Obama: "Unclench your fist so we can shake hands." Iran: "So you admit you're wrong."
To Obama, it's all about theater. But in the international arena, theater translates into justification. The breakdown is this: O was elected on a retroactive plank of "I never would have attacked Iraq. Bush didn't have the evidence to justify what he told the world so he was wrong to attack." Iran studies our media (who doesn't? people in caves know who Monica Lewinsky was within days of that story). They know that O needs reasons. This is the game they want to play. Because reasons can be argued with, and the one with the best reasons will look like the one who has moral authority, which they believe they have. Back to the media- Our faults are out there for all the world to see. Iran's are implicit, but not advertised- they don't admit them. So it's easy for them to point to this or that individual American action of the past to paint us as wrong and them as victims. Now, the way to fight this is to do what everyone with a brain loved Ronald Reagan for: Being able to articulate American values in such a way as to make them obvious and unapologetic. Good rhetoric goes a long way. BUT (here's why I'm worried), OBAMA doesn't talk pro-American rhetoric too good. When he tries to explain why he loves this country, it comes out stilted and self-serving. It was only when he criticized Bush that he was eloquent (even though wrong). I'm going to point to my own posts from the election- this is what I worried about then, and still do. He wants to talk to our enemies, but to them, talk is cheap. To us, talk should be cheap, but it's not. Talk got Obama elected. Iran would have worried about McCain. They don't have any worries about Obama...
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Where is the "Palestinian" Gandhi?
I have frequently been struck by the irony of the so-called "intifadas." Here are the so-called "Palestinians" (why do I put the name in quotes? see Joan Peters, see Moses Hess and Theodor Herzl) who have sent their very children to take on the Israel Defense Forces. These children take their stand (while covering for armed adult terrorists who fire from behind them), but according to the cameras, it is the "army of Davids" hurling their stones against the Israeli Goliaths. Why is this still a debate? Children against tanks, children against soldiers, it's a wonder that there isn't more support for their cause than there is. But ultimately this cause of theirs falls flat. I consider myself a reasonable man, I don't want anyone to suffer unjustly. But the "Palestinian" cause elicits no sympathy in me, and it elicits no sympathy from evangelical American Christians. This isn't only due to our pro-Israel "bias," or pro-Western bias, or anything of that sort. It is because the "Palestinians" are not engaged in non-violent resistance.
Non-violent resistance has a unique power. As practiced by Mahatma Gandhi, or Martin Luther King, Jr., or even Jesus Himself, it was powerful in that when an unjust law or force was applied, their followers had only to receive the blows of their oppressors to prove the injustice. That is very different from throwing stones at soldiers or firing rockets from Gaza. Those are provocations, not non-violence. Non-violence is restraint in the face of oppressive violence. But in the absence of Gaza rockets fired into Israel, there would have been no recent Israeli action in Gaza. There would have been no reason. Without the stone-throwing of the intifada (with armed adults behind them), there was no reason for an IDF response. This puts the lie to "Palestinian" "victimhood." If the "Palestinians" ever go non-violent, the world will be forced to yawn and look elsewhere for its martyr's-heart-on-the-sleeve cause, because the Israelis don't really DO anything to the "Palestinians." There are Arab members of the Israeli Knesset, Arab Israelis are citizens of Israel, the Jews don't tear down mosques or Islamic holy places- they left the Temple Mount in Waqf hands after the 6-Day War (why? why?) and it was the "Palestinians" who ravaged Joseph's Tomb and set fire to synagogues left in Gaza (not to mention looting and destroying perfectly good greenhouses which the Jews were paid to leave behind). This is yet another one of those clear-cut issues. Yasser Arafat was never Mohandas Gandhi, and Hamas leaders have certainly not been, and Abbas is not, because the "Palestinian" cause doesn't lend itself to non-violence, because it is only about violence against Israel and against a Jewish State.
Non-violent resistance has a unique power. As practiced by Mahatma Gandhi, or Martin Luther King, Jr., or even Jesus Himself, it was powerful in that when an unjust law or force was applied, their followers had only to receive the blows of their oppressors to prove the injustice. That is very different from throwing stones at soldiers or firing rockets from Gaza. Those are provocations, not non-violence. Non-violence is restraint in the face of oppressive violence. But in the absence of Gaza rockets fired into Israel, there would have been no recent Israeli action in Gaza. There would have been no reason. Without the stone-throwing of the intifada (with armed adults behind them), there was no reason for an IDF response. This puts the lie to "Palestinian" "victimhood." If the "Palestinians" ever go non-violent, the world will be forced to yawn and look elsewhere for its martyr's-heart-on-the-sleeve cause, because the Israelis don't really DO anything to the "Palestinians." There are Arab members of the Israeli Knesset, Arab Israelis are citizens of Israel, the Jews don't tear down mosques or Islamic holy places- they left the Temple Mount in Waqf hands after the 6-Day War (why? why?) and it was the "Palestinians" who ravaged Joseph's Tomb and set fire to synagogues left in Gaza (not to mention looting and destroying perfectly good greenhouses which the Jews were paid to leave behind). This is yet another one of those clear-cut issues. Yasser Arafat was never Mohandas Gandhi, and Hamas leaders have certainly not been, and Abbas is not, because the "Palestinian" cause doesn't lend itself to non-violence, because it is only about violence against Israel and against a Jewish State.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Condemned to Repeat...again and again...
In I.T., you don't install an upgrade to a critical application without first testing it in a lab. That enables you to see what might go wrong. As a nation, we have an extraordinary test lab for dealing with Moslem fundamentalists, and that's Israel. Israel deals with these same people, with their same unyielding mindset, continuously. We can learn from their experiences.
Remarkably, one Prime Minister of Israel managed to initiate several experiences. (I'm being careful not to say "mistakes," with sensitivity to the fact that I don't live under those conditions, however much I may regard them as mistakes.) Ehud Barak (that's Barak, not Barack), made 2 major moves that Barack Obama (Barack, not Barak) is in the process of making. Let's look at the parallels.
1- Barak withdrew unilaterally from Lebanon. In the wake of the withdrawal, which arguably was overdue, Hezbull' proclaimed victory. An empty proclamation, perhaps, but certainly it gave them the foothold in S. Leb. that they have had. Now, what happened, long term, following the withdrawal? Israel had to go in AGAIN, for a Second Lebanon War, in greater force and against a stronger enemy.
PARALLEL: Barack wants to withdraw asap from Iraq. He has said so throughout the campaign. The day we leave, Al-Qaeda in Iraq (or Mesopotamia or whatever they're calling themselves) will proclaim victory. The circumstances will hopefully be different. Hopefully the Iraqis will be able to maintain control. Hopefully. Short-term, likely. Long-term, not so likely. It's a matter of attrition. Single-minded fanatics have a tendency to wear down anyone who isn't equally committed to some opposing mindset. I don't think the Iraqis have the long-term endurance necessary to maintain a war mindset against the terrorists who will infiltrate their society in areas sympathetic to their cause, especially without American presence and prodding. If al-Qaeda or some (other?) Iranian-backed group makes enough gains, it is entirely conceivable we will have a Second Iraq War. The irony would be if Barack had to lead that war.
2- Barak sat down with Yasser Arafat, made offers and tried to make a deal. He gave away more than Arafat had any right to expect, but Arafat's response was not only to turn down the deal, but to start the second intifada. For the Israelis, this was an important milestone, tragic for them though it was. That's because it took sitting down with Arafat and making him an offer, to show that he was not the least bit serious about peace with Israel. He didn't make a counter-offer. At the least any reasonable person would have expected the Israeli offer to begin a round of negotiations. But Arafat didn't try to negotiate, he introduced more violence. (Hamas doesn't even make any bones about it, they refuse to negotiate, refuse to recognize Israel, insist that their unwavering goal is to eliminate Israel. Why anyone misses that is beyond me.)
PARALLEL: Barack wants to open the diplomatic channels with Iran. He wants to talk with Ahmadinejad. Ahm. did exactly what I thought he would do once Barack made an overture: He demanded an apology. That's what he wants. An apology. Sadly, Barack might take that step, in part or in full, because you know what? he believes we are so in the wrong regarding the Moslem world (see countless other blogs on this). If Barack apologizes, that will not be enough. An apology is not sufficient. Reparations will be demanded. Ahm., like most religious fundamentalists, is on his most solid footing when he believes he has the moral high ground. That's what he wants. He may, now, decide to go easy. Cozy up to Barack and have a pow wow, a Camp David. Wouldn't that be HISTORICAL!!? Wow! Barack would love that- any president would, they all want that. Barack Obama the Peace Bringer! Glorious! But Ahm. will turn out to be like Arafat. He will give no ground, he only wants ground. Whose ground? Israel's ground. That will be his price. He has already said so, that is the price of Iranian rapprochement. Barack says he would never pay that price. But what if the Israelis go back into Gaza? What if Netanyahu becomes Prime Minister? What if Israel is provoked into losing the supposed moral high ground? Can Obi maintain his stance? Is he capable of it? Does he have the grasp of history and recent events to be able to support U.S. and/or Israeli actions when confronted with ambiguities? I hesitate to say he does, I haven't seen the evidence. He ran on reversing the last 8 years, and he's implementing it. That's not appropriate, and in the current world environment, it's dangerous.
Remarkably, one Prime Minister of Israel managed to initiate several experiences. (I'm being careful not to say "mistakes," with sensitivity to the fact that I don't live under those conditions, however much I may regard them as mistakes.) Ehud Barak (that's Barak, not Barack), made 2 major moves that Barack Obama (Barack, not Barak) is in the process of making. Let's look at the parallels.
1- Barak withdrew unilaterally from Lebanon. In the wake of the withdrawal, which arguably was overdue, Hezbull' proclaimed victory. An empty proclamation, perhaps, but certainly it gave them the foothold in S. Leb. that they have had. Now, what happened, long term, following the withdrawal? Israel had to go in AGAIN, for a Second Lebanon War, in greater force and against a stronger enemy.
PARALLEL: Barack wants to withdraw asap from Iraq. He has said so throughout the campaign. The day we leave, Al-Qaeda in Iraq (or Mesopotamia or whatever they're calling themselves) will proclaim victory. The circumstances will hopefully be different. Hopefully the Iraqis will be able to maintain control. Hopefully. Short-term, likely. Long-term, not so likely. It's a matter of attrition. Single-minded fanatics have a tendency to wear down anyone who isn't equally committed to some opposing mindset. I don't think the Iraqis have the long-term endurance necessary to maintain a war mindset against the terrorists who will infiltrate their society in areas sympathetic to their cause, especially without American presence and prodding. If al-Qaeda or some (other?) Iranian-backed group makes enough gains, it is entirely conceivable we will have a Second Iraq War. The irony would be if Barack had to lead that war.
2- Barak sat down with Yasser Arafat, made offers and tried to make a deal. He gave away more than Arafat had any right to expect, but Arafat's response was not only to turn down the deal, but to start the second intifada. For the Israelis, this was an important milestone, tragic for them though it was. That's because it took sitting down with Arafat and making him an offer, to show that he was not the least bit serious about peace with Israel. He didn't make a counter-offer. At the least any reasonable person would have expected the Israeli offer to begin a round of negotiations. But Arafat didn't try to negotiate, he introduced more violence. (Hamas doesn't even make any bones about it, they refuse to negotiate, refuse to recognize Israel, insist that their unwavering goal is to eliminate Israel. Why anyone misses that is beyond me.)
PARALLEL: Barack wants to open the diplomatic channels with Iran. He wants to talk with Ahmadinejad. Ahm. did exactly what I thought he would do once Barack made an overture: He demanded an apology. That's what he wants. An apology. Sadly, Barack might take that step, in part or in full, because you know what? he believes we are so in the wrong regarding the Moslem world (see countless other blogs on this). If Barack apologizes, that will not be enough. An apology is not sufficient. Reparations will be demanded. Ahm., like most religious fundamentalists, is on his most solid footing when he believes he has the moral high ground. That's what he wants. He may, now, decide to go easy. Cozy up to Barack and have a pow wow, a Camp David. Wouldn't that be HISTORICAL!!? Wow! Barack would love that- any president would, they all want that. Barack Obama the Peace Bringer! Glorious! But Ahm. will turn out to be like Arafat. He will give no ground, he only wants ground. Whose ground? Israel's ground. That will be his price. He has already said so, that is the price of Iranian rapprochement. Barack says he would never pay that price. But what if the Israelis go back into Gaza? What if Netanyahu becomes Prime Minister? What if Israel is provoked into losing the supposed moral high ground? Can Obi maintain his stance? Is he capable of it? Does he have the grasp of history and recent events to be able to support U.S. and/or Israeli actions when confronted with ambiguities? I hesitate to say he does, I haven't seen the evidence. He ran on reversing the last 8 years, and he's implementing it. That's not appropriate, and in the current world environment, it's dangerous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)