Rowhouse Logic - Breathtaking Inanity

Is it 1993 or 2005? Concerning the fate of the Palestinians, it sure feels like 1993 all over again, just with new players; however, the lies remain the same. Whenver leaders of a powerful state that was forged by war begin to talk about peace, its safe to assume that they’re actually telling us to prepare for more violence. The withdrawal from Gaza and the West Bank (though only a paltry 4 settlements) is no exception. Israel is deploying 50,000 troops (the largest since the Yom Kippur war of 1973) under the perennial guise of ‘ensuring security’. Now I can’t help but wonder what such a sizeable force would be used for. Some will no doubt be used to demolish settlements following evacuation, and some to force out the more intransigent elements.

What worries me is Sharon’s vow for the “harshest response ever” to any Arab attacks, since every military action in Israel’s history has been justified as retaliatory despite the actual situation. The Six-Day War of 1967, after which Israel seized the territory it now professes to be giving up, began as a pre-emptive (not to be confused with ‘preventive’) strike against Egypt. The sheer amount of young, inexperienced Israeli troops operating in such a small area as Gaza amidst a sea of Arabs makes some type of provocation almost inevitable. Tragically, no matter what happens the blame will be placed solely upon so-called ‘Palestinian extremists/militants’, even if it is a simple matter of rock-throwing. At the very least, the disengagement process will be delayed and more Palestinians will be slaughtered. My worst fear, however, is that the process will be scrapped altogether and blamed on the Arabs. At this time, 60% of Israeli citizens favor disengagement, but I worry that such an incident would swing public opinion in the opposite direction and embolden the more extremist Jewish elements both on the street and in the Knesset. Even before today, the first official day of disengagement, Benjamin Netanyahu had already resigned in protest. So that’s the worst that could happen.

For now, let’s assume that the withdrawal proceeds to completion. Serious problems remain, predominantly with regards to the economy and the Arabs’ freedom of movement. Frighteningly similar to the Oslo Accords of 1993, the final status of the operation is as yet left unresolved. Israel has once again thwarted the possibility of a direct link (or ’safe passage’ as its being called) between the West Bank and Gaza, further limiting the territories to the status of mere cantons similar to apartheid South Africa. Furthermore, the Gaza airport will remain closed, and there isn’t a single seaport along the entire strip. Although movement within Gaza will become less restricted, passage to and from Israeli territory, where most Palestinians are forced to work, will likely be further strengthened under the guise of security. Talk about the status of the Wall has been suppressed to point of silence, yet construction moves on despite world protest and official condemnation by the ICC.

This leads us to ask some very obvious questions, most notably, how the hell are the Palestinians supposed to pursue the prospect of a viable state (which is the declared intent of the Peace Process) if it’s not allowed to construct the most basic economic necessities? The issue has been framed to ignore talking seriously about the economy, instead focusing intently on terror and security, Iraq being no exception either. This is where we writers come in. Don’t be content to accept disengagement at face value, as I’m sure many of you are not. If you’re unsure about what to say about this matter, simply start raising hell about the economic issues. Press for answers concerning the airports, seaports, etc., and most importantly, complete freedom of movement for the Arabs. Also, be on the watch for provacative action on the part of the Israeli military. We can’t neither allow another Lebanon no more than we can allow another minute of this brutal occupation.

Sources:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0815/p10s01-wome.html?s=itm
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/612878.html

Since we’ll be hearing about Thursday’s terrorist attacks in London for some time, I wanted to quickly recommend having a look at Underground by Haruki Murakami, in which he probes, via interview, the 1995 sarin attack on Tokyo’s subway system. In Underground, Murakami captures the very human side of a massive human tragedy, by conducting sweeping interviews with victims representing each of the subway lines attacked, as well as members of Aum Shinrikyo, the group that conducted the attack. It’s a very painful read, and one you won’t soon get past, but well worth it, as it looks so deeply at the type of event that is so hard to really see when confronted with screaming headlines and breathless talking heads peddling fear.

As a side note, I would highly recommend reading all of Murakami’s books, most of which, unlike Underground, are works of fiction. My personal favorite is The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle, which is an amazing and genuinely bizarre novel.

London Mayor Ken Livingstone:

“This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful; it is not aimed at presidents or prime ministers; it was aimed at ordinary working class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christians, Hindu and Jew, young and old, indiscriminate attempt at slaughter irrespective of any considerations, of age, of class, of religion, whatever, that isn’t an ideology, it isn’t even a perverted faith, it’s just indiscriminate attempt at mass murder, and we know what the objective is, they seek to divide London. They seek to turn Londoners against each other and Londoners will not be divided by this cowardly attack,”

“I wish to speak through you directly, to those who came to London to claim lives, nothing you do, how many of us you kill will stop that flight to our cities where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another, whatever you do, how many you kill, you will fail.”

For some personal accounts of today’s attacks, have a look at this BBC News reporter’s log which is being updated regularly by BBC reporters wandering around the various scenes of the terrorist attacks in London. (Via Susie)

Wouldn’t you know that we now have our own voluntary border patrol? According to this Reuters story, ordinary citizens like you and me are out there patrolling the border to prevent Al Qaeda from coming across the Mexican border.

What frightens me more? Is it A) The fact that our borders are so porous that folks are crawling under the barbed wire and increasing the illegal alien/undocumented citizen count in Texas at an alarming rate; B) The fact that our government knows about the problem, but would rather spend the money in Iraq (ostensibly to fight terrorism there, not here); or C) The fact that there are a bunch of self-appointed gun-toting “Minutemen” patrolling our borders.

What a country.

At the time of his appointment, I really couldn’t think of a less inspired choice to be the first head of homeland security than Tom Ridge. At the time he was my governor, and suffered the awful malady of so many Pennsylvania politicians, in that he was more than content to preside over the slow death of his commonwealth. He brought little or nothing in the way of creative thought to his job as Pennsylvania’s Governor, and took great pride in his small solutions for a commonwealth that is in very desperate need of broad, daring, politically dangerous strokes. Such is the nature of Ridge. Such is the nature of my commonwealth. I’m quite sure he brought that same lack of vision and that same unwillingness to make tough choices to the Department of Homeland Security.

Goodbye and good riddance.

He still seems to be the latter part of “Dead or Alive”. I’m going to cheat a little here and repost part of something I wrote a few weeks ago (link). It’s not very good, but some of the questions are worth repeating.

• On February 23, 1998 Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States of America. Was our love of freedom one of his reasons? It’s pretty easy to google this one, so I won’t give away the answer.
• Does the Bush administration know the answer to the previous question? Only they can answer that of course. Personally, I’m not convinced. If they do, should they discuss it with the American people in the clearest possible terms and leave the catchy rhetoric to the campaign trail?
• Does knowledge of the motivations of your enemy and use of that knowledge help you fight them? Honestly, I don’t know. History suggests that it surely does.

Now that Osama bin Laden has reappeared and made a statement, what sort of analysis is going to take place? Will it be calm, clear, rational and results oriented, or will it be overblown hype? A political football? You know the answer.

I’m not watching TV. Have the pundits started calling this bad news for Kerry yet? Have the right wing blather-bots started calling it OBL’s Endorsement of Kerry? Wait. I bet I know the answer.