=jplt1203 File of Letters drafted for Letters-to-the-Editor of the Jerusalem Post et. al.; this file closed 3 Dec '03 FROM: Steve Amdur Mevo Modi'in 73122 (D.N. HaMerkaz) Israel sa73122a@yahoo.com Some of these are dug up from old files; others are ca. 28 Nov. -- 3 Dec. '03. Some are more nearly attempted mini-essay's in political philosophy, than publication-styled letters-to-the-editor. OK to use any of this material, in whole or part, without attribution nor further communication. Although in some contexts, attribution of the few philosophic notes would be appropriate. / sa ================================================================= &&& OLD LETTERS ================================================================= OLD, SENT FROM sa73122@fastmail.fm Sent JP 22 Oct '03 AND MAYBE A RELIEF PITCHER How about we trade Yosi Beillin for peace. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sent JP 21 Oct '03 SYRIA Why should Israel fight what for George Bush, Jr., would be just another fantasy war. ---------------------------------------------------------------- [repeated from =sajp1128 ] [sentdate & head added here:] Sent ij@jpost.com 20 Oct '03 BEYOND THE BOUNDS OF WARFARE The 'Palestinian' terrorist campaign against Jerusalem is only ostensibly territorial. It is an attempt to debase and desecrate the cultural/spiritual focus and 'center' of the Jewish people. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sent JP 20 Oct '03 AN OVERVIEW OF MEDIA BIAS The foreign press holds Israel, not to a double standard, but to a utopian standard. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sent JP 16 Oct '03 PROFESSIONAL INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM Ref: WSP/JP = 'Excerpt from Wall Street Journal, included in Jerusalem Post' 16 Oct '03 Guy Chazan misleadingly terms the PLO leader 'veteran resistance fighters' who 'return[ed] from exile. They're not quite that. [ADD: They're professional international terrorists. ] ------------------------------------------------------------------ [Correction of =sajp1128 sendate: Sentdate is JP 15 Oct '03 Suggested headline was: 'PIE IN THE SKY' Text: Netanyahu seems to have fallen for Ronald Regan's "voodoo economics". "A rising tide lifts all boats" -- except those stuck in the mud. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sent JP 12 Oct '03 "Israel has the right to exist (!) behind secure borders." The Jordan River is a moderately secure border. The 1948 Armistice lines are neither a border nor secure. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sent JP 8 Oct Why can't Israel cut off funding to 'Palestinian' terrorist groups. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ================================================================== ### NOV. 28 '03-- 3 DEC '03 ================================================================= ------------------------------------------------------------------ REB MEIR WITH A DASH OF AESOP Re: JP 28 Nov '03 (Glick) Netanyahu is a silver-tongued Dumbo. When a fox tells you he has found the goose that lays golden eggs, lock up the chickens. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ref: Siegel, JP 28 Nov '03 How can the Department of Agriculture over-rule the Department of Health. The health of Israel's agro-business is evidently worth more than the health of its people. Consumers are cheaper to replace than fishponds. ------------------------------------------------------------------ [A longer version of the preceeding ] Re: JP 28 Nov '03 (Siegel) How can the Department of Agriculture over-rule the Health Ministry. The health of Israel's agro-business is evidently worth more than the health of its people. Consumers are cheaper to replace than fishponds. Judy Siegel states that "although the dye had been in legal use for dozens of years, it was banned by the Health Ministry since April following similar moves in the US and Europe -- even though no link between it and human cancers has ever been found." That sounds like methodologic nonsense; simplistic reductionism; "double-talk". The causation of carcinogenesis, whether triggered by radiation or by ingested toxins, is statistic, not linear. (The same holds, for example, for being killed by a bullet in a distant infantry attack; death is never certain, but it only takes one; there is no absolutely safe threshhold.) And to say that "no link ... has ever been found" between a suspected carcinogen and human cancers, is, in general, stale sophistry. Inference from short-term high-dosage laboratory animal experiments to likely future human epidemology is accepted scientific procedure; inference is not determinative, but it is reasonable. Judy Siegel also reports that a representative of the Agriculture Ministry "noted that short-term eating of fish with residues of the chemical will not cause any harm." Again: as with exposure to any potentially (statistically) lethal or even harmful situation, that may be likely for any individual, but it is unlikely for each and every member of an entire group. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 30 November '03 To the Editor: Ref: Newsweek, 1 Dec '03 : Ami Ayalon; excerpts by Newsweek from an Interview with Josh Hammer. Ami Ayalon is quoted as saying: "In the 9 months before the intifada only one Israeli was killed as a result of terror. It did not happen because the Shin Bet was better ...The main reason was the hope in the Palestinian street." In short, Ayalon as quoted here argues that Palestinian terrorism is caused (or at least predominantly caused) by an attitude of hopelessness amongst lower-class Palestinians. This is an interesting theory. If factually correct, it has important and rather clear implications. The general implication is that the way to reduce terrorism is to restore an attitude of help to the lowest socio-economic segment of the Palestinian people. Specific implications are not stated. On the political side, specific implications would include clear 'gestures' -- changes in Israeli policy, at least tentatively -- of accommodation with professed Palestinian desire for complete self-government over as large an area of post-1967 Israel as possible. On the material level, implications would be measures that improve the economic if not the socio-economic position of the Palestinian lower class. Such measures would include: strong support for foreign aid to the Palestinian people, increased access for Palestinian black-market, minimum-wage and low-wage labourers to the labour market in pre-1967 Israel; and whatever other measures would enhance the standard of living of the lower- class segment of the Palestinian population, within an acceptable level of risk and injury to the Jewish population of Israel. However, if Ayalon's theory is not factually correct, one needs to suggest an alternative theory, from which quite different conclusions would be drawn. One possible alternate theory is that Palestinian terrorism is decisively caused, other secondary motivations notwithstanding, by the present Palestinian leadership, as a means of maintaining their own power and affluence, particularly by pressuring foreign governments and organizations for aid, much of which is skimmed off for personal use. If that theory is true, then then the suggested course of action would be to remove the present leadership of the PLO. Another possible theory is that terrorism is predominantly and decisively caused by interest-groups, most led by power-centers in Mid-East Islamic states, and each competing with the others, by increasingly dramatic terrorist actions, to establish its prestige and influence in Israel. If that theory is true, then it entails a different set of advisable policy-changes and actions. Those might include: a seizure of the Palestinian banking system, and strict controls on all transfers, both electronic and personal, of foreign funds to Palestinians resident in Israel. It might also include possible threats if not demonstrations of military action against foreign organizations and quaisi- government groups determined to be sponsoring and directing terrorist actions; that was the theory and approach chosen by the Bush Administration to counter the demonstrated threat of terrorist attacks against the USA. So it makes a great difference which theory one accepts or creates. But a theory must be designed and accepted on a factual basis; one can't yield to the temptation of choosing one's theory on the basis of one's ideologic, sub-cultural (peer group), or religious preference. In particular, the romantic Marxist notion that all insurrections are an expression of the just grievances of the oppressed masses; and the sentimental liberal notion that one is ethically obligated to side with those who suffer most, seem to have little factual basis. Disasterously, many persons, groups, journalists, and news- media side with the Palestinians on such factually ill-supported bases. ================================================================== [not dated; not sent ] One might make a case, on spiritual grounds, for the internationalization of Temple Mount, maybe as a sort of U.N. World Heritage Site. And one might on historic ground make a case (albeit not to haredim) for its continuation under sovereignty of the state of Israel. But it would be more difficult to argue that Temple Mount should be brought under the sovereignty of an Islamic government (or for that matter, of the Municipality of Roma). Unless, of course, it is agreed that the eastern border of Saudi Arabia be re-instated at or west of Grenada. ================================================================== A fashionable Hollywood couple have set out to "put an end to hate" between the Jewish and 'Palestinian' peoples of the land of Israel. The idea, in its simplistic symmetry, is appealing. Although on our side, I've noticed very few expressions of hate toward 'Arabs'. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ref: JP 12 Nov '03 (O'Sullivan) Re: Conscientious objection [ Based primarily on USA Draft regulations ca. 1965 ] [Cf. esp. handbook of the Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors, Philadelphia, ca. 1963 ] Pacifism, and its personal expression as conscientious objection to military or combatant service, is, as defined judicially in the USA, an absolute refusal to bear arms. Conscientious objection may be motivated either by religion (eg the Witnesses and the Mennonites) or by 'a belief which functions for a non-religious person as a religious belief functions for a religious person'. [ That was a judicial formulation; accepted by the USA Draft. ] Draftees applying for conscientious objector status may request either 1-O classification (civilian work) or 1-A-O classification (willing to serve in the medical corps, but not to bear arms). Selective refusal to serve in the armed forces is usually politically or ideologically based. Selective refusal is not pacifism, and is not recognized as grounds for exemption as a conscientious objector. In Israel, however, as made clear by the Israel Attorney General's response to Rabin's "beatings policy" [ March 1989 (?) ], selective refusal to follow a military order is not merely permitted but obligatory in a case of 'manifest illegality'. Pacifism is not quietism; and not necessarily exceptionally spiritual. The Israel army is tendentiously incorrect, at least by criteria in the USA and even India (Mohatma Ghandi), in describing pacifism is "a pure, personal act that is performed without seeking publicity or trying to recruit others." In the USA, especially during the Vietnam War, members of the Committee for Nonviolent Action (CNVA; Voluntown Connecticut & New York city), who were recognized as absolue pacifists, regularly staged dramatic media-oriented demonstrations. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Dec '03 I've just been talking with my Palestinian counterpart. She is prepared to offer us everything Beilin got, plus free pizza for a year. I say go for it. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Israel is prepared to give away its biblical heartland to anyone who will sign for it. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sent 2 Dec '03 via jpost.com (printed 5 Dec '03) Letter-to-the-Editor, In Jerusalem: Jerusalem should guard its character as the spiritual/cultural center of the Jewish people. Arterial automobile traffic should be excluded; unnecessary automobile traffic should be minimized. The tranquility of religious neighborhoods should be acknowleged and safeguarded; those few who take offense at the existence of religiosity should not be permitted to affront it. A broad multi-faith range of religious and cultural institutions should be encouraged, as should inexpensive housing, living, and recreational facilities. Sordid bars and the like should be discouraged. Parks and other public areas should be properly monitored. The Midrahov should not degrade into a sort of Coney Island. ------------------------------------------------------------------- THE KLINGON EMPIRE, PERHAPS Correction: In a recent letter, I inadvertantly referred to Yossi Beilin as if he were a representative of the PLO. Yossi Beilin does not represent the PLO. Nobody knows who he represents. ------------------------------------------------------------------- I read that the government recently shut down Arutz 7 on the ground that it was fishing in troubled waters without a license, or posing potential interference with the navigational system of homing pigeons or some such. As far as I'm concerned, they can shut down everything except Voice of Music and the English news. But that ain't freedom of expression. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Sent 3 Dec via www.jpost.com (print) IT'S EARLY IN THE SEASON I am glad that our government has finally negotiated the Geneva Accord. It makes excellent sense. But if this is Switzerland, why are the ski conditions so poor. Frightfully rocky you know. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Sent 3 Dec via www.jpost.com (print) The Jerusalem Post Internet edition, which originally could claim to be one of the best on-line newspapers, is now practically worthless, at least to non-subscribers; a front for on-line bulk- mail advertising. ---------------------------------------------------------------- NOT TO MENTION ALL THOSE TACKY PINE TREES Like any civilized European -- and there must be some -- I sympathize with the 'Palestinians'. This must have been a lovely country before the mid-20th century came along with all its asphalt highways, concrete houses, chemical farming, gasoline automobiles, and population explosion. Palestinians would never have done that stuff. ------------------------------------------------------------------- WITHOUT CLICKING ON THE EJ -- Re: JP 2 Dec '03, Letter, Paul Harris (Tel Aviv): Paul Harris writes from Tel Aviv (JP Letter 2 Dec): " Could any of your erudite readers enlighten me as to why religious Jews and Christians still pay homage to the ancient Egyptian god Amoun (corrupted to amen)?" While erudite nor enlightened I ain't -- I'd assumed AMeN was a corruption of AMeT ( 'true' ). ------------------------------------------------------------------- A few notes on the 'Jenin, Jenin' issue: One might better argue, not that a demonstrably propagandistic film should be banned, but that it should be licensed for distribution only in conjunction with an appropriate rebuttal film. Soldiers and the miltarized society that supports them have little right to plead for protection of their feelings (however much both active soldiers and civilians simultaneously preserve the values of peacetime). It is their (our) collective 'job', or accepted role, to be, when one must, tough enough to withstand attack in any mode: physical, intellectual, emotional, psychologic, psychic. In the USA, the ACLU et al. takes pride in occasionally litigating on behalf of reprehensible clients in order to establish as precedent legal rulings that hopefully will, in the general case, safeguard civil liberties. It is my impression that in Israel, which a much smaller and much more cohesive society than the USA, judicial decisions, even at the highest levels, are based much more on the particular case. Wittgenstein, following Godel, made it clear enough (in his Philosophical Investigations) that a general rule can never be entirely determinative. Delimiting the individual human right to civil liberities, is the need as precondition for a reasonable measure of public security. (This is the meta-principle that 'One may not [claiming freedom of expression] shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre [ if one knows that there is no fire ]'.) Thus there are laws against incitement to violence. Eg (to take a much-abused example), against 'advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government by force and violence'. But incitement is quadradic, not dyadic: in cases of incitement, unlike cases of documentation, A does not simply state B. Rather, in cases of incitement, A states B to C , in order to motivate C to do D. (Sometimes incitement is explicit -- ('Burn down the ghetto!'); more generally it is implicit; (eg Antony's speech in Shakespeare's Ceasar) and the apparent statement is duplicitious. ( The duplicity in media-bias might be analyzed and explicated within 'theory of meaning'; starting from and refining J.L. Austin's distinction of a statement's locutionary, 'illocutionary', and 'perlocutionary' force. ) So the risk of incitement could be reduced by limiting the audience rather than banning the statement. In the USA, this is recognized in the very limited case of restricting to supposedly 'mature adults' (!), films and videos with supposedly inflamatory sexual content. (There is also in the USA a much more limited and quite hypocritical acknowlegement of the need and right to restrict access by impressionable persons to visual materials that may numb individual inhibition against committing acts of violence.) ------------------------------------------------------------------- Sent 3 Dec from jpost.com The term 'incitement' should not be used recklessly. For instance, to term someone a 'traitor' may well be intemperate, but it does not constitute incitement, provided that one can be assumed to agree that anyone accused of anything is entitled to full protection of law. [ The assumption that: if A terms B a traitor, A is advocating that B be summarily executed by anyone who wishes to do so [ the fatwa principle, if I recall, as used against Rushdie ] is true only if A is an official in the Palestinian Authority. ] ------------------------------------------------------------------ =================================================================