פרסומים אחרונים במדור "פוליטיקה"

I would be happy to recieve some clarifications as stated regarding Gray's seven tenets, and specifically the sixth.

The analysis of Folkland (sp?) war by Gray's model could be helpful for my understanding, though it surely ain't mandatory :)

Our local politics is militant, but I can't see a universal tendency towards leading positions manned by former generals. These days the PM is usually not the commander of the army, neither does he lead the army or march with the troops to the front. That's one civil progress compared to ancient campaigns.

If I remember right, Fuad was head of the north commandment (?) during the Lebanon war.

Movable Modifier

Word mavens get a linguistic thrill when a skillful politician
manipulates the language with great deftness and an alert
reporter catches him at it.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, maneuvering his way through
the sticky wicket of the Middle East, wanted to stress the need to
maintain an international coalition, including Arab states, when
talking to Israel's Ariel Sharon – while getting an antiterrorism
message across to the Palestinians' Yasir Arafat.

Accordingly, he spoke in Jerusalem to Sharon of an "international
coalition against terrorism in all its forms" and later the same day,
with Arafat in Gaza, spoke of "a coalition against international
terrorism." He switched the placement of the adjective
international from modifying coalition (acceptable to the Israelis)
to modifying terrorism (acceptable to the Palestinians).

"It is a distinction with a difference here," wrote The New York
Times's Jerusalem bureau chief, James Bennet. "Mr. Sharon and
other Israeli officials like to identify their efforts against
Palestinians with the American attack on the Taliban," he noted,
"and they reject as hair-splitting any distinctions between
'international' terrorism and Palestinian attacks on Israelis.
Palestinian officials, of course, prefer not to be lumped in with the
Taliban."

Thus, merely by moving his modifier, Blair pleased both camps.
To Israelis, his international modifying coalition included them in,
while to Palestinians, his international modifying terrorism was
taken as differentiating their local warfare from the global
terrorism of Al Qaeda. Subtle move by the politician, intended not
to be noticed; good catch by the reporter.

Dear Prof. Gray

In the above interview (for the internet forum http://www.haayal.co.il) you have been quoted as saying that "the West" would never let Israel be destroyed.

I would be grateful if you could be more specific about this assessment, and explain what it is based on.

You can answer me by email, in which case I will post your answer on "haayal", or you could write it directly in the forum (it is in Hebrew but you will see which article is the right one by your picture in it...)

I am sure that I am not the only person who would read what you might have to say about this subject with great interest.

Yours Sincerely

Esther Welch

Hi Esther Welch,
Please call me Chris. What I mant about the West not letting Israel be destroyed is that it would no more let the nation-state of Israel be overrun and/or disestablished by force then it would Canada. Even many people much more critical than I of Israeli policies, such as Noam Chomsky, would be utterly opposed to the destruction of Israel (which I know many Islamists and others still call for). Of course, lots of us would rather see many changes in Israel, such as it becoming a totally secular state, but I'd like to see many fundamental changes in the US as well.

Some Israelis seem to fear a second Holocaust. Such may happen, thanks to the horrible military technologies we have now, but Israel will not be alone in this. If, in one horrible example, a nuclear device was set off in Tel Aviv it is true much of Israel would be destroyed. But not all, and the West's commitment to the idea, and the nation-state, would continue as best it could. It is just as likely that New York will be attacked in such a way these days as Israel.

Now if one believes that to return the '67 territories, or actually allow a Palestinian nation-state to be created out of them, will destroy Israel, well I don't agree and as much as an anarchist such as I can support any state I support the Palestinians' right to one. And European, even US, pressure for that will continue to grow I expect, but I doubt if even this necessary step for peace will be required of Israel by the US government, Israel's most important ally.

And what is this based on? Many things, but especially my understanding of US domestic politics and of international civil society.

So, I hope this helps clarify things. Thank you for your interest in my openion. Feel free to post this to Haayal. Chris

>...but Israel will not be alone in this. If
>...a nuclear device was set off in Tel Aviv it is true much of Israel
>would be destroyed. But not all, and the West's >commitment to the idea
>...would continue as best it could.