Louise Arbour Should Resign

Israel's ambassador to Canada has complained about UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour's call for war crimes charges against Israel:

"I completely reject Louise Arbour's warning. Israel doesn't target civilian concentrations, and I think that by merely giving such a warning she's jumping to conclusions and as a judge she should know better," he says.

I'll go further than that. She should resign at once. If not, John Bolton, our man in Turtle Bay, should demand that she be fired.

It is outragous and immoral to prejudge any case about war crimes against anyone. Tellingly, Ms. Arbour didn't call for war crimes charges to be brought against Hezbollah or its Iranian and Syrian backers. Which means she's taken sides--with people who deliberately target civilians, threaten to destroy an entire nation (fyi, Ms. Arbour, that's called "genocide"), and commit acts of agression that are obvious "causus belli."

For America to regain some prestige, and the UN begin to be cleansed of its anti-Jewish cabal, Ms. Arbour must go NOW.

"Be Polite--Or Else!"

Reader's Digest ranked New York City number one in the world for politeness and good manners in the June issue. How come? They cite a number of factors, even interviewed Ed Koch who cites 9/11, but don't mention the factor I remember best (I'm a native New Yorker)--Mayor Rudy Giuliani's "Be Polite--Or Else!" campaign. It was part of his quality of life initiative, where he eliminated "squeegee men", cleared homeless off the streets, cracked down on crime, and enforced anti-nuisance laws. Guess what? It worked like a charm--long before September 11th. So, when the Reader's Digest testers examined over 30 cities worldwide, New York came out on top. If Giuliani could turn NY city around, he can turn the country around, IMHO. (London and Paris tied for 17th place, btw).

Letter from Italy

Last night we watched Marcello Mastroianni with hypnotic fascination--as well as lots of laughs--in Divorce Italian Style, via Netflix. Five stars.

Which reminds us that our friend at This 'n That is blogging from Italy:

Currently it is extremely hot and humid here in Orvieto, Italy where this writer has been since early Sunday morning. Sweltering is a better word. I was here for the same reason last year, and found the weather more tolerant with many more cool breezes and lower temperatures. But it was the first of July rather than mid to late July then. The tourist season seems to be at its peak, too. Sunday morning of my arrival, as I sat on the steps of the Cattolica Universita, I observed bus after bus come and go, each one so full that several passengers had their faces pressed against the window glass. Contorted as these strange faces were, it did not prevent them from bounding out of each bus, cameras at the ready, to begin recording every step they took towards the famous Duomo...

Israel & the Arabs v. Iran

Michael Rubin writes in the Wall Street Journal:

An old Arab proverb goes, "Me against my brother; me and my brother against our cousin; and me, my brother and my cousin against the stranger." Forced to make a choice, Sunni Arabs are deciding: The Jews are cousins; the Shiites, strangers. U.S. diplomats may applaud the new pragmatism, but the reason behind it is nothing to celebrate.

Who Is An Israeli? by Eliyho Matz

From a recent speech about the Lebanon war by Ehud Olmert, it looks like the Israeli Prime Minister may secretly agree with Eliyaho Matz that the moment has come for Israel to recognize it is more than just a Jewish state:

In the life of a nation there are moments of transcendence, of purification, when political and sectarian disputes which separate us are replaced by a sense of mutual responsibility.

I highly value and appreciate the way the Opposition has been conducting itself in the Knesset these days. The human competition and personal rivalries are dissolved and instead our feeling of mutual responsibility arises, our sense of partnership, and primarily, our eternal love for our people and our land.

This is such a moment! All of us - Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze and Circassians - now stand as one person, as one nation, subject together to the same hatred and malice, and fighting against it in consensus and partnership.

When missiles are launched at our residents and cities, our answer will be war with all the strength, determination, valor, sacrifice and dedication which characterize this nation.

In this context--and Hezbollah's kidnapping Arab Bedouin Druze Israeli soldiers to start a major war--this essay building on ideas first expressed by Hillel Kook and Samuel Merlin, two founders of the Irgun who served in the the first Israeli Knesset, seems particularly timely:

Who Is An Israeli?
by Eliyho Matz
Throughout the centuries, Jews have lived dispersed over many lands. They have always considered themselves a Religion-Nation, and the world has likewise recognized them as such. This concept originated over a period when Jews lived without sovereignty over a specific, identified territory of their own.

But since then, times and political conditions have drastically changed. In 1948, Palestinian Jews achieved what for many generations had been an impossible and imaginary dream, for in that year, they won both self-determination and sovereignty over a parcel of the land which in ancient times had been inhabited by their ancestors. With the ruling Palestinian Jewish leadership’s declaration proclaiming Israel to be an independent nation, the political status of this branch of the world’s Jews consequently changed from that of a non-sovereign people to a new, sovereign political entity. The process was very traumatic; nonetheless, a change was in fact achieved, although in practice its political ramifications still go unrealized many years after the event.

Regrettably, a majority of people outside and inside of Israel seem to view the State of Israel as an oversized, social community of Jews rather than as a political entity. The cost of this thinking has been the loss of a political identity for the nation’s Jewish and non-Jewish citizens alike. Consequently, the most important decision concerning the survival of the Israeli nation is rooted in an unnamed and almost undiscussed subject, which I will name the Israeli Political Identity (IPI). This is not to say that the State of Israel is without many other problems, nor to imply that the IPI issue alone, once resolved, will automatically eliminate all internal and external difficulties for Israel. But it is essential that this matter of IPI be recognized and addressed before a safe and better future with a vision of lasting peace between Israel and its neighbors can be secured.

Israel’s current political confusion is an offshoot of the identity problem and can serve as an aid in understanding the IPI. Political issues in Israel fall, for one reason or another, into two arenas: the first is Israel’s political relationship with world Jewry; the second is Israel’s attitude toward the so-called Israeli Arabs and Palestinian People. In this short essay, I will attempt to examine and suggest solutions to these two concerns.

Israel’s Political Relations with World Jewry
Until the creation of the State of Israel, Zionism was a confused political, social and religious movement among a minority of world Jewry. In 1948, when Israel was declared an independent nation, a home for those Jews who desired it, Zionism as a political movement achieved its final political goal. In the years since Israel’s independence, a myth has evolved which suggests that there exists a uniformity of interests between Israel and world Jewry, a claim which is now especially associated with American Jewry. However, Israelis must come to the realization that American Jews cannot be expected to conduct themselves as though they are living in Tel Aviv, and this concept must be clear to all parties involved. The fact is, I find it dubious to assume that similar interests do exist between Israelis and American Jews. It stands to reason that the political, economical and social differences between the two societies and nations would make divergences inevitable. By the same token, many American Jews seem to think that Israel exists as a protector of American interests in the Middle East; this clearly is likewise a very dubious notion. As of yet, divergent priorities have caused no serious breach in the US-Israeli relationship. But the situation is not static. It is clear that Israeli national interests cannot be expected always to coincide with American or American-Jewish interests, and vice-versa, and the same holds true vis-à-vis Israel’s relationship with Jewish communities worldwide. This basic reality must be recognized before a meaningful relationship can be built between Israeli Jews and Jews of other nations.

This notion that there exists a common interest among all Jews is a fundamental misconception nurtured by the fact that Israel is a State which is not founded upon modern political precepts. It is the only state in the world that belongs, supposedly, not to a defined population of citizens, but rather to an ill-defined international body of people, at the cost of denying definition to its actual population. The fact is that a large sector of Israeli leadership, both on the Right and on the Left, are prepared to wait, as long as necessary, for the “Jewish People” to come “Home,” a concept which is of course politically absurd, and which in practice, produces an astonishing measure of political confusion for all Israelis who must ask themselves how they fit into this scenario.

Israel can be defined as a theocracy which was established by a secular majority. As it is politically organized now, the State does not officially concern itself with, or for that matter, acknowledge, its own people, the “Israelis,” as a political or social entity that is significant and worthwhile in itself with its own essence as a nation. To date, Israeli political leaders still do not grasp the fact that in 1948, when Israel was recognized by the United Nations community to be a sovereign state, an opportunity was given to Palestinian Jews to determine their own political identity, or in political terms, to achieve self-determination and sovereignty. It seems as though Israeli politicians do not wish to deal with this fact at all. But this is the crux of Israel’s existence: i.e., how to deal with its own self-determination, sovereignty and political identity.

Certain errors have been made by Israeli political leaders since the establishment of the Israeli nation. One fundamental failing that has led to this deep confusion concerning identity is the circumstance whereby the Constituent Assembly was abolished on the same day that it was assembled, and no constitution was ever drawn, either on that date or at any later date. Consequently in Israel a body of laws has taken the place of a desired constitution. And although these laws legally serve as a substitute for a constitution, they avoid dealing with many of the State’s most vital questions. For example, they fail to set forth a clear definition of such national concerns as civil liberties, the relationship between Nationality and Religion, and just who constitutes its citizenry. Since each of Israel’s political parties maintains its own national goals, no consensus has ever been reached on the manner in which the State should treat both its neighbors and its own non-Jewish, yet Israeli inhabitants. Israel’s isolation in the region is first of all a problem stemming from its lack of political definition vis-à-vis the question “Who is an Israeli?”, which is not to be mistaken for the legitimate theological question” Who is a Jew?” There was no need to establish a State in order to define this latter question. Hence, if no Israeli national identity exists, then the term “citizenship” is not serious, as it does not include non-Jewish Israelis, and to possess “citizenship” means nothing more than to hold a bureaucratic paper. It would thus follow that if there exists no Israeli Nation, then Israelis are just wasting their time in their desire to pursue self-determination. However, an Israeli Nation does exist, but it is a Nation that does not acknowledge its own existence.

Why as Jew and as an Israeli who lives in Israel must one also have to define himself as a Zionist? It is a paradox today that Zionism, a confused, politically and religiously undefined ideology, does not in essence recognize the State of Israel. For according to the Zionists, Israel does not belong to Israelis, but rather to a whole mixed spread of Jewish people. There is an attempt among Zionists to make the uniqueness of Jews, and Jewish life, a norm in Israel. As an example of the Zionist stand, one must only look at the phenomenon whereby Zionist Congresses continued to be held even following the proclamation of Israel’s statehood, just as they had been held before this event. One can only wonder whether it would thus follow that the State of Israel were suddenly to vanish, then too the Zionist Congresses would likewise continue to convene as if nothing had ever happened.

It is not possible, practical or desirable to force Israeli national allegiance upon the Jews of the world. One must become accustomed to the idea that there are well-meaning Jews who prefer not to live in Israel; also, that there are Jews living outside of Israel who are politically different from Israelis. This in no sense should imply that Israeli Jews and other Jews cannot develop a meaningful cultural or any other type of positive relationship, if they should so desire. But it does draw a line to the fact that not all Jews belong to the same political entity, and consequently no unfaltering political connection or destiny does or can exist between Jews of Israel and Jews of other nations. Certain steps must be taken immediately in order to effect a drastic change in this state of political confusion in Israel. This then leads us to the second part of this paper.

Israel’s Attitude Toward Israeli Arabs & the Palestinian People
The solution to the question concerning Israeli Arabs and Palestinian People constitutes part of the confusion of the IPI. In political terms, the solution is very simple: the government of Israel must give Israeli Arabs a political option to become part of the Israeli Nation. This would include military service or other similar options on their part, and full citizenship in return. If, on the other hand, an Israeli Arab should choose not to become a citizen, then he would be able to become a resident, such as the US offers, in which case he would be required to obey the laws of the land and would be able to work, but he would be unable to vote or voice otherwise justifiable complaints that he is a second-class citizen. Should this political goal be realized, it would, I believe, effect a giant change and debate among Israelis, as well as a change towards Israel’s chances for survival in the region. However, the mentality in Israel today is such that everyone speaks of the Palestinian people in the West Bank as a problem, while ignoring the core issue of a million Israeli Arabs who carry Israeli identity cards, yet do not see themselves as part of the Israeli nation.

Political recognition must also be given to the Palestinian people. Their political identity has developed throughout the years and has been shaped without question and with Israel’s help.

The Palestinian problem has to be faced squarely and realistically. There is a Palestinian people! I see no reason to continue claiming that there is no such people In the long run, the Palestinians and the Israelis will have to develop the best of relations and cooperation because of the geopolitics of the area. This will lead to the promise of a better future for both nations and to the potential prosperity of the region.

The material presented here as a suggestion for a different Israel must be initiated by the Israeli Government. Before this can happen, however, some major political changes will have to occur in the State of Israel. Among them are the following:
- A separation between Religion and Nationality. This distinction would, on one side, strengthen respect for religion and religious people and enable religion to be a moral driving force behind Israeli society. On the other side, a constitution separated from religious biases would set the foundation for a workable solution to the question of Israeli nationals, a group to include anyone, Jew or non-Jew, who desires to swear loyalty to Israel.

- The abolition of the Law of Return. This act would serve to diminish further Yerida, as it would finally amend Israel’s discriminatory attitude toward its own citizens. The rescinding of the Law of Return does not mean that Israel would turn its back upon persecuted Jews. But is would mean recognition of the idea that fifty years is a long enough period of time for Jews so desiring to have returned to Israel. All laws of immigration must be reexamined and modernized in their approach. Clearly, however, in any case where Jews are in physical danger, the State of Israel would as policy do anything possible to extend aid, bringing outside victims to Israel only if they should so desire. To promote Aliyah and condemn Yerida would no longer be a matter of the State. Jews of all nations and Israelis would be free to choose where they want to reside.

- A change in the role of the Zionist movement, which would hence come to recognize the State of Israel as a political and sovereign entity. The Zionist movement might then be replaced by a new body, if such is desired, which might be called, for example, “Friends of Israel.” This organization would not be involved in Israeli politics and could perhaps carry out a more constructive role by undertaking various sorts of social work or cultural projects in Israel. It might also serve as a friendly ambassador for the State of Israel among Jews and non-Jews living outside the State.

James Na on Sex Slavery in DC

James Na says that he's seen evidence of trafficking in persons in Our Nation's Capital:

It says "Sauna, body shampoo, table shower, body scrape, massage, private room" on top, followed by "New Management, "Spa 14K: We have really different choices," "We take credit card."

This "spa," by the way, is only one block away from my office, amidst all the lobbying firms and such. The ad, along with several others like it, was found in "Korea Entertainment Weekly" published by none other than The Washington Times! So much for family values (to be fair, The Washington Post also runs ads for "escort service" and such, apparently).

The image of a demure, vulnerable Asian young woman clutching her knees has all the markings of a brothel ad.

Katherine Chon of Polaris Project, a pioneering non-proft that combats trafficking in persons, told me that such a place is usually run by ethnic Koreans in D.C. On the question of whether the "spa employees" are voluntary prostitutes or victims of trafficking, she told me that the answer is difficult to ascertain due to scarcity of information ("the women are rotated often") and because the boundary is blurred to the extent that some women/victims have trouble telling it apart due to "conditioning."

Coercion, whether actively physical abuse or threats/psychological intimidation (or of deportation), is widely suspected to be used, but again, without the ability to interview the women, it is difficult to tell.

Some Chicago Landmarks

Last time we took the Gangland tour of Chicago. This visit, we were more cultured, attending a performance of three late Shostakovitch string quartets, performed by the Emerson Quartet at the Ravinia summer music festival; taking an architectural boat tour of historic buildings in 90 degree plus weather (melting...); seeing Frank Gehry's bandstand in Millenium Park next to the Chicago Art Institute; visiting the new Harold Washington Public Library; lunching at the University of Chicago's Newbold Club after touring Frank Lloyd Wrignt's Robie House; and driving north and south on Lake Shore Drive, watching the bathers swimming in the shade of the skyscrapers. What a city...Powell's Bookstore in Hyde Park--the original shop opened by Michael Powell, who went on to found Portland Oregon's Powell's books.
A 16-foot high Assyrian monument from Khorasand, at the Oriental Institute, now in the headlines over a lawsuit concerning Iranian treasures claimed as damages for terrorist attacks.
Nelson Algren's apartment, where he wrote the Man with the Golden Arm, is on the top floor of this building on Evergreen Avenue.
Louis Sullivan's 1910 Russian Orthodox Church in Wicker Park was dedicated and consecrated by Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow.
View of Chicago from the Wicker Park station.
Marshall Field's famous clock, topped by a chef's toque--to go with the display windows that displayed recipes instead of clothes. This is the end of the line for Chicago's landmark department store--Federated will be changing it to Macy's...

John LeBoutillier: Israel Must Finish the Job

John LeBoutillier sounds like Daniel Pipes:

Israel Defense Minister - and Labor Party Leader Peretz - said on Sunday that “everywhere I go, Israeli citizens say they wish this didn’t have to happen but now that it has, we should go and finish the job.”

“Finishing the job” is the debate today in Prime Minister Olmert’s cabinet.

Now, as the role of the United States: yes, President Bush was correct in saying that Israel was invaded and has every right to defend itself. And Secretary Rice was also correct - in geopolitical terms - to call for Israeli ‘restraint’ - even if we privately approve of Israel’s aggressive counterstrikes in Lebanon.

This battle is part of the world-wide Radical Muslim jihad against the USA and Israel. The only way to survive is to kill the leaders who ordered these attacks on Israel - and, of course, on the USA on 9/11.

Ann Coulter on Israel's Lebanon War

Ann Coulter says Israel's military action is too restrained:

Some have argued that Israel's response is disproportionate, which is actually correct: It wasn't nearly strong enough. I know this because there are parts of South Lebanon still standing.

Most Americans have been glued to their TV sets, transfixed by Israel's show of power, wondering, "Gee, why can't we do that?"

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean says that "what's going on in the Middle East today" wouldn't be happening if the Democrats were in power. Yes, if the Democrats were running things, our cities would be ash heaps and the state of Israel would have been wiped off the map by now.

Daniel Pipes: Israel Must Finish the Job

Daniel Pipes says Israel must go all the way:

With the emergence of an aggressive and perhaps soon-to-be nuclear-armed Iran, the strategic map of the Middle East is in the throes of fundamental change. This overarching threat should provide the backdrop for every Israeli decision going forward — whether to retake territory in Gaza, what to target in Lebanon and whether to launch military actions against Syria.

Paradoxically, developments of the past week bring good news: Many Middle Easterners, not just Israelis, fear Iranian ambitions. Worries about Iran prompted the Saudi kingdom to take the lead in condemning attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah on Israel as "rash adventures." As the Jerusalem Post's Khaled Abu Toameh has documented, Israel's counterattacks have prompted "an anti-Hezbollah coalition." Sound Israeli policies will greatly influence the evolution of this nascent force.

As Arabs worry more about Iranian Islamists than Israeli Zionists, a moment of opportunity presents itself. Close coordination between Washington and Jerusalem is needed, including timely reminders to Israelis that they have a war to win.

US Networks Censor Bush

My old acquaintance, Billboard Magazine's Brooks Boliek, has the story:

President Bush's use of the S-word points out the quandary that the nation's indecency laws ensnare broadcasters.

While cable networks are free to air Bush's quote in its entirety -- and it has been burning up the Internet -- broadcast networks risk fines and even their licenses by airing it without bleeping the word.

Bush's candid remark to British Prime Minister Tony Blair was picked up by an open microphone during the closing lunch at the Group of Eight summit. In the remarks, he expressed his frustration with the United Nations, Hezbollah's attacks on Israel and the group's backers in Syria.

"See, the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit, and it's over," Bush told Blair as he chewed on a buttered roll.

Video clips of the remark were available on the Internet soon after that, but broadcast industry executives and attorneys said in an interview that airing the remark would put them at risk of FCC sanctions.

"I guess the FCC has performed a new feat by forcing broadcasters to censor the leader of the free world," one executive quipped.

IMHO Bush's frank comment sparked some personal support for the President. For the first time in years, I liked what I heard, and think the President might want to speak like this a little more often.

Speaking of CNN...

CNN co-founder Reese Schonfeld, now retired, has some decidedly non-anti-Israel musings posted on his blog, Bits & Pieces.

Now it’s Lebanon. So long as the Syrians ran the country they held Hezbollah somewhat in check because they didn’t want the Israelis to do to Damascus what they’re now doing to Beirut. The poor Lebanese, Christians and Sunnis alike, don’t have the power to reign in the terrorists; Israel is hit, Beirut is devastated and the western world wonders what it can do about it, if anything.

Often it’s better to leave bad things alone.

Thank Goodness for Fox News...

Sitting in a hotel room in Chicago, after visiting a sick friend, channel-surfed the cable TV. After a while, I found I could only watch Fox TV coverage of the Lebanon war. The other channels were so anti-Israel, it was unbelievable. Seemed like pure Hezbollah propaganda. Worse than a crime, a blunder to watch CNN. Fox provided a welcome island of sanity amidst the madness on other cable and broadcast networks. I loved their interview with Newt Gingrich about political strategies to wipe out Hezbollah.

"We report, you decide," they say. OK, I've decided. On this one, I'm with Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdoch, Bill O'Reilly and Brit Hume all the way...

Daniel Pipes: Israel Undoing a Decade of Mistakes

Daniel Pipes says that the Lebanon war may turn back the clock in Israeli-Arab relations--and if so, it might be a good thing:

Decades of hard work before 1993 won Israel the wary respect of its enemies. By contrast, episodic displays of muscle have no utility. Should Israel resume the business-as-usual of appeasement and retreat, the present fighting will turn out to be a summer squall, a futile lashing-out. By now, Israel's enemies know they need only hunker down for some days or weeks and things will go back to normal, with the Israeli left in obstructionist mode and the government soon proffering gifts, trucking with terrorists, and yet again in territorial retreat.

Deterrence cannot be reinstated in a week, through a raid, a blockade, or a round of war. It demands unwavering resolve, expressed over decades. For the current operations to achieve anything for Israel beyond emotional palliation, they must presage a profound change in orientation. They must prompt a major rethinking of Israeli foreign policy, a junking of the Oslo and disengagement paradigms in favor of a policy of deterrence leading to victory.

The pattern since 1993 has been consistent: Each disillusionment inspires an orgy of Israeli remorse and reconsideration, followed by a quiet return to appeasement and retreat. I fear that the Gaza and Lebanon operations are focused not on defeating the enemy but on winning the release of one or two soldiers – a strange war goal, one perhaps unprecedented in the history of warfare – suggesting that matters will soon enough revert to form.

In other words, the import of hostilities under way is not what has been destroyed in Lebanon nor what the U.N. Security Council resolves; it is what the Israeli public learns, or fails to learn.

NGOs Join Hezbollah's Attacks

There they go again...

NGO-Monitor reports that international human rights NGOs such as Amnesty International Have turned a blind eye to international law, in order to support Hezbollah against Israel. For example:

AI also failed to mention that Hizbollah's military headquarters are located in southern Beirut, and that the positioning of military/guerrilla installations in residential areas is considered a war crime, as defined by Protocol I (1977) to the Geneva Convention, article 51(7), relating to human shields. Hizbollah also store and launch missiles from civilian villages in southern Lebanon, but this is not criticized by AI. The NGO charged that IDF strikes on infrastructure targets constitute "collective punishment", despite the clear military rationale of sealing off air and sea ports, roads and other such targets to prevent the re-supply of arms from Syria and Iran. In contrast, Amnesty failed to condemn Hizbollah's initial aggression or to call for the release of the two abducted Israeli soldiers.

IMHO it might be more honest and "transparent" for AI and other so-called human rights NGOs to call themselves what they have apparently become--NGO terrorist defense counsel. Their special pleading is so obvious, it is embarrassing to any halfway intelligent reader. Their work no longer has much to do with protecting human rights.

Treppenwitz on the Meaning of Israel's Lebanon War

My cousin sent me this link to Treppenwitz, and I think he's on to something...

A difficult lesson

When I was in the Navy, I once witnessed a bar fight in downtown Olongapo (Philippines) that still haunts my dreams. The fight was between a big oafish Marine and a rather soft-spoken, medium sized Latino sailor from my ship.

All evening the Marine had been trying to pick a fight with one of us and had finally set his sights on this diminutive shipmate of mine... figuring him for a safe target. When my friend refused to be goaded into a fight the Marine sucker punched him from behind on the side of the head so hard that blood instantly started to pour from this poor man's mutilated ear.

Everyone present was horrified and was prepared to absolutely murder this Marine, but my shipmate quickly turned on him and began to single-handedly back him towards a corner with a series of stinging jabs and upper cuts that gave more than a hint to a youth spent boxing in a small gym in the Bronx.

Each punch opened a cut on the Marine's startled face and by the time he had been backed completely into the corner he was blubbering for someone to stop the fight. He invoked his split lips and chipped teeth as reasons to stop the fight. He begged us to stop the fight because he could barely see through the river of blood that was pouring out of his split and swollen brows.

Nobody moved. Not one person.

The only sound in the bar was the sickening staccato sound of this sailor's lightning fast fists making contact with new areas of the Marine's head. The only sound I have heard since that was remotely similar was from the first Rocky film when Sylvester Stallone was punching sides of beef in the meat locker.

Finally the Marine's pleading turned to screams.... a high, almost womanly shriek. And still the punches continued relentlessly.

Several people in the bar took a few tentative steps as though they wanted to try to break it up at that point, but hands reached out from the crowd and held them tight. I'm not ashamed to say that mine were two of the hands that held someone back.

You see, in between each blow the sailor had begun chanting a soft cadence: "Say [punch] you [punch] give [punch] up [punch]... say [punch] you [punch]were [punch] wrong [punch]".

He had been repeating it to the Marine almost from the start but we only became aware of it when the typical barroom cheers had died down and we began to be sickened by the sight and sound of the carnage.

This Marine stood there shrieking in the corner of the bar trying futilely to block the carefully timed punches that were cutting his head to tatters... right down to the skull in places. But he refused to say that he gave up... or that he was wrong.

Even in the delirium of his beating he believed in his heart that someone would stop the fight before he had to admit defeat. I'm sure this strategy had served him well in the past and had allowed him to continue on his career as a barroom bully.

Finally, in a wail of agony the Marine shrieked "I give up", and we gently backed the sailor away from him.

I'm sure you can guess why I have shared this story today.

I'm not particularly proud to have been witness to such a bloody spectacle, and the sound of that Marine's woman-like shrieks will haunt me to my grave. But I learned something that evening that Israel had better learn for itself if it is to finally be rid of at least one of its tormentors:

This is one time an Arab aggressor must be allowed to be beaten so badly that every civilized nation will stand in horror, wanting desperately to step in and stop the carnage... but knowing that the fight will only truly be over when one side gives up and finally admits defeat.

Just as every person who had ever rescued that bully from admitting defeat helped create the cowardly brute I saw that evening in the bar, every well-intentioned power that has ever stepped in and negotiated a ceasefire for an Arab aggressor has helped create the monsters we see around us today.

President Lahoud of Lebanon, a big Hezbollah supporter and a close ally of Syria, has been shrieking non-stop to the UN Security Council for the past two days to get them to force Israel into a cease fire.

Clearly he has been reading his autographed copy of 'Military Success for Dummies Arab Despots' by the late Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt. Ever since Nasser accidentally discovered the trick in '56, every subsequent Arab leader has stuck to his tried and true formula for military success:

1. Instigate a war.
2. Once the war is well underway and you are in the process of having your ass handed to you... get a few world powers to force your western opponent into a cease fire.
3. Whatever you do, don't surrender or submit to any terms dictated by your enemy. That would ruin everything! All you have to do is wait it out and eventually the world will become sickened at what is being done to your soldiers and civilian population... and will force a truce.
4. Once a truce has been called you can resume your intransigence (which probably caused the conflict in the first place), and even declare victory as your opponent leaves the field of battle.

This tactic has never failed. Not once.

In fact it worked so will for the Egyptians in 1973, that to this day they celebrate the Yom Kippur War - a crushing defeat at the hands of Israel - as a military victory! No kidding... it's a national holiday over there!

President Lahoud has already begun to shriek like a school girl to the UN Security Council to "Stop the violence and arrange a cease-fire, and then after that we'll be ready to discuss all matters."

Uh huh. Forgive me if I find that a tad hard to swallow. He allowed Hezbollah to take over his country. He allowed the regular Lebanese army to provide radar targeting data for the Hezbollah missile that struck the Israeli destroyer. He has turned a blind eye while Iranian and Syrian weapons, advisers and money have poured into his country.

And now that his country is in ruins he wants to call it a draw.

As much as it may sicken the world to stand by and watch it happen, strong hands need to hold back the weak-hearted and let the fight continue until one side finally admits unambiguous defeat.

Newt Gingrich: Help Israel Crush Hezbollah

According to reports, the former Speaker of the House--who was the brilliant strategist of Republican victories in the 1994 election--says this is one battle in a larger war against Islamist extremism, which he characterized as World War III:

Gingrich, speaking on NBC's "Face the Nation," said there's clearly been Iranian involvement in the attacks on Israel.

"The United States should be saying to Syria and Iran, 'South Lebanon is going to be cleared out. We are for Israel and the Lebanese government breaking the back of Hizballah, getting rid of all 10-13,000 missiles - and we will decisively stop any effort by Syria and Iran to intervene.'"

Gingrich listed all the world's trouble spots, including North Korea firing missiles; the bombing in Mumbai, India; a war in Afghanistan, where the terrorists take refuge in Pakistan; the Iran-Syria-Hamas-Hizballah alliance; the war in Iraq and the Saudi Arabia; funded by Saudi Arabia and concerns about various terror groups in Britain, Canada, and the U.S.

"We're in the early stages of what I would describe as a Third World War, and frankly our bureaucracies are not responding fast enough, and we don't have the right attitude about this."

Gingrich said the U.S. ought to be helping the Lebanese government eliminate Hizballah as a military force in south Lebanon.

Hezbollah & Hamas v USA

Daniel Pipes explains the history of Hezbollah & Hamas' war against America, providing some useful history behind current fighting in Lebanon:

Almost without public notice, the two sides have declared war on each other. President George W. Bush stated in June 2003 that "the free world, those who love freedom and peace, must deal harshly with Hamas" and that "Hamas must be dismantled." Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage announced in September 2002 that "Hezbollah may be the A-team of terrorists and maybe Al-Qaeda is actually the B-team. … They have a blood debt to us, which you spoke to; and we're not going to forget it and it's all in good time. … We're going to take them down one at a time."

These ambitious sentiments have been accompanied by a shift in resources. The Washington Post reported in May that the FBI, "Confident that its efforts to track the Al-Qaeda terrorist network in this country are beginning to pay off, … is devoting more resources to the two Middle Eastern groups, which command more widespread support in Arab and Muslim communities" in the United States. The Post article tells about a November 2002 ruling from a secretive three-judge appeals panel that authorized federal agents pursuing criminal prosecutions of terrorist suspects to exploit the previously inaccessible vast backlog of classified wiretaps and intelligence reports from foreign security agencies. This has led to "stepped-up investigations in at least two dozen U.S. cities." The first public result came in February 2003 with the indictment of Sami Al-Arian and seven others. Current investigations are focused on the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and several individuals, including Abdelhaleem Ashqar, Mohamad Hammoud, and Ali Nasrallah.

Today, Hezbollah gave its fullest retort to date, in an interview by its leader Hassan Nasrallah to the Times of London. Nasrallah overtly threatened American interests around the world if the U.S. government does attempt to eradicate Hezbollah. "In such a case Hezbollah has a right to defend its existence, its people and its country through any means and at any time and in any place." To back this up, he noted that "There are many people throughout the world who love Hezbollah, who like Hezbollah and who support Hezbollah," he said. "Some may not sit idly by when seeing a brutal aggression against Lebanon."

Comment: It appears that Hamas and Hezbollah are no longer just Israel's problem but increasingly America's as well. (July 28, 2003)

BTW, from Pipes' article, it looks a little bit like Israel is carrying water for America against Hezbollah--which blew up hundreds of US Marines in Beirut during the Reagan administration. Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry:

Hezbollah during the Lebanese war (1982-1990)[edit]

Combat Operations

After emerging during the civil war of the early 1980s as an Iranian-sponsored second resistance movement (besides Amal) for Lebanon's Shia community, Hezbollah focused on expelling Israeli and Western forces from Lebanon. It is the principal suspect[citation needed] in several notable attacks on the American, French and Italian Multinational forces, whose stated purpose was the stabilization of Lebanon: the suicide bombings of the U.S. Embassy, which killed 63, including 17 Americans; of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut (see 1983 Beirut barracks bombing), which killed 241 American servicemen; and of the French multinational force headquarters which killed 58 French troops. Hezbollah has always denied having any involvement with these bombings, although regarding them as justified. [citation needed]

Elements of the group have been "linked" to involvement in kidnapping, detention and interrogation of American and other Western hostages in Lebanon by groups such as Islamic Jihad who claimed the hostage-takings were in retaliation to the detentions, hostage-taking and torture by the Israeli proxy army South Lebanon Army (SLA).
[edit]

Allegations of Hezbollah involvement in terrorism

Using names like the Organization of the Oppressed on Earth and the Revolutionary Justice Organization, Hezbollah is also believed by the United States and some other countries' intelligence agencies to have kidnapped and tortured to death with no clear evidence [11] U.S. Marine Colonel William R. Higgins and the CIA Station Chief in Beirut, William Francis Buckley, and to have kidnapped around 30 other Westerners between 1982 and 1992, including the American journalist Terry Anderson, British journalist John McCarthy, the Archbishop of Canterbury's special envoy Terry Waite and Irish citizen Brian Keenan.[12] Hezbollah was accused by the US government of being responsible for the April 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut that killed 63; of being behind the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, a suicide truck bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines in their barracks in Beirut in October 1983; of bombing the replacement U.S. Embassy in East Beirut on September 20, 1984, killing 20 Lebanese and two American soldiers; and of carrying out the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome.

It is believed that Hezbollah had a hand in the terrorist attacks in Argentina in 1990 and 1994: the Israeli Embassy Attack in Buenos Aires and the AMIA Bombing, respectively.[13]

Another View of "Another Russia"

Sergei Roy's Intelligent.Ru has this interesting account of an American-sponsored [National Endowment for Democracy paid the bill] meeting of opposition forces in Moscow:

Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006
From: Sergei Roy
Subject: Another Russia

Ambassadors in a Zoo

A “forum of oppositionist forces,” pegged to the
upcoming G8 summit, opened Tuesday in Moscow with
a series of scandals as grotesque as the
gathering itself, comprising a variety of
individuals whom the Political Journal referred
to as “political microbes.” Seeing that
microbes, though often deadly, are not notorious
for the amount of noise they make or any
particular hooliganism they indulge in, I would
rather opt for the Lunatic Fringe Zoo or some
such description of the “forum.” Their
self-appellation is “Another Russia,” though they
might just as well call themselves “Anti-Russia” and be done with it.

Most conspicuous at that jamboree were Eduard
Limonov’s National Bolsheviks, for they were
entrusted with the rare privilege of organizing
the forum’s security. In their enthusiasm they
started revising the lists of accredited
journalists, and threw out a couple of lady
journalists they for some reason took a dislike
to. While they were thus engaged, two young
gentlemen sporting clean-shaven heads infiltrated
the auditorium, scattered anti-Orangist leaflets,
yelled “Up the Empire!” at the speaker on the
podium (who happened to be Her Majesty’s
Ambassador to Moscow Anthony Brenton), and
completed their exploits with a poke at
ex-Premier Kasyanov’s face (eyewitnesses of the
episode report, with visible chagrin, that the
punch did not connect as solidly as it might have
done). An unseemly scuffle followed as the
Limonov security detail overpowered the attacker and carried him outside.

Well, one can sympathize with the Limonov
kids. Their Führer promised them they would jump
off helicopters, shoot their AKs from the hip,
hurl hand-grenades at the enemy ­ and all they
have been hurling to date at various public
figures has been raw eggs and the occasional
packet of cream. The scuffle with Dugin’s
“Eurasians” was at least more
physical. Interestingly, on this occasion the
National Bolsheviks refrained from yelling their
most endearing slogan “Stalin­Beria­GULAG!” One
wonders why. Perhaps they feared Mr. Brenton
might misunderstand them ­ or understand them too well…

The extreme left, bright-red flank was
represented at the “forum” by Viktor Anpilov,
leader of the Working Russia movement. It would
be interesting to find out, though, if there is
much to the “movement” besides the leader. In
the ‘90s Anpilov’s babushkas made striking
pictures on TV as they marched through downtown
Moscow with empty pans on their heads, which they
banged with spoons most noisily. Some people
said that heads might be employed to better
purpose, but the pictures, I repeat, were
TV-worthy, no question about that. In the Putin
years, though, those empty pans have been filled,
the old age pensions are increasing and almost
catching up with inflation, and Mr. Anpilov is
now only intermittently employed, invariably
treating his listeners to Hitler-like yells and
gestures and facial expressions to
match. Another Russia, indeed… Whenever I see
that mug on TV, I recall October 1993 and the
aftermath of the red putsch, when that worthy was
bodily dragged out of a haystack where he was
hiding in fear that the democrats would do to him
what he had fervently intended to do to them. He
has risen high in the world since then, to be
greeted, along with others, by HMA Brenton so
warmly as a true representative of “Russia’s real civil society”…

Other members of “Russia’s real civil society”
included representatives of that curiously named
organization AKM ­ Avangard Krasnoi Molodyozhi
(Vanguard of Red Youth). The acronym AKM is
clearly intended to coincide with that of
Assault-rifle Kalashnikov Modernized. It would
again be interesting to learn if Ambassador
Brenton got that message ­ and if he did not,
what was he doing being an ambassador to
Russia? Another interesting question to ask
would be this: How would Her Majesty’s
government react if some foreign-funded
organizations called a similar gathering in the
UK ­ and greeted attending Real IRA members as
true representatives of real British civil society…

And it is a fact that the gathering at the
Renaissance-Moscow Hotel was fully funded by
foreign structures ­ Soros’s Open Society and the
National Endowment for Democracy (of the latter,
the Wikipedia says: “Although administered by a
private organization, its funding comes almost
entirely from a governmental appropriation by
Congress.”) And that is the only feature that
all members of the assembled zoo share: red,
black, pink, orange ­ they are mere tools in the
hands of foreign forces hostile to
Russia. Unable to find any other political
agents willing to jeopardize their relations with
the electorate by figuring too obviously as
puppets in foreign hands, these Russophobes
scavenged around the lunatic fringes of the
political arena ­ and naturally came up with a bunch of real weirdos.

You would have to seek high and low among these
members of the “real Russian civil society” to
discover a single individual elected by the
people. I haven’t. The electoral potential of
the zoo members is so close to a flat zero as to
be indistinguishable from it. Garry Kasparov’s
electoral potential would have to be counted in
millionths of a percentage point. Misha “Two
Percent” Kasyanov will be beside himself with
glee if he gets anything like two percent come
2008 ­ not in kickbacks, as in his
prime-ministerial past, but in votes. Unelected
and unelectable, that’s what they all are.

People with any claim to political respectability
with the Russian electorate have boycotted the
gathering. All of them ­ Zyuganov’s Communist
Party, the Union of Right Forces, Yavlinsky’s
Yabloko, all of them. Valeria Novodvorskaya,
that venerable and prominent member of the
Russian demshiza, the “democratic psychos,” went
so far as to picket the zoo carrying the plackard
that said, “Do not attend the councils of the impure!”

Well, foreign ambassadors did not heed that
plea. Apart from Mr. Brenton I have mentioned
before, mixing with the zoo inmates were observed
Canada’s Ambassador to Moscow Christopher
Westdal, the prominent US diplomat Ambassador
Richard C. Holbrooke, Assistant Secretary of
State Daniel Fried, and smaller fry. What price
diplomatic tact, you might ask ­ but you would ask in vain.

A Canadian journalist asked President Putin, in
one of the series of interviews he was granting
in the run-up to the G8, what he thought of the
“counter-summit,” apparently referring to the
“Another Russia” gathering. For once, the
redoubtable interviewee Putin was stumped ­ he
clearly did not understand what the hell she was
talking about. The lady prompted him that it had
even been attended by foreign ambassadors. The
president deadpanned: “Well, if they wish to
interfere in another country’s affairs, God help them.”

I somehow do not think that even He will help them. Not in today’s Russia.

More about this meeting on Konstantin's Russian Blog...

Lebanon War: It's Iran, Stupid...

I know nothing that I don't read in the papers or see on TV, but that won't stop me from saying something....

My guess is that the G-8 summitteers are jaw-jawing about Iran right now. From the press accounts, it looks like a strange alliance of Israel and her Arab neighbors against Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran. If things heat up, this could be the beginning of a new "Persian war." Or, maybe not.

The Newshour with Jim Lehrer had a very intersting discussion of this angle last night:

RICHARD HAASS, President, Council on Foreign Relations: Well, what we've seen, Margaret, is a significant deterioration of the security situation in the region that comes against the backdrop, as you know, first of all, of the growing Iranian nuclear challenge.

It comes against the backdrop of years of a deteriorating stability in Iraq. It comes against the backdrop of Israeli exchanges with Hamas, given the situation in Gaza. So it's not as though this is creating a problem; rather, it's exacerbating the problem.

And one of the common threads here, I think, you have to say is Iran. Here it is, six years after the Israelis left Lebanon unilaterally, and they don't enjoy security there. Hezbollah enjoys significant support from Syria, and in particular though from Iran.

And we have a situation where the Lebanese government is either unable or unwilling to fulfill the obligations of a sovereign state, which is not to allow acts of violence to be committed against a neighbor.

So Israel has taken this action. It's unlikely to resolve the situation, but it's one of those awful or frustrating moments, I expect, for Prime Minister Olmert where he knows, if he does these things, it is unlikely to resolve Israel's security dilemma, but he also knows that he must do these things, not simply for domestic political reasons, but to send a message to the region that Israel will not stand idly by if it is attacked...

...MARGARET WARNER: And what about -- briefly, do you think Israel would be tempted to strike Iran?

THEODORE KATTOUF: Well, certainly, Israel would be tempted to strike Iran, because it's an existential question. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, it's made it very clear it thinks Israel shouldn't exist. The Israelis will certainly have to be thinking about what their military options are, vis-a-vis Iran.