December 31st, 2007. Today was my last day of employment at Yad Vashem. I was first employed there as a research assistant in December 1982: 25 years.
I spent a large chunk of the day erasing all sorts of traces of my activity: e-mails, files, tons of paper. Things that were important enough to make their way into the archives are obviously still there, but the rest... all gone. Not the kind of thing you'd expect an archivist to do, admittedly, but I have always been a rather unusual archivist. Anyway, that's what I did, take it or leave it.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Israel's Inverted Moore's Law
Remember Moore's Law, which predicts a doubling of computing power every 18-24 months, or something like that? First postulated in 1965, it's still running strong more than 40 years later, which is why we can have the blogosphere.
Well, since the peak of Palestinian violence in 2002, Israel has cut the number of it's casualties by half, each year. Including 2007, in which 7 Israeli civilians were killed, compared to 17 in 2006. Predictably, the number of dead Palestinians also fell significantly. (These numbers and others can be found in a B'tselem report cited here).
The moral of the story, as I've often told, is that violence is often best answered with superior violence. Especially in the cases where the original violence is fueled by animosities that cannot be made to go away except perhaps through abject surrender to the haters.
Well, since the peak of Palestinian violence in 2002, Israel has cut the number of it's casualties by half, each year. Including 2007, in which 7 Israeli civilians were killed, compared to 17 in 2006. Predictably, the number of dead Palestinians also fell significantly. (These numbers and others can be found in a B'tselem report cited here).
The moral of the story, as I've often told, is that violence is often best answered with superior violence. Especially in the cases where the original violence is fueled by animosities that cannot be made to go away except perhaps through abject surrender to the haters.
Targeted Killing
As anyone who regularly follows the news has noticed, Israel's ability to identify specific Palestinian fighters and kill them without killing surrounding civilians is continually on the rise. Now there's a report with some interesting numbers. It turns out that appearances are correct, and the ratio of dead targets to dead bystanders has recently reached 30:1, which still leaves lots of room for improvement. The optimal number to strive for would be lots:0. And the perfect numbers would be no-killings at all, for lack of need.
How should we read these numbers?
Killing people is never something to be joyous about. However, killing armed men who are members of organizations committed to destroying Israel, and who wish to kill Israeli citizens as the primary way to achieve their goal, seems pretty reasonable to me. Especially as the trend over the past five years has consistently shown that violence against violent Palestinians indeed reduces the overall violence. So that's alright.
Also understandable is that the longer an army (or any organization) has to work on a problem, the better it gets. The fact that Israel's ability to kill far fewer bystanders in 2007 than in 2002 is, unfortunately, natural. This may sound callous, but is simply the way of the world: practice makes good, and no army in history ever figured out how to do its job perfectly, even less so immediately. Especially as the tasks most often appear unannounced, and you have to devise a response while people are getting killed.
A careful reading, however, also tells a regrettable story: that it was a decision from the top that made a difference. So long as the commander of the Airforce was Dan Halutz, not enough care was taken not to kill Palestinian bystanders. (Some care was taken, but not enough). How do we know this? Because once Halutz was replaced by Eliezer Shkedi, and he made an issue of the matter, he also got results.
How should we read these numbers?
Killing people is never something to be joyous about. However, killing armed men who are members of organizations committed to destroying Israel, and who wish to kill Israeli citizens as the primary way to achieve their goal, seems pretty reasonable to me. Especially as the trend over the past five years has consistently shown that violence against violent Palestinians indeed reduces the overall violence. So that's alright.
Also understandable is that the longer an army (or any organization) has to work on a problem, the better it gets. The fact that Israel's ability to kill far fewer bystanders in 2007 than in 2002 is, unfortunately, natural. This may sound callous, but is simply the way of the world: practice makes good, and no army in history ever figured out how to do its job perfectly, even less so immediately. Especially as the tasks most often appear unannounced, and you have to devise a response while people are getting killed.
A careful reading, however, also tells a regrettable story: that it was a decision from the top that made a difference. So long as the commander of the Airforce was Dan Halutz, not enough care was taken not to kill Palestinian bystanders. (Some care was taken, but not enough). How do we know this? Because once Halutz was replaced by Eliezer Shkedi, and he made an issue of the matter, he also got results.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Mandarin Bus
The other day I was on a bus to Tel Aviv (buses are interesting places). Sitting next to me was an earnest young man with a fancy beard reading one of our least serious newspapers, that is handed out for free at places like bus stations. He was reading his rag sheet, I was deciphering my daf yomi, until suddenly his cellphone rang, and he launched into an animated conversation in... Mandarin Chinese (Believe me, that's what it was. I wasn't certain, so I asked him, after the conversation was over. "Funny", I told him, you don't look Chinese").
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Rape - 2
Following Lydia's comment on the previous post, and a lively discussion last night over Shabbat dinner, here's a theory about the harshness of Landau's language.
The Hebrew word for rape is Ones, or La'anos. La'anos, however, can also be translated as coerce, a much more likely meaning for Landau to have intended. However, English is Landau's mother tongue, and it's probably what he used when addressing the American Secretary of State, especially this one who's Hebrew is probably rather poor given that she's a trained Sovietologist. How then to explain his use of the wrong English word? Is it possible he thinks in Hebrew? Especially when people who really know multiple languages generally think in whatever language they're talking in?
More likely, it seems to me, is that one of the Israelis present at the meeting heard the (English-language) exchange, and then leaked it in Hebrew, from which it then seeped back into English. This still doesn't explain why Landau is basically confirming what he said ("My words were quoted out of context" means, in Israeli parlance, yes, you've got me, but I need to appear as if I'm denying without outright lying in case some has it on tape), but perhaps he was confronted in Hebrew, too, and the whole incident has been mistranslated.
The essence, of course, remains, but I'm in a rush to some meeting and may or may not comment an that later this evening.
The Hebrew word for rape is Ones, or La'anos. La'anos, however, can also be translated as coerce, a much more likely meaning for Landau to have intended. However, English is Landau's mother tongue, and it's probably what he used when addressing the American Secretary of State, especially this one who's Hebrew is probably rather poor given that she's a trained Sovietologist. How then to explain his use of the wrong English word? Is it possible he thinks in Hebrew? Especially when people who really know multiple languages generally think in whatever language they're talking in?
More likely, it seems to me, is that one of the Israelis present at the meeting heard the (English-language) exchange, and then leaked it in Hebrew, from which it then seeped back into English. This still doesn't explain why Landau is basically confirming what he said ("My words were quoted out of context" means, in Israeli parlance, yes, you've got me, but I need to appear as if I'm denying without outright lying in case some has it on tape), but perhaps he was confronted in Hebrew, too, and the whole incident has been mistranslated.
The essence, of course, remains, but I'm in a rush to some meeting and may or may not comment an that later this evening.
Friday, December 28, 2007
David Landau: Israel Should be 'Raped'"
David Landau, Editor in Chief of Haaretz, told Condoleeza Rice back in September that Israel is a failed state, and should be raped to end the occupation.
I've seen quite a bit of buzz on this over the past 24 hours (here's LGF, for example, linking onwards).
There's actually nothing particularly surprising in Landau's statement. He is part of a political camp that ultimately doesn't accept Israeli democracy or the will of the Israeli electorate, and is convinced that it knows better; they don't even pretend otherwise.
I've seen quite a bit of buzz on this over the past 24 hours (here's LGF, for example, linking onwards).
There's actually nothing particularly surprising in Landau's statement. He is part of a political camp that ultimately doesn't accept Israeli democracy or the will of the Israeli electorate, and is convinced that it knows better; they don't even pretend otherwise.
Benazir Bhutto's Death
I know nothing about Pakistan, and can't tell you anything important about today's assassination, who did it, or which American politician will benefit and who can be blamed. Andrew Sullivan, however, has it right when he writes:
This world is a darker, more irrational place than we know. And these convulsions will surely continue.A sentence that has been true since forever, and will remain so, in spite of our fervent wishes otherwise.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
The Formative Power of Culture
Matt Bai shows how the political cultures of Massachusets and Arkansas each consistently create different types of public figures. It's an interesting spinning of Nature vs. Nurture.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
"Illegal According to International Law"
Haaretz tells (yesterday) that the top lawyers of the IDF feel that the use of cluster bombs in Lebanon during last year's war was legal (and the kind of thing that other Western armies also do).
As I've explained in the past, I'm not much of a fan of international law as it's commonly used these days. This story, however, emphasizes the extent to which the name of international law is used in vain. Journalists, politicians and activists, mostly with no legal training, regularly pontificate on how many of Israel's actions are illegal according to international law, quite disregarding the fact that in any normal legal system what is or isn't legal is often disputed by lawyers and decided by courts, and the art of finding and closing loopholes is at the center of the legal practice. Here we have a bunch of lawyers arguing the case for their client (the IDF), and the only possible way to answer them is by using the same legal tools - which most pundits couldn't do if their life depended on it. Fortunately for them, their life doesn't depend on it, and not even their livelihood, since their editors and readers aren't interested in the legal aspects, only in the political ones. International law is cited because it sounds impressive, not because it's understood.
As I've explained in the past, I'm not much of a fan of international law as it's commonly used these days. This story, however, emphasizes the extent to which the name of international law is used in vain. Journalists, politicians and activists, mostly with no legal training, regularly pontificate on how many of Israel's actions are illegal according to international law, quite disregarding the fact that in any normal legal system what is or isn't legal is often disputed by lawyers and decided by courts, and the art of finding and closing loopholes is at the center of the legal practice. Here we have a bunch of lawyers arguing the case for their client (the IDF), and the only possible way to answer them is by using the same legal tools - which most pundits couldn't do if their life depended on it. Fortunately for them, their life doesn't depend on it, and not even their livelihood, since their editors and readers aren't interested in the legal aspects, only in the political ones. International law is cited because it sounds impressive, not because it's understood.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Iranian Immigrants to Israel
I'm not quite certain what to make of this story, telling that the Jewish Agency just brought 40 Jews from Iran, mostly Teheran, to Israel via an undisclosed third country that is probably Turkey (what else could it be? Barbados?)
On the one hand, you get all the usual boilerplate stuff about how this is what a Jewish State exists to do, and if there had been one back in 1937 think how much things would have been better, and so on. Which is actually all true, but not overwhelmingly convincing in this case. As one of the young Iranians who has been here for a while tells, there actually isn't much danger facing the Jews of Iran, which makes sense because the antisemitism of that regime is directed at us, not the tiny local minority (most of the time). You also have to ask who they are, those Iranian Jews, and what they're still doing there, almost 30 years after the rise to power of Homeini, and in spite of decades of the Mossad and others getting those out that need to leave. You also need to know that the Jewish Agency, once the effective government of the pre-State Yishuv, has been losing its way, its clout, its significance, and eventually even its justification to exist for decades already, and stories like this, even though true, aren't really enough to keep them relevant. Did you notice, by the way, how some of the new immigrants or their Israeli family members can't wait to reach the parking lot at the airport to start kvetching about the things they're not getting?
Finally, the comparison with Germany in the 1930s leaves me unconvinced. In this context, anyway. I suppose you could say that getting Jews out of Israel, where there are all these wars and such, is a rational thing... but I'm not going there.
On the one hand, you get all the usual boilerplate stuff about how this is what a Jewish State exists to do, and if there had been one back in 1937 think how much things would have been better, and so on. Which is actually all true, but not overwhelmingly convincing in this case. As one of the young Iranians who has been here for a while tells, there actually isn't much danger facing the Jews of Iran, which makes sense because the antisemitism of that regime is directed at us, not the tiny local minority (most of the time). You also have to ask who they are, those Iranian Jews, and what they're still doing there, almost 30 years after the rise to power of Homeini, and in spite of decades of the Mossad and others getting those out that need to leave. You also need to know that the Jewish Agency, once the effective government of the pre-State Yishuv, has been losing its way, its clout, its significance, and eventually even its justification to exist for decades already, and stories like this, even though true, aren't really enough to keep them relevant. Did you notice, by the way, how some of the new immigrants or their Israeli family members can't wait to reach the parking lot at the airport to start kvetching about the things they're not getting?
Finally, the comparison with Germany in the 1930s leaves me unconvinced. In this context, anyway. I suppose you could say that getting Jews out of Israel, where there are all these wars and such, is a rational thing... but I'm not going there.
How to Interpret Animosity
It seems there's a columnist at the Guardian named Julie Bindel. You can see a list of her articles here. I must admit that until this morning I'd never even heard of her, and certainly hadn't read anything she's written, but a quick glance at her titles and synopses indicates that she's much involved in the less savory aspects of relations between men and women.
This morning she put up an article titled "Why Men Hate Me", which turns out to be slightly misleading because it's mostly a wail about the fact that some of the men who comment on her articles aren't so nice. And she helpfully brings lots of examples, so we can judge for ourselves. (If this were really important we could of course go read the articles themselves and their comments, and decide for ourselves if Ms. Bindel is portraying things fairly, or not. I didn't feel it to be THAT important, sorry).
Why is this noteworthy, I hear you asking? Well, here are some reasons, and if I don't convince you, feel free to cancel your subscription to Ruminations.
1. Ms. Bindel proudly informs us that as a general rule, she doesn't read comments. Typical for a journalist to feel that the natural way of the world is that they should preach at us, but they don't listen to our opinion of them or their arguments.
2. Seen from the perspective of someone who regularly reads the comments on Guardian columns that deal with Israel, the things that rile her seem pretty tame.
3. Which may simply mean that each of us is sensitive to our own selves and subjects, and indifferent to the selves and subjects of others.
4. Someday, should I find the time, I'd like to write a book called "How to Recognize an Antisemite". Since the Guardian will be an important primary resource, I suppose I'll have to sort out this issue.
5. Of course it's possible that the readers of the Guardian are antisemites, and misogynists, and misanthropes, and Ms. Bindel is a misandrist. This would tell us something about the Guardian, wouldn't it? A newspaper that prides itself on being intellectual and serious.
This morning she put up an article titled "Why Men Hate Me", which turns out to be slightly misleading because it's mostly a wail about the fact that some of the men who comment on her articles aren't so nice. And she helpfully brings lots of examples, so we can judge for ourselves. (If this were really important we could of course go read the articles themselves and their comments, and decide for ourselves if Ms. Bindel is portraying things fairly, or not. I didn't feel it to be THAT important, sorry).
Why is this noteworthy, I hear you asking? Well, here are some reasons, and if I don't convince you, feel free to cancel your subscription to Ruminations.
1. Ms. Bindel proudly informs us that as a general rule, she doesn't read comments. Typical for a journalist to feel that the natural way of the world is that they should preach at us, but they don't listen to our opinion of them or their arguments.
2. Seen from the perspective of someone who regularly reads the comments on Guardian columns that deal with Israel, the things that rile her seem pretty tame.
3. Which may simply mean that each of us is sensitive to our own selves and subjects, and indifferent to the selves and subjects of others.
4. Someday, should I find the time, I'd like to write a book called "How to Recognize an Antisemite". Since the Guardian will be an important primary resource, I suppose I'll have to sort out this issue.
5. Of course it's possible that the readers of the Guardian are antisemites, and misogynists, and misanthropes, and Ms. Bindel is a misandrist. This would tell us something about the Guardian, wouldn't it? A newspaper that prides itself on being intellectual and serious.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Gambling with Settlements
The same Guardian article cited in the previous post also states that:
HOWEVER... this would all be acceptable if Israel was building only in those few areas it's clear she's not leaving and might even pay for with alternate territory. Unfortunately, there is quite a bit of building activity in settlements we all know are eventually going to be disbanded, not to mention the ongoing construction of brand new settlements. This is a waste of money, to say the least, and it's also bad tactics, bad strategy, and generally a bad idea. Why do we persist? Mostly because the settlers have figured out how to manipulate the system, but that's a rather feeble excuse. A solid majority of Israelis know we're never going to stay in most of the West Bank, and most of the far-flung small settlements aren't going to stay there. Since we know this, we should find a way to have our government act accordingly.
This is a bit misleading, but indeed Israel does most of the damage to itself. There are hundreds of thousands of Israelis living in East Jerusalem, and tens of thousands in Ma'ale Adumim. There is no way they'll be moved, not even in the case of a peace agreement. This was acknowledged by Bill Clinton in his dictated directives for making peace, 7 years ago today, and it was even accepted by both sides of the Geneva Accord, who agreed that the largest Jewish settlements in the West Bank would remain in place and Israeli territory along Gaza and the southern West Bank would be transferred to the Palestinians instead. So if you want to be precise, Israel adding additional apartments to territories everyone knows will not be part of Palestine should not be such an obstacle to peace negotiations, and if they are this tells something about the sincerity of the Palestinian negotiators who are more interested in winning points than in winning peace.In a separate development, an Israeli cabinet minister confirmed that Israel had new plans to build apartments in two settlements in East Jerusalem and in the occupied West Bank. The announcement brought quick condemnation from Palestinian leaders and presents a new obstacle to attempts to revive peace talks between the two sides.
[...]
Israel's construction ministry has budgeted plans to build 740 new settlement apartments next year: 500 in Har Homa, in East Jerusalem, and another 240 in Ma'ale Adumim.
HOWEVER... this would all be acceptable if Israel was building only in those few areas it's clear she's not leaving and might even pay for with alternate territory. Unfortunately, there is quite a bit of building activity in settlements we all know are eventually going to be disbanded, not to mention the ongoing construction of brand new settlements. This is a waste of money, to say the least, and it's also bad tactics, bad strategy, and generally a bad idea. Why do we persist? Mostly because the settlers have figured out how to manipulate the system, but that's a rather feeble excuse. A solid majority of Israelis know we're never going to stay in most of the West Bank, and most of the far-flung small settlements aren't going to stay there. Since we know this, we should find a way to have our government act accordingly.
Gambling with Violence in Gaza
The Guardian tells, with a scandalized undertone:
3. Having had my swipe at the Guardian (yes, it makes me feel better) it does need to be noted that the Israeli gamble here is a bit fraught. At the moment we vaguely feel we're winning. In a series of successful attacks on Palestinian "militants", we have managed to kill only terrorists or fighters, and no civilians. The leaders of the militants or fighters are beginning to feel the heat, and may be suing for a reprieve; if by not giving it to them we can drive them further underground, perhaps even force them out of their positions in Gaza - well, that's certainly a legitimate goal of war, and we should stay the course. But what happens if anytime soon we accidentally kill 12 civilians, and then have to desist from our pressure with the rockets still raining in, what then? Or what if the Palestinians figure out a way to tilt the balance back in their favor: wouldn't it have been better to stop now in return for a lull that won't be offered then?
4. All the fools who endlessly preach about how violence can never bring any positive results should kindly note that the facts say otherwise. Violence will never make the Palestinians love us. It will also never convince the Israelis to move "back to Russia", as Dr. Rantisi once suggested to Ariel Sharon before Sharon had him killed. But sometimes one goes to war for less than total victory. Actually, for as long as humans have been doing history, violence and wars have been bringing results. The tricky part is making certain that it's the results you want and not the ones the other side wants.
5. Using force to get rid of the Hamas control over Gaza is a legitimate goal to strive for. True, they were elected in democratic elections (and then helped themselves along with a wee bit of violence, which brought them what they wanted, see previous comment). But that's just the point. The Palestinians are free to make their own choices... and to pay the price for them, too. If having a Hamas government is painful and they decide they still want to have it, fine. The fact that the Palestinians want a government that wants Israel to disappear doesn't have to mean that Israel must disappear.
It is increasingly clear that Israel's policy in Gaza is not simply to halt the rocket fire but also to depose the Hamas movement. Yesterday Haim Ramon, Israel's deputy prime minister, confirmed that his government wanted to topple Hamas.
"We are fighting Hamas and are seeking to weaken its control of Gaza, and bring about the end of its reign there. Hamas should hand over control of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority," he said.
A number of comments to this:
1. I can understand a principled position whereby violence is always an unacceptable tool of politics. People with this position should be called upon to condemn the Palestinian insistence on using violence to promote their goals at least as much as they condemn the Israelis, with no ifs and buts. I would disagree with them, alas, but on grounds of realpolitik. In a perfect world, I'd agree with them fully. (Actually, in a perfect world we'd never have to have the discussion at all...).
2. The Guardian folks aren't principled in that way. Not even in this article, which isn't bad by Guardian standards. Israel, we're told, is not interested merely in a cessation of attacks ("by makeshift rockets"); not a word about the Palestinian insistence on shooting the rockets in the first place.3. Having had my swipe at the Guardian (yes, it makes me feel better) it does need to be noted that the Israeli gamble here is a bit fraught. At the moment we vaguely feel we're winning. In a series of successful attacks on Palestinian "militants", we have managed to kill only terrorists or fighters, and no civilians. The leaders of the militants or fighters are beginning to feel the heat, and may be suing for a reprieve; if by not giving it to them we can drive them further underground, perhaps even force them out of their positions in Gaza - well, that's certainly a legitimate goal of war, and we should stay the course. But what happens if anytime soon we accidentally kill 12 civilians, and then have to desist from our pressure with the rockets still raining in, what then? Or what if the Palestinians figure out a way to tilt the balance back in their favor: wouldn't it have been better to stop now in return for a lull that won't be offered then?
4. All the fools who endlessly preach about how violence can never bring any positive results should kindly note that the facts say otherwise. Violence will never make the Palestinians love us. It will also never convince the Israelis to move "back to Russia", as Dr. Rantisi once suggested to Ariel Sharon before Sharon had him killed. But sometimes one goes to war for less than total victory. Actually, for as long as humans have been doing history, violence and wars have been bringing results. The tricky part is making certain that it's the results you want and not the ones the other side wants.
5. Using force to get rid of the Hamas control over Gaza is a legitimate goal to strive for. True, they were elected in democratic elections (and then helped themselves along with a wee bit of violence, which brought them what they wanted, see previous comment). But that's just the point. The Palestinians are free to make their own choices... and to pay the price for them, too. If having a Hamas government is painful and they decide they still want to have it, fine. The fact that the Palestinians want a government that wants Israel to disappear doesn't have to mean that Israel must disappear.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Beating the Army's System
A friend and I were yesterday comparing stories from our sons in the army (Achikam is already 5 months in, the other guy's son is newer, and still in basic training). One of the many aggravating things about basic training is how they force you to be part of a group, and someone else decides everything about the group. For example, when they are addressed by some superior (very often), they must stand in three straight rows, forming the shape for the Hebrew letter Cheit. This is degrading, and meant to be so: you're not worthy of being talked to unless you're standing in an unnatural formation.
Except that Shlomo, the other guy's son, has figured a way to turn the tables on his commanders. He never stands in the Cheit, no matter what they tell him. He stands in a Kaf.
If you don't read Hebrew, this chart may be helpful.
Except that Shlomo, the other guy's son, has figured a way to turn the tables on his commanders. He never stands in the Cheit, no matter what they tell him. He stands in a Kaf.
If you don't read Hebrew, this chart may be helpful.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Inheritance by Gender
Mishna: A man passed away and left sons and daughters. If the inheritance is large, the sons inherit and the daughters must be taken care of from the inheritance. If the inheritance is small, the daughters must be taken care of, and the sons should go begging. (Ktubot 108b).
Not very modern (actually, it's about 2000 years prior to modernity), but interesting.
This thread began here.
Not very modern (actually, it's about 2000 years prior to modernity), but interesting.
This thread began here.
Interpreting Events in Iraq
I don't often talk about Iraq, since others do so all the time, and it's rather on the edge of the themes of this blog. On the other hand, on the edge doesn't mean totally uninteresting (as, say Finnish basketball or ancient Malaysian nanotechnology are). Anyway -
If I were to postulate what a slow winding down of a brutal and fiendishly complex civil war might look like, this could be it. (In The Guardian!). And this is what you'd expect from someone who has invested his ideological fervor in hoping for an American defeat. (The bottom third is especially helpful). And yes, this is what you'd expect from someone who always supported the war.
There is an ancient Jewish saying whereby "since the destruction of the Temple, prophecy has been given only to the fools".
If I were to postulate what a slow winding down of a brutal and fiendishly complex civil war might look like, this could be it. (In The Guardian!). And this is what you'd expect from someone who has invested his ideological fervor in hoping for an American defeat. (The bottom third is especially helpful). And yes, this is what you'd expect from someone who always supported the war.
There is an ancient Jewish saying whereby "since the destruction of the Temple, prophecy has been given only to the fools".
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
The Gaza Conundrum
Steven Erlanger, bureau chief of the New York Times in Jerusalem, doesn't always get it right. He has some of the usual inbuilt weaknesses of foreign journalists in these parts, and maybe some day I'll tell about an encounter I once had with him regarding these handicaps. This article, however, is quite good in presenting the impossible situation Israel finds itself in facing Gaza, almost two and a half years after pulling out. Were I to insist on being grumpy about anything in his report it would be that he somehow forgets to mention that if and when Israel does invade some day, he and his ilk will do their best to portray it in the worst light they can plausibly get away with. When that happens, I'll link back to this piece.
You also might want to notice the numbers of rockets and mortars launched against Israel since Israeli forces left Gaza, compared to their numbers while Israel was still there. The numbers are at the very end of the report.
You also might want to notice the numbers of rockets and mortars launched against Israel since Israeli forces left Gaza, compared to their numbers while Israel was still there. The numbers are at the very end of the report.
Islamic Jihad Associates
Ever since Israel unilaterally left Gaza, in 2005, giving the Gazans the chance to forge a better future on their own, the Gazans haven't been. Part of not doing has been to shoot so many rockets and mortar shells at Israeli civilians that the town of Sderot is slowly disintegrating. The Israeli government has been playing a cynical game whereby so long as it's "only Sderot and vicinity", and the number of casualties is small (and note: small is not non-existent), the response is gaged so as not to cause major turmoil. Should this change for the worse (the decision being 100% in the hands of the Gazans), Israel will have no choice but to escalate its use of power. (The option of peace-making is not even theoretically possible when you're dealing with the Islamic Jihad organization, a gang of extremists that make even Hamas look, well, less awful).
So the discussion rages, the rockets land, and this week the IDF escalated, mostly, at this stage, by hunting down the Jihad men. The BBC reports this morning, and I quote: "The attack [on Harazin's] car killed an Islamic Jihad associate". Harazin himself, we're to understand, was a senior associate.
So the discussion rages, the rockets land, and this week the IDF escalated, mostly, at this stage, by hunting down the Jihad men. The BBC reports this morning, and I quote: "The attack [on Harazin's] car killed an Islamic Jihad associate". Harazin himself, we're to understand, was a senior associate.
Echo Chambers or Not
I started this blog not long after announcing my intention to leave my job at Yad Vashem. That job generally kept me too busy, too much of the time. Since then I've been winding down there, and not fully winding up elsewhere, thus leaving some time for blogging. As of January 1st I'll be fully in the next chapter (details will be supplied in the fullness of time), and it remains to be seen if I find the time for blogging. The experience of the past week, which has been heavily "next-chapter" weighted, is not clear.
Having said that, here's an introduction to an intelligent blog that could easily be worth your time. It's written by Norman Geras, a retired professor from London who knows all about Karl Marx, and a lot about lots of other stuff. He reads, reflects, writes... just like I'd like to do here, assuming I continue to have the time. He reads the Guardian, probably out of conviction, so we disagree on that, and he supports Human Rights Watch, which may mean we disagree on that, too. He supports Zionism - we agree on that. And he seems to feel that thinking rationally takes precedence over one's political positions. We can certainly agree on that, in a world where many don't.
And today he has a post pondering the question of the benefit of the Internet for encouraging cross-pollinating of contradicting positions. I'm all in favor of that sort of thing, which is why I link to the Guardian and Good Old Juan more than to, say, LGF.
Having said that, here's an introduction to an intelligent blog that could easily be worth your time. It's written by Norman Geras, a retired professor from London who knows all about Karl Marx, and a lot about lots of other stuff. He reads, reflects, writes... just like I'd like to do here, assuming I continue to have the time. He reads the Guardian, probably out of conviction, so we disagree on that, and he supports Human Rights Watch, which may mean we disagree on that, too. He supports Zionism - we agree on that. And he seems to feel that thinking rationally takes precedence over one's political positions. We can certainly agree on that, in a world where many don't.
And today he has a post pondering the question of the benefit of the Internet for encouraging cross-pollinating of contradicting positions. I'm all in favor of that sort of thing, which is why I link to the Guardian and Good Old Juan more than to, say, LGF.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Got Any Spare Cash?
Actually, I'm serious. If you're looking for a worthy cause to which to donate at the last moment before the end of the tax year, these folks are worth a look.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)