Fork in the Road

Note that you followed the outline I drew up perfectly:

Me: You will reply with: how dare you justify human rights violations committed by the IDF, for which there are no excuses

You: the IDF does target civilians. There is simply no way Israel would have killed more than 2,000 Palestinians civilians since 2000 by mere accident. Anyone who claims that Israel did not "target" one of them has a tough case to prove.

Me: You believe Israel is an occupying Apartheid state.

You: Israel knows that as a belligerent occupying force

Me: We'll do the dance, with onlookers throwing their five cents in about how I am a racist colonialist Zionist

Onlookers: The IDF was created precisely to kill non-Jewish civilians... That you refuse to recognize that is an acknowledgement that the only lives that matter to you are Jewish lives... And with that, nothing you have to write on here should be considered new, thought-provoking or even intelligent.

Do I hear an echo?

You've got to admit, I called it pretty well. I can call the rest of this dialogue equally well, but this is not why I am here. I'm here to put a fork in the road.

The point of me stating all these things in advance is that I understand your position, and that of everyone else here, and I could explain it far better and with more eloquence than the vast majority of Arabs on this blog, or indeed, the activist community itself. I've been around the block.

If I was insecure about my beliefs, I would come to a Zionist blog with witty little posts and commentators echoing my beliefs in an echochamber of irrelevance. Sound familiar?

As I've written about in the past, though I have lived on multiple continents, I am not a "citizen of the world". To me, the opinions of the international community are not simply irrelevant, they are meaningless. The same community that stood by while my family endured horrors and genocide that no one should have to endure; Not 2000 killed in 10 years, under mixed circumstances. 2000 killed in 10 seconds, having just been forced to dig their own graves. The same "international community" that is standing by while millions of others around the world are truly being exterminated, without so much as a UN representative to take pictures. My priority is not someone's notion of peace, nor someone's notion of justice. That is a useful construct when engaged in propaganda, for both of us, but that's not why I'm here.

Let me clear the air to avoid ANY confusion on the part of everyone reading: To me, Palestinian rights are negotiable; Jewish life is not. I value Jewish life more than Palestinian rights. Rights are paired with responsibilities, and those who demand the first, must accept and honor the second.

As I spoke about in a separate comment, every activist comes to a point where they need to make a choice. Do I score that one extra point, or I engage in a real conversation, based not on spouting propaganda, but rising to a shared intellectual honesty.

I've met Palestinian "one staters" before. I'm close friends with some. They have great ideas of how they can use "one state" to score points in an argument about human rights, occupation, etc, but most have not actually considered the results an implementation of this idea will have on Palestinian society. Have you? Do you understand what will happen to the felahin when Chassidic Jews, black hats and all, purchase homes in the villages? We Jews have survived 2000 years of living as aliens amongst those who hate us, pogrom us, expel us and kill us. We can deal with it. Can your people deal with it? Can your culture deal with it? Your society? What becomes of a Palestinian village that is 51% Jewish? What will it do to your people's identity?

As you can tell, I'm a one stater too, perhaps for different reasons. A part of me wants to rip your comments to shreds, and from what you've read of my comments in the past, you already know that would take a good sized essay; I don't shirk from volume. So why should we spend more time ripping one another's comments, when we both know we can do it. There's no challenge in that, and there certainly is no future. Based on what we both believe, [Name], one day, it is possible that your family will live next to mine. You say that you want to make this happen, and so do I.

Here's the fork in the road: You can keep scoring points; little insignificant points that make other Arabs and their western supporters feel good, but do not change a thing in the real world.

Or, you can live up to the ideals you claim you believe in, and start building the one state, for both of us. How you do this while maintaining credibility in the eyes of the many voices here who would much rather log on twice a day to score a point is your problem. If you can't solve that, then we can't solve anything.

You expect 5 million Jews and 5 million Palestinians who don't know each other to make a pact for national unity, in our lifetime, with minimal life lost on all sides. Prove it. Start right now.

Shabbat is coming and I need to get ready. Perhaps one day, you'll see me taking my kids to shul on a Friday night. It all depends on what kind of world you want to build.

Have a good weekend.

Life is at Stake, Not Peace

[Name], I've been around the block.

We can rehash this for a few days of back and forth. I would start with: how dare you compare the PIJ, a terrorist group that attempt to change Israeli government policy by targeting innocent Israeli civilians, to the IDF, which goes to extreme measures to minimize civilian casualties in a complicated urban guerrilla warfare environment, all in an effort to protect innocents

You will reply with: how dare you justify human rights violations committed by the IDF, for which there are no excuses

We'll do the dance, with onlookers throwing their five cents in about how I am a racist colonialist Zionist, and I'll reply that they are supporters of terrorism and Islamofascism...

Let's just skip this part and end at the stalemate. You believe Israel is an occupying Apartheid state. I believe Israel has acted to protect its people in the face of decades of Palestinian initiated violence.

You believe the United States should abandon its special relationship with Israel, begin a special relationship with the Palestinians and start pumping billions into their armed forces so that they can carry out a REAL war against the Jews and kill them all once and for all.

I believe the United States should continue strengthening its ties to Israel as a natural, ideological ally, and supporting it as a force multiplier and stabilizing force for American interests in the region.

There are some on this blog who believe that Palestinian terrorism is justified. They believe those who detonate explosives at a cafe, indiscriminately killing innocent people, are heroes, martyrs. Perhaps they believe there is no such things as an innocent Israeli (by which they really mean, an innocent Jewish Israeli, or simply, an innocent Jew). Not only do they believe it is a justified action, they enjoy when it happens, and wish that it would happen with greater frequency. With every terror action, their heart quickens just before they read of the death count.

These are vicious people. In Soviet Russia or Communist China, they could be reeducated in concentration camps, but we have no such options. The only alternative is to kill them if and when they turn their beliefs into actions.

I don't know you personally, and I don't know any of the other people on this blog. I don't know what you really believe; perhaps time will fix that.

I have never met a Jew who relished the killing of Palestinian terrorists, and certainly not the death of Palestinian civilians. Perhaps there are some, but I have never met them, and I have met many Jews - from tank commanders to doctors, fighter pilots, engineers, special forces, chassidim, hippies, businesss executives, Rabbis, students, housewives, American, Yemeni, French, Russian, Iraqi, Israeli, Brazilian...

I have never met such a Jew.

We don't pass out candy when the IDF kills a 18 year old with a bomb belt, on his way to murder our people. We don't celebrate in the synagogues when a misdirected IDF tank shell destroys a family in Gaza. These things just don't happen, in my experience.

Some think it is a sign of weakness, or speaks to the guilt we feel for the violence we inflict on others. That's not it. I've never felt guilt, not when a Palestinian home is demolished, not when Palestinian innocents are killed, and certainly not when the life of someone who wishes to harm innocent people is ended.

I can't speak for other Jews, so I will speak for myself. When I hear of olive trees being overturned, I think to myself, what a waste. When I read of Palestinians taking apart their street lamps in Gaza to build Qassams, I think to myself, what a waste. When I see pictures of a homicide bomber with his lower torso blown off, lying dead in the dirt, I think to myself, what a waste. When I think of [Name]'s friend, sleeping in his cell right now, what else can I think but what a waste. What a waste of life. What a waste of energy, of talent, of potential. What a waste of creation.

Were I in charge, I would have done some things differently. There are some in the IDF who believe their job is to punish Palestinians, instead of defending Israeli lives. They are a minority, and I have never met them, but I believe they exist. I'm outraged when the IDF conducts actions which are counterproductive to its mission, or when weak Israeli leaders give terror an inch, condemning more lives to waste, and endagering their own people, not to mention the lives of others.

So here starts your argument... If you would only return to the 1967 borders, you can have peace. Really? What kind of peace will that be? The kind of peace we have with Egypt, where you can count on one hand the number of Egyptians who have come to Israel on vacation, despite a "peace" lasting 40 years? And how many Egyptians would not mind going to war with Israel today, if they thought they could win? How many Egyptians are not learning in schools, not to mention their state controlled media, after 40 years of "peace", that the Zionists are pigs and monkeys who will one day be exterminated?

This is the kind of peace you want, a 10 minute drive from Tel Aviv? You can keep your "peace".

When your people held Jerusalem in 1948, they did not let us pray at the ruins of our temple. They mortared Jewish neighborhoods and tried to starve the Jewish holdouts in a siege. A return to the '67 lines means a return of millions of Jews to the mortar, rocket and sniper range of your people. And who will police those hills and protect Jewish civilians? You? Which you? Islamic Jihad? Al Aksa Martyrs? Hamas? PFLP? Who will we hold accountable when you kill our people? Which Palestinian will guarantee the security of Jewish lives, in perpetuity? Until you have an answer, you can keep your "peace".

This is not about the holiness of the land, though it is holy. It is not about the Jewish love for the land, though it has been tied by G-d to the essence of our existence and purpose in the world. It is not about rebuilding a Jewish Kingdom, for Mashiach is not yet here.

All the promises of piece in the world, all the handshakes, all the UN resolutions, all the smiles mean nothing to me, nor to the absolute majority of Jews, if Jewish life is in danger. As I have learned, and as we all know, Jewish life is in grave danger the moment those who wish to end it are given the opportunity to do so.

This is the lesson of the Shechem (Nablus) Yeshiva massacre in 1996, when fifteen Israeli soldiers were killed and sixty other Jews were wounded by arms which Israel had just given to the PA police force as part of the "peace process".

Peace is not a goal. It is a byproduct of an unalterable state of preservation of life, on all sides.

Land under Israeli control guarantees the most life, if imperfectly. Land under Palestinian control guarantees the loss of life, Jewish and Arab. This has been the reality in the past, and it stands unchallenged to this day.

The very reason for Palestinian resistance to Jewish settlement of the West Bank is precisely why it must be done, peacefully, but firmly, broadly, and unconditionally. Complete Jewish settlement of the West Bank means the end of incitement, the end of propaganda, the end of war, and the onset of unshakable, inalterable reality. Until Palestinians internalize that their future lies in coexistence with Jews, there will continue to be those among them who endanger and waste all our lives.

Life is at stake. Not peace.

Speaking of Unjust Imprisonment

Mo, you seem to care quite a bit about unjust imprisonment. Yet, I don't recall you ever mentioning the fate of Gilad Shalit, no older than your friend, who has now been imprisoned by Hamas for two years in truly inhumane conditions, "without access to his family or lawyers or access to any charges against him", not the puny 5 months that your friend is doing in Club Israel.

I'm tired of taking our boys back in bodybags because your cousins didn't can't get laid and need to prove how big their dick is.

You started a war, and now you whine about it. Why don't you go fuck yourself.

A Learning Experience

Congratulations, [Name]. Your friend has been identified by the IDF or Shabak as possessing certain leadership qualities that required some face to face time.

Nothing will happen to him, and no one will touch a hair on his head, as long as he is not suspected of having information relevant to ongoing operations.

You're right, the charges are trumped up. Imagine, however, Israeli agents approaching your friend in the light of day and asking him to come to Israel so that they could get to know him better. The next day he would be accused of collaboration with the Yehudim.

This way, Israeli intelligence can establish a historical and psych profile of your friend, without risking his life at the hands of Palestinian terror factions.

If anything, this is a sort of promotion of your friend's status, as everyone know that Israel only takes individuals it feels are leaders, or future leaders.

Having spent six months in jail, your friend will come out a national hero, having spent time with other Palestinians of "high interest" and ready to plunge into Palestinian political life.

He is going through a scary time, no doubt, (an education time, as well) but if he is not engaged in something serious, he will not be mistreated or "stressed" unnecessarily.

I'm sure he will be debriefed several times as to the status of political parties at Birzeit, the power of various factions on campus, other students who he feels may have a bright political future, etc.

Unfortunately, such detentions are one of several tools used by Israeli intelligence to tap into the pulse of Palestinian life.

By the way, I'm assuming he was not just turned in to Israel by Palestinian informants, who are rampant throughout the West Bank. They are paid for tips and information, and some abuse this process to accuse innocent people, or those they have a problem with.

The Israel Option

The one certainty we have is that Israel has no intention to attack Iran in the near future. They did not announce when they struck Libya, or Iraq, or Syria just last September.

If there is one thing the Israelis are good it, it's operational surprise, and you don't get that by announcing it on CNN.

If they do strike, it will be interesting to see what unconventional twist they can pull off. There was an article in Haaretz that was withdrawn within hours of the Saudis telling Israel they would not mind seeing the Iranian facilities bombed.

If Israeli aircraft are given permission to operate out of Saudi, that would greatly increase the Air Command's options.

Let's say Iran has 10 facilities that need to get bombed (the number is probably more, but let's just say it is 10). That's a hell of a strike package to execute.

3 bombing aircraft per site = 30 aircraft.

2 supporting air superiority aircraft per site = 20 aircraft.

1 jamming aircraft per strike package = 10 aircraft.

We're already at 60 aircraft, and this does not include refueling aircraft, search and recovery helicopters and special forces teams on standby (possibly out of Kurdistan), etc.

This would basically consume the Israeli Airforce's frontline aviation squadrons.

It's a logistical nightmare. Furthermore, to what extent would Israel with to eliminate known Iranian IRBM's, to limit the damage of a counterattack? That would require more aircraft.

But this is all conventional thinking. For all we know the Israelis will send in 100 special forces guys to abduct or "neutralize" 50% of the Iranian nuclear scientists and technicians. That would do more to set their program back than bombing hardware.

For now, at least, Israel is making noise because it wants someone else to take care of this problem. I have no doubt they have operational options on the table, but they're not going to broadcast them to BBC.

US-Iranian Negotiations, Part 2

Yes, this is exactly how actors build leverage in complex negotiations - they identify the other's weaknesses and exploit them as bargaining chips for things that they want.

The Iranians should know that should they choose to raise the level of violence in Iraq through their "special groups", or the passing of more weapons to Shiite gangs, that we have the ability to destabilize their nation without overt military action.

You forget that a mere two years ago, Iran felt itself on the cusp of achieving regional hegemony. Had the US withdrawn from Iraq, Teheran may have accomplished its objectives.

To claim that America is a hegemon that everyone takes seriously, regardless of circumstances, disregards the facts. Since the US invasion of Iraq, the Iranians were developing the very type of leverage over our interests in the region that you would now deny us. They funded, staffed, trained and supplied their own terrorist militias in Iraq, and contributed to destabilizing our position in Afghanistan as well.

For too long we ignored their growing ability to direct events in Iraq, but the rise of Iran-backed Shiite militias in 2006 exposed their policy of undermining our interests and those of the fledgling Iraqi state as coherent, developed and well advanced.

We have spent the past two years scrambling to develop our own leverage, without which negotiations would have yielded nothing but a surrender of American forces in Iraq.

1) Most importantly, we made peace with the Sunnis and built them up into half-credible army, demonstrating to Iran that we were willing to resume a policy of blocking Shiite expansion with a strong Sunni military force on their border. This is their nightmare - a resumption of the Iraq-Iran bloodbath of the 1980s.

2) We began to target and engage their "special groups" operating in Iraq, capturing their operatives and untangling the networks they had put in place.

3) Having unified the Sunnis under our banner, we focused on the Shia, who had by this time devolved into inter-Shia rivalry and open warfare. The Badr Brigades and their political wing had by this time been largely incorporated into the Iraqi Army and government agencies, but ISCI was facing a direct challenge from Sadr's Mehdi army, which had been organized and supplied by Iran.

The Iranians wanted Sadr to have a bigger piece of the political pie in order to have more direct control over Iraqi government affairs. ISCI, which dominated the government and army, refused.

As the interests of the Iraqi Shia and the Iranians diverged, we exploited the situation to launch a joint war on the Mehdi Army, Tehran's primary conduit for manipulating events in Iraq.

With the Mehdi army being drawn and quartered, and gaining nothing from Shia fighting Shia, Tehran ordered Sadr to Iran and declared a ceasefire to salvage whatever of his organization and political capital remained.

For the next year - 2007 - locked in stalemate, and with leverage on both sides, we began negotiating with the Iranians. This was a main contributing factor for the reduction of violence. The Iranians held back their militias and allowed the government to exert more control over the country, with our support.

Meanwhile, we and the Sunnis wiped out al Qaeda, which had spent the previous three years butchering the Shia in their thousands.

Our negotiations with the Iranians are at an advanced stage. No one is going to get everything they want, but we will both avoid our worst case scenarios. Iraq will be a US-supported Shia government, strongly influenced by Iran, but not dominated by it.

We avoid an Iranian puppet state that can flex its muscle across the Gulf, and the Iranians avoid another Saddam on their border.

As the negotiations progress, it sometimes becomes necessary for one side to remind to the other that it can still achieve the other's worst case scenario, but this is just a tactic designed to further negotiations, not to detract from them.

As I said, I am betting that Iran will reach an agreement with the US on ALL issues - Iraq, nuclear, etc. - before Bush leaves office. It may not be a Camp David style accord, but it will happen. After both sides have put in this amount of work, it would be foolish for the Iranians to roll the die with a new President who needs to prove himself.

US-Iranian Negotiations

1) Iranians are supplying Shiite militias with weapons, training and revolutionary guards "special groups". The reason Iran has done these things is to consolidate its control over Shiite factions in Iraq and develop leverage over American forces by managing the level of violence.

What is your problem with American forces developing similar leverage against the Iranian state by supporting oppressed, aggrieved minorities within Iran? I thought you were all for "freedom fighters".

This is a complex game. For you to cast it in such simplistic, anti-American terms demonstrates a stunning lack of understanding and a palpable pro-Iranian bias.

You are way off the mainstream of public opinion in the Arab world at large, which is deeply concerned about recent Iranian assertive aggression and has coalesced behind America in countering this threat.

2) You should consider that the Hirsh article is just one in a long string of leaks from the Administration in an attempt to shape Iranian behavior, seeing how it came in a week when both Israel and the US were raising the rhetoric of war.

The next week, it was leaked that the Administration would be willing to open an American consular office in Tehran, and would invite Iran to do the same.

Obviously there are behind the scenes negotiations between us and the Iranians on the long term status of US forces in the region, American interests, Iranian ambitions with respect to their neighbors, their nuclear program and their long term security.

Public leaks by both sides are made in an attempt to manage public perceptions and gain leverage in the negotiations process.

Ahmadinejad's government is under intense attack within Iran for leading the country to the brink of war and near total international isolation.

I am willing to bet the Iranians know they will get bombed if they don't make a deal, and it appears they would rather make a deal with the devil they know - a weakened Bush - than try their hand with a new, emboldened American president after the elections.

They made that mistake before, betting that Reagan would be weaker than Carter. They were wrong, with devastating consequences for their nation, as Regan began arming Iraq as a buffer to Shiite power, and Saddam then proceeded to butcher the Iranians for the next decade.

They'll make a deal with Bush before the end of the year.

Persepolis: A Movie Review

I heard the book was better, but I am not a fan of the graphic novel.

The movie was alright; watched it with a few friends less "engaged" on international affairs, just to see what their reaction would be.

They enjoyed it more than I did. Everyone thought "Eye of the Tiger" was the highlight of the movie.

I thought they would spend much more time on the situation inside Iran. Instead, the entire movie is filmed or drawn as a series of flashbacks, and the volume of material means that parts which are meant to be emotional and intense appear forced.

The first quarter of the movie was difficult to get into - you felt like a rock getting skipped across the water. You are introduced to 20+ people, who are then killed off, imprisoned, etc., but of which you never hear again. This stripped any hope for an emotional attachment to the characters.

The only point of bringing them up was to deliver a message about how people were suffering, first under the Shah and then under the Islamists, but, again, it felt like they were trying too hard and the message seems forced.

Perhaps the deficiencies in the film are unique to the genre. Live actors may have better communicated a range of emotion and information that was missing of simplified in the cartoon.

I was a bit disappointed; it was my turn to pick the movie. Kite Runner was the last one I picked, which everyone enjoyed, and I felt like this was a step down.

Just to add, what I was really hoping for in wanting to see this movie, was the transition from revolution to Islamism. Iran was a vibrant nation with a millennial old class of intellectuals. To think that it could be stripped of its civility and human capital so quickly... this is what interests me, in particular, how this was accomplished.

In every revolution gone wrong, there is a moment, a series of fateful decisions which will utterly change the course of events. In Russia, Germany, Cuba, Iraq... in every revolution you have those who are willing to give their life to build a just, fair society. And yet, so often, the more nefarious elements are successful.

How this happens, from nation to nation, revolution to revolution, is both different and similar, and frightening.

On Iran, Revolutions and Communists

As has been made clear by the US, EU, Russia, IAEA, UN Security Council, Israel, the Arab League, and individual leaders from around the world, whether Iran is bombed is a choice for the Iranian people and their selected representatives.

Having just seen Persepolis, it is amazing that the present generation of Iranian leaders would wish to return their country to a state of siege, bombardment and death.

It is especially surprising, given the desire on the part of the international community to solve this diplomatically, offering Iran massive financial and technological incentives to merely suspend enrichment of weapons grade uranium.

Nevertheless, if bomb we must, then bomb we will.

It is interesting to note that all you commies support the Islamist fanatics in the Iranian leadership. There were once Iranian commies, too, but they were put to death soon after the revolution.

It is like this in every country where true believer communists, invariably educated in Moscow, start a revolution; they are the first to die, be it Russia, Cuba, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Iraq or the West Bank.

It never fails; they are ready to spill their blood, and the totalitarian dictators that take over are happy to oblige. As anyone who has read "Archipelag Gulag" knows, the first cattle cars are always full of the true believers, many of them willingly led to slaughter.

High Flying Creativity

The Syrians need to get creative, like Palestinians in Gaza, and start throwing their "political prisoners" off rooftops.

I will never get over that.

Of all the atrocities I have read, that was one of the most savage. To shoot someone in the head is one thing; to rape them is another. To pick them up in your hands and throw them off a high rise... that's simply another ballgame.

Arab Pets

A lot of Muslims have pets.

Yes, I just heard a segment on NPR about Saudi pets yesterday - Sri Lankan and Malaysian women who come to work as house maids and are locked up for years, beaten, raped, denied their wages or the ability to leave.

The Malaysian embassy has a shelter housing 200 women at any given time who managed to flee their "owners", but this is just the tip of the iceberg, since most of these women are never let out into daylight.

There was a case recently of a woman who was beaten badly. She managed to get out of the house and run to a hospital. There was gangrene on her fingers and toes from repeated beatings and they had to amputate them.

Her "owners" confessed to beating her and there was a "fair and balanced trial", covered extensively by the media. The "owners" were let go, without even having to pay her for years of backwages, and the woman was sent home empty handed... well, she didn't actually have hands at this point.

Such pets are common not only in Saudi, but throughout the Arab world. I think Palestinians prefer Russian girls.

The Yishuv and the Falsity of Apartheid

Orthodox Jewish birthrates exceed that of Palestinians. You better make your peace now. Orthodox Jews are like Arabs - they don't see individuals, they see communities.

Israel today may tear down the home of a Palestinian terrorist. The Israel of tomorrow, with a majority Orthodox Jewish population, will hold everyone in the village accountable as a community.

If you want a real war, try starting one with Orthodox Jews. They will kill all your men and women and take the children and cattle as servants. Let me rephrase, you should NOT start a war with Orthodox Jews. Jewish Law - Halacha - relating to warfare is very clear as to how Jews must deal with those who threaten Jewish life; there is no mention of mercy or surrender in that context. I pray it never comes to that.

Jews owned approximately 5% of the land that ebcame Israel in 1948.

Yes, Jews owned just 5% of the land, and Arabs could not accept even that 5%. They pogromed Jews in villages and cities on a regular basis, often with support of the British.

The Hagganah was created because the Jewish community was being attacked by Arab gangs, and the British police refused to interfere or protect the Jewish population.

Once Arabs started a war, any territory that Jews captured no longer belonged to its original owners.

Er, the settler movement on the West Bank and later Gaza arrived in July 1974. That's 34 years of being colonising racist thugs, not 60 years of being neighours.

Jews have been living continuously in the West Bank for 3000 years, until Arab gangs raped, looted and killed them in Hebron, Jerusalem, etc.

Even before the settler movement, it was a common thing for Jordanian or Egyptian or Syrian trained Palestinian terrorists to infiltrate a kibbutz and murder a Jewish family in their sleep. To this day if you visit some of these small communities which were once on the border, they had to build watchtowers and trenches to protect the community from Arab attack.

Regarding your statements about water rights, roads, etc., there was a reason why they were built. The Jews built on a path of least resistance. The other roads in the West Bank lead through Arab villages. When Jews traveled on these roads, they would often be attacked, the army had to be called in, it was very messy. The thought was that building roads around Arab villages instead of through them would reduce the violence by keeping the two sides separate. It was not created for Apartheid; it was designed to reduce tensions between the communities by limiting their interaction.

As you yourself said, any Israeli can travel on these roads, be they Jewish, Druze, Israeli Arab, Muslim or Christian. The point was to stay out of the villages and avoid tensions. You can spin it however way you want, but this was the intent.

As for water and other resources, these problems stem from separate and competing interests for Israel in the West Bank. On the one hand, Jews went to the West Bank and started large communities, and demanded regular government services - sewer, water, electricity, etc. In fact, such migration was encouraged to provide Israel with strategic depth in a future Arab conflict.

On the other hand, Israel never thought it would rule the West Bank and have to provide utility services for the Palestinian population. As with Sinai, it assumed the West Bank would at some point be returned to Jordan, who would then be responsible for dealing with the population. However, in 1985, Jordan explicitly abandoned any rights it had to the West Bank and left Israel holding the bag.

Then the Palestinians demanded independence, and got, in large part. After Oslo, it was assumed that now the Palestinians would be responsible for their own government services. Of course, the PLO and Fatah just stole the billions pumped into the West Bank from abroad and did little to build a public utility infrastructure, much less manage it properly.

Then the Palestinians started yet another war, and now the thinking was... they don't want to be ruled by us, they don't want their own state, they don't want to build a decent society, they just want to fight us. Throw some bombs at them and put up a wall so that we don't have to deal with them anymore.

The Security Barrier is no more apartheid than the security barrier in Northern Ireland or Cyprus, or now Iraq. It was the path of least resistance - to separate the communities and prevent constant violence. And it works! Violence is down dramatically from its height in 2002-04.

Were Palestinian terrorist organizations to continue being able to attack Israel in a meaningful way, we would continue to see forceful military response on the part of the IDF, leading to more casualties and hostilities on both sides.

The Security Barrier was a pragmatic step to a resumption of normalcy, so that the next generation could try again without a recent biter legacy of violence.

I can see how from a Palestinian activist perspective, it was useful to frame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as one of Apartheid and resistance to colonialism. However, this characterization does not represent reality, and has become a hindrance to meaningful dialog on the subject. That is, if anyone still cares about dialog.

Every activist reaches a point where the ultimate, positive resolution of the issue is of secondary importance to the activism itself. They find new reasons to continue "the struggle", because they have lost their identity and purpose - they are defined by the act of activism itself.

At that point, a peaceful resolution of the conflict doesn't really matter - what matters is to somehow continue the fight. This may be the case for some on this blog.

Neighbors

The Jews bought every inch of land in which they lived up to 1948. By waging war against them, you have voided your rights to the land, and by continuing to wage war, you continue to do so.

The Jews in the villages are "armed colonising thugs" because after 60 years of being your neighbors, every Jew on a moshav or kibbutz knows someone who was stabbed, beaten, stoned, murdered or raped by an Arab, and they refuse to be your next victim. You expect them to offer you tea and biscuits after six wars and constant threat of Arab violence?

using an apartheid system to expand their presence

Isn't it fun to play up that double standard? Israel is a free society with a substantial Arab minority, yet they are the Apartheid state. Palestinian society is "pure", homogeneous and tribal, yet they are the "agents of tolerance". Whoever framed this issue first was brilliant.

I just want you to know there are many Jewish villages in the West Bank that would rather live under Palestinian rule than evacuate behind '67 borders. I don't know where you are, [Name], but [Name], you better get used to them.

Enjoy living with hundreds of thousands of Jews. We'll see how many rights you extend them, how quickly they will be connected to your failing social services, and how much money you will allocate to them from your national budget.

You haven't dealt with statehood yet. You think you can do better than Israel? Enjoy.

Violence against Women

Your insinuation that the presence of shelters for women is a negative mark on the society is outrageously stupid!

Protection of women is a positive sign in society. Just because there are no such shelters in the West Bank does not mean Palestinian women are not getting beaten, raped and killed - it simply means they have no options but to accept their abuse.

Similarly, the Israeli statistics you site have been demanded by Israeli society as a metric for how to deal with the problem. Imagine getting accurate statistics on abuse of women in the West Bank, where they have NO protection under the law - civil or tribal. How many Palestinians even WANT to know what the statistics are in their community for spousal abuse?! In many Palestinian villages, beating your wife is a perfectly natural event that no one would even think twice of.

The point is not that violence does not happen against women, whether in Israel or in the West Bank or in Chicago.

The point is: you don't care about violence against women in the West Bank and Gaza. You don't care about this violence because you see nothing particularly wrong with it; at best, it is an inconvenient distraction to your war against the Jews.

Once again, you've demonstrated your genuine hypocrisy on human rights. Once again, you have demonstrated a lack of credibility to speak of human rights with authority and moral clarity.

Regarding Batshit

You people dare speak of discrimination of Arabs in Israel, while demanding racial purity for your own failed society.

Jewish villages will expand. Jewish families will continue to pour into the West Bank and build homes, farms, and technology incubators. Jews will continue to thrive in Israel. All of it.

You have been fighting us to the point that your people now eat, sleep and breathe batshit, as you so eloquently put it. So keep fighting. With your violence you nullify your claim to the land.

Palestinians and Rational Thinking

The Palestinian have lost every single war they started, whether in Israel, Lebanon, Syria or Jordan. What makes you think this "violent resistance" will accomplish anything besides leading to more suffering for Palestinians?

It must make you feel good half a world away, know that the "struggle" goes on; communists are always ready to sacrifice other people's lives for their cause.

If I were a Palestinian on the ground, I would be pressing that "peace now" button until my fingers bled. Then again, no one ever accused Palestinian leaders of rational thinking.

Arab Sensitivity

Arabs are so sensitive to everything. Any verbal insult is an attack on their honor, dignity, ancestors, religion... when really an insult just gives them leverage to demand what they want, be it a humiliating apology, concessions, etc.

The Jews are Here

Yes, your people make all this both possible and easy to justify with your rockets, bulldozer attacks, mass shootings, stabbings and yes, even the homicide bombing.

The reason there are no bombings or major acts of terror is that the Israeli military enmeshed itself into the very fabric of Palestinian life. It's painful for your people; everyone knows this, but the moment we let go of your throat you will stab us, as you always have.

Jews are there to stay, and the expansion of Jewish villages will continue. Even after a "peace accord" is signed, Jewish families will move to Arab towns and villages and buy up property, which they cannot do now due to discriminatory and racist Palestinian property laws.

Your people's fate is now inextricably interwoven with Jewish refugees from around the world, returning to Israel, their home and their G-d given birthright.

I would strongly recommend that you welcome them not with suspicion, hatred and violence, but with open arms and traditional Palestinian hospitality. That way there need not be dispossession of land, or murder, or terror.

The Palestinians, of all Arabs, always knew the Jews would come back. They lived amongst our ruins and graveyards; they knew. Now the Jews are here, and how you choose to deal with them will impact how your people are treated in kind.

I wish this choice was presented to the Arab leadership of Palestine in 1890, but back then the Jews were seen as the scum of the earth, the landless, indigent gypsies of the Middle East.

My how things have changed.

But you can choose now, right now.
Choose wisely.

Independence Day

Happy Independence Day, Everyone!

As an immigrant to this country, like many of you, I owe it a debt of gratitude and love that I can never fully repay.

Every time I fly back to the States, no matter where I am coming from, I feel this country's vitality, the sense of infinite possibility. Everywhere else in the world, you are weighed down by the burden of history. In America, you are empowered by the future.

Corny, but true.
G-d bless America!

Obama Fatigue

As I wrote elsewhere, American foreign policy is beholden to events and static geopolitical interests, an inertia that NO President can or will ignore, for it underpins the core principles of our civilization.

I was thinking this morning about how much the media is covering for Obama, and how much effort this has required in the year or more of his candidacy. This reminded me of how they covered for Clinton, and how "Clinton fatigue" led them to savage Clinton in the last six months of the primary campaign. They day the Media gets sick of covering for Obama - "Obama Fatigue" - is the day the long knives come out.

The same goes for all you activists who adore Obama. The moment you realize that you are tired of covering for him is the day you will hate him for lying to you and manipulating you so along. I think, partly due to the duration of the primary season, and also to the stratospheric hopes that some liberals had vested in Obama, that moment is coming sooner than later, and perhaps even before the election.

Obama, Iraq and American Foreign Policy

Let's be serious. Obama is not going to take US troops out of Iraq, despite his primary season rhetoric. He will leave 40-60,000 troops in place to protect Saudi Oil fields, American interests, to continue "hunting down terrorists" and to threaten Iran.

He will not be the president to simply give up a trillion dollar, decade long enterprise to establish American hegemony in the Middle East, as the Iraq war has accomplished. The Middle East is the new Europe of 1945, and America will be staying for at least another 100 years, one way or another.

Obama has said as much, and the coming trip to Iraq will introduce him to the US commanders on the ground, and Iraqi politicians, who will "convince him" that "a small, limited, but long term US presence is necessary".

This was the policy of the Bush Administration in March 2003, except they thought they could get back down to this level by Christmas.

You are naive if you think there is a REAL difference between Obama and McCain on foreign policy. Listen to what Samantha Power said before she was booted for saying too much. The campaign sent her to Europe where she was telling stunned socialists that there will be no change in American foreign policy, but now Europe will be forced to contribute troops and money.

Obama will not change US foreign policy; he will simply provide a fresh face and a more effective message delivery.

He said last year that he is willing to invade and nuke Pakistan if necessary. This is your progressive champion?

It seems from the outside that a US President can do whatever he wants on the world stage. However, in reality, the course of American foreign policy is dictated by events and static interests - national security, military primacy, global economic liberalization, etc.

Smackdown

You don't care about the US political system. You only care about how you can exploit it to help Palestinians.

Not mine, but it should have been.

Special Interests and Government

The idea that a freshman senator from Illinois who never worked in a coal mine, ran a coal mine or invested in a coal mine knows how to write legislation that can have dramatic disruptions to the coal industry is absurd.

Of course private interests help craft legislation. They intimately understand their business model, and how it can best be adapted in the face of a desire for more government control.

The goal of government is not to snuff out industry - aka Communism. Nor is it to force corporations "to work" for the state - that's called FASCISM, kids.

What made this country the engine of the world economy is free enterprise and minimal government intervention. With economic prosperity comes the rest.

The real danger is not from capitalism, but from the collusion of capitalism and government to suppress competition and innovation, and reward incompetence and greed.

Case in point: the ethanol lobby. You've got a bunch of political hacks who came up from Iowa and Wisconsin without so much as a business degree or a savings account and decided to enrich themselves by catering to the Agriculture lobby, entrenching government subsidies that disproportionately benefit the biggest producers at a time of record crop prices. These subsidies have destroyed the family farm and have enriched Big Farma, while pushing up the cost of oil and basic consumer foods.

Another point: the bailout of the Wall Street banks. In a free economy, the market would make adjustments based on losses due to inefficient investment strategies, but with the government and the Fed propping up this nonsense, it is only allowed to continue unabated.

The Nature of Government

It's true that people who get into politics tend to drift more left wing in general. However, the reason for this is not at all positive.

People in government begin to see government as a tool with which to solve every problem, and naturally wish to expand the authority of government (i.e. their authority) to make this possible.
They forget or choose not to remember that they were not elected or selected to expand their own authority, merely to effectively manage the affairs and duties of their office.

It takes a very special kind of person to go to work every day with the spirit of making his job obsolete. The War on Poverty has lasted for 40 years now, with little to show for the trillions pumped into subsidizing hundreds of thousands of middle class civil servants, who have only helped to perpetuate poverty, despite their good intentions.

This is why government programs never shrink; they expand, even in the face of failure, for the only solution these people understand to any problem is... more government.

Reframing the Argument

For Palestinian, the bulldozer is a symbol of Israeli aggression. One assault with a bulldozer by a Palestinian does not change that.

How many assaults with a bulldozer by a Palestinian will it take to change that?

Breaking Balls

A thin-skinned Iraqi... go figure.

A female Arab friend of mine thinks Arab men are so thin skinned because their mothers and aunts treat them like G-ds. When her brothers would fart, her aunts would say, "It's like dew, it's like heavenly dew!"

If you can't stand the heat go dig a hole and pop your itsy bitsy Iraqi Kabob in it!

Arab men can be the most sensitive, most easily offended people I've ever met, or in this case, flame-warred with.

Like I said, I have several female Arab friends who think it's a mommy complex.

When you are raised at the age of 6 with grown women making tongue in cheek jokes of your sexual prowess, you can get a big head.

With a few male exceptions, I think Western-educated Palestinian women are uniquely suited to effective propaganda; they are absolutely gifted at it. I have a theory about this... but it would take too long to explain.

The men... not so much.

Human Rights Ping Pong

[Name], you shoveled that excrement out of view with the grace of a rampaging elephant.

The only reason we know of the Israelis beating the Palestinians is that a Jewish organization distributed cameras precisely to document such "incidents".

According to you, Israelis beating Arabs is a heinous act of barbarism. Arab fathers, brothers and uncles murdering their women and burying them in the back yard are mere "incidents".

Clever. Let's face it, you don't really have a problem with honor killing. You are fighting a war to exterminate Jews. You simply don't have time to worry about backward cultural traits of your own people.

We haven't even gotten to the Arab homosexuals yet, all of which flee to Tel Aviv when they are discovered by their Arab brethren, lest their blood is used to fertilize the fields.

No, [Name], I don't think people have the right to beat one another with bats. I thought we covered this stuff in kindergarten; I did, at least. In the short term, these people should be prosecuted. In the long term, Israel should annex the West Bank and Gaza, and extend its civilian authority to those areas, giving everyone protection under the law and legal recourse to wrongdoing.

[Name], you're making my point for me by treating honor killings like a joke. Imagine if I were to start joking about going over to Arura with a few buddies to beat Palestinian farmers. The fuckers have only one eye as it is, it being Arura, maybe we can take out the other one! What's the matter, [Name], you don't like jokes?

Murdering innocent girls and women is no joke; honor killings are wrong, and a stain on your people.

Your demands for "human rights" fall on deaf ears so long as you pursue only those "human rights" which are convenient in your war against the Jews.

You are a hypocrite, but I believe you can be a better human being, if you try. Try, [Name]. Try.

The Israel-Hamas Ceasefire

The rockets launched at Israel in violation of the truce were part of a long standing Palestinian tradition of "testing" agreements with Israel.

After all, if Israel said, "it's just a few rockets, no big deal", then why not have a "truce" with a daily barrage of Palestinian rockets maiming, killing and terrorizing Israelis.

This situation further underscores the futility of making agreements with Palestinian terror factions, which are neither unified nor coherent, nor trustworthy.

If Hamas is not in control of its territory to prevent rocket launchings, then it has no business making a deal on behalf of Gaza.

The logic behind [Name]'s argument is off base.

1) On Sunday, Israel delivered substantially more supplies than at any other point in months, and expected to continue meeting its obligations per the truce agreement with Hamas and Egypt.

2) Islamic Jihad launched rockets at Israel ON A COMPLETELY SEPARATE ISSUE, having nothing to do with the level of supplies Israel was delivering. Islamic Jihad launched the rockets out of revenge for a prior incident.

3) Just yesterday, Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades launched mortars at Israel, even though Hamas has been begging all the groups to stop violating the ceasefire. Al Aksa Martyrs declared they did so in order to force Israel to extend the ceasefire to the West Bank. Palestinian logic for you - start shooting to make peace.

Israel's obligations are not under discussion here. The inability of Hamas to control a dozen different terrorist groups within Gaza is what remains the central issue to any lasting agreement. If Hamas makes a promise and that promise is broken the next day by a group it does not control, that makes the promise worthless in the first place.

The Palestinians are more fractured than ever, which is just fine as far as Israel's geopolitical interests are concerned - the Palestinians have selected these various terror factions to represent them, and such are the consequences of choosing the rule of thugs and terrorists.

Palestinian Activists and the War Against Jews

The Palestinians have lost every war they started, with disastrous consequences for their always fractured society. The population is growing Islamist, identifying more with the Arabs to the east than with their own heritage. The fellahe class is evaporating into the modern world, and with it, Palestinian identity, which was once inseparable from the land.

These city Arabs who think themselves enlightened enough to speak for the Palestinian people have never picked an olive in their life, nor could they survive a day of real work in the field, nor do they see such a life as befitting their "laptop and thesaurus armed Marxist of the world" status. Their hands are too frail to turn a millstone and their spirits too impetuous to weave a quabbeh. The men would be ashamed of donning a bisht on hot summer days, and I have yet to see a Palestinian woman abroad sporting a shambar. No, the image of resistance they hold dear is the keffiyeh, which is not Palestinian, but Arab.

[Blog Name] is a relic of a bygone conclusion - the death of Marxism - and no amount of posts by [Name] or [Name] or even the great [Name] will resurrect past glory, when Soviet trained Venezuelans joined with Cubans and East Germans to fight the IDF in Lebanon.

Your death knell pangs of agony are read by fellow brethren and sympathizers, sitting in American Starbucks, sipping their lattes. They know nothing of Palestinian society as it is, or was, nor do they care, nor do you, and that is the biggest defeat of all. You have become so consumed by hatred, so occupied by vengeance and so ashamed of your own rich heritage, that you have perverted your identity to one of endless struggle against the longest surviving people in the history of humanity - the Jews.

The enemies of the Jews have been of greater mettle and resources than you, and all have found themselves in the proverbial heap of history.

If only someone would make a list of the nations that crowd this heap, you would find yourself in unwelcome company. Perhaps you think yourself to be special - indeed, you are. So were the Amalekites, Moabites, Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites, Phillistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, Hellenists, Romans... an inexhaustive list.

If you really want to be special, if you truly wish to be unique, you will stop fighting "the ranks of the living G-d", and thus ensure your survival. After all, Marxists are nothing if not intrepid scholars of history.

Torture Works

For you to say that "torture does not work" is misleading, because you have not defined its meaning. Cutting off people's fingers may produce mixed results and result in some degree of misinformation. Stress positions, waterboarding, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation and other soft measures to psychologically break down the prisoner are proven techniques, with a track record of success when used by professional interrogators around the world.

That's really they key here - professional interrogators. An army captain on the battlefield may be more inclined to punish a just-captured prisoner than be concerned with the intelligence value the prisoner may represent, and is certainly not trained to efficiently extract information. A professional interrogator is specifically tasked with obtaining useful intelligence, and duly trained to accomplish this task.

This isn't an episode of 24 where Jack starts shooting people through the hand and twisting their fingers back. Professional interrogation takes time, considerable planning and coordination.

For anyone interested, I'd recommend reading "The Interrogators: Task Force 500 and America's Secret War Against Al Qaeda". You can find it on Amazon.

Since you brought up McCain... as a captured navy aviator, he was not tortured to extract useful intelligence that the Vietnamese could exploit to further the war. He was tortured as punishment, and to elicit cooperation in furthering North Vietnamese propaganda. In his book, he describes an especially horrid four days of severe beatings that, to this day prevent him from lifting his arms above his head. He finally broke and agreed to film a propaganda video... “I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine.”

This is VERY different from the mission tasked to American interrogators, and given the fact that al Qaeda is on the verge of defeat around the world, evidence that our guys know what they're doing.

From Iraq to Afghanistan to Victory

Though Iraq was the most important theater in this war for several years running, I agree with you that the focus has shifted dramatically in recent months to the Afghan-Pakistan border areas. Stratfor.com, a private intelligence/analysis service once wrote an excellent piece on the dynamics of the Afghan war. Send me your email address; I'd like to send you a copy of the article.

From my perspective, Afghanistan is of far less strategic importance than Iraq. For al Qaeda to have conquered a nation with the second highest known oil reserves in the world... we would be in "deep doodoo". Nevertheless, as the focus shifts back to Afghanistan and we draw down our commitments in Iraq, we will bring additional forces to bear on that theater, in concert with NATO. As the Stratfor analysis indicates, if you thought the situation in Iraq was bad, Afghanistan is an absolute long term nightmare.

It is no accident that Petreaus has been promoted to head of CENTCOM. He went from being in charge of the Iraq theater to overseeing strategy for the entire region. We will see if he can develop a strategy to pacify Afghanistan the way he did in Iraq, by coopting ethnic groups into cooperation with the United States.

However, it's important to realize that the war in Afghanistan is of a different nature than Iraq. The Taliban were never an international player with strategic reach; they hosted one - al Qaeda. Although our long term dream may be the creation of a democracy in Afghanistan, our priority and focus must be on making whatever deals are necessary (such as we did in Iraq) to wipe out our primary threats - the leadership team that developed al Qaeda into a strategic threat.

The Taliban don't need to go to Gitmo; they are an Afghan problem. I think the day is coming, soon, when a semi-official declaration of al Qaeda's defeat will occur, more likely by them, actually.

The War on Terror

Let's define our terms. When I speak of our nation at war, I do not mean that our goal is to prevent any lone lunatic from committing mass violence. This is impossible, and we have our own domestic terrorists to prove it.

I do not believe we are in a clash of civilizations. Seven years ago, there was an entity, a transnational organization, which planned and executed an attack on this country, as part of a greater plan to force an American withdrawal from the Middle East, overthrow Arab regimes which have traditionally relied on American protection, and thus recreate the Islamic Caliphate.

Grandiose those ideas may sound today, but it was merely two years ago that al Qaeda in Iraq declared an Islamic Caliphate, replete with a governing structure, Sharia courts and tax system. It is fortunate that we found a general in Petreaus who developed a strategy to reverse the course of war in Iraq and snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Al Qaeda's vision, so close to fruition, has now been relegated to the dustbin of history.

With our successes in Iraq have come successes by allies - such as the Saudis - to cut off funding for al Qaeda and its affiliates. The Saudis really only began this when they themselves were bombed, repeatedly. The Arab world has never been so hostile to Islamic extremism as it is today, in no small part due to our intervention in Iraq.

Instead of fostering radicalism, our invasion and occupation demonstrated the savagery of the enemy and exhausted their credibility on the street as a legitimate alternative to westernization (or as the Arabs prefer to call it: modernization).

The inability of Al Qaeda nodes to conduct any meaningful attacks against us or our regional allies demonstrates the degree to which their capabilities have been degraded. This is not the same organization that executed so efficiently on 9/11, with such geopolitical savvy in Madrid, so stealthily in London, or so brazenly in Riyadh or Istanbul.

Their inability to reconstitute and retaliate demonstrates that the pressure we and our allies have put on their organization is perhaps beyond that structure's ability to adapt.

So what does any of this mean?

One terrorist attack that kills 3000 people is a pinprick. It means little to a country of 300 million. The power of terrorism is in the geopolitical implications behind its execution; terror is a tactic used to achieve geopolitical objectives.

In the case of al Qaeda, the objective was to drive American power from the Middle East in order to weaken, destabilize and ultimately to destroy Arab governments, in order to create an Islamic Caliphate on the ruins.

No one goes to war without a plan, and al Qaeda was no different. They believed they could execute all of the above and achieve their ultimate objectives. Today, they are further from their objectives than ever. Even if they could nuke one of our cities, what would it really change on the ground? They have lost the Arab street, and with it, any hope of gaining power.

In other words, a terrorist organization is only effective to the extent that its actions can effect geopolitical change. Once their ability to effect this change is reduced or eliminated, they have little rational incentive to continue fighting.

We are clearly coming to a point when al Qaeda cannot effect geopolitical change through its actions. Perhaps it can strike back, but my suspicion is that if they had a plan, they would have acted on it sooner than later. The longer they hold back, the more losses they incur.

With their defeat, we win the war. Then you can try them...

US Supreme Court Ruling on Enemy Combatants, Round 2

We should hold Kabul Trials, but only after the war has been won, as was the case in WWII. Certainly you will agree that it would have been outrageous to attempt prosecutions of Nazis in the context of war, while Hitler's armies were still in occupation of Europe.

Suppose the Americans had sent in paratroopers to capture an SS general and return him to the US for interrogation. We didn't have exact information about his crimes; whatever hodgepodge intelligence was gathered would have been invalid for presentation in US courts. Does that mean we would have had a duty to release him back to his command, so that he could continue to wage war against us?

This is what you are proposing, and what the court has accepted, albeit in a split decision that may be reversed in the near future, depending on the outcome of the presidential election.

The US is engaged in a war with people that, were they to be released, would resume plotting and waging war against us. These are not a handful of Nazi generals whose armies have been vanquished and who have accepted defeat; the enemy we face needs only a handful of recruits and box cutters to murder thousands.

You have noble thoughts of justice and law, but you must realize that others are more than happy to exploit of your ivory tower ideological boundaries, with disastrous consequences. As Lincoln understood, our laws exist to serve human beings, not the reverse.

Lincoln and Habeas Corpus

As for "American" laws, you forget that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in 1862, which resulted in some 13,000 people deemed "dangerous" or "subversive" to be arrested, tried by military tribunals, and many were executed. When the courts declared these actions unconstitutional, Lincoln ordered the Army to disobey the court, which it did.

Furthermore, in freeing the slaves (which were considered property at the time), Lincoln nullified the rights of property owners to their possessions, a basic tenet of Common Law.

We do not think of Lincoln's actions as brutal or unconstitutional today. Indeed, he is regarded as one of three "greatest" presidents, alongside Washington and Roosevelt, who also acted as they had to in time of war.

Lincoln's basic argument in suspending habeas corpus was that one could not expect the Constitution to be used in dealing with those who wished the Union destroyed, the Constitution with it.

Prescient indeed.

In fact, we saw the arrest and trial of individuals (copperhead democrats, etc.) who advocated for soldiers to desert the Union lines! In other words, Lincoln ordered them arrested, and some were executed, not for what they DID, but for what they SAID, a First Amendment right!

It was not merely common people arrested, either. Fearing that the Maryland legislature would vote to withdraw from the Union and join the Confederacy, Lincoln had the army arrest and detain, indefinitely, 9 members of the Maryland Senate! Elected Representatives were denied the right to represent their constituency! Democracy itself was flaunted!

The Union survived. Lincoln is a national hero.

Draw your lessons.

Jewish Law on Enemy Combatants and Detainee Rights, Round 3

[Name], [Name], [Name], [Name], and everyone else reading...

It is heartening to see that the spirit of liberty and law is so ingrained in our generation, that so many would readily grant its most precious tenets to those few who wish nothing more than to destroy them. Though I disagree strongly with some of your assertions, we are truly fortunate to live in a system where such dissent is possible, and where scholars better equipped than you or I can lock in legal battle on our behalf, and on the behalf of the nation.

As Jews, we have an exceptional obligation to observe and promote the rule of law, for Jewish law has been the anchor of our faith and identity for some three thousand years.

You wouldn't build a house without first creating a blueprint. We say that the Torah is the blueprint for G-d's creation of the world. Thus, while laws created by man are designed to deal with reality, the Torah, as a blueprint, actually is used to bring reality into being. The laws of Torah are just because they are based on absolute truth, ingrained in the very essence of creation.

As Jews, having been given the Torah at Sinai, we have an additional obligation: while we respect and uphold the rule of just law as created by man, we must understand and promote the will of G-d through our personal actions, and the Torah laws on which those actions are based - what we call Halacha, or Jewish law.

While a heated argument has raged on this note, [Name] and I have been privately discussing some of the Jewish legal issues I brought up earlier, and what our responsibilities are as Jews in a time of war - both to our people, the innocents, and the enemy.

[Name] has taken upon himself the task of finding a qualified Halachic authority, who can help us to unravel and understand the Jewish laws pertaining to the issues many of us discussed earlier. As Jews, it is in our tradition to argue, forcefully, even. We do this not to further ourselves, but to increase the light in a sometimes dark world, to further justice, truth and peace - G-dliness.

I, for one, am anxious to hear what this Halachic source has to say.

US Supreme Court Ruling on Enemy Combatants

Again, if these were criminals, they would be tried, convicted and punished.

These are soldiers, not criminals. You can't punish soldiers.
You can kill soldiers, capture and hold soldiers until the end of hostilities, interrogate captured soldiers for whatever battlefield intelligence they have or release them.

The idea that they need to be punished in the context of an ongoing war is fundamentally at odds with reality. Perhaps, after the war is over, there may be some rationale behind trying, convicting and punishing individuals who have acted particularly heinously in wartime.

Think of it like this, by giving these enemy combatants rights, you give ALL enemy combatants these rights, even those NOT in our custody. So, we can't kill bin Laden even if we knew where he was, because he has the presumption of innocence before the law. We can't kill him; we must capture him alive, at great risk and low potential for success.

Imagine if cops went on a rampage and started shooting suspects, instead of detaining them for trial by jury. Outrageous, right?

But this happens in war all the time. There is no evidence brought in a court before someone shooting at our guys is killed. We just go and kill them, no warrant or anything. War is not a civil exercise.

Extending these rights to enemy soldiers means that this is not a war, and our soldiers can't just go kill them, because there is a presumption of innocence, followed by a trial by jury. Until they are convicted, they are INNOCENT, even if they are shooting and killing us! Either we capture them alive, or we die.

This is crazy! And this is what the court has basically said.

Jewish Law on Enemy Combatants and Detainee Rights, Round 2

[Name], though I value your opinion, in this case, your initial post and the response you have offered to my critique are deeply lacking. It is regrettable that, in the heat of debate, you have neglected the time honored tradition of intellectual honesty.

Your points, one by one:

1) I brought to this argument the halachic concepts of "pursuer", "self defense", "obgligatory war", "authorized war" and directly referenced Nachmanides to refute a statement that you had made. I would feel extremely confident were you to bring in a halachic authority on who is being more accurate, you or I.

2) You have done exactly that - conflate terrorists with illegal aliens. This is utterly unjustified, and you have yet to apologize, to my knowledge. Many illegal aliens in this country are otherwise completely law abiding, hard working people. To equate them with terrorists who wish to murder innocents is reprehensible.

Moreover, their status in Jewish law is clear - enemy soldier. Jewish law makes no distinction between uniformed and non-uniformed soldiers. Even were they to be innocent civilians, our actions would be absolutely justified. In the context of war, Jewish law authorizes the killing of civilians when it is not avoidable (i.e. when civilians have not fled from the field of battle, such as during the siege of a city). Halacha even permits the taking of enemy civilians as slaves, depending on the type of war in which we are engaged. How much more so, then, is it justifiable to detain individuals from the field of battle, in the context of an ongoing war, in order to accurately determine their intentions, when lives are at stake.

You have refused to provide a single halachic source that would indicate we must treat enemy soldiers as common criminals. The reason why the commentators derived the rules of war is precisely to differentiate between what is right and just in a time and place of war, and a non-war, civilian setting.

3) Both "pursuer" and "self-defense" apply to this conflict. You should confer with a qualified rabbinical authority. There are very few exceptions under which non-Jewish or secular states may participate in a war, from a halachic standpoint.

4) I have addressed parts of this above. These individuals are not accused of any crimes - they are enemy combatants until such time as they are no longer deemed to be, with no limit to their detention. These are soldiers, not criminals.

To apply civilian law in this case is a true travesty of justice that perverts the entire system. What next? Will you handcuff our troops to their humvees and have them get a signature for every bullet expended? After all, you assume that these individuals must be provided rights, the first of which is a basic assumption of innocence. What right do our troops have to engage in war against those who are presumed innocent until convicted by a jury? Preposterous! It is a massive overreach by the judiciary, which you support. These people are planning war, and you are playing games.

In the words of our sages, "He who is compassionate to the cruel, ends up being cruel to the compassionate."

5) Really? Did the nation of Amalek receive a fair trial? Was there a trial before their men were slain on the field of battle, their women and children exterminated, their king hung? What of the other Seven Caananite nations? You are utterly confused on the halacha in this case, I assure you. The only reason I chose to comment is to avoid a confusion of Jewish Law.

I urge you to evaluate the world in which we live not through the lens of emotion, but Torah and Halacha.

Separately, from a secular standpoint, to put it in the words of many honorable Americans, you have a pre-911 mentality.

Jewish Law on Enemy Combatants and Detainee Rights

How dare you conflate those who plot and attempt to murder civilians with otherwise innocent foreign nationals who crossed our borders in search of a better life?! You should be ashamed of yourself - a law school student, at that!

Those who wage terrorist war against this country only have two options - high explosive or full metal jacket. Find me a single widely accepted halachic ruling which says otherwise. If on the off chance that an individual is captured on the field of battle - in the context of an ongoing war - there is nothing preventing his execution, indefinite detainment, or forced extraction of battle critical information (which will certainly shorten the war and thus save innocent life).

Everything I have stated above falls under the laws of the "pursuer" and the rules of self defense, clearly delineated in halacha. It is questionable if non-Jewish or secular states have any halachic basis to fight war, period.

On the question of leaving a 4th side open in a siege, Nachmanides clearly states that this is only applicable in "authorized" and not "obligatory" wars (which really only pertain to a Jewish nation). In "obligatory" wars - such as those that preserve the life of Jews, our allies, or possibly other innocents - we are not allowed to give the enemy a chance to flee, but must destroy them, without mercy.

The only thing that is cut and dry about this is that you've confused everything. This case certainly has nothing to do with illegal aliens, and your injection of that issue into the note is completely irrelevant.

Moses would spit, a lot, and then hit you with a stick, before he hugged you and explained everything.

Welcome to SuperComment!

I am creating this blog to fulfill a specific task, that of documenting my commentaries from around the Intenet. I am a prolific blog reader and socio-political commentator. Though I have blogged myself, in the past, I have recently chosen to abstain from maintaining my own blog, as I would devote myself to it religiously, neglecting my other responsibilities. I remain, however, an avid reader of blogs, and often choose to comment on a wide variety of issues - especially pertaining to American foreign policy, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and Jewish law (Halacha) and religious observance. When I do comment, I often express ideas and form arguments with a structure, style and substance I wish to preserve; thereby the need for this blog.

As this blog was created for my benefit, and you, reader, are an intruder in my revealed psyche, I will not link to my commentary at its point of origination. In part, this will also help maintain my anonymity. I often comment on blogs that are hostile to my beliefs, and whose writers or readers may feel the desire to threaten me. Should you discover my identity, I ask that you inform me, and keep this information private, lest you endanger my well being. As you may come to see, preservation of life is a bedrock on which I have structured many an argument.

Though it may irritate you, I will not explain, expound or elucidate any particular commentary further than my original posting. It is a broken form to process; so leave, I am not keeping you here. Furthermore, I hereby limit your rights in republishing any content found on this blog, and assert that the material printed here constitutes intellectual property of which I retain sole ownership. Any of my intellectual property that you may, wisely, choose to quote elsewhere, must include a link to its original source on this blog.

That said, without equivocation, welcome to SuperComment!