16.3.06
I wonder
Am I the only person who has no idea whatsoever of what happens at the end of 'The Cat Who Walks Through Walls'?
16.2.06
Not listening, not listening!
Is there some built-in reflex in humans that keeps us paying attention to things we should be ignoring? I think there is.
Case in point: For my undergraduate degree, I went to Northwestern University, getting a degree in engineering. Along the way, I ended up taking an ECE class by the infamous Arthur Butz, an electrical engineering professor who is famous for his outspoken Holocaust denial (Northwestern has not fired him as he has tenure, and his views on history have nothing to do with his position in a EE faculty). I obviously hate the man's guts, but he was teaching the lab of a very introductory ECE class that a large number of engineering students need to take (I needed the class as a prerequisite for nearly any further ECE coursework, including my circuit analysis class), so I had no choice. Fortunately, Butz didn't bring up his views in class, and I do not know of any ideology-guided grading (I received an A, certainly, though the lab grade was a tiny portion of the overall course).
Before the course, I figured I should know a bit about this man, so I looked up some information, reading his website, and biographies from both the crazy neo-Nazi right and the rest of the world. I was disgusted, infuriated, and contemptuous of Butz's arguments and those of the people and organizations he supports (it's a thin veneer for blatant anti-Semitism; if you don't believe me, read his work), but I figured that he can believe what he wishes, neh? (His views and the views of others like him have been thoroughly addressed by a number of eminent historical scholars, and pretty much every history PhD in five countries think that he's wrong.) I pretty much ignored the guy, and got through the class just fine.
In later years at NU, I ended up taking two excellent courses from an eminent Holocaust historian, Peter Francis Hayes. He taught 'Modern German History: 1918-1945' and 'History of the Holocaust', the two best non-engineering classes I took in college, period. He's an amazing lecturer, giving students bucketloads of reading (with a heavy emphasis on primary sources) and posing extremely thought-provoking discussion and essay questions. I was curious, though, to hear of his thoughts on Dr. Butz, another professor at his own institution spewing such nonsense. Dr. Hayes' views (permit me to paraphrase with a great amount of license) are that Dr. Butz makes a big splash in the news every few years with a new anti-Holocaust comment to draw attention to his 'historical work', but that he's just a crackpot that the entirety of the historical academic community rejects. The overwhelming evidence for the Holocaust - from German records to thousands of firsthand accounts - should be incontrovertible to someone without a prior agenda.
So, why do I bring this all up? In recent weeks, the Northwestern campus has been in an uproar over comments made by Butz to the Chicago Sun-Times along the lines of 'the Iranian president is right' about the Holocaust. (For those of you who haven't followed things lately, the new radical Iranian president has made any number of statements in recent months calling the Holocaust a 'myth' and further calling for the destruction of Israel.) Calls for Butz's firing were renewed, letters and ads went to the campus newspaper decrying him, etc. *yawn*
Events have recently heated up as university president Henry Bienen sent an email to the entire university explaining why they won't fire him, but calling his views essentially racist bullshit that the school does not support (he said it a bit nicer, but not much). His email was met alternatively with praise or a storm of criticism from both sides (some saying he should go further and fire the guy as he is a representative of NU, others saying that Bienen went too far in his harsh assessments of Butz's views). This eventually culminated in the Daily soliciting Butz to write one column in the Op/Ed section detailing his views. By then, even the ADL decided to complain (surprised?).
What I don't get is why people make such a big deal of this every few years. Butz's famous book was published in 1976, and every few years something identical happens. What is the purpose of this uproar except to draw attention to his views? Everyone knows that the guy is simply wrong - entire departments (including Butz's own) have signed letters and advertisements saying they think the guy is a bigoted nut. So making a big deal over one more comment is just playing into his hands, no? And yet people continue to make a big deal about it... *shakes head* It seems so silly.
The online version of the Daily has a space for online comments on Op/Ed articles. Unsurprisingly, Butz's column garnered an appreciable 30-some responses (and dozens or hundreds of letters directly to the Daily; I don't know how many, but it's a lot). What's kind of scary/funny is that the majority of the comments are from compatriot Holocaust deniers who were drawn to the article by the controversy - they're given a free forum and a captive audience to promulgate their views (always under the guises of 'intellectual honesty' or some similar nonsense). Isn't this precisely the opposite of how we should treat this situation? If no one had bothered to notice when Butz made his Iran comment, he and his cronies would have stayed in obscurity where they belong.
The only possible plus I can see is that Butz and his ilk show their true idiocy when their views are openly published. Butz's arguments, though on the surface plausible, fall apart under any sort of scrutiny. The comments on the online article are even more revealing - many are clearly from reflexive anti-Semites, and even the 'well meaning' and 'reasoned' ones leave a reader rather unimpressed... but is this worth it? We didn't believe these people to start with, so it's not like we need to be convinced they're nuts.
So... yeah. Moral of the story? Ignore idiots; they will go away in time.
Case in point: For my undergraduate degree, I went to Northwestern University, getting a degree in engineering. Along the way, I ended up taking an ECE class by the infamous Arthur Butz, an electrical engineering professor who is famous for his outspoken Holocaust denial (Northwestern has not fired him as he has tenure, and his views on history have nothing to do with his position in a EE faculty). I obviously hate the man's guts, but he was teaching the lab of a very introductory ECE class that a large number of engineering students need to take (I needed the class as a prerequisite for nearly any further ECE coursework, including my circuit analysis class), so I had no choice. Fortunately, Butz didn't bring up his views in class, and I do not know of any ideology-guided grading (I received an A, certainly, though the lab grade was a tiny portion of the overall course).
Before the course, I figured I should know a bit about this man, so I looked up some information, reading his website, and biographies from both the crazy neo-Nazi right and the rest of the world. I was disgusted, infuriated, and contemptuous of Butz's arguments and those of the people and organizations he supports (it's a thin veneer for blatant anti-Semitism; if you don't believe me, read his work), but I figured that he can believe what he wishes, neh? (His views and the views of others like him have been thoroughly addressed by a number of eminent historical scholars, and pretty much every history PhD in five countries think that he's wrong.) I pretty much ignored the guy, and got through the class just fine.
In later years at NU, I ended up taking two excellent courses from an eminent Holocaust historian, Peter Francis Hayes. He taught 'Modern German History: 1918-1945' and 'History of the Holocaust', the two best non-engineering classes I took in college, period. He's an amazing lecturer, giving students bucketloads of reading (with a heavy emphasis on primary sources) and posing extremely thought-provoking discussion and essay questions. I was curious, though, to hear of his thoughts on Dr. Butz, another professor at his own institution spewing such nonsense. Dr. Hayes' views (permit me to paraphrase with a great amount of license) are that Dr. Butz makes a big splash in the news every few years with a new anti-Holocaust comment to draw attention to his 'historical work', but that he's just a crackpot that the entirety of the historical academic community rejects. The overwhelming evidence for the Holocaust - from German records to thousands of firsthand accounts - should be incontrovertible to someone without a prior agenda.
So, why do I bring this all up? In recent weeks, the Northwestern campus has been in an uproar over comments made by Butz to the Chicago Sun-Times along the lines of 'the Iranian president is right' about the Holocaust. (For those of you who haven't followed things lately, the new radical Iranian president has made any number of statements in recent months calling the Holocaust a 'myth' and further calling for the destruction of Israel.) Calls for Butz's firing were renewed, letters and ads went to the campus newspaper decrying him, etc. *yawn*
Events have recently heated up as university president Henry Bienen sent an email to the entire university explaining why they won't fire him, but calling his views essentially racist bullshit that the school does not support (he said it a bit nicer, but not much). His email was met alternatively with praise or a storm of criticism from both sides (some saying he should go further and fire the guy as he is a representative of NU, others saying that Bienen went too far in his harsh assessments of Butz's views). This eventually culminated in the Daily soliciting Butz to write one column in the Op/Ed section detailing his views. By then, even the ADL decided to complain (surprised?).
What I don't get is why people make such a big deal of this every few years. Butz's famous book was published in 1976, and every few years something identical happens. What is the purpose of this uproar except to draw attention to his views? Everyone knows that the guy is simply wrong - entire departments (including Butz's own) have signed letters and advertisements saying they think the guy is a bigoted nut. So making a big deal over one more comment is just playing into his hands, no? And yet people continue to make a big deal about it... *shakes head* It seems so silly.
The online version of the Daily has a space for online comments on Op/Ed articles. Unsurprisingly, Butz's column garnered an appreciable 30-some responses (and dozens or hundreds of letters directly to the Daily; I don't know how many, but it's a lot). What's kind of scary/funny is that the majority of the comments are from compatriot Holocaust deniers who were drawn to the article by the controversy - they're given a free forum and a captive audience to promulgate their views (always under the guises of 'intellectual honesty' or some similar nonsense). Isn't this precisely the opposite of how we should treat this situation? If no one had bothered to notice when Butz made his Iran comment, he and his cronies would have stayed in obscurity where they belong.
The only possible plus I can see is that Butz and his ilk show their true idiocy when their views are openly published. Butz's arguments, though on the surface plausible, fall apart under any sort of scrutiny. The comments on the online article are even more revealing - many are clearly from reflexive anti-Semites, and even the 'well meaning' and 'reasoned' ones leave a reader rather unimpressed... but is this worth it? We didn't believe these people to start with, so it's not like we need to be convinced they're nuts.
So... yeah. Moral of the story? Ignore idiots; they will go away in time.
15.2.06
Open minded?
As is my wont upon finding a new blog to read, I've been working my way through the Treppenwitz archives over the last week or so. Tonight, I ran across a post that made me think (well, many of his posts do, but they don't necessarily jar loose an interesting thought in *my* head). Briefly, he was mentioning that his 'reading list' of other blogs/etc. on his links sidebar was much more diversified than his normal reading/interactions, lending him a much more balanced view of things... being surrounded by people just like you can be an intellectually dull experience, neh?
While his arguments are entirely correct, I found myself bothered by a nagging thought. (Before I go off on my tangent, this really is no reflection on treppenwitz, but rather on technological society as a whole. He just made me think about it. ;) ) Sure, the internet (and reading diverse blogs/etc. with it) provide for a much broader exposure to people and ideas... but is it really that broad? According to an unverified link I just googled, only about 800 million people have access to the internet, and roughly 2/3 of those speak European languages (the remainder use Mandarin or Japanese, mostly). The exact numbers don't really matter much, as I think you can all see where this is headed.
The internet has allowed me to interact extensively with people around the world. But being honest with myself, the list of countries of most of the people I interact with can be narrowed to the US, Canada, Europe, Anglo countries (NZ/Australia/etc.), and Israel. That's not really such a big spread, neh? I'll admit that Western countries tend to have a decent bit of diversity in them (a wide range of political/religious/ethnic/racial/etc. backgrounds), but this is still a depressingly limited subpopulation of the world. Thus, even for 'broad spectrum' people such as the aforementioned treppenwitz, our circle of knowledge and experience is sharply circumscribed.
What are the consequences of this? Some people would suggest it's a temporary blip in the internet phenomenon, as it becomes increasingly easy for anyone in the world to get online, but I am skeptical. Much of the world hasn't even seen a computer, let alone know how to navigate one (or know enough of one of the 'global' languages to find the internet useful or interesting). I think this is yet another example of the world's increasing segregation into technological 'haves' and 'have-nots'. We've seen some of this even in the US - children growing up in extreme poverty (by US standards, at least) are not obtaining the neccesary computer skills to get jobs of any substance, deeping the economic divide. (I should mention that the problem has been noted and people are trying to address it in Western countries, with mixed funding and results, but the problem exists.) Have you tried talking to anyone who hasn't grown up with IMing, email, and readingly accessible information? I use the internet for everything - keeping in touch with friends and family, planning events/travel/outings, directions, news, entertainment, education, employment... everything. (Let's ignore the generations in technological societies that precede my own generation - the principle is the same, just we'd have to talk about cars and phones and television instead. The internet is just a really good model.)
How much more can this problem be seen on the global scale? Billions of people are steadily falling behind the pace of industrialization. Many people have suggested that the third world will experience a 'quantum leap' of technology sometime soon, bring them into direct competition with more established industrial markets (e.g. the development of cell networks in countries that never had landlines), but I wonder if this will really happen.
Despite all of the recriminations and politicking involved in the media today, the 'developed' world really hangs together, and is in direct opposition to the 'undeveloped' countries. Europe, N. America, and a handful of Asian countries stand together on a number of important economic issues (G8 summits, anyone?), while they argue amongst themselves about matters that do not fundamentally change the balance of power in the world. We'd like to say we're post-colonial and that 'cultural imperialism' is just a way of bringing those underpriveleged regions into the global community, but is that really true?
Thus, the developed, technologically sophisticated, and overwhelmingly dominant world (typifying all of the internet's denizens) is talking to itself, and agreeing on most points. Sure there are bleeding liberals complaining about the third world (er... I guess I'm one of them?), while there are crazy conservatives trying to conquer/kill/subjugate them, but they are all fundamentally technologically sophisticated viewpoints (I'd hesitate to say 'Western'). If you could actually talk to a Bushman or a farmer in Bangladesh, what would they say? What would their take be on the world? I'd suspect it would have startling similarities to our own views, but would also reveal great conceptual divides.
How can this divide be bridged? I honestly don't know. The obvious solution is to spread the internet to the remotest corners of the world, and let globalization take place. Yet I am rather skeptical that this is going to occur in any reasonable period, given the complete lack of decent infrastructure investment in undeveloped countries. The internet has reached everywhere, but in many places it is used only by a priveleged technological caste that has little relationship to the rest of the country - really just postcolonial extensions of economic power.
Will the majority of the world continue to be ignored and relegated to a communication backwater? This could have disturbing ramifications for the future...
(A note: I'm not making any claims about the relative merits of cultures and ideas. Maybe I'll completely disagree with that Bangladeshi farmer's viewpoint. But without his input, he and his kind are completely excluded from the discourse of a global community that is increasingly making far-reaching decisions as a group.)
While his arguments are entirely correct, I found myself bothered by a nagging thought. (Before I go off on my tangent, this really is no reflection on treppenwitz, but rather on technological society as a whole. He just made me think about it. ;) ) Sure, the internet (and reading diverse blogs/etc. with it) provide for a much broader exposure to people and ideas... but is it really that broad? According to an unverified link I just googled, only about 800 million people have access to the internet, and roughly 2/3 of those speak European languages (the remainder use Mandarin or Japanese, mostly). The exact numbers don't really matter much, as I think you can all see where this is headed.
The internet has allowed me to interact extensively with people around the world. But being honest with myself, the list of countries of most of the people I interact with can be narrowed to the US, Canada, Europe, Anglo countries (NZ/Australia/etc.), and Israel. That's not really such a big spread, neh? I'll admit that Western countries tend to have a decent bit of diversity in them (a wide range of political/religious/ethnic/racial/etc. backgrounds), but this is still a depressingly limited subpopulation of the world. Thus, even for 'broad spectrum' people such as the aforementioned treppenwitz, our circle of knowledge and experience is sharply circumscribed.
What are the consequences of this? Some people would suggest it's a temporary blip in the internet phenomenon, as it becomes increasingly easy for anyone in the world to get online, but I am skeptical. Much of the world hasn't even seen a computer, let alone know how to navigate one (or know enough of one of the 'global' languages to find the internet useful or interesting). I think this is yet another example of the world's increasing segregation into technological 'haves' and 'have-nots'. We've seen some of this even in the US - children growing up in extreme poverty (by US standards, at least) are not obtaining the neccesary computer skills to get jobs of any substance, deeping the economic divide. (I should mention that the problem has been noted and people are trying to address it in Western countries, with mixed funding and results, but the problem exists.) Have you tried talking to anyone who hasn't grown up with IMing, email, and readingly accessible information? I use the internet for everything - keeping in touch with friends and family, planning events/travel/outings, directions, news, entertainment, education, employment... everything. (Let's ignore the generations in technological societies that precede my own generation - the principle is the same, just we'd have to talk about cars and phones and television instead. The internet is just a really good model.)
How much more can this problem be seen on the global scale? Billions of people are steadily falling behind the pace of industrialization. Many people have suggested that the third world will experience a 'quantum leap' of technology sometime soon, bring them into direct competition with more established industrial markets (e.g. the development of cell networks in countries that never had landlines), but I wonder if this will really happen.
Despite all of the recriminations and politicking involved in the media today, the 'developed' world really hangs together, and is in direct opposition to the 'undeveloped' countries. Europe, N. America, and a handful of Asian countries stand together on a number of important economic issues (G8 summits, anyone?), while they argue amongst themselves about matters that do not fundamentally change the balance of power in the world. We'd like to say we're post-colonial and that 'cultural imperialism' is just a way of bringing those underpriveleged regions into the global community, but is that really true?
Thus, the developed, technologically sophisticated, and overwhelmingly dominant world (typifying all of the internet's denizens) is talking to itself, and agreeing on most points. Sure there are bleeding liberals complaining about the third world (er... I guess I'm one of them?), while there are crazy conservatives trying to conquer/kill/subjugate them, but they are all fundamentally technologically sophisticated viewpoints (I'd hesitate to say 'Western'). If you could actually talk to a Bushman or a farmer in Bangladesh, what would they say? What would their take be on the world? I'd suspect it would have startling similarities to our own views, but would also reveal great conceptual divides.
How can this divide be bridged? I honestly don't know. The obvious solution is to spread the internet to the remotest corners of the world, and let globalization take place. Yet I am rather skeptical that this is going to occur in any reasonable period, given the complete lack of decent infrastructure investment in undeveloped countries. The internet has reached everywhere, but in many places it is used only by a priveleged technological caste that has little relationship to the rest of the country - really just postcolonial extensions of economic power.
Will the majority of the world continue to be ignored and relegated to a communication backwater? This could have disturbing ramifications for the future...
(A note: I'm not making any claims about the relative merits of cultures and ideas. Maybe I'll completely disagree with that Bangladeshi farmer's viewpoint. But without his input, he and his kind are completely excluded from the discourse of a global community that is increasingly making far-reaching decisions as a group.)
13.2.06
Words that sound funny
In recent conversations with a friend of mine in vet school we've both remarked that some anatomical terms are just fun to say, and sound pretty silly. I found it odd, but then realized that we're only noticing this because the terms are new ones to us, so we consciously notice the sounds we are making. Some of them were:
crista galli
ansa cervicalis
omohyoid
sacula
tunica flava
cricoid
abducent
zygomaticofacial
pronator teres
arytenoid
bulbospongiousus
falx cerebri (this is my favorite, personally)
I could go on (this is only anatomical terms! I haven't even TALKED about other biological terms...). But thinking about it, I realized that there are plenty of everyday words that sound funny, too, when stripped of their associations:
puke
bagel
cabal
intriguing
glue
spinnaker
grumble
weasel
...etc, etc. What's your favorite weird-sounding word? Though I started off in English, people are more than welcome to include other languages, eh?
Oh, and useful fact of the day: Cheez-it crackers, even after being left half-finished in a cabinet for at least three or four months, do not readily go stale. *munches away happily*
crista galli
ansa cervicalis
omohyoid
sacula
tunica flava
cricoid
abducent
zygomaticofacial
pronator teres
arytenoid
bulbospongiousus
falx cerebri (this is my favorite, personally)
I could go on (this is only anatomical terms! I haven't even TALKED about other biological terms...). But thinking about it, I realized that there are plenty of everyday words that sound funny, too, when stripped of their associations:
puke
bagel
cabal
intriguing
glue
spinnaker
grumble
weasel
...etc, etc. What's your favorite weird-sounding word? Though I started off in English, people are more than welcome to include other languages, eh?
Oh, and useful fact of the day: Cheez-it crackers, even after being left half-finished in a cabinet for at least three or four months, do not readily go stale. *munches away happily*
9.2.06
They really are rather loose (especially the change)
Last year, I was somewhat puzzled and annoyed by an inexplicable advertisement on the L platform outside my old apartment. I was rather amused, roughly a year later, when I saw an advertisement from the same bank (Citi, I believe) in Washington, D.C. (I was there for a conference). It read:
"Don't be money hungry; you don't know where it's been."
Given my confusion about their earlier ad, maybe they really were talking about promiscuous dollar bills! I'm not quite sure why that would drive me to give them my money. Perhaps I'm just not market-savvy.
"Don't be money hungry; you don't know where it's been."
Given my confusion about their earlier ad, maybe they really were talking about promiscuous dollar bills! I'm not quite sure why that would drive me to give them my money. Perhaps I'm just not market-savvy.
8.2.06
I actually liked the underwear on the outside bit
So... I've noticed that for a so-called 'advice column', I've been remarkably terrible about actually giving any advice to petitioners. At least I haven't been charging these supposed petitioners for my services. Anyhow, here goes one from the comments a long ways back. Edited for my own personal enjoyment:
Ms. Chatul,
First off, I must congratulate you for the correct capitalization of my name. I know you didn't actually write that (I added it), but it warms my heart to see it done correctly. Kinda like Harry S Truman. But instead it's Ender 'matlabfreak' wiggin. Odd, eh?
Hmm... now to answer your question, that's a tough one. Using my amazingly in-depth knowledge of superhero lore*, I will proceed to leave you breathless at the genius of my answers. The answer depends on a lot of factors. What are my powers? If I were Superman, now that would be pretty cool... but Batman? I mean, the guy's just got a cool costume and a hot car, but no impressive powers. Er... if you know any other superhero powers, you're ahead of me.
Another thing: Do I get to keep my powers after giving up my status? After all, what do superheros have other than their powers? Just a lot of headaches with changing costumes, almost getting killed by the bad guys, foiling criminals and evil masterminds alike.
And they don't even get lucky with the ladies, either! It's possible that not every part of Superman is super, but I think that most ladies would somehow be willing to overlook some things in order to date Superman, right? *Shrugs* Yet somehow he never manages to get anywhere with Lois (uh... that is, I think so. Did they ever get together?).
Lastly, there's the bit about all those weird outfits. Those capes and skintight suits with underwear on the outside and weird hats and stuff... not really my scene.
So, there you go! Sounds pretty simple - keep the powers, get the girls, wear jeans. Without any of that 'I'll get you next time!' stuff. What could be better?
Until the next time I feel like blowing off a real post,
Wiggin
(*) I read a comic once. Well, half of one.
Dear wiggin,
If you are living the life of a superhero, what kinds of things would you give up your superhero status for.. assuming the usual problems of wanting to do good, but having identity problems where you can't tell anyone what you're really doing?
Meow,
Meowmix Chatul
Ms. Chatul,
First off, I must congratulate you for the correct capitalization of my name. I know you didn't actually write that (I added it), but it warms my heart to see it done correctly. Kinda like Harry S Truman. But instead it's Ender 'matlabfreak' wiggin. Odd, eh?
Hmm... now to answer your question, that's a tough one. Using my amazingly in-depth knowledge of superhero lore*, I will proceed to leave you breathless at the genius of my answers. The answer depends on a lot of factors. What are my powers? If I were Superman, now that would be pretty cool... but Batman? I mean, the guy's just got a cool costume and a hot car, but no impressive powers. Er... if you know any other superhero powers, you're ahead of me.
Another thing: Do I get to keep my powers after giving up my status? After all, what do superheros have other than their powers? Just a lot of headaches with changing costumes, almost getting killed by the bad guys, foiling criminals and evil masterminds alike.
And they don't even get lucky with the ladies, either! It's possible that not every part of Superman is super, but I think that most ladies would somehow be willing to overlook some things in order to date Superman, right? *Shrugs* Yet somehow he never manages to get anywhere with Lois (uh... that is, I think so. Did they ever get together?).
Lastly, there's the bit about all those weird outfits. Those capes and skintight suits with underwear on the outside and weird hats and stuff... not really my scene.
So, there you go! Sounds pretty simple - keep the powers, get the girls, wear jeans. Without any of that 'I'll get you next time!' stuff. What could be better?
Until the next time I feel like blowing off a real post,
Wiggin
(*) I read a comic once. Well, half of one.
5.2.06
Heading nowhere good
I hate to do this so soon after other Israel-related posts (I have other good ideas floating around, but they take too much time to write until anatomy is finished), but worrisome events have been cascading. I won't bother you all with my own 'analysis' of much of these, as you can find any opinion you want in the media and online.
Instead, what I wish to address is the growing rift between settlers and the rest of Israeli society - and, more worrisome, the shift of this conflict into one between the religious and secular. My comments are precipitated, of course, by the recent events in Amona, where overeager police violently removed protesting settlers from the outpost (injuring several hundred along the way), and destroyed the settlement. While not occasioning that much comment in the world, the images of the unprecedented violent confrontation between armored riot police and thousands of settlers shook many Israelis. Previously, removal of illegal outposts (or evacuation of legal settlements, as those in Sinai in the 70s and the Gaza disengagement) had been done in a forceful, but generally peacable manner (ie, people had to be carried out, but generally did not harm or attack the police/army, nor did the army use excessive force against the settlers and protestors). The Amona dismantling changed all of that, in a worrisome direction. I won't give the details of what happened - you can search either Ha'aretz or Arutz Sheva for the leftist and rightist sides of what happened, respectively. Suffice it to say, it was an ugly confrontation that had the police coming ready to do violence, and the settlers barricaded and determined not to move. Hundreds of people (mostly protestors) were injured, and dozens were arrested.
I find this development troubling, because it brings a issue that has been simmering for years into clarity.
First off: I have no problem whatsoever with the government choosing to dismantle illegally built outposts. People may whine about the timing having to do with Olmert's election strategy, but I don't care. Settlers who build illegal outposts know full well that their homes can be legally destroyed. They know that they are breaking the law to make a point - protesting the government's actions with construction (a non-violent but very visible form of protest, no?). Similarly, I have no issues with protestors using civil disobedience (ie, refusing to leave the outpost) to protest this, nor do is there an issue with the government arresting those individuals if they break a law (I don't know, obstructing something). My issues lies in the fact that the government rejected compromises with the settlers, and then came loaded for bear, more than ready and willing to use excessive force to remove the protestors. And most of the Israeli public and media noticed, shrugged, and went on with their lives, perhaps saying, 'eh, the settlers deserved it.'
Treppenwitz, a blog I've recently begun reading, has an interesting analysis of the systematic exclusion and disenfranchisement of settlers by the Israeli government as it relates to the Amona demolition. I don't agree with all of it, but it helped highlight some of the issues that have been bothering me.
The so-called 'hilltop youth' of the settler movement have been demonized by Israeli society in an unseemly way. They are portrayed as blindly following the orders of ideological leaders, willing to do anything and everything to preserve settlements. In the disengagement from Gaza, the media and government as violent radicals that would resort to deadly force against Israeli police and soldiers to keep the evacuations from proceeding. Though this failed to materialize (yes, yes, there were some incidents of assault, I won't deny this - but with tens of thousands of protestors, things could easily have gotten much, much worse, though they never did), most people attributed this to the amazingly sensitive job done by the IDF (there is a great deal of truth to this) rather than on any restraint on the part of the young protestors.
In the months following Gaza and leading up to Amona, this perception has been reinforced further. The hilltop youth are no longer seen as Israeli citizens with a legitimate right to peacefully protest the destruction and negotiation away of their homes and ideals, but rather as a dangerous fringe group of fundamentalists who will tear the fabric of Israeli society. Not cool at all.
Many Israelis are legitimately frustrated that the settlement movement has such sway over the government's security and diplomatic considerations. Many, particularly the secular Israelis, believe that the settlers are dragging Israel into a costly and painful war over their own religious beliefs, imposing them on the rest of Israel. They neglect to realize that every Israeli administration has supported the building and expansion of settlements, and that the vast majority of settlers are peacable, deeply patriotic Israelis who are great assets to their society.
The settlers, on the other hand, by and large religious, see the majority of Israel reversing on its earlier encouragement to build settlements, and joining forces to ostracize the very people who used to protest Israeli national interests.
This growing dichotomy in Israeli society has merged with another difficult issue - the secular/religious divide on religious, social, political, and diplomatic issues. Unfortunately, these issues are not being addressed or minimized by any parts of Israeli society. Most of the meaningful contact that religious and secular Israelis (and settler and non-settler Israelis) has occured in the IDF, and much good has come out of this 'great equalizer'. But I wonder... if the settlers begin to see the army and police as brutal arms of a government policy intentionally aimed against them (as Amona would seem to indicate), then how long will even this last? IDF commanders had talked about not allowing 'hilltop youth' who participated in protesting disengagement to join the military... will this become a trend?
If things like this continue, it is all too easy to see the change of the National Religious (dati leumi) community into a large, disenfranchised, reviled section of Israeli society. Israel would be foolish to allow this to continue; the National Religious community is a very important asset to Israel, full of dynamic, hardworking, committed citizens. To dump them as the 'unwanted children' of former government policies would be immoral and foolish.
I can only hope that someone in Israel realizes this - soon - and fixes the problems. This is *not* something that can wait.
(One last point: I do understand that the NR community has also distanced itself from the rest of Israeli society and created poltical rifts, further exacerbating the issue. I think that people from both sides need to reach out to bridge the growing rift. Yet Amona was far more a fault of the Israeli government and vilification in the media than any actions by the settlement movement. And the Yesha Council, though often unhappy with things, has consistently tried to create compromises with the government, only to be spurned after which the media blames 'settler intransigence'. The rule of law must hold, of course, but this goes way beyond enforcing government decisions.)
Instead, what I wish to address is the growing rift between settlers and the rest of Israeli society - and, more worrisome, the shift of this conflict into one between the religious and secular. My comments are precipitated, of course, by the recent events in Amona, where overeager police violently removed protesting settlers from the outpost (injuring several hundred along the way), and destroyed the settlement. While not occasioning that much comment in the world, the images of the unprecedented violent confrontation between armored riot police and thousands of settlers shook many Israelis. Previously, removal of illegal outposts (or evacuation of legal settlements, as those in Sinai in the 70s and the Gaza disengagement) had been done in a forceful, but generally peacable manner (ie, people had to be carried out, but generally did not harm or attack the police/army, nor did the army use excessive force against the settlers and protestors). The Amona dismantling changed all of that, in a worrisome direction. I won't give the details of what happened - you can search either Ha'aretz or Arutz Sheva for the leftist and rightist sides of what happened, respectively. Suffice it to say, it was an ugly confrontation that had the police coming ready to do violence, and the settlers barricaded and determined not to move. Hundreds of people (mostly protestors) were injured, and dozens were arrested.
I find this development troubling, because it brings a issue that has been simmering for years into clarity.
First off: I have no problem whatsoever with the government choosing to dismantle illegally built outposts. People may whine about the timing having to do with Olmert's election strategy, but I don't care. Settlers who build illegal outposts know full well that their homes can be legally destroyed. They know that they are breaking the law to make a point - protesting the government's actions with construction (a non-violent but very visible form of protest, no?). Similarly, I have no issues with protestors using civil disobedience (ie, refusing to leave the outpost) to protest this, nor do is there an issue with the government arresting those individuals if they break a law (I don't know, obstructing something). My issues lies in the fact that the government rejected compromises with the settlers, and then came loaded for bear, more than ready and willing to use excessive force to remove the protestors. And most of the Israeli public and media noticed, shrugged, and went on with their lives, perhaps saying, 'eh, the settlers deserved it.'
Treppenwitz, a blog I've recently begun reading, has an interesting analysis of the systematic exclusion and disenfranchisement of settlers by the Israeli government as it relates to the Amona demolition. I don't agree with all of it, but it helped highlight some of the issues that have been bothering me.
The so-called 'hilltop youth' of the settler movement have been demonized by Israeli society in an unseemly way. They are portrayed as blindly following the orders of ideological leaders, willing to do anything and everything to preserve settlements. In the disengagement from Gaza, the media and government as violent radicals that would resort to deadly force against Israeli police and soldiers to keep the evacuations from proceeding. Though this failed to materialize (yes, yes, there were some incidents of assault, I won't deny this - but with tens of thousands of protestors, things could easily have gotten much, much worse, though they never did), most people attributed this to the amazingly sensitive job done by the IDF (there is a great deal of truth to this) rather than on any restraint on the part of the young protestors.
In the months following Gaza and leading up to Amona, this perception has been reinforced further. The hilltop youth are no longer seen as Israeli citizens with a legitimate right to peacefully protest the destruction and negotiation away of their homes and ideals, but rather as a dangerous fringe group of fundamentalists who will tear the fabric of Israeli society. Not cool at all.
Many Israelis are legitimately frustrated that the settlement movement has such sway over the government's security and diplomatic considerations. Many, particularly the secular Israelis, believe that the settlers are dragging Israel into a costly and painful war over their own religious beliefs, imposing them on the rest of Israel. They neglect to realize that every Israeli administration has supported the building and expansion of settlements, and that the vast majority of settlers are peacable, deeply patriotic Israelis who are great assets to their society.
The settlers, on the other hand, by and large religious, see the majority of Israel reversing on its earlier encouragement to build settlements, and joining forces to ostracize the very people who used to protest Israeli national interests.
This growing dichotomy in Israeli society has merged with another difficult issue - the secular/religious divide on religious, social, political, and diplomatic issues. Unfortunately, these issues are not being addressed or minimized by any parts of Israeli society. Most of the meaningful contact that religious and secular Israelis (and settler and non-settler Israelis) has occured in the IDF, and much good has come out of this 'great equalizer'. But I wonder... if the settlers begin to see the army and police as brutal arms of a government policy intentionally aimed against them (as Amona would seem to indicate), then how long will even this last? IDF commanders had talked about not allowing 'hilltop youth' who participated in protesting disengagement to join the military... will this become a trend?
If things like this continue, it is all too easy to see the change of the National Religious (dati leumi) community into a large, disenfranchised, reviled section of Israeli society. Israel would be foolish to allow this to continue; the National Religious community is a very important asset to Israel, full of dynamic, hardworking, committed citizens. To dump them as the 'unwanted children' of former government policies would be immoral and foolish.
I can only hope that someone in Israel realizes this - soon - and fixes the problems. This is *not* something that can wait.
(One last point: I do understand that the NR community has also distanced itself from the rest of Israeli society and created poltical rifts, further exacerbating the issue. I think that people from both sides need to reach out to bridge the growing rift. Yet Amona was far more a fault of the Israeli government and vilification in the media than any actions by the settlement movement. And the Yesha Council, though often unhappy with things, has consistently tried to create compromises with the government, only to be spurned after which the media blames 'settler intransigence'. The rule of law must hold, of course, but this goes way beyond enforcing government decisions.)
22.1.06
Sobering yet fascinating thoughts from the front
I have lost count of the articles, books, interviews, blog posts, speeches, presentations, etc. I have read and/or attended about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I've tried reading histories, current events, political and military analyses, etc... but none of them has captured the most recent intafada in a more human light than a blog that is being serialized on Jpost, Chayal Boded. The author is a non-ideological American who made aliyah (ie, moved permanently to Israel) in 2001. He spent six months in an ulpan (a intensive Hebrew instruction course), and then was drafted into the Israeli army (like everyone else his age). He ended up getting into an elite commando unit, and the blog is a serialization of bits from letters home.
The blog brilliantly shows the dilemma being faced by soldiers in the IDF. The IDF prides itself on attempting to be the moral army of the world, but they are always faced with contradictions between the need to secure their country, and always adhering to a strict ethical code.
The latest entry was very powerful. An excerpt:
At the bottom of the linked page are the previous posts, which are all uniquely fascinating. I found Sabrinah, a post about apprehending a female would-be suicide bomber, to be particularly interesting. He explores some of the most difficult issues facing the IDF counter-terror operations today from a first-person perspective.
If you have to read anything I've written or linked to on this website, read this.
The blog brilliantly shows the dilemma being faced by soldiers in the IDF. The IDF prides itself on attempting to be the moral army of the world, but they are always faced with contradictions between the need to secure their country, and always adhering to a strict ethical code.
The latest entry was very powerful. An excerpt:
For all of us, but especially for Tomer, it all seemed like a big game. Tomer was the crew's medic, and he breezed through training with a funky kipa and a grin so big that it threatened to swallow his whole face. His pants were always a little too baggy and his helmet a little cock-eyed, and before long, his careless happiness and trademark smile earned him the moniker "Joker" from the other recruits. He was our mascot. Even in basic training, our officer would catch a glimpse of Tomer in rank in the midst of reprimanding us for one thing or another, and he'd have to turn and walk away in a vain attempt to stifle a smile. On our final and most difficult march before "graduating" to operation status, when everybody was pushed to the limit and absolutely exhausted, there was Tomer, singing and skipping along.
Then, on one of our first missions inside the Palestinian cities, Tomer killed a kid, or at least he thought he did, and suddenly it wasn't fun anymore.
At the bottom of the linked page are the previous posts, which are all uniquely fascinating. I found Sabrinah, a post about apprehending a female would-be suicide bomber, to be particularly interesting. He explores some of the most difficult issues facing the IDF counter-terror operations today from a first-person perspective.
If you have to read anything I've written or linked to on this website, read this.
16.1.06
The Scientist as Hero, indeed
A few years ago, a friend of mine had been raving at me about Kim Stanley Robinson, so I picked up his Mars Trilogy (Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars). Briefly, it chronicles a truly fascinating method of colonizing Mars, and all of the trials and tribulations involved over the course of some two centuries. I tried reading the trilogy then, and found it interesting, but interminably slow at parts. I got the general idea (though I never did finish Blue Mars), but I just put the books aside until another time.
A few months ago, I picked up Red Mars and tried rereading it in earnest. I read the books in small blocks of time chipped out of my anatomy studying, and found that the books were really quite enjoyable. KSR takes quite a bit of poetic license in some arenas - for one, predicting technological advances and a speed of innovation that are ridiculously accelerated. But his ideas are always fascinating, his humor is oddball but amusing, and his landscapes are impressive.
What makes his books more than just another random SF trilogy, though, are his characters. Robinson has a knack for creating eminently likable people of a wide variety of temperaments. Part of it is that he stereotypes characters, but then draws out what makes them so stereotyped, and uses this to make a point. He has the Mind Doctor, Michel, who needs more doctoring than anyone else, the Engineer, Nadia, who has a compulsion to build lasting things, the Politician, the Revolutionary, etc, etc. All of the characters are beautifully constructed, and a joy to read about.
The best character by far, though, is the Scientist, Sax Russel. In the beginning of Green Mars KSR had one beautiful passage that left me speechless at his aptness in describing how scientists like to look at the world:
Later in the book, Sax discusses with a few characters about why he cannot abide by his 'Great Unexplainable', and works always to reduce the boundaries of it. Robinson shows a deep understanding of what drives true scientists - the wish to know, to understand, to explain.
I am an engineer, so my desire for understanding is tempered by a desire to use knowledge usefully, but I can understand Sax's frustration at not being able to answer, "Why?" I don't think we will ever know all of those why's from science... even the answer, "That's how it came out in the Big Bang," isn't really an answer, but rather just a more ultimate Why. Nevertheless, there is a certain joy and satisfaction in being able to quantify the universe, and to point at something that occurs, and say, "Aha! This is happening because of X."
I view this as a means to an end, a way to then change things given our understanding of how they work. The Scientist, though, pursues the answer as a means to its own end, on the premise that more knowledge is a good end to itself.
I wonder if teaching this fundamental value of natural knowledge to the non-scientists of the world would be a good thing. I think it would be. Thoughts?
A few months ago, I picked up Red Mars and tried rereading it in earnest. I read the books in small blocks of time chipped out of my anatomy studying, and found that the books were really quite enjoyable. KSR takes quite a bit of poetic license in some arenas - for one, predicting technological advances and a speed of innovation that are ridiculously accelerated. But his ideas are always fascinating, his humor is oddball but amusing, and his landscapes are impressive.
What makes his books more than just another random SF trilogy, though, are his characters. Robinson has a knack for creating eminently likable people of a wide variety of temperaments. Part of it is that he stereotypes characters, but then draws out what makes them so stereotyped, and uses this to make a point. He has the Mind Doctor, Michel, who needs more doctoring than anyone else, the Engineer, Nadia, who has a compulsion to build lasting things, the Politician, the Revolutionary, etc, etc. All of the characters are beautifully constructed, and a joy to read about.
The best character by far, though, is the Scientist, Sax Russel. In the beginning of Green Mars KSR had one beautiful passage that left me speechless at his aptness in describing how scientists like to look at the world:
About a year later Nirgal and the other children began to figure out how to deal with the days when they were taught by Sax. He would start at the blackboard, sounding like a characterless AI, and behind his back they would roll their eyes and make faces as he droned on about partial pressures or infrared rays. Then one of them would see an opening and begin the game. He was helpless before it. He would say something like, "In nonshivering thermogenesis the body produces head using futile cycles," and one of them would raise a hand and say, "But why, Sax?" and everyone would stare hard at their lectern and not look at each other, while Sax would frown as if this had never happened before, and say, "Well, it creates heat without using as much energy as shivering does. The muscle proteins contract, but instead of grabbing they just slide over each other, and that creates heat."
Jackie, so sincerely the whole class nearly lost it: "But how?"
He was blinking now, so fast they almost exploded watching him. "Well, the amino acids in the proteins have broken covalent bonds, and the bonds release what is called bond dissociation energy."
"But why?"
Blinking ever harder: "Well, that's just a matter of physics." He diagrammed vigorously on the blackboard: "Covalent bonds are formed when two atomic orbitals merge to form a single bond orbital, occupied by electrons from both atoms. Breaking the bond releases thirty to a hundred kcals of energy."
Several of them asked, in chorus, "But why?"
This got him into subatomic physics, where the chain of whys and becauses could go on for a half hour without him ever once saying something they could understand. Finally they would sense they were near the end game. "But why?"
"Well," going cross-eyed as he tried to backtrack, "atoms want to get to their stable number of electrons, and they'll share electrons when they have to."
"But why?"
Now he was looking trapped. "That's just the way atoms bond. One of the ways."
"But WHY?"
A shrug. "That's how the atomic force works. That's how things came out-"
And they would all shout, "in the Big Bang."
They would howl with glee, and Sax's forehead would knot up as he realized that they had done it to him again. He would sigh, and go back to where he had been when the game began. But every time they started it again, he never seemed to remember, as long as the initial why was plausible enough. And even when he did recognize what was happening, he seemed helpless to stop it. His only defense was to say with a little frown, "Why what?" That slowed the game for a while; but then Nirgal and Jackie got clever in guessing what in any statement most deserved a why, and as long as they could do that, Sax seemed to feel it was his job to continue answering, right on up the chains of because to the Big Bang, or, every once in a while, to a muttered "We don't know."
"We don't know!" the class would exclaim in mock dismay. "Why not?"
"It's not explained," he said, frowning. "Not yet."
Later in the book, Sax discusses with a few characters about why he cannot abide by his 'Great Unexplainable', and works always to reduce the boundaries of it. Robinson shows a deep understanding of what drives true scientists - the wish to know, to understand, to explain.
I am an engineer, so my desire for understanding is tempered by a desire to use knowledge usefully, but I can understand Sax's frustration at not being able to answer, "Why?" I don't think we will ever know all of those why's from science... even the answer, "That's how it came out in the Big Bang," isn't really an answer, but rather just a more ultimate Why. Nevertheless, there is a certain joy and satisfaction in being able to quantify the universe, and to point at something that occurs, and say, "Aha! This is happening because of X."
I view this as a means to an end, a way to then change things given our understanding of how they work. The Scientist, though, pursues the answer as a means to its own end, on the premise that more knowledge is a good end to itself.
I wonder if teaching this fundamental value of natural knowledge to the non-scientists of the world would be a good thing. I think it would be. Thoughts?
27.12.05
Iran and Syria... rational actors?
Now this is a surprise... two posts in as many days?!
As most of my well-informed (and stunningly attractive and intelligent) readers may know, tensions along the Israeli-Lebanese border have been heating up. Several weeks ago, there were barrages of rocket attacks on Israeli towns in the northern Galil, and several infiltration/kidnapping attempts on IDF positions. Just today, Kiryat Shmoneh was hit by Katyusha fire. Needless to say, Israelis are not happy - they pulled out of Lebanon over five years ago precisely to end this sort of violence.
The Jerusalem Post had an interesting editorial that matches much of what has been recommended by a number of Israeli sources in the last few months. To summarize: The old model of Israeli retaliation on terrorist sites after an attack needs to be replaced by direct raids and retaliation on the governments that support such terrorist organizations - in this case, most notably Syria (though other editorials do not feel that Iran and the PA should be free of said attacks).
This is not news - there have been statements coming out of IDF High Command for quite some time that seem to agree on most points. If Hezbollah continues to attack targets in northern Israel, Israel will begin to attack targets in Syria (likely military installations and terrorist training grounds, using IAF strikes).
The logic, the article claims, is thus: Syria is reacting to intense international pressure by attacking Israel through its proxy. As the rest of the world refuses to do anything other than talk, Syria must be taught forcefully that it will directly pay for using such tactics.
I feel that this article may have a point, but its logic is flawed. In another JPost editorial (I can't seem to find it anymore; roughly 2-3 weeks before this post), the author was claiming that while no one would like to see a nuclear Iran, Israel could survive with one, given their enormous deterrence capability. The article suggested improving Israel's nuclear and retaliatory powers even further so that Iran would be foolish to start a nuclear war.
Both of these articles assumed something quite dangerous. They assume that Iran and Syria are rational players in international politics. (I don't mean rational in the colloquial sense, but rather in the political science context.) Can Syria truly 'learn' that its behavior in reacting to international pressure will have dire consequences from Israeli retaliations - and will this translate into better policies? Syria knows that Israel is a leashed guard dog - it may bark, it may even bite anyone who gets close enough, but it is being held back from truly ruinous retaliation by the US (and, to a lesser extent, by other nations). Even if it is scared by the Israeli threats (and eventually, actions), will Syria make the connection between this and its actions?
I think not. Similarly, I could argue that deterrence in Iran only works assuming that Iran is rational.
IDF High Commands knows this more than I do. Why are they developing this new policy toward Syria? I think that the true target of this policy is not Syria, but rather the rest of the world. The rest of the world realizes that Israel is just waiting for a chance to really mess with Syria. They fought a proxy war with Syria for 20 years to no real end, and never really got to damage them much in either of the major wars they fought directly with the country. If the international community can be spooked by Israel's more provocative actions, they may bring even greater pressure to bear on Syria to shape up.
The danger of this, of course, is that if Israel is too aggressive, the attention will shift from Syrian intransigence to Israel, and the opportunity will have been lost. For now, the world sympathizes with Israel on its northern border... but for how long? I wonder.
What is much more worrisome than Syria, though, is Iran. Israel cannot have a logical reason for believing that deterrence will work. And they have only made vague noises about attacking Iran. In reality, most 'experts' seem to think that it would be extremely difficult to carry off. Iran's nuclear facilities are dispersed and well-protected, and are at the very edge of the IAF's striking distance. More difficult would be the presence of a huge American force directly between Israel and Iran, meaning that Israel would either have to skirt around Iraq, or suffer the consequences (either political or military) of infringing on US-controlled airspace.
Thus, Israel seems to have no real options in dealing with Iran... and the world's diplomatic efforts seem to have failed in the light of new Iranian president.
Israel must hope that Iran is rational. That is not the most reassuring of thoughts.
Any suggestions?
As most of my well-informed (and stunningly attractive and intelligent) readers may know, tensions along the Israeli-Lebanese border have been heating up. Several weeks ago, there were barrages of rocket attacks on Israeli towns in the northern Galil, and several infiltration/kidnapping attempts on IDF positions. Just today, Kiryat Shmoneh was hit by Katyusha fire. Needless to say, Israelis are not happy - they pulled out of Lebanon over five years ago precisely to end this sort of violence.
The Jerusalem Post had an interesting editorial that matches much of what has been recommended by a number of Israeli sources in the last few months. To summarize: The old model of Israeli retaliation on terrorist sites after an attack needs to be replaced by direct raids and retaliation on the governments that support such terrorist organizations - in this case, most notably Syria (though other editorials do not feel that Iran and the PA should be free of said attacks).
This is not news - there have been statements coming out of IDF High Command for quite some time that seem to agree on most points. If Hezbollah continues to attack targets in northern Israel, Israel will begin to attack targets in Syria (likely military installations and terrorist training grounds, using IAF strikes).
The logic, the article claims, is thus: Syria is reacting to intense international pressure by attacking Israel through its proxy. As the rest of the world refuses to do anything other than talk, Syria must be taught forcefully that it will directly pay for using such tactics.
I feel that this article may have a point, but its logic is flawed. In another JPost editorial (I can't seem to find it anymore; roughly 2-3 weeks before this post), the author was claiming that while no one would like to see a nuclear Iran, Israel could survive with one, given their enormous deterrence capability. The article suggested improving Israel's nuclear and retaliatory powers even further so that Iran would be foolish to start a nuclear war.
Both of these articles assumed something quite dangerous. They assume that Iran and Syria are rational players in international politics. (I don't mean rational in the colloquial sense, but rather in the political science context.) Can Syria truly 'learn' that its behavior in reacting to international pressure will have dire consequences from Israeli retaliations - and will this translate into better policies? Syria knows that Israel is a leashed guard dog - it may bark, it may even bite anyone who gets close enough, but it is being held back from truly ruinous retaliation by the US (and, to a lesser extent, by other nations). Even if it is scared by the Israeli threats (and eventually, actions), will Syria make the connection between this and its actions?
I think not. Similarly, I could argue that deterrence in Iran only works assuming that Iran is rational.
IDF High Commands knows this more than I do. Why are they developing this new policy toward Syria? I think that the true target of this policy is not Syria, but rather the rest of the world. The rest of the world realizes that Israel is just waiting for a chance to really mess with Syria. They fought a proxy war with Syria for 20 years to no real end, and never really got to damage them much in either of the major wars they fought directly with the country. If the international community can be spooked by Israel's more provocative actions, they may bring even greater pressure to bear on Syria to shape up.
The danger of this, of course, is that if Israel is too aggressive, the attention will shift from Syrian intransigence to Israel, and the opportunity will have been lost. For now, the world sympathizes with Israel on its northern border... but for how long? I wonder.
What is much more worrisome than Syria, though, is Iran. Israel cannot have a logical reason for believing that deterrence will work. And they have only made vague noises about attacking Iran. In reality, most 'experts' seem to think that it would be extremely difficult to carry off. Iran's nuclear facilities are dispersed and well-protected, and are at the very edge of the IAF's striking distance. More difficult would be the presence of a huge American force directly between Israel and Iran, meaning that Israel would either have to skirt around Iraq, or suffer the consequences (either political or military) of infringing on US-controlled airspace.
Thus, Israel seems to have no real options in dealing with Iran... and the world's diplomatic efforts seem to have failed in the light of new Iranian president.
Israel must hope that Iran is rational. That is not the most reassuring of thoughts.
Any suggestions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
