1/27/24

 Saturday, January 27, 2024

In bed by 9:15 and up at 5:50.  33°, high of 37°, cloudy all day. Dense Fog Advisory until 10 a.m. No wind ('gusts' up to 5 mph).  0.15" of rain in the last 24 hours. Sunrise at 7:12, sunset at 4:56, 9+44/

Treadmill; pain.  Waking pains are present but not so bad this morning.  0.00 & 0.00, a day off, very tired despite a decent's night's sleep.  Go figure. 

I'm grateful for my daughter and my son.  Sarah is in the States this past week and next on business and is spending the weekend with her mother.  I had breakfast  with her at Maxfield's at 8:30 and a long visit with her at home afterwards, marveling as I always do at her intelligence, her impressive competence in her profession of lighting design and computer competence, and in business management.  And in cooking, and in baking, and in knitting, and in sewing, and in crossword solving, and in languages, and in whatnot?  She will apply for and receive dual citizenship in a few weeks, German and American.  An extraordinary person.  As is her brother, who earned his law degree at age 50 while working fulltime and supporting his family in all ways, a remarkable feat I doubt I would have been able to accomplish. He is a remarkable husband and father to his three children, a constant source of admiration from me and pride to me.  I dealy love my stepsons, Steven and David, like their stepsiblings, incredibly intelligent, well-read, well-informed, quick-witted men with great values, hardworking family men, good to their mother and to me.  For each and all of them, I am grateful.

Watching Chris Hedges Report on UN failures and US complicity.  "For the US government, human rights are a political tool to wield against its adversaries, but r always there to defend the impunity of its perceived allies and friends.  In the international human rights program, the US is an outlier because of its opposition to most of the international human rights programs.  It's opposed to economic and social rights as rights.  It's opposed to the right to development.  It's opposed to the abolition of capital punishment.  It is the one state on the planet that is not a party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.  Only the US, out of 193 countries, has not ratified that convention.  It opposes the International Criminal Court and it has even passed legislation, known as the Hague Invasion Law,  that if any of its people or its allies are indicted and arrested, it will invade the Netherlands to liberate them."  Not to mention our position on limitations on methods of warfare, like the land mine convention.  And how about our invasion of Vietnam?  and Iraq?  and Afghanistan?

The Perrenial Question: Is it good for the Jews or bad for the Jews?  Ruth Marcus' article in this morning's WaPo attacks the decision of the ICJ on South Africa's case against Israel for genocide.  I watched the delivery of the court's decision and have thought about it quite a bit.  I've concluded that the court's decision, 15-2 on most points and 16-1 on some, was a good one.  She argues that it is "a perversion of justice."   Marcus' arguments seem weak to me.

(1) She repeats what nobody denies, i.e., that Isreal has a right to defend itself.   No one, or virtually no one denies that.  Or that Hamas did not have a right to engage in the vicious barbarism of October 7.

(2)  She argues that Hamas' goals are genocidal of Jews: again, virtually no one disputes this.

(3)  She argues that "Hamas is responsible for the terrible scope of civilian casualties, having deliberately embedded itself within the civilian population in Gaza."  First, what militant entity would choose to locate its military facilities where they can be spotted and destroyed by a nearby hostile power?  Why did the U.S. develop and deploy U2 spy aircraft and fleets of nuclear[powered and nuclear-armed submarines?  Second, was it Hamas who dropped the bombs and fired the missiles that killed the women and children, or Israel?  When I kill a mouse that has 'embedded' itself in our basement, is it I who killed it or did the mouse kill itself?

(4)  She argues: "Keep in mind: None of this — none — would be happening were it not for Hamas."  Does that mean Israel is free to retaliate without restraint?  Without restrictions?  Without regard to moral or legal requiremnts?  Granted: Hamas' actions on October 7 started the war.  What is the relevance of that in terms of Israel's actions in the war?  Did we start the war with the VC and North Vietnam or did they start the war with us?  In either case, could Lt. Calley's actions at My Lai be excused?

(5)  She argues: "Israel has taken extraordinary steps to prevent civilian casualties and otherwise mitigate the suffering of innocents."  Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

(6)  She argues: "If Hamas magically disappeared tomorrow, if Israel found its safety somehow assured, it would have no interest, none, in causing any harm to the civilian population."  I believe this is true of most Israelis, but is it true of the government of Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir, and Smotrich?  Is it true of the Religious Zionists with their belief that Palestinians are squatters on land that God Himself reserved for the Jews?  Or for the Nationalists with their desire for "Greater Israel" from the Nile to the Euphrates?  Who are in charge of the government and the IDF right now, peaceniks or the extreme rightwing in Israel?

(7)  She argues:  "The order focuses instead on a few statements by Israeli officials in the immediate aftermath of Oct. 7 that were inadvisable but fall far short of demonstrating genocidal intent — for example, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant’s statement, “We are fighting human animals.”  Of greater interest was Gallant's simultaneous statements "We have released all restraints" and "I have lifted all restrictions" and the subsequent near-saturation bombing of Gaza City.  

(8)  She argues:  "The problematic Israeli statements, [a sole dissenter]  said, were yanked out of context or misinterpreted, while the “official war policy of the Israeli Government, as presented to the Court, contains no indicators of a genocidal intent.”  Would we expect Netanyahu to announce publicly and officially that we intend to drive the Palestinians out of Gaza, into Egypt or wherever anyone is willing to take them?  Why am I reminded of Donald Trump on the Ellipse on January 6 urging the mod that he had summoned there, assembled there, addressed there, and lit the flame that resulted in the assault on the Capitol, to 'fight like hell' but "peacefully"?

(9)  She cited the dissenting judge, Israeli Aharon Barak:  "In comparison to the “scant evidence” of genocidal intent by Israel relied on here, he noted, the ICJ, investigating Myanmar’s treatment of the Muslim Rohingya, engaged in “meticulous collection of evidence over two years, which included 400 interviews with victims and eyewitnesses, analysis of satellite imagery, photographs and videos, the cross-checking of information against credible secondary information, expert interviews and raw data” before concluding that there was “plausible” proof of intent."  Surely Marcus realizes that the Myanmar evidence was, as she cites, collected 'over two years', i.e. after the provisional remedy stage of the case, where the South Africa-Israel case stands now.  Surely she realizes that the court, ruling 15-2, was in fact restrained when it found only that "at least some of the acts and omissions alleged … to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the Convention.”

(10)  She concluded:  "What accounts for the different treatment of Israel? I can’t help but think it is the same one that necessitated the existence of a Jewish state to begin with."  Is she comparing the ICJ's decision with the Holocaust?  It's hard to believe that this statement comes from the pen of this Harvard Law School grad and generally very reasonable columnist.

I remember from years ago jokes built on what had been a perrenial questions among at least some Jews: Is it good for the Jews or bad for the Jews?  Thermonuclear war in the Middle East - is it good for the Jews?  This, that, or the other thing - good for the Jews or bad for the Jews?  "Is it good for the Jews' was the punchline of a lot of jokes.  The punchline has a bit of a nasty edge to it insofar as it suggests that all Jews have the same position on every issue, which smacks a bit of anti-semiticism: all Jews are alike.  It also suggests that Jews put their own interests above the interests of all others, which smacks of Jewish Supremacy.  Nonetheless, the question came naturally enough to Jews who knew of their long, long history of discrimination, mistreatment, oppression, and pogroms in Europe and elsewhere.  It seems to me to be the question that underlies just about everything major in Israel's history.  Was and is Zionism good for the Jews or bad for the Jews?   Was the founding of the Jewish state in Palestine good for the Jews or bad for the Jews?  Was the occupation of Gaza, the Sinai, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Golan Heights in 1967 good for the Jews or bad for the Jews?  Were the Camp David Accords in 1978 good for the Jews?  Was relinquishing the Sinai to Egypt good for the Jews?   Were the Oslo Accords in 1993 good for the Jews or bad for the Jews?  Was the assassination of Rabin in 1995 good for the Jews or bad for the Jews?  Was the ascendency of Likud and descendency of Labor good for the Jews?  Was the Camp David Summit in 2000 good for the Jews?  Was withdrawing from Gaza in 2005 good for the Jews?  Were the subsequent Gaza hostilities good for the Jews?  Is the current one?

I have to believe that what is happening now in Gaza is not good for the Jews, those in Israel and those in the diaspora.  Israel has been on a downslope since 1967 when it became an occupying power.  Its slide rightward became precipitous in 1995 with the killing of Yitzhak Rabin and the subsequent election of Netanyahu and his Likud allies.  I can't see a future that is good for the Jews, or for the Palestinians.  There is no "two-state solution" or a "one-state solution."  One must wonder whether the state of Israel was simply misbegotten, and ultimately, not good for the Jews.