Butting Heads With "True Belivers"

I should have known better. Yuval called in the cavalry and the following is one of the results:

How dare you evoke Hitler as a metaphor or an analogy of Yuval. the only reason that I can think of for you to do that is your lack of any other reasonable arguments.

However, in your ignorant self serving justification of the Palestinians, you are helping to bring disaster upon all of our heads. Stop listening to yourself if you can, and listen to them. In Arabic. [!] Palestinians who want a better life have already left the PA. They were a little better educated with a little more money. Those who remain have been brainwashed in a culture that worships death and hate. When children are asked: "Given a choice between democracy freedom and peace, and Shahada ( martyrdom via suicide/terror) what would you choose?" The girls look at the questioner as if he had gone mad and answer "Shahada". Jews are likened in Friday sermons to monkeys and pigs who should be killed. Jews are demonized to Palestinian children from the time they are babies. Young children are taught conflict management on one level only: someone cuts down your tree, run into the house, get your assault rifle and committ a massacre.

When you realize that all of your arguments are the joke on you, and the Palestinians are laughing because they have managed to hide their agenda from you, maybe we will have a chance.

In the meantime, Please remove me from the list of people to whom you expose your venom. Yuval sent me a copy of your correspondance: that is his right . He is my friend. You however are a venemous self satisfied example of a person in whom a little knowledge does a great deal of damage.

Linda

And she calls me venomous?!

I have learned - or actually re-learned - one thing from all of this: There is really no point to even trying to reason with these people. They need, simply, to be ignored.

Indian Ocean Catastrophe

One of the more telling indicators of the magnitude of the catastrophe in the Indian Ocean is how consistently the New York Times has been "wrong" on the death toll. In this morning's edition, for instance, the NYT reported the death toll at 80,000. That was probably an accurate report of the count at their deadline. But, by the time I picked got the paper this morning, NPR was already reporting a death toll of well over 100,000, and tonight, as I wrote this, CNN was reporting that the toll has climbed above 118,000. That was as of 9:01 ET. Who knows where it is now. It has been like this every day this week. By the time the paper edition of the NYT gets to the street, their report of the death toll is obscenely low.

In the "a picture is worth a thousand words" department, look at the picture that accompanies this story. Closely. Save it to your desk top and blow it up in Photoshop or whatever, if you can, because all is not what it appears at first glance.

I went looking for videos of the disaster last night and ended up a Cheese and Crackers, which has links to just about everything available, I think, so I'll give JL credit, although these videos are now available on a host of blogs. Kudos and thanks to all of you guys. The videos, though, are absolutely horrifying. If you go surfing for these, seriously consider making a donation. Given the size of the videos and the demand for viewing them, the bandwidth requirements for posting these are apparently prodigious. Also, most are promising to send some or all of any excess donations to relief organizations. JL at Cheese and Crackers says he has collected $6.5 million so far! Given that, I'm sending my donation to Pundit Guy, who seems particularly desperate in this regard. Hope you don't mind JL.

Still More of the Yuval-Bill Debates

As you might have expected, my allusion to Hitler was -- shall we say -- not well recieved. In the interests of fairness and completeness, here is Yuvals response along with my defense:

Yuval: Now your true face reveals itself.

Bill: What face is that? The face of a man who is appalled at the idea that someone would seriously advocate "relocating" the West Bank Palestinians "elsewhere"? Yes, I am appalled.

Yuval:There is nothing more telling about a person than the invocation by him of Hitler.

Bill: Excuse me, but the first mention of Hitler came from you: "Furthermore, the term humiliation is reminiscent of 1933 Germany. The Germans were 'humiliated' therefore they saw themselves justified to murder the entire Europe. " I simply took your own analogy and turned it around. However, given the incendiary nature of such an allusion, I regret it. Slobodan Milosevic would have suited my purposes just as well.

Yuval: In my response I will try to stay on a higher ground although I do not think you deserve it. Here is why all your comments totally miss the mark and prove not only your ignorance about the Middle East conflict, but your bias.

Bill: I'm not sure calling me "ignorant" and "biased" is what I would call "staying on higher ground", but let's let that pass.

Yuval:I have no contempt for anybody, it is a feeling I do not posses. I was raised by an Arab woman and on the personal level I have absolutely no animosity to anybody, nor bad thoughts. Quite the contrary, I admire the Arabs for the success they have in their propaganda which is aimed at gullible people like yourself. The only feeling I have towards our mortal enemy is epitomized in a Talmud saying: "Respect and suspect."

Bill: Excuse me again, but wasn't it you who said: "The Arab-Palestinians, as they should be called, have no distinct attributes or characteristics separating them as a nation from other Arabs in the Middle East?" If denying a people's existence as a distinct group with a distinct consciousness and identify is not contempt, then I do not know what is.

Yuval: What we are dealing with is a conflict between two peoples, one whose goal is to destroy the other and one whose goal is to reach reasonable and honorable solution. I and ALL Israelis belong to the latter.

Bill: Here is the core of our disagreement. I do not believe the Palestinian goal is to destroy Israel any more than I believe that is the goal of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon or Iraq. All of these countries/entities did at one time have that goal. But things have changed. Today, all that any of them want is a return of the land they lost in 1967 (except for Jordan which doesn't even want that) and a State for the Palestinians on the West Bank, a symbolic nod to the "right of return", a capital in East Jerusalem, and some sort of agreement on access to and control of the Temple Mount. To them, that is the "reasonable and honorable" solution and to them it is Israel that wants to "destroy" those aspirations. Talk of destroying Israel, even of the right of return, is a mixture of propaganda and posturing for purposes of negotiation. Israel does a bit of that as well, as does any party to a negotiation.

Yuval:"Race" has nothing to do with anything (this more than everything reveals our bias). Nationality on the other hand has everything to do with it.

Bill: I intentionally put "race" in quotes to denote that I was using it in other than its normal sense. Even so, it was not a good choice of words. I should have said "people" or "nation."

Yuval: Just like the French, the Australians, the Americans and any other national unit, the Jewish people are entitled to their own land, particularly their 3000 years historical land.

Bill: Have I ever disagreed with this? My question is, why is not the same true for the West Bank and Gaza Palestinians? Your answer is, apparently, that they are not "distinct" enough. However, I think they believe you are wrong in that. And it is what they believe, not what you or I believe, that is what matters. The issue I have is not the right of the Jewish people to a land of their own. The issue is how much of Palestine that land should include, given the rights and interests of the non-Jewish people who live there.

Yuval: Resettling the refugees with compensation is an option in UN Resolution 194. Read it and see for yourself.

Bill: Actually, what UNR 194 authorizes is a right of return. Compensation is to be paid only if a refugee chooses not to return:

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.

There is nothing in this resolution -- or in any other principle of international law -- that authorizes or even contemplates a "resettlement "of an indigenous population in order to make room for the expansion of another state.

Yuval: Exchanges of populations happened many times in history.

Bill: When exactly? Certainly, there have been expulsions of populations many times in history, but I am not aware of any "population exchanges".

Yuval: I remind you lest you forgot, that close to one million Jews became refugees from Arab countries and were absorbed in Israel after 1948.

Bill: Are you suggesting that the Arab countries were right to do this; that this is how countries should act? The expulsion of the Jews from Arab countries was no more justified than the expulsion of Palestinians from Israel or from the West Bank would be. In addition to the moral and legal issues, though, there is an immense practical difference: The Jews had a place to go that wanted them when they were expelled. The Palestinians do not.

Yuval:No reason why the Palestinian refugees should not have the same opportunity to resettle in other Arab countries or elsewhere.

Bill: "Opportunity?" Do you really think the Palestinians would consider leaving their own homes and villages to be refugees in some other county to be an "opportunity"? No reason? Except for the fact that they don't want to resettle in other Arab countries or elsewhere. They want to live where they are living now.

Yuval:This solution is much more humane and universal than the continuation of the conflict in which innocent people continue live in camps and get killed.

Bill: Now we have gone completely through the looking glass. Resettlement is humane?

Yuval: I am not subjecting any people to war.

Bill: You would be if your ideas were accepted. Do you really think that "relocating" the Palestinians to Jordan (or elsewhere) would end the conflict? Isn't this simply a reprise -- on a larger scale -- of what happened in 1948?

Yuval:By your bias and attitude it is you who encourages those who wish to destroy Israel.

Bill: You do like that word bias, don't you? Against whom am I biased? Against what? Not all who disagree with your position are "biased". Also, there is nothing in anything I have ever said or written (or thought for that matter) that could possibly be construed as encouraging those who wish to destroy Israel.

Yuval: Since 1947 Israel accepted all solution imposed on her by the international community. The Arabs did not. Elementary Dr. Watson!!!

Bill: Well, even that is not exactly true, since I assume that Israel is not prepared to return to the 1948 Partition borders. And you at least would not be comfortable with a return to the 1967 borders, even though that is the solution preferred by most of the international community. More to the point, though, we are discussing your ideas, not Israel's. (They are not synonymous, thank goodness). And your idea is to resettle the Palestinians to some other country and incorporate the entire West Bank (and Gaza?) into Israel. That idea defies the international community.

Yuval: The Arabs have 99.9% of the territorial mass of the Middle East.

Bill: I doubt if the percentage is really that high, unless you are counting North Africa as a part of the Middle East, and maybe not even then. But sure, the area of the Arab States is much larger than the area of Israel. I admit, though that the significance of that fact escapes me. Russia is bigger than Estonia. Does that mean Estonia is entitled to more land?

Yuval: They have 22 countries although they are single nation.

Bill: So you keep saying. A "nation" is defined not by culture or language but by how the people themselves identify themselves. Culturally and linguistically, Americans and Canadians are all but indistinguishable; yet I do not think anyone would claim that Americans and Canadians comprised a single "nation." Regardless of how the Arabs perceived themselves at the end of WWI, is there any doubt that the Jordanian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iraqi, Saudi, etc. Arabs all today see themselves a comprising separate "nations"? But, even if you are right and the Arabs do all comprise a single "nation", what significance does that have in terms of what we are talking about? Should they all be required to unite? How would that help resolve anything?

Yuval: Asking to have a land for the Jewish people that is smaller than New Jersey is hardly "lebensraum."

Bill: As small as Israel is, it is not the smallest country on earth. Indeed, it is considerably larger than Lebanon, right next door. Lebensraum is a belief that "my people need more room and we are entitled to take it from others". Such a belief is no less offensive when espoused on behalf of a small country that it is when espoused on behalf of a large one.

Yuval:The Germans conquered foreign sovereign nations.

Bill: True, but so what? Displacement of an indigenous population in order to make room for another is OK so long as the people being displaced are not "sovereign"?

Yuval:Israel is only claiming its own historical land which was recognized by England, the League of Nations and the UN.

Bill: Neither the Balfour Declaration nor the League of Nations Mandate, nor most especially the UN Partition plan recognized or even contemplated the inclusion of what you refer to as Judea and Samaria into the State of Israel. Israel's right to that part of Palestine has never been recognized by anyone.

Yuval:Israel is in Judea and Samaria because Israel was attacked from there in 1967.

Bill: True. And no one, least of all me, disputes that Israel was entirely justified both in going to war and in occupying the West Bank (and Gaza, and the Golan, and the Sinai for that matter). What is not justified is the idea that Israel should keep it.

Yuval: The attacker, Jordan, had no claim to that territory and relinquished it in the peace agreement in 1983. Thus at best, the territory is disputed.

Bill: The Partition Plan, which is the document that created Israel -- in legal contemplation at least -- also confirmed the existence of Transjordan and assigned Judea and Samaria to that country. You cannot deny Jordan's "claim" to that land without simultaneously undermining Israel's "claim" to the land allocated to it by the same Plan.

Yuval:It was never a "Palestinians" sovereignty, and except privately owned lands, which Israel NEVER touched, they have no claim on the land until the fate of the territories are determined by negotiations as mandated in UN Resolution 242. Nothing, but nothing, I said in my piece is in contradiction to these principals.

Bill: Now this is interesting. Are you saying that neither the Palestinians nor Israel currently exercises sovereignty over the West Bank:and that the question of sovereignty is to be negotiated in accordance with UN 242? If so, then we are in complete agreement. But what mystifies me is how you can then say that "Nothing, but nothing, I said in my piece is in contradiction to these principals." Are "relocation" of the Palestinians living on the West Bank to another country and the incorporation of the the entire West Bank into Jordan consistent with UN 242?? I thought UN 242, (in addition to calling for "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force") "Emphasiz[ed] the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" and "Affirmed that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the . . .Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." It is hard for me to see how the solution you are advocating is at any point consistent with these principles.

Yuval: You should be ashamed of yourself invoking Hitler and Nazi terms.

Bill: I am sorry is used the Hitler allusion. Slobodan Milosevic would have done quite nicely. But, in making that analogy, I was not talking about Israel. I was talking about how YOU sounded. Fortunately, so far as I know, Israel itself has had the good sense to reject your ideas for how this conflict should be resolved.

Yuval: I have not advocated the killing of anybody, and never will.

Bill: I am sure that this is true and it was way out of line for me to suggest that this might be otherwise.

Yuval: I base my opinions on reality and careful study of the facts. I wish you had the objectivity and ability to doing the same.

Bill: I do and I do and I do. Unfortunately, disagreeing with you does not ipso facto make me ignorant, stupid or biased -- much less all three.

Yuval: The only idea that lurks in my heart is that people like you will stop spewing hatred and poisonous comparisons. That will make the world a much nicer place to live in.

Bill: Having already apologized for the "poisonous comparison", I do not feel compelled to do so again. I do not apologize for the point, however; only for the allusion. I remain steadfastly, passionately opposed to and appalled by a proposal to solve the Palestinian problem by relocating the Palestinian people to another country. That is a poisonous idea and it deserves to be repudiated in the strongest possible terms.

Yuval: Now go do some homework: Google Palestinian National Charter, UN Resolution 194 and 242 and study it.

Bill: Been there. Done that. And, a lot more besides. Nothing in any of them supports the idea that the solution to this conflict is to relocate the West Bank Palestinians.

The Latest From Yuval

Here is the latest from our self-proclaimed "Truth Provider." It is a continuation of the thread, posted yesterday, regarding what Yuval considers to be Arafat's "embezzlement" of money donated to the PA by other countries. However, it quickly develops into something far broader. As I feared, Yuval's' preferred outcome is the "Slobadon Solution." I can only hope he speaks for very, very few Israelis.

I will let the man speak for himself, since there is nothing I could add that would more clearly and forcefully indict him and his beliefs that the language he himself chooses to use:

From Bill (continuing earlier thread):
Just want to note that neither the word "embezzle" nor "stole" appears in the article. That is apparently your contribution. I suspect there is no pejorative adjective that you would consider over the top as applied to Arafat.

Are you suggesting that the West adopt the Israeli strategy of insisting that the Palestinians do everything before the it does anything? Given how well that strategy has worked for Israel, I would be very reluctant to see the West adopt it as well.

Enough for today.

Bill

PS. If you are interested, I've posted this exchange to my blog: www.parentheticals.blogspot.com. Feel free to comment there are well. (You don't have to sign up for an account; just post anonymously and put your initials at the bottom if you are so inclined).

From Yuval: Thank you for letting me contribute to your blog.

As to the subject, are you suggesting that Arafat and his cronies did not steal any moneys? Are you ignoring the mountain of evidence on the subject, including a major CBS piece on 60 Minutes and the BBC, both not known as great friends of Israel? No, the words 'embezzle' and 'stole' do not appear in the article. The article only deals with some of what was done with the stolen money after it was stolen.

As for the sequence of requirements, in the so called 'Road Map' all sides adopted, including the Arab-Palestinians, stopping the terror and reforming the PA are pre-requisites imposed on the PA leadership.

Best,
Yuval.

From Bill:
No, I am not suggesting that Arafat and his cronies never stole any money. Almost certainly they did. On the money issue, my point was simply that the particular money talked about in the article you distributed did not appear to be stolen, since the PA had records of it and was presumably in control of the "investments" (however foolish) that were made with it. Stolen money, by contrast, would either be entirely gone or in the hands of individuals other than the PA.

But my larger point was: so what? Why are we still beating up on a dead man? I assume your argument is that Arafat's successors are really just clones, that they too are utterly corrupt, and that they too are not fit to receive foreign aid largesse from the West.

From Yuval: Precisely!

From Bill: But, even if true, where does that leave us? Israel's official position for 3 years was that Arafat was irrelevant and that no progress could be achieved until he was replaced. Israel has now gotten its wish. Arafat is gone. Are we now to say "Oh well, never mind. Any successor to Arafat is going to be just like him so we won't deal with him either?"

From Yuval: Nothing has changed and will not for generations. The point is why do WE have to do anything? We only need to advance our national goals, just like they do. We owe nothing but to ourselves in our tiny little only country. As far as they are concerned, their goals are made clear in their National Charter of which I am sure you are familiar. Add to it the religious Islamic point of view that the Muslims are forbidden to give away "their holy lands" and the first Islamic command of Jihad against all infidels, and you will understand that a solution on the basis you dream about is impossible.

From Bill: I really do wonder what you think the solution to all of this is? Where do you thing things should end up? And, how do you think we should get there?

From Yuval: To me, and many with me, the road ahead is clear. Israelis are facing years of more struggle. Contrary to common beliefs, the Arab demographic threat is a fallacy. We have been hearing about it from Peres and his friends since 1956 and none of his predictions materialized. In fact, the Jewish population of Israel is growing and the Arabs in the Judea and Samaria are dwindling.

Israel should offer the Arab-Palestinians resettlement elsewhere with compensation. This option is in accordance with UN Resolution 194. At the same time, more Jews should be encouraged and helped to emigrate to Israel. Israel should establish conversion to Judaism schools and recruit non Jews to come to Israel and become Jewish. These people will be settled in Judea and Samaria and render it Jewish.
Those Arabs who choose to remain and live peacefully among us, will enjoy all the rights and privileges their Jewish neighbors enjoy, just like the Israeli Arabs in Israel today.

That would be my solution, the only solution that considers Israel's interests and national aspirations. The ONLY solution that any other country around the globe would accept for itself.

From Bill: As to my final remark about the order of things, it was a bit intemperate and I apologize. But I do get frustrated by Israeli demands that Palestinian violence completely cease as a prerequisite to any further progress. That's not a realistic demand. The power asymmetry between Israel and the Palestinians so overwhelmingly favors Israel that violence is the only tool the Palestinians have to work with. If the violence completely ceased, what incentive would Israel have to do anything more?

From Yuval: I totally fail to understand why people have the audacity to suggest that Israel just lie down and accept her citizens being murdered. We do not need to apologize to anybody or any country. Show me one country on earth that would accept such a travesty. Furthermore, both you and I know full well that if Arafat chose peace in 2000, he would now sit behind his desk, in a suit and tie, in Palestine's presidential mansion. But as I told you above, neither Arafat, nor anybody on the Palestinian side, has any intention to allow a Jewish Israel to exist and be satisfied with a non viable small enclave state with severely curtailed independence.

From Bill: The history of the Oslo accords is a case in point. Following those accords, the violence did pretty much stop and the PA did take some pretty aggressive steps against Hamas et al. And what happened? Barak failed to implement redeployments that even Netanyahu had agreed to. I understand why Barak did this: He was trying to preserve his own internal political capital for a big push to land a comprehensive deal -- and he almost succeeded. But, can't you see how that whole history looks to the Palestinian "street"?

From Yuval: The Arab-Palestinian violence after Oslo did not stop. Bringing Arafat and his gang from Tunis was a major historical mistake, if not a calamity. The PA relative calm had one purpose only, to arm themselves and establish their grip and terrorist networks in the territories. They never had any intentions for real peace, just a Hudna. Just as Abu Mazen explained just yesterday. He said violence was a mistake. Not because he is against violence, but because it caused damage to Palestinian image in the world. In other words, let us be calm for a while and let the world pressure Israel to make concessions that weakens her. Than we, the Palestinians, will proceed with our agenda. Don't you see that, Bill? How can you ignore the risk?

The "Palestinian street" is the least of my concern.

From Bill: Precisely because I am such a huge fan of Israel, I expect a lot of her. She needs the courage to go forward despite the violence; to believe that, in the end, the only way to achieve peace is to address the Palestinian sense of grievance and humiliation; and the only way to do that is to help them fulfill their aspiration for a State of their own; to give them something to lose as it were.

From Yuval: The Arab-Palestinians have already a state of their own (Jordan). If you were a real friend of Israel you would not wish upon her yet another pressure-cooker-Islamic-hostile-state, 8 miles from the center of Tel Aviv. Israel needs only one sort of courage, to continue its fight and prevail until she defeats all her enemies. Until they bag her to stop. Until they prove that they really really really mean peace this time.

Humiliation has nothing to do with national interests on either side. It is a term between privates, not two countries fighting for the same territory. I feel humiliated by the Arabs, so what? Do they care? Of course not. They want "their" land and So do I. Furthermore, the term humiliation is reminiscent of 1933 Germany. The Germans were "humiliated" therefore they saw themselves justified to murder the entire Europe. Come-on Bill...

I appreciate your comments and am happy to receive them. The discussion is interesting. Thanks.

Yuval.

I suppose it would be interesting -- if it weren't so damn scary.

I can't decide if I will bother to respond to this. On the one hand, it is pretty clear there is no reaching the man. On the other, I somehow feel obligated to renounce, publicly, his beliefs: As someone once said, "All that is required for evil to triumph is for enough good people to remain silent." In any event though, I find one thing is interesting: Yuval seeks to invoke the memory of Nazi Germany -- in a way that totally baffles me, but that's not really the point. Reading Yuval's theory of an appropriate solution to the Palestinian issue evokes but one word: Lebensraum. Like Hitler, Yuval has nothing but contempt for the indigenous people whose land he wants. Like Hitler, he believes his "race" is entitled to that land. And, like Hitler, he is prepared to subject both his people and his enemy's people to interminable war and suffering in order to achieve his goal of Lebensraum. The only difference is that, unlike Hitler, Yuval would pay "compensation". There is in this the makings of a very tasteless ethnic joke, but I will resist.

Update: I did respond. Here it is:

Do you have any idea how much like Hitler you sound? Like Hitler, you have nothing but contempt for the indigenous people who live on the land you want. Like Hitler, you believe your "race" is entitled to that land. You even have marshaled ethnic mythology to justify this claim. Like Hitler, you believe those people should be "relocated." Even the direction is the same: East. And, like Hitler, you are willing to subject your own people and the people of your enemies to interminable war and suffering in order to achieve your "lebensraum". True, you have not (yet) advocated actually killing these people. But then, neither did Hitler at first. Like Hitler, though, I suspect that the idea lurks in your heart and will eventually find vocalization as well.

It is pathetic that any person -- most especially a Jew -- would espouse such a "solution." Thank God you do not speak for Israel.

This discussion is not "interesting." It is repulsive.

I suspect that will be the end of that "discussion."

Iraq: Getting Over Antipathy To The Invasion

If you missed Tom Friedman's Op-Ed piece on December 23, as I did, please take this opportunity to read it. And contrast this with Maureen Dowd's piece from the same day. Note to Maureen: As much as I enjoy your Bush bashing, maybe it's time to move on? As I asked Yuval in yesterday's post: Isn't it time to stop telling everyone what you are against and start telling people what you are for?

Friedman does this, and in so doing, makes a couple of points that those of us who despise the Bush Administration need to think about.

However this war started, however badly it has been managed, however much you wish we were not there, do not kid yourself that this is not what it is about: people who want to hold a free and fair election to determine their own future, opposed by a virulent nihilistic minority that wants to prevent that. That is all that the insurgents stand for. . . .

As is so often the case, the statesman who framed the stakes best is the British prime minister, Tony Blair. Count me a "Blair Democrat." Mr. Blair, who was in Iraq this week, said: "Whatever people's feelings or beliefs about the removal of Saddam Hussein and the wisdom of that, there surely is only one side to be on in what is now very clearly a battle between democracy and terror. On the one side you have people who desperately want to make the democratic process work, and want to have the same type of democratic freedoms other parts of the world enjoy, and on the other side people who are killing and intimidating and trying to destroy a better future for Iraq."

I do not agree with Friedman that preventing elections -- or more broadly democracy -- is "all the insurgents stand for." The motivations of the insurgents are doubtless numerous and complex and at least one of those motivations is almost certainly simple opposition to the occupation of their country by a foreign (in every possible sense of that word) power. But, I do agree with what I take to be the main point: No matter how wrong you think the invasion was to begin with, we cannot afford to lose the resulting struggle. There is way too much at stake -- not just for the Iraqis, but for us. Somehow, some way, we have to find a path that leads to a stable, tolerant government in Iraq.

Friedman's other point is that we stand a very good chance of failing in this effort, and that this outcome is made even more likely by the inability of opponents of the war to get over that opposition and move on toward finding a path out of the mess:

What is terrifying is that the noble sacrifice of our soldiers, while never in vain, may not be enough. We may actually lose in Iraq. The vitally important may turn out to be the effectively impossible.

We may lose because of the defiantly wrong way that Donald Rumsfeld has managed this war and the cynical manner in which Dick Cheney, George Bush and - with some honorable exceptions - the whole Republican right have tolerated it. Many conservatives would rather fail in Iraq than give liberals the satisfaction of seeing Mr. Rumsfeld sacked. We may lose because our Arab allies won't lift a finger to support an election in Iraq - either because they fear they'll be next to face such pressures, or because the thought of democratically elected Shiites holding power in a country once led by Sunnis is anathema to them.

We may lose because most Europeans, having been made stupid by their own weakness, would rather see America fail in Iraq than lift a finger for free and fair elections there.

Again, I find some of the rhetoric in this -- e.g. that the Europeans have been made stupid by their own weakness -- to be more than little over the top. But, again, as well, the essential point seems to me to be correct: Those of us, in the US, in Europe and in the Arab world who despise the Bushies for creating this mess, have got to "get over it" and move on. I am not suggesting we need to forgive or forget. Far from it, for the sake of the future, the Bushies have to be held accountable for a reckless, entirely unnecessary, and perhaps even criminal war. But, holding them accountable is not the same thing as hoping that they fail or standing by idly as Iraq descends into the darkness into which Afghanistan fell following the equally stupid invasion of that country by the Russians.

Update: The contrast between Afghanistan and Iraq just keeps getting more obvious. See "Afghan Runner-Up to Form Opposition Party" . Here's an excerpt:

The runner-up to Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan's presidential elections congratulated Mr. Karzai on Saturday on the formation of his cabinet, but said he was in the process of forming an opposition political party.

Yunus Qanooni, the runner-up in the election, said he had deep respect for the cabinet ministers and for Mr. Karzai. But he said he felt he could best serve the nation by becoming a leading opposition figure.He said he would call the party New Afghanistan, and said it would be created in the coming weeks.

"We will support any positive steps taken by the government, but if they do something wrong, we will raise our voices and we will struggle against that," Mr. Qanooni said. "What is important is to resolve our differences through politics. We are no longer living in a time of war."

It is far too early to declare victory in Afghanistan, of course, but the news from there continues to at least be news of progress. What is the difference between Afghanistan and Iraq? In the near term, it seems to me to be obvious: a just vs. an unjust war; international cooperation and support vs. international opposition and antipathy. In the longer term, though, maybe, just maybe, the answer is "nothing". Maybe, just maybe, Afghanistan raises at least the prospect that improvement -- even success -- might be possible even in Iraq.

The contrast between these two wars will be a fascinating topic for future historians. I hope I live long enough to see those histories written.

Blogging and the Tsunami Catastrophe

Interesting NYT Article here on the blogospehere's reponse to the tsunami catastrophe. The extent to which the world has already become connected -- and the pace at which that is increasing -- never ceases to amaze me. As with all things, this is not an unmitigated blessing, of course. But, I think that the power to do good via this connectedness (as in this case) overwhelms the drawbacks.

Correspondence With An Israeli Right-Winger

A Jewish friend with whom I have been discussing the Israeli-Palestinian situation placed me on an e-mail subscription list maintained by Yuval N. Zalihouk. Yuval sends out nearly daily e-mails to those on the list in which he purports to provide his readers with the "truth" about Israeli-Palestinian situation. In fact, Yuval refers to himself, with no hint of irony (or modesty) as "Your Truth Provider."

Over the past couple of weeks, I have gotten a number of these e-mails, many of which I simply deleted. A couple of days ago, though, I decided to respond to those still resident in my in box. I thought the messages and my responses might provide some interesting reading for anyone remotely interested in these issues. I am posting these in the order of my responses rather than Yuval's messages:

===================================================================

From Yuval (12/22/04):

Dear friends,

The latest rosy noises from the Middle East are just that, noises. Your Truth Provider, Yuval. [Attaching "Dangerous Liasons" By Frank Gaffney ]


From Bill (12/23/04):

What is the difference between the Palestinian desire for a state in 2004 and the Jewish desire for a state prior to WWII?

From Yuval (12/23/04)

1) Prior to 1964 there was not a national unit called "Palestinians." Jews lived and aspired to re-gain their land for 2000 years.

2) Even since 1964, the "Palestinians" see themselves as an integral part of the Arab nation (see clause one of the Palestinian National Charter).

3) The Arab-Palestinians, as they should be called, have no distinct attributes or characteristics separating them as a nation from other Arabs in the Middle East, particularly Jordan, in which 70% of the population is also so-called Palestinian.

4) There is already a Palestinian state in the Middle East in 78% of the former territory of the British Mandate. It is called Jordan. Why do the Arab-Palestinians deserve two countries?

Please respond to each point.

From Bill (12/27/04):

YNZ writes: "Please respond to each point."

Since there is considerable redundancy among the four numbered points, I have taken the liberty of rearranging some of the sentences so that what I believe to be the three basic "points" are a little clearer:

1. Jews lived and aspired to re-gain their land for 2000 years.

Jews have been able to maintain their ethnic identify for 2000 years, despite dispersions and despite -- or perhaps in part because of -- horrific persecution.. Certainly that much is true, and it is one of history's most remarkable accomplishments. However, I don't think it is accurate to go on to say that Jews have aspired to re-gain "their land" [by which I presume you mean Biblical Israel] for 2000 years. Perhaps there have always been individual Jews who had such aspirations, but Zionism as a movement, as an aspiration of large numbers of Jews, is less than 150 years old. Further, the focus of Zionism originally was not exclusively on Palestine. All Herzl wanted was a country somewhere. It was not until the early part of the 20th century that Zionism, and Weizman in particular, decided that only Palestine would do. Even then, though, Zionism could hardly be called an aspiration of "the Jewish people". Indeed, until the Second World War, Zionism as a movement was wildly controversial even among Jews. It was not until the Holocaust that the idea of a Jewish homeland in Palestine emerged as something that could legitimately be called a shared aspiration of the Jewish people as a whole.

But all of that is largely beside the point. I did not mean to -- and did not in fact -- demean the legitimacy of the Jewish aspiration for a land of their own. What I asked was, why is that aspiration so very different from the aspirations of the Palestinians for a home of their own. Is your answer really that they haven't waited long enough? Haven't suffered enough?

2. Prior to 1964 there was not a national unit called "Palestinians." Even since 1964, the "Palestinians" see themselves as an integral part of the Arab nation (see clause one of the Palestinian National Charter). The Arab-Palestinians, as they should be called, have no distinct attributes or characteristics separating them as a nation from other Arabs in the Middle East.

Basically, you are denying that the Palestinians exist as a separate ethnic group. Of course Palestinians are Arabs. But that does not mean that they have no "national" identity apart from the Arabs. Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Bulgars, etc. are all Slavs. Yet each considers itself a separate ethnic group with the right to a separate Nation State. Jordanians, Saudis, Iraqis, Yemeni's, Lebanese, etc. are all Arabs as well. Yet, I do not suppose you are suggesting that they should be denied their own states. It is not for you or me or Israel to decide which ethnic group a given people should be assigned to. Ethnic identification is internal. Surely, Jews above all people should recognize that much. Perhaps it is true that Palestinians in the occupied territories have only lately come to think of themselves as a separate ethnic group with an identity different from Jordanian Arabs, or Syrian Arabs, or Saudi Arabs. But, it is a little hard to deny that that is how they think of themselves today. And, having come to this conviction, why is their self-identification as a separate nation any less legitimate than Jewish self-identification as a separate nation? Is it really, again, that they haven't waited long enough? Haven't suffered enough?


3. There is already a Palestinian state in the Middle East in 78% of the former territory of the British Mandate. It is called Jordan. 70% of the population [of Jordan] is also so-called Palestinian. Why do the Arab-Palestinians deserve two countries?

What a strange, strange question! What does "deserving" have to do with anything? Is Israel's claim to a right to exist dependent on what the Jews "deserve." Surely not. It is based on what the Jews want, coupled with their ability to achieve that. Do the English-speaking Caucasians deserve 5 countries? Do the Armenians deserve none? Why are there seven countries in Central America? Perhaps we should reconstitute the Ottoman empire, since, I suspect, well over 70% of the people living in the lands than comprised the Ottoman empire are Arabs?

It seems to me that what lies behind the 2nd and 3rd of your points is something very, very ugly. Do you seriously suggest that the "right" answer to all of this is to deny that the West Bank Palestinians exist as a distinct "nation" and then drive them across the Jordan River? If not, then what, pray tell, is you vision of a "just" solution to all of this?

==================================================================

From Yuval (12/27/04):

Dear friends,

As I have repeated many times in my bulletins, the one Arab nation is divided into twenty two separate countries. Likewise, the Arab-Palestinians are by their own definition an integral part of the Arab nation. Moreover, they already have an independent country called Jordan, in which 70% of the population is, you guest it, Arab-Palestinians. WHY DOES ONE ARAB NATION DESERVE 22 COUNTRIES, AND WHY DO THE ARAB-PALESTINIANS DESERVE TWO? Historically, we know what happened: The European colonialists, mainly Britain and France, divided the Middle East between the various tribes they favored for one reason or another. But Britain also allocated a national home for the Jewish people in the British Mandate territory, an ancient and distinct nation with all the typical and acceptable attributes of a separate nation. This territory was than, yet again, chopped off by Britain who gave 78% of it to Emir Abdallah, thus creating the country of Jordan.

This huge country of Jordan is a viable, independent Arab-Palestinian state, yet they now wish to chop off another part of what's left of the Jewish homeland, the Biblical regions of Judea and Samaria, and create yet another Arab-Palestinian state in them, and the short-sighted, if not the blind, West , is pressuring Israel to concede these regions and allow a murderous state 8 miles from the center of Tel-Aviv. Now you tell me please, have they all in the West gone totally crazy?

Attached, is an important article on the subject by Dr. Yoram Shifftan.

Your Truth Provider,
Yuval.

From Bill (12/27/04):

Excuse me, but this is complete claptrap.

First, who are you to decide what defines a "nation" for another people? Would the Jews allow anyone to do that for them?

Second, would you really like all 22 of those countries to be united? Hee Hee. The very idea is laughable. Israel owes its very existence to the fact that the Arab states are as much at odds with each other as they are with Israel. "Clever Israeli diplomats" indeed!

Third, Dr. Shifftan asserts that "The Balfour declaration was codified in international law by the League of Nations' Mandate for Palestine"? Oh, good Lord. Does he (do you?) you actually believe that, or is it just a convenient fiction that allows him/you to maintain the delusion that Israel has a legal right to "Judea" and "Samaria"? In either event, nothing could be further from the truth. The "codification" of the Balfour Declaration, if there ever was one, came in the 1948 UN partition plan. Should we return to those lines?

Fourth, it might be possible to argue that the Mandate was intended to facilitate implementation of the Balfour Declaration. But, even if so, what did that Declaration actually say? "His Majesty's Government views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object. It being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

Is there anything in this intentionally vague statement that would lead any reasonable person to believe that even the British, to say nothing of the rest of the world, intended all of what became the British Mandate to be included in the Jewish homeland? What of the statement that "[i]t being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine?"

Fifth, Dr. Shifftan also claims that: "It is an axiom of international relations that one nation deserves one state only." Whenever a person starts a sentence by claiming something is "axiomatic" what he really means is that has absolutely no basis for what follows. This sentence is no exception. It might be axiomatic that each member STATE in the UN is entitled to only one vote. But it is far from axiomatic that each "nation" -- in the sense of a people -- is entitled to one, but only one, state. Just ask the Sioux. Or the Armenians. Conversely, ask the Canadians why they are entitled to a state, rather than being part of the United States. Or ask the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand why they should be separate States. Some peoples who are arguably part of a single "nation" have many states; some peoples who are unquestionably comprise a single "nation" have none. And these allocations have far less to do with what a given "nation" deserves than it does with raw power. Witness the State of Israel.

Finally, and most broadly: will you ever get real? If you were King, what would you do? Obviously, the idea of a Palestinian State on the West Bank and Gaza is anathema. So, what do you propose? Here is a list of the alternatives. Pick one:

Option 1: Give the West Bank back to Jordan. Jordan doesn't want it, of course, and neither do the West Bank Palestinians. But lets ignore that for the moment. Would Israel want it? What, and give up "Judea" and "Samaria" and the West Bank settlements and put a real Arab state 8 miles from Tel Aviv?? I doubt it.

Option 2: Annex the West Bank and its Palestinian population? I doubt that too. That would be the death of Israel as a Jewish state much more quickly than Arab hostility ever would, unless of course you are prepared to implement a full blown apartheid and/or forced sterilization of the Palestinians.

Option 3: Annex the West Bank and drive the Palestinians across the Jordan? Let's just call this the "Slobodan Solution".

Option 4: Maintain the status quo? Maybe you like that answer. Maybe it appeals to some need to suffer, or to perceive your "nation" as persecuted. But, be that as it may, the West is not going to tolerate this outcome. With good reason. Even the Bushies are coming to understand (a) that the continued existence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict poses a genuine threat to vital Western interests (oil being one and security another) and (b) that the creation of a Palestinian State on the West Bank is the only possible means for defusing that conflict.

Let me say this in closing: I am a HUGE fan of the Jewish people. I can think of no people who have contributed more to the development of western civilization, especially on a per capita basis. I am also a huge fan of Israel. What Israel has accomplished in its brief history, against seemingly insurmountable odds, is nothing short of stupendous. And, because I am such a fan of both the Jews and Israel, I choose to believe that people who think the way you appear to are a tiny minority. But, even as a minority, this kind of thinking is giving Israel a bad name and is threatening to undermine support in the last friend Israel has on earth. Is that your goal?

Instead of just ranting, why don't you try to be constructive?

Bill

Please feel free to share this with your readers. (giggle!)

==================================================================

From Yuval (12/25/04):

Dear friends,

The following article is about a shot in the right direction, even if the Dutch ambassador's remarks come decades late. But as the cliche says, better late than never... The Dutch ambassador is of course correct: The number of UN anti-Israel resolutions is ridiculous and always has been. Knowing what the UN is all about, political interests of the free world in the 50 or so Muslim countries with their 1.3 billion population and petroleum in the ground, the ambassador remarks should be taken with a very large grains of salt. I hope this does not turn out to be yet another lonely cry in the desert from a true friend, drowned in the usual chorus of anti-Semitic anti-Israeli bias.

If you belong to the cynics, you will probably look at it as a form of European bribery to Israel for making concessions to the Arabs.

Your Truth Provider,
Yuval.

EU to help Israel in UN, Dutch envoy says

Tovah Lazaroff - Jerusalem Post.

Dec. 23, 2004

Calling the number of anti-Israel resolutions in the UN "ridiculous," Netherlands Ambassador Bob Heinsch told reporters on Wednesday the EU was committed to reducing those numbers.

"We all agree that it is ridiculous that we have 19 to 20 resolutions every year, it is a ritual and we should get rid of that," he said at a Tel Aviv press conference to promote the new European Neighborhood Agreement approved between Israel and the EU on December 13.

It offers Israel many of the same rights afforded states within the European Union. The plan opens Europe's economic, cultural and scientific doors to Israel in exchange for an enhanced EU involvement in the Middle East diplomatic process. Within the context of the plan the EU also promises to combat anti-Semitism and to help Israel normalize its relations with international organizations including the UN.

Hiensch, whose country now holds the EU presidency, said that the EU is so serious about combatting anti-Semitism that it would be committed to that battle even if there were no action plan.

"We condemn it on our own," he said.

The three-year process set out in the Neighborhood Agreement brings Europe and Israel closer, said Hiensch, but is separate from the question of membership in the EU. Nor does it preclude it, he added.

"Israel has not applied for membership," said Hiensch.

If it were to do so, an EU aide explained, it would have to agree to take on all the rules of its institutions, including freedom of movement, which allows Europeans of all religions to settle in EU member states in a way that would run counter to Israel's Law of Return, which grants special status to Jews.

The Neighborhood Agreement with Israel as well as a similar document agreed on between the EU and the Palestinian Authority reflects Europe's desire to play a larger role in the Middle East, said Hiensch. "I expect the EU's role [in the Middle East] to increase," he continued.

He pointed that the EU is already very involved in pushing for free elections and financial reform within the Palestinian Authority.

"It is in the interest of Israel to work together with Europe and we want to work together with Israel," he said. He added that any EU initiatives in the Middle East would be coordinated with the other three Quartet members - the US, UN and Russia.

When it comes to the right of return for Palestinian refugees, he said, the issue can only be settled once there is a Palestinian state.

"We understand that the Palestinians, when there are no negotiations, at this stage are not willing to give up the right of return. That is something that has to be solved in the final status. Like Israel has the settlement question which is parallel to that and Israel has not been willing to give up settlements," said Heinsch.

Within the document, Hiensch said one of the more sensitive issues was the section in which the EU and Israel promise to "cooperate on nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction."

"We are pleased that Israel was willing to put it on the agenda," said Hiensch.

"It is such a touchy subject that I do not want to make any interpretation of the text other than what is written there," he said. When asked by a reporter if the EU wants Israel to get rid of its "nukes," he said it was difficult to answer the question because Israel "does not confirm publicly that it has any nukes."

But he added, "We would like Israel to join the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty."

The document, which also sets out ways for Israel to cooperate on many international issues such as drug and human trafficking as well as the fight against terrorism, is not a formal contract. It sets out a blueprint for Israel and the EU to work together on issues of mutual interest through subcommittees that have already begun to meet.

Similar actions plans were drawn up between the EU and Moldova, Ukraine, Morocco, Tunisia and Jordan.

From Bill (12/27/04):

I wonder if you noted -- and agreed with -- the following quote from the article:

"We understand that the Palestinians, when there are no negotiations, at this stage are not willing to give up the right of return. That is something that has to be solved in the final status. Like Israel has the settlement question which is parallel to that and Israel has not been willing to give up settlements," said Heinsch.

Do you see the Palestinian claim to a "right of return" as being comparable to the Israeli claim to a right to create and maintain settlements on the West Bank and Gaza. Would you be willing to give up on the Settlememts if the Palestinians abandoned the right of return?

I also wonder if you noticed -- and agreed with -- the fact that the EU has worked out a similar "Neighborhood Agreement" with the Palestinian Authority.

I hope the answer to both questions is "yes", since it seems to me that it is just this sort of equlity of treatment by the West of both Israel and the Palestinians is exactly what is needed.

I for one, find nothing to agrue with in the entire article. However, I must admit to being somewhat surprised that you cited it so unreservedly.

===================================================================

From Yuval: (12/25/04):

Dear friends,

Issue One:

When you ask those Israelis who support Sharon's retreat from Gaza plan despite the obvious political and national dangers, the response of the majority of them is: To spare the lives of Israel's young soldiers. Our young sons and daughters, they say, should not be killed in order to protect some 8000 "settlers." This, my friends, is a fallacy if not a lie!!! After the retreat, when Hamas will transform what's left of Gaza into a huge ammunition dump and continue to shell Israel with intensified ferocity, the IDF will be forced to act at much greater disadvantage compared with protecting Israel from within. Think FALUJA, only much worst! Also think that every Israeli soldier killed equals 60 American casualties. This is no longer a question of whether Gaza is part of our Biblical land, the issue is our lives and the survival of Israel. Caroline Glick's brilliant article on the subject is attached. Please make an effort to read it.

Issue Two:

Israel is doing all it can to facilitate "free and democratic" elections for an Arafat replacement. Hundreds of observers from Europe and the USA are expected here to monitor the "elections." What for? I ask. Only one candidate is running unopposed, Arafat's crony for 40 years, Abu Mazen. Is this a democracy? Does it really matter if 80% or 87% vote for him, or whether the elections are fully or partially free? What is the difference between these elections and those for Stalin, Mubarak or Saddam?

Do you wonder in amazement about this charade as I am? Are we to cry or to laugh?
Excuse me, but who are they kidding?

Your Truth Provider,
Yuval.

From Bill(12/27/04):

On Issue 1:

Do you not find the following passage from the Glick article even a tad bit ironic:

"How are they to imagine that the lands they have cultivated, the communities they have built and the homes where they have raised their families are set to be turned over to the same people who are bombing them around the clock?"
This sentiment is remarkably similar to the sentiments expressed in the Palestinian press regarding the Palestinian's loss of their own lands 50 years ago.

As to the overall message of the Glick article: Yes there is danger in pulling out of Gaza and the West Bank. But what is the alternative? Another 50 years of war and killing? And, how pray tell could it get any worse than it already is?

As to Issue 2:

How are the Palestinian elections different from those of Stalin, Mubarak or Saddam? Well, for one thing there are multiple candidates running. Sounds pretty democratic to me. The fact that one candidate is far ahead of the others in the polling doesn't mean the process is a sham. If what you want is a closer election, maybe you would be in favor of releasing Marwan Barghouti?

But, besides that, what would you propose? Canceling the elections? Raising Arafat from the dead? At some point you have to stop just saying what you are against and start saying what you are for.

===================================================================

From Yuval (12/23/04):

Dear friends,

Where did all the millions Arafat stole from his people go? Here is Bloomberg's published article of today, December 23, 2004.

Your Truth Provider,
Yuval.

From Bill (12/27/04):

"Stole" seems a little over the top since the article is apparently based on records released by the Palestinian authority -- which presumably now has control over these investments. Investing foolishly might be a better description. But, even if "stole" is the right verb, what possible difference could it make?

The man is dead.

From Yuval(12/27/04):

Stole refered to embazzling many millions of PA moneys and transfering them to Swiss private accounts. Some of these moneys were invested by him personally in the various investments mentioned in the article. I do not think "stole" is over the top.
It does make a difference for now because the PA should claim the money back. Also, why should the West pour even more money into the PA before the PA gurantees to stop the corruption??

===================================================================

From Yuval (12/23/04):

Dear friends,
I am reminded of the following quote by one of my exceptional readers. Please read it, then scroll down to discover the author.

Your Truth Provider,
Yuval.

"I see with sorrow and great anger how a part of the people still clings to hopes of reaching a peaceful settlement with the Arabs. Common sense tells them, too, that the Arabs haven't abandoned their basic aim of destroying the State; but the self-delusion and self-deception that have always plagued the Jews are at work again. It's our great misfortune. They want to believe, so they believe. They want not to see, so they shut their eyes. They want not to learn from thousands of years of history, so they distort it. They want to bring about a sacrifice, and they do indeed. It would be comic, if it wasn't so tragic. What a saddening and irritating lot this Jewish People is!"

The writer goes on, "The Wars of the Jews" are always the ugliest and hardest of all. These are the wars of apologetics and futile bickering, suppression or distortion of facts, and procrastination in making decisions. There is no doubt that what's called for is new leadership, a more correct perception of the realities, a sound recognition of the enemy's aims, and clear, definitive strategic-political planning. There must be no fumbling in the dark and no more tactical expedients, for these will get us nowhere. If we don't have a well-defined, realistic objective, we won't have to fight the Arabs for our survival. The Arabs won't need to fight. The Jews, as usual, will destroy themselves."

He ends by saying, "In the main, the people, as a body, lacks the perserverence while it abounds in political and military blindness. But I repeat, maybe this time we'll sober up."

CLEARLY, NOTHING HAS CHANGED!

(Scroll down for name of author.......................)

Yoni Netanyahu, in letter to his Mom and Dad, 11/17/73

From Bill (12/27/04):

"I see with sorrow and great anger how a part of the people still clings to hopes of reaching a peaceful settlement with the Arabs."

I see with sorrow and great anger how a part of the people still clings to the hopes of "Greater Israel" and would prefer to consign two peoples to endless violence and bloodshed rather than give up on that idea and seek peace.

"Common sense tells them, too, that the Arabs haven't abandoned their basic aim of destroying the State; but the self-delusion and self-deception that have always plagued the Jews are at work again."

Common sense tells them that the Arab states no longer have even the remotest desire to destroy Israel -- and that no one else has even the theoretical capability of doing so; but the self delusion and the self-deception (not to mention the joys of feeling sorry for oneself) that have always plagued some of the Jews are at work again.

"It's our great misfortune. They want to believe, so they believe. They want not to see, so they shut their eyes."

It's our great misfortune. They want to believe their survival is in jeopardy, so they believe. They want not to see how secure they really are, so they shut their eyes.

"They want not to learn from thousands of years of history, so they distort it."

They want to preserve thousands of years of persecution, so they distort the present to convince themselves that nothing has changed.

"They want to bring about a sacrifice, and they do indeed. It would be comic, if it wasn't so tragic."

How true. How true.

"What a saddening and irritating lot this Jewish People is!"

What an inspiring and admirable lot the Israeli People could be.

"The Wars of the Jews" are always the ugliest and hardest of all. These are the wars of apologetics and futile bickering, suppression or distortion of facts, and procrastination in making decisions."

Can't speak to that, but it has the ring of truth.

"There is no doubt that what's called for is new leadership, a more correct perception of the realities, a sound recognition of the enemy's aims, and clear, definitive strategic-political planning."

I couldn't agree more. Where is Labor when we need them?

"There must be no fumbling in the dark and no more tactical expedients, for these will get us nowhere."

Agreed.

If we don't have a well-defined, realistic objective, we won't have to fight the Arabs for our survival. The Arabs won't need to fight. The Jews, as usual, will destroy themselves."

Agreed again.

Safire Goes "Tilt"

I missed William Safire's Op-Ed piece yesterday. But even a day late, it deserves mention.

Playing off Philip Roth's "Plot Against America" (which is well worth reading, by the way) Safire "imagines" what the future would have been like if Bush had not had the "courage" to invade Iraq. Suffice it to say, it is a nutso vision, reminiscent of nothing so much as the visions of the "domino theorists" regarding what would happen if we "lost" Vietnam: Saddam and his al Queda henchmen take over the world only to be thwarted, finally, when:

a Wilsonian Democrat bursts upon the political scene . . . [,] wins the Iowa caucuses on the slogan "Send Our Boys Abroad," conducts a campaign inspiring us to extend freedom throughout the world, and routs the G.O.P.'s equivocating wimp in the White House. As president-elect, he emulates F.D.R. in wartime by appointing Republicans Rumsfeld to State and Wolfowitz to Defense, overthrows Saddam, wins the terror war - and the Plot Against America, Part II, is foiled

Oh my.

Does Safire really mean to suggest that invading Iraq was as important to America's future as fighting Hitler -- which, by the way, we didn't do until we had been actually attacked by Hilter's ally and Hitler himself had declared war on us? If so, the very idea is laughable. And, does he really mean to suggest that the international efforts to "contain" Saddam were as inept, unsuccessful and dangerous as the British and French efforts to "contain" Hitler? Britain and France turned over to Hitler one country after another. By contrast, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, we drove him out. If we had not done that, Safire's comparison with WWII might not be so far-fetched. But we did. And then we followed this up with UN sanctions, no-fly zones, weapons inspections, etc. Where was the "appeasement" in all of that? Sure, the sanctions and inspections were not perfect; i.e. they did not result in "regime change" and the corruption of the "oil for food" program allowed Saddam and his cronies to amass unimaginable personal fortunes. But, as has now become crystal clear, post-Gulf War diplomatic efforts surely did "contain" Saddam and eliminate him as a meaningful threat even to his neighbors, to say nothing of the United States. Had we pursued a similar course vis-a-vis Germany and Japan in, say, 1936, Hitler might well have ended up as just another petty dictator much like Saddam -- and World War II might well have been avoided. Although, if Bush had been President, we might well have attacked Germany anyway.

Let me suggest another, far more plausible outcome to a decision not to invade Iraq. Bush says to Rummy and Wolfy, "Are you nuts?! As much as I despise Saddam (for both family and geopolitical reasons), two wars (in Afghanistan and against al Queda) are quite enough for now, thank you. Sure he's a bad man, and sure, he hates America (not to mention my family), and sure he wants to get WMDs. But, there's not really all that much evidence that he has WMDs, and even less that he could use them against the United States even he has. The threat is there, of course, but it is not imminent. So, for the moment, I want to do everything I can short of war to keep the international pressure on Saddam but focus our primary efforts on capturing or killing bin Laden, drying up al Queda's sources of support, and winning the war in Afghanistan. You all know I am not a big fan of nation-building. It's just too hard to do. But we got forced into an invasion of Afghanistan and that's where I want to try to set up a functioning democracy; a democracy that will serve both as a model for other Arab nations and a counterweight to both Iran and Iraq. I don't want to try to take on yet another country at the same time. Also, I want to do something real to remove some of the causes of Arab antipathy toward the United States -- something like genuinely supporting the right of Palestinians to their own State. If we go off inavding another Arab country we will inevitably dissipate our credibility and our resources, take our eye off the two really important balls -- Afghanistan and al Queda -- and further alienate the Arab world as well as our friends."

So, the invasion of Iraq is put on the back burner, and instead, the Bush Administration pursues a four-prong foreign policy, all pursued through international coalitions that include Arab states: intensify the diplomatic and economic pressures on, and international isolation of Saddam; win the war against the Taliban and bulid a working democracy in Afghanistan; hunt down al Queda leaders and eliminate their sources of support; and work as diligently to support the Palestinians' aspirations for a State as we have (and will continue) to support the Israelis'.

Fast forward to 2004: bin Laden has been captured and is awaiting trial in New York. What is left of Al Queda is everywhere on the run and increasingly seen as anachronistic, even in the Arab world. Saddam is still in power, but is obviously no threat to anyone but his own citizens. The Israelis have given up any claim to the West Bank in return for Palestinian abandonment of their "right of return," and all that now stands in the way of a lasting peace is some agreement on how to divide control over the Temple Mount. Suicide bombings have all but ceased, as have Israeli military incursions into the areas comprising the future Palestinian State. Sporadic fighting continues in Afghanistan, but the warlords have been brought to heel, and the massive infusions of Western aid have resulted in a nascent economic boom based on something other than opium. NATO has never been stronger, more cohesive or more effective. Anti-Americanism in the Arab world has dropped markedly; indeed, the obviously sincerity of Western efforts to establish democracy in Afghanistan, together with the American efforts on behalf of the Palestinians, have recently led to pro-American demonstrations in Tehran and Damascus. Wolfowitz is teaching strategic studies at Bob Jones University; Rumslfeld is still Sec Def but is playing second fiddle to Powell on foreign policy; and, Bush wins re-election in the biggest margin since Lyndon Johnson beat Barry Goldwater.

Fast forward to 2008: Afghanistan is democratic and propserous. Sadam was assassinated by his own security forces and has been replaced by a general, who, while no liberal, is committed to returning his country to propsperity and the community of nations. The power of the mullahs in Iran has declined precipitously, and both Iran and North Korea have abandoned its nuclear weapons program. Israel and the fledgling State of Palestine are at a tense but, it seems, lasting peace. The approval rating for the United States is well above 50% even in the Arab world and approaches post-world war II levels in Europe and Asia. And, Colin Powell, who is widely credited with being the architect of Bush's "tough love" foreign polcy wins the 2008 election with a majority approaching that of Bush in 2008.

Yes, of course, this too is a pipe dream. But it is a heck of a lot more realistic than Mr. Safire's vision.

Please, Bill: Stick to "On Language". It's what you are actually good at.

Hope In Middle East: Did Bush do it?

In his Op-Ed Piece in today's NY Times, David Brooks argues that "We owe this cautiously hopeful moment [in the Middle East] . . . to a president who disregarded the received wisdom." The piece is sarcastic to the point of bitterness, arguing that what European governments and American intellectuals characterized as "unfortunate events" resulting from Bush's Middle East policies were actually the very events responsible for the present moment of cautious optimism.
This is like a golf fan who has grown bitter and angry at people making fun of his hero's consistently miserable play, crying: "He planned it that way!" when yet another errant shot hits a tree and bounces onto the green.

The most that can be said for Bush's approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that he has not made things worse. In comparison to the rest of his foreign policy, of course, this is ineed a cause for some celebration. But it strikes me as preposterous -- and craven -- to suggest that it is President Bush who deserves credit for bringing about "this cautiously hopeful moment."

A Few Hopeful Tid-Bits

I haven't posted in a while. Between trying to earn a living and get ready for the holidays, there just hasn't been enough time. But there have some things in the newsthat give me some reason for cautious optomism on a number of fronts.

Rummy On The Ropes? -- I will not even try to provide links to all of the stories inever-increasing drumbeat of "no confidence in Rumsfeld" statements and calls for his resignation. There are just too many of them. What I find intriguing, though, is the question of "Why now?" The ostensible impetus for all of this new-found public opposition is Rumsfeld's "insensitvity": first in his response to a soldier's questions on why their vehcles were not armored and, more recently, on the issue of machine-signing of death notices to families of slain soldiers. But ask yourself this: Has anyone ever thought of Rumsfeld as a sensitive guy? Aren't these "revelations" utterly consistent with everything the man has done and said over the last four years? If so, then what's the big deal now? If sensitivity were a requirment for Bush's Secretary of Defense, wouldn't Rummy have been gone long ago? Well, then, what's different now?

Perhaps these latest "insensitivites" were simply the "straws that broke the camel's back." But to me at least, it seems likely that there is more to it than that. Despite continued denials by the Administration, my guess is that this anti-Rumsfeld campaign is actually being orchestrated by the White House. If that's the case, why doesn't Bush just fire him? Well, my guess is that it Rummy is actually too popular with the Bush "base" to allow a summary discharge. So, they have to go through process of public Rummy-trashing to undermine that support and to create the impression that firing him is the "will of the people". I, for one, will not be sorry to see Rummy go. In fact, I have some hope that, if the White House truly is out to get rid of Rummy, maybe it signals the start of a more modest, less arrogant and confrontational foreign policy. That would clearly be a good thing. But, the hypocricsy of this cynical character assassination is galling nonetheless.

Cause For Hope In The Middle East? One never wants to get his hopes too high about the prospects for peace in Palestine, but three articles in the New York Times on Friday and Saturday (December17 and 18) led me to think that maybe, just maybe, I was wrong and that Israel and Palestine can work things out.

First, (not in time, but in importance) there was the announcement that, despite enormous differences over domestic issues, Sharon negotiated a coalition with the Isreali Labor Party in order to facilitate the withdrawal from Gaza. According to the article,

The negotiations with Labor were bitter but foreordained to succeed, given Labor's conviction that Mr. Sharon's Gaza plan is a crucial step to a settlement with the Palestinians and could fail without Labor support.

While the Gaza plan deeply divided Mr. Sharon's own Likud Party, Labor and other leftist parties vowed to support him so long as he remained committed to pulling settlers out of Gaza.

Second, in the same issue, there were statements attributed to "the top Hamas leader on the West Bank, Sheik Hassan Yussef", in an Op-ed piece by Scott Atran. According to Mr. Atran, Mr. Yussef has been working actively to support the candidacy of Mahmaoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) and to undermine the candidacy of Marwan Barghouti even though the latter appears much more militant and even though Mr. Abbas is the candidate of choice for both Israel and the West. It is impressive enough that Israel, the Hamas leadership, and the West agree on anything at all -- much less on the future leadership of the PLO. But, what really struck me as hopeful was the following statement, attributed by Mr. Atran to Mr. Yussef:

We can dream about all Palestine being Muslim - like some Israelis dream of a Greater Israel that includes all our lands - but it is not practical. . . . We must take responsibility, along with Abu Mazen and the Palestinian Authority, in taking care of our people. And that means we must also negotiate with the Israelis.

Mr. Atran concludes the editorial with the following observations -- with which I could not agree more:

The main problem is that each side demands that the other announce a truce first. "If I advocated a unilateral cease-fire - proclaiming that we will not attack Israelis if Israelis do not attack us - then my political influence would end," he said. And Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is just as much a captive to politics - he too would not survive in his own party if he unilaterally declared a cease-fire.

How to break the stalemate? The United States and Europe, working in tandem with Israel and the Palestinian leaders, could perhaps broker a mutually declared cease-fire, a first step toward indefinite hudna and Mr. Yussef's "dialogue of civilizations." A tall order, indeed, but at least it now seems that Hamas is willing to listen, and wants to give democracy a chance.

A "tall order" indeed. Yet, only a day earlier, an article headlined Donors Consider Large Increase in Aid to Palestinians, provided some reason for hope in this regard as well.

The United States, Europe and Arab countries are considering greatly increasing - maybe even doubling - aid to the Palestinians on condition that they and Israel take certain steps toward reducing their conflict, American and Palestinian officials say.

A four-year package of $6 billion to $8 billion would be forthcoming, they said, if the Palestinian elections set for Jan. 9 occurred successfully and if the new government cracked down on militant groups and Israel lifted scores of roadblocks and checkpoints to ease the transit of goods and people in Palestinian areas.

What struck me about this announcement was the apparent even-handedness of it. The conditions for issuance of the aid applied not just to the Palestinians but to Israel as well.

If one chooses to focus on it, of course, there is more than enough in all three of these articles -- and elsewhere -- to convince you that there is no real cause for optimism in all of this. As the article on the Sharon's coalition with Labor indicates, quoting Stephen P. Cohen, president of the Institute for Middle East Peace and Development, the long-term stability of that coalition is anything but assured:

"The biggest challenge to the Gaza plan will be if the government breaks down on other issues." If the two parties "cannot resolve great tensions about economic policies to get a budget passed and keep them together, they may fail because of a disagreement about everything but Gaza."

Moreover, there are groups within Israel who are violently opposed even to a withrdrawl from Gaza, much less to the much more far-reaching compromizes that will be required of Israel if peace is to be achieved. See, e.g. "Israeli Settlers' Group Calls for Resistance to Evacuation" in today's NYT.

The same is true on the Palestinian side. As Mr Artan points out, Mr. Yussef does not speak even for all of Hamas, much less for other radical Palestinian groups:

Of course, Mr. Yussef faces opposition from within. Mahmoud Zahar, a senior Hamas official in Gaza, dismissed the overture, saying that there would be "no talk about a hudna [ceasefire] now" and that his group's "strategy is to liberate all of Palestine." Soon enough, Hamas bombs killed five Israeli soldiers in Gaza; that was followed by Israeli Army raids that killed several Palestinians.

Finally, there is room to doubt whether Western (or at least American) participation in the process will, in fact, become more neutral. For instance, the following are the final two paragraphs from the December 17 article on aid to the Palestinians:

Some European leaders, anticipating increased leverage as European financing for the Palestinians increases, are pressing Israel and the Palestinians to start talking soon about difficult issues like Jerusalem, the boundaries of a Palestinian state and the status of refugees.

The Bush administration and Mr. Sharon's government want those issues put off until the Palestinians show more progress against terrorism. "We're trying to maintain a united front with the Europeans," the senior administration official said, "and I think we've succeeded on that. We can achieve a solution by keeping our eyes focused on realistic goals and not talking about pie in the sky."

But, whether now or later, it seems to me that these articles, taken together, point to what is ultimately necessary to a resolution of the conflict: (1) marginalization by both Israel and the Palestinians of the radical wings of their internal polity, and (2) massive, sustained, and (most important) consistently even-handed carrot-and-stick participation by the West.

Due Process For Detainees -- Striking a blow for common sense and decency, the British Law Lords, Britain's high court, ruled that "Indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is anathema in any country which observes the rule of law." NYT story here. One wonders why so seemingly obvious a conclusion is so bitterly contested both here and in Britain. The full text of the 102-page decision can be found here, courtesy of the BBC.

Fortunately, the US Supreme Court seems to be headed in much the same direction, albeit in a very, very incrementalist way. In RASUL et al. v. BUSH, the Court held that the detainees at Guantanamo had the right to petition US courts for writs of habeas corpus even though they are not US citizens and even though Guantanamo is not a part of the soverign territory of the United States.

Of course, habeus rights just bring the Gitmo detainees within the jurisdicition of the US courts. They have little to say about what "process" will be "due" them once they get there. The decision in HAMDI et al. v. RUMSFELD, a case decided the same day, begins to address that issue. There, the court concluded that:

[A] citizen-detainee seeking to challenge his classification as an enemy combatant must receive notice of the factual basis for his classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the Government's factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker.

However, the Court also concluded that, given the exegencies, the "process" Hamdi was "due" was considerably less than the process guaranteed to criminal defendants:

At the same time, the exigencies of the circumstances may demand that, aside from these core elements, enemy combatant proceedings may be tailored to alleviate their uncommon potential to burden the Executive at a time of ongoing military conflict. Hearsay, for example, may need to be accepted as the most reliable available evidence from the Government in such a proceeding. Likewise, the Constitution would not be offended by a presumption in favor of the Government's evidence, so long as that presumption remained a rebuttable one and fair opportunity for rebuttal were provided. Thus, once the Government puts forth credible evidence that the habeas petitioner meets the enemy-combatant criteria, the onus could shift to the petitioner to rebut that evidence with more persuasive evidence that he falls outside the criteria. A burden-shifting scheme of this sort would meet the goal of ensuring that the errant tourist, embedded journalist, or local aid worker has a chance to prove military error while giving due regard to the Executive once it has put forth meaningful support for its conclusion that the detainee is in fact an enemy combatant.

There are a number of important questions that neither of these cases answers.

First, in ruling that non-citizen detainees at Guantanamo had a right to petition US courts for a writ of habeus corpus, the court relied heavily on the fact that, by treaty, the US had been ceded complete jurisdiction over the base for as long as it occupied it. Thus, the decision does not reach the issue of whether detainees being held by US officials in other countries have access to US courts as well. Sadly, in fact, the court's rationale appears to suggest that they would not.

Second, the holding regarding the right to notice and hearing on enemy combatant classifications is technically limited to US citizens, since Hamdi himself was a US citizen. Thus, it is technically unclear whether non-citizens classified as "enemy combatants" are also entitled to challenge the legitimacy of their classification. However, reading the Rasul and Hamdi cases together, it would appear that the answer is that non-citizens do have those rights. And, the Department of Defense appears to have accepted that fact, since it are now in the process of having parole hearings for non-citizen detainees at Guantanamo. See the latest on these from the NYT: "New Round of Hearings at Guantánamo" and "Review: Guantanamo Detainee Wrongly Held".

Third, while the court "blue-skies" at some length on the procedures that "might" or "might not" be required or appropriate in these proceedings, those musings are not dispositive. The court's actual holdings are simply that a citizen detainee is entitled to notice of the basis for his classification and an opportunity to rebut the factual basis for that classification before a neutral decisionmaker. Issues such as what burden of proof should be required and who should bear it; what types of evidence should be admitted; who the "neutral decisionmaker" should be; what rights the detainee has with respect to representation by counsel, protection against self-incrimination, etc., etc., were all left to be defined in subsequent cases. It will literally take years -- if not decades -- to get final resolution of all of these issues.

Fourth, the court does not attempt to answer the central question to be decided in these case: Who can legitimately be classified as an "enemy comabtant"? As the court recognized:

There is some debate as to the proper scope of this term, and the Government has never provided any court with the full criteria that it uses in classifying individuals as such. It has made clear, however, that, for purposes of this case, the "enemy combatant" that it is seeking to detain is an individual who, it alleges, was " 'part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners' " in Afghanistan and who " 'engaged in an armed conflict against the United States' " there. Brief for Respondents 3. We therefore answer only the narrow question before us: whether the detention of citizens falling within that definition is authorized.

The extent to which people that who had not engaged in armed conflict with the United States can be classified as enemy combatants is yet another issue that will have to be resolved in subsequent cases.

(Note: Rumsfeld v. Padilla, which was a companion case with Hamdi and Rasul cases, might have forced the court to begin to come to grips with this issue, since Padilla was captured not in Afghanistan, but in the United States, and was charged not with armed resistance to the United States in an active war, but with planning to detonate a "dirty bomb." However, the court dimissed the Padilla case on a narrow jurisdictional ground; i.e. Padilla's petition for a writ of habeus corpus should have been filed in South Carolina rather than Washington DC, since the perosn having actual physical control of him was the warden of the Navy brig in Charleston rather than the Secretary of Defense. The jurisdictional defect is easily reactified, however, so the Padilla case is virtually certain to make its way back to the Supreme Court at some point).

Finally, and of most immediate importance to the detainees, the court does not answer the question of how long "enemy combatants" can be detained. It does however, appear to suggest that the detention, even of one properly classified as an "ememy combatant" may not be last any longer than the combat in which he particpated continues. Moreover, the court appeared to believe that, in Hamdi's case, this "combat" was not the potentially never-ending "war on terror" but the fighting in Afgahnistan:

Hamdi objects, nevertheless, that Congress has not authorized the indefinite detention to which he is now subject. The Government responds that "the detention of enemy combatants during World War II was just as 'indefinite' while that war was being fought." . . . [However,] [a]s the Government concedes, "given its unconventional nature, the current conflict is unlikely to end with a formal cease-fire agreement." The prospect Hamdi raises is therefore not far-fetched. If the Government does not consider this unconventional war won for two generations, and if it maintains during that time that Hamdi might, if released, rejoin forces fighting against the United States, then the position it has taken throughout the litigation of this case suggests that Hamdi's detention could last for the rest of his life.

It is a clearly established principle of the law of war that detention may last no longer than active hostilities. . . . Certainly, we agree that indefinite detention for the purpose of interrogation is not authorized. . . . But that is not the situation we face as of this date. Active combat operations against Taliban fighters apparently are ongoing in Afghanistan. . . . The United States may detain, for the duration of these hostilities, individuals legitimately determined to be Taliban combatants who "engaged in an armed conflict against the United States."

This language poses some real problems for the Administration, who, no doubt, prefer to see the detainees as participants in the borader "war on terror" and detain them until that "war" was over. In fact, however, they may be required to release the detainees once some measure of stability returns to Afghanistan, regardless of the status, say of the war in Iraq or the broader war or terror. This may be the most fscinating aspect of this entire issue over the next year or so.

Posner and Becker on Preventive War

Richard Posner, the 7th Circuit Chief Judge and University of Chicago Law Professor , and Gary Becker, a Nobel Prize winning economist also at the University of Chicago, launched a blog Monday with two articles, one by each man, on "Preventive War". To say the least, it was an underwhelming debut.

Both gentlemen concluded that preventive war was justified under certain circumstances. Posner, not surprisingly, uses an cost benefit analysis to define those circumstances:

Suppose there is a probability of .5 that the adversary will attack at some future time, when he has completed a military build up, that the attack will, if resisted with only the victim’s current strength, inflict a cost on the victim of 100, so that the expected cost of the attack is 50 (100 x .5), but that the expected cost can be reduced to 20 if the victim incurs additional defense costs of 15. Suppose further that at an additional cost of only 5, the victim can by a preventive strike today eliminate all possibility of the future attack. Since 5 is less than 35 (the sum of injury and defensive costs if the future enemy attack is not prevented), the preventive war is cost-justified.

Wow. Is that all there is to it? The concept is easy. Even the math is easy. Why is everyone struggling so much with this issue?

Well the reason, of course, is that Posner entirely skipped the hard part: in a world of massive uncertainty how does one go about trying to reliably estimate (a) the probability of the attack, (b) the cost of the attack at current states of readiness, (c) how imminent is the attack; (d) what "additional defensive measures" are available, (e) which of the available measures could actually be implemented in the time before the attack, (f) how much would those additional measures cost, and (g) how much would they lower the cost of the attack. Unless you can attach values to all of those with a fair degree of certainty, the formula is worthless. Yet defining any of these variables with precision is extraordinarily difficult -- as has been illustrated so potently and painfully by the complete collapse of the estimates of these variables that ostensibly justified the invasion of Iraq. Moreover, if the cost of enduring the attack and the cost of the preventive war are even in the same ball park, almost any degree of uncertainty in the estimates of the variables will make it impossible to tell whether the preventive war is "justified" or not.

To illustrate, Posner's example assumes that cost of enduring an attack is 20 times higher than the cost of a preventive war (100 vs. 5). Rarely will the real world offer so disproportionate an advantage to a potential victim of an attack. For the sake of argument, then, let's assume that the cost of being attacked is only 4 times the cost of attacking; i.e. 100 vs 25. Still a pretty high ratio, but it will serve to illustrate the point. Also assume, for the sake of simplicity that, after exploring all available options, the victim determines that there are no "additional defensive measures" it can take that would appreciably reduce the cost of the attack. This leaves only three variables to consider: The probability of the attack (Pa), the cost to the victim of enduring that attack (Ca), and the cost to the victim of a preventive attack (Cp). Under Posner's approach, the preventive attack would be "cost-justified" so long as Pa x Ca > Cp. Now, assume we estimate Pa at 0.5, Ca at 100, and Cp at 25. Since, 0.5 x 100 > 25, the war is in Posner's view, cost justified.

But wait. Clearly there is uncertainty around all three of these variables. So, let's assume, that each is only accurate to +/- 30%. That means that Pa is actually somewhere between 0.35 and 0.65; Ca is somewhere between 70 and 130, and CP is somewhere between 17.5 and 32.5. This in turn means that the "true" probability-adjusted cost of waiting to be attacked could be as low as 24.5 (0.35 x 70) while the cost of attacking first could be as high as 32.5. If this is the case, then the war would not be "cost-justified" in Posner's estimation. On the other hand, the cost of waiting to be attacked could be as high as 84.5 (0.65 x 130), while the cost of attacking first could be as low 17.5. In this case, the preventive war clearly would be "cost justified" under Posner's analysis. Now what do we do?

To the extent we add more variables -- such as the costs and benefits of "additional defensive measures -- each of which has it own associated uncertainty, the spread between the possible outcomes become ever greater, at an exponential rate. It is very very, hard to see how such a formula is helpful in making decisions.

To make matters worse, there are (at least) two important variables that Posner does not even mention. First, there is no consideration of the costs to the putative aggressor of either option. Surely there are some, and while the putative victim would not value those costs as highly as he does his own, it is easy to imagine scenarios where it would be impossible for any civilized nation to refuse to take those costs into account. Iraq is, again, an obvious case in point. In deciding whether to invade Iraq, shouldn't the costs to the Iraqi people be at least a factor in the equation?

Second, the probability of an attack is not immutable. Insofar as it depends on human decision-making, that probability could be affected by such things as diplomacy, sanctions, alliances, etc. These sorts of factors work in much the same way as Posner's "additional defensive measures" do, but they cannot be subsumed there because the operate on the probability of an attack rather than its costs.

It is hard to believe, but Professor Becker's analysis is even less helpful than Judge Posner's. Becker takes a much more qualitative approach to the problem, but ends up with something that at best a truism and at worst a truly scary theory. He starts by noting that, historically we have used the same strategy to prevent war as we have to prevent crime: the deterrent effect created by the threat of retaliation/punishment. However, he argues, our enemies today are largely immune to deterrence because they are too widely dispersed for retaliation to be effective, unconvinced (or unaware) that retaliation is likely, or indifferent to the impact of the retaliation. Thus, he argues that we should use a new model, also drawn from the criminal law: We need to be willing to punish intent, much as we do in prosecuting conspiracies. Relying exclusively on this facile analogy, Becker argues that since we punish bad intentions in the criminal law, we are also justified in punishing bad intentions of international actors.

In his only nod to nuance, Becker does acknowledge that "the evidence of intent must be analyzed carefully". What I think (hope) this means is that there must be some reasonable basis for concluding that the requisite intent actually exists. But then he vitiates this by arguing, first, that we have never insisted on 100% certainty regarding intent:

But criminals are convicted too on less than 100% certain evidence. As Posner says in his commentary, it is necessary to consider probabilities, not certainties.

and then arguing that:

[T]he degree of certainty required before preventive actions are justified has been considerably reduced below what it was in the past because the destructive power of weaponry has enormously increased.

Becker's thesis, then, comes down to is this: If we have sufficient evidence that someone intends to attack us, we can take pre-emptive action. Hardly an insight worthy of a Nobel Prize winner. A more interesting article would have started with that principle as a premise (since no one disputes it) and then discussed what "sufficient evidence of intent" means today. As it is though, his article is susceptible to the interpretation that, because of the danger of modern weapons, preventive war is justified even by the vaguest hint of intent. I certainly hope that is not what he intended.

Posner and Becker are both incredibly gifted men, who unquestionably have much to say that is perceptive, informative, and enlightening. Having decided to venture into the blogosphere, let's hope they actually take the venture seriously.