Arthur S. Obermayer is a member of the executive committee of Meretz USA.
For over a half century, the U.S. has not been involved in a war with clearly demarcated battle lines. In World War II and the Korean War, we had advancing and retreating armies, and taking ground was a measure of achieving victory. Since then, victory has been more elusive. Other considerations have been involved in winning or losing. We can expect that to continue through the 21st century.
Throughout the ages, defenders have eventually learned how to counter new offensive weapons. Then the attackers developed better weapons which are effective until appropriate defensive measures are found. Furthermore, large hide-bound military organizations take longer to learn and adapt than smaller, more nimble groups.
Today, the U.S. has by far the strongest and most sophisticated military might in the world. Our arsenals range from laser-guided missiles to nuclear weapons. No one in the world can defeat us on the battlefield, and they know it. Within the Middle East our ally, Israel, also has overwhelming military strength.
In order to counter this overwhelming superiority of the U.S. and Israel, a new kind of response has evolved. It can be called terrorism, insurgency, guerilla or asymmetric warfare, but under any name, it represents the most effective reaction to an army that is unbeatable on the battlefield. Individuals with limited resources can wreck havoc and communicate with each other by mobile phone and internet. Terrorists do not wear uniforms and are indistinguishable from civilians until they act. They work in the same locations and live in the same buildings as innocent residents. American and Israeli bombs and missiles, even the most sophisticated ones, cannot distinguish friend from foe. We are unable to target our weapons based on the state of mind of individuals. We end up destroying large amounts of property and infrastructure and killing many innocent inhabitants in attempts, too often unsuccessful, to destroy the enemy terrorists.
We are disturbed and frustrated by the tactics they use, but they are wiser than we are prepared to admit. Their goal is not only to protect themselves, but also to win the hearts and minds of people. Collective punishment for the acts of a few creates fear and hatred among the innocent victims. When their way of life is destroyed and friends and family killed, they view the remote and callous Americans and Israelis as causing wanton devastation. New enemies are created as the rest of the world sees it through TV. Many people then align with the terrorists with whom they are culturally connected in fighting the common enemy.
Recent history has repeatedly demonstrated this failure. Does anyone think that there are not now more Al Qaeda supporters than there were right after 9/11? One of Osama Bin Laden’s goals was to encourage a military response from us that would generate more support for his organization. The past growth of the military components of Hamas and Hezbollah resulted from the rage and hatred by civilians who could see no other way of resisting what they consider Israeli aggression. Lebanese support for Hezbollah has more than tripled since Israel tried to eliminate it. We had the military power to conquer Iraq, but at what cost to them? Today their lives have become extremely insecure and chaotic. Neither have our actions won the hearts and minds of other people throughout the world, especially among the one billion Muslims.
There are no quick fixes, but there are opportunities missed. For example, the U.S. used to have a very positive image in the world. Under the Marshall Plan after World War II, we provided aid and support to help reconstruct a devastated Europe and generated friendship and respect from the people of Europe and their governments. When Europe became self-sufficient, we provided food, health care, economic aid and technical support to third world countries through organizations like the Peace Corps. Foreign aid was a significant component of our national budget until 1982, when our government decided to discontinue almost all of it, except for Israel and Egypt. Now, our foreign aid props up friendly governments and supports U.S. contractors who compete with indigenous workers. It is not seen by the people in need. On the other hand, Hamas and Hezbollah have gained strength by providing impoverished Arab village residents with free essential social services. Today, Iran, through Hezbollah, is providing major funding to reconstruct Lebanon, whereas the U.S. has committed very little.
Until we learn that 21st century warfare is for the hearts and minds of people, all of our victories on the battlefield will be illusionary.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Carbon neutralize your air flights
For those of us living a car-free life, the thought of how much carbon a trip via airplane adds to the atmosphere can turn one's stomach.
Well now some online travel sites are offering a way to assuage your guilt.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Beilin's Open Letter to World Union of Meretz
August 29th, 2006
Dear Friends,
The second Lebanon war lasted 33 days and took its toll in the form of some 160 Israeli fatalities -- civilians and soldiers -- and some 1,000 Lebanese civilian casualties [i.e., deaths]. The tranquility and blossoming that have characterized the Galilee for the past six years were suddenly disrupted. Approximately one-quarter of Israel's citizens found themselves in bomb shelters (that is, those who had access to them) and travel from Tel Aviv to Haifa practically became an act of bravery. It was truly surrealistic.
Back in the '90s we led the call for a unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon after 18 pointless years in which we lost close to 1,500 people, many of them civilians. When we were asked what Israel would do if, despite its withdrawal from every last centimeter up to the international boundary, it were to come under attack from Lebanon, our unequivocal answer was that, in such a situation, we would support a military response -- and we kept our word.
When the moment came and Hizbullah crossed into sovereign Israeli territory, kidnapped two soldiers and killed eight others who were trying to secure their release, there was almost complete consensus within Israel and among the international community regarding Israel's right to react. We felt that suitable objectives had been defined: the release of the kidnapped soldiers, an end to Hizbullah rocket attacks on Israel, and the deployment of the Lebanese Army in southern Lebanon in order to put an end to the armed, autonomous state Hizbullah was operating within Lebanon.
Had it been a short military campaign that made do with precision aerial attacks on Hizbullah targets, Israel's situation today would have been different. The government, however, chose to wage a progressive [i.e., escalating] war in which more and more means were brought into play, believing at each stage that the next stage would bring Israel the hoped for "victory" and failing to comprehend that in a war against a militia, there can be no victory.
Meretz-Yachad was the only party that abstained in the Knesset votes on no-confidence motions and the government's weekly announcements regarding the war. In the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, we were the only ones who opposed the call-up of the reserves and the ground operation in south Lebanon. We did not participate in the demonstrations against the war organized by the non-Zionist left, and we held our own demonstration when the government decided, after some time, to expand the ground operation up to the Litani River.
The stand we adopted, which defended Israel's right to react but criticized the harm done to innocent civilians and opposed the ground operation, lent credence to the positions we voiced the day after the war and readied the Knesset, the public, and the media to listen to what we have to say. We demand the establishment of a state commission of inquiry to investigate the way the war was conducted and what preceded it, and we call for exploiting the new diplomatic situation to convene a second Madrid conference with the participation of the Syrians, the Lebanese, and the Palestinians in order to try to achieve peace agreements with our neighbors.
UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which calls for the deployment of the Lebanese Army and a large international force in southern Lebanon, is an important achievement for Israel, but it involved a very heavy -- in fact, too heavy -- price. I am also aware of the consequences for the Jewish communities around the world, as illustrated by the clash in front of the Iranian Embassy in Buenos Aires between Jewish protestors and an Argentine group which violently disrupted their demonstration.
The outcome of the war has left Israel gripped by a sense of despondency. All the coalition parties suffered a political blow, the right-wing parties emerged stronger, and the political and diplomatic confusion is tangible. Meretz-Yachad was not hurt politically, and it is our belief that a time of uncertainty can provide an opportunity for those who know their way and who have concrete proposals to make their voices heard and to lead.
Dear Friends,
The second Lebanon war lasted 33 days and took its toll in the form of some 160 Israeli fatalities -- civilians and soldiers -- and some 1,000 Lebanese civilian casualties [i.e., deaths]. The tranquility and blossoming that have characterized the Galilee for the past six years were suddenly disrupted. Approximately one-quarter of Israel's citizens found themselves in bomb shelters (that is, those who had access to them) and travel from Tel Aviv to Haifa practically became an act of bravery. It was truly surrealistic.
Back in the '90s we led the call for a unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon after 18 pointless years in which we lost close to 1,500 people, many of them civilians. When we were asked what Israel would do if, despite its withdrawal from every last centimeter up to the international boundary, it were to come under attack from Lebanon, our unequivocal answer was that, in such a situation, we would support a military response -- and we kept our word.
When the moment came and Hizbullah crossed into sovereign Israeli territory, kidnapped two soldiers and killed eight others who were trying to secure their release, there was almost complete consensus within Israel and among the international community regarding Israel's right to react. We felt that suitable objectives had been defined: the release of the kidnapped soldiers, an end to Hizbullah rocket attacks on Israel, and the deployment of the Lebanese Army in southern Lebanon in order to put an end to the armed, autonomous state Hizbullah was operating within Lebanon.
Had it been a short military campaign that made do with precision aerial attacks on Hizbullah targets, Israel's situation today would have been different. The government, however, chose to wage a progressive [i.e., escalating] war in which more and more means were brought into play, believing at each stage that the next stage would bring Israel the hoped for "victory" and failing to comprehend that in a war against a militia, there can be no victory.
Meretz-Yachad was the only party that abstained in the Knesset votes on no-confidence motions and the government's weekly announcements regarding the war. In the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, we were the only ones who opposed the call-up of the reserves and the ground operation in south Lebanon. We did not participate in the demonstrations against the war organized by the non-Zionist left, and we held our own demonstration when the government decided, after some time, to expand the ground operation up to the Litani River.
The stand we adopted, which defended Israel's right to react but criticized the harm done to innocent civilians and opposed the ground operation, lent credence to the positions we voiced the day after the war and readied the Knesset, the public, and the media to listen to what we have to say. We demand the establishment of a state commission of inquiry to investigate the way the war was conducted and what preceded it, and we call for exploiting the new diplomatic situation to convene a second Madrid conference with the participation of the Syrians, the Lebanese, and the Palestinians in order to try to achieve peace agreements with our neighbors.
UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which calls for the deployment of the Lebanese Army and a large international force in southern Lebanon, is an important achievement for Israel, but it involved a very heavy -- in fact, too heavy -- price. I am also aware of the consequences for the Jewish communities around the world, as illustrated by the clash in front of the Iranian Embassy in Buenos Aires between Jewish protestors and an Argentine group which violently disrupted their demonstration.
The outcome of the war has left Israel gripped by a sense of despondency. All the coalition parties suffered a political blow, the right-wing parties emerged stronger, and the political and diplomatic confusion is tangible. Meretz-Yachad was not hurt politically, and it is our belief that a time of uncertainty can provide an opportunity for those who know their way and who have concrete proposals to make their voices heard and to lead.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Israel and Lebanon: An anti-Zionist View
The writer, David McReynolds, was on the staff of the War Resisters League for many years and has been active in the democratic socialist movement, twice running as the Socialist Party candidate for president. This is an occasional column that the author calls “Left Edge.” He writes, in part, of the same APN forum that I attended and wrote about; I had guessed wrong that he was hostile toward this gathering, but he expresses an ideological antipathy toward Zionism and a distaste for Israel. Among his comrades, most (but not quite all) of whom are anti-Israel, he’s considered moderate, because unlike most anti-Zionists, he tries to humanize Israelis; some of his colleagues criticize him for this “sin.”
He exaggerates the extent to which the IDF was “defeated” in Lebanon and clearly his anti-Zionist perspective is at odds with Meretz USA principles. I make some bracketed comments where I could not restrain myself. Maybe I was wrong to include this in our blog, but I found it of interest. – R. Seliger
The tragic events of recent weeks, which saw the killing of three [eight] Israeli soldiers and the kidnapping of two of them by Hezbollah, on the border between Israel and Lebanon, and then saw the Israeli attack on Lebanon, with the loss of over a thousand lives, brings a number of things to mind.
First, I've realized ... that there is something unique about Israel which applies to no other country I can think of: it is referred to not as Israel, but as the State of Israel. France is France, Germany is Germany, Italy is Italy, but Israel is the State of Israel. The more I've heard this phrase, the more I realize it indicates a basic insecurity in the Israeli psyche....
There are times when, in the heat of the discussion on listserves, that I find the "stateness" of Israel, and all that goes with it - the armies, the lies, the politicians, so that Israel can be a state like all other states - like a chill knife that separates me from the historic culture of Judaism, from the comfort I've always felt among Jews, so different from the cold silence of WASP culture.... [Better "stateness," than stateless – editor.]
Last week, I went to a forum organized by American for Peace Now, with Jo-Ann Mort and Mark Rosenblum as speakers. It was a good meeting. What a relief to escape, for an evening, from the endless yelling of listserves, to listen, and to think.
Where does Israel go now? First let's begin with something we need to understand, just as we need to understand Sheik Hassan Nasrallah - not to agree with something, but to understand it. Israel calls itself The State of Israel because it is deeply uneasy. It has fought several wars - some of which were launched against it, some of which it started - but it remains without secure borders. I don't mean "insecure" borders, as the US has "permeable" (and demilitarized) borders with Mexico and Canada, but angry, hostile, insecure borders. Only with Jordan and Egypt has Israel been able to establish "secure internationally recognized borders." But the border with Syria and with the Palestinians is in dispute.
The Israelis had thought the border with Lebanon was "secure and internationally recognized." It was for this reason that almost the entire Israeli Left, with the exception of some marginal saints, who are to Israel as the Catholic Worker is to the US, supported the war when it began. We now know that Israel (and Washington, DC) had been waiting to strike. [Which I suppose is why Israel’s conduct of the war was so “flawless” – editor.] The US idea was that if Hezbollah could be neutralized it might be a good trial run for an air attack on Iran. (A recent New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh documents this.)
But what was in the minds of the Israeli government and of Bush's war cabinet was not in the minds of the Israeli public. They saw the Hezbollah attack across the border as a violation of what they had come to believe was "secure and internationally" recognized, that following the Israeli withdrawal (under the steady pressure of Hezbollah attacks), after the ill-advised Israeli invasion of 1982, the border was secure. The feeling among the majority of Israelis was "what good does withdrawal do - we withdrew from Gaza and we are attacked, we withdrew from Lebanon and we are attacked." Let's leave to one side how unjustly the Israelis make this arguement - my point is that they believe this. For a moment suspend judgement - just try to understand....
But then two things happened for which nothing had prepared the Israeli public (or the hawks in Washington). First, Hezbollah beat the pants off the invading Israeli army, one of the best trained armies in the world. Instead of sweeping forward like a knife through warm butter to the Litani river, Israeli tanks were blown up, troops killed, and the invasion ground to a virtual halt. For the first time in any of the wars Israel had waged, it was beaten on the ground by what it had assumed was a "mere guerrilla force".
Second, the Israeli military launched a most extraordinary series of air strikes across Lebanon, aiming at civilian targets in violation of the laws of war, destroying bridges, blockading harbors, taking out apartment complexes, and in the process killing a thousand civilians. One must assume the Israeli government had thought such massive strikes would break the back of Lebanon, causing it to turn on Hezbollah. (I can't think of any other reason for air strikes which so precisely struck non-military targets). Every day, on American TV news, where we are used to seeing pro-Israeli material, we were seeing instead the horrific devastation of an entire people. And we saw Hezbollah supported by the population, which, far from rejecting it, rallied to it. The world cried out for an immediate cease fire but Tony Blair, that contemptible British politician, and George Bush, who is almost too dense to be worthy of contempt, urged a wait, so that Israel could finish its job (though they didn't say that in so many words).
Except that Israel, the designated hitter in the game, blew it. They couldn't finish the job. And the world had had enough of seeing children's bodies pulled from the rubble in Beirut. The ceasefire marked a sharp Israeli military defeat. What is most remarkable is what I think has been largely missed - Israel (and the US) suddenly turned to the United Nations, so recently the object of their contempt (and in the case of Israel, the object of a deliberate and lethal attack early in the war), and called for it to come in. The Europeans, who had been locked out of the Middle East, have now been brought in. The Israelis are hoping that, having failed on their own to secure their border with Lebanon, the United Nations can do it for them.
It is not likely that the UN can disarm Hezbollah, or will even try. And it is not likely that the flow of arms from Iran and Syria to Hezbollah can be blocked - anymore than the flow of US arms to Israel can be blocked. But for the time being the border may be secured. Not by Israeli military power, but by an international force of the United Nations.
What next? The view of Jo-Ann Mort at the forum I attended was that all three of the leading figures in the Israeli government will be forced to resign. There had been hopes, particularly among left-Zionists, for the role Amir Peretz might play but in the end, Peretz, of the Labor Party, was trapped by his entering this government, and he will go down with it. Olmert is discredited, with Israeli troops calling for his resignation. And General Halutz who sold his stock? He is history. The problem is what waits in the wings. One of the figure most likely to emerge is Netanyahu, an Israeli politician who gives opportunism a bad name, and makes Tony Blair look like a statesman.
But most interesting, out of that evening, came the suggestion by Mark Rosenblum that all roads now lead to Syria. Syria had put forward some suggestions in 1999 about getting back the Golan Heights in return for a secure border. Israel dismissed those suggestions out of hand, as it dismissed the earlier Arab League proposals of 2002 for recognition of Israel within its 1967 borders in return for a genuine Palestinian state. But it seems that the US has opened some very unofficial doors to Syria, and that Israel has also opened a quiet probe. Would Assad settle?
The chance of stopping the flow of arms to Hezbollah may well depend on Syria's role. And Syria might play that role in exchange for the return of the Golan Heights. If such a settlement occurs, it would mean a secure, internationally recognized border for Israel.
What does seem certain (or relatively certain) is that Israel now realizes it cannot achieve "peace and security" with Lebanon or Syria by military means. The fallback on the UN is one step toward securing the border with Lebanon. A deal with Syria would be a second step. Both would require diplomacy, not a military solution. US plans to launch air strikes on Iran seem to be on hold - in large part because Hezbollah showed how ineffective such air strikes are.
However hostile one may be to the Israeli State, and I'm fed up with it and want the US to end all economic and military aid to Israel, it is necessary to understand both Hezbollah and Israel. The hatred Hezbollah feels toward Israel is rooted in its long and bloody struggle to drive Israel out. That hatred is genuine and deep.
So too the statements from Iran reflect in the Israeli minds a fear that not only Hezbollah but also Iran holds an "annihilatory" view of Israel. We know that some of the statements of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's Supreme leader, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are deeply troubling (even though in fairness, some of Ahmadinejad's statements have been carelessly or deliberately mistranslated) and if I lived in Israel I would certainly find them troubling. What is necessary, both for us, and for at least some people in Israel and in Iran, is to see things in more than one dimension. We must try to understand better the basis for some of the Iranian statements, even as we reject the fundamental Islamic religious positions from which they flow. We must try to understand the Israeli fears, even if they flow from equally flawed positions.
One final possibility, raised in several quarters, is for a new international conference - in Spain, it Italy, in Finland - which would bring together all the parties which might be willing at least to speak to each other. This is an idea that has been raised by Yossi Beilin, chairman of Meretz. An international conference, in Beilin's view, that brought together Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian authority might open the door. The problem, of course, is that Bush has sided so openly with the Israeli hawks that the Arab world has good reason to distrust him. [This is precisely why Beilin suggests an international conference – editor.] But the irony is that Nasrallah has now said he would not have ordered the capture of the Israeli soldiers if he had known the Israeli intention to launch the devastating attack on Lebanon, and Israel knows that it lost the war. Out of this defeat one may hope to find the seeds of peace. – David McReynolds
General Electric Donates $1 million to MLK Memorial
GE is a great company. And this is a great donation. It puts the memorial fund at $63 million. They need $66 million to obtain a building permit for the $100 million memorial. The 4-acre memorial will be located across the Tidal Basin and north of the FDR Memorial. There will be a 30-foot statue of King in the middle of the memorial. Congress authorized construction of the site in 1996. General Motors, Pepsi, Exxon-Mobil and other large companies have contributed to the memorial.
Live Well Without a Car - Getting Media Attention
Chris Balish's new book is getting some serious play in the mainstream media in the USA.
------
Los Angeles Living, Without a Car
National Public Radio
Morning Edition, August 15, 2006 · Chris Balish is the author of the forthcoming book How to Live Well Without Owning a Car: Save Money, Breathe Easier, and Get More Mileage Out of Life. He talks with Renee Montagne about how to live without a car, even in Los Angeles.
----
How To Live Without A Car
NBC-4 Los Angeles
SANTA MONICA, Calif. -- Could you get through the day without your car? Before you say, "no way," NBC4's Kelly Mack shows you one man who says it can be done -- even in Los Angeles.
-----
Carless in California
KQED Forum
Forum discusses living in California without owning a car.
-----
The Book's website
Obama Plants Tree With Kenyan Environmentalist
Senator Barack Obama took time to plant an olive tree in Uhuru Park in Nairobi with Kenyan environmentalist Wangari Maathai, winner of the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize. The press if really promoting Obama's opposition to corruption and ethnic divisions. Surely there is more going on there than just those negative items. At least they covered the tree planting. There is plenty of corruption and ethnic divisions right here in America for the press to cover with Obama.
GEP Turns 100 (in a manner of speaking)
Last week we added our 100th Google Enterprise Professional partner worldwide. And while the milestone is absolutely a reason to celebrate, it's not all about quantity--the breadth and expertise of our partners is what really makes this program (and our customers) successful.
We now have a whole range of partners...
- Small consultancies handling things like secure search and web design
- Large integrators combining the Google Search Appliance with content management systems, portals, and other enterprise applications behind the firewall
- ISVs building connectors to extend the reach of Google search
- Application vendors leveraging Google search, including having their solutions be "Powered by Google"
- Geospatial integrators helping with deployments of Google Earth Enterprise
And our partners are all over the globe, helping customers in North America, Europe, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand.
Customers are even getting in on the act, developing OneBox modules to make dynamic business information more accessible (just like our partners are doing). Best of all, our customers are getting the services and solutions they need.
To see our growing list of partners, visit the "Partners" section of the Google Enteprise website: http://www.google.com/enterprise/gep.
We now have a whole range of partners...
- Small consultancies handling things like secure search and web design
- Large integrators combining the Google Search Appliance with content management systems, portals, and other enterprise applications behind the firewall
- ISVs building connectors to extend the reach of Google search
- Application vendors leveraging Google search, including having their solutions be "Powered by Google"
- Geospatial integrators helping with deployments of Google Earth Enterprise
And our partners are all over the globe, helping customers in North America, Europe, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand.
Customers are even getting in on the act, developing OneBox modules to make dynamic business information more accessible (just like our partners are doing). Best of all, our customers are getting the services and solutions they need.
To see our growing list of partners, visit the "Partners" section of the Google Enteprise website: http://www.google.com/enterprise/gep.
Seliger: My statement on Lebanon
I’ve been a little disappointed with Meretz USA statements reacting to this summer’s Lebanon war. (Our statement of August 4 can be accessed here.) In particular, I thought them deficient on the question of damage and casualties inflicted upon Lebanon’s non-combatant population and its civil infrastructure.
In executive committee discussions on our statement, I was impressed at the protectiveness and compassion evinced toward Israel’s difficult situation at this time. I would not have felt comfortable with a typical left-wing one-sided denunciation of Israel, exonerating Hezbollah’s acts of aggression and ignoring Lebanon’s failure to act as a sovereign state controlling its borders. Yet I felt that a bolder statement, questioning some of Israel’s behavior, was in order. This is basically what I submitted for consideration on July 27. I think it’s still applicable and one that in principle most activists in Meretz USA would agree with, but please understand that it’s my statement and not that of Meretz USA. – Ralph Seliger
We stand with Israel in its struggle to secure the northern border against aggression. At the same time, we are troubled with the catastrophic damage to civil infrastructure and the widespread suffering inflicted upon Lebanese civilians, which strengthen Hezbollah politically and divert world attention from Israel's legitimate security objectives. And we affirm that only an internationally-supported diplomatic agreement will effectively end this conflict.
We believe that Israel’s stated aims – the return of the two kidnapped IDF soldiers, safe and sound, and the removal of Hezbollah’s military threat – are entirely justified. In May 2000, Israel fully withdrew from Lebanese territory, fulfilling its obligation under United Nations Security Council resolution 425.
Since that time, however, Hezbollah has contravened UN resolutions, undermined the Lebanese government’s exercise of authority along its border with Israel, and instigated ongoing regional tension. Although Hezbollah claims to be seeking the "liberation" of the Shebaa Farms area for Lebanon, the UN has determined it to be Syrian territory. Hezbollah is clearly using this as an excuse to justify retaining its heavily-armed militia and its huge arsenal of rockets and missiles to continue to threaten Israel.
Israel has no reason to expect less than what the UN Security Council has already demanded in Resolution 1559: the “disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese militias.” Israel’s internationally-recognized border with Lebanon should no longer be plagued by periodic threats and spasms of violence.
That being said, from a moral standpoint, not every act of war is acceptable, no matter how legitimate the aim. Although we recognize that Israel does not wish to unnecessarily put its soldiers at risk in a ground war, its aerial bombardment of Lebanon is leaving far too much civilian death and destruction in its wake.
We recognize Israel’s right to take action in self-defense and in response to provocation, but an injudicious use of force is self-defeating, as it undermines the moral high-ground that Israel must maintain if it is to achieve its diplomatic ends. Israel should also not make the mistake of believing that it can single-handedly wipe out Hezbollah’s fighting force. Similarly, Israel must not entertain the idea that collectively punishing the Lebanese people will cause it to turn against Hezbollah. If anything, the opposite is the case. Indeed, as with the Palestinian question, the only true solution will be a political one.
Although the Israeli public’s desire to hit back hard is understandable, we remain convinced that Israel will never be able to achieve enduring security by force alone. Consequently, we reaffirm our support for a comprehensive diplomatic arrangement, under which the an international force will assist the struggling Lebanese government to remove the Hezbollah from the border zone and assert its authority over all Lebanese territory. Such an arrangement would also guarantee the return of the kidnapped soldiers, a general cease-fire, the release of prisoners, and the diplomatic resolution of the Shebaa Farms dispute.
In executive committee discussions on our statement, I was impressed at the protectiveness and compassion evinced toward Israel’s difficult situation at this time. I would not have felt comfortable with a typical left-wing one-sided denunciation of Israel, exonerating Hezbollah’s acts of aggression and ignoring Lebanon’s failure to act as a sovereign state controlling its borders. Yet I felt that a bolder statement, questioning some of Israel’s behavior, was in order. This is basically what I submitted for consideration on July 27. I think it’s still applicable and one that in principle most activists in Meretz USA would agree with, but please understand that it’s my statement and not that of Meretz USA. – Ralph Seliger
We stand with Israel in its struggle to secure the northern border against aggression. At the same time, we are troubled with the catastrophic damage to civil infrastructure and the widespread suffering inflicted upon Lebanese civilians, which strengthen Hezbollah politically and divert world attention from Israel's legitimate security objectives. And we affirm that only an internationally-supported diplomatic agreement will effectively end this conflict.
We believe that Israel’s stated aims – the return of the two kidnapped IDF soldiers, safe and sound, and the removal of Hezbollah’s military threat – are entirely justified. In May 2000, Israel fully withdrew from Lebanese territory, fulfilling its obligation under United Nations Security Council resolution 425.
Since that time, however, Hezbollah has contravened UN resolutions, undermined the Lebanese government’s exercise of authority along its border with Israel, and instigated ongoing regional tension. Although Hezbollah claims to be seeking the "liberation" of the Shebaa Farms area for Lebanon, the UN has determined it to be Syrian territory. Hezbollah is clearly using this as an excuse to justify retaining its heavily-armed militia and its huge arsenal of rockets and missiles to continue to threaten Israel.
Israel has no reason to expect less than what the UN Security Council has already demanded in Resolution 1559: the “disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese militias.” Israel’s internationally-recognized border with Lebanon should no longer be plagued by periodic threats and spasms of violence.
That being said, from a moral standpoint, not every act of war is acceptable, no matter how legitimate the aim. Although we recognize that Israel does not wish to unnecessarily put its soldiers at risk in a ground war, its aerial bombardment of Lebanon is leaving far too much civilian death and destruction in its wake.
We recognize Israel’s right to take action in self-defense and in response to provocation, but an injudicious use of force is self-defeating, as it undermines the moral high-ground that Israel must maintain if it is to achieve its diplomatic ends. Israel should also not make the mistake of believing that it can single-handedly wipe out Hezbollah’s fighting force. Similarly, Israel must not entertain the idea that collectively punishing the Lebanese people will cause it to turn against Hezbollah. If anything, the opposite is the case. Indeed, as with the Palestinian question, the only true solution will be a political one.
Although the Israeli public’s desire to hit back hard is understandable, we remain convinced that Israel will never be able to achieve enduring security by force alone. Consequently, we reaffirm our support for a comprehensive diplomatic arrangement, under which the an international force will assist the struggling Lebanese government to remove the Hezbollah from the border zone and assert its authority over all Lebanese territory. Such an arrangement would also guarantee the return of the kidnapped soldiers, a general cease-fire, the release of prisoners, and the diplomatic resolution of the Shebaa Farms dispute.
Katrina Anniversary : Self Reliance & Gov't Last Resort
For those of us familiar with government bureaucracy it is not surprising that the hurricane won. Hopefully, victims learned that the government should be the savior of last resort. You have to depend on yourself and the good will of your neighbor. Self reliance and local organizing are the keys to protecting yourself. We still hear whining about the government. Don't depend on government to make you whole. And the limosine liberal celebrities should put their money where their mouth is or shut up and stay away.New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco are doing the same thing now that they did right after the hurricane - - fighting. We keep hearing that the Fed authorized $110 billlion for Gulf Coast hurricane relief. If you know government, you know that it is hard to impossible for that money to reach the street. Nagin is complaining that state officials are holding up funding to the city. Blanco is complaining that the city is not properly requesting the money. So just as Blanco was the wrench in the works that delayed the federal rescue of the people at the Super Dome and the Convention Center, she is now holding up the recovery.
Kanye, President Bush went around Blanco, sent in the calvary and evacuated the dome and center in one day. What have you done to help? And don't depend on Bush, Blanco or Nagin to rescue you. Rescue yourself. Don't depend on them to get you home either if you want to return. Get yourself back if it is important to you.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Building a Better App
Since we launched Gmail two years ago, many users have been asking us if they can use Gmail as their regular work e-mail. We understand why - in the corporate environment, the average employee gets about 10 times more mail than the average consumer! With that much e-mail – most users want the speed, storage space, simple-yet-rich user interface and the ability to search messages in a snap that Gmail provides.
Well, let me let you in a little secret and some big news.
The little secret is that I've been using a "special" version of Gmail as my work e-mail client for a while now. Having used regular e-mail clients all my life, I was a little skeptical about the web mail solution. But it took me little time to realize the benefits. Not only the everywhere access (since it's web-based), but there's no more "foldering" at the end of the day, finding e-mails and attachments is a snap and... well, the speed! My inbox holds about 10 gigs of mail, and it's still as fast as when it was empty. Try that with your regular e-mail client!
Now the big news… today we're announcing the launch of Google Apps for Your Domain, a combination of GMail + Calendar + Talk that small organizations can brand, customize and use. And this is just the start! We expect to release an enterprise version by the end of the year that will have the functionality larger organizations require.
Isn't it time everyone at work loves their e-mail, just like they love Gmail?
CBC Opposes Offshore Oil Money For New Orleans
The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) voted 29 to 9 against the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act (H.R. 4761) to provide for exploration, development, and production activities for mineral resources on the outer Continental Shelf. Louisiana now receives less than 2 percent of royalties from oil and natural gas produced in the Gulf. The Senate and House passed bills that would give Louisiana and other Gulf states more - 37.5 percent under the Senate bill, 50 to 75 percent under the House bill.If some of the proposed offshore oil royalty money is going to be used for rebuilding New Orleans, particularly the 9th Ward, then the CBC is hurting that effort by voting against the legislation. They will have another chance with the conference report. Maybe they can get a conferee to put a line item in there specifically for the 9th Ward. CBC members voting FOR the measure include: 1) Sanford Bishop (2-GA), 2) ArturDavis (7-AL), 3) Harold Ford, Jr. (9-TN), 4) Al Green (9-TX), 5) Jesse Jackson, Jr. (2-IL), 6) Sheila Jackson-Lee (15-TX) 7) William Jefferson (2-LA), 8) Eddie Bernice Johnson (30-TX), 9) Bennie Thompson (2 MS),.
Lurie: Iran Will Get Lebanon and the Bomb
First, a preface from NY Times report, “Iran Exhibits Anti-Jewish Art” (Aug. 25):Mr. Shojaei [curator of Tehran exhibit lampooning the Holocaust] said none of the images were intended as anti-Jewish, only anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli — and of course, anti-American and anti-British. As evidence, he said Iranians lived peacefully with this country’s Jews.
But Morris Motamed, the one Jewish member of Iran’s Parliament, said he had not gone to the show, because “it was in line with anti-Semitism and aimed at insulting Jews.”
He added, “I felt if I went, I would get insulted and get hurt.”
It’s interesting to note that Iran has one Jewish member of its parliament and that he’d feel secure enough to make this statement to the American press. This reveals a complex truth about Iran: it is not a true democracy, it provides official license to anti-Semitism and terrorist violence, but is not totalitarian. In the meantime, our khaver, J. Zel Lurie, sums things up with alarm in his latest column, excerpted below, in the South Florida Jewish Journal:The first skirmish in Shiite Iran's declared war to eliminate Israel and take over the Middle East has ended in a tenuous cease-fire.
Iran is the only Shiite dominated country in the world. There are strong Shiite minorities in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. In Iraq, the Shiites are a 60 percent majority with ties to neighboring Iran.
Iran has found Lebanon to be ripe for take over. It invests heavily in the Shiite minority: training Hezbollah young men in guerilla warfare, paying Syria to transport tens of thousands of powerful Russian-made anti-tank missiles and Katyusha rockets....
On the Israeli side, 117 soldiers were killed and about a thousand suffered wounds; 3,970 rockets fell in Israel, killing 43 civilians and doing considerable property damage. The property damage will be repaired quickly and by 2007 it will be a sad memory.
In Lebanon, however, the accurate Israeli bombs were dropped on bridges, utilities and other infrastructure, It will take years and billions of dollars to fully repair.... Hezbollah is putting up temporary bridges and handing out $10,000 to those who have lost their homes. The take over will be gradual, but Lebanon is destined to be an Iranian satellite, threatening Israel to the south and Southeastern Europe to the West.
As for the atom bomb, Iran has refused the Security Council's injunction to stop making enriched uranium.... How can they be stopped?
President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert can take a huge... step in the right direction by opening talks with Syria. Such a move won't be easy for President Bush who classifies Syria with Iran and North Korea as rogue nations.
Rogue nation or not, Syria is a secular Moslem nation which is not Shiite. For years it has been willing to make peace with Israel if the Golan Heights were returned....
Education Minister Yuli Tamir, a Labor stalwart with a Peace Now background, advises Olmert to call Fouad Siniora, the prime minister of Lebanon, and invite him to a summit meeting. She writes: “We must take advantage of the earthquake to rescue Lebanon from the jaws of Iran and try to get Syria out of there as well."
While Israeli ministers and journalists are tossing ideas back and forth Hezbollah is acting with almost limitless Iranian funds. Iran is well on its way to taking over Lebanon and becoming a nuclear power.
Blacks Have Poorer Control of _____________Than Whites
Jobs, industry, money, Washington, DC, politics, city violence, education, economy, states, cities, contracts, business opportunities, manufacturing, hurricane evacuation, Hollywood, Wall Street, government, health, families, sex, veneral disease, diabetes, asthma, cancer, high blood pressure, diet, death, environment, energy, news, television, radio, computers, Congress, the presidency, history, New Orleans,
Golf (Tiger is the esception but says he is not black), tennis (Serena, Venus & Arthur Ashe had 15 minutes each), professional basketball ownership, professional football ownership, NASCAR, professional baseball ownership, hockey, Olympics, polo, lacrosse, airlines, (feel free to name those we missed).
Golf (Tiger is the esception but says he is not black), tennis (Serena, Venus & Arthur Ashe had 15 minutes each), professional basketball ownership, professional football ownership, NASCAR, professional baseball ownership, hockey, Olympics, polo, lacrosse, airlines, (feel free to name those we missed).
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Racial Profiling Environment in the Age of Terrorism
There is extra pressure on blacks to accept the concept of racial profiling related to 'Middle Eastern-looking' people. This acceptance, in the minds of profilers and their enablers, would justify the decades of profiling blacks have endured because of racism and the destructive behavior of our dysfunction tenth. Of course, 911 has upped the ante at airports. So what is our position on profiling 'Middle Eastern-looking' people?
Our position does not matter because they are going to get profiled anyway. Blacks have been profiled, are profiled and will be profiled. Whether it is shopping in a mall store, getting special treatment by an unscrupulous highway patrolman or policeman (we support the police), or by a newspaper reporter, we are going to be profiled in the hope that some dirt will be found on us somewhere or somehow. Even when professionally dressed and well spoken, one's skin color gives a prejudiced person opportunity to subtly or overtly insult. So 'Middle Eastern-looking' people should get used to it.
Our position does not matter because they are going to get profiled anyway. Blacks have been profiled, are profiled and will be profiled. Whether it is shopping in a mall store, getting special treatment by an unscrupulous highway patrolman or policeman (we support the police), or by a newspaper reporter, we are going to be profiled in the hope that some dirt will be found on us somewhere or somehow. Even when professionally dressed and well spoken, one's skin color gives a prejudiced person opportunity to subtly or overtly insult. So 'Middle Eastern-looking' people should get used to it.
Friday, August 25, 2006
A Small Business Guarantee
We couldn't have said it better ourselves:
"I can guarantee one thing: you will keep making more files, and losing track of them, every day. And whether you buy a search tool tomorrow or never, getting a grip on your files will save you time and money."The above quote is from Network World small business networking columnist James Gaskin; from his latest column, "Find that file fast" whereby he discusses the Google Mini and additional search tools small businesses should consider in helping manage an ever-growing amount of data. We concur with Mr. Gaskin's prognostication: we're seeing more small business customers who not only need to index more data on their intranets and web sites, but also different types of data (HTML, PDF, Office docs, etc) that can be found quickly. And our Google Mini customers are proof that as small business websites, intranets and file shares grow, their search accuracy, response and benefits can thrive, not diminish.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
APN leaders reflect on war & peace
On August 21, a liberal pro-Israel audience at the Manhattan JCC eagerly listened to Mark Rosenblum – a professor of history at Queens College/CUNY and a founder of Americans for Peace – along with Jo-Ann Mort, a journalist who is also high in the councils of APN, recently returned from a month in Israel. One exception in the audience was David McReynolds, the retired head of the War Resister’s League and a former presidential candidate of a tiny group that claims the noble lineage of the Socialist Party USA.
McReynolds is a well-meaning guy who was pro-Zionist in his youth but came decades later to view Israel as a “mistake” – but stops short of advocating its destruction. (I’ve had the “pleasure” of debating with him and some of his comrades recently. These comrades are venomously anti-Israel; one, Seth Farber, the author of an anti-Zionist book, regards the late Israeli hater of Judaism and Zionism, Israel Shahak, as his “mentor,” and is also an admirer of Rabbi Elmer Berger, founder of the anti-Zionist American Council on Judaism.) McReynolds left early; he had to be uncomfortable with Mark Rosenblum's mention of “demography” and the need for Israel to remain a Jewish state as justifications for Israel to withdraw from West Bank territory.
I was gratified to find that both Rosenblum and Mort share my conviction that engaging Syria in a peace process to attempt to peel it away from the Hezbollah-Iran axis is Israel’s best option. Rosenblum cited interior minister Avi Dichter’s statement of that day that peace with Syria is possible and that Israel can leave the Golan Heights as the price of that peace. Rosenblum also emphasized that it is an important precedent, and a hopeful sign of maturity, that Israel has (for a change) demanded a “robust” international force to intervene to help establish security along its border with Lebanon. (That France has tried to undermine the very force it has advocated, is another matter.)
Jo-Ann Mort found in her travels in the West Bank that Palestinians close to Abbas are eager to re-engage Israel in peace negotiations. And Rosenblum sagely suggests that Israel needs to test out the hypothesis that the split between Hamas prime minister Haniyah in Gaza and Meshal in Damascus is real, with Haniyah now pragmatically favoring a two-state solution.
The only thing I find unsettling about Prof. Rosenblum is that he seems to be an incurable optimist – or maybe he’s just appearing optimistic to maintain his mental health. But both he and Mort feel that the tenures of defense minister Peretz and IDF chief of staff Halutz are unlikely to be long. They may have differed in how they viewed Olmert’s fortunes, but I don’t recall exactly. At least one saw Olmert as dead meat politically, but it’s hard to envision who would pick up the pieces in his absence.
(Polls suddenly show Netanyahu's Likud and Avigdor Lieberman’s right-wing Yisrael Beitenu party as finishing first and second if an election were held immediately, but neither with more than 20 seats. Amusingly, when Rosenblum mentioned Netanyahu and then Lieberman as contenders for power, the crowd laughed – thinking that he had meant US Senator Joseph Lieberman.)
Curiously, Rosenblum has a verbal style that’s very reminiscent of NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman – with the latter’s habit of repeating words and phrases as ironic counterpoints to illustrate his thinking. I mean no disrespect for either personage, but the real irony here is that Rosenblum was particularly critical of Friedman in the fall of 2000 and after, when Friedman placed the total blame for the breakdown of the peace process on Arafat.
Rosenblum found plenty to implicate ex-Prime Minister Barak in that failure, and he was correct in this; but I felt at the time that Rosenblum was missing the far more central fact that – although Barak was overly confrontational and undiplomatic in his approach at Camp David and after – it was Arafat who fatally wounded the peace process by openly inciting violence and attempting to orchestrate that violence as a means of advancing his negotiating posture. Arafat’s strategy totally backfired, undermining Barak politically and electing Sharon overwhelmingly instead – and the memory of Arafat’s perfidy inhibits substantive negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians to this day. – R. Seliger
McReynolds is a well-meaning guy who was pro-Zionist in his youth but came decades later to view Israel as a “mistake” – but stops short of advocating its destruction. (I’ve had the “pleasure” of debating with him and some of his comrades recently. These comrades are venomously anti-Israel; one, Seth Farber, the author of an anti-Zionist book, regards the late Israeli hater of Judaism and Zionism, Israel Shahak, as his “mentor,” and is also an admirer of Rabbi Elmer Berger, founder of the anti-Zionist American Council on Judaism.) McReynolds left early; he had to be uncomfortable with Mark Rosenblum's mention of “demography” and the need for Israel to remain a Jewish state as justifications for Israel to withdraw from West Bank territory.
I was gratified to find that both Rosenblum and Mort share my conviction that engaging Syria in a peace process to attempt to peel it away from the Hezbollah-Iran axis is Israel’s best option. Rosenblum cited interior minister Avi Dichter’s statement of that day that peace with Syria is possible and that Israel can leave the Golan Heights as the price of that peace. Rosenblum also emphasized that it is an important precedent, and a hopeful sign of maturity, that Israel has (for a change) demanded a “robust” international force to intervene to help establish security along its border with Lebanon. (That France has tried to undermine the very force it has advocated, is another matter.)
Jo-Ann Mort found in her travels in the West Bank that Palestinians close to Abbas are eager to re-engage Israel in peace negotiations. And Rosenblum sagely suggests that Israel needs to test out the hypothesis that the split between Hamas prime minister Haniyah in Gaza and Meshal in Damascus is real, with Haniyah now pragmatically favoring a two-state solution.
The only thing I find unsettling about Prof. Rosenblum is that he seems to be an incurable optimist – or maybe he’s just appearing optimistic to maintain his mental health. But both he and Mort feel that the tenures of defense minister Peretz and IDF chief of staff Halutz are unlikely to be long. They may have differed in how they viewed Olmert’s fortunes, but I don’t recall exactly. At least one saw Olmert as dead meat politically, but it’s hard to envision who would pick up the pieces in his absence.
(Polls suddenly show Netanyahu's Likud and Avigdor Lieberman’s right-wing Yisrael Beitenu party as finishing first and second if an election were held immediately, but neither with more than 20 seats. Amusingly, when Rosenblum mentioned Netanyahu and then Lieberman as contenders for power, the crowd laughed – thinking that he had meant US Senator Joseph Lieberman.)
Curiously, Rosenblum has a verbal style that’s very reminiscent of NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman – with the latter’s habit of repeating words and phrases as ironic counterpoints to illustrate his thinking. I mean no disrespect for either personage, but the real irony here is that Rosenblum was particularly critical of Friedman in the fall of 2000 and after, when Friedman placed the total blame for the breakdown of the peace process on Arafat.
Rosenblum found plenty to implicate ex-Prime Minister Barak in that failure, and he was correct in this; but I felt at the time that Rosenblum was missing the far more central fact that – although Barak was overly confrontational and undiplomatic in his approach at Camp David and after – it was Arafat who fatally wounded the peace process by openly inciting violence and attempting to orchestrate that violence as a means of advancing his negotiating posture. Arafat’s strategy totally backfired, undermining Barak politically and electing Sharon overwhelmingly instead – and the memory of Arafat’s perfidy inhibits substantive negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians to this day. – R. Seliger
Partnering Down Under
The Google Enterprise Professional program is now on four continents! In addition to partners in North America, Europe, and Japan, we now proudly welcome Australia to our enterprise partner family.
More specifically, web services company Panalysis has signed on to help our customers in Australia and New Zealand get even more out of their Google Search Appliance and Google Mini deployments. Panalysis has extensive experience with web analytics (including Google Analytics, of course!), optimization, websites, and intranets. Also, with a focus on user experience, they're a great fit for Google. We're excited to have them on board and excited to be breaking new ground down under!
More specifically, web services company Panalysis has signed on to help our customers in Australia and New Zealand get even more out of their Google Search Appliance and Google Mini deployments. Panalysis has extensive experience with web analytics (including Google Analytics, of course!), optimization, websites, and intranets. Also, with a focus on user experience, they're a great fit for Google. We're excited to have them on board and excited to be breaking new ground down under!
September 22 - World Car Free Day 2006
Here are resources on this year's world Carfree Day September 22, 2006
European Mobility Week
World Car Free Days Collaborative
Street Conversion Design Competition
Car Free Day Canada
American Schoolkids Getting on the Bus
"Most weekday afternoons, Patricia Israel waits in her front yard for the school bus to drop off her 6-year-old twin sons.
The boys beg to ride the bus every day, which Israel said is fine with her. She sees it as environmentally sound transportation that reduces traffic on the streets and at the school.
It also saves money on gas for her sport utility vehicle. "We're looking at getting a hybrid," Israel said. "Every time I fill up the gas tank, it's like $75."
AP
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Lebanon: Right vs. Wrong, Not Right vs. Left
The following is an abridged version of a submission by Ami Isseroff, editor/director of “Mideast Web – Middle East News and Commentary” and a founder of “Zio-Nation – Progressive Zionism and Israel Web Log.” As with all postings, this does not necessarily reflect the views of Meretz USA.The failure of the Lebanon war must not be regarded as an ideological issue, nor is the failure confined to the problem of beating Hezbollah. Most failures are orphans, but this failure has many proud fathers from all parts of the political spectrum, who cannot disavow their paternity. Ehud Barak left Lebanon without proper international guarantees. Bibi Netanyahu prepared penny-pinching budgets that scrimped on defense. Now he is offered, ironically, as a "savior." Amir Peretz made vainglorious boasts with no backing. We “won't forget the name of Amir Peretz,” [as he boasted Nasrallah wouldn’t] but we won't forget Bibi Netanyahu either.
The Likud ignored the threat of the Hezbollah rockets for six years, and the unity government made a corrupt and shameful deal with Nasrallah in 2004, the last time the Hezbollah kidnapped soldiers. This signaled to them that their method worked and could be repeated. Abraham “Bogey” Ya'alon, the former chief of staff, must be held responsible in part for the state of preparedness of IDF units and the state of IDF logistics. These problems did not develop over night, yet he is offered as another "savior."
The difference between the Israeli right and the left was never about defense preparedness or support for the army. Every Zionist understands that without the IDF, Israel would not exist. In this failure, the problem is not "right versus left" but "stupid versus smart" and "good judgement versus bad judgement."
Hassan Nasrallah is not a great resistance hero. He is a medieval religious fanatic who heads a reactionary genocidal organization that is a threat to both Israel and Lebanon. If this war had succeeded in ridding the Middle East of Nasrallah, then nobody would say that Israel places too much reliance on force. There would be celebrations in Tel Aviv, in Beirut and, perhaps more discretely, in the government buildings in Riyadh, Cairo and Amman. That would have been true even if the price in lives had been much higher. The Six Day War cost many more lives than this abortive unnamed Lebanese war. The problem was not that we went to war, but that at the end of a month of fighting, we gained nothing. This was exacerbated by the juvenile boasting of Peretz, Olmert and various self-important military honchos.
Very likely the war could have been won, if the IDF did what it has always done. Instead, every rule in every military doctrine book went out the window from day one, and especially all the IDF rules. Every rule in the diplomatic book was thrown out too. The first Lebanon war was run badly and was unnecessary, but next to this war, it looked like it was run by geniuses.
The sensible and obvious thing to do in such a situation, when you have been attacked but there is no immediate threat, is to issue an ultimatum and explain your terms. Use the time to gather world sympathy and to very visibly mobilize the reserves. The threat alone might have produced results, especially before massive bombings hardened hearts.
Then, if war became necessary, carry the war to the enemy immediately and make sure the goals can be achieved in a brief time. Don't count on the US to prevent an early cease-fire. Israeli troops should have entered Lebanon with a massive armor and artillery push and raced to the Litani, and then used the captured territory as a lever for bargaining.
The safe return of the soldiers and disarmament of the Hezbollah should have been unbreakable conditions for a cease-fire. If we could not make these conditions and hold to them, we should not have gone to war. For what was "achieved" in this war, it was not worth sacrificing a hair on the head of a goat, let along 150 Israelis and about a thousand Lebanese.
Believe it or not, that is not the really bad news. The real threat is not Nasrallah, a minor gangster after all. The big problem is that Nasrallah's puppet-master in Teheran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is preparing atomic weapons, and there is every indication that he will have them in a few years, notwithstanding American protests and French hand-wringing to the contrary. Countries that are not willing to send a few hundred soldiers each to disarm some gangsters in Lebanon, won't stop a country of 80 million from acquiring nuclear weapons.
The misjudgements of this Israeli government show that the government and the military brass are dangerously incompetent. That reserves were not trained, and went to war without proper supplies, shows that the previous government and military brass were also incompetent.
These failings must be corrected quickly. It is obvious to me that they cannot be corrected by the people in charge, who showed themselves totally incompetent in every field. Asking for their removal from office is not a political act and should not be based on political motives, nor is it a punishment. Nobody has the "right" to be prime minister or defense minister of the State of Israel, nor is it a "reward" to be given out as political patronage. – Ami Isseroff
Mike Tidwell Says Get Ready for Katrina on the Potomac
Mike Tidwell paints a gloomy picture in a local newspaper about conditions caused by global warming around Washington, D.C. if sea levels rise by 3 feet: "the Mall, Reagan National Airport and much of Alexandria well below sea level." Mr. Tidwell makes the same mistake of ignoring nuclear power as a solution to global warming in his Sunday Washington Post Outlook article, "We're All New Orleanians Now," that he did when he interviewed AAEA President Norris McDonald on his radio show, right. He simply calls for, "switching to hybrid cars and wind and solar powered electricity and high efficiency appliances."We agree with him on these solutions. But for some illogical reason he cannot accept nuclear power as a viable solution to providing emission free electricity to very large numbers of people 24 hours a day 7 days a week. We love wind and solar, but they simply cannot provide electricity 24/7. And Americans are a demanding species when it comes to their electricity. Mr. Tidwell's recommendation number 3 to, "switch to clean energy as fast as possible," should include fission power. We promote plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to reduce carbon emissions and nuclear power plants as great emission free sources of electricity to recharge the vehicles during off-peak hours. Great article though Mike.
Going Green with God
The Washington Times provides a question and answer piece with Dr. J. Matthew Sleeth, a former physician who has published a new book entitled, "Serve God, Save the Planet." Here is one of the questions: "By fighting global warming, are Christians being forced to stand side by side with non-Christian environmentalists?" Interesting piece. Worth a look.
Thoughts on how to help Lebanon & Israel rebuild
Arieh Lebowitz here. As the fighting between Hezbullah and Israel began a few weeks back, mainstream Jewish groups, from a number of the alphabet soup of Jewish organizations to local Jewish community federations, began special campaigns to raise funds for Israel, which was being hit in the north by Hezbullah rockets being shot somewhat indiscriminately from Lebanon. A few weeks back, I attended a meeting of liberal / progressive American Jews where someone said that it would be a good thing if American Jews assisted in the rehabilitation of some of the damage wrought by Israel in Lebanon as part of its attempt to weaken Hezbullah forces in that country. The idea was discussed, but not acted upon at that time.
Matching Grant of a sort for Lebanon and Israel
An aquaintance who operates another weblog, The Head Heeb, thinking it through, decided to act on his own. On August 16th, I read this item:
August 28: Concert for Northern Israel and Lebanon
Then I learned that - from all sources an article in Arutz Sheva -- that "A group of young people from Jerusalem and the Judean Hills have organized a concert to provide aid to residents of both northern Israel and southern Lebanon. They hope to beat Hizbullah to it."
And most recently, I learned of a thoughtful article by a third aquaintance [Dan Sieradski being the second one, one of the folks involved in organizing the concert, mentioned above] that appeared on Ynet News: A new solidarity needed amid ceasefire
Matching Grant of a sort for Lebanon and Israel
An aquaintance who operates another weblog, The Head Heeb, thinking it through, decided to act on his own. On August 16th, I read this item:
It's time, I think, to put my money where my mouth is.Let me add that the comments posted in response to this statement are worth reading, to give a sense of what people are thinking.
The next task in the Middle East is to rebuild what has been destroyed and to heal what can't be rebuilt: to restore the houses and the roads, to comfort and provide for the bereaved families. Rebuilding northern Israel is an urgent priority, reconstructing southern Lebanon much more so. Lebanon sustained more damage than Israel - environmental as well as structural - and it has fewer resources to rebuild. Lebanon, has also been under a blockade for the past month and is running short on humanitarian supplies in addition to its longer-term needs.
Some, Shimon Peres included, have proposed a massive international effort to rebuild Lebanon - a Marshall Plan of sorts. It's important, for both political and moral reasons, that this happen and that Israel take part in it. Such a program would be both a way to ensure that the south is rebuilt by someone other than Hizbullah, and a chance to make good on the promise that Israel is not at war with the Lebanese people. But aid programs, especially major ones, always take time to plan and implement, and there's a great deal that can't wait for the international community to get its act together.
For this reason, I will match up to US $1250 in reader donations for reconstruction of southern Lebanon and up to US $750 to rebuild northern Israel. I strongly encourage Israeli and Jewish readers to donate to Lebanese charities and vice versa, but that isn't mandatory; I will match all donations to non-extremist-controlled charities up to the stated sum. For those who may not be sure where to contribute, this portal, which links to charities helping both countries, may provide a starting point.
I also make another pledge: five days. I've done disaster relief before, when my reserve unit was called up for the 1998 ice storm, and I'm willing to do it again. If someone can help out with the immigration formalities and tell me what to do in a language I understand, I'll go spend five days on the ground helping to dig out. This isn't something I can do right away - it will probably be early next year before I can put aside my other commitments and plans - but I'm unfortunately certain that there will still be work to do by then. In the meantime, I've made the promise here on the record.
August 28: Concert for Northern Israel and Lebanon
Then I learned that - from all sources an article in Arutz Sheva -- that "A group of young people from Jerusalem and the Judean Hills have organized a concert to provide aid to residents of both northern Israel and southern Lebanon. They hope to beat Hizbullah to it."
Jewish Students Raise Funds to Aid Israelis and LebaneseFor more information about the concert, email director@matzat.org.il
by Ezra Halevi / August 20, 2006 - 26 Av, 5766
A group of young people from Jerusalem and the Judean Hills have organized a concert to provide aid to residents of both northern Israel and southern Lebanon. They hope to beat Hizbullah to it.
Shimshon Siegel, a rabbinic student at the Bat Ayin Yeshiva in Gush Etzion; Amy Kaplan, a student at Simchat Shlomo, a yeshiva in Jerusalem’s Nachlaot neighborhood adhering to the tradition of Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach; and Dan Sieradski, an increasingly observant left-wing anarchist who also studies at Simchat Shlomo and directs the non-profit Jewish organization Matzat, have embarked on an effort to raise money to support war victims on both sides of the border. The three emphasize the need to “have compassion for all civilians who have suffered, as well as the need to circumvent Hizbullah's leadership in reconstruction efforts.”
“Even though we each have different opinions on the war and the Middle East, we are joined together in the conviction that concern for human beings should transcend politics,” said Dan Sieradski, known for his left-wing politics and blogs.
Sieradski, though driven by concern for the suffering of those on both sides of the border, believes providing relief to Lebanese civilians is critical. “With Hizbullah's dominance of relief efforts in Lebanon, we will not stand idly by while the Lebanese become further indebted to Hizbullah,” Sieradski said.
The concert, called Acharei HaMilchama (After the War), will feature both Jewish and Arab musicians, religious and secular, and will take place Monday, August 28th at Jerusalem’s Yellow Submarine (13 HaRechavim street). The concert will begin at 8 PM and last until 1 AM, featuring Eden Mi’Kedem, Sagol 59, Samech “SAZ” Zacuth and others.
Funds raised by the concert will be split between Lebanese and Israeli aid efforts. Table-to-Table’s Northern Relief Campaign is providing displaced Israeli families with needed supplies such as food, clothes, diapers, toys, and other essential goods. They are working with the Welfare Department to determine the most urgent needs of communities in the north, including rebuilding wrecked homes, volunteer help for farmers, restoring businesses, and sending school supplies for the upcoming academic year.
And most recently, I learned of a thoughtful article by a third aquaintance [Dan Sieradski being the second one, one of the folks involved in organizing the concert, mentioned above] that appeared on Ynet News: A new solidarity needed amid ceasefire
Before the bombs begin to fly again, American Jews, Arabs and Muslims, should use the current ceasefire to consider how our communities can provide a more constructive response to the latest, and future, Middle East crisis [sic].Again, the comments posted in reponse to this opinion piece are worth reading, to give a sense of what at least some people are thinking.
Soon after the last fighting began organizations representing each community quickly mobilized to stand in solidarity and support of Israeli or Lebanese victims, and the actions of their respective governments.
It is, of course, only natural for each community to be worried first and foremost about friends and relatives caught in the line of fire, and the many humanitarian relief efforts launched in the war’s wake will surely help innocent victims on each side of this conflict begin to rebuild their lives.
At the same time, with sectarian differences tearing countries apart the all too tribal nature of these solidarity campaigns — and the often sweeping, empty rhetoric that accompanies them — comes at the expense of recognizing our neighbor’s pain, and falls far short of what we could offer our troubled brethren philanthropically, symbolically and politically if we sought common ground and responded together.... Read it all here.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Spike Lee : When the Levees Broke
Spike took our advice and addressed global warming in the HBO documentary. He also included wetlands and barrier island restoration issues. He did not cover our recommendation to drain Lake Pontchartrain during hurricane season. When we spoke to Spike about the documentary he wanted to use former Vice President Al Gore to comment on global warming if he decided to include the issue. Maybe Gore was busy getting ready to promote his book and movie about global warming.One commenter actually said the oil companies were "broke" because of Katrina. What rock has he been hiding under? Oil companies made record profits this year. Two or three commenters stated that Louisiana does not receive royalty funds from offshore oil operations. Another commenter said Louisiana would be Saudi Arabia if it seceded from the union. We have some more precise information if you are interested.
A U.S. District Judge turned down Gov Kathleen Blanco's request to block the sale of federal natural gas and oil leases in the western Gulf of Mexico but agreed with Blanco that the federal Minerals Management Service (MMS) did not conduct an adequate environmental impact statement regarding offshore drilling and hurricane damage to Louisiana's coast. Blanco was trying to force the government to give Louisiana a bigger share of the royalties from offshore oil and gas drilling. Louisiana now receives less than 2 percent of royalties from oil and natural gas produced in the Gulf. Royalties are payments to the Interior Department's MMS based on the value at the lease of any natural gas and oil actually produced. (Royalties)
While Blanco was politicking and litigating, the Senate and House passed bills that would give Louisiana and other Gulf states more - 37.5 percent under the Senate bill, 50 to 75 percent under the House bill. The differences will be reconciled in a House/Senate conference committee in September. Ironically, although higher royalty rates for Louisiana would help in rebuilding New Orleans, the Congressional Black Caucus voted against the lesislation.
James Lovelock's New Book : THE REVENGE OF GAIA
Washington Post writer Tim Flannery reviews The Revenge of GAIA: Earth's Climate Crisis & the Fate of Humanity, and captures the heart of James Lovelock's solution to global warming: "...develop nuclear power as swiftly and effectively as possible." (Washington Post Follow Up Article)
More Americans, Dying to Drive
While our hearts go out to the families of the 2,600 dead US soldiers in Iraq and the tens of thousands of dead civilians caught up in this oil war, what are we to make of the 43,443 Americans killed last year by America's dangerous transportation system?
"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said 43,443 people were killed on the highways last year, up 1.4 percent from 42,836 in 2004. It was the highest number of fatalities in a single year since 1990, when 44,599 people were killed."
ABC News
Uri Avnery on the '155th Victim'
R. Seliger comments: Our inclusion of this or any piece on our weblog does not imply the endorsement of Meretz USA or my personal agreement. But I see Uri Avnery, the hoary head of the Gush Shalom radical peace movement (closer to Hadash – the former Communist party – than to Meretz, but likewise favoring a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians) as on to something with this article (Aug. 19) on the Lebanon crisis. He begins by quoting a Lebanese army commander suggesting that its national army is allied with Hezbollah, rather than marching into the south to confront or contain it. Pro-Hezbollah rhetoric is very much in vogue in Lebanon today, but time will tell how truthful the officer was. Avnery goes on to question the role of the to-be-reinforced UN force (UNIFIL) and to make further remarks as excerpted below:.... As the days pass, it becomes increasingly clear that this [UN] force will be, at best, a mishmash of small national units, without a clear mandate and "robust" capabilities.... So what remains of all the "achievements" of this war?....
AFTER EVERY failed war, the cry for an official investigation goes up in Israel. Now there is a "trauma", much bitterness, a feeling of defeat and of a missed opportunity. Hence the demand for a strong commission of inquiry that will cut off the heads of those responsible.... If indeed such a commission is set up, what will it investigate?
The politicians and generals will try to restrict the inquiry to the technical aspects of the conduct of the war:
- Why was the army not prepared for a war against guerillas?
- Why were the land forces not sent into the field in the two first weeks?
- Did the military command believe that the war could be won by the air force alone?
- What was the quality of the intelligence?
- Why was nothing done to protect the rear, when the rocket threat was known?
- Why were the poor in the North left to their fate, after the well-to-do had left the area?
- Why were the reserve units not ready for the war?
- Why were the emergency arsenals empty?
- Why did the supply system not function?
- Why did the Chief-of-Staff practically depose the Chief of the Northern Command in the middle of the war?
- Why was it decided at the last moment to start a campaign that cost the lives of 33 Israeli soldiers?
The government will probably attempt to widen the investigation and to put part of the blame on its predecessors:
- Why did the Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon governments just look on when Hezbollah was growing?
- Why was nothing done as Hezbollah built up its huge stockpile of rockets?
All these are serious questions, and it is certainly necessary to clear them up. But it is more important to investigate the roots of the war:
- What made the trio Olmert-Peretz-Halutz decide to start a war only a few hours after the capture of the two soldiers?
- Was it agreed with the Americans in advance to go to war the moment a credible pretext presented itself?
- Did the Americans push Israel into the war, and, later on, demand that it go on and on as far as possible?
- Was it Condoleezza Rice who decided in fact when to start and when to stop?
- Did the US want to get us entangled with Syria?
- Did the US use us for its campaign against Iran?....
THIS WAR has no name. Even after 33 days of fighting and six days of cease-fire, no natural name has been found. The media use a chronological name: Lebanon War II.
This way, the war in Lebanon is separated from the war in the Gaza Strip, which has been conducted simultaneously, and which is going on unabated after the cease-fire in the North. Do these two wars have a common denominator?.... The answer is certainly, yes. And the proper name is the War for the Settlements.
The war against the Palestinian people is being waged in order to keep the "settlement blocs" and annex large parts of the West Bank. The war in the north was waged, in fact, to keep the settlements on the Golan Heights.
Hezbollah grew up with the support of Syria, which controlled Lebanon at the time. Hafez al-Assad saw the return of the Golan to Syria as the aim of his life - after all, it was he who lost them in the June 1967 war, and who did not succeed in getting them back in the October 1973 war. He did not want to risk another war on the Israel-Syria border, which is so close to Damascus. Therefore, he patronized Hezbollah, so as to convince Israel that it would have no quiet as long as it refused to give the Golan back. Assad jr. is continuing with his fathers legacy.
Without the cooperation of Syria, Iran has no direct way of supplying Hezbollah with arms.
The solution is on hand: we have to remove the settlers from there, whatever the cost in wines and mineral water, and give the Golan back to its rightful owners. Ehud Barak almost did so, but, as is his wont, lost his nerve at the last moment.
It has to be said aloud: every one of the 154 Israeli dead of Lebanon War II (until the cease-fire) died for the settlers on the Golan Heights.
THE 155TH Israeli victim of this war is the "Covergence Plan" – the plan for a unilateral withdrawal from parts of the West Bank.
Ehud Olmert was elected four months ago (hard to believe! only four months!) on the platform of Convergence, much as Amir Peretz was elected on the platform of reducing the army and carrying out far-reaching social reforms.
In the course of the war, Olmert still announced that he would implement the "Convergence." But the day before yesterday he conceded that we could forget about it.
The Convergence was to remove 60 thousand settlers from where they are, but to leave the almost 400 thousand settlers in the West Bank (including the Jerusalem area). Now this plan has also been buried.
What remains? No peace, no negotiations, no solution at all for the historic conflict. Just a complete deadlock for years, at least until we get rid of the duo Olmert & Peretz....
Monday, August 21, 2006
Juan Williams Attack on Rev Al Sharpton Unconscionable
Juan Williams attack on Rev Al Sharpton on Bill O'Reilly's show must have been a ploy to sell more copies of his new book, "Enough." And we sure don't mind him making money. It is just a lowdown act to accuse Rev Sharpton of 'marching for money,' particularly as Williams, right, used a single Wall Street Journal article as the source for the accusation. Williams also could not answer why it was wrong for Rev Sharpton to accept contributions from a Republican. It just seems that many people have a bias against black people making money. Juan needs to put in a fraction of the time in solving problems that Rev Sharpton has before he tries to feebly and inaccurately criticize the reverend. What does this have to do with the environment you ask?When Marsha Coleman-Adebayo and AAEA President Norris McDonald went to meet with Rev Al Sharpton at his Hall of Justice in Harlem in 2002 to ask him to come to Washington, DC to march on Senator Lieberman to move the NO FEAR bill out of his committee, Rev Sharpton agreed to come down, came down and helped to get, "The First Civil Rights Legislation of the 21st Century" passed (photo above left). And he never requested any money. We didn't have any anyway. We wish we could have paid him millions for his historic contribution. Why is there the demand for blacks to be poor to be righteous when everyone else is making money? Rev Sharpton does not even take credit for his historic assistance. Rev Sharpton marches and works for causes because he WANTS TO, period. Oh. And regarding the environment, AAEA provided the environmental justice representaion to the NO FEAR Coalition.
British Petroleum (BP) recently donated $800,000 to the Nature Conservancy and $500,000 to the World Wilflife Fund (Wash Times) and they almost completely ignore black Americans. They avoid hiring any black professionals and not a peep from Mr. Williams about that. He is worried about Rev Sharpton getting $10,000. And isn't Rev Sharpton protesting BP? Get a clue Juan. We usually like your commentary.
Columnist Deroy Murdock Praises Fission Plants
Deroy Murdock is a very smart man and a great writer so we are not surprised that he sees the benefits of nuclear power. We also agree with him on the use of DDT to kill malaria mosquitoes in African countries. In fact, we first met him at a Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) conference in New York on the malaria issue. It is gratifying to see so many people and newspapers starting to embrace fission power as a viable energy option. And four years ago AAEA was alone in the nuclear power wilderness and EVERYBODY was telling us we were absolutely crazy.Murdock is funny in teasing my colleagues in the environmental movement about their NIMBY addiction. It is ironic that blacks are not normally viewed as environmentalists, particularly by traditional environmentalists. AAEA has been operating for 21 years and AAEA president Norris McDonald has been working as an environmentalist for 27 years, but he and we are still not considered to be 'real' environmentalists by many. Yet we believe many of our positions are more environmentally beneficial than most mainstream environmental groups. So thanks for verifying our position on this important energy option Mr. Murdock. Hat Tip: NEI
Iran Uranium Enrichment Fouls Religious Environment
A Shi'ite nuclear bomb poses a doomsday threat to Israel and Sunni Muslims. The U.S. war in Iraq must be accomplishing a certain level of comfort in Iraq because Shia and Sunnis feel comfortable enough to concentrate on fighting each other. The U.S. has created an environment where a power struggle for control of a new, post-Saddam Iraq has developed between Shi'ite Muslims and Sunni Muslims.
Just as Shi'ite Iran supplied Hezbollah with plenty of missiles to attack Israel from Lebanon, they would only need to provide a handful of nukes to devastate Israel. That simply cannot be allowed to happen under any circumstances. Of course Sunni Muslims throughout the Middle East should feel every bit as threatened as Israel because the Shi'ites have equal contempt for them. Osama bin Laden is a devout Sunni Muslim and so were the Islamofascists that attacked New York and the Pentagon. However, the U.S. cannot sit back and hope that the religious wars among Sunni, Shi'ite and Judaism will not also target the Christian West. Unfortunately, a Shi'ite nuke changes everything. And although Shi'ites see Sunnis and Christians as infidels, they might not be above handing a nuke to a bin Laden Sunni nut for use on us.
Iran is also giving commercial nuclear power a bad name by its claim to be enriching uranium for civilian purposes only, when everyone knows better. Although Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), the U.N. Security Council has threatened economic and diplomatic sanctions if their uranium enrichment program is not halted. Of course, a similar U.N. position did not deter Saddam Hussein from being a threat. This situation shows the importance of the Bush Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) because it would eliminate the need for Iran to enrich uranium and would provide them with fission fuel.
If Iran insists on moving forward with its nuclear weapons program, then Sunni, Israeli or U.S. forces will probably be forced to duplicate the Baghdad Osirak facility experience, which was crippled by Israeli aircraft in 1981 in a preemptive strike to prevent Saddam Hussein from using the reactor for the creation of nuclear weapons. (See also: "Iran Rejects Offer For Nuclear Talks," The Washington Post)
Just as Shi'ite Iran supplied Hezbollah with plenty of missiles to attack Israel from Lebanon, they would only need to provide a handful of nukes to devastate Israel. That simply cannot be allowed to happen under any circumstances. Of course Sunni Muslims throughout the Middle East should feel every bit as threatened as Israel because the Shi'ites have equal contempt for them. Osama bin Laden is a devout Sunni Muslim and so were the Islamofascists that attacked New York and the Pentagon. However, the U.S. cannot sit back and hope that the religious wars among Sunni, Shi'ite and Judaism will not also target the Christian West. Unfortunately, a Shi'ite nuke changes everything. And although Shi'ites see Sunnis and Christians as infidels, they might not be above handing a nuke to a bin Laden Sunni nut for use on us.
Iran is also giving commercial nuclear power a bad name by its claim to be enriching uranium for civilian purposes only, when everyone knows better. Although Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), the U.N. Security Council has threatened economic and diplomatic sanctions if their uranium enrichment program is not halted. Of course, a similar U.N. position did not deter Saddam Hussein from being a threat. This situation shows the importance of the Bush Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) because it would eliminate the need for Iran to enrich uranium and would provide them with fission fuel.
If Iran insists on moving forward with its nuclear weapons program, then Sunni, Israeli or U.S. forces will probably be forced to duplicate the Baghdad Osirak facility experience, which was crippled by Israeli aircraft in 1981 in a preemptive strike to prevent Saddam Hussein from using the reactor for the creation of nuclear weapons. (See also: "Iran Rejects Offer For Nuclear Talks," The Washington Post)
Superpower or small country? By R. Seliger
An ongoing tragedy of Israel is that so small a country (with no more than seven million citizens) must remain a major military power in order to survive. It pays a high price to do so, with most Israeli men spending three years of their youth as regular conscripts and then one month of each year until the age of 50 in active reserve units and subject to unlimited emergency call-up.
Anti-Israel critics like to minimize Israel’s urgent security needs by referring to it, rather abstractly and without real analysis, as the fourth greatest military power in the world. I’m guessing that the three countries thought of as more powerful are the United States, China and Russia. Does this mean that Britain, France and Germany (to name but the most obvious) are less powerful than Israel? Each have eight to ten times the population, comparable technological knowhow, greater economic capacity, as large or larger standing armed forces and with great military traditions that go back centuries.
And what about the two Koreas – with the South possessing about 700,000 and the North one million or more men, armed to the teeth? Or what of India, a vast country, also with about a million men under arms, veterans of as many wars and struggles against guerrillas/terrorists as Israel? Even Taiwan, the Nationalist Republic of China, has more than twice Israel’s population, is technologically advanced and has standing and well-equipped armed forces that are larger than Israel’s. And what of Japan? Getting closer to Israel’s neighborhood, Turkey, Pakistan and Iran each have larger military establishments than Israel.
Both Israel and its critics need to see Israel for what it is – a small country, forced into an unnatural situation of being the region’s most potent military power. The Jewish people have tried it the other way, with the defacto passivism of living as a defenseless minority. The Israeli habit of perhaps over-relying upon force is a reaction to those long centuries of oppression and humiliation.
Yet at bottom, Israel has limited military capacities. It must attempt innovative means – including diplomacy and international assistance – to augment its odds for security. This may involve, at times, swallowing instances of hurt pride, or even injustice – a lesson the Arab world would also do well to learn – in the interest of avoiding mutual escalations of violence.
It should not surprise us that a guerrilla enemy, fighting on its own soil and glorifying the “martyrdom” of its men, along with the civilians among whom they are embedded, has placed Israel in a strategic quagmire in Lebanon, for a second time. The Romans confronted an equally determined foe in the Jewish people of 2,000 years ago, who were equipped with some of the same advantages. But Rome had the will and capacity of the world’s greatest empire – immune from the pressures of a well-informed public and democratic opposition, and facing no simultaneous strategic threat elsewhere – to systematically crush the heroic Judean rebellions in the first and second centuries. As a small country, modern Israel almost certainly lacks the capability to do something similar to the Hezbollah.
It was the path of Yohanon Ben-Zakai, convincing the Romans to allow him to set up his yeshiva, that saved the Jewish people at that time. I’m not arguing pacifism versus self-defense, but as Kenny Rogers’ “Gambler” advises: “You got to know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em, know when to walk away and know when to run.....”
Still, the Western world seems to have gone too far in a pacifist direction. The enhanced UN international force is beginning to look stillborn – with France effectively wimping out and both Lebanon and the UN still uncommitted to a real effort to curtail Hezbollah as an armed threat.
Anti-Israel critics like to minimize Israel’s urgent security needs by referring to it, rather abstractly and without real analysis, as the fourth greatest military power in the world. I’m guessing that the three countries thought of as more powerful are the United States, China and Russia. Does this mean that Britain, France and Germany (to name but the most obvious) are less powerful than Israel? Each have eight to ten times the population, comparable technological knowhow, greater economic capacity, as large or larger standing armed forces and with great military traditions that go back centuries.
And what about the two Koreas – with the South possessing about 700,000 and the North one million or more men, armed to the teeth? Or what of India, a vast country, also with about a million men under arms, veterans of as many wars and struggles against guerrillas/terrorists as Israel? Even Taiwan, the Nationalist Republic of China, has more than twice Israel’s population, is technologically advanced and has standing and well-equipped armed forces that are larger than Israel’s. And what of Japan? Getting closer to Israel’s neighborhood, Turkey, Pakistan and Iran each have larger military establishments than Israel.
Both Israel and its critics need to see Israel for what it is – a small country, forced into an unnatural situation of being the region’s most potent military power. The Jewish people have tried it the other way, with the defacto passivism of living as a defenseless minority. The Israeli habit of perhaps over-relying upon force is a reaction to those long centuries of oppression and humiliation.
Yet at bottom, Israel has limited military capacities. It must attempt innovative means – including diplomacy and international assistance – to augment its odds for security. This may involve, at times, swallowing instances of hurt pride, or even injustice – a lesson the Arab world would also do well to learn – in the interest of avoiding mutual escalations of violence.
It should not surprise us that a guerrilla enemy, fighting on its own soil and glorifying the “martyrdom” of its men, along with the civilians among whom they are embedded, has placed Israel in a strategic quagmire in Lebanon, for a second time. The Romans confronted an equally determined foe in the Jewish people of 2,000 years ago, who were equipped with some of the same advantages. But Rome had the will and capacity of the world’s greatest empire – immune from the pressures of a well-informed public and democratic opposition, and facing no simultaneous strategic threat elsewhere – to systematically crush the heroic Judean rebellions in the first and second centuries. As a small country, modern Israel almost certainly lacks the capability to do something similar to the Hezbollah.
It was the path of Yohanon Ben-Zakai, convincing the Romans to allow him to set up his yeshiva, that saved the Jewish people at that time. I’m not arguing pacifism versus self-defense, but as Kenny Rogers’ “Gambler” advises: “You got to know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em, know when to walk away and know when to run.....”
Still, the Western world seems to have gone too far in a pacifist direction. The enhanced UN international force is beginning to look stillborn – with France effectively wimping out and both Lebanon and the UN still uncommitted to a real effort to curtail Hezbollah as an armed threat.
Ruben Diaz Takes it to Street at Bronx Morrison St Festival
New York State Assemblyman Ruben Diaz, Jr, left, and his dad, New York State Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr, right, rocked, rolled, souled and salsaed the Bronx this past weekend. It was the annual Morrison Street Festival and the Diaz's know how to throw a street party. There were two stages at each end of the street; one Hip Hop and the other for Latino/Hispanic/Puerto Rican entertainment. Diaz, Jr. was MC for the Hip Hop stage and his dad handled the Latin stage. Morrison Street between Westchester and Watson was packed and there was a boxing ring for young amateur boxers in the middle of the street. AAEA had a very unique information table thanks to assistance from the New York Police Department and two cut tree trunks that happened to be nearby. NYPD allowed us to use three crowd barriers to build our table. AAEA signed up new members and shared local and national environmental information with attendees.The Hip Hop stage entertainment included old-school rap originator Kurtis Blow and the Sugar Hill Gang. Two other young acts included Remy Marten and Neyo. Neyo is more of a singer and really got the crowd excited. The food was incredible. The atmosphere was culturally inspirational. Families with small children were everywhere. Kids were playing basketball and softball between the Morrison Street Festival and the Bruckner Expressway. The newspapers should cover these events because it shows the best in community culture. It reminded us of the Malcolm X Day Festivals organized in Anacostia Park in Washington, DC by founding AAEA Board Chairman Charles Stephenson.
Ruben Diaz is an environmental justice champion for New York. He has sponsored environmental justice workshops in Albany and AAEA has been happy to participate in his events.
Sunday, August 20, 2006
R. Rosenberg: Strategic debris and political scandal
The following is excerpted from Robert Rosenberg’s “Today's Situation" column, "Just a lull in the fighting," Friday, August 18, 2006, posted from Tel Aviv at http://www.ariga.com.
There is almost nobody... who objects to the view that the last month of fighting against Hezbollah was interrupted and that sooner or later, whether next month or next year, another round will erupt.... [A]nd very few are suggesting any steps to take to prevent that war from breaking out by trying diplomacy with the Lebanese leadership or even engaging the Syrians.
The entire focus is on how the Lebanese Army, deploying some 15,000 troops in south Lebanon for the first time since the late 1960s and early 1970s, and the ‘new UNIFIL' – which suddenly is going to have only 200 new French troops, and not the 2,000 that had been touted by a variety of sources, including the French, for the past month – will not dare confront Hezbollah; how Hezbollah will keep its arms and probably acquire more through Syria; and how Hezbollah is preparing for the next round.
.... The latest political map shows Defense Minister Amir Peretz and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert against IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz, Halutz against everyone and Peretz and Olmert either standing together or hanging together. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who wanted a cease-fire the third day of the fighting is against Olmert, who was against her for wanting the cease-fire; and Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz... [who] was chief of staff and then defense minister and though he was against the unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon, did nothing during the last six years to stop the Hezbollah buildup....
One national level politician – Peretz – this week proposed trying to engage Syria in some form of way to pry it out of the grip of its Iranian masters. But he was immediately put down -- including by party colleagues -- with critics saying his call was just more proof of his incompetence as defense minister. True, former ambassador to Washington, Itamar Rabinovich, and former Military Intelligence chief Uri Saguy, who under Ehud Barak conducted the ultimately failed negotiations with Bashar Assad's father, Hafez, both say that Israel should be trying secret -- or not so secret -- diplomacy with the Syrians....
Olmert has meanwhile finally admitted that his unilateral convergence/realignment plan for the West Bank has been shelved.... nobody nowadays in Israel is buying the idea of another unilateral withdrawal.
Although the media keeps saying the public has turned sharply Rightward, polls so far do not show any dramatic rise for the parties to the Right of the Likud, like Yisrael Beitenu or the National Union-National Religious Party.... The occupation remains unpopular, but Palestinian issues are barely mentioned in the press, and when mentioned, it is mostly to emphasize the failures of PA President Mahmoud Abbas – like today, after Abbas announced a new tahadiye [lull or truce] had been reached among all the Palestinian factions, and within hours, Islamic Jihad and Hamas' military wing denied it. Ismail Haniye and his Hamas government remain beyond the pale – but there is a consistent thump of reports about negotiations underway for the release of Cpl. Gilad Shalit, in exchange for a few hundred Palestinian prisoners. But those reports are almost exclusively in the Arab press, and when noted by the Israelis, official reactions here are to deny it. After all, both the military operations in Gaza that began with Shalit's kidnapping and which so far have killed more than 200 people, and the Lebanon war, which began with the capture of soldiers Goldwasser and Regev, were touted by Israel's establishment as a way to get back the soldiers without any preconditions, and without any negotiations.
And late this afternoon, Justice Minister Haim Ramon announced he would resign on Sunday to face charges of sexual harassment in a criminal proceeding. Ramon's latest defense (starting from it never happened) is that a '2-3 second' kiss cannot be considered sexual harassment. President Moshe Katsav is also deep in a sexual scandal, with at least one woman detailing her complaint against Katsav to the police.... And other women are being questioned....
And there is still the state comptroller's investigation into the purchase of the Olmert family home, bought for a reported half million dollars under the market value from a contractor Olmert is alleged to have helped out when he was the mayor of Jerusalem.
There is almost nobody... who objects to the view that the last month of fighting against Hezbollah was interrupted and that sooner or later, whether next month or next year, another round will erupt.... [A]nd very few are suggesting any steps to take to prevent that war from breaking out by trying diplomacy with the Lebanese leadership or even engaging the Syrians.
The entire focus is on how the Lebanese Army, deploying some 15,000 troops in south Lebanon for the first time since the late 1960s and early 1970s, and the ‘new UNIFIL' – which suddenly is going to have only 200 new French troops, and not the 2,000 that had been touted by a variety of sources, including the French, for the past month – will not dare confront Hezbollah; how Hezbollah will keep its arms and probably acquire more through Syria; and how Hezbollah is preparing for the next round.
.... The latest political map shows Defense Minister Amir Peretz and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert against IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz, Halutz against everyone and Peretz and Olmert either standing together or hanging together. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who wanted a cease-fire the third day of the fighting is against Olmert, who was against her for wanting the cease-fire; and Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz... [who] was chief of staff and then defense minister and though he was against the unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon, did nothing during the last six years to stop the Hezbollah buildup....
One national level politician – Peretz – this week proposed trying to engage Syria in some form of way to pry it out of the grip of its Iranian masters. But he was immediately put down -- including by party colleagues -- with critics saying his call was just more proof of his incompetence as defense minister. True, former ambassador to Washington, Itamar Rabinovich, and former Military Intelligence chief Uri Saguy, who under Ehud Barak conducted the ultimately failed negotiations with Bashar Assad's father, Hafez, both say that Israel should be trying secret -- or not so secret -- diplomacy with the Syrians....
Olmert has meanwhile finally admitted that his unilateral convergence/realignment plan for the West Bank has been shelved.... nobody nowadays in Israel is buying the idea of another unilateral withdrawal.
Although the media keeps saying the public has turned sharply Rightward, polls so far do not show any dramatic rise for the parties to the Right of the Likud, like Yisrael Beitenu or the National Union-National Religious Party.... The occupation remains unpopular, but Palestinian issues are barely mentioned in the press, and when mentioned, it is mostly to emphasize the failures of PA President Mahmoud Abbas – like today, after Abbas announced a new tahadiye [lull or truce] had been reached among all the Palestinian factions, and within hours, Islamic Jihad and Hamas' military wing denied it. Ismail Haniye and his Hamas government remain beyond the pale – but there is a consistent thump of reports about negotiations underway for the release of Cpl. Gilad Shalit, in exchange for a few hundred Palestinian prisoners. But those reports are almost exclusively in the Arab press, and when noted by the Israelis, official reactions here are to deny it. After all, both the military operations in Gaza that began with Shalit's kidnapping and which so far have killed more than 200 people, and the Lebanon war, which began with the capture of soldiers Goldwasser and Regev, were touted by Israel's establishment as a way to get back the soldiers without any preconditions, and without any negotiations.
And late this afternoon, Justice Minister Haim Ramon announced he would resign on Sunday to face charges of sexual harassment in a criminal proceeding. Ramon's latest defense (starting from it never happened) is that a '2-3 second' kiss cannot be considered sexual harassment. President Moshe Katsav is also deep in a sexual scandal, with at least one woman detailing her complaint against Katsav to the police.... And other women are being questioned....
And there is still the state comptroller's investigation into the purchase of the Olmert family home, bought for a reported half million dollars under the market value from a contractor Olmert is alleged to have helped out when he was the mayor of Jerusalem.
Baskin: Strategic debris and political scandal
The following is most of Gershon Baskin’s opinion piece – “The war is over, the in-fighting is beginning” – published in the Jerusalem Times, August 20, 2006. The Jerusalem Times is published by Baskin’s partner, Hanna Siniora; both are co-CEOs of IPCRI – the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information, P.O. Box 9321, Jerusalem 91092 Tel: 972-2-676-9460 Fax: 972-2-676-8011 http://www.ipcri.org
With the passing of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, the cease fire came into effect and the Israeli troops began heading home. The last 30 hours of the war that the government implemented while the Security Council was already in session brought about no military achievement and only led to more than 30 additional, unnecessary casualties. It has been reported that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was against launching the expanded ground operation up to the Litani, yet he gave in to the pressure of the military and of Minister of Defense Amir Peretz.. Olmert, as Prime Minister, as he himself stated in his last Knesset address, bears full responsibility for the decisions made by the government. This was one of the most foolish and costly decisions taken by his government.
The investigation committee established by Peretz to assess the operational aspects of the war (headed by former Chief of Staff Amnon Lipkin-Shakhak) has no authority to judge the decisions made by the politicians. Olmert and Peretz should also have to answer to the public for leading the country into a war without achievable goals, with faulty tactical plans, and without taking into account the huge price that the home front would have to pay. Olmert’s taking responsibility has to be more than just words. Peretz must also stand before a real investigation, so that the public can understand how and why he made the decisions that he did that cost so many human lives, so much physical damage in Israel and in Lebanon, and so much suffering.
It is still too early to determine who won and who lost this war. The outcome and the balance of accounts will only come in the aftermath in the months to come. If the Lebanese army is capable of deploying, as it has begun, and if it keeps armed Hizbollah combatants away from the south, then Israel and the Lebanon will have both won, and that is good. Hizbollah will not simply go away, nor will we probably ever know what losses Hizbollah really suffered in the war, because they simply do not publish the truth.
The Government of Fouad Siniora (no relation to Hanna Siniora) seems to be coming out on top fully backed by Saad Hariri and even Walid Jumblat – this is good for Lebanon and good for the region. Israel suffered damages to more than 1,500 apartments and homes with massive damage to the forests and open spaces. Lebanon suffered damage to more than 15,000 apartments (some people are saying up to 30,000). The international community is now directing itself to raise funds for the reconstruction of Lebanon, while the government of Israel and the Jewish agency are doing the same for the north of Israel. Shimon Peres is off to the States on a fund-raising tour. The losses, reconstruction costs and rebuilding the army will probably come to more than $2 billion. There go all of the budgetary reserves that were supposed to be invested in education, health and welfare.
A problem with the concept
Many people are blaming the lack of experience of Olmert, Peretz and Halutz for the less than satisfactory results of the war. The problem is, however, one that developed way before these gentlemen were sitting at the helm. In my assessment, the problem rests with the concept of what the Israeli army is and what kind of wars it was prepared to face. The problem’s roots can be found in the policies that were developed and implemented in the days of Chief of Staff Ehud Barak (1991-1995). Barak’s concept, mirroring what he saw in the United States following the first Gulf war was that Israel needed a small, intelligent and sophisticated fighting force. Translating that concept into policy and planning meant investing huge sums first and foremost in the air force, in modern technologies, and in scaling down the reserve forces, depending on elite units of the regular army. Since 1991, Israel invested the major parts of its military budgets into these areas and scaled down the dependence on ground infantry units. The overall dependence of Israel on the air force during the beginning of this war was not because the Chief of Staff came from the air force, but because that was the entire military concept of the IDF since Barak’s time. This concept is good perhaps for the United States when it attacked Kosovo, or even when they launched the attack against the Saddam Hussein regime, but is it the right concept for Israel? Perhaps, if Israel had to go to war against another army it would be right, but it appeared to the quite wrong regarding a war against a guerilla fighting force. Now, in the aftermath of the war, the army needs to be re-equipped and serious re-evaluation of the future needs of the army must be undertaken. The IDF needs to be prepared for a war against another army, but it also needs to be prepared for a possible second round.
The Government in shambles
Unconnected to the war, but in addition to it, the government seems to be coming apart. Olmert is under investigation for an alleged bribe concerning real estate; the Minister of Justice Haim Ramon is resigning over an alleged sexual abuse charge, the Chief of Staff was accused of selling his stock portfolio on the day the war began (although not illegal – it stinks), Shimon Peres is under investigation for illegal campaign funds, and the cherry on the cake concerns the sexual harassment charges against the President, Moshe Katzav who will probably have to resign before his term of office ends.
It has also been reported that since the beginning of the war, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs were hardly speaking with each other. According to the reports, Tzipi Livni was opposed to many of the government decisions concerning the war and chose to take a low profile. When the diplomatic efforts were launched and negotiations were underway on the text of the UN Resolution, Livni wanted to go to NY to be there, but Olmert prevented her from going. Olmert controlled all of the negotiations on the UN text by himself with his top advisors, leaving Livni out of the loop.
Today it was reported that Livni appointed her chief political advisor, Yaki Dayan, to begin investigating and assessing the possibilities for opening up the Israeli-Syrian track. It is not clear if she made that decision with the agreement of the Prime Minister or perhaps despite his possible disagreement.
Today even Olmert is admitting that his realignment plan is off the agenda. The main aim of the government for the coming year will be the rebuilding of the north of the country. If it wasn’t so sad, it might be funny. Olmert, who came into office with his great promises of reshaping the country and setting Israel’s final boundaries, is now busy rebuilding what should not have been destroyed from the first place. The reason for going to war was the Hizbollah unprovoked attack against Israel, the killing of eight soldiers and the kidnapping of two others. Israel certainly had a causus belli - the question is whether or not it was wise to launch such a massive attack in order to achieve what has been achieved. Perhaps a more tempered response and a massive diplomatic offensive could have achieved the same or better results, and with a lot less damage?
New elections? – not now
The Government has a lot to answer for and the loss of support for the leaders in the public opinion polls is completely understandable (Olmert and Peretz are both in the mid to low 20’s approval rating after reaching the 70’s at the beginning of the war a few weeks ago). If the government wasn’t so young and if there weren’t so many new MKs, the talk about early elections might have to be taken more seriously. But other than a few of the parties in the opposition, no one wants to go to new elections – they haven’t yet heated up their new seats and they are not get ready to take the risk of not returning to them. Olmert will probably try to expand his government, but it doesn’t seem that there are too many parties or opposition MKs who are running to step on what now appears to be a sinking ship....
Gaza next?
I visited Gaza last week. Many people there believe that Israel will take its Lebanese frustrations out on Gaza. Already severely hit and suffering, Gaza is mentally preparing itself for a new Israeli onslaught. There has been no real progress in freeing the kidnapped soldier Gilead Shalit. Israel is still looking for the address that is in charge of the soldier. The assessments from senior Hamas personalities in Gaza and from senior Israeli officials are that Gilead Shalit is alive and well. But in both camps, no one is sure who and where the decisions are being made about his future. In the meantime, it can be expected that Israel will prepare for a massive ground offensive in the coming weeks if the soldier is not returned to Israel. The Government needs an achievement and needs to rebuild the morale of the country. Finding the soldier and punishing the Palestinians at the same time would boost support for the government which only gives more reason to believe that this is in the plans. If this is the path taken, the chances of survival for Shalit are probably less than 50:50, there will most likely be Israeli casualties and there will certainly be massive Palestinian casualties. This is not the path that should be taken, but if there will be no progress on the issue of Shalit, it seems that it is inevitable, unfortunately.
With the passing of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, the cease fire came into effect and the Israeli troops began heading home. The last 30 hours of the war that the government implemented while the Security Council was already in session brought about no military achievement and only led to more than 30 additional, unnecessary casualties. It has been reported that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was against launching the expanded ground operation up to the Litani, yet he gave in to the pressure of the military and of Minister of Defense Amir Peretz.. Olmert, as Prime Minister, as he himself stated in his last Knesset address, bears full responsibility for the decisions made by the government. This was one of the most foolish and costly decisions taken by his government.
The investigation committee established by Peretz to assess the operational aspects of the war (headed by former Chief of Staff Amnon Lipkin-Shakhak) has no authority to judge the decisions made by the politicians. Olmert and Peretz should also have to answer to the public for leading the country into a war without achievable goals, with faulty tactical plans, and without taking into account the huge price that the home front would have to pay. Olmert’s taking responsibility has to be more than just words. Peretz must also stand before a real investigation, so that the public can understand how and why he made the decisions that he did that cost so many human lives, so much physical damage in Israel and in Lebanon, and so much suffering.
It is still too early to determine who won and who lost this war. The outcome and the balance of accounts will only come in the aftermath in the months to come. If the Lebanese army is capable of deploying, as it has begun, and if it keeps armed Hizbollah combatants away from the south, then Israel and the Lebanon will have both won, and that is good. Hizbollah will not simply go away, nor will we probably ever know what losses Hizbollah really suffered in the war, because they simply do not publish the truth.
The Government of Fouad Siniora (no relation to Hanna Siniora) seems to be coming out on top fully backed by Saad Hariri and even Walid Jumblat – this is good for Lebanon and good for the region. Israel suffered damages to more than 1,500 apartments and homes with massive damage to the forests and open spaces. Lebanon suffered damage to more than 15,000 apartments (some people are saying up to 30,000). The international community is now directing itself to raise funds for the reconstruction of Lebanon, while the government of Israel and the Jewish agency are doing the same for the north of Israel. Shimon Peres is off to the States on a fund-raising tour. The losses, reconstruction costs and rebuilding the army will probably come to more than $2 billion. There go all of the budgetary reserves that were supposed to be invested in education, health and welfare.
A problem with the concept
Many people are blaming the lack of experience of Olmert, Peretz and Halutz for the less than satisfactory results of the war. The problem is, however, one that developed way before these gentlemen were sitting at the helm. In my assessment, the problem rests with the concept of what the Israeli army is and what kind of wars it was prepared to face. The problem’s roots can be found in the policies that were developed and implemented in the days of Chief of Staff Ehud Barak (1991-1995). Barak’s concept, mirroring what he saw in the United States following the first Gulf war was that Israel needed a small, intelligent and sophisticated fighting force. Translating that concept into policy and planning meant investing huge sums first and foremost in the air force, in modern technologies, and in scaling down the reserve forces, depending on elite units of the regular army. Since 1991, Israel invested the major parts of its military budgets into these areas and scaled down the dependence on ground infantry units. The overall dependence of Israel on the air force during the beginning of this war was not because the Chief of Staff came from the air force, but because that was the entire military concept of the IDF since Barak’s time. This concept is good perhaps for the United States when it attacked Kosovo, or even when they launched the attack against the Saddam Hussein regime, but is it the right concept for Israel? Perhaps, if Israel had to go to war against another army it would be right, but it appeared to the quite wrong regarding a war against a guerilla fighting force. Now, in the aftermath of the war, the army needs to be re-equipped and serious re-evaluation of the future needs of the army must be undertaken. The IDF needs to be prepared for a war against another army, but it also needs to be prepared for a possible second round.
The Government in shambles
Unconnected to the war, but in addition to it, the government seems to be coming apart. Olmert is under investigation for an alleged bribe concerning real estate; the Minister of Justice Haim Ramon is resigning over an alleged sexual abuse charge, the Chief of Staff was accused of selling his stock portfolio on the day the war began (although not illegal – it stinks), Shimon Peres is under investigation for illegal campaign funds, and the cherry on the cake concerns the sexual harassment charges against the President, Moshe Katzav who will probably have to resign before his term of office ends.
It has also been reported that since the beginning of the war, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs were hardly speaking with each other. According to the reports, Tzipi Livni was opposed to many of the government decisions concerning the war and chose to take a low profile. When the diplomatic efforts were launched and negotiations were underway on the text of the UN Resolution, Livni wanted to go to NY to be there, but Olmert prevented her from going. Olmert controlled all of the negotiations on the UN text by himself with his top advisors, leaving Livni out of the loop.
Today it was reported that Livni appointed her chief political advisor, Yaki Dayan, to begin investigating and assessing the possibilities for opening up the Israeli-Syrian track. It is not clear if she made that decision with the agreement of the Prime Minister or perhaps despite his possible disagreement.
Today even Olmert is admitting that his realignment plan is off the agenda. The main aim of the government for the coming year will be the rebuilding of the north of the country. If it wasn’t so sad, it might be funny. Olmert, who came into office with his great promises of reshaping the country and setting Israel’s final boundaries, is now busy rebuilding what should not have been destroyed from the first place. The reason for going to war was the Hizbollah unprovoked attack against Israel, the killing of eight soldiers and the kidnapping of two others. Israel certainly had a causus belli - the question is whether or not it was wise to launch such a massive attack in order to achieve what has been achieved. Perhaps a more tempered response and a massive diplomatic offensive could have achieved the same or better results, and with a lot less damage?
New elections? – not now
The Government has a lot to answer for and the loss of support for the leaders in the public opinion polls is completely understandable (Olmert and Peretz are both in the mid to low 20’s approval rating after reaching the 70’s at the beginning of the war a few weeks ago). If the government wasn’t so young and if there weren’t so many new MKs, the talk about early elections might have to be taken more seriously. But other than a few of the parties in the opposition, no one wants to go to new elections – they haven’t yet heated up their new seats and they are not get ready to take the risk of not returning to them. Olmert will probably try to expand his government, but it doesn’t seem that there are too many parties or opposition MKs who are running to step on what now appears to be a sinking ship....
Gaza next?
I visited Gaza last week. Many people there believe that Israel will take its Lebanese frustrations out on Gaza. Already severely hit and suffering, Gaza is mentally preparing itself for a new Israeli onslaught. There has been no real progress in freeing the kidnapped soldier Gilead Shalit. Israel is still looking for the address that is in charge of the soldier. The assessments from senior Hamas personalities in Gaza and from senior Israeli officials are that Gilead Shalit is alive and well. But in both camps, no one is sure who and where the decisions are being made about his future. In the meantime, it can be expected that Israel will prepare for a massive ground offensive in the coming weeks if the soldier is not returned to Israel. The Government needs an achievement and needs to rebuild the morale of the country. Finding the soldier and punishing the Palestinians at the same time would boost support for the government which only gives more reason to believe that this is in the plans. If this is the path taken, the chances of survival for Shalit are probably less than 50:50, there will most likely be Israeli casualties and there will certainly be massive Palestinian casualties. This is not the path that should be taken, but if there will be no progress on the issue of Shalit, it seems that it is inevitable, unfortunately.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
