My Friend Titus

You know it's amazing. Your name (& Jambo too) starts with the same letter as your online persona, yet I have never once mistakenly wrote your given Christian name, nor referred to you by your pseudonym via text or phone. I wonder why that is? Perhaps I have established an online persona of my own, one that sees the Bund names as potential adversaries at any given click of the mouse, whereas that's not the case (typically) in our more recent personal interactions. At any rate, because you are my friend I want to offer you an opportunity here. After reading your last I made myself, and I mean literally standing still in the grocery store pondering the idea of abandoning my yet filled cart and zipping home to post, stay and cool off (not to mention get some much needed shopping done before the kiddies got out of school). See, I made the mistake of reading your last while in my truck, just before shutting off the engine and heading into Wal Mart. As I said, I finished the shopping in order to cool off because if you thought I was angry before, your last would have sent me over the edge were I to post, post haste. And as there was an exorbitant amount of hot women grocery shopping at this hour (and I had the good fortune to be wearing a sleeveless shirt, hehe) I find it was a wise choice all around.

So now with a cooled temperment I proceed ... Now look. I know you responded in the midst of being "perturbed", but I found this, to be frank, horribly inappropriate. It was a poor choice to say the least, and were I to stumble upon this blog cold I would assume that at the very least you were sensitive to Hamas and perhaps anti-semitic. And as I know that neither are true the opportunity I spoke of was to retract the following:

"I know that many in ISRAEL are beginning to feel that the IDF is moving towards a "final solution" position, and that this concern is what took Netanyahu's party out of power in the 90s..."

To, even in some perverse stab at satire, employ the euphemism Germany used to covertly describe the Holocaust in order to describe (even in jest) what the IDF has in mind, is in bad form to say the least. And believe me, I am on record as detesting political correctness; but as Israel is in a fight for its existence, and Hamas et al are the aggressors, to assign the epic evil of the final solution to the aims of the military of the post Holocaust Jewish state, is ... well, disgusting.

And just on your second point- Netenyahu was returned to power after the the dovish Ehud Barak government was aggressively tossed out by the voting Israeli public. Now why do I say "aggressively" thrown out? Not just because BB's Lakud Party retook power, but because one of the other two Parties he shares governing responsibilities with now in the Kanessa is to his right. These elections are not that far removed, clearly the trend is toward a hard line. So I'm not sure why you believe anything approaching a majority is getting the same 1990's itch to remove the Netenyahu government.

Furthermore ...

"Perhaps the Israelis should take a lesson learned from history and dust off the gas chambers and fire up the ovens, and put the Palestinian Question to rest once and for all, huh? "Destroy them all." Isn't that what you said needs to be done?"

If the first quote was horribly inappropriate then this is just down right grotesque. What are you thinking? Pissed off or not, satirical or not, this is beyond the pale and certainly beyond the bounds of common decency, especially with someone as familiar with history as yourself. If you want to rip me a new one in order to even the score, then by all means. But to employ this historical reference (even in jest) as something the Jews might ought to do to another race, and when you know more than most what that reference details, is as I said, grotesque.

And by the way - if you can find where I wrote "destroy them all" when referencing Palestinians, please produce it. I said the only thing to do with Hamas is "destroy them." Which is not that far from your own sentiments. On 7 June of this year I wrote (in response to the flotilla boarding flap): [H]ow in the hell will negotiations prove fruitful with HAMAS? They want them (Jews) in the Red Sea. Where do you go from there? And that's the problem - Israel and her friends all keep dancing around the OBVIOUS. HAMAS must be defeated. But because of the PC and flat out anti Semitism involved, unless Palestine (such as it is) can mount an actual invasion of Israel, there is no scenario in which Israel can launch the necessary offensive without all hell breaking loose. Yet that is the only way in which things will be settled that allows for an Egyptian style peace process to go forward. No war has occurred to clear the way forward to peace. And no amount of negotiation will reconcile HAMAS with ANY state named Israel."

To which you responded on that very same day: "Well said" (that was your title). Your first sentence out the chute: I agree with everything you said... every syllable you wrote is 100% Titus-approved."

Well how do you think that defeat will materialize? Through diplomacy? Tell me, what's the starting point at the negotiating table when the guy across from you denies you have the right to even exist? I simply advocated in my last posts (via ripping you) that Israel defeat Hamas militarily. And you clearly agree. That would at least be a better scenario than what has existed thus far with more than a generation of violence. Yet you strongly (and sarcastically) question Israel's need of an arms embargo? Where's the consistency there? We already agreed that war with Hamas, a sound military defeat, is the only possible way forward. So why has your tone, and certain flat out statements of opinion, turned so vehemently against Israeli policy when thus far it has gone FAR short (referring to the embargo) of an Israeli military victory you agreed is necessary?

In addition ...

"All three of the examples I have made above are examples of political organizations/parties that were doomed to fail because of their formative and fundamental make up... yet had huge and even global impact through their ability to project force. Had any one (or all) of these groups had to answer for their "chartered" goals prior to facing a general popular election, they would have been laughed out of the running. Instead, they were seen by the majority of people to be able to provide something that the existing systems or parties were not... mainly peace and security for the masses ... Hamas is no different, in my opinion."

What? How is Hamas "no different" when in fact their "chartered goals" were very evident, in their charter, long before their sweeping election to office? I understand what you were saying - you were trying to make the point that the peoples that elect governments aren't necessarily responsible for any (or every) evil committed by that government once it's in power because it's not as if the Party in power advertised their evil intents prior to the election or rise - fine, I agree. But isn't that PRECISELY what makes the Hamas election different from your other three examples? They DID advertise their intention right there in their charter (not to mention via numerous speeches and terrorist acts) all prior to their being elected by the people. This is not to make the case that there are no innocents, and they all deserve to die, for goodness sake. I was simply being consistent (by advocating a military defeat of Hamas) in what I feel is the only (not best, not preferred, but only) course of action if there is to be a real, sustainable peace.

Now as to your original post that started this melee. You text me not 2 hours ago to defend it, and I quote: "I really don't think the Israelis are wrong ... I just wanted to see which options are available to them are viable." Well if honest inquisition to initiate a strategic discussion on Israel's best next move is what you desired, why didn't you simply ask that? Why the loaded phrases like: "What does Israel hope to gain by grinding the common man's face in the dirt ...?" Or this gem: "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?" And you went on to describe the embargo as cutting off vital supplies (patently false, supplies continue to pour in from Israel), and the inability for Israel to win the "hearts and minds" of the Palestinians in this course of action, as if a peoples whom elect Hamas are prepared to open their heart , or mind, to being "won." And worst of all you raised the spectre of the Israeli embargo being the source for more terrorist recruitment, to quote exactly, "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?" That is not a question meant to spark a strategic discussion of viable options! Not addressing your enemies is more dangerous than adressing them with the potential of pissing them off. Yours is a statement of clear opinion. It's the old, "When did you stop beating your wife?" question - loaded as they come, meant to convey a decided upon position not make an honest inquisition. And you can exclaim all you want "what, I can't voice an opinion here?" Yes, you can. But then don't text me that it was "simply asking a question about viable options for Israel." No you weren't. And my goodness, I just realized you referenced the non suicide bombing Hamas members as "resistance fighters." Jesus Titus, what is going on here? They're not resistance fighters. You didn't even italicize nor flank that phrase with quotation marks. And don't give me this garbage that you meant the technical definition - "well they are resisting and they are fighting." Bull sh*t. You know exactly the connotation that phrase carries and it is employed specifically to differentiate from being a terrorist. Again, what the hell is going on with you and these implied, inferred and sometimes obvious slights against Israel? "Questioning" Israeli strategy and policy is all fine and well. But asking why Israel insists on "rubbing the common Palestinian's face in the dirt" isn't that. THAT is opinion. That is a slight against Israel and a question of their integrity as a people. And if that is how you feel, by all means, express it. But don't then mask it with "I was just seeking viable options for Israel."

You say on the phone you mean to ask honest questions about Israel's viable options, but you're leading the witness brother ... and it's ugly.