I Hate to See Women And Children Being Dragged from Their Homes, But Why Are There Polling Stations in Efrat?

In a recent post, I argued that the settlements don't make me safer. I didn't make any explicit indication of what policy I was actually advocating. Some of my Dear Readers may have come away with the impression that I advocate the immediate evacuation of all Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

Look, I realize that such a move might be a bit drastic, a bit impractical, and, let's say, tactically imprudent.

I hate seeing women and children being dragged from their homes. Everyone does.

I'd like to see an Israeli government that publicly declares that the settlements were a historic mistake. I'd like to see the government issue a call to all the Zionists out there in the West Bank to do the Zionist thing and come home.

I'd like to see government compensation and incentives for settlers who do come home, a move that has been proposed by some Labor MKs.

I'd like to see Knesset elections without a single polling station in the West Bank. Israelis who live in New York and Los Angeles can't vote unless they hop on a plane; the very least that the settlers can do is hop on a bus. The West Bank isn't part of Israel, right? (At least, so the Israeli government claims; that's the excuse for not giving Palestinians Israeli citizenship.)

I'd like to see an end to construction in the settlements. For those who already have construction permits, let them finish, of course, and then stop granting permits. Does that mean that some young couples won't be able to live in the same settlement as their parents? Believe me, I feel very sorry for these young couples, but BSD they'll be OK, especially if we enter them all in a sweepstakes where one lucky couple will win a Glatt Kosher Romantic Getaway in the South of France.

Finally, I have to admit that I would like to see an immediate evacuation of all the illegal settlements. The date of evacuation should be made public in advance, along with a promise that anyone still in the illegal settlements on the date of evacuation will go to jail. Anyone who is willing to leave beforehand can get generous government assistance. Subsequently, anyone who tries to build a new settlement will also go to jail. This would, of course, involve some women and children being dragged from their homes; criminal women who dragged their children into a Holy War over Greater Israel.

All of these initiatives are common sense. I didn't make them up (except for the one about the polling stations).

They won't get rid of the settlements overnight. But they might start things moving in the right direction.

They won't make the Europeans love us overnight. But maybe our leaders will finally be able to say the word "democracy" with a straight face.

Who is a Terrorist?

Obama is going to talk to Iran, as soon as Khameni puts down the demonstrations and takes care of Mousavi. Why are there no similar plans to talk to Hamas?

Most of my Dear Readers would answer simply, because Hamas is a terrorist organization.

But that didn't stop Rabin from talking to the PLO. Perhaps Obama is trying to avoid repeating Rabin's mistake? But if talking to the PLO was a mistake in 1992, why is it OK to talk to Abu Mazen now?

Anyway, is Hamas really a terrorist organization? Jimmy Carter doesn't think so. How about Harry Truman, was he a terrorist? What about Moshe Rabbenu?

We human beings used to have all kinds of semantic debates: who is a terrorist, who is a Jew, what "is" is, and so on. Then wikipedia was invented. Now all we need to do is wikipedia terrorism.

The wikipedia entry on terrorism really drops a bomb, so to speak: the term "terrorism" is actually politically incorrect! Of course, wikipedia provides the correct term that we should use instead:

<wikipedia>The word “terrorism” is politically and emotionally charged,^[5] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. A 1988 study by the United States Army found that over 100 definitions of the word “terrorism” have been used.^[6] The concept of terrorism is itself controversial because it is often used by states to delegitimize political or foreign opponents, and potentially legitimize the state's own use of terror against them. A less politically and emotionally charged term (used not only for terrorists), allowing for more accurate analyses, is violent non-state actor."</wikipedia>

Some of you Dear Readers might protest that all of this semantics is just obscuring the issue. Hamas targets civilians. Targeting civilians is evil. Therefore, Hamas is evil. Therefore, negotiating with Hamas is evil.

Believe me, no one hates the targeting of civilians more than I do. That's why this week's parsha makes me sick. But let's consider a few things:

First of all, I'd like one of my Dear Readers, one who is not quite as lazy as I am, to come up with two numbers. One number would be all the Israeli civilians killed by Hamas. Let's call this number A. The other number would be the number of Palestinian civilians killed by Israel, and we'll call it B. Once I have those numbers, I can (that is, Google Calculator can) divide A / B. What do you think I'll come up with? Yes, I know that Israel's activities are directed against combatants, and Israel tries to minimize civilian casualties.

Second of all, how many suicide bombings has Hamas perpetrated since the disengagement? (Bli ayin hora!) A reporter in Hamodia recently claimed that the IDF, "with a little help from Fatah", is preventing Hamas terror attacks around the clock. I suppose that may be true, but why is the IDF so much more successful after the disengagement? Did the creation of Hamastan in Gaza somehow increase the effectiveness of the IDF's anti-terrorism (I mean, anti-violent-non-state-actor) units?

Finally, other news sources, including some from the same Hamodia, suggest that Hamas is now actually preventing terror attacks on Israel, and trying to prevent missiles from being fired at Israel from Gaza.

Hamas certainly hasn't officially renounced suicide bombings, or apologized for them, or anything like that. Along with the entire civilized world, I call on Hamas to renounce the targeting of civilians. But should this be a precondition for negotiations, or should it be a goal of negotiations?

I'd like to take an abstract approach to this question and ask in general, when you want something from your enemies, should it be a precondition to negotiations or a goal of negotiations?

What do you think, Dear Readers? My own opinion will appear, God willing, in an upcoming post.

The Settlements Don't Make Me Safer

In a previous post, I said that I would eventually write about my own view of the settlements. Here it is:

Over 2 million Palestinians live in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. They can't vote in Israeli elections and don't receive Israeli social benefits, plus they lack other rights in Israeli law that I'm somewhat fuzzy on. This has been going on for more than 40 years. Doesn't seem fair, does it? Can anyone with any intellectual honesty call Israel a democracy?

Why has Israel adopted this policy of indefinite occupation? Why doesn't Israel return to its democratic roots by withdrawing from the West Bank and allowing the Palestinians to establish an independent country there?

Zionists such as myself would like to believe that Israel does not withdraw because it fears that a withdrawal from the West Bank -- especially an unconditional withdrawal -- would endanger the security of Israel and its citizens. Israel fears that an independent Palestine would become a base for terror and a client of scary Iran. A popular poster during the recent campaign said, "A Palestinian State Puts You In the Crosshairs."

I would like to believe that Israel is occupying the West Bank in self-defense, but I can't.

Because if Israel is occupying the West Bank in self-defense, what are all of those Jewish settlements doing there?

Believe me, the Israeli army could protect me quite well if there were not a single Jewish settler in the West Bank. The settlers do not contribute anything to the army's ability to protect me. Every Jewish settler in the West Bank is living proof that the Israeli Army is occupying the territory not to protect Israeli citizens, but so that Israeli Jews (who, of course, vote in Israeli elections and enjoy Israeli social benefits) can live there. Proof that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank is for Jewish domination of Greater Israel, or, as we say in Hebrew, Eretz Yisrael Hashlema.

So would a peace treaty with Fatah, which of course is only possible if it includes Palestinian statehood, bring real peace, or would it just put me in the crosshairs? Maybe even the Palestinians would be worse off in a war-torn, eventually Hamas-controlled Palestinian state. I don't know.

I do know one thing, though: the settlements don't make me safer.

The Analytic Fallacy

In Stewart Shapiro's excellent book (with an excellent cover photo), Thinking About Mathematics, Shapiro writes: "Quine's thesis is...there is no sense in saying that a sentence is true in virtue of language alone...critics of Quine's view point out that some sentences are in fact true in virtue of meaning.  Can we really contemplate experiences that could get us to deny that cats are feline, bachelors are unmarried, or 6=6?"

Shapiro's strategy is to suggest that Quine should not be taken too literally.  Shapiro writes: "In any case, I think that Quine can concede that some sentences are true in virtue of meaning and so are analytic...Quine's point is that analycicity cannot play the central role that the logical positivists had for it."  In other words, Quine didn't really mean that *no* sentences are true in virtue of language alone; what he really meant was that *almost no* sentences are true in virtue of language alone, or that almost no interesting sentences are true in virtue of meaning alone.  Being a real scholar, Shapiro goes on to pull some quotes from Quine (written much later than the first quote) that support this point.

I am a Dilletante so I cannot give you quotes.  All I can give you is my deep thoughts.  Here they are:

Of course I can contemplate experiences that would get me to deny that cats are feline.  There is a particular animal that I call a dog.  If I go outside and hear that everyone else calls this animal a cat, I will deny that cats are feline, unless people start using the word "feline" differently.

Why?

There are two kinds of linguistic propositions.  The first is empirical: it states an attribute of what people generally mean when they use a term.  So the proposition "bachelors are unmarried" can mean, "when people use the term bachelor to describe someone, that someone is usually unmarried."

The second kind of linguistic proposition is truly definitional, when I define a term that I will be using in my own communication.  So I could say, "I will use the term bachelor to mean an unmarried man", or, "I will use the term gnosis to mean unmediated knowledge, or valid intuition."  This kind of a proposition is not really a proposition at all.  It doesn't really say anything; rather, it lays the groundwork for me to be able to say things, perhaps more clearly (or perhaps less clearly).

I still don't quite understand the proposition 6=6, but I do think that a lot of the logical positivist thought about math is really formalism in disguise.  So let me get back to you on 6=6.

So I don't know if Quine is an anti-linguistic purist or not.  But I am.  No sentences are really true in virtue of language alone.

In fact, I think Kant's distinction between analysis and synthesis was a big mistake and has caused us a lot of headaches.

Haredi Core

First of all, good music is Kiddush Hashem.  When a believer hears good music, like, really glorious music, the glory really goes to Hashem as the creator of the musician and the one who provided the inspiration for the music.  It's kind of like the Grand Canyon or Niagra Falls or a starry night or the sun shining through the trees on Balfour 14.

I recently was thinking of sampling a sound from an Eminem song (in the end, I didn't sample it.)  So my producer (Daniel Machness) and I were listening to this Eminem song and waiting for the particular sound that I was interested in, and Daniel said something like, "I love this music.  I would listen to this all the time except that every other word is a profanity."  I'm not claiming that my music is as good as Eminem's, but wouldn't it be nice to have gangsta rap that frum Jews like us can feel good about listening to?

So from that angle, my music is only as good a Kiddush Hashem as it is good music -- make your own decision.

Second of all, I think that there are aspects of gangsta rap that are a Kiddush Hashem in particular.  Gangsta rap is arrogant and aggressive, in a humourous, self-conscious, post-modernist way.  I have problems with arrogance and anger management, and I think I'm not alone.  Gangsta rap gives me the opportunity -- in composing it and listening to it -- to channel these potentially negative traits in a harmless direction and to laugh at them.  I think this is very helpful in improving my middos overall.

Kadima Now

At some point in Bibi's first term, Ariel Sharon suggested that a Palestinian state might not be such a bad idea after all.

At some point during Sharon's term as Prime Minister (well before Sharon announced his plans to withdraw from Gaza), the Likud party held a vote on the issue of Palestinian statehood.  Sharon said yes; Bibi said no.  Bibi won.  (Sharon was quick to say that he appreciated the input of his party members, but he was Prime Minister and would do as he pleased.)

When Bibi was elected the second time around, he invited Tzipi, the heir of Ariel Sharon, to join his government.  She refused, ostensibly because Bibi refused to accept the possibility of a Palestinian state.

Well, as of this weekend, Bibi accepted the possibility of a Palestinian state.

Time for Tzipi to join Bibi's government, IMAO.

Lieberman will probably be indicted soon, at which point he will be forced to step down as Foreign Minister.  I think that would be a perfect time for Tzipi to step up to the plate.  I think Israel will be much better off with Tzipi as Foreign Minister than Danny Ayalon.  Especially because I always get him confused with Bogey Ya'alon.

It's very simple.  Bibi will be the Prime Minister, but Tzipi will negotiate with Fatah, not Bibi.  Either Tzipi will be able to cut a good deal with Fatah, or she won't.  If she is able to cut a good deal with Fatah, she will give Bibi a simple choice.  Either he signs on the dotted line and shares the Nobel Prize with her, or she resigns, wins the elections, and becomes the Prime Minister herself, which is apparently what she wants.

The time has come, Tzipi.  You could have the Nobel Prize.  Do you need to be Prime Minister too?

As it says in this week's parsha, rav lach.

Settlement Cap and Trade

Bibi and I don't see eye to eye on the settlements.

I lived in a settlement for two years; did Bibi?

But my own personal views will appear, God willing, in a later post.  For now let's stick to Bibi.

Bibi seems to be on a collision course with Obama regarding the settlements.  Obama demands zero construction; Bibi insists on lebensraum, or, as he calls it, "natural growth".

Is it all just a show, orchestrated by Bibi and Obama, to give Bibi the chance to prove that his Israel is The Israel That Can Say No?

Maybe.

But what if it isn't?  What if these two world leaders would prefer to find a way to work together instead of butting heads?  Are "zero construction" and "natural growth" mutually exclusive?

What about Cap And Trade?

What if Bibi were to allow some settlements to expand, and to compensate Obama by evacuating some settlements (I mean currently legal settlements), so that the total number of housing units in the settlements remains constant?  What if the settlements that expanded were large settlements situated in settlement blocks with small Arab populations, and the settlements evacuated were small settlements surrounded by Arab villages?

This is analogous to how the border would probably be drawn if there were ever a final settlement between Israel and the Palestinians: Israel would get Gush Etzion and Palestine would get the Jordan Valley, etc.

Pretty clever, eh?

If you think this is my only brilliant idea, you're mistaken.  I'm full of them.  I'm here to help, Bibi.  I'm waiting for your call.

MC Complete, at your service.