Stand With Ukraine

Do I feel a connection to the Ukraine, and the troubles happening there today? Well, it's complicated.

Two of my grandparents were born in Ukraine. My father's father, born in 1898, emigrated to Canada in 1904 (then to the US in 1923), and my mother's mother, born approximately 1905, emigrated to the US in 1911.

Each family branch left Ukraine not simply to find a better life in America, but to escape the violence of anti-Semitic pogroms, and increasing regulation of Jewish lives in the Pale of Settlement. (This also goes for the branches of our family tree from Belarus and, to a slightly lesser extent, Lithuania.)

I don't think either ever thought of themselves as "Ukrainian." On census and other forms they were often identified as "Russian" because Russia was "administering" Ukraine at that time. But they certainly never thought of themselves as "Russian." They thought of themselves as Jews, and indeed, there are a few forms where I see their ethnicity/race listed as "Hebrew."

Of my grandfather's family that remained in Ukraine, at least two of his uncles (my great-grand-uncles), and several of their children (my grandfather's cousins, my 1st cousins 2x removed) all perished in 1941 following the Nazi invasion.

So my history with the Ukraine is troubled, to say the least. And yet, I feel a connection still. And, with the election of President Zelenskyy, a Ukrainian Jew, it seemed possible that I might someday be able to travel there and learn more about my family's origins. 

While the Ukrainians of 120 years ago were certainly no great friends of my ancestors, the Russians were far worse. The entire point of the "Pale of Settlement" (roughly Lithuania, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, parts of Poland) was to keep Jews out of Mother Russia. It was a dumping ground for the Tzar's undesirables, and a buffer zone between the "real" Russians and Europe. Russian domination there was never anything more than imperialistic resource consumption and defensive strategy. 

It's no different today. Putin is just plain wrong, and we cannot accept his arguments and excuses. To do so would set a dangerous precedent that would endanger all of eastern Europe, and many regions beyond.

Memorial Day 2020

Here we are, once again, at our annual day of memory for America's fallen soldiers, the men and women who never made it home, having given the last full measure of devotion for our country.

Memorial Day honors the dead, but its placement in mid-spring, and as a symbolic signal of the coming summer, is also about life. Most any veteran will tell you that we remember those who passed to be grateful for what they have given us: for the freedom to live our lives as we see fit.

Which brings us to 2020, and the uncertainty and despair that so many are feeling now, as our country, and the world, are in the grips of the Coronavirus pandemic.

What has a pandemic to do with a war memorial? It was the President himself who called the fight against Coronavirus "Our big war" back in March. And now, the American death toll from that war is likely to pass 100,000 by the end of this sacred day.

So, this Memorial Day, these 100,000, who perished due to COVID-19, are the "soldiers" I want to honor, and keep in my heart and mind.

Like the dead from any war, we can -- and will -- argue now and into the future whether they died for a noble cause or were the victims of the hubris and folly of inept leadership. But not for today.

For today, I ask that we just remember these 100,000, remain hopeful for the coming summer, and pray that we don't soon lose 100,000 more.

Facebook Meme Found to Contain B*!!$#{}!

Perhaps I was too subtle in my previous post calling for balance and thoughtfulness when posting on social media about the struggle for peace. Maybe some of you didn't even know what "struggle for peace" I was talking about? Because a few of my friends who "liked" the post continued to put out one-sided memes that were clearly manufactured by the propaganda arm of one side and full of misleading (or completely untrue) "facts" about the other.

So screw subtlety. Here's an example of BS posting:

Why is this BS? Isn't it just a "factual" depiction of how the land-hungry Israelis have pushed the peaceful Palestinians off of their property since showing up, uninvited, in 1946? Not exactly.

Let's actually start from one map before this meme begins:

Here we see a Palestine that is considerably larger than current Israel/Palestine. You see, for about 300 years leading up to World War One, Palestine was occupied and administered by the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman's were on the losing side of WWI, and at the end of the war, their territories were divided among the winners (and their home transitioned into modern Turkey).

From this map we see that Britain administered all of Palestine, as well as Iraq, and France administered the former Ottoman territories of Syria and Lebanon (there's more territory as well, but not part of this story). In 1920, the plan was for all of Palestine to transition into an independent "Jewish National Home."

In about 1921, 77% of Palestine - everything east of the Jordan river - was used to create an independent national home for the Palestinian Arabs, and thus Trans-Jordan was created (later shortened to Jordan). In about 1922, another 5%, the Golan Heights, was ceded to Syria. This left 18% of Palestine to be used as a Jewish national home. But not so fast...

Another World War, another attempt to exterminate all Jews, the creation of the United Nations, and then about 25 years later, the world is ready to act. But first, we'll divide the land once more.

Back to the original BS meme. I do not have the census data to swear that the 1946 image is BS, but why I suspect so is because the 1947 UN plan was based on (then) current population centers (which is why it's kind of a screwy map). From the 1946 "data" showing no "Jewish land" in the south, to the 1947 UN plan giving it all to Israel doesn't add up. There should be a lot more white there. Contrary to the popular notion that Jewish emigration to Palestine/Israel began around 1890, Jews had been settling there since at least the 1600's.

And here's a little bit of BS in the image of 1947 UN plan: it shows Jerusalem as all in Palestinian land. The plan actually called for Jerusalem to be a neutral, internationally governed, territory, not Jewish or Arab land. That never happened.

Let's look at the difference between the 1947 plan and the 1949 borders. How did the greedy Israeli's get that additional land? Well, by the time the '47 plan was voted on and adopted, Israel was able to declare its independence on May 14, 1948. The next day - let me repeat that: the next damned day - Israel was invaded by Egypt, Syria, Trans-Jordan, and Iraq (Saudi troops fought under Egyptian command, Yemen declared war against Israel but didn't really do anything beyond words).

Israel prevailed in that war - a war they did not start - and the 1949 border (the "Green Line") is the result of the armistice agreed upon by the parties. So let's look at that 1949-1967 map and discuss why it is BS.

In the '49-67 part of the meme we still see green "Palestinian" land. But there was no Palestine from '49-67. The Gaza strip was occupied by Egypt. The West Bank (including East Jerusalem) was annexed by (Trans)Jordan. Let's make sure you understand this: Palestine's Arab "friends" attacked Israel, and walked off with most of Palestine's territory. Yes, Israel gained some territory, as did Egypt. But the majority of what should have been Palestine went to Jordan. With friends like that...

In that 18 year period, at any time from 1949-1967, Jordan could have given the Palestinians their independence in the West Bank. They didn't. Egypt could have created an independent Palestinian Gaza. They didn't. The world could have cried out about the destruction and occupation of Palestine and insisted that all parties go back to the borders of the UN plan. They didn't.

Nobody said a word or gave a rat's ass about the plight of the Palestinians until after 1967. So, what happened in 1967? Another war with Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq. Again, Israel prevailed (in just six days). Here's what the map of Israel looked like at the end of that war:

Israel had "taken" the West Bank and Gaza along with the Golan Heights and the entire Sinai peninsula. That's a lot of "Jewish land" that's not shown in the meme. Why? Because it doesn't fit the presumptive narrative of "land hungry Israelis." 90% of land "won" by Israel in the '67 war was given back to make peace. The meme does not include maps where Israel shrunk. BS.

There's more wars - like the October 1973 surprise attack during the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur - but the Israelis were used to it by then and won handily, and again traded land for peace. And there were terrorist attacks from the Palestinian "freedom fighters" - from the 1972 murder of the Israeli Olympic team in Munich, to countless suicide bombers on Israeli buses, in restaurants, etc., not to mention the nonstop indiscriminate shelling of civilian centers.

And Israel - especially in more recent years - has created its share of provocations that have derailed the peace process. I'm looking right at you, settlers in the occupied territories. And so we end up with something like the image in the final "2000" panel of the meme (or "2010" or "2014" in other versions of this meme), although I can't swear to its accuracy one way or another (but at this point, I suspect BS).

One other bit of Facebook meme BS going around that I'll clear up, as long as I've got your attention, is the idea that Jews are all newcomers to the Middle East, and that Zionism was created by a guy who "wasn't even a Jew!"

The modern return of Jews to Palestine began in the 1600's, with the expulsion of Jews from Spain. This is about the same time that the Ottoman Empire took control of Palestine. To put things into perspective, the first permanent British settlement in America, Jamestown, was also founded about the same time. So, for a white American, with no intention of returning "home" to Europe, to say that Jews don't belong in Palestine requires a special kind of hypocrisy.

By the time political Zionism took root in the 1880-90s, through the promotion of Theodor Herzl, it was in response to pogroms and the expulsion of Jews from the "Pale of Settlement" in Russian dominated Eastern Europe leading to the fourth wave of Jewish emigration to Palestine.

Was Herzl even a Jew? Yes. "But I heard he was an atheist?" Yep. You can be a Jew and an atheist, and both sides of this were important to the development of political Zionism. Traditional, religious Jewish teachings about Zion, were that the Jews could only re-establish the Kingdom of Israel once the Messiah came. It took a Jewish atheist to say, "Forget the Messiah, it's time for us Jews to stop living under the boots of those who push us out from place to place and take control of our own destiny."

Now, I am not writing all this to put 100% support behind Israel. I believe in their right to exist, but I am appalled by their continued occupation beyond the Green Line, the settlements within the occupied territories, and their "kill 100 of them for 1 of us" attitude. Yes, a nation has the right and obligation to defend its citizens. I get it. But there comes a point when defense crosses into retribution. Israel is past that line.

I also believe in the right of the Palestinians to live in peace in their own self-governed lands. But I do not and cannot support their elected "leaders," Hamas, even 1%. The charter of Hamas explicitly calls for the murder of not just Israelis, but all Jews. Sorry, but once you start talking genocide, you don't get any passes from me.

Now let me be real clear about this: criticism of Israel is not automatically anti-Semitism. Support of the Palestinian people is not necessarily anti-Semitism. But, support of Hamas, clearly and without question, is (go back and read that charter before you argue with me on this one).

It also makes one wonder about the motivation for the non-stop pace of anti-Israel posts while things like ISIS crucifying their enemies in Syria while the Syrian government bombs and murders thousands of its own citizens are all but ignored. ISIS is also actively killing by the score in Egypt, Iraq, and elsewhere. Among the three or four anti-Israel posts you share daily, couldn't you find a moment to be outraged about that?

I don't bring those up to in any way explain, justify, distract from, or minimize the horror that Israel is perpetrating in Gaza. I'm just saying, if you only care about murdered Arabs when they're killed by Jews, you might have some issues.

Still, despite the actions and words of the settler-zealots and politicians in Israel, and the Hamas terrorists and extremists in Palestine, I still believe that the majority of each people want - and deserve - peace and secure co-existence. We can all get along.

And so, in my previous post, I asked for balance and fairness and sharing the blame and working together for peace. I guess that makes me Mr. Moderation, which is not popular.

A final BS meme I'll mention was a cartoon showing an Israeli fighting a bloodied Palestinian. "Mr. Moderation" enters to tell them that the blame is shared, and that they should work together for peace. For that he is shown to be a naive fool, with the Palestinian clearly the only one making any sense.

This I found offensive, not because the Palestinian came out on top, but because it mocks moderation, it mocks discussion, and it absolves one side of all guilt or responsibility. If moderation is not the answer, what is? More extremism? That's what each side has been trying for nearly a century since the Ottoman Turks lost control of Palestine. Extremism hasn't really worked out that well for anybody, has it?

So here's my proposal: Learn to work and live together without killing each other or we just give the whole damn thing back to the British to sort out.

(BTW, I know, I know. "It's only a Facebook post." That's why I rant here, on my blog, and not in the comment section of their posts. Got a problem with it? Find your own place to rant.)

Just my opinion, but

If you're picking sides in a war

If you think one groups' children are any more precious than anothers

If you only share pictures of one sides casualties (and do so repeatedly)

If you judge a situation on the history of three weeks instead of (at least) three generations

If you excuse the violence and murders of only one party

If you are keeping score based on a body count

If you think that just one side "started it"

If you accuse one side of media manipulation through the shared posts of the others propaganda machine

If you think soldiers in civilian garb are any more innocent or holy than soldiers in uniform

If you think official recognition makes anyone more guilt-free or holy than another

If you blame the people of one side while excusing the generals of the other

If you place the rights of one group to exist in peace above those of another

If you only recognize the extremism of one side's all-or-nothing stance

If you think mothers only weep in one language 

If you think you can choose a side in a battle 

and still claim that you stand for peace

You are likely a hypocrite, a fool, a liar, or worse.

What if They Crowdfunded a War and Nobody Gave?

Way back when I was a child, there was a popular poster that said, "It will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the air force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber." (Posters were a crude pre-Facebook era meme communications device.)

Well, it seems that the great day is finally here!

Well, at least, if you live in Ukraine. And if you update "bake sale" to "crowdfunding campaign." (And ignore that bit about funding schools.)

The Ukrainian Defense Ministry has turned to social media and crowdfunding to get their troops combat ready. Ukrainian activists claim the campaign has raised nearly $2 million so far. (Right now, only 6,000 Ukrainian troops are considered combat ready, according to the BBC.)

And would it be a crowdfunding campaign without a video up on YouTube? That would be a big, "Nyet!" And here it is:



By the way, did you take a close look at the thumbnail icon before you played that video? Just in case you missed it, here's it is again:

Yeah, that's right. In Ukraine, people still use Blackberries.

Is Civil Discussion Possible Anymore?

Political debate in this country has been turned into nothing more than a verbal slugfest. We turn on those with views that are different than our own, and attempt to isolate ourselves from dissent. And, with many of my posts on this blog, I'm as guilty as anybody else in this regard.

So here's my stupid, vain attempt to apologize for my part in all of this, and try to begin a respectful discussion between political opposites. The idea is not to reach agreement, but to more fully understand other points of view. This is not a debate; there's no winner or loser - just two friends who see things from different angles sharing their opinions.

And, since YouTube is as polarizing a place as any, I'm doing this over there. Helping me out on this project is my conservative friend, PappyStu. (Oh, and intro music by audionautix.)

A Prince of a Soldier

At first, I was a bit torn about how to react to the news that Britain's Prince Harry, third in line for the throne, will be deployed to Iraq soon.

On the one hand, I've always said that if our leaders children were the ones on the front lines, our war decisions would very different. I admire the courage of this young man to not hide behind his title, but to fight for what he believes is right (even if I disagree with the war itself).

But are the royal family really the "leaders" of the United Kingdom? I'm an American, so I can't say with full accuracy what the English think, but it seems they're more symbolic and cultural leaders than political ones.

And as symbolic as the royal family is, this is not just any prominent son that we are talking about. It's not just young Harry's life that's on the line here, but the lives of every other soldier that is deployed with this attractive moving target.

In this situation, being a symbolic leader is far more dangerous than being a political one. And some British army chiefs have warned against his deployment as a "potential nightmare":

"When it comes to a Prince this is not just a matter of humanity for operational concerns, it has a potentially big strategic importance," said Mr Reid. "I'm not talking about the death, but the capture and so on."

As much as the democrat (small "d") in me would love to see somebody of Harry's stature on the front lines with the average soldier, I have to agree with Mr. Reid. This is a strategic decision, with possible major repercussions on how this war is fought.

I don't think it's worth the risks. Any positive spin for the war effort by Harry's willingness to go has been accomplished (for better or worse). It's time to end this dangerous game and ground this prince's ambitions. More soldiers do not need to risk their lives so that this privileged young man can prove he's warrior of the people.

Accidental beheading a "mishap" not "mistreatment"

Saddam Hussein's two co-defendants were executed today. Saddam's half-brother Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti and Awad Hamed al-Bandar were hung side-by-side using the same gallows as were used for Saddam just a week or so ago.

The Iraqi government admitted that, in what is explained was a "rare mishap," al-Tikriti's head was severed by the rope, with the body and head falling below the gallows and landing several yards apart.

According to an Iraqi government spokesperson:

The convicts were not subjected to any mistreatment. Their rights were not violated. There was no chanting. The Iraqi government acted in a neutral way.

I don't know about you, but I'm relieved to know that nobody was mistreated or had their rights violated by having their heads ripped from their bodies. I mean, that may be disgusting, brutal, and viscous, but at least there was no chanting this time.

Still Surgin'

Okay, yesterday I gave you my pre-speech opinions via my Uncle Joe Bile character. Then I watched the Bush, the whole thing, awake and sober. I didn't finish off the bottle of Scotch till well after he got off the air (Glenmorangie, yum).

So, let me ask you, besides the form of the rhetoric, and a slight touch of well rehearsed humility, is there anything actually new or different about this "change of course?"

It's "only" 20,000 more troops (actually, 20,000 of the same troops on longer tours and shorter stateside rotation), not the 100-200,000 troops that a real "surge" strategy would require. And it sure as hell isn't any kind of a stepping down or withdrawal.

Still, it's not exactly the same failed strategy. It's more of the same failed strategy. It's the same, but different.

Now, according to the President, when we "go from door to door" looking for insurgents, we'll have more soldiers to stay behind and maintain the areas that we've secured. He made it sound like they're ringing doorbells and asking if everybody is alright inside, rather than kicking in doors (or what's left of them) and machine-gunning down anybody who moves.

And, the president cautioned, if we pull out too soon, we'll end up having to stay in Iraq a lot longer. That's right. If we leave, we'll be stuck there, but if we stay, we can go home. Really. That's what he said.

It was a kinder, gentler, more conciliatory stayin' of the course, but in the end, all he really said was, "Screw you, we don't care what the people (American or Iraqi), the generals, or the Iraq Study Group have to say, we're Staying the Damn Course!"

So, by accepting more responsibility for American troops we'll force the Iraqi's to take responsibility for their own security, and by re-committing American troops we'll be able to bring them home, and by fighting a civil war in Iraq we'll soon capture terrorist master-mind Osama bin Laden.

Oh, wait, there was no mention of Osama in the speech. I guess the statute of limitation on that September 11 thing has run out. Too bad.

Uncle Joe Surges into Iraq

A video blog entry today:

Your Uncle Joe Bile supports his president in sending 20,000+ more troops into Iraq. The only way to win is to refuse to loose, even if it takes another 30 years. "Real men don't pull out!"