Isn't Israel So Very Very Bad?

Nazdar vsichni!, ahojky kamosi! I kiss you and love you all over! As always, I wish for you the very best of things -- not only for now but for oh-nine and beyond. Muah!

I've recently emerged from cryogenic sleep to encounter the following bit of business ongoing in that pocket of the world known as the Mid-East. I know this because I rudely awoke this morning to read the following bullet assault in my Holy Inbox. It comes courtesy of a well-meaning Canadian friend -- otherwise a brilliant statesman -- who is resident in the Czech capital as a purveyor of one of the finest cups of brew east of Trieste.

My thoughts are interspersed amongst his (yes, in keeping with the Middle Eastern reality, it's only the men who discuss intractable politics and resolutions of peace, and Czechs, I believe, are well-familiar with the minimal involvement of females in the upper echelons of Czech political practice, so this shouldn't be that far off the mark):


WELL-MEANING CANADIAN UNDERDOG LOVER: 1. As I understand it the rockets from Hamas are a response to a blockade that Israel has set up to "starve out" Gaza. Food, fuel and other essentials are being denied Gazans because they had the audacity to elect Hamas in a fair election. True or False? If you tell me that the blockade was a response to something else well so what? Don't kill innocent civilians.

YOUR ADM: Several falsehoods abound in Point#1. First, there has been no official vetting of Hamas' so-called victory in Gaza's so-called election, so we can dispense with that fiction right off the bat. As we all know, there exists only one officially-recognized authority for the Palestinian people, and that's the Palestinian Authority (PA). Its head is President Mahmoud Abbas. He resides in his overly plush accommodation and fittings up in Ramallah, West Bank. As I understand it, President Abbas is the international recognized authority for peace negotiations and other matters concerning the relations between the Jewish State and the Palestinians resident in the Holy Land. Second, where is my strident Canadian friend when Hamas and Fatah are engaged in a shoot out two Julys ago, when hundreds of Gazans are killed and wounded at the hands of their own strongmen, armed with the latest in deadly automatic weaponry?

(ADM's note --> my friend's reference is to the following BBC clip)

WELL-MEANING CANADIAN UNDERDOG LOVER: 2. Olmert sounds like a gangster and perhaps he is. I know that he is on his way out so he does not have to worry about the political fallout from this disaster. I also know that he is being investigated for corruption.

YOUR ADM: More weak understanding of the Arab-Israeli reality, nor of the critical need for strong dealings in a region where power and a firm hand is respected above all else. If my friend thinks Olmert's interest is to leave the chronic problem of terror to his political successor, he's rather misinformed about the cohesive internal dynamic of Israeli society. Furthermore, what does an alleged corruption investigation have to do with the ongoing miserable state of affairs in the Gaza Strip? Personally, I think Olmert makes a statement of fact: Israel is the stronger party. If Hamas cared a jot about its own citizens, would it antagonize Israel over months and months with Kassam rocket attacks in order to provoke a response? Has my friend ever been to Israel/Palestine? ::: I doubt it. :::

WELL-MEANING CANADIAN UNDERDOG LOVER: 3. It is not sufficient to say to innocent civilians: you are being killed by Israeli bombs but that is the price of war. What war? I have not heard of any war being declared. Have you? Rule number one: Don't kill innocent civilians.

YOUR ADM: There has been an going war between Hamas and Israel which is the foundation of Hamas' very raison d'etre. (Friend, please read Zaki Chehab's revealing INSIDE HAMAS for information about the origins of the Hamas movement). Not to forget, a cease-fire expired on 19.12.2008. Cease-fire = a state of military conflict between peoples. A reason for a cease-fire is to prevent further bloodshed and violence, no?

WELL-MEANING CANADIAN UNDERDOG LOVER: 4. It is not sufficient to say to innocents being killed that Hamas is using them as human shields. Maybe Hamas is doing so but so what? Don't kill innocent civilians.

YOUR ADM: I wonder what would happen if the Israelis did similarly and the BBC were closely monitoring this -- how much the fastidious minions of the BBC's international news desk would go out of their way with charts, diagrams, and detailed drawings about how Israeli command and control structures were comfortably nestled within civilian residential areas in a bid to ensure that as much collateral damage could occur from a potential bomb attack in the event that retaliation were imminent? Noticeably absent in the coverage of the Palestinian side of affairs on the part of the BBC...

WELL-MEANING CANADIAN UNDERDOG LOVER: 5. It is not sufficient to say that Hamas in killing innocent Israelis. Hamas has killed one and Israeli 300. So Israeli is 300 times more wrong than Hamas. So what? Two wrongs do not and never have made a right. Don't kill innocent civilians.

YOUR ADM: Inexusable, but blown entirely out of proportion in the international media. See Point #4 above which explains the reason for this very tragic loss of life. Not to mention my friend tries to apply pitiful Canadian-style logic to an intractable Middle Eastern dilemma subject to radically different rules and conditions than that of his idyllic Canadian or Golden City streets.

WELL-MEANING CANADIAN UNDERDOG LOVER: 6. If Israel is bothered by these rockets launchers why don't they send soldiers into Gaza and take them out directly and with no or at least much fewer civilian casualities? I suspect the answer to that is they don't want to risk the lives of their soldiers and would much rather kill a few hundred innocent civilians from ten thousand feet. I am sorry Adam. If that is not vicious, malicious and cowardly I don't know what it is.

YOUR ADM: We have already seen what happens when the US sends soldiers onto the Iraqi streets, and how this diminishes the amount of attacks against US troops on the ground. Moreover, my friend belies a poor understanding of the geographic layout of the cramped Gaza streets (recall Jenin?), and a paucity of understanding about similar-type attacks in the recent past (eg. Sabra and Shatila) and how Israel is in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation. I can't wait for the comments and invective to come streaming forth here about how the US doesn't belong in Iraq and questioning the whole existence of the State of Israel, more generally. But I'll cross that bridge when I get there...

WELL-MEANING CANADIAN UNDERDOG LOVER: 7. It does not seem to me to be intelligent of the Israelis to give Al-Jazira and the rest enough video footage of bloody carnage in Gaza to keep the Arab world is a state anti-Zionist suicide bombing frenzy for years.

YOUR ADM: ::: yawn ::: How many times have we heard this in the past?! It would seem our friend needs to crack open a few history books. And let me ask him this --> does that mean the treatment of the Keren people in Burma will provide fodder for the world's liberal press for years to come, possibly planting the poisonous seeds of hatred in the minds of Keren rebels with their bases in Thailand which will result in a series of senseless massacres of village people all across Burma for decades into the future? Hasn't anyone seen Rambo? (Yes, I'm with you. A totally ridiculous comparison on my part. And so is the link my friend seems to be establishing between Al-Jazeera and anti-Zionism. I don't think my friend has seen Control Room, either. I hardly think Al-Jazeera is anti-Jewish, let alone anti-Zionist).

WELL-MEANING CANADIAN UNDERDOG LOVER: 8. You say that the Israeli had no choice. Adam, this was the same bull shit that George Bush used when he bumbled into Iraq. He had no choice. There is always a choice. Don't kill innocent civilians.

YOUR ADM: For the record, I didn't utter a peep. All I'd done was send my Canadian chum a BBC link, so his statement about my alleged comments about Israel's right to choose are strictly conjecture on his part. I don't care one way or the other. Also, I don't want to honour Point#8 with a well-considered response because it shows a very poor understanding of the global realpolitik in addition to the fact that my friend has zero Middle Eastern experience.

WELL-MEANING CANADIAN UNDERDOG LOVER: 9. George Bush, who was consistently wrong from the start to the finish of his presidency, supports your opinion. Be careful.

YOUR ADM: "Consistently wrong," yet winning the American Presidency for two terms, even after allegedly hoodwinking the US electorate into electing him President in 2000. How do you explain that? And for the record, I offered no opinion in relation to this matter. I'm merely debating a point for the sake of argumentative fairness. I don't subscribe to my friend's opinions that we must gobble up the global media message hook, line, and sinker. That's all...

WELL-MEANING CANADIAN UNDERDOG LOVER: 10. Are the Israelis doing this now because they know that Obama will not support them if they try is a month from now?

YOUR ADM: We will see how well President-elect Obama deals with the various crises which will doubtless deluge his office within the first few hours of his landmark presidency. And as for Israel's military rationales, I am hardly an expert on Israel. I am, however, an expert on Canadian underdog lovers who enjoy circular argumentation and facile proofs in support of a wobbly political position.

Conclusion: To my Well-Meaning Canadian Underdog Lover, you'll have to refine your foreign policy white papers before I'm going to nominate you to a position even in the Czech Foreign Ministry up at Czernin Palace. ;-)