Dear Mr. President - S. Mack
Although we're planning another weekly feature called "Monday Movies," I couldn't resist posting this video tonight. Make the popcorn, Zeke. I like the concept of these videos. Richard Jehn
31 August 2006
29 August 2006
27 August 2006
The Right To Bare Breasts
This is a suggestion from one of our peace-loving members. Most of us want peace and most of us don't think what these women and men are doing is indecent. Speaking for myself, I do strongly feel that what our current federal administration is doing in Iraq is indecent. These folks have a really eye-catching way of demonstrating their opinions. Richard Jehn
The Greezy Wheels Are Singin' on Sunday
I consider this a pretty special treat for Singin' on Sunday. I hope we can do this, again, many times. The Rag reported and promoted the Austin music scene extensively in its heyday between 1966 and '77. Why should we stop now? And because today we're spread across the world .... Well, you get the picture.
This is what started all of it, at least for this week's posting. Actually, I suppose it all started 40 years ago when I began to be attuned to the new music of the era. When I became involved in the Rag, I'd already met some funny fellas who played in a band called the Zig Zag String Quartet. They were fine musicians then, and they're all much better now. The two guys I got to know the best are Vic Egly and Tony Airoldi, still in Austin and still active in music.
I moved on from Austin in 1970, but I've maintained a certain connection that must be nearly unavoidable. Texas roots seem to be strong, no matter where one goes. And being born and raised in Austin has kept something dear in my heart for all these years. Well, after reading Fred's column, I got to thinking about music a little more than usual. And I'd just come up with the notion of posting a tune every Sunday, calling it 'Singin' on Sunday.' And then there was Fred's column, and then Janet Gilles suggested I track down Lissa Hattersley, and I also remembered that I'd met Lissa once in 1977 (I think that was the year) when she was playing a gig with Tony Airoldi, and ....
I love the synchronous nature of life !!
Richard Jehn
P.S. Before you read Cleve's words, you should read Fred's, despite the latter's eccentricity. There's a peculiar natural flow.
*****
The riddle should be: what has blown up good, yet still lives on to tell the tale? The answer would be Greezy Wheels, long thought dead, or at least pretty much blown apart, yet still kicking around thirty-five years after the first Big Greezy Bang, dancing on the graves of all who believed they would outlive Greezy.
What once was a hippy band blessed with a little bit o'country is now....a hippy band blessed with a little bit of Americana. Once considered by many Armadilo-ites as the Grateful Dead of Texas, these Wheels are now just grateful to see themselves in the mirror. Or maybe not. They are grateful to be still making music.
Greezy Wheels has always been a family band, one that didn't form so much as it coagulated, and it has now done so twice. The Wheels first coagulated around a Hattersley (Cleve), a Pankratz (Pat) and a Pugh (Michael) in 1971. It grew to include, first, Sweet Mary (another Hattersley) and Tony Laier, then Lissa Hattersley, Tony Airoldi, and Madrile Wilson. It was kinda like one big happy freakin' family.
It stayed that way until Chris Layton, Chip Dill and Vic Egly replaced Pat, Michael, Madrile and the two Tonys in 1976. Though more a band than a family, the Wheels continued to role from here to the east coast for a couple more years, and it could have stayed together for a good while, if Stevie Ray hadn't called out to Chris to come join him. I told Chris he was making a big fucking mistake. We still laugh about that. The band fell into 'disuse' in 1978.
Flash forward twenty-two years, to 2000, when Sweet Mary was deathly ill with breast cancer and our dear friend John 'Mambo' Treanor was dying of an even worse cancer. We did what any right thinking, aging musician might do - we (Mary, Liss and myself) reformed the band around Mambo. Once again a coagulation process just took over. David Roach, once of the legendary Austin reggae band, 'Lotions,' fell in with the band immediately on keys, along with Mike Pankratz, Pat's brother, on percussion. John Jordan, of the killer diller Chris Duarte Group, also fell in line on bass, almost without question, and Penny Jo Pullus a Syracuse, NY ex-patriot and touring pro, proclaimed herself our Greezette.
Mambo passed away soon after starting what became 'Millennium Greezy,' the first Greezy album in 25 years, and Lisa Pankratz, Mike's daughter and Pat's niece, took the Mambo chair. Randy Kirchhof dialed in shortly afterwards, as well. All of it was a coagulation - a natural coming together of a bunch of great hippy cells. Out of this coagulative process, two more records have sprung forth, 2004's 'HipPop' and the upcoming new release 'String Theory' (due in late 2006).
Though John Jordan has moved into politics with the Kinky Friedman campaign, the family core remains, with Lisa's husband, Brad Fordham, now doing most of the bass work. The live shows still kick ass, Mary's 'Orange Blossom Special' still rules all of the known world, and Greezy Wheels simply refuses to grow any older. They do so, because they now believe they will never die, and they are plenty old enough now.
At least one reviewer still agrees with his earlier assessment of the band. John Swenson, who compiled the first 'Rolling Stone Record Guide,' declared the band "ahead of it's time" in 1978. He still believes they are ahead of their time.
All the more reason to live on.
Cleve Hattersley, Fearless Greezy Leader
*****
Cleve wrote it, Lissa 'interpreted' it, and the band played it. We just love the sound of it.
Flying Signs by the Greezy Wheels
Here's their Web site - Greezy Wheels - where you can buy their CD's, read some Austin history, see photos of these fine folks, and connect to more of their music. Go visit them, and buy their tunes. They're living legends of central Texas music.
Note: if you only have 56K dialup, you're best off downloading the tune completely before playing it. Right click and select "Save link target as ..." (Netscape) or "Save target as ..." (Internet Explorer). High-speed connections can click the link which will open your default mp3 player.
26 August 2006
The Status of the First Amendment - R. Jehn
This morning, I was reading Raed in the Middle. He'd been in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, but it was his trip across the country after arriving in the US that aroused my anger. This is exactly where we've been going for 5 years, and I believe it won't be stopping anytime soon. I am immensely grateful that my daughter and three grandchildren live in Canada.
*****
Back from the Mideast
[snip]
One of the two men who approached me first, Inspector Harris, asked for my id card and boarding pass. I gave him my boarding pass and driver's license. He said "people are feeling offended because of your t-shirt". I looked at my t-shirt: I was wearing my shirt which states in both Arabic and English "we will not be silent." You can take a look at it in this picture taken during our Jordan meetings with Iraqi MPs. I said "I am very sorry if I offended anyone, I didnt know that this t-shirt will be offensive". He asked me if I had any other T-shirts to put on, and I told him that I had checked in all of my bags and I asked him "why do you want me to take off my t-shirt? Isn't it my constitutional right to express myself in this way?" The second man in a greenish suit interfered and said "people here in the US don't understand these things about constitutional rights". So I answered him "I live in the US, and I understand it is my right to wear this t-shirt".
Then I once again asked the three of them : "How come you are asking me to change my t-shirt? Isn't this my constitutional right to wear it? I am ready to change it if you tell me why I should. Do you have an order against Arabic t-shirts? Is there such a law against Arabic script?" so inspector Harris answered "you can't wear a t-shirt with Arabic script and come to an airport. It is like wearing a t-shirt that reads "I am a robber" and going to a bank". I said "but the message on my t-shirt is not offensive, it just says "we will not be silent". I got this t-shirt from Washington DC. There are more than a 1000 t-shirts printed with the same slogan, you can google them or email them at wewillnotbesilent@gmail.com . It is printed in many other languages: Arabic, Farsi, Spanish, English, etc." Inspector Harris said: "We cant make sure that your t-shirt means we will not be silent, we don't have a translator. Maybe it means something else". I said: "But as you can see, the statement is in both Arabic and English". He said "maybe it is not the same message". So based on the fact that Jet Blue doesn't have a translator, anything in Arabic is suspicious because maybe it'll mean something bad!
[snip]
Read the Full Post
*****
Insofar as we allow this to happen, we fail as Americans !!!! Freedom indeed.
Richard Jehn
25 August 2006
Negotiations with Iran - D. Hamilton, S. Russell, N. Hopkins
This could also be titled The Middle East, Part VIII. rdj This post was updated on 27 August 2006 at 5:35 pm PDT.
The US has consistently blocked resolution of all issues with Iran by refusing to agree to, or even discuss a non-aggression treaty and, in fact, refusing to even talk to them. (See below.) Of course, this means a pretext for further US aggression is being concocted. And that means the people driving this bus are lunatics.
David Hamilton
.................
Published on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 by the Inter Press Service
Bush Ensured Iran Offer Would Be Rejected
by Gareth Porter
Even before Iran gave its formal counter-offer to ambassadors of the P5+1 countries the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China) Tuesday, the George W. Bush administration had already begun the process of organising sanctions against Iran.
Washington had already held a conference call on sanctions Sunday with French, German and British officials, the Washington Post reported.
Thus ends what appeared on the surface to be a genuine multilateral initiative for negotiations with Iran on the terms under which it would give up its nuclear programme. But the history of that P5+1 proposal shows that the Bush administration was determined from the beginning that it would fail, so that could bring to a halt a multilateral diplomacy on Iran's nuclear programme that the hard-liners in the administration had always found a hindrance to their policy.
Britain, France and Germany, which had begun negotiations with Tehran on the nuclear issue in October 2003, had concluded very early on that Iran's security concerns would have to be central to any agreement. It is has been generally forgotten that the Nov. 14, 2004 Paris Agreement between the EU and Iran included an assurance by the three European states that the "long-term agreement" they pledged to reach would "provide...firm commitments on security issues."
Full Article
.................
There is a major push going on in neocon circles (op-eds and editorials by the usual suspects in the usual places) to engineer an attack on Iran by Bush before Bush leaves office.
The neocons seem pessimistic about having much power after the next election. The leading Repug, McCain, claims in so many words to be a neocon, but he has not toed their line like Bush has. That idiot from Virgina, Captain "Macaca," would be a handy sockpuppet but surely he will not get elected. Mitt Romney I take to be a realist rather than a neocon. Who else is there? Frist? Not sure about him.
Anyway, the current neocon line is that an attack on Iran within the next two years is a vital US interest.
This in spite of the generals saying (1) we don't have the wherewithal to attack Iran on the ground thanks to the Iraq circus and (2) it is impossible to take out Iran's nuclear capability from the air because it's spread out and we don't know exactly where.
This is very like the run-up to Iraq in that the civilian leadership and the military disagree and it is the military saying "don't." That tinkling sound is stereotypes shattering, and the bass line is Colin Powell chanting "I told you so...I told you so...."
Steve Russell
Negotiations, US style.
The principal US negotiating strategy when dealing with potential adversaries is one designed to keep the US out of such negotiations. You might call it a non-negotiation strategy. The simplest approach is just to refuse to talk to them. The US government presently refuses to talk to Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, Hamas or Hezbollah based on an assumption so entrenched that it rarely requires repeating; that they are all such a bunch of dirty, rotten scoundrels, it would sully the US's honorable reputation to sit in the same room with any of them. Heresy is to entertain the idea that any of them have legitimate needs or that they are motivated by policy interests instead of by their innate venality.
Otherwise, the US's preferred non-negotiating strategy is to dictate that the opposing party acquiesce to the principal US demand as a precondition to negotiations. Hence, today we have the US demanding that Iran give up its uranium enrichment program (which is legal under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) in order to get the US to even talk to them directly about anything else - like a non-aggression pact. Likewise, Israel demands that the Palestinian Authority and Hamas guarantee Israel's sovereignty (over what?) before negotiations concerning Palestinian borders can begin. Give us the main thing we want and sometime later we'll talk about what you want - maybe - but no guarantees. Those who employ this approach are actually intent on avoiding negotiations altogether because they are getting what they want in the status quo.
This strategy is employed to subvert the possibility of negotiations where the US would have to engage in a process in which the adversary would have equal standing. The US prefers to settle such disputes by resort to arms where it has a significant advantage. When you control a military budget equal to the rest of the world's combined and your campaign contributors own the war industry, combat is your preferred modus operandi. But, first, you have to go through the charade of appearing to utilize diplomacy. Here is where it is crucial to appear to want to negotiate while skillfully avoiding actually doing it.
The Bush regime fabricated the nuclear issue with Iran, but has consistently refused to negotiate about it before Iran capitulates. This supports the conclusion that the Bush regime remains intent on creating a justification for attacking Iran - and might as well throw in Syria while they're in the neighborhood. That is, the Bushites seem intent on spreading the current four front war (Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine) into a real world war stretching from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean, fighting Shiites and Sunnis, Arabs and Persians, and Muslims in general, in that "belt of insecurity" where most of the world's oil just happens to be located. Iran could be a great choice for a foil if they would only agree to fight with their conventional army, where US advantages could be fully utilized, rather than asymmetrically. But they know better.
That the Bushites would, at this stage of their demise, boldly pursue this path simply takes my breath away with its audacity or, more likely, its obliviousness to the odds for success and the potential consequences. The driver of this bus is a lunatic on crack and steroids, reading the map upside down and speeding toward the mountains. The damage likely to result from Bushites pursuing this course in the next two years could be enormous. The scenes of southern Lebanon, Gaza, Baghdad and 9/11 may just be appetizers.
David Hamilton
Steve,
It would get really really interesting if when the chips were down, the military refused to do what they were told, not an uncommon happening in other parts of the world.
Nick Hopkins
Nick, I think that's a horrible idea. That the unelected military should refuse the orders of the elected civilian government is, thank goodness, unlikely.
If the American people won't step up and be responsible in their voting, a military coup won't save them.
There is, by the way, an article in this month's Foreign Policy about how the neocon Paul Bremer, civilian leadership on the spot, disregarded all military advice in screwing up the Iraq occupation.
Even though we are suffering through a time when our military leadership has more sense than our civilian leadership, that is no argument for the general superiority of military rule.
It would, however, be a good idea to listen to military men when they express opinions on what the military can and cannot do.
Steve Russell
Steve, don't get me wrong, I think it is a horrible idea as well. But this kind of thing happens all the time in Latin America and the Third World, and the US is showing increasing tendencies in that direction. When the elected government violates the Constitution and abuses the people, Latin American militaries feel it is their duty as citizens and patriots to intervene.
Nick Hopkins
24 August 2006
A Recipe for FF - Kate Braun
Until recently (within the past 5 years or so) no one in the U.S. had heard of stevia. It was prohibited. No plants, no seeds could be imported. Then the soft-drink lobby figured out it was a Dirt Cheap way to sweeten stuff and Presto! it's OK at last. I like the plant and it likes me. I am lucky!
For those of you fortunate to be growing stevia, here is a recipe for stevia water. Stevia, aka Paraguayan Sweet Leaf, is 300% sweeter than sugar, has no calories, is safe for use by diabetics, can be used fresh or dried, and can be easy to grow. Seeds are available on the internet (tell your search engine "stevia seed") and plants can be found at many local nurseries and at Wheatsville Coop's Herb Fest in March. Stevia reproduces by seed and root. One plant will multiply nicely in 3 years to a forest! As with any herb, harvest before 10 AM, do not harvest when flowering, dry in a paper bag hung in a dry, airy place. Stevia water may be used to sweeten coffee, tea, lemonade, etc. I find that 3 iced-teaspoonfuls of stevia water in my mug of morning coffee is just fine for me, but use it to taste. Stevia water may be frozen in ice cube trays, kept in the freezer, and dropped into punchbowls, big glasses of tea, etc. Stevia water made with the fresh herb will be a pale yellow color; made with dried herb, it will be more the color of flat cola. The taste stays the same.
To grow stevia, give it partial shade, good soil, and plenty of water. Too much sun and it will droop and need watering twice a day! The seed packets say it needs mulching in the winter; I never have. Stevia is a perennial. It dies down in the fall (October or November) and sends up new shoots in February/March. It does not take kindly to transplanting when mature, so try to start it where it will live. Smaller plants transplant well. The trick is to get as much of the (extensive) root system as possible.
Lore says that stevia, because of its intense sweetness, repels grasshoppers. Since I have planted stevia in my garden I have seen no grasshoppers and am, finally, able to grow lemon verbena. I have also noticed fewer tomato hornworms.
It is difficult to use stevia water in cookie recipes instead of sugar because it's a liquid. There are recipes on the internet (tell your search engine "stevia recipes"), however, that may be useful.
Enjoy!
Kate
Stevia Water
Pack fresh or dried stevia into a 4-cup Pyrex measuring cup*. Bring water to a rolling boil in a teakettle or pot and pour the boiling water over the stevia to where it is level with the spout of the measuring cup. Cover with a plate and let sit until cool to the touch (at least 3 hours). Pour liquid into a bottle (I use old 20-oz soda pop bottles). Be sure to strain out all the liquid. Throw the stevia away. Keep the liquid in the refrigerator and use as needed. This much stevia makes about 25 oz. of liquid and lasts my household about 2 - 3 weeks.
*Do not use metal or plastic; metal may have a strange reaction with the stevia and plastic may not stand up to the boiling water. Non-Pyrex glass may break from the boiling water.
22 August 2006
21 August 2006
I Read the News Today. Oh, Boy ! - D. Hamilton
Or, if you prefer, "The Middle East, Part VII." rdj
"Israel Seizes Deputy Palestinian PM.
RAMALLAH, West Bank (Reuters) - "Israel seized Palestinian Deputy Prime Minister Naser al-Shaer, a top official of the Hamas militant group, at his home in the occupied West Bank on Saturday.
"Hours later, a Palestinian gunman killed an Israeli soldier near the West Bank city of Nablus and was then shot dead by troops, the army and medics said. There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack.
[dph - The above two sentences are inserted to provide "balance" although it is completely unrelated to the rest of the article.]
Israel has more than two dozen Hamas lawmakers and several other cabinet ministers in custody since late June, after it launched an offensive in response to the kidnapping of a soldier in a cross-border raid from the Gaza Strip.
[dph - Hezbollah are "in custody." Israelis are kidnapped.]
Violence has continued in the West Bank and Gaza Strip since war broke out with Lebanese Hizbollah guerrillas on Israel's northern border after two soldiers were abducted on July 12 in a cross-border raid.
[dph - Also after many incidents initiated by both sides including daily Israeli incursions into Lebanon, Israel aerial reconnaissance over Lebanon, etc, for many years, but let's choose this one.]
A ceasefire came into effect on Monday. "An Israeli army spokesman confirmed troops had taken al-Shaer into custody, saying it was "due to his membership in a terrorist organization." Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, a Hamas leader, condemned the arrest and said government and people would remain undaunted. "Israel's aims to undermine the Palestinian political system and to put obstacles before the government and the people … This is blackmail but we are determined to continue our march," Haniyeh said.
Huda al-Shaer, the official's wife, said he was picked up at their home in the West Bank town of Ramallah. She told Reuters that "several jeeps circled the house before dawn" then troops came to the door. An officer told her after checking their identity documents, "'sorry madame, but your husband has to come with us'. He let him first say goodbye to our four children," al-Shaer said.
[dph - Reminds me of Ms. Furst whose home in London my family stayed in for three weeks back in 1981. She described to us over dinner how the Gestapo had let her say goodbye to her children.]
"Two lawmakers from Hamas, a militant group that seeks Israel's destruction and swept to power in the Palestinian Authority in March elections, also confirmed al-Shaer had been seized by Israeli forces."
Stop! Retake.
"Two lawmakers from Hamas, a militant group that seeks Israel's destruction and swept to power in the Palestinian Authority in March elections, also confirmed al-Shaer had been seized by Israeli forces."
[dph - The writer of this article, Wafa Amr, would probably tell you that he/she is a fervent practitioner of purely objective journalism. However, the use of the term "a militant group that seeks Israel's destruction" is an entirely editorial addition. It parrots the principal propaganda device consistently utilized by the apologists for Israel. Like Condi Rice's mushroom cloud, the specter of elderly Holocaust survivors being marched into the Mediterranean by swarthy Arab commandos is a staple of disinformation. Of course, the "enemy" must be depicted as totally vile and intractable, so as to provide a cover story justifying our own vile and intractable behavior. The reality is that the USA and Israel have blocked resolution of the Israel/Palestine issue for decades, robbing and brutalizing Palestinians throughout the process, while fair terms for the resolution of this conflict have remained conspicuously obvious. But for Israel and its patron, these terms must be avoided at all costs. Demonizing the "enemy" is crucial.
According to Amr, Hamas "swept to power". This characterization is to subtly disparage that they handily won the most fair and transparent election ever held among Palestinians. The results of democracy are only commendable when they advance the objectives of the imperial ruling class. I am not in the head of Hamas leadership. Given their life experiences, it might be possible that they could have fallen prey to negative attitudes toward Jews. However, one makes peace with enemies, not friends. It is my understanding that Hamas has publicly and officially accepted the Arab League Peace Proposal of 2002 as a basis for negotiation.
That document, which can be googled up in a second, clearly recognizes the sovereignty of the nation of Israel, as it is presently constituted, i.e., as a Jewish state. It absolutely recognizes Israel right to exist, points to a financial deal on "the right of return" and otherwise describes fair terms that are the obvious resolution of the whole conflict. Yet, this proposal, which remains in effect, is tossed down the memory hole of sanitized "history."
Aggressors need rationalizations. Hitler claimed that the Polish army was massing on Germany's border preparing for an imminent attack. A modern innovation is for leaders of aggressor nations to develop systematic ideological rationalizations for their tribalist impulses, greed and excess testosterone. The paradigm was "anti-communism," the central cover story for post WWII American aggression. It became the official state religion, blasphemous transgressions of which could land you in jail. With that "enemy" no longer viable as a propaganda mandala, a new one had to be found. "Anti-terrorism" has now clearly become the central organizing myth for general public brainwashing. Those who propagate this myth recoil in horror at the suggestion that the "enemy" has legitimate issues or is even worthy of negotiation given their innately despicable characteristics and barbarian beliefs.
So the Iranian president is thus demonized as rejecting the "Zionist entity" and questioning the validity of the Holocaust. Suppose radical secularists refuse to support governments that discriminate in favor of particular religions. They, too, could be said to reject the "Zionist entity". Is that what Ahmadinejad is talking about? Probably not, but who knows, unless, perhaps, you read Al-Jazeera. And if someone complained that, although Jews were the principal victims of the Holocaust, they were not the only victims and do not own the Holocaust as they sometimes seem to claim, would it also be said that person questioned the accepted orthodoxy of the Holocaust, an infraction that will get you thrown in jail in Germany? We only get second hand sound bites of what people like the Iran president say, filtered through sources programmed to be infallibly reliable at being completely biased and in total denial about it. To find out what Ahmadinejad might actually mean in practical terms would require the US government to talk to his government, which given the 18 page letter he sent Bush earlier this year, he seems open to. But that is impossible. It might lead to the dissemination of information inconsistent with the sacred cover story. It might even lead to peace, which is completely unacceptable given the inherent need of the owners of large amounts of stock in war industries to be ever more greatly enriched.
Meanwhile, the oppression in Palestine has perhaps never been worse than now. Half the government of the Palestinian Authority is confined in Israeli jails along with several thousand of their compatriots. But we hear little about it and what we do hear has the Israeli depravations whitewashed for American consumption. Never forget that all murdered Palestinians were at least malicious militants, if not outright terrorists, regardless of age or gender or the prior untimely death of their close family members.]
Link to Full Article
David Hamilton
20 August 2006
Hu's on First? - P. Munak, courtesy K. Braun
Karl Rove: You could get some mileage out of a trip to China.
George W. Bush: Plenty of miles, all right.
R: I mean, get pictures of you with the President of China.
W: Who's the president of China?
R: Yes, Hu's the president of China. You're learning.
W: How can I learn if you don't tell me? Who's the president of China?
R: Yes, and he's shorter than you.
W: Who is?
R: That's right. Each of you can give a short speech.
W: Who's on first?
R: Yes.
W: You gotta answer my questions and stop foolin' around.
R: Hu's on first.
W. Well? You figure it out.
R. This'll be the biggest news since the death of Arafat.
W: What's-his-name Arafat?
R: Yassir.
W. Yes, but his first name?
R. Yassir.
W: Yes, sir, who?
R: No, no, you're getting it confused. Not the Palestinian, the president of China. His name is Hu. H-U!
W: Who knew?
R: Not Nhu, he was in South Vietnam, and he's dead, too.
W: Who, Hu?
R: No, Nhu.
W: Who knew?
R: Of course he did. He's old enough.
W: What was Nhu's other name?
R: Ngo ("nyo") Dinh.
W. In my DEN? What's in my den?
R: No, wats are in Tibet.
W: What's in Tibet?
R: Yes, and lamas.
W: Now, I know about that. Got some on my ranch. But you call them "yamas". Are you sure they're from Tibet?
Pearl Munak
Singin' on Sunday - R. Jehn
Here's another new game, if you would consider playing. After all, we have Foodie Friday and Cartoon Tuesday; why shouldn't we start Singin' on Sunday? This is a little ditty I recorded over twenty years ago in a fit of joy (well, it was a class assignment). One musical friend of mine says, "I've never heard it done quite like this before." I can add, "And you aren't likely to hear it this way ever again." It is a 40-second clip. rdj
Play The Clip
If you want to hear the whole tune, click here. The download is about 4.5 mB. To download the mp3 complete and listen later, right click on it and select "Save Target As ..." (Internet Explorer) or "Save Link Target As ..." (Netscape).
19 August 2006
The Middle East, Part VI
There is no circumstance that justifies the use of cluster bombs. The following report could have come out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Angola, Cambodia or any place cluster bombs and landmines are used.
After the article is the latest message from the USA Ban Landmines group. The U.S. and Israel refuse to sign the international ban on making, selling or using landmines. Cluster bombs are also landmines, as you may read.
*****
After Lebanon war, unexploded bombs continue to sow death
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
Friday, August 18, 2006
by Anne Chaon
TEBNIN, Lebanon, Aug 18, 2006 (AFP) - Kneeling in the rubble, the de-miner gently handled a tiny metallic tube, trying to defuse one of the thousands of bomblets littering southern Lebanon.
These deadly leftovers of weeks of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas continue to kill and maim nearly a week after both sides silenced their guns, creating what one munitions expert called a "humanitarian catastrophe" as thousands displaced by the war return home.
"This has the potential to be a huge humanitarian issue," said Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch. "People are coming back to their homes, they're hugging and kissing and glad just to have survived and then there are bombs going off," he said.
Full Article
*****
Alan Pogue
Yes, Alan
This was part of the background of my concern last week. I guess Steve thinks these are better than fighting with hand made knives or whatever he replied.
BTW the article you included calls them "Israeli cluster bombs." But aren't they really US-made cluster bombs used by the Israelis?
Paz--Val Liveoak
Val,
I think you are right. The Israeli military was asking for expedited shipment of "cluster munitions." I think hand made knives would be a vast improvement only because many fewer people would be killed. Long range artillery, chemical weapons, airplanes and now rockets of all types kill indiscriminately and mostly civilians, 90% is the percent I always see. The old landmines rusted eventually but now they are made with plastic covers that last indefinitely. A knife, at least, requires the killer to be close up and somewhat personal. A dropped knife does not later jump up and stab someone. No snipers using knives. Accurate knife throwing only occurs at fixed distances. I know a great deal of cutting was done in Africa with machetes but that pales in comparison to the 8 million land mines in Angola. Angola was a food exporting country but now farmers cannot venture onto much of the land.
When I was in D.C. lobbying against landmines, with the vets who had had their legs blown off, I was told by congressional aides that Israel had plans, on paper, to place neutron bomb landmines on the border of Golan Heights/Syria. The military mindset is "if we have it, or can get it, we must use it."
As Molly Ivins puts it in her Texas pseudo-red neck way, "I am not so much anti-gun as pro-knife."
Alan Pogue
I'm not sure why Alan and Val think I'm OK with cluster bombs and land mines.
Like I'm not sure why David thinks I'm OK with some of the outrageous shit Israel has done in this current dustup.
My claims are very limited:
This is such a thing as terrorism as a tactic.
It may be used by state actors or non-state actors. When state actors do it, it is often a war crime and if I had my way it would always be a war crime.
There is a moral distinction between practicing terrorism and making war by lawful means. That the means are lawful does not mean I agree with the law -- e.g., cluster bombs and land mines. (And, by the way, there is a way to render them unlawful without the agreement of the US.)
When we can't bring ourselves to express outrage at terrorism, we cede moral and political capital to nutcases like George W. Bush.
There is perhaps a sense in which there is no difference between a terrorist and a soldier. That sense is not the public policy of any nation or agreed upon by any substantial number of American voters. Stand on it and render yourself irrelevant. I don't agree with that position, but if I did I would be hard put to see what to do but stand aside and wag my finger.
Steve Russell
OK Steve,
I am glad to know you are not in favor of weapons whose very nature constitute war crimes. (I'd add depleted uranium shells to the list...)
"When we can't bring ourselves to express outrage at terrorism, we cede moral and political capital to nutcases like George W. Bush."
You're right about this, too.
"There is perhaps a sense in which there is no difference between a terrorist and a soldier. That sense is not the public policy of any nation or agreed upon by any substantial number of American voters. Stand on it and render yourself irrelevant. I don't agree with that position, but if I did I would be hard put to see what to do but stand aside and wag my finger."
As for terrorism, I agree that it's time for nonselective condemnation of violence. From governments, "liberation" movements, or whoever. I think the only real revolution will have to be accomplished by revolutionary nonviolence. (Because changing the process changes the outcome.) If all of us actively protested nonviolently, or even a large number of us, we could stop our own government's terrorism. Folks in the tax resistance movement think that if even a small number -- I don't know how many -- were visible war tax resisters, then we'd make a big impression. Large demonstrations may have worked in the 70s (or maybe it was the GI movement as 'Sir, No Sir!' shows) but they have not so far worked on post 9-11 state terror by or sponsored by the US. I haven't seen much results from complaining about things to folks who think like us. So while I am a devoted weekly peace vigiler, I agree it's not much more than wagging a finger. Others write letters, send e-mails etc. while going along with whatever else they do in everyday life.
Maybe we need to change everyday life.
At least, if we are actively in one way or another saying 'NO!' we are not passively cooperating with the crimes.
Paz--Val Liveoak
Mark Twain, writing about the French Revolution in "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court".
'There were two "Reigns of Terror", if we could but remember and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passions, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon a thousand persons, the other upon a hundred million; but our shudders are all for the "horrors" of the... momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty and heartbreak? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror - that unspeakable bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.'
*****
August 17, 2006
Haaretz (an Israeli newspaper)
Nasrallah Didn't Mean To
by Amira Hass
During the past month, Hezbollah's Katyushas killed 18 Israeli Arabs among the 41 Israeli civilians who died in the war. Clearly, Hassan Nasrallah didn't mean to kill them. But as someone who knows that many Arabs live in northern Israel, and as someone who knows that the launchers for his inaccurate Katyushas cannot choose the target they will hit - the fact that it was unintended is meaningless.
More than anyone, Israelis should understand Nasrallah's claims that this was "unintended," identify with the primacy he attaches to the "unintendedness" relative to the fatal results, and identify with the disjunction he creates between the rationale that is inherent in the war machine he has built and his subjective will. "We didn't mean to" is a mantra that is frequently recited in Israel when there is a discussion of the number of civilians - among them many children - who are killed by the Israel Defense Forces. To this, the claim that "they" (Hezbollah and the Palestinians) cynically exploit civilians by locating themselves among them and firing from their midst is automatically added.
This claim is made by citizens of a state who know very well where to turn off Ibn Gvirol Street in Tel Aviv to get to the security-military complex that is located in the heart of their civilian city; this claim is repeated by the parents of armed soldiers who bring their weapons home on weekends, and is recited by soldiers whose bases are adjacent to Jewish settlements in the West Bank and who have shelled civilian Palestinian neighborhoods from positions and tanks that have been stationed inside civilian settlements.
"We didn't mean to" is the cousin of "I didn't know," and both of them are close neighbors of the double standard. What is permitted to us is forbidden to others. What hurts us does not hurt others (because they are "other").
Full Article
*****
As Herzl said:
"We shall try to spirit away the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country. ...expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."
Theodor Herzl, Handwritten Diary entry 12 June 1895, (CZA H ii B i) ; The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, trans. Harry Zohn, (New York, 1960), vol.1, p.88. Also Patai edition and others.
And Alan concludes:
There is systematic, long term injustice and there are reactions. Both end in innocent people being killed. One is huge in its long term scope and intent whereas the other is short term and reactionary. The French poor, revolting slaves and black South Africans should never have killed innocent white people/Europeans/ruling class family members. Unfortunately there are many angry, confused and even opportunistic people. Class warfare is begun by the ruling class and ended by the peasants/working class. Even some upper class people can become apostates to wealth.
The Confederacy was a democracy also, just like Israel is now. Do slaves not have the right to revolt? Do plantations have the right to exist? I invite anyone who thinks these statements are extreme to go live with a Palestinian family in the West Bank or Gaza. I have.
As long as one's sense of identity is tied to a particular group then that group must be held unaccountable lest one also be held accountable. After my Vietnam experience I had to overhaul my identity. Zionism is intimately and explicitly tied to Capitalist Imperialism, England-U.S.-Israel (ruling classes). On an individual level I have met some kind, but confused, Zionists on the leftward side of Zionism. Just as, among Republicans, there is Harry Widdington, Dick Cheney's target, who was very good on the Texas prison board. Humans are very able to compartmentalize their brains.
You can take a horse to the movies but you may not be able to have the horse see what you see.
Alan Pogue
I find Val's prescription of non-violent resistance attractive in some ways, especially for action in the US, but see it as part of political education within America, not as a feasible way of changing American policy. For one thing, I think at this point most Americans still think that it would be a fine thing for the US to rule the world (although many would like to see it done more smoothly and cheaply). I do not think that blockading recruiting offices will have any more concrete impact than blockading abortion clinics -- the real fight here is a political one (for which some blockades may in fact be useful tools), ultimately measured in election results.
I agree that non-violence is an important value to push, especially in the strong, rich countries which use violence the most and can justify it least. During the recent British political fight over making "glorifying terrorism" a crime, it occurred to me that I might support a proposal to outlaw "glorifying violence" in general. I would miss Henry V, but not "support our troops," "shock and awe," and the steady stream of violence promotion in movies, video games, and Fox News. There is something to the idea that young males are particularly susceptible to enrollment in violence, whether via jihad or the Marines.
But it's easy for those of us in functioning (if seriously flawed) democracies to eschew violence, since it is clear that we are much more likely to succeed by political means and by litigation than by gunfights. Those whose societies are effectively under colonial control have a much more difficult situation, and for them Alan's quote from Mark Twain is more relevant -- they may only have the choice between fast violence and slow violence, and the path with the least total violence may be war (especially if other paths to change are blocked).
Moral legitimacy for the use of force arises from both the worthiness of the purpose and the extent to which the least violent alternatives are used among those that can achieve that purpose. Freedom from slavery or colonial domination is a worthy purpose by current standards. Keeping a population in subservience because your country wants their oil (US & UK) or land (Israel) is not, and bombing of civilians by a power with overwhelming military superiority does not meet world standards for responsible behavior. This is why both the US and Israel have lost the moral authority they once widely held.
It is not any one military campaign that has cost Israel the sympathy of many (since they clearly are reacting to real threats), but rather their steady colonization via settlements and expansion of their boundaries, and their persistent sabotage of Palestinian political and economic development. And even so they are merely a century or so late -- their reasons and tactics are milder than those used by Europeans in North America (many of whose settlers were also fleeing vicious oppression). The US does not have as good a case, since what we have now is the richest country in the world using military power to get cheap resources from much poorer areas, and in exchange providing mainly the arms needed to keep the local populations under control.
But in any case, it is absurd for the US government to take a moral stance against resistance tactics other than stand-up fights with a much better armed foe, just as it was when the British made the same complaint about the cowardly American rebels who shot at them from behind stone fences, and who drove law-abiding Tories from their homes. If America intends to maintain the quasi-colonial status of the Middle East, it should face up to the fact that this will be resisted with all means at their disposal by fighters who will be supported by the great majority of the inhabitants of the area.
Hunter Ellinger
OF COURSE the oppressed have a right to resist if not a duty.
OF COURSE the body count from crime in the suites exceeds that of crime in the streets, internationally as well as domestically.
OF COURSE you can understand circumstances that drive some people crazy enough to aim their "resistance" at the innocent AS PREFERRED TARGETS. Our death rows are full of such people.
They're still crazy. And dangerous.
Steve Russell
*****
Collapse of the Flanks
by William S. Lind
In Iraq and Afghanistan, the "coalition" defeats continue slowly to unroll. In Lebanon, it appears Hezbollah may win not only at the moral and mental, strategic and operational levels, but, astonishingly, at the physical and tactical levels as well. That outcome remains uncertain, but the fact that it is possible portends a revolutionary reassessment of what Fourth Generation forces can accomplish. If it actually happens, the walls of the temple that is the state system will be shaken world-wide.
Full Article
*****
Jeffrey Nightbyrd
The Middle East, Part V
Alan writes:
"There is no country of Palestine. Being a Palestinian is only good for being discriminated against. The Israeli right have seen to this as part of the essential plan to drive them out, as Herzl explicitly stated in his diaries and elsewhere. There was never any plan for a viable Palestinian state."
I get very confused about some of this. I happen to have a pre-1946 postage stamp from Palestine. It has the Dome of the Rock on it. So, weren't there Palestinians then? And wasn't it supposedly independent of Britain for some [short] period of time before being commandeered by the Allies as a new home for Europe's displaced and battered Jewish survivors?
I converted informally to Judaism when I gave birth to a Jewish child, but wouldn't have done so in any event had I not been a long time admirer of some of the core tenets of Judaism. But I didn't keep a kosher house, or become a Zionist, or come to believe that the Jews were "chosen", any more than any primitive tribe thinks of themselves as having some special status with their supreme being. Take away the religious difference, and the Palestinian Jews, Palestinian Arabs, and Lebanese are basically all one ethnic group; of course the European Jews who have dominated Israel's political development are different...
It has become very difficult for me to understand how anybody can consider this a "holy land" any more. Mohammed was smart not to ever visit Jerusalem; he saw what happened to J.C. there!!
I got no answers for any of this. Teaching hatred seems to be pretty effective. Something about sowing the wind comes to mind...
Boy, lotsa stuff to blog now; all we need is a good conflict to get us started!!!
Mariann Wizard
Yes, that is right, but many Zionists want to claim that there was no distinct Palestinian identity because that harms their position/slogan, " A people without land to a land without a people". The Palestinians aren't people according to some racist theories. They are Arabs after all ( note: sarcasm).
Mariann,
As it stands now there is no Palestinian money, or stamps, or even phone books. There are no Palestinian entrances or exits, only Israeli. There are "Palestinian" check points but that is not where one's passport is checked. One cannot land a plane or dock a boat in "Palestine" with out Israeli permission. Palestinians have a hard time entering or leaving their own towns to travel a few miles and they cannot enter or leave their "country" without Israeli permission. There is a prison called Palestine but it is not a country at this moment. I walked with Palestinians who had to climb over boulders to leave Bethlehem for Hebron because Israeli bulldozers had destroyed the road.
( I put "Palestine" in quotes because there is no real Palestine but that gets tiresome. The problem with words is that if one uses them then people think there is a corresponding reality to the word or phrase.)
I invite anyone who does not believe this to go to "Palestine". You will have to fly to Tel Aviv or Amman. Forget Beirut.
There are good maps of the West Bank showing all the "settlements" and their "security roads" and how these effectively carve the West Bank into a checker board with isolated cities. What does it matter if you own 97% of a house if the other 3% you do not own is the driveway, doors and windows? And let us not forget the water pipes you don't own. That was the great "deal" offered the Palestinians. There is a five bedroom house in Clarksville for $14,000 but after you buy it you still have to ask the previous owner for permission to leave or enter it. And some of the previous owners relatives will live in one of the bedrooms. They will attack you from time to time. What a deal. The Pieces Process.
When you and I talk about a country we usually mean one that can elect its own officials without then being attacked, have its own court system, its own banks, its own passports ( that mean something), its own airports free of external control, control of its own water and mineral resources. Independent foreign cities with their own armies are not a usual feature within a sovereign nation. Palestine is simply occupied territory the Israeli Government Army refuses to leave. The Martial Plan.
To their credit the Israeli Defense Force protect the Palestinians from settler attacks on occasion but then the settlers attack the IDF.
I must work on my book now so I cannot waste time "responding" ( if one can call it that) to Michael and Steve, who shape shift every time an uncomfortable fact comes their way. Now I am a conspiracy theorist because I know more about Zionism than the Zionists. David Hamilton is doing a great job but he has a hard time wrestling with mercury as well. I know the mentality because I once shared it as an Irish Catholic altar boy. Just like a Jehovah's Witness with a arm load of Watch Towers I knew the stock replies to the questioning of my faith. I knew it was a sin to doubt. The whole house of cards would crumble if I admitted a doubt so I wouldn't admit any. But in the end I was more interested in the truth than defending the absurdities of theism or imperialism. The existential leap bothered me a bunch but it worked out for the better.
Leaping non-aligned non-theists , O, my!
Alan Pogue
David pH writes:
Dear "Moral Coward",
I was nicer than Michael King. I said "intellectual coward". May have to resubscribe to your pitiful rag if Chomsky kicking your flacid intellectual ass is to become a regular feature. Please write a rebuttal so we can watch you twist slowly in the wind. Still willing to bet $100 you've never read "Manufacturing Consent".
David - is this a copy of a letter to the Snakeoil?? Oh, they must love you!!
lol,
Mar
Mar,
To my buddy, Rich Oppel, inspired by Michael King's article in the current Chronicle. I probably shouldn't have.
dh
You win the $100. But I will. "Manufacturing Consent" is an interesting title and I know George didn't read it but I will bet that Karl Rove has. With Fox News as their spokesman the bureau of information is very busy manufacturing our views.
Charlie Loving
Steve - if disarmament could lead to fighting with clubs and hand-to-hand combat, that would be a vast improvement over what's going on now. Gotta go with my peacenik Sistah Val on this one! Yew wanna fight about it, I already got a rock here to knock your big ol' head upside with...
grrr,
Mariann
Eisenstadt/Hamilton on Israel.
DH1 (David Hamilton) - Let's not reduce this to a discussion of the meaning of the word "theocracy". Israel identifies itself to the world as the homeland of the Jews. To establish such a homeland was the core rationale for Zionism. Israel is a nation where Jews have unique privileges. Any Jew can move to Israel and become a citizen. Not so with others. Property rights that produce housing segregation for Jews are recognized in Israeli law.
ME - Except for the last line which I don't understand, what you say is absolutely true. Most countries restrict immigration for one reason or another; some do so on racial grounds as for example Germany where German ancestors permit Russian "Germans" and "Germans" from other eastern european countries to immigrate to Germany freely on the government's nickel; some countries bar immigration entirely. I fail to see why Israel should be expected to receive anyone who might want to immigrate there.
[DH2 - This point is that Israel discriminates on a religious basis in immigration and in myriad other realms, which you acknowledge, and especially so in relation to Palestinians.]
………………………………………………………………..
DH1 - The wall of separation is being built to preserve a Jewish majority within it. (Excerpted from a longer statement.)
ME - WRONG. The wall was proposed by the Laborites to separate Israel from the West Bank and Gaza and prevent infiltration of terrorists. The Likudists and other pro-settlers long opposed it because it would put many settlements on the wrong side of the wall. As the number of suicide bombers increased, killing civilians on buses and in cafes and making public life a dangerous activity, it was finally agreed to by the right-wing government. Now that the wall is in place (most of it), suicide bombers have been virtually eliminated. The wall does not follow the Green Line (as I believe it should) because the Israeli government wants to include as many settlements as they can. If you look at a map of it, it is placed mostly on the Green Line. Palestinian Arab landowners have sued in Israeli courts to change its placement and have won in some cases. How's that for innate Israeli cruelty? Finally, how would the lack of a wall threaten the Jewish majority as you say? That makes no sense.
[DH2 - "Meanwhile, the takeover of the West Bank continues. Haim Ramon, minister in charge of Greater Jerusalem, conceded that the goal of the Jerusalem segment of the Separation Barrier is to guarantee a Jewish majority. (emphasis added) The barrier was therefore constructed to cut off over 50,000 Palestinians from Jerusalem and include Jewish 'neighborhoods' extending well into the West Bank. Israel's annexation of Jerusalem immediately after the June 1967 war was immediately condemned by the UN Security Council, which 'urgently calls upon Israel' to rescind any measures taken with regard to the legal status of Jerusalem and to take no further measures (Resolution 252 of May 21, 1968). The annexation is officially recognized almost nowhere outside of Israel, where state law stipulates that 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, East Jerusalem is Israel's territory and Israel is sovereign to act there regardless of international law' (Aharon Barak, the chief justice of Israel's Supreme Court)." Failed States, Noam Chomsky, p. 198.]
……………………………………………………………………………….
DH1 - What is preposterous is to claim that it is a pure secular democracy where everyone has equal rights. That takes blinders.
ME - Arab Israelis who were under martial law from 1948 until 1966 as I pointed out earlier do not have all the rights of Jewish Israelis. I don't wear blinders. They were after 1948 of course hostile to their new Israeli government and in some (many?) cases provided assistance to the Fedayeen fighters who infiltrated the border and carried out operations from the West Bank and Gaza during those years (the casus belli of the 1956 war). That is why they were under martial law. Fast forwarding to the present, Arab Israelis enjoy free medical care, a state pension when they retire, but do not serve in the military nor can they rent and buy real estate freely, nor with rare exceptions in certain professions such as medicine can they expect to hold managerial positions in the economy. As you must surely know, they can if they wish emigrate elsewhere but virtually none do so.
[DH2 - So, Arabs have the option of either accepting a second class citizenship with a second rate payoff to compensate for Israeli discrimination and oppression or leaving their ancestral homeland. You make my point.]
……………………………………………………………………………………………
DH1 - Meanwhile, let us return to a few questions I raised earlier: Question 1. How is your position relative to the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah any different from George Bush's position?
ME - I am surprised to find myself thinking that it is lucky that Bush is in the White House at this time as a Democratic president might have been more diffident in supporting Israel. The debacle in Iraq doesn't help matters of course.
[DH2 - The use of "diffident" confirms that your position does not differ from that of George Bush.]
………………………………………………………………………………………….
DH1 - Question 2. Why is Israel typically isolated with the world's principal imperialist power in global political conflicts - all those 180 to 2 votes in the UN General Assembly?
ME - The answer is either that Israel is in reality a manifestation of the Evil principle and the culmination of a cruel century-old conspiracy (Alan's position) or it is the long time whipping boy of the Soviet bloc, before its dissolution, Arab countries and other corrupt third-world countries. Take a look at the names of the countries which condemn Israel's behavior. Quelle galere! Nigeria and Sudan are to be the arbiters of justice. Taking you at your word that you really believe that Israel is "the world's principle imperialist power," I am nonplussed as to what one might say.
[DH2 - As I said clearly above, I am talking of the many 180-3 like votes in the UN General Assembly where the US and Israel and some other paid off sycophant defy the rest of the world united, not just Sudan and Nigeria. Also, I assumed that anyone who has read anything I ever wrote knew that I consider the world's principal imperialist power to be the United States of America. I trust this concept is not alien to you.]
..........................................................
DH1 - Didn't the current war increase that (Israel's) isolation?
ME - Probably.
[DH - So who won?]
……………………………………………………………………………………..
DH1 - Question 3. How do you account for the Israeli history of support for right wing military dictatorships in Latin America?
ME - Happily most of those dictatorships are toast. Israel's relationships with them was a moral lapse.
[DH2 - These particular moral lapses involved very severe crimes against humanity to the point of genocide while in league with outright fascists and their US imperialist overlords for which Israel has made no compensation or even an apology. In Guatemala, we call it the Maya Holocaust. As someone once said, "Never forget."]
....................................................................
DH1 - Question 4. Why should anyone accept the notion that Israel's illegal nuclear weapons are benign?
ME - Because they are intended as deterrence unlike those of Iran should it get ahold of any.
{DH - I have your word on this, but Israel has signed no treaty disavowing a first strike. Nor has it signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of which it is in obvious violation, or even acknowledged that it has the 200+ illegal nuclear weapons it has. The man who disclosed their nuclear weapons program was kidnapped in London and by Israeli "terrorists" and still rots in an Israeli jail. In other words, your position is entirely subjective and your subjectivity is entirely based on your tribal allegiance.]
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
DH1 - Question 5. Should Israel continue to receive billions annually in military aid from the US, but Hezbollah be prohibited from receiving military aid from Iran and Syria?
ME - Israel prospering as it is economically should not accept US handouts. So say I as do many in Israel. It should be noted that most or all of these monies must be spent by Israel in buying US military hardware so this kind of arrangement is also a way of subsidizing US manufacturers of military hardware by increasing their sales. Iran's present government as their president himself says holds that Israel should cease to exist. As does Hezbollah. Should I, sympathetic as I am to Israel, be in favor of Hezbollah getting Iranian rockets and shooting them at Israel? Are you in favor of Hezbollah rocketing Israel? Is Alan?
[DH - A more even handed approach would be an arms embargo to the whole area. That approach would also require Israel disarming and destroying its nuclear arsenal. However, I firmly believe that were the US to cut off military subsidies to Israel altogether, Israel would make a mutually acceptable peace with the Palestinians shortly thereafter. In the meantime, using violence in an anti-colonial struggle against a violent occupation can be quite just indeed. Think Vietnam. Whether that violence is well targeted, proportional or effective is another question. Car bombs and F16s are moral equivalents.]
……………………………………………………………………………………………
DH1 - Question 6. Why are Palestinians being routinely brutalized in the occupied territories?
ME - They are brutalized because that sort of behavior is a result of a military occupation. The occupied population resists and there ensues a cycle of increasing resistance and increasing repression. Look at American troop behavior in Iraq. You wouldnt therefore conclude that American troops are innately cruel. Behavior deteriorates due to the circumstances. An inherently unjust situation begets unjust behavior.
[DH2 - Brutalizing people brutalizes the brutalizer as well. Tragically, that's what has happened to Israel.]
………………………………………………………………………………………………
DH1 - And do you support Palestinians being able to elect their own leaders or is that contingent on them electing someone Zionists approve?
ME - Why do you keep calling Israelis Zionists? Is Israel for you the "usurping Zionist entity" as Nasrullah of Hezbollah calls them? Israel is prepared to make a deal with Hamas if Hamas wanted to deal. Unfortunately they do not want to deal. Their position is that of Islamic extremism: every land that has ever been under the rule of Islam must be returned to Islamic rule. It is what god wants. I hope it is not what you want.
[DH2 - That does not answer the original question. Not surprising since Israel, like its patron, the USA, only likes democracy when it can control the outcome. // It is my understanding that Hamas has accepted the Arab League proposal of 2002, which recognizes the state of Israel, as a basis for negotiation.]
…………………………………………………………………………………
DH1 - Val hit the essence in one sentence. Your progressive political principals lack universality in regards to Israel. For example, "As for "the right of return" of the 1948 Arabs, ha ha ha. That is non-negotiable."
ME - It is a univeral rule. Quoting Montesquieu "all regimes are founded on a crime." Just as the US or Canada or Australia or New Zealand or Russia or Poland and Hungary or the countries of Latin America will not be giving back the land to those they killed, displaced or expelled (American indians, Australian aborigines, Maori, Siberian natives, ethnic Germans, etc.), the Palestinians expelled from the Israel area of partioned Palestine during the 1948 war will never return. As I explained in a previous post, it is now know from the publication of his papers that Ben Gurion did in fact order the Israeli army to expel as many Palestinians as possible in the course of the 1948 war (but not kill them as Arabs would have done). In the light of the corresponding fact that if Israel lost that war they would all be killed or at best driven out of the country, Ben Gurion acted on the principle of *raison d'etat.* IMO he acted correctly. I regret typing "ha ha ha." I was getting a bit gaga from writing a long letter. The Israelis have suggested compensation but "the right of return" is non-negotiable just as it is for every other country in the world. It is Israel's bad fortune to have commenced the colonial project late in history and done it in the wrong part of the world, especially now in light of the rising tide of fundamental Islamic sentiment.
[DH - Glad we got that historical "crime" and "colonial project . . . in the wrong part of the world" issue cleared up.]
David Hamilton
Published on Sunday, August 13, 2006 by the Toronto Sun (Canada)
Bombs Not Enough
by Eric Margolis
For the past month, 3,000 lightly-armed Hezbollah fighters have managed to hold off the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), the world’s fourth most powerful military machine.
This wholly unexpected resistance to a major Israeli operation has amazed the world, electrified Muslim nations and stunned Israelis, who previously dismissed Hezbollah as “a bunch of terrorists.” According to Israeli media, Israel had apparently been planning the Lebanon invasion for the past three years and conducted a mock invasion of Lebanon only a month ago.
Bombs Not Enough by Eric Margolis
Posted by David Hamilton
I imagined in subscribing to Ragstaff that I would lurk rather than write letters to Rag people. And wound up crafting defenses of Israel the country long into the night.
Thanks David Hamilton (I saw you for the first time at your recent sale at La Pena but did not come up and introduce myself) for your civil engagement with the thread.
I had ridiculously hoped that after such a brilliant letter as my last you would "get it" about how your understanding of the subject was subpar but to hope that was ridiculous. You have an endless bill of particulars against Israel which could never be exculpated to your satisfaction. "Every regime is founded on a crime" to my mind is a heavy mojo insight and obviously true when you think about it. If it was true in all cases in past history, then it remains true. Steve an American indian sees this. You do not. Consider that you too are a colonist (that it was your grandfather does not make you any less an usurper of the people who preceded you here). You hold Israel to justify its creation by the standard of a political morality which has never existed in the course of history.
Best,
Mike Eisenstadt
Mar,
I will not differ with Val or with you because you are fundamentally right.
I just don't see the "correct" choice among the choices on the the table, and it is necessary to choose or not play. To not play is to turn it over to the Karl Roves of the world.
Steve
David pH writes:
"[DH2 - This point is that Israel discriminates on a religious basis in immigration and in myriad other realms, which you acknowledge, and especially so in relation to Palestinians ..."
Who the heck is DH2??? Have you cloned yourself? Are you conducting illicit stem cell research? Have you an evil twin? Is it Mini-You?
Baffled,
Mariann Wizard
And that may remain an unanswered question .... rdj
18 August 2006
The Protocol War ... An Update - S. Russell, J. Muir, R. Jehn
Since I blogged about the new terrorism protocols in airports, I just got a first look at those backscatter scanners. There might be some controversy there.
You stand up in front of this doo-dad fully clothed and to the person reading the scan you are naked. This is no exaggeration. It pretty much amounts to strip-searching everybody.
Personally, I have no objection to being strip-searched but I would object to being singled out for that treatment.
I got this one grad student who is a very shapely female, and she gets searched every time. As does her husband, who is Puerto Rican but looks Middle Eastern.
I dunno about this.
It seems to me that if strip search becomes the norm, then they will hide the stuff in body cavities. One of the bombs already used (but did not bring down the plane) was hidden in little bottles for contact lens fluid. You could hide those without K-Y.
Steve Russell
Hypothesis: far from being thwarted, the liquid explosive bombers achieved their goals, on their timetable, and their achievement is greater than it would have been had they carried out the bombings. Sound crazy? Consider the following:
Having already demonstrated their ability to wreak havoc in US (9/11), jihadists have no need to do it again; all they have to do is appear to be planning to do it again. Planning to blow up planes was simply a way to cause massive disruption in Britain and the U.S. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. And what different course of action would BushBlair have taken had the planes exploded than they’re taking now? Hard to think of anything, isn’t it?
Now, instead of combusting with their victims, the Bombers will use their trial and its 24/7 worldwide media frenzy to advance their political agenda. Of course, they’ll have to put up with whatever indignities their jailers might conjure. I wonder what those will be, in light of Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, et al? Does world opinion matter anymore to BushBlair? Can they be sure they can keep torture secret anymore?
An assumption in the hypothesis is that the Bombers (shorthand for the cell, their handlers, the masterminds, al Qaeda, whatever) controlled the operation from start to finish: they planned to be caught because they understood the potential for a bigger political payoff, not only in terms of the propaganda opportunities, but also the potential to influence mid-term elections in the U.S. The Vietnamese, of course, were masters at timing their military offensives to achieve maximum political impact in the U.S. (I don’t have to explain why jihadists want Republicans to remain in control, do I?)
“In June, the F.B.I. arrested seven people in Florida on charges of plotting attacks on American landmarks, including the Sears Tower in Chicago, with investigators openly acknowledging that the suspects, described as Al Qaeda sympathizers, had only the most preliminary discussions about an attack.” (NYT 08.13.06)
“Britain Says Two Dozen Major Terrorist Conspiracies Are Under Investigation” NYT headline, 08.14.06.
James Fallows, in a Q&A with the DMN, 08.13.06: “Osama bin Laden has boasted that the $500,000 he spent on that attack (9/11) provoked at least $500 billion in military and security spending by America, for a million-to-one payoff.”
“One, two, many Vietnams.” –Che
John Muir
Perhaps someone else, and not our friendly, street-corner terrorists, achieved an objective. If we're going to work in conspiracy theories, may as well make it whole hog. That reminds me of a delightful barbeque story from a couple of years ago ....
*****
The idea that high explosive can be made quickly in a plane toilet by mixing at room temperature some nail polish remover, bleach, and Red Bull and giving it a quick stir, is nonsense. Yes, liquid explosives exist and are highly dangerous and yes, airports are ill equipped to detect them at present. Yes, it is true they have been used on planes before by terrorists. But can they be quickly manufactured on the plane? No.
The sinister aspect is not that this is a real new threat. It is that the allegation may have been concocted in order to prepare us for arresting people without any actual bombs.
Let me fess up here. I have just checked, and our flat contains nail polish remover, sports drinks, and a variety of household cleaning products. Also MP3 players and mobile phones. So the authorities could announce - as they have whispered to the media in this case - that potential ingredients of a liquid bomb, and potential timing devices, have been discovered. It rather lowers the bar, doesn't it?
Full Article
*****
Richard Jehn
Dead People - C. Loving
The American way of burial is pretty confusing. Having tried to make this simple is impossible ...
First off once the person is dead, the EMS has to come and see that they are indeed dead. They declare that the person is flat-lined. Then the police come to see if they are indeed dead as suspected by the EMS and that there is no inflicted trauma and they have to check with homicide. Natural causes is easy for them - less forms to fill out.
If there are medications around they count all the pills and write down all the 'scrip's and call all the doctors. The doctor of the dead person has to be located to sign the death certificate. If that doesn't happen then they have to take the body to the morgue instead of loading it in a van to take to the mortuary. And the mortuary has to be called or a mortuary, in this case there was a prepaid policy.
The body had to be taken to another town and the mortuary in the other town called a mortuary in this town and they sent a van with a ghoul driving. He loads the corpse and takes it to the freezer box and then moves it the next day to the other town.
Is this getting complicated or what?
Then you go to the mortuary in the other town and get to see the former "Time Share Salesmen," and listen to their Schtick. They, of course, are so sorry first off. They all seem to have pale green skin and clammy hands. They are somewhat pissed in this case because the dead person planned ahead and bought a burial policy back in 1965. The costs have risen: a real burial costs $8,000 to $10,000 these days says the creepy guy in the brown suit.
He sort of chuckles. So they try to sell more stuff. A better casket, maybe made of copper or bronze, gold-trimmed with a silk liner or something like that so the dead person will be comfortable. So the casket won't deteriorate, you will want a weather proof (and worm-proof, I suppose) box to put the casket in.
Then they give you all the legal forms, of course, and try to sell you the flowers; lots and lots of flowers. You must have flowers. The first weasel leaves and the second weasel comes in to talk about grave stones and he has this book of all kinds of grave stones. A Sears catalogue of stones. The ones with digital pictures of the dead person are pretty cool if you are really morbid.
I recall the Mexican cemeteries. Surely the services there are simpler. A wooden cross or a couple of sticks tied together. Whatever happened here is ghoulish.
Then there is the hole digging. They have this contract with Pedro to dig holes. He has a special dead people hole-digging machine.
Oh yes, I forgot the music. There has to be music. This isn't my idea at all but it was in the script. The cost of music has risen a lot since 1965. Another check for fifteen minutes.
The final plan after the service is the driving to the burial site in the big black limos with police escort. Why police escort? We don't need police escort. Well that is part of the deal. Why not a pickup truck with the box in the back? No way the weasel lobby has it all locked in. They need the money.
This is really a good grief if there ever was one. No funeral pyres here. If you cremate then that costs a zillion dollars too and you have to buy an urn. And there are tons of urns. I opted for a plastic box for my Mom which I carry around with me and occasionally will misplace it and have to search for it. I found it again amongst the stuff in the garage so everything is cool but I am not sure what to do with it? Take it back to Switzerland? But it might be explosive so maybe it could be considered a bomb?
Anyway I will let you know how it turns out. This funeral thing is getting to be a habit here of late.
My personal favorite of ghoulish rites is the military funeral. I like the playing of taps and the 21 gun salute. I was involved in three or four of them and the taps always brings a tear to the eye. The first time I went to a military funeral was at a battalion level. We all knew the guy who had been killed and there was a band and a pass in review and all the good stuff that makes for grand pomp and circumstance. The 21-gun salute was with canons which is really cool, and a great waste of money as is a passing in review and all the other pomp.
Charlie Loving
Crab and Bean Tamales for FF - R. Jehn
Crab and Bean Tamales with Spicy Rice (1 July 2000)
This is excellent, my faithful readers - start with a desire (crab and tamale flavours, in this case) and put your imagination to work.
This menu did take some time to perfect. The rice was great the first time I made this menu, but we could not taste the crab in the tamales because I had proportions wrong. It was still tasty, but not what I wanted. If you’ve seen the original book, you’ll understand what I’m talking about. The version below is perfect - just ask Carolyn, Mom, Deb or Rebecca.
Crab and Bean Tamales
Filling
1/8 cup small, dry red beans (not pinto or kidney beans)
1/8 cup dry black beans
1 dried chipotle chile
1 tablespoon cumin
1/2 tablespoon garlic powder
1 teaspoon fresh-ground 4-colour peppercorns
The small red beans will take about 2-1/2 hours to become tender, while the black (“turtle”) beans will take about 1-1/2 hours. The way I did this was to start the red beans using the chipotle, half the cumin and pepper, and all of the garlic powder. I covered with water plus an inch, brought to a boil, and reduced the heat. After they had simmered for one hour, I added additional water, the black beans, and the rest of the cumin and pepper. Bring back to a simmer and cook until the beans are tender, about 1-1/2 hours. Remove the chile, drain the beans, place into a bowl and cover.
1 large shallot, minced
1 clove Italian garlic, minced
1/2 to 1 jalapeño chile, deseeded and minced
1 pound fresh crab meat, drained of liquid and shredded
3 to 5 tablespoons sour cream
1 teaspoon fresh lemon thyme (substitute lemon pepper and fresh thyme, but then skip the fresh ground pepper)
1 teaspoon oregano
Fresh ground pepper and sea salt (be cautious!) to taste
Mix above ingredients in a large bowl, then fold in the beans. I used fresh Dungeness crab meat which tends to be slightly drier, so I think I used a larger amount of sour cream. Using King (or deep sea) crab may require less "softening." Taste for seasoning and make appropriate adjustments. [The filling will taste really good!!! RDJ]
Masa Dough
2 cups masa harina
1/2 cup corn meal
1 teaspoon salt
1 teaspoon coarse-ground black pepper
2 teaspoons baking powder
3 eggs
4 to 6 tablespoons heavy cream
3 tablespoons olive oil (or melted butter)
Bottled water to make a heavy dough
Mix dry ingredients thoroughly in a medium bowl, then add the eggs, mixing well. Add the cream and oil, and continue mixing. Gradually add water and mix until you have an extremely thick pancake-style batter (i.e., you could not use it for pancakes unless you pressed it down with a spatula, but it could make fritters). Let rest for at least 10 minutes, then mix again until completely smooth and manageable for tamales.
Building the Tamales
20 to 24 very large corn husks*
Lay each corn husk onto a fair-sized work surface. Spoon 3 tablespoons of masa dough into the center of the husk and use a spatula or the spoon to create an even 4-inch by 4-inch square of dough. Spoon 2 to 3 tablespoons of filling into the centre of the dough and also spread it a little, but not to the edges of the dough. Fold the sides of the husk over so the filling is completely enclosed by the dough, then fold the two ends (the very wide and the tiny ends) toward the middle of the husk. Lay aside seam side down. Complete remaining tamales.
Properly building these things does require some practice. You can make a smaller dough without all the fancy stuff and practice with some leftovers that you don’t want to eat anyway.
In a deep pot with a shallow steamer in it, bring water to a simmer. Place the tamales into the steamer, skinny end of the corn husks pointing toward the centre of the pot, but trying to maintain steaming space between each tamale. Steam for about 40 or 45 minutes, until the dough is not sticky at all. You can test with a toothpick, just as with cornbread. If the tamales on top are cooked, so are the ones just above the steam.
* Note: Using fresh corn husks is wonderful as they do add a flavour to the tamales. However, dried husks are fine, but must be soaked in warm water for awhile before you use them. Dried husks are usually packaged in whole-ear bunches, meaning do not soak 15 of them - you will have 5 dozen or more useable husk pieces. Hint, hint....
When I say “very large husk,” I mean 5 to 6 inches at its base and about 6 inches long. You will understand when you do this. Using smaller corn husks is an error.
Spicy Rice
2 to 3 tablespoons grapeseed oil
1/4 sweet red pepper, diced
1/4 sweet yellow pepper, diced
1/2 jalapeño chile, deseeded and minced
1 medium ripe tomato, diced
Salt and fresh-ground pepper to taste
1/4 cup rice (Carolyn used basmati, but I would use a long-grain, non-sticky rice, even Uncle Ben’s)
3/4 cup water
Sauté vegetables in the oil (toss them all in at once) until becoming tender (about 10 to 12 minutes), stirring almost constantly, and add the salt and pepper. Add the rice and stir well to coat rice with oil, about 3 minutes to toast a bit. Add the water, cover tightly, and simmer for 20 minutes until rice absorbs the water. Turn off the heat and let rest for 5 minutes before serving.
Garnishes
3 scallions, julienned into long pieces
3 leaves Romaine lettuce, coarsely chopped
Sour cream, mixed with chipotle adobo to taste (optional)
Presentation
Three tamales go in one triangle of the plate (remove the corn husks, or leave one for a little “affect,” if you wish?), a spoon of rice in the second, and the lettuce topped with scallion pieces in the third. If you use the chipotle-sour cream, small dollops go on each tamale.
The Middle East, Part IV
You are right, Paul, that what sticks in my craw is the grunt level.
We expect soldiers to follow the rules. When they don't, we prosecute them, difficult as that prosecution is. The famous line in Apocalypse Now! puts it well: like giving speeding tickets at the Indy 500.
Val says on another thread that weapons are evil, and the more people they kill the more evil they are. I suppose that's so until you are in a spot where you need a weapon.
The immorality of war in general is a position with which I tend to agree and so I'm not likely to go after Val about her position that, taken to it's logical end, she thinks would lead to peace and I think would lead to hand-to-hand combat or flint knives.
You are right that in leadership I think there is moral equivalence.
But we don't yet call a soldier a criminal for being a soldier. That may be a consummation devoutly to be wish'd, but that's not the deal.
However, we also don't reward soldiers for body count without regard to the identity of the bodies. We cling to the fiction that war is only between soldiers, and sometimes fictions are good things. When kids are killed, it better be an accident because if it's not an accident it's a crime. Unless you are a terrorist, in which case, for example, that husband and wife team who wore bombs into a wedding celebration in an American owned hotel in Jordan were doing the right thing. Not.
Steve Russell
Israel is a democracy. All citizens have the vote. Way back Arab Israelis used to vote mainly for the Labor party, which was like a Tammany Hall for them in providing some services. The 2 Communist members of the Knesset were Arab. Nowadays Israeli Arabs have their own political parties and are represented in the Knesset. Israeli Arabs lived under martial law until 1966. IA's are not liable to the 3 year military draft, although Druze serve in the military.
City-dwelling haredim are a large percentage of the population of Israel, around 15%. (IA's around 17%). They are overrepresented in the Knesset because they massively cheat in every election through multiple voting and voting the graveyard. Like in the US, the election boards consist of locals. So although observers from all paries are permitted to watch the voting, it is impossible for them to prevent black suited men with hats and beards from going from one precinct to the next to vote multiple times, presenting their voting credentials to the vote clerks who are likewise black suited men with hats and beards in on the scam. Like the IA's, the haredim do not do military service. They are much resented by the Israeli majority as the welfare cheats that they are. Although they have enormous families, there is a considerable continual defection from their ranks by young adults who opt for a secular life.
Democraphics are everything. IA's were dismayed as 1 million plus Russians poured into the country after the dissolution of the USSR and they saw their percentage of the population drop considerably. As for "the right of return" of the 1948 Arabs, ha ha ha. That is non-negotiable.
To call Israel a theocracy is PREPOSTEROUS. All religions there practice their cults publicly in churches, mosques and synogogues. Unfortunately for Jewish Israelis, legal marriage in Israel for them must fulfill Orthodox Jewish requirements. That is why sometimes secular Jewish Israelis are forced to fly to Cyprus to get married; foreign marriages are eo facto legal in Israel. The law for jews marrying of course does not apply to Christians, Moslems or Druze.
The West Bank settlers number around 300,000 (I am not up on this statistic). That is around 6% of the 5 million Jewish Israelis. A majority of Jewish Israelis are in favor of evacuating most of the West Bank settlements. That is why they voted for Olmert who succeeded Sharon who evacuated the settlements in Gaza.
As I have averred in a previous post, not taking Ben Gurion's advice in 1967 to return the West Bank and Gaza to Jordan and Egypt which had seized them in 1948 was an egregious error.
I am not trying to do a core dump on the subject. There are many thousands of factoids which would have to come together to form the mosaic of having any kind of informed opinion about Zionism/Israel. With the factoids I have presented here I am merely trying to belie David H's simplistic and uninformed opinions about Israel. As for Alan P, who has gone deeply, perhaps obsessively into the subject, his opinions about Israel's perfidy, which he believes are proved by such evidence as Herzl's diary entry, come from the realm where conspiracies are infallible and explain everything.
Mike Eisenstadt
Let's not reduce this to a discussion of the meaning of the word "theocracy". Israel identifies itself to the world as the homeland of the Jews. To establish such a homeland was the core rationale for Zionism. Israel is a nation where Jews have unique privileges. Any Jew can move to Israel and become a citizen. Not so with others. Property rights that produce housing segregation for Jews are recognized in Israeli law. The wall of separation is being built to preserve a Jewish majority within it. What is preposterous is to claim that it is a pure secular democracy where everyone has equal rights. That takes blinders.
Meanwhile, let us return to a few questions I raised earlier:
- How is your position relative to the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah any different from George Bush's position?
- Why is Israel typically isolated with the world's principal imperialist power in global political conflicts - all those 180 to 2 votes in the UN General Assembly? Didn't the current war increase that isolation?
- How do you account for the Israeli history of support for right wing military dictatorships in Latin America?
- Why should anyone accept the notion that Israel's illegal nuclear weapons are benign?
- Should Israel continue to receive billions annually in military aid from the US, but Hezbollah be prohibited from receiving military aid from Iran and Syria?
- Why are Palestinians being routinely brutalized in the occupied territories? And do you support Palestinians being able to elect their own leaders or is that contingent on them electing someone Zionists approve?
David Hamilton
"Let's not reduce this to a discussion of the meaning of the word "theocracy". Israel identifies itself to the world as the homeland of the Jews. To establish such a homeland was the core rationale for Zionism. Israel is a nation where Jews have unique privileges. Any Jew can move to Israel and become a citizen. Not so with others. Property rights that produce housing segregation for Jews are recognized in Israeli law."
Except for the last line which I don't understand, what you say is absolutely true. Most countries restrict immigration for one reason or another; some do so on racial grounds as for example Germany where German ancestors permit Russian "Germans" and "Germans" from other eastern european countries to immigrate to Germany freely on the government's nickel; some countries bar immigration entirely. I fail to see why Israel should be expected to receive anyone who might want to immigrate there.
"The wall of separation is being built to preserve a Jewish majority within it."
WRONG. The wall was proposed by the Laborites to separate Israel from the West Bank and Gaza and prevent infiltration of terrorists. The Likudists and other pro-settlers long opposed it because it would put many settlements on the wrong side of the wall. As the number of suicide bombers increased, killing civilians on buses and in cafes and making public life a dangerous activity, it was finally agreed to by the right-wing government. Now that the wall is in place (most of it), suicide bombers have been virtually eliminated. The wall does not follow the Green Line (as I believe it should) because the Israeli government wants to include as many settlements as they can. If you look at a map of it, it is placed mostly on the Green Line. Palestinian Arab landowners have sued in Israeli courts to change its placement and have won in some cases. How's that for innate Israeli cruelty? Finally, how would the lack of a wall threaten the Jewish majority as you say? That makes no sense.
"What is preposterous is to claim that it is a pure secular democracy where everyone has equal rights. That takes blinders."
Arab Israelis who were under martial law from 1948 until 1966 as I pointed out earlier do not have all the rights of Jewish Israelis. I don't wear blinders. They were after 1948 of course hostile to their new Israeli government and in some (many?) cases provided assistance to the Fedayeen fighters who infiltrated the border and carried out operations from the West Bank and Gaza during those years (the casus belli of the 1956 war). That is why they were under martial law. Fast forwarding to the present, Arab Israelis enjoy free medical care, a state pension when they retire, but do not serve in the military nor can they rent and buy real estate freely, nor with rare exceptions in certain professions such as medicine can they expect to hold managerial positions in the economy. As you must surely know, they can if they wish emigrate elsewhere but virtually none do so.
"Meanwhile, let us return to a few questions I raised earlier:
"1. How is your position relative to the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah any different from George Bush's position?"
I am surprised to find myself thinking that it is lucky that Bush is in the White House at this time as a Democratic president might have been more diffident in supporting Israel. The debacle in Iraq doesn't help matters of course.
"2. Why is Israel typically isolated with the world's principal imperialist power in global political conflicts - all those 180 to 2 votes in the UN General Assembly?"
The answer is either that Israel is in reality a manifestation of the Evil principle and the culmination of a cruel century-old conspiracy (Alan's position) or it is the long time whipping boy of the Soviet bloc, before its dissolution, Arab countries and other corrupt third-world countries. Take a look at the names of the countries which condemn Israel's behavior. Quelle galere! Nigeria and Sudan are to be the arbiters of justice. Taking you at your word that you really believe that Israel is "the world's principle imperialist power," I am nonplussed as to what one might say.
"Didn't the current war increase that isolation?"
Probably.
"3. How do you account for the Israeli history of support for right wing military dictatorships in Latin America?"
Happily most of those dictatorships are toast. Israel's relationships with them was a moral lapse.
"4. Why should anyone accept the notion that Israel's illegal nuclear weapons are benign?"
Because they are intended as deterrence unlike those of Iran should it get ahold of any.
"5. Should Israel continue to receive billions annually in military aid from the US, but Hezbollah be prohibited from receiving military aid from Iran and Syria?"
Israel prospering as it is economically should not accept US handouts. So say I as do many in Israel. It should be noted that most or all of these monies must be spent by Israel in buying US military hardware so this kind of arrangement is also a way of subsidizing US manufacturers of military hardware by increasing their sales. Iran's present government as their president himself says holds that Israel should cease to exist. As does Hezbollah. Should I, sympathetic as I am to Israel, be in favor of Hezbollah getting Iranian rockets and shooting them at Israel? Are you in favor of Hezbollah rocketing Israel? Is Alan?
"6. Why are Palestinians being routinely brutalized in the occupied territories?"
They are brutalized because that sort of behavior is a result of a military occupation. The occupied population resists and there ensues a cycle of increasing resistance and increasing repression. Look at American troop behavior in Iraq. You wouldn't therefore conclude that American troops are innately cruel. Behavior deteriorates due to the circumstances. An inherently unjust situation begets unjust behavior.
"And do you support Palestinians being able to elect their own leaders or is that contingent on them electing someone Zionists approve?"
Why do you keep calling Israelis Zionists? Is Israel for you the "usurping Zionist entity" as Nasrullah of Hezbollah calls them? Israel is prepared to make a deal with Hamas if Hamas wanted to deal. Unfortunately they do not want to deal. Their position is that of Islamic extremism: every land that has ever been under the rule of Islam must be returned to Islamic rule. It is what god wants. I hope it is not what you want.
Val hit the essence in one sentence. Your progressive political principals lack universality in regards to Israel. For example, "As for "the right of return" of the 1948 Arabs, ha ha ha. That is non-negotiable."
It is a univeral rule. Quoting Montesquieu "all regimes are founded on a crime." Just as the US or Canada or Australia or New Zealand or Russia or Poland and Hungary or the countries of Latin America will not be giving back the land to those they killed, displaced or expelled (American indians, Australian aborigines, Maori, Siberian natives, ethnic Germans, etc.), the Palestinians expelled from the Israel area of partioned Palestine during the 1948 war will never return. As I explained in a previous post, it is now know from the publication of his papers that Ben Gurion did in fact order the Israeli army to expel as many Palestinians as possible in the course of the 1948 war (but not kill them as Arabs would have done). In the light of the corresponding fact that if Israel lost that war they would all be killed or at best driven out of the country, Ben Gurion acted on the principle of *raison d'etat.* IMO he acted correctly. I regret typing "ha ha ha." I was getting a bit gaga from writing a long letter. The Israelis have suggested compensation but "the right of return" is non-negotiable just as it is for every other country in the world. It is Israel's bad fortune to have commenced the colonial project late in history and done it in the wrong part of the world, especially now in light of the rising tide of fundamental Islamic sentiment.
Mike Eisenstadt
But let me see if I've got this straight. Cluster bombs - good. Car bombs - bad. F16s - good. Suicide belts - bad. 200+ illegal Israeli nuclear weapons - good. Iran even thinking about one - bad. Religious fundamentalist state in Israel - good. Religious fundamentalist state next to Israel - bad. Am I getting the hang of this moral equivalence thing?
David Hamilton
Close but no cigar.
I agree with what Alan says about war generally.
I do not agree that the steps people have taken to mitigate the cruelties should be ignored because the whole enterprise is immoral.
Cluster bombs, bad but legal.
Car bombs. Depends on the use.
F-16s, bad but legal.
Suicide belts generally bad and always bad when placed on children.
Religious fundamentalist state in Israel, not in existence but whether bad or good would depend on whether inclined to aggression to make the world Jewish. That has not been the case.
Next to Israel, bad you betcha. Willing to die to destroy Israel. Believing the Caliphate is coming back and the Madhi is born is OK. Believing that you have to help the process along with terrorism is not OK.
Israel nukes bad but probably benign.
Iran nukes very bad because "mutual assured destruction" will not deter nuke use, nor will the prospect of slaughtering Palestinians in the process of wiping out Israel. How do we know? Because they tell us so.
A world with no nukes would be best, but the second best is a world where they don't get used.
Steve Russell
David asks: "I've long had the opinion that different Indigenous American groups all shared related religious concepts, for example, concerning humanity's relationship with nature. Wondering if you agree."
Yes, there are remarkable similarities. See Vine Deloria, Jr., God is Red, and Kidwell, Tinker and somebody else who slips my mind, American Indian Theology.
Steve Russell
Steve,
I read Deloria's book long ago and don't remember what I remember. My own prejudice, partially from reading the Popol Vuh and analysis of it, is that the principal font of Native American theology was the Maya. Got a take on that?
I particularly like the Maya concept of the principal deity not being gender specific. Is that a belief that other Native American groups share? All environmentalists must endorse the Native American religious concept that "man" is part of nature, not above and separate from it. The Western sky god types call that primitive!
David Hamilton
As a Mayanist, I have to take exception to your view that the Maya were the font of Native American theology; you have this impression just because you know more about their tradition than others. Most if not all Mesoamerican religions recognize deities that are multifaceted and have many different representations, male and female, good and bad, young and old, celestial and underworld, etc. There's a good discussion of this in Eva Hunt's Transformation of the Hummingbird (an oldie but goodie).
On the integration of man and nature, the Maya belief (not necessarily seen in the Popol Vuj, but part of Maya world view) is that people have three necessary parts: the human body, the soul that inhabits it, and the individual animal that shares the soul with the human (the so-called "nagual," although this term comes from Nahuatl and is contaminated by the central Mexican sense that only witches have naguals, like witches' familiars). The three parts are intimately related; if one is hurt or gets sick, the others do too (an explanation for illness of unseen origin). A person gets his or her personality from the animal they share their soul with (ergo powerful people are assumed to have jaguar naguals, etc.). This tripartite nature of man is a concept that is common from the Maya south to northern South America (see the Yanomamo, for instance), and it probably has a South American origin. Anyway, people are related to nature because a part of every person is a wild animal living out in the woods.
The other expression of the man and nature relationship is that the principal folk deity (not the guys the elite stressed) is Earth Owner (Dueño del Cerro, the Earth Lord, Mundo, etc.--everybody uses a different name [also Maximon, by the way]). This character owns all the material world, and has to be petitioned for reasonable use of his property (wood for construction, land for farming, animals to hunt, etc.); he also controls rain, and his celestial avatar is Lightning (see Chac). You petition him for use of his goodies, and enter into a contractual relationship with him; if you violate the contract, he may take your soul to labor in his extensive mines, fields, herds, etc.
These beliefs combine to encourage conservative use of resources. You take what you need (after asking for it) but don't abuse the privilege. These are beliefs handed down from the ancestors, and the ancestors will protect their offspring (or the souls thereof) as long as they continue to follow the prescibed traditions. The ancestors worked out the way people should live, and as long as people live that way, they will be OK. Unfortunately for the modern Maya, it's increasingly hard to do.
Nick Hopkins
Nick,
Thank you for your very interesting discussion. But I said "principal font", not "the font". That is based on the parallels one sees reading Maya cosmology and, say, "Black Elk Speaks" and assuming those parallel beliefs originated with the Maya. Still want to take exception with that?
David Hamilton
Gavan asserts that John Rawls is a liberal.
I suppose that's true given the current lay of the land.
I like John Stuart Mill, too. His "harm principle" is for me a touchstone of criminal law, and a big difference between my views and those of, say, Scalia. In other words, in the great law and morality debate between Lord Patrick Devlin and H.L.A. Hart, I stand with Hart. Even if he's a liberal.
Steve Russell
Steve. My point was simply that your statement: "If I perceive a disadvantage to some group, my attitude toward that disadvantage is formed by the attitude of the persons affected." is incompatible with Rawls' "A Theory of Justice," with which you associated your views.
That Rawls' difference principle (the part of Rawls' theory that's incompatible with your attitude toward disadvantage) shows him to be a liberal theorist was just an aside for the non-liberals among us. They might like to know that his project was legitimation of the bourgeois state. I would agree with you though that, if we are to have a bourgeois state, one based on Rawls' principles would be more congenial than one based on the available alternatives.
Gavan Duffy
I'm wondering about something re youse guys who think a soldier is a terrorist.
I'm opposed to the death penalty for oh so many reasons, moral and utilitarian.
When I involve myself in a death case, which I have done several times, how can I act?
If the death penalty itself is wrong, and I believe it is, then how can I split hairs over whether a particular defendant is factually innocent or got a fair trial? Is that defendant not the moral equivalent of the person who is factually guilty and got a fair trial? Don't I unduely dignify a corrupt process by my participation? Aren't all the choices equally corrupt?
Steve Russell
Bernard Lewis: On the chances "MAD" would deter Iran from using nukes
Source: WSJ (8-8-06)
[Mr. Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton, is the author, most recently, of "From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East" (Oxford University Press, 2004).]
... It seems increasingly likely that the Iranians either have or very soon will have nuclear weapons at their disposal, thanks to their own researches (which began some 15 years ago), to some of their obliging neighbors, and to the ever-helpful rulers of North Korea. The language used by Iranian President Ahmadinejad would seem to indicate the reality and indeed the imminence of this threat.
Would the same constraints, the same fear of mutual assured destruction, restrain a nuclear-armed Iran from using such weapons against the U.S. or against Israel?
There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers. This worldview and expectation, vividly expressed in speeches, articles and even schoolbooks, clearly shape the perception and therefore the policies of Ahmadinejad and his disciples.
Even in the past it was clear that terrorists claiming to act in the name of Islam had no compunction in slaughtering large numbers of fellow Muslims. A notable example was the blowing up of the American embassies in East Africa in 1998, killing a few American diplomats and a much larger number of uninvolved local passersby, many of them Muslims. There were numerous other Muslim victims in the various terrorist attacks of the last 15 years.
The phrase "Allah will know his own" is usually used to explain such apparently callous unconcern; it means that while infidel, i.e., non-Muslim, victims will go to a well-deserved punishment in hell, Muslims will be sent straight to heaven. According to this view, the bombers are in fact doing their Muslim victims a favor by giving them a quick pass to heaven and its delights -- the rewards without the struggles of martyrdom. School textbooks tell young Iranians to be ready for a final global struggle against an evil enemy, named as the U.S., and to prepare themselves for the privileges of martyrdom.
A direct attack on the U.S., though possible, is less likely in the immediate future. Israel is a nearer and easier target, and Mr. Ahmadinejad has given indication of thinking along these lines. The Western observer would immediately think of two possible deterrents. The first is that an attack that wipes out Israel would almost certainly wipe out the Palestinians too. The second is that such an attack would evoke a devastating reprisal from Israel against Iran, since one may surely assume that the Israelis have made the necessary arrangements for a counterstrike even after a nuclear holocaust in Israel.
The first of these possible deterrents might well be of concern to the Palestinians -- but not apparently to their fanatical champions in the Iranian government. The second deterrent -- the threat of direct retaliation on Iran -- is, as noted, already weakened by the suicide or martyrdom complex that plagues parts of the Islamic world today, without parallel in other religions, or for that matter in the Islamic past. This complex has become even more important at the present day, because of this new apocalyptic vision.
In Islam, as in Judaism and Christianity, there are certain beliefs concerning the cosmic struggle at the end of time -- Gog and Magog, anti-Christ, Armageddon, and for Shiite Muslims, the long awaited return of the Hidden Imam, ending in the final victory of the forces of good over evil, however these may be defined. Mr. Ahmadinejad and his followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the U.S. about nuclear development by Aug. 22. This was at first reported as "by the end of August," but Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement was more precise.
What is the significance of Aug. 22? This year, Aug. 22 corresponds, in the Islamic calendar, to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to "the farthest mosque," usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1). This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind....
Posted by Steve Russell
Dear "Moral Coward",
I was nicer than Michael King. I said "intellectual coward". May have to resubscribe to your pitiful rag if Chomsky kicking your flacid intellectual ass is to become a regular feature. Please write a rebuttal so we can watch you twist slowly in the wind.
Still willing to bet $100 you've never read "Manufacturing Consent".
David Hamilton
Please click on 'Older Posts' to continue reading The Rag Blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
