The Arab and anti-Israel press has made a concerted effort to misrepresent the recent landmark Israeli Supreme court ruling barring Palestinians from marrying Israeli Arabs and being allowed to move into Israel. They liberally use such catch phrases as "racist, Nazi, apartheid, anti-democratic and anti-family" to describe the intent and motive of the Israeli Supreme Court. Not withstanding the natural bias of Muslims and Arabs against Israel, and their desperate attempt to score PR points - their argument condemning the quality of Israel's democracy demonstrates an inability to understand the complexity of the different variations of democracy that exist around the world.
The recently passed Israeli Supreme Court Law specifically bars Palestinians residing outside of Israel from living in Israel with Israeli spouses and children, and was based on security concerns, not an undemocratic attempt to disenfranchise resident Israeli Arabs. The landmark Israeli supreme court ruling said that "security concerns for the greater good outweighed harm to those affected by the decision'. More specifically, there have been numerous instances of sham marriages between Israeli Arabs and Palestinian terrorists who have been caught red-handed in numerous plots to commit large scale attacks against Israeli civilian targets. In a few instances, they succeeded in killing dozens - including American citizens.
Democracies have always placed various legal limitations on their citizens, specifically limits on anti-democratic speech, attempts to undermine human rights, and on the promotion or justification of terrorism. During the cold war, the United States had such restrictions on the Communists. Now they are more commonly applied to Islamist organizations perceived as promoting terrorism, as well as some racist groups.
The common justification for these limits is that they are necessary to guarantee the existence of democracy, or the existence of the freedoms themselves. For example, allowing free speech for those advocating mass murder undermines the right to life and security. Opinion is divided on how far democracy can extend, to include the enemies of democracy in the democratic process. If relatively small numbers of people are excluded from such freedoms for these reasons, a country may still be seen as a liberal democracy.
With that said, these very Muslim/Arab critics from outside Israel don't speak for Israeli Arabs, who have the highest standard of living in the Mideast – both economically and socially. Is life in Israel perfect? No. Is life anywhere perfect? No. If there is a shameful crime that exists in the Mideast today, it is in the fact that Palestinian refugees have been denied permanent resettlement in Syria, Jordan, Egypt and the other Arab nations that have perpetuated this conflict by devious design.
At the end of the day, Muslim/Arab attempts to complain about the quality of Israel's democracy is nothing more than an attempt to "change the subject". The Palestinians have democratically elected a terrorist organization to lead them, and in doing so, they have endorsed terrorism. Now they have to live with the consequences of their actions, and "changing the subject" just doesn't work anymore.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Where is the American Indian Liberation Organization?
In the ill-fated Munich Pact signed with Hitler in 1938, Britain's Chamberlain surrendered to Germany's demand to annex the Sudetenland, a part of Czechoslovakia, inhabited by Germans for centuries. The Nazis soon occupied the whole country, and then invaded Poland.
Liberated by the Allies in 1945, the Czechs regained the Sudetenland, expelling 2.5 million of its ethnic Germans to Germany as authorized at the Potsdam Conference.
There is a parallel between the German Sudets and the Palestinian refugees - except that the latter refuse to accept the universal code that aggressors must pay for their acts.
A final agreement between the Germans and the Czechs was signed in December 1946, recognizing that the German Sudets were expelled on the understanding that they were pro-Nazi and, as such, enemies of the Czechs. Both sides agreed that the German Sudets would receive neither compensation nor apology. During the ensuing Cold War, the descendants of these Germans demanded to return to their "ancestral homeland" - but in vain.
Had the Palestinians accepted the 1948 UN partition resolution instead of waging an aggressive war, there would have been no refugees.... The initial refugee problem of 1948 was exacerbated when Egypt and Syria launched their failed Six Day War against Israel in 1967.... Never before in history have those who lost wars of aggression been deemed equal partners in the negotiation, and for good reason - aggressors should not have incentives for perpetrating acts of aggression.
The Palestinian refugees are victims, but not of Israel. Rather, they are the victims of wars launched - ostensibly for them - by the Arab states, but for which they pay the price. They are the victims, effectively, of Arab aggression against Israel.
The Palestinian refugee problem is allowed - even forced - to continue and to grow. Of the approximately 135 million refugees created over the last century, only the Palestinians have retained this dismal, nationless status. Every other major refugee group has been resettled within a generation.
Whether the Palestinian refugees have been denied resettlement by tragic oversight, or devious design, the Arab world should take responsibility by resettling them, and paying substantial restitution for the damages inflicted on them over the past by 54 years.
With the Palestinian conflict out of the way, the world should be able to, presumably, focus on other issues without the Palestinian issue dominating – and providing an excuse for – much of the violence coming from that part of the world.
Liberated by the Allies in 1945, the Czechs regained the Sudetenland, expelling 2.5 million of its ethnic Germans to Germany as authorized at the Potsdam Conference.
There is a parallel between the German Sudets and the Palestinian refugees - except that the latter refuse to accept the universal code that aggressors must pay for their acts.
A final agreement between the Germans and the Czechs was signed in December 1946, recognizing that the German Sudets were expelled on the understanding that they were pro-Nazi and, as such, enemies of the Czechs. Both sides agreed that the German Sudets would receive neither compensation nor apology. During the ensuing Cold War, the descendants of these Germans demanded to return to their "ancestral homeland" - but in vain.
Had the Palestinians accepted the 1948 UN partition resolution instead of waging an aggressive war, there would have been no refugees.... The initial refugee problem of 1948 was exacerbated when Egypt and Syria launched their failed Six Day War against Israel in 1967.... Never before in history have those who lost wars of aggression been deemed equal partners in the negotiation, and for good reason - aggressors should not have incentives for perpetrating acts of aggression.
The Palestinian refugees are victims, but not of Israel. Rather, they are the victims of wars launched - ostensibly for them - by the Arab states, but for which they pay the price. They are the victims, effectively, of Arab aggression against Israel.
The Palestinian refugee problem is allowed - even forced - to continue and to grow. Of the approximately 135 million refugees created over the last century, only the Palestinians have retained this dismal, nationless status. Every other major refugee group has been resettled within a generation.
Whether the Palestinian refugees have been denied resettlement by tragic oversight, or devious design, the Arab world should take responsibility by resettling them, and paying substantial restitution for the damages inflicted on them over the past by 54 years.
With the Palestinian conflict out of the way, the world should be able to, presumably, focus on other issues without the Palestinian issue dominating – and providing an excuse for – much of the violence coming from that part of the world.
Monday, April 17, 2006
American Jews: Loyalty under fire?
According to a recent Anti-Defamation League poll, one out of three Americans thinks that Jews in this country put Israel’s interests ahead of America’s. With the upcoming trial of two ex-staffers of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) accused of leaking classified information to Israeli diplomats, and the anti-Jewish Harvard/University of Chicago report* entitled "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy", the question of dual loyalty is, once again, raising it's ugly head. As crazy as it may sound, the mere act of caring about Israel and exercising our rights as American citizens to petition members of Congress – in order to express our views, could be seriously hampered if we do not publicly defend this inalienable right.
At the core of the “American Jewish loyalty” argument lies the following: 1) The case of Jonathon Pollard 2) The quality of American democracy in America 3) attempts to deligitimize American Jews by questioning their loyalty.
In the case of Jonathon Pollard, which is extremely complex, we have a classic case of bad decisions on the part of both Pollard and the Israeli government. For years, the Pollard incident created a glass ceiling for American Jews seeking to partake in the highest levels of our government – a setback that I think most will agree we have just begun to recover. The March 28th, 2006 death of Casper Weinberger dovetails nicely with the issue of American Jewish loyalty because of his intervention in the Pollard case. Weinberger sent a top-secret memo to the Pollard trial judge - a memo that is suspected to blame Pollard for “outing” eleven US spies who were killed in Russia, and was the reason why the US government reneged on Pollard’s plea bargain agreement. It was later learned that Richard Ames, a CIA agent, was the one responsible for the deaths in Russia. The Pollard case, to this day, remains the central argument to those who wish to question American Jewish loyalty – even though the damages to US security was non-existent when compared to just about anyone charged with a similar violation. At the end of the day, the entire Pollard affair - in hindsight - might have been avoided had the American Jewish lobby been more effective during that period. Ironically, former AIPAC officials have been indicted for openly gathering intelligence offered up by US officials. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
As much as I disagree with just about everything written by Harvard Professor Walt and U. of Chicago Professor Mearsheimer in their paper "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy", I will defend their right to exercise their freedom of speech - but question their willingness to allow other US citizens (and groups of US citizens) the same right. Given their flawed analysis, one gets the impression that the Israeli lobby is illegally/covertly imposing its agenda upon a US population that is unaware and unsupportive of their efforts. To the contrary, over 60% of US citizens approve of US support for Israel, which is a higher percentage than put President Bush into office in 2000. The American Israeli Political Action Committee conducts its mission in full compliance with all US laws and regulations covering such lobbying ventures. Professor's Walt and Mearsheimer's statements that recent news stories surrounding AIPAC make their point regarding "treasonous activity" on the part of AIPAC appears to be premature, wishful thinking and grasping at straws.
US foreign policy has often been influenced by special interest groups, be they nationalistically driven (Greeks, Irish) or economically driven (agricultural, manufacturing, NAFTA). If one was to concede the point that US aid to Israel may be disproportionate to overall US aid, it is undisputable that the US gets more than it's money's worth in a politically reliable ally, and a superbly equipped and manned forward base of operation for both political and military activities. But, it is not a point to be conceded so quickly. The cost of US troops in South Korea, Japan and in Western Europe, while not redlined as foreign aid - far exceeds any amount of aid received by Israel from the USA - and many could debate as to whether those assets are well spent.
Attempts to "deligitimize" American Jewish supporters of Israel often reach for hypothetical scenarios to prove their point; what would American Jews do if the USA were to abandon Israel? Where would their loyalty lie? The best answer is to say that because of Israel's existence, American Jews are here by choice. We aren't fleeing political or religious persecution (except in the Muslim world) anymore. We also aren't known to blowup subways, blowup buildings, or stab people when our religious or political sensitivities are offended. We work "within the legal system" to make our voice heard, we write "letters to the editor" to influence public opinion, and we exercise our "inalienable rights" as citizens of the United States of America. Do we have a bigger influence on US foreign policy than our numbers would indicate? Maybe, but there is no reason to apologize or be ashamed for being effective at lobbying.
*The fact that Harvard and the University of Chicago have officially distanced themselves from this report after it was already published is too little, too late.
At the core of the “American Jewish loyalty” argument lies the following: 1) The case of Jonathon Pollard 2) The quality of American democracy in America 3) attempts to deligitimize American Jews by questioning their loyalty.
In the case of Jonathon Pollard, which is extremely complex, we have a classic case of bad decisions on the part of both Pollard and the Israeli government. For years, the Pollard incident created a glass ceiling for American Jews seeking to partake in the highest levels of our government – a setback that I think most will agree we have just begun to recover. The March 28th, 2006 death of Casper Weinberger dovetails nicely with the issue of American Jewish loyalty because of his intervention in the Pollard case. Weinberger sent a top-secret memo to the Pollard trial judge - a memo that is suspected to blame Pollard for “outing” eleven US spies who were killed in Russia, and was the reason why the US government reneged on Pollard’s plea bargain agreement. It was later learned that Richard Ames, a CIA agent, was the one responsible for the deaths in Russia. The Pollard case, to this day, remains the central argument to those who wish to question American Jewish loyalty – even though the damages to US security was non-existent when compared to just about anyone charged with a similar violation. At the end of the day, the entire Pollard affair - in hindsight - might have been avoided had the American Jewish lobby been more effective during that period. Ironically, former AIPAC officials have been indicted for openly gathering intelligence offered up by US officials. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
As much as I disagree with just about everything written by Harvard Professor Walt and U. of Chicago Professor Mearsheimer in their paper "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy", I will defend their right to exercise their freedom of speech - but question their willingness to allow other US citizens (and groups of US citizens) the same right. Given their flawed analysis, one gets the impression that the Israeli lobby is illegally/covertly imposing its agenda upon a US population that is unaware and unsupportive of their efforts. To the contrary, over 60% of US citizens approve of US support for Israel, which is a higher percentage than put President Bush into office in 2000. The American Israeli Political Action Committee conducts its mission in full compliance with all US laws and regulations covering such lobbying ventures. Professor's Walt and Mearsheimer's statements that recent news stories surrounding AIPAC make their point regarding "treasonous activity" on the part of AIPAC appears to be premature, wishful thinking and grasping at straws.
US foreign policy has often been influenced by special interest groups, be they nationalistically driven (Greeks, Irish) or economically driven (agricultural, manufacturing, NAFTA). If one was to concede the point that US aid to Israel may be disproportionate to overall US aid, it is undisputable that the US gets more than it's money's worth in a politically reliable ally, and a superbly equipped and manned forward base of operation for both political and military activities. But, it is not a point to be conceded so quickly. The cost of US troops in South Korea, Japan and in Western Europe, while not redlined as foreign aid - far exceeds any amount of aid received by Israel from the USA - and many could debate as to whether those assets are well spent.
Attempts to "deligitimize" American Jewish supporters of Israel often reach for hypothetical scenarios to prove their point; what would American Jews do if the USA were to abandon Israel? Where would their loyalty lie? The best answer is to say that because of Israel's existence, American Jews are here by choice. We aren't fleeing political or religious persecution (except in the Muslim world) anymore. We also aren't known to blowup subways, blowup buildings, or stab people when our religious or political sensitivities are offended. We work "within the legal system" to make our voice heard, we write "letters to the editor" to influence public opinion, and we exercise our "inalienable rights" as citizens of the United States of America. Do we have a bigger influence on US foreign policy than our numbers would indicate? Maybe, but there is no reason to apologize or be ashamed for being effective at lobbying.
*The fact that Harvard and the University of Chicago have officially distanced themselves from this report after it was already published is too little, too late.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Fixing American Foreign Policy in the Middle East
The bombing today (04/11/06) that killed 40 and injured dozens in Karachi, Pakistan – and the daily sectarian Muslim on Muslim bombings against fellow Iraqi civilians illustrates a number of points that seem to be beyond the grasp of both the Muslim world, and many in the West:
While the chanting mobs on the Arab street protest the existence of Israel for just protecting itself, they seem to be in total denial regarding the barbarity that the Muslim world has inflicted on itself in the name of Islam. The level of violence that the world is witnessing in Dafur, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan – not to mention the USA, Russia, Bali, Spain, England, France, etc. - is just beyond comprehension. The current state of affairs brings into question whether the Muslim world wouldn't be better off being ruled by strong, brutal dictators who know how to keep the peace. In other words, maybe it's time to punt the democracy theme. Good idea, didn't work.
Secondly, the West's inability to comprehend the mindset of the "angry young Muslim" is only exceeded by the limitless nature of Muslim violence. It is not a stretch of the imagination to envision a nuclear Shiite Iran blowing up Mecca, Tel Aviv, London – or a number of other countries that they perceive as having "offended" their sensibilities. We are at the proverbial 11th hour when it comes to doing "something" about Iran's potential to become a nuclear power.
The Arab world has already plainly demonstrated that the only self-imposed limits of their violence are the limits of the weapons they have on hand. Letting them have nuclear capability is beyond my comprehension.
While the chanting mobs on the Arab street protest the existence of Israel for just protecting itself, they seem to be in total denial regarding the barbarity that the Muslim world has inflicted on itself in the name of Islam. The level of violence that the world is witnessing in Dafur, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan – not to mention the USA, Russia, Bali, Spain, England, France, etc. - is just beyond comprehension. The current state of affairs brings into question whether the Muslim world wouldn't be better off being ruled by strong, brutal dictators who know how to keep the peace. In other words, maybe it's time to punt the democracy theme. Good idea, didn't work.
Secondly, the West's inability to comprehend the mindset of the "angry young Muslim" is only exceeded by the limitless nature of Muslim violence. It is not a stretch of the imagination to envision a nuclear Shiite Iran blowing up Mecca, Tel Aviv, London – or a number of other countries that they perceive as having "offended" their sensibilities. We are at the proverbial 11th hour when it comes to doing "something" about Iran's potential to become a nuclear power.
The Arab world has already plainly demonstrated that the only self-imposed limits of their violence are the limits of the weapons they have on hand. Letting them have nuclear capability is beyond my comprehension.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Violence and humanitarian appeals don’t mix
Too often, the violence that has defined the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is defined as a “cycle of violence” – the insinuation being that both sides are equally guilty in this never-ending conflict. The latest incident at the Gaza Erez checkpoint illustrates my point. The Erez checkpoint is the main crossing for thousands of Palestinian workers with jobs in Israel. Israel routinely closes the crossing after violent incidents, leaving the workers idle. Today, 3 Palestinians threw grenades at the Israeli soldiers and opened fire with machine guns. All three were shot dead by Israeli return fire.
The press will simply report that Israel killed 3 Palestinians. The context, of course, is missing. The Israelis don’t “need” inexpensive Palestinian laborers - they allow them to work in Israel for humanitarian reasons. Unfortunately, the Palestinians have used these border crossings – time, after time, after time – to attack Israelis guards.
As a result, the Israelis are “disengaging” from the Palestinians by shutting off the crossings and building border barriers to deter illegal workers - and terrorists - from entry into Israel. Will this pose a humanitarian crisis among the Palestinians? Without a doubt. Is it Israel’s responsibility to ease their suffering? No. Now that Israel no longer “occupies” the Gaza strip, the welfare of the Palestinians is no longer an Israeli concern under international law. Now that the Palestinians people have done away with their attempt to portray themselves as political “moderates” by electing the Hamas terrorist organization, the Israelis no longer have to be concerned with the humanitarian issues either.
The Palestinian people have spoken – now they have to accept responsibility for their decision. With oil at $65 a barrel, the Arab nations that have been provoking this conflict for half a century should pick up the tab – that is if they care about the Palestinians as much as they claim.
The press will simply report that Israel killed 3 Palestinians. The context, of course, is missing. The Israelis don’t “need” inexpensive Palestinian laborers - they allow them to work in Israel for humanitarian reasons. Unfortunately, the Palestinians have used these border crossings – time, after time, after time – to attack Israelis guards.
As a result, the Israelis are “disengaging” from the Palestinians by shutting off the crossings and building border barriers to deter illegal workers - and terrorists - from entry into Israel. Will this pose a humanitarian crisis among the Palestinians? Without a doubt. Is it Israel’s responsibility to ease their suffering? No. Now that Israel no longer “occupies” the Gaza strip, the welfare of the Palestinians is no longer an Israeli concern under international law. Now that the Palestinians people have done away with their attempt to portray themselves as political “moderates” by electing the Hamas terrorist organization, the Israelis no longer have to be concerned with the humanitarian issues either.
The Palestinian people have spoken – now they have to accept responsibility for their decision. With oil at $65 a barrel, the Arab nations that have been provoking this conflict for half a century should pick up the tab – that is if they care about the Palestinians as much as they claim.
Monday, February 06, 2006
Re: Angry Muslims and Danish Cartoons
The 02/06/06 AP article published on the front page of the CA entitled “Was rage over cartoons stoked by leaders to get back at the West”, by Bassem Mroue, is a prime example of the liberal press grasping at straws in order to put a “spin” on the news that excuses the Muslims violent behavior surrounding the Danish cartoon incident. Mr. Mroue, citing “pent-up anger” over the war in Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the European publication of the cartoons , wants to lay blame at the foot of “Arab leaders”, rather than acknowledge that a different set of values and sensibilities exists in the Muslim world. These “differences” are the essence of why we are experiencing a “clash of civilizations” between the Western world and the Muslim world.
Being an advocate for Israel, it is imporant to mention that the Israelis completely withdrew from Gaza, and are preparing to withdraw from parts of the West bank, so I don’t buy the “Arab anger over Israel” argument, unless they are angry that Israel even exists - of which I have no doubt.
I also don’t buy the Iraq war as a reason for Arab anger, because Saddam was a butcher who not only slaughtered his own people, but invaded his neighbors and generally caused havoc in the region during his reign.
Lastly, Mr. Mroue’s explanation that a Danish newspaper publishing some unsavory cartoons was the “spark that lit the fuse” is a window into the mind of Muslim “sensibilities”. Forget for a moment that the Arab press constantly publishes the most horrid cartoons and other forms of incitement against Jews, Christians, Buddhists and any other non-Muslim. In Saudi Arabia (as well as other Muslim countries) they burn bibles at their borders, and generally make life difficult for "non-believers". In the past 600 years, the Western world have developed a set of rules and supporting institutions to allow grievances to be addressed, in order to avoid violence. This is called civilization. I will be the first to admit that our “civilization” has it’s faults, but it is better than the alternative - rioting in the streets.
The Muslim world has either supported Islamic terrorism against the West, turned a blind eye, or acted as an apologist for too long. The absurdity of it all is the fact that it seems every Muslim grievance has to be dealt with by using indiscriminate violence against innocent victims - which is my definition of terrorism.
If anything, the Muslim world is being divided into the fascist Islamists, and the god fearing, peace loving Muslims - and it appears that the Islamists are winning and backing the entire Muslim world into a corner. The good Muslims has better stand up and get control of their loose cannons, because if the Islamists continue along the Iranian/Syrian/Palestinian path, this conflict could send them from the 10th century into the 5th.
Being an advocate for Israel, it is imporant to mention that the Israelis completely withdrew from Gaza, and are preparing to withdraw from parts of the West bank, so I don’t buy the “Arab anger over Israel” argument, unless they are angry that Israel even exists - of which I have no doubt.
I also don’t buy the Iraq war as a reason for Arab anger, because Saddam was a butcher who not only slaughtered his own people, but invaded his neighbors and generally caused havoc in the region during his reign.
Lastly, Mr. Mroue’s explanation that a Danish newspaper publishing some unsavory cartoons was the “spark that lit the fuse” is a window into the mind of Muslim “sensibilities”. Forget for a moment that the Arab press constantly publishes the most horrid cartoons and other forms of incitement against Jews, Christians, Buddhists and any other non-Muslim. In Saudi Arabia (as well as other Muslim countries) they burn bibles at their borders, and generally make life difficult for "non-believers". In the past 600 years, the Western world have developed a set of rules and supporting institutions to allow grievances to be addressed, in order to avoid violence. This is called civilization. I will be the first to admit that our “civilization” has it’s faults, but it is better than the alternative - rioting in the streets.
The Muslim world has either supported Islamic terrorism against the West, turned a blind eye, or acted as an apologist for too long. The absurdity of it all is the fact that it seems every Muslim grievance has to be dealt with by using indiscriminate violence against innocent victims - which is my definition of terrorism.
If anything, the Muslim world is being divided into the fascist Islamists, and the god fearing, peace loving Muslims - and it appears that the Islamists are winning and backing the entire Muslim world into a corner. The good Muslims has better stand up and get control of their loose cannons, because if the Islamists continue along the Iranian/Syrian/Palestinian path, this conflict could send them from the 10th century into the 5th.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Are we on the verge of losing the war against Islamic terrorism?
The moment of truth has come, and it looks like we blinked. If the war on terror was a poker hand, our actions gave away our hand. Unless there is a miracle, the Islamic Jihad that we have been fighting on and off since 1991 is close to the tipping point – and we could end up on the losing side. There are those who are for the war, and those against, but now is the time for us to focus on what the world – and our own lives – could look like if we don’t reformulate a response to Islamic extremism.
If you are wondering why I am suggesting such a pessimistic proclamation, I have a one-word answer – Hamas (and the limp wrested global response). The world seems to be in denial that the election of Hamas is something other than what it is…the choice of the Palestinian people to openly display their desire to destroy Israel AND elect an Islamist group to govern them. Our response? To debate the REAL MEANING of the election; they had no other choices, the Abbas regime didn’t improve their lives, they are the only responsible party that looks after the welfare of the Palestinians, etc. If anything, this is grasping at straws. They voted in a terrorist organization. Period. Hitler came into power democratically, and Hitler’s apologists at the time used the same lame excuses to not confront a man who was obviously hell bent on causing a world of trouble. Now, the world is debating whether to continue funding the Palestinian authority with Hamas as the helm! The reasoning behind those who want to continue funding:
1) They don’t want to punish the Palestinian people for the sins of Hamas.
A: Why not cut off funding? After all, they DID elect Hamas
B: We don’t fund North Korea and the North Koreans didn’t even elect their leader Kim Jong Il.
C: Obviously, the billions that the world has given the Palestinians ever since 1948 has only served to enable them to continue along their self-destructive path – and now we are going to fund them while they admit they want to destroy Israel?
2) They don’t want to “drive” Hamas into the hands of Iran.
A: Hamas (and Hezbollah) are ALREADY in bed with Hamas
How about looking for reasons NOT to fund Hamas?
1) They are terrorists. If we are fighting a war on terror, funding Hamas doesn’t make sense.
2) They have openly (and honestly) admitted that they want to destroy a United Nations member state. Theoretically, that should get any country kicked out of the UN.
3) Even though they were elected democratically, we need to motivate the average Palestinian to moderate their political views. Funding them sends the wrong message.
4) Just as the Palestinians made their choice, the rest of the world has a choice too. There is no moral or legal obligation for the Western world to fund the Palestinians.
5) There is no guarantee that the funds will be any better managed than before. To the contrary, there is likelihood that Western aid will be used against Israel.
6) There are no assurances that aid will help anyone BUT Hamas.
Democracy is not a destination - it’s a journey, and the Palestinians have a long way to go before their version of democracy has the characteristics that will allow them to join the rest of the civilized world. If we allow the legitimization of the Hamas government, then we deserve whatever comes our way.
If you are wondering why I am suggesting such a pessimistic proclamation, I have a one-word answer – Hamas (and the limp wrested global response). The world seems to be in denial that the election of Hamas is something other than what it is…the choice of the Palestinian people to openly display their desire to destroy Israel AND elect an Islamist group to govern them. Our response? To debate the REAL MEANING of the election; they had no other choices, the Abbas regime didn’t improve their lives, they are the only responsible party that looks after the welfare of the Palestinians, etc. If anything, this is grasping at straws. They voted in a terrorist organization. Period. Hitler came into power democratically, and Hitler’s apologists at the time used the same lame excuses to not confront a man who was obviously hell bent on causing a world of trouble. Now, the world is debating whether to continue funding the Palestinian authority with Hamas as the helm! The reasoning behind those who want to continue funding:
1) They don’t want to punish the Palestinian people for the sins of Hamas.
A: Why not cut off funding? After all, they DID elect Hamas
B: We don’t fund North Korea and the North Koreans didn’t even elect their leader Kim Jong Il.
C: Obviously, the billions that the world has given the Palestinians ever since 1948 has only served to enable them to continue along their self-destructive path – and now we are going to fund them while they admit they want to destroy Israel?
2) They don’t want to “drive” Hamas into the hands of Iran.
A: Hamas (and Hezbollah) are ALREADY in bed with Hamas
How about looking for reasons NOT to fund Hamas?
1) They are terrorists. If we are fighting a war on terror, funding Hamas doesn’t make sense.
2) They have openly (and honestly) admitted that they want to destroy a United Nations member state. Theoretically, that should get any country kicked out of the UN.
3) Even though they were elected democratically, we need to motivate the average Palestinian to moderate their political views. Funding them sends the wrong message.
4) Just as the Palestinians made their choice, the rest of the world has a choice too. There is no moral or legal obligation for the Western world to fund the Palestinians.
5) There is no guarantee that the funds will be any better managed than before. To the contrary, there is likelihood that Western aid will be used against Israel.
6) There are no assurances that aid will help anyone BUT Hamas.
Democracy is not a destination - it’s a journey, and the Palestinians have a long way to go before their version of democracy has the characteristics that will allow them to join the rest of the civilized world. If we allow the legitimization of the Hamas government, then we deserve whatever comes our way.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
The Hamas Victory Has A Silver Lining
The knee jerk reaction in the Western press to the Hamas victory in the January 2006 Palestinian elections was one of shock, disappointment, and fear for the future in that region. On first blush, one could easily say that President Bush’s strategy of depending on Democratic elections to pacify the Middle East has backfired and allowed Islamists a way to “take control”. Suddenly, the discussion has turned to whether the USA and Israel should “recognize” a Palestinian government that is controlled by a terrorist organization whose first official statement was that “negotiating with Israel and recognition are not on our agenda. The armed struggle will continue”. Hamas’s political platform was based on their manifesto, which calls for armed struggle and the eventual destruction of Israel, so their first statement came as no surprise.
What was a surprise is that now with Hamas in charge, they have to improve the lot of the Palestinians while trying to maintain the appearance of an armed struggle against Israel. That is going to be a difficult task, given the fact that the Israelis virtually control the electricity, gas and water in the Gaza and West Bank AND have a demonstrated military superiority that they will use if needed.
Another surprise delivered to the desk of the new Hamas Palestinian President is the fact that the “pretense” that a roadmap peace process was still alive is DOHA – dead on Hamas’s arrival. The diplomatic duplicity that was the hallmark of the old guard Palestinian regime of both Arafat and Abbas has, thankfully, come to an end. The days of the Palestinian politicians saying that they want peace, while allowing supposedly “renegade freedom fighters” to terrorize Israelis - is over. The world was well aware that this “good cop/bad cop” ploy existed, but as long as there was a feeble attempt to portray it otherwise, they were willing to play along. With Hamas at the helm, that game is over.
The EU and US have indicated that they will not financially support a Hamas led Palestinian government. That will have no affect with oil at $67 a barrel, and Iranian and Saudi financial support - and so be it. This is a period on consolidation within the Palestinian sphere, and Hamas’s success or failure will depend on their ability to create order out of the chaos and inaction that has existed for too long.
From an Israeli perspective, they are now “enabled” to act against any act of violence originating from the Palestinian sphere without the burden of playing the game of diplomatic duplicity. If a missile is fired at Israel, they now have a convienent address to deliver a pinpoint response. If Hamas stops the violence against Israelis - while still beating their chest and spewing inciteful rhetoric, then I am sure that Israel can live with a bad neighbor - after all that is why they built the security fence.
Democracy is a work in progress, not a single act. If Hamas doesn’t deliver the goods - whatever that is in the minds of the Palestinians people, then they will end up on the losing side of a future election and maybe then a peaceful Palestinian government will emerge, if not – then so be it.
What was a surprise is that now with Hamas in charge, they have to improve the lot of the Palestinians while trying to maintain the appearance of an armed struggle against Israel. That is going to be a difficult task, given the fact that the Israelis virtually control the electricity, gas and water in the Gaza and West Bank AND have a demonstrated military superiority that they will use if needed.
Another surprise delivered to the desk of the new Hamas Palestinian President is the fact that the “pretense” that a roadmap peace process was still alive is DOHA – dead on Hamas’s arrival. The diplomatic duplicity that was the hallmark of the old guard Palestinian regime of both Arafat and Abbas has, thankfully, come to an end. The days of the Palestinian politicians saying that they want peace, while allowing supposedly “renegade freedom fighters” to terrorize Israelis - is over. The world was well aware that this “good cop/bad cop” ploy existed, but as long as there was a feeble attempt to portray it otherwise, they were willing to play along. With Hamas at the helm, that game is over.
The EU and US have indicated that they will not financially support a Hamas led Palestinian government. That will have no affect with oil at $67 a barrel, and Iranian and Saudi financial support - and so be it. This is a period on consolidation within the Palestinian sphere, and Hamas’s success or failure will depend on their ability to create order out of the chaos and inaction that has existed for too long.
From an Israeli perspective, they are now “enabled” to act against any act of violence originating from the Palestinian sphere without the burden of playing the game of diplomatic duplicity. If a missile is fired at Israel, they now have a convienent address to deliver a pinpoint response. If Hamas stops the violence against Israelis - while still beating their chest and spewing inciteful rhetoric, then I am sure that Israel can live with a bad neighbor - after all that is why they built the security fence.
Democracy is a work in progress, not a single act. If Hamas doesn’t deliver the goods - whatever that is in the minds of the Palestinians people, then they will end up on the losing side of a future election and maybe then a peaceful Palestinian government will emerge, if not – then so be it.
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
If Democracy and Islam are incompatible – what’s plan B?
It has been said that President Bush’s push for democracy in Iraq and elsewhere in the Muslim world is a result of Natan Sharansky's book “The Case for Democracy”. For those not familiar with Mr. Sharansky, he is a highly respected soviet dissident who spent years in captivity because of his activities promoting democracy in the old Soviet Union. His book argues that true security in the Middle East and the world can come only with ballot boxes. President Bush has pressed the book on his top advisers and has been known to reccomend it outside of his inner circle. Of course, Mr. Sharansky’s argument in favor of democracy is not original. Former Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu wrote a book 10 years earlier entitled “A Durable Peace” that articulated a similar message, but with a twist – democracy might not be compatible with a truly Islamic state. In other words, in an Islamic state, Islamic law will always trump the ballot box. Islam and government are not separatable – they are inseparatable - one and the same.
Even if Islam and Democracy were somehow compatible, how can democracy bridge the gap between Muslim Sects? Sunni and Shi’a are both Muslims, but they are distinctly different and their followers fall in line behind their religious sects as single-mindedly as the rest of the world identifies itself by national geographical boundaries. Even within the Sunnis or Shi’a, there and literally hundreds of tribes whose power rests on controlling small geographical areas throughout the Mideast.
If anything, the case for spreading democracy across the Mideast will not take 5 years or 10 years…it will require that at least 4 generations to come and go (the living grandfather, father, son and the yet unborn) before tribalism and sectarianism can be eliminated from the collective memory of the Muslim world. How is the world going to judge the success of this push for democracy in the Mideast – in the short term, in which the outcome is predetermined to not be fast enough, or in the long-term, in which small incremental advances are made at tremendous cost in both lives in dollars?
There are those in the US who want to bring the troops home ASAP. To them I ask, what is your plan after the troops come home? There will be a sectarian civil war in Iraq where millions will surely die. Iran can be expected to encroach, if not take over much of Iraq – and the Kurds and Sunnis will surely be slaughtered. The entire region will become de-stabilized and chaos will ensue. Add to that scenario the fact that the removal of American forces will not stop Al-Quada from pursuing their agenda against America (the world trade center was first attacked on February 26, 1993). Even if Israel packed up and moved to Europe as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suggested, it would not put an end to Islamic terrorism – after all, the Islamic terrorist acts in Bali, Moscow and Spain had nothing to do with Israel.
Plan B can only be a continuation of a US foreign polciy that supports brutal dictatorships that know how to handle these types of populations. This policy served US interest well until the fall of the Shah of Iran, when we took note of Islamic extremism and moderated US foreign policy away from supporting military governments. The Jordanian monarchy under King Hussien, Egypt’s Mubarak, Pakistan’s Musharraf, and Afghanistan’s Karzai are examples of how US interests can be served at the cost of our own self-image. As pathetic as this type of foreign policy strategy may be, it is the only viable option left to critics of President Bush’s attempt to protect American interests in the region by bringing democratic change to the Mideast. I am not judging plan B as an unreasonable foreign policy alternative - I am just articulating what others refuse to say because of it’s unseemly nature. Americans tend to think of themselves as occupying the moral high ground on the world stage, and while advancing democracy in the Mideast is an act that supports that self-image, I have doubts about our ability to give this matter the long-term resources and political support that it will need to succeed.
Even if Islam and Democracy were somehow compatible, how can democracy bridge the gap between Muslim Sects? Sunni and Shi’a are both Muslims, but they are distinctly different and their followers fall in line behind their religious sects as single-mindedly as the rest of the world identifies itself by national geographical boundaries. Even within the Sunnis or Shi’a, there and literally hundreds of tribes whose power rests on controlling small geographical areas throughout the Mideast.
If anything, the case for spreading democracy across the Mideast will not take 5 years or 10 years…it will require that at least 4 generations to come and go (the living grandfather, father, son and the yet unborn) before tribalism and sectarianism can be eliminated from the collective memory of the Muslim world. How is the world going to judge the success of this push for democracy in the Mideast – in the short term, in which the outcome is predetermined to not be fast enough, or in the long-term, in which small incremental advances are made at tremendous cost in both lives in dollars?
There are those in the US who want to bring the troops home ASAP. To them I ask, what is your plan after the troops come home? There will be a sectarian civil war in Iraq where millions will surely die. Iran can be expected to encroach, if not take over much of Iraq – and the Kurds and Sunnis will surely be slaughtered. The entire region will become de-stabilized and chaos will ensue. Add to that scenario the fact that the removal of American forces will not stop Al-Quada from pursuing their agenda against America (the world trade center was first attacked on February 26, 1993). Even if Israel packed up and moved to Europe as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suggested, it would not put an end to Islamic terrorism – after all, the Islamic terrorist acts in Bali, Moscow and Spain had nothing to do with Israel.
Plan B can only be a continuation of a US foreign polciy that supports brutal dictatorships that know how to handle these types of populations. This policy served US interest well until the fall of the Shah of Iran, when we took note of Islamic extremism and moderated US foreign policy away from supporting military governments. The Jordanian monarchy under King Hussien, Egypt’s Mubarak, Pakistan’s Musharraf, and Afghanistan’s Karzai are examples of how US interests can be served at the cost of our own self-image. As pathetic as this type of foreign policy strategy may be, it is the only viable option left to critics of President Bush’s attempt to protect American interests in the region by bringing democratic change to the Mideast. I am not judging plan B as an unreasonable foreign policy alternative - I am just articulating what others refuse to say because of it’s unseemly nature. Americans tend to think of themselves as occupying the moral high ground on the world stage, and while advancing democracy in the Mideast is an act that supports that self-image, I have doubts about our ability to give this matter the long-term resources and political support that it will need to succeed.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Palestinian Moderation - The Myth Buster
Israeli PM Ariel Sharon’s decision to totally withdraw Israeli settlers and soldiers from the Gaza Strip (to the 1967 border) was seen by many as a tangible act meant to jumpstart a stagnant peace process. To others it was capitulation to 38 years of terrorism, and a surrender of Israeli real estate for absolutely nothing in return. In reality, it was a test of Palestinian intentions…to back up their talk of peaceful co-existence and moderation with tangible acts of nation building.
Fast-forward 100 days after the pullout: Instead of building hundreds of badly needed houses for a suffering Palestinian population, they have fired hundreds of rockets into Israel proper (this rarely happened before the pullout). The only tangible result of the Israeli withdrawal is that the Palestinian people no longer feel the need to pretend to want peace. The people have spoken in their latest election, and Hamas is the winner in almost every major enclave - with a 90%+ majority. The Hamas manifesto specifically calls for the destruction of Israel, and their election should not leave any doubt that Palestinian aspirations are anything but moderate.
When the twin towers came down on 9-11, the Palestinians danced in the streets. When Iraqi scuds hit Israel in the first Iraq war, they danced in the streets. Since Palestinians fighters are having a hard time getting into Israel, so they have swarmed to Iraq to fight against the USA and Iraqi interests. That should confirm to all that Palestinian aspirations are anything but moderate.
A phycological awakening is often called a “moment of clarity”, where an issue that was confusing and disturbing - all of a sudden is seen from a clear perspective. The silver lining of the Israeli withdrawal is that the world is coming to the realization that any Palestinians state in Gaza or the West bank will end up like Somalia or Afghanistan – a terrorist state.
Hopefully, the New Year will bring a “moment of clarity” where the world realizes that to create a Palestinian state from Gaza and the West Bank will only destabilize the region further. Even better, maybe the world – including Presidendt George Bush - should forget about creating a Palestinian state out of the West Bank and Gaza, and consider acknowledging that Jordan is aready a a functioning Palestinian country. Better yet, instead of Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s reccomendation that Israelis move to Europe, maybe the Palestinians should move to Jordan.
Fast-forward 100 days after the pullout: Instead of building hundreds of badly needed houses for a suffering Palestinian population, they have fired hundreds of rockets into Israel proper (this rarely happened before the pullout). The only tangible result of the Israeli withdrawal is that the Palestinian people no longer feel the need to pretend to want peace. The people have spoken in their latest election, and Hamas is the winner in almost every major enclave - with a 90%+ majority. The Hamas manifesto specifically calls for the destruction of Israel, and their election should not leave any doubt that Palestinian aspirations are anything but moderate.
When the twin towers came down on 9-11, the Palestinians danced in the streets. When Iraqi scuds hit Israel in the first Iraq war, they danced in the streets. Since Palestinians fighters are having a hard time getting into Israel, so they have swarmed to Iraq to fight against the USA and Iraqi interests. That should confirm to all that Palestinian aspirations are anything but moderate.
A phycological awakening is often called a “moment of clarity”, where an issue that was confusing and disturbing - all of a sudden is seen from a clear perspective. The silver lining of the Israeli withdrawal is that the world is coming to the realization that any Palestinians state in Gaza or the West bank will end up like Somalia or Afghanistan – a terrorist state.
Hopefully, the New Year will bring a “moment of clarity” where the world realizes that to create a Palestinian state from Gaza and the West Bank will only destabilize the region further. Even better, maybe the world – including Presidendt George Bush - should forget about creating a Palestinian state out of the West Bank and Gaza, and consider acknowledging that Jordan is aready a a functioning Palestinian country. Better yet, instead of Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s reccomendation that Israelis move to Europe, maybe the Palestinians should move to Jordan.
Friday, November 11, 2005
The difference between physical pressure and torture
On more than one occasion, I’ve read that one of the bedrock beliefs in the United States is our assumption that we treat captured enemies humanely, and any deviations represent a lack of fidelity to American ideals. In other words, there is a faulted assumption a policy of “zero tolerance” exists when it comes to physical pressure. The concept that the USA has to fight the war against Islamic extremists without the ability to use pysical pressure under the most pressing circumstances is the same as tying our hands behind our backs. This moral arrogance is totally absurd.
The gratuitous use of physical pressure of the Abu Garib prison variety should (and is) be against regulations and punishable to the full extent of the law. Obviously, this was a perverted abuse of Iraqi detainees by US soldiers who were not formally trained to work in this type of environment. If one were to contrast the video tapes of Saddam’s henchmen throwing people off of 10 story buildings (just for laughs), agaisnt the Abu Garib scanadal, it’s like comparing apples and oranges. Saddam committed political torture as part of a long term strategy. That is torture with a capital “T”.
They say that more atheists are converted in foxholes than in Churches, and that saying probably would be true if critics of physical pressure were responsible for handling a “ticking bomb” scenario. What would critics of physical torture suggest if their son/daughter was kidnapped by the likes of Al Quida’s Al-Zarqawi, who has a messy habit of decapitating his prisoners on video? What would critics of physical torture suggest the police do if they knew that a live dirty nuclear bomb was in Manhattan, and had captured someone that was in a position to help - but they refused? Would they put them in time out?
The Geneva Conventions are still relevant, in so far as they outline our virtues - how we wish we could act under a perfect situation, but coventional explosive devices, as well as weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Islamic extremists are an insane combination. The enemy we face today may be crude in his methods, but his faith makes him extremely lethal, hard to contain, and he has no “rules of war” to constrain him. This enemy perceives us as weak minded and without resolve, and part of their strategy is to exploit our democracy to promote their cause. Those who propose a “zero tolerence” to physical pressure are projecting their virtues and morals in a hyothetical world, leaving those who deal in reality to pick up the body parts. Our enemies speak our language and they understand us too well. They know our Achilles heel – it’s our innocence.
No one in their right mind would support “torture”, but under a “ticking bomb” scenario, I would expect our governemt to use whatever physical pressure needed to produce results. We just have to make sure that when we ski down this slippery slope, we are very, very carefull.
The gratuitous use of physical pressure of the Abu Garib prison variety should (and is) be against regulations and punishable to the full extent of the law. Obviously, this was a perverted abuse of Iraqi detainees by US soldiers who were not formally trained to work in this type of environment. If one were to contrast the video tapes of Saddam’s henchmen throwing people off of 10 story buildings (just for laughs), agaisnt the Abu Garib scanadal, it’s like comparing apples and oranges. Saddam committed political torture as part of a long term strategy. That is torture with a capital “T”.
They say that more atheists are converted in foxholes than in Churches, and that saying probably would be true if critics of physical pressure were responsible for handling a “ticking bomb” scenario. What would critics of physical torture suggest if their son/daughter was kidnapped by the likes of Al Quida’s Al-Zarqawi, who has a messy habit of decapitating his prisoners on video? What would critics of physical torture suggest the police do if they knew that a live dirty nuclear bomb was in Manhattan, and had captured someone that was in a position to help - but they refused? Would they put them in time out?
The Geneva Conventions are still relevant, in so far as they outline our virtues - how we wish we could act under a perfect situation, but coventional explosive devices, as well as weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Islamic extremists are an insane combination. The enemy we face today may be crude in his methods, but his faith makes him extremely lethal, hard to contain, and he has no “rules of war” to constrain him. This enemy perceives us as weak minded and without resolve, and part of their strategy is to exploit our democracy to promote their cause. Those who propose a “zero tolerence” to physical pressure are projecting their virtues and morals in a hyothetical world, leaving those who deal in reality to pick up the body parts. Our enemies speak our language and they understand us too well. They know our Achilles heel – it’s our innocence.
No one in their right mind would support “torture”, but under a “ticking bomb” scenario, I would expect our governemt to use whatever physical pressure needed to produce results. We just have to make sure that when we ski down this slippery slope, we are very, very carefull.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Muslim Terrorism: Those who live by the bomb, die by the bomb
For longer than I wish to remember, Israel has repeatedly been the victim of Palestinian suicide bombers, while the world reacted with condescending condolence calls. The bombers knew that their final act wasn’t going to “defeat” Israel. The goal was to undermine the Israeli public’s sense of security, with the hope that over time, the Israeli people would just give up and move to other places where they felt safe. True to the Israeli national motto – Never Again - the Israelis weren’t gong to stand idly by and play the victim to Arab aggression. They built security walls, resumed targeted killings of known terrorists, perfected unmanned defensive technologies and developed surveillance technologies – while at the same time the whole world condemned them for basically defending themselves. Never, at any time, did ANY Arab governments condemn Palestinian suicide bombers. To the contrary, the Arab press consistently explained away these bombings as justified expressions of an oppressed Palestinian people.
Fast forward to today: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaeda linked leader of the Iraqi insurgents, has killed thousands of innocent civilian Arabs through suicide bombings and gruesome beheadings, as well as having claimed responsibility for the November 9th, 2005 bombings of 3 hotels in Amman Jordan that killed 56 Arabs (many of them Palestinian).
The Arab world always said that at the center of their anger is the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. If only Israel would pull back to the indefensible 1967 borders, or better yet just disappear, then peace and goodwill would descend on the Mideast and the world. Al-Zarqawi’s Iraqi atrocities have nothing to do with Israel. The bombings in Amman, Jordan have nothing to do with Israel.
Now, the Arab world is a victim of it’s own inventions. Various groups, like the secular ex-Saddam fascist Baath Party or extremist Islamists like al-Qaeda have led the way for any group in the Arab world with any kind of grievance – no matter how minor – to make their point by blowing up someone or something. Even the French, who championed the Palestinians cause as a way to pacify Arab anger, are learning that their complacency has a price.
The sickness that is afflicting the Muslim world is not about Israel, and it’s not about something the West has done to deserve their anger. What we are seeing are a people who have lived in relative ignorance for the past 200 years, while the rest of the world became “enlightened” and “civilized”. Missing that boat is hard to take, and the Muslim world is coping with it by trying to bring the West back in time to the medieval era, rather than acknowledging their need to play catch up. If they can’t blow us up, then evidently they are content to blow themselves up.
If that’s the case, then so be it.
Fast forward to today: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaeda linked leader of the Iraqi insurgents, has killed thousands of innocent civilian Arabs through suicide bombings and gruesome beheadings, as well as having claimed responsibility for the November 9th, 2005 bombings of 3 hotels in Amman Jordan that killed 56 Arabs (many of them Palestinian).
The Arab world always said that at the center of their anger is the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. If only Israel would pull back to the indefensible 1967 borders, or better yet just disappear, then peace and goodwill would descend on the Mideast and the world. Al-Zarqawi’s Iraqi atrocities have nothing to do with Israel. The bombings in Amman, Jordan have nothing to do with Israel.
Now, the Arab world is a victim of it’s own inventions. Various groups, like the secular ex-Saddam fascist Baath Party or extremist Islamists like al-Qaeda have led the way for any group in the Arab world with any kind of grievance – no matter how minor – to make their point by blowing up someone or something. Even the French, who championed the Palestinians cause as a way to pacify Arab anger, are learning that their complacency has a price.
The sickness that is afflicting the Muslim world is not about Israel, and it’s not about something the West has done to deserve their anger. What we are seeing are a people who have lived in relative ignorance for the past 200 years, while the rest of the world became “enlightened” and “civilized”. Missing that boat is hard to take, and the Muslim world is coping with it by trying to bring the West back in time to the medieval era, rather than acknowledging their need to play catch up. If they can’t blow us up, then evidently they are content to blow themselves up.
If that’s the case, then so be it.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
What parents should teach (but don’t) their kids about car repair/maintenance
I remember the day that I said to myself that I had to learn the basics of car repair. It was at the tender age of 17, and my best friend and I were heading back to Memphis after a wild weekend in New Orleans. John’s 1966 Pontiac GTO began overheating on Interstate 55N. We pulled off the road at the next exit in an effort to find a gas station that could fix the problem. As we pulled off the road, we realized that there was nothing at the exit. Meanwhile, the car was so overheated that it looked like we were on fire. As the car limped deeper into the countryside, we realized that we had to stop. We saw a trailer on a hill about a mile away, and figured that we could get some water there. We walked up and knocked on the trailer door, and it slowly opened. We were in total shock. A toothless unshaven guy in dirty overalls (no –shirt) opened the door with a shotgun. He could have been in the movie “Deliverance”. As it turned out, he was a nice guy. He looked at our car and determined that it was only a burst radiator hose. I wouldn’t want my daughter to be in that situation, much less my son.
As crazy as parents have become about keeping their kids active with school, sports, and cultural activities like ballet, etc. – we somehow have not had the common sense to teach them the basics of car repair and car maintenance. While I don’t particularly want my child to grow up to change oil at the local gas station, I also don’t want him/her stuck on the side of a lonely stretch of highway at night in the middle of winter – because they ran out of gas. Basic car repair /maintenance isn’t brain surgery. There are some things that can be done easily, some things that are more difficult, and some things that can only be done at a qualified service station. I want to focus on the things that EVERYONE can do.
For starters, one must understand that a car is like a living human being. We need food, exercise, water, clean air, and good shoes. The most basic of car requirements that we have control over are fuel, oil, water, tires, battery, various hoses and various belts. If any of these seven items are not working or not present – then you will end up sitting by the side of the road. If you don’t know how to fix them, then you are stuck.
Make sure that the tires are in good shape, make sure that you have a good spare, make sure that you have a complete tire jack – and that you know how to change a tire. Know how to check you fluids – the water level in the radiator, and the engine oil and transmission oil. Check your hoses and belts for wear, and keep spares in your trunk – along with the necessary tools – just in case you need to do a repair on the side of the road. Keep a couple of gallons of water and a flashlight in the trunk too. If a radiator hose breaks and you fix it, you will have to replace the water BEFORE you can continue on your journey. The flashlight is because this kind of thing does happen at night.
Lastly, keep your AAA card up-to-date and hope your cell phone can pick up a signal. There are some car problems that you just can’t fix on the side of the road.
As crazy as parents have become about keeping their kids active with school, sports, and cultural activities like ballet, etc. – we somehow have not had the common sense to teach them the basics of car repair and car maintenance. While I don’t particularly want my child to grow up to change oil at the local gas station, I also don’t want him/her stuck on the side of a lonely stretch of highway at night in the middle of winter – because they ran out of gas. Basic car repair /maintenance isn’t brain surgery. There are some things that can be done easily, some things that are more difficult, and some things that can only be done at a qualified service station. I want to focus on the things that EVERYONE can do.
For starters, one must understand that a car is like a living human being. We need food, exercise, water, clean air, and good shoes. The most basic of car requirements that we have control over are fuel, oil, water, tires, battery, various hoses and various belts. If any of these seven items are not working or not present – then you will end up sitting by the side of the road. If you don’t know how to fix them, then you are stuck.
Make sure that the tires are in good shape, make sure that you have a good spare, make sure that you have a complete tire jack – and that you know how to change a tire. Know how to check you fluids – the water level in the radiator, and the engine oil and transmission oil. Check your hoses and belts for wear, and keep spares in your trunk – along with the necessary tools – just in case you need to do a repair on the side of the road. Keep a couple of gallons of water and a flashlight in the trunk too. If a radiator hose breaks and you fix it, you will have to replace the water BEFORE you can continue on your journey. The flashlight is because this kind of thing does happen at night.
Lastly, keep your AAA card up-to-date and hope your cell phone can pick up a signal. There are some car problems that you just can’t fix on the side of the road.
Cell Phone Etiquette
When the issue of “cell phone etiquette” is brought up, the first impulse is to quote the obvious, like “don’t drive and talk on your phone”, or obvious breaches of decorum like “put your phone on vibrate when in Church” etc. I have a problem with when, where – and how much cell phones are used. In my world, cell phones are irritating nuisances rather than conveniences.
Theoretically, one would assume that the proliferation of cell phones would bring increase the level of communication between family members, but the flip side to that “convenience” is that it also has the potential to decrease inter-family communications. In today’s fast paced world, families just don’t spend enough time together. It is the exception, not the rule that the average American family sits down around the family dinner table ala “Leave it to Beaver”. Face to face talk time between family members is rare, and consequentially, one would think that when they are sitting down together – either at the dinner table or in the car, family members would agree to use the cell phone judiciously.
Judiciously? Sensibly, thoughtfully, prudently, wisely – get the picture? When a cell phone rings, it is the equivalent of someone knocking on a door. Would ANYONE answer a door without knowing who was on the other side? Even if you knew who was on the other side of the door, just because they are there – uninvited – are you obligated to let them in without taking into consideration the other person in the room (or car)? Keeping it in perspective, the person actually with you made an effort to be with you, while the person on the cell phone just lifted and depressed their finger seven times. That is some Herculean effort.
How many times have you waited in line at a cash register, and after 20 minutes you finally arrive at the front of the line - just in time for the phone next to the register to ring - and the store clerk answers the phone and say “may I help you”? Of course, you are saying to yourself that the clerk should have not answered the phone, or answered it and immediately put the caller indefinitely on hold.
A cell phone can be used to convey an important message, or it can be used for innocent chitchat. In my world, you can keep your chitchat with someone else - to yourself. When using a cell phone, be considerate to those around you and use your cell phone thoughtfully – your friends, family and/coworkers will appreciate it.
(To my 16 year old daughter, Molly - this was written with you in mind)
(PS - I love you!)
Theoretically, one would assume that the proliferation of cell phones would bring increase the level of communication between family members, but the flip side to that “convenience” is that it also has the potential to decrease inter-family communications. In today’s fast paced world, families just don’t spend enough time together. It is the exception, not the rule that the average American family sits down around the family dinner table ala “Leave it to Beaver”. Face to face talk time between family members is rare, and consequentially, one would think that when they are sitting down together – either at the dinner table or in the car, family members would agree to use the cell phone judiciously.
Judiciously? Sensibly, thoughtfully, prudently, wisely – get the picture? When a cell phone rings, it is the equivalent of someone knocking on a door. Would ANYONE answer a door without knowing who was on the other side? Even if you knew who was on the other side of the door, just because they are there – uninvited – are you obligated to let them in without taking into consideration the other person in the room (or car)? Keeping it in perspective, the person actually with you made an effort to be with you, while the person on the cell phone just lifted and depressed their finger seven times. That is some Herculean effort.
How many times have you waited in line at a cash register, and after 20 minutes you finally arrive at the front of the line - just in time for the phone next to the register to ring - and the store clerk answers the phone and say “may I help you”? Of course, you are saying to yourself that the clerk should have not answered the phone, or answered it and immediately put the caller indefinitely on hold.
A cell phone can be used to convey an important message, or it can be used for innocent chitchat. In my world, you can keep your chitchat with someone else - to yourself. When using a cell phone, be considerate to those around you and use your cell phone thoughtfully – your friends, family and/coworkers will appreciate it.
(To my 16 year old daughter, Molly - this was written with you in mind)
(PS - I love you!)
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Where to start fixing the City of Memphis's finances
Yes, we have been Shlinkered, schnooked, and bamboozled by a totally incompetent Herenton administration, so what are we going to do about it, trust him to fix it up? I hope not. Unfortunately, the story of Mayor Herenton’s financial mismanagement extends deeply into the City’s pension plan, and probably has infected MLG&W - if Joseph Lee’s “financial expertise” is contagious.
Having read what is on the table for cost cutting are the “usual suspects”, sell this, raise taxes on that, cut the pay of the police and firemen – but what is most interesting in what wasn’t even mentioned: The City Pension Plan and adminstion pay scales. For too long, our government officials have justified pay scales and benefits in how they relate to the national competitive landscape, which in my opinion is a laughable logic. If they are going to continue using that logic, I would suggest that they compare Memphis only to other bankrupt cities, not Atlanta, or Nashville (Washington DC and New Orleans come to mind).
Just from the bits and pieces that I have read about the City of Memphis Pension System, it is generous to it’s participants in ways that private pension plans would never consider unless they could print their own money. The printing press that has financed the Memphis government employees pension plan just had its plug pulled. The Pension plan (and every job at city hall) needs to be evaluated by a competent third party who could easily quantify significant abuses and significant potential areas where the city can make cuts.
The pension plan needs to mirror the private sector, and while we’re at it, so does the government. If a CEO came to Wall Street and admitted such serious mis-management and financial deception, he would be looking for a new job and the SEC would have him under investigation. Maybe that’s asking too much of “the system”.
Having read what is on the table for cost cutting are the “usual suspects”, sell this, raise taxes on that, cut the pay of the police and firemen – but what is most interesting in what wasn’t even mentioned: The City Pension Plan and adminstion pay scales. For too long, our government officials have justified pay scales and benefits in how they relate to the national competitive landscape, which in my opinion is a laughable logic. If they are going to continue using that logic, I would suggest that they compare Memphis only to other bankrupt cities, not Atlanta, or Nashville (Washington DC and New Orleans come to mind).
Just from the bits and pieces that I have read about the City of Memphis Pension System, it is generous to it’s participants in ways that private pension plans would never consider unless they could print their own money. The printing press that has financed the Memphis government employees pension plan just had its plug pulled. The Pension plan (and every job at city hall) needs to be evaluated by a competent third party who could easily quantify significant abuses and significant potential areas where the city can make cuts.
The pension plan needs to mirror the private sector, and while we’re at it, so does the government. If a CEO came to Wall Street and admitted such serious mis-management and financial deception, he would be looking for a new job and the SEC would have him under investigation. Maybe that’s asking too much of “the system”.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s called for Israel to be wiped off the map
From looking at the various governments that have condemned Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s called for Israel to be wiped off the map, you would think that his statement was unexpected. The surprise wasn’t his statement, after all, the Arab world has been calling for Israel’s total destruction since it's birth in 1948, and Iran has been calling for Israel's demise ever since Ayatullah Khomeini led a coup that deposed the Shan of Iran back in 1978. Ever since then, the Iranian government has been waging a low level war against Israel, through it’s surrogates in Syria and Lebanon, directly via Iranian revolutionary guards based in Lebanon, and through various Palestinian terrorist groups. What was surprising was his honesty, his willingness to not continue playing the game of diplomatic duplicity. The Muslim world wants Israel destroyed. How can anyone mis-understand that statement? In a world where leftist drum-beating pacifists are willing to believe any lie as long as it agrees with their point of view, it must have been a sobering wake-up call.
Now that Ahmadinejad has removed the mask of Arab moderation and revealed the face of Iran's hate to the world, Israel should act under the well-established customary prerogative of “Anticipatory Self-Defense” under International law. Iran’s clandestine development of a nuclear weapons program, and Ahmadinejad’s overt threat make Iran the single most urgent danger to Israel’s existence.
Israel has always lived in a neighborhood where enemy Arab (and Iranian) states and their non-state surrogates have used whatever means they could to destroy tiny Israel. There are 22 Arab (plus Iran) countries lined up against Israel. Under the likes of Iran’s Ahmadinejad, the possibility of him turning Iran into an irrational nuclear suicide state - just to rid the world of Israel is not inconceivable, and it is a risk that Israel cannot allow to exist. Losing one Arab state may be a price worth paying in the Arab world if it means ridding the Mideast of Israel.
Israel, however has options, none of which are particularly good: They have to prevent - for as long as possible - their enemies from acquiring WMD, and they have to make it clear to their enemies that if attacked with non-conventional weapons, Israel will make sure that none of them will be left unscathed.
Hopefully, the day will come when Israel is accepted by the Arab world. Until then, Israel has a duty to protect itself. Thanks to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s called for Israel to be wiped off the map, maybe the world will understand Israel's distrust of Muslim intentions. After all, of the countries that protested Ahmadinejad’s comments, not one was an Arab country. Their silence is deafening.
Now that Ahmadinejad has removed the mask of Arab moderation and revealed the face of Iran's hate to the world, Israel should act under the well-established customary prerogative of “Anticipatory Self-Defense” under International law. Iran’s clandestine development of a nuclear weapons program, and Ahmadinejad’s overt threat make Iran the single most urgent danger to Israel’s existence.
Israel has always lived in a neighborhood where enemy Arab (and Iranian) states and their non-state surrogates have used whatever means they could to destroy tiny Israel. There are 22 Arab (plus Iran) countries lined up against Israel. Under the likes of Iran’s Ahmadinejad, the possibility of him turning Iran into an irrational nuclear suicide state - just to rid the world of Israel is not inconceivable, and it is a risk that Israel cannot allow to exist. Losing one Arab state may be a price worth paying in the Arab world if it means ridding the Mideast of Israel.
Israel, however has options, none of which are particularly good: They have to prevent - for as long as possible - their enemies from acquiring WMD, and they have to make it clear to their enemies that if attacked with non-conventional weapons, Israel will make sure that none of them will be left unscathed.
Hopefully, the day will come when Israel is accepted by the Arab world. Until then, Israel has a duty to protect itself. Thanks to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s called for Israel to be wiped off the map, maybe the world will understand Israel's distrust of Muslim intentions. After all, of the countries that protested Ahmadinejad’s comments, not one was an Arab country. Their silence is deafening.
Friday, October 14, 2005
The Gandhi Institue for Non-Violence.........
As much as I respect the intentions of those who follow in the footsteps of Mahatma Gandhi within the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence (GINV), I feel compelled to disagree with a few points in Dr. Manoj Jain’s 10/14/05 guest column (and no, I’m not with the Institute of Violence).
How did Dr. Jain comes up with factoid #1- “In the 21st Century, violence has become standard issue”? Violence has been around since man crawled out from under a rock - and the 21st century is no more violent than the 20th century (or the 19th, 18th, 17th, etc).
Factoid #2 is equally as mysterious. While inequality, injustice, poverty and racism can cause violence, I am mystified why didn’t he include religious extremism as THE major source of violence (The Crusades, Holocaust, Muslim Extremism). I don’t remember any poor people hijacking airplanes, much less blowing themselves up in restaurants.
The far left (of which I include the Gandhi Institute) in the past has had a habit of being apologists for those who wish to advance their grievances through the use of violence. In the world of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) like the Gandhi Institute, violent acts against innocent civilians are considered acts of “desperation” that deserve to be understood, rather than meted out a measure of justice.
One day the world may be better situated to accept the concept of non-violent resistance as the means to conflict resolution, but until then, I prefer to keep both feet planted in reality.
How did Dr. Jain comes up with factoid #1- “In the 21st Century, violence has become standard issue”? Violence has been around since man crawled out from under a rock - and the 21st century is no more violent than the 20th century (or the 19th, 18th, 17th, etc).
Factoid #2 is equally as mysterious. While inequality, injustice, poverty and racism can cause violence, I am mystified why didn’t he include religious extremism as THE major source of violence (The Crusades, Holocaust, Muslim Extremism). I don’t remember any poor people hijacking airplanes, much less blowing themselves up in restaurants.
The far left (of which I include the Gandhi Institute) in the past has had a habit of being apologists for those who wish to advance their grievances through the use of violence. In the world of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) like the Gandhi Institute, violent acts against innocent civilians are considered acts of “desperation” that deserve to be understood, rather than meted out a measure of justice.
One day the world may be better situated to accept the concept of non-violent resistance as the means to conflict resolution, but until then, I prefer to keep both feet planted in reality.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Pan-Arab/Muslim Military Strategy: Plausible deniability and the use of surrogates
The difficulty that the United States is experiencing in Iraq – fighting an enemy with no address, no uniform, and who is unwilling to fight a conventional face to face battle – is a product of our military/political leaders imposing our Western value system against an enemy that is playing by another set of rules. The sooner we acknowledge the real boundaries and the real rules of the battlefield, the sooner we can win the war in the Mideast.
I didn’t say win the war in “Iraq” on purpose, because the reality is that the war is about pan-Arabism and militant Islam. No, it’s not a “war on terror” anymore than WW2 was a war on execution squads (it was a war against Nazi fascism). Muslim/Arab terrorism is a tactic, a military strategy, and the motivation is both Pan Arab Nationalism and extremist Islam – and the epicenter of this movement (as it relates to the war in Iraq), runs from Iran, through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. So until we acknowledge that the formal joint military pact between Damascus and Theran is playing itself out on Iraqi turf against coalition forces and the Iraqi people, we will be fighting this war with one hand behind our back.
How is it that Iran and Syria can send fighters and munitions into Iraq and we don’t do anything about it? Because the US has spent decades allowing surrogate fighters in Lebanon, trained by Iranian/Syrian military experts, to fight against Israel. Once the US accepted this strategy, it blossomed around the world. As long as Iranian/Syrian fighters weren’t pulling the trigger, as long as there was no “smoking gun” that could provide evidence of their involvement, they could deny it. Our political establishment demands “irrefutable proof” so we back off. This strategy of “plausible deniability” has proven hugely successful for the Saudis. They have financed Islamic terrorism for decades and financed the exportation of their Wahhabi extremist version of Islam around the world. They continue to supply fighters against US forces in Iraq. They even made up the majority of the 9-11 hijackers, they paid cash under the table to Palestinians suicide bombers…. yet our politicians consistently refused to connect the dots.
The West can win the war against Islamic terrorism by using precise military strategies that reflect the reality on the battlefield. Terrorism will never be reduced to zero. There will always be the “deranged individual” willing to strap on a bomb. But at least he won’t have a bomb expert supplying the c4 explosives and the know-how to execute his mission. If the politicians were to back off and allow the US military to demonstrate to the world that they are playing by a “new set of rules” that doesn’t recognize surrogates and plausible deniability, we will see our troops come home a lot quicker, and the world will be a safer place.
I didn’t say win the war in “Iraq” on purpose, because the reality is that the war is about pan-Arabism and militant Islam. No, it’s not a “war on terror” anymore than WW2 was a war on execution squads (it was a war against Nazi fascism). Muslim/Arab terrorism is a tactic, a military strategy, and the motivation is both Pan Arab Nationalism and extremist Islam – and the epicenter of this movement (as it relates to the war in Iraq), runs from Iran, through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. So until we acknowledge that the formal joint military pact between Damascus and Theran is playing itself out on Iraqi turf against coalition forces and the Iraqi people, we will be fighting this war with one hand behind our back.
How is it that Iran and Syria can send fighters and munitions into Iraq and we don’t do anything about it? Because the US has spent decades allowing surrogate fighters in Lebanon, trained by Iranian/Syrian military experts, to fight against Israel. Once the US accepted this strategy, it blossomed around the world. As long as Iranian/Syrian fighters weren’t pulling the trigger, as long as there was no “smoking gun” that could provide evidence of their involvement, they could deny it. Our political establishment demands “irrefutable proof” so we back off. This strategy of “plausible deniability” has proven hugely successful for the Saudis. They have financed Islamic terrorism for decades and financed the exportation of their Wahhabi extremist version of Islam around the world. They continue to supply fighters against US forces in Iraq. They even made up the majority of the 9-11 hijackers, they paid cash under the table to Palestinians suicide bombers…. yet our politicians consistently refused to connect the dots.
The West can win the war against Islamic terrorism by using precise military strategies that reflect the reality on the battlefield. Terrorism will never be reduced to zero. There will always be the “deranged individual” willing to strap on a bomb. But at least he won’t have a bomb expert supplying the c4 explosives and the know-how to execute his mission. If the politicians were to back off and allow the US military to demonstrate to the world that they are playing by a “new set of rules” that doesn’t recognize surrogates and plausible deniability, we will see our troops come home a lot quicker, and the world will be a safer place.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
The Israeli/Palestinian Conflict: Both sides have obligations under the Roadmap
Israel has unilaterally left the Gaza strip. No more occupation, no more settlers, no more soldiers, no more roadblocks. The decision to leave Gaza by Israeli PM Ariel Sharon was a bold move that was welcomed by the entire world as the first step in the long road to possibly resolving this conflict. The next step was up to the Palestinians. Under the terms of the “Roadmap” (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/20062.htm) the Palestinians were obligated to:
1) Palestinians declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere.
2) Rebuilt and refocused Palestinian Authority security apparatus begins sustained, targeted, and effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. This includes commencing confiscation of illegal weapons and consolidation of security authority, free of association with terror and corruption.
Instead, Palestinian PM Abbas not only indicated that he will not confront the armed terrorists, but has allowed them to re-arm and shoot over 100 Kassem missiles into pre-67 Israel proper. Adding insult to injury, the 3-way agreement between the Egyptians, the Palestinians and the Israelis regarding security along the Gaza/Egypt border has become a mockery. Instead of enforcing strict border controls, the Egyptians have allowed the unfettered smuggling of high-grade weaponry into Gaza. The only supervision by the Egyptian military is to collect $50 per container entering Gaza.Every time an opportunity arises to make peace between Israel and the Palestinians, the Israelis have always reached across the table to make a deal. The Palestinian response is that they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. They lost the chance to get 80% of Israel in 1937, 65% in 1948, 50% plus ½ of Jerusalem under the Barak offer. Every time the Arabs or Palestinians have fought the Israelis instead of making peace, they have lost territory. Now they are given the opportunity – maybe for the last time %u2
– to set up a legitimate country starting in Gaza – and what do they do? Choose to fight a losing battle once again.
1) Palestinians declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere.
2) Rebuilt and refocused Palestinian Authority security apparatus begins sustained, targeted, and effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. This includes commencing confiscation of illegal weapons and consolidation of security authority, free of association with terror and corruption.
Instead, Palestinian PM Abbas not only indicated that he will not confront the armed terrorists, but has allowed them to re-arm and shoot over 100 Kassem missiles into pre-67 Israel proper. Adding insult to injury, the 3-way agreement between the Egyptians, the Palestinians and the Israelis regarding security along the Gaza/Egypt border has become a mockery. Instead of enforcing strict border controls, the Egyptians have allowed the unfettered smuggling of high-grade weaponry into Gaza. The only supervision by the Egyptian military is to collect $50 per container entering Gaza.Every time an opportunity arises to make peace between Israel and the Palestinians, the Israelis have always reached across the table to make a deal. The Palestinian response is that they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. They lost the chance to get 80% of Israel in 1937, 65% in 1948, 50% plus ½ of Jerusalem under the Barak offer. Every time the Arabs or Palestinians have fought the Israelis instead of making peace, they have lost territory. Now they are given the opportunity – maybe for the last time %u2
– to set up a legitimate country starting in Gaza – and what do they do? Choose to fight a losing battle once again.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Why the US should stay in Iraq
Should the US government set a target date for getting out of Iraq? Of course there are the pacifists who were against the war from the beginning, and want the USA out ASAP - no mater what the consequences. There are those who were against the war from the beginning, but understand that a US troop withdrawal will create a killing field between the majority Shia Muslim population, the Sunni Arab minority, and the Sunni Kurdish minority. There are those who were against the war, but understand that a US troop withdrawal, will be viewed by our enemies as an admission of defeat, and will serve to encourage them to move their suicide bombings and car bombings Westward in the hope of spreading their perverted version of Islam. Lastly, there are those who don’t believe that the general Arab/Muslim population are capable of grasping the Western value system that is essential to fertilize a real democracy, namely freedom of speech, the rule of law, and the concept that all men (and women) are created equal - and therefore we are fighting a lost cause and should pull out.
On the other hand, there are those of us who believe that it is no “coincidence” that over the past 5 years, Muslim extremists have committed horrendous acts against humanity (terrorism) across the globe (Moscow, Bali, New York, Philippines, Turkey, Spain, etc.) where there are no obvious Muslim territorial grievances, just a barbaric quest for religious and political dominance. There are those of use who believe that we have no choice but to drag a majority of the Arab/Muslim world into the 21st century in the hope that they are capable of intellectualizing and adopting the civilized values that define our modern world - and will eventually police their own extremists. I don’t think anyone is envisioning an Iraqi democratic country to resemble Norway, much less the USA, but something more along the lines of Turkey or Indonesia.
What would we risk by withdrawing from Iraq with our tail between our legs? Take a look at Israel’s heavily debated withdrawal from Lebanon. The general Arab world considered it an Israeli defeat, rather than a strategic withdrawal, and the same fighting tactics used by the Lebanese (car bombs, etc.) were exported to areas in the Gaza and the West Bank. The US should stay in Iraq until the Iraqi armed forces are capable, and then we should declare victory and bring our boys home.
On the other hand, there are those of us who believe that it is no “coincidence” that over the past 5 years, Muslim extremists have committed horrendous acts against humanity (terrorism) across the globe (Moscow, Bali, New York, Philippines, Turkey, Spain, etc.) where there are no obvious Muslim territorial grievances, just a barbaric quest for religious and political dominance. There are those of use who believe that we have no choice but to drag a majority of the Arab/Muslim world into the 21st century in the hope that they are capable of intellectualizing and adopting the civilized values that define our modern world - and will eventually police their own extremists. I don’t think anyone is envisioning an Iraqi democratic country to resemble Norway, much less the USA, but something more along the lines of Turkey or Indonesia.
What would we risk by withdrawing from Iraq with our tail between our legs? Take a look at Israel’s heavily debated withdrawal from Lebanon. The general Arab world considered it an Israeli defeat, rather than a strategic withdrawal, and the same fighting tactics used by the Lebanese (car bombs, etc.) were exported to areas in the Gaza and the West Bank. The US should stay in Iraq until the Iraqi armed forces are capable, and then we should declare victory and bring our boys home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)