LOGIC 101

                              THE SENILITY PRAYER

                Grant me the senility to forget the people -
                          I never liked anyway,
                The good fortune to run into the ones I do,
                And the eyesight to tell the difference.

Human behavior never ceases to amaze and/or amuse me.

While reading the alleged logic of Hamas, as quoted in the media, I am becoming acquainted with the depth of our cultural differences.

Here is an example:

Richard Falk is with the United Nations as a special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories. Recently he wrote a column in defense of Hamas's position on the current debacle - for which I understand a cease fire agreement -or some semblance of same - was recently reached by the two warring parties.

Per Falk:

"President Obama tells the world that any country has the right to defend itself -. AND Israel can do what it wants heedless of law and morality."

(Apparently I missed that last part of the press release on Obama's position starting with the word AND)

Falk goes on to say, "If the context is taken into account (and it clearly was NOT - at least - based on his interpretation) the Israeli approach does not appear defensive or justified."

Falk then defends his argument by making three points:

"First, a truce that Hamas had signed onto had just been initiated, with indications of it's willingness to end cross-border violence altogether."

(Aha! So the morter shelling was meant only to bring attention to their compassionate amelioratory position.)

"Secondly, as this fragile truce was going into effect, Israel assassinated a high-level Hamas leader, which predictably lead to retaliation."

(ed.) A little help for the readers here.

We all know that there are some written languages that must be read right to left in order for us to understand the true meaning of what was written.

That knowledge hopefully will clarify what Falk is writing. Clearly, the ability to read backward is a required reading tool as we assess his faulty syllogisms - and lack of compliance with the basic rules of Logic 101.

Without this knowledge we would have to assume that Falk is claiming the "assassination" of  the high level Hamas leader preceded the mortar attacks.

For any old-timers out there this may remind you of the classic Bob Newhart comedy routine where he poses as the PR campaign man for Abe Lincoln, and apparently felt it necessary to remind the prospective President that he needed to reorganize his biographical references. Bob's advice was something like this:

"You see Abe , when talking to the people you need to explain that 'first" you were a log splitter and 'then' you became an attorney - because the way you've been telling it doesn't really make any sense and we're getting a lot of bad press.

Back to Mr. Falk and his third point:

"Thirdly, he says, even defensive force must be proportionate, related to specific battlefield goals, and not imposing terror on the 1.7 million essentially locked within the confines of Gaza, lacking even a refugee option."

(Apparently, there is still one more treaty coming out of the Geneva Conventions with which we have no familiarity).

But, then again, my memory's not as sharp as it used to be. Also, my memory's
not as sharp as it used to be.

Have a Great Thanksgiving.