The view from here, as of 1:30 in the morning

And now for something new and different: more on the war!

I won't be coherent this time, either.

So for lack of intelligent things to say, I'll just express my feelings, and how they contrast to what's generally presented in the press.

I think there's a kind of perception, outside Israel, that Israelis hate Hamas and want to crush it because of all of their hate and anger.

Now, I'm not going to say that Israelis like Hamas, or anything. But I think we have a lot more on the line than it might appear. Of my female friends, over half have a husband, brother, or boyfriend in the army right now.

This isn't a big country. At this point, pretty much everyone knows someone who knows someone who was killed. Pretty much everyone loves someone who's in harms way. So nobody is like "yay war" just for the sake of revenge or anger. It may give me warm fuzzies when bad things happen to Hamas, but I care about my husband getting home safely about a zillion times more than I care about venting my own ill will.

So why do people support the war? (sorry, "operation").

Not so much because they're angry, but because they're very worried.

What looks like a cycle of violence to most outside observers looks totally different from an insider's perspective. Here in the Middle East, you can see that it's clearly a downwards spiral of violence.

We're doing better than six years ago in that six years ago, when Hamas fired a zillion rockets at Israel, they hit a whole bunch of houses, schools, etc, and now we have the Iron Dome and cities are way better protected. But - six years ago, they were hitting Be'er Sheva. Now they're hitting Eilat and Haifa.

So if you're reading news in America, that may not sound too different (six of "unnecessary double vowel sounds," half a dozen of "how do you do that gutteral 'ch' again?"). But it means missiles that can go twice the distance. It's the difference between around 20% of Israelis living in the high-rocket-frequency zone and 100% (those people living too far north for Hamas' current capabilities were under fire from Lebanon and Syria over the past couple of weeks). 

And it's important to note that the 2008 situation was practically unthinkable just 3 years earlier. When some people warned in 2005 that if Israel withdrew from Gaza, there would be missile attacks on Tel Aviv, the reaction was largely, "Yeah, right. Like that will happen." 

So it's not so much, "Crush them!!! Whoot! We're number one!!" as "Guys, we did this in 2006 and 2008 and 2011 and we're getting more #$%#$ rockets flying at us than ever. Can we please just get it over with this time? Before they get chemical weapons? Yes, it will hurt, but waiting won't make it easier."

I know, I know - if it's a cycle of violence, why not break the cycle by trying not-violence? (OK, only half of you were thinking that). But the thing is, it's hard to break a cycle of violence when the other party has vowed to keep being violent no matter what you do. That, and violence works a whole lot better than many people give it credit for. Past military operations really have significantly set back terrorist groups, or have made certain tactics far less feasible (I think we've all noticed the drop in suicide bombings here over the past decade. That wasn't due to Hamas or Islamic Jihad becoming less enthusiastic about the idea of convincing teenagers that it would be awesome to off themselves in the most murder-y way possible).

Will this work? I don't know. I do think that Hamas' infrastructure has taken an enormous hit. 

*****

And now, advice for the political left:

Convincing people that we need to limit military operations works way better when you focus on specifics.

Like, if you just say, "Israel is killing too many innocent people," your non-left-wing-Israeli listeners are probably hearing, "You have no right to self-defense," or maybe "You guys are big, homicidal bullies."

But if you say, for instance, "It might be better if Israel just didn't use airstrikes in assassinations. It's too hard to control who's around, so you get, like, five innocent people killed just to kill one Hamas guy" - people might not agree, but they'll listen. Just my humble opinion.

Bonus points if your alternate proposal for dealing with terrorist leaders involves assassin robots, because that would be cool. A sign that the apocalypse is near, but cool. 

*****

Note to certain relatives who may be reading this: the baby is awake, so it's totally cool that I'm posting after 1:30 am. (This has nothing to do with all the coffee I drank today or my decision to exercise at 10 pm, it's all the baby.)

War and kid stories

A kid story (involving the war).

So I overheard Adi and her friend S talking politics at lunch ("We're winning." "Yeah. Hamas is only winning at being stupidest."). At one point, Adi, in all seriousness, said:

Adi: They [Hamas] should be thanking us!

Why?

Adi: We have the Iron Dome, so we know when there are missiles coming. But they don't have the Iron Dome. So we call them and tell them that there are missiles coming toward their house!


OK, it's sad if you overthink it, but as an insight into my daughter's understanding of the news it made me laugh. (apparently missiles are a natural phenomenon affecting Hamas and Israelis alike).

****

I started to share a whole lot of other thoughts, but then I realized:

1. I have a whole lot of thoughts. Like, pages and pages worth of stuff to say.
2. Not a whole lot of it is super-clear.
3. I should probably sleep.

So - those few of you willing to tolerate my sleepy musings about war and global politics will just have to wait.

The missing Hamas terrorists

Has anyone else noticed that Hamas fighters are completely missing from the international media's ongoing Israel-Gaza body count?

Every breakdown of Israel's casualties is along the lines of, "[Number] of Israelis have been killed, [X] soldiers and [Number-X] civilians."

Every breakdown of Gaza's casualties is along the lines of, "[Much Bigger Number] of Palestinians have been killed, most of them civilians."

So for one thing, that "most of them" (AFP was even claiming 80% civilian casualties at one point, although they made sure to cite "rights groups") is almost certainly untrue. Given the age and gender breakdown in Gaza as a whole compared to the age and gender breakdown among those killed, it's extremely unlikely that the civilian death toll is even all that close to 50%, let alone higher. (Odds are astronomically against an 80% civilian death toll.)

(My knowledge of both math and politics comes in handy, for once).

Obviously the ideal is no civilian casualties. I'm not saying the current rate is fine by me. Just saying that the media is, as always, full of crap.

But that's not even the strange part (I expect the media to be full of crap). The strange part is - why not "[Number] of Palestinians have been killed, [20% of Number] Hamas fighters and [80% of Number] civilians."?

OK, we don't know the exact numbers. So, say, "1,050 Palestinians have been killed, an estimated 500 of them Hamas members and at least 300 civilians."

But no. The fact that Hamas' people are dying by the hundreds is left for the reader to figure out themselves, through their own mental calculations.

If I saw that in one or two news stories I'd think it was a coincidence, but so far it's been literally every single one (except perhaps in Israeli media).

I'm leaning toward thinking that it's intentionally soft wording aimed at protecting news agencies' people in Gaza. As in, Hamas would not be kind to any reporter who dared to explicitly state that its death toll is far higher than the IDF's. Their PR has always involved denying their own losses.

Whatever the reason, it makes Israel look pretty terrible (the wording gives the not-so-subtle sense that there are only three parties involved: the IDF, Israeli civilians, and Gazan civilians. True, nobody who's following the news could actually think that, but I believe wording has a subconscious impact regardless).

Other conspiracy theories welcome (as are links to articles that totally disprove my theory by using explicit wording re: Hamas casualties).

Questions for the Left, advice for the Right

Given the circumstances, I can't help talking politics a bit now.

When I think about politics right now, I mostly think about how sick I am of slogans. "Crush Hamas" - how? What do you mean "crush"? I don't think killing them all is going to happen. "Stop fighting, start talking" - to who?? Hamas? What kind of compromise can there possibly be there?

Anyway. I've been left with some questions for the Israeli political left, and some advice for the political right.

 

I'll start with the questions. Here is probably a terrible place to ask those questions (I'm pretty sure that after the several lulls in posting I've had in the past few months, the only people still reading are my mom and sister (hi guys!)). But I'll write them down here, to get it out of my head.

- The big question - what's the alternative the left is suggesting right now? A ceasefire without destroying the rest of the tunnels? A military operation that's run differently (eg, no airstrikes, or house-to-house fighting instead of bringing in the bulldozers, or vice versa)? 

Right now it feels like all the focus is on how sad and terrible it is that innocent people are dying. Which, yeah, it is, but - not to sound like a horrible person here - what's your point? I think it's clear to everyone that we're in a situation where innocent people are going to die no matter what course of action we choose. (go in to destroy tunnels = war with Hamas = people dying, don't go in = tunnels used for attacks = people dying...)

I guess that's not just a question for the Israeli left, but for the world in general. So many politicians, so many words about how sad and terrible the loss of life is - so few concrete proposals as to how things could be different. (And no, buzzwords like "compromise" and "peace talks" and "ending the cycle of violence" do not count.)

- Do you take Hamas at their word re: wanting Israel destroyed? Or is there a sense that if Israel ends the "siege" and takes similar steps, Hamas would become more moderate (or alternatively, would be replaced by different leadership)?

- Why does the political left tend to treat Netanyahu as if he's anti-peace and doesn't really want to negotiate? What's the big difference between what Rabin offered and what he's offered?

*******

And advice for the right: we can't afford to let "racist" be a word that only the political left uses. 

I think the political right got so used to hearing "racist" as an automatic dismissal of its own ideas that at some point it basically just dropped the word from its lexicon. Not good.

I don't think there's nearly as much racism on the political right as one might think from reading talkbacks and similar media (facebook feeds, etc). But there's enough that we need to take it seriously, and soon.

*******

My two cents? Yeah, you didn't ask for it, but you're going to get it anyway...

I think the main factor in this conflict, still, is the refusal to recognize Israel. Hamas keeps using tactics that have historically worked on foreign occupiers, not realizing that its own perception of Israel as a foreign occupier doesn't make it so. 

Terrorism might drive out some colonialist soldier who just wants to get back home to Britain/France/wherever. But try that against someone in the only home they've ever known, and you're going to get a very different reaction. 

******

OK, that's more than enough of that. I hope to return soon to our usually scheduled programming of random crap my kids said/ tales of terrible housekeeping/ poop jokes.

Suspense

(No, this isn't about the fighting)

(conversation translated by me)

Me: Adi and N, if you girls can sweep the floor for me, I'll be able to shower now and we can leave sooner.

Adi: But I'm at the most suspenseful part of my story! I'll do it, but don't ask for any more help after this, because I'm at the suspense! (אני במתח)

Me: Honey, you don't have to do it. I'm just suggesting it, if you want to leave more quickly.

Adi: Oh, OK. So then I'll keep reading the suspense.

D: Mommy, I want to read the suspense too!

Me: OK.

D: .... What does 'read the suspense' mean?

Tablecloth

Viggy and I discuss whether or not we need a new tablecloth:

Him: We need to replace this tablecloth.

Me: Why do you say that? Because of the nail polish stains?

Him: No, I meant because of this brown stuff here.

Me: I think that's just the table. See, it's ripped a little in some places, so the brown shows through.

Him: No, this brown stain.

Me (pointing): This brown stain?

Him: No, on the other side.

Me: Oh, that stain. Yeah, that does look pretty bad.


This is what you get when neither spouse is particularly aesthetically gifted (no offense, Viggy).

By the way, I highly recommend plastic tablecloths if you have young kids. Not tablecloth covers, just big sheets of plastic-y stuff that go over the table and stay there. That way there's no need to mess around with placemats or with constant tablecloth-washing. Just grab a sponge and give it a quick wipe. Or, if it's been more than 5 minutes between mealtime and cleaning time, just grab a chisel and scrape it down (cornflakes and milk, as it turns out, create a mixture that's probably strong enough to build houses from).

Adi's cat

Adi has a cat.

It is not an indoors cat. Those of you who know Viggy personally may have guessed that already. Ditto for those of you who've seen my house, and who realize that I need a small needy animal shedding on the furniture like I need a hole in the head.

(which has always struck me as a bizarre expression, because in fact I do need holes in my head, otherwise I would die. It should really be "like I need a new hole in the head. That is not a piercing. Or a third nostril that somehow allows me to breathe underwater.")

Anyway. "Adi's" cat is one of the three cats that hangs out outside our building. There are three of them, named (by her) Tal, Purr, and Mitsy.

Adi's favorite by far is Mitsy, or as everyone else knows her, "that one with the freaky eye."

Mitsy is white, with patches of gray that may or may not just be dirt, a freaky eye (naturally), and an ever-changing array of nasty scratches that may explain why she's somehow still skinny, despite the fact that several different people all feed our building's cats and the other ones are pleasantly round.

Mitsy is also actually a boy cat, but we are not allow to mention that. The fact of "her" male-ness was discovered fairly early on in the game, but not so early that A and N weren't already very attached to the idea of Mitsy as a girl. And anyway, you can't call a boy cat "Mitsy" (apparently), and obviously it would take some time to come up with an equally creative boy name - so for conversational purposes, Mitsy is female.

A couple of days ago N mentioned that Mitsy might have babies soon, and I didn't manage to refrain from reminding her, "Honey, you know Mitsy is really a boy, right?"

Adi was very offended. "Mommy. You're not supposed to say that!"

"I'm sorry," I told her. "I just meant that Mitsy might not be able to have kittens for... biological reasons."

Adi considered for a moment, then nodded. "OK."

It's not so bad having a cat with this sort of set-up. The kids can play with it and feed it scraps, but it's not my responsibility and it doesn't come in the house. And it seems good for Mitsy, too. She looks like she needs some positive attention.

Unfortunately, Mitsy seems to have been a gateway pet, as Adi is already asking for a pet she can keep in the house as a present for her next birthday. She wants a mouse, a bird, or a gerbil - any of those things is fine, as long as it's female.

Viggy is trying to talk her into a fish. Even that has its potential downsides - most notably, Adi's inevitable heartbreak when the fish dies of neglect/overfeeding/being invited by the younger children to join them in the bathtub. (On the other hand, one could argue that one of the main purposes pets serve is to teach children about the inevitable reality of death... )

Anyway. Now I must return to life and its many demands (laundry to fold, homework to do, popcorn to eat...). In the meantime, if anyone has a particularly durable type of pet to recommend, feel free to leave a comment.

Rocket fun times

We haven't been getting as much rocket-related excitement as our friends from elsewhere in the country, but a couple of rockets have hit uncomfortably close to where we live.

So today I waited until the kids changed out of their "bathtub rainstorm" clothes and cleaned some of the buckets of water off of the floor, then sat them down for a rocket safety talk. I talked about how we might hear a siren, and where we should go if we're outside (into a building) or in our house (into mommy and daddy's room). But don't worry too much, because there probably won't be rockets here, it's just important to know how to be safe.

A couple of minutes later I came across Adi leading the girls and a couple of their friends in saying tehillim (psalms). Adi was quick to tell me that they were definitely NOT scared, but were only praying for other people who might have rockets fired at them.

A few minutes after that, D didn't want to put on her shoes. D never wants to put on her shoes, so I didn't think much of it. But then she curled up in Viggy's bed looking sad. I asked her what was wrong.

"Mommy, I don't want to go outside until after the rocket falls down," she explained.

Then to make her feel better I told her that the people firing the rockets are stupid and have terrible aim, and that some of their rockets even fall down and hit them by accident. That cheered all the kids up a little too much. Adi and her friend spent the next few minutes entertaining the younger kids by playing the part of "terrorist who blows self up."

Ahh, childhood.

Then we all went out to the park (a safe enough place, considering that 1. we're far enough from Gaza that we get over a full minute warning in case of attack, 2. our park is small enough that nowhere is more than 50 seconds or so from shelter - even at a child's pace).

On the way back, D was thinking more about rocket safety. "If we were in M's house, the best place to be would be under the table," she said.

"Why is that?"

"Because you are not allowed to move the chairs."