The Need to Respond to BDS (Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel)

People often ask why even respond to BDS. Some say that since past BDS attempts to get colleges and universities to divest from Israel don't work and since they don't have many actual followers on campus, then why bother. Some would even say that Israel supporters give BDS conferences too much attention with any response at all. But as has been said many times, the appropriate response to BDS is a balancing act between making a strong statement and not shedding too much light on them. It is not about refusing to shine light on them at all. That would be a mistake. Here is why.

If we, as a community did nothing, a few things would still happen. BDS conferences would still succeed in coming on to the major college campuses around the country. They would still succeed in getting opinion pieces printed opposite real academics and statesman like James Woolsey, as just happened in the Philadelphia Inquirer. This is the travesty of BDS and that "ship" so to speak, has sailed.

What some may not understand is that the problem with the BDS is not so much the "movement" itself, but the image of BDS as something more than it is and the false weight they are then given by the press and others in the community - whether the pro-Israel community responds or not.

It really comes down to this. "BDS" brings with it ALL the elements in any community that are amassed against Israel. When BDS comes to town, every reporter, every activist, every left leaning person who ever had a problem with Israel thinks "Oh, this is a group I can latch on to and say to the world - this is what I think of Israel." BDS is the cheese, and when they come to town the mice come running out of the woodwork. When BDS comes to town, any person with an Apartheid charge to make, or a claim that Israel is a genocidal state comes out of the woodwork to make their case.

THIS is what the Jewish community and supporters of Israel need to respond to when BDS comes to town, not just BDS itself. Yes, they don't accomplish anything tangible, but they do spread vile comments about Israel, the United States, and all those who support Israel. And they spread these ideas in all of the arenas where people are the least informed about the full picture of Israel and the full complexity of the conflict - on college campuses and in the local media.

Without a full understanding of either BDS or the Israeli Palestinian conflict, it is easy to believe that someone just wants to talk about non-violent resistance. And boycotts, divestment and sanctions certainly come across as non-violent. But BDS is not really about BDS. It is a loose amalgamation of speakers and writers who spread misinformation on a multitude of other topics. Just look at the program and listen to what the main speakers say. Their agenda and their words reveal the truth about the wider scope of the BDS ideology. They really are the sum of their parts and this is both the strength and the weakness of BDS. It is a strength because they can deny that any speaker is actually speaking on behalf of BDS. And it is a weakness because it allows critics to see the true nature of their rhetoric.

Let's take Remi Kanazi as a perfect example of how this sometimes works. Remi Kanazi is exactly the kind of speaker who we generally see at these conferences. That is why he was featured in their promotional video on YouTube. But after that video took some heat for some of Remi's more candid remarks, they are able to pull the video and distance themselves from those remarks. Nonetheless, he is typical of BDS speakers. BDS speakers often say they are not vilifying or demonizing anyone. Then someone like Remi Kanazi's "poetry" seems to say otherwise. And at that point some locals (who were somehow surprised by the remarks) decided to drop off the program.

It is puzzling how BDS supporters, even professors, never really research what speakers connected to these BDS conferences actually say. On the one hand it may be admirable for a professor to drop off the program when they hear Remi say that Israeli soldiers "snipe our children’s' shoulders, knees and stomachs." But on the other hand, who joins a group - in the context of this conflict especially - without seeing whether the attacks against them have any merit. And in this case they do.

Remi also says things like "Buying a 2 yr (Motorola) contract stacks up (collectively) to 63 years of ethnic cleansing." He claims that anyone who "supports Israel serves an agenda which rebrands colonialism as English Liberalism for pink washers."

Some would say 'this is only one person.' But don't be fooled by that argument. The whole point is that BDS is entirely made up of these 'one persons.' Ilan Pappe is the prototype for the shoddy academic. Ali Amunibah and Remi Kanazi are the prototypes for the people who aren't just talking about the complications in the West Bank, but who are talking about how the "settlements are just the branches of the Zionist agenda." They are talking about "Israel beyond Apartheid" or the Israel that becomes a single state with an Arab majority.

This is BDS. And BDS is all the people who come out to write Op Ed's to defend the speakers. The "BDS Phenomenon" is the editors who given them valuable media space and air time so that they appear to merit the same credibility that they also get from just using the halls of a school like the University of Pennsylvania.

They do not have standing yet they appear to have some because they can get into the pages of the Philadelphia Inquirer alongside James Woolsey. Based on this "respect" one would never know that the actual organizers and speakers of BDS are a mishmash of relatively unknown characters and shoddy academics.

So to say that one, two, three, or four, or five or six speakers don't "represent" the BDS ideology is ludicrous. They ARE the BDS ideology. And once they are given the spotlight, and we know they always are, staying completely silent is impossible for our community. We must respond in some way - or their message - and their unwarranted appearance of credibility will have an impact on public opinion.

Jon Haber, a good friend to the cause and creator of the "Divest This" website often claims that as long as we let people know that BDS fails at getting organizations to divest, that is all we need to do. The problem with that argument is that "fail" is a relative term. As long as they "succeed" at convincing people that their ideology is credible and as long as they get into the Op Ed pages, they matter. The pro-Israel community, like it or not, did not put them there. Just like they didn't put delegitimization on the agenda of every meeting at the UN. They are here to stay - just like the delegitimzation of Israel is here to stay. It is the job of the Jewish and pro-Israel community to respond to the farce of BDS and call it what it is - a group of speakers and writers who lack integrity and who are academically dishonest. Alan Dershowitz said it best when he said "As soon as you stop lying about me, I'll stop telling the truth about you."

To do anything less would be irresponsible and to do anything more would be forgetting the goal - to have the superiority of our message win the day rather than the volume of our rancor.

Put plainly, BDS conferences assemble academics and activists whose sole purpose is to delegitimize Israel. It is true that the BDS campaign has had virtually no success in its calls for divestment from Israel but it is also true that the BDS calls for unilateral action against Israel go against decades of US and international support for a negotiated two state solution.

BDS conferences do not explore different approaches to the two state solution, but only provide a one sided polemic. BDS organizers claim that their conference is “inclusive” but there will never be panelists joining them to talk about the millions of Israeli Arabs who have voting rights and legal protections. The more accurate depiction of an Israel where an Arab can go to the Supreme Court - and win - hardly sounds like South African apartheid – a charge routinely made at BDS conferences. That false claim is as insulting to South African’s who lived through apartheid as it is to Israeli’s.

Despite the challenges that face any democratic society, Israel is a vibrant center of modernity, in sea of repressive Middle East regimes. No mention will be made of the abuses of Syria or Iran at a BDS conference, much less the actions of Hamas or Hezbollah.

The local response to its BDS conference has been civil, clear, and consistent. The student body let the world to know that the vast majority of students at Penn do not support the global BDS campaign. The University of Pennsylvania let their community to know that they fully reject calls for boycotting or divesting from Israel. And the local Jewish community has rightfully expressed serious concern about the distortions routinely made by BDS speakers.

The fact is that the shortsighted BDS campaign is counterproductive to the goals of peace. The only productive path toward peace and a two state solution is through bi-lateral, internationally supported negotiations. Listening to BDS speakers, you would never know that Israel stands ready, with outstretched hand, to get back to the negotiating table and resolve this conflict. Encouraging students to support that process, rather than condemning it, would be the best way for any activist to help achieve the ultimate goal we all should support, which is peace between Palestinians and Israelis.

(These views are my own and do not, in their entirety, represent the views of my employer.)

Fareed Zakaria Exposes Glenn Beck's Downright Lies About Muslims

Thanks Fareed. We needed this.

ISRAELI AND PALESTINIAN VIEWS on "Need to Know" (PBS)

An EXCELLENT segment from "Need to Know." One on Israeli perspectives and one on Palestinian views of conditions in the West Bank. In this interview - David Grossman says;

"Those on the right who don't realize the plight of Palestinians are denying reality - just as those on the left, who deny the threat to Israel's very existence, also deny reality."

This is an extemely rare and balanced veiw to take on this issue and one I respect deeply. Please watch the full interview. (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/video/israeli-author-david-grossman-on-the-conflict-in-the-middle-east/5142/)


In Part 2, you will see BOTH the AMAZING development in Palestinian cities AND the less than amazing conditions for those in refugee communities. At the very least, this should convince anyone who thinks otherwise that the WEST BANK is NOT an open air prison. Complaints about rules and regulations that make life and business LESS CONVENIENT do not a humanitatian crisis make. Work for peace and improvde conditions - but do not demonize EITHER side. Palestinians deserve freedom, independence, and a future of their own. But don't promote the cause by claiming things that simply are not true. Conditions are improving in the West Bank and conditions in Gaza could improve in a similar way. Yes Israel is often obstinate in its quest for security, but whey does the international community not demand that Gaza be more like thier bretheren whose quality of life is improving because they have come to grips with the reality that is the Israel. (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/security/growing-a-state-palestinians-build-a-homeland/5139/)

West Bank Progress / West Bank Realities

Improvements in basic services, security, and “daily life” (like people getting traffic tickets, going to movie theaters and enjoying public parks) reveals that the West Bank is not the war zone, prison, or bastion for round the clock misery some make it out to be. The West Bank is clearly not turning into a vacation resort, but the normalization of life there is a reality, checkpoints are coming down regularly and this is because of the work of well meaning people in both governments. It is my fear that unless we see more of the balanced view that life is not “impossible” in the West Bank, but hard and improving - myths and distortions about a “demonic” Israel will unfortunately continue.

------------------------------

This is a portion of an op-ed I recently crafted in response to an article by Ethan Bronner of the NY TImes. In a recent article of his, “West Bank shows hints of a Palestinian state” (Aug, 31 2010) I was pleased to see someone actually write about the best kept secret in the world, that the West Bank was seeing glimpses of a normalized daily life for its residents. As my quote above indicates, this does not mean things are not hard. Nor does it mean supporters of Israel shouldn't push Israel to work even harder toward a settlement so that conditions can improve even more. But I was furious when Bronner laid out a list of improvements and seemingly normal activities only to interject that Israeli troops, roadblocks and checkpoints “render life impossible."

Now which is it folks. Does life has a semblance of normalcy or is it "impossible?" It can't be both. It can be hard and improving. It can be "slightly improving but really on the whole, miserable on most days." But it can't be both improving AND impossible. My fear is that most people, as is usually the case, will give no consideration to the facts and simply see the phrase "life is impossible." The sad part in this case is that the facts are about two column inches away from the distortion. How can that be? How can a reporter not see both the contradiction and the problem it poses for real progress toward peace?

This also brings up a larger point about people who protest Israel and/or boycott Israel or Israeli goods. In a recent Newsweek article, Jacob Weisberg lays out a case countering the Israel Boycott movement. (Don't Boycott Israel - The Very Idea is Repellent) In it he mentions Meg Ryan, who cancelled an appearance in Israel, and Elvis Costello, who cancelled a concert. He also mentions his distaste for academic boycotts. Weisberg, however, takes the traditional route of promoting Israel's many attributes and asking the David Project and AIPAC question; "How can you boycott Israel when there are so many other really bad places." Personally, that is not my favorite approach. Do they really think that the "I'm not as bad as that guy" argument works on a visceral or intellectual level.

Most protesters of Israel do not see the shade of gray between Israel having military control of an area and them having anything to do with social services, jobs, and the actual plight of the population. They do not see it as the political no man's land that it is. The West Bank has been in a virtual purgatory for quite some time, and the idea that Israel leaving tomorrow will create prosperity is the main thing these protesters seem to not understand. The other critical issue they do not get is that both sides are actually doing a great deal to improve conditions as much as they can given the current situation. So I ask, what is the boycott for? If it is for Israel to leave, do they not get that Israel wants to leave and that agreements have already been proposed that will allow some settlements to stay and have some go? Do they not get that BOTH sides have already agreed that this is what will eventually happen? And if this is so, how can settlements, in principle, be so vilified.

This is not the same old, we've offered this much land before and they turned it down argument. Camp David was flawed and everyone who was there knows it. The point is that a structure exists to leave the West Bank and Israel has been supportive of it in principal. So I ask again, what is the point of the boycott? Is it to say Israel is bad? Is it to say Israel should leave tomorrow? Well, again, how naive is that? Leaving tomorrow gets you another Gaza, and saying Israel is the evil party here is as one sided a claim as you could make given the history of this conflict.

And just so we can be consistent here, I really hope Meg Ryan and Elvis Costello are also cancelling their appearances in the US and Europe because their rules of engagement and security in Afghanistan and Iraq are actually less protective of civilians than are Israel's.

Palestinians are trapped between hard liners on both sides and only by encouraging moderation on both sides - with positive measures - will anything productive come about. All the money and effort going toward boycotts could be going toward development in the West Bank and Gaza. All the celebrities who are boycotting could be going to both Israel and the West Bank and advocating for moderation, political activism and a spirit of compromise on both sides. As with Ethan Bronner's article, these celebrities are simplifying the situation, contributing to the global demonization and ostracizing of Israel, and not actually helping average Palestinians at all.

To be fair, there are figures protesters see that show how conditions for Palestinians are not good. But not only are most of those figures skewed by combining conditions in Gaza and the West Bank, but I state again, the idea that Israel leaving tomorrow will improve these conditions is preposterous. But the numbers are real. Lets just not kid ourselves that Gaza and the West Bank face the same severity of problems. And frankly, lets be honest about Gaza. No one knows what to do about Gaza. It may have to be the red state to the West Bank's blue state in some future Paletstinian confederation. But most boycotters are talking about the West Bank and envisioning Gaza. In fact, boycotters get louder after conflicts in Gaza escalate. Where is the rational there?

Here are some figures that should alarm us all:

Almost 58 percent of Palestinians live in poverty, and about half of this group lives in extreme poverty. About 50 percent of Palestinians experience or risk experiencing food insecurity. Food insecurity is particularly severe in Gaza, where the majority of the population relies on humanitarian assistance to survive. The rate of chronic malnutrition in children under the age of five has increased, reaching almost 10 percent, and the mortality figures for children under the age of one and under the age of five have each increased by about 30 percent. Anaemia is common, with 55 percent of children under the age of three affected by the condition. Among pregnant women, the rate is 36 percent―46 percent for nursing mothers.

Again, these conditions are not good, but they are not really reflective of actual conditions in the West Bank. If you think about it, the place that is the most moderate is the place Israel is giving the most support, and encouragment for growth. Isn't that exactly what they should be doing? Maybe they should be moving faster and with more determination, but is that a reason to boycott? Is that a reason to vilify and demonize?

At the end of the day, if we could all rally around ways to further improve these conditions - including urging both sides to compromise and reach a framework for a future Palestinian state - we could stop the demagoguery and make real progress toward peace.

I say let's stop the boycotts, discredit and dismantle the biased organizations who promote them, role up our sleeves, and be part of the solution, not the problem.

Sorting Through The Record Of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf

"Why is it that the very name, the Cordoba institute, HAS to take on the meaning of those vilifying him - that of the supercessionist element of Muslim history? Why can it not be the stated meaning of the organization which holds that Cordoba celebrates the "Golden Age " in Spain - a time when Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived together in relative peace - a time of great thinkers and great accomplishments? These are the kinds of counter arguments that no one is making effectively or sharing with the public."

“According to Imam Rauf; terrorism is usually defined by the acting party’s intent to harm innocent people. If a suicide bomber intentionally takes the lives of innocent people, he is obviously guilty of terrorism. By contrast, if the United States and its coalition forces drop bombs on the wrong buildings in Baghdad (or any other city) and the bombs kill hundreds or thousands of innocent people, including many women and children, we define this as collateral damage, not terrorism. We draw this distinction because we had no intent to kill civilians."

------------------------------------------

There has been much said and written about the political stances or statements of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. He has been accused of blaming the US for 9/11, for not speaking out against Hamas, for having "ties" and connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and for preaching an extreme version of Islam. I have been asking friends and colleagues on the right to provide more than just accusations, intimations, and tenuous connections. To this date, I have yet to see hard evidence. In this spirit I am posting portions of an excellent piece from the New York Times that sifts through some of the accusations and some of the facts.

I write this not to defend every thing the Imam has said. My first gaol is to set the record straight and end the demagoguery. My second goal is to paint a picture of someone who may be controversial, but who is by no means outside the pale of what mainstream Muslims and Americans are allowed to say about America, Israel, and the Middle East. Of course, the extension of this argument is to ask whether the statements he actually has made rise to such a level as to deny his organization the right to build their Islamic Center in lower Manhattan.

I believe some of his statements do contradict themselves and are wrong. For example, he wants to say, when speaking about Israel, that Palestinian terrorism targeted against civilians is morally equivalent to Israeli attacks where civilians are killed regrettably. However, he has also stated that when Americans bomb terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, civilian deaths are NOT the same because there was no intention to kill. I find that disingenuous because Americans do the same cost/benefit analysis as Israelis and that is something no one wants to talk about. Clearly there is an anti-Israel bias in some of his statements. But even with that, I do not think it makes him an extremist. I would disagree with him and argue against him, but not deny him the right to build his center.

While that may be one element of his philosophy that some may find problematic, I think there is much more that can be clarified that would counter what many are saying about him and his organization. Speaking of which, why is it that the very name, the Cordoba institute, HAS to take on the meaning of those vilifying him - that of the supersecionist element of Muslim history which holds that Mosques are built on top of or in place of churches and synagogues to make a bold statement about the supremacy of Islam? Why can it not be the stated meaning of the organization which holds that Cordoba celebrates the "Golden Age " - a time when Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived together in relative peace - a time of great thinkers and great accomplishments? These are the kinds of counter arguments that no one is making effectively or sharing with the public.

So please, read on and share some or all of this with your friends - or anyone really who you think may need to see the other side of this debate.

--------------------------------------------

The Internet is crowded with claims and counterclaims about Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind the proposed Muslim community center and mosque two blocks from ground zero. The following is a sampling of some of the most often quoted complaints, combined with writings and statements from Mr. Abdul Rauf and his Cordoba Initiative, which has posted a frequently asked questions page on its Web site about the proposed project and the planners’ views. In his book “What’s Right With Islam Is What’s Right With America,” Mr. Abdul Rauf writes:

“The truth is that killing innocent people is always wrong — and no argument or excuse, no matter how deeply believed, can ever make it right. No religion on earth condones the killing of innocent people, no faith tradition tolerates the random killing of our brothers and sisters on this earth. ... Islamic law is clearly against terrorism, against any kind of deliberate killing of civilians or similar ‘collateral damage.’ ”

The book also includes a copy of the fatwa, a religious ruling, issued by senior Middle Eastern Muslim clerics that called the 9/11 attacks un-Islamic. The ruling, requested by the United States military’s top Muslim chaplain, gave permission to Muslims in the United States armed forces to fight in the war in Afghanistan. In the book, the imam also elaborates on an argument that may make some Americans uncomfortable but has been put forward by many mainstream American analysts: that terrorism is viewed differently by different populations and that understanding those various views, whether or not one agrees with them, is central to resolving disputes. In “In the West,” he writes:

“Terrorism is usually defined by the acting party’s intent to harm innocent people. If a suicide bomber intentionally takes the lives of innocent people, he is obviously guilty of terrorism. By contrast, if the United States and its coalition forces drop bombs on the wrong buildings in Baghdad (or any other city) and the bombs kill hundreds or thousands of innocent people, including many women and children, we define this as collateral damage, not terrorism. We draw this distinction because we had no intent to kill civilians. ..."

“By contrast, however, many Muslims in the Middle East look primarily at the result of our actions. ... The result is a common view in the Middle East that the U.S. is perfectly willing to kill innocent civilians when it suits America’s goals.”

The imam applies the same analysis to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

“Israel points to the intentional repeated killing of innocent civilians as obvious proof that the Palestinians are guilty of terrorism — and the horrible images of bomb victims cannot be denied. Palestinians, however, counter that the overall number of civilians killed is higher on their side, and they rage with equal passion against Israeli terrorism.’ ”

On United States Policies

Perhaps the most often quoted statement used to portray Mr. Abdul Rauf as a “terrorist sympathizer,” as the New York gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio calls him in a campaign advertisement, is this, from “60 Minutes” on Sept. 30, 2001:

“I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.”

Mr. Abdul Rauf’s supporters say he was expressing a view common among American policy advisers: that dissatisfaction with American policies is one, if not the only, driver of anti-American sentiment and attacks.

The Following are portions of a transcript dealing with this issue:

ED BRADLEY: How — how do you feel as a Muslim knowing that people of your faith committed this act that resulted in the loss of probably 6,000 lives?

MR. ABDUL RAUF: It’s painful. But when this thing first happened, everybody in the community said, “Oh, God, let this not be a person from our faith, tradition or from our background.”

MR. BRADLEY: What would you say to — to people in this country, who, looking at what happens in the Middle East, would associate Islam with fanaticism, with terrorism?

MR. ABDUL RAUF: Fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam. That’s — that’s just as absurd as associating Hitler with Christianity or — or David Koresh with Christianity. There are always people who will — who will do peculiar things and think that they are doing things in the name of their religion. But — but the Koran — you know, God says in the Koran that they think that they’re doing right, but they’re doing wrong. ...

MR. BRADLEY (voiceover): And throughout the Muslim world, there is also strong opposition to America’s foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, because of its support of Israel and economic sanctions against Iraq.

MR. ABDUL RAUF: It is a reaction against the policies of the U.S. government, politically, where we espouse principles of democracy and human rights and where we ally ourselves with oppressive regimes in many of these countries.

MR. BRADLEY: Are — are — are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened?

MR. ABDUL RAUF: I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.MR. BRADLEY: O.K. You say that we’re an accessory?

MR. ABDUL RAUF: Yes.

MR. BRADLEY: How?

MR. ABDUL RAUF: Because we have been an accessory to a lot of — of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it — in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the U.S.A. ...

The Cordoba Initiative elaborates: “The ‘60 Minutes’ piece was completely incorrect, as the statement was edited out of context. In the full interview, Imam Feisal describes the mistake the C.I.A. made in the 1980s by financing Osama bin Laden and strengthening the Taliban. This view is widely shared within the U.S. and the U.S. government today, and Imam Feisal underlines the importance of not supporting ‘friends of convenience’ who may in the future become our enemies.

“Imam Feisal is an American who takes his role as a citizen-ambassador very seriously. He is frequently requested by the U.S. State Department to tour Muslim majority and Western countries to speak about the merits of American ideals and Muslim integration into Western society. At the request of the F.B.I. after 9/11, he provided cultural training to hundreds of F.B.I. agents.”

On Hamas

Mr. Abdul Rauf is often described as having refused to call Hamas — the Palestinian group that pioneered suicide bombings in Israel, prevailed in Palestinian elections in 2006 and now controls the Gaza Strip — a terrorist organization. On 77 WABC radio on June 18, the talk radio host Aaron Klein asked him, “Do you believe that the State Department is correct in designating Hamas as a terrorist organization?”There ensued a long conversation with many interruptions, in which Mr. Abdul Rauf said:

“Well, I’m not a politician. ... The issue of terrorism is a very complex question. ... I am a bridge builder. My work is ... I do not want to be placed nor will I accept a position where I am the target of one side or another. My attempt is to see a peace in Israel. ... Targeting of civilians is wrong. It’s a sin in our religion, whoever does it. ... I am a supporter of the State of Israel."

The Cordoba Initiative’s Web site elaborates: “Imam Feisal has always condemned terrorism (see his ... hundreds of speeches). Hamas is both a political movement and a terrorist organization. Hamas commits atrocious acts of terror. Imam Feisal has forcefully and consistently condemned all forms of terrorism, including those committed by Hamas, as un-Islamic.”

On The Muslim Brotherhood

Opponents have claimed that Mr. Abdul Rauf or his father, Muhammad Abdul Rauf, had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group that pioneered religious militancy in Egypt starting in the 1930s, attacking government officials and influencing the founders of Hamas. In recent decades, the group has renounced violence. Some have claimed that the son’s book was published in Arabic by a publisher with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Cordoba Initiative’s list of frequently asked questions says, “The Arabic translation rights to his book were arranged by the Arabic book program at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, United States of America.”

In "Balancing Act for Imam in Muslim Center Furor" (August 22, 2010) - Alyssa Lappen posts on the Web site Pajamas Media, declares, “Feisal Rauf’s Muslim Brotherhood provenance, radical by definition, is as authentic as it gets.”

But the only evidence she offers is this:“Rauf’s father, Dr. Muhammad Abdul Rauf (1917-2004) — an Egyptian contemporary of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna — conveyed to Feisal his family’s long tradition of radicalism, which he acquired at Islam’s closest equivalent to the Vatican, Al-Azhar University.”

In other words, he was the same age as the Brotherhood’s founder and attended Al-Azhar University, a leading educational institution of mainstream Islam. Mr. Abdul Rauf’s father worked at the behest of the Egyptian government during decades in which the Muslim Brotherhood was a greater threat to Egyptian security than it is now, and Egypt’s secular government was working hard to root them out.

At Al-Azhar last week, Abdel Moety Bayoumi, the former dean of a department studying Islamic law, said of Muhammad Abdul Rauf: “He is well known in Azhar and he is known for his moderation. During his time, there wasn’t this battle between moderation and terrorism. ... The general picture of Islam and its scholars was one of moderation. The extremists at that time were a minority and they were in isolated pockets in the Muslim world. Extremism had not entered the mainstream.”

More on Terrorism and US Culpability

Some claim these statements incriminate Rauf about his support of terrorism. The question is whether he is merely explaining Muslim/Arab sentiment or appologizing for it. I think he may actually be blurring the line - and that is a problem. Hes is right to say the West does not think enough about the damage it does in the Muslim World, but to equivocate on terrorism and moral equivalency is not going to endear him to Americans who are paying attetion. But again, does this make him an extremist, or a terrorist. Fox News would say YES. I would say NO.

"The complexity arises, sir, from the fact that - from political problems and the history of the politics between the West and the Muslim world. We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaida has on its hands of innocent non Muslims. You may remember that the US lead sanction against Iraq lead to the death of over half a million Iraqi children. This has been documented by the United Nations. And when Madeleine Albright, who has become a friend of mine over the last couple of years, when she was Secretary of State and was asked whether this was worth it, said it was worth it.

What complicates the discussion, intra-Islamically, is the fact that the West has not been cognisant and has not addressed the issues of its own contribution to much injustice in the Arab and Muslim world. It is a difficult subject to discuss with Western audiences but it is one that must be pointed out and must be raised.

How many of you have seen the documentary: Fahrenheit 911? The vast majority - at least half here. Do you remember the scene of the Iraqi woman whose house was bombed and she was just screaming, "What have they done." Now, I don't know, you don't know Arabic but in Arabic it was extremely powerful. Her house was gone. Her husband, I think, was killed. What wrong did he do? I found myself weeping when I watched that scene and I imagined myself if I were a 15-year old nephew of this deceased man, what would I have felt?

Collateral damage is a nice thing to put on a paper but when the collateral damage is your own uncle or cousin, what passions do these arouse? How do you negotiate? How do you tell people whose homes have been destroyed, whose lives have been destroyed, that this does not justify your actions of terrorism. It's hard. Yes, it is true that it does not justify the acts of bombing innocent civilians, that does not solve the problem, but after 50 years of, in many cases, oppression, of US support of authoritarian regimes that have violated human rights in the most heinous of ways, how else do people get attention?

So ... there's a sense in the Arab and Muslim world that the European world and Western world is just - does not care about our lives or human lives. There's a perception in much of the Arab world and the Muslim world that the issue is about race. That the Palestinian Israeli issue is less about religion than it is about race because about 25 per cent or more of the Palestinians or the Arabs are Christian. Many people in the West are unaware that Palestinians are not uniformally Muslim. "

A Wall Comes Down in Israel ... Will Anyone Hear It? Will Anyone Listen?

"In a sign of a calming atmosphere, Israeli army cranes yesterday began removing a concrete barrier that shielded a Jewish neighborhood bordering the West Bank from gunfire."

In a sign that the apocalypse is upon us, or that pigs in hell are flying, Israel took down a portion of its system of defense barriers - walls and fences - that separate Israel from territories under Palestinian authority. This is something that many said could not - and would not ever happen. And yet, it did.

Will anyone make note of this, or see it as a sign of progress - or at least a sign of positive steps toward peace? Unfortunately, I think not. It will either be ignored or side-stepped as a half measure. This attitude, as much as any violence, is what hinders progress toward a long sought after two-state solution. This attitude, is what we can all help change.

According to a story published by the Associated Press, "The Israeli military erected the 600-yard concrete barrier nine years ago on the outskirts of the Gilo neighborhood in southern Jerusalem because of repeated Palestinian shootings from the West Bank town of Beit Jalla."

"The barrier is being taken down over the next two weeks ... because of a reduced security threat and improved coordination between Israeli and West Bank security forces."

As someone who's profession it is to communicate how Israel, the Israeli Government, and the Israeli people are not the demons everyone thinks they are, this is a particularly noteworthy event. Despite the hundreds of checkpoints removed over the past few years; despite the gradual but real improvements in relations between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank; and despite the improvement in the daily lives of Palestinians living under the PA, one would think we would no longer have to put up with distortions and lies about Palestinians being subjected to atrocities and murders on a daily basis. Yet, that is the perception that many around the world and in the United States still have of the situation. Seaprating for a moment what happens in Gaza from the West Bank - since Hamas is a very real and hostile threat to Israel on a daily basis - these events should be cause for either celebration or at least serious acknowledgment. Yet, I fear, no news shows will be talking about this, and no global movement will think twice about releasing their latest press statement about the evil occupiers. Even if you did not want to separate Gaza events from events in the West Bank, on the whole, despite the many civilian deaths caused by the war in Gaza, why can't this event be seen in a clear context and contrast to those regrettable deaths? Why can we not accept the intractable nature of dealings with Gaza - and still, at the same time - understand that progress is being made in the West Bank.

I ask these questions rhetorically of course, because half the reason why no one thinks about Israel and Palestine in those rational terms is because most of the press and extremists all over the globe push the discussion toward the demonization of Israel. Yes Israel and her proponents on the right often try to demonize Palestinians, but my friends, cry all you want about "Jewish" control of the media - the sheer weight and volume of press space and political coverage around the globe tilts very far in the other direction. If, in fact, Jews do run the media, they are doing a horrible job "controlling" it. This is the myth and folly of the anti-Israel movement. How can Israel or "the Jews" control anything that is so tilted against them? Is this some diabolical plan maybe to win people over through reverse psychology? I think not.

Whatever it is, it is a shame. Again, you will not see much about this move from most media outlets. In fact, even in the piece this information is taken from, this was not the leading headline. What was the headline? It was that "Israel insists on talks without preconditions." Yes my friends, this is the world where even good press is bad press. Can you really doubt what I am saying with clear evidence like this?

I encourage bloggers and readers alike to spread the word about progress like this and help shift the dialogue. I don't know what the solution is for Gaza and Hamas, but today at least, can we begin to talk about what both sides are doing well? I spend a good deal of time reminding people that when it comes to the security barrier, a wall put up can also be a wall taken down. I remind people to review the statements associated with the inception of the project - that the barrier, the fence, the wall, was meant to be temporary. It was meant to come down when it was no longer needed. And lo and behold, it has come to pass. This is not just a checkpoint being taken down. This is the demanded action that no one believed Israel would ever take. Just like leaving Gaza. Whatever you think about the way Israel left, or its handling of the post Gaza situation, it did in fact leave. Being around Gaza is not being in Gaza. Going into Gaza to attack in response to attacks is not staying in Gaza. Israel sometimes does do what it says it will do, as do the Palestinians. In the same report - also not placed in the headline - we are told that ...

"In another sign that Abbas is trying to counter Hamas influence, his religious affairs minister told a news conference yesterday that the government has taken control of all the territory’s mosques, including content of the main weekly sermon, to ensure that houses of worship are not used for political recruiting."

Now this is significant, and is also something demanded of Abbas. Will this too get much press. Not likely I fear. Mosques were once a Hamas stronghold. Since 2007, Abbas has been cracking down on the militants to make sure they don’t attempt a West Bank takeover. And he too is making progress, but we don't focus nearly enough on it - and both sides are at fault.

None of this "doubting" of the other side should really surprise anyone though. There have been plenty of retreats from positions. There have also been numerous times when agreements have been satisfied and no one believed it - right up until the proof was delivered. A Palestinian friend of mine once told me that even the day before the final evacuation from Gaza, he and his moderate friends did not believe Israel would actually leave completely. And they did. So let this removal of a barrier, or a wall, be another sign that more is possible than we think.

But of course this is the culture of distrust that has arisen and this is the culture of distrust we must all help to defeat. It is one thing for people to distrust each other for good reason and be proven wrong. It is quite another for that distrust to be fomented in the face of numerous reasons to believe that trust is possible.

Trust is possible. Let events like these be the first steps toward commending a very real process of trust building and positive steps toward a two state solution - a solution that while imperfect, is the only thing that presents a positive future for each side.

The Flotilla Incident and Gaza - More Revealed Beneath the Surface

"There is no starvation or acute medical crisis there, [but] malnutrition is creeping up, water treatment and sewage are problematic and the economy has been almost entirely shut down by the blockade."

Before the the tragic events of the Turkish flotilla fade into the past, and before the next conflict or incident causes a similar international uproar, it may be useful to just ask just a few more questions and make just a few more points about the incident. For example, it may be extremely revealing to compare what happened with this Turkish flotilla to a very different encounter that took place just a short time after that debacle at sea.

Just days after this tragedy, another ship, also sponsored by the same "Free Gaza" organization, also set sail for Gaza. This ship, called the Rachel Corrie - out of Ireland - also attempted to break the blockade, but In this case, no tragic deaths occurred. Of course, this story, which would have illustrated the procedures Israel goes through to have the contents of all ships bound for Gaza, did not get widespread attention at all. But while the story got little press, it is illustrative of the complexity of what is going on in this cat and mouse game being played by the Israeli government, Hamas, and their international allies.

If you were wondering why the result was so different, the answers are quite simple. As this account by Ethan Bronner in the Boston Globe reveals (Israel thwarts new attempt to break Gaza blockade: Commandos seize vessel peacefully) the Israeli government handled the situation in a much more subtle manner AND the government responsible for the ship agreed to a reasonable compromise.

For weeks after the Turkish flotilla incident, all you heard from Israel was how this tragedy didn't have to happen; how the ship that was boarded could have docked in Ashdod - just like the other five in the flotilla did - and unloaded its goods for inspection and shipment to Gaza. This had been the routine for similar confrontations with ships bound for Gaza. Unfortunately, no one seemed to latch on to the reasonableness of this argument - mainly due to the deaths that took place, the fact that the boarding took place in international waters, and that the boarding took place at night. But the other problem was that Israel never did a good job publicizing how goods brought to Gaza by aid ships actually did get in to Gaza. That left a void in the basic story - only to be filled in by video of commandos going in at night, outside of Israeli national waters, swooping down from helicopters. There was no way for Israeli's to be seen as anything but aggressors who were trying to hide their "despicable" actions from the world.

This was a disaster for Israel in terms of public perception, international legitimacy, and their ability to have their decisions respected or trusted by, well, anyone. But in light of the better approach AND the better result from the Rachel Corrie encounter at sea - when the Israelis communicated their intent with the government of Ireland and the government of Ireland saw the reasonableness of their request to dock the ship and transport approved goods after inspection. Clearly, this was not something the Turkish government was willing to do - and reasonable people must ask what this says about their motives with the flotilla and their ongoing motives toward Israel. But also, one must ask why it took this initial tragedy to make them re-think their admittedly faulty approach to the Turkish vessel. And if they are re-thinking their strategy why do progressives not get more credit for asking Israel to re-think how they approach such dilemmas. Maybe they were doing what they always do. Maybe they were seeing the provocation in the Turkish actions and returning it in kind. I mean, isn't that what the game has devolved into - "You want to provoke us? Fine. We'll show you what you get."

What other explanation can there be - can there ever be - other than "Oops." The point being - for all the anger we should rightly have toward Turkey, let's make sure we examine the approach to the Rachel Corrie and remind people that things could have been handled just a bit differently by Israel when it came to the Turkish incident. And in that "bit" of difference in all their actions, that is where Israel might have found less international condemnation. I hear Israeli's say all the time that nothing they could have done - in almost any situation - would have made a difference in public opinion. Well I disagree. I know many friends and colleagues who would also disagree. And I will always use examples like the Rachel Corrie confrontation to counter that position. And the line would be - "If you, yourselves, modify and "improve" your tactics regularly so you can show the world how "just" you are, then you are admitting that you DO care about how your actions are perceived. And if that is the case, don't attack other for suggesting improvements you can make sooner than you may have thought of them."

And so similar questions can be asked about the blockade in general. As the header quote states, it is true that no humanitarian crisis is taking place in Gaza. Yet, Israel is continually accused of "starving' or 'strangling' Gaza. While those terms are demonizing and inaccurate, they will continue as long as incidents like this take place and as long as public perception against Israel's respect for the law and dignity does not change. Interestingly, after the reaction to the flotilla incident, Israel finally acted to eliminate certain restrictions that progressives had been criticizing for some time. Certain food restrictions, left over from a version of the Gaza blockade that really was meant to psychologically impact the population - like jelly and some other incidentals - were recently lifted from the restricted items list. Many reasonable critics of Israel had said on numerous occasions that these were un-necessary, punitive, and did nothing but increase distrust. Less reasonable critics said this was a prime example of Israel's evil. Many even said, everything else is ok, but those restrictions must go because they are inhumane. (And for the record, yes, restricting things like Jelly is petty, and spiteful, but is not inhumane.)

And in an amusing twist, now that the restrictions have been lifted, much of the reaction was that the gesture was meaningless. That, my friends, is certainly a perfect example of how Israel just can't win. But to be fair to the critics, taking this off the table as something people can demonize Israel with IS IMPORTANT. And to be fair to all those who DO posses something called 'forethought,' we should be able to ask why the restrictions were kept in place at all? Didn't Israel realize how much it was harming their ability to reasonably argue for the necessity of the blockade? And if their response would be again, that they can never do anything right in the eyes of the UN, then why remove the restrictions at all. The point being that Israel and her "Israel, right or wrong" supporters can't have it both ways. If Israel, from time to time changes policies, based either on their own time table or a reaction to international demands, critics of those policies MUST be given more credence and NOT be labeled as anti-Israel. Is Israel anti-Israel since they just advocated a policy change that a month ago a peace-nick would have been vilified for suggesting?

Today, one can read about the Israeli release of reports on the build-up in Lebanon of Hezbollah strongholds in population centers in southern Lebanon. And as so many are reporting, this can be looked at in two ways. On the one hand, maybe Israel has gotten the point about gaining at least some support from the international community - before it actually has to take action. On the other, maybe they are just trying to convince the world about the perils of their neighborhood so that, in general, public opinion can be nudged just a bit. Whichever the intent, one must still ask an important question. If it seems to take such large scale tactical errors - ones that Israel herself has eventually admitted - like the entire Gaza war and the tactics used to board the Turkish flotilla vessel, why could they not have listened to critics earlier. One can only hope this will loosen up the dialogue around how the Israeli government should conduct itself - even if only to help the world better understand her plight. But don't hold your breath on that one.

Israel and the Flotilla Incident - A Reality Check

Opinions on Israel and the recent flotilla incident range widely - and they should. They should because opinions should always range widely and Israel and her predicament should be no different. In fact, that is the angle I want to take in this analysis. It has taken a bit of reflection to decide where the best approach on this should come from and I think finally, that this incident is instructive, but that it is not a “lesson” in the traditional sense. I say that because so many are using their “opinion” to simply reinforce why they are right or why the other side is wrong. In short – more demonization - to all sides - seems to come from the “lessons” we are hearing about these days.

So instead of lessons, I will speak of common sense realizations, multiple truths, and reasons why things are the way they are. For those unfamiliar with the entire situation in the Middle East, I think this can be an incredibly important read. For those who are already entrenched in the debate, you will not find answers, but you may just find a reason to step back, count to ten, and shut up for a second.

While I first want to start with Israel’s basic approach in this situation, I want to also interject a tangent. Popping up at the tail end of all of this was the Helen Thomas incident. I am bringing this up right now, because before I even get into detail, please remember that underlying almost any FACT about Israel and the middle east are the underlying attitudes about Israel, Jews, and their place in the middle east. While many will say I am just a knee jerking, anti-Semitism crying loyalist, I can’t worry about that. Any understanding of global opinion of Israel, what motivates some to action against Israel, and what Israel and Jews do has to be seen in this light. It is real, palpable and instructive. While people were wondering if folks jumped on the Helen Thomas bandwagon in violation of some principle of her right to free speech, I was wondering why no one was using her as a larger example. If this liberal lion, this well educated senior White House correspondent, could be so biased toward Israel and so frankly anti-Semitic in its classical and modern sense, ANYONE can be and more people then you think are.

And why is that so important? Well, because everyone jumping on the trash Israel bandwagon, whatever there reasoning should be able to step back with thanks to Helen Thomas, and realize that not everyone trashing Israel is doing so because of their “correctness” about any facts, or any moral high ground.

But here we go with some truths (on all sides – so be patient, I’ll get to yours)

TRUTH:
This flotilla was dispatched with express intention of provoking Israel into confrontation.

TRUTH:
Most of the ships in the flotilla were escorted by the Israeli Navy without incident to Ashdod as is common practice so Israel can inspect the cargo and send through approved goods.

TRUTH:
The larger boat that had every intention of causing an incident did in fact include a group of more extreme activists intent on violence.

TRUTH:
Calling all the participants in the flotilla “terrorists” is inaccurate? Most were what most of the world would call well meaning activists seeking to provide goods and humanitarian aid to Gaza and in doing so challenging the legitimacy of the Israeli blockade.

TRUTHS:
Is challenging the blockade in this manner an acceptable form of protest? Sure why not? Does the fact that people disagree with the blockade make it automatically wrong or immoral? No, not automatically. Does the intent of violence make the protest invalid? Well maybe not. If you view the blockade as a form of violence, why can’t you protest with violence? Is that the best way to end the blockade? Well maybe yes, maybe no. Since I waited a bit to write this I can now say that it has achieved something if it stirred debate and actually caused Israel to let more goods through it should always have been letting through. How Israel and defenders of Israel deal with this little fact as dissent and protest are denounced will be very important.

TRUTHS:
Do the backers of the flotilla have troubling connections to extremists and terrorists groups? YES. Does that immediately discredit the entire venture. NO – and this important. This is reflective of the entire Gaza problem. The intermingling of people who had been or are still supportive of what we deem terrorist activities, with respectable people who have either no knowledge of those connections or don’t care is an ongoing complication of how everyone talks about these kinds of initiatives. Should we give these groups a pass? NO. Can we just continue to label any person or activity connected to these groups illegitimate? NO. There were priests, Americans, and legitimate aid workers on these ships, and as long as that will always be the case – Israel and the global Jewish community MUST find a different way to talk about them. By painting ALL of the participants with such a broad paint brush, when any bozo can show that MANY participants are what MANY people would call “legitimate” activists and NOT terrorists, such criticism of them can be PROVEN to be disingenuous at best and LYING at worst.

TRUTHS:
Is the blockade itself morally wrong, illegal, or inhumane? NO. For anyone to claim otherwise is naive, trying to gain political points, or not thinking things through. People will claim that the blockade of Gaza was initially established to deny certain goods to the general population to make things so difficult that they would turn away from Hamas and realize moderation and Fatah were the way to go. This is completely TRUE and the government of Israel has already admitted this. It had the opposite effect, brought on the Gaza war and the government has already admitted it was a mistake. Did that cause them to change things? NO. But that is not the critical point. The critical point is WHY they did not lift the blockade. For many, not reversing course is the point. For Israel, providing truckloads of humanitarian aid should end the discussion. For others, the limiting of harmless food items is the ultimate insult and proof if Israeli “inhumanity.” (Yet when those food stuffs were recently taken off the prohibited items list, all of a sudden its not really about those silly items is it.)

TRUTH:
In the view of Israel, getting out of Gaza was the ultimate sacrifice and they will be forever bitter that Palestinians did not see the magnanimity in that sacrifice. It can be shown how the unilateral turnover without a plan for economic integration was the mistake that bore the current situation. But Israelis do not focus on this. They focus on the rockets that came over and the militancy that has always existed in Gaza. And in this respect, one might say that the reason there was no plan for better integration of the border was that they could not find one. This is a critical point. The inability to find a solution – not that one could not be found - is at the heart of many of Israel’s decision making and MUST be understood as a reasonable motivation for acting certain ways.

TRUTH:
To be honest about Gaza, one can only talk about “ending the blockade” while at the same time asking how a Hamas controlled area could instill any confidence at all in any kind of “open border situation.” It is easy for people who do not live Israel, to say how smooth things would go if Israel just opened the border. It is easy to say things like “just give it a try,” when you are not confronted with a sworn enemy having easy access to your people. Would any sane country really do that? Just look at the US. Mexico is NOT a sworn enemy and look at the racism, hatred, bias, and rhetoric take place in regard to that open border. Is the situation in Israel really so different – except that they have good reason to be afraid.

TRUTH:
It is still the truth that the majority of the people of Gaza would be peaceful participants in the economy of Israel. In fact, that is the only thing peace advocates can hang their hat on. And it IS important. But in Israel, among the people and the government, security is the mindset. Does that need to change? Yes. But it will not change overnight and to ask Israeli’s to change that mindset so quickly is unreasonable, unrealistic, and insulting. In fact, distrust, on all sides, is the main issue behind why so much of this is a problem at all. Yes this distrust is more perception than reality, but perception becomes reality in politics (just look at Sarah Palin and Scott Brown).

TRUTH:
The truth is that too many Israelis distrust Arabs and that is why enough of them do not demand more out of their leaders. Is this wrong? Is this morally wrong? I do not think it is for us to judge. It is for us to realize and help the world understand that the best way to get to a two state solution is to have a plan that does NOT change things overnight. It is for us to realize and help Israel understand that we get it – BUT that change is essential and a roadmap with a definite END in place is the only way Palestinians will choose the way of moderation and peace..


There are many more “truths” to be discussed on these very important issues. But these are a good start. My friend Ehud Eiran recently published an excellent article in Newseek about the flotilla and the blockade itself. His premise is an important one – that the blockade is a contradiction in that it perpetuates the very situation Israel says it is trying to end – the militancy of Hamas in Gaza. While I agree with 99% of the article I will take issue with one point. But it is a big point. Who says the blockade is intended to moderate the people of Gaza any longer? If the government has already acknowledged that has failed, there has got to be another reason the blockade is still in place. My contention is that they cannot think of any other way. Listening to Ami Ayalon recently, I am convinced people need to know more about the different language Israel and the Palestinians are speaking to one another. To remove the blockade and open the borders would mean one of two things. Either a plan would have to be put in place to assure the Israeli public that the people of Gaze, who chose Hamas as their government could be trusted. Or the Israeli government would no longer have any real control over the situation and would simply have to hope for the best. In many ways, both of those situations are unthinkable and impractical TODAY. And this is what I think most people outside of Israel do not consider. I am not saying something can not be worked out someday and sold to the Israeli voting public. I am just saying that today, neither of those options is really a possibility given the mindset of the Israeli people and the reality of what Gaza is like right now. And it begs the question, why can’t the world get their act together to help Israel and the Palestinians in the way they really need it. They do not need condemnations and accusations. They need a plan, they need time to adjust to it, and they need honest brokers to help. Just look at what has just developed. The UN offered to participate in the inspection of some foreign aid shipments and Israel agreed because they really have nothing to hide in that respect. In this way the UN (some in the UN) are acknowledging the need for both security and for goods to get through.

The Afghanistan Tightrope - Still Promising More Than We Can Deliver

"The highly hyped counter-insurgency strategy is illusory. It is an attractive concept in the abstract — “secure, hold and build’’ — but enjoys neither the capacity nor the conditions to actually work."

From the beginning of the invasion of Afghanistan, The Cohen Side was reporting on the VAST portions of the country US Forces did not control, and the folly of even thinking we could "nation build" when we weren't even close to being in control of, well, much of anything. The lack of reporting on this has been shameful and the political posturing over this untenable situation has been way off the mark. Afghanistan will play out the way Afghanistan wants it to. For us to think otherwise simply denies History and is the height of ignorant arrogance. We need to put our testosterone aside for once, and learn from our past mistakes. Me MUST resist the urge to think we can't get a military "win" everywhere we put troops down on the ground. The sooner we realize this, the sooner we can have a rational discussion about what we CAN do over there. There will be a crisis point arriving at our doors soon and we must convince our politicians NOT to shy away from the reasonable course of action - which is to stay committed to a plan of withdrawl - a plan that should not be imediate but deliberate and certain. Our leaders will be facing pressure to press on or devise another surge. That, however would be more folly. As Jonathan Morse points out so well;

"[These] temptations must be forcefully resisted ... [trying to actually win] the insurgency war against the Taliban, [and] weakening the US plan to begin withdrawing forces ...

Securing remains frustrated. Holding is delayed. Building is even more of a failure: development is almost impossible without security; the military itself cannot accomplish the local rehabilitation and stability needed; and the civilian backup to accomplish enduring building is absent, both from the internationals and from Kabul.

In truth, any US commitment to assure good governance in a democratic Afghanistan - before it withdraws - is a self-entrapment of dire consequence."

And why is this important? Well of course its the body bags, the severed limbs, and the families torn asunder. While no one should ever say a soldier died in vein, the questions about this misguided war must be asked - as John Kerry asked decades ago - "Who wants to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

Here is a link to the full article. Please read, pass along to your friends, and tell your congressmen to be brave in the right way - to NOT expand our military presence in Afghanistan and to get our troops home as soon as humanly possible.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/07/13/the_afghanistan_tightrope