fails to accurately pinpoint the enemy, an enemy that seeks to destroy our concept of democracy. It fails to tell Americans that, while we will fight for freedom of religion, we will fight with equal vigor to defeat any religious concept that seeks to overturn our democratic institutions. Americans must learn that Islam has a benign and indeed a positive face. However, it also has cruel, and dogmatic Salafist face. We Americans, both Muslims and non-Muslims, must learn to distinguish between the two.
Regrettably, our youth, along with the rest of us, experienced a terrible bursting of a real estate bubble as well as the consequent damage done to our economy. Politicians with their fingerprints all over this mess point to America's banks and America's lack of regulation as the root cause of that debacle. Hopefully, American's youth will sift through the data and come to a clearer and more accurate understanding as to how our government manipulated the real estate market for social purposes and the disaster this proved to be for each and every one of us.
I think of the late NY Senator, Moynihan, who put his finger on social problems facing this country and suggestions as to how we might best deal with them. His opinions were based on the data available to him. Data still relevant today. But, as much as we loved our straight-talking Senator, he was much abused in the press for his analysis and his lack of idealism.
I hope Ms. Buhler's findings as to the direction America's youth is now taking is correct. I, for one, would applaud it.
I have no problem with David giving Ms. Buhler an A for putting her finger on a current trend. It's his disparagement of the direction he and Ms. Buhler find today's youth now going in to which I object. I keep gong back to David Halberstam's book, "The Best And The Brightest." (If you never read it, or if you've forgotten the key disclosures made in this book, by all means open it up again.) It shows in painful detail how a president, who spoke using a lofty and idealistic vocabulary sent America down one of its darkest roads.
Apparently, Ms. Buhler also finds the American model of democratic capitalism wanting. (It "created all men equal but allowed some to rise above others through competition.") I find the phrase "democratic capitalism" off putting. Capitalism (free markets) does indeed require democratic institutions. But I'm left wondering as to what is meant by "democratic capitalism"? Is it intended to suggest that there are other kinds of capitalism?
I can't help but think of Chile's Pinochet in connection with "democratic" capitalism. He acquired power by ruthless means, although his opponents were hardly less ruthless. But he did seek to improve the lot of the Chilean people. He was persuaded that the theories of Milton Freedman regarding free markets were the answer. This did indeed prove to be the case. The Chilean rate of poverty went from 40% to 14% and Pinochet was removed from power in a peaceful manner.
Further cited in Ms. Buhler's paper was Sept. 11 and Bush's moralistic language regarding the war on terror. I would agree. There is indeed a problem with language that cites abstract terror as being the problem. It's not nearly specific enough. It fails to accurately pinpoint the enemy, an enemy that seeks to destroy our concept of democracy. It fails to tell Americans that, while we will fight for freedom of religion, we will fight with equal vigor to defeat any religious concept that seeks to overturn our democratic institutions. Americans must learn that Islam has a benign and indeed a positive face. However, it also has cruel, and dogmatic Salafist face. We Americans, both Muslims and non-Muslims, must learn to distinguish between the two.
Regrettably, our youth, along with the rest of us, experienced a terrible bursting of a real estate bubble as well as the consequent damage done to our economy. Politicians with their fingerprints all over this mess point to America's banks and America's lack of regulation as the root cause of that debacle. Hopefully, American's youth will sift through the data and come to a clearer and more accurate understanding as to how our government manipulated the real estate market for social purposes and the disaster this proved to be for each and every one of us.
I think of the late NY Senator, Moynihan, who put his finger on social problems facing this country and suggestions as to how we might best deal with them. His opinions were based on the data available to him. Data still relevant today. But, as much as we loved our straight-talking Senator, he was much abused in the press for his analysis and his lack of idealism.
I hope Ms. Buhler's findings as to the direction America's youth is now taking is correct. I, for one, would applaud it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)