Oil, Water, and Other Strange Bedfellows

The ongoing disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has given rise to all sorts of “obvious” conclusions to be drawn, specifically that America’s addiction to oil is a proximate—if not THE proximate—cause of all environmental and natural despoliation, and only drastic legislative measures to curb said hankering for fossil fuels will ensure the continued survival of the human race.

More specifically, if there was a more propitious opportunity to pass so called “climate-change” legislation, one might be hard pressed to find it.

Really, one shouldn’t have to overtax one’s mental faculties to discern reasons why this ain’t necessarily so. However, in case one might need some sort of “learning aid” to help one clear the muddy [if not oily] waters of such thinking, consider the recent rumors that the “Oracle” of environmentalism—former Vice-President Al Gore—has taken the notion of “common cause” to its most logical conclusion with fellow traveler and Gulfstream environmentalist extraordinaire Laurie David, the woman who fought the scourge of the SUV from her private jet.

It seems as if Gore, whose carbon footprint is notoriously nearly as wide as David’s, has finally provided a salient analog for his purported “environmental science”: it’s as solid as his 40-year marriage to Tipper. Then again, one might wonder whether the Gore’s ill-advised PDA at the 2000 Democratic National Convention also provided a prescient analog to oil spills: the ick factor.

In any case, the Obamans—ostensibly the most pro-environment and anti-corporate administration in US history—have progressively more tightly bound their already rather securely tied hands until mere attempts indignant wringing have induced sympathy arthritis in even the President’s most avowed political enemies. Said spectacle really serves to illustrate two notions which are, nevertheless, as elementary as they are contradictory.

One is that, as much as we NEED our oil, there’s a LOT of it out there [for once, we can’t seem to get it to stop flowing], and much of it rather inconveniently located [hello—Middle East?] There is no reason—even in the face of the current environmental tragedy [and let’s face it, that’s what it is, and you can be a global warming “denier” like this writer is and still understand that]—that we not make any and all attempts to locate and drill for oil wherever we can find it in places other than the Fertile and Golden Crescents…IF—and this is a big IF—

--we figure out how to REGULATE, how to actually implement required legal safeguards and basic procedures, which by all accounts, seem to have been blatantly discarded by BP which directly led to the current mess.

As previously noted in these pages, Big Oil isn't going anywhere. Alternative energy strategies will be pursued when we have no other alternative, pace Churchill’s observation that Americans do the right thing when they’ve exhausted all other possibilities. However, if Big Oil were smart, they could turn this crisis somewhat to their advantage by working with legislators to allow some semblance of independent regulation and monitoring into the industry by throwing BP under the bus, by saying, in effect, “We don’t want this to happen again; who wants to waste all that oil? What BP did was greedy AND stupid. We may be greedy, but if keeping the landscape clean will save our profits, we’re all for helping clean this up. Do to BP what you want; we’ll help make sure this never repeats itself.” If the public is actually prepared to expect and accept this level of disingenuousness, it may be the first step towards an eventual win-win: more oil and less disaster.

It won’t happen any other way.

A Proportionate Response to Helen Thomas

Lost in the dark cloud of the unjustifiable brouhaha surrounding the terrorist-supporting Gaza-bound flotilli [if that sounds bacterial, even better] is the silver lining of the swift retribution meted out to that erstwhile pillar of the Fourth Estate, Helen Thomas, for her revealing antisemitic ramble.

One might actually take heart [warily, to be sure, but still] in the fact that some diatribes aimed at Jews, Israel and their supporters are still considered out of bounds enough that said diatribes and their utterers are stigmatized and that a measure [however insufficent] of opprobrium is elicited.

Following a modicum of give and take on my facebook stati regarding my rather draconian ill wishes for Ms. Thomas, based loosely on Yiddishist sentiments ["She should live to 120. And spend every second of those 30 years in endless pain and agony"] and the subsquent commentary ad loc regarding the apparently disporoportionate nature of my statements and wishes, I finally arrived at a formulaic response to Ms. Thomas' comments:

Helen Thomas should get the HELL out of this country and go back where SHE came from, which, I think, is Lebanon.

I'm sure her commentary will be much appreciated there.

If Anyone Else Did That....

Were I a true professional, I would have said everything that appears in the following article by Jonathan Kay about the "humanitarian" flotilla that tried to run the Gaza blockade.

As it is, I have only one thing to add: the Hamastan entity in Gaza--a theocratic, fascist, Judeo-cidal [if not non-Muslicidal] quasi-state that would be more accurately described as a gang territory--is in a state of DECLARED war with anything Jews and Jewish, never mind its stance toward Israel. Therefore, as the blockade of the Gaza coast is a defensive response to said posture, any attempt to run the blockade is tantamount to an act of war on the part of the runners, no matter whether they are state actors, NGO's, or "humanitarians". The boats were legally subject to a summary sinking, not a seizure. We all know why the Israelis don't do that, but the "activists" are lucky all their lives weren't automatically forfeit. As Kay points out, one can only imagine what would happen if "activists" tried a mass seaborne humanitarian mission to the 3 million starving citizens of North Korea.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/05/31/jenin-on-the-high-seas/#ixzz0pc5cf2MR

Jenin on the high seas
By Jonathan Kay

If Israel truly had wanted to “massacre” the Hamas sympathizers and fellow travellers aboard a six-ship Gaza-bound flotilla, the operation would not have been complicated. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) would have used the trusty North Korean solution: Torpedo the ships and watch them sink to the bottom of the sea.

Even Israel arguably would have been within its rights to seize and destroy a ship being sent toward Gazan waters in defiance of an embargo, especially after giving abundant warnings to the leaders of the largely Turkish-based Free Gaza Movement, which had sent the flotilla, that they would not be permitted to sail to Hamas-controlled territory.

But that’s not how Israel operates. Instead, it sent commandos to seize control of the ships and bring them safely to Israeli waters. Israeli officials had even prepared air-conditioned accommodations for the activists, and had made arrangements to deliver legitimate aid supplies to Gaza.

According to the IDF, not all of the activists on board the ships were the pacifists they claimed to be. Though the Free Gaza leaders said they would not resist Israeli enforcement of the embargo, some of them fought the Israeli boarding parties with iron clubs — as confirmed by video that has been made available to the media. More seriously, it is claimed that at least one of the activists took two handguns from the Israelis and fired at the soldiers. In the melee, at least 10 activists were believed to have been killed, and several Israeli commandos wounded.

“They beat us up with metal sticks and knives,” one Israeli commando told the Los Angeles Times. “There was live fire at some point against us. … They were shooting at us from below deck.” Based on the same source, the Times also reported that “activists tossed some of the soldiers from the top deck to the lower deck and the soldiers jumped in the water to save themselves. Activists grabbed some soldiers and tried to hold them hostage, stripping them of their helmets and equipment.”

If this narrative stands up, then every drop of blood spilled on Monday morning rests on the hands of those activists who initiated the deadly exchange. When you attack Israeli soldiers — or at any soldiers — with lethal force, they will respond in kind.

As for the events that unfolded after the deadly exchange commenced, we don’t know how much of the ensuing bloodshed was avoidable. Like all civilized nations, Israel likes to conduct its anti-terrorist operations in a measured, deliberate fashion. But that’s difficult in the close confines of a crowded ship, where combat takes place at the range of a few metres — especially, in the case of the Free Gaza flotilla, which was populated by a diverse mob spanning the gamut from naive Jewish grandmothers to full-fledged Islamist radicals.

For most of the world, of course, these facts won’t matter: Like the bogus Jenin massacre, this episode will be used as just another stick to beat the Jewish state — even by those same pundits and activists who can’t be roused to say a single word when genuine “massacres” unfold in other parts of the world, such as the slaughter of more than 90 members of the Ahmadi sect in Pakistan. On sea, as on land, this is the double-standard that Israel always must battle when it acts to defend itself against terrorists and their media-savvy enablers.

jkay@nationalpost.com

Taking the Fifth with a Fifth

Conservatives, who more often than not sing the praises of the Consititution, “original intent”, and “strict constructionalism”, seem to want to take the concept of self-incrimination to its furthest possible conclusion.

Once upon a time “watch what you say” was a Republican mantra, attributable most famously to Ari Fleischer in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

While the stakes certainly are different now, and the issues in which conservatives are ignoring their own advice cannot be truly raised to that level of importance, it might behoove them to pay more attention, if only because they might stop their own tendencies to political self-destruction once more endemic to their opponents.

The recent primary victory of Rand Paul in Kentucky and the immediate aftermath of his commentary on Rachel Maddow are a case in point. While there might be some truth to the assertion that the “liberal”/”MSM” would like nothing more than to portray tea-partiers as inveterate racist corporatists, it doesn’t help when the conservative quarry walks right into the trap. Sarah Palin can [almost] be forgiven for the “ambush” perpetrated upon her by Katie Couric re Supreme Court decisions, names of periodicals, etc. No one else has an excuse.

Its possible that questions about the Civil Rights Act were legitimate would be laughable—if Paul hadn’t tried to allow for the notion that it MIGHT have been at cross-purpose with his political principles. If he felt compelled to open his mouth and muse aloud that it might not have been the greatest idea, only he can be held responsible for the ensuing opprobrium, as he invited it. Similarly, when he feels compelled to defend corporate interests such as BP and the mining industry at a time like this, while he might be the victim of bad timing, any defense of those interests are ill considered, and he then pays a political price for defending them, it’s no one fault but his. Unfortunately for conservatives, their interests will only further suffer as a result.

In a similar vein, conservative carping about “affirmative action” regarding the first-time crowning of an Arab-Muslim woman as Miss USA are truly fighting the wrong battle. For one thing, if there’s any chance of the emergence of a “moderate” Islam, this is where it was going to come from: where a self-identified religio-ethnic fully participates in an event according to the rules of THAT EVENT. I’m sure al-Qaeda and the mullahs aren’t overly heartened by a bikini-clad co-religionist serving as the icon of everything they profess to be wrong with the world. [Funny, they haven’t blamed the Jews yet].

Now, if Miss USA had either a] worn a chador and insisted that she still be allowed the same chance to win, or b] had manifested some other sartorial item that served as an iconic support of Dar-al-Harb [say, a sword, Islamic flag, or dynamite vest], then accusations of affirmative action might have been salient.

On that note, it behooves a true Judeocentrist like this writer to weigh in on the controversy surrounding the purported offensiveness of Comedy Central’s I.S.R.A.E.L. robot/game. Until someone at Comedy Central has the brass to develop a suicide bombing robot game called I.S.L.A.M., the Jews are right.

If you target everyone equally, you may be funny. If you don't, or can't, you're either racist or spineless. Or both.

The Real “Boobs”: Jon Stewart and James Jones

Reknowned physicist Stephen W. Hawking has attempted to put a damper upon any future intergalactic ecumenicism by making two declarations about the purported existence of extraterrestrial life: that “aliens” likely do exist and are either less evolved, unintelligent, or both; and, more recently, that it would likely not be a good idea to attempt to make contact with them, as their intentions toward us would likely be simultaneously hostile and predatory.

One might be forgiven for thinking that Hawking might have been making a more general statement of principles about erstwhile “intelligent” life on this planet.

Emblematic of the week’s events was “Boobquake”, blogger Jen McCreight’s successful uniting of irreverence and scientific method as a satirical rejoinder to a prominent Iranian cleric’s claim that immodest dress was responsible for the recent spate of tremors. One has to give real credit where it is due: first of all, the purported levels of “immodesty” on display for the project might actually qualify as demure—or even straitlaced—in some contexts; but, more importantly, McCreight’s project was laudable in two respects. The first was that it was simultaneously brainy and yet didn’t take itself too seriously, as might otherwise be expected from an otherwise atheistic-driven irreverent response to any religious sentiment; she avoided what might have otherwise been another knee-jerk anti-clerical response that was just as “fundamentalist” as her targets. The second was that she had the audacity to make her primary target an Islamic cleric; there were certainly no shortage of outrageous emanations from religious eminences following the Haiti earthquake, most of whom were not Muslim; however, McCreight avoided the usually strong leftist impulse to grant a pass to Islam while excoriating more “Western” faiths.

Sadly, Jon Stewart had an opportunity to make a similar statement when he discussed the recent controversy surrounding the censorship of a depiction of Mohammed on South Park. Watch the video: he seems to be spending most of the 10 minute segment trying to make up his mind as to whether a] making fun of Islam is a good idea and b] whether he has to come to terms with a certain level of discomfort in even entertaining the motion, because, in the current liberal-progressive zeitgeist, Islam is in need of protection from its bigoted and religiously [if not ethnically] biased enemies. Even the “montage” of cuts lacerating all faiths at once fell way short: Islam was at the receiving end of one barb [although other non-Western faiths received more, which should put the lie to notions that any attack on Islam is ipso-facto ethnically motivated]. The segment closer—Stewart leading a “gospel choir” in an obscene chant—was, again, a cop-out: by forcing equivalences between Islamic threats and other religious radicalism, Stewart further contributed to the general cultural blindness to the fact that contemporary Islam is unique among said radical faith groups in going beyond making egregious statements to making—and carrying out—assorted felony murders. Stewart “hinted” at the idea that Islam was getting a “free pass”—but couldn’t bring himself to actually issue a condemnation.

While one comic was failing in his satirical duties, an very high ranking official in a government responsible for the promulgation of appeasing Islamism made a bumbling foray into comedy. It needs to be said that the issue isn’t necessarily the “offensiveness” of the joke, which was mild at best [I actually laughed initially]; the question, of course, is one of both timing and credibility. In addition to the fact that General Jones is working for an administration whose courage in issue like standing up to Iran doesn’t measure up to the Boobquakers who took them on directly, Press Secretary Gibbs’ statements to the effect that Jones should be given a pass because his remarks weren’t in the written text [i.e., he didn’t write ‘em, so he didn’t say ‘em], indicate something more sinister at work: an attempt of the administration’s part to raise the question of “dual loyalty” and attach that stigma to supporters of Israel who are critical of White House policy.

So maybe let’s reframe the “Special Relationship” between the US and Israel, at least for as long as our current President is in office. Let’s assume for a moment that the “common attributes” of Westernism and democracy that are ostensibly shared between the two countries are overplayed somewhat. Let’s even assume for a moment that, yes, even if only for economic reasons, US and Israel’s interests don’t necessarily always coalesce. [At least a personage like the late Texas Governor and Senator John Connally was forthright enough to state publicly that the spectre of dead Jews was problematic for American energy policy. In this administration’s case, they might even be willing to tolerate dead Americans. But that’s a separate issue.]

Instead, let’s take Connally’s approach and turn it on its head: US support for Israel—at least in the monetary sense—is predicated upon the US covering its ass so that the business it does do with the sworn mortal enemies of Jews doesn’t leave the entire basis of the US economy on blood money, from the blood of dead Jews; because the US [never mind the UN and the rest of the international community] has sat in its hands more than once while known genocides were in progress, against Jews and others.

Should the spectre of dual loyalties are raised, the counter-spectre of Jew murder should be the response. The US needs to keep its business partners and the Islamist friends it seems to be chasing from engaging in the mass murder they repeatedly threaten to commit. Therefore: it is a distinct US interest to be seen as not willing to tacitly condone a second genocide, or, at the very least, the US should be forced to see that it become one: e.g., in one specific case, the US has to decide between a genocidal nuclear Iran and a possible economic crisis that would result from an Israeli peremptory strike.

Transcendent blackmail isn’t a good way to make friends; however, the time to assume that the Jewish people haven’t been “de-friended” by this administration may be long past. The question of actual anti-semitism on the part of the President and his advisors—regardless of Jones’ and Gibbs’ behavior--is almost irrelevant: the two Presidents who arguably did the most for Jews and the Jewish state—Truman and Nixon—also arguably harbored the most anti-semitic personal sentiments of any White House occupant while serving in office. However, whether the result of transcendent blackmail or some genuine moral sense they were willing to draw the line at wholesale massacre of Jews.

I don’t care if this administration “likes” Israel or the Jews. But it is my right—if not duty—to remind them of the possible moral consequences of their likes/dislikes, and embarrass them into compliance.

Dowd’s Dilemma and the Four Sons

Most people familiar with Jewish traditions are familiar with the “Four Questions” to be asked at the Passover Seder, a role usually reserved for the youngest child.

Less immediately familiar is the tradition regarding the allegory of the “Four Sons” recited at the Seder, which usually correspond to four distinct stereotypes: the “Wise” child, simultaneously familiar with but still intellectually curious; the “Wicked” child, who more or less demonstrates a mind that will stay made up in the face of inconvenient facts; the “Simple” child, whose query[s] haven’t yet progressed beyond “What Is This”?, and the “One Who Does Know How To Ask”, who, the complier of the Seder Haggadah, needs to be prodded in the right direction.

It occurred to me over the course of the past Passover that, in light of the ongoing crisis in the Middle East, I might be able to draw a parallel between these four traditional children and four players from the more contemporary scene [after all, what was the Exodus other than the first Middle East crisis involving the Jews?]

The first two players—“Wise” and “Wicked”—came almost right away: General David Petraeus and Vice-President Biden, respectively. After the brouaha surrounding the Biden visit to Jerusalem; he had apparently told Netanyahu that “what you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan”. Knowing the current administration’s policy inclinations, there was some surprise at the tone of the admonition, but less so at the fact that it was delivered. There was, however, some worry when some reported that this concern was shared—and directly addressed—by General Petraeus, hinting that U.S. support for Israel directly hinders America’s national security interests. Petraeus himself put the lie to this: “There is no mention of lives anywhere in there. I actually reread the statement. It doesn’t say that at all.” He said the only point was that moderate Arab leaders are worried about a lack of progress in the peace process.

There are your first two players: the “Wicked” child who insists upon a version of events that are not in consonance with the facts—or even his closest military advisers. With the series of clarifications that had to be issued by the General, it became increasingly clear that Biden was merely a stand-in for the rest of the Administration and its appeasement bent, and was willing to sacrifice the crediblity of those who actually are defending the country.

One caveat: With all respect due General Petraeus, he doesn’t go far enough. While I certainly would argue as a matter of opinion that American and Israeli interests coalesce, I would not be so bold as insist that that statement be raised to the level of a doctrine; to a degree, I would almost hope that that was not automatically the case. However, as long as he demonstrates a belief that there are “moderate” Arab leaders, and that he must account for their illegitimate pretensions to involvement in anything having to do with Israeli politics, he still hasn’t used the power of his office to do what should be done for American interests, NOT Israeli. Then again, the Haggadah does state quite clearly that even the Wise child hasn’t learned everything yet.

But—if we have our wise and wicked children, what about the other two? It turned only one actor was needed for both roles: Maureen Dowd.

Over the course of approximately the past six weeks, Maureen Dowd wrote a series of four or five columns devoted to two subjects. The first involved a series of treatments of the ostensible [inevitable?] Westernization of Saudi Arabia; the second was the ongoing scnadal of pastoral pedophilia that persists in the Roman church.

The apparent motivation behind Dowd's willingness to print the claim of Prince Saud al-Faisal that “we are breaking away from the shackles of the past…we are moving in the direction of a liberal society” seemed to be juts so she could ascribe equal credibility to his claim that “what is happening in Israel is the opposite”. There was your “One Who Does Know How To Ask”: willing to take a patently absurd assertion at face value, even as she simultaneously attempted to qualify it: “[P]rogress is measured by a sundial in this stunted desert kingdom”.

That said, from a typical “liberal” perspective, however, I have to at least grudgingly congratulate her on mainitaining a modicum of consistency on another front: having proven that, like most “secular progressives”, she is more inclined to favor a cultural system of non-Western origin [i.e., Saudi Wahhabiism] over one tagged as “Western” [Israel], Dowd might be even more critical of the leadership of the Catholic faith in which she was raised for their ongoing refusal to see their pedophilia crisis for what it is, or in the parlance of the Simple Child, “What Is It [?]”.

Ironically, Dowd has spent so much time holding herself up as an expert in Islam, Islamists and Middle East crises, when she can actually focus on an area where her credibility might do some good. However, at the very least, one must say that she at least is as [if not more] critical of another “Western” religion as she is of Judaism/Zionism; and, one that happens to be her own, at that.

[Dowd also made a point of criticizing the Vatican spokespersons who compared the pressure being applied on the Church to Holocaust-level anti-Semitism. While the insanity of such an analog should be obvious to those who don’t consider the entire crisis engulfing Rome to be a Jewish plot, I wonder if Dowd is subtly trying to deflect the inevitable questions of anti-Zionist—if not anti-Semitic—bias that would attach to her fawning treatment of Wahhabi Saudiism. AS far as this writer is concerned—should one have questions about my biases and an ostensible willingness to bury the “sins” of my co-religionists—a perusal of my early entry Dirty Laundry? should lay that notion to rest.]

The Dowdian dilemma, then, might illustrate what happens when those not equipped to reach certain levels of wisdom think too hard: they confuse themselves. To conjure up a holiday that Dowd might find more familiar: forgive them, for they know not what they ask...or how to.

The Rest Is Details

In 1967, two days before the beginning of the Six Day War between Arabs and Israelis, French president General Charles de Gaulle decreed an arms embargo that disrupted what had been strong military cooperation between France and Israel since the Jewish state was created. Five months later, in a televised news conference, De Gaulle described the Jews as "this elite people, sure of themselves and domineering".

That was one turning point in Israel’s history of alliances. We may now be witnessing a new one.

In case anyone needed a clear indication that this administration is hostile to the Zionist project [which is ALWAYS ongoing], the events surrounding the recent Israel visit of the Vice-President and the resulting “insult” should remove all doubt. The rest is just details.

Now for some of the details. These include:

…the only reason to possibly be critical of Israel in this event at all: contrary to the conventional wisdom, the issue is not really a question of the timing of the housing announcement more than whether Netanyahu was truly “blindsided” by the announcement. If the housing minister “pre-empted” Netanyahu—either for reasons of pandering to a political constituency or for a misperceived “religious obligation” to further cement the Jewish claim to Jerusalem—one hopes that Netnayahu gets onto that page, presents a unified front to the US, and deals with the local political fallout later.

…that the real “apartheid” state in the region would be a newly created “Palestine” [to go with the other 21—or 22—non-Jewish states in the Fertile and Golden Crescents], due to their insistence on a state that is “Judenrein”, or that this [or any] US administration cares about this. With the State Department in the lead—as it always has been—the Administration has increasingly seized upon an outmoded, but persistent, combination of “self-determination” and pan-Arabism to inform its position. These are the positions that need to be attacked before questions of antisemitism are addressed, no matter how plausible those claims are.

…whether this Administration is truly going out of its way to present itself as pro-Arab and/or –Muslim. If Obama’s Cairo speech wasn’t enough, Biden’s blunt claim that the a Jewish presence in [East] Jerusalem “undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan” is a further indication of whose side the Administration would like to be on, even if it isn’t quite there yet. The last time something like this happened was during Gulf War I, when Israel was forced to restrain itself from responding to Iraq’s Scud attacks. Twenty years later, Israel’s enemies are much more equipped to commit genocide, and this Administration seeks any excuse to sideline itself [and Israel] from a legitimate defense.

…whether one even needs to raise the question of antisemitism, especially as increasing numbers of Israel’s enemies turn out to be Jewish [e.g., Tony Judt, Naomi Klein, et al]. Rather, one should raise issues of inconsistencies in the purported ideologies of these critics, especially as they bend over backward to support polities and belief systems that run the gamut between theocratic and totalitarian, if not both. Not that one should ever expect to win conversions from those in that camp, who are as ideologically rigid and fundamentalist as the worst Islamists [even if they don’t kill anyone directly]; however, some “independents”—if there are any left—might be enlightened.

…whether or not this President is “foreign”, or “Muslim”, or otherwise “unfit” for his office. For reasons of credibility, use of that notion should be avoided as a political tactic by Israel and her allies. There are enough plausible lines of attack on policy issues to not have to resort to ad hominem attacks [although it might actually not be that bad an idea to remain “neutrally silent” when such attacks emanate from the further reaches of the Right, analogous to the “neutral silence” on the left when Islamist atrocities are perpetrated.]

…and, finally, whether there would be any truth to the notion that the only real obvious black mark against this Administration is its now undoubted hostility toward Zionism. There might have been a two-day window when there was some truth to that sentiment [though it would be hard to ascertain exactly when that might have been]. At this point, however, it no longer matters. Even “liberal” supporters of Israel who were loath to ask questions about this Administration should start now.