From: Digestifier To: Subject: Dead-Flames Digest #662 Dead-Flames Digest #662, Volume #48 Mon, 24 Oct 05 19:00:02 PDT Contents: Re: what should the United States do with combatants who don't belong to regular armies? ("Sparky the Wonder Dog") Re: 43 today happy birthday to me!! (joker4153@comcast.net) Re: Condi v Hillary 2008? (Tim Donohoe) Re: jams you enjoy other than gdead ("Steve Huntley") Re: Condi v Hillary 2008? (Tim Donohoe) Re: Condi v Hillary 2008? (Tim Donohoe) Re: jams you enjoy other than gdead (Tim Donohoe) Re: moe. mule-- a micro review ("Rupert") Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) (Tim Donohoe) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Sparky the Wonder Dog" Subject: Re: what should the United States do with combatants who don't belong to regular armies? Date: 24 Oct 2005 18:28:42 -0700 Ray: Support of Israel, even "tilting" towards Israel has been a bi-partisan and nationally endorsed American ideal, perhaps due to Christian Evangelical influence, notwithstanding the attempts to cobble together political coalitions whose emotional center is a phobic conspiratorial-minded reading of Jewish, "neoconservative", and Israeli influence, conflating the desires of the Israeli majority with a demonized and ahistorical reading of "Likkudism", topped by caricatures of Sharon individually and the charge that supporters of Israel--to accurately paraphrase-- "place the security of Israel above the security of America." What I mean, of course, is go pound sand. However, to elaborate, although money is fungible, America does not directly fund the settlements to begin with, and periodically has attempted to assay their value and hold back from aid given to Israel amounts equal to the value Israel expends on them. The concept of America "bankrolling expansion of the settlements" given the actual restraints and mechanisms for Israel on spending its aid are cartoonish. With that, as noted, money is fungible. One could say that America is bankrolling Israeli higher education or private purchase of DVD players by the same logic. But no, America is not NOW, to my knowledge, spending money directly to expand settlements. Actually, the majority of American aid is earmarked balance debt interest Israeli pays the United States on prior loans. The portion of the this money that is given to military aid, by law, has been explicitly directed to be spent on American military equipment--it flows back into this country via defense contractors. America and Israel, sometimes contentiously, have a productiive history in developing advanced avionics and computer electronics, to the benefit of both countries' military. The United States is in no particular need of Palestinian suicide-bomb know-how. But, yes, money is fungible. As noted, I fundamentally reject your assertion that Palestinians have or deserve automatic sovereignty in the West Bank for all the territory so demarcated. This is tp be sure a separate issue from confiscations of private properties that occurred under the Absentee Property decrees. You conflate the two issues. There is no necessary legal hinderance under the Geneva Conventions, AFIK, for Israel to settle on state land formerly held by the State of Jordan following the 1967 occupation, given the initial failure of the Palestinian leadership to agree to partition and failure of the combined Arab armies to consolidate an expanded Palestinian state. Jimmy Carter, yeah, yeah. The UN resolutions referred to are (if not all), overwhelmingly General Assembly resolutions. Whatever. On Reagan, 1982 was a completely different context. The diplomatic "road map" at the time had not been damaged by the Oslo mistake (made by Peres with Beilin on the one hand and Rabin, on the other, for opposite reasons) of re-introducing Arafat to Israel/Palestine. The entrenchment of the Islamist militias and the overall breakdown of internal governance as well as the planning of the second intifadah have made many far less amenable to arguments that justice and morality require Israel to make unilateral confidence-building measures when these are unreciprocated by Palestinians (pace the Palestinian deferral of its security commitments under the road map--but see below). We disagree, obviously, on the advisability and pragmatism of fundamentally changing American support of Israel if that change is to made to win the support of Arab peoples. Certainly, in numeric terms, the United States has a pro forma better deal with the Arabs and the Islamic "masses". Unfortunately, since many *popular* attitudes towards Jews and Israel in Arab society cannot rationally be derived by Israeli misconduct (picking at random, the charge circulated by Syrian officials that Jews murder Arab children to use for holiday matzot and pastries) I am skeptical that even Israel's complete and overnight disappearance would eliminate Arab/Islamic anti-Semitism or, for that, eliminate the discontent of Islamic's disaffected youth from eventually gravitating against the United States. Israel, after all, is not responsible, by way of illustration, for Al Qaeda's murderous campaign against Shiite worshippers in Iraq. (Although, proximately, the invasion of Iraq--or the post-operation failures ofr planning--created its environment of dislocated social relations, whether inevitably or not, Al Qaeda freely chose their targets and their tactics).There is no reason to conclud that absent Israel as an irritant the same tensions generating a nihilistic cult of Sunni superiority would not place America in the crosshairs at some point. When Osama ben Laden first declared war on America in 1996, the stated motivation was not American support of Israel but of the Saudi monarchy. If pressure is to be put on Israel it must be realized that another crisis may just as easily serve as the fulcrum of Islamist resentment. I'm sorry. I've never taken Tom Lexus-Nexus Friedman seriously since he wrote "Popeye and the Olive-Oyl Tree." Note, Ray, that he ties his criticism of the Administration here to his bullshit promotion of economic globalism. It is not accidental that he is getting all dewy eyed over 30 "entrepreneurs." The Jaffe Center poll is an interesting poll, even if you misrepresented it, especially as you misrepresented it. This poll confirms my position. The two relevant paragraphs are: "The poll, conducted by Tel Aviv University's Jaffee Institute for Strategic Studies, showed that 59 percent of the Israeli public is willing to remove all settlements located outside major settlement blocs, the radio said. The figure represents a rise from 50 percent who expressed such willingness in a parallel survey taken last year. Asked if they would support a unilateral withdrawal from the territories in the context of a peace accord, even if that meant ceding all settlements, 56 percent said that they would, versus 48 percent last year." The second paragraph is contradictory and tells us very little. For one thing "unilateral withdrawal .. in the context of a peace accord, even if it meant ceding all settlements ..." is a self-contradiction. A unilateral withdrawal is not occuring in the context of a peace settlement but without one. Plus the context of the question as it stands is not the current circumstance. This question asks, if it asks anything, "If there was a peace-accord in place"--this is not the question "would you agree to make unilateral concessions in the hope that this might bring about a peace accord." As noted previously, the conditions that would currently guarantee such an accord would have to include items that I assure you could not get large percentages: a) right of return, b) depopulation of Jewish East Jerusalem. In any event there is no accord agreed to and any freezes will occur within the context of "confidence building measures" not addressed by that question. No, the key and unequivocal finding (that you omitted) is that "59% of the Israeli public is willing to remove all settlements outside major settlement blocs"--which I have asserted is the "default" Israeli sentiment and which this poll confirms. The important point here, missed by you in over-hyping the purely theoretical post-accord withdrawal is that 59% are for making a withdrawal to major settlement blocs in the *absence* of a settlement, unilaterally. This is not, let us be clear, Sharon's current position (see below). I am not certain that you understand what "major settlement blocs" means in Israeli political currency. It does not mean "outside of a few settlements" but means the critical mass of settlement population from newly-resettled areas of close-in (East) Jerusalem, to the Jeruslem outer-suburbs, and including the Etzion blocs, I would be surpirsed if Israeli majorities would, absent an accord, countenance abandonment even of large settlements such as Ma'aleh Adumim on the periphery of the blocs. But this very same majority does I would maintain support continued acquisition or confiscation of territory to expand existing settlements in the large blocs and to confirm the Jewish presence in Jerusalem (even though the ultra-orthodox culture of Jerusalem is not unproblematic to secular Jews). Nevertheless, the spread of potentialities suspended between that 56% and the 59% illustrates a potential for agreement that, however, will not be helped by blanket denunciations of "land grabbing" or the security barrier or historiagraphical simplifications that denigrate the natural right of that very moderate "tipping point" to have originally settled in Mandatory Palestine. What does this mean? It means, in my reading, that a critical mass of Israeli citizens supports retention of settlement blocs as justifiable. If an agreement could be reached, they would go for more. The Palestinian position opposes this--it wraps up all settlements as unjustifiable usurpations of the Palestinian birthright and has continued to insist on either a) unilateral Israeli withdrawal without any accord (the point of the second intifadah) after which negotiations could begin on the right of return or, b) minimally a settlement freeze, cessation of the security barriers, etc. as "confidence building" devices to spur on Palestinian negotiations before a settlement is reached--however it is to be understood according to Palestinian positions up to the present (see below) that the freeze is part and parcel of an implicit commitment to complete withdrawal from the West Bank, including, I think, East Jerusalem . Such partial readings of poll data or excerpted snippets from this or that Professor don't erase pre-67 history of Jewish settlement or the history of the development of the settlement movement after 67 and in the aftermath of the 73 war. The settlement movement began with Labor, obviously, as Labor was in power, seemingly hegemonic, at the time of the 67 war developed an active settlement program for the West Bank, relying primarily on military Nachal units, driven by the support, if memory serves, of Yigal Allon of Achdut Avodah and Moshe Dayan. (Labor also was the party that initiated an activist stance towards forging alliances with the Christian militias in Lebanon). The initial argument in Labor, and between Labor and the Likud, crudely put, was between those who wanted to settle along the 67 borders, areas previously held by Israel pre-48, and the Jordan rift; and those who wanted also to settle in the interior--the settlement launched by Gush Emuniim occured after settlement activity was already underway. Obviously, various coaltions have adopted both prototypical Labor "chalutziim" and Gush Emuniim visions of settlement. David Newman's precis, as adopted by you, understating the national consensus that the 1967 borders are inherently dangerous and must be balanced by far-reaching concessions, and understating the Labor Party commitment to settlement in the 60's and 70's is either inaccurate in its original presentation or fine-tuned by yourself--most greviously the reader is not informed of Israeli population centers that were overrun and expelled during the 47/8 conflict: East Jerusalem and in the Etzion Block most particularly. I repeat, the secular as well as religous majority of Israel (as indicated by the Ha'aretz poll) barring the unexpected delivery of an existant final accord, approves of recovering to Israel sovereignty those areas of population settlment from which Jews were expelled in the war creating the State of Israel. Following the victory in the 67 war (and a debate on the historical inevitability and necessity for the occupation of the West Bank is a separable issue in and of itself) the amenability to "making good" these losses preceded the religious messianism that arose precisely after the relative failure of the 73 war--which was perceived as a humiliating debacle and an example of Labor Party blindness, incompetence, and over-reliance on pre-existing strategic doctrine (underestimation of Arab military prowess joined to reliance on static defenses in Sinai). The concensus that you are reluctant to acknowledge supports (to varying degrees) a variety of Jewish development in the West Bank that are included by critical sources cited by yourself and the general tenor of your argument as fundamentalist-driven, peace-undermining land grabs. That said: I do believe that Egypt and Jordan are two countries whose nattional interests must be kept in mind. I do believe that rapproachment between the Palestinian and Israeli activities is a good thing and may perhaps have not only positive, but decisively so, fallout. Since I don't think that Israel is organically a parasitic drain on America I am not all that interested in the aid levels. I also have no objections to throwing millions of dollars down the rat hole of the Palestinian kleptocracy. It might help some day. Ditto for Egypt. I think many people talk about the moral clarity of the Palestinian cause when what they also mean is that "there are so many Arabs. There are 1.2 billion Islamic believers world wide." These are not identical considerations. Nevertheless, Sharon's ultimate motivations are not clear. We do not know if he has a strategic vision or is reactive, we do not know if his strategic vision, if he has one, is influenced more by the Gush Emuniim "bibliocentric" theocratic vision or by the "practical Labor" position of in part religiously-derived, but more secularly articulated demarcation of settlement areas--or some other calculation. For example he once argued for retaining "strategic high points" throughout the West Bank.. It is in Israel's interest, in my opinion, irerspective of the level of outside support it can or cannot secure from America or any other power, to preserve a decisive Jewish demographic balance to the west of the security barriers. While he is Prime Minister Sharon needs to be hand-held on a day-by-day basis to prevent an attempt to out-Bibi Bibi. It should be made clear to Sharon that unilateral declarations that the United States has agreed to this or that negotiating stance of Israel extrapolating from general language secured through non-binding Presidential memoranda or letters have no force. The United States should be wary of either side declining to do this or that because, conveniently, doing this or that is not in the road map. Both sides have used the "road map" as legitimation for the other side to make concessions. The refusal of Sharon to even consider Abbas' own tentative attempts to start a "back channel" to discuss "final status issues"--to get around the "road map"--is the latest example of questionably pious invocation of the road-map. On the Israeli side, the election of Bibi fronting an emergently re-energized nationalist-theocratic bloc would be very unhelpful. My gut reaction is that Bibi will turn out to be the person you believe Sharon already is. Hopefully, there are rumors that he is considering giving up politics. American foreign policy currently accepts Hamas as a hard reality, notwithstanding that Hamas has yet to internally decide what its focus or ultimate goals are to be. It's programmatic Islamist goals, an Islamic society arising on the ashes of Israel (and the PA) are already undergoing some re-articulation, vis a vis its domestic entente with the PA, encourated by Israeli tactical success in pinpointing Hamas; leadership and deploying various levels of defensive and offensive military means. There are good reasons for the Bush Administration to approve of Hamas' participation in upcoming Palestinian elections, not withstanding the continuing inability of Abbas to craft a single unitary military capability (for peace or for war) in the Palestinian Authority. The current Administration has put pressure on Sharon to back-down from his threat (bluff? plan?) to actively interfere in Palestinian elections should Hamas be on the ballot. Hopefully, envoy Wolfensohn represents just the tip of a variety of negotiating and arbitration mechanisms that are deployed in the field. ------------------------------ From: joker4153@comcast.net Subject: Re: 43 today happy birthday to me!! Date: 24 Oct 2005 18:29:27 -0700 Right on! ------------------------------ From: Tim Donohoe Subject: Re: Condi v Hillary 2008? Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 01:32:12 GMT kpnnews@yahoo.com wrote: > Sparky the Wonder Dog wrote: > >>Hillary can do very well. The very things that bug the more "left-wing" >>Democrats help her appeal to "red-state" voters and given a race where >>she is running against a Republican--I don't think enough Dems will opt >>for Walter's third-party choice to sink her election. I saw Condi on TV >>and she sounded like someone who does not want to be a politician. > > > There is no way Hillary Clinton will be elected President. The > Democrats > would be commiting suicide to nominate her. Her *only* hope would be > backlash against the onslaught of semi-valid rightwing critique. > > Kurt > If she is ever going to win 2008 will be the year, I doubt we will have a better administration to backlash than the one we have now. ------------------------------ From: "Steve Huntley" Subject: Re: jams you enjoy other than gdead Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 01:37:11 GMT Mountain Jam ------------------------------ From: Tim Donohoe Subject: Re: Condi v Hillary 2008? Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 01:38:16 GMT kpnnews@yahoo.com wrote: > Sparky the Wonder Dog wrote: > >>Kurt--why do you think she is so unelectable? Too left-wing for the >>country? Too right-wing for Democrats? > > > She comes off as a coniving conceited bitch. She carpetbagged her > way to a Senate seat. She didn't trick us here in NY, we had the choice between her and an unknown talking head with Pataki's hand up his ass. There were very few people who voted for the Republican (whose name I forget) but there were plenty who voted against Hillary. She won a high powered senate seat on her first try, not many new politicians could have pulled it off. > While her recent presence has been more > stately, I think she has too many skeletons to be elected. It's not > really her politics which I think are leftwing malleable, I think it > is her. She is simply too divisive. People either love her or hate her, > and those who hate her, hate those who love her and vice versa. > GWB can be described as silver-spoon-in-mouth born again ex-cokehead. > A lot of folks were repulsed by his almost predestined ascendency to > the Presidency. Hillary would be worse in that regard. She'd shoot > Chelsea dead on national tv to get elected, or at least that's how > she comes across. I am just babbling now, but hopefully you get my > drift. > > Kurt > I'd vote for her just to get Bill back in the white house, and I'm not a fan of Hillary. I just hope the Democrats can come up with someone better by 2008. If my choice is Cheney or Hillary, I'd shoot Cheney twice. ------------------------------ From: Tim Donohoe Subject: Re: Condi v Hillary 2008? Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 01:42:10 GMT Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote: > "JC Martin" wrote in message > news:eg77f.589$te3.9908@typhoon.sonic.net... > >>Sparky the Wonder Dog wrote: >> >>>Kurt--why do you think she is so unelectable? Too left-wing for the >>>country? Too right-wing for Democrats? >> >> >>She doesn't have a warm personality and isn't very convincing as a >>salesperson. And she's seen by moderates as slippery. Without moderates, >>the Democrats can't win a national election. Heck, Hillary is the most >>divisive Democrat out there. Kurt is right. >> >>Condi can't win the Republican nomination at this point either. A near >>agnostic, single, black woman who acted as Bush's lap dog? No way. Why >>do people take Dick Morris seriously anyway? > > > There isn't a single person alive who isn't already a committed Hillary > supporter that could ever be convinced to vote for her. That's not to say > she couldn't win the Democrat nomination.............. > I think that will depend on her opponent. I am sure she could beat Cheney and Rice easily. ------------------------------ From: Tim Donohoe Subject: Re: jams you enjoy other than gdead Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 01:44:28 GMT fogdog wrote: > The Lord of Eltingville wrote: > >> If you want to get away from classic rawk for a while, check out Captain >> Sensible's "Live at the Milky Way." Lots of amazing guitar work >> courtesy of the Cap'n... >> >> http://tinyurl.com/cxlww > > > I'll check this out but I was lookin' more at the early 70's for choices. I think Jason Mraz was born in the early 70s, maybe the late 70s ------------------------------ From: "Rupert" Subject: Re: moe. mule-- a micro review Date: 24 Oct 2005 18:44:33 -0700 Yeah, but was he getting a hummer from another guy? THAT's how ya know yer in SF! ------------------------------ From: Tim Donohoe Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 01:47:12 GMT Carlisle wrote: > ;) > Rush is an entertainer...he gets is stuff from others, namely the WSJ, > National Review, Cato, Heritage Foundation, AEI and the White House. > Write that down. The man is given too much credit, really. Ditto THAT! > Not to mention the stuff he makes up. ------------------------------ ** FOR YOUR REFERENCE ** The service addresses, to which questions about the list itself and requests to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, are as follows: Internet: dead-flames-request@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames-request%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames-request You can send mail to the entire list (and rec.music.gdead) via one of these addresses: Internet: dead-flames@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames End of Dead-Flames Digest ****************************** .