Get Gay's Hardware on the line ...

I know during your recent hiatus you've been attending to some home improvements. So my question to you is, have you been drinking lead based paint directly from the can? Or is sifting its way into your bowl of corn flakes, which you clearly had prior to your last post. That was perhaps the most nonsensical load of horse dung my eyes have ever born witness to. I am on exactly 1 hour sleep (so as to attend my son's Egyptian Exhibit field trip early, after a night's work). And if I hustle I can get a 3 hour nap before they get out of school, but instead I am pounding on this keyboard, furious and bewildered at your inquisition into Israel. Not even the cute red headed mom, an accompanying chaperon whom motioned for me to sit with her on the bus ride home, had my full attention as I pondered the inane prose you so carelessly left as your last.

First, let me back up a minute on North Korea. Look, I hear you, appeasement isn't working, it never does. But you can lay North Korea's current mind set - saber rattling to extort supplies - squarely at the feet of one William Jefferson Clinton. He paraded the Madeline Albright Rocky Horror Show of diplomacy out to Kim Jong and handed that water reactor over without so much as a pinch on the ass in return. Yes NK was saber rattling for aide prior, but Clinton taught them just how successful they could be at it, and forever cemented that course into their government's psychic. Bush, at the very least, put them back fore square in the sights of America's bad guys list. And yes, I put them last in terms of immediate threats, but had the 19 hijackers been Koreans, hijacking in the name of the Communist Manifesto, I'd like to think they would have got top billing from me. Bush's Axis of Evil, and the subsequent rankings, make sense only in light of 9/11 and the need to address radical Islam as a clear and present danger. And lets not forget - there's something like 207 nations in the world, Bush's (and my) Axis of Evil does have them at #3.

Now, lets get to Israel and why I think you may have been consuming copious amounts of lead.

Let me start with this - are you out of your mind? I am so sick of this line of inquiry I could projectile vomit. Were you merely trying to spark a discussion, or presenting these as your personal curiosities? Either way I have a problem with you on this. It's asinine in any form. The entire premise, a fool's notion.

So as not to misquote you ...

[T]he news is full of Hamas' latest threat that more and more Israeli soldiers will be taken hostage or kidnapped as a means to end the "embargo" of the Gaza Strip. I am no apologist for the Hamas-led government in Gaza ...

Oh good. For a second there I thought you were going to be an apologist for the "Hamas-led government." I mean really? Are we going to talk like little idiosyncratic elitist poli-sci professors from Cambridge? Seriously? They are a terrorists. Murdering, blood thirsty, vicious terrorists. Simply call them what they are and move on. Don't offer them the legitimacy of polite conversation in their description. It's ridiculous. And just by the by, if you're about to make a staement and it starts with, "I'm no apologist for Hamas, but ...", perhaps you should reconsider making that statement.

You went on.

" ... and I will always be an advocate of the right of Israel to defend herself and her people from harm... but with the EU, Russia ..."

Why is it of all the 1st world democratized nations Israel is the only one, THE ONLY ONE, in which the word "but" follows that statement? It is always "well clearly Israel has a right to defend herself, BUT ..." Why is that? But what? "But" not today? Not in this instance? Not right now? The statement should stand alone. Would any of us provide for a qualification to follow "The United States of America has the right to defend itself"? Would WE ever stand for such? Of course not. Why with Israel then? Why must they be so understanding of the special circumstances involving their enemy? Are we? We go half way around the world and DEMAND that the Afghan government produce Osama Bin Laden within 72 hours or we will invade, occupy (in the technical sense of the word), and destroy all those who stand in our way, YET Israel has "buts" thrown in when dealing with people hurling rockets 100 yards from their border!!! I hope you see where I'm driving here - the entire premise of your dialogue is unacceptable, and possible only under a suspension of reality. And if these were simply musing questions to start a thread, and not necessarily your personal avocation - STOP IT. It's poor in conception and a bastard in practice.

Furthermore ....
"[B]ut with the EU, Russia, Israel and the US ALL withholding the $500 million dollars of aid that the PA requires to function, the fiscal crisis facing the Gaza region right now, does anyone think that perhaps there is another means by which Hamas can be forced to concede its hard-line positions?"

Yes. Destroy them.

I discussed this 800lb gorilla in the room when last we discussed Israel and the flotilla boarding. Israel's policy towards Palestine for decades has been to defend her boarders and people best she can in the hopes that a legitimate partner in peace would arise in Palestine. It hasn't. They traded a short big war for endless little ones. I would ask Israel (ala Dr. Phil), "How's that workin' for ya?"

To continue ...

"The blockade of Gaza is supposed to stop weapons from entering the area from supporters of terror and terrorism (like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other militant Islamic sects), but at what point do the Israelis risk losing the moral "high ground" because the humanitarian costs of the embargo are so overwhelming in scope? When basic services like water and electricity are denied because the Hamas leadership cannot pay its bills, that is one thing... but when they are denied because Israel cuts off the supplies needed to provide those services, what is gained? What does Israel hope to gain by grinding the common man's face in the dirt, when Hamas will do it all by themselves without any assistance from Tel Aviv?"

There are so many things wrong with this paragraph I scarcely know where to begin. First, you are clearly unaware how this "embargo", if you can call it that, works. Israel - ALONE - provides Palestine with 15,000 tons of aide, not per year, not per month, but per week. Some embargo huh? The flotilla and all other aide meant for the PA can safely and securely arrive to its intended recipients via Israel, so they can check for weapons. And given thousands of rockets have reigned down on our ally from inside the Palestinian territory, I find this a reasonable response, to say the least. I'm curious how long the US Navy would allow ships to enter port in Cancun were rockets reining down on Arizona, California and Texas from Mexico? So you ask what do they hope to gain? SELF PRESERVATION, that's what. That ok with you?

In this scenario - Hamas attempting to smuggle in rockets and weaponry to target civilians while Israel sends that enemy 2,000+ tons of aide a day - at what point do the Israelis "lose" the high moral ground? Never.

And why do they insist on "grinding the common man's face in the dirt" via this embargo? Let me get this straight. Hamas is the sworn enemy of the Jew. They proclaim Jewish blood is that of pigs and monkeys. They vow to destroy their nation. They hurl rockets and suicide vests with nails and ping hammer balls laced in, so as to achieve maximum carnage. They are in a state of war (as far as they're concerned) with the state of Israel. And Israel, although they refrain from using their military might to crush Hamas, occupy every square inch from Gaza to the Golan Heights, and eradicate every Palestinian holding a rock or a rocket, has you concerned because they appear to be metaphorically rubbing the common man's face in the dirt? I about got it? Just want to be sure I have that straight. I'm moving on now because I'm hoping the sheer idiocy - and I almost never use that word to describe you - inherent in your concern is apparent at this point.

You went on ...

"I guess I am asking why Israel feels it is in their best interest to be the "bad guy" when they have Hamas and most of the rest of the PA leadership ready and more-than-willing to do it for them?"

I realize you flanked bad guy with quotation marks. But it's still stupid. I mean, Forrest Gump, borderline retarded, double digit IQ, stupid. This is the European notion on how to intellectually approach the "Israeli problem." And believe me, their (and your) question does frame it in such a way that the problem is with the Israeli response to Hamas rather then Hamas itself. Now here's my idea, and I'm just spit balling here, but perhaps Hamas could STOP FIRING F*CKING ROCKETS, and then Israel could take a second glance at their heartless embargo.

"Wait, wait that's my point" you're surely screaming. "Hamas is showing themselves to be belligerent beyond reconciliation, so why does Israel insist on insering themselves as the bad guy?" Here's the answer - this isn't a theoretical exercise for Israel. Their people are under attack. Real rockets, real suicide vests, real Jews dead. Israel can't afford to let Hamas make an ass of themselves until the EU and Russia (& now the US) "get it." Their citizens will DIE in the mean time. It would be a ghastly dereliction of duty for the Israeli government to forgo protecting their citizenry in order to make a geopolitical point, and curry favor with critics,. And that brings me to my other point. As far as the EU and Russia go (and obviously Hamas), Israel will be the "bad guy" NO MATTER WHAT they do or don't do. Short of booking Helen Thomas's all Jewish vacation package there is nothing they can do to not be the "bad guy." So they might as well go ahead and at least try and protect their citizenry.

There's more ...

"How can they hope to win the "hearts and minds" of the occupied territories by giving the terrorists-in-charge (Hamas) everything they need to keep recruiting more and more suicide bombers and resistance fighters?"

What's wrong with you? Do you not see how absurd this question is? Let me see if I understand this. Israel's behavior in this matter is giving the terrorists everything they need to recruit more terrorists. But Israel's behavior is a response to terrorists Hamas recruited in the first place, pre-embargo. So Israel, by responding to acts of terror, has become a source for recruiting terrorists, which were responsible for the original terror ... oh piss off, will you!!?!

This is the exact line of reasoning the left uses to argue against GITMO, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Patriot Act - you name it. And what this line of reasoning fails to recognize is that Israel's embargo is a RESPONSE to terror already committed. THUS the problem is with HAMAS' acts of terror, not the Israeli response to those acts of terror. The "recruits" are there and plentiful no matter what, because Jews have been born and they find that unacceptable! The simple act of self preservation, an arms embargo, causes recruits, huh? Perhaps because I'm a bit tired and that's why a more erudite adjective escapes me, so forgive my calling this "stupid" as well. That is just plain dumb. And I'm fed up with it. This entire discussion, the very premise is ludicrous. Israel has responded with about 1/100th of the response we have and would to enemies as belligerent, as hostile, and as engaged in acts of war as Hamas. Can you imagine sending in thousands of tons of aide to Berlin while we were still on the opposite side of the Rhine? It's madness. Israel showing restraint to a fault. And the only thing more maddening to me personally is to read otherwise intelligent people travel down this perverse idiom of illogic.

"Again, I'm not saying this isn't an issue that Israel has the RIGHT to determine it's own best course through..." Well, I'm sure they feel better now that you've conceded they have a right to not be blown up. Good call.


"I'm simply asking if anyone else has questions about the rationale behind the course chosen."
Are you asking about Israel or Hamas? Because Hamas is the problem. Hamas is the terrorist group. Hamas is the one targeting civilians. Hamas is the one sworn to wipe Israel off the map. See, call me crazy, but I think the lion's share of "rationale" questioning should be directed at Hamas. They're the problem, not Israel. And that's my problem with this entire premise, your entire critique of the Gaza embargo, it all skips right past the real problem, what has been the real problem since the 1948 Balfour Declaration - HAMAS and Islamic supremacists the region over. And yes I'm being emotional throughout this post, but for a purpose - discussing the hearts and minds question and the legitimacy or effectiveness of Israeli embargoes is ABSURD in the face of suicide vests, sworn death oaths as an article of faith, and routine rocket launches. How can you maintain that we have been too appeasing in our dealings with North Korea, yet contend Israel may be too aggressive in responding to outright attacks on their soil and sovereignty? And HOW IN THE HELL does Hamas get the world talking about embargoes in the face of all their atrocities? That's as if in late September of 1939 the UK & France went into discussions about how Poland deploying troops along their Western flank might agitate the Germans rather then commenting on the fact that PANZERS ARE STREAMING ACROSS THE GOD D*MN BORDER!

But I'm being rude ... you asked a question in the above quote, let me answer: NO. It's just you.