Israel, what's the point?

No one in Israel really seems to be thinking right now. Israel entered Gaza in the last few days with troops and tanks, ostensibly with the intention of freeing a captive soldier being held by Hamas militants. No one in the press has stopped to ask how sending in tanks, blowing up bridges and knocking out Gaza’s power supply will stop a Palestinian militant from putting a bullet through an Israeli soldier’s head. Unless Israel plans to miraculously put one of its tanks between the soldier and his would be executioner. Difficult, since no one in Israel knows exactly where the soldier is being detained.

So, the question is, what is Israel really trying to accomplish by its invasion of Gaza? An Israeli acquaintance of mine says it has to do with the Israeli mentality, which requires that Israel demonstrate that it is strong at all times, not vulnerable or weak. Translation: Israel is trying to show that it can shed blood far and wide as good as anyone. The larger goal of peace is secondary to the need to deomonstrate that Israel can flex its muscle at any time.

I am Jewish, and I had the opportunity to live and work for many years in Tel Aviv. Israelis are strong, intelligent people, and they are also profoundly warm and human. What I do not very well understand, in spite of the many years I spent in Israel, is the weakness the Israeli government has shown through its inability to say No More. The pressure the government feels to act militarily must come from the Israeli people. But I am not sure whether this pressure is real or perceived. Ariel Sharon dedicated his office to withdrawing from Gaza, just as new Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has promised to withdraw from most of the West Bank. In doing so, both leaders have moved squarely against the more right wing elements of Israeli society, those elements that prefer to shoot, always. Yet, is it now yielding to pressure from these same elements that drives the senseless, pointless and stunningly large-scale attack on Gaza and rounding up of Palestinian government ministers?

Many Palestinians have been and are murderous. The goal of many Palestinians is not to live in harmony with Israel, rather to erase the country from the map. However, unless Israel plans on wiping out all Palestinians, it will have to deal with some of them. And, it will have to begin to differentiate between those Palestinians that it can hope to deal with and those that it cannot. The Israeli soldier was kidnapped by a militant wing of Hamas that takes orders from Damascus. Yet Israel has reacted by arresting elected Palestinian officials and holding Abu Mazen accountable. Israel’s demands that Abu Mazen disarm Hamas are not currently realistic: Abu Mazen has no such power and Israel knows that. He has even less opportunity to act if his government is held in Israeli custody.

So the question stands open: Is Israel’s leadership interested in peace? The country’s recent reaction seems out of proportion to recent Palestinian aggression (particularly if you see that there is Always aggression).

The price paid will the derailing of any recent progress and the further weakening of Abbas, Israel’s best hope. The reward? Nothing.

Hillary Clinton has no integrity

Hillary Clinton has no integrity, and although I consider myself to be nomially a Democrat (once upon a time I was a much more enthusiastic member of the party, but more on that later), I would not vote for Hillary if she would become the Democratic candidate for president in 2008. I'd vote for some independent, or not vote at all. And, this is new for me because I have always thought that voting for a third party was a waste of a vote. Making a statement doesn't win any election, and often the worst choice ends up assuming power. But I wouldn't vote for HIllary.
The reason is her spearheading of the movement that would make flag burning illegal, and potentially unconstitutional. That movement came to an end in the Senate yesterday by a single vote. There are much more grave matters, and timely matters, for the government to deal with. Flag amendments have come up from time to time throughout history, often pushed by politicians that are in trouble and who are looking for a popular cause to trumpet and rally their constituents around. But, we are now at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, diabetes is an epidemic in the country and no one can seem to figure out how to provide decent affordable healthcare to a quarter or more of the American population, the current president assaults the constition almost daily and instead of fighting him tooth and nail, people like Hillary Clinton try to one-up his patriotism by making it illegal to burn the flag. Which is really attacking the freedom that the flag sybolizes, and using this wonderful symbol to desecrate the very constitution. And the country gets worked up while soldiers die in war and children die in poverty in this very country.
Clinton's purpose is to make herself unassailable should she run for the presidency. If she is on record as having promoted the anti-flag burning cause, a Republican can't as easily claim that she's fundamentally un-american. Hillary Clinton is covering her ass. Problem is, all this energy spent looking over her shoulder would be much more productively used in coming up wiht good ideas to deal with America's ills and really make this a better place to live, make us even more proud to be Americans. The great presidents are remembered for the risks they took- challenging the British to found a new country, daring to end slavery and keep the country together. If Mrs. Clinton is already showing that she's more interested in not doing wrong while not having the courage to do right, I don't think she would suddenly come up with great ideas, or resolve, were she to occupy the White House.
Which brings me back to why it pains me to call myself a Democrat today. I don't know what the Democratic party stands for. The party seems to exist more to balance out the Republicans, and play lip service to protecting the constitution from the damage the current president is inflicting upon it. But, other than contradicting the republicans in lock step, I haven't heard a single visionary idea from the Democrats in years. I hate to say it, but a vote for the Democratic candidate in 2008 will be a vote against the current government, not a vote for a particular vision of a brighter tomorrow. Not only has Hillary CLinton failed to demonstrate visionary thinking, she has reverted to a cynical Republican populism as a substitute for progressive leadership.

Dangerous Bicycling in New York

This morning the New York Times reported on a bicyclist that died after falling under a truck while riding down Houston Street. Another, experienced cyclist, a doctor in his 50s who reportedly had been an avid rider for three decades, died the day before when hit by a city tow truck that suddenly turned onto the west side bicycle path along the Hudson River. New York doesn't have to be a place where cyclists' lives are threated every time they get on a bike. The city is a wonderful place to ride: relatively flat and small, riders never need to go much more than 7-8 miles in any direction to reach their destination, and for those that live on the West Side of the city the Hudson path should make any travel stop light and smog free.
But pedestrians and motorists in this city are at war, and this is no exaggeration. Look at any street corner in the city, especially during rush hour, and you'll see people crossing the street when the cross walk light is red and the traffic light for cars is clearly green. The pedestrians cross the street with a look in their eyes that says, "go ahead, &*%hole, I dare you to hit me." Streetwalkers think they own the city, and motorists mostly oblige, in their minds often wishing to mow down the arrogant individual in the middle of the cross walk, but at the last moment reasoning that it probably isn't worth the years of jail time and murderer's guilt that would result.
Cars must make their way through the sea of pedestrians the best they can. I found this out a few weeks ago when I rented a car from one of the agencies located in the middle of the Village, not far from Union Square. As I drove a huge Ford Explorer toward the wide open space of the Henry Hudson Highway, I had to dodge middle aged ladies who suddenly appeared from between parked cars and crossed the street without even looking to see if I, or any other driver, was coming along. Pretty harrowing as a driver, I figured out pretty fast that the only way to make it through the city in a car is to gun the throttle when the street empties for just a moment, and try to make it as far as possible before the next traffic jam or carefree pedestrian suddenly blocks the road.
So, don't be surprised when a driver, be it a truck, taxi, bus or plain old car, gets awfully close to a bicyclist, or maygbe too close. Its one half of the game that all New Yorkers play, putting the other guy at fault and assuming that,even if us pedestrians lose our lives ,at least in court the other guy will be held to blame. It is a culture of agression, and inconsideration, that makes New York City's streets, and apparently bike paths, a stage for acting out so much aggression that they have become battlegrounds rather than thorofares.