Home
Jewish Round-up: Mel Gibson, Hezbollah and Condi Rice
The arrest of Mel Gibson on drunk driving charges was only interesting because of what he told the officer who picked him up: "F----ing Jews" and "The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world" and, to the cop, "Are you a Jew?"
You know the phrase "in vino veritas"? It means: In wine, there is truth. Or, you don't lie when you're plastered. Mel has, correctly, issued an apology for his hateful words. And an explanation: He has an alcohol problem.
One thing he doesn't have: a truth problem. He told it like he thinks it is. Like a lot of people think it is. Not so much in this country as in Europe--over dinner, some titled Belgians told me the trouble with America was that "Jews own the media"--but there is enough still anti-Semitism here for Jews to worry about "Wall Street Yids" and "Jewish publishers" in case the economy tanks and someone needs somebody to blame. (And don't forget all the Jews who "didn't go to work" at the World Trade Center on the morning of 9/11.)
Rehashing some of this history, Mrs. Uptown remarked: "I don't know why Jews worry so much much about Muslims--it's the Christians who are their greatest threat."
As luck would have it, a few hours after the (Jewish?) press got hold of Mel's remarks, Kingdom of Heaven" was on TV. We'd skipped Ridley Scott's account of the Crusades when it was in theaters (Orlando Bloom? Who he?) but were riveted by the battle scenes on the small screen. The final assault by the Muslims was grist for some of the bloodiest action sequences ever filmed--it was mostly hand-to-hand combat with swords and axes, with blood spouting everywhere and the ground slick and red.
When it was over, the landscape looked like Gettysburg: a sea of bodies. And what was all that death about? The need to have total possession of real estate sacred to two religions.
Hundreds of years later, not much has changed. As Billmon reports:
Billmon's comment: "For every one of ours; ten of yours. In Roman times, it was a hundred."
My pro-Israel friends shrug off this kind of revelation. They tell me, "The Arabs do worse." And so they do. But since when is the bar set by the worst offender? Is Abu Ghraib okay because at least our soldiers didn't use electric drills on their victims' eyes? As long as Israel doesn't decapitate Arab prisoners, should we speak of Israel's "mercy"?
As I write, there is a scandal about Israel's most recent artrocity: a couple of dozen children dead in Lebanon, some of them all the kids in a family. The Israeli line is that Hezbollah used this apartment building to hide bombs, that the residents were warned several times. Yet, oddly, no one seems to have left. The repoorts suggest that residents felt safe moving to lower floors. And so the bombs killed them as they slept.
Zionists who froth at the mouth--I'm thinking of Alan Dershowitz--say this is all Hezbollah's fault for using civilians as shields. Even if you agree, so what? People who bomb kids get hated for it, period. As even Israel should know. You want to create sympathy for people you call terrorists? Kill kids. Works every time. (Of course, it is disingenous to argue that civilians are not the target of modern wars? They are. In fact, as Chris Hedges argues in "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning," killing civilians is the entire object of modern war strategists.)
The only pleasing moment for me was the look on Condi Rice's face when she was disinvited by the Lebanese government from her scheduled drop-in. All that neo-con theory was supposed to work! But here she was--in real time, with the world watching--being handed her hat.
Worse for poor Condi, she has to be aware that this Israel-Hezbollah mess is starting to look like a Xerox of Iraq: Everyone but Tony Blair hates the United States. This was probably inevitable, as our strategy here was as flawed as our strategy there. We are checkers players who have been forced to play chess--we don't grasp the game is won by thinking ahead by several moves and on several levels.
Pakistan: we're selling them more atomic material (why?) so that if they topple their dictator they can move other atomic material to anti-Israel groups. Iran: We've strengthened the hardline right. And Lebanon: we've pounded and weakened the area's one democracy for its failure to control Hezbollah (like we do such a great job containing the Mafia). And turning Israel into our Middle East sock puppet--a role Israel was happy to play, just to get all that military hardware--was nothing short of idiotic.
Let me say it again: I have no affection for Hezbollah. But my affinity for Israel is dwindling fast. Yes, many of its enemies have wanted you dead. Now more do. And now a cease fire will look like a defeat for Israel--which it will be. But the alternative would be no better: Israel continuing on this rampage with nothing to show for it but the bodies of dead children. Is there worse PR possible?
Maybe there's no solution here. Maybe all sides are so far gone that no one can see a generation or two down the line and propose something better than endless war. Maybe these people--on all sides--have so much invested in being right that they prefer war to compromise.
My friends ask: So, Mr. Smartie, what would you do? I say: establish a Palestinian state. They say: And that would change the hatred in Arab hearts? I say: Not right away. But all I know is, when you've got a house and your kids can play outside without fear and there's enough food and water, it's harder to get upset about Other People. (As proved by our countrymen daily: fat, dumb and happy, in the main.)
You know the phrase "in vino veritas"? It means: In wine, there is truth. Or, you don't lie when you're plastered. Mel has, correctly, issued an apology for his hateful words. And an explanation: He has an alcohol problem.
One thing he doesn't have: a truth problem. He told it like he thinks it is. Like a lot of people think it is. Not so much in this country as in Europe--over dinner, some titled Belgians told me the trouble with America was that "Jews own the media"--but there is enough still anti-Semitism here for Jews to worry about "Wall Street Yids" and "Jewish publishers" in case the economy tanks and someone needs somebody to blame. (And don't forget all the Jews who "didn't go to work" at the World Trade Center on the morning of 9/11.)
Rehashing some of this history, Mrs. Uptown remarked: "I don't know why Jews worry so much much about Muslims--it's the Christians who are their greatest threat."
As luck would have it, a few hours after the (Jewish?) press got hold of Mel's remarks, Kingdom of Heaven" was on TV. We'd skipped Ridley Scott's account of the Crusades when it was in theaters (Orlando Bloom? Who he?) but were riveted by the battle scenes on the small screen. The final assault by the Muslims was grist for some of the bloodiest action sequences ever filmed--it was mostly hand-to-hand combat with swords and axes, with blood spouting everywhere and the ground slick and red.
When it was over, the landscape looked like Gettysburg: a sea of bodies. And what was all that death about? The need to have total possession of real estate sacred to two religions.
Hundreds of years later, not much has changed. As Billmon reports:
A high-ranking IAF officer caused a storm on Monday in an off-record briefing during which he told reporters that IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz had ordered the military to destroy 10 buildings in Beirut in retaliation to every Katyusha rocket strike on Haifa.
Billmon's comment: "For every one of ours; ten of yours. In Roman times, it was a hundred."
My pro-Israel friends shrug off this kind of revelation. They tell me, "The Arabs do worse." And so they do. But since when is the bar set by the worst offender? Is Abu Ghraib okay because at least our soldiers didn't use electric drills on their victims' eyes? As long as Israel doesn't decapitate Arab prisoners, should we speak of Israel's "mercy"?
As I write, there is a scandal about Israel's most recent artrocity: a couple of dozen children dead in Lebanon, some of them all the kids in a family. The Israeli line is that Hezbollah used this apartment building to hide bombs, that the residents were warned several times. Yet, oddly, no one seems to have left. The repoorts suggest that residents felt safe moving to lower floors. And so the bombs killed them as they slept.
Zionists who froth at the mouth--I'm thinking of Alan Dershowitz--say this is all Hezbollah's fault for using civilians as shields. Even if you agree, so what? People who bomb kids get hated for it, period. As even Israel should know. You want to create sympathy for people you call terrorists? Kill kids. Works every time. (Of course, it is disingenous to argue that civilians are not the target of modern wars? They are. In fact, as Chris Hedges argues in "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning," killing civilians is the entire object of modern war strategists.)
The only pleasing moment for me was the look on Condi Rice's face when she was disinvited by the Lebanese government from her scheduled drop-in. All that neo-con theory was supposed to work! But here she was--in real time, with the world watching--being handed her hat.
Worse for poor Condi, she has to be aware that this Israel-Hezbollah mess is starting to look like a Xerox of Iraq: Everyone but Tony Blair hates the United States. This was probably inevitable, as our strategy here was as flawed as our strategy there. We are checkers players who have been forced to play chess--we don't grasp the game is won by thinking ahead by several moves and on several levels.
Pakistan: we're selling them more atomic material (why?) so that if they topple their dictator they can move other atomic material to anti-Israel groups. Iran: We've strengthened the hardline right. And Lebanon: we've pounded and weakened the area's one democracy for its failure to control Hezbollah (like we do such a great job containing the Mafia). And turning Israel into our Middle East sock puppet--a role Israel was happy to play, just to get all that military hardware--was nothing short of idiotic.
Let me say it again: I have no affection for Hezbollah. But my affinity for Israel is dwindling fast. Yes, many of its enemies have wanted you dead. Now more do. And now a cease fire will look like a defeat for Israel--which it will be. But the alternative would be no better: Israel continuing on this rampage with nothing to show for it but the bodies of dead children. Is there worse PR possible?
Maybe there's no solution here. Maybe all sides are so far gone that no one can see a generation or two down the line and propose something better than endless war. Maybe these people--on all sides--have so much invested in being right that they prefer war to compromise.
My friends ask: So, Mr. Smartie, what would you do? I say: establish a Palestinian state. They say: And that would change the hatred in Arab hearts? I say: Not right away. But all I know is, when you've got a house and your kids can play outside without fear and there's enough food and water, it's harder to get upset about Other People. (As proved by our countrymen daily: fat, dumb and happy, in the main.)
