Is Sullivan an Anti-Zionist?

Quick answer: Evidently not, but its complicated. In the past few months, really ever since Cast Lead, he has been getting more an more crazy about Israel. He's bought straight into the canard that the settlements cause Palestinian violence, and he seems to knee-jerk respond *against* Israel. This is bothersome.

But this is sort of the price I pay when I read Sullivan.

So why do I? Why should I care about him? Especially since he does no reporting and holds many ideas I find stupid, annoying, and/or just plain wrong. So, here's something I wrote about him for another blog's comments:

The thing about Sullivan is that when he gets an idea, he clings to it with fierce tenacity. And the tenacity results in massive amounts of near real-time linkage that comes as close to reporting as an opinion blog will get.

Examples: he hates Hillary with a weird rancor, so he was great in links to support Obama; he hates Palin even more than Hillary so he was the go-to guy for that; he hates that the US tortured, so he gave great linkage for that.

So when I agree with his obsession, his website is gold, because he gives me enormous amounts of info. But for all those things that he's wrong about, no matter of facts will sway him, and I just skip those posts.

Caveat: Nothing will sway him - except his own tortured mind. That's why it's hard to predict where he'll wind up on an issue, because of the above-mentioned personality quirkiness (British Catholic Gay HIV-Positive Thatcherite). His load of cognitive dissonance is enormous and it's now cracking into pieces. Somehow, I think he hates being associated for so long with the Democrats...

So I still read him, and send him letters (which he has never, nor will ever, respond to), because I still think he's an important resource. He's the purest form of blogger, and as such, the purest expression of the power of the internet. And so far his weirdness about Israel hasn't undermined that; I just put it in the same category as his worship of Ronald Reagan and his British drag equivalent (Thatcher).

Backpost finished 2009-12-02. Pic from around the 'net.

The Totten

As he was for the 2006 Lebanon, Michael Totten is an important source in the current conflict as well. He's a philo-Semite and very knowledgeable about the Mideast (don't let the commentary magazine address throw you; as far as I know he's not a Kristolian neocon dunderhead).

Totten cites this Israeli blog as good too, see especially this post about "The Israeli Way of War."

Gaza Thoughts 2

Part I asked the question how not only will the Gaza War end, but the whole Arab-Israeli war? My quick answer: end oil as a valuable commodity. Let me expand:

1. First Dispel the Thousand Year War Myth

This is a clear sign of vigorous ignorance: if a blowhard says that the Arabs and Jews have been fighting for centuries, so there's no way the war will ever end, call bull-scheisse. Yes, there's been fighting in that region for centuries, but those battles (a) did not involve Jews except as victims, never as belligerents, and (b) many of the battles were between Christians and Muslims, and no matter how much both sides would like to claim otherwise, Jews and NOT interchangeable with Christians.

A side note to explain that point: Muslims seem to consider Jews and Christians part of the same category and since Jews have thrived in the western (read: Christian, usually Protestant) democracies, modern Muslims just seem to think we're the same. So the crusades were Jewish both because they were fought by infidels, and what's the difference among 'em, and because Jews and Christians work together nowadays so they must have always worked together! People who have not risen up into modernity (like most of the Muslim world) are stuck with the ahistorical Medieval frame of mind which flattens the present into a permanent past.

Now the modern Christians - in the US - identify the Jews as a form of Christian. Note, this is not done (as far as I've seen) in Europe. Not only are there gads of Catholics who have long memories of roasting Jews on open fires for their Traditional Christmases, but Europeans in general have clear Us-Them battle-lines drawn in their brains and Jews are permanently on the Them team.

But American protestants think of Jews as just another form of Christians. First of all, American Judaism is so watered down that its basically protestantism anyway. But for the fundamentalists, who see Jews as part of a religious plan, they see Jews - and Israel - as just a form of Christianity. My feeling is that a random fundamentalist Christian would be shocked to know Jews think Jesus wasn't a savior but a cranky hillbilly carpenter, at best. Fundys read the Old testament as a Christian document, and Israel is *theirs* because it's Jewish. I could elaborate more, but that should be enough for now.

So: to say that there's been Jewish-Muslim violence for centuries is to say (like Muslims) that Jews are just anti-Muslim, like the Christians, or to say (like the Fundamentalists) that the Jews are acting as Christian agents in the most recent crusade. Both these ideas are stupid and wrong. Call that bull-schiesse!

There's a third option, though, for the morons: to claim that the *region* has been in war for centuries and the Arabs and Israelis are just acting out some kind of war-curse the region engenders. Somehow these idiots think Israel is the hotel from the Shining. Morons who say this are usually atheists (or anti-religion theists) who think that religion makes people bloodthirsty and insane. And thus they depict the Arab-Israeli wars as religious conflicts.

Pardon me while I laugh derisively. These atheist dimwits (Michael Ramirez is one of them, when he's not sucking the Gooper trough) don't take the time to understand that Israel is pretty damn secular. Even though the settlers are generally Orthodox weirdos, the majority of Israel - every single Prime Minister for example - are secular. So boom goes that canard.

The bottom line is that the current Arab-Israeli conflict is about 150 years old - speaking expansively - and before 1948 the "war" was generally the Arabs massacring Jews. Since 1948 there has been the current conflict. So even give the innumeracy of the pundits and associated bellyachers, 60+ years does not equal hundreds.

And it bears repeating over and over: this is not a two sided war. As I said (somewhere) that the old slogan from the Hippie 60s was "What if they declared a war and nobody came?" is beyond stupid because of the Arab-Israeli conflict which is "what if they declared a war and only one side showed up?" There'll be a war for as long as the Arabs and/or Muslims have the *means* to destroy Israel. Because they are committed to do so, because of religion or because of some broken vision of their grandiose past. We need to take away their means...

2. The Arab-Israeli War Has Had Two Phases

From 1948-1993 the Arab-Israeli conflict must be seen in the light of the cold war. Simply put, the Western World gave a flying fig for Israel - and the world cared about the Arab states - mainly as a proxy battle between the US and the USSR. The Arab armies were aligned with the Soviets and their weaponry (and money) came from that massive part of the globe. The US supported Israel in the same way we supported South Korea, Taiwan, Greece, or the Contras.

The great tragedy of Oslo was that a point when the Cold War was over the PLO was poised to become irrelevant. All of their resources and support dried up because the Russians had bigger fish to fry. Just like we could have gotten total control of the Western Wall and of Hebron - but gave it away due to idiotic ideology - so too we could have lived without the PLO. But nooooo; Rabin-Peres took a failed organization, dazed and dashed along with the Berlin Wall, living in exile in Tunisia, and gave them an international platform.

However, one can argue that even without Israel giving the Palestinians relevance, they would have risen up on their own because of the second source of funding (and now sole source following the breakup of the Soviets): Arab oil.

Post Oslo (which is post-Berlin Wall) the Arab world maintains a relevance because they are stinking' rich off oil money.

How else can Iran fund both Hamas and Hezbollah? Why would we even care about Saddam Hussein? How is it that Muslim terrorists can be so well funded and protected? Why is it that France rolls over and kisses Arab tush? Because of oil. Oil is what protects the Palestinians and what makes the whole world listen to the raving hatred of the petro-nations that hate Israel.

Were oil to become worthless, then Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, etc wouldn't be able to fund terrorism, the world would consider the Arabs to be as important as undeveloped backwaters like Bangladesh or sub-Saharan Africa.

3. Green=Peace

Support alternative fuels! The idiot Republicans - and their poster airhead Sarah "Drill, I have Babies, Drill" Palin - talked only of ending our dependence on "foreign oil." That little world "foreign" is the rub. It sounds like an innocuous addition and that's the power of PR/Marketing - to create logical sounding slogans for unpleasant truths. (e.g. When did toilet paper become bathroom tissue?! I know there's a difference! I'm shomer shabbat: bathroom tissue is kosher on Shabbas and toilet paper ain't. Stop messing with words, Madison Avenue!! Ahem)

"Ending dependence on oil" means to switch to alternative fuels; "ending...foreign oil" still means we're dependent on oil, but it means we'll just buy more domestically. It's so stupid that people just swallowed it up: it sounds 'green' but is in fact designed to line the pockets of Texans and Alaskans. Goopers are even worse than the bathroom tissue people.

Anyway, by ending dependence on oil; if we turn the world onto cheap fuel (e.g. remember coal?) then we can end the Arab-Israeli conflict: (1) the bad guys won't have the money for weapons, and (2) the world won't need to listen to the Arabs complaining about Israel/Palestine because who listens to poor sand-farmers?

How will the war end? The Palestinians will wake up one day and realize that nobody is giving them money to kill 100 of themselves for every Israeli (the current ratio, or so it seems) and they'll then do what all petulant parasites do when the cash cow dies: they'll get jobs. They'll build roads and schools instead of bombs and will find it better for day-to-day life to actually let Israel live in peace.

Gaza Thoughts 1

1. Think Like a Nation, Not an Individual

It's important to remember that right and wrong to even a thoughtful, moral, intelligent, educated person is different for collectives, especially nations. A leader, a person responsible for others, must think above the individual. A simple example, when it comes to halakha, is the classic debate over allowing emergency-rescuers break Sabbath laws in order to save a life. The rescuer is allowed to break the Sabbath not only in running to save the life, but also to return back to his home. To small minds (and there are plenty of these even among rabbis), it is wrong to allow the rescuer to break the Sabbath to return home. While these miniminds will grudgingly acknowledge that a life is worth more than the Sabbath, that condition should end when the rescue has occurred, no? Well, say the wide-thinking and responsible leadership: if we refuse the rescuer from returning home, then he won't come in the first place for fear of ruining his day.

The miniminds rebut: how dare we impugn the noble heart of the Torah-True-Jew(tm)?!

The rabbis respond: Hey, we're with your rosy view of human nature, but over the years we noticed that people were not showing up to rescue others in need! We're the same ones who came up with sfeik-sfeika: the concept that when you have a doubt (safek) on top of a doubt (safek) then you are allowed to be lenient in halakha. So rescuers were applying the sfeik-sfeika themselves: maybe I won't get to the rescue site on time, and maybe others will get there before me, making my trip superfluous. Heighty-ho, I should just stay home with my family and not ruin Shabbos...

Yes, the Torah-True-Jew(tm) is noble; except that we rabbis have to think of the long term and of the whole community. And the sociological pattern (see the bystander intervention studies of 1960s BCE) is that unless there is an overarching moral compulsion, an even noble and intelligent individual will think in the short term and not do what's best for society. That's the job of the rabbis: to make social rules that better society. And we're saying that the rescuer can violate Shabbat to return home.

The miniminds still retort (and here there are many rabbis unfortunately in the group): OK, OK, we bow to the wisdom of the rabbis. Except that Yankel Shmoikel, my EMT cousin, doesn't want to return home on Shabbas and because he so noble, he will still rush off to rescue people on Shabbas! So there!

The rabbis again respond: Please do not violate the rabbis rules. We thought of Shmankel. Ya see, first of all, when you think you're above the law, when you second guess Societal Ethics using Individualist Logic, then you will most likely end up violating the law. We believe either/or: (a) that Shmankel will think of himself as noble but will subconsciously decide not to run off to rescue because he knows the burden, or (b) that Shmankel will decide that others will take care of the rescue, he's needed more in his house.

Ya see, one more reason (a noble one) for the rescuer to return home: because as a rescuer (especially a doctor/nurse/EMT) is needed to help others. If we had the fire-brigade rush off to the boonies on Shabbas, then get stuck there starting Friday night, then they won't be available for the inevitable Cholent-Blech fire across town. Etc.

This is a large issue and I'm bring the point up in brief (and I need to create a good overall term for this ethic) but the lesson is this: leaders think in terms of long term consequences and not for the individual case.

This applies to the Gaza war. A soldier can't think of individual cases, he has to follow orders. That's well understood. But the generals need to think of the big picture which can result in individuals getting killed. Even innocent ones. This is why war must be the last resort of any moral state. We just hope that the generals (and in the modern democratic state, the elected officials who command the army) think like leaders and are seeking the proper long term goals.

When Bush rushed off to war, we feared that his feeble moral intellect didn't understand the cost of war. Especially since he ran away from Vietnam, yet always felt that he was a solider. He threw lives away for political gain. This was also the specter of the second Lebanon War.

The Gaza War is real, though. Gaza was given over to the Palestinians who immediately turned it into a terrorist state hell-bent on Israel's destruction. Cease-fires didn't work and ultimately negotiation is fruitless without a partner. These are large, nation, issues that don't fall into most people's consciousness. They just think of the loss of life. And it's good they care. But it is morally wrong to apply an individualist code of ethics to national needs.

2. You Can't Compare the Morality of a Democracy with a Tyranny.

I wrote an op-ed back during the second Lebanon war (can't link to it because it would divulge my thinly veiled identity) that argued this point. Citizens in a democracy are sovereigns which means that the army's actions are the will of the collective will. If the war is unjust and wrong (as Iraq was) then the populace will rebel, either by ballot (like we did in 2006-2008). Citizens of a tyranny do not have the power to change the government's mind; if the war is unpopular then so what; if the tyrants want to use the citizens as soldiers so be it. As such, citizens of a tyranny aren't really civilians the way that citizen's in a democracy are. Just think of the Japanese and Nazi citizens during WWII - they did not have a choice to change the government's mind short of rebellion. Note that rebellion is what actually ended World War I - both the Russian Revolution but more importantly the rebellions in Germany.

Let me emphasize that point again: World War I ended only because the a tyranny was (almost) overthrown. I'll get into the tragedy of the end of WWI elsewhen, but suffice to say that democracies have civilians in the true sense but tyrannies do not. The only ethical thing to do, from the democratic point of view, is to end all dictatorships. However, since that would require almost non-stop warfare, it's not really possible to do that (despite what Bill Kristol and George W. Bush wanted).

The next best thing would be the idea proposed by John McCain: the League of Democracies. During the election, the League concept was discredited by the cognoscenti because McCain is an airhead and there's guilt by association. But I think it just makes sense: democracies need to band together to protect themselves from the common threat of tyrannies. For the reason set above: that tyrannies can commit crimes against democracies who cannot respond in kind. But there's strength in numbers!

The Gaza situation is a case in point: if there were a League - which is broader and more relevant than the cold-war dinosaur NATO yet not soaking with sordid dictatorships like the UN - then the moment a rocket flew from Gaza into Israel the whole League would declare Hamas a threat. It's basically what we did in the first Gulf War and as a permanent function, a super-NATO as it were, it would help everyone. And like we're seeing with NATO, it may induce countries to drop their tyranny earlier than expected to get the benefits.

3. When Will It Ever End?

There's the short term and the long term ends, and the realistic ends and my pipe-dream ends. The short term end of this war is in the hands of the Israelis. The leadership of the major industrial nations have to balance their public opinion reactions (and since Israel absolutely irrevocably sucks at PR - it's like a point of pride to Israelis to act like arrogant boneheads) with what they recognize as the goals of their nations.

Any country that has to deal with angry Islamic citizens will call on Israel to cease as soon as possible; countries that don't care about this subgroup (e.g. US) will be less circumspect. But all the major countries have as a vested national interest to have Hamas be destroyed. Gaza is totally Hamas and Hamas is a vicious, implacable terrorist group. There's no positive for Hamas; this is one reason why the PLO is helping Israel with the battle. So the nations of the world will let Israel do as much as possible to weaken Hamas.

The war, plus the general world condemnation of Hamas, may serve to topple the Gaza government and give it into the hands of Israel. There is no way for Israel to make peace with the Palestinians until the P's can speak with unity and until Hamas is driven into an angry ineffectual nub (like "Islamic Jihad" - remember them) then there's no short term peace plan.

And I repeat, if we had a League of Democracies then it would be very hard for Hamas to shoot more than one day's worth of missiles without getting a return smackdown from the worlds' Democracies. And the smacking wouldn't be violent at first - there'd be an economic carrot and stick from the League first.

Ah, but you'll respond, won't the tyrannizes of the world pick up the economic slack? Indeed. That's a problem with the Arab-Israel conflict, there's world interest in the players. But this leads to second solution, the long term one, which I think will eventually put a lot of this to bed: alternative fuels. More on that in the next post.

Brain Freeze Summary

Brain freeze: can come from eating ice-cream too fast and also from having too many things to write about: from Mumbai to Madoff to Gaza. Also I have some foot-freeze going on (my basement office is unheated and the portable heater I bought from Bed, Bath and Things just plotzed). These three are important to interrelate; each are Jewish tragedies, made special for the modern world. Mumbai was a hi-tech terrorist attack that we often see depicted in movies: a bunch of good-looking bad-guys technologically integrated moving with lethal efficiency. What fun! Well, see my stuff on misanthropic entertainment: I don't like the glorification of evil and now that I have children, I like it even less.

But the evils of Mumbai were washed away by the Jewish super-villian Bernie Madoff. Wow: he may be the world's biggest non-tyrant crook. I need to add the tyrant caveat because one thing that dictators can - and do - do better than others is to steal in massive scale. 50 Billion in made-up money is crazy, but compare that to Mao-Zedong or Fidel Castro who stole entire countries.

In any case, as I said elsewhere, the scale of his crime is so grave that it's the first time I can understand the death penalty for a thief. He has destroyed thousands of lives and in a psychopathic drive of greed. While it still cannot equal the tragedy of Mumbai, as some have said, there's quick and there's slow death. The Sages claim that impoverishment is like death and that makes sense in a world without a safety net... yet Madoff may have successfully destroyed the safety-nets of many people.

And then we have Gaza. I may have more to say on this (I will have more about Mumbai and Madoff), but the international reaction is perplexing after Mumbai. Didn't people get the picture that people like Hamas will torture and kill Jews just for the fun of it? This is pretty black and white: Hamas is evil. The only reason to not call them Nazis is because they lack the means, not the will. Maybe I will devote more to this, because if this isn't clear now, in this world, then its quite revealing.

More Thoughts on the Victory

Some points on the incredible victory:

1. We just elected a black guy with a Muslim name president. Just gotta say that, over and over, until I fully understand how incredible this all is.
   
   
2. I see the Obama election as a type of 'virtual impeachment' of Bush. We won't get the chance to do the real thing - we still may be able to put the SOB behind bars - but the election of a brilliant, articulate, African-American, Muslim-named, liberal intellectual Constitutional scholar is a point-by-point repudiation of the stupid, mush-mouthed, pampered patrician rich-boy Texas oil-millionaire, white-bread legacy Christian conservative incurious human rights abuser.
   
   
3. Democrats haven't had a win like this since 1964. And as a result of that election, we received Civil Rights and the Great Society. And even if you think the latter was bad or flawed, you have to take into account how bad it was to be in America *before* those programs were enacted. 1964 ushered in a state of civility and greatness - as the names declare - to America. And that's great change. And that's what we can do in 2008.
   
   
4. For my fellow Hebrew brethren who are worried that Obama's win will bring about the destruction of Israel, or whatever: There is no support or proof for your fears. The fears are based on innuendo, ignorance and in some cases racism. The worst thing to happen to Israel in the past few years wasn't Oslo (which was a mitigated disaster), nor the Clinton Camp David Accords (whose blame can be laid on Ehud "the Other" Barak's feet), rather the worst has been the legitimizing election of Hamas to the Palestinian leadership and the subsequent creation of a pure terrorist state in Gaza. And that was all Bush, baby. Bush also created a terrible threat to Israel vis-a-vis the Iraq war - which has strengthen Iran (taking away it's biggest foe, replacing it with a sympathetic Shiite regime) and emboldened Tehran to pursue nukes. All Bush. And McCain would have continued this insanity. Even if Obama turns out to be like Carter - which isn't borne out by evidence - Carter was better for Israel than Bush!
   
   
5. It's a press axiom - which naturally means its boneheaded - that Obama's toughest job now begins: the cleaning up of the nation. Blah blah blah. No. That was not the toughest job. Becoming the first black president, as a first term Senator with a Muslim name, defeating both the Clinton machine and the Republican party, was the toughest job. Cleaning up the country will be not be as tough. Why? Well, first of all because it's just an obvious point. But second of all, because most of our problems were CAUSED, they didn't just 'happen.' Bush created this fate. All Obama needs to do is not be a horrible person/executive and it's already an epic win.
   
   
6. I'm disheartened by the possibility that Coleman and Smith may have been re-elected. While the landslide for president is a nice thing, if Obama's coattails weren't enough to defeat Republicans in blue states, then its a bad sign.
   
   
7. It's so sweet that Elizabeth Dole was spanked by her opponent, Democrat Kay Hagan. Dole ran a disgusting race and deserves to have lost. It's ironic: her husband ran for president in 1996 and conducted a comparatively clean and honorable race. Yeah, he lost, (159-379, see map to the left) but he kept his dignity, soul, and the good graces of history. I've long said that 1996 was one the only years where both major tickets had great candidates such that a victory either way would have been palatable for the country (as opposed to, lets say, 1988 which was wretched either way). So Bob Dole ran with respect and his name can be seen as a watchword for how to lose with grace. Then came Dole's doppelganger, John McCain. Another war-hero, Senate lion, known for bipartisanship and moderate views (note: McCain's rep was largely myth while Bobdole's was true)... and McCain ran a shameless, horrid campaign (see more below). And "Liddy" Dole chose, for her defeat, to be like McCain instead of Bob. And her name is mud.
   
   
8. The great victory for America, and the world, has a the concomitant benefit of validating the clean, respectful style of Obama and repudiating the sewer methods of McCain-Palin. That will have far-reaching consequences and all for the best. After Bush-Rove won dirty in 2000, and dirtier in 2004, it seemed we were doomed to a future of sleaze and fear every election cycle. Not anymore. True, many unregenerate Goopers will believe that were it not for the cratering economy etc. the slash-burn tactics would have worked. I disagree (for the billion reasons I've written about before), and the Goopers may not learn from their mistakes (considering they are now the party against science, evidence, and expertise), but I trust cooler brains will prevail.
   
   
9. Related to the horrible Republican tactics, and the paradox of the McCain campaign, was the McCain concession speech. So odd. Just like how John Kerry and Al Gore spoke with fire and talent at the Democratic convention - and many of us asked where these people were when they ran their national campaigns! - so too with McCain last night. What a gracious and honorable speech. And it was delivered so well! With clarity, confidence and decency. We should ask "where was this guy on the campaign trail?" but also note that any person who sounds better when no longer campaigning (Gore, Kerry, McCain) obviously has mental reservations, and a fundamental problem as a politician. Does this 'mental game' automatically presage defeat? Not sure; which successful politician sounded better when out of office than in? I can think of a number, successful pols, who were better while running than not. Something to inspect.
   
   
10. And, of course, at that same concession speech we heard the base of the Republicans booing Obama's name, shouting and bellowing out who-can-imagine-what craziness. The crowd was the embodiment of the McCain campaign, the speech was the embodiment of the mythical McCain that the press apotheosized and who I had liked back at the beginning of the millennium.
    
    
11. Let's not forget Joe Biden. I am very happy for him; I genuinely like the guy. And - speaking as a rabbi and a budding scholar of the sociology of religion - the president-elect is just another Protestant, but we just elected our first Catholic VP, and only the second non-Protestant in the White House. Wow.

More later.

Boo Freakin' Hoo

From the front page of tonight's NYTimes:

Isolation of Gaza Chokes Off Trade
By STEVEN ERLANGER

With Gaza almost entirely shut off from normal trade, Palestinian businesses are enduring a deep depression.

Aw. I am all, as they say, choked up. I wonder why Gaza is so isolated? Could it be that it's a terrorist state that has been given many gifts from Israel only to use those gifts to slaughter anybody with whom they disagree? Hamas is a criminal, bloodthirsty organization of killers and thieves. I'm surprised the Times doesn't have a story about those poor mobsters who can't feed their families with all that pesky FBI crack-downing.

{2009 Update: Pic from here.}

Hamas Female Suicide Bomber

According to the Jerusalem Post:

Eight IDF soldiers were wounded on Thursday as the army intensified its efforts to stop the ongoing Kassam rocket fire from the Gaza Strip. A female suicide bomber detonated an explosion near soldiers in the Jebalya refugee camp Thursday evening, the IDF said. Three soldiers were lightly wounded by the blast. Hamas later claimed responsibility for the attack.

Is there some subtle point in International Law that I'm missing here. Hamas controls the Palestinian Authority. Hamas sends suicide bombers to kill Israeli soldiers. Is that not an act of war that would allow Israel to do whatever they want to do to retaliate. Huh?

Strength for Israel

I will write soon B"N about why Orthodox Jews seem convinced that you are not frum unless you will vote for Bush. I will also B"N try to explain why a good frum Jew does not need to vote for Bush and quite possibly should not vote for Bush.

Until then, I wish to dispel one more lie. In the Edwards-Cheney debate we saw that Edwards - and by extension Kerry - was very strong for Israel. Cheney, and by more than just extension Bush, was disappointing.

I give you the transcript's exchange:

EDWARDS: Well, first of all, I do agree that we've been largely absent, not entirely absent, but largely absent from the peace-making process over the last four years.

And let me just say a couple of preliminary things and then talk about where we are now.

First, the Israeli people not only have the right to defend themselves, they should defend themselves. They have an obligation to defend themselves.

I mean, if I can, just for a moment, tell you a personal story. I was in Jerusalem a couple of years ago, actually three years ago, in August of 2001, staying at the King David Hotel.

We left in the morning, headed to the airport to leave, and later in the day I found out that that same day, not far from where we were staying, the Sbarro Pizzeria was hit by a suicide bomber in Jerusalem. Fifteen people were killed. Six children were killed.

What are the Israeli people supposed to do? How can they continue to watch Israeli children killed by suicide bombers, killed by terrorists?

They have not only the right to the obligation to defend themselves.

Now, we know that the prime minister has made a decision, a historic decision, to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza. It's important for America to participate in helping with that process.

Now, if Gaza's being used as a platform for attacking the Israeli people, that has to be stopped. And Israel has a right to defend itself. They don't have a partner for peace right now. They certainly don't have a partner in Arafat, and they need a legitimate partner for peace.

And I might add, it is very important for America to crack down on the Saudis who have not had a public prosecution for financing terrorism since 9/11.

And it's important for America to confront the situation in Iran, because Iran is an enormous threat to Israel and to the Israeli people

Cheney's response:

In respect to Israel and Palestine, Gwen, the suicide bombers, in part, were generated by Saddam Hussein, who paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers.

I personally think one of the reasons that we don't have as many suicide attacks today in Israel as we've had in the past is because Saddam is no longer in business.

We've been strong supporters of Israel. The president stepped forward and put in place a policy basically that said we will support the establishment of two states. First president ever to say we'll establish and support a Palestinian state nextdoor to Israelis.

But first, there has to be an interlocutor you can trust and deal with. And we won't have that, we don't have it now, in a Yasser Arafat. There has to be reform of the Palestinian system.

To summarize: Edwards says that Israel has a right to unilateral response, Arafat is not a peace partner, Israel can attack Gaza even after they pull out and that Saudi Arabia is a big threat

Cheney says that Saddam Hussein was causing terror attacks in Israel [presumably taking time out to coordinate the 9/11 attacks] and that Cheney is so so proud to say that he supports a Palestinian State.

Who's the friend of Israel??

5+ Killed in Gaza

From Israel's Foreign Ministry (MFA):

May 2, 2004 - Tali Hatuel, 34, and her daughters - Hila, 11, Hadar, 9, Roni, 7, and Merav, 2 - of Katif in the Gaza Strip were killed when two Palestinian terrorists fired on an Israeli car at the entrance to the Gaza Strip settlement bloc of Gush Katif.

Tali was 8 months pregnant as well.

Sigh. This is a very difficult moral question. Tali, you see, was on her way to a protest of Sharon's 'disengagement plan.' Murder of innocents is never justifiable and it is wrong, and dangerous, to allow the outrage of this horrific tragedy to turn into a diatribe against the victims. The world now treats Jewish life far too cheaply; Jewish blood is a dollar a gallon and trading badly against oil and other commodities. The terrorists who killed this mother and 5 children are explained away and the victim - Tali, Israel, all Jews - are blamed for being who were are.

So, we can't forget that she was killed for being Jewish and for no other reason. "Yesha Zeh Kan" - The Terrorities Are Here, the slogan that states that we cannot separate what happens in Gaza, Yehuda, Shomron, from what terrorists will do to Jews in Tel Aviv, Haifa, New York, London.

That said... how do I deal with a woman, a family, that brings children into a war zone? She didn't strap a bomb to their backs and ask them to kill others; but she did put a target on their foreheads!

I am an ideologue; but as I get older I realize more and more that the Jewish doctrine of "Choose Life" is the best solution in a confusing moral maze. Yeah, you can say that if we pull out of Gaza we'll lose more lives because it will embolden terrorists. I have nothing yet to say about that. I *do* say that for the Gazidiots to claim that Gaza is necessary for Israel's security, then they are stating clearly it is a dangerous place. AND HOW DARE YOU, HOW DAAARE YOU, HAVE CHILDREN THERE!

Is that a Jewish ethic? Putting children in the line of fire for a goal and ideology that they have no right being part of? The father of this destroyed family, said:

"On Friday the girls drew me a picture and wrote 'Daddy, we are proud of what you are doing for the home where we were born',"

All that means is that they were able to brainwash these children into being ambulatory body bags for a cause they believed in. This sickens me.

One thing we learn from Eglah Arufah (Deut. 21:1-9) is that when a person is murdered, the surrounding society needs to ask whether they were responsible. They know they didn't 'pull the trigger' - but they may have made it easy for murder to be done. These abusive parents in Gaza... is the blood on their hands? Isn't there a way of being Jewish, proud and free, without also running in front of a shooting gun? How can I avoid the logic of "Yesha Zeh Kan" - that maybe we should run away from Israel, go to Uganda or Madagascar, not wear a Kippah in public or to have open kosher restaurants, because those actions also spur on people to kill us, and if not now, then only after we leave Gaza.

My answer to that reductio ad absurdum is democratic government. First of all, we can and should draw the line between living in a normal location and living in a disputed, highly dangerous war-zone. What would you do when people shoot at your children in the streets of Normaltown? You appeal to the authorities. If the authorities say they won't protect you, do you still let your children run around as targets? No! The government may be wrong to leave you unprotected, but your responsibility is to preserve the lives of the fragile and innocent. You don't match wrong with wrong.

If America decided that it was OK for Jews to be shot up in the streets of New York, I'd protest, scream and yell, but I wouldn’t let my children (b'shaa tova) be living targets!! I'd keep them at home, petition the government all the while, but I'd keep them safe... and I'd keep alive too because someone needs to make them their PB&Js.

This is a very difficult moral situation and it can lead to extreme ideas on all sides. The only way to navigate these bloody waters is to keep the right ethics in our heads at all times.

CIA Annexes Golan Heights

So, in preparation for Yom Ha'atzmaut, I came across the CIA World Factbook for Israel. Immediately I looked for the 'disputed territories and, sure as shinola, the disputed territories are not under Israeli control. Nosiree.

What's strange is that while the CIA doesn't allow Israel the West Bank, neither do they give it to Jordan! The same thing with the Gaza Strip; it's hard to tell from the map of Egypt, but it's not listed in the text of Egypt under 'disputed territories.'

However, the generous souls in the declare that Syria owns the Golan Heights! Funny... I thought Israel annexed the Golan Heights! Well Syria has more opium, and Lord knows that counts for something in a modern intelligence organization.

My assumption about the other two territories is that the CIA has already given them to the Palestinians and they're just waiting until they become a country. Funny, no? How a real country, Israel, ranks lower than an imaginary country?

Oh, the Bleeding Heart

We successfully assassinated the 'spiritual leader' of Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization. The State department says so, in its 2003 Terrorist List and even in its 1999 Terrorist List (which has an interesting tidbit about Al-Qaida, led by Usama bin Ladin)

The New York Times refuses to call them terrorists. They call 'em 'militants.' I know I should stop harping on their anti-semitism, but I need to for two reasons:

(1) The NYT is the 'local' newspaper of the largest Diaspora Jewish community. They way it treats us is a sign of our exile.

(2) The NYT often reflects the sentiments of the self-hating Jews who populate said Jewish community, and so an attack against the Times is a roundabout way of attacking the self-haters.

I equate the NYT with the crotchety old relative who your parents insist on inviting to the Seder and who mocks you the whole time for being religious. Even if you don’t respond to the mocking, the attacks are effective because, being a relative, he catches you while you are vulnerable.

Considering that all weekend there's been a furious firefight in Pakistan over what may be Al-Queda's second-in-command... an assassination mission, dontcha know, I see a stupefying double standard at work. Yeah, what's new. But now it's a simultaneous double standard! A missile fired in Gaza has a different moral level than the same one a few miles to the East.

In any case, there were some people I know who responded to the assassination with anger and self-righteous shame. Evidently, we cannot acknowledge the assassination as good because "we cannot rejoice over our enemies"

This concept is from Pirkei Avot (4:24)

Samuel the Younger used to say (Proverbs 24:17-18) "Do not rejoice when your enemies fall, and do not let your heart be glad when they stumble, or else the Lord will see it and be displeased, and turn away his anger from them." (see the text here & some commentary here.)

This one mishna has become the mantra of the 'Shalom Achshavnikim" (not that they actually uphold it themselves). There's something vaguely christological in that dictum. Those who espouse it with the most gusto do so in a historically 'Christian' manner, i.e. as secretly violent hypocrites.

The self-hating Jews would like to be Crucified, it seems. (Side note; I wonder if Mel Gibson has come out simultaneously endorsing and condemning the assassination. Endorsing it because it shows that we Jews just like killing people. Condemning it because it was targeted against Hamas and not against Jesus. )

Ya see, the bleeding-heart-dudes understand the Mishna about 'downfall of enemies' wrong. To rejoice when enemies fall is to open your heart to the violence. To revel in the death. Every downfall has within it some "ra'ah" (evil) - as seen in Parshat Ki Tisa (Ex. 32:14) - and to rejoice over downfall means that you are enjoying "ra'ah."

Personally, I'd prefer all other solutions to assassination. I would much rather arrest these dudes, hold a trial and throw 'em in prison. But if that avenue is not available, then often we will need to resort to assassination. 'Targeted killing' (the military euphemism) is a far better solution than warfare. Why risk innocent 18 year old Jewish boys in a protracted battle when you can just pop this murderer in the head?

If these "don't rejoice" hypocrites were really pious, they would care about these soldiers. In order to answer that objection they'd say that Oslo, or whatever mutant variation of it that's currently making the rounds, would turn Hamas into nice happy neighbors. This is a delusional argument and it makes sense only to those who are filled with sub-conscious self-loathing; people who deep-down want to get killed by Hamas.

Forget that. Pop the freak if that's what will save the most lives. Theirs *and* ours.

I am rejoicing but not over the downfall. Not over the fact that he is dead. I am rejoicing that a mastermind of death has been stopped. I would prefer if Shiek Whatshisface and the rest of his gang of psychopaths would just stop hating humanity. Until they do, their hate needs to be ended somehow. Hamas, and their smiley-faced-friends all over the globe, often give us (the good-guys, remember) no choice.

Be happy that evil has been stopped. If you don't feel happy, you need your moral compass repaired.

The Times Strikes Again

The circle of violence continues with the New York Times cheapening lives and Jaysoning the truth: Israel Strikes in Gaza Soon After Bus Explodes in Jerusalem

As long as they show balance, eh?

The New York Times makes a mistake?!

Now, we all know that the New York Times sets all the standards for journalism. That's admitted by every journalist. Remember that fact when you complain about the Times because it means that everything else out there is worse.

Anyhoo, after reeling from the "Jayson Blair" incident (where a reporter, named Jason, consistently faked the spelling of his name), the Times is paying closer attention to their other rampant falsehoods (which, again, are the best falsehoods in the whole journalism world).

Today, the offered a noteworthy correction:

An article yesterday about the dismantling of a rusty tower by an Israeli settlement in the West Bank as a gesture of compliance with the American-led peace initiative misstated the origin of Israeli control of the territory. During the 1967 war, Israel seized the West Bank from Jordan and took Gaza from Egypt, not from the Palestinians.

Isn't that wonderful? They are so brainwashed by their fake news that they actually printed yesterday that the Palestinians ever had land! What a day.

Check it out before they eliminate their evidence.

Life in the Styx vol. 4, no. 40 (Old Styx)

Life in the Styx vol. 4, no. 40; May 15, 1998 (Excerpts):

FRANK SINATRA

Frank Sinatra, an American icon whose virtuoso talent and notorious public image made him a defining and dominant celebrity for more than five decades, died last night at age 82.

He was "The Chairman of the Board," "Old Blue Eyes," "Frankie," he did things His Way. There, I got the damned cliches out of the way quickly. His talent was too good to let the hacks and jackals of the press apply their pedestrian rot to his legacy.

I urge those of you who know of Sinatra as the opening song of "Married With Children" actually hear some of his music. Those who only know of his attitude from "My Way" to hear the majority of his work -- to know that popular music at one point had lyrics that carried a sober, wise pathos.

And the man could sing! He had a powerful limousine voice that never seemed to end -- he could probably hold a note longer and stronger than almost any singer who thought to be his rival.

And yes, he was the Chairman. His hep-cat, master of the cool years appeal to many across the generations. I am one of those who believe that "My Way" was written purely with me in mind.

While "My Way" does read as a perfect epitaph (first line: And now, the end is near;/ And so I face the final curtain") I prefer another song, possibly my private favorite, that combines his ballistic voice with the maturity and boldness that should be his legacy: "That's Life" [In the original Styx, I sent out the full lyrics]

THE LAST SEINFELD

I find it appropriate that just when the hype from the end of Seinfeld reached the level of farce, when people who classify "The Wedding Singer" as a nostalgia movie are both pining and cynically criticizing their emotions over a TV show that purports to be a classic, fate helps put things in perspective with the death of Sinatra. While Seinfeld may have been the Upper West Side, Frankie was New York.

And I can't help but think that Seinfeld would be grateful. It wasn't he who blew up the hype; it was both NBC who is looking down the barrel of a long painful reconstruction after losing both America's #1 show and pro-football.

It was also the collection of streetwalkers known as the American Press Corps who blew this out of proportion. Thursday morning, the day of the last show, one of the "top stories" on the Reuters wire was a very special scoop indeed. It seems that one of their investigative crack reporters picked up a leak as to the exact plot of the finale! So I read about the car-jacking and the trial 12 hours before it was shown -- serves me right for be a news-junkie, right?

Why was that story news? Why was it a "scoop"? We press-critics each have our high-water mark as to when we declare that the press has gone 'too far' -- some people think it's O.J., some waited until Monicalewinskygate. But in some ways I think this is a far worse sign. It shows that there is no longer any break between entertainment and news. It shows that the only ethics left to the reporters are: (1) a need to "scoop" and (2) a need to destroy privacy.

The only reason why the temptation to know the plot existed was because NBC tried to keep it a secret; and it seems like something so petty and trivial as that was enough to waste a "top story" (not like anything else was happening: nuclear crisis in India-Pakistan, hundreds of people killed in Indonesian riots; Arafat pushing for armed struggle in Israel etc.) See below for more journalistic-wickedness.

SEINFELD: THE PHENOMENON

Everyone should be sick unto death of reading analysis articles about Why Seinfeld Is So Popular. Then there are the counter articles -- probably by the same misanthropic cranks who felt a need to attack Titanic -- who tried to tear down the belief that there's something to miss with the passing of Seinfeld.

I read a column in Time Magazine, the Marvel Comics of news, that tried ever-so-vainly to convince the reader that Seinfeld was a used-diaper compared to the laudable librettos of "The Andy Griffith Show."

Thank the TV-gods for providing us with Nick at Nite so we can finally match up the cinematic gadlus of the bygone era with ours. Folks, I don't want to surprise you, but early TV sucked. If I had only "Andy Griffith" to watch I'd drink Drano.

But here's a surprise: comedy is a cultural bench-mark. Material is only found to be funny by the intended audience. And it is ooo-kaaay to have different tastes within the genre. But I guess reporters are just two-speed bicycles that can only trash or hype.

SEINFELD'S APPEAL

Of course, I do need to give my two-cents on why Seinfeld was so popular. That is the most interesting question anyway. Especially since the show had a strong amorality that was part of its unavoidable message (something that came to haunt them in the distinctly unfunny finale) and why I couldn't be a regular viewer.

The trick here is to realize that people weren't watching it for the amorality, even though it became an unintended side-effect. This is how the marketplace works: you buy a product because it's the best available, not the best there is; there may be aspects you don't like about your chosen purchase, but they aren't significant enough to dissuade your acquisition.

However, the sub-standards still exist and will affect you. Seinfeld did manage, in my analysis, to debase the discourse on television towards a more tawdry and even raunchy level. Because of the show's power and appeal, they were able to broadcast an episode about masturbation -- a plot-line that I believe is the quintessence of the show -- which would not have been possible had Seinfeld not been so popular. And once you break that barrier of propriety, it's very difficult to go back.

This psycho-social phenomenon can be summed up with this aphorism: there aren't always moral reasons but there are moral consequences. The amorality wasn't why The People watched, but it did affect The People afterwards.

So why did they watch? Very simple: the principle of the show wasn't that it was "about nothing" (a phrase repeated so often that I had a standing threat to pole-axe the next person who said it within ear-shot). The other phrase Seinfeld had for it was: "no hugging, no learning."

All one has to do is compare Seinfeld to the other two comedies that went belly-up this week: "Ellen" and "Murphy Brown." Ellen became a one-trick pinto. It was gay gay gay and I'm not sure if *any* one note show could survive, let alone one with such a moralizing tincture. Murphy Brown was moribund for years and it needed to jolt itself alive with dramatic plot grafts (a baby! a cancer!)

Seinfeld was one place you could go where it was 100% jokes. Once you were over the hurdle of accepting the basic characters & premise, you were guaranteed non-stop payback. And that, very simply, is why it was so popular.

ISRAEL

One message about Israel. This is probably the only instance that I remember where the New York Times, good ol' German Serge Schmemann, was more anti-Israel than even the Reuters wire. Reuters placed the Israeli backlash to the current Palestinian riots by saying, straight out, that the Israelis only fired into the mob when (a) they were fired on first! or (b) when they were about to be over-run. Reuters also claimed that in some areas the Palestinian police were doing little to stop the violence. I didn't save the Reuters story, but here's the AP: [May 14, 1998, 4:41 p.m.]

While most of the marchers -- 1 million by official Palestinian
estimates -- were peaceful, thousands of young men broke away and
headed toward Israeli army outposts. In clash after clash, they
hurled stones at Israeli soldiers who responded with tear gas,
rubber bullets and, sometimes, live rounds.
[...]

Brig. Gen. Yoav Galant, the Israeli commander in Gaza, accused
Arafat's government of deliberately organizing demonstrations so
large as to be uncontrollable. Galant also said Palestinian police
and civilians fired wildly in at least one confrontation, and may
have been responsible for some casualties.

Israeli officials recovered about 200 casings of the type of
bullets used by Palestinian police, he said. Israeli troops also
displayed two armored vehicles that had been shot.

The Times, however, paints the picture like it was a mad orgiastic Klan-like attack by the Israeli army against innocents. See the picture on page A11 (Fri, May 15 1998) to see a pure example of how newspapers can gush falsehood under the guise of news. Disgusting and despicable.

KENNETH STARR

As of last looking, Kenneth Starr is chomping at the bit, trying to break the government stonewall over the Secret Service silence. Besides the obvious lesson that a Secret Service, by definition, is secret, there's the head of the service saying that forcing the agents to testify would lead to the death of a president.

OK, granted, it sounds like the chief is freaking out, but I'd far more trust his opinion on these matters than Starr who, by all accounts -- probably even the psychotic Rep. Dan Burton agrees -- has *got* to have his priorities straightened out!

Kenneth! (I'm sure he hates 'Ken') Dude! It's just not worth it! Somebody better tackle Starr and hose him down with some PERSPECTIVE. Maybe the secret service, they do that for a living ya know.

A NUCLEAR INDIA

This is bad. We do not need to have India, Pakistan, China, and North Korea in a shoving match. But my grasp of geopolitics doesn't merit a column on this topic. I do want to point out a twinge-ing moral inconsistency by, your friend and mine, the New York Times.

Their Thursday (5-15-98) editorial claimed that the CIA failed because they didn't know about the nuclear tests beforehand. Maybe it's me, but all this complaining can be answered by a simple question -- why didn't we just pay an Indian citizen in their Navy intelligence division to give us information? This hypothetical person, we'll call him Mahatma Pollard, could have been an American hero, right? Right?

Have a good Shabbas.