I loved the Dos Equis commercial because it spoke to me about one of my pet peeves, those who believe their performance of music is so obviously welcome and wonderful they ignore that hey, everyone else is enjoying the quiet/conversation . No one said “ yeah!” when he said “let’s jam” so what the heck was he doing? Shhhhhhhhhh. Of course if others CHOOSE to go to a ukulele concert or enthusiastically consent to your suggestion, have at it!
The ukulele guy was slowly and politely trying to warm up the group for a sing-along. Even though only he brought his instrument, he was trying to be inclusive and not just put on a charming one-man show, though he certainly could. If he had been given a chance to instruct the friends on how to make rhythm instruments from found objects, it could have been magical. Don't be discouraged, ukulele friend!
Eric, I, for one, appreciate the platform for respectful dialogue you attempt to create here. Though we lean the same general direction politically you sometimes have opinions I disagree with (I'm annoyed with you about slamming lower speed limits for example, and bashing scooter riders), but unless you were to go off on some deep end MAGA cray cray and start talking about how Jim Jordan is our savior I can't see myself ever demanding to be taken off your distribution list. I also hope on those occasions I do write a disagreement with you or someone on the comment board that I come across as respectful.
Thank you for pointing out the issue with Hamas and elections. Too many commentators point out that Gazans elected Hamas - for reasons that are varied and more complicated than "they hate Israel" and a major factor was the corruption that surrounds the Fatah party - but they have not been allowed to vote since 2006 (not 2007). Considering that half of the population of Gaza is under 18, probably around 75% of Gazans were either not born or not voting age the last time there was a vote in Gaza.
David S, despite the condescending tone and demand to drop off your list, made of valid points in the middle of a lot of things I disagreed with (and oversimplified too many things). For one, I'm horrified that there are some people on my side of the political spectrum would seem to glorify a despicable group of people like Hamas, who gladly kill LGBTQ+ people and oppress women. (Right wing Jews, who control Israel, are also terrible on rights for those groups as well so anyone slamming Muslims for those issues should also be willing to take Jews and Christians to task as well.)
(Side note to Joshua P, being picky I know, but Ariel Sharon was PM of Israel during Gaza pullout not Begin, who died in 1992)
I have greater appreciation of EZ's opinions when they differ from mine. His columns, and now blog, explain motivation and reasoning behind those opinions. Typically, the specifics of the reasoning cause me to examine the premises of my own beliefs which occasionally leads to some change in how I think view things.
I totally agree with you. As a conservative I differ from Eric and most of the readership on most issues, but I have always been impressed with Eric's use of information, facts and reason to present and defend his position. Being confronted with differing opinions gives me an opportunity to reflect further on my position, and to occasionally find that I want to modify my position. And even in the majority of cases where my position remains unchanged, I still benefit from having to consider the basis for my position relative to the arguments presented against it, as opposed to living inside an insular bubble of an echo chamber of my views.
What I am not a fan of is people whose arguments consist of recitation of bumper sticker slogans, people who employ foul language in a sad attempt for emphasis, and especially, people who label and make a personal attack on someone holding a different opinion. I was rightfully called out by another EZ poster recently for a snarky comment in the course of our back and forth, and when I realized it was indeed snarky I apologized because that is not the level of discussion I wish to engage in. So, let our debates continue!
Deni, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy conducted a public opinion poll in Gaza earlier this year that reflected 57% of respondents indicated their support for Hamas. You have to keep in mind that funding from the UN and the US for education in Gaza unfortunately funds very intense political indoctrination that Jews are a subhuman species and that it is an honorable and blessed thing to kill Jews. It is an unfortunate reality that people are responsible for the leaders of their country and the acts that they do. There were many Germans who were opposed to Hitler in the time leading up to and during World War II, but yet they suffered along with the rest of their country when the world rightfully decided that Hitler and the Nazis must be thoroughly defeated. And now, Israel with our support must do whatever it takes to thoroughly defeat the Hamas terrorists once and for all.
It is well documented that the cowardly Hamas terrorists use the people of Gaza as human shields in hiding out in hospitals, schools, etc. But Israel takes every possible precaution to minimize civilian casualties, which stands in stark contrast to the Hamas terrorists who intentionally planned genocidal targeted attacks on innocent non-combatant civilians. The seven principles of Thomas Aquinas' Just War Theory gives very good context for Israel's response to these terrorist attacks.
Lastly, I wholeheartedly endorse the embargo of electricity, water and medical supplies into Gaza until Hamas releases the innocent hostages they illegally abducted. These innocent people in all reality have very little chance of surviving and safe return, and the cut off of these critical supplies to Gaza may be the only chance they have. Judith Raanan and her beautiful daughter Natalie are former neighbors and dear friends of ours, and there are other American citizens among these hostages. 🇮🇱🙏
Assuming that your figures are correct, why do you suppose that 57% of Gazans support Hamas? Do you think that they are all evil people who want to kill Jews? Or do you think some of them are hurt because they or their parents or grandparents were expelled from their homeland, it’s now illegal for them to emigrate back, and they live on a strip of land which has for years been subject to a blockade which prevents the people who live their from having a decent life. We make a mistake, I think, when we suppose our enemies are “evil” or are motivated by “evil.” The MAGA folks, who want to take away necessary health care from transgender people, for instance. I don’t think they are evil. I think some of them choose not to believe the medical science behind transgender health care because they have fears, subconscious or otherwise about changing cultural gender roles and expectations, or because they are manipulated by charismatic politicians who exploit the demonization of transgender people for political power, or because they have a need for some reason to believe the teachings of a religion thousands of years old that abjure and regard as sinful homosexuality and transsexualism. My father was extremely homophobic before I came out. That didn’t make him an evil person. There is no such thing as “the good guys” and “the bad guys,” although that “us and them” concept is very intrinsic and dear to some people.
While I think it can certainly be a mistake to imagine that the "other side" is "evil," there's definitely such a thing as the opposite mistake -- assuming no evil.
Many Jews in Germany basically held that view. Their view of the Nazis was a bit like my own attitude toward Trump -- he's a despicable jackass, to be sure, and one who has done a lot of harm, but one whose genuine threat to the republic is exaggerated. (I frequently hear that if Trump wins the next election, it will be our last. That strikes me as ridiculous.)
I think I'm right about Trump, but those German Jews were, of course, wrong about the Nazis. When you say that there's no such thing as the good guys and the bad guys, why doesn't that notion completely crumple under the weight of that one word: Nazis? Why doesn't it crumple in the face of, say, furious jihadist outbursts in Europe or elsewhere over cartoons and shit? Radical Islam out of a pre-modern era, views more at home in the Middle Ages, full of thought processes completely alien to both of us -- actual fascism -- is real, dangerous, and widespread. That all seems obvious.
When I took a national security course in college, I was greatly impressed by the section on intelligence errors. A common one is the so-called mirror-imaging error -- when you assume that the group you're assessing (be it your "enemy" or whoever) thinks in ways fundamentally similar to your own. It might be true, but it might not. The mirror-imaging error consistently manifests itself as an assumption that that other side is pragmatic and has a broadly similar sense of ethics when in fact they're cuckoo bananas.
You think, well, if I were in their shoes, I'd be pissed too! The empathetic instinct is laudable, but allow for a moment that it might be wrong, that it might be leading you astray, that they're not just versions of you in a different situation. The virulence of their antisemitic, genocidal hatred, expressed in their charter documents, propaganda, education, and at every other turn, suggests as much. Their cheering of slaughter as ugly as one can imagine, the gleeful filming of it, suggests as much. When Americans commit far milder outrages, such as at Abu Ghraib, it causes a scandal. When Palestinian freedom fighters do far worse, it causes outbursts of joy. This is no mere refusal to recognize Israel's legitimacy. People are raised on Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and such like. These guys are more ISIS than ANC.
I'm sympathetic with the plight of the Gazans, I promise you that I am. They are being held hostage by their leadership (and the rest of the Arab world that wants no part of them), but, it's worth noting, that it's a leadership which -- as David's poll suggests and which I even heard a U.N. guy very down on Israel admit, before the words, "let's be honest" -- still commands widespread support in Gaza. They are not the only Palestinians. They are fanatical. If Israel had had Palestinian versions of you to deal with, there would have been a peaceful, durable two-state solution decades ago. (Incidentally, my own preferred agreement with Palestinian "you"s would essentially buy peace with land and a shit-ton of money, by way of reparations for 75-year-old displacement and by way of Marshall-Plannish economic development of a now-former enemy. It would not include a right of return, which would spell the end of Israel as a Jewish safe haven. But I don't think they've been dealing with Palestinian "you"s. Walking away from Clinton and Barak shows it. Supporting Hamas shows it. Repeated resort to terrorist violence shows it.)
I took two other courses in college that solidified my view. Both were on Jewish-Islamic relations in the Middle East. One was taught by a pair of fanatical Palestinian freedom fighters. It was not an actual class. It was a harangue, immune to any counterargument or even academic-style discussion of any sort. It was, then, in the '90s, very weird. I'm not sure how weird it is now. The other offered a more a sober-minded, historically informed approach, and it convinced me that the dispute wasn't just about land or a relatively recent grievance. It was about an abhorrence of Jews holding a position of power in the heartland of the once mighty and glorious Islamic empire.
The history is more complicated than you allow. Jews bought a lot of land in Israel prior to the UN partition, and they would have bought a lot more if their immigration hadn't been restricted. Their numbers were significant, not some tiny minority. Just about all Jews in Israel, if they're not recent refugees, are descended from refugees, and a large number sought refuge not just from Europe but from intolerant Arab lands. And they've never been safe. Israel is fighting for its existence. Maybe you don't think it has a right. I do. I wish that there were reasonable people to deal with, and, in time, maybe there will be. In the meantime, the blockade of Gaza -- not just by Israel but by Egypt too -- is a response to the strip's terrorist leadership, much as we try to impose crippling economic sanctions, and thus a form of collective punishment, on nations I will not say are evil -- Iran, Russia, North Korea -- but nations that are surely in its grip.
Of course there is such a thing as evil. But I don’t believe in Satan, nor do I believe that people fall into the evil or good boxes. There are sociopaths, people who care only and exclusively for themselves, have no ability to experience empathy, and judge events only by how they affect them. I suppose that is the closest that human beings come to being evil. Incidentally, I am quite sure our former President Trump fits into that category. And people like that, as well as what you would call “good people” do a lot of evil in the world. And, I don’t doubt for a minute that, if Trump were re-elected, he would try to become President for life. I imagine that it’s comforting for you see people as good or evil, and to convince yourself that you are on safely ensconced well on the good side. But I must say your attitude reminds me of Bob Dylan’s song, With God On Our Side. The world is a lot more gray and nuanced than folks like you would have us believe.
I've tried to make several points over these last couple of threads. Among them:
- The justice of one's cause makes not all the difference but a big difference in evaluating it
- Any moral assessment of a conflict is a fact-intensive one that should include an evaluation not just of means but ends
- The war crime lens, while useful, is not the only way to think about conflicts, because it leaves out ends (focusing on, say, Putin's kidnapping, rather than the larger crime of the invasion itself)
- A no-civilian-casualty rule would make it impossible to defeat threats and foes that should be defeated, lest their aims be vindicated, making the world a far worse place for generations to come
- Some defensive wars need fighting, despite the horrible violence they entail, because their ends are important: defeating the Confederacy, e.g., or defeating the Nazis
- Israel is engaged in an fight for its existence as a Jewish state, which it is entitled to do
- Its birth, while not pristine, was more pristine than most, having been voted for by the world, in recognition of the powerful case of Jewish refugees from Europe and elsewhere in the Middle East, the large Jewish population already there, Arab hostility to Jewish presence, and the lack of any safe haven for Jews in a world almost everywhere and at every time continuously hostile to them on, for hundreds of years, essentially racial grounds; if ever any group needed a homeland, it's Jews
- Israel has faced continuous assault just for being there from the very beginning, which is the overwhelming cause of the Palestinian plight, including, I'll add, the expulsion of Palestinians during the Arab-instigated 1948 War, when they represented a fifth column that would have destroyed the nascent state from within (as acknowledged even by the left-wing Israeli historian Benny Morris, who literally wrote the book on Palestinian expulsion and had the courage to bust the Israeli myth that the whole Palestinian exodus was out of fear or at the direction of Arab leaders)
- Israel has throughout its history tried to make peace; the failure of these attempts are not because of Israeli unwillingness to compromise (see the Clinton talks) but because the Palestinian side was unwilling to compromise, preferring struggle to peace; far more Israelis than Palestinians could envision a two-state solution
- The two sides are asymmetric, in terms of leadership and by evident numbers, in their relative levels of reasonableness, bloodlust, and respect for human life and human rights
- Gaza is awash in virulent antisemitism, which is taught in school
- To assume that everybody's motives are essentially pragmatic and reasonable like your own would be -- simple anger at having been oppressed or dispossessed -- might well be a mirror-imaging error that misunderstands the depth of Gazan race hatred grounded in medieval Islamist grievance
To all of which, you offer minimal engagement and no genuine counter-argument but rather a dismissal of people "like me" and a link to a smug folk song.
Part of the problem is that you don’t really respond to what I say. For example, you imply that I suggested that there should be a “no civilian casualty rule” in war, which I never argued in favor of. I said that it is a war crime to intentionally kill civilians and destroy their property. I never suggested that unexpected or unintentional collateral damage to civilians and their property in a legitimate military exercise was a war crime. I suspect that you attempt to put words in my mouth because it is easier to make me look wrong if you pretend that my argument is different than it was. That’s a common rhetorical strategy in court, which is why I generally object at oral argument in the trial court when the other side mischaracterizes my arguments. Because you follow this tactic, our discussions tend to morph and figuratively bleed all over the place, and pretty soon we are arguing about things that I never addressed. Did you listen to the folk song?
Thank you David. We were electrified upon hearing the news earlier this morning and continue to follow it closely. We work concerned about the reference to the release being due to Judith poor health because she did not previously have any serious health issues. But nonetheless, it certainly has hallmark of a miracle against all odds that they are going to be returned to safety. We give thanks first and foremost to God for his mercy, and then as well to all the many people who have who have been lifting Judith and Natalie in prayer. We ask continued prayers for the many remaining hostages being held by the terrorists, and for Israel. 🇮🇱🙏
What is interesting in all the discussions of what is happening in Israel and Gaza is that the right-wing Jewish settlements, they have continued to take more Palestinian land and Christianity's role in supporting right-wing Israel policies are ignored. There is no mention of either and they are the cause of what is happening, especially the antisemitism inherent in Pauline Christianity that persecuted Jews for centuries, ending in the Holocaust, that led directly to the decision on the part of Jews to take control of their own lives and create Israel by taking land already claimed and owned by others.
This is a truly tragic situation, but the US had a lot of land to send the Indians to and so we had very minor tumult from our taking what was theirs with no compensation and resettling them as we saw fit.
Jeff - There has never been in the history of the world a country of Palestine. The geographical area was first referred to as Palestine in 134 AD by the Romans who governed the area. Want to know what the area was known as before that? Judea.
The majority of the people of Israel are amenable to a two-state solution to this ongoing conflict. Israel dismantled settlements and withdrew from Gaza in 2005, and there was potential for it to become a wonderful and thriving place with beautiful beaches and seaports on the Mediterranean. But, upon taking power in 2007, Hamas almost immediately began using Gaza as a base for deadly attacks on Israel, resulting in the joint decision by Egypt and Israel to implement a blockade for weaponry in self-defense. With all of the international aid, including substantial aid from the US, Gaza could have been developed into a vibrant and productive area. But Hamas diverts funding into military activities for aggression and attacks on Israel, as well as extreme anti-semitic propaganda in the schools.
The Hamas Charter explicitly calls for the destruction of the entire state of Israel and all its people. It is impossible to negotiate with someone whose sole focus is to kill you. And that is why Hamas must be eradicated for the self defense of Israel and any possible future for the Palestinians.
Your statement "never been in the history of the world a country of Palestine" is irrelevant.
The fact is that there were people who were dispossessed without compensation. That has never been dealt with and is fundamental to what is happening today.
Of course this can be traced directly to Christianity's persecution of Jews and European nations failing to protect them from the Holocaust and subsequently using "Israel" as a means of avoiding their compensation to the survivors. Europe externalized the price paid by Jews in their abandonment onto the Palestinians.
There can be much historical debate about the right of people identifying as Palestinians to having their own country. The overwhelming majority of Israel has been in favor of negotiating a territorial solution that will result in a Palestinian state. But Hamas who governs Gaza is unarguably bent on a complete genocide of all Jews in the middle east. And that is why there has been no progress toward a Palestinian state in recent times. (And I might add, give us safe return of Judith, Natalie and the other innocent civilians you brutally abducted, and Israell will immediately allow return of electricity, water and other necessary supplies to Gaza.)
LOL! Do you understand that prior to Partition the region was under control of the Ottoman Empire? It was then divided into states by European powers. The ONLY thing that matters is that Palestinians owned property that was taken and became Israel, like the US did to the Indians, and neither was ever compensated for their loss. The difference is that the US wasn't persecuted as were the Jews. Europeans forced the Palestinians to pay their victims for the Holocaust and the myriad pogroms rather than compensating the Jews themselves.
I'll choose to ignore your LOL and respond to the substance of your comment. Of course I am familiar with 20th century history in the middle east.
But your own argument of original ownership works against you. Just as the various Native American tribes were attacking, killing enslaving and taking over territory from other tribes before the settlers arrived and took it over from them, virtually every nation or group who holds territory today at some point had taken it over from another group who had possessed it. To the extent there were Arab people's living in the area that came to be known as palestine, they had taken it over from the Jews who had lived there when it was Judea.
Again, there can be legitimate discussion on territorial aspirations poured a two-state agreement that Israel has long been in favor of. But Hamas must revoke its Charter to commit genocide on the Jews, and they're on willingness to do so makes any progress toward a Palestinian statehood impossible.
Finally, there can be no ambiguity whatsoever on the fact that Hamas terrorists are presently holding hundreds of innocent non-combatant hostages. That must be explicitly condemned by every civilized Nation and every reasonable minded person with whatever Israel being morally entitled to do whatever is necessary to free these hostages.. Territorial and political disputes are not under any circumstance an excuse for terrorism!
Sorry dude, but original ownership matters and it is at the core of the problem along with Europeans' externalizing the cost that they should have beared for the Holocaust and pogroms against Jews, forcing the Palestinians to bear it. There are Jews living in Gaza today who had their property taken from them and "settlers" continue to take from them and if they have died, then their children and grandchildren are still around.
Re your thought that “ I would like to think there is a strategic middle ground…”. I would like to think that as well, but I have no idea what it would be. Reading the Hamas charter is so very discouraging to coming up with a “middle ground”. Even if one thinks it goes well beyond what majority of Palestinians believe, it leaves little constructive to build any reasonable or lasting bridge to peace.
We recently flew home from eastern Canada and, due to weather delays, had a very tight window in Montreal to get to our connecting flight to Chicago. The attendant announced that there were ten people with tight connections and asked everyone to let us leave first. As we got in line to leave the plane, there were - exactly - ten of us standing. I love Canada.
The flight attendant who called out the names of the short-connection passengers and had them light their call buttons was a genius. By clearly identifying the needy (of speedy disembarkation), the flight attendant simultaneously branded everyone else who was not part of the needy (and who did not wait to allow the needier ones to go first) as self-important dipsticks. Apparently, the threat of disapprobation from their fellow passengers (who they are likely never to see ever again) was enough to keep most in their seats where they belonged - allowing the short-connection passengers to beat a hasty exit. I wish all flight attendants would do the same in similar situations.
That's an excellent question. I would take issue with the word "had," as certainly most readers don't turn to the Picayune Sentinel for foreign affairs coverage. And my wife, who tried to talk me out of saying anything about it on those and other grounds, would take even stronger issue with it.
Any columnist or editorial writer or electronic or online pundit will tell you that the biggest challenge after a major news event is figuring out something original and useful to say when it seems like everyone is weighing in and very little falls into the "this must be said!" category. Amplifying conventional wisdom isn't exactly in the job description, yet at times it feels callous to avoid at least touching on the story that everyone is talking about and thinking about; it feels like NOT commenting is suggesting the story lacks importance, which is itself a comment. If that makes any sense.
I would say 9/11 presented the biggest such challenge for just about all of us in the opinion game. Not much was known in the immediate aftermath, yet there was no other story to talk about for anyone and for several weeks thereafter.
Natural disasters are also very difficult for columnists (as well as news organizations in general) because there's usually not a lot to say other than "damn, that sucks" and to quote people who have suffered great losses.
I do not think a columnist/blogger needs to have a hot take to make it worthwhile to write about a topic. The followers of a writer will tend to be more open to considering what that writer has to say. Also, they things are said makes a big difference.
That was my experience on this topic in the PS. Also, I found comments in the forum valuable. While there were expressions of anger and frustration, there were also perspectives shared from unique personal experiences from some people (e.g Peter Z's comment). We don't get that from international media.
As someone who wasn't super happy with your take, I commend your willingness to offer it, and I'm not sure "had" is so wrong given the prominence of the news. I come here for fair-minded, intelligent commentary, "beautifully expressed," on anything, of which, even if it weren't increasingly rare, there can never be too much.
I am surprised by how many people cannot hold two thoughts in their head. One, that the Hamas massacres in Israel were monstrous and evil. Two, that the Palestinians are an oppressed and occupied people subject now to a far-right intransigent government led by a political scoundrel.
When a people are oppressed, colonized, and subject to another people to the extent that they have no hope, in almost all cases the worst elements rise. See Hamas terrorism, the IRA Provos, the Mau Mau in Kenya and numerous other nationalist leaders ... and innocents die on both sides while the oppressors and the terrorists from the oppressed become more extreme and violent.
It also stuns me that many believe the removal, annialation of Gaza's Palestinians will harm or stop Hamas. Terrorists revel in death, destruction, even those they claim to represent. Hamas will continue, while hundreds of thousands of Palestinians will be forced to leave the country or killed.
Eric, your reaction to the Dos Equis commercial may have been too hasty, taking offense where it wasn't deserved. You play, and I trust you know the difference between jamming (in an appropriate setting with like-minded individuals who made at least basic efforts to learn an instrument) and the insufferable egoist who would fuel their need for attention by killing whatever vibe the rest of the room may be enjoying. And the creators of this clever commercial chose the perfect instrument -- a ukelele can make beautiful music in the right hands, but is also deceptively simple enough to make the wannabe "musician" thinks (s)he mastered it in 15 minutes. As a musician of 50+ years who would never think of imposing whatever "talent" I may have on an unsuspecting and unwilling audience, I clink my Dos Equis bottle in salute to this 30 second life-lesson and so should you.
I thought the ad was funny, and so was the reference to Animal House.
I guess we are now in a time when there is so much sensitivity in how each of us chooses which fermented grain beverage we are going to drink. As if it mattered.
In March of 1974 I found myself living in the middle of the Suez Canal in a bombed out house in a town called Ismailia.
The October 1973 War had just finished and anger ran high in Egypt. Tanks were still burning in the Sinai Desert.
My job…the Navy’s job was to pull out the many mines in and around the Canal.
This was dangerous business but what gave me solace were the UN Security forces on both sides of the Canal. Many of the Egyptians were still hot to trot to wipe out Israel. And there was great fear that Israel would “finish the job” including taking back the Canal.
Well the Security forces stayed, the mines were taken out, the Canal got fixed and reopened with no further violence. A small success, a short term solution…it did not solve the Mideast Crisis but it saved lives and allowed at least an attempt at a solution.
So let’s get the UN really involved, push for a security force to separate Hamas from Israel’s army on the Gaza Border. Create a ceasefire that will stop both sides from further immediate violence.
If successful, this would help in getting hostages out as I expect it is easier moving these folks to a neutral third party for release.
The food, water, power issue for Gaza could be hopefully worked out as well.
This is not a long term solution but it is one that could work in the short run and save lives.
It will also put all parties in a better position to reach an overall solution.
You gotta try something, waiting for Israel to attack or Hamas to make their next move only kills more people.
Why are you watching beeer commercials? No DVR? If you made your beer choices based on the quality of the commericals, you'd (god forbid) probably be drinking Bud Lite. Dox Equis is a very agreeable beer regardless of its commercials, which I would never watch anyway.
I really like this publication and the forum it creates for discussion. The mixture of serious topics and not-so-serious topics, music, and fun is just about right. And the tone of the comments is often, although not always, less trolling, hostile, and aggressive than social media generally. There is actually some light in the darkness. I learn things and my ideas are challenged. That said, sometimes news stories, like what’s happening in the Middle East now, can hit very close to a person’s sense of identity. Other news stories and comments have hit very close to my sense of identity. And sometimes comments of others can feel like an assault on who you are. That’s the nature of communicating by text. When that happens to me, I take a break from the Substack publication. But I will come back if there is actually some light in the darkness.
Wow! Israel is a hot topic issue - but those comments were blazing hot. Those who want off the list - obviously will go on to some other media outlet that support their beliefs/values. I think they misinterpreted your reply - but regardless, you had your say, they had their say. Why does everyone want to run away from thoughts - real or not - that conflict with how one thinks.
I don't think there was any doubt that opinions on the Gaza conflict were going to be all over the map. But I was particularly interested in those commenting on the unfortunate demise of innocents when getting back at terrorists. No one mentioned our own American experience. The bombings of German cities killed lots of innocents during World War II. The A-bomb bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki most likely took out more than a few people that wished the Emperor would simply surrender. The Civil War took out more than a few civilians. Number one, let's try and remember that whenever warmongers start immediately clamoring for someone to be bombed to death. Wars end and many have long memories. Two, there's already enough rewriting of history going on in this country. Let's not leave out American experiences. I'm not suggesting that it can always be avoided. We couldn't, for example let Hitler go on unchecked. But don't make us the innocent in any discussion of history.
By the way, in my comments on innocents getting killed, I wish I had added the following. Put yourself in this position. You and your family are against your government for the war they are waging. The other side launches an attack that kills some of your family members. How would you feel about it? Would you simply say that you regret it, but understand it was completely necessary to defeat your terroristic warmongering government?
I loved the Dos Equis commercial because it spoke to me about one of my pet peeves, those who believe their performance of music is so obviously welcome and wonderful they ignore that hey, everyone else is enjoying the quiet/conversation . No one said “ yeah!” when he said “let’s jam” so what the heck was he doing? Shhhhhhhhhh. Of course if others CHOOSE to go to a ukulele concert or enthusiastically consent to your suggestion, have at it!
The ukulele guy was slowly and politely trying to warm up the group for a sing-along. Even though only he brought his instrument, he was trying to be inclusive and not just put on a charming one-man show, though he certainly could. If he had been given a chance to instruct the friends on how to make rhythm instruments from found objects, it could have been magical. Don't be discouraged, ukulele friend!
Eric, I, for one, appreciate the platform for respectful dialogue you attempt to create here. Though we lean the same general direction politically you sometimes have opinions I disagree with (I'm annoyed with you about slamming lower speed limits for example, and bashing scooter riders), but unless you were to go off on some deep end MAGA cray cray and start talking about how Jim Jordan is our savior I can't see myself ever demanding to be taken off your distribution list. I also hope on those occasions I do write a disagreement with you or someone on the comment board that I come across as respectful.
Thank you for pointing out the issue with Hamas and elections. Too many commentators point out that Gazans elected Hamas - for reasons that are varied and more complicated than "they hate Israel" and a major factor was the corruption that surrounds the Fatah party - but they have not been allowed to vote since 2006 (not 2007). Considering that half of the population of Gaza is under 18, probably around 75% of Gazans were either not born or not voting age the last time there was a vote in Gaza.
David S, despite the condescending tone and demand to drop off your list, made of valid points in the middle of a lot of things I disagreed with (and oversimplified too many things). For one, I'm horrified that there are some people on my side of the political spectrum would seem to glorify a despicable group of people like Hamas, who gladly kill LGBTQ+ people and oppress women. (Right wing Jews, who control Israel, are also terrible on rights for those groups as well so anyone slamming Muslims for those issues should also be willing to take Jews and Christians to task as well.)
(Side note to Joshua P, being picky I know, but Ariel Sharon was PM of Israel during Gaza pullout not Begin, who died in 1992)
Thank you for this information. I consider myself a pretty informed person, but I am continually being brought up short by my own ignorance.
I have greater appreciation of EZ's opinions when they differ from mine. His columns, and now blog, explain motivation and reasoning behind those opinions. Typically, the specifics of the reasoning cause me to examine the premises of my own beliefs which occasionally leads to some change in how I think view things.
I totally agree with you. As a conservative I differ from Eric and most of the readership on most issues, but I have always been impressed with Eric's use of information, facts and reason to present and defend his position. Being confronted with differing opinions gives me an opportunity to reflect further on my position, and to occasionally find that I want to modify my position. And even in the majority of cases where my position remains unchanged, I still benefit from having to consider the basis for my position relative to the arguments presented against it, as opposed to living inside an insular bubble of an echo chamber of my views.
What I am not a fan of is people whose arguments consist of recitation of bumper sticker slogans, people who employ foul language in a sad attempt for emphasis, and especially, people who label and make a personal attack on someone holding a different opinion. I was rightfully called out by another EZ poster recently for a snarky comment in the course of our back and forth, and when I realized it was indeed snarky I apologized because that is not the level of discussion I wish to engage in. So, let our debates continue!
Deni, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy conducted a public opinion poll in Gaza earlier this year that reflected 57% of respondents indicated their support for Hamas. You have to keep in mind that funding from the UN and the US for education in Gaza unfortunately funds very intense political indoctrination that Jews are a subhuman species and that it is an honorable and blessed thing to kill Jews. It is an unfortunate reality that people are responsible for the leaders of their country and the acts that they do. There were many Germans who were opposed to Hitler in the time leading up to and during World War II, but yet they suffered along with the rest of their country when the world rightfully decided that Hitler and the Nazis must be thoroughly defeated. And now, Israel with our support must do whatever it takes to thoroughly defeat the Hamas terrorists once and for all.
It is well documented that the cowardly Hamas terrorists use the people of Gaza as human shields in hiding out in hospitals, schools, etc. But Israel takes every possible precaution to minimize civilian casualties, which stands in stark contrast to the Hamas terrorists who intentionally planned genocidal targeted attacks on innocent non-combatant civilians. The seven principles of Thomas Aquinas' Just War Theory gives very good context for Israel's response to these terrorist attacks.
Lastly, I wholeheartedly endorse the embargo of electricity, water and medical supplies into Gaza until Hamas releases the innocent hostages they illegally abducted. These innocent people in all reality have very little chance of surviving and safe return, and the cut off of these critical supplies to Gaza may be the only chance they have. Judith Raanan and her beautiful daughter Natalie are former neighbors and dear friends of ours, and there are other American citizens among these hostages. 🇮🇱🙏
Assuming that your figures are correct, why do you suppose that 57% of Gazans support Hamas? Do you think that they are all evil people who want to kill Jews? Or do you think some of them are hurt because they or their parents or grandparents were expelled from their homeland, it’s now illegal for them to emigrate back, and they live on a strip of land which has for years been subject to a blockade which prevents the people who live their from having a decent life. We make a mistake, I think, when we suppose our enemies are “evil” or are motivated by “evil.” The MAGA folks, who want to take away necessary health care from transgender people, for instance. I don’t think they are evil. I think some of them choose not to believe the medical science behind transgender health care because they have fears, subconscious or otherwise about changing cultural gender roles and expectations, or because they are manipulated by charismatic politicians who exploit the demonization of transgender people for political power, or because they have a need for some reason to believe the teachings of a religion thousands of years old that abjure and regard as sinful homosexuality and transsexualism. My father was extremely homophobic before I came out. That didn’t make him an evil person. There is no such thing as “the good guys” and “the bad guys,” although that “us and them” concept is very intrinsic and dear to some people.
Good people often do evil things.
While I think it can certainly be a mistake to imagine that the "other side" is "evil," there's definitely such a thing as the opposite mistake -- assuming no evil.
Many Jews in Germany basically held that view. Their view of the Nazis was a bit like my own attitude toward Trump -- he's a despicable jackass, to be sure, and one who has done a lot of harm, but one whose genuine threat to the republic is exaggerated. (I frequently hear that if Trump wins the next election, it will be our last. That strikes me as ridiculous.)
I think I'm right about Trump, but those German Jews were, of course, wrong about the Nazis. When you say that there's no such thing as the good guys and the bad guys, why doesn't that notion completely crumple under the weight of that one word: Nazis? Why doesn't it crumple in the face of, say, furious jihadist outbursts in Europe or elsewhere over cartoons and shit? Radical Islam out of a pre-modern era, views more at home in the Middle Ages, full of thought processes completely alien to both of us -- actual fascism -- is real, dangerous, and widespread. That all seems obvious.
When I took a national security course in college, I was greatly impressed by the section on intelligence errors. A common one is the so-called mirror-imaging error -- when you assume that the group you're assessing (be it your "enemy" or whoever) thinks in ways fundamentally similar to your own. It might be true, but it might not. The mirror-imaging error consistently manifests itself as an assumption that that other side is pragmatic and has a broadly similar sense of ethics when in fact they're cuckoo bananas.
You think, well, if I were in their shoes, I'd be pissed too! The empathetic instinct is laudable, but allow for a moment that it might be wrong, that it might be leading you astray, that they're not just versions of you in a different situation. The virulence of their antisemitic, genocidal hatred, expressed in their charter documents, propaganda, education, and at every other turn, suggests as much. Their cheering of slaughter as ugly as one can imagine, the gleeful filming of it, suggests as much. When Americans commit far milder outrages, such as at Abu Ghraib, it causes a scandal. When Palestinian freedom fighters do far worse, it causes outbursts of joy. This is no mere refusal to recognize Israel's legitimacy. People are raised on Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and such like. These guys are more ISIS than ANC.
I'm sympathetic with the plight of the Gazans, I promise you that I am. They are being held hostage by their leadership (and the rest of the Arab world that wants no part of them), but, it's worth noting, that it's a leadership which -- as David's poll suggests and which I even heard a U.N. guy very down on Israel admit, before the words, "let's be honest" -- still commands widespread support in Gaza. They are not the only Palestinians. They are fanatical. If Israel had had Palestinian versions of you to deal with, there would have been a peaceful, durable two-state solution decades ago. (Incidentally, my own preferred agreement with Palestinian "you"s would essentially buy peace with land and a shit-ton of money, by way of reparations for 75-year-old displacement and by way of Marshall-Plannish economic development of a now-former enemy. It would not include a right of return, which would spell the end of Israel as a Jewish safe haven. But I don't think they've been dealing with Palestinian "you"s. Walking away from Clinton and Barak shows it. Supporting Hamas shows it. Repeated resort to terrorist violence shows it.)
I took two other courses in college that solidified my view. Both were on Jewish-Islamic relations in the Middle East. One was taught by a pair of fanatical Palestinian freedom fighters. It was not an actual class. It was a harangue, immune to any counterargument or even academic-style discussion of any sort. It was, then, in the '90s, very weird. I'm not sure how weird it is now. The other offered a more a sober-minded, historically informed approach, and it convinced me that the dispute wasn't just about land or a relatively recent grievance. It was about an abhorrence of Jews holding a position of power in the heartland of the once mighty and glorious Islamic empire.
The history is more complicated than you allow. Jews bought a lot of land in Israel prior to the UN partition, and they would have bought a lot more if their immigration hadn't been restricted. Their numbers were significant, not some tiny minority. Just about all Jews in Israel, if they're not recent refugees, are descended from refugees, and a large number sought refuge not just from Europe but from intolerant Arab lands. And they've never been safe. Israel is fighting for its existence. Maybe you don't think it has a right. I do. I wish that there were reasonable people to deal with, and, in time, maybe there will be. In the meantime, the blockade of Gaza -- not just by Israel but by Egypt too -- is a response to the strip's terrorist leadership, much as we try to impose crippling economic sanctions, and thus a form of collective punishment, on nations I will not say are evil -- Iran, Russia, North Korea -- but nations that are surely in its grip.
Of course there is such a thing as evil. But I don’t believe in Satan, nor do I believe that people fall into the evil or good boxes. There are sociopaths, people who care only and exclusively for themselves, have no ability to experience empathy, and judge events only by how they affect them. I suppose that is the closest that human beings come to being evil. Incidentally, I am quite sure our former President Trump fits into that category. And people like that, as well as what you would call “good people” do a lot of evil in the world. And, I don’t doubt for a minute that, if Trump were re-elected, he would try to become President for life. I imagine that it’s comforting for you see people as good or evil, and to convince yourself that you are on safely ensconced well on the good side. But I must say your attitude reminds me of Bob Dylan’s song, With God On Our Side. The world is a lot more gray and nuanced than folks like you would have us believe.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5y2FuDY6Q4M&pp=ygUeYm9iIGR5bGFuIHdpdGggZ29kIG9uIG91ciBzaWRl
I've tried to make several points over these last couple of threads. Among them:
- The justice of one's cause makes not all the difference but a big difference in evaluating it
- Any moral assessment of a conflict is a fact-intensive one that should include an evaluation not just of means but ends
- The war crime lens, while useful, is not the only way to think about conflicts, because it leaves out ends (focusing on, say, Putin's kidnapping, rather than the larger crime of the invasion itself)
- A no-civilian-casualty rule would make it impossible to defeat threats and foes that should be defeated, lest their aims be vindicated, making the world a far worse place for generations to come
- Some defensive wars need fighting, despite the horrible violence they entail, because their ends are important: defeating the Confederacy, e.g., or defeating the Nazis
- Israel is engaged in an fight for its existence as a Jewish state, which it is entitled to do
- Its birth, while not pristine, was more pristine than most, having been voted for by the world, in recognition of the powerful case of Jewish refugees from Europe and elsewhere in the Middle East, the large Jewish population already there, Arab hostility to Jewish presence, and the lack of any safe haven for Jews in a world almost everywhere and at every time continuously hostile to them on, for hundreds of years, essentially racial grounds; if ever any group needed a homeland, it's Jews
- Israel has faced continuous assault just for being there from the very beginning, which is the overwhelming cause of the Palestinian plight, including, I'll add, the expulsion of Palestinians during the Arab-instigated 1948 War, when they represented a fifth column that would have destroyed the nascent state from within (as acknowledged even by the left-wing Israeli historian Benny Morris, who literally wrote the book on Palestinian expulsion and had the courage to bust the Israeli myth that the whole Palestinian exodus was out of fear or at the direction of Arab leaders)
- Israel has throughout its history tried to make peace; the failure of these attempts are not because of Israeli unwillingness to compromise (see the Clinton talks) but because the Palestinian side was unwilling to compromise, preferring struggle to peace; far more Israelis than Palestinians could envision a two-state solution
- The two sides are asymmetric, in terms of leadership and by evident numbers, in their relative levels of reasonableness, bloodlust, and respect for human life and human rights
- Gaza is awash in virulent antisemitism, which is taught in school
- To assume that everybody's motives are essentially pragmatic and reasonable like your own would be -- simple anger at having been oppressed or dispossessed -- might well be a mirror-imaging error that misunderstands the depth of Gazan race hatred grounded in medieval Islamist grievance
To all of which, you offer minimal engagement and no genuine counter-argument but rather a dismissal of people "like me" and a link to a smug folk song.
Part of the problem is that you don’t really respond to what I say. For example, you imply that I suggested that there should be a “no civilian casualty rule” in war, which I never argued in favor of. I said that it is a war crime to intentionally kill civilians and destroy their property. I never suggested that unexpected or unintentional collateral damage to civilians and their property in a legitimate military exercise was a war crime. I suspect that you attempt to put words in my mouth because it is easier to make me look wrong if you pretend that my argument is different than it was. That’s a common rhetorical strategy in court, which is why I generally object at oral argument in the trial court when the other side mischaracterizes my arguments. Because you follow this tactic, our discussions tend to morph and figuratively bleed all over the place, and pretty soon we are arguing about things that I never addressed. Did you listen to the folk song?
So happy to see your friends released. Hoping Judith’s health is ok. 🙏
Thank you David. We were electrified upon hearing the news earlier this morning and continue to follow it closely. We work concerned about the reference to the release being due to Judith poor health because she did not previously have any serious health issues. But nonetheless, it certainly has hallmark of a miracle against all odds that they are going to be returned to safety. We give thanks first and foremost to God for his mercy, and then as well to all the many people who have who have been lifting Judith and Natalie in prayer. We ask continued prayers for the many remaining hostages being held by the terrorists, and for Israel. 🇮🇱🙏
What is interesting in all the discussions of what is happening in Israel and Gaza is that the right-wing Jewish settlements, they have continued to take more Palestinian land and Christianity's role in supporting right-wing Israel policies are ignored. There is no mention of either and they are the cause of what is happening, especially the antisemitism inherent in Pauline Christianity that persecuted Jews for centuries, ending in the Holocaust, that led directly to the decision on the part of Jews to take control of their own lives and create Israel by taking land already claimed and owned by others.
This is a truly tragic situation, but the US had a lot of land to send the Indians to and so we had very minor tumult from our taking what was theirs with no compensation and resettling them as we saw fit.
Wow. That’s a lot of stuff in three sentences!
Jeff - There has never been in the history of the world a country of Palestine. The geographical area was first referred to as Palestine in 134 AD by the Romans who governed the area. Want to know what the area was known as before that? Judea.
The majority of the people of Israel are amenable to a two-state solution to this ongoing conflict. Israel dismantled settlements and withdrew from Gaza in 2005, and there was potential for it to become a wonderful and thriving place with beautiful beaches and seaports on the Mediterranean. But, upon taking power in 2007, Hamas almost immediately began using Gaza as a base for deadly attacks on Israel, resulting in the joint decision by Egypt and Israel to implement a blockade for weaponry in self-defense. With all of the international aid, including substantial aid from the US, Gaza could have been developed into a vibrant and productive area. But Hamas diverts funding into military activities for aggression and attacks on Israel, as well as extreme anti-semitic propaganda in the schools.
The Hamas Charter explicitly calls for the destruction of the entire state of Israel and all its people. It is impossible to negotiate with someone whose sole focus is to kill you. And that is why Hamas must be eradicated for the self defense of Israel and any possible future for the Palestinians.
Your statement "never been in the history of the world a country of Palestine" is irrelevant.
The fact is that there were people who were dispossessed without compensation. That has never been dealt with and is fundamental to what is happening today.
Of course this can be traced directly to Christianity's persecution of Jews and European nations failing to protect them from the Holocaust and subsequently using "Israel" as a means of avoiding their compensation to the survivors. Europe externalized the price paid by Jews in their abandonment onto the Palestinians.
There can be much historical debate about the right of people identifying as Palestinians to having their own country. The overwhelming majority of Israel has been in favor of negotiating a territorial solution that will result in a Palestinian state. But Hamas who governs Gaza is unarguably bent on a complete genocide of all Jews in the middle east. And that is why there has been no progress toward a Palestinian state in recent times. (And I might add, give us safe return of Judith, Natalie and the other innocent civilians you brutally abducted, and Israell will immediately allow return of electricity, water and other necessary supplies to Gaza.)
LOL! Do you understand that prior to Partition the region was under control of the Ottoman Empire? It was then divided into states by European powers. The ONLY thing that matters is that Palestinians owned property that was taken and became Israel, like the US did to the Indians, and neither was ever compensated for their loss. The difference is that the US wasn't persecuted as were the Jews. Europeans forced the Palestinians to pay their victims for the Holocaust and the myriad pogroms rather than compensating the Jews themselves.
I'll choose to ignore your LOL and respond to the substance of your comment. Of course I am familiar with 20th century history in the middle east.
But your own argument of original ownership works against you. Just as the various Native American tribes were attacking, killing enslaving and taking over territory from other tribes before the settlers arrived and took it over from them, virtually every nation or group who holds territory today at some point had taken it over from another group who had possessed it. To the extent there were Arab people's living in the area that came to be known as palestine, they had taken it over from the Jews who had lived there when it was Judea.
Again, there can be legitimate discussion on territorial aspirations poured a two-state agreement that Israel has long been in favor of. But Hamas must revoke its Charter to commit genocide on the Jews, and they're on willingness to do so makes any progress toward a Palestinian statehood impossible.
Finally, there can be no ambiguity whatsoever on the fact that Hamas terrorists are presently holding hundreds of innocent non-combatant hostages. That must be explicitly condemned by every civilized Nation and every reasonable minded person with whatever Israel being morally entitled to do whatever is necessary to free these hostages.. Territorial and political disputes are not under any circumstance an excuse for terrorism!
Sorry dude, but original ownership matters and it is at the core of the problem along with Europeans' externalizing the cost that they should have beared for the Holocaust and pogroms against Jews, forcing the Palestinians to bear it. There are Jews living in Gaza today who had their property taken from them and "settlers" continue to take from them and if they have died, then their children and grandchildren are still around.
Re your thought that “ I would like to think there is a strategic middle ground…”. I would like to think that as well, but I have no idea what it would be. Reading the Hamas charter is so very discouraging to coming up with a “middle ground”. Even if one thinks it goes well beyond what majority of Palestinians believe, it leaves little constructive to build any reasonable or lasting bridge to peace.
We recently flew home from eastern Canada and, due to weather delays, had a very tight window in Montreal to get to our connecting flight to Chicago. The attendant announced that there were ten people with tight connections and asked everyone to let us leave first. As we got in line to leave the plane, there were - exactly - ten of us standing. I love Canada.
The flight attendant who called out the names of the short-connection passengers and had them light their call buttons was a genius. By clearly identifying the needy (of speedy disembarkation), the flight attendant simultaneously branded everyone else who was not part of the needy (and who did not wait to allow the needier ones to go first) as self-important dipsticks. Apparently, the threat of disapprobation from their fellow passengers (who they are likely never to see ever again) was enough to keep most in their seats where they belonged - allowing the short-connection passengers to beat a hasty exit. I wish all flight attendants would do the same in similar situations.
Eric -- is this month's Israel-Gaza Crisis the most difficult news topic you've ever had to provide commentary on, as a columnist? If not, what is?
That's an excellent question. I would take issue with the word "had," as certainly most readers don't turn to the Picayune Sentinel for foreign affairs coverage. And my wife, who tried to talk me out of saying anything about it on those and other grounds, would take even stronger issue with it.
Any columnist or editorial writer or electronic or online pundit will tell you that the biggest challenge after a major news event is figuring out something original and useful to say when it seems like everyone is weighing in and very little falls into the "this must be said!" category. Amplifying conventional wisdom isn't exactly in the job description, yet at times it feels callous to avoid at least touching on the story that everyone is talking about and thinking about; it feels like NOT commenting is suggesting the story lacks importance, which is itself a comment. If that makes any sense.
I would say 9/11 presented the biggest such challenge for just about all of us in the opinion game. Not much was known in the immediate aftermath, yet there was no other story to talk about for anyone and for several weeks thereafter.
Natural disasters are also very difficult for columnists (as well as news organizations in general) because there's usually not a lot to say other than "damn, that sucks" and to quote people who have suffered great losses.
I do not think a columnist/blogger needs to have a hot take to make it worthwhile to write about a topic. The followers of a writer will tend to be more open to considering what that writer has to say. Also, they things are said makes a big difference.
That was my experience on this topic in the PS. Also, I found comments in the forum valuable. While there were expressions of anger and frustration, there were also perspectives shared from unique personal experiences from some people (e.g Peter Z's comment). We don't get that from international media.
As someone who wasn't super happy with your take, I commend your willingness to offer it, and I'm not sure "had" is so wrong given the prominence of the news. I come here for fair-minded, intelligent commentary, "beautifully expressed," on anything, of which, even if it weren't increasingly rare, there can never be too much.
I am surprised by how many people cannot hold two thoughts in their head. One, that the Hamas massacres in Israel were monstrous and evil. Two, that the Palestinians are an oppressed and occupied people subject now to a far-right intransigent government led by a political scoundrel.
When a people are oppressed, colonized, and subject to another people to the extent that they have no hope, in almost all cases the worst elements rise. See Hamas terrorism, the IRA Provos, the Mau Mau in Kenya and numerous other nationalist leaders ... and innocents die on both sides while the oppressors and the terrorists from the oppressed become more extreme and violent.
I just saw an AP report that Israel fired on Palestinians in southern Gaza where Israel told them to flee. Sigh.
It also stuns me that many believe the removal, annialation of Gaza's Palestinians will harm or stop Hamas. Terrorists revel in death, destruction, even those they claim to represent. Hamas will continue, while hundreds of thousands of Palestinians will be forced to leave the country or killed.
Eric, your reaction to the Dos Equis commercial may have been too hasty, taking offense where it wasn't deserved. You play, and I trust you know the difference between jamming (in an appropriate setting with like-minded individuals who made at least basic efforts to learn an instrument) and the insufferable egoist who would fuel their need for attention by killing whatever vibe the rest of the room may be enjoying. And the creators of this clever commercial chose the perfect instrument -- a ukelele can make beautiful music in the right hands, but is also deceptively simple enough to make the wannabe "musician" thinks (s)he mastered it in 15 minutes. As a musician of 50+ years who would never think of imposing whatever "talent" I may have on an unsuspecting and unwilling audience, I clink my Dos Equis bottle in salute to this 30 second life-lesson and so should you.
I thought the ad was funny, and so was the reference to Animal House.
I guess we are now in a time when there is so much sensitivity in how each of us chooses which fermented grain beverage we are going to drink. As if it mattered.
In March of 1974 I found myself living in the middle of the Suez Canal in a bombed out house in a town called Ismailia.
The October 1973 War had just finished and anger ran high in Egypt. Tanks were still burning in the Sinai Desert.
My job…the Navy’s job was to pull out the many mines in and around the Canal.
This was dangerous business but what gave me solace were the UN Security forces on both sides of the Canal. Many of the Egyptians were still hot to trot to wipe out Israel. And there was great fear that Israel would “finish the job” including taking back the Canal.
Well the Security forces stayed, the mines were taken out, the Canal got fixed and reopened with no further violence. A small success, a short term solution…it did not solve the Mideast Crisis but it saved lives and allowed at least an attempt at a solution.
So let’s get the UN really involved, push for a security force to separate Hamas from Israel’s army on the Gaza Border. Create a ceasefire that will stop both sides from further immediate violence.
If successful, this would help in getting hostages out as I expect it is easier moving these folks to a neutral third party for release.
The food, water, power issue for Gaza could be hopefully worked out as well.
This is not a long term solution but it is one that could work in the short run and save lives.
It will also put all parties in a better position to reach an overall solution.
You gotta try something, waiting for Israel to attack or Hamas to make their next move only kills more people.
If everyone I read who wrote about Israel and the Palestinians agreed with me, then they would have to share my ignorance.
Why are you watching beeer commercials? No DVR? If you made your beer choices based on the quality of the commericals, you'd (god forbid) probably be drinking Bud Lite. Dox Equis is a very agreeable beer regardless of its commercials, which I would never watch anyway.
I really like this publication and the forum it creates for discussion. The mixture of serious topics and not-so-serious topics, music, and fun is just about right. And the tone of the comments is often, although not always, less trolling, hostile, and aggressive than social media generally. There is actually some light in the darkness. I learn things and my ideas are challenged. That said, sometimes news stories, like what’s happening in the Middle East now, can hit very close to a person’s sense of identity. Other news stories and comments have hit very close to my sense of identity. And sometimes comments of others can feel like an assault on who you are. That’s the nature of communicating by text. When that happens to me, I take a break from the Substack publication. But I will come back if there is actually some light in the darkness.
Wow! Israel is a hot topic issue - but those comments were blazing hot. Those who want off the list - obviously will go on to some other media outlet that support their beliefs/values. I think they misinterpreted your reply - but regardless, you had your say, they had their say. Why does everyone want to run away from thoughts - real or not - that conflict with how one thinks.
I don't think there was any doubt that opinions on the Gaza conflict were going to be all over the map. But I was particularly interested in those commenting on the unfortunate demise of innocents when getting back at terrorists. No one mentioned our own American experience. The bombings of German cities killed lots of innocents during World War II. The A-bomb bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki most likely took out more than a few people that wished the Emperor would simply surrender. The Civil War took out more than a few civilians. Number one, let's try and remember that whenever warmongers start immediately clamoring for someone to be bombed to death. Wars end and many have long memories. Two, there's already enough rewriting of history going on in this country. Let's not leave out American experiences. I'm not suggesting that it can always be avoided. We couldn't, for example let Hitler go on unchecked. But don't make us the innocent in any discussion of history.
By the way, in my comments on innocents getting killed, I wish I had added the following. Put yourself in this position. You and your family are against your government for the war they are waging. The other side launches an attack that kills some of your family members. How would you feel about it? Would you simply say that you regret it, but understand it was completely necessary to defeat your terroristic warmongering government?