The Rag Blog

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

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

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

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).

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

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

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

A pic from Lebanon (Kevin Frayer, AP).

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 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.

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:

1. How is your position relative to the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah any different from George Bush’s position?
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? Didn’t the current war increase that isolation?
3. How do you account for the Israeli history of support for right wing military dictatorships in Latin America?
4. Why should anyone accept the notion that Israel’s illegal nuclear weapons are benign?
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?
6. 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?

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.”

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

I googled the quote and there are hundreds of citations of your passage but none of them have a volume or a page number. I would suspect that the passage was made up out of the whole cloth by someone who believed that there was/is a jewish plot. You seem to be intimating that you yourself read the passage in situ and as you say just dont have the reference handy.

I say this because I have been following the Zionist enterprise since Nov 1947 and have read ever so many books on the subject. I have read one or two biographies of Herzl and I thought I knew the man. I confess that I never thought to read his published diaries (I didn’t even know there were any). Nor have I read his novel Altneuland but I looked into it one time at the library and it didn’t seem like it would be an interesting read.

As for the quote, if it is really in his diaries, it therefore presumably expresses his real thoughts. But where does he say it? I am guessing that you yourself didn’t really read it in situ.

If you can’t come up with a volume and page number, then aren’t you maybe duty bound to reexamine your views?

I once asked you in the front of the Public Library on 8th street whether you in any way changed your opinions from before you visited the West Bank to after you visited the West Bank. You replied “Certainly not!” I must say that afterwards I thought that your remark was very telling.

Mike the Eisenstadt

If this Zionist loon represents the present state of Israel, how come so many Israeli Arabs are getting nailed by Kaytushas? How come the Hezbollah PooBah is warning Israeli Arab non-combatants to vacate Haifa so only Israeli Jewish non-combatants will get nailed?

While there is some equality of crazy rhetoric, there is no equality of results.

The Arab lands are cleansed of Jews.

The Jewish lands are not cleased of Arabs.

Maybe it’s an efficiency problem.

Granted that dropping bombs when unintended but foreseeable civilian deaths will result is wrong, there is no moral equivalence.

This continual moral equivalence argument on the left, equating soldiers with terrorists, will not now or ever sell to the public nor should it. And it really chaps my ass that we concede the moral high ground to a pig like Bush because we lack the spine to condemn training young kids to blow themselves up in circumstances intended to cause maximum non-combatant deaths.

If Mohammad Atta had been caught, would he have been a POW?

What did your US miltary training teach you about the status of non-combatants, Alan? Given the timing, I expect the same thing that mine did.

Did all American GIs respect what we were taught? Of course not.

Do all American Gis in Iraq respect what they are still teaching? Of course not.

Does that make us the moral equivalent of the dude who pulls a van up to a day labor center, fills it up with job seekers, and then blows it up?

Just because the Repugs abuse the term does not mean there is no such thing as terrorism.

Just because the rules of war are often honored in the breach does not mean that war has no rules.

What’s so hard about calling scum scum and going on to argue that Bush is also scum?

Steve Russell

With due respect the war started when the Jews took Jericho in 1200 BC or there abouts. Since then there have been many scenarios.

You talk about efficient ways of dealing with the enemy. The Nazi’s took civilians and killed them in mass. Stalin did the same. It is quite probable that if the Israelis didn’t have guns and tanks they would face the same scenario they faced in Europe in 1938 through 1945. They are defending themselves and doing a miserable job it seems.

In the book “Why air Forces Fail” the Israeli Air Force is impotent. The book brings out the various reasons. It mentions the Iraqi, Egyptian, Polish and so forth and the American Air Force of which I was a part of in Nam and how all the bombs and chemicals dropped do not make much difference when you are fighting a third world country.

You can cut off their water and power and they will go on. Cut the power and water of an American City or a European City and they would be devastated until the ingenuity of the people took over. To win you need ground troops.

I will say that when I first went to Nam in 1965 I was part of MACV and motivated. The RVN soldiers and rangers were motivated as well. It was the politicians that took away that youthful vigor and elan. We didn’t think we would win, we knew it. We had the biggest and baddest army in the world. The Russians had the other. So we were very young and very brain washed. I went back again to Thailand and then with the 25th AV to spend another tour but by then the writing was on the wall and I had read a book or two and knew that the ants will always eat the elephant.

This war in the Middle East is just a precursor to a bigger war. we are doomed to this mess and whether the Arabs are efficient or not matters little. They will kill as many Jews as they can and likewise the Jews will kill as many Arabs as they can. Collateral damage doesn’t matter much to either side. They just want to blow the shit out of each other and if babies get in the way so be it.

Charlie Loving

“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.”

I havent checked all 60,500 quotes for a page number nor will I but it seems at least possible that there is no such remark in Herzl’s diary and some dishonest knave made it up.

And look at the statement itself. There are some glaring anachronisms which jump to the eye arguing that it is a forgery.

“across the border” – what border? In Herzl’s time, Palestine and the rest of the Middle East was ruled by the Turks and Palestine, if i remember right, was a district of the empire ruled from Syria.

“transit countries” – what could that mean? there were no Middle Eastern countries at that time, all part of the Turkish empire.

“removal of the poor” – is this a euphemism for Arabs? if he meant Arabs, why wouldnt he say it in his private diaries instead of saying “the poor”?

Will Alan come up with the volume and page number? I mean to check back here frequently to see if he does. I really would like to know one way or the other if this is a genuine quote. If so I will check out that volume so I can weigh the context.
If it does exist it may be being misconstrued by the anti Israel choir.

Mike the Eisenstadt

( 1 ) 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), (henceforth Herzl Diaries), vol.1, p.88.

Alan Pogue

Mike,
My remark was telling you that actually seeing how badly the Palestinians were treated by the Israeli government went far beyond anything I had thought from merely reading history and current events. Nothing beats being there. I met Rabbi Arik Ascherman in the home of a Palestinian farm family near Hebron. Rabbi Ascherman was willing to be arrested while resisting the destruction of the Jabber home. Jacob Bahar was also there. He was wearing his Peace Now cap. Later some of the Christian Peacemaker Team arrived. It was obvious that all of “Palestine” is a prison camp. I wish everyone could spend a week with a Palestinian family in the West Bank or Gaza. I also stood with the “Women in Black”, European and Arab Jews, in west Jerusalem during one of their weekly demonstrations against the occupation and home demolitions. I met with Peretz Kidron, the leader of Yesh Gvul- Israeli military veterans against the occupation. www.yesh-gvul.org

Alan Pogue

Thanks, Alan, for explaining your remark at the library. Yes, the West Bank is a prison. We just watched Paradise Now last night.

I am now assuming that anti Israelites have mined early Zionist political thought thoroughly and that this genuine passage (I havent read it yet) is the best index of the plot. It is like the note that Lenny Bruce found in the cellar reading “Yes, we did it,” signed cousin Hymie.

Mike Eisenstadt

When I got to Vietnam in 1967 I saw that we were killing Vietnamese people in a totally wanton, gratuitous fashion. I was disgusted and ashamed. I still am. I had been living in the brainwashed false world also. When I returned to “the world” I spent a lot of library time figuring out “we” are imperialists, and have been since before the ink was dry on the Declaration of Independence. Haiti is a good example of that. Our great leaders of democracy have been beating up on Haiti since day one. “Killing Hope” by William Blum is a good book on U.S. sponsored wars since WW11. Steve seems to still have a foot in the land of Camelot, the City on the Hill and all that happy nonsense about the U.S.. My Lai or Abu Ghraib? White phosphorus bombs, cluster bombs, napalm, killing 2 million Iraqi infants,looks like terrorism to me. Agent Orange is still killing in Vietnam. A little depleted uranium for your cereal? Soldiers are terrorists. My drill instructor had no problem with that. I was a terrorist in Vietnam. I had a problem with that. I corrected my behavior and learned how I had been ill used by leaders with a secret agenda. At least it had been secret to me since our public schools can’t get close to the truth and I hadn’t met the Berrigan bothers.

Both Thomas Jefferson and Reich-Marshall Hermann Goering agree on this, “… the common people do not want war.” They know there is nothing in war for them but suffering. The leaders have to trick, scare, and force the common people into war. War is an industry and the common people are raw material.

Having met many people in the West Bank, Jordan, Iraq and Pakistan I can not use words like “the Arab world” or any generalizations except this one: human beings are not prone to placing their families in danger nor do they want to upset the normal rhythms of their lives over ideology.

Alan Pogue

It is amazing what a little time and education can do to change you. There are times when I still have nightmares about how out and out evil and stupid things can get with just a snap of a finger.

Charlie Loving

ISRAEL ASKS U.S. TO SHIP ROCKETS WITH WIDE BLAST.
Quick Delivery is Sought.

Washington, Au.10. – Israel has asked the Bush administration to speed delivery of short-range anti-personnel rockets armed with cluster munitions, which it could use to strike Hezbollah missile sites in Lebanon. The request for M-26 artillery rockets, which are fired in barrages and carry hundreds of grenade-like bomblets that scatter and explode over a broad area, is likely to be approved shortly, along with other arms, a senior official said.

But some State Department officials have sought to delay the approval because of concerns over the likelihood of civilian casualties, and the diplomatic repercussions. The rockets, while they would be very effective against hidden missile launchers, are fired by the dozen and could be expected to cause civilian casualties if used against targets in populated
areas. . . .

Posted by David Hamilton

Are they asking for these munitions out of military need? Or because of their innate cruelty and desire to immolate children?

They leaflet areas to be bombed warning civilians to evacuate. They also phone and send text messages. But for the anti Israelites that counts for nothing.

Mike Eisenstadt

Mike,
You wrote, “Are they asking for these munitions out of military need? Or because of their innate cruelty and desire to immolate children?”

Are there any other options?

You also wrote, “They leaflet areas to be bombed warning civilians to evacuate. They also phone and send text messages. But for the anti Israelites that counts for nothing. “

First, why would you tell people who would doubtless tell Hezbollah that they are about to get bombed? Second, I like the term “anti Israelites” to some I’ve been called lately. Otherwise, that counts for something, but not nearly enough. Sort of like giving an unjustly convicted man on death row whatever he wants for his last meal. It also ignores the many Lebanese civilians killed by the Israeli airforce while trying to flee.

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 equivalency thing?

David Hamilton

Mike,
If this weren’t Israel, would you approve of antipersonnel weapons such as this?

Paz–Val Liveoak

David P. Hamilton wrote:

You also wrote, “They leaflet areas to be bombed warning civilians to evacuate. They also phone and send text messages. But for the anti Israelites that counts for nothing.” First, why would you tell people who would doubtless tell Hezbollah that they are about to get bombed?

Are you suggesting that the Israelis don’t leaflet? If you are, you must not be watching television. On network evening news, I have seen footage shot in Lebanon showing the leaflets falling out of the sky as well as footage of Lebanese individuals tearing them up in contempt.

Of course the leaflets also inform Hezbollah fighters of a forthcoming operation, not that the Hezbollah fighters are not generally aware of what’s coming at them. For special ops, like the recent one in Baalbek where their commandos landed by helicopter, obviously they do not leaflet in advance.

You also wrote:

Second, I like the term “anti Israelites” to some I’ve been called lately.

Thanks. I just made it up.

As for the rest of your letter:

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.

My version: cluster bombs used against civilians – bad. Cluster bombs used against Hezbollah fighters – good. F16s – bad against civilians, good against enemy combatants, 200+ nuclear weapons – good if by the fact of their existence, they deter enemies. Iran with nuclear weapons – who knows what they plan to do with them? religious fundamentalist state in Israel – PREPOSTEROUS all religions are freely and publicly practiced in Israel – Moslem, all the varieties of Christians, Bahai (temple in Jerusalem), Druze, etc. Majority of Jewish Israelis said to be secular religious fundamentalist, presumably Shia, state in Lebanon – bad for Lebanese Christians, Lebanese Sunni, Lebanese Druze, and Israeli civilians being injured and killed by rockets.

Mike Eisenstadt

An antipersonal weapon used to kill combatants is a weapon like any other. An antipersonal weapon used to kill non-combatants is a war crime. What is your point?

Mike Eisenstadt

My point: war is wrong. Maybe at times somewhat less wrong than some other alternatives, but wrong. There are always other and better alternatives.

Hence weapons are wrong, and the more likely to kill and maim more people the more wrong they are.

Paz–Val Liveoak

The exceedingly obvious point is that using a shotgun in a crowded bank will kill more than the bank robbers. Dropping any kind of bomb in a city will kill many people. Calling the place “an enemy stronghold” does not alter the result but only anesthetizes the moral consciousness of the speaker.

When a prisoner in a Texas prison took some hostages a few years ago the prison officials shot him and the hostages because they cared most about their own sense of absolute power over the prison, the hostages be damned. In war there is often only the desire to conquer, to win. Neither the lives of ones own troops nor civilians on either side can be taken into consideration when “winning”( maintaining ones own sense of power) is the only goal. “We” dropped Agent Orange on our own troops as well as on the Vietnamese. “We” used depleted uranium on the Iraqis and if that killed and harmed many of our own troops then the tactic is just to deny the effects. The morally dead think that way.

Alan Pogue

Thoughts on Israel.

Will all supporters of Zionism please tell us the other theocracies you support? And since theocracy is apparently fine with you, would you also approve the US being an officially Christian nation since over 80% of the citizens claim that “faith”, more than the Jewish portion of Palestine? Do you support the separation of church and state or not – or is it maybe? Is it valued everywhere but Israel? Why would one make such a distinction?

I consider myself a deist, but in my humble opinion, all organized religions have a sordid history of violence against “infidels”, especially the Western patriarchal sky-god types like Christianity, Islam and Judaism, which seem to be in a race to see whose record is the most egregious. I say the Christians are well ahead based on the vast scope and longevity of their historical massacres. All these devoteés of miscellaneous mythologies should ideally be laughed out of public life, but unfortunately “man” ever strives to know the unknowable, be relieved of the angst of mortality and find cosmic justifications for his self-interests.

Loving’s history is a rationalization and justification for what he implicitly acknowledges – that since 1948 the Zionists have occupied land where previously Arabs lived, displacing the Arabs in the process – and they didn’t pay for it. But like all histories, his is selective. He somehow fails to mention a few hundred years of European Christian invasions of “the Holy Land” to free it from the clutches of the Muslim infidels, aka, the “Crusades”. Also that those Muslim infidels practiced the best medieval version of religious toleration, especially for the many resident Jews within their domain. The final solution to the problem of the “Moors” in Spain in 1492 was also the first year of the Spanish Inquisition, not a great moment in Jewish history. Loving also doesn’t mention the present, where Arabs are, by definition, second class citizens in the Zionist state and those unfortunate enough to live in Palestinian occupied territories are routinely brutalized in myriad ways.

I prefer the one state solution. It’s the same system I support here or anywhere else; a secular democratic state. One person, one vote, with religious involvement in politics discouraged. To argue that secular democracy is unacceptable because the Zionists would be overwhelmed by a Muslim “demographic wave” is racist. South Africans said the same thing with much more justification.

The basic issue is more than Zionist occupation of Arab land. It is Zionism itself, the concept of a theocratic state being inserted where diverse people already live. “A people without a land, a land without a people” this was not. If they had created a Jewish state out of part of Germany, Austria and France in 1945, it might have made sense, but that opportunity has passed. With the “Holy Land” alternative finding resurgent post-WWII favor however, Europe cleverly exported the issue. To an ardent German Nazi, the Exodus would make a pretty good Plan B. This historic mistake has been the midwife to its antithesis, Israel hating Islamic fundamentalists seizing state power all around them, a hostility that has only deepened over the past several decades. Given continued Israeli militarism, we can reasonably expect it to get still worse in the future. Secularists confront a growing two headed monster and are tempted to throw up their hands, got no dog in this fight, except that this conflict also brilliantly illuminates how we are a global community.

If one doesn’t support theocracy, that means not supporting church-state unity, therefore no endorsement of a Jewish state (or Christian or Muslim) and therefore no acceptance of the “existence” of Israel as a Jewish state. This is a slippery logical slope leading to being labeled “anti-Semitic”. But when the Iranian president rails against the “Zionist entity”, is he advocating a unified secular state or lining up all Jews on the shoreline and marching them into the Mediterranean Sea or something in between?

Regardless of these hypothetical considerations, in the here and now, the two state solution is the consensus Plan B. That requires the resolution of the issue of a viable Palestinian state. My reading of the history is that while there have been missteps by all parties, the US and Israel have consistently obstructed the resolution of that issue in the interest of Israel gaining an ever greater hold on the land and water and the US gaining a partner in crime in the Middle East. Israel’s “most generous” offer cut the Palestinian state into four isolated parts, the West Bank entirely surrounded by Israel and left Israel in control of the entire shoreline of the Jordan River. (You can see the map in Chomsky’s “Failed States”, p.180.) That’s way too analogous to South Africa’s creation of Bantustans to deal with the issue of apartheid.

The sovereignty and permanence of Israel is a non-issue, ritually resurrected to justify whatever Israel does. Israel has over 200 armed and ready illegal nuclear weapons and supposedly the fourth or fifth most powerful military in the world. It receives billions every year in free US military hardware as a US taxpayer subsidy to the domestic war industry and their own territorial ambitions. This Goliath claiming to be the threatened little David is the bogeyman nonsense concocted by Zionists victimization specialists.. Besides, every Arab political entity, even Hamas, has explicitly or implicitly acknowledged the Israeli state’s legitimacy by accepting the Arab League proposal of 2002 as a basis of negotiation. The supposed threat of being pushed into the sea is propaganda to be sold to the 80% of Americans who never own a passport. That the Occupation is the central issue is routinely and rigorously denied. Bush, at his press conference on Tuesday, hammered away at his central point: “the central issue is a non-state acting as a state within another state” or some other such blather. Our imperialist leaders must have a cover story for their aggressions. We all grew up with the official state religion of anti-communism. The current preferred ideology of delusion is anti-terrorism on which Bush is here doing a variation. Anyone who says that the central issue in the Middle East is something other than the Occupation is blowing smoke with George.

We supposedly value universality, that the rules that apply to you, also apply to me. This is consistently thrown out the window with regards to Israel. One of today’s examples might be the US attacking Iran and Syria for providing Hezbollah with weapons. Or the US seeking an excuse for aggression by making unsubstantiated claims that Iran is breaking the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that the US is violating flagrantly and much more threateningly. Or advocacy of UN resolutions that demand Hezbollah disarm, but ignoring those that demand Israel relinquish the Arab lands conquered in the 1967 war. Or a UN cease fire resolution that authorizes the ” robust international peace keeping force” to fire on Hezbollah transgressors but not Israeli.

There is also something to be said for being known by the company you keep. If the votes in the UN General Assembly a reasonable index, there is a very long history of Israel standing shoulder to shoulder with American imperialism, usually alone or perhaps joined by the Marshall Islands. In Guatemala, when Carter cut off US training and equipment for the Guatemalan military because of its escalating genocidal campaign against Mayans, Israel jumped in to fill the breach, helping the likes of Generals Lucas Garcia and Rios Montt slaughter them with splendid efficiency. Israel has also been involved in advising, training and running intelligence and counter-insurgency operations in the Latin American “dirty war” civil conflicts in Argentina, El Salvador, and Nicaragua, among others.

But now, we are to put all that aside and line up with the war criminal Bush and the protegee of the war criminal Sharon? I don’t think so. This is all tragic for enlightened Jews, among whom I have always found so many of my most seminal influences and greatest inspirations. One was a roommate who recruited me from a Highland Park racist mentality into the civil rights movement in 1962. Another was a girl friend who took me to Latin America for the first time in 1974. Another took me skiing for the first time and was my tennis partner for 25 years. Another, now head of the local Republican Party, hired me to be his graduate student assistant so he could get a check from the FBI. Another is one of my two much loved and admired son-in-laws. At my funeral, they’ll play Gershwin and Dylan and read from Marx and Chomsky. It is a cruel irony that Israel has become the albatross they must carry.

David Hamilton

I think it was Alan who wrote:

There are many forms of delusion, religion being a big one. The idea of the state as an entity is another. Politicians will use whatever delusions that will forward their own.

Yes, more generally, political elites distribute solidary incentives — by appealing to mass constituents’ ethnic, religious, national identity, demonizing their enemies and their enemies’ identities — to overcome the free-rider problem (see here) as they mobilize mass constituents for conflict. They do this because it’s relatively inexpensive, compared to distributing material incentives. Insurgencies typically have no access to material resources, so they almost always distribute solidary incentives. States typically offer a mix of material and solidary incentives.

The big trouble with solidary incentives is that, unlike material incentives, they are difficult to retract. When leaders want to settle conflicts, hardliners in their camps sieze upon their peace overtures as evidence that they have “sold out” or made “a pact with the devil.” Consequently, leaders either refrain from peace-making or they risk losing their incumbency or (like Anwar Sadat and Yitzhak Rabin) their lives.

It’s all here: Gavan Duffy and Nicole Lindstrom, “Conflicting Identities: Solidary Incentives in the Serbo-Croatian War.” Journal of Peace Research. 39 (2002): 69-90.

Gavan Duffy

David asks, if I recall, that “supporters of Zionism” state what other theocracies they support. (For some reason, I cannot use the quote function on the website.)

I’m not a supporter of Zionism but I think he probably means me because I do not support the destruction of the Israeli state (although I advocate that the US get some daylight between its foreign policy and Israel’s).

There are about 550 American Indian nations recognized by the US government and over half of them are to some degree theocratic. I support them.

Separation of church and state is important in the US because there is religious pluralism among all three monotheistic patriarchal desert cults. It is, however, a modern idea. If memory serves, nine of the thirteen colonies that ratified the Establishment Clause had established churches. There was no intent to fool with that. The objective was that there be no FEDERAL established religion so people would not be killing each other over which flavor of Christianity should be established. That “wall of separation” quote from Jefferson serves the modern conceit.

What you say about the deadly nature of theocracy is true from the European perspective. However, Native societies did not engage in religious warfare. I know of no Native religion that values converting others except the Ghost Dance, and that is a direct reaction to the colonists.

But the idea that religion lives in one box and government lives in another and art in another and science in another is also a peculiar European conceit. Those are just labels for different ways of looking at the same thing.

I fully support the idea of separation of church and state in the US context, but in the great scheme of things it’s pretty silly that such separation is necessary.

Steve Russell

Steve,
I really did not have you particularly in mind as a supporter of Zionism. I put in the qualification about “patriarchal Western sky god” religions to exclude Buddhism and the Indigenous American religion, my personal favorites, from the critique.

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.

Perhaps it is a recent arrival in human political evolution, but I think it would be reasonable to argue that separation of church and state will be an essential element in future human survival, given the record of the major dominant cults in inspiring wars.

David Hamilton

— David asks, if I recall, that “supporters of Zionism” state what other theocracies they support. (For some reason, I cannot use the quote function on the website.)

I’m not a supporter of Zionism but I think he probably means me because I do not support the destruction of the Israeli state (although I advocate that the US get some daylight between its foreign policy and Israel’s). —

If you are not a supporter of Zionism then you would support a democratic Israel that would let the demographic chips fall where they may. Palestinians would have the same universal right of return as Kosovans or anyone else displaced by war.

— There are about 550 American Indian nations recognized by the US government and over half of them are to some degree theocratic. I support them. —

Should they all have seats in the U.N.? I support the right of the First Baptist Church to run their place by their own rules. Maybe no human sacrifice.

— Separation of church and state is important in the US because there is religious pluralism among all three monotheistic patriarchal desert cults. It is, however, a modern idea. —

Is it a good idea? Antibiotics are modern also. I like ’em. Such odd rhetorical dodges you use.

— If memory serves, nine of the thirteen colonies that ratified the Establishment Clause had established churches. There was no intent to fool with that. The objective was that there be no FEDERAL established religion so people would not be killing each other over which flavor of Christianity should be established. That “wall of separation” quote from Jefferson serves the modern conceit. —

And one we have grown into and like. I hope there is a “we” here.

— What you say about the deadly nature of theocracy is true from the European perspective. However, Native societies did not engage in religious warfare. I know of no Native religion that values converting others except the Ghost Dance, and that is a direct reaction to the colonists. —

They were not nation states. Religious wars are really about property, as all wars.

— But the idea that religion lives in one box and government lives in another and art in another and science in another is also a peculiar European conceit. Those are just labels for different ways of looking at the same thing. —

There has to something there to be seen in order to look at it. Some “ways” are simply nonsense ( not available to the senses, unknowable, baseless conjecture, anthropomorphism, projections of psychological needs into the “sky”).

— I fully support the idea of separation of church and state in the US context, but in the great scheme of things it’s pretty silly that such separation is necessary. —

“The great scheme of things”, the world we live now or in some other place and time? Theistic religions are silly, and dangerous.

Can you come to decision? In what country in this world at this historical moment do you or do you not support theocracy over democracy? Do you support “one person, one vote” as a universal concept or not?

Alan Pogue

— Can you come to decision? In what country in this world at this historical moment do you or do you not support theocracy over democracy? Do you support “one person, one vote” as a universal concept or not? —

Pardon, but I consider Indian nations to be nations.

And, no, I do not support one person, one vote as a universal. I support it in republican situations where elections are held.

If you want what I would prefer in term of government, see John Rawls, A Theory of Justice. Rawls would support one person, one vote in the context of elections, as I generally do.

If I perceive a disadvantage to some group, my attitude toward that disadvantage is formed by the attitude of the persons affected. For example, I personally despise the patrilineal citizenship standards of the Santa Clara Pueblo, but Santa Clara women, as a group, do not want the Indian Civil Rights Act amended to ban sex discrimination. That would not be my choice but it’s not up to me to value their rights over their sovereignty — neither value “belongs” to me.

In many tribes there is a real government that is a theocracy co-existing with an Indian Reorganization Act government populated by the hang-around-the-fort crowd and recognized by the US. In that instance, I support the real government.

Steve Russell

Steve sez:
If you want what I would prefer in term of government, see John Rawls, A Theory of Justice. Rawls would support one person, one vote in the context of elections, as I generally do.

If I perceive a disadvantage to some group, my attitude toward that disadvantage is formed by the attitude of the persons affected.

This is a defensible position, but it’s not compatible with Rawls. Rawls would sanction only those relative disadvantages that do not disadvantage the worst-off members of society in absolute terms. For instance, he would allow income disparities only insofar as they create incentives that enhance the incomes of the poorest members of society.

The attitude of the poor toward their disadvantage wouldn’t matter for Rawls, although he clearly wants to arrange inequalities this way in order to diminish the likelihood that the least fortunate would revolt against the regime. Rawls, in other words, was a liberal theorist and his project was the justification of the liberal state. He was certainly the most prominent 20th century liberal theorist — up there with Mill in the 19th and Locke in the 18th — but a liberal nonetheless.

Also, one-person one-vote is a fine idea in the abstract, but it doesn’t produce democratic outcomes in certain electoral contexts. In particular, the winner-take-all plurality elections in the US systematically disadvantage third parties and interests that diverge from the center. If you want democracy, you need proportional representation. Supreme Court justices can rail all day about one-person one-vote. Until they’re ready to see that the structure of US elections contradicts this conception, however, all their bluster rings rather hollow.

Gavan Duffy

Steve –
You wrote: “And it really chaps my ass that we concede the moral high ground to a pig like Bush because we lack the spine to condemn training young kids to blow themselves up in circumstances intended to cause maximum non-combatant deaths.”

Granted that this post is old-news by now, I would still like to follow the thread for a bit longer. If I may, I’d like to put aside the “moral equivalence” question for a moment and discuss effect. My position is that there is no difference in effect between that of the suicide bomber and the high-altitude bomber. The effect is bits and pieces of morbid human flesh, songs unsung, potential plowshares wasted, labor lost, and hatred reinvested. Frankly, that’s all that I need to know.

My sense of several of your remarks above is that there is “moral equivalence” at the level of the leaderships of the various factions/nations: Bush and his minions = the trainer/handler/manipulators of the suicide bombers. Am I correct? My guess is that almost no former Rag staffer will disagree with that. I think that the sticking point for you is at the grunt level, and you do seem to want to draw a distinction there. I can’t follow you there, unless you want to proclaim both the suicide bomber and the soldier equally innocent. If so, I’ll help you defend them against anyone who wants to blame the victim – and you and Alan both know that the soldier is a victim.

As you implied, there is a threshold for criminal behavior for soldiers. Of course, it’s damn hard to prove intent in an environment of mass murder. As to the suicide bomber, I agree with you and Mike that this is overt criminal behavior; but I think that you have to agree that most pay the ultimate penalty, even if they think that paradise awaits.

Back to effect for a moment – Mike says of the peace activists in Israel, quoted by David, “Unfortunately the arguments from the few remaining Peace Activists are at this point mere wishful thinking.” No doubt he is correct in the short run. The dogs of war are unleashed, and the excitement of the chase – not to mention the kill – is high. The main point of the peace activists, however, is that, on the day after tomorrow, there will be unpleasant repercussions. Let the circle be unbroken, to quote the old Christian song. And sure enough ….

Mike says that the Jews ruled that area of the world for 2,000 years before the Diaspora. I think that it might be better to say that they populated that part of the world for almost that long. At various times they ruled various parts; at other times they were largely removed to Egypt or to Babylon. Mostly, they were trading land and hostages with the other local (often semitic) peoples as a result of frequent hostilities. At one juncture they split into two rival Hebrew states – which one would you have supported, Mike?

Then they were largely gone from the area for 2,000 years. For an historical homeland, that’s an awfully big gap. And, as was sometimes pointed out in the not-too-distant past, on average a European Jew is about as semitic as an African-American is african. In both cases most are as closely related to you and I, as to any modern-day member of their other ancestry.

For us common folks ends don’t justify means, because means are ends in and of themselves. In the unstoppable dialectical movement of history, ends will propagate more ends. All of our anger, frustration, vengefulness – not to mention hope for the future – should be focussed on disinheriting the true enemies of the peoples of the world, largely made up of those persons who would lead us to war.

Paul Spencer