treppenwitz

The Silly, Sappy, Innocent Face Of Israel They Don't Get To See

Countless times each day I find myself seeing, hearing, tasting... experiencing something that I wish I could somehow share with people around the world.

If asked, most of them would say that Israel is a drab, desolate, strife-torn concrete and barbed-wire war zone.  Because that's what the media (even those outlets nominally friendly to Israel's cause) shows them.

And all the official and grassroots efforts to package and export images of an Israel full of vibrant history, ancient archaeology, religious splendor, technical entrepreneurship, scientific innovation, medical breakthroughs, etc., fall flat, because of the "yeah,... but..." factor (as in, "Yeah, I know Israel is ___________, but I saw/heard/read that..."

Those negative images and messages reinforced daily in the media are virtually unshakable, and will not be overcome by the most inspired positive 'Hasbara' (propaganda).  Or so I have always assumed.

And then I saw a silly, sappy commercial for an Israeli Drug Store chain, trying to sell a new model of shaving razors... and I realized that it is this simple sappy, silliness that could potentially get in under the programmed prejudices and defenses of the misinformed masses and start to allow people to see and understand how wonderfully normal (and beautiful) Israel really is.

I'd be interested to hear what you think:

Peace For Our Time

1938

[British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain waving the Munich Agreement upon returning from the signing ceremony with Adolf Hitler on 30 September 1938.  On 15 March 1939, Germany invaded the remainder of Czechoslovakia, negating the treaty... and by September of 1939 had invaded Poland]

2015

[U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry waving a copy of the Nuclear agreement signed with Iran]

Diplomats love to wave signed agreements.  It is their very raison d'etre!

And when questioned about the content, nature or wisdom of the agreements they are waving, they invariably respond that 'diplomacy is preferable to war'... as if those questioning them (or anyone, for that matter), would actually prefer a military conflict to diplomacy. 

What they fail to acknowledge (or learn from history) is that war is not simply the lack or failure of diplomacy.  War can be caused - even be made inevitable - by seemingly successful diplomacy carried out by inept or poorly matched diplomats.

The only thing required for that outcome is for one party to openly, and desperately, want to finalize an agreement at nearly any cost... and for the other party to leverage that desperation to gain sufficient time to prepare for, and wage, war completely on their own terms.

Hitler was almost ready to wage war in 1938, but needed just a bit more time to complete all the necessary preparations.  Chamberlain, with the best of intentions, graciously provided him with all he required.

If Iran adheres to the agreement that John Kerry was waving so enthusiastically in the photo above, they are still less than a decade from legitimately acquiring nuclear weapons.  

If they do not abide by it, they are just weeks from crossing that threshold.  The glaring problem with the agreement is that it provides Iran longer to consider whether to comply with inspection requests than the time required to develop a nuclear weapon.  You do the math.

One would think that a basic grasp of history would be a prerequisite for a career in diplomacy.  Apparently it is... for Iranian diplomats.

What's Good For The Goose...

In this part of the world, one gets used to living with inexplicable double standards... especially as they relate to Israel's conduct vs the conduct of, well, pretty much everyone else.

For instance, we are about to find ourselves in the dock at the Hague (before the International Criminal Court), for war crimes the IDF allegedly committed during last summer's war in Gaza.  This despite the fact that the IDF's civilian-to-combatant casualty rate was an astoundingly and unprecedentedly low 1:1, while the US-led 'coalition' civilian-to-combatant casualty rate in Iraq and Afghanistan was more than 2:1.

But I have to admit that I am having trouble swallowing demands from the US that Israel blindly negotiate /finalize an agreement with the Palestinians, while reserving for themselves the right to walk away from a bad Iranian deal if it doesn't "provide assurances" and " allow verification" of the terms of the agreement.

The Palestinians have never lived up to their past commitments (to disarm terror organizations, renounce 'armed resistance', recognize Israel, stop incitement, refrain from making unilateral moves such as joining UN bodies, remove calls for Israel's destruction from their Charter, etc.).  

So why is it that Israel is the one faced with threats of isolation and sanctions when we walk away from a bad deal for the simple reason that we have no way of verifying that the entity which with we are negotiating (the Palestinian Authority / Fatah), will be in power - or even exist - the day after a 'land-for-peace' deal would be implemented?

Given that Hamas overthrew the PA/Fatah government in Gaza in a violent coup immediately after Israel withdrew and handed over the keys, it is not unreasonable to assume the same thing would happen in the West Bank.

Add to that the fact that ISIS is now threatening to topple Hamas, and we are faced with the specter of an even more dangerous and intractable enemy within easy missile and artillery of Tel Aviv and Ben Gurion airport, immediately after an Israeli withdrawal from part or all of the West Bank. 

In the following video, the President of the United States makes a perfectly reasonable statement regarding his right and intention to walk away from a bad deal with the Iranians.  But leaves unanswered the question of why he denies Israel the same right.  

Apparently, what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander.