The Middle East is doomed by the repetition of history. With the latest escalation of violence between Israel and Lebanon it seems that all that can be done is to despair at the stupidity of it all.
Hezbollah are simply suicidally stupid. They have effectively dragged Lebanon to the precipice of another war that the Lebanese people do not want by declaring that if Israel wants open war then Hezbollah will oblige. Hezbollah cannot hope to win a war against Israel and it is unlikely that they even care. Suggestions have been that Hezbollah are acting as proxies for Syria and Iran. This may be so but this suggestion is speculation at the moment. It does seem that Hezbollah launched the incursion into Israel as a show of support for Hamas. Supporting Palestinians obviously goes over well in Arab politics. An interesting analysis in the Jerusalem Post reveals Hezbollah, while happy to use the Palestinian cause for their own ends, has not done much to ease the plight of Palestinians in Lebanon. A recent Amnesty International report reveals how poorly Palestinian refugees are treated by the Lebanese government and how the treatment is justified by the notion of return to Palestine.
The question now is what effect the Israeli attacks on Lebanon will have on the Lebanese people? While Israel has the right to protect itself (especially since Hezbollah has escalated rocket attacks aimed at the Israeli city of Haifa), the Israeli response seems aimed to punish all of Lebanon not just Hezbollah militants. The Lebanese government is a fragile coalition of Sunni, Shiite, Druze and Christian Lebanese. Israel’s use of force may be a heavy-handed effort to force a divide between Hezbollah and the rest of Lebanon. However it is possible that any political or religious divisions could be put aside to unite Lebanon against Israel. Unfortunately this question cannot be answered for now. If Israel is correct then Hezbollah may lose though the price may be terrible for Lebanon. If Israel has miscalculated then the situation has the potential to be a disaster for all involved.
The same approach is more likely to backfire in Gaza. An opinion piece in Haarretz by Gideon Samet makes the important point that there is a distinction between Gaza and Lebanon (and at the same time is an interesting insight into the divisions (Palestine) and unity (Lebanon) in Israeli politics – often overlooked in discussions on Israeli policy). Israel seems to be trying to make life miserable for the Palestinians so that they will turn against Hamas. Hamas is the democratically elected government of the Palestinian people and Israel seems intent on destroying the Hamas government. Which is at odds with the United States declarations of wanting to promote democracy in the Middle East. This will lead to a deeper distrust by Arab nations regarding the real intent of United States Middle East policy (which itself seems largely one of inaction such a rejecting calls for a cease fire).
While the actions of Hamas’ militant groups are at the expense of the Palestinians, Israel does itself no favours by engaging disproportionate response against the Palestinians. The destruction of their infrastructure will only deepen the humanitarian crisis and likely solidify support for Hamas.
Israel deserves peace. But so do the Palestinians and the Lebanese. It is not a matter of who started it. It is the matter of who has the courage to break this senseless cycle of violence.
Update:Armaniac asks What Could Israel Have Done?
Don’t necessarily agree about the proportionality question, Shaun, but this was another great post. Very interesting.
Yes, great post, Shaun.
Shaun Cronin:
Hezbollah may be suicidal but they are certainly not stupid; anything but.
And so we enter Stage Three of the Third World War or The Forty Years War …..
btw, I think I read today that Russia has missed out on WTO membership; if this is so I wonder what effect this could have on the conflict?
Thoroughly agree with the conclusion, Shaun, and a good analysis.
Olmert’s political weakness needs to be taken into account here. His coalition is more disparate than he might have liked, Labour stronger, and he hasn’t the legitimacy Sharon had (or the ability to tread lightly while still being seen as strong). It’s here that some good diplomacy from the US – from someone like Condi Rice could exercise some considerable influence.
I’d also be very surprised if the US is prepared to see this situation continue for too long given their other strategic interests and the economic imperatives (markets, oil price) at stake. Sharon had Bush captive to his direction. One would hope the more pragmatic players in the administration could reverse that.
Shimon Peres is now on Cable saying its really an Iranian operation.
He says that it is not a matter of geography it’s all a matter of defending Israel.
IRAN is the Israeli focus here.
I should probably add less of my drunken ramblings in favour of more considered and informed words of others.
Billmon has a few posts on the usefulness (or not) of Olmert’s bombing campaign
While the Head Heeb doesn’t hold out much hope about negotiations – too many actors, not enough authority and (apparently) no political will on the US’s part.
Billmon link
Leinad et al
It’s too late to lay blame ( or too early as I don’t know which) but Israel has now chjoice but to elimiate the real threat or reduce the threat, that only leads to Iran.
Joe, you’ve been rambling on about this Iranapocalypse for the better part of a year now. Every bang, peep and whisper you hear from the middle east seems to lead to Tehran and Teh Evil Persians.
Has fear taken over your life? Do you look in your tea leaves for omens of Iranian doom? Freecall the Leinad Institute on 1800-FORGET-ABOUT-IRAN-FOR-ONE-SEC-WILL-YOU?. The benefits – a clear head, relaxed and healthy attitude to world affairs and no more Mullahs in your nightmares – will really make your day.
LeinadCare: call it direct, call it collect but call it today!
Leinad
Have i been wrong in warning about Iran so far?
Israel’s position is powerfully put by its representative to the UN here.
Uh. Lessee.
1) Joe: Ahmedinejad is crazy!!11 and will bomb israel!!111 (paraphrased)
Hasn’t happened.
2) Joe: OMG Iran has nukes!!!
Nup. They’ve got a basic fuel cycle. They’re decade away from producing anything like weapons grade uranium.
3) Joe: Teh NOrth KoreAns are selling Iran nukes and Iran willll nuke Israel!
Yet to see any evidence for this, aside from Joe’s ouija board.
0/3 ain’t good. Stick to monetarist crankery at catallaxy.
Whatever Iran has done or not done, is doing or isn’t doing …. I myself am simply wondering about nuts-and-bolts transport and other logistics problems the Iranian army might face if they went outside the borders of Iran itself in force.
1) Joe: Ahmedinejad is crazy!!11 and will bomb israel!!111 (paraphrased)
1 You diagree he’s crazy? Has Iran bombed israel? Well an Israeli ship just took an iranian missile and so did Haifa. H now has missils that can hit any part of Israel. Unless I’m mistaken Iran has donated those weapons to H. So yes, you can say the Iranian crazy has bombed Israel.
2. 2) Joe: OMG Iran has nukes!!!
Nup. They’ve got a basic fuel cycle. They’re decade away from producing anything like weapons grade uranium.
Well Israel has said last year they were 12 months away from nukes. What do you know we don’t?
3) Joe: Teh NOrth KoreAns are selling Iran nukes and Iran willll nuke Israel!
that was speculation. I said , we dont know if they have. Would it really surprise you?
” 0/3 ain’t good. Stick to monetarist crankery at catallaxy.”
Let’s not start that here.
Mark on 16 July 2006 at 11:00 pm
Yes. We should have left unwell enough alone. In the ME there are no good polities, only various forms of lesser evil. SH on a leash was better than his people unleashed, both for the world and Iraq.
Saddam was never anyones “man”, least of all the US. Remember OPEC in 1973? Kuwait in 1990?
Of course democracy is a radical form of “social construction”. It was, as Burke noted, a profoundly destabilising force in Northern jurisdictions. It is now a radically destabilising force in Southern Hemipsheric jurisdictions.
Obviously it would be nice if democracy could spread throughout the whole wide world with no problems. Unfortunately this is not the case.
It does not work very well in Middle Eastern-type states at this moment. Democracy is very much a GIGO process. These places provide an electorl input of grass roots sectarian elements. So the governmental output will not be good.
It requires majority rule and minority rights granted to “dissenters” within, and adjacent, to the state. Does this sound like a typical ME state?
What the ME needs is moderate dictatorships that grant some space for their civil societys to evolve in a civilised direction. The state should concentrate on building a self-sufficient monocultural nation rather than a roiling collection of warring tribes and sects. Members of civil society should concentrate on making money, rather than settling scores with their neighbours.
And our domestic Wets and Hawks should take note of the potential for harm caused when ideologues, whether infatuated with the weekend travel supplements or grand strategic doctrines, try to turn a mish-mash of alien and barbaric cultures into a functioning democracy, or vice-versa.
Rob, from the Israeli ambassador’s speech:
Doesn’t this bit:
which points out that up until very recently (March 2005) the Lebanese government has been at best a Syrian puppet and at worst one of Downer’s proverbial BACs…
…contradict this:
which imputes to the Lebanese government a much greater degree of control and hence responsibility than was admitted to above?
How can Lebanon be both a civil war ravaged Syrian puppet and powerful enough to disarm Hezbollah at the same time?
Joe:
1) learn some history. Iran’s been selling Hizbollah weapons since they co-founded the venture in ‘82. This ain’t news.
2) The Israelis said that twelve months ago. Iran still hasn’t nuked ‘em. Maybe perhaps they were being a bit loose with the truth?
3) so you were talking out your proverbial. That;s ok then.
” 1) learn some history. Iran’s been selling Hizbollah weapons since they co-founded the venture in ‘82. This ain’t news.”
Except the old weapons weren’t capable of hitting major Israeli cities. now they are.
you see a difference and if so does that make the issue a little more dramatic.
” 2) The Israelis said that twelve months ago. Iran still hasn’t nuked ‘em. Maybe perhaps they were being a bit loose with the truth?”
It doesn’t matter what we think or what Lainad intel thinks, it’s what Israeli intel thinks. You don’t know more than what they said last year.
Jack Strocchi at 1:14am:
Well, not quite. Depending on what you’re looking for, some are probably a lot better than others …. but I do take your point.
The old saying “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread” would apply to a lot of The West’s involvement in the Middle East.
Your last paragraph will surely get you crossed off some Christmas card lists in Canberra; that won’t worry you though.
Leinad, I think Gillerman was saying, ‘We put it back on you to fix it and you couldn’t. Now we have to sort it out for you all over again’.
The body language between the israeli and Lebanese representatives during the debate was very interesting.
Indeed Joe – the last thing we need is 457 comments from GMB about a topic virtually no one can understand.
Just a reminder to play nice on this thread, avoid stereotyping others, and remember the seriousness of the issues.
Conservative blogger, Michael Totten is part of the Pajama Media collective. He also lives in the Middle East, and has some interesting comments.
He also has this to say about Hezbollah’s stubborn presence within Lebanon.
Now this fellow is a staunch pro-Israel, Pro-War on terror supporter. It sounds to me as if Israel has made a huge error of judgment that could have devastating consequences for the entire world.
The fact that the US and Israel are now blaming Syria and Iran leaves us in no doubt where this is potentially heading.
Alex, there’s no doubt at all that Israel is putting it hard back on the Lebanese. They’re saying, It’s your country, your territory, and Hizbollah is part of your government. Over to you – or over to us. It’s a merciless diktat, because Israel knows Lebanon’s government is weak, and powerless in the south.
Israel hasn’t made any error. It’s read the situation on the ground very well. It’s struck hard at terrorist strongholds in Beirut — I would have more faith in Israeli intelligence about where and what it’s hitting than in Totten. It’s dropped flyers to tell people to get out of the way — good for humanitarian reasons, bad for military ones, since it allows their targets to decamp as well.
And there is no doubt who is behind Hizbollah: Syria and Iran. It was an Iranian missile that Hizbollah fired at the Israeli warship the other day, and Iranian troops are currently deployed to Lebanon to train and assist them.
The situation is dire, there’s no doubt of it. But Hizbollah — not Israel, not Lebanon — brought this about.
Rob,
The latest reports state that 106 people have been killed, and all but four are civilians. That’s not intelligent precise bombing – it’s clearly indiscriminate.
The new Lebanese Government has not been given a chance to control Hezbollah. The country showed great fortitude by overthrowing the pro-Syrian government. Neocons worldwide have spoken of the Lebanese government as being the model for the region. So what happens? Israel bombs the living shit out of the place, which will clearly result in Hezbollah gaining more power as regular Lebanese watch their country destroyed by a hostile neighbour.
Hezbollah operates in a very specific part of the country Yet Israel bombed parts of Beirut including vital infrastructure. This is indefensible.
The death toll in Israel from Katyusha rocket strikes is also rising, Alex. This isn’t a police action: it’s a war.
And Hizbollah militants are civilians. They are not soldiers. Who’s to determine the real nature of the dead?
The strikes against infrastructure are intended to prevent the re-supply and reinforcement of Hizbollah from Syria, and to stop the captured soldiers being spirited to a safe haven.
It’s horrible, and it’s bloody, but it’s a war. And Hizbollah started it.
The AFP is running with a story that Israel is using ‘phosphorous weapons’ on Lebanon’s civilians.
Quots and photos up here :
http://www.yournewreality.blogspot.com
The photos resemble the ones out of Fallujah when the US was accused of using the very same weapons on hundreds of civilians.
————————-
There seems little discussion on whether the US is truly backing Israel all the way here.
From what I’ve read in Bush and Condi Rice quotes, they’ve laid down the law, in a low-key way, to Israel and now they’re standing back to see what happens next.
As far as the war spreading wider, I wrote in a post here months ago (which made Mark L laugh), that Russia will not tolerate any attacks on Iran or Syria, and neither will China. Both Russia and China have more money invested in Syria/Iran than Israel, and they’ll protect their “national interests” just like Howard Corp. did when the Iraq War was being blue-skyed.
Iran and Syria know this, of course, but no doubt Russia has warned them not to get involved as well.
But here’s the prob : Hizbullah surely know what Russia and China will and will not allow, so they can provoke Israel with Haifa and perhaps Tel Aviv strikes knowing Israel will only go so far in hitting back.
It seems Israel’s options are far more limited than Hizbullah’s.
Plenty of US, Australia, Russia, China, UK money has been invested in Beirut in the past few years, and there’s going to be a lot of very pissed off people looking Israel’s way for compensation if this ends before it truly ends.
How quickly we forget that Lebanon was the star pupil in the US Democracy Rollout across the Middle East less than a month ago, with or without Hizbullah.
The true winners so far?
The arms makers and traders who will be resupplying Israel and Hizbullah with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of new weapons, tanks, shells, bullets, assorted killbot accesories and necessities, in the coming months.
Then again, the arms merchants are always the winners, in every war.
While people argue endlessly about the moral high ground and who was right and who was wrong, who started this war, who fired up this confrontatio,n and whether or it was illegal or not to slaughter however many civilians, the arms merchants slink away to palatial Dubai hotels filled with re-virgined hookers where they get Bolivian flake cocaine blown up their arses and laugh themselves stupid until dawn about just how much a good old Righteous Fight is still worth in US dollars.
“Suggestions have been that Hezbollah are acting as proxies for Syria and Iran. This may be so but this suggestion is speculation at the moment.”
What????
You jest surely. What do you mean by this? Do you mean simply that they make some day to day decisions on their own? Or do you mean that Iran and Syria are not responsible for them.
Our main problem is how do we keep Israel re-supplied and fighting until the regimes that sponsor terrorism and incite hate are no longer alive.
“The latest reports state that 106 people have been killed, and all but four are civilians. That’s not intelligent precise bombing – it’s clearly indiscriminate.”
Why can’t we call people like this names Mark?
So how is THAT part of Israels war aims fella?
“….which will clearly result in Hezbollah gaining more power as regular Lebanese watch their country destroyed by a hostile neighbour.”
Not if they are all dead and imprisoned and the Sauds, Iranians and Syrians are too frightened to re-establish any networks.
There’s never been an effective network of dead terrorists without funding yet.
If Russia acts to limit Israeli actions then Israels back will be pressed more firmly into a corner – not a good position to put a well armed, trained and motivated adversary.
If Russia has invested heavily in Syria and Iran….what role do they play in the formation and support of Hizbollah and Hamas?
Clearly Russia has no stomach for a direct confrontation.
With respect, Rob, who has faith in intelligence after Saddam’s WMD?
I’m afraid I don’t think there will be any peace in the ME as long as the Zionist state exists and also think that eventually there will have be a one-state solution in Palestine.
Gaza is nothing but a huge atrocity/prison camp and it seems the Olmert gov’t wants to inflict same on Lebanon
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14006.htm
So many of the so far 100 civilians killed are children, it’s just appalling. As if that such actions could win the release of the soldiers captured by Hizbollah (or Hamas)
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,1821576,00.html
Uri Avnery argues that the soldiers’ plight is but a pretext for something much bigger http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14004.htm
The Amnesty report is interesting – they confirm what Israelis have argued for some time, that the Arabs have no sympathy for their own kind.
It would appear public opinion is slowly changing – only a little while ago the Left were only too keen to carry the flag for the Muslims, support for terrorist groups is now dwindling.
All due respects, Kim, but I for one would never, ever misunderestimate Mossad. Using a Bushism.
Seriously though, about Mossad.
From a former head of the American Jewish Congress:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/israel-must-beware-the-cost/2006/07/16/1152988409591.html
Even so, Another Kim, what about Michael’s point?
I have lost a child and know what is happening in the hearts of those who lost a child today. If they are still alive themselves.
I am almost dumbstruck.
Kinda like this…
“Crying in the street and can not be comforted, because her children are lost.”
The Bible.
Being appalled or dumbstruck does not help to understand the situation. I am appalled by those parents who volunteer their children for suicide bombing.
If you think that it is all down to Zionism then what is the connection with Lashkar-e-Taiba?
Rog..I can be dumbstruck and still support the destruction of terrorists. I hold both positions at once.
Inconvenient and uncomfortable position.
fair enough AK.
On the contrary Another Kim, I have extreme confidence in Mossad to get its hands on accurate intel… just not to share it with us.
which may or may not be for the best!
Au contraire, Michael G.
Perhaps we do not want to know.
Shorter Rog: If you’re not with us you’re with the terrists and teh leftists.
Rob re
Photos from Lebanon of many dead women and children do have a tendency to tell us the “real nature”
The reasons for Hizbollah’s creation from June 1982 would be the more pertinent discussion.
Hezbollah today = Syrian and Iranian terrorists.
Sorry, but I believe you’ve fallen into the trap of mincing and hand wringing in an effort to demonstrate impartiality.
The left needs to do so. Often we fail to acknowledge terrorist acts for what they are, or to accept Israel’s need to defend itself.
But this is wholesale slaughter, pure reprisal.
You say:
=”Israeli response seems aimed to punish all of Lebanon not just Hezbollah militants. “=
You think? Over 120 dead in Lebanon, over 50 dead in Gaza, nearly all civilians?
What this is making me wonder is what exactly would be enough to make those who always defend Israel actually stand back and say- now they are going too far?
What WOULD they say if for example a nuclear device was used on Tyre?
“OH but it’s all Hizbollah’s fault, so it’s fine to seek brutal reprisal against civilan populations and destroy Lebanon once again.”
Kim’s quote above get’s to the nub of the issue- it is not that Israel was not justified taking a hard response, it is the response they’ve taken that is the problem.
It is a blundering admission of defeat, because clearly Israel, widely acknowledged as having the world’s most competent (head for head) commandos and fighter pilots, clearly felt incapable of isolating and attacking Hizbollah strongholds.
For what it’s worth I will have a stab at doing a post on what would have been legit Israeli action, to demonstrate the difference between defensive measures and pure reprisal.
If Hezbollah chose different hiding spaces other then civilian areas then perhaps it would go different.
Civilian shields are NOT the way to play it.
Orwell, naturally, on war stories:
I’m impressed myself that we’re even getting into the realm of speculative atrocity. Nuking Tyre? Eh?
Alex, has your typing freed up a bit of rigor in your fingers?
So there were Hezbollah fighters ‘hiding’ on the runways of Beiruit Airport?
‘Hiding’ bang in the middle of every bridge in the south?
This isn’t Hezbollah using human shields. This is Israel deliberately attacking civillian infrastructure. They’ve admitted as much.
Leinad…damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
Taking out targets that will assist in further strikes should other choose to use the airport.
If we must decend into the blame game, probably the Brits should cop the most approbrium, for creating the “twice promised land”–ie. promising to give Palestine to the Arabs and to the Jews simultaneously. But while speaking of “terrorism” some history is being repeated here, somewhat ironically, which the knee jerk “terrorist” labellers should bear in mind.
http://www.krysstal.com/democracy/display_acts.php?year1=1945&year2=1949
Now while Israel was created by the UN, there’s a lot of history that Palestinians can’t quite forget, not the least of it being the Brits spitting the colonial dummy, they:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan
Ultimately, if anyone is to blame for this whole bloody mess, it’s the Brits. Pointing the finger and accusing non-state actors as being automatically “terrorist” in attempts to occupy the high moral ground are futile and not at all conducive to resolving the world’s most intractable FUBAR.
AK: they didn’t have to do that. It wasn’t damned if you do. Read the Michael Totten piece Alex posed above.
They could have bombed Hezbollah targets in the South (where they, y’know, are?), and been perfectly justified in retaliation. Instead they ranged all over the north, bombing anti-Hezbollah districts and general civilian infrastructure, indiscriminately.
It’s a stupid, bloody, callously vengeful policy that does Israel no favours.
Leinad, have you got a link to that ‘admission’ ?
Ah, yes. Irgun and the King David.
Argue with dead people.
Alex, has your typing freed up a bit of rigor in your fingers?
??
mG: They don’t even have to admit it, what else could bombing Beirut airport first up be? It was not a Hizbollah target. The fuel reserves the Israelis torched on Day 2 weren’t terrorist avgas.
From the horse’s mouth:
Hizbollah is launching the rockets. All of Lebanon is getting bombed.
Few readers of a British newspaper would have noticed the story. In the Observer of 25 June, it merited a mere paragraph hidden in the “World in brief� section, revealing that the previous day a team of Israeli commandos had entered the Gaza Strip to “detain� two Palestinians Israel claims are members of Hamas.
The significance of the mission was alluded to in a final phrase describing this as “the first arrest raid in the territory since Israel pulled out of the area a year ago�. More precisely, it was the first time the Israeli army had re-entered the Gaza Strip, directly violating Palestinian control of the territory, since it supposedly left in August last year.
As the Observer landed on doorsteps around the UK, however, another daring mission was being launched in Gaza that would attract far more attention from the British media – and prompt far more concern.
Shortly before dawn, armed Palestinians slipped past Israeli military defences to launch an attack on an army post close by Gaza called Kerem Shalom. They sneaked through a half-mile underground tunnel dug under an Israeli-built electronic fence that surrounds the Strip and threw grenades at a tank, killing two soldiers inside. Seizing another, wounded soldier the gunmen then disappeared back into Gaza.
Whereas the Israeli “arrest raid� had passed with barely a murmur, the Palestinian attack a day later received very different coverage. The BBC’s correspondent in Gaza, Alan Johnstone, started the ball rolling later the same day in broadcasts in which he referred to the Palestinian attack as “a major escalation in cross-border tensions�. (BBC World news, 10am GMT, 25 June 2006)
Done, now don’t go calling me anti-semitic:
What COULD Israel have done?
Alex’s 17 July 2006 at 2:18 am point about
Conservative blogger, Michael Totten’s conclusion that Israel has made a huge error of judgment is welcome point of light amidst much polemical heat.
Israel has bitten off more than they can chew. They have behaved as if Hezbollah were capable of driving the state of Israel into the sea. And instead of seeking to build a pro-Israeli consensus in Lebanon, their actions have alienated potential supporters. Israel is now committed to rooting out Hezbollah from Lebanon. This is a task they are incapable of achieving.
In the meantime, as if the profile of the COW weren’t wretched enough already in the Islamic world, their association with Israeli disproportionality and adventurism has provided fresh impetus for radical Islamism. This will play very badly in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia…
If one believes that the power and patience of the COW are inexhaustible, then this consequence of Israel’s adventurism is not important.
But it is clear that the steadfastness of the COW is very questionable. Therefore, Israel’s adventurism is manna from heaven, so far as radical Islamists are concerned.
And to forestall any suggestion that I’m an apologist for Islamist fanaticism, I am not. Like the Conservative Totten cited by Alex I want them defeated.
But I’m appalled by the idiocy of the Bush Clique and their minions. Pandering to Israel’s adventurism is just one more example of this stupidity. For it is certain that Bush knew and was told by Olmert Israel’s intentions. Bush then signed off on it.
Another well-informed analysis:
Whatever may be the fate of the captive soldier Gilad Shalit, the Israeli armyÃs war in Gaza is not about him. As senior security analyst Alex Fishman widely reported, the army was preparing for an attack months earlier and was constantly pushing for it, with the goal of destroying the Hamas infrastructure and its government. The army initiated an escalation on 8 June when it assassinated Abu Samhadana, a senior appointee of the Hamas government, and intensified its shelling of civilians in the Gaza Strip. Governmental authorization for action on a larger scale was already given by 12 June, but it was postponed in the wake of the global reverberation caused by the killing of civilians in the air force b! ombing the next day. The abduction of the soldier released the safety-catch, and the operation began on 28 June with the destruction of infrastructure in Gaza and the mass detention of the Hamas leadership in the West Bank, which was also planned weeks in advance.
A brief timeline of recent events
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/16/165555/760
Kos, eh? Should one post something just as far to the right?
A timeline of future events:
IDF bombings extend to Syria
Iran retaliates against Israel
IDF bombs Iranian nuclear sites
Iran invades Iraq (attacks USA)
or:
IDF bombings extend to Iran, especially nuclear sites
Iran ivades Iraq (attacks USA) or Iran militias attack with Iranian support
Either way the Americans want Iran bombed so the war can only escalate. At the moment world opininion is being tested and things are looking goog for the NEOCONS.
Actually Flute, I think I just worked out that you called me extremely boring. That’s a little harsh!
Nice comment, Katz, and I agree.
Roight..
Americans want the world to explode in f’ing nuclear fury.
We wait in breathless anticipation of that.
I just can’t wait. Really. None of us can. Escalate now!
“Israel deserves peace. But so do the Palestinians and the Lebanese. It is not a matter of who started it. It is the matter of who has the courage to break this senseless cycle of violence.”
Well I’m sorry but this is glib and meaningless. There is no point in one side breaking the cycle if the other side sees it as weakness and attempts to take advantage of the situation.
A similar argument would be that the Americans should have had the courage after Pearl Harbour to not intervene in WWII. Now where would that have left us? In deep shit I suspect.
It is all so very easy to make “all we need is love” type comments from the safety of an ergonomic desk chair in the sleepy land of Oz.
Israel cannot seriously be expected to break the cycle of violence while the Palestinians support a Government that is dedicated to its annihilation and refuses to negotiate. Similarly, Israel cannot be expected to do nothing decisive when Hezbollah, which is likewise dedicated its destruction, takes pot shots at it from southern Lebanon.
Israel has no choice other than to break the back of those who seek to destroy it via some very serious shock and awe.
Once the Palestinians are resigned to the fact that they must reach a negotiated settlement with Israel then both sides can return to the negotiating table and some progress may be made.
Peter Kemp seems to be intent on some type of “Fabrication of Middle Eastern History” ala Keith Windschuttle. It is absurd to pick out one thing in the enigmatic history of the Palestine/Israel conflict and label it definitive and then apportion blame accordingly.
A prophesy in December last year on Israel’s attitude to Iran’s nuclear program. It appears that Condi may have seen sanctions as the best option, and hence the exact date mentioned did not come to pass. His analysis shows that the IDF plans are fixed in place so Iran will be bombed on this analysis:
Never has an imminent war been so loudly and publicly advertised as Israel’s forthcoming military attack against Iran. When the Israeli Military Chief of Staff, Daniel Halutz, was asked how far Israel was ready to go to stop Iran’s nuclear energy program, he said “Two thousand kilometers” Â the distance of an air assault.
More specifically Israeli military sources reveal that Israel’s current and probably next Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ordered Israel’s armed forces to prepare for air strikes on uranium enrichment sites in Iran According to the London Times the order to prepare for attack went through the Israeli defense ministry to the Chief of Staff. During the first week in December, “sources inside the special forces command confirmed that ‘G’ readiness  the highest state  for an operation was announced” (Times, December 11, 2005).
On December 9, Israeli Minister of Defense, Shaul Mofaz, affirmed that in view of Teheran’s nuclear plans, Tel Aviv should “not count on diplomatic negotiations but prepare other solutions”. In early December, Ahron Zoevi Farkash, the Israeli military intelligence chief told the Israeli parliament (Knesset) that “if by the end of March, the international community is unable to refer the Iranian issue to the United Nations Security Council, then we can say that the international effort has run its course”.
In other words, if international diplomatic negotiations fail to comply with Israel’s timetable, Israel will unilaterally, militarily attack Iran. Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the Likud Party and candidate for Prime Minister, stated that if Sharon did not act against Iran, “then when I form the new Israeli government (after the March 2006 elections) we’ll do what we did in the past against Saddam’s reactor.” In June 1981 Israel bombed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq.
Even the pro-Labor newspaper, Haaretz, while disagreeing with the time and place of Netanyahu’s pronouncements, agreed with its substance. Haaretz criticized “(those who) publicly recommend an Israeli military option” because it “presents Israel as pushing (via powerful pro-Israel organizations in the US) the United States into a major war.” However, Haaretz adds “Israel must go about making its preparations quietly and securely  not at election rallies.” (Haaretz, December 6, 2005). Haaretz’s position, like that of the Labor Party, is that Israel not advocate war against Iran before multi-lateral negotiations are over and the International Atomic Energy Agency makes a decision.
Israeli public opinion apparently does not share the political elite’s plans for a military strike against Iran’s nuclear program. A survey in the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, reported by Reuters (December 16, 2005) shows that 58 per cent of the Israelis polled believed the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program should be handled diplomatically while only 36 per cent said its reactors should be destroyed in a military strike.
All top Israeli officials have pronounced the end of March, 2006, as the deadline for launching a military assault on Iran. The thinking behind this date is to heighten the pressure on the US to force the sanctions issue in the Security Council. The tactic is to blackmail Washington with the “war or else” threat, into pressuring Europe (namely Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia) into approving sanctions. Israel knows that its acts of war will endanger thousands of American soldiers in Iraq, and it knows that Washington (and Europe) cannot afford a third war at this time.
The end of March date also coincides with the IAEA report to the UN on Iran’s nuclear energy program. Israeli policymakers believe that their threats may influence the report, or at least force the kind of ambiguities, which can be exploited by its overseas supporters to promote Security Council sanctions or justify Israeli military action.
Interesting discussion so far.
Steve,
Yes, it is all so very easy to make “all we need is loveâ€? type comments from the safety of an ergonomic desk chair in the sleepy land of Oz. and it is just as easy from the same comforts to say Israel has no choice other than to break the back of those who seek to destroy it via some very serious shock and awe. especially when you don’t have to deal with the consequences.
The Israeli ’shock and awe’ is likley to only further violence in the Middle East. The Palestinians already have nothing to lose. The Israeli tactics are only going to reinforce support for Hamas. Israel do have choices and they have made the wrong one in Gaza. It is too early to tell what will happen in Lebanon.
Good post Armaniac. Have added a link from the OP.
In the six years since Israel pulled out of Lebanon, Hizbollah has amassed an arsenal of 13,000 missiles, sourced from Syria and Iran. The missile that struck the Israeli warship off the coast of Lebanon was from Iran.
Hizbollah hosts many of these weapons in civilian houses. If Israel takes these weapons out, tragically there will be loss of civilian life — but it’s Hizbollah that positions them there deliberately to provide them with permanent human shields.
So far Israel has targeted:
-10 Lebanese military radar stations along the coast
- Hezbollah’s main headquarters in Beirut
- Hezbollah’s broadcasting compound – its major outlet for propaganda and incitement
- Structures for storing weapons including Katyusha missiles
- Katyusha launching grounds
- Some 20 Hezbollah operational centers in Baalbek and Beirut
- Several bridges and other Hezbollah infrastructure points across Lebanon.
That response doesn’t strike me as indiscriminate or excessive.
And what steve munn said.
The big losers in all this?
The Palestinian nonterrorists.
Deserted (as always) when not being used as pawns by major Arab players.
Thanks Leinad. Are you suggesting that the airport has no strategic significance for Hezbollah or are you suspicious of the fact that it was the first target?
I think your analogy is misleading Steve; the argument is not ‘all we need is love.’ It is more like, this seemingly interminable situation has been going on for decades and is fueled by the mutual animosity of both parties and quite often by the tactical wonts of outside parties. So let’s try and break the circuit.
I agree that at the moment it is not fair to ask the Israelis to renounce violence, both defensive and offensive (A few years ago it was different – How did Hamas come to be elected again?) but it is fair to ask them to keep their response proportionate. Not to mention, well actually Shaun did mention, thata disproportionate response is highly likely to prove counterproductive. If everything goes up, then I s’pose all bets are off, but this’ll probably seem like small fry.
Shorter Steve Munn: History that records Irgun’s Monachem Begin as a terrorist is the perfidious British armband version.
Bartleby:
This is an instructive piece from Ynet
Look who’s been kidnapped!
Hundreds of Palestinian ’suspects’ have been kidnapped from their homes and will never stand trial
Arik Diamant
http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3271505,00.html
Israel exists, deserves the the right to continued existence and to defend itself against terrorists.
Good to see some sense posted here on the comments section of this site…
Seriously, I’ve read other commentators suggest that the Israeli withdrawal of settlements (illegal ones at that if any of the peace accords are/were worth anything) was but a prelude to a more aggressive ethnic cleaning of those pesky Palestinians (why don’t they just abandon their homes and start a new life in the middle of waterless desert already??).
And lo… what do we have here?
Hizbollah may be suicidal here but if you think back to what happened last week with the Israeli attacks on Palestinians (how many Palestinians in Gaza died again? How many more will die of lack of water, food, electricity, medicine, sanitation etc etc?) they did the right thing to draw the heat away from the far weaker party.
Oh wait a minute. Is the democratically elected Hamas government’s executive still being held hostage by the Israeli?
Israel is obviously playing a game of brinkmanship here and it’s paying off for its American sponsor who dearly wishes of an attack on Iran as part of it’s own geopolitical game which of course is sinking deeper and deeper if you consider the Iraqi quagmire as its objective (how’s that going again? Have we found any WMDs that the Yanks didn’t bring with them?) or really paying off if you think escalating oil prices are it’s objective.
There are at least two definitions of “disproportionate”:
1. How many of your widows and orphans am I allowed to kill in response to your killing some of my widows and orphans? This futile quest for the moral high ground results in arguments, soap-boxing, special pleading and no resolution short of exhaustion.
2. Are my ends disproportionate to my means and my will? What outcomes are achievable and sustainable? Are my resources sufficient to achieve and sustain these outcomes? Am I prepared to expend these resources in achieving the preferred outcome?
Any nation that through aggressive war oversteps its means is ipso facto guilty of state terrorism. This is so because it government has refused to think beyond bellicosity to the return of peace.
It’s, Iran, supid! Although I would not subscribe to everything in this article, it is another convincing analysis that this tragedy is not about soldiernapping, terrorism and retaliation. In other words, people need to stop dealing with words derived from propaganda and analyse the situation. The situation is one that concerns GrossKrieg and not KleinKrieg. Lebanon has been sacrificed first by Iran and then by Israel in order to weaken Iran.
In addition to securing the release of its captured soldiers and stopping the ongoing wave of missile attacks, a major goal of Israel’s current operation is to strengthen its hand in dealing with Iran.
Israel is fighting in Lebanon with an eye on Iran, Hezbollah’s sponsor, as the Islamic Republic is poised to become Israel’s sole existential threat by acquiring nuclear weapons.
“This is about Iran as much as it is about Hezbollah or Lebanon,� said Lieutenant Colonel (reserve) Amos Guiora, the former commander of the IDF School of Military Law and currently a professor at Western Reserve University School of Law.
Iran, which reportedly gives Hezbollah $100 million a year, has been using the Shiite Islamist group as an anti-Israel military proxy for years, mainly by equipping it with thousands of rockets and missiles that can reach deep into Israel. Most of Hezbollah’s stockpile was provided by Iran and delivered through Syria, according to Israeli and American intelligence.
Tehran’s goal in arming Hezbollah, Israeli experts say, was to deter an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. Now, by destroying these missiles during its current operation in Lebanon, Israel is attempting to restore its military flexibility and shattered deterrence against terrorism.
According to Israeli press reports, Israel’s intelligence community is convinced that Iran approved Hezbollah’s July 12 cross-border attack in which two Israeli soldiers were abducted and seven killed. By igniting the Israeli-Lebanese border, Israeli diplomats said, Iran is trying to divert attention from its standoff with the West over Tehran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Israeli security sources told reporters that hours before the Hezbollah attack, following his defiant meeting with the European Union’s foreign policy chief Javier Solana, Iran’s lead nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, stopped in Beirut and met with senior Hezbollah leaders. In that meeting with Hezbollah leaders, Israeli security officials speculate, the green light was given for the terrorist group’s raid into Israel.
Lebanese Cabinet ministers, following a stormy Thursday emergency meeting, publicly accused their two Hezbollah colleagues of staging the operation in the service of Iran and Syria.
OK if Iran gave the green light for the Hezbollah raid, what were the reasons of the green light? Did Hizbollah approach the Iranians or vice versa? What’s it all about hmm?
According to Israeli spies (nb. spy = professional liar):
By igniting the Israeli-Lebanese border, Israeli diplomats said, Iran is trying to divert attention from its standoff with the West over Tehran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.
So Iran’s trying to divert attention away from its nuclear stand-off with “the rest of the world” right? Is this really true? Sounds like bull-shit to me. I thought that had come to a stalemate with the backing of the Russians and the Chinese.
Am I wrong? I’m by no means perfect – I’ll admit that.
And why is this “distraction” theme so important to the Israeli side? It’s all about distraction eh..?
Disengenuous to say the least Rob, how about from Haaretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/
Shorter Rob’s News flash: Israel doesn’t want Hezbollah to eat, destroys food transportation (road) systems. Israel attacks Lebanese armed forces infrastructure: “We want them to control Hezbollah, so this will teach them a lesson they’ll never forget, and please note none of this is “indiscriminate or excessive.”
“
Let’s all we peons see how things play out, shall we?
If you say so er Alex (nudge, nudge)
According to Israeli spies (nb. spy = professional liar):
By igniting the Israeli-Lebanese border, Israeli diplomats said, Iran is trying to divert attention from its standoff with the West over Tehran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Yes, this is bullshit. It would be more accurate to say that it wants to fight the standoff by shifting it to another front, whereas the diplomat is trying to shift it back. The fact that the sanctions would have been vetoed means that from an American and Israel point of view, force was the only option. Iran knows this only too well. War was thus inevitable and by using Hizbollah Iran shifted the front line for a while, at least, which is an advantage. But at what cost! And for how long?
Couldn’t find the exact story you cited, Peter, but this from Haaretz is interesting.
Yeah but if the Americans attacked Iran they’d be even more fucked than they are now in Iraq.
And the Iranians seem to be doing fine and dandy without stirring up any trouble no?
Sorry Bartelby but it seems to be that the US and Israel are the ones doing the stirring. And if Israel takes all the heat for the Americans for it then all the better for them right?
It’s right here Rob The address was too long for a simple link.
Put the theory farther forward, Christo.
Israel is acting on America’s behalf? Really?
Say more.
Hmm, well, you edited it pretty severely to cut out the IDF’s reasons for the attacks, among other things, Peter.
An interesting point from Shauns analysis that no-one has commented on: The hypocrisy of Hezbollah in their use of the Palestinian cause.
Does assistance run the other way? That is, from Hamas to Hezbollah? Or are they both effectively assisted by third parties?
American is indeed doing badly in Iraq as that is ‘a dirty little war’ (Kleinkrieg), but to get rid of reactors you can indeed just bomb them back to the stone age as Israel is doing in Lebanon for partly demonstrational purposes. Iran wants ‘dirty little wars’ rather than just seeing themselves reduced to rubble in one big conventional airwar, which will in all probability still happen. All I’m suggesting is that the Lebanon front seems to be part of the so-called nuclear standoff between Iran and the USA/Israel, whereas the Gaza front is an attempt to destroy Hamas in particular and the Palestinians in general on that flank so as to be free to exercise control on the West Bank front. I do not think as well that the word ‘disproportionate’ constitutes much of a sca(o)lding!
I have commented on the use of the Palestinians.
Ordinary, run of the mill, want to live Palestinians.
Terrorists use and then drop them. Or use as shields. Governments as well.
AK, well if someone’s going to argue that Hezbollah is acting on behalf of Iran and expect people to accept that uncritically, then surely it would be just as credible to assert that Israel is acting on behalf of the US, seeing as it’s the US’ “deputy sherriff” in the region.
I actually think it’s more complicated than that. The Iran issue is a dangerous diversion from the real roots of this trouble (in my mind at any rate) and that is that the Zionist Israeli establishment is an avatar of hubris in the classical sense of the term.
Does Israel even recognize a border with Lebanon? (honest question).
Also see what Michael said in this thread here and elsewhere, along with what other conservative (ugh) bloggers have said…
I also agree with Peter Kemp’s point here
If we’re going to draw conclusions we might as well begin with good premises…
A logical response to your original “editing” Rob:
As for the reasons, that gets back to to your
which you now have much more difficulty in establishing in the light of the actual more complete evidence, as opposed to your selectively downplayed/chosen evidence.
Ah, so you did Another Kim. But you’ve been painting with a broader brush.
AK, just so you don’t think I’m either rude or at a loss to reply to your question, I’ve replied but it’s awaiting moderation… probably because of the three links to other comments in this thread…
I didn’t see anything in the full article to change my opinion, Peter. The strikes were consistent with Israel’s strategic objectives: (a) to get the soldiers back — btw, unconfirmed recents reports from Lebanon claim they are being held in the Iranian embassy in Beirut — and (b) to neutralise Hizbollah by destroying its arsenals and infrastructure.
Interested in your views on Hizbollah locating its launch sites in private houses.
Thanks Shaun!
My very dear Michael G..I will paint only within the lines for you.
Personal views encompass the following.
Israel exists. Can and should defend itself. Has a right to live in peace.
Palestinians have a right to a state (hey Jordan and Syria, give it up) and a right to live in peace.
Another convincing analysis:
Which brings us to the final parallel. As things threaten to escalate out of control in both Gaza and Lebanon, Israel is keen to implicate outside actors.
In the case of Gaza it points to Syria as a safe haven for the exiled Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal, to Hizbullah and Iran as sponsors of Hamas “terror,” and even to a new Al-Qaeda presence. In the case of Lebanon, Israel additionally identifies the strong ties between Hizbullah and Damascus and Tehran. However legitimate these concerns, Israeli actions in Gaza, the West Bank and now Lebanon – combined with America’s occupation of Iraq, keenly backed by Israel – have been intensifying these links, not loosening them.
Israel’s purpose seems clear: to create an impression of a single implacable enemy, Islam, fighting a global war of terror in which plucky Israel is on the front line.
The aim of Israeli policymakers is not too difficult to divine either. They want their American paymaster dragged deeper into the mire of the Middle East as a junior partner rather than as an honest broker, giving Israel cover while it carves up yet more Palestinian land for annexation, puts further pressure on the Palestinians to leave their homeland, and destabilizes its regional enemies so that they are powerless to offer protest or resistance.
For some time US President George W. Bush has found himself in no position to criticize Israeli actions when Israel claims to be doing no more to the Palestinians than the US is doing to the Iraqis. If the US allows itself to be handcuffed to Israel’s “war on terror,” the consequences will be dire not just for the Palestinians but for the whole region.
If Israel deliver enough shock and awe in Lebanon the hopefully the Lebanese will eject Hezbollah, kind of like a coral polyp ejecting its zooxanthellae when the water gets to hot.
Let’s see if the theory works.
Bartleby, you a 9/11 conspiracy person as well?
Love all our ideas and theories since we don’t live in the war zone. Full of ourselves.
Tell you what.
Things get to that level in Australia or America (they were at that level here about 5 years ago) we’ll talk again and see what anyone actually does as opposed to talk.
How’s that sound?
Well, can’t argue with your first post Another Kim, but I reckon being too close to the action can confuse you as much as being too far way away.
But yeah, what we would do (Flee? Protest? Bay for blood?) is probably different to what we should do.
Bartleby, you a 9/11 conspiracy person as well?
I’m not sure what this means, but I think I can guess and if I’ve guessed correct then the answer is no. What I am is a rationalist and a sceptic and I am simply not interested in propaganda, but only analysis.
Words like terrorism, retaliation, kidnapping and so on are simply being used to give people a simple and untrue story to believe.
The question is as always: cui bono? And truth, as always, is the first casualty of war.
Rob, re:
(a) Utter BS–history demonstrates only negotiations have achieved this.
(b) Short of nuking southern Lebanon, impossible. Remember the last time they invaded Lebanon to do this to the PLO???
(c) Despicable, like Israel’s OTT response.
Another insightful analysis from The Times of London:
In December 2004 King Abdullah of Jordan famously described this emerging alliance as a “Shia crescent�, a synonym that outraged Tehran but spoke tellingly of Sunni Arab fears about the ambitions of Iran to become a regional superpower capable of facing up to Israel. Although the inclusion of the Sunni Hamas movement in the alliance weakens the notion of a Shia crescent, the idea is not entirely fanciful.
Emboldened by this partnership, Iran and Syria have refused to yield to intense international pressure to comply with the demands of the West on several issues. Syria stands accused by many of assassinating Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister, last year, as well as continuing to support antiIsraeli militants and insurgency groups in Iraq. The Iranians faces possible UN sanctions if they continus to pursue their nuclear ambitions.
But Tehran, Damascus and their Hamas and Hezbollah allies are calculating that the United States, bogged down in the turmoil in Iraq, is unable to back its demands by force, allowing them to play some high-stakes poker, including the current confrontation with Israel. Iran increased the pressure yesterday by raising the spectre of a regional war, saying that Israel would suffer “unimaginable losses� if it attacked Syria. In turn, Mohsen Bilal, the Syrian Information Minister, vowed a “firm and direct response not limited in time or means� if Syria is attacked.
Michael G.
Since we’re all blowing air out our asses, may as well speculate then.
What would YOU do, if you were there today in either Beirut or Haifa?
I’d be making every attempt to have my small one out of harms way and then taking up arms.
How’s about you all?
At the top of the thread, I made a point about Olmert’s political weakness. Assad is politically weak compared to his father, who knew when to fold in a game of high stakes poker. And Ahminajed is hardly in sole control of things. Then we have the weakened Bush, and Lebanon can’t be described as a functioning state at all – it’s simply ridiculous to suggest, as Rob and steve munn have done, that they should be bombed into agreeing to “give up the terrorists” or whatever – the logic is equivalent but equivalently faulty to the old demands that Arafat control Hamas.
And possible mediators? Chirac?
Putin is probably the only player in the game with a position of domestic strength.
Since everyone concedes that “failed states” are the big danger in terms of terrorism and instability, it’s amazing that people don’t apply the same analysis to leaders lacking legitimacy and/or judgement.
There’s real danger in such leaders playing to publics who can never be satisfied, rather than seeking a realistic solution.
And the us and them frame makes those publics more warlike and less amenable to compromise.
Anyway, that’s my 2 bits’ worth. Off to give a lecture now.
Putin’s strong enough to make an idiot our of Bush and Blair:
Mr Putin’s dig at Mr Bush came during their joint news conference, casting doubts on the close personal friendship that the two men claim to enjoy. Mr Bush said that he had told the Russian leader that people in the United States wanted Russia to promote the sort of democratic institutions that exist in Iraq.
Mr Putin’s deadpan response caused even the thick-skinned Texan to blush. “To be honest, we certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq,� Mr Putin said, prompting laughter and applause from reporters.
Later in the day Mr Putin took a swipe at Mr Blair over his links to Lord Levy, the Labour party fundraiser.
Asked by a British reporter how he would respond to Mr Blair’s concerns about Russian democracy, Mr Putin said he was always glad to hear fellow leaders’ views.
Then, after a long pause, he smiled and added: “There are also other questions; questions, let’s say, about the fight against corruption. We’d be interested in hearing your experience, including how it applies to Lord Levy.�
So, no leader controls anything?
Sounds just about right. No snark intended.
Shaun Cronin says:
I congratulate Shaun on a heart-felt and fair-minded post. Unfortunately it boils down to another futile exercise in liberal hand-wringing. The last thing the wild ME will respond to is more moral exhortation. It needs better social analysis from us and a benevolent dictatarsip for them. For various reasons these are unlikely outcomes. The place is “Unforgiven”:
Shaun Cronin says:
It is we, not the ME, that have difficulty learning the lessons of recent history. The political is a reflection of the personal.
ME culture is bad because the people will it so. As shown by recent democratic votes, and jihad mammas voting with their foetuses.
It is made worse because a large and highly motivated minority of ME people get tremendous satisfaction from squabbling amongst themselves and with others, usually on the basis of some supposed sacred identity. This minority prefer to fight rather than earn an honest living or simply enjoy a place in the sun.
People are getting rather overwrought about the flare up of violence in Lebanon and Gaza. It is simply a return to “situation normal” in the ME after a prolonged period of time where people in the Occident got carried away with some delusions and the Byzantine-Levantines were happy to nurture these delusions.
Of course the current fighting is nuisance for many citizens inconvenienced by the proximate delivery of ordinance. And dreadfully bad luck for the few scores who have been killed. Spare a thought also for SUV drivers and frequent flyers.
But the overall level of violence is nothing compared to previous wars (esp Lebanese ones), intifadas or regime changes. Hamas and Hezbollah will continue to send off a few rockets until they run out or until the IDF smashes their military infrastructure to bits. Then it will die down until people rearm and recruit for the next cycle of violence.
The one bit of grief that should be felt by certain political commentators is the mourning for the slaughter of sacred cows that this latest violence has occasioned. Hereunder are the chief ideological victims of violence, who do not yet appear to know what has hit them:
HAWKS: that a despotic Islamic Arabic regime can be violently changed and rebuilt into a democratic nation state
DOVES: that Zionist state land can be parlayed away for peace with Islamic militants;
WETS: that diverse ethnics can live together in harmony in a democratic multicultural state. Especially when those ethnics take their Abrahamic identity seriously.
For some reason there is not much a lament from these pushes for the real world debunking of their cherished delusions. It is more painful to admit error than spectate the suffering of little children.
I think you have mis-read me, Mark. It is precisely because the central government in Lebanon is so weak — specifically that its writ does not run in the south, where Hizbollah is in de facto control — that Israel has taken it upon itself to destroy the organisation.
As Michael J Totten says (I disagree with some elements of his post, but not this one):
Lebanon could neither have prevented the incursion, nor do anything to stop the missile attacks. The hope had always been the Hizbollah, once part of the government, would have a stake in the institutions of the state and behave accordingly. That has not happened.
On the Lebanese blogs I’ve been visiting, there was, at least initially, an outburst of fury at Hizbollah for having carried out acts of war against Israel on its own behalf, whilst still being (putatively) part of a government that wanted anything but.
Jack, you left out the DRIES
Peter Kemp on 17 July 2006 at 5:32 pm
Yes, deliberately so. The DRIES (American Conservative version) pretty much predicted everything right in the Culture Wars, both tht woes of domestic multiculturalism and the follies of foreign democracy promotion.
Thats why I have become so self-consciously and conspicuously DRY (ie cultural conservative and geo-political realist-legalist) in recent times. It makes sense to back horses that keep winning or at least dont run stone motherless last.
But if anyone can point to me where War Nerd, Steve Sailer, Patrick Buchanan, Jerry Pournelle, Greg Cochran*, et al have been glaringly wrong about the recent flare up of Culture Wars, both domestic and foreign, then I would be glad to stand corrected.
* Cochran in particular, was almost eerily prescient. He got annual US casualty figures right to within 10% margin of error (pre-war private correspondence).
There’s been no Zionist state land being parlayed away, instead there has been Zionist settlers usurping Palestinian land in the West Bank and up until last year, Gaza. Additionally, the Zionist state has annexed East Jerusalem. Furthermore, Sharon’s “fence” has claimed even more Palestinian land as Zionist land. Furthermore the Zionist state has control over the JOrdan valley and is attempting to squeeze out the local palestinian pop’n for ’security’ reasons. The Zionist state has done everything it can to thwart legitimate Palestinian aspirations for statehood.
Tonight I heard Dolly Downer on PM on the difficulties of evacuating Austrlaian citizens in Lebanon mention that the Italian nearly had a disaster when they tried to evacuate Italian national by bus to Syria. The buses were nearly bombed by Israeli bombers.
Now the last time I saw civilian refugee traffic being attacked by enemy air fighters was in WW2 when the Luftwaffe and the Japanese air force attacked refugee columns (obviously I only have seen this on film footage not being alive then). Whatever the rights or wrongs of the cross border fighting between Israel and HIzbollah, the Israeli behaviour in Lebanon I regard as not only outrageous but criminal.
As someone has said earlier the only way to get your soldeirs back who have been captured (lets give up this nonsense about kidnapping) by your opponents is to sit down and negotiate. Israel is behaving as if those young soldier’s lives are worthless.
As for the Powers, George Bush has basically shown himself to be useless and has abdicated its influence in the ME. The US stance plus an all out war between HIsbollah and Israel is likely to inflame Hisbollah’s Shiite co-religionists in Iraq into an even stornger anti-US feeling and may even end their strategic quiescence
ONe thing’s for sure the so-called roadmap to peace is dead dead dead. And I suspect that the result will, in time, be the end of the Zionist state itself. It would be great if the result would be a genuinely secular, democratic, multi-faith and multi-ethnic state comprising all of Palestine. But it seems the Sharonistas are doing their level best to ensure that that is one outcome that is strangeld before birth
The Middle East is only doomed by the failure of one side to win this war and one side to lose. With the constant political warfare waged against Israel she has been unable to defeat her enemies. She has found herself taking actions against minor enemies like the Palestinians.
The Middle East fascists seem to have a sort of pattern. They get the weakest party to stand forward for a bashing and they seem to usually reward that party with the stronger parties picking up the bills.
So that therefore the biggest trouble-makers usually have a series of donkeys standing in line for a bashing whereas the gentleman with the most options stands behind the long line of buffers.
The Palestinians were always minor players in this. An eternal excuse. They were like Kurds in that none of the Middle Easterners ever gave a toss about them but instead thrrew them out of THEIR countries in order to have them press hard up against the Israelis.
Had we shown Israel some sort of solidarity against the fascists she may have had the confidence to reach out across the desert and touch the leadership of the Syrians, Sauds and Iranians. And where possible just put up a wall against the Palestinians who were not the driving force behind the dispute.
You cannot destroy terrorism without destroying the whole network. And the network consists of some countries and many organisations. And to kill this hydra you have to hit them all at once.
Our job is to be responsible international citizens. We have a mote of our own and we ought to take up a little bit more then what would otherwise be our fair share of the heavy lifting.
But then again our governments job is to PROTECT its own citizens not get them killed.
So the best thing to do is to get behind Israel. Get behind Israel and anyone else who will fight Islamic Jihadists and most particularly the relevant regimes.
Give her enough confidence to go right after the biggest criminals. Go after them and work harder then she otherwise would sparing third parties knowing that they have our blessing and our financial backing. And if it gets down to it our military backing as well.
Give her the confidence to smash the Iranian regime and destroy it entirely. And severely attrite at the very least the Saud family and its weaponry. And smash the Syrians regime as well.
Not maxing out on proxies is just madness. We have been lucky with our allies. And we can be even luckier with these brave Israelis if we can be brave enough to step up and give them our full backing in the midst of a world full of anti-semites, socialists and cowards.
Bartelby
Amen to that brother. But on LP we are dealing with the PoMo/CultiStudi “Left” after its “linguistic turn.” For these academics “there is nothing outside the text.”
I am led to believe that they are holding a dual event with the forthcoming CultiStudi
There are whispers that Professor Lumby and Sara-Marie shall be recording a multimedia simulacra called “Does My Bomb Look Big In This!?” Half the proceeds will be donated to a “Fightback” fund called “oi, hands off our right to watch Turkeyslapping!”
Seriously, I have just surveyed the geopolitical contortions over the past 2 days of the CultiStudi Geostrategists. All Hail the New Messiah, er, er, er….Andrew Bartlett??? PUHHLEEEEZZZ!
Truly scary.
LQ, I thought you’d pissed off after you were outed as an agent provocateur.
Michael
In times such as this, flicking the switch to reflexive antisemitism is unhelpful; so I shall give you a geography tutorial. The “Zionist state” you spit venom over is the sovereign nation state of Israel, which was welcomed into the United Nations in 1949.
On the other hand there is no such similar entity as “Palestine.” “Palestine” was an administrative mandate of the Britsh from 1921 to 1948.
Your refusal to recognize this reality harks back to horrors of the past, which we in Australia can well do without thank you very much.
And I suppose it was terra nullius before 1921, LQ?
Jack, are you applying for the job?
Can we please not have any uses of “anti-semitic” as an epithet to abuse people on this thread merely because you disagree with them? It debases the real meaning of the term, and is unhelpful to the debate in the extreme.
Anyway, I’m just home from work, and tired, so signing off for the evening.
Oh, just before I go, silly smears against postmodernism and amateur hour Culture Wars sarcasm don’t do anything for debate either. Speaking as someone who’s not a postmodernist of any stripe, I still think you could do well to analyse the appropriate use of rhetoric, LQ.
Just sayin…
Night!
UN resolutions you say, LQ?
Well, here’s some resolutions for your consideration.
Leftist queers,if you are going to deliver a history lesson please be accurate you attempt to deceive is cheap.
Timelines | Documents | Maps | Stats | Suggested Readings | Fact Sheets | Lexicon
Timeline of Palestinian History and Politics
661-750
Palestine becomes a province under the Arab-Islamic Umayyad Dynasty that was based in Damascus.
685-691
The Ummayad Caliph Abdul Malik Ibn Marwan (685-705) builds the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem.
705 Al-Walid Ibn Abdul Malik (705-715) of the Umayyads builds Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.
750-1258
Palestine becomes a province under the Arab-Islamic Abbasid Dynasty based in Baghdad.
1099-1187 The Crusaders invade Palestine and establish the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem.
1187 The Battle of Hittin in Palestine. Saladin of Egypt defeats the Crusaders and liberates Palestine from European Crusader control. Palestine is re-Arabized and re-Islamized.
1517 Ottoman conquest of most of the Arab world including Palestine.
1517-1918 Palestine under Ottoman rule.
1882-1904 First wave of immigration of Jewish settlers to Palestine.
1897
First Zionist Congress meets in Basel, Switzerland. The Basel Program is launched to settle Jews in Palestine and the World Zionist Organization is established.
1904-1914
Second wave of immigration of Jewish settlers to Palestine.
1911 Filistine newspaper is founded in Jaffa by Issa al-Issa. The newspaper addresses Arabs in Palestine as Palestinians, warning them of the consequences of the Zionist colonization of Palestine.
1915-16 Sharif Hussein and Henry McMahon, the British high commissioner in Egypt, exchange correspondence guaranteeing Arab independence in return for the Arab revolt against the Ottomans.
1916 16 May Britain and France sign the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divides the Ottoman Middle East provinces among them.
1917 2 November
Lord Arthur James Balfour, British foreign secretary, sends a letter (later known as the Balfour Declaration) to Lord Edmund de Rothschild supporting the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine.
1918 9 December British forces occupy Palestine.
1919 First National Conference-Palestine; King-Crane Commission.
1920 24 April San Remo Conference grants Great Britain mandate over Palestine.
1922 24 July Council of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.
1936-39 Arab revolt erupts in Palestine.
1937 7 July The Peel Commission Report recommends turning Palestine into a Jewish State and an Arab State incorporated into Transjordan, with Jerusalem and Bethlehem placed under the British Mandate.
1939 17 May The British government issues the MacDonald White Paper to limit and restrict Jewish immigration and land purchases in Palestine.
1942 11 May The Zionists attending the Biltmore Conference in New York advocate the establishment of a “Jewish Commonwealth� in Palestine.
1946-48 Jewish-Palestinian-British war breaks out.
1947 29 November The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine recommends the Partition of Palestine (UN General Assembly Resolution 181) into an Arab state and a Jewish state, and that Jerusalem and its environs be internationalized without consultation with Palestinians.
1948 9 April
Jewish underground forces, the Irgun and Stern Gang, massacre 254 Palestinians in the village of Deir Yassin near Jerusalem.
14 May The Mandate over Palestine officially ends and the Zionists proclaim the establishment of the state of Israel. The U.S. extends full diplomatic recognition to Israel.
1 September The Palestinian National Conference meets in Gaza and the All-Palestine Government is established under the leadership of Hajj Amin al-Husseini. Al-Husseini heads the meeting of the Palestinian National Council in Gaza.
1 December
Palestinian notables from the east central Palestine, the area that remained under Jordanian military control (and later called the West Bank), meet in Jericho and advocate a temporary union with Transjordan.
11 December The United Nations General Assembly adopts Resolution 194, which recognizes the right of Palestinians who were expelled by the Israeli army or who fled during the 1948 war to return to their homes.
1949 At the end of the 1948 war, Israel extends its holdings of Palestine, and now controls 78 percent of it rather than the 56 percent allocated by the UN Partition Plan of 1947 by conquering areas allotted by the UN to the Palestinian state.
12 August Geneva Convention provides protection of civilians in time of war (Fourth Geneva Convention).
8 December The UN announces the establishment of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) to assist Palestinian refugees in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon.
The West Bank comes under Jordanian control, while Egypt asserts authority over Gaza.
1950 24 April The West Bank officially becomes part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
1953 28 February Israel launches a large scale assault on the Gaza Strip.
1956 28-29 October The Suez war (the second Arab-Israeli war). Israel invades and occupies the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula in preparation for a British-French invasion of Egypt to reinstate western control of the Suez.
1957
In Kuwait, Yasser Arafat, among others, founds the Palestine Liberation Movement, whose name becomes Fateh, which means “opening.�
1964 28 May Ahmed Shuqeiri, the Palestinian representative to the Arab League, heads the Palestinian National Council (PNC) meeting in Jerusalem, where the First Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) National Covenant is drafted. At the PNC meeting, he is appointed the first chairman of the PLO.
2 June The PLO is officially founded.
1967 5 June
Israel launches an attack that starts the June War, which lasts six days and is referred to as the Six Day War in Israel and the West; Israel captures East Jerusalem and the West Bank from Jordan and the Gaza Strip from Egypt.
11 December George Habash establishes the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
Israel annexes East Jerusalem and begins construction of Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
22 November
The United Nations Security Council adopts Resolution 242, which states that Israel must withdraw from the territories occupied during the Six Day War of 1967 in return for peace and secure borders.
1968 21 March The Battle of al-Karameh takes place in the village Karameh, east of the Jordan River, where Palestinian guerilla movements joined the Jordanian army to block Israel from entering the East Bank.
17-18 July The Palestinian National Council moves its head quarters to Cairo and modifies the PLO’s National Charter.
1970 September
PLO-Jordanian power struggle and civil war in Jordan. During this year, an attack by the Jordanian army is launched against Palestinian camps and guerillas on the outskirts of the Jordanian capital, Amman. The incredible Palestinian death toll in the attack is labeled “Black September� by the Palestinian movement.
1971 9 July The Jordanian army evicts the PLO from Jordan and dismantles its infrastructure.
28 November Black September, a Palestinian organization formed after the civil war between the PLO and Jordan in September 1970, claims responsibility for the assassination of Wasfi al-Tal, Jordan’s Prime Minister.
1973 6 October The October war breaks out when Syria and Egypt launch a coordinated attack on Israeli forces occupying the Golan Heights and the Sinai desert.
22 October The United Nations Security Council adopts Resolution 338, recommending negotiations between Israel and its Arab neighbors.
1974 19 February
The Palestinian National Council accepts the establishment of a Palestinian state in any liberated part of Palestine and discards the option of establishing a secular democratic state in all of Palestine.
14 October
The United Nations General Assembly passes Resolution 3326, which accepts the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and grants them permanent observer status. PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat addresses the General Assembly.
28 October The Seventh Arab League Summit in Rabat recognizes the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.
19 November Egyptian President Anwar Sadat visits Israel and addresses the Israeli Knesset.
1978 14 March The Israeli army invades southern Lebanon, demolishes a number of villages, and kills some 700 Lebanese and Palestinians.
17 September U.S. President Jimmy Carter, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin sign the Camp David Accords. Israel agrees to withdraw from the Sinai in exchange for peace with Egypt and to grant the Palestinians “full autonomy� in the Occupied Territories after a transitional period of five years.
1979 22 March The United Nations Security Council adopts resolution 446, which demands that Israel dismantle the settlements in the Occupied Territories.
1980 The Israeli Knesset officially adopts the Jerusalem Law, which annexes East Jerusalem to Israel.
1982 4 June The Israeli army invades Lebanon to destroy the military, political, and institutional infrastructure of the PLO. Israel besieges Beirut for three months. Palestinian and Lebanese casualties were estimated at tens of thousands of people killed.
16-18 September Members of the Phalange militia massacre up to 2,000 Palestinian refugees at Sabra and Shatila camps in Beirut.
1983 14-21 February
The Palestinian National Council meets in Algiers and approves the concept of a confederation between an independent Palestine and Jordan.
20 December PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat and 4,000 PLO commandos leave north Lebanon on Greek ships.
1984 28 February Palestinians from the Occupied Territories meet PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat in Amman, Jordan to urge him to accept a joint PLO and Jordanian strategy based on United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 and 338.
1985-87 The “war of the camps� in which Lebanese Amal (Shia) militias vent their hostility against PLO loyalists and Palestinian civilians, killing many refugees and destroying camps in Lebanon. The Syrian army, the deterrent force in the Lebanese civil war, looks the other way.
1985 11 February PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat and Jordan’s King Hussein agree on a formula for a joint Jordanian-Palestinian peace strategy.
19 November The PLO Executive Committee meets in Baghdad and reaffirms the PLO’s rejection of UN resolutions 242 and 338.
1986 19 February King Hussein ends joint peace efforts with the PLO.
1987 9 December The Palestinian intifada (uprising) begins in Gaza and spreads to the West Bank.
1988 16 April Khalil al-Wazir (Abu Jihad), a PLO military leader, is assassinated in his home in Tunis.
31 July King Hussein officially breaks administrative and legal ties with the West Bank and announces that he is relinquishing control to the PLO.
3 August The PLO declares full responsibility for the affairs of the West Bank and Gaza.
24 November The Palestinian National Council proclaims an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza; 55 countries including China and the Soviet Union recognize the Palestinian state.
7 December PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat declares in Stockholm that the PLO accepts Israel’s right to exist and denounces terrorism. The United States rejects the term “denounce� and insists that he “renounces� terrorism.
14 December The United States authorizes its ambassador to Tunis, Robert Pelletreau, to open a diplomatic dialogue with the PLO.
1989 12 January The UN Security Council grants the PLO the right to speak directly to the Council as “Palestine� with the same status as any UN member nation.
2 April The PLO Central Council appoints the organization’s Chairman Yasser Arafat the first President of Palestine.
20 April The UN General Assembly condemns Israeli practices in the Occupied Territories and calls on the UN Security Council to protect Palestinian civilians.
1990 9 April PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat rejects Hamas’ conditions to join the PLO. Hamas requests 40 percent of the Palestinian National Council’s seats, but Arafat rejects the request.
25 May After the United States refuses to grant Yasser Arafat a visa to enter New York to address the UN General Assembly, the General Assembly moves to Geneva where Arafat calls for deployment of UN forces into the West Bank and Gaza.
1990 17 January The United States and its allies attack Iraq, forcing Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. In its wake, the U.S. emerges as the sole power broker in the region and plans to launch a new peace initiative in the region labeled the “peace process.�
21 July U.S. Secretary of State James Baker informs Palestinian leaders that the American initiative envisions the creation of “less than a state, and more than autonomy.�
28 August The PLO agrees, with provisions, to participate in the Middle East Peace Conference (August 28).
16 October The PLO and Jordan agree to form a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation to attend the forthcoming Conference in Madrid.
30 October The Madrid peace conference begins with representatives from Israel, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine.
1993 30 August The Norwegian government confirms that 14 secret rounds of talks were held in Norway between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators.
13 September Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), spokesperson for the PLO Foreign Affairs Department and member of the PLO Executive Committee, and Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres initial the Declaration of Principles (DOP). PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin sign the accords and shake hands on the lawn of the White House.
19 September The United States promises $250 million to the Palestinians to support the agreement. The Israeli Knesset approves the DOP 61 to 50.
12 October The PLO establishes the Palestinian Authority (PA) and appoints Arafat its head.
1994 4 May PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin sign the Gaza-Jericho Self-Rule Accord (Cairo Agreement).
11 May The Knesset approves the Gaza-Jericho Agreement by a 52-0 vote.
26 June The PA holds its first meeting in Gaza City.
1 July Arafat, followed by a large part of the PLO bureaucracy, returns to Gaza triumphantly.
26 October Israel and Jordan sign a peace treaty.
10 December Arafat, Rabin, and Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres accept the Nobel Peace Prize.
1995 13 January PA Minister of Planning and International Coordination Nabil Sha’ath announces that the PA has committed itself to peaceful resistance.
28 September PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin sign the Palestinian-Israeli Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip (Oslo II) at the White House.
9 November
Rabin is assassinated by Israeli law student Yigal Amir.
1996 20 January Elections are held for the PA presidency and the Palestinian Legislative Council. PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat wins the presidency with 88.1 percent of the vote.
4 May Arafat and the Palestine National Council amend the PLO National Charter, removing the call for the destruction of Israel.
2 June Binyamin Netanyahu becomes Israel’s Prime Minister.
1997 15 January Israel and the PLO sign the Protocol Concerning the Redeployment in Hebron (Hebron Agreement).
21 October
Israel’s former Prime Minister Shimon Peres calls for a Palestinian state.
1998 23 October Israel and the PLO sign the Wye River Memorandum.
1999 7 February King Hussein of Jordan dies.
12 May
Ehud Barak is elected Prime Minister of Israel.
4 September Israel and the PLO sign the Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum (known as Wye II).
10 November Israel opens one of the “safe passage routes� along existing roads that connect the West Bank and Gaza
2000 11 July Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at Camp David begin (July 11).
28 September Extreme right-wing Israeli leader Ariel Sharon visits the Haram el-Sharif in Jerusalem, setting off the worst violent clashes (known as the “Al-Aqsa Intifada�) in Israel and the Occupied Territories since Israel was founded.
2001 6 February Sharon is elected prime minister of Israel.
It is we, not the ME, that have difficulty learning the lessons of recent history. The political is a reflection of the personal.
ME culture is bad because the people will it so. As shown by recent democratic votes, and jihad mammas voting with their foetuses.
If the political is the reflection of the personal then your politics is deeply racist.
Bartelby, are those quotes from other sources on the web? Could you please link them and quote a *small* portion that might (hopefully) be relevant to the discussion. Sorry to be a net nanny but these huge quotes spoil the flow of dialogue and slow down my browser heaps…
If I wanted to read what the Times thinks I’d have visited their web-site.
Did anyone see the 7.30 Report just now? The second interviewee from London spoke more sense than anyone else I read or heard so far…
I wrote:
If the political is the reflection of the personal then your politics is deeply racist.
Sorry I should have made it clerar that that comment was addressed to Jack Strocchi..
“2000 11 July Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at Camp David begin (July 11).”
Spot the missing item (er… elephant).
Agreed Christo, but his comments also belied a strong pro-lebanese bias, and so I tend to think he was exaggerating, especially about the destruction of a country bit.
The most interesting point was his claim that Hezbollah had proclaimed themselves ready to sit at the negotiating table from the beginning. I assume this means after they had kidnapped the 2 Israelis.
Second most interesting point was his implication that if things go badly we may see the democratic election of a Hizbollah led Lebanese government.
By ‘elephant’, I mean, of course, Barak’s offer and Arafat’s response.
Robo,Robo,Robo,all that info and so pedantic.What did you expect Yasser to do give him a blow job.Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh?
Oh and by the way.Shock horror of horrors Im part Jew.I know what ya thinking, which part ?
Sorry?
Folks, as Mark noted the tone of some comments is starting to go in the wrong direction. Keep it civil and leave out personal attacks.
What? I’ve been very polite and restrained, for me. The most confrontational thing I’ve said is ‘Sorry?’.
Err, Rob, Shaun’s comment was addressed to folks in the plural. For all you know, you might be one of the good folks excepted from its remit. Unless you (a) have a bad conscience (b) think everything is all about you?
I think it is fair to say that Israel’s Prime Minister Olmert is a warmonger. And that the “disproportionate” response of Olmert (bomb the sh*t out of Beirut) to the events of the last couple of weeks looks very much like Hitler’s act of revenge against Lidice (Terry Lane in The Sunday Age). Beirut may yet join Lidice and Guernica in a list of towns and cities whose inhabitants were the victims of a vengeful, morally blind, politician. Israel has lost the PR war. No amount of tying blue ribbons around trees in parks in Melbourne will alter that. And Israel may yet lose the support of the Bush administration, and eventually even the Howard Government (eeek!), unless it can goad Syria or Iran into the current war. I hope leaders of neighbouring countries and the various resistance movements are able to show some restraint and shame Israel and it’s blue-ribbon supporters into behaving with decency and courage (grace under pressure).
Has the Howard government actually said anything? I haven’t been reading the papers but Downer on sbs was only talking about evacuating Australians.
Also, can someone who backs Olmert/the Israeli Government please explain to me what purpose destroying civilian economic and transport infrastructure (power stations, ports, roads, airports) is meant to serve? Same modus vivendi as in the Palestinian Territory. Worked well there, didn’t it? Impoverish a population whose economic existence is already unstable and what do you get? Well, in Palestine, it got them a Hamas gov’t.
Even if you don’t agree with that analysis, what possible reason is there for it that makes sense? I’m pretty sure Shaun’s right and it’s just a cycle of endless retribution.
LQ: Israel is a Zionist state, that is its foundational ideology and purpose. It is because I am opposed to anti-semitism that I prefer to refer to it as such, rather than the term Jewish state, used by many people. Not all Jews are Zionists or even support the existence of Israel. Once upon a time Zionism was considered an evil sinful movement by the Orthodox Jewish relgious leadership, a position still held by some ultra-Orthodox Jews.
What I described about Israel’s behaviour in West Bank and Gaza is historical fact. As for Palestine, not only does the entity Palestine have an existence going back very many centuries, there is also a Palestinian Authority and theoretically, a proto-state as part of the peace process.
The best chance Israel had was for a successful 2 state solution, but unfortunately, too many in the leadership, especially Likud wanted a one state solution, a greater Israel from Jordan to the Mediterranean sea.
However for a successful 2 state solution there has to be two parties to the process. Israel has effectively suppressed any genuine party from the Palestinians and now Olmert is attempting to impose a 2 state solution of sorts, basically the Gaza concentration camp and a series of Palestinastans on the West Bank. In effect it’s a one state solution lite. Short of massive ethnic cleanisng, this suppression of a people is unsustainable in the long term and with a de facto unitary state, eventually demographics will demand that the suppressed will have to become part of the state, just as in South Africa
As far as I’m concerned there were two great catastrophes for the Jewish peoples in the 20th century. The first was obviously the Nazi Holocaust and the second, in part impelled by the first, the establishment of the Zionist state of Israel (perhaps the Balfour Declaration could be seen as a related and shared disaster both for Jews and Palestinians).
Kim
I’ll bite. I would argue that the time has long past when the Israeli people should be putting the interests and security of those who want to eradicate them ahead of their own people.
It is up to the Muslims themselves to deal with their fascists – Hamas, Hizbollah, and all the other nutters. War is nasty. Unfortunately the mad Muslims have shown that their concern for the lives of themselves, their children, and everybody else is not all that high.
The Muslims have been involved in a slow-burning civil war for over a century that has ozzed all over the globe due to the concentration of oil there. Quite frankly, my tether was ended long ago with them. I have enough on my plate with our own religious nutters.
If you can’t do the time, don’t to the crime. As they sow, so they reap, etc. etc. etc.
Mark
When you actually understand what “terra nullius” means perhaps THEN you can get away with trying to be cute. In the mean time it just makes you look ignorant and bigoted.
Give it a rest.
What strange times we live in indeed.If i heaven forbid came home this evening and found my family murdered and later found the scum bag that murdered them ,and stabbed the bastard in the heart.,which incidently i would do.I would have the wrath of the legal system down on me.I can hear the judge now”You can’t take the law into your own hands rah rah rah”to think some poor sods have ended up in jail for protecting their family’s. But murder by proxy well that’s o/k. Silly me,I thought acts of revenge were outmoded what a silly shit head i am.
Well, your claim that Palestine originated ab initio in 1921 rather implies the official line at the time from the British – that the occupants had no real notion of land tenure, blah blah – sound familiar? You can do your Michael Connor nitpicking all you like, but it’s a weak argument. Why not address the facts of history rather than silly culture wars thrusts that in any case miss their mark?
Oh, and on your comment, I suppose Lebanese Christians are magically exempt from finely targetted bombs? Get real.
If you’re going to unmask yourself as some sort of Islamophobe, go right ahead. But don’t pretend what you write has anything to do with reality. You should reconsider.
There’s a third position taken by many Israelis – well represented in the pages of Haaretz for instance – those who want a secular and non-racial state where all enjoy equal citizenship rights.
The Lidice analogy is preposterous. Recall some basic morality here. The Nazis in Czechoslovakia were the bad guys, remember? Evil, genocidal. Heydrich’s assassins were the good guys. They took out one of the worst of the bad guys. Lidice had nothing to do with the assassination. The Nazis used it as an object lesson.
Beirut hasn’t been destroyed, nor has its total population been either killed or enslaved, as happened with Lidice. It hasn’t been erased from any map. Hizbollah strongholds have been targeted in tiny pockets of the city where Israeli intelligence has fingered them, and infrastructure utilised by Hizbollah has been neutralised.
“I hope leaders of neighbouring countries and the various resistance movements are able to show some restraint and shame Israel and it’s blue-ribbon supporters into behaving with decency and courage (grace under pressure).” (John).
Which no doubt is why Hizbollah launched a devastating and unprovoked rocket attack against Israel last Wednesday and in the confusion that followed managed to infiltrate Israel and kill and kidnap several Israeli soldiers.
For Pete’s sake.
The sea port? The airport? The power to large slabs of Lebanon?
Proportionate?
Or such as to stuff up the whole Lebanese economy? If Israel wants another Gaza morass on its northern border, it’s going about it the right way.
What, Rob, do you see as the outcome of all this?
How will it stop rather than embolden terrorists?
Hey Rob,who is Pete?
Mark on 17 July 2006 at 8:03 pm
Obviously I think my social analysis of the ME situation has improved since MAR 17 2003. It could hardly have gotten any worse than: violently promote multicultural democracy throughout the multiethnic regimes of the sectarian Islamic world where almost everyone hates us and harly anyone can be bothered with Open Socieities. And then everything will be hunky dory.
As for the latter job, well I don’t have the balls for that kind of work. But War Nerd may have come up with a suitable candidate:
That narrows it down to a pool of applicants consisting of exactly one guy.
I think you can see where I’m going here, folks. That’s right: Bring back Saddam!
Nope, there’s only one man for this job: ole Soddom himself. Sure, there might be a problem explaining to the American voters why we blew a trillion dollars and a thousand GIsÃ’ lives putting the guy we ousted back in power. But hey, just wrap the flag around Saddam. He wonÃ’t mind, he’s a flexible guy. And we’ll fall for it. We’ll fall for anything.
Ok, Jack, thanks for that. Strocchi says Bring Back Saddam. We won’t worry about the poison gas, mass murders etc. I can see why you think your political position transcends Left and Right (despite the endless use of dichotomies you indulge in).
On the other hand, perhaps you do have a sense of satire.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/07/14/does-the-right-understand-satire/
“What, Rob, do you see as the outcome of all this?’
It’s completely imponderable. War is like that. Nations, and non-state actors (though quasi-governmental in nature) like Hizbollah, can only do what the tactical situation demands. No-one can forecast the results with precision.
But three things are sure: Israel will continue to survive and thrive, as it has done for nearly 60 years; Lebanon will rise from its current afflictions, thanks to the unconquerable patriotism of its people (maybe I’ve been reading too many Lebanese blogs); and the Palestinians, unless they wake up to themselves, and commit their undoubted talents to nation-building, will continue to live in misery, oppression and squalor, whether in a state of their own, or in the camps.
Jack your so culturally insensitive..
I share neither your optimism nor your pessimism respectively, Rob.
“War is like that”.
But war shouldn’t be launched without a realistic aim and some forethought as to outcomes and consequences.
And one of the reasons why Palestinians live in misery, oppression and squalor is not that they won’t “wake up to themselves” but that Israel has systematically destroyed economic and administrative infrastructure. Compare the unemployment rate now with that in 1995. Ask yourself how business and economic opportunity can work when you can’t transport goods quickly and efficiently because of endless roadblocks. What does the destruction of Lebanese infrastructure portend? It’s all well to talk of “unconquerable patriotism” but you can’t turn a dollar from it.
Sorry, I didn’t respond to this, Kim:
“If Israel wants another Gaza morass on its northern border, it’s going about it the right way.”
Israel is completely indifferent to both Gaza and south Lebanon as long as its own survival and the protection of its people are assured. The same will be true of the West Bank when (not if) it passes to Palestinian control. If Israel can live in safety behind the security wall and whatever other physical features it can devise to secure itself it will be perfectly happy. It won’t gove a toss, nor feel in the least bit responsible, for Palestine. It will have handed the problem back to the Arabs.
The question for Palestine will then be not whether Israel can live without them (it can); but whether they can live without Israel.
Fair enough, Rob, but I’d still like you, rather than saying “war is like that”, to explain exactly how the current action by Israel contributes to security aims? It can’t have been launched without some idea, unless it is just vengeful retribution rather than a rational strategy.
Eight holidaying Canadians killed by Israeli air strike:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060716/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_canadians_killed
Fisk on Lateline argued that at the base of this it is all about Syria re-establishing itself as a legitimate center of power in the ME, outgrowing its axis of evil membership. and he seemed to think it would work, with turkish peace-keepers being the most likely option.
He also said that Israel were claiming that Lebanon’s airport was a hub for illegal weapons transfers. He then argued that this was balderdust and that Damscus airport was what they were really looking for, but didn’t have the balls (or stupidity) to go after.
Factor in A Fisk bias if you feel like it.
I can’t help thinking that both sides (and especially their backers) kind of want to escalate this thing but are being held back from the edge, for whatever reason. I do hope i’m over-reacting.
Kim on 17 July 2006 at 10:58 pm
Irony alerts are now activated.
Kim on 17 July 2006 at 11:00 pm
Thankyou. I take it that I can now safely deactivate irony alerts?
Seriously, if someone could beam a benevolent dictator into Iraq who could somehow put a stop to the escalating violence then it would surely be immoral to stop them. Democratic polity is a preferable system of government so long as civil society is in good order. This is not the case in the ME.
The problem with ME politics is that formal national governments are too weak to impose civil order. This is beause Alpha-male driven tribes, sects and political gangs run things. The worst on the street therefore rise to the top.
Rule by a moderate tyranny is much preferable to mis-rule by militant anarchy. The acceptance of Leviathan is, after all, the beginning of wisdom in political philosophy.
To this war of every man against every man, this also in consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no injustice. Force, and fraud, are in war the cardinal virtues.
No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.
Sound familiar?
Well, I hope they are well and truly held back from the edge.
Labor leader and Defence Minister Peretz was on sbs news tonight denoucing Hizbollah, Syria and Iran as an “axis of evil”.
Yes, sorry, Jack.
Just make sure the decommissioning is verified by an independent commission.
Rob, in response to your comments about the 2000 Camp David Summit. The Israeli’s were, and still are, in breach of UN resolution 242, requiring their withdrawal from the occupied territories.
Prior to the summit, Israel had 40 years to comply and they failed, so I wouldn’t be so quick to pour scorn on to Arafat.
What actually took place during the summit is a matter of much contention. Director of the Washington based Middle East Institute, Clayton Swisher, contends in his book , The Truth about Camp David, that both sides are equally to blame for the summit’s failure.
Swisher was present during the summit, and interviewed virtually everyone involved as research prior to penning the book.
Anyway, It’s late and I’m going to bed. Goodnight everyone.
Kim, I tried to do that further up the thread.
Israel’s strategy is to neutralise Hizbollah. This weekend, it said it wanted Hizbollah to redeploy north of the Litani river, surrender its arsenals, and for the Lebanese army to deploy south to police the border. Those were its terms for a ceasefire. That’s a big ask, given Hizbollah controls the south, but it’s in accordance with UN resolutions, and with Lebanon’s aspirations to true national sovereignty.
At the same time, it wants its soldiers back. Israeli concern for its soldiers when captured is recognised by Hizbollah and Hamas as Israel’s Achilles Heel. Last year, Haaretz (link no longer available) quoted Nasrallah as saying a prime objective of his organisation was soldier kidnap because he knew that was the way to hurt Israel — the best way to get a bargaining chip.
Now, there are reports from Lebanon that the two soldiers Hizbollah has captured are presently being held in the Iranian embassy in Beirut. If that’s so, Israel’s options are severely limited. It would mean that all their movement interdiction operations against airfields, seaports and highways have been in vain, and a new front will have to be opened. Even the Israelis are unlikely to directly attack Iranian terrirotry (which the embassy in Beirut is) but they may just be tempted to it.
In all of this, Israel’s strategy hs been quite clear. Get the soliders back; and interdict the Hizbollah attacks on Israel, whether by way of missiles (sourced from Syria and Iran), or incursions.
And really, that is no more than any other government would do under the circumstances.
Ok, Rob, sorry I missed it, long thread.
I’m also off to bed! Night!
Alex, the problem with Resultuion 242 was the following:
“Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force“.
When has Israel ever been offered those terms? (I know this is an ancient and unending debate.)
“Rob, in response to your comments about the 2000 Camp David Summit. The Israeli’s were, and still are, in breach of UN resolution 242, requiring their withdrawal from the occupied territories.”
No they are not. They were attacked. This resolution said nothing about Israel forevermore not being able to defend itself. It is the enemy that is in violation of UN resolutions as John Bolton pointed out. They were supposed to disarm and hand over power to the Lebanese government.
I cannot believe that you are trying this one on.
Another insightful analysis:
What is under way reflects a deep strategy that focuses on Israel’s major adversary, Iran, and simultaneously strives to sustain Israeli hegemony over its neighbors.
Otherwise, it is easy to imagine a very potent, and much more measured response to Hizbullah’s abductions that focused on building international and regional support for implementing Security Council Resolution 1559 to begin the disarming of Hizbullah. The fact that the more measured strategy was apparently rejected out of hand speaks volumes about the big picture.
While the generals will delight in the prospect of cutting Hizbullah down to size, the more important dimension is preparing the battlefield vis-a-vis Iran. If Hizbullah’s capacity to bombard Israel is eliminated, then it will be easier for Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear sites later. Israel has obviously been preparing for such an attack for several years, and if the United States and the other players in the so called “Five plus One” group fail in their efforts to temper Iran’s nuclear programs, Israel’s offensive in Lebanon is likely intended to make it easier to move against Iran.
Augustus Richard Norton is a professor of international relations at Boston University.
The event that led, according to the author, to the Lebanese civil war and a rather unique description of it complete with Barak in drag:
For on 10 April 1973, the Israeli security service, Mossad, conducts an underground operation in the middle of downtown Beirut – to be precise, in a house on Rue Verdun, where my family lives – and assassinates three highly placed Palestinian leaders, Kamal Nasser, Kamal Oudouan, and Abu Youssef, who was Arafat’s second-in-command and a co-founder of Al-Fatah. A few minutes before Mossad storms the building, killing the doorman and several neighbours, my father (at that moment having arrived home from Sweden) had just shut the door to the building on his way to see his family – a door that is shortly blown up and which admits not only the macabre execution of the Palestinian leaders but the onslaught of paranoia that soon will seep throughout Lebanese society.
Confidence for the Lebanese state bottoms out: how was it possible for the Israelis, under the leadership of a certain Ehud Barak, dressed as a woman, to conduct this kind of commando raid in the middle of the capital? How did they know that Abu Youssef – who, like Arafat, rarely stayed more than one night in the same place – was there? How did they get into the country at all? And why were the Lebanese police and army so passive? Protest marches take over the streets of Beirut and the country’s prime minister, Saeb Salaam, chooses to step down. For the groups on the Left and the Palestinians, all of these vague circumstances became a sign that the Lebanese state could not be trusted – on the contrary, it was suspected that it had in fact taken part in the operation.
Rob:
When has Israel ever been offered those terms? (I know this is an ancient and unending debate.)
When has Israel ever accepted those terms? When has it ever recognised any borders?? I ask again does it even recognise any borders?
Which brings the question to my mind: what the hell was a whole load of mobile artillery (ie. tanks) doing on the Lebanese border anyway??
The Lebanese most probably don’t even have any tanksjust as they don’t have an air-force (so why bomb the air-port?) nor even a navy (so why bomb their port?).
Why the fuck does a whole nation have to be held hostage and get bombed into the middle ages just to get back a couple of soldiers who I bet are probably being held quite humanely if they haven’t been bombed by their own air-force already?
Jack Strocchi, I really can’t work out what you’re trying to say. So ME crises are the result of some mystical force as “alpha males” and “tribal custom” (how is western society different?) but not some more simple explanation such as outrage that their brothers and sisters are being killed, starved and intimidated on a regular basis if not by Israel then by some other US-backed dictatorship with a secret police (eg. UAE, Egypt, Dubai, etc etc).
The atrocities continue…
Bartleby,
Could you please start using the link tags and blockquote tags when posting text from other sources (some handy buttons appear above the comments text box). A link and one salient paragraph to point the reader to the article is better than quoting whole chunks of text.
While I understand that you are quoting from other sources it may not appear that way to others.
Thanks.
And in case anyone has missed it George Bush has eloquently articulated US policy for the Middle East.
Stop doing this shit.
Yeah way to go!
Geez Hezbollah… if you pinch my sister again I will come over and break all your star wars figures, take all your lego blocks, poison your pantry and break a few of your mum’s bones into the bargain.
/end translation of ME politics for the Bush Jr generation…
Bush’s ‘eloquence’ is the ‘language of violence’. From Democracy Now!:
Well, this is the culmination of essentially five years of refusal by the Bush administration to do anything to keep alive the peace process. And what we see now is the result of that. We have left extremists on all wings — Palestinian, Lebanese and Israeli — to dictate the language by which the conflicts are set, and that language is a language of violence. There is no other language now. And unless there is a force that steps in to try and moderate this self-immolation on the part of all of these extremist groups, the Middle East is going to spin into a death spiral, which could have disastrous consequences, not only for Lebanese, for Israelis, for Palestinians, but ultimately for us, as well
“who I bet are probably being held quite humanely”
Christo, I cannot imagine the turn of events that might have brought about your optimism in this regard.
What will the jihadists have to do to convince you that they are not nice people?
I’m not saying that they’re nice people: I just imagine that they’d not be stupid esp. as they wanted to use those hostages as bargaining chips, as mentioned last night on the 7:30 Report.
Next question.
Kim
I think you have revealed your “values” perfectly. It is a no-no on LP to express outrage by pointing to a poster’s antisemitic political framework, yet it is perfectly acceptable to hurl abuse at someone for being “Islamophobic” and insert all sorts of irrelevant references to a junior Tasmanian historian as a further attempt at insult. Do you even know what “Islamophobia” means?
Could you please start using the link tags and blockquote tags when posting text from other sources (some handy buttons appear above the comments text box). A link and one salient paragraph to point the reader to the article is better than quoting whole chunks of text.
While I understand that you are quoting from other sources it may not appear that way to others.
You made no mention of copyright reasons here so why did you censor my post?
I think Kim’s point, LQ, is that any equation of criticism of Zionism with antisemitism is a slur. You can be anti-Zionist and antisemitic, but you can also be anti-Zionist and philosemitic.
Mark
And equally, and more likely, you cannot. Sorry, call me crazy but when I see hundreds of words written with “Zionist state” rather than “Israel” spat out as many times as that post, I conclude the latter.
And yet you let the ridiculous “Islamophobic” slide.
You do the math.
Bartleby is in moderation till further notice. The reason is improper attribution and quotation of other sources. Folks, always properly quote and attribute other sources as to not attract accusations of plagiarism or breach of copyright.
“When has Israel ever accepted those terms? When has it ever recognised any borders?? I ask again does it even recognise any borders?”
What are you talking about Christo. They have a very good track record of making peace with neighbours who were serious about peace. In the first war they had the only people who ever gave them any trouble was the Jordanians.
But later King Hussein of Jordan wanted peace with Israel. So their nastiest border thereafter became tranquil. Since the Jordanians won’t let and do not support terrorists operating out of their turf.
Then later Sadat wanted peace. But in order to stay credible with the Arab world he launched a war on Israel. The Muslim brotherhood sniffed out the fact that Sadat had wanted peace the whole damn time which is why he wasn’t going to live. But the fact is he wanted peace. They negotiated and what they got was peace with the Egyptians…….
So if the neighbours want peace then Israel will negotiate an arrangement and there will be peace. But the leaders of Iran, Syria and even elements of the Saud family do no want peace they want a second holocaust.
So its our duty to help Israel defeat our enemies and hers where we can.
Bartleby,
You are not being censored. Some of your posts are treading a very fine line in regards to copyright and plagiarism issues. With proper attribution and formatting they would be fine and LP would have no problems with your comments.
Please email me shaun.cronin AT gmail.com if you wish to discuss further. No more discussion on this issue will be entertained in the comments.
LQ – I’ve seen no evidence of anyone making antisemitic comments on this thread. As far as I can work out, your comment was directed at Michael G, whose criticism was of the Israeli government and the consequences of Zionism. Contrast that with your comment where you take aim at Muslims generally, sterotype them, and say you’re tether was ended “with them”. You make no discrimination at all between different movements, people and sects but want to stereotype an entire faith. Perhaps the mote in your own eye means you can’t see that others can legitimately differentiate between the Israeli state and the Jewish faith.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/07/17/the-road-map-to-war/#comment-113886
Shuan,
Material is allowed to be used for the purposes of critique and as this is not an academic forum no one is expected to put in footnotes and nobody has even requested them. Could you please detail any instances of:
1. me passing other people’s ideas off as mine. You have explicitly stated previously that it is clear to you that I do not.
2. copyrighed passages that are unusable as there are no issues of copyright when passages are used for criticism, which is precisely what I have done.
Bartleby
Bartleby, no one is suggesting you’re passing off others’ ideas as yours. It’s a convention in the blogosphere that links be provided to articles from papers and journals and that quotation marks or html tags make it clear that material is being quoted. That’s all, as I understand it, Shaun is asking you to do. I’m going offline now but I suggest that you email Shaun and I’m confident the matter can be easily sorted out. We welcome your contributions, and the analysis you’ve cited is interesting, but given that there have on occasion been moves by publishers to enforce their proprietary rights against blogs, and we don’t have a legal defence fund, we like to tread on the safe side.
“I think Kim’s point, LQ, is that any equation of criticism of Zionism with antisemitism is a slur. You can be anti-Zionist and antisemitic, but you can also be anti-Zionist and philosemitic.”
No not in the context of the current crisis. That just not possible.
If they cannot defend themselves they will all be killed. So you cannot give us this jive that you are not anti-semetic and at the same time you won’t support her in defending herself.
Jews tend to be too legalistic by my book. Jews and George Bush both. You have that resolution for them to pull out of Lebanon.
So what happens?
Heaps of Lebanese are murdered allegedly for co-operating with the Israelis. Then Iran and Syria forward deploy ( via Hezbollah) right down to the border and start amassing missiles.
They ought to have re-occupied and destroyed Hezbollah THEN. Because now they have to take down the missiles no matter who may or may not be in the way.
Us failing to encourage them to take these missiles down THEN. Is not the rest of the world more responsible then they. Since with the rest our support they would have surely had the courage to stop this accumulation of Iranian missiles early on in the peace.
And the lefts constant softpedalling of illegal war tactics. The Supreme Court just the other day pulling a bill of rights for terrorism right out of its rectum.
Isn’t our tolerance of violations in the rules of combat the real reason for all this killing.
Israel is a very small skinny country with only three major Jewish population centres. Out of the 13000 missiles that the Iranians have in Lebanon some hundreds have now gotten through. But it only takes three nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.
So lets stop this jive about the left not being anti-semetic. Thats one genocidal lie too many.
FWIW, you can scrap the G. It was aimed at Michael.
Ok, it was pretty unclear to me who LQ was talking about.
Anyway, I’m outa here.
Mark,
I think I’ll leave you to the endless morass of inanities that constitutes the blogosphere. The original post was exceptionally bad and the endless rantings between pro-Zionists/Americans and anti-Zionists/Americans is banal. Referencing one person’s opinion by referencing it to another person’s opinion is a parody of referencing. The authority of such a process is precisely nil. For example:
1. Bush is great/rubbish
2. Link to a newspaper which says with little or no analysis and with propagandistic intent “Bush is great/rubbish”
I can’t see that the discussion has ever risen above this level or ever will. I just wanted to put this on record for the National Library.
Adieu,
Bartleby
PanelbeaterBird, thank you for your reply but you seem to be skirting the issue. OK Israel sometimes makes peace. Big deal – so does the US. What I’m asking is what are the borders that Israel recognises? Simple question.
As to your last post so what if Israel is vulnerable? Every country is vulnerable.
That fact of the matter is, no matter how you try to spin it, that this utterly disproportionate attack on Lebanon – and Gaza – is appalling and should disgust any sensible human being. There is no excuse for this atrocity.
I would mention historical episodes of horsemen charging tank squadrons but that would probably kill the thread…
I get the feeling that the pro-Israeli side in this discussion – and many like it – seem to think that because we are critical of it’s bloodthirsty establishment then we also support the extermination of Jews in the Middle East which is utterly false and a slur.
They also seem to think that the Arab world is exactly the same as it was 40 years ago and that nothing has changed. And that all the arab leaders just can’t wait to drop the bomb on Israel or some other such nonsense… as if they had nothing better to do with their lives..
And if that is the case then why are the Israelis so intent on stirring up the proverbial hornets’ nest with this revolting attack on a largely unarmed country whose major industry at the moment is tourism? This is gutless.
I am Greek. For a long time the Greeks hated the Turks and mistrusted them. Now they may joke about Turks but for the most part I wouldn’t be surprised that many love to visit Turkey for a holiday. Things change. It probably helps though that the Turks haven’t occupied Greece for about a century and a half.
Christo on 18 July 2006 at 12:06 pm
The simple explanation of why Arabs oppose Israel – because of its aggression and oppression – was believable a generation ago when Israel was holding onto everything it had and grabbing more. But in the past ten years this glib formula has lost alot of force.
Since Oslo the IDF began to withdraw from some of its occupied territories in Golan, Gaza and S. Lebanon. Yet the more land Israel gave away, the less peace it got from local Arab populations.
The thing about US-backed dictatorships in Egypt et al is that these dictatorships also enjoy the support of alot of concerned Egyptians et al. The locals know well enough that populist democracy, if rushed into institution, might well lead to chaos, sectarian strife and civil war. We have had a field test of this theory in Iraq.
My point about the dysfunctionality of Arabic societies is simple enough and repeated a number of times above in plain language. A number of Arabic jurisdictions have civil socities that appear incapable of founding a liberal democratic nation state. See this report on Arab social development.
This is because these societies are in a quasi-permanent state of militant anarchy, largely driven by the jostle for power between warring tribes and sects. (“war or all against all”) The Arabic Alpha Males also do their best to turn half the population into breeding factories and punching bags. In this respect Western Alpha Males have improved their game over the past two generations or so.
Consanguinous in-breeding is also a hindrance to progress, both medically and politically. This practice encourages loyalty to familial and tribal, rather than national, political authority.
Consequently quite a few Arabic states suffer from a lack of social legitimacy and institutional potency. People are more loyal to their clan and sect than to the state. The state is unable to control the militant feuders that control the streets. When democratic vote is allowed in these states the worst – Hamas, Hezbollah, Mahdi Army – rise to the top.
Illiberal democratic states will almost certainly be oppressive to minority groups and antagonistic to liberal values. Also, their foreign policies are likely to be anti-Western or just plain nutso. If Gaza and Lebanon had properly reprsentative government then they would tend in this direction.
Democracy is not a universal fixer for all social problems. It is a GIGO method of social decision making. If the civil inputs are unwilling or anable to operate properly then the output then the political output will be bad.
Jack, from a Steve Sailer article which cites—wait for it—one single website as evidence for the proposition that Arabs fail at everything because they’re inbred, do you really expect to make an argument about democracy?
Might I remind you that the royal families and upper bourgeoisie of late modern Europe, under which your precious liberalism developed, were themselves ruthlessly inbred?
Liam on 18 July 2006 at 5:12 pm
The point about the incestuous nature of Arabic social structures is not unique to Sailer’s article. He just had the guts to say it out aloud in public intellectual discourse.
The notion of an autonomous citizen who freely associates with pluralistic civil society and owes compulsory obligation only to the nation state is fundamental to the political philsophy of Open Society modernity. This is the antithesis of extended and highly in-bred family structures that are quite common in Southern Hemispheric jurisdictions. They end in mafias.
A way to test the theory of the civil dysfunctionality of pronounced in-breeding is to compare the progress of European civil life to Arabian civil life. In Europe we have been evolving romantic love (Romeo and Juliet), nuclear families and nation state in tandem for the past couple of centuries. In that sense, individual love is the midwife of civil freedom.
Or look at the Godfather, which where the agonising dilemmas faced by those torn between familial and political loyalites are brilliantly brought out in the tragic odyssey of Michael Corleone. Puzo/Coppola are one hundred times more acute analysts of the social culture than most sociologists.
YOu might remind me and thankyou very much. That example proves my point. The European aristocrats out-bred with prosperous bourgeois which provided smooth way to organise the transition from feudal to commercial society.
Before that, and also intermmitently afterwards,they found it difficult to get along, without a loyalty to a higher legitimate authority, didn’t they?
Only when those families subordinated themselves to higher powers, whether it be Holy Roman Empire or Anglo hegemony or USA/USSR inspired European Union, did we get a prolonged pax.
a pox on your pax!
(sorry i couldn’t resist:)
Liam
You’re trivialising sailer’s argument. He’s not saying Arabs are stupid because they’re inbred. He’s making a sociological argument – family ties are too thick because of consanguinous inbreeding. This gets in the way of a notion of civil society that is independent of Hatfields vs McCoys type thinking. The difference from your example of European royal families is that such inbreeding was mostly restricted to royal families. The statistics are there for you to check. It’s quite a compelling argument though it doesn’t explain everything.
That’s not right, Jason. Because around 90% of people lived rurally in medieval Europe, and mostly in very small communities, marriages we would ragard as consanguinous were common.
And what are the percentages *today*, Kim? Hint: they’re in Sailer’s article.
As Jack notes, the percentage of such marriages gradually fell in Europe, because of the opening up of markets leading to migrations from country to city, in part because of the idea of romantic love, etc, etc.
BTW Sailer’s article also notes that this isn’t an Islamic thing but a relic of the pre-Islamic culture.
Wouldn’t have the faintest, Jason, and I can’t be bothered reading Sailer’s article to be honest. The point I wanted to make – quickly – was that there’s no need for Jack’s gloom and doom about whether or not Muslims (surely more properly Arabs – do Arabian Christians have a significantly different pattern?) will ever get to modernity. Europeans did, consanguinity notwithstanding.
Cultural change works a lot quicker in the 21st century than the 16th.
But Jack’s defeatism is a recipe for despair. As demonstrated by the best he can offer being some sort of pro-Western strongman to keep these unruly types in check. Err, that’s been tried. Why do governments like the Saudi regime and the Egyptian oligarchy face resistance? One big reason is that they are undemocratic and perceived (rightly to some degree) as repressive because the West wants them to be.
If we took Jack’s logic to its conclusion, let’s study the kinship patterns of the million Russian Jews in Israel now and see if they deserve the vote…
This consanguinity argument is a classic case of cart before horse.
Early-modern Europeans didn’t say to themselves “Geez we’ve gotta stop banging our cousins. I know. Let’s invent the commercial and industrial revolutions so we can live in cities!”
Fortunately for Europeans’ gene pools (and here I pass in silence over the case of Tasmania), this process began about four centuries ago. It was an accidental effect of unrelated causes.
This process of urbanisation and depersonalisation of Arab society is mostly of much more recent origin. And unfortunately, processes of modernisation have been stultified by a whole range of causes.
Consanguinity is definitely not one of those causes.
Bartleby [4:37pm yesterday]:
On the contrary, my guess is that their planning depends on the U.S. trying to back its demands with force, lots and lots of force, overwhelming force, ther more force the better …. despite the U.S. being bogged-down in Iraq …. because I think Hezbollah and their friends have their eyes on victory, not just on winning a skirmish or two.
Jack Strocchi [5:17pm yesterday]
How true!
Jason Soon and Liam:
Yet I’ve come across Arabs who are progressive and very comfortable with Civil Society and unhindered by repressive family or clan ties. Trying to stereotype (as opposed to finding things in common) the Arabs would be like trying to stereotype The West or The Chinese; it can be done but not at all well..
Look you can crap on all you want about socio-demographic, cultural and racial theories as a reason for why a disproportionate number of Arab and Islamic (NB: They are not always the same thing) folks turn feral.
I prefer to whip out Occam’s shaving tackle here. Imagine you come from a long and proud if not always reprehensible cultural, religious and geographic heritage and location. Then in the space of few lifetimes, alien powers wielding killer technologies blithely rearrange your world to suit their own demands for the stuff that used to poison your water supplies.
Or to put it another way, say yer a smart but sexually frustrated young engineering student (aren’t they all) who’s also living under the heavy hand of a thousand years of Islamic pyscho-sexual mores. You open a hotmail account for personal and professional reasons. But within a week the inbox is chokka with offers to enlarge your penis, dally with cum swallowing blondes, watch incest videos and get rich quick.
(I reckon spam was invented to whip up the third and second worlds against the first. And to rip off gullible Nigerians who thought they were buying the rights to a foolproof get rich scam.)
This deluge of crude id-focussed hucksterism that enhances all the crude propaganda you were exposed to about crude flesh-obessd westerners will not open your heart to the culture that spawned this spam that also dropped a 250 pound bomb on Great Great Uncle Iqbal’s card game ‘cos people from the same region were thieving from and taking potshots at the nearby Royal Dutch Shell pipeline construction site.
Look, I’d be the first to agree that the Battle of Britain was one of the most important, necessary and gallant clash of arms in history but we also shouldn’t forget the RAF got itself confirmed as an independent armed forces branch by selling Winnie on the concept of “air policing” Mesopotamia ie: bomb the wogs if they hassle Shell or BP. No wonder there’s a tweeny weeny legacy of bitterness in the ME and central Asia when they hear the screaming jets.
Of course Islam itself doesn’t help. Not the most attractive of belief systems in the modern world – especially its strictures about alcohol, the relief valve of Western civilisation. A couple of martinis and it’s hard not to feel more sanguine about the state of the world.
As for the current contremps around a bunch of stony land that has no oil but lotsa olives and which gave birth to one of the planet’s most successful political agitators, well I feel that that remains a piece of grim ugly confusing shit that passeth all understanding.
Mine’s another gin martini with just one olive thanks.
“It is we, not the ME, that have difficulty learning the lessons of recent history.”
Damn right Jack. Sometimes you can make awfully good sense. Sometimes.
Katz on July 2006 at 6:47 pm
Early-modern Europeans didn’t say to themselves “Geez we’ve gotta stop banging our cousins. I know. Let’s invent the commercial and industrial revolutions so we can live in cities!�
Fortunately for Europeans’ gene pools (and here I pass in silence over the case of Tasmania), this process began about four centuries ago. It was an accidental effect of unrelated causes.
Thats almost what I said. Romeo and Juliet preceded Stephensons Rocket and Brittania’s Rules. The West’s less clannish, more mobile and exogamous kin-ship structure has facilitated economic growth and nationl unity.
This slow break down of familial and tribal structures that started in N. Italy more than six centuries ago created a more nucleated and modulated family struture. This started the process of turning peoples energy from personal loyalty to extended family into professional duty to firms and political obligatory to state.
The family unit became more suited to adapting to the vicissitudes of the labour market. And more likely to accept the sovereignty of national laws over local lores.
It was no acident that the cities that popularised Romantic love between couples also produced economic adventrures like Marco Polo/Columbus/Amerigo Vespuucci and Machiavelli’s tracts on citizenship and state hood.
Nabakov, how on earth did you get that 10.46pm comment through the spam filter? Dodgy ‘entrepreneurs’ across the .ru and .cx domains keenly await your answer.
“â€? 1) learn some history. Iran’s been selling Hizbollah weapons since they co-founded the venture in ‘82. This ain’t news.â€?”
SELLING?
I would find that hard to believe JC. I reckon they are Irans missiles. 13000 of them. Not selling. Giving. Supplying. Actually paying them to take the weapons and set them up and paying them a fortune besides. This is just Iranian forward basing.
Now Jason. Let us not imagine that genetics is why we are not yet brothers again with the Muslims.
Look at your own background. China looks like a place that has been basically dominated by just one of two immensely powerful tribes. Taking the gene pool as a whole we might suggest that the Chinese gene pool is less varied even then an Arabian cousin-loving community. And yet we see that the overseas Chinese are the most productive, high-acheiving and wealth-producing types that there are. We must not give up people so easily.
Selfish gene theory might suggest that more inbred populations may be given to greater levels of courage in war. Being as they would already be assured that their specific genes are going to be passed on. As discussed on my blog in reality there is no such thing as a selfish gene. One only uses this model as a tool to make certain inferences.
Anyway. Supposing for one minute that his was actually all true. That would give us all the more reasons to defeat these people absolutely, to the nth degree, and then recruit them as our allies.
Mark sez:
“LQ – I’ve seen no evidence of anyone making antisemitic comments on this thread.”
But then Kim had already said:
“And one of the reasons why Palestinians live in misery, oppression and squalor is not that they won’t “wake up to themselvesâ€? but that Israel has systematically destroyed economic and administrative infrastructure. Compare the unemployment rate now with that in 1995.”
A clear anti-semetic statement if ever there was one.
You are back in my bad books on my blog for all the censorship.
And if you keep up this moderation there will be consequences and repurcussions. Because its always one side only you choose to moderate. Now you can say its your property. But you people aren’t exactly famous for respecting property rights now are you.
Too many lives are on the line for you lot to be dedicating yourself to leftist propaganda without people like me being able to reply to the thinly disguised hatefulness of it all.
Err, that’s not what I or Strocchi said, Graeme. It’s not the genetic effects of inbreeding that are relevant but the sociological effects. Anyway, nice to know you’re not a bigot.
One wonders how he can type through all that spittle on the keyboard.
No, it’s a statement of fact.
But still, Jason, be it based on genetics or sociology your thesis is still over-determinative, as my old lecturers would say, of the many factors involved. It doesn’t take into account the glaring injustices in the Middle East caused *partly* if not mostly by western and Israeli imperialism.
And how can genetics determine anything about a person’s or a society’s behaviour? I thought this was the murkiest, dodgiest field of behavioural psychology and biology and yet right wingers time and again have no problems trundling them out for another airing as though it were gospel truth.
Hasn’t anyone read any feminist theory on nature vs nurture?
Why you could argue just as convincingly – and falsely- that arabs are hot tempered because they’re surrounded by sand which heats up their bodily humours thus generating this pressure which results in bombings…
Sure hope Birdy’s birds-of-a-feather flock hasn’t been mixing with Near-Eastern people on those annual migrations, why he might be genetically related to Arabs, making him a ornothological brother of Muslims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic
You need to go over to Wiki, Birdy (again) and see if you can trash/re-write all those “lies” as well.
Err Christo
can I repeat this for the second time now:
“Err, that’s not what I or Strocchi said, Graeme. It’s not the genetic effects of inbreeding that are relevant but the sociological effects”
Can you read English? And who said anything about bombings? Do you even know what article we’re talking about, have you even bothered to read it or did your Cultural Studies kneejerk just twitch the moment you saw the word ‘genetics’?
I reckon it’s all those dates they eat. The genetics and bonking habits of Arabs,and my wife wants to know why i drink.What a load of bollicks.The money some of you fuckers spent on an education would have been better spent buying a boat or somthin useful like a wheelbarrow.Better still,off to Beirut I say and give the waring party’s your in depth analysis of Eskimo bonking, or the eating habits of a Yak.Does the right understand satire?Well I gots ta tell ya if they keep reading this shit they will.
Christo says:
“It doesn’t take into account the glaring injustices in the Middle East caused *partly* if not mostly by western and Israeli imperialism.”
Yes, the Middle East hasn’t been the same since the West abolished slavery in the Arab countries, brought them notions of a secular society, universal human rights and liberal democracy.
Oh, and let’s not forget the aquaduct.
Hat Tip: Monty Python’s Life of Brian
‘On the other hand there is no such similar entity as “Palestine.â€? “Palestineâ€? was an administrative mandate of the Britsh from 1921 to 1948.’
And Israel was what, during this time? It was an idea or a dream, that’s what it was, which to me falls some way short of ‘administrative mandate’, not that any particular form of administrative procedure bestows legitimacy on groups who feel a sense of national solidarity. What really amazes me is how, considering Israel’s provenance, Zionists think they can get away with an argument such as this. It takes chutzpah, that’s for sure, but that’s not all it takes.
Reminds me of a woman who wrote to the Herald a while ago to decry the Palestinians’ lack of a Gandhi or a Mandela in place of Arafat (Ariel Sharon’s relation to P W Botha she left unexplored).
I submitted a retort which pointed out that both men were opposed not only to Israel’s terrorist behaviour in the late 40s Nakba, but to the very idea that a state can be imposed on territtory occupied by others. I also made the point that to believe Palestinians need such a champion is implicitly to admit that Palestinian oppression by Israel is analogous to the oppression native blacks suffered under the apartheid regime.
My letter wasn’t printed (it has plenty of company)
‘And Israel may yet lose the support of the Bush administration’
And pigs might fly.
‘Has the Howard government actually said anything?’
Has it occurred to anyone to ask them?
‘Jack Strocchi, I really can’t work out what you’re trying to say.’
Plus ca change and all that.
Sorry Jason, I got a bit carried away on my genetics hobby-horse.
But really, saying that all their problems is due to their being “in-breds”, however prettily you try to garnish the argument, or by whatever torsions of logic you employ to avoid the obvious (imo) imperialist grounds for middle eastern unrest.
Citing the existence of slavery somewhere, or the supposed lack thereof in western society, to prove that our society is superior doesn’t really wash with Marxists…
Well of course not. Marxism is IN FAVOUR OF UNIVERSAL SLAVERY.
So they would support the slave society over the free society.
Christo — “It doesn’t take into account the glaring injustices in the Middle East caused *partly* if not mostly by western and Israeli imperialism.”
Which lasted, what? All of 60-80 years, depending on who you ask? Dear me, an eternity.
Oh, but what was before that? Yes, right. *500 years* of Muslim Turkish imperialism. Oh, and then what was before that…? Forgot a few things, did we.
Oh well. Just historicizin’…
Jason Soon on 19 July 2006 at 4:41 pm
Actually there are both sociological and biological effects of in-breeding. Neither of which are conducive to progressing an Open Society of fit, smart and nice people.
In-breeding depresses IQ. It also creates many other health problems due to the higher frequency of homozygoisty ie the mating of recessive deleterious alleles.
Nature tries to constrain excessive homozygosity through the evolution of the instinctive incest taboo. But some cultures have found ways of outwitting nature, even going to the extent of funding selection and settlment programs to cultivate these practies.
This is one of the consequences of the brilliant idea of multiculturalism. This exciting new program allows us to celebrate the wonderful diversity of other cultures and conduct some interesting “experiments in living” such as consanguinity and polygamy. The SMH reports on the medical consequences of the re-discovery of the lost art of in-breeding in W Sydney:
A study at Auburn Hospital found almost 20 per cent of pregnant women admitted to the maternity ward in one year were married to their first or second cousins.
The research found babies were three times more likely to be born with birth defects and six times more likely to die in the womb or in infancy than babies in the general population.
But despite the alarming findings, published in 2001, there has been little research in the field since.
Since time immemorial the lucky ME people got to engage in these practices at more than twice the rate of their lapsing bretheren in Australia. Which is one of the reasons why this culture never had any problems with anyone ever again.
I wonder if this research drought has anything to do with the fact that culturalist agitators, such as Glenn Condell, became addicted to the radical cultural philosophies they lapped up as eager undergraduates almost a generation ago, in and around Arts faculty la-la land. Some never actualy got around to tearing themselves away from these intellectual sheltered workshops.
But never mind, we all got a helpful boost to our education from them through promulgation of political correctness and activation of identity politics. This saved us from all the ball-busting labour of learning politically useless stuff in empirical science and literal history.
AGNGG, ok and let’s add Turkish Islamic imperialism before that.
Religious imperialism is no better than “secular” or nationalist imperialsim whatever the religion behind it, be it pagan, christian, muslim, jewish or jedi.
What about communist imperialism Christo. That one ok in your book?
Birdy, buddy, go back and read Hegel.
Come back and comment again when you can interpret properly the fourth chapter of the Phenomenology of Spirit relating to the master/slave dialectic.
I know you’re getting your views third hand via some popularised version of Hegel reads Nietzsche,
Don’t you realise Grandfather Marx SHAPED YOUR OWN THOUGHTS?
We’ve really flogged this thread to death, seeing as were now onto “communist slavery” but I might as well add for Bird’s benefit if no one else’s that I was referring to the fact that in our society we are all slaves to capital… Obvious and boring to say… I deserve to be stoned for uttering something so trite.
Also there’s no such things as communist imperialism – it should be a contradiction in terms: you must be thinking of Stalinism, otherwise known as state capitalism..
“Also there’s no such things as communist imperialism”
Lets hear it then. The explanation. The explanation that allows people to imagine that you weren’t being overpoweringly ignorant or just lying outright.
This will be good.
‘Rejecting calls for a ceasefire’ to what effect? The matter wasn’t even dealt with harshly enough even with that wise call, and now we see the end results — emboldened Islamists that won’t rest until the last remaining Christian and Jewish populations in the Middle East are eradicated or chased to Europe to await further, inevitable Islamic violence and fascism. If your article is any example of your overall thinking, you have much to learn about Islam. By the amount of comments here, so do a lot of Aussies.
Come to the light, it’s not too late.