Judgment Day- Part I
Today is the day one Brooklyn, NY Assemblyman Dov Hikind is calling 'the worst tragedy he has seen'. By now, everyone should know what I am talking about.
The road barrier was lowered, stating occupation was prohibited by law. Some skirmishes have already taken place in the early morning between protesters and soldiers.
Meanwhile, Mahmoud Abbas said on Israeli TV that "this is the right path and they have chosen the right path." He has also said, and I quote, "don't listen to the voices of the extremists who want a continuation of the occupation."
I have one thing to say about his first comment- whatever Abbas says, I will ALWAYS believe that the opposite is true. So, if he thinks that this is the right path, it is obviously the wrong path.
Now about the second comment- there's more to just black and white when dealing with issues like this. You have two extremes on the opposite ends of the spectrum, and then you have the in betweeners, and then the moderates. That leaves a lot of gray area. From what I take, Abbas must think that all the Israeli right are extremists. In reality, people like Natan-Zada are minimal, whereas the rest of the right are trying to protest peacefully (although there are some outbreaks). Abbas doesn't realize that an opinion doesn't classify someone under the 'extremist' label, it is the actions taken by the persons that helps in the labeling.
While all of this is going down, let's take a look to see what the Palestinians are doing shall we. As expected, they are celebrating. Some are even burning Israeli flags. What a class act don't you think? These guys are scum, plain and simple. To all those who support Ariel Sharon, what do you think now? These guys are very appreciative, right? Do you really think that these guys are going to back down attacking Israel? If you do, then you are full of BS, because now they are even closer. Please, just use logic and history to think this one through.
****************************************************************
Dov, however, was clearly not choosing his words very wisely. This is not the worst tragedy he has seen. Since I don't know his age I am going to ballbark he is in his fifties. Let me think of a few things that he might have seen:
1.) WWII and the Holocaust
2.) 9/11 (this especially hits it home, as he is across the water from Manhattan)
(If anyone would like to add to the list, note it in the comment section.)
posted by Anonymous at 7:16 PM
25 Comments:
I feel your pain, DM. I really do. I wouldn't pay any attention to Abu Mazen. He has turned talking smack into an art form.
8/16/2005 1:09 AM
DM - Thanks for your support of Israel. That said, I am not really familiar with Dov Hikind, but I would like to add some perspective to his comment.
Many Israelis and non-Israeli Jewish supporters of Israel think that the disengagement plan is the beginning of the end for Israel as a nation. In that regard, its implementation yesterday could be construed by many as "the worst thing they have ever seen".
In addition, as to whether Dov Hikind was alive during WWII, doing the math he would have to be a minimum of sixty to have any possible recollection of WWII or the Shoa. Even if he was alive and living in Europe (which I doubt as I believe California Assemblyman Tom Lantos is the only Holocaust survivor in our government today, correct me if I am wrong, anyone), again, as Israel is the culmination, in part, of events of WWII that led the world to recognize an official homeland for the Jews, the DP could welkl be considered a worse event than any of those listed by you or Warren if it means the end of Israel as we know it.
All of that aside, I think the real issue is not whether we contnue to critique a turn of phrase uttered at an emotional time but rather that we look ahead at ways we can prevent the potential detrimental effects of the DP. Concentrating on semantics only invites negative response towards those who have a common goal, i.e. the support of the State of Israel.
Shalom.
8/16/2005 8:50 AM
warren:
i know you could.
mark:
i am pretty sure (50/50) Hikind is born and bred in the US. i really only put him there for the comment he made so i can get feedback.
as for the DP, it is bad. i side with the Jews who feel that this is the 'worst thing they have ever seen', yet i do not believe that. the fear of these people (myself included and i think you too), is that Israel has given the Palestinians a very strategic spot from which to attack. if these attacks from Gaza by the Palestinians means the end of the Jewish State, then i think both you, i, and the Jews, would feel that the loss would be the worst thing that could happen, not the DP.
8/16/2005 11:17 AM
Mark, I think Tom Lantos is the only Holocaust survivor in Congress. If this leads to the end of Israel, then I agree it's probably the worst thing. But for right now, to me, it doesn't compare to the Shoa. Sharon is not lining Jews up and shooting them into mass graves.
8/16/2005 1:58 PM
DM and Esther - I don't believe I stated that it IS as bad as the Holocaust - I think you both missed the salient point of my comment:
"I think the real issue is not whether we contnue to critique a turn of phrase uttered at an emotional time but rather that we look ahead at ways we can prevent the potential detrimental effects of the DP. Concentrating on semantics only invites negative response towards those who have a common goal, i.e. the support of the State of Israel."
I'm certain Hikind didn't have the hours of reflection afforded to us to hone his comment in a more "appropriate" fashion.
8/16/2005 9:29 PM
mark:
i never said you said that. like i said before, i only put Hikind in the post because of the comment and to get feedback. from the post, you can gather that i disagree with him.
"Many Israelis and non-Israeli Jewish supporters of Israel think that the disengagement plan is the beginning of the end for Israel as a nation. In that regard, its implementation yesterday could be construed by many as 'the worst thing they have ever seen'."
i understand what you're saying. personally, i would think the end (loss of Israel) would be worse than the beginning of the end (DP)
"... but rather that we look ahead at ways we can prevent the potential detrimental effects of the DP."
you make a valid point, but let me ask you something- why look ahead at ways to prevent the potential detrimental effects of the DP when we shouldn't have even got to this position in the first place? prevention is the game, there is no doubt you know this, but the best method of prevention would have been to not return Gaza in the first place.
8/16/2005 10:18 PM
"why look ahead at ways to prevent the potential detrimental effects of the DP when we shouldn't have even got to this position in the first place?"
Because like it or not we are there. Unless you think the policy will be reversed, and I don't, we can sit and wring our hands about woulda, shoulda, coulda all day, and it will do no good. Time to adapt, or die. And Israelis and Jews are masters at adaptation for survival. It beats the hell out of more and constant infighting. We should be saving that for the coming problems from the PA and Hamas et al. It is not unlike Palestine in 1947. Numerous separate groups coalesced into one to oppose the threat of Israel's Arab neighbors during the War of Independence. (BTW, my father is a Machalnik who served with the fledgling 101 Squadron of the IAF in 1948-49.)
I would like to see the infighting over this issue (as well as others) cease in order to pose a united front against the new Arab threats to Israel. However, and unfortunately I doubt that will happen in todays world.
"i never said you said that."
I was referring to Esther, not you. I have repeatedly maintained that the Shoa is an unprecedented event in history, and that nothing even comes close to comparing to it as a single atrocity, not even anything on Warren's list.
Again, Shalom, brother.
8/17/2005 1:28 AM
The statement, taken from its emotional context, could be seen as overblown rhetoric. Especially coming from a non-Israeli.
Mr. Hikind's words were ill chosen, especially as the decision was made by a lawful government about its own territory.
It may prove be the most stupid decision made by a modern Democracy, but not a tragedy.
8/17/2005 7:38 AM
Warren:
I guess it depends on what your definition of a tragedy is, and to whom that tragedy is taking place:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/17/gaza.pullout/index.html
8/17/2005 8:21 AM
warren:
i think you and i see eye to eye.
8/17/2005 2:46 PM
Mark,
I am an unabashed supporter of Israel.
From the article you cited:
""They are paying a really painful price,"[...]
"It's a painful process.""[...]
I would agree with that and my heart goes out to the settlers. For them, it is undoubtedly a personal tragedy.
The real tragedy could be the results of this action.
Have you ever considered the logistical and tactical aspects of protecting those settlers. Some 8000(?), surrounded on three sides by hostile muslims.
What happens 'when' Israel decides to take out the Iranian nuclear threat?
The settlers were in a terrible position.
Si vis pacem, para bellum!
"The first priority, he said: "We're going to heal from our wounds."
That comes next.
Then who can say what happens?
G-d help Israel if it ever gives up the Golan Heights!
DM, (vis-a-vis, eye to eye), who wood uh thuk!
;^)
8/17/2005 7:48 PM
Warren and Drummaster:
It sounds to me like Warren supports the disengagement plan while, if I am not mistaken, DM, you most certainly do not. I'm not exactly sure where the eye-to-eye sight is here.
Protecting the settlers is a logistical nightmare, yes. However, given a serious enough threat to Israel to have to choose between the settlers and the rest odf Israel, there is no doubt in my mind that Israel would not hesitate to dropkick the settlers. Sounds harsh, but desperate times warrant desperate measures. As far as the Golan is concerned, Israel will no more give up the Golan than Jerusalem. It's infinitely more strategically important than Gaza.
8/17/2005 9:07 PM
mark:
did you even read warren's second comment?
"The real tragedy could be the results of this action." - warren
my point exactly, the end is worse than the beginning of the end.
"The settlers were in a terrible position." - warren
i agree with this also. at one point, the settlers who are now being evicted, were once told to go and settle there.
that's all the eye to eye stuff.
as far as strategic value, there was and there wasn't. there wasn't in the sense that the ratio of Jews to Palestinians in the area is 9000:1.3 million, clearly a one sided fight. however, there was in the sense that Israel got it in 1967, and through Palestinian attacks over the decades, has been able to keep it.
warren:
how well do you know latin?
8/17/2005 10:19 PM
Mark,
I didn't support the plan on a visceral level. It sounds like a terrible idea. I would never suggest that those settlers leave their homes but there are people in high government that know more about what's going on, (under the surface), than I do.
That they would push it forward in the face of such stalwart opposition and possibly ruin their political lives, causes me to ask myself why. There must be reasons I do not know and the plan is proceeding. There's no going back at this point in time.
Therefore, as an armchair analyst, I ask myself what are the possibilities. I just gave you 'one'.
There are also political advantages. This takes some of the international "heat" off of Israel. Another such give away cannot be reasonably expected any time soon.
I know there were monetary considerations. Israel has asked for an additional $2 billion American, ($2 thousand million European), to help in the resettlement which I believe they can reasonably expect. (OUCH!)
Then, there is the pragmatic aspect of my personality. My moto is, I go forward from this point, yesterday is gone.
DM, I only have a limited knowledge of certain Latin words and phrases plus a few famous quotes.
I can read a prescription, my wife was a pharmacy tech. Its very handy for shorthand posting or relating some concepts. (et al.- et aliae (and others), sic (thus), ca.- circa (about), e.g.- exempli gratia (for the sake of example), etc.- et cetera (and so on), i.e.- id est (that is).
Vis-a-vis is actually French with Latin root for, literally, face to face. It is used in practice to mean, (in reference to). I used it as a triple pun, (face to face, eye to eye, in reference to), I was showing my wit and made it "half" way there. ;^)
Si vis pacem, para bellum, is a paraphrase of another quote and was once the moto of the Roman Legions. Paraphrase translation - If you seek peace, prepare for war.
8/18/2005 12:16 AM
warren:
i took Latin I and to be honest, i don't really much.
"Paraphrase translation - If you seek peace, prepare for war."
i have a similar motto- to have peace, there must be war. can there really be peace without it? no.
8/18/2005 8:55 PM
did you even read warren's second comment?
Yes, I did.
8/18/2005 9:37 PM
DM
"i have a similar motto- to have peace, there must be war. can there really be peace without it? no."
I would say, that in the course of human history, that has proven to be the case.
Its an interesting topic on many levels.
Many people believe that peace is the absence of war. After the decades of the "cold-war", that would seem to counter reality.
In some cultures, peace is/was considered an abnormality or only the space between battles or raids.
The 200+ years of the "Pax Romana* is considered to be the longest period of 'relative' peace in the western world. Yet the Romans ruthlessly put down any insurrection. Of course the most obvious example of that would be the destruction of the Second Temple and Diaspora which followed some 80 years later.
8/18/2005 10:29 PM
warren:
the way i look at it is, that throughout time, a nation(s) has been the superpower- the one who is better and stronger than the rest. this nation(s) have been policing (unlike the worthless UN) policies of other nations. if something is wrong, then the superpower(s) do something about it. this has been going on for most of the 20th century.
on another note, have you heard the hypothesis by a few historians that said one reason Rome came to its demise was because of their irrigation? the romans were advanced, but they made the pipes from eiher lead or mercury (i think lead) and some historians believe that the water poisoned them, something similar to the old mercury fillings for cavities. i have doubts, but it is interesting.
8/18/2005 11:54 PM
DM,
"The Roman Republic fell, not because of the ambition of Caesar or Augustus, but because it had already long ceased to be in any real sense a republic at all. When the sturdy Roman plebian, who lived by his own labor, who voted without reward according to his own convictions, and who with his fellows joined in war the terrible Roman legion, had been changed into an idle creature who craved nothing in life save the gratification of a thirst for vapid excitement, who was fed by the state, and who directly or indirectly sold his vote to the highest bidder, then the end of the republic was at hand, and nothing could save it. The laws were the same as they had been, but the people behind the laws had changed, and so the laws counted for nothing."
Teddy Roosevelt
8/19/2005 12:42 AM
Peace isn't the absence of war...it's the absence of a threat.
8/19/2005 12:57 AM
TR, the Progressive Republican. you've got to like him.
8/19/2005 9:48 AM
Esther, my lady.
If peace is the absence of threat, I'm afraid we will never have it.
It may be pragmatism or even cynicism, but I fear that peace is just the intervals between wars.
DM,
TR, was unique.
Highy intellignt, well educated, insightful, forcefull, a true leader among men.
He once said:
"Men who are not ready to fight for the right are not fit to live in a free democracy"
TR wrote:
The doctrine of non-resistance is old, and its results have always been evil. The same fantastic morality on this point which Tolstoi now develops was rife in the later ages of Byzantium, and that decadent people disbelieved in militarism as heartily as Miss Jane Addams. Up to the very last, with the Turk at their gates, there were plenty of priests and laymen in Constantinople who declared it unlawful to shed blood, even that of an enemy; and such an attitude had no small part in producing the condition which has subjected southwestern Europe for four centuries to the unspeakable horror of Turkish rule.
[Letter to Florence Lockwood La Farge, February 13, 1908]
8/20/2005 4:32 PM
warren:
seeing as you are a big history guy like me, did FDR have some philosophy about hard work and overcoming obstacles because he was continuously trying to prove himself because of his polio?
as for the peace without threat, if peace dealt with the absense of threat, you are right, it would never happen. there are threats made everyday to people, most are empty.
"It may be pragmatism or even cynicism, but I fear that peace is just the intervals between wars."
i hold the '1984' theme in mind that there can never be absolute peace. in the novel, when London was at war with one country, they were at peace with another and vice versa. the party also brainwashed members into thinking that one was an enemy and in the next an ally.
8/20/2005 11:15 PM
Personally, I believe that too much legend surrounds FDR to ever know the reality of the man. To me, he seems to have been, secretive and aloof. He never informed Harry Truman of the Manhattan Project even though he, (FDR), had been gravely ill. He went to great pains to hide his disability from the public.
Those do not seem like the actions of a man that was more concerned about the nation than his political life and power.
8/21/2005 5:16 PM
warren:
'its times like these' (Foo Fighter quote) that i wish i watched the FDR special on the history channel in may or june.
8/21/2005 11:51 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home