Salt

Tzaly Reshef: No Blank Check

From Yediot Aharonot, Israel's largest circulation daily newspaper.  Via. 

War is death. It’s bereavement. It’s mothers lamenting their children. It’s devastation. It’s destruction. It’s an ugly human phenomenon. War encompasses feelings of hate, revenge, nationalism. It brings out the worst in mankind. War is the opposite of the desire to live, to love, to raise children, to create.

Since Israel was founded we’ve lived this. It is already difficult to count all the wars, military interventions, and military operations of different sorts. For almost sixty years already we have been living by the sword. Even so, the Israeli public believes that our nation seeks peace, that our hand is always outstretched for peace, and that only our bloodthirsty enemies force wars on us. Theoretically, it’s true: there is not a single Israeli who won’t swear that he seeks peace. In practice, our self examination reveals blood.

Adele Stan on Religious Liberalism

Adele Stan writes,

Liberal values represent the essence of the world’s great religions. At the root of all of the great faiths are fundamental beliefs in compassion, justice, love, and charity. We have the right — dare I say the duty? — to express ourselves as moral agents without the imprimatur of ecclesiastical authority.

Spoken the right way, arguments for the embodiment of these values in our civic life can ring with the divine provenance granted to them by believers. And indeed, religious activists — especially our ministers, priests, rabbis, and imams — are vital to our movement. But to expect them alone to create a moral counterforce to the destructive fear mongering of the right is not only unrealistic, it’s an expectation rooted in abdication of our own role as moral agents.

Thousands of years ago, the great Chinese philosopher Lao Tse is said to have told his followers: “Religious robes are no more holy than work clothes.” Now, let’s get to work.

I think she is formally correct.  Of course my religious robes are "work" clothes.  My holy clothes are my jeans and my T-Shirt that says "what wouldn't Jesus do?"

Liberal principles to may not be explicitly religious, but they may have [and must have] some implicit foundations.   Religious leaders may help reveal our implicit values in the public sphere; and they also have the calling to organize and gather.  She might be right that the religious left isn't necessary for its own sake - we might not be.  But it would be to her own detriment if she decided that we didn't have skills that would be useful for transforming this country into a compassionate, and responsible place.  I think progressives do themselves a disservice by not working closely with religious leaders.

Where are the young progressive preachers in positions of leadership?   

A little partisanship

Most of you know I am, in fact, a registered Republican [A Chafee and Weicker Republican].   I did find this quite amusing. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) released the following statement in advance of delivery on the House floor:

"Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President said we continue to be wise about how we spend the people's money.

"Then why are we paying over $100,000 for a 'White House Director of Lessons Learned'?

"Maybe I can save the taxpayers $100,000 by running through a few of the lessons this White House should have learned by now.

Vicar kisses girl for doing math, gets sacked

Fired for kissing a girl on the forehead for getting a math problem correct.

Of course, if he had kissed a boy we'd be talking about something else.

Sad that we are encouraged never to touch, even in a reassuring manner.

Henry Ward Beecher

A biography that +Rowan should read, if he wants to understand American Liberal Religion, both its promise and risk.  The Most Famous Man in America, by Debby Applegate.

Kazin quotes Debby Applegate "what Beecher brought to American culture in an era of bewildering change and fratricidal war was unconditional love so deep and so wide that the entire country could feel his warmth, like it or not."  ...  For Beecher, sinfulness was a temporary malady, which the love of God could burn away as a fierce noonday sun dries up a noxious mold. "Man was made for enjoyment," he assured parishioners. If he sought his own pleasure in the arms of one or more members of his flock, it should not have been too surprising.

When a modern conservative says that liberalism is "destroying" America, he's talking about another America, the good, joyful, exuberant America.  Of course, there was a time when liberals were also joyful and exuberant. 

Now its just capitalists and military contractors.

The Escalation

Obviously, the easiest solution would be a return of the soldiers to Israel.  Force, however, is a disincentive for either Hamas or Hezbollah to comply.  Since both these militaries rely on the commodity of martyrdom, they would rather be destroyed, perhaps taking the soldiers with them. 

As the FT reports,
In this new chapter, Syria and Iran may not be directly involved in the fighting but they are active strategic players, hoping to exploit the conflict and strengthen their regional position.

Analysts say Damascus and Tehran see clear benefits from the confrontation – and from Israel’s harsh response – particularly at a time when they perceive the Bush administration to be severely weakened by the conflict in Iraq and lacking the will to confront more trouble in the region. But they are also engaged in a high-stakes gamble with unpredictable consequences for them.

Edward Walker, a former US assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs and now head of the Middle East Institute in Washington, says the Hizbollah incursion also gives the world a taste of the havoc Iran could wreak if the US were to push for sanctions or military strikes on nuclear facilities.

Israel has, unfortunately, contributed to the escalation by holding Lebanon responsible. 

If an end to the conflict is what people truly want, then direct negotiations between the parties must happen.  One does not negotiate with one's friends.  One negotiates with one's enemies.  The alternative is perpetual war.   Bush's disengagement and hostility in the region has only proved to Syria and Iran that their own hardliners are correct - the US cannot be trusted. 

What Israel is looking for is total victory and complete submission.  The Islamicists won't offer this.  And if they offer it now, it is merely a matter of time until they attack again. 

Holding Iran and Syria responsible might be correct in some sense, but only mutual engagement and respect will bring peace.   Calling our enemies names might make us feel better, but it won't end the war.  We should open up direct talks with these countries. 

Alas, that would require leadership that is clearly absent - leadership against the wealthy hawks who run AIPAC, and the neoconservatives [or rather, "liberals idealogues with guns."]

Or as an economist friend said to me, "look on the bright side of things.  Oil prices will go through the roof, and It might mean we have to develop alternative energy."   

Iran's Potentially Bad Move

A very bad move.

Taking the IDF hostages to  Iran is insane.  It invites a direct conflict with Israel.   

The world awaits American leadership here.  A direct line from the US to Iran, and Hezbollah could be coerced, via Iran, to let the two soldiers go.  I suspect, however, Israel wants to finish off Hezbollah anyway, and has been licking its chops to get to Iran directly.    The US won't talk to Iran, unless Iran gives up its honor first.  And that won't happen.

Its dangerous when the actions of Israel run US policy.  We're seeing the consequences.

Engage Israel

From APN

Since the January 25 Palestinian elections won by Hamas there has developed a strong school of thought within the security community advocating a military move to inflict heavy damage on Hamas and persuade it to abandon politics. It argues that Israel cannot tolerate an Islamist political neighbor bent on its eventual destruction and allied with other Islamist radical movements throughout the region, and should preempt (or exploit an opportunity like the Shalit affair) before Hamas begins building up an army in Gaza.

But what would come after Hamas? It is extremely unlikely that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) would simply agree to appoint an alternative, non-Hamas government, or that the Hamas-majority Palestinian Legislative Council, with or without the Hamas MPs Israel has jailed, would approve a non-Hamas government. In such an event, Abu Mazen would be pilloried as a quisling. More likely he would resign, possibly seeking to dissolve the Palestinian Authority. The outcome would be anarchy, with Israel either obliged to complete its reoccupation and reestablish its rule over, and responsibility for, some 3.5 million Palestinians, or to beg the international community to step in. Neither of these contingencies offers Israel a potential Palestinian partner from whom a degree of responsibility can be demanded, and neither necessarily bespeaks an enhanced situation for Israel compared to the present situation, with Hamas broadly boycotted and failing to fulfill its basic obligations of governance. On the other hand, the moment Israel reaches a deal for the release of Shalit, this is liable to be interpreted in some circles as indirect recognition by Israel of the Hamas-led government, with all that this implies....

In order for this gradual approach to work, the Hamas-dominated Palestinian government presumably has to be sensitive to the suffering of its people and to be capable of exercising control over all armed factions. It has to feel threatened, but also to perceive some sort of political reward at the end of the process, such as greater international recognition or at least an enhanced capacity to govern.

If we want peace in the Middle East, engage Israel.  Engage Hamas.  Engage Iran.  Otherwise, war will continue.   

Bishops and the Practicalities of being Connected

Sometimes it seems as if the problem is bishops.

As one conservative commentator has noted - the splinter groups have far too many.  I admit, I experience a degree of schadenfreude when I think of all the folks in the AAC and ACN separating. All I see are lots of arrogant personalities, so brave and courageous about their understanding of scripture, yet correspondingly incapable of any degree of true humility toward one another.  Would Duncan be willing to forgoe his Episcopacy to a Reformed Episcopal Bishop in the same area?  Or would they have parallel districts?  The waste of resources will inhibit their collective growth.  In a post-Christian age, choosing between small "blibical" churches is uninteresting to most Americans.

Staying Connected as Foreign Policy

In the news we are witnessing the failed policies of both Israel and the United States in regard to the Palestinians, the North Koreans and the Iranians.    As Juan Cole notes:

Unless Israel and its patron summon the wisdom to take the long view and hammer out an agreement that will give the Palestinians a viable state, rather than simply trying to smash them into submission, the world's most dangerous conflict will continue to rage, with dangerous consequences for all.

In both cases, Israel and the US have cut themselves off from any kind of conversation with their enemies over the last 5 years.  In Israel's case they are engaging in collective punishment, which is inhumane and... a really stupid way to create peace.

The logic by the states in power is:  force the partners [or terrorists] to stop [terrorizing] by not engaging.  Engagement is confused with appeasement.  Thus, engagement is held to be its own incentive.  Unfortunately, such a view obscures the implicit engagements, say the historic, the subconscious or the economic, between the different parties.  Part of this is tactical - for when you don't engage, you can avoid making any real decisions.  Of course, one reason people don't engage is a fear of losing local elections - and example of a lack of leadership.  Strong leadership [making the decison to set realistic incentives after continued conversations] is seen as weakness.  Ironically, the "strong" leadership exhibited [invading the Gaza strip and destroying the Palestinian infrastructure, making ultimatums and veiled threats against Iran and N. Korea], just heightens the anxiety in their partners [enemies].  The partners [be it in Palestine, Iran or North Korea] then decide that the only way they can protect themselves is by becoming even more radicalized, for there is no visible incentive for them to soften their rhetoric.  Israeli brutality or American stubborness are bad examples to set for their future partners.

Direct engagement should not be a condition.   Direct talks with NK and Iran, or even merely allowing Hamas to conduct its business of policing the state and providing services, would have resulted in more open Koreans, less obnoxious Iranians and a more stable Palestine.  As it is, we've lost the few openings we've had:  we've called all of them names, we've made ricitulous ultimatums tinged with serious threats.  Alas, they may decide to call our bluff, and we may find ourselves having to make a choice between revealing the incompetence of our own policy, or hiding it through military action.

Not a good choice.