George Handlery about the week that was. That goals and not the military hardware are disproportional is what counts. Israel, Hamas and principles. When does world opinion matter? About “war is no solution”. “Oil” or the “Jewish Lobby” as the axis of the world. Land for peace, or no land, no peace. Authoritarian anti-authoritarians. The stench of Russian gas.
 
1. Many contend that there is something disproportional about Israel’s military’s operations in Gaza. The qualified “yes” of this writer might surprise the reader. However, the decisive disproportion involves the goals of the hostile parties and not their means to wage war. One of them wishes to wipe its foe off the map. The other would be content to be left alone and if its right to exist would not be questioned. It is a telling sign that putting it this way will anger some. It is also too bad that, regardless of the entirely different goals pursued, approval and condemnation is dished out while ignoring who wants to achieve what.
 
2. Israel earns disapproval for acting in Gaza against militant Islamists. If Hamas damages Israel, the reaction is limited. Is it because Israel is alleged to act against its principles by fighting the fight the situation demands? Hamas’ attempt to hit civilians indiscriminately is also in accordance with a principle. Its own. It would be futile and, apparently an act of disrespect for the cultural background from which the missile attacks come, to vigorously condemn them.
 
3. World opinion hinders Israel to defend herself by acting against the originator of the attacks on her. In case Israel succumbs to her enemies, the international disapproval that held her back while in a position to control her destiny will, even if forthcoming, not help her.
 
4. “War is no solution”. Here are two observations regarding that mantra. First, this is what those fighting Terror Inc. are always told. Interestingly, the same advice is not given so insistently to militant Moslems. Therefore, the suspicion arises that self-defense by some is what is deemed as wrong and senseless. Second, the thesis can be valid. Provided, that is, that when you started you were not determined to win. If in this case you managed to avoid falling into the trap of victory then, indeed, war had not been part of a solution. Indeed, if a war ends in a military victory then not all problems of mankind will be solved. Nevertheless, the cause of the war and the threat by a specific enemy will have been overcome. Remember 1945?
 
5. Either or. There is a thesis so old that it has grown a white beard by now. It is that there is a global Jewish conspiracy. With its control over the world’s finances and having infiltrated the inner circles of power, it is capable of pulling the strings. The belief in a “Jewish/Zionist plot” when causes and effects are not fully understood is a product too of this popular tale. Well before the creation of the state of Israel, the allegation served some well to explain events that would otherwise not fit their worldview. Once Israel appeared, the conspiracy theory got an add-on. It was that US policy is a captive of the international and a national Jewish lobby. Consequently, America (supposedly) pursued an anti-Arab policy. Let us skip here the fact that more-less the same circles like to explain US policies with the thirst for more “oil”. If true, this interpretation would contradict the conspiracy/lobby thesis. Israel has, beyond olive- based salad oil, little to enhance the appetite of the greedy American oil companies. On this basis, if these matters would be in the realm of the rational, conspiracy fans would need to have to choose between the “oil” and the Jewish” explanations. However, there is more. On the public opinion front of the recent Gaza crisis the “world” took the side of Hamas. That would demonstrate the weakness, possibly even the non-existence, of the “Jewish Conspiracy”. Alternatively, could it be that there is a rival Moslem/Arab conspiracy attempting to rule the word? Well, at least it would have lots of oil supporting its activities.
 
6. During Israel’s Gaza action, a protest demo was held in Duisburg (Germany). Shortly after the peace march’ start a crisis arose. The crowd outraged by far away violence – “it  never solves any problems” – passed an offending high-rise that had two Israeli flags hanging from windows. Snowballs – some report stones – flew. Tempers were heating up. The action’s moderate organizer and the police tried to cool things down. Failing at that and fearing what could follow, the police found and entered the offending empty apartment. The flags were removed. Thereafter the peace march could continue without engaging in violence.. Afterwards, a discussion followed about the propriety of the peacekeeping action of the police. It seems here that, the right to march is based on the same principle as is the right to fly the flag of a state with which one is not at war.
 
7. Years ago, Israel had tried to exchange land for peace by withdrawing from Gaza. Soon, incoming missiles, made her discover that she has neither.
 
8. It is amazing how a few square miles of territory “you” did not care for have turned out to be crucial in influencing your life. The Balkan squabbles before 1914 (WW1) fit the category. So do the “settlements” of 1919 that became a foundation of WW2. Nowadays, the Golan – even if some people might not know where it is – plays a similar role. Israel is being advised to “buy peace” by returning the territory that Syria had used to shell Israeli settlements. Problematic in this procedure is a consequence that will not be lost on Israel’s neighbors. With the Golan Heights in Syrian hands, Israel proper becomes less defensible. Golan for peace? A nice idea. But reality also tells that such evacuations improve the strategic position of Israel’s enemies. This reduces the benefits of peace. The consequences threaten to follow the pattern created after the unilateral evacuation of Gaza. The result could be a peace that makes it harder for Israel to retaliate. She might find that condition to be worse than war.
 
9. Our day’s politically successful Left has its roots in the movement of “’68”. As the product of that wave, its roots reach back into a soil that has been critical of authority. In this they share a trait with Conservatives. The difference is that 68 had not only been critical of authority but also attacked all authority as long as it was found to be located in the democratic West. In the praxis of their “struggle”, not every authority had been attacked that exercised power. The target of hostility was, and still is, every institution that is not controlled by the Left. This is why these anti-authoritarians advocate the expansion of state power as son as they gain control of the state. This makes them into selective anti--authoritarians. They preach disobedience toward everything that they or their ideological allies do no dominate. As they do so, they covet might that can be put into their service. A wise distinction because, the projects of radical transformation advocated by the Left are, on the long run, not implementable with the support of voluntary majorities based on consent.
 
10. This year’s Martin Luther King Day makes one doubly inclined to think of the past, the present and some fundamentals. MLK has shown courage and vision to nudge his nation forward. America’s liberal tradition (in the traditional sense), provided him with an opportunity that he used skillfully. It is to be regretted that his successors have often lost sight of King’s success and seeming goals. Colorblind equality and opportunity became hijacked. Leaders who did not so much follow a calling than an urge to elevate themselves by harnessing a movement did this. Regardless of Obama’s election to the Presidency, some of the time since 1964 has been wasted, while much of the trek meandered on a curvy path’s instead of proceeding uphill on the faster straight road.
 
11. Europe’s countries are, directly or indirectly, strongly dependent of Russian gas. That supply is, regardless of the extensive source, of questionable reliability. It is of course true that, the supplier needs the income as much as the buyer must have the resource. If it would be otherwise then the resource would not be sold and would not be bought. This truth gives little comfort. The seller’s needs are not immediate. The dependence of the buyer on continuous, uninterrupted and reliable deliveries is, however, especially in the winter, literally immediate. This makes gas into a potential political weapon. As it is, the price asked for the commodity shows a marked tendency to go beyond its market value and reflects political preferences. The bill sent by Russia includes rewards for good behavior or a surcharge for disobedience. For this reason, the case supports the slogan “drill, drill” and is completed with a “build, build” (of reactors).
 
12. One more thing. You might have been suspecting something like this. Ségolène Royal, the failed Socialist opponent of Sarkozi, has attended Obama’s inauguration. She used the occasion to make an unsurprising statement. In her opinion, Obama was elected on a platform that she had been running on in France.