The Pharaohs of Tehran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and lots of others obviously think that violence will solve one problem, those pesky Jews ruling a state in what should be one of the typical sewers ruled by Arabs/Muslims. It’s an affront to their vanity that Jews rule in the Holy Land, and only violence will solve this affront and assuage their wounded vanity.

It’s interesting that so much is made of the “Palestinians”. Before 1948 if you found someone calling himself a Palestinian you could be certain he was Jewish. The Arabs of Mandatory Palestine called themselves Syrians or just Arabs. The PLO was formed in 1964 but had no interest in ruling Gaza, Judea and Samaria, or the Golan Heights, all areas of Mandatory Palestine seized by Arab states in 1948. Palestinian nationalism exists only as a debased, dysfunctional, and diseased mirror image of Zionism.

If they ever got their wish and destroyed Israel the Palestinians would also cease to exist. All their neighbors would rush in to seize what swag they could from the corpse of Israel. Since intra-Arab wars consist mostly of the competitive murder of civilians, the Palis would be killed or run out of the country PDQ. And nobody would care, not the UN, not the Euros, not their “Brother Arabs”, not the rest of the Muslims. And nobody in America would give a damn. The universal reaction to the vanishing Palestinian would be “Good riddance.”

If they had the brains the Lord gave a butter clam they’d make peace with Israel PDQ. But they won’t.

But that trope I’ve been seeing a lot recently, that violence never settles anything…hard to believe that there is a statement more subject to empirical refutation.

I always think of the exchange in Heinlein’s “Starship Troopers.” In a high school class a student says to the character who is Heinlein’s alter ego, “My mother says violence never settles anything,” and the character responds by asking the student to reflect on why she can’t spend her summer vacation in Carthage.

And Meryl’s point is, as usual, well-taken. It’s a truce when 6,300 rockets are hurled at Israel. It’s breaking the truce when the Israelis shoot back.

Anna Russell, the comedienne opera singer, in discussing varieties of singers had an example for one type of singer. She said of this style “The conductor and accompaniest will, of course, object to this, but don’t take any notice of them, because it’s their job to follow you. And if you don’t come out together you’re perfectly justified in throwing a fit of temperament. After all, why should anyone with as great a voice as you presumably have have to bother themselelves with such boring details as correct tempi? After all, one of the reasons that you have such a great voice is that you have resonance where your brains ought to be.”

Bianca Jagger has been an “activist” for many years. She was a big supporter of the Sandinistas for example, in their quest to bring the joys of murderous, impoverishing Communism to Central America.

I don’t recall any of these swine weeping over the attacks by the Pali Arabs on Israel, which have gone on for years. They weep only for the enemies of the Jews (and of the Americans). Jewish deaths leave them indifferent. Jews traumatized by endless violence against them they do not even deign to notice.

You may wish to reconsider your buying habits. I too, enjoy her singing voice but whether anti-Semitic or just plain stupid, her political voice on this matter is, in a word, “disproportionate”, and to the extent that she is viewed as a role model to millions of impressionable human rights wannabes, her views are influential.

Think of it this way: every dollar she receives in record royalties affords her more time and opportunity to campaign against Israel.

Switch to artillery?

Probably not what she had in mind…