The Babbling Brooks of the NYT Babbles about Israel and Hamas

As we read the NYT—aka the Walter Duranty Papers[1]--a turn-of-the-crank Marxian siren,  we must always be prepared to suffer the harangues of exotic and persuasive grand visions about hope and some new progressive leftist government that will bring glory and peace in our time. There is never any hope for leftist designs.  Problems or any sort, we are indoctrinated, must always be solved by government and the imaginary utility of diplomacy and we are relentlessly inculcated in the basic use of this concept.  Such sticky nostrums and backward-looking conclusions are tautologically shaped and boiled daily like tripe by the New York Times and today, as is their custom, the Chief Babbler David Brooks,[2] [3] an interesting conservative ‘token’ who pretends at objective journalism at the Old Gray Lady, instructs us in the current war in Gaza and shares some of his beliefs using some mystical dream format:

The first dream is about ‘peace’ and ‘confidence.’

“For several years, Israelis and Palestinians played the land-for-peace game. Each side engaged in a series of elaborate maneuvers designed to get the best possible deal when it came time to negotiate a final status agreement.”[4]-- The Confidence War By David Brooks Op-Ed Columnist Published: January 5, 2009 [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.][All quotes are from this link in this essay today unless otherwise indicated.]

This statement makes no historical sense, but does service the phony and hollow basis of diplomacy that purports to show that gentlemen can sit down and solve their problems at the bargaining table and avoid nasty little interludes like World I, II, Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan [twice], and Iraq.  The intertwining of folly and circus freak-show guessing ploys are probably the basis of international diplomacy as Brooks seems to indicate to us.

“But when Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran became leading players in the Middle East struggle, that land-for-peace game was suspended. A different game with different rules was begun. This new game is not oriented toward a final agreement. “

The game has never changed. Read history or the Koran.

“In this new game, both sides seek the destruction of the other, but neither has the power to achieve it.”

Error. This is the game all along.

“Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, on the other hand, created plenty of physical and human destruction, but it also displayed Israeli ineptitude. “

Perhaps Brooks thinks Israel should have just sat at the peace table and tolerate thousands of incoming rockets from Lebanon. That is the kind of ‘peace’ that brings ‘confidence’ to a liberal.  Let us talk about talking about talking about war. Oh, and give away some more land to the terrorists too. That would invite a favorable essay in the NYT on behalf of Israel.  We will have peace in our time.

“…The initial incursion into Gaza was an effective display of prowess. …But recently the quotations in the Israeli press have taken on a different tone. Israeli leaders have listed an assortment of vague war aims…Many Israeli leaders seem to have taken the momentum of the past weeks and concluded that they can force through a permanent solution to their quandary. That’s the perfect way to dilute the psychological effect, and to lose control of the endgame.”

These statements are full of so much hokum and blow that it is difficult to point to a place where I can begin to refute this. Firstly, the drive into Gaza was an effective way to destroy rocket platforms and inventory although it seems to have gone beyond a ‘proportional response’ in the view of the left. [One wonders what a proportional response to Pearl Harbor should have been.]  Brooks has no knowledge of what the war aims might be in the government planning but Brooks seems to divine and extract secret military objective information from the radical Jewish press, which is all over the landscape on any issue.

The strange nostrum that there is a “permanent solution to their quandary” is the same kind of logic that purports to solve the 7,000 year-old problem in tribalism in Africa or the similar 1500 year-old problem in the Middle East.  We could easily apply this logic to the failure of Marxism around the world or the quest for ‘equality’ in California.  Is there a permanent solution for California[5] except revolution or a big earthquake?

Brooks concludes his conclusion with finality:

“The architects of the first scenario understand the rules of the new game. The architects of the second miss the core concept: psychology matters most.”

None of this blather is based on economics, warfare or history. Brooks now establishes some ‘rules’ and essays us on something like the ‘root problem’ circular logic so prevalent in leftist propaganda.  The central issue offered here is that Israel has not worked out all the potential outcomes for a war, as we also did not do in Iraq [or Germany or Italy], and must be admonished for poor planning.  This is equivalent to ‘scheduling an invention’ [6]or fixing the social problems of a slum by throwing money into the dumpster. The logic here is whimsical, tautologically anti-war and nonsensical. Brooks and his fellow Mumblers at the Times are dead set against wars by right-wing countries but would celebrate the conquering of Israel by one of their enemies.

My psychology and strategery [7] for warfare in Gaza goes like this:

[1] I would identify tunnels near the border and pump in 1500 lbs of propane in each one and wait an hour to see if they detonated. If not, then blast them off. The gas might reach for miles in tunnel networks.  Explosive inventory hidden underground would explode.

[2] I would publish a map of Gaza City and other garden spots in a full page in the NYT with numbers of certain buildings clearly identified. When a rocket comes over the frontier into Israel I would then use a huge howitzer to completely destroy the next building on the list  in 1.0 hours  no matter who is on the roof howling and jeering [like CNN or Code Pink or Sean Penn]. Every time a rocket is fired, another building, in numerical sequence, would be destroyed. No variation from this plan.

The NYT—aka the Walter Duranty Papers[8]--has published numerous critiques of warfare for decades and seem to, strangely, rebel and rail against right-wing military action while sanctioning any outrage by Cuba, North Korea, USSR or of the many disgusting revolutions and mass murders in Africa like The Sudan or Rwanda.  They have accomplished nothing except to entertain themselves as they sew new plastic flowers and butterflies on their panties and pointy shoes.

Capitalism has crushed the left everywhere it has been employed and the sour,  twisted lefties cannot cope with economic reality and therefore publish screeds like this current shinplaster  to give some kind of hope  to the hopeless and acknowledge  and praise the  disgusting, tormented, psychotic parasites like Hamas and their shoe shiners.

I could scrape a better political analysis off my shoes than the crap I read in the NYT.

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com