And so the discussion begins — how to fix a broken system of government taxation and spending. I have no illusions — any fix will be painful and probably messy.
It will be a loud discussion with many interests vying for space and primacy, making it likely that far less will happen than should. It is up to the governor, then, to stand up and put his stamp on it and push the Legislature — which is run by his party — to get something done.
This piece — posted on Juan Cole’s informed comment is worth reading, following on what I wrote earlier today.
Here is moral fallacy No. 1, starring the Israelis:
Look at this logic: since Israel has asked civilians to leave, any that disobeyed have forfeited their status as civilians. Because the United States and its British followers have blocked the resolution to stop the killing, Israel will continue until Hezbollah “is no longer present.” But remember Hezbollah has been redefined to include all those “still in south Lebanon.” This crude logic renders all the people of southern Lebanon hominus sacres.
Moral fallacy No, 2, starring Hezbollah:
On his web log informedcomment.com, Juan Cole argued on Monday that since Hezbollah fighters cannot effectively aim their rockets, and since they must understand they are most likely to hit civilians, they are therefore guilty of war crimes themselves. Hezbollah leaders would undoubtedly respond that they are not intentionally targeting civilians. From the beginning of the war, Israeli leaders have justified the deaths of Lebanese civilians by claiming that they also never target civilians; it is simply that Hezbollah fights from civilian areas and there is a lot of collateral damage when they are targeted.
Hezbollah is guilty in this regard, therefore, on two counts: It knows that it is likely killing civilians, but opts to shoot its rockets; and it fires from civilian areas guaranteeing that Israelis will fire back, targeting civilians — an ugly calculus.
If Israel can claim the moral high ground — and that is one huge if — it is only by virtue of its being attacked first, though it has engaged in plenty of bad behavior leading up to the crisis in the first place.
Here is a post from the relatively new Take Back Our Town blog, run by a new organization that seems to be an adjunct of sorts of the East Village Association. I offer it in full because it seems to address some important issues without falling into the kind of hysterical ranting that often passes for opposition.
Anyway, here is the post:
Water Concerns Should Be A Priority
Our Water Needs Protection
Commentary by Judith KalloI am an optimist and foresee that the Take Back Our Town meetings will attract a lot of people. During our first meeting we discussed the Senior housing problem, flood issue along the Old Davidson Mill Rd, local problems in the water distribution system, traffic on Rte 535, but we failed to discuss the most serious issue – how could we maintain the quality of drinking water in our region when we are polluting the source of water: the aquifer and priority wetlands? Our property taxes are high, so no wonder that our expectations are high. At the same time, municipalities fail to meet residents’ expectations. Economic development is good BUT it becomes an issue when regional decision support is not harmonized, local decision-making is poorly organized and interest-driven. Development site plans are sketchy and unrealistic, planning board members are voting without having the correct information and/or documentation, or without understanding the priorities.
We live in a complex world. Local decision-makers must realize that water quality issue is high priority because the human body is composed of water. Frankly, this is not a political issue; water quality is critical to our survival. It is a myth that we can “treat” the water and it will regain its original properties. It should be well understood that water related decision-making is crucial to sustain our well being. Some of us who reside here for over twenty years have learned that sketchy engineering, “state-of-the art” planning promises are unrealistic and fail to work on the long run. Water related issues should not rely upon empty promises.
Going one step further it would not be a bad idea to organize an alliance of local institutions and setup a series of presentations and discussion forums in the neighboring towns. It is essential that we characterize the role of the local aquifer and priority wetlands to make the local residents aware of their significance in local water quality issues. Local institutions, like Township governments, the Planning Boards, Environmental Committees must be aware of our current problems and that our problems are the results of bad decision-making and mistaken priorities.
Further negligence and poor decision-making will further impede water quality and drive up the cost of water within our region. This is one of the reasons why a place like the Pulda Farm becomes a pivotal issue for the residents. The Pulda Farm is a part of the regional aquifer and acts as a buffer zone to priority wetlands. The Pulda Farm is indispensable if we want to maintain water quality.
As I said, I find the tone of the post heartening, though I think it does diminish some the hard work that many on the township’s planning and zoning board put in.
I’m always concerned when disagreement is painted as something more than that — as ignorance, say, or something more nefarious. Sometimes disagreement is just disagreement, usually over goals or priorities, and that is the work of politics. Politics is about policy making, or at least it should be. And it is the job of local residents to make sure that their elected representatives focus on the policies they believe are important. If water quality is the issue — and it is over on the eastern side of town — then it is imperative that the EVA folks and this new group make the Township Council and the Planning Board understand that the township needs to make water quality a priority. You do this by banding together and by making yourself heard.
This is basically what Ms. Kallo is suggesting.
I’d offer one additional suggestion: Stay away from the political partisans. Do not allow your groups to be tied to either party. Stay independent and stay active. It will serve you well later.
I have to agree with South Brunswick Township Councilman Joe Camarotta on this one: “This is something we need to get started.”
The township has neglected this building for way too long — it was built in the late 1970s and has had very little done to it over the years. It is too small, is in disrepair and, if not upgraded, serves little purpose. So let’s get it done. Let’s make it a Community Center of which all of us can be proud.
The politics surrounding the state of Israel in the United States are, to say the least, difficult. On both sides, you get harsh, knee-jerk reaction, an unthinking reversion to easy black-and-white stereotypes — the more radical fringe of the left paints Israel as a monolithic aggressor, while mainstream political voices, the Jewish community and the right view Israel as a besieged underdog.
We sent a reporter to a rally this week in Princeton attended by members of several local congregations. What struck me was not so much the support of Israel, but the fervor in the support, the tendency to view all Israeli actions through the prism of necessity, as with this quotation from Marty Katz of Congregation B’nai Tikvah:
“You can’t sit by idly and have rockets rain down on you. You have to fight back.”
It’s hard to argue with this, except that it ignores whether the current Israeli response is proportional — or somewhat equal — to the initial Hezbollah assault. That is debatable at best.
It leads to a moral quagmire in which we are willing — depending on which side we are supporting — to endorse actions we otherwise might find repugnant. For supporters of Israel, that means backing the bombing of civilian targets and the destruction of infrastructure and the use of a moral calculus that is dubious at best. Richard Cohen in The Washington Post, for instance, dismisses “proportionality,” granting Israel the right to operate on a different ethical plane than everyone else.
Anyone who knows anything about the Middle East knows that proportionality is madness. For Israel, a small country within reach, as we are finding out, of a missile launched from any enemy’s back yard, proportionality is not only inapplicable, it is suicide. The last thing it needs is a war of attrition. It is not good enough to take out this or that missile battery. It is necessary to reestablish deterrence: You slap me, I will punch out your lights.
Why this should be allowable for Israel and not for other nations … well, that’s not explored. It is a dangerous recipe, one that — like the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war — invites abuse.
My sense, watching this conflict on television as a 43-year-old, left-leaning, Jewish pacifist, is that Israel was right to respond but that it has been too aggressive in its response, targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure and seemingly going out of its way to incite the rage of the rest of the Arab world.
Therefore, I have to agree with Ze’ev Maoz, who wrote earlier this week in the Israeli daily, Haaretz, that the war in Lebanon, as it is being waged at the moment, “is not a just war.”
Israel is using excessive force without distinguishing between civilian population and enemy, whose sole purpose is extortion. That is not to say that morality and justice are on Hezbollah’s side. Most certainly not. But the fact that Hezbollah “started it” when it kidnapped soldiers from across an international border does not even begin to tilt the scales of justice toward our side.
Hezbollah carries plenty of blame — it acted unilaterally and violently to draw Israel into this fight — but, as Maoz writes, this does not vindicate the Israeli government:
What exactly is the difference between launching Katyushas into civilian population centers in Israel and the Israel Air Force bombing population centers in south Beirut, Tyre, Sidon and Tripoli? The IDF has fired thousands of shells into south Lebanon villages, alleging that Hezbollah men are concealed among the civilian population. Approximately 25 Israeli civilians have been killed as a result of Katyusha missiles to date. The number of dead in Lebanon, the vast majority comprised of civilians who have nothing to do with Hezbollah, is more than 300.
Worse yet, bombing infrastructure targets such as power stations, bridges and other civil facilities turns the entire Lebanese civilian population into a victim and hostage, even if we are not physically harming civilians. The use of bombings to achieve a diplomatic goal — namely, coercing the Lebanese government into implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1559 — is an attempt at political blackmail, and no less than the kidnapping of IDF soldiers by Hezbollah is the aim of bringing about a prisoner exchange.
He asks that Israel (and I would expand this to include Israel’s American supporters) “confront the bitter truth — maybe we will win this conflict on the military field, maybe we will make some diplomatic gains, but on the moral plane, we have no advantage, and we have no special status.”
In the end, I fear, after all the blood has been shed, Israel will be no safer.
Tikkun magazine offers an interesting mix of essays on the topic, covering all sides, with the basic theme being a search for peace.
