[Rhodes22-list] We're all Jews Now?

[Brad Haslett]

Dave,

Here's some more bedtime reading.  Good night.

Brad

----------------------

July 25, 2006 A Proportionate Response is Madness*By* *Richard
Cohen*<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/author/richard_cohen/>

If by chance you have the search engine LexisNexis and you punch in the
words "Israel'' and "disproportionate,'' you run the risk of blowing up your
computer or darkening your entire neighborhood. Just limiting the search to
newspapers and magazines of the last week will turn up "more than 1,000
documents.'' Israel may be the land of milk and honey but it certainly seems
to be the land of disproportionate military response -- and a good thing,
too.

The list of those who have accused Israel of not being in harmony with its
enemies is long and, alas, distinguished. It includes, of course, the United
Nations and its secretary general, Kofi Annan. It also includes a whole
bunch of European newspapers whose editorial pages call for Israel to
respond, it seems, with only one missile for every one tossed its way. Such
neat proportion is a recipe for doom.

The dire consequences of proportionality are so clear that it makes you
wonder if it is a fig leaf for anti-Israel sentiment in general. Anyone who
knows anything about the Middle East knows that proportionality is madness.
For Israel, a small country within reach, as we are finding out, of a
missile launched from any enemy's back yard, proportionality is not only
inapplicable, it is suicide. The last thing it needs is a war of attrition.
It is not good enough to take out this or that missile battery. It is
necessary to re-establish deterrence: You slap me, I will punch out your
lights.

Israel has been in dire need of such deterrence ever since it pulled out of
Lebanon in 2000 and, just recently, the Gaza Strip. In Lebanon, it
effectively got into a proportional hit-and-respond cycle with Hezbollah. It
cost Israel 901 dead and Hezbollah an announced 1,375, too close to parity
to make a lasting difference. Whatever the figures, it does not change the
fact that Israeli conscripts or reservists do not think death and martyrdom
are the same thing. No virgins await Jews in heaven.

Gaza, too, was a retreat. There are many ways to mask it, but no way to
change the reality. The government of then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
concluded that Israel was incapable of controlling a densely populated area
full of people who hated the occupation. Israel will in due course reach the
same conclusion when it comes to the West Bank, although the present war has
almost certainly set back that timetable. The fact remains that for Israel
to survive, it must withdraw to boundaries that are easily defensible and
hard to breach.

It's clear now that those boundaries -- a wall, a fence, a whatever -- are
immaterial when it comes to missiles. Hezbollah, with the aid of Iran and
Syria, has shown that it is no longer necessary to send a dazed suicide
bomber over the border -- all that is needed is the requisite amount of
thrust and a warhead. That being the case, it's either stupid or mean for
anyone to call for proportionality. The only way to ensure that babies don't
die in their cribs and old people in the streets is to make the Lebanese or
the Palestinians understand that if they, no matter how reluctantly, host
those rockets, they will pay a very, very steep price.

Readers of my recent column on the Middle East can accuse me of many things,
but not a lack of realism. I know Israel's imperfections, but I also exult
and admire its achievements. Lacking religious conviction, I fear for its
future and note the ominous spread of European-style anti-Semitism
throughout the Muslim world -- and its boomerang return to Europe as a
mindless form of anti-Zionism. Israel is, as I have often said,
unfortunately located, gentrifying a pretty bad neighborhood. But the world
is full of dislocated peoples and we ourselves live in a country where the
Indians were pushed out of the way so that -- oh, what irony! -- the owners
of slaves could spread liberty and democracy from sea to shining sea. As for
Europe, who today cries for the Greeks of Anatolia or the Germans of
Bohemia?

These calls for proportionality rankle. They fall on my ears not as genteel
expressions of fairness, some ditsy Marquess of Queensberry idea of war, but
as ugly sentiments pregnant with antipathy toward the only state in the
Middle East that is a democracy. After the Holocaust, after 1,000 years of
mayhem and murder, the only proportionality that counts is zero for zero. If
Israel's enemies want that, they can have it in a moment.
cohenr at washpost.com < cohenr at washpost.com>

(c) 2006, Washington Post Writers Group



On 7/24/06, DCLewis1 at aol.com <DCLewis1 at aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 7/24/2006 9:46:31 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> robert at squirrelhaven.com writes:
>
> rhetoric  that is only recently
> being vocally disavowed by the majority if Islamic  faithful around
> the world.
>
>
>
>
> Robert,
>
> I've been trying to stay out of these political exchanges, trying to limit
> my board time, but I can't let your statement above pass.  I frankly
> don't  see
> the majority of Islamic faithful around the world disavowing anything very
> much, what I see passes for smug smiles when it comes to the travails of
> seculars/Christians/Jews/Hindus brought by muslim
> terrorists.  I'd  appreciate
> anyone challenging that perception; it's not a happy one.
>
> Those smug smiles extend to the US muslim community.  I don't recall
> a  large
> and loud public condemnation of al Quaida and it's tactics in the US  by
> the
> US muslim community, maybe I missed it.  I did hear a lot
> of  protestations of
> innocence and expressions regarding the need for tolerance (a  remarkably
> non-muslim characteristic) and due process - but that's  different.  Nor
> do I
> recall any muslim nation doing anything constructive  regarding terrorism
> except
> as the US paid them (e.g. Pakistan) or except as  the terrorists
> explicitly
> attacked the ruling government, in which case it  was the government
> responding
> to protect itself not a response from  the muslim majority of that
> country.
> I'm inclined to the  we(everybody but muslims)/they(muslim majority) point
> of
> view.
>
> If I'm right, it says a lot about the wisdom of investing US military
> resources to protect muslims from Serbs in Bosnia - freeing up
> muslim  fighters to
> attack us in Afghanistan and Iraq.  It says instituting  democracy is a
> crock,
> because it just provides a venue for "the people" to  elect terrorists and
> radical clerics to their government - which is what has  happened in
> Lebanon and
> Iraq.  It says that the problem is not bin Laden,  rather the problem is
> bin
> Laden and most of Pakistan, all of Yemen, minimum  half of Saudi Arabia,
> most
> of Iraq, all of Iran, all of Syria, etc.  It  says that a secular
> strong-man
> running Egypt is a lot better for US interests  than a democracy/theocracy
> staffed with radical clerics.   I don't see  a lot of evidence that the
> majority of
> muslims world wide are on our side on the  terrorist issue - US punditry
> notwithstanding.
>
> As for Iran's nuclear program, if it is truly a threat - as opposed to yet
> another US intelligence fiasco - I'm sure Israel will deal with
> it.  IMO  they
> are very capable. They are also explicitly threatened by the  Iranian
> program
> so their dealing with the issue would be appropriate.
>
> JMO
>
> Dave
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>