Muslim and Jewish Women in Nazareth

'We can live in peace'...John Lennon (photo: Dafna Tal)

Mahzor

Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Posts Tagged ‘mideast-war’

Billmon on Lebanon as Prelude to U.S. War with Iran; and Why Democrats Will Go Along

Friday, August 4th, 2006

Billmon is writing some of the most incisive analysis of the Lebanon conflict in the entire blogosphere. He’s outrageously cynical (which is unfortunately perfectly warranted), but brilliantly so. Tonight’s post, The War Party, is no exception. It covers so much ground that it’s hard to summarize briefly.

Suffice to say, he begins with Ned Lamont’s senate campaign and the presumed demise of Joe Lieberman’s political career. But he warns that while Lamont is against one war, he’s not against every war. In other words, Lamont has hitched himself to the Aipac wagon just as securely as Lieberman. Lamont will not dare take a critical view of Israel’s Lebanon war and any other war that might derive from it. So to those who plan on rejoicing when Lamont wins, saying it presages the Party coming to its senses regarding the Iraq war and other possible U.S. military misadventures, Billmon says “not so fast.”

Yes, Billmon is one of those who believes a U.S. war with Iran is not only likely, but nigh unto inevitable. In losing the Lebanon war, Israel has practically forced the U.S. to intervene against Iran. Billmon notes the very real possibility that in the event of Iraqi civil war that Iran could become the dominant outside influence there much like Syria was in Lebanon until recently. This would enable Iran to provoke even more mischief in Lebanon than it currently can since it would have practically an open border conduit from Iraq to Syria and thence to Lebanon. He believes that not only Israel, but the U.S. will find this development intolerable and go to war to roll Iranian dominance back. Billmon also throws out some deeply depressing figures about how many casualties a nuclear strike against Iran might generate.

In calling the post The War Party, he’s referring not the Republicans as you might expect, but to the Democrats. He believes that the party we hold so dear (hmmm) will go along with a war with Iran because it’s just too politically costly to oppose one. As proof, he points to the Democrats rollover on the Iraq war. Though we might like to believe that the Dems learned their lesson in not opposing Iraq, Billmon says essentially: never overestimate the Democratic party’s capacity to delude itself when it comes to national security and war.

It’s most depressing stuff, but so absolutely compelling, lucid and brilliantly argued as to be mandatory reading I’m afraid. As I read posts of his like this I find myself alternating between feelings of pleasure at the breathtaking sweep of his writing and argument; and feelings of horror at the vision of a potential World War III emanating from the Mideast conflict.

Qassam Hits Ashkelon, Israel Sees ‘Invitation to War’

Tuesday, July 4th, 2006
qassam rocket landed in ashkelonThe Qassam that roared (photo: Limor Edrey)

Today’s Qassam rocket strike on Ashkelon has driven an already rocket-obsessed nation into near hysteria. Zeev Schiff, Haaretz’s military correspondent, writes (hat tip to Sol Salbe for this story):

The firing of a rocket from the Gaza Strip to Ashkelon’s center on Tuesday constitutes an unequivocal invitation by Hamas to war.

Ehud Olmert has called an emergency meeting of his war cabinet. Very serious stuff.

But Schiff’s “invitation to war” statement reflects the absolute delirium and bankruptcy of current Israeli policy. Get a grip guys. First, the Qassam landed in a parking lot and did no serious damage. Second, the Qassam firing is a direct result of the Israel’s invasion of Gaza. In other words, had Israel not invaded Gaza and not killed 20 civilians in the month leading up to the invasion, this incident would likely not have happened. The fact that a nation which suffers such a relatively minor indignity is ready to go to war with the perpetrators indicates a nation that has lost in bearings, if not its moorings. Many commentators have noted the absolute military inexperience of Israel’s senior leadership from Olmert to Peretz. In addition, they note the relative weakness and instability of the current government. All of these factors are coming into play with a vengeance. The only problem is that all this weakness and lack of experience has the potential of launching Armageddon in the Middle East.

Are the U.S., EU and UN prepared for this possibility? If not, why are they not insisting on placing constraints on Israeli actions? Why are they not denouncing Israel’s bellicosity and brutal overreaction? Why are they sitting by while Gaza burns?

That being said, I’m not saying Israel doesn’t have reason to be concerned–even alarmed. After all, this was the longest Qassam flight every recorded. Plus, Hamas has added a technical innovation by placing a second motor on the rocket to give it a longer flight capacity. If I were the IDF I’d realize that when the Israelis escalate the conflict there is always a compensatory escalation from the other side. Israel can no longer (if it ever could) act in isolation and with utter disregard for consequences. If it does attempt to do so there is always a price to be paid. Unfortunately, the current price is Qassam rockets landing for the first time in an Israeli city.

Haaretz has published yet another eminently sensible editorial about the rise of extreme right-wing security mania and the deleterious effect it is having on Israeli policy:

The Qassam rocket fire on Sderot and the attack on the Israel Defense Forces outpost at Kerem Shalom have brought the right…back to life and undermined public support for the [Olmert] disengagement policy. The charm of security-oriented rhetoric is once again captivating the public’s heart, even though this formula has been tried over the course of 40 years of occupation and failed utterly.

Israel’s strength, as well as its deterrent power, have been damaged not by the under use of force, but by its overuse. The Palestinians’ determination and stamina have only increased as their situation worsened. We must acknowledge that every military tactic employed by Israel has given birth to no-less creative and painful Palestinian tactics – suicide bombings, Qassam fire, tunnels – that have managed to harass and wear out the strongest state in the Middle East. There is nothing more debilitating than a feeling of having lost one’s way and purpose.

The right always proposes the same recipe, but in ever-increasing doses: If we did not manage to deter them by using force, we need to use more force; and if that fails, then we need to use even more force. The establishment of the settlements was, and remains, a form of using force, as is construction of the fence along a route that harms Palestinian life more than necessary for security purposes. The attempt to topple an elected government by means of tanks and to remove members of an elected parliament by arresting them also constitutes a policy of aggression.

Haaretz points out that the Gaza invasion is the wrong answer to the wrong problem at the wrong time:

Israel has no option in the long run other than withdrawing from the territories and from the occupation. The Qassam launches’ infringement on Israeli sovereignty is intolerable, and Israel must cause it to end. But this problem, grave as it is, is essentially tactical. It is not a reason for returning to Gaza, and a return to Gaza would bolster neither Israel’s sovereignty nor its deterrent capabilities. Toppling the Hamas government is liable to result in chaos on the Palestinian side and deter the Palestinians from holding elections in the future, given that Israel and the Western world are not honoring the results.