A Full Day: Cry, Think, Laugh

Embed from Getty Images

Being elderly, and a former English teacher to boot, I haven’t yet gotten the hang of flexible, optional pronouns. I understand that “they,” even if imprecise, is simpler to use than the clumsy “he or she,” and I understand why someone who chooses not to be identified with a particular gender would prefer an alternative, but it is still jarring to my senescent ear. So sometimes I need guidance. For example, if male Yemeni terrorists are Houthis, are the females of the tribe Houthers?  And, if so, how is that pronounced? And if it is indeed pronounced that way, isn’t the restaurant with the similar-sounding name committing cultural appropriation?  And shouldn’t the uniforms of either the waitresses or the terrorists be adjusted so they are the same, to avoid confusion?

Upon reflection, given a choice, if I have to be awakened at three every morning, I prefer it to be by Houthers.

********** 

The New York Times broke the news last week that in the aftermath of the savage and disastrous October 7 assault by Hamas, which was intended to provoke attacks on other fronts and result in the defeat and annihilation of Israel, the IDF relaxed its rules of engagement to grant its fighting forces the ability to strike targets that had previously been off-limits and conduct strikes that might endanger more civilians than had previously been permitted. The Times detailed the alteration of a number of rules that had been observed prior to October 7, such as providing prior notice of air attacks, refraining from targeting Hamas leaders who had taken shelter among civilians, and requiring authorization from senior officers before taking certain actions. The tone of the article was highly critical. The relaxed rules, which themselves remained consistent with international law, lasted until November 23, or about one and a half months.

Outrageous, right?  Notify the ICJ.

But think about it.  For years, Israel had tied the hands of its own military and endangered its own soldiers by adopting rules of engagement to protect civilians to a greater extent than any other modern army in history, all the while providing food and humanitarian relief to the civilian population of its combat enemy.  Did the Times ever–ever!–write a story about the amazing restraint shown by Israel?  No. It waited for that restraint to be marginally and temporarily relaxed in the face of a savage assault that killed 1,200, raped and brutalized hundreds, and kidnapped scores.

What were the rules of engagement that permitted Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the firebombing of Dresden, or the bombing of London and Coventry, or the assaults in Ukraine, or the carnage in Sudan and Syria, or the Turkish assault on the Kurds, or the D-Day invasion that killed tens of thousands of civilians, or the assault on Fallujah, where insurgents were embedded, together with civilians, in civilian homes?  How did they compare to Israel’s rules of engagement, before or after they were relaxed and restored?  No country has ever conducted war with more scrupulous attention to the preservation of civilian life and welfare than Israel.  What rules of engagement are observed by those who indiscriminately fire missiles into population centers?

Perhaps, in a parallel universe, in which Israel got a fair shake from The New York Times, the story could have been written this way: “After a devastating surprise attack, in which Hamas terrorists violated an existing ceasefire, committed war crimes and atrocities against a civilian population, and then withdrew to Gaza to embed itself among its own civilian population, in hospitals, and in tunnels connected to mosques and United Nations schools and other facilities, Israel temporarily relaxed its incredibly strict rules of engagement, which had demonstrated unprecedented concern for civilian populations, in order to provide flexibility to its embattled  troops in the field.  The relaxed rules still maintained a standard well above that utilized by any other modern army.  After six weeks, when the balance of fighting had shifted, even though Israeli troops were still fighting in an extremely perilous urban environment and Hamas was still using civilians as shields and operating out of schools, mosques, and private homes, Israel restored the uniquely humanitarian restrictions upon its fighters.”

Now that would be news fit to print.

**********

The more that Netanyahu appears to succeed, and as a more friendly American administration that is likely to further enhance his prospects for success approaches, the frenzied obsession of a “progressive” minority to bring him down by any means appears to become more and more deranged.

Last week, the nightly attacks by the broadcast news included an in-depth “expose” of the bad deeds and unpleasant character of Sara Netanyahu, the Prime Minister’s wife. Among other transgressions, she was reported to have harassed a witness in her husband’s trial, misbehaved on WhatsApp, obstructed justice, orchestrated a protest outside the home of a fallen fighter pilot’s family, supported police officers who employed violence against protesters, sought to intimidate prosecutors and witnesses, and mistreated the Prime Minister’s secretary, who later died of cancer, undoubtedly because of the mistreatment and obstruction of justice. Busy lady.

Of course, the Attorney-General, as is her wont, has called for an investigation into these actions. Of course, Mrs. Netanyahu has sued for slander.

The whole sordid mess is beneath contempt and not worthy of my (or anyone’s) notice, and it seems that no one in the electorate is actually paying attention to the crazed liberal echo chamber that is unable to realize that its time has passed.  Nevertheless, it brings to my wandering senior mind a memorable conversation I had with a taxi driver on one of my early business trips to Israel, which I had undertaken during the second intifada in an optimistic  attempt to help Israelis, well before I ever seriously thought about actually becoming one.  I did, however, like many frequent visitors, collect “only in Israel” stories, and this was one of my favorites.

The driver asked whom I was supporting, and I said that I wasn’t a citizen but I liked Netanyahu.  Almost frothing at the mouth, he launched a diatribe against Mrs. Netanyahu.  It turns out that his wife knew someone who worked in the Netanyahu residence and had told her that Sara was not nice to the staff.  Moreover, he himself had once had as a passenger in his taxi a dry cleaner who damaged one of Sara’s dresses; she was very rude to him.  Also, he had heard that she was slow to pay caterers and never complimented them on a job well done.

I interrupted him and asked, “What does this have to do with the Prime Minister?”  He got so upset that the next words were a jumble of frustrated expletives in which the words “America” and “idiot” appeared to play a pivotal role, and then he composed himself, turned around to face me (while driving) and said, “How can you vote for a Prime Minister who has a wife like that?”

Until now, I always thought it was just an amusing anecdote.  It turns out that it is a foundational principle of the liberal press.

My wife is very nice, extraordinarily polite and gracious to tradespeople, and pleasant and friendly to everyone.  Yet no one attributes that behavior to me, or even gives me any credit for it.  Seems unfair.  Maybe I should run for office.

***********

If you are ever tempted to think that the Fourth Estate is just giving voice to the truth as it perceives it, consider this: Michelle Obama, Jill Biden, and Kamala Harris have all been on the cover of Vogue.  Melania Trump?  Not once.

Fair and balanced.  Or maybe journalism, like love, is blind.

Just for good measure, Mrs. Assad (who also appeared on the cover of Vogue, in the context of a truly shameful, fawning, amoral, embarrassing puff piece by  the magazine) is reported by the Turkish press to have filed for divorce and be in the process of moving to London.  Can Jill be far behind?  Or Doug?  Bashar is an ophthalmologist.  He should have seen that coming.

**********

The Secretary-General of the United Nations, fair minded and balanced as usual, condemned the Israeli strikes on Yemen, as well as the year-long barrage of Houthi (and Houther/Hout-she?) missile attacks on Israel.  You have to admire the commitment to impartiality of a man who was able to restrain his criticism of the Houthis for an entire year, biding his time while waiting for the Israelis to do something in response, so he could be even-handed. As is frequently the case, it all started when Israel responded . . .

**********

Apparently, Trump is about to annex Greenland, the Panama Canal, and maybe Canada.  All that empty, frozen real estate in Greenland exercises a magnetic attraction upon his real estate developer’s soul, and the U.S. is going to need some vacant space to send hordes of illegal aliens about to be deported.  I am looking forward to the coming popularity of one of my favorite palindromes: “A man, a plan, a canal.  Panama.”  Go ahead.  Read it backwards.  Amazing, no?  It is worth embarking on an expansionist foreign policy just for that alone. Proposed name:  The United States of North America, Plus One Canal in Central America (USNAPOCCA). National symbol: a straitjacket.

**********

Everyone bends the Chanukah holidays to his or her (see? clumsy, but correct) own preferences and purposes.  Traditional Jews celebrate the victory of traditional Jews over Hellenist Jews and pagans.  Non-observant Jews celebrate the victory of freedom over tyranny (and, in a bit of a stretch, judicial review over representative democracy). Intellectuals and electricians celebrate the victory of light over darkness.  Ecologists like the efficient use of plant-based fuels.  Kids like gifts.  Gamblers like dreidel and casino nights. Zionists like the idea of the restoration of a Jewish Commonwealth in the land of Israel. Palestinians don’t admit that it ever happened–not the miracle, not the war, not the victory, not even the doughnuts. “Bah, humbug!”

**********

Eager to display its military technology and prowess, and restore some of the luster it lost when its client state Syria fell without putting up much of a fight, not to mention the mess in Ukraine, Russia shot down an Azerbaijani passenger plane, killing 38.  The UN Secretary-General has called on Israel to show restraint in its response.

**********

The gruesome toll in Syria:  As of March 2024 (that is before the current round of fighting), about 615,000 people had been killed in the Syrian civil war.  More than half were civilians.  Thirteen million were displaced, and 6.7 million refugees fled Syria. More Palestinians were killed and displaced in Syria than in all the wars with Israel.  The Syrian conflagration has been labeled the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.  Since 2012, the Security Council of the United Nations has adopted 27 resolutions on Syria or related to Syria (some of which also refer to Israeli misbehavior) and over 100 related to Israel.  The UN Human Rights Council adopted 99 resolutions against Israel and 41 against Syria.  The General Assembly . . . but why bother?  Let’s just hope that Trump and Stefanik fix it or kill it and put it out of its misery.

**********

And just to send you off in a good mood:  In what can only be described as a modern miracle, my wife said that, just for the holiday, I could have one doughnut. To enhance the miracle (hiddur mitzvah), I consumed eight of them.  And now, to proclaim the miracle, I am telling you all.  How many potatoes does it take to make a potato pancake?  A lot-ke.  In medieval times, a Jewish dragon that was in good shape could last (and eat) eight knights.  I gave my wife an eight carat diamond for Chanukah.  She wanted a new car, but where was I going to find a cubic zirconium eight-cylinder Jeep?  What do you call it when Santa doesn’t bring you any gifts?  Chanukah.  He: What do you want for Chanukah?  She:  I want a divorce.  He:  I wasn’t planning to spend that much.

Happy Chanukah.