Blood Fued

As a part of my commitment to myself to listen to people I don't agree with, I am on a number of Israeli right-winger e-mail distribution lists. For the most part, I read and delete. But every once in a while I find myself compelled to respond. It is invariably a mistake. But it is sometimes informative. I had one of those moments today.

I won't try to reproduce the whole exchange, but the staring point was an email my interlocutor (Mordechai) sent out a couple of days ago that had the following re line: "For all the morons out there who haven't figured this out for themselves. Olmert is destroying Israel. He must go!"

I did not respond to that one, but Mordechai apparently got a fair amount of feedback form others objecting to his "strong language," and he felt compelled, I guess, to send out a defense of the language (not the ideas, mind you, just thelanguagee). I weighed in at that point, with this:

The strong language does not bother me, but the paucity of ideas does. If the Sharon/Olmert plan is moronic, what approach is not? The status quo is unacceptable to Israel, the Palestinians, the Arabs, the United States, indeed, the world. So give us something better before you start labeling people who are trying to find a way "morons."

And, we were off.

About 15 minutes later (do these guys do anything besides lurk beside their e-mail? In terms of "rapid response" they make the Republicanss look like rank amateurs), Mordechai responded with a long e-mail, most of which was non-responsive and self-justificatory. But he did get to some concrete proposals eventually. They were, in toto:

I do not think there is any 'off-the-shelf' solution. I would begin with total application of the law to all Arabs living in Israel. In other words, if a Jew drives a car and picks up passengers for payment, this is called a taxi and he needs a license. If he does not have one, his car is confiscated. I want the same to apply to Arabs. If I attempt to build without a license, the building will be torn down and I will be fined. I want the same for Arabs (there are presently some 84,000 illegal Arab buildings). If a Jewish young adult attends university, they pay tuition, and Arab does not. If own a business, I need to pay taxes income, VAT etcetera. I want the same to apply to Arabs.

Let's see what 'demographic' issue exist if Arabs have to spend three years in national service in order to vote. A Yeshiva boy must serve in the army to vote, and Arab votes with no service. (I did not say 'army' -- there are many types of service, let them clean bed pans in the Hospital).

This is where I would begin with a 'solution'. I can continue on, but this would be too long. All of this are things that I have stated many times in the past.

Two minutes later, he then appended this:

As to the 'war' in general, I agree with Churchill. The only solution to total war is total defeat followed by total surrender.

To which I, growing more impatient by the minute, responded thus:

The Arabs/Muslims have suffered total defeat any number of times.

Militarily they are a joke. Israel has beaten them soundly 4 times.The US has taken down two Muslim countries in 5 years. Yet total surrender remains chimerical. The more total their defeat the more fanatical their resistance becomes. If insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results, those who argue that we Israel and the US) should continue doing the same things we have been
doing for 60 years are damn near certifiable. Another form of insanity is a deeply held belief in propositions for which there is no evidence. There is no evidence for the proposition that "total surrender" of the Palestinians, or the Muslim world generally, is even remotely attainable. Believing that this should be the goal is a form of lunacy.

Oh, and yes. Let's insist that Arab taxi drivers get licenses. That will help.

(That last was not, I admit, really conducive to reasoned discussion, but I succumbed to my baser impulses).

But then, in response, came this, which is really the point of this whole post:

I wish I could agree. They [the Muslims] have received serious setbacks, but none of these are comparable to what Churchill meant. . . .

The US, did not 'take down' two Muslim countries. They are still there; and they are very aware that they are still there, simply waiting for the US to tire, again. . . .

Is Islam defeatable? A good question and certainly not one with a trivial answer. I believe they are. . . . How about seeing a few battalions of US Marines marching down the streets of Mecca? (Infidels are not allowed in Mecca, under pain of instant, albeit slow, death.) Do you think this would affect their perception of their ability to defeat the West? I think it has a good chance to shake things up.

Marines in Mecca? Defeats more "total" than they suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan? Defeats so "total" that they result in "total surrender? What, exactly, is he talking about here?

The response I penned was simply this: "Sadly Mordecahi, the differences between you and them are far samller than you would like to believe."

I did not send it though. After all, what is the point? These people are simply beyond talking to. They have no more sense of what is possible (much less appropriate) than the jihadists do. Our national security -- and economy -- is the hostage of a Hatfield-McCoy blood fued.

A pox on both their houses!