Mo’ Mo’ More War: Bush Flashes the Green Light
After a week of carnage in the Middle East, after the Israelis have begun to move ground troops into Lebanon, after a half-million people have been driven from their homes, and after nothing but seven days of rhetorical pablum from the White House, we can now discern an emerging Bush administration policy: block all peace intitiatives for the time being and let the Israelis go at it for another week or so.
The objective: Let the Israelis clean up "this shit" as the President so gingerly put it earlier this week.
The Guardian cites multiple sources in reaching this conclusion, one that in any case neatly folds into what we can see publicly:
The US is giving Israel a window of a week to inflict maximum damage on Hizbullah before weighing in behind international calls for a ceasefire in Lebanon, according to British, European and Israeli sources. The Bush administration, backed by Britain, has blocked efforts for an immediate halt to the fighting initiated at the UN security council, the G8 summit in St Petersburg and the European foreign ministers' meeting in Brussels... Washington's hands-off approach was underlined yesterday when it was confirmed that Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, is delaying a visit to the region until she has met a special UN team. She is expected in the region on Friday, according to Dan Gillerman, Israel's ambassador to the UN... Steven Cook, a specialist in US-Middle East policy at the Washington-based Council on Foreign Relations, said: "It's abundantly clear [that US policy is] to give the Israelis the opportunity to strike a blow at Hizbullah ...Yesterday, George W. Bush -- that well-known and distinguished expert in Middle East affairs-- opined that the current conflict is, at its roots, all about Syria trying to re-assert its presence in Lebanon. This is, of course, an absurd notion. There are many roots to this flare-up, but what Bush cites isn't one of them. On the contrary, the all-out counter-assault by Israel on the Hezbollah (and Lebanon) has mostly raised the stock of the pro-Syrian forces, turning them into heroic resistance martyrs and confirming suspicions that America's only interest in the region is to defend Israeli policy, no matter what. If, on the other hand, Bush is right then why hasn't his administration done anything up till now to stem this creeping pro-Syrianism in Lebanon? Has he mentioned the Hezbollah problem at least once in any public pronouncement over the last few months? What diplomatic pressure has he exercised recently over the lamely weak and pro-U.S. Lebanese government to disarm Syria? This adminstration hasn't been exactly shy in running around screeching about any real, perceived or imagined threat in the Middle East. Why hadn't George Bush sounded the alarm on Syria's new intentions in Lebanon until after the events of last week? We all know the answer. We also know -- at least those who wish to open their eyes-- that U.S. foreign policy in the region has been paralyzed by the mis-adventure in Iraq. Managing, or better said mis-managing-- that fiasco has burned up the near totality of energy and focus that can be mustered by the D.C. policy apparatus. And not to much avail. Lost in the hubub about the fighting in Lebanon (and Gaza) is this hair-raising report: some 6,000 civilians were killed in Iraq in just the last two months. And the trend is "upward." Upward and onward with Bush!Â
July 18th, 2006 at 10:38 pm
“In other attacks in Lebanon on Tuesday, a convoy of medical goods donated by the United Arab Emirates was hit in the Bekaa region near Zahle, a mostly Christian town on one of the few open roads linking Syria and Beirut. Two trucks were destroyed and their drivers killed.–today’s NYT
One of many, many such reports. Israel is basically targetting anything that moves, while lying about it to the rest of the world.
July 18th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
“HOSH, Lebanon, July 18 — Buried in the rubble of one of the homes demolished in Israel’s relentless bombardment of southern Lebanon was a stark illustration of why the United Nations’ peacekeeping efforts have been seen as ineffective.
A Ghanaian member of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, known as Unifil, was killed along with his family here on Sunday by an Israeli bomb. And more than 24 hours later, peacekeeping troops could not even leave their base to dig out his body, because the short trip to his house was too dangerous.”–today’s NYT
July 18th, 2006 at 10:45 pm
And a partial answer to Marc’s question:
“But neither Jerusalem nor Washington had any idea that Hezbollah had such a missile in its arsenal, the officials said, adding that the Israeli ship had not even activated its missile defense system because intelligence assessments had not identified a threat from such a radar-guided cruise missile.
They said they had also been surprised by the advances that Hezbollah had made in improving what had been crude rockets — for example, attaching cluster bombs as warheads, or filling an explosive shell with ball bearings that have devastating effect.
The Bush administration has long sought to focus attention on Iranian missile proliferation, and regularly discusses with journalists intelligence evidence of those activities. But American officials in Washington made clear this week that they were reluctant to detail Iran’s arming of Hezbollah in the current conflict.
The reason, according to officials across the government, was a desire by the Bush administration to contain the conflict to Israeli and Hezbollah forces, and not to enlarge the diplomatic tasks by making Iranian missile supplies, or even those of Syria, a central question for now.
Still, some officials in Washington admitted to being blindsided by the abilities of Hezbollah’s arsenal.
“You have to acknowledge the obvious — we’ve seen a new capability in striking the naval vessel and in the number of casualties that have been sustained from the Hezbollah missile attacks,†a Bush administration official said.
“In the past, we’d see three, four, maybe eight launches at any given time if Hezbollah was feeling feisty,†the official added. “Now we see them arriving in large clusters, and with a range and even certain accuracy we have not seen in the past.â€
The officials interviewed agreed to discuss classified intelligence assessments about Hezbollah’s capabilities only on condition of anonymity.”–NYT
July 18th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
Marc, stop being so negative. It’s already been demonstrated that the president is always right.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/12/president-always-right/
July 19th, 2006 at 12:53 am
What kind of peace initiatives is the president blocking exactly ?
You know Israel has its own peace initiative which Bush & Blair support ? It involves handing back the kidnapped soldiers and Lebanon enforcing the border region.
The objective: Let the Israelis clean up “this shit” as the President so gingerly put it earlier this week.
Marc, that has to be the most inaccurate and dishonest reference to what the president said. He was saying Syria alone can get Hezbollah to end “this shit”.
As for the story about the medical supplies from Syria, its known that Hezbollah also receive weapons and rockets from Damascus via roads, and Israel has been attacking all vehicles arriving from Syria to cut off the supply of weaponry.
July 19th, 2006 at 2:32 am
Nice note Jono.
When will the UN and the “international community” accept the obvious, a cease-fire is NOT “peace”.
Lebanon should surrender. Blair should be supported in trying to get an international force, a BIG one, to occupy S. Lebanon and disarm Hezbollah, the group that commits war crime after war crime but whose war crimes are so seldom mentioned.
Why, Marc, can’t you even write that Hezbollah firing rockets towards civilians is a war crime? And a violation of prior “ceasefires”? and is NOT peace?
I sure thought Israel overreacted, but it’s not clear that they would get real peace from any lesser reaction.
I think Rummy is wrong about the size of the US military and it should probably be increased; but this is so expensive I can see why he doesn’t want to. The US military is designed to win battles, not to occupy and rebuild a failed state/ post-war state.
I’ve long thought the US no-loan gifts for rebuilding Iraq was a mistake; if US cash is an issue, and it always is in the long term if not immediately, US aid should be in loans to be repaid — but controlled by the local decision makers, not Bush friends.
The mess in Iraq is actually still pretty good, and while the 6000 in two months is high, and possibly getting worse, its still less than Darfur, for instance. The Iraqis need to learn to live with politics w/o killing each other — and only an Iraqi security force can give Iraqis security if a large number of Iraqis want to kill. While Rummy & Bush were obviously wrong about the cakewalk with respect to the guerrilla war, the responsibility for the deaths in Iraq has to be given to … Iraqis.
I know, I know, letting non-Americans have any responsibility for murder is something the Left has a huge problem with — everything is Bush’s fault, or else it’s not news: like Darfur, Congo, Zimbabwe; and Hezbollahland till the US proxy/ally Israel decided it wanted peace after the Hez war crimes. Peace thru victory.
I hope Bush continues to resist “ceasefire” calls until Hezbollah surrenders, and gives back the kidnapped soldier. Until then, S. Lebanon is more the responsibility of Hez, than Israel.
After an injustice, the amount of force used to create a “more just” situation in morally unclear. Justice is not peaceful. Ever.
July 19th, 2006 at 2:34 am
“Israel has been attacking all vehicles arriving from Syria to cut off the supply of weaponry.”
Thanks for admitting that Israel is lying when it says it is only targetting Hezbollah.
July 19th, 2006 at 3:25 am
The full Bush quote, picked up accidentally in a conversation between Bush and Blair, was this:
“See, the irony is, what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it’s over.”
Wow. He said the word … “irony.” I’m so shocked.
(Is “irony” a French word? “Enterpreneur” isn’t, we’ve been told, though “nuance” certainly is.)
Bush’s shit-can-stop-happening-now statement squares neatly with my current pet theory. I’ve been shopping this pet theory around recently and getting no argument about it: Syrian containment of Hezbollahland works for all the parties involved, at least for a while, except maybe for Iran, and maybe even for them too.
(1) Hezbollah leadership, desiring a more perfect Hezbollahland, would like to be able to rein in its militants, but can’t say so directly to them without sounding like they are limpwristed stabilitarians; the decision has to appear forced from without;
(2) Syria, desiring Greater Syria as always, and still licking its (significantly self-inflicted) wounds from the erstwhile Cedar Revolution, would gladly reassert hegemony over at least southern Lebanon, even if it meant patrolling buffer zones across from Israel and rather firmly divesting Hezbollah of missiles that Syria at least passively helped supply, and letting Hez run things within those secured borders more or less as they like;
(3) Israel would actually prefer a stable Hezbollahland contained by Syria to the present state of affairs in Lebanon. It’s interesting that Israel has reserved most of its public-consumption ire for Iran, and that various Arab states have recently criticized Hez, without too directly criticizing Syria.
(4) Bush administration foreign policy dodgeball players would probably be just as happy with Syrian stabilization of Hezbollahland and its border with Israel. Condi had to grin and bear it when “democracy” in Lebanon inevitably included Hez participation. The ignominy! It rather reeked of that old observation that a terrorist is a dead-ender criminal if he fails, but if he succeeds and gets popular support and virtual sovereignty, he’s a “revolutionary” who gets to have tea with the Queen.
(5) What’s left of Lebanon can perhaps be managed more democratically and stably, without Hezbollah making all this trouble. The Druze and the Maronites can probably get along with each other, and with the more cosmopolitian muslims of the North.
And honestly, I think even Al Qaeda would like this arrangement. Hez is Shi’a. Shi’ites are apostates according to Al Qaeda. Zarqawi slaughtered Shi’ites mercilessly in Iraq. After what seemed like some ambiguous wavering over that tactic, Zawahiri eulogized Zarqawi as a great fighter in the cause. Syria’s Assad is an Alawite (Shi’ite sectarian) lording it over a mostly-Sunni nation and one of Zarqawi’s attacks in Jordan was attended by a statement about helping to create Greater (presumably Sunni) Syria — which was certainly about toppling the Assad regime. I think Al Qaeda would like to see to see the old Shi’a/Sunni civil war within Islam reignited — they thrive on chaos, after all. The appearance of Americans, Israelis AND Sunnis (Arab and Kurdish) all ganged up on Shi’ites whenever convenient aligns well with that aim. The recent condemnation of Hezbollah missile attacks from some major Sunni Arab powers also stokes the Shi’a/Sunni embers.
After all, if you’ve got
(1) a pronounced split between U.S./Israel and Middle Eastern muslims, and
(2) a pronounced split among those muslims along broad sectarian lines, and
(3) within each overall sect, a pronounced split between moderates and fundamentalist radicals,
you’ve got a lot of conflict potential. Since all politics is local, however, and the locality of the Middle East is predominantly Sunni, and the most radically violent of the indigenous are likely to steadily gain the upper hand in chaotic situations on their turf, it all works in the long run for a radical, violent, Sunni fundamentalist Al Qaeda, substantially aimed at Al Qaeda’s targets: the Saudi royal family, and the despised secular regime of Egypt.
How about Iran? Well, “Shi’ites embattled outside our borders!” is a good message right now, especially as they more tightly clench the portions of Iraq over which Iranian hegemony seems most likely.
If politics makes for strange (and usually temporary) bedfellows, this is one hell of a one-night-stand clusterfuck. Assuming my pet theory is right, anyway.
Call it a buncha Bush shit if you like, but maybe he was telling some significant part of something like the truth.
July 19th, 2006 at 3:27 am
What you do when you’re not Hillary: The “right” thing.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060718_truthdig_exclusive_kucinich_bush/
July 19th, 2006 at 3:53 am
So Kucinich, the Evil Elf, has been heard from. He’s a “queer little insect that jiggles and begs, with too many morals and too many legs,” but a someone principled arthropod ne’ertheless.
Commenters on this blog have attacked Hillary’s views, but anybody wanna bet that all the other Dem prospects for 2008 will take essentially the same view as HC? Who takes essentially the same view as GWB, except she only swears when the mike is off.
July 19th, 2006 at 4:30 am
Media eavesdropping on the chief executive of the biggest superpower involved in this Lebanon clusterfuck lends support to my alignment-of-interests theory. But grim satisfaction is not enough. I will now address the inevitable objections.
(1) “It can’t be true, because the leader of nation/movement/terrorist group X said, and I quote, ‘Y’. And THAT contradicts your theory!”
Wake up. The fact that you read Leader of X saying ‘Y’ proves very little. Remember:
(a) You are not in their trusted inner circle, you are a member of the news-consuming public. Even if you happen to also be a journalist.
(b) You read a statement framed for public consumption.
(c) That message was framed not as an effort to inform you of the truth, but as an effort to influence events through public consumption of statements. Even if the message contains only truths, the truth conveyed by political actors about complex situations is almost invariably partial, and thus subject to significant (and calculated) selection bias.
(2) “That can’t be true, because nation Y is bitter enemies with nation Z! As proven by their history of conflict and their recent statements for public consumption!”
Sorry, but wars are fought for many reasons having less to do with heartfelt enmity than with politics. Not least among them: wars can be a prop for internal stability when they are directed by an embattled leadership, or as a challenge to that leadership when the attacks that led to war are perpetrated by upstart rivals. It was a great day for Israel, decades ago, when Syrian planes flew into an Israeli aerial meat-grinder, every Syrian pilot lost (and almost no Israeli casualties, IIRC.) But it was also a day of great relief for the late Hafez Assad of Syria, because almost all of those pilots were high-ranking air force officers fomenting a coup against him. The goal is often a slight rearrangement of the status quo, which might have fallen into disrepair over time. The conflict often works for both sides.
Statements for public consumption? See above.
(3) “You’re assuming they are very intelligent, but when you read their statements for public consumption, they say stupid things like …. [insert dumbass Bush quote here, insert rabidly vituperative Hezbollah militant quote there, etc., etc.]”
You’ve already forgotten what I said about statements for public consumption?
(4) “What you’re talking about would require a vast, overarching conspiracy among people who aren’t remotely like-minded. I’ve never met anybody as paranoid as you!”
Not at all. I’m not suggesting the leaderhips involved all send their back-channel diplomats off to talk out a nefarious game plan in some smoke-filled room. Deeds are also statements, and those statements can be triggers for moves calculated on both sides in advance. Statements that aren’t necessarily ambiguous if both sides have thought out all the implications of the deed, all the possible interpretations.
(5) “Well anyway, how could all these people be so smart anyway? It’s all just too … clever.”
Look, this is what these people do. Every day. All day. Day after day. 365 days a year. Year after year. They think about the future of their nation or their political movement. They think about their next move, and the moves they are holding in abeyance, for riper conditions.
When you sit down with somebody who knows computer operating systems internals, or genome sequencing, or algebraic topology, or securities regulation, pretty soon you’re shaking your head and saying “Wow, how could anybody be so smart as wrap their heads around all this?” But you don’t reflexively do that for politics because politics is very much about politicans gaming your head, as a subject or citizen. It’s a game your favorite (or your most hated) politicians play to make you THINK you understand what’s going on.
(6) “Yeah, but what about someone like Zarqawi?! He was just a thug, he got D- grades in grammar school.”
Maybe so, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t being advised by some very smart people. For all we know, this dog finally had his day and died in a hail of U.S. ordnance when his own inner circle started feeling like he was more of a hindrance than a help. Maybe they tipped off U.S. forces about his location, so that they could continue working through their terroristic agenda with less hindrance. The strategic intelligence isn’t always located exclusively in the leader. I might even say that it rarely is. When Bush says that Syria holds the key to ending “this shit”, he’s probably just echoing Stephen Hadley and Condoleezza Rice. (And maybe they are just echoing their own analysts.)
With all that said: tell me what’s wrong with my theory. I’d like to know. It’s just a theory, and I’m happy to revise it in the face of new facts.
Oh, wait a minute, I forgot an objection:
(7) “You’re wrong, because your comments reveal you to be a cold-hearted, cynical calculator who couldn’t possibly be interpreting this situation correctly, because … because … look at the dying victims in [Israel/Beirut/Hezbollahland/Gaza/wherever]. All of this is really about those who have been wronged the most!”
Aside from the non-sequitur core of the objection ….
Now really, just because I have some insight onto the essentially sociopathic mentality operating between the ears of those who wage war doesn’t mean I have no sympathy for their hapless victims. It doesn’t mean I can’t read a story about dozens of people dying in a terror attack, or retaliation for a terror attack, and go off somewhere and cry. Actually, I do that a lot these days. Maybe more than you do. However, it’s one of the slim consolations of an analytic worldview that one can regard internecine strife more in sorrow than in anger. More sadness, more thought, less anger — and maybe we get a better world someday, for almost everybody. That’s how I look at it. Rage only feels good for a while. Ultimately, it only makes the angry suffer more.
July 19th, 2006 at 6:33 am
1984 vocabulary lesson: The Israeli invasion is “not an invasion” (according to an official spokesman). It’s just sending a bunch of soldiers into a foreign country.
July 19th, 2006 at 7:28 am
Grumpy says screw America, and heroic Americans like Kucinich, protect the party at all costs. Only six thousands, eh Liberty Dad? See if you can get the bar any lower! Again, the hell with those who will still parish in the quagmire, protect our fearless leader at all costs. Retrobution will be paid against those who DARED call for a commission; they are GLAD their husbands died. Proctect the leader at all costs.
“Common cause” progressives should wake up and smell the coffee, these people will sell out America for the good of The Republican Party every time.
July 19th, 2006 at 7:37 am
Has anyone else noticed Russia’s ability to avoid any blame in the current situation in the Middle East?
Russia has helped Iran and Syria with military advisors and technology But rarely is this mentioned in news accounts or blogs. Additionally, Russia’s foreign policy has always been to use others to do their dirty work. (Iran, Syria, Cuba)
Bush should say to Blair, “Putin and the Russians have got to stop this ….”
July 19th, 2006 at 8:46 am
I’m afraid I don’t follow Marc’s logic here. In fact, it seems he is arguing against himself: “Bush…opined that the current conflict is, at its roots, all about Syria trying to re-assert its presence in Lebanon. This is, of course, an absurd notion. … the all-out counter-assault by Israel on the Hezbollah (and Lebanon) has mostly raised the stock of the pro-Syrian forces”
So, it couldn’t be Syria trying to reassert its presence because the action attributed to them has raised the stock of the pro-Syrian forces? Rather, that seems like strong evidence that it IS Syria at fault.
July 19th, 2006 at 9:12 am
It took 25 years, a long time indeed, but Tom Hayden has finally apologised for his rather disgusting trip to Lebenon in 1982 where, at the invitation of the Israelis, he oversaw the massive bombardment of the country. At the time the trip confirmed to many of us that the American left cares little about Arab and Palestinian lives. Not a bad mea culpa though
(having trouble linkiing it but you can find Tom’s piece on truthdig)
July 19th, 2006 at 9:32 am
Hey Wall, why don’t YOU set the bar somewhere? Oh, that’s right, actually specifying some standard would allow comparisons of reality with the standard, as well as discussion about the standard.
Unspoken Unreal Perfection is so much more convenient.
M. Turner, the street in Syria seem to be totally gung-ho in favor of the war, in favor of Hezbollah killing more Jews. Ain’t no stomach there to contol Hez. See Leb. blogs.
My own pet theory is that Lebanon should surrender, and make Israel an Occupying Power. So they can have new elections, sooner — probably without Hez winning much; possibly making Hez illegal.
July 19th, 2006 at 10:09 am
Hey, Liberty, when the fumingation of Washington starts in Nov, and the crooks and liars are sent home; we’ll have plenty to talk about. For now, you are stuck with your appauling record.
July 19th, 2006 at 11:18 am
Well to be fair to Bush he has a lot on his mind these days – like supporting gay marraige bans and vetoing stem cell research, not to mention being the massuese-in-chief(or is that harraser-in-chief? – to other G8 leaders (particularly the female ones). I can’t recall a more embarassing foreign trip by a US President in my lifetime. Has he reverted to “Fratboy” antics or is he drinking again with marital problems as some of the tabs hint?
The arguments of fault – Big Bad Israel the “Neighborhood bully vs. “Islamofacism” and Arab Terrorists – gets us nowhere. Yes Hamas and Hezbollah empower terrorist acts but both groups also have a politcal wing. Israel has a right to be pissed but it targets the PA and Lebanese governments and then complains that they do nothing. Where would we be in Ireland if he Brits bombed Dublin? As I said before the extremists are given veto power over peace moves which must be to someone’s advantage. I wonder who?
It would be nice if Hil and the other Dems really did say sensible things but when everyone’s favorite progressive mayor (Villaregoisa) is the feature speaker at a pro-Isreal rally you know that is not going to happen. Maybe clearer reporting would help – check out our Brit friends – but it is simply not in the cards here given electoral realities. Democracy means you can make ghastly choices and I doubt any candidate will suffer by swearing feality to Israel.
July 19th, 2006 at 11:27 am
Oh and I just heard that Bill Kristol was on FOX this morning blaming Iran and arguing that the long-suffering Iranian people would welcome a US invasion. With flowers and sweets I guess – shaped like IEDs?
July 19th, 2006 at 11:32 am
“To make matters worse, the Palestinian Islamists have played into Israel’s relentless propaganda mills and its ever-ready military by occasional bursts of wantonly barbaric suicide bombings ..”
A silent majority of Palestinians is neither for the Authority’s misplaced trust in Oslo (or for its lawless regime of corruption and repression) nor for Islamist violence.”
“None of this has deterred him [Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi] or his supporters from continuing the nonviolent struggle, which, I think, is certain to take control of the already too militarized intifada, center it nationally on ending occupation and settlements, and steer Palestinians toward statehood and peace.”
Who said that? Sen. Richard Lugar, Christopher Hitchens, Edward Said or Joe Leiberman????
Answer:
Edward Said
July 19th, 2006 at 11:53 am
Again today, in addition to Hezbollah enclaves, Israel continues to bomb what are clearly non-Shia areas. In fact, through this nightmare 8 days, how many Hezbollah fighters have been killed? A handful at best? As those knowledgeable have been reporting for more than a week—from Robert Fisk to Juan Cole, even to Michael Totten—too many of the areas targeted by Israel are FAR away from anything resembling Hezbollah-centric.
Instead, infrastructure is being targeted.
“Israel switched gears in its military campaign against Lebanon Monday and Tuesday, launching a series of debilitating air strikes against privately owned factories throughout the country and dealing a devastating blow to an economy already paralyzed by a week of hits on residential areas and crucial infrastructure. The production facilities of at least five companies in key industrial sectors – including the country’s largest dairy farm, Liban Lait; a paper mill; a packaging firm and a pharmaceutical plant – have been disabled or completely destroyed. Industry insiders say the losses will cripple the economy for decades to come. …”
http://www.juancole.com/
Now according to Cole, today Israeli bombs have hit Saint Therese Hospital.
So what’s going on here? It defies credulity to chalk all this up to poor marksmanship. What is it then?
There’s no question that Israel wants to rid itself of Hezbollah. Hell, half the non-Shia Arab dictatorships would pay really good money to see Hezbollah take a fall.
But the reality is, if the most powerful fighting force in the world—that of the US—can’t prevail over a fractured conglomeration of insurgents in Iraq, certainly Israel doesn’t believe it can wipe out what is arguably the biggest, baddest, best armed and trained and most cohesive guerilla force presently in existence. Wound it? Maybe. Wipe it out? Dream on, dudes.
So what really is the end game? I agree with Michael Turner only in so far as to say that that it ain’t the one put out there for public consumption.
As mentioned above, certainly a great many parties—from Eurpope to North America to the Middle East— want Hezbollah contained. But does the US and Israel have other, bigger agendas at work here—like perhaps provoking Syria and Iran into what can be trumped up into a casus belli…? With some tactical air strikes as the sequel? The neocons among us have always been gunning for Iran and, due to their hideously ill-thought Iraq adventure, Iran’s poker hand has only been strengthened. So, if before midterms possibly make such a move a lot harder for Bush Co. and their Kadima friends would they do all they can carpe diem during the summer of 2006?
I don’t pretend to have the answer. But if there’s one thing of which we can be sure, the true goals are sure as sh*t not what we’re being told.
July 19th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
Sorry for the dopey typos above. (You’ll know ‘em when you see ‘em.)
July 19th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
I know Marc doesn’t like personal attacks on this blog, and I normally avoid engaging in them. I am trying to be restrained in my criticism as possible, because I think I am making an important point about the Euston Manifesto and the future of the left.
__________________________
Many of the signers of the Euston Manifesto — Jeff Weintraub, Stuart Elliott. Norm Geras, Hary’s Place, David Aaronovitch, Ami Isseroff, Eric Lee – have *****disgraced***** themselves with their apologies for Israel’s assault of Lebanon’s infrastructure, economy, unity and people. (Marc is an exception and I give him credit for his vigorous criticism of Israel, although I don’t think he fully understands the logic behind Israel’s assault on Lebanon).
When the Decent Left makes tepid criticism like, “Is this the best way for Israel to stop Hizbollah” (the answer is “no, not by a fucking longshot”, by the way), they only distract themselves from the real question:
“For the ostensible sake of two kidnapped soldiers, is Israel entitled to destroy Lebanon?”
I want to make something clear. I am no apologist for Hizbollah, or for its reckless disregard of Lebanon’s sovereignity. Whether it intended to draw Israel into a major escalation or not, it surely bears responsibility for giving Israel a pretext to bomb Lebanon back into the stone age.
But let’s be clear: The Israeli Defense Forces is trying to destroy Hizbollah (or rather trying to destroy Hizbollah by destroying Lebanon) not because of Hizbollah’s anti-semitism or reactionary sexism. Rather, it’s trying to destroy Hizbollah because it is the only military force ever to defeat Israel, and, since 2000, manages to score one military victory after another against Israel.
Hizbollah could not have survived as a rational and military force if it didn’t understand concepts like “deterrence†and “balance of fear.†If you notice Hizbollah’s conduct, they only fire missiles at Israeli civilian areas *in response* to Israel’s bombing of civilian areas. The problem is that concepts like deterrence and “balance of fear” are unacceptable to the Israeli Defense Forces; anything less than absolute dominance over the Middle East is unacceptable.
I am shocked by the Euston Left’s lack of concern about the obliteration of the one Arab country where some kind of democracy was moving forward. It need only read the pro-democracy, anti-Syrian, anti-Hizbollah Lebanese bloggers if it thinks Israel’s savagery is Islamofascist propaganda.
July 19th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Over at http://www.johannhari.com he’s written a follow-up to the article you linked to, Marc, discussing it in relation to Lebanon. You might want to link. there’s also an interestign article where he hangs out with the children who live in rubbish dumps in Peru.
July 19th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
Continuing in my criticism of the Euston Left.
Jeff Weintraub and Ami Isseroff keep invoking Lebanon’s failure to comply with Resolution 1559 as supposedly a causus belli for Israel to attack Lebanon. Let’s look at the logic behind this argument.
Resolution 1559 was passed for the benefit of ***Lebanon’s*** security. In an ideal world, disarmament of Hizbollah by the Lebanese government would have been quick and painless. In the world we actually live in, with a Shiite population firmly in support of Hizbollah, with Syria trying to get back into Lebanon, with Iran vying for influence, with a weak Lebanese army, with the Israel-Palestinian conflict raging…it was clear that any disarmament of Hizbollah would be a long-drawn-out process.
In retrospect, it may have been unwise for the United Nations to insist that the Lebanese government carry out a task it could not do in the near future, thereby creating paralysis in Lebanon. Many observers believe that international pressure to disarm Hizbollah actually gave Hizbollah a pretext to escalate its conflict with Israel. (see this prescient article, for instance in Middle East Report)
http://www.merip.org/mero/mero052306.html
Here is the key point: Never in their worst nightmares did the Lebanese backers of Resolution 1559 anticipate that it would be used as pretext for Israel (in violation of 30+ security council resolutions) to invade their country. A UN resolution intended to bring security to Lebanon instead has become a legal weapon for Israel to destroy it.
It’s ironic to note Hizbollah ‘s justification for opposing Resolution 1559 (Daily Star of Beirut, 1/17/2005):
“Without accusing anyone of treason or jumping to hasty conclusions, I am simply saying Resolution 1559 serves the Israeli policies in inciting civil war and creating political chaos and turbulence,” Nasrallah said. “We should be careful not to take positions that would harm Lebanon or push it again into disarray and instability,” he said.
July 19th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Rosedog,
I tried to communicate this in the Judt post previous to this post. Quite frankly, I am getting really tired of having to repeat myself regarding this issue. So the agenda is broader – oh, big surprise!! So it was not a knee-jerk reaction – now people are beginning to see, it’s about time.
Quite frankly this forum is not big enough to communicate what I am saying – maybe I will paint a hugh fresco in an obvious place, or maybe drop leaflets from an army of blimps. Gimme a break!! Most of the people in here could not recognize a strategic action if it came up and bit them on the nose.
“No country with the power and wealth of the United States, that has a rabid interest in this region (especially this administration), will empower a government in the same region merely because they have the right to exist. No, they will exact from this country allegiance in their interests in this region….Your elected representatives race to put out unreserved and complete support for the actions of Israel. King George and his neocon crew claim complete support – and we will see what happens next.”
Just in case you missed it in my previous post, so here is my classic “get a clue retort.” Did you think the immediate injection of the names Iran and Syria meant nothing? Did you think the repitition of the same is meant to have no effect – never, I repeat, never believe the stated reason for any conflict in this region. Never believe that the interest of the United States, or the West for that matter, are not mixed with that of Israel. So we can do nothing but sit back and watch this bloodbath? No!!! Yell bloody murder by what ever means necessary.
July 19th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
Virgil… Not sure why you’re shouting at me. I don’t think we disagree. Except that I’d suggest that Bush Co. and Kadima are engaged in mutual “use.”
P.S. FYI: I’m not “beginning to see” all this. The fact that I’ve barely been commenting, reflects my crazed work schedule, not my perceptions.
PPS: Here’s where we agree entirely: “So we can do nothing but sit back and watch this bloodbath? No!!! Yell bloody murder by what ever means necessary. ”
On that count, I sincerely appreciate any and all yelling you might do. Even at me.
July 19th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
Rosedog,
I did not mean for my comment to fall with the entire weight on you – I apologize because of my inability to communicate. Maybe next time I will think twice when I am generally upset and not preface my comment with a name. Especially someone like you who has a lot of insight to offer here, you did not deserve that dump.
I am just frustrated in general in regard to this issue, and a bevy of other similar ones. It’s time for a drink.
July 19th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Tom Grey -
As Zero Mostel once put it, we don’t need the Goyim to fight our battles – I mean that sincerely but not perjoratively. Whatever your position is on the conflict, it is “Israelis” being killed, not “Jews.” There are Jews who are heavily critical of Israel and Zionism. Actions against Israel, while undoubtedly motivated by some sesne of Anti-Semitism, not of the European blood libel type, we can’t let this turn into a Jewish versus Arab thing. This has as much or as little to do with Jews as American wars have to do with Christianity.
The Philo-Semitism of Amrican conservatives reminds me of nothing so mcuh as reverse sublimated Anti-Semitism. It used to be “jews are good with tmoney they aer trying to control us” now its “jews are good with money, lets take their advice – make sure we get a jewish accountant.” Same reification. One of the reasons – and this relates to Tom Grey’s initial point that the majority of credible Pulblic Non-Arab supporters of Palestine are Jewish is that White Americans often feel they are being Anti-Semitic by criticizing Israiel. What I believe they are covering for is not a lack of critical thinking in regars to Israel, but actual Anti-Semitism, for which they feel that “supporting Israel” makes it OK.
July 19th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
I hope anon supports the great Barghouti, who is a resolute Anti-Zionist. I hate when Zionists use Said quotes out of context to “prove their point”
July 19th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
For more on Mustapha Barghouti, google him, his politics and positions are the future of secular and progressive Palestinian politics.
July 19th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Perhaps some of you noticed that Turkey is now threatening to invade N Iraq to quell attacks by Kurdish Nationalists groups. They have already massed 250,000 troops on the border. So it just keeps getting better and better doesn’t it?
I don’t know if Bush is just stupid or if he believes that the Rapture is near. In either case what is Condi’s excuse?
We may soon see a general Mideast war on a variety of fronts and does anyone care to guess how many tankers Iran can attack – or sink? – in the Straits of Hormuz? Any guess what gas will be costing us by fall? Or what the world economy will look like?
At some point the rest of the world will say “Enough”! Then China and Japan will call in their loans to us and make it clear that if we don’t restrain our “wag the dog” ally They will stop lending us money in dollars. Euros anyone? See William Lind on ANTIWAR.ORG for an analysis of the follies of Empire, American style.
July 19th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Thanks, Virgil. I understand the intensity. If anything, my own intensity on the subject tends to stop me from commenting at all (that and the work schedule), because I keep feeling that nothing I can post will be clear or complete enough so I become weirdly silent instead.
(I don’t for a moment suggest this is healthy.)
Anyway, thanks for the ameliorating comment.
RLC, good God! I’d missed that.
One more thing, I suggest that everyone interested in the larger view of this horrorshow, read—or reread—Sy Hersh’s most recent New Yorker piece on US’s Iran….um….policy.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060710fa_fact
Implications: Not good.
.
July 19th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
This is interesting, I just got a notice from the ADC which is titled “KNOW YOUR RIGHTS STATEMENT ON POSSIBLE FBI INTERVIEWS.” Yes folks, they are at it again – the first year or two after 9/11 was not enough. The FBI is looking for Hizbollah supporters in the United States.
They attach this article to the notification:
Http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID+2006-07-18T210731Z_01_SECURITY-HIZBOLLAH-USA.xml
Are we having fun yet? They want to interview thousands of Arab-Americans, it looks like no one is considering that fact that this is criminalization by association.
July 19th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
I hate posting links….
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-07-18T210731Z_01_SECURITY-HIZBOLLAH-USA.xml
July 19th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
I triple checked this link, apparently the story has already been removed?
July 19th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
I wonder if putting the lives of 25,000 American citizens at risk by willfully stalling their evacuation is part of the official policy as well.
Garance Franke-Ruta suggests not unpersuasively that they are being held hostage to the administration’s official message on the bombardment of Lebanon: it isn’t that bad.
July 19th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
FYI: This link worked for me both when I clicked and when I pasted it into my address field:
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-07-18T210731Z_01_N18440948_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-HIZBOLLAH-USA.xml
July 19th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
Bush takes action in the mideast and you’re unhappy. Bush stays out of things in the mideast and you’re unhappy. Frankly, you folks are just unhappy.
And, your reasoning makes as much sense as that of a woman to a man–none at all. The only advice worse than what Bush could possibly receive is the advice given out here. Go back to the kitchen and leave wars up to the men.
July 19th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
Woody, let me help you with this great mystery. We are unhappy when aggression is taken for no reason – and we are unhappy when no action is taken to secure peace. I hope that was not too complicated for you.
Also, if we leave the “wars up to the men” where does that leave your chickenhawk arse?
July 19th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Forget what I just wrote. I’m sorry. I’m just in a grouchy, disgusted mood.
Sincerely, the Bush bashing is over the top, and it’s not warranted. We could end this blog by having a post titled “Bush is Wrong on Everything–yesterday, today, and tomorrow,” and have each commenter agree. There has to be some thought given to situations rather than learning what Bush did or didn’t do and then finding a reason to disagree with it. You guys are helping the old term “knee-jerk liberal” to become popular again.
Please, go back to your discussion and I won’t say anything else.
July 19th, 2006 at 5:31 pm
jcummings, said’s quotes mean the same here and in the context they were written. there is no mincing words with those statements. they are pretty much straightforward. the word “barbaric” to describe suicide bombers has the same meaning whatever context. the scathing criticism of the palestinean leadership – from plo to islamist, hamists — has the same meaning in any context. the call for non-violence as the route to palestinean statehood has the same meaning in any context. as for my source, it came from an article he wrote for the nation in 2002.
i was not offering an endorsement of barghouti, per se, but if mr. said was in his corner that is a good sign for him. the point is/was, the need for palestine to be built with non-violence tactics. anti-zionist or not, like mr. said, i highly doubt this barghouti is calling for pushing the jews into the sea. maybe as a self-hating jew you don’t care what kind of hate and anti-semitism and murders go on in the name of stupidity known as hamas, but thank our lucky stars there are palestineans who think rational.
as for your inherent jibe that i am a zionist, if you mean by that whether i support the existence of israel, then we could call me that. though, my support for israel is not for the purposes of creating a “homeland” for jews, but rather i think they have a historical right to the land. certainly as much of a right as the so-called palestineans, a people who have never formally had a nation-country, i might add. what palestineans are doing is creating a new country based on the idea that arabs have inhabited the area for thousands of years. but under that thinking, the land could just as well been split up between syria, lebanon and jordan if the movement for israel had not come along. there is no historical palestine identity, such a country has never existed. only, some of their ancestors have inhabited that land in the past. though, some historians say that in fact the majority of the current arab familes who call themselves palestineans are actually descendents of arabs who migrated to that region at the same time the zionist movement began in the late 1800s. in fact, far more arabs migrated there than jews during the first half of the 1900s. check it out.
you are a shining example of the mass of sheep in the left that react with what they think is a “p.c.” viewpoint, in other words, state their lefty opinion without thinking on their own. then, when they discover a guru of thought on the issue at hand, such as edward said, has an opinion that contradicts the view they are so fervently fighting for, they go into crisis mode and begin to rationalize, and say things like, “i hate when they take said’s quotes out of context.”
July 19th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
“Self hating Jew” is, like “Jap” an Anti-Semitic phase. It suggests that the strong minority of Jews who dissent from Zionism and/or blanket support of Israel are unworthy of their heritage. I could easily say the same thing about a Zionist, but I prefer Woody Allen’s dictum of two Jews, three opinions, but some Zionists won’t dialogue with Anti-Zioinists, they prefer to attack us, rather than seeing that our opposition is rooted in a Jewish ethic.
Zionism isn’t Judaism, and as a Leftist, unlike a Zionist, I don’t have ideological forefathers that made or attempted to make deals with Nazis, or were explicitly pro-Mussolini.
Otherwise, fuck off and go to an AIPAC meeting where you celebrate death and pissing on our heritage.
July 19th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
And its also obvious that I don’t support terrorism, I don’t really believe that you believe I was implying that.
July 19th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
Do you really honestly believe that Edward Said has different views from me on Israel/Palestine…. I mean (barring that he’s dead) he’s for a one state solution – I think its impractical right now, maybe twenty years down the line. On terrorism, I obviously agree, and to insinuate as you did is despicable. Marc should ban this guy.
July 19th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
Finally (and I apologize for overposting) Said may find terrorism barbaric, but even mainstream historians as well as Said would find your history and point of view racist and discredited.
July 19th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
that’s the answer, ban me. freedom of speech only when you agree with what it is said.
you are the one who accused me of taking said points out of context, j.c. i pointed out you were wrong. end point.
as for said on two-state, one state. actually, said at various times in his life did support a two-state solution.
as for my history and point of view, its based on objective fact. if you want to revise history to fit your fervent belief in the red flag, thats your choice. i just look at facts as they are.
July 19th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
Good post, Marc.
Yes, Bush could stop Israel any day he wanted to. Eisenhower stopped Britain, France, and Israel in 1956 when they invaded Suez Canal. Eisenhower said stop, and all three of them stopped. End of invasion. Eisenhower was tough and intelligent.
So obviously Bush has greenlighted what Israel has done and is doing. One commentator said the Bush would like Israel to strike against Hezbollah as Hezbollah also once succesfully stood up against the U.S.
I was pretty shocked watching TV new Monday night with Bush, Condi et al blaming Syria & Iran. I mean they have no proof. Zero proof.
Israel is violating two kinds of Hague and Geneva Convetions in both Lebanon and Gaza by 1) having reprisals against civilians and 2.) destroying civilian infrastructure. What Bush and Congress should be doing is roundly condeming Israel for its actions in violating the Hague and Geneva conventions in both Lebaon and Gaza, telling them to stop, and withdrawing arms funding.
Yet the world just watches what Israel is doing.
July 19th, 2006 at 6:37 pm
Anon, you have a way of saying things with such finality. Here is where I would peg you – you are either a Christian Fundamentalist, or from the multifaceted/homogenous Evangelical community. I say this simply because of your verbal bravado.
If you are otping for peaceful solutions in Palestine than I suggest you tell Israel to stop it’s murderous and consistent activity. Let me ask you a simple question – just where has the pushing taken place and who is being pushed? Whom is attempting to push who “into the sea” by all current evidence? Or are you completely blind?
Unfortunately, I cannot allow you to hide in your “historical evidence,” because if you rest on empirical historical evidence alone you have no leg to stand on as far as who inhabited this land previous to the planting of European Jewry. This does not mean that I disagree with the land being shared by both Israelis and Palestinians, it means that there must be equal balance in the living arrangements because of the original historical setting.
No, I am afraid you are left to your “biblical” moorings. However, if you are stuck to your religious point you must take all of the “biblical” narrative which also speaks of a diaspora due to the judgement of God.
If you say, yes this is true but it also speaks of the peoples return – I would say you are an apocalyptic, and should be very excited not only by the unrest, but probably support every atrocity that has been committed to date. You may not be a Zionist in the strict interpretation, but you have a sympathy born of selective biblical interpretation endemic to the United States Christian right.
Rather than further writing let me introduce a small clip from a documentary called “Occupation 101″ (oh yes, this is on my “conspiratorial” site Anon). I trust this will clear the air of some long held myths, even though it is a very short clip:
http://occupation101.com/History_stream_hi.html
I hope this helped (as short as it was) dispell some of the myths regarding this land and it’s inhabitants. Now, there are some who continue to misrepresent what happened during the Camp David II peace process – they imply that the Palestinians evidently never want peace “look at the good deal they turned down.” What they do is continuously throw this into the faces of those who say the Palestinians want no peace. Here is another short clip:
http://www.adc.org/clip6.WMV
So much for appearances, and the same has been true of every “offer” of peace. Now I could go on and on, but I hope this contributes in some small way to the discussion here.
July 19th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
William Lind calls this “Summer 1914″ and Bush “Kaiser Wilhelm”. I think that slurs the “All-Highest” since Wilhelm was a man with some deep rooted inferiority complexes brought about by his withered arm. And probably no dummy. But let us not forget that, in the middle of the Archduke crisis, he went sailing and left the diplomacy to the Austrians and Count Bechtold, their Foreign Minister.
Austria felt justified in attacking Serbia which it saw, correctly, as the irritant that Israel sees in S Lebanon with Hezbollah. And a lot of Europe agreed with them. Soeven though Russia backed the Serbs and Germany pledged to go to war if Austria was attacked . . . well you know what followed.
The Bushies really are like the old Bourbons who never forgot anything and never learned anything either. Now the same neocon crowd that predicted a “cakewalk” in Mesopotamia is urging war with the Persians! The other day everyone was citing Bob Dylan. Maybe a better choice is Pete Seeger:
“When will they ever learn?”
Frankly I’d feel a lot better if the old war criminal, Henry Kissinger, and his disciples like Brent Scowcroft were still around. Oh to have some grown-ups in charge!
July 19th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
Bush may not be a distinguished expert on middle eastern affairs, but Marc Cooper decidedly isn’t either. On what does he support his assertion that the Israeli action in Lebanon has made heroes of Hezbollah in the eyes of the Lebanese? I have heard nothing but the opposite. Here is a link to an article in Haaretz (admittedly anecdotal)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/739977.html
and here is another interesting perspective from a former SLA soldier now living in Israel
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/739995.html
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but to make unfounded declarations like this starts to sound like demagoguery.
July 19th, 2006 at 8:43 pm
The SLA was an Israeli creation. Of course they support Israel. But remember, the Isrealis withdrew from S Lebanon and, rightly or wrongly, Hezbollah got the credit and a huge boost in the Arab world. Oh and read Juan Cole if you don’t think support for Hezbollah is growing.
July 19th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Fascinating article on Nasrallah here:
http://tinyurl.com/ofjte
Described as the most popular politician in Lebanon, his whereabouts are now the object of speculation in the Israeli press. Perhaps Israeli target-selectors are pounding the Shi’ite quarter of Beirut because he is shuttling around in a tunnel-connected warren of underground bunkers in that area? Makes for a good story, anyway, not to mention a good pretext for incidental “ethnic [sectarian] cleansing” of the city in the run-up to a de facto partition of Lebanon.
There is concern that he’s become a major figure for Shi’ite radicals, a sort of bin Laden for Shi’ites, only more charismatic. Which is doubly interesting when you consider that Al Qaeda has apparently attempted to assassinate him.
Israel is out to get Nasrallah, Al Qaeda is out to get Nasrallah, and I have to wonder if, right now, even as we speak, a U.S. troop carrier is trundling past a dusty poster with Nasrallah’s name and photo on it, somewhere in the “U.S.-liberated” Shi’ite quarter of Baghdad, perhaps in a neighborhood recently targeted by Sunni suicide bombers in retaliation for attacks against Shi’ites by Al Qaeda in Iraq.
July 19th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
before i move on to my next challenger, just want to finish off poor ole j cummings. i don’t always comment here, but war in the middle east gets me riled up. nevertheless, have followed your periodic comments. you are the type that overlooks means for ends. when you apologize for hamas, you tacitly express support for all that hamas is. end point. your the type, for example, that lauds fidel castro, despite his clamp down on freedoms and devolvement into a power obsessed dictator. its called leftist fringe hypocrite.
as for self-hating jew, the origin of the phrase comes from jews criticizing other jews for betryaing their faith to win acceptance with non-jews. hardly anti-semitic, then.
i suggest you go back and read edward said’s writings. you might find he would disagree with you on a lot of things.
virgil, no, i am not a christian righty, nor evangelical, i am pretty much anti-organized religion and leaning toward agnosticism as i have some doubts about the whole god business. and i think organized religion, as is painfully evident in the middle east, often has caused more pain than the good it purports to foster.
that said the historical basis for the nation of israel is not just biblical, its as real as the western wall of the old temple of jerusalem. far from being a literary legend, as many arabs teach their young, there was a king david, king solomon, and on and on. if you think the jewish nation of israel only existed as a biblical parable then we need to check you in to the nearest mental ward.
who pushed who? you know the answer. the islamists, hamas inc. and friends, whom, yes, have frequently called for pushing the jews into the sea, have pushed and pushed because, like jcummings, they do not want a two-state solution and therefore have done all they can to torpedo the peace process. yes, the hamas you root for in palestine is engaging in barbaric suicide bombings to kill peace and stir war. they must be stopped.
that said, i have not, and have not stated anywhere here, that i agree with the collective punishment doled out by israel in response. am afraid that was an unfortunate legacy of sharon. just as israel’s response is a reaction to insane barbarism from the islamists, israel’s overreaction in lebanon and the territories has indeed fed even further insanity from the islamists. its a vicious cycle. that said, the cycle begins with islamist violence almost every time. i think edward said was on to that. violence breeds more violence. as for the longstanding argument of the palestine apologists that the root of the present crises is the “occupation,” the legs underneath that have pretty much been smashed by israel’s on the record acceptance for many years now of a future palestine state in the west bank and gaza. in addition, we have their withdrawls from gaza and south lebanon as an expression of intent. and we have their peace treaties with jordan and egypt as a demonstration of their keeping their word and as a clear demonstration of their desire for peace.
what were dealing with here is a refusal by islamists, who have hijacked lebanon and palestine, to accept the existence of israel — occupation or no occupation of lands conquered in the 1967 war. full stop.
one final comment. israel’s big mistake, in my view, was pushing some arabs from their homes when israel formed. that said, arab nations, and throughout centuries various european naitons, engaged in their own horrific ethnic cleansing of jews.
what it comes down to is, israel has a legal right and historic right to its land in palestine, and it has moral justification. yes, its the least the world could do after treating jews like shit for thousands of years.
virgil, sorry to disappoint, but none of your ignorant assumptions about me have come even close to the mark. but thats to be expected from someone who also makes large-scale assumptions about the motives of the united states and other western nation governments in the middle east. you need to back your statements with hard facts in order to be credible and believable. thats why i likened you to a conspiracy loony in an earlier thread.
July 19th, 2006 at 10:04 pm
Richard lo Cicero mentions that there are 250,000 Turkish troops “massed on the border” across from Northern Iraq, threatening to invade to take out a PKK stronghold.
This is the stupidest story of recent times, I think. I don’t know why this “250,000 Turkish troops massed on the border” factoid is so uncritically repeated.
From an actual Turkish journalist
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/16/AR2006071600439.html
Turkey HAS added some tens of thousands troops, and is threatening to cross the border. However, it has had thousands of troops on that border since 1997, and has often crossed the border in hot pursuit of PKK fighters. In fact, as recently as May of this year.
The PKK is classed as a terrorist group by the U.S., and PKK-aligned militants have been more active in Turkey in recent months. Turkey has about 200,000 troops in Kurdish areas of Turkey *routinely*, but I can find no evidence or fact-based reporting that they are all now suddenly “massed on the border”. That would be a sprawling logistical nightmare visible from low-earth orbit. Some 2,000 of them have been inside northern Iraq for a long time now, according to the above story.
Israel’s actions in Lebanon might embolden Turkey to some incursion more calculated and dramatic than “hot pursuit.” After all, if Israel can scatter bombs all over Lebanon in response to Hezbollah rocket attacks and kidnappings, why shouldn’t Turkey be able to finally go in and take out a PKK camp in a rather more surgical manner? Especially since the PKK is almost universally regarded as a terrorist group, but is currently left unmolested by Iraqi Kurds and U.S. forces? Time was, Iraqi Kurdish groups worked hand in glove with Turkish forces to go after the PKK. It’s just politically and militarily incovenvenient to do that now.
The worst I expect from this situation is either U.S. forces finally driving the PKK into Turkey to let Turkish troops mop them up, or Turkish troops striking directly in a focused manner across the border. If it’s the latter, I think the worst we’ll see is squeals of outrage in the press and strenuous diplomatic protests (but secret satisfaction and relief) from the Kurdish regional government in Iraq and from the U.S. State Department. But more likely, nothing more than a bland statement from Condi that “we’re monitoring events with concern, and have expressed these concerns to the Turks, who, after all, have a right to defend their country however they wish.”
July 19th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
“as for self-hating jew, the origin of the phrase comes from jews criticizing other jews for betryaing their faith to win acceptance with non-jews. hardly anti-semitic, then.”
It is also one of the most blatantly dishonest rhetorical devices ever devised by those who blindly defend Israel, always and in everything. In fact, I am amazed that anyone still has the chutzpah to use it.
July 19th, 2006 at 11:42 pm
Anon,
First, no one said the ancient kingdom of Israel was not real – or a fable in the bible. On the contrary, most of my studies have been in and around ancient civilizations. Unlike most I have handled with my bare hands manuscript, artifact, and the rudiments specifically of Middle Eastern origin. So you do not have to grandstand in regard to antiquities.
What I said was that much of what people hold to that support the views you espouse have a “god-like” stamp upon them. That is, as if it were ordained from above that this territory belongs to the Jewish people and necessitates all their violent activity. This is why jcummings told you to go to an AIPAC meeting and to continue to piss on the heritage. Zionism is not Judaism, it is an abberation to all that comes with the clear understanding of true tradition. However, it is good to hear that you are an agnostic, let’s hope you are not agnostic about raw evidence.
On your second point, in regard to who pushed who – you display very little knowledge. I am glad you display your arrogance and ignorance for all to see. As for me I have personally been in the middle of the fray, having been in Israel and also in the occupied territory. In fact, I carry in my body scars from my encounters. You need a dose of reality, I doubt if you have any first hand experience in regard to this discussion.
Your apeing of propaganda regarding what has been offered in the occupied territories is ample proof of your “authoritarian” ignorance. Your continuous remarks regarding the barbarism of the Palestinians matches perfectly most colonial language from time immemorial.
We have a vicious cycle because we have one well armed and brutal occupation that keeps beating upon a people, who in turn react predictably. You want to further study the situation – do a study on classic occupations, they all have the same result.
Apparently you have bought the old line of the inferiority of races, it taints everything you say. You have a veritable litany of bigoted words that flow in your writing – it does not matter whether it has the Nazi flavor, the flavor of Dixie, or the Middle East variety. It is the common garden variety that has swallowed all the bullshit of the corporate media whole, and does not have one ounce of personal experience.
No one has hijacked Lebanon, she has been weakened by multiple incursions by her nearby and Western enemies. The Middle East has been carved territorially by foreign forces, it has been compromised by corruption induced by western aggression, and it has been and is being exploited for it’s resources.
The Western gang wants democracy to grow and thrive in this region like they want a hole in the head. You help them by swallowing every lie they throw your way, and the biggest one of all is that the problems in this region are endemic to the nature of the people.
Your argument from history regarding ethnic cleansing of Jewish populations nullifies itself, because if you really embraced how wrong it has been in the past you would not support it in the present with a non-Jewish population. I can’t deal with all the warts here, it would take too long.
I do not deny that Israel has the right to exist, I do not believe that it has the right to be the last power standing in this region – or the one with the only right to viable statehood. Your argument that we owe the Jewish people this land is groundless, because you do not establish a people by throwing another people off of land that belongs to them – and you certainly do not make a gift of something that does not belong to you to give! That is like me paying a debt by pulling money out of your pocket. However, with all parties originally agreed it was embraced, only to be fowled later. Having said that let me quote the original intent of the Jewish settlement:
“…..being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine….” Balfour Declaration, Nov. 2, 1917.
What part of those words do you not understand? What part of that agreement do all parties involved not understand about those words?
What continues to not be understood by these words when we see torturing people in the occupied territories, Apache hellicopters firing indiscriminately into civilian populations, annexations of territories, imprisonments without trials, accumulated years of curfews, massive killings, denial of education and medical aid, using civilian shields, punishment of families, demolition of homes, building an illegal wall that cuts of survival, taking of land on a large scale, agricultural destruction, attacks on hospital, etc., etc. Don’t even attempt to tell me that this does not happen constantly.
Oh, I know – you never heard of that on the news have you!? However, you have heard of a litany of suicide bombings on the evening corporate news, right? You are so fond of making quips about a suicide bomber or two. No one excuses this – but do not excuse the other.
Finally, your swipe at my credibility regarding the activities of the National Security State, and the European counterparts all over the world. I do not need to have their “motives” revealed, their actions speak much louder.
If you accept these activities all over the world by western interest in other countries (read my site if you want a list), than I can understand why you accept the atrocities taking place in the Middle East currently and in the past. Facts never satisfy a person like you Anon, because you do not need facts to embrace what you do – you have a blind faith fed by raw propaganda of the status quo, and your inbred prejudices fed by this ignorant environment we find oursleves living in within the United States. It’s not all your fault, but if you remain there nothing can be said or done to convince you – because you cannot be interrupted by the facts, your mind is already made up! I am going to stop here, this is not an exhaustive venue and I do not want to try Marc’s patience.
July 20th, 2006 at 4:18 am
vrgEUv6a7ySW M10HS3jNlETG zg3KRivC2Y8T
July 20th, 2006 at 4:34 am
“Garance Franke-Ruta suggests not unpersuasively that [the 25,000 Americans in Lebanon] are being held hostage to the administration’s official message on the bombardment of Lebanon: it isn’t that bad.”
Well, I hate to defend anything this administration says, but … just how bad is it, really? It is measurable, after all.
Lebanon is about 4 million people. (Fewer in terms of citizenship, but it’s thought to have almost a million guest workers too.) About 300 people have died so far in Israeli attacks, probably the majority of them Hezbollah militants. So let’s call it about 100 civilian casualties for the moment.
If Israeli attacks were utterly indiscriminate (which they aren’t), and that round figure of 100 represented the death toll from indiscriminate attacks on civilians, a random person’s chances of getting killed in a week of this Lebanon fighting would be about 1 in 40,000.
1 chance in 40,000 of getting killed by Israelis. In a week. Gee, I wonder how that risk compares to an average week of commuting on America’s freeways?
In actuality, because Israel’s targeting is not indiscriminate, but is largely concentrated in the south, on Shi’ite sections of Beirut, and some infrastructure and industrial facilities, the chances of a randomly chosen American getting killed in Lebanon by an Israeli attack is much lower than 1/40,000. Which helps explain why, as far as we know, NO American citizens in Lebanon have been killed in this fighting so far, when (using my raw odds as estimated above) Israeli attacks should have killed about … um … half of an American by now?
It seems like every day I read a story about residents of Gaza spending the day at the beach, or residents of Haifa spending the day at the beach, or residents of Beirut spending the day at — yes, you guessed it — the beach. Somewhat in defiance of current events, of course, but also because … it’s possible under conditions like these, which really aren’t all that lethal. A war you can take a little mini-vacation from. Imagine that.
We’ve forgotten what total war is. Yes, Israel’s response is disproportionate. Probably illegal under international law. But definitely disproportionate. (IF you simplistically view all this as Israel trying to bend Hizbollah to its will, rather than in broader strategic terms, in which case, for all we know, it might be exquisitely calibrated from one hour to the next.)
That doesn’t mean that Israel is engaged in an over-the-top all-out attack on Lebanon either.
I can think of another reason why the administration is yellow-lighting American evacuation. A lot of the Americans in Lebanon right now are Lebanese-Americans. Some tiny, but now possibly growing, percentage of these Lebanese-Americans might have Hezbollah sympathies. Going slow is a chance to do some profiling, to open some new dossiers — not something you can do if you’re just shuffling around boatloads of passengers who happen to be carrying U.S. passports, as fast as you can. Rather cynical and opportunistic, if that’s actually a contributing reason, but what else is new?
Have I pissed off almost everybody yet?
July 20th, 2006 at 7:18 am
Anon,
What would Said disagree with me about? Mansfield Park over Pride and Prejudice? Vico over Marx? Perhaps.
But I suggest you read Orientailsm, and quote some of his worldview before you disgustingly invoke him.
July 20th, 2006 at 7:20 am
And false premises – I never denied Israel’s right to existence…you deny other states’ rights to existence. And I don’t root for Hamas, I vote for innocent humans – yes, in Israel as well as Palestine.i
July 20th, 2006 at 8:49 am
balter: who is blindly defending israel? before you make an reckless accusation like that, read my comments again. as for self-hating jew, maybe i have touched a nerve, but step outside of yourself and see that it is frequently used in this day and age and is applied to many cases of jews who are not proud of their identity, not just in the case of those who dump on israel to prove their lefty-fringe credentials. you also might actually be interested to know that once upon a time it was israel that was the cause celebre of the left.
virgil: you are an ignorant scum. you have no excuse. you have read my screeds, and know you are creating a false image of my views. its pretty f-cking obvious that i am not the least bit racist in any sense of the word. or, maybe you are just plain stupid and don’t understand english. there are no secret codes to my use of language, the words and phrases are straightforward. you are trying to find something thats not there — just like you searching and claiming for something thats “not there” in us and western nation foreign policy with respect to the middle east.
if you were not a pc leftist, your mentality could
easily been the type to feed racism because you base your arguments in high assumptions, you are arrogant, and you spout before you listen. in order to gain a level of understanding, you need to listen and not throw shit over someone just because he proves your opinions are based in bullshit.
so, you have been to israel and palestine, good for you. that makes you think you are the leading arrogant authority on the question of the day. you are wrong: you still have much to learn.
1) “Zionism is not Judaism, it is an abberation to all that comes with the clear understanding of true tradition.”
Have you studied Judiasm? What is your religion, Virgil, since we are getting personal? Well, I have studied religions. And the Jewish faith is as wrapped into the “promised land” and the ancient nation of Israel as can be.
2) However, it is good to hear that you are an agnostic, let’s hope you are not agnostic about raw evidence.
You keep talking about evidence, what evidence is it you are referring to?
3) “Your apeing of propaganda regarding what has been offered in the occupied territories is ample proof of your “authoritarian†ignorance. Your continuous remarks regarding the barbarism of the Palestinians matches perfectly most colonial language from time immemorial….etc, etc”
My authoritarian ignorance? Are you serious. What has been offered is easily gleaned from any web search. As I stated above, you are misrepresenting my views. Again, the word “barbarism” was not applied to all Palestineans, the word was applied to Islamist Hamist suicide bombers and it comes from one of the greatest promoters of a Palestinean state, Edward Said. I have never, one minute, or one word, made a sweeping generalization of Palestineans, as you so slanderingly suggest. If this were a publication of high readership, I could easily put you in jail for you slandering lies about my views and statements.
4) “No one has hijacked Lebanon” The Lebanese Prime Minister, it appears, according to the latest news, says differently. He is calling for an end to the Hezbollah state within the state. Lebanon is unfortunately caught in the cross fire because, as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has stated, the irresponsibility of Hezbollah. I suppose you think murdering and kidnapping soldiers is the only way to free those who may deserve to be freed in Israeli jails. But its been proven there is another way, like genuine peace overtures toward the Israelis.
5) “Your argument from history regarding ethnic cleansing of Jewish populations nullifies itself”
First of all, I have not tried to excuse Israel for its expulsing some Arabs when they made their state, to the contrary, I stated it was Israel’s biggest mistake. Again, YOU, FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME, MISREPRESENT MY VIEWS with your “what part of that do you not understand” burst in reference to the Balfour declaration.
I did, however, point out the ethnic cleansing of Jews by its Arab neighbors, as a way of demonstrating perhaps your disproportionate fervor for justice for the Palestineans, but that hardly means anything to you. Anyone who has the support of the United States, I gather from your statements, is the real enemy. Again, you foist a pack of lies on the name “anon” and say that is what i stand for — you are living in an imaginary world. If you did know me, you would know I am very much a critic of US foreign policies all over the map. But not all US policies are equal, some of them make sense. The world is not black-white, good versus evil, imperialists versus the downtrodden, its a lot more complex.
Again, I do think Israel needs to deal with the refugees they created. Still, if we apply this standard to Israel, then we need to also go round the world, perhaps staring with he Americas hemisphere, where we should allow indigenous to come back and re-inhabit their lands throughout North, Central and South America. The reality is, its only possible to the extent its possible, and where not possible, society regretfully needs to find other ways to compensate.
Virgil, throughout your angry post above you keep referring to facts without giving any. When you get some facts to back up your absurd and imaginary views about me ,and apparently the rest of the entire Western world, please share them. As well, I don’t know what you are, but you are definitely NOT seeing the Arab-Israeli conflict through a balanced, fair lens. In order to get a good grasp of what is going on, you need to look at things from all sides. A trip into the brink does not give you the almighty liscence on truth. You only see Israeli tanks, helicopters, etc. and gloss over the senseless murders committed by Palestinean extemists, whom, i gather, you think are excused. Fact is, Virgil, those extremists, again, are doing more damage to the cause of Palestinean statehood than anyone. Israel is responding to real-life attacks on its people. If you want the violence to come to a halt, then both sides need to put a halt to the violence, not just Israel.
July 20th, 2006 at 8:53 am
jcummings, i am glad you are against terrorists, and that you now support israel’s right to exist. i guess this means you have changed your opinion and now support a two-state solution. as for my denying other state’s right to existence, name one and back it up with real facts and not slandering lies ala Virgil Johnson.
July 20th, 2006 at 10:59 am
How have I changed my opinion, anon? Perhaps you read the wrong things into what I was saying, and/or you’re just being provocative. Dialogue about this issue is important. Insults and provocations, such as “self hating Jew” and posting stuff that mainstream Zionist historians think is counterproductive unless you simply want to spout off. I believe that your beliefs are misguided, but I’d never attack you a a person. I pity your myopia, and hope that you can find a way to sleep at night with all those deahts on your conscience.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
Anon, first I did not call you a racist, I called you a bigot. You have made constant reference to Islamists as if they are coming out of the woodwork, as if they are the ONLY issue (strangely like Israeli repetition) – check your previous posts. Your sudden apperance and repeated posts at this site during these discussions speak of a person who fiddles one tune.
The focus of the discussion is not what YOU think, the post(s) have been a discussion regarding the relationship of Israel with the Palestinians and the surrounding region. I assure you, in the West Bank and Gaza there is no distinction made when Israeli defense forces make their incursions – that is the nexus of the discussion.
In the study of relgion I have degree’s, and I am familiar with Judaism. I have specifically studied Judaism in community, on premise, and in person. I am familiar with the traditions, antiquities and read quite original documents. You, on the other hand have enough knowledge to make yourself annoying.
As far as evidence what I speak of is self-evident, but I have given a fair amount of evidence – apparently you have a difficulty reading, and looking at the links I have provided. You are right about the support of the United States, I see nothing but ill for this region and the world with the advance of the National Security State – and if you don’t, with the abundance of low hanging evidence, why not? Your statement about the America’s is simplistic, and passes over the carnage that has taken place and the present condition.
I gave no evidence that the murder’s committed by Palestinians should be excused, I have said they should be interpreted through the insuferable environment – get the difference? Israel is not responding because Israel choses not to respond, there have been plenty of opportunities that have been squandered and twisted – there is a difference between the appearance of agreement and it’s actual reality.
My recommendation to you is to seek a broader fact base, study beyond your prejudices. I wish you luck.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
I apologize Anon, I left to abruptly and forget to at least given some recommended reading:
Norman G. Finkelstiens works might be a good starting place: Beyond Chutzpah, The Holocaust Industry, Image And Realty Of The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, The Rise And Fall Of Palestine. Let us hope you do not dismiss him with a wave of the hand calling him a “self-hating Jew.”
July 20th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
In the world of self-referential Pro-Israel groups, Norm Finkelstien is not only a “self hating Jew” from “under a rock” but even a “holocaust denier,” since he questions how holocaust survivors, like some of my family, have been royally screwed by the Jewish establishment.
July 20th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
gezxwjzhg…
oqcbjayilw wywrddgf rkbmxcnxy…
July 20th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
Christ, Finkelstein again.
July 21st, 2006 at 11:15 am
“Apparently you have bought the old line of the inferiority of races, it taints everything you say. You have a veritable litany of bigoted words that flow in your writing – it does not matter whether it has the Nazi flavor, the flavor of Dixie, or the Middle East variety. It is the common garden variety that has swallowed all the bullshit of the corporate media whole, and does not have one ounce of personal experience.” – Virgil Johnson.
Anyone who knows me, Virgil, would think you are a pathetic moron from the planet ignorant jerk.
You are arrogant, with no good reason to be arrogant because you are in fact stupid. You are a lying piece of shit — which destroys the credibility of all your huffing about degrees and antiquities.
you and jcumming both speak from two sides of your mouth. if you are for israel’s right to exist, you can not say you are anti-zionist.
if you are against violence, you can not say palestinean fanatics, yes, the crew who sends in the barbaric suicide bombers are fanatics, and murderers of innocent people, you can not wave it off as just a product of their environment and at the same time berate israel. clearly, israel’s military response is a product of the environment, too.
unfortunately, the threatwill not be solved by the end of the west bank occupation. what part of “do not recognize the right to israel exist” do you not understand in the hamas principles of hate and anti-semitism?
peace will only happen when the palestineans as an entire nation wants to live in genuine peace with israel. when they make that decision, as the israelis and the international community have said all along, there will be a palestinean state in the territories. the agreements israel has with egypt and jordan do not lie like virgil.
arrogant pricks such as yourselves don’t do the palestineans any favors by cheerleading and expressing sympathy for tactics counterproductive to the goal of palestine statehood and the end of occupation.
basically, the both of you come across as raging nutcases in your hyprocritical and abusive and ugliness in the way you advocate for palestine. you are part of the problem in the middle east.
virgil, you addressed your lies and diatribe toward me, therefore it seemed quite likely you were referring to what I think. that said, take your finkelstein books and put them up your arse. you are an arrogant and confused person and to dismiss my arguments as, “i know more than you because i have religion degrees and have been there,” is not only bullshit and pathetic, its an admission of stupidity. respond to arguments with counter-arguments not just with your probably fake, or if not fake, worthless paper degrees.
i state facts as they are with the premise that i am dealing with normal human beings, who will consider my ideas for what they are. i could huff, too, and say “i am a know it all,” as, in fact, i speak from a position of professional and academic experience related to the issues at hand. and, contrary to what you assumed in one of your bizarre rants – i, in fact do not live in the united states. full stop. i would hardly want to reveal more of my identity to a piece of shit such as yourself.
you must have a been a pretty poor student, if indeed you have such degrees, virgil, because you have not yet said anything close to accurate about the jewish faith and its relationship to israel.
your “self-evident”evidence statement is a joke and would, of course, be laughed out of any court of law and, more relevant, any court of reasoned-thinking opinion.
in sum, virgil, you can arrogantly huff that you know more, but everytime you do so, particularly when you misrepresent and blatantly lie about the opinions of moi, you look stupid, pathetic, and reveal your true you: a complete jerk.
July 21st, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Way to raise the level of debate around here, anon. Here’s a shortened version of anon’s “greatest hits”, so no one wastes time searching for arguments in his nauseating and childish screed:
“you are a pathetic moron from the planet ignorant jerk.”
“You are arrogant, with no good reason to be arrogant because you are in fact stupid.”
“You are a lying piece of shit”
“arrogant pricks such as yourselves”
“the both of you come across as raging nutcases”
“you are part of the problem in the middle east.”
“take your finkelstein books and put them up your arse.”
“you are an arrogant and confused person”
“a piece of shit such as yourself”
“you must have a been a pretty poor student”
“you look stupid, pathetic, and reveal your true you: a complete jerk.”
July 21st, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Sounds like an early Ween song.
July 21st, 2006 at 12:53 pm
samuel, could give a fuck what u think.
when someone insults me with false statements, lies, and more, i lose my patience.
but, then, why bother trying anymore to talk with a bunch of irrational loonies such as you.
July 21st, 2006 at 10:04 pm
As i was reading that rather pathetic, puerile and hideously immature rant from our resident cultural warrior annon, who seems to believe that arabs are inherantly violent beings it occured to me that Israels founders were much more honest about what that Zionist project entailed than mediocre present day apologist and ideologues like Annon. Here’s Israels first prime minster, David Ben-Gurion, on the colonial nature of the Israeli state
“If i were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural:We have taken their country….We come from Israel, but 2000 years ago, and what is that to them?There’s Anti Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler and Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing:We have stolen their country. Why should they accept that?”
July 22nd, 2006 at 9:03 am
Placeholders perhaps? it’s obvious they won’t accept it. Where will that lead though?
July 22nd, 2006 at 10:46 am
ahmed,
“who seems to believe arabs are inherently violent”
from what fucking planet are you from to make such a really off-base, idiotic accusation.
either learn to read english properly, or keep you ill-founded criticism to yourself.
as for the gurion quote, source please. is it from the hamas revised history of palestine?
the fact is ahmed, i have not once insulted palestineans, or arabs, but your puerile reaction to my statements says a lot about your malformed opinions and your closed attitude toward anyone whose opinion is the least bit different from yours. you resort, like the crazed virgil, with an idiotic attempt to misrepresent me with utter lies because you can’t respond with a sound counter argument to the actual words written by me.
July 22nd, 2006 at 1:27 pm
“as for the gurion quote, source please. is it from the hamas revised history of palestine?”
What sort of racist insinuation is that? You’re really losing it aron, and now youve accused me of lying or making up a quote. My point is that Israels founders were far more aware of the colonial nature of thier enterprise than mediocre comtemporary apologist like you. Here’s the source (David Ben-Gurion quoted in “The Jewish Paradox” by Nahum Goldmann, former president of the World Jewish Congress.) you can find it on this website as well
http://experts.about.com/e/d/da/David_Ben-Gurion.htm
July 22nd, 2006 at 6:08 pm
racist insinuation. brother, i think you have an inferiority complex. if you can criticize israeli leaders and not expect to be call racist (unless you are saying it out of racist motivations, which so far i generously do not accuse you of despite your absurd attacks on me), then you have to allow that a non-arab can also criticize palestinean leaders and not be labeled a racist.
fact is, there does exist a revisionist perspective of palestinean history by many, many arabs. it would be good for you to come to terms with that.
that said, went to the link you offered up, and no quote there whatsoever. so, i took it upon myself to look for it in google. the full quote is different from what you recite, the quote from the book by goldmann is the following:
Goldmann writes, “That night, a beautiful summer night, we had a forthright discussion on the Arab problem. ‘I don’t understand your optimism,’ Ben Gurion declared. ‘Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it’s true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generation’s time, but for the moment there is no chance. So it’s simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipe us out.’”
if you put the quote in context, and not butcher it by removing some of its parts, it begins to have a somewhat different meaning than what you write above. basically, he is saying the arabs will never accept the reasons for the existence of israel, but rather narrowly view israel as the theft of their land.
here’s a quote for you:
From the great American writer Mark Twain, who visited the Palestinean land in !869. He was not Zionist, the term did not exist, and he was not Jewish:
“There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent [valley of Jezreel] — not for 30 miles in either direction… One may ride ten miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings. … For the sort of solitude to make one dreary, come to Galilee … Nazareth is forlorn … Jericho lies a moldering ruin … Bethlehem and Bethany, in their poverty and humiliation… untenanted by any living creature… A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds … a silent, mournful expanse … a desolation … We never saw a human being on the whole route … Hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil had almost deserted the country … Of all the lands there are for dismal scenery Palestine must be the prince. The hills barren and dull, the valleys unsightly deserts [inhabited by] swarms of beggars with ghastly sores and malformations. Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes … desolate and unlovely … [Mark Twain, The Innocents Abroad, 1867]
If you do some reading up on history, early arab leaders during the reign of britain in palestine in the early 1900s were far from “palestine nationalists.” the palestine nationalism movement, according to official united nations sanctioned texts, is mainly a reaction to the movement for the state of israel. early palestineans under british rule, and even many jews residing there, were, according to some historians, not interested in forming their own country but expected to be the southern part of syria. another fact: scientists say the blood and body type of palestinean arabs and israelis is essentially the same. palestnean arabs are physically more similar to israelis than to other arabs.
i have not denied the palestinean arabs have a right to land there, as you keep dishonestly inferring with your statements, but so do israelis have the same right. the latter, the israeli rights, i guess, is where we disagree — you seem to think israelis should move to europe, and the nation of israel should stay buried under islamic mosques. my idea for the solution: two states. then, as the two states develop mutual respect and peace the artificial border one day can subside as it has in the european union and citizens of both nations freely transit on both sides of the borders.
July 23rd, 2006 at 8:13 pm
She thinks they actually come from Europe. Finders keepers you know.
July 24th, 2006 at 10:10 am
I know that its a pretty standard feature of Zionst propaganga but evoking Mark Twain to somehow \”prove\” that Palestinians are too stupid to know how to use the land they\’ve been on for over a millenium is really quite lame. Since when is he a specialist on the Middle East? Palestine became predominantly Arab and Islamic by the end of the seventh century. Its boundaries and its characteristics–including its name in Arabic, Filastin–soon became known in the entire Islamoc world, as much for its ferterlity and beauty as for its religious significance. Yes there were many Arab Jews living there, some of whom also participated ion the grrat revolts against British rule in the 1930\’s but its important to realize that not until a few weeks immediately preceeding the establishment of israel in the spring of 1948 was there ever anything other than a large Arab majority. Zinost leadere realized from the beginning that the biggest obstacle to the transforming palestine into \”eretz yisreal\” would be the fact that it was already someome elses home. This reality hampered the effort to recruit support from both Nehru and Ghandhi who viewed zionism in practise as unfair to arabs. here is r weitz the head of the jewish agency colonization department
\”between ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both together in this country…there is not other way than to tranfer all of them. Not one village, not one tribe
As for this myth of unused and wasteful landaccording to studies in 1922, at the outbreak of serious zionist colonization, \”the population density in Palestinian was 72 persons per square mile–a high figure if compared the region. It served Zionist purposes to deny it just as it serves your comtempary apologist politics to imagine that Palestine was a wasteland before the onslaught of zionist colonization and indegenous dispossesion. Let me suggest that again early zionist, who were honest, knew better. here\’s authur ruppin, director of the zionist settlement depatment, saying \”there is hardly any land which is worth cultivating which isnt already being cultivated\” On first learning of the existence and living presence of Palestinian arabs herzl\’s secind in command, max nordau, said \”I never realized this–we are committing an injustice\” This view of Palestine as a wasteland has been unfortunately maintained as a standard feature of colonialist propaganda and it should be noted that similar claims were evoked all throughout the world to displace native and indegenous people. maxine rodinson attributes this engrossing tendency to the european heritage of the zionist leadership. in my own opinion the dehumanization of the palestinians which the zionists developed (and aron trumphets) was intrumental in displacing the moral issue and establishing an aura of legal justification around zionist goals and activity.
July 25th, 2006 at 9:02 am
Ahmed, Israel did not steal any country from anyone. There was no and never has been a Palestinean country. The land referred to as Palestine has been in the hands of the British, the Ottoman Turks, the Romans, Persians, Egyptians, Syrians — the Arabic named for Palestine, called Philstine, is just the name of a geographical area. In Russia, you have Siberia, whom may call themselves Siberians, but there is no doubt that Siberia is part of Russia. Israel, like Iraq, Jordan and other countries in the Middle East were all given boundaries and created arbitrarily by colonial rulers in the 19th century. The UN tried to also create an Arab state next to Israel, which would presumably have been Palestine, but the Arab world would not accept the partition.
I don’t deny that non-Jewish Arabs have been the majority there for more than a millenia. But then, do you deny that a nation of Israel existed there for more than a millenia? As have stated, both sides have legitimate land claims, and the Palestinean claim must be dealt with by Israel in some way. But Israel did not “steal” any country and, in fact, Israel is legal under international law as it was created by the United Nations.
Finally, building upon the very credible Mark Twain’s assertion that the land was virtually desolate and scarcely populated in 1869, as for Arab migration to the region, here is what American economist Fred Gottheil says about that:
… there is every reason to believe that consequential immigration of Arabs into and within Palestine occurred during the Ottoman and British mandatory periods. Among the most compelling arguments in support of such immigration is the universally acknowledged and practiced linkage between regional economic disparities and migratory impulses.
The precise magnitude of Arab immigration into and within Palestine is, as Bachi noted, unknown. Lack of completeness in Ottoman registration lists and British Mandatory censuses, and the immeasurable illegal, unreported, and undetected immigration during both periods make any estimate a bold venture into creative analysis. In most cases, those venturing into the realm of Palestinian demography—or other demographic analyses based on very crude data—acknowledge its limitations and the tentativeness of the conclusions that may be drawn.
July 25th, 2006 at 11:16 am
I really dont have time to get into this but the arguments youre making, similar to that of joan peters, that paelstinains were mostly new “immigrants” into the land under the ottomans and the british is pure bull. No need to evoke such “experts” as american economists when there is plenty of evidence includhing population charts conducted under the british and ottomans which prove that your point is a sham. nice try though
July 25th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
Descriptions of poker pubs their atmospheressqx
August 1st, 2006 at 9:12 am
Betting Bettingbaseball handicapping baseball handicappingbaseball picks baseball picks
November 4th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
Buon luogo, congratulazioni, il mio amico!
May 17th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
borders gift cards…
Buy gift cards online at QuickGifts. Let your unique voice shine through the articles, images, reviews, or audio you publish. American Express Gift Cards for personal or business gifting ne……