I always blast Brit Tzedek on this site. Today Brit Tzedek sent me a transcript of a telephone press conference with a Washington rabbi/expert visiting Jerusalem, and I admit that just a day or two after my New Year's resolution of having a bigger spirit, I downloaded it with pleasure, anticipating bashing Brit Tzedek some more.
Well Marc Gopin should be chaired through the marketplace. In my W, Non-W division of the world, Gopin is W, Worldly. [Here's a link to download Gopin transcript] Here are a few of his wonderful statements. No, he doesn't say Guernica, or Slaughter, but the man understands:
There has been an increase in civilian counts of
death by first 1 out of every 4, but now is creeping up to about 50% of the
casualties (about 220 out of 490). I
think that is important because at the initial stages of the bombings, there
were clear infrastructure targets that were the great weakness of Hamas and
that is that they had developed a place in the world and that is something
Israel decided to attack in terms of their infrastructure and that was further
removed from civilians, but they started to get to houses where they suspected
Hamas was, which led to civilian casualties.
It will become more fatal to the civilians living in the crowded space
of 30 miles with a million and a half people living on it. Over 100 tons of explosives have already been
dropped on that space which is only about twice the size of Washington DC (not
greater DC, but the district itself). So
weâre having a situation where as this proceeds, there are going to be more
civilian casualties especially if there is ground assault.
So he is alive to Palestinian suffering, and here he knows exactly what the Arab world thinks about Zionism and the cycle of violence.
And there is a war going on here (as there was in Lebanon) as to whoâs going to have the decisive advantage at the end of the war? And we can all take a step back and ask, âis this a legitimate reason to persist?â The mood at the moment in Israel is somber, despite doing well militarily, it's nervous, people are waiting for the other shoe to drop. Among Palestinians and Israeli Arabs... Itâs just mourning, itâs rage, itâs frustration, they simply donât know what to do anymore with themselves and in that atmosphere. Thereâs no conspiracy, thereâs no planned Intifada thereâs just a lot of teenagers hearing their parents crying and angry and screaming at their televisions I look at the quantity of hatred thatâs producing and that history has proven the last 60 years that no matter how excellent the execution, the war with the Arab world and with the Palestinians doesnât end. Nothing was more brilliant than â67, and that didnât end anything, on the contrary it created generations of humiliation in neighboring states. [emphases mine]
Just one problem with that statement, rabbi. Palestinians were supposed to have a state 60 years ago. The humiliation is of neighboring peoples, who have been denied the right of self-determination for nearly 3 generations in some large measure out of ethnocentric disdain. But here's Gopin on the Israel lobby, completely echoing Walt and Mearsheimer and my friend Michael Massing, too:
It is inexcusable that I go into congress with a Palestinian friend or student, and they [congressmen] are horrified by seeing a Palestinian because they think that AIPAC will find out or they think that the person is a terrorist. [When are we going to read that in the New York Times?] Itâs inexcusable in this day and age [amen amen amen amen] and itâs absolutely vital that at the most simple level we flood congress with models of a different future, that we demonstrate to them and we bring them evidence of where many Jews and Arabs are working together both in the United States and in Israel and in Palestine.... you want to be in their face both virtually and in the offices with very constructive suggestions of positive engagement that are so irrefutable that it would be silly not to do them as opposed to... those who say theyâre defending Israel and those who come in attacking Israel [Phil Weiss need not apply]. Thatâs a nonstarter in a congress thatâs completely bottled up with thresh [sic; no idea what this means] if they say anything against Israel. Itâs the truly pro-Israel thing for Jewish community here is to help congress help Israel with a new relationship between Arabs and Jews and there are many congressmen who want to hear this message.
Why isn't this rabbi on the Times op-ed page? Now here is my favorite bit. In which Gopin says, Forget about working with other Jews in a communal way. Stop having private fights with neocons. In essence: Break with them.
One comment. This is what I've always said. THAT BECAUSE RIGHTWING ZIONISTS/ NEOCONS ARE "FAMILY," LEFTWING ZIONIST JEWS HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO BREAK WITH THEM OR CONDEMN THEM. It is ending. THE OMERTA IS ENDING. God bless Rabbi Gopin!
In your description of worldly/non-worldly, where does Hamas fall?
On the last point of severing relations with right-wing cousins, uncles, etc. the rabbi is WRONG, and probably disqualified as a rabbi.
He's right about the idea to form relationships with Palestinians, to hear, to understand their experience. To form current convivial real relationships.
Difficult if Palestinians and their solidarity form a litmus test that anyone that has ever expressed any severe criticism of Hamas violence, or any support for Israeli defense from terror, is "enemy", or "right-wing".
Your brothers and sisters are still your brothers and sisters. Your parents still your parents. Your cousins still your cousins.
In the name of integration, you advocate for separation.
You confuse me horribly.
Even Obama saw the need to break with his family, that is, his long
time mentor or spiritual mentor–because, he realized staying silent
about the G-Damn America preacher would make too many voters
realize crystal clear that a President Obama would not represent all
Americans.
Now, check this out:
January 03, 2009
Israel Gears Up for a Ground War in Gaza (News Round-Up & Commentary)
by Teh Nutroots | So says The Murdoch Times.
Israel is poised to launch a major ground offensive into Gaza tonight after allowing hundreds of foreigners living in the devastated territory to evacuate.
After a week of air strikes that have killed at least 420 Palestinians and left scores of buildings in rubble, the Israeli army was set to fling hundreds of troops and tanks into a blitz to stamp out Hamasâs military wing, The Times understands (Times of London).
The UN says that more than a quarter killed so far have been civilians. (Reuters) Their sufferings continue to be severe. Meanwhile, Hamas does its all to keep the violence going:
Despite the looming onslaught, more Hamas rockets â which have so far killed four Israelis â were fired into southern Israel today.
The Islamist group vowed that its attacks, which have lasted for years and which finally provoked the massive Israeli campaign, would not stop.(Times of London).
Its leaders vow it will meet the challenge, etc., etc.
In Damascus, Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal sounded a defiant note in a televised speech.
"We are ready for the challenge, this battle was imposed on us and we are confident we will achieve victory because we have made our preparations," Meshaal said. (Reuters)
UN Special Reporter on Human Rights Richard Falk provides a perspective at HuffPost you won't see reflected in the American media or in the public comments of any America politician.
For eighteen months the entire 1.5 million people of Gaza experienced a punishing blockade imposed by Israel, and a variety of traumatizing challenges to the normalcy of daily life. A flicker of hope emerged some six months ago when an Egyptian arranged truce produced an effective ceasefire that cut Israeli casualties to zero despite the cross-border periodic firing of homemade rockets that fell harmlessly on nearby Israeli territory, and undoubtedly caused anxiety in the border town of Sderot. During the ceasefire the Hamas leadership in Gaza repeatedly offered to extend the truce, even proposing a ten-year period and claimed a receptivity to a political solution based on acceptance of Israel's 1967 borders. Israel ignored these diplomatic initiatives, and failed to carry out its side of the ceasefire agreement that involved some easing of the blockade that had been restricting the entry to Gaza of food, medicine, and fuel to a trickle.
Israel also refused exit permits to students with foreign fellowship awards and to Gazan journalists and respected NGO representatives. At the same time, it made it increasingly difficult for journalists to enter, and I was myself expelled from Israel a couple of weeks ago when I tried to enter to carry out my UN job of monitoring respect for human rights in occupied Palestine, that is, in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as Gaza.
At The Nation, freelance journalist Laila Al-Arian—whose grandfather lives in Gaza—discusses the suffering of some of Gaza's civilians:
Much of the territory's civilian infrastructure, including police stations, universities, mosques and homes, has been decimated. In the Jabalya refugee camp, five sisters, the eldest aged seventeen and the youngest only four, were killed on Monday as they slept in their beds when an Israeli air strike hit a mosque by their home. Their parents told reporters they assumed they were safe, since houses of worship typically are not military targets. The cemetery where the girls were buried was filled to capacity, so they were placed in three graves.
A United Nations spokesperson said the killing is a "tragic illustration that this bombardment is exacting a terrible price on innocent civilians." The bereaved father expressed the sentiments of so many in Gaza in an interview with the Washington Post. "I don't have anything to do with any Palestinian faction. I have nothing to do with Hamas or anyone. I am just an ordinary person." A few days after the attack, I found out that the girls were relatives of our family friends in Florida. (The Nation)
Glenn Greenwald comments on the disconnect between political rhetoric and the actual views of a substantial number of citizens.
This Rasmussen Reports poll — the first to survey American public opinion specifically regarding the Israeli attack on Gaza — strongly bolsters the severe disconnect I documented the other day between (a) American public opinion on U.S. policy towards Israel and (b) the consensus views expressed by America's political leadership. Not only does Rasmussen find that Americans generally "are closely divided over whether the Jewish state should be taking military action against militants in the Gaza Strip" (44-41%, with 15% undecided), but Democratic voters overwhelmingly oppose the Israeli offensive — by a 24-point margin (31-55%).
By stark constrast, Republicans, as one would expect (in light of their history of supporting virtually any proposed attack on Arabs and Muslims), overwhelmingly support the Israeli bombing campaign (62-27%).
In fact, Bush weighs in as follows:
"Another one-way ceasefire that leads to rocket attacks on Israel is not acceptable."
"And promises from Hamas will not suffice — there must be monitoring mechanisms in place to help ensure that smuggling of weapons to terrorist groups in Gaza comes to an end," he said in remarks prepared for his weekly Saturday radio address, which was released Friday.
The United States has demanded Hamas, which Israel says has been smuggling weapons through tunnels under Gaza's border with Egypt, take the first step by halting rocket attacks on Israeli. (Reuters)
Let's hope they do. Though they won't. And the civilians get caught in the middle.
As Greenwald says, it's clear why Republican politicians support the Israeli offensive, but not so clear why Democratic politicians do.
…Democratic Party leaders — including Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi — are just as lockstep in their blind, uncritical support for the Israeli attack, in their absolute refusal to utter a word of criticism of, or even reservations about, Israeli actions. While some Democratic politicians who are marginalized by the party's leadership are willing to express the views which Democratic voters overwhelmingly embrace, the suffocating, fully bipartisan orthodoxy which typically predominates in America when it comes to Israel — thou shalt not speak ill of Israel, thou shalt support all actions it takes — is in full force with this latest conflict.
Is there any other significant issue in American political life, besides Israel, where (a) citizens split almost evenly in their views, yet (b) the leaders of both parties adopt identical lockstep positions which leave half of the citizenry with no real voice? More notably still, is there any other position, besides Israel, where (a) a party's voters overwhelmingly embrace one position (Israel should not have attacked Gaza) but (b) that party's leadership unanimously embraces the exact opposite position (Israel was absolutely right to attack Gaza and the U.S. must support Israel unequivocally)? Does that happen with any other issue? (Salon)
At Whiskey Fire, Thers remarks:
On Israel, there's no particular difference in substance between the statements of Nancy Pelosi and, say, Pamela Oshry. As Glennzilla goes on to glumly observe, wingnuts — the very people who have been so colossally and disastrously wrong about Iraq — are completely in charge of the way Israel/Palestine is discussed in America. They have a monopoly on the definition of "legitimate" opinions about the conflict, the ones you can express officially. Hence they are able to get away with the most preposterous and insulting declarations — that disagreeing with Israeli actions makes one an "anti-Semite"; that Israeli and American interests are identical; that criticizing Israel equals support for terrorists.
What this means is that discussion of Israel/Palestine is at best puerile and at worse insane. Here's both, from Krauthammer:
Some geopolitical conflicts are morally complicated. The Israel-Gaza war is not. It possesses a moral clarity not only rare but excruciating.
Anyone who can look at dead children and preserve "moral clarity" is a psychopath. Clearly.
As to the merits of the non-argument, Greenwald says:
Ultimately, what is most notable about the "debate" in the U.S. over Israel-Gaza is that virtually all of it occurs from the perspective of Israeli interests but almost none of it is conducted from the perspective of American interests. There is endless debate over whether Israel's security is enhanced or undermined by the attack on Gaza and whether the 40-year-old Israeli occupation, expanding West Bank settlements and recent devastating blockade or Hamas militancy and attacks on Israeli civilians bear more of the blame. American opinion-making elites march forward to opine on the historical rights and wrongs of the endless Israeli-Palestinian territorial conflict with such fervor and fixation that it's often easy to forget that the U.S. is not actually a direct party to this dispute.
Though the ins-and-outs of Israeli grievances and strategic considerations are endlessly examined, there is virtually no debate over whether the U.S. should continue to play such an active, one-sided role in this dispute. It's the American taxpayer, with their incredibly consequential yet never-debated multi-billion-dollar aid packages to Israel, who are vital in funding this costly Israeli assault on Gaza. Just as was true for Israel's bombing of Lebanon, it's American bombs that — with the whole world watching — are blowing up children and mosques, along with Hamas militants, in Gaza. And it's the American veto power that, time and again, blocks any U.N. action to stop these wars.
For those reasons, the pervasive opposition and anger around the world from the Israeli assault on Gaza is not only directed to Israel but — quite rationally and understandably — to America as well. (Salon)
For a different perspective, see Michael Cohen at Democracy Arsenal.org.
Opinions on both sides are so hardened that it's become nearly impossible to have a cogent and unemotional conversation on the topic. But, I love a challenge – and after all we are a foreign policy blog — so I'm going to give it a try.
First, as I noted over at TPM cafe the other day, the root of the current crisis is not Israel's settlement policy or even Israel's economic blockade of Gaza (both of which are odious), it is the continued refusal of Hamas to renounce terrorism and recognize Israel's right to exist. This is not to say that one side in this conflict is wrong and the other is right, but that the presence of a group (Hamas) that rejects the very outlines of a two-state solution and the land for peace model is not a group that is going to play a positive role in peace negotiations. If Israel dismantled all its settlements tomorrow, Hamas would not turn around and renounce violence; but if Hamas were to recognize Israel the path to reconciliation would be far easier to achieve.
It's worth noting that the acceptance of a two-state solution is today largely the norm in the Arab world (as demonstrated in part by the Saudi peace plan, which is now more than 6 years old) and in Israel – Prime Minister's Ehud Olmert's extraordinary September interview with Yedioth Ahronoth, a fascinating example of the movement even by former Israeli hawks toward tacit recognition of the need for a viable Palestinian state.
Considering Hamas's continued rejection of this solution – and it's continued reliance on terror tactics — it's hardly surprising that Israel would respond with devastating attacks on Gaza. To be honest, it's also rather justified. After all, Israel has a right and need to defend its citizens from terrorism.
Yes, but… well, see Matt Yglesias's response.
Michael Cohen writes:
If Israel dismantled all its settlements tomorrow, Hamas would not turn around and renounce violence; but if Hamas were to recognize Israel the path to reconciliation would be far easier to achieve.
This is totally true. But consider this proposition:
If Hamas were to recognize Israel tomorrow tomorrow, Israel would not turn around and renounce settlements; but if Israel were to dismantle all settlements the path to reconciliation would be far easier to achieve.
Thatâs also true. But by arbitrarily shifting the standard, so that Israeli actions are judged according to whether or not they would magically cause the other side to become reasonable, whereas Palestinians are merely asked whether or not making unilateral concessions would in some sense make reconciliation easier to achieve, Cohen has managed to put a heavily pro-Israel spin on the banal observation that both sides could do more to improve the situation but that achieving real peace requires steps on both sides.
Meanwhile, of course, thereâs still such a thing as ethics and so forth…Israeli actions that are wrong are wrong independent of whether or not Hamas is launching rockets.
It's the latter point that seems to elude the unquestioning pro-Israel side of the argument: because Hamas is wrong—and all the critics of Israel agree: HAMAS IS WRONG—doesn't mean that Israel's response is the best response.
Cohen responds to a different point: that Hamas is more an obstacle to the peace process than Israel.
After all, movement on the peace process only began in 1993 when the PLO pledged to recognize Israel and renounce terrorism and Israel accepted the idea of a two-state solution that would involve the creation of a Palestinian entity in the West Bank and Gaza. Today, Israeli accepts the two-state formula; so does Fatah. Hamas does not.
This isn't a pro-Israel observation; it's a pro-common sense observation.
Again, I don't know anyone who would argue with this. No one I know is arguing that Israel can't, or shouldn't, defend themselves. Most of the people who are criticizing Israel are arguing that what they are doing now in Gaza goes beyond what is needed for "self-defense." We're arguing at cross-purposes.
At LGM, Paul Campos avers that he knows too little about the issue to comment, but adds:
[T]he present conflict illustrates some depressing things about the orthodoxy of the American political elites, the assumptions of bad faith on the part of one's opponents by everyone who argues about this, and the increasingly meaningless status of the word "terrorism."
On the last point of severing relations with right-wing cousins, uncles, Phil is CORRECT and too, any rabbi who so speaks up in the highest tradition of Judaism, rather than the worst talmudic heritage, which Julius Streicher used to defend himself at Nuremberg–what's good for the goose, is good for the gander.
Phil's and any good rabbi is right about the idea to form relationships with Palestinians, to hear, to understand their experience. To form current convivial real relationships.
Difficult if Zionists and their solidarity form a litmus test that anyone that has ever expressed any severe criticism of Israeli state policy violence or racist laws, or any support for Palestinians' right to be free from American-sponsored terror, is "enemy", or " anti-semitic terrorists".
Your brothers and sisters are still your brothers and sisters. Your parents still your parents. Your cousins still your cousins. But since when in the modern age post 1945 should the full weight
of the USA superpower be placed at the whim of Zionists?
In the name of peace and the best interests of the USA which you see as the same as Israel's, you advocate for separation, and against the principles of Nuremberg and international law.
You confuse me horribly.
Kook,
Don't misrepresent Talmud.
Talmud is a dialog, a dialog that includes comments that support assertiveness and comments that support compromise.
When Talmud is misunderstood as halacha (Jewish law), it is misused. When Jews or non-Jews quote an interpretation from Talmud as "authority", they lie.
It is solely the documentation of discussion. Interesting and often profound discussion, but not authority.
Phil's family would be there for him, regardless of his political opinions (which certainly gall some of them).
Shit, I would be, just based on our family's history.
Severing intimacy over politics is idiotic. Its idiotic for Phil to recommend. Its idiotic for a rabbi to recommend.
The analysis of the likelihood of increased civilian deaths, rather than the earlier statistics of very high percentage of militants' casualties relative to civilian, is likely accurate.
That is one reason why the Israeli bombardment has slowed slightly. It knows that it has few actual militarily strategic targets remaining.
Hopefully, every party will conclude that "enough is enough", as Livni stated on day 1.
Maybe in your mind, Witty, but the truth is the talmud, including its
clear distinctions between classes of living things, including humans,
have been taken as gospel over the centuries by many of its Jewish readers–and acted out in reality on a daily basis. In many such cases, the talmudic dialog, the diverse interpretive stances, have all
assumed base concepts no longer acceptable to millions of humans living today.
The talmud has never remained merely the documentation of the free flow of ideas around any given point. And, anyone who really cares to can take a gander at those recorded issues–make sure you get a copy that has not been redacted and included changes
made to certain core labels.
Top Lies Of the USA and Israel media:
Lie #1) Israel is only targeting legitimate military sites and is seeking to protect innocent lives. Israel never targets civilians.
The Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated pieces of property in the world. The presence of militants within a civilian population does not, under international law, deprive that population of their protected status, and hence any assault upon that population under the guise of targeting militants is, in fact, a war crime.
Moreover, the people Israel claims are legitimate targets are members of Hamas, which Israel says is a terrorist organization. Hamas has been responsible for firing rockets into Israel. These rockets are extremely inaccurate and thus, even if Hamas intended to hit military targets within Israel, are indiscriminate by nature. When rockets from Gaza kill Israeli civilians, it is a war crime.
Hamas has a military wing. However, it is not entirely a military organization, but a political one. Members of Hamas are the democratically elected representatives of the Palestinian people. Dozens of these elected leaders have been kidnapped and held in Israeli prisons without charge. Others have been targeted for assassination, such as Nizar Rayan, a top Hamas official. To kill Rayan, Israel targeted a residential apartment building. The strike not only killed Rayan but two of his wives and four of his children, along with six others. There is no justification for such an attack under international law. This was a war crime.
Other of Israelâs bombardment with protected status under international law have included a mosque, a prison, police stations, and a university, in addition to residential buildings.
Moreover, Israel has long held Gaza under siege, allowing only the most minimal amounts of humanitarian supplies to enter. Israel is bombing and killing Palestinian civilians. Countless more have been wounded, and cannot receive medical attention. Hospitals running on generators have little or no fuel. Doctors have no proper equipment or medical supplies to treat the injured. These people, too, are the victims of Israeli policies targeted not at Hamas or legitimate military targets, but directly designed to punish the civilian population.
Lie #2) Hamas violated the cease-fire. The Israeli bombardment is a response to Palestinian rocket fire and is designed to end such rocket attacks.
Israel never observed the cease-fire to begin with. From the beginning, it announced a âspecial security zoneâ within the Gaza Strip and announced that Palestinians who enter this zone will be fired upon. In other words, Israel announced its intention that Israeli soldiers would shoot at farmers and other individuals attempting to reach their own land in direct violation of not only the cease-fire but international law.
Despite shooting incidents, including ones resulting in Palestinians getting injured, Hamas still held to the cease-fire from the time it went into effect on June 19 until Israel effectively ended the truce on November 4 by launching an airstrike into Gaza that killed five and injured several others.
Israelâs violation of the cease-fire predictably resulted in retaliation from militants in Gaza who fired rockets into Israel in response. The increased barrage of rocket fire at the end of December is being used as justification for the continued Israeli bombardment, but is a direct response by militants to the Israeli attacks.
Israelâs actions, including its violation of the cease-fire, predictably resulted in an escalation of rocket attacks against its own population.
Lie #3) Hamas is using human shields, a war crime.
There has been no evidence that Hamas has used human shields. The fact is, as previously noted, Gaza is a small piece of property that is densely populated. Israel engages in indiscriminate warfare such as the assassination of Nizar Rayan, in which members of his family were also murdered. It is victims like his dead children that Israel defines as âhuman shieldsâ in its propaganda. There is no legitimacy for this interpretation under international law. In circumstances such as these, Hamas is not using human shields, Israel is committing war crimes in violation of the Geneva Conventions and other applicable international law.
Lie #4) Arab nations have not condemned Israelâs actions because they understand Israelâs justification for its assault.
The populations of those Arab countries are outraged at Israelâs actions and at their own governments for not condemning Israelâs assault and acting to end the violence. Simply stated, the Arab governments do not represent their respective Arab populations. The populations of the Arab nations have staged mass protests in opposition to not only Israelâs actions but also the inaction of their own governments and what they view as either complacency or complicity in Israelâs crimes.
Moreover, the refusal of Arab nations to take action to come to the aid of the Palestinians is not because they agree with Israelâs actions, but because they are submissive to the will of the US, which fully supports Israel. Egypt, for instance, which refused to open the border to allow Palestinians wounded in the attacks to get medical treatment in Egyptian hospitals, is heavily dependent upon US aid, and is being widely criticized within the population of the Arab countries for what is viewed as an absolute betrayal of the Gaza Palestinians.
Even Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has been regarded as a traitor to his own people for blaming Hamas for the suffering of the people of Gaza. Palestinians are also well aware of Abbasâ past perceived betrayals in conniving with Israel and the US to sideline the democratically elected Hamas government, culminating in a counter-coup by Hamas in which it expelled Fatah (the military wing of Abbasâ Palestine Authority) from the Gaza Strip. While his apparent goal was to weaken Hamas and strengthen his own position, the Palestinians and other Arabs in the Middle East are so outraged at Abbas that it is unlikely he will be able to govern effectively.
Lie #5) Israel is not responsible for civilian deaths because it warned the Palestinians of Gaza to flee areas that might be targeted.
Israel claims it sent radio and telephone text messages to residents of Gaza warning them to flee from the coming bombardment. But the people of Gaza have nowhere to flee to. They are trapped within the Gaza Strip. It is by Israeli design that they cannot escape across the border. It is by Israeli design that they have no food, water, or fuel by which to survive. It is by Israeli design that hospitals in Gaza have no electricity and few medical supplies with which to treat the injured and save lives. And Israel has bombed vast areas of Gaza, targeting civilian infrastructure and other sites with protected status under international law. No place is safe within the Gaza Strip.
Jeremy R. Hammond is the editor and principle writer for Foreign Policy Journal, an online publication dedicated to providing news, critical analysis, and commentary on U.S. foreign policy, particularly with regard to the âwar on terrorismâ and events in the Middle East, from outside of the standard framework offered by government officials and the mainstream corporate media, and
as Richard Witty desires to also reproduce on Phil Weiss's blog, a lone voice crying in the wilderness intentionally planted in all major media to manipulate America public opinion, as usual.
I finally figured it out! Eureka! The Israeli pounding of Gaza WOULD — immoral as it may or may not be — would work as a TOTALLY effective deterrent against artillery rockets if and ONLY if the Palestinians were living totally free, totally happy lives in both Gaza and the West Bank — free and happy as defined by themselves.
The pounding will never work as long as Israel holds 5 million Palestinians in oppressive, humiliating, impoverishing conquest. Under which condition the cost/benefit equation (this is an economic blog, no?) is a few (hundred?) Palestinians die v. millions attempting any desperate measure to free themselves from their daily hell.
Potentially, Gaza and the West Bank could be happier than Syria — same economic level plus democracy. What would raining artillery on Israel possibly get them under decent living circumstances but more desperate (on the part of the Israelis this time) counter attacks? No benefit whatsoever.
Gaza objects to Israel's existence? :-) :-) :-) Israel has as many tanks on short notice as the US Army had on active duty at the height of the cold war: 3000 (on 2% of the population base, yet). Israel went 90-0 against the Syrian Air Force in 1982 (the first revelation of the dominating superiority of US weapon systems). Israel is reputed to have 200 nuclear bombs. Israel has the United States Navy.
Witty's fellow traveling rabbi answers Phil:
Levi Brackman:
RE
Jewish critics of Gaza op
Making a decision not to fight terror based on compassion is not only immoral and un-Jewish, it is also idiotic and deeply irresponsible
Published: 01.02.09, 09:04 / Israel Jewish Scene
There are two types of Westerners who have been critical of Israelâs defensive actions in Gaza this week: Anti-Semites and some in the so-called Jewish intellectual elite. Whilst most non-Jews I have met over the last few days have expressed support for Israelâs actions, I have run into a number of Jews who have expressed their moral outrage at the Israeli bombardment of Gaza.
However, the most shocking and offensive criticism came from Harvard Universityâs Sarah Roy. Writing in the Christian Science Monitor, Roy observes that the fighting started on Chanukah and asks: âHow am I to celebrate my Jewishness while Palestinians are being killed?â
She then goes on to ponder âwhether the Jewish covenant with God is present or absent in the face of Jewish oppression of Palestinians? Is the Jewish ethical tradition still available to us? Is the promise of holiness â so central to our existence â now beyond our ability to reclaim?â
I donât intend to defend Israelâs actions in Gazaâin my view they are self explanatory. What I would like to explain, however, is how a seemingly intelligent person such as Professor Sarah Roy could so badly misunderstand Judaism and its sense of ethics.
The answer comes from within Royâs own writing. In a piece written in April 2007 about the Lebanon war she described growing up in a home where âJudaism was defined and practiced not so much as a religion but as a system of ethics and culture. God was present but not central.â
But Judaism is a religion and God is control to it. Taking those two elements away is to remove the foundation of Judaism. What the Torah says about an issue and the fact that the Tanach is packed full of war stories where God tells the Israelites to fight and kill is lost on Sarah Roy. Simply stated, what Roy describes as Judaism is her version of ethics and morals and has nothing to do with the real Judaism at all.
Keep your criticism to yourself
Sarah Roy writes that being Jewish means âbearing witness, raging against injustice and refusing silence. It means compassion, tolerance, and rescue. In the absence of these imperativesâ¦we cease to be Jews.â
However, a deeper reading of Judaism shows that whilst Jews as a people have been defined by their capacity for compassion and tolerance of others, there are times when we are forbidden to act upon those feelings because such action would be destructive. The liberal culture which says âfollow your heart and feelings no matter whatâ has caused destruction on multiple levels. The high divorce rate in the West can be ascribed to that prevailing, yet erroneous, attitude.
Maimonides, the great 11th century Jewish jurist and philosopher, declares that a wise person is one who is able to overcome emotions to act in an intellectually responsible manner. Judaism often sees free choice as the ability to choose between an emotional impulse and an intellectual imperative. Judaic commentators see the intellectual imperative as coming from the religion and the Torah. Hence, it is easy to see why without the Torah as an intellectual counterbalance pure compassion can take over in a destructive manner.
It is important to feel compassion for the residents of Gaza, but that feeling of concern and sympathy must not be confused with ethical and moral clarity. On the contrary, making a decision not to mount a defense against lethal terrorists based on a feeling of compassion is not only immoral and un-Jewish it is also idiotic and deeply irresponsible.
In this case, despite their intelligence, Sarah Roy and her ilk are unable to rise above their emotional impulses and their conclusions are therefore offensive, unethical and very dangerous. It is a waste of time trying to defend Israelâs actions to such peopleâtheir impulsiveness denies them the ability to understand the ethical and moral imperative for this type of action. However at a time when our brethren in the Holy Land are at war, all I ask of them is to stop abetting our enemies and keep their incessant criticisms to themselves.
Rabbi Levi Brackman is author of Jewish wisdom for Business Success LOL–it's true!)
If you want to see an exact copy of the good rabbi's line of thinking, google Himmler's speech to his troopers. It takes a real SS man to get over his compassion, empathy, and use his intellect
to enhance and assure the truth of life on this earth. Shame on
Phil and Sarah Roy for being blinded by their heart. Shame on those Poles who rescued Jews, despite their own experience with
the USSR's jewish legions, shame on the White Rose, those traitors.
Each of your interpretations are contestable, and contestable to such an extent that the vast majority of states regard Hamas' actions as illegal, immoral, and the primary stimulating event to the initiation of a state of functional war.
As such, it STILL has the power, the option to restrain from shelling civilians, with the acknowledgement of the Israeli state that Gazans are human beings deserving of the rights to life.
And, your malevolent ignorance about Talmud and its import, results in racism. Talmud is KNOWN as dialog. There are OPPOSING views stated, and each are used as justification as precedent, but NOT as authority.
As the originating dialogs are not authority, but threads of reasoning, application of the reasoning does and will vary.
It is a falseness to describe Talmud as a monolith. Literal falseness. That it is dialog is one of the primary foundations of Jewish theology, and that is that there is NO prescribed single right thinking.
Life itself is a dialog.
That others find that idea too confusing, speaks more about them, than about Talmud or Judaism or Zionism (one manner and forum of Jewish thought).
Witty, your interpretations are contestable, and have been by anyone who cares to research, even among Jews, and contestable to such an extent that it's clear state governing small elites pretend the vast majority of states' populations regard Hamas' actions as illegal, immoral, and the primary stimulating event to the initiation of a state of functional war. Quit being dishonest, especially after you admitted so recently on the blog that the mote in your eye is
you need to feel a MOT uber alles, as your first priority.
You, Witty, represent those in the walled elite suburbs.
The American grass is elsewhere. And so is the rest of the world's. You need to waft away into the air as in a Chagall painting–but you never will because you need the local 100% goy police and 99.99 % goy US Marines to assure your play at the computer, while your indoctrinated kids lie asleep dreaming of matzo balls a dance in their heads.
Congratulations Mondoweiss, the more you challenge, the better it will be.
Otherwise you'll just be used as a token flag as the right dogmatists bring disaster closer to home.
Unfortunately reminds me of either Sharon or Olmert (can't remember which) saying to the Americans, 'The peace process is tearing our families apart'.
Of course my interpretations are contestable.
But, it takes actually engaging relevant questions, NOT rhetorical ones.
also i see the pseudo rav kook has taken to using his cut and paste buttons instead of his brain, let alone his soul, if he still has one, or ever had one.
Rabbi Kook, I took your advice.
Jews Sans Frontieres – Ethics 101: Compare and Contrast
LOL, Witty. You are the one who pretends to engage relevant questions, but you merely offer especially calculated rhetoric, disguised as rational
humanistic speech.
Jew troops have invaded Gaza–will be interesting to see how this
Heydrich tactic unfolds:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/129198
Endless repetition of "targeted",
itself a kind of targeting, a kind of strike:
If you're conducting regular air strikes, which are very targeted
Israel pounds Gaza targets as it lets foreigners leave
the truck that the Israeli missile targeted in Gaza City last Sunday
Israel has targeted mosques previously
Most of the targeted homes belonged to activist leaders
the Israeli military warned the Hamas leaders by telephone that their houses were about to targeted
Israel said its warplanes had targeted
Israel has targeted Hamas leaders in the past
the second time that Haniyah's office had been targeted
Israel said its warplanes had targeted
training camps and rocket launching sites also were targeted
Israeli jets Friday targeted
dials the phones of residents of a targeted building, warning them
The Israeli airstrikes in Gaza City targeted only Hamas positions
endless repetition of intent only to harm the "target", which is military – the elision of the existence of what wasn't "targeted", the elision of the unimportant existence of what wasn't "targeted", which was merely civilian, thus even less important than the "targeted" military.
Look at us, we're all military each one of us is military the ones who say they aren't military are military traitors, and that's all you need to know.
Because really the targeted are all the same the way we're all the same, with the difference that their lives don't matter, have never mattered, and will never matter.
Clearly our hearts are in the right place. Clearly our hearts are filled with good intentions.
Not toward them, but good intentions just the same.
And good intentions are all you need on this road.
If the significance of warning that continuing shelling Israeli civilians will lead to a state of war, and the shelling continues, that seems to me to be a confirmation in action of intent.
If in war, actual strategic military targets are identified and firing is scrupulously limited to those, then that strikes me as a relatively humane way to conduct an inhumane effort.
So, if those are true for the most part, then Israel conducted itself well, at least early.
When, if those criteria become untrue, then issues of inhumanity, war crimes even, may rationally be addressed.
But, you can't hold Hamas immune to cause, or current control.
It has the power to stop this.
Interesting, I'm having the same conversation on my blog in a post titled "Death Between Friends." The conversation is mostly with myself – how do I deal with friends who don't get it about the slaughter? However a couple of people have weighed in. One friend says she can't imagine there are many Americans who don't "get it." A stranger lectures me at length, to the effect that somehow I'm not getting it myself, not accepting the complexity of the situation…
Oh I understand the complexity of it all, believe me. Read more about my history (hint – who killed my grandmother in 1985, and why? Answer in Tikkun Magazine, September 2001 issue). I just still insist that killing babies is a war crime, besides being ineffective at creating security or peace. I insist that all parties must follow the Geneva Conventions and applicable UN resolutions. Rule of law, that's all. If you don't get it, why am I continuing to maintain a polite social relationship with you?
But the truth is, I've already decided about my family who don't get it. My large and various family, the blood relatives on both sides as well as relatives by marriage to my husband, harbor among them many ideas I find reprehensible. Because they are family I just ignore it. I take note but I don't engage. OK, the relatives with ideas I don't care for live far away anyway and I can choose how much I hang out with them. You won't find me arguing about any of it at dinner with them.
I did notice that some of my husband's relatives gave me the cold shoulder at the last big family reunion, possibly because they monitored my blog during the 2006 war on Lebanon and discovered that I don't like it when Israel kills my friends and neighbors. Oh well! Not too worried about people who could be offended about that.
I appreciate your links to people who do get it, Phil. Thank you.
Leila, War is Obsolete – is a new take, and it resonates – as a theory, and as probably our only hope, but when you are under the firepower, well then …. And when you consider the language the oppressors understand, it is them that need convincing, not us
Lie #6(if you don't object, rabbi):
Hamas is opposed to the two-state solution(and Israel is not- which is at least debatable; though for me it's quite clear that Israel just plays games with peace).
Hamas has said it would agree to peace with Israel – without officially recognizing it as a legitimate state (which isn't necessary anyway) – if a two state solution were permitted(though Hamas knows as well as I do that Israel will never give them a state unless it is forced to militarily or through harsh, international sanctions).
And a very important lie tactically for the pro-zionazi side, and one they continue to spit out unchallenged…