Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
The fact that Tom Friedman is rightly supporting Israel's war on Hamas simply means he isn't a complete and perfect idiot.
Glenn Greenwald likes to say, "I don't support Hamas' use of terror, but..." (Actually, I'm trying to think of the last time Glenn Greenwald condemned Hamas outright. It may have been in a comment-response, when somebody called him out on it.)
Anyway, Glenn, I just want you to know -- I don't support any unneccessary civilian casualties inflicted by the IDF in Gaza, BUT...
And Glenn, don't you think there is just a shade of difference, possibly in the definition of "terrorism" by virtue of who is being TARGETED? Israel is dropping bombs on lacations that their intielligence is telling them are storage loactions for weapons, gathering places for militants, tunnels for arms and supply shipments, etc. And in the process, because Hamas has deliberately dug itself into civilian infrastructure, civilians might get hurt. Gazan civilians are not being targeted. Quite unlike the Israeli civilians under the threat of Hamas rocket fire.
"War is hell," Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman wrote. And it is. But when there is a war, Glenn Greenwald, my free legal advice to you is this; you really, really want be on the winning side. I can pretty much guarantee you that militarily, Israel is not going to lose. Politically, in the U.S., Israel won't be "defeated."
I always have a hard time understanding why the left-wing finds it convenient, or useful, to make common cause with groups like Hamas. Hamas shares none of Glenn Greenwald's values except, possibly, an opposition to all manner of things that relate to American national economic and security interests. You'd sort of think, with all of Glenn's preaching of the rule of law, on civil rights and a free press, and on modern social values, that he'd regard Hamas as one of the most evil institutions in the modern world. I guess he must still reserve his deepest antipathy for his domestic politcal enemies: Republicans, conservatives and American national security advocates.
According to Friedmann "Israel’s counterstrategy was to use its Air Force to pummel Hezbollah and ... to inflict substantial property damage and collateral casualties on Lebanon at large."
And yet
"Collateral damage" is damage that is unintended or incidental to the intended outcome. (The term originated in the U.S. military, but it has since expanded into broader use).
So according to Friedmann Israel's intent was to inflict unintended casualties. Sort of like doing something accidentally on purpose. His lack of logical thought (or ability to express it) is as sad as his war and terror-mongering.
"Two organizations say it has been confirmed while others do not."
If I might. There should be no contention at all as to whether White Phosphorus is being used. Its been well "eye balled." A common British soldier would know that what he is seeing is WP. Furthermore, the Israelis have been using the shells in times of bright daylight and high visibility. From this one can clearly see that they can't have been using it for its illuminating properties but for its terror ones.
For those who are civilians and have little knowledge of these things allow me.
When you see in pictures of the sky over Gaza something bursting in the air and long trails of white smoke heading like a shower to the ground THATS WP. It might at first look innocuous like a fire work seen at a show but it is not. As casual observer correctly and importantly pointed out if this stuff gets on your clothing or skin it burns through feeding off the oxygen even trapped in matter.
Tom Friedman, like Cheney and Bush and other enablers, now tiptoe increasingly close to their elephant in the room -- yes, we torture and commit acts of terror, gladly.
Brandon Friedman, like Greenwald and other critics, seem reluctant to embrace our own elephant -- the unspeakable knowledge of the real cause for their elephant.
Pathology.
When we say "these people are sick," we are not just engaging in hyperbole -- they ARE demonstrably psychologically deficient.
(Rather than repeat the argument yet again, I will just point to my "other letters" link.)
If anyone has a better explanation, I'd love to hear it; otherwise, I'd be gratified to see our elephant more widely acknowledged.
We have found ways to solve our bear problems without violence or killing.I would, however, defend anyone attacked by a bear who defended himself and shot one if attacked .I would not think he used excessive force if the bear did not also have a gun .I'm sure you would be against that as well.
I realize that the circumstances are not identical, nor the motivations, but I keep thinking about the Warsaw Ghetto. You should know that a large part of my "extended family" are Jewish, several with tattooed numbers on their wrists. I love them & they love me. After reading "A Night of Watching" (a novel about how Denmark successfully hid their Jewish population during WWII) I began questioning my parents about why we & other countries couldn't have done the same. My mother told me about the siege on walled-in Warsaw, and how she listened to the radio every day because as long as the music was playing, the near-starved fighters were still holding out. And how she cried when the music stopped. Did all the horror change any Jewish minds? How can Israel truly believe that this obscenity will grant them peace & real security in future?
Maybe you can explain to me what you think the Israeli war aims are. Do you think they really believe, as Glenn alluded to earlier, that there are x number of Hamas militants out there, and that they can kill all or most of them?
If so, do you think the people they don't kill - many of whom have now lost a family member and all of whom have suffered in this war - will be likely to blame Hamas or the people who are actually shelling, bombing, invading and blockading? And does this make the future likelihood of peace greater or less?
I'm just talking outcomes here, not justification or ideology. What's the goal?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
