from Tikkun 07aug06 Voices of dissent

[Gernot Koehler <gko15@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

this is from Tikkun 07aug06. could be of interest to some pen-l'ers
GK

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Voices of dissent from Israeli Jews! News and analyses that you never hear
in the U.S. media.

5,000 rally in Tel Aviv against Lebanon conflict
By Yuli Kromchenko and Yoav Stern, Haaretz Correspondents, and Reuters

More than 5,000 people marched in Tel Aviv on Saturday evening, to protest
the ongoing Israel Defense Forces operation in Lebanon. Demonstrators set
off from Dizengoff Street and marched along King George Street, which was
closed to traffic, calling for an end to the conflict and the withdrawal of
Israeli troops from Lebanon,
and denouncing Defense Minister Amir Peretz.

*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
UNBELIEVABLE BUT TRUE: Israeli Ultra-Orthodox Knesset Party called ?Degel
HaTorah?
Comes out for Immediate Cease Fire and Negotiations with Hezbollahs
While the secular leaders of Kadima push on for more war, the ultra-orthodox
Degel HaTorah party called for an immediate cease fire and negotiations, on
the grounds of saving Jewish lives. Oblivious to its own racism (nothing in
the Bible or Talmud frees Jews from responsibiity for saving non-Jewish
lives as well, since the Torah is explicit that all human beings are created
in God?s image and the Talmud says that the reason why the Torah starts with
the story of Creation and Adam and Eve is precisely to show that all people
come from the same source and hence that no group has the right to claim
that it comes from a higher origin than anyone else), Degel HaTorah
nevertheless became the first non-Arab party in the Knesset to unequivocally
call for an end to hostilities.
*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Tikkun/Network of Spiritual Progressives buy full page ad in The Los Angeles
Times
Thanks of the donations of thousands of people, listed on the website, an
updated version of the ad (which appeared in the NY Times last Monda)y
appears today in the Los Angeles Times ?Current? Section. We are still
trying to raise the money for it to be printed in the Washington Post,
Israeli, Lebanese and Palestinian newspapers. Today it had 2,900 signers,
including the wonderful poet Mary Oliver, , writers like Karem Armstrong,
Clayborne Carson, Kim Chernin, Deepak Chpra, Sidra KeOven ezrahi, Caroln
Force, Annie Lamott, Thomas Powers and Buffy Sainte-Marie, please respected
thinker/activists including Daniel Ellsberg, Van Jones, Jonathan Granoff,
Rev. Tony Campolo, and Arun Gandhi. The whole list can be found at
www.tikkun.org/PeaceAd. It?s not too late to sign on or donate to make it
possible for us to do this. Go to www.tikkun.org/PeaceAd
********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
[Below we present a series of Israel writers whose critiques of the Lebanon
war II are barely known in the U.S. You can find daily updates of the voices
of dissent at www.tikkun.org (and then look at the iterm on Current
Thinking, which we are continually updating). But these seemed so important
we wanted to get them to your attention even if you haven?t yet developed
the habit of daily consulting our webpage.]
This appeared in Israel?s most respected newspaper Ha?aretz Aug. 6


The real estate war
By Gideon Levy

This miserable war in Lebanon, which is just getting more and more
complicated for no reason at all, was born in Israel?s greed for land. Not
that Israel is fighting this time to conquer more land, not at all, but
ending the occupation could have prevented this unnecessary war. If Israel
had returned the Golan Heights and signed a peace treaty with Syria in a
timely fashion, presumably this war would not have broken out.

Peace with Syria would have guaranteed peace with Lebanon and peace with
both would have prevented Hezbollah from fortifying on Israel?s northern
border. Peace with Syria would have also isolated Iran, Israel?s true,
dangerous enemy, and cut off Hezbollah from one of the two sources of its
weapons and funding. It?s so simple, and so removed from conventional
Israeli thinking, which is subject to brainwashing.

For years, Israel has waged war against the Palestinians with the main
motive of insistence on keeping the occupied territories. If not for the
settlement enterprise, Israel would have long since retreated from the
occupied territories and the struggle?s engine would have been significant
neutralized. Not that a non-occupying Israel would have turned into the
darling of the Arab world, but the destructive fire aimed at Israel would
have significantly lessened, and those who continued to fight Israel would
have found themselves isolated.

The war against the Palestinians is therefore unequivocally a territorial
war, a war for the settlements. In other words, in the West Bank and Gaza,
people were killed and are getting killed because of our greed for land.
> From Golda Meir to Ehud Olmert, the lie has held that the war with the
Palestinians is an existential one for survival imposed on Israel when it is
actually a war for real estate, one dunam after another, that does not
belong to us.

The situation is different with Syria. For 33 years, the Syrians gave up the
military effort to reinstate their occupied lands. Israel can pass a dozen
Golan Heights laws to annex it, but occupied territory remains occupied
territory. During those three decades, the prevailing view in Israel was
that there was no need for peace with Syria: The Syrians sat quietly anyway,
so why give them back the Golan?

This is the same dangerously foolish thinking that characterized the first
20 years of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The Palestinians sat
quietly, surrendered under the Israeli occupation boot, and it did not occur
to anyone to return their territory. Instead, Israel established the
settlements. Only when the Palestinians woke up and realized they were going
to lose their lands forever did they begin a violent campaign; and only
after blood was spilled, did Israel wake up from its dreams and realize that
it could not hold onto all of the territories forever. Thus, with
regrettable delay and years of bloodshed, the recognition of the PLO, the
Oslo accords, the disengagement and the convergence were born - all partial
and fake solutions meant to postpone the end of the occupation.

We did not need all of that with the Syrians - after all, they sat quietly
all of these years. Now comes the war in Lebanon and proves that this was a
mistake. Although the Syrians sat on the sidelines, the danger from that
direction was not removed and the delusion that the Golan would forever
remain in Israeli hands, without our being asked to pay for its occupation,
is now slapping us in the face.

But the current war could yet turn out to be only an appetizer for the
coming wars, which will be far more dangerous. The saying that time is on
our side is another delusion. The Arab and Muslim world has armed, in all of
this time, and the danger of nuclear weapons and long-range missiles is
already hovering over our heads. The only response to that is maximum
neutralization of the flashpoints, before the bomb arrives. But Israel has
chosen to close its eyes and build its future on a horrifyingly temporary
quiet, or on more and more war operations.

Just when territory is losing its military importance because of the
development of new fighting technology, Israel is using security excuses to
stay in the territories. Former-prime minister Ehud Barak criminally missed
the opportunity to sign a peace treaty with Syria after he got ?cold feet,?
as witnesses said, and retreated at the last minute. That?s how it works
with us. When the other side is quiet, why return territories? And when they
do go to war, ?there?s nobody to talk to,? and certainly not while we are
?under fire.?

While we are ready to jump on any war bandwagon, as in this time, we
endlessly procrastinate when it comes to peace negotiations. Now, too, when
Syria, pushed around by the U.S., desperately wants to return to the ?family
of nations,? is an excellent time to try to make peace with it - but there
are those who say now is not the time. What will the Americans say? They,
after all, are against any deals with Bashar Assad of ?the axis of evil.?

So, there it is, another excuse to miss a golden opportunity, another
mendacious excuse. As in the case of the peace with Egypt, the move that has
guaranteed Israel?s security for years far more than any war, and which was
put together behind the America?s back, America would not be able to oppose
a peace agreement with Syria. Now, after we?ve hit Hezbollah and ruined
Lebanon, the prime minister of Israel should declare: the Golan for peace.
That could contribute a lot more to our security than a thousand useless
daring operations in Baalbek, but it would take a lot more courage than
going off to fight another unnecessary and useless war.

************************************************************
THE DAY after the war will be the Day of the Long Knives
by Israel Peace Activist Uri Avneri

Everybody will blame everybody else. The politicians will blame each
other. The generals will blame each other. The politicians will blame
the generals. And, most of all, the generals will blame the politicians.

Always, in every country and after every war, when the generals fail,
the ?knife in the back? legend raises its head. If only the politicians
had not stopped the army just when it was on the point of achieving a
glorious, crushing, historic victory?

That?s what happened in Germany after World War I, when the legend gave
birth to the Nazi movement. That?s what happened in America after
Vietnam. That?s what is going to happen here. The first stirrings can
already be felt.

THE SIMPLE truth is that up to now, the 22nd day of the war, not one
single military target has been reached. The same army that took just
six days to rout three big Arab armies in 1967 has not succeeded in
overcoming a small ?terrorist organization? in a time span that is
already longer than the momentous Yom Kippur War. Then, the army
succeeded in just 20 days in turning a stunning defeat at the beginning
into a resounding military victory at the end.

In order to create an image of achievement, military spokesmen asserted
yesterday that ?we have succeeded in killing 200 (or 300, or 400, who is
counting?) of the 1000 fighters of Hizbullah.? The assertion that the
entire terrifying Hizbullah consisted of one thousand fighters speaks
for itself.

According to correspondents, President Bush is frustrated. The Israeli
army has not ?delivered the goods?. Bush sent them into war believing
that the powerful army, equipped with the most advanced American arms,
will ?finish the job? in a few days. It was supposed to eliminate
Hizbullah, turn Lebanon over to the stooges of the US, weaken Iran and
perhaps also open the way to ?regime change? in Syria. No wonder that
Bush is angry.

Ehud Olmert is even more furious. He went to war in high spirits and
with a light heart, because the Air Force generals had promised to
destroy Hizbullah and their rockets within a few days. Now he is stuck
in the mud, and no victory in sight.

AS USUAL with us, at the termination of the fighting (and possibly even
before) the War of the Generals will start. The front lines are already
emerging.

The commanders of the land army blame the Chief-of-Staff and the
power-intoxicated Air Force, who promised to achieve victory all by
themselves. To bomb, bomb and bomb, destroy roads, bridges, residential
quarters and villages, and - finito!

The followers of the Chief-of-Staff and the other Air Force generals
will blame the land forces, and especially Northern Command. Their
spokesmen in the media already declare that this command is full of
inept officers, who have been shunted there because the North seemed a
backwater while the real action was going on in the South (Gaza) and the
Center (West Bank).

There are already insinuations that the Chief of Northern Command,
General Udi Adam, was appointed to his job only in homage to his father,
General Kuti Adam, who was killed in the First Lebanon War.

THE MUTUAL accusations are all quite right. This war is plastered with
military failures - in the air, on land and on the sea.

They are rooted in the terrible arrogance in which we were brought up
and which has become a part of our national character. It is even more
typical of the army, and reaches its climax in the Air Force.

For years we have told each other that we have the most-most-most army
in the world. We have convinced not only ourselves, but also Bush and
the entire world. After all, we did win an astounding victory in six
days in 1967. As a result, when this time the army did not win a huge
victory in six days, everybody was astounded. Why, what happened?

One of the declared aims of this war was the rehabilitation of the
Israeli army?s deterrence power. That really has not happened.

That?s because the other side of the coin of arrogance is the profound
contempt for Arabs, an attitude that has already led to severe military
failures in the past. It?s enough to remember the Yom Kippur war. Now
our soldiers are learning the hard way that the ?terrorists? are highly
motivated, tough fighters, not junkies dreaming of ?their? virgins in
Paradise.

But beyond arrogance and contempt for the opponent, there is a basic
military problem: it is just impossible to win a war against guerillas.
We have seen this in our 18-year stay in Lebanon. Then we drew the
unavoidable conclusion and got out. True, without good sense, without an
agreement with the other side. (We don?t speak with terrorists, do we? -
even if they are the dominant force on the ground.) But we did get out.

God knows what gave today?s generals the unfounded self-confidence to
believe that they would win where their predecessors failed so miserably.

And most of all: even the best army in the world cannot win a war that
has no clear aims. Karl von Clausewitz, the guru of military science,
pronounced that ?war is nothing more than the continuation of politics
by other means?. Olmert and Peretz, two complete dilettantes, have
turned this inside out: ?War is nothing more than the continuation of
the lack of policy by other means.?

MILITARY EXPERTS say that in order to succeed in war, there must be (a)
a clear aim, (b) an aim that is achievable, and (c) the means necessary
for achieving this aim.

All these three conditions are lacking in this war. That is clearly the
fault of the political leadership.

Therefore, the main blame will be laid at the feet of the twins,
Olmert-Peretz. They have succumbed to the temptation of the moment and
dragged the state into a war, in a decision that was hasty, unconsidered
and reckless.

As Nehemia Strassler wrote in Haaretz: They could have stopped after two
or three days, when all the world agreed that Hizbullah?s provocation
justified an Israeli response, when nobody was yet doubting the
capabilities of the Israeli army. The operation would have looked
sensible, sober and proportional.

But Olmert and Peretz could not stop. As greenhorns in matters of war,
they did not know that the boasts of the generals cannot be relied on,
that even the best military plans are not worth the paper on which they
are written, that in war the unexpected must be expected, that nothing
is more temporary then the glory of war. They were intoxicated by the
war?s popularity, egged on by a herd of fawning journalists, driven out
of their minds by their own glory as War Leaders.

Olmert was roused by his own incredibly kitschy speeches, which he
rehearsed with his hangers-on. Peretz, so it seems, stood in front of
the mirror and already saw himself as the next Prime Minister, Mister
Security, a Second Ben-Gurion.

And so, like two village idiots, to the sound of drums and bugles, they
set off at the head of their March of Folly straight towards political
and military failure.

It is reasonable to assume that they will pay the price after the war.

WHAT WILL come out of this whole mess?

No one talks anymore about eliminating Hizbullah or disarming it and
destroying all the rockets. That has been forgotten long ago.

At the start of the war, the government furiously rejected the idea of
deploying an international force of any kind along the border. The army
believed that such a force would not protect Israel, but only restrict
its freedom of action. Now, suddenly, the deployment of this force has
become the main aim of the campaign. The army is continuing the
operation solely in order to ?prepare the ground for the international
force?, and Olmert declares that he will go on fighting until it appears
on the ground.

That is, of course, a sorry alibi, a ladder for getting down from the
high tree. The international force can be deployed only in agreement
with Hizbullah. No country will send its soldiers to a place where they
would have to fight the locals. And everywhere in the area, the local
Shiite inhabitants will return to their villages - including the
Hizbullah underground fighters.

Further on, the force will also be totally dependent on the agreement of
Hizbullah. If a bomb explodes under a bus full of French soldiers, a cry
will go up in Paris: bring our sons home. That is what happened when the
US Marines were bombed in Beirut.

The Germans, who shocked the world this week by opposing the call for a
cease-fire, certainly will not send soldiers to the Israeli border.
That?s just what they need, to be obliged to shoot at Israeli soldiers.

And, most importantly, nothing will prevent Hizbullah from launching
their rockets over the heads of the international force, any time they
want to. What will the international force do then? Conquer all the area
up to Beirut? And how will Israel respond?

Olmert wants the force to control the Lebanese-Syrian border. That, too,
is illusory. That border goes around the entire West and North of
Lebanon. Anybody who wants to smuggle weapons will stay away from the
main roads, which will be controlled by the international soldiers. He
will find hundreds of places along the border to do this. With the
proper bribe, one can do anything in Lebanon.

Therefore, after the war, we will stand more or less in the same place
we were before we started this sorry adventure, before the killing of
almost a thousand Lebanese and Israelis, before the eviction from their
homes of more than a million human beings, Israelis and Lebanese, before
the destruction of more than a thousand homes both in Lebanon and Israel.

AFTER THE war, the enthusiasm will simmer down, the inhabitants of the
North will lick their wounds and the army will start to investigate its
failures. Everybody will claim that he or she was against the war from
the first day on. Then the Day of Judgment will come.

The conclusion that presents itself is: kick out Olmert, send Peretz
packing and sack Halutz.

In order to embark on a new course, the only one that will solve the
problem: negotiations and peace with the Palestinians, the Lebanese, the
Syrians. And: with Hamas and Hizbullah.

Because it?s only with enemies that one makes peace.
--
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Uri Avnery
August 5. 2006
Junkies of War

FOR ME it was a moment of shocking revelation.

I was listening to one of the daily speeches of our Prime Minister. He said:
?We are a wonderful people!? He said: We have already won this war, it is
the greatest victory in the history of our state. He said: We have changed
the face of the Middle East. And more to that effect.

Well, I told myself, that?s Olmert.

I have known him since he was 20-something. At that time, I was a member of
the Knesset, and Olmert was the book-carrier (literally) of another member.
Since then I have followed his career. He has never been anything but a
party functionary, a small-time politician specializing in manipulations, a
run-of-the-mill demagogue. On the way changed parties several times and
served as a mayor with a grade of D minus, until he climbed on the bandwagon
of Ariel Sharon. More or less by accident he was given the empty title of
?Deputy Prime Minister?, and when Sharon suffered his stroke, something
happened that took Olmert too by surprise: he became Prime Minister.

Throughout his career he has remained a complete cynic, basically a
right-winger but willing to pretend to be a liberal when faced with
leftists.

So, I told myself, this is just another cynical speech. But suddenly a
ghastly thought struck me: No, the man believes what he is saying!

Hard as it is to imagine, it seems that Olmert really believes that this is
a successful war. That he is winning. That he has radically changed Israel?s
situation. That he is building a New Middle East. That he is a historic
leader, far superior to Ariel Sharon (who, after all, was beaten in Lebanon
and who allowed Hizbullah to build up its arsenal of rockets). That the
longer he is allowed to go on with the war, the more his stature in history
will grow.

Ehud Olmert has obviously cut himself off from reality. He lives in a bubble
all by himself. His speeches show that he has a very real problem.

Of all the dangers facing Israel now, this is the most severe. Because this
man is deciding, quite simply, the fate of millions: who will die, who will
become a refugee, whose world will be shattered.


BUT OLMERT?S problem with megalomania is nothing compared to what has
happened to Amir Peretz.

Exactly nine months ago, after his election as Labor Party chairman, Peretz
made a speech in Tel-Aviv?s Rabin Square in which he revealed his dream:
that in the no-man?s land between Israel and the Gaza Strip a football field
will be built, and a match between the Israeli children of Sderot and the
Palestinian children of nearby Bet-Hanoun will take place. An Israeli Martin
Luther King.

Nine month?s later, a monster has been born to us.

In the Knesset election campaign, Peretz appeared as a social revolutionary.
He announced that he would change the face of Israeli society, set new
national priorities, cut billions from the military budget and transfer them
to education, welfare and measure to reduce the glaring gap between rich and
poor. As a veteran peace-lover, he would, of course, achieve peace with the
Palestinians and the entire Arab world.

This won him the votes of many citizens, including many who would normally
never consider voting for the Labor Party.

What followed is history. He seduced himself, when Olmert offered him the
Ministry of Defense. That was still Olmert the cynic. He knew, as we all
did, that Peretz was walking into a trap, that as a rank civilian without
serious military experience he would be easy prey for the generals. But
Peretz did not shrink back. The supreme aim of his life is to become Prime
Minister, and in order to become a credible candidate he believed that he
must present himself as a security expert.

Since then, Peretz has become a rabid warmonger. Not only does he endorse
all the demands of the generals, not only does he act as their spokesman -
he has also helped to push Israel into war, and since then he has been
demanding that it should continue, enlarge, widen, kill more, destroy more,
occupy more. He himself declared, ?Nasrallah will never forget the name Amir
Peretz!? - like a spoilt child inscribing his name on a tourist attraction.

At the moment, he is trying to be more extreme even than Olmert. While the
Prime Minister is afraid of continuing to advance, fearing that too many
casualties from the rockets and the battle on the ground might cloud the
brilliance of his victory, Peretz wants to reach the Litani River, whatever
the cost. There?s no other way - if one wants to become Prime Minister, one
has to walk over dead bodies.

Thus a monster has been born to us. Rosemary?s Baby.


TODAY, THE 25th day of the war, we can draw up an interim balance. What were
the aims? What are the results?

0 ?To destroy Hizbullah?.

Who would have believed it, but on the 25th day Hizbullah is still standing
and fighting. A few thousand fighters against the fifth strongest army in
the world. Nobody speaks anymore about eliminating it. Not Olmert, not
Peretz, not even Dan Halutz - the third corner of this unholy triangle.

0 ?To weaken Hizbullah?.

That is a watered down version of the first aim. It is more convenient,
because it cannot be measured. After all, in any war both sides are
weakened. People are killed and wounded, arms are destroyed, installations
demolished. But while the Israeli army can mobilize another division and
another one, and the Americans are rushing more bombs to us, can Hizbullah
absorb such losses?

Nobody knows how many fighters the organization has lost. The Israeli army
distributes estimates, without being able to prove them. The Lebanese speak
about far smaller numbers, and do not have any proof either.

But that is not the main thing. An organization like Hizbullah has no
problem in raising more and more volunteers for ?holy war?. Be their losses
as they may, after the war the organization will train as many new fighters
as necessary. Their arsenals will also be replenished with new weapons
arriving from Iran and Syria. The border is long, it is impossible to seal
it.

0 ?To push Hizbullah away from the border?.

That is the crumpled aim, after the two preceding ones were shown to be
unattainable. It, too, has not been realized yet, and never will be, because
it is also unattainable. Most Hizbullah fighters are local boys of the South
Lebanese towns and villages. They will continue to be there, overtly or
covertly. No international force can prevent that, and certainly not the
Lebanese Army.

The rockets can be moved further away. How many kilometers? Ten? Twenty?
That will not remove the threat from Nahariya, Haifa and Tel-Aviv -
especially since the range of the missiles is bound to grow with time, when
technologically more advanced types arrive.

0 ?To kill Hassan Nasrallah?.

For the time being, so it seems, the report of his death was an
exaggeration, to quote Mark Twain. True, in a kind of parody of the Entebbe
exploit, Nasrallah was pulled out of a hospital in Baalbek, but it was
another Hassan Nasrallah. Oops.

In the meantime, the original Nasrallah is flourishing. Compared to the
kitschy speeches of Olmert, with their endless clichés and the fist thumping
on the table, the Hizbullah leader comes over as a sober speaker, measured
and mostly quite credible.

0 ?To return to the Israeli army the power of deterrence?.

Nobody has any doubt that the Israeli army is a good, professional army,
capable of defeating regular armies. But this war proves that it is not
capable of achieving a military decision against an able guerilla
organization with determined fighters. If Hizbullah is alive and kicking
after 25 days, the deterrence power of the Israeli army has been weakened -
whatever happens from now on.

> From this point of view, the war has harmed the security of Israel. It has
proved that the Israeli rear is exposed, that the Hizbullah fighters are not
inferior to the Israeli soldiers, that there is no de-luxe war, that the Air
Force cannot win without land forces. Not even in ideal circumstances, when
the other side has no anti-air defense to speak of.

Some comfort themselves with the thought that ?the Arabs have seen that we
are crazy?. We react to a small local provocation with an orgy of killing
and destruction, destroying whole countries, a sort of national amok. But
running amok is not a policy. It does not solve any problem. It is an
uncontrollable reflex. It does not allow for straight thinking. It even
allows the other side to manipulate us with premeditated provocations.

0 ?Deploying an International Force along the border?.

That is a kind of emergency exit, after all the other aims have gone up in
smoke.

At the beginning of the war, Olmert himself strenuously objected to such a
force, because it would restrict the freedom of action of the Israeli army.
Clearly, no international force will dare to come, unless there is a
cease-fire in place and an agreement with Hizbullah has been reached. Nobody
wants to be exposed to cross-fire. Therefore, this force will also have to
serve Hisbullah?s interests, for fear of a guerilla war starting against it.
Have all the sacrifices been made for this?

0 ?We shall create a new situation in the Middle East?.

This aim has indeed been achieved - but not the way Olmert told himself (and
us).

The long-range results of the war are not immediately obvious. They belong
to the category defined by Bismarck as ?imponderables? - things that cannot
be measured.

Every day on their TV screens tens of millions of Arabs and hundred of
millions of Muslims see the atrocious pictures of crushed babies, the sights
of the horrible destruction. These are deeply imprinted in the consciousness
of the masses and will leave behind them an accumulation of anger and hatred
that is far more dangerous than an arsenal of missiles. In these 25 days,
thousands of new suicide bombers have been created. And as the stature of
Nasrallah as the hero of the Arab world increases, so the respect for the
?moderate? Arab regimes hit new lows - the very regimes that the US and
Israel rely on for creating the New Middle East.


AFTER THE 25th day, the 26th will arrive, and so on and on. President Bush,
who pushed us into this war to start with, is now pushing us to fight on
(?Until the last Israeli soldier,? as the saying goes.) Like Olmert, he
lives in an imaginary world.

Bush, Olmert and their like can incite and draw the masses behind them,
until the call of ?the Emperor is naked? finds receptive ears.

One of the most sickening sights of the war is the picture of the
international diplomats doing everything they can to enable Olmert & Co. to
go on with the war. The UN has long since become an agent of the White
House. Hypocrisy and sanctimoniousness are having a field day, while lives
are being destroyed and the dead buried on both sides of the border.

Olmert wants to ?gain? as many days as possible for continued fighting. What
sort of gain is this? We are conquering South Lebanon as flies conquer
fly-paper. Generals present maps with impressive arrows to show how
Hizbullah is being pushed north. That might be convincing - if we were
talking about a front-line in a war with a regular army, as taught in Staff
College. But this is a different war altogether. In the conquered area,
Hizbullah people remain, and our soldiers are exposed to attacks of the kind
in which Hizbullah has excelled from its first day.

So we shall get to the Litani River. Beyond it, there is another river, and
another one. Lebanon has an abundance of rivers we can get to.

Perhaps it would be worthwhile for these two junkies, Olmert and Peretz, to
come down from their ?high? and study the map.
*********************************************************************************
Is This A Just War?
Michael Walzer?s Tortured Ethics

By Mark LeVine

In a recently posted piece that has drawn significant attention as one of
the best defenses yet penned of Israel?s actions in Lebanon, world-renown
Princeton University Philosopher Michael Walzer argued that Israel?s overall
strategy fit the criterion for a Just War, despite the disproportionate
civilian toll its attacks have taken and the wholesale destruction of
Lebanon?s infrastructure that came with it.

Walzer?s article, and the logic and argumentation it contains, reflect the
thinking of the liberal, or Democratic establishment about the current war
in Lebanon. His ideas are crucial because his reputation attaches to them a
legitimacy that allows the liberal/Democratic establishment to continue with
its policy of supporting Israel regardless of its actions, which is
certainly a prudent course to take if one is interested primarily in winning
the 2006 mid-term elections.

But if one is really interested in ?the ethics of battle,? as his article is
entitled, then Walzer?s arguments are frighteningly simplistic, inaccurate,
and veering towards the bigoted. That someone of his stature could write
such a piece is a sad testament to the state of liberalism and the
Democratic establishment in the United States today (I?m less sure what this
says about the philosophical profession, and hope that other philosophers
will correct the perception that it< too has gone to hell). Moreover, it
provides fresh evidence for why President Bush continues to succeed in
pushing America?s foreign policy agenda towards the Right despite the
ostensible failure to achieve most of his goals?a move, however, that this
article makes clear is only quantitatively and not qualitatively or
substantively different from the beliefs of the so-called liberal foreign
policy establishment.

To begin with, Walzer utterly fails to understand that his descriptions of
Hezbollah and Hamas- an ?enemy whose hostility is extreme, explicit,
unrestrained, and driven by an ideology of religious hatred,? or later as a
movement that ?does not recognize the legal and moral principle of
noncombatant immunity? could, sadly, be used to describe the views of the
Israeli government and the IDF towards Palestinians, and now Lebanese.
Certainly Palestinians and much of the Arab world view Israel in these
terms, and that perception is supported not just by the magnitude and
purposefullness of Israel?s attacks on civilians and infrastructure in
Lebanon (which are, of course, war crimes), but its regular and systematic
attacks on similar Palestinian targets as well long before the current
crisis.

What is openly discussed in the Israeli press - the deep prejudice at the
heart of Israeli society and policies, which go back decades to the core of
Zionism as a militant nationalist movement (as the Israeli sociologist
Gerhson Shafir describes it), the racist language often used to describe
even Palestinian citizens of the state (?a cancer? according to a former
Education Minister), not to mention the predilection of the IDF to ignore
?noncombatant immunity? in its operations, and the systematic and often
indiscriminate use of violence against Palestinians practiced by the Israeli
military, are all absent in Walzer?s discussion.

Indeed, when Walzer asks ?how does anyone fight an enemy like that?? he
seems blind to the fact that it is just this exasperated question that is
asked by the likes of Hamas as a prelude to justifying its own terroristic
activities. Similarly, in claiming that ?Hamas and Hezbollah feed on the
suffering their own activity brings about,? Walzer seems unaware that
successive Israeli governments, and the consistent Israeli policies against
allowing Palestinians anything close to real independence and freedom, have
followed the same logic. Why is Walzer so blind to this point, particularly
when it is a subject of such contention within Israel?

But Walzer?s argument isn?t just flawed in theory and ethics, it is flawed
in its causality. He explains in justifying Israel?s response as within the
parameters for a Just War, ?The most important Israeli goal in both the
north and the south is to prevent rocket attacks on its civilian population,
and, here, its response clearly meets the requirements of necessity.? Here
he forgets that the rocket attacks were in response to the massive Israeli
retaliation to the kidnapping of its soldiers. That is, they were not what
prompted the Israeli retaliation, they were a response to it. Of course,
this raises the question of whether Hezbollah would have launched the rocket
attacks had Israel not retaliated militarily to the kdinapping of its
soldiers, or had done so in a limited manner. My sense is that just as
Israel was waiting for the opportunity to take out Hezbollah, Hezbollah was
waiting for the chance to use its rockets. But neither potential calculus
changes the factual order of events, in which Israel responded to the
kidnapping of its soldiers (and action, against it must be stressed, that
Israel has practiced time and time again) by launching a full scale war
against the civilian population of Lebanon.

Similarly, when Walzer mentions that ?some 700 rockets have been fired from
northern Gaza since the Israeli withdrawal a year ago?imagine the U.S.
response if a similar number were fired at Buffalo and Detroit from some
Canadian no-man?s-land,? his question ignores the fact that Israel has fired
innumerable and far more powerful rockets into Gaza, and has killed an
almost exponentially greater number of Palestinians during this period than
Hamas has killed Israelis, with rockets or by other means. And Gaza is not a
?no-man?s-land.? It is the most densely populated piece of land on earth,
with well over a million people living in something approaching abject
misery thanks to the occupation and now imprisonment of the Strip.

For Walzer, ?the crucial argument is about the Palestinian use of civilians
as shields,? and one can imagine the same would apply to Hezbollah?s use of
this tactic as well. But again Walzer?s logic is seriously flawed. First,
his belief that ?when Palestinian militants launch rocket attacks from
civilian areas, they are themselves responsible?and no one else is?for the
civilian deaths caused by Israeli counterfire? is legally wrong. In fact,
Israel, particularly as the occupying power in Palestine but also as a
belligerent in this and the Lebanese conflict, has an obligation under the
Hague and Geneva conventions not to indiscriminately fire at, injure or kill
civilians whatever the provocation by the other side. Second, the claim that
Hezbollah uses civilians as shields is not supported by the research of any
independent human rights organizations (see Foreign Policy in Focus for
Stephen Zunes? point by point rebuttal of most of the charges against
Hezbollah and Hamas contained in last week?s Congressional resolution in
support of the Israeli invasion).

In this context, when he continues by arguing that ?civilians will suffer so
long as no one on the Palestinian side (or the Lebanese side) takes action
to stop rocket attacks? he is trying to naturalize and make an inevitable
outcome of the conflict a reality?the large scale civilian casualties from
Israeli attacks?that is neither an inevitable or an acceptable state of
affairs, from a legal or moral perspective.

Continuing with this argument, Walzer explains that he has refused to sign a
condemnation of the Israeli operation in Gaza because he no longer believes
that they are rooted in the Israeli occupation. Indeed, the most he?s
willing to admit to is that ?in the past, I am sure, some Palestinian
attacks were motivated by the experience of occupation,? as if the rest were
the result of pure hatred of Jews and Israel without a rational basis.
Instead, he explains that because the attacks occurred after ?Israelis
departed Gaza and after the formation of a government that is (or was until
the attacks) committed to a large withdrawal from the West Bank? they can
only be the result a desire ?to destroy Israel, a wish based on a ?long-term
aim that derives from a religious view of history. Secularists and
pragmatists have a lot of trouble acknowledging such a view, let alone
understanding it.?

It is hard to overstate the unconscious - one can imagine - chauvinism and
racism underlying Walzer?s remarks here, a foundation that has deep roots in
the history of European and later American imperialism in the Middle East
and elsewhere in the non-Western world. But before we even get to the
psychology underlying the remarks, Walzer?s facts are again wrong. To begin
with, Walzer makes the false assumption that Israel has actually ?left?
Gaza. In fact, what Israel did was remove settlers, turn the Strip into a
giant prison, cut off most of its economic circulation to the outside world,
regularly conduct raids to capture or kill people at will and without legal
justification, and otherwise make life nearly intolerable for the region?s
million plus inhabitants.

Second, Walzer?s belief that the Israeli government was committed to a
?large withdrawal from the West Bank is a bald attempt to use ambiguous
language to mask a meaningless statement. What does ?large? mean? To the
Israeli political establishment, withdrawing from sixty percent of the West
Bank would be a ?large? withdrawal, but to Palestinians and the rest of the
world such a percentage would be woefully inadequate. So would eighty or
even ninety or ninety-three percent. Walzer must know this, so by using such
obfuscating language he is clearly trying to hide what he very well knows -
that the so-called ?end? of the occupation of Gaza in no measure meant that
the West Bank, and therefore a viable Palestinian state, was going to become
a reality in the foreseeable future. In fact, most Israeli scholars of the
conflict believe that the Gaza withdrawal?s purpose was precisely to make it
easier for Israel to avoid anything close to a comprehensive withdrawal from
the West Bank. Why does Walzer not even engage these facts?

But let?s move to his notion that the ?long-term aim? of Hamas and Hezbollah
derive from religion. What does this suggest? That their views are clearly
not pragmatic - that is, rational or reasonable, the two hallmarks of
modernity and modern liberal thought. And if these two movements are neither
rational, nor reasonable and pragmatic, well, then, as sad as it is, Israel
will likely have to take some fairly unpleasant measures to protect itself,
including inflicting large scale civilian casualties and destroying the
economic foundation of the two societies, in order to stop the violence.

Perhaps Professor Walzer has not read the work of Baruch Kimmerling, the
dean of Israeli sociologists. If not, he should read his last book, titled,
tellingly, Politicide, for that is the only logical description for the
activities he is condoning, particularly in the case of Palestine. He should
also read the recent compilations of militant Islamist writings and
preaching, such as those of bin Laden or other al-Qa?eda leaders. Their
hate-filled view of Israel bares significant resemblance to his
characterization of Palestinians or Lebanese, which he clearly assumes can
be used interchangeably with Hamas or Hezbollah. In fact, however, while
both movements enjoy wide popular support, their extreme and conservative
theological and political visions are not shared by the majority of their
fellow countrywomen and men, and who have demonstrated a clear willingness
to ?live and let live? with Israel that is at odds with the groups? official
pronouncements (a reality that leaders readily admit to in interviews).

It is such blindness - willful or not only Walzer can say - to reality that
actually leads him to argue that ?the Israeli response has only a short-term
aim.? Does Walzer really think Israel?s political and military leaders have
no long term aims in this war, particularly when at the very start they said
explicitly that their goal was to radically alter the status quo? Does he
really think Iran and Syria have played no part in its considerations, or US
strategy in the region? (For a much more accurate view of Nasrallah?s likely
rationale for the kidnapping, see Adam Shatz?s piece in The Nation )

Walzer ends his article with the well-worn argument that ?Israel needs a
partner? for peace, one which clearly doesn?t exist today. That may be true,
but in what way has Israel demonstrated itself to be a worthy partner for
peace in the last decade, never mind the last forty years? It has violated
the terms of the Oslo agreement as a matter of routine; its wholesale
expansion of settlements, destructions of Palestinian homes, farms, olive
orchards and other agricultural land, killings and detention of civilians,
refusal to abide by any of the agreements it signed with the PA whenever it
suited its interests, all suggest that Palestinians have been equally
deprived of a partner for peace. In Lebanon it would seem that Israel is on
stronger ground vis-a-vis Hezbollah, but in reality it was precisely the
last minute refusal of the Sharon government to honor the terms of its 2004
prisoner exchange with hezbollah (Israel refused to release three prisoners
whom it had already agreed to release) that led Hezbollah leader Nasrallah
to warn that the group ?reserved the right to kidnap more Israeli soldiers?
to use to exchange for the prisoners left behind. Indeed, the very name
Hezbollah gave the recent kidnapping operation, ?Truthful Purpose,? alludes
to Nasrallah?s determination to keep his promise to force Israel to complete
its end of the original deal.

Walzer closes his article by calling on the international community to
?sponsor and support? Palestinian and Lebanese governments that can make
real peace with Israel. This is certainly good advice, but it will prove
worthless if at the same time the international community, and particularly
the United States, do not sponsor and support an Israeli government that is
equally committed to reaching a just and lasting peace in the region. And
until, at the very least, American liberals are willing to demand our
government do just that, the peace Walzer seeks will remain a distant dream,
while the wars that continue will be anything but just.

Mark LeVine is a Contributing Editor to Tikkun. He teaches in the Department
of History at UC Irvine, and is the author of Why They Don?t Hate Us and
Overthrowing Geography.


*********************************************************************************************************************************************
IF YOU?VE MADE IT TO HERE, YOU DESERVE A REWARD WITH SOMETHING A LITTLE
LIGHTER. Stever Bhaerman, as the delightful Swami Beyondananda, performed at
both the Berkeley and Washington D.C. Spiritual Activist conferences of the
Nework of Spiritual Progressives, for free (as did all the other speakers
and musicians and artists). Here is his latest column:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Beyondanews Update...
The One Suggestion
August 4, 2006
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


by Steve Bhaerman


There are no sides, only angles?and when we view things from the right
angle, it?s obvious we?re all on the same side.?Swami Beyondananda


The three peoples of the Ten Commandments are in one holy hell of a mess.


At a time when we should be mobilizing the wisdom and reverence we share to
cultivate miracles, we seem to be creating anti-miracles instead. Last week,
an Israeli air strike killed and wounded young children in Qana, the
Lebanese village where Jesus was said to have performed his first miracle by
turning water into wine. Maybe the Dalai Lama was right when he reportedly
joked that if we humans destroy ourselves, that would finally create the
peace on earth we?ve longed for


The discourse has reached a new low as the predictable rationalizations come
from both sides: ?Look what they are doing to us!? and ?We have no
choice?they MADE us do it!? From one side, I have received devastating
photos of dead children (occasionally accompanied by a toxic anti-semitic
screed). From the other comes the ?logical? rationalization, ?If the Arabs
lay down their weapons, there?ll be no more war. If the Israelis lay down
theirs, there?ll be no more Israel.?


?The Arabs don?t care about their children! They purposely put them in
harm?s way!? is the Israeli war cry. The Arabs, they tell us, celebrate when
an Israeli child is killed. The Jews, on the other hand, are sad when they
have to kill Lebanese children. Well, guess what? Those kids are just as
dead regardless of the intention. And any time people say ?we had no
choice,? that is already wrong. It is a failure of imagination, and a
triumph of fear. It may be a reassuring rationalization inside the state of
Israel or even the Jewish community at large, but outside those circles,
it?s transparent as hell.


Meanwhile, in the other so-called ?religious? camp, we have a scorpionic
culture where revenge itself is a way of life and people don?t seem to mind
stinging themselves to death. After a century that produced Gandhi, Nelson
Mandela and the Dalai Lama as examples for how to ?overgrow? oppression, the
best these people can do is blow themselves and innocent civilians up? The
Arab world has never done a thing for the Palestinians except set them up as
patsies in their oxymoronic ?holy war? against Israel


The problem is, this is a tribal conflict, and tribal conflicts never really
end, at least not through war. The only way they end is through an upwelling
of moral authority from one side or the other or both which say ?enough
killing and enough dying, there must be another way.? Sadly, there doesn?t
yet seem to have been enough killing or enough dying.


The other factor?the real elephant in the living room here?is that there is
no congruent worldwide authority to stop the fighting and make it stick, and
turn the tide toward building the infrastructure of peace. The United
States? interest in the region is purely imperialistic , and this is
apparent to just about everyone. Given the Iraqi Horror Picture Show?or what
Jon Stewart calls ?Mess-opotamia??we have zero moral authority in the Arab
world or for that matter, in any world. And while we excuse and justify
everything Israel does in its ?defense? (emboldening the militarists there,
as here) our policy toward the Arabs?as witnessed by the civilian death toll
since we took Iraq out of the frying pan and tossed it into the fire?seems
to be ?control burn genocide.?


As for the rest of us?those who understand the definition of insanity as
?continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting different
results??what do we do? How do we handle the fear-filled positionality of
those trapped on both sides of the issue? Is there a way we can change the
level of discourse and help turn a tragic disaster into a worldwide learning
opportunity?


The One Suggestion: We?re All In It Together

We?ve had thousands of years to ?live by? the Ten Commandments, and looking
at history we?d have to sadly conclude that either those Commandments
haven?t done the job, or we haven?t. Maybe the whole idea of ?commandments?
just engenders resistance. Or maybe ten are just too many of ?em. Maybe a
whole new approach is in order, like maybe ... One Suggestion.


Actually, there has been one suggestion throughout history that has been
largely ignored: Treat others as you would choose to be treated. When you
take every religious path from African Traditional to Zoroastroanism, all of
them have the same notion at their root?some version of the Golden Rule. One
major problem with the invocation to ?Love thy neighbor as thyself? is that
most of us have learned from the cultural ?field? to NOT love ourselves, but
that is a longer conversation.


The Swami has said there are two kinds of people in the world?the kind of
people who divide people into two kinds of people, and the kind who don?t.
At the risk of sounding like the former, I suggest there are two competing
worldviews that are rapidly bringing the conversation to a head:

1. We?re all in it together.
2. It?s every man for himself.


While our religious institutions pay lip service to the ?all in it together?
view, our far more influential commercial institutions worship at the ?every
man for himself? shrine. We take the Darwinist (actually social Darwinist)
credo at face value, ?survival of the fittest.? Actually, more recent
research in biology tells us that the real ?natural law? is ?survival of the
fitting.? That which best fits the environment, survives. And in the current
environment?a world on the brink of either great disaster or great
breakthrough??survival of the fittest? doesn?t fit. Why? Because we can no
longer afford to spend the energy and resources protecting ourselves from
each other.


I?ve been inspired recently working with cell biologist Bruce Lipton on a
book where we seek to apply the wisdom of the body to the body politic. Your
body is a ?community? of 50 trillion cells closely cooperating to bring the
world ?you? every day. Cells may look different from each other, have
different duties and needs, but cells and organs ?understand? they?re all in
it together for the good of the common organism. They?re in ?competition,?
only in the original Greek meaning of the word, ?to strive together.? Each
system is striving together with the others to create health and
functionality. In other words, it?s not a normal state of affairs for the
liver to invade the pancreas and claim the Islets of Langerhans for its own.


What if we looked at the nations of the world?the peoples, the tribes?each
as an organ designed to make a unique contribution to the whole? Sound too
idealistic? Contemplate the alternative, then. Consider that biology tells
us that cooperation engenders greater efficiency, effectiveness and
awareness. Or, if you?re into the Scriptures, consider that not even the
religious right has been able to twist Jesus?s words into ?Blessed are the
war-makers,? or ?the mightiest armies shall inherit the earth.?





It?s the Behavior, Stupid!

So how do we generate the ?moral authority? to stop the killing and
cultivate the forces of cooperation? The first step is to make a distinction
between people (or ?a people?) and their behavior. Justice in its simplest
form is applying rules fairly across the board. This would seem simple
enough, but we?re conditioned by habit to exempt ourselves from the rules we
make for others. A friend of mine who was a private eye in a city we?ll call
?Metropolis? once attended a party where high level officials?including a
well-known judge?were snorting cocaine. My friend had the audacity to
approach the judge and say, ?Isn?t this what you send people to jail for?


The judge replied?without a lick of irony??Oh, well those people are
criminals.?


The first important step?and this can be undertaken by an alliance of
existing peace and justice organizations in the world?is to come to some
agreement as to the appropriate behavior on this ?shrinking world that could
definitely use a good shrink.? This is a conversation that should be taking
place in every town and village on the planet, from exclusive suburb to
primitive village. Seriously. We have?in the form of the World Café and
other nonviolent communications models?plenty of techniques for calling
forth extraordinary wisdom from ordinary folks.


In ratifying a ?Declaration of Interdependence? or whatever we call it?from
the grassroots up?we are establishing ?new rules? based on the One
Suggestion of ?We?re all in it together.? This doesn?t mean some sticky
co-dependent relationship where the working stiffs support parasites. On the
contrary, it infers participation. In the body, there is universal health
care and full employment?truly ?no cell left behind.? But every cell must
participate.


In contrast to the ?death trip? our current regime seems to be on,
guaranteeing us perpetual warfare, loss of civil liberties, environmental
destruction and growing gap between rich and poor, what if we began to
?feed? the ?we?re all in it together? paradigm? What would it look like to
live for our countries instead of dying for them? What if we declared a new
mission for the world, to go along with the ?new rules?: We are here on the
planet to re-grow the Garden from the grassroots up, and have a heaven of a
time doing it.


By what authority would we or could we do this? Well, by the authority of
all we know in our heads and in our hearts. Put another way, ancient wisdom
and modern science BOTH can?t be wrong, can they?





Moral Authority?From the Ideal to the Real Deal

What if?as suggested earlier?enough people around the world, influential and
otherwise, ratified a standard of behavior that would apply universally?
What if this were presented to the United Nations?currently a very flawed
institution, but all we have internationally?as a mandate? These are the
universally-applied principles that we the people of the world agree to hold
ourselves to.


Would this mean the military would ?disappear?? Of course not, not anymore
than you would want your immune system to disappear. But the role would
change so that resources could be mobilized in times of need or disaster,
and so that very targeted operations could be initiated against
?sociopathogens.? From time to time, we might expect ?preemptive non-force?
to fail and a disagreement to degenerate into violence. Or perhaps, a
criminal gang needs to be defused and disarmed.


In these cases, there is a need for a completely transparent ?police action?
to see to it that the malignancy (i.e., toxic behavior in violation of the
guidelines a vast majority of humans agree on) doesn?t spread. If you
consider the inventiveness of weapons makers, could you imagine ?weapons?
that temporarily immobilize without doing harm? Seriously. Or humorously,
for that matter. What would have happened had Israel dropped nitrous oxide
on Hezbollah?


Fundamental to this new world view is the unwavering understanding that war
itself is a ?racket? good for ?absolutely nothing.? At the same time, we
must also realize the awesome opportunity?that we humans have the
intelligence, the imagination, and the technology to play and win what
Buckminster Fuller called the World Game: ?Make the world work, for 100% of
humanity, in the shortest possible time, through spontaneous cooperation,
without ecological offense or the disadvantage of anyone.?


So what?s standing in the way? Before we point to a group?whether that be
the neocons or Hezbollah or the ?international bankers? or the reptiles from
outer space?we must understand one thing: The overwhelming majority of human
beings?when removed for a moment from fear-mongering manipulation?would
prefer to live together in peace, joy, health and prosperity. Only a
deeply-flawed individual would deprive themselves of that future just so
they can deprive someone else. For people like that?hey, where?s Jack
Kevorkian when you need him?


So again, what?s in the way? What?s to keep 80% or 90% of humanity from
having their way in spite of the small group of pro-death activists? In
response to the ominous thought that ?the whole world is controlled by just
a few people,? I say ?Great news!? It means there are way, way more of us
than there are of them. Like the classic story of the Lone Ranger and Tonto
being caught in an ambush. ?Well Tonto,? says the Masked Man, ?We?re
surrounded by Indians. Looks like we?re done for.?


And Tonto says, ?What you mean WE, kemosabe??


When we the people of the world look at the warmakers and say, ?What you
mean WE, kemosabe?? it will send a signal to the cosmos that there is indeed
intelligent life on this planet.


So what do we do in the interim? What part can we play to bring about that
day? First of all, entertain the possibility. One of the deadliest diseases
of the spirit we suffer in our postmodern culture is what Michael Lerner
calls ?cynical realism,? and what Swami calls ?smartyrdom.? We are just too
smart, too jaded to be hopeful. To avoid the hurt of failing at something
noble, to avoid being?God forbid?a fool for love, the cynical realist will
wink and nod and say, ?It?s always been that way, it?s always going to be
that way, so I?m going to get mine.? And that?s how those too smart to be a
fool for love end up being a fool for evil.


Secondly, let go of your story. Part of the intransigence in the Middle East
(and every other region where rivalry has turned to hatred) has to do with
people so identifying with their stories?or their ?people?s? story?that they
end up living a surrogate life based on something that happened generations
ago. The worst thing about it is that it begets more of the same, and stands
as an obstacle both to learning and to making a real contribution to the
world.


As a kid growing up in a Jewish family, I was well-immersed in Jewish
history (?They tried to kill us, we survived, let?s eat!?). Thank God we had
no relatives that we knew of who died in the Holocaust, but the horror of
that was always real for me, as was the slogan, ?Never again!? But at some
point in my adult life, the question arose, did ?never again? mean never
again for the Jews? Or never again for anyone? If the lesson learned and the
sacred mission arising out of that horror is never again will genocide be
tolerated for anyone, then perhaps the awful suffering has actually made a
contribution to the world.


Finally, we need to get off our head trips and join together on the heart
trip. Just as surely as heart cells ?entrain? to beat together , our
individual human hearts are attuned to the same attuning fork. It?s our
minds that keep us separated. Now I know some hardheaded paragons of
rationality are shaking their hard heads right about now, clucking about how
I underestimate the power of reason. Not at all. I?ve seen the power reason
has to provide us with all the rationalizations we need?to act irrationally.
Now we need the power of reason to be used in the service of the heart, to
generate the yet unthought of solutions that will prevent the unthinkable.


Note: Please feel free to respond to this article, but please avoid sending
me material which shows one side is right and the other is wrong. I?ve got
files of evidence for both sides. What we need now are creative solutions
that can take us to a new level. Send those.





Feed Two Birds With One Scone

If you?re as concerned as we are about the serious condition of this world
(due no doubt to serious conditioning), here?s how you can help. To make it
easier and less expensive to give the gift of laughter, raise the laugh
expectancy on the planet, and create a farce field powerful enough to laugh
the current bunch of unfunny clowns out of power, we have redesigned the
Fool Enchilada Specia l to make Swami?s cosmic comedy more affordable. The
Fool Enchilada Special includes:


The Swami for Precedent book now with an extended shelf-life through 2008!


Swami?s Tickling the Body Politic DVD, described by raving critics as a
?kitschy, kitschy coup!?


Swami?s Supreme Court Jester CD, where he finally reveals his true political
ambitions.


His Drive Your Karma, Curb Your Dogma music and comedy CD, filled with
studio comedy and hummable tunes such as ?Nonjudgment Day? and ?May I Have
This ABunDance With You.?


His Beyondananda and Beyond: Two Takes on the Healing Laughter CD featuring
both Swami and his alter ego Steve Bhaerman on how to stay on the ?Foo Ling?
path.


His Don?t Squeeze the Shaman CD, early metaphysical Swami remixed with an
added feature?the G-U-R-U Rap Song (?Gee You Are You?)
To ge these and become part of his list:
www.wakeuplaughing.com


web: http://www.tikkun.org
email: community@xxxxxxxxxx