| Author | Message | ||
     3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 308 Registered: 1-2006 |
The Israel Resolution by Ron Paul Before the U.S. House of Representatives, July 20, 2006 I rise in opposition to this resolution, which I sincerely believe will do more harm than good. I do agree with the resolution's condemnation of violence. But I am convinced that when we get involved in foreign conflicts and send strong messages, such as this resolution will, it ends up expanding the war rather than diminishing the conflict, and that ultimately comes back to haunt us. Mr. Speaker, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called non-interventionism. I do not believe we are making the United States more secure when we involve ourselves in conflicts overseas. The Constitution really doesn't authorize us to be the policemen of the world, much less to favor one side over another in foreign conflicts. It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians. I would rather advocate neutrality rather than picking sides, which is what this resolution does. Some would say that there is no room to talk about neutrality, as if neutrality were a crime. I would suggest there should be room for an open mind to consider another type of policy that may save American lives. I was in Congress in the early 1980s when the US Marines were sent in to Lebanon, and I came to the Floor before they went, when they went, and before they were killed, arguing my case against getting involved in that conflict. Ronald Reagan, when he sent the troops in, said he would never turn tail and run. Then, after the Marines were killed, he had a reassessment of the policy. When he wrote his autobiography a few years later after leaving the Presidency, he wrote this: Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines' safety that it should have. In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today. It is very easy to criticize the Government of Lebanon for not doing more about Hezbollah. I object to terrorism committed by Hezbollah because I am a strong opponent to all violence on all sides. But I also object to the unreasonable accusations that the Government of Lebanon has not done enough, when we realize that Israel occupied southern Lebanon for 18 years and was not able to neutralize Hezbollah. Mr. Speaker, There is nothing wrong with considering the fact that we don't have to be involved in every single fight. That was the conclusion that Ronald Reagan came to, and he was not an enemy of Israel. He was a friend of Israel. But he concluded that that is a mess over there. Let me just repeat those words that he used. He said, he came to the conclusion, "The irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there.'' I believe these words are probably more valid now even than when they were written. July 21, 2006 Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul335.html | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15385 Registered: 10-2001  |
you mean like the meat tenderizer? | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 751 Registered: 1-2006 |
Some historical reflection on the price of appeasement. The high price of appeasement Posted: July 21, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern By Hal Lindsey © 2006 Israel has tried to appease its enemies. Beginning in September 1993, Israel embarked on a policy of appeasement under the euphemism "land for peace." Israel surrendered land to the Palestinians, who immediately used that land to stage lethal attacks against the "Israeli occupation." The "Israeli occupation" of Gaza was the declared reason for the attacks on Israeli targets that eventually forced Israel to build a security barrier along its border with Gaza. When Israel finally capitulated and pulled out of Gaza, the so-called Israeli occupation ended. But since Israel withdrew, the attacks have grown even more intense. What's the excuse now? Since the withdrawal, Hamas has launched more than 1,000 rockets into Israel from "unoccupied" Gaza. Israel's "occupation" of South Lebanon ended in 2000. As in Gaza, the purpose of the occupation was to prevent attacks against Israel from just across its borders in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah has done to South Lebanon exactly what Hamas has done to Gaza – turned it into a military base and terrorist operations center for launching war against Israel. As we have seen repeatedly on television, South Lebanon bristles with Hezbollah's thousands of new missiles from Iran and Syria that puts all of northern Israel in jeopardy. By now, it should be abundantly clear to everyone that the "occupation" of Gaza and South Lebanon was not the problem. As soon as Israel traded these areas for the promise of peace, the attacks intensified. Simply put, the goal of the vast majority of the Muslim world is the destruction of its mortal enemy: Israel. When they use the euphemism of "Israeli occupation," they really mean Israel's presence anywhere in the Middle East. There's not a map in any Palestinian schoolbook that even depicts a state of Israel. In the present situation, Israel can only stop the attacks emanating from Gaza and South Lebanon by re-taking those territories. Occupying both areas long enough to root out its adversaries is Israel's only option for defeating the deeply embedded enemy it now faces. Hopefully, the appeasers will learn that if your death is the enemy's goal, cutting off your hand isn't going to appease him. It will just make it harder to fight him. All of this demonstrates the insanity of both the Oslo Accords and the Roadmap to Peace. How can these plans work when the vast majority of Palestinians back both Hamas and Hezbollah? They have proven they don't just want a nation in part of the land. They want all of "Palestine" ethnically cleansed of Jews. Muslims will never accept the state of Israel. Israel has only two choices: Give up and get out or be ready to fight and not give another meter of ground for the enemy to use as a base against it. These are the hard facts. We have to also factor in the growing animosity of Muslims everywhere against the West. In mid-June, the Pew Research Organization released a poll taken among Muslims. It was titled "The Great Divide: How Westerners and Muslims View Each Other." Solid majorities of Muslim respondents across the Middle East, together with Muslims living in Europe, Russia and North America agreed with the statement, "Relations between Muslims and Westerners are generally bad." Apparently, a majority of Muslims blame the West for their lack of prosperity. They do not attribute it to massive government corruption, a lack of education or Islamic fundamentalism. The poll also revealed a much deeper hatred of the West among Muslim populations than vice-versa. The opinion in the Islamic world is that the war is the West's fault. The poll asked if Muslims believed the attacks of September 11 were carried out by Arab Islamic jihadists. Across the Islamic world, a solid majority believes there was no Islamic connection to 9-11. From the majority Muslim perspective, the September 11 attacks were an invention designed by the West as an excuse to steal Arab oil. All of the Muslim populations polled display a solid majority of support for Osama bin Laden. Likewise, suicide bombing is alarmingly popular. It's impossible to square the attitudes expressed in the Pew Poll with the Western fiction that we are really at war with only a small minority of Islamic "fundamentalists" out of a majority of peaceful practitioners of a great religion of peace and love. The majority believes the United States government is so depraved that it murdered 3,000 of its own citizens to justify a war so it could steal Islamic oil wealth. With this kind of general attitude in the Muslim world, we should certainly not be pressing Israel to give into any more demands of giving "land for peace." That is a fiction that needs to be abandoned forever. As I said above, the Israelis are faced with only two options: Give up and get out – or stay prepared to fight and give no more advantages to an enemy that has sworn to annihilate them. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 581 Registered: 3-2005 |
I realize these threads are turning into eye-numbing blocks of competing commentary, but this editorial, from today's The Sydney Morning Herald seems worth posting to give people an idea of how this looks from another country that sent troops to Iraq: "WITH some 300 killed and an estimated 500,000 of Lebanon's 3.9 million people displaced from their homes, the time has come for Israel's friends to call firmly for an end to its attacks. The scale of casualties and suffering far outweighs the original cause of the retaliation - the killing of four Israeli soldiers and the abduction of two others in a cross-border raid by Hezbollah guerillas. It also outweighs the 30 or so deaths among Israelis caused by missiles since fired by Hezbollah from inside Lebanon. In return, Israel needs to be assured the Hezbollah threat is removed. The Lebanese Government must move to disarm its militia, however tough the task, and the international community needs to insert an effective buffer force in the meantime. "Israel's anger at Hezbollah's attack is understandable, but after 10 days of intense air attack it is not at all clear where the offensive is heading. After all, the earlier offensive launched in Gaza over the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier and sporadic firing of rockets is grinding on with no prospect of achieving its aims. Instead, it is steadily pulverising the nascent institutions of a Palestinian state that Israel hopes to live alongside as a peaceful neighbour. Some 90 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, and its population plunged into new miseries from which more hatred and radicalism will surely boil up. "With Lebanon, Israel's hopes that similar mass punishment will induce the other political elements to turn on Hezbollah may be based on the wrong logic. Many Lebanese were initially critical of the Hezbollah raid, but this sentiment has probably been overwhelmed by sheer rage at the scale of Israeli retaliation. Some 45 per cent of Lebanese are in any case Shiite, and even among the Sunni population the Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, has considerable respect. The attacks are drawing Sunni and Shiite together. continued here .... http://www.smh.com}.au/news/editorial/hard-line-begets-a-harder-war/2006/07/21/1153166583148.html | ||
| G. Webb Citizen Username: Bam Post Number: 12 Registered: 5-2006 |
Josh Holtz - I will try to dig up whatever documentation their may be of exactly how many militants Arafat jailed, & no, most were never actually tried for their crimes, they were simply imprisoned. But please understand my larger point which was that the PA, as fragile as it was, did make concrete accomplishments during that 12 year window. Where there problems, for sure. Was Arafat corrupt - most certainly. But at least there was some momentum, some hope that the two sides could finally reconcile. Also consider that the PAs military ability was always limited by Israeli forces. The PA was never able to acquire the tools & manpower necessary to completely control it's own territory. That was a strategic decision by Israel because they didn't want a strong, well armed PA on their border. One other thing for you to consider is the victory that Hamas achieved was not a referendum on whether the majority of Palestinians wanted peace with Israel. Hamas won as a direct result of the decline in Fatah's ability to produce any real results in the peace process, and more importantly, in managing domestic affairs. Fatah was seen as weak & ineffective in some part due to their own inadequacies, but also due to the efforts of the Israeli gov't to weaken Arafat, the PA & Fatah. Israel contributed to the destruction of Fatahs ability to govern. Leaving the people wanting change. Even the way the post election period has been handled has done more to polarize the region & decrease the chances of a peaceful resolution. The elections that Israel & the US pushed for took place. Now we all have to live with the results. I'm not saying they should have showered Hamas with flowers, but it would have been far more prudent to put the responsibility on them to renounce violence & govern effectively. By immediately blockading the gov't, Israel & the US only made the situation for Palestinians more desperate. It is out of this desperation - the sense that you have no other viable alternatives that the tension on the ground escalated. The move by Hezbollah to kidnap these soldiers should not be looked at in isolation. There was a growing conflict on the ground btwn the Palestinians & the Israelis. Whether it was Hezbollahs own dumb idea or not, I doubt it would have gotten sanctioned if the situation on the ground wasn't worsening by the day. Joel Dranove - The conflict between Arabs & the State of Israel has an actual beginning. It is not a conflict like the one between Sunnis & Shia for example that has been raging for centuries that can never be resolved because it's a matter of faith. The conflict between Arabs & the State of Israel is not religiously based. It is Political. That is not to say that some Arabs don't hate Jews, just like some Jews hate Arabs. But more over - As I'm sure you know, Jews have lived throughout the Arab word for centuries and were not oppressed/massacred as they were say under the Romans, or under the Germans, or under the Spanish. In fact, historically speaking jews sought refuge from European persecution in the Muslim world. I think they're what you call Sephardic. What makes this current fight all the more complicated is that you have two, stubborn, and entrenched parties who are both unwilling to make the hard compromises. Palestinians won't give up on the idea that they have a right to return to their villages and homes which are now in Israel. And Israel clings to a somewhat racist notion , that they are entitled to religious/political/military supremacy in a region where they haven't governed in over a thousand years. What would we think if the US gov't said that the America was a country that had to be majority white - or majority Christian. Now we all know that's what many on the right secretly feel & that is the real reason behind some of this immigration dust up, but to say it publicly and to try to justify it constitutionally smacks of a racists ideology that most people except for Pat Buchanon would be ashamed to admit. So please, stop believing that the majority of the Muslim world hates Jews because they're Jewish, or hates the US for our freedom. There are tangible events that has lead the region into this crisis, and there are realistic solutions that can lead them out of it. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5768 Registered: 8-2003 |
G. Webb -- it's not about driving Israel into the see, just some Palestinians stubbornly wanting their home back. And conservatives who want immigrants to come legally and if they want citizenship to learn and embrace the American culture are really all about having a white country. You couldn't be more wrong. | ||
| Larry Seltzer Citizen Username: Elvis Post Number: 117 Registered: 4-2006  |
cjc, quoting the Hamas Charter: Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: Yeah, they just want their land back. Have you considered that most of them lost their land in wars launched by the arabs against the Israelis? And how about the Jews who lost their land in Arab countries at the time? As long as they knew their place the arabs were fine with jews in their midst, but then they got uppity. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro  Post Number: 3613 Registered: 5-2004  |
larry, I believe cjc was being sarcastic. | ||
| Larry Seltzer Citizen Username: Elvis Post Number: 118 Registered: 4-2006 |
Sorry, I'm not keeping score here. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1131 Registered: 4-2006 |
Webb- Some of your stuff is so damn wrong, it is like where do you start to reply? It would take 50-75 posts. | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2581 Registered: 3-2003 |
"As I'm sure you know, Jews have lived throughout the Arab word for centuries and were not oppressed/massacred as they were say under the Romans, or under the Germans, or under the Spanish. In fact, historically speaking jews sought refuge from European persecution in the Muslim world." G. Webb, you repeat a sanitized gloss on Islamic history vis-a-vis the Jews. (There's a similar tale told about how the people of what is now India submitted willingly to Islamic conquest, er, rule.) Yes, at times Jews did seek refuge from European (Christian) persecution in the Muslim world. Jews were welcomed in Islamic lands due to their trading and medical acumen. For that matter, Jews had at various points been welcomed into parts of Europe (Spain, the Netherlands) for the same reasons. But their position in Islam was tenuous and depended on Muslim largesse, which was in turn dependent on Jews submitting, along with Christians, to an elaborate, ritualized status of social inferiority, special taxes (jizya), etc. Such a system depended upon strong, centralized authority and devolved into murderousness whenever that authority broke down (or cracked down). In fact, this sytem of subjugation was necessary because the Islamic conquest of the near east could not have occurred otherwise. That is, in the absence of an elaborate system of subjugation, conquest would have required slaughtering an entire continent's worth of non-Muslims by a Muslim minority. So instead, the native peoples and religions (with the exception of Zoroastrians and other non-Abrahamic faiths, who were not so numerous as Xitans and Jews, so were forcibly converted or wiped out) were permanently assigned to an underclass which was, contrary to what you believe, quite often persecuted. Moreover, the eastern Christian Church and Jewish communities were deliberately pitted against one another as a means of maintaining control over them. So at times one saw Jews or Christians advancing socially, especially under a more liberal regime, but inevitably there was a crackdown as governance changed hands. By the 19th century (as Europe was experiencing the fruits of and reactions to an emancipation & enlightenment that Islam never experienced) the Islamic system of dhimmitude--officially, "protected" status in exchange for submission, not only to Islamic rule but to Muslims as individuals, not unlike the status of blacks in the pre-Civil Rights era of the American south--had broken down as the Ottoman Empire began to unravel. Mob violence against Christians and Jews became common, particularly in response to European attempts to exert power in the mideast. While Christian communities (in Lebanon, for example) had help from European countries like France and England that sometimes intervened on their behalf, Jews had no such protectors. There was, at the time, no state of Israel, and no serious expectation that such a state would ever exist. By the way, you know the yellow "Jude" badge the Nazis imposed on the Jews? It was a variant of dress requirements imposed on dhimmis by Islamic law. Jews were typically required to wear a yellow sash or bib, and in some cases to dress in such bizarre and cumbersome uniforms that they could scarcely get around. Christians, IIRC, were assigned to wear red. Moreover, the Church in Europe copied Islamic rule in the middle ages (which had in turn taken some of its prohibitions and controls over both Xtians and Jews from the Theodesian and Justinian Codes and Novellae of the late 5th and early 6th centuries that applied then to Jews), which is part of why Jews were persecuted in Europe. Basically, the oppression of subject peoples was a dialectic between Christian and Islamic empires, not a pair of mutually opposed systems of governance, as your summary suggests. Two books to read: The Jews of Islam, Bernard Lewis Islam and Dhimmitude, Bat Ye'or | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1135 Registered: 4-2006 |
J. Crohn- Thank you for an excellent post and reference sources for the MOL'ers here, many of whose main familiarity with the issues comes from what appears in the NY Times. The hadiths and suras of the Koran are also very explicit as to how moslems are to deal with or treat Christians and Jews. I may post some later. | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 309 Registered: 1-2006 |
It's interesting that the Western world had little if any problem with Islam from about 1689 to the post-WW II era when mass immigration from the 3rd world began in earnest. It is also interesting that what set Lebanon onto its current spiral of destruction was ethnic diversity, differential birth-rates and immigration. Could there be any lessons here for the US? Cheers | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2878 Registered: 6-2002 |
After 452 posts the title of this thread is rather ironic. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15386 Registered: 10-2001 |
Wait till you see the next thread. | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2584 Registered: 3-2003 |
"It is also interesting that what set Lebanon onto its current spiral of destruction was ethnic diversity, differential birth-rates and immigration." I don't know what you mean by "current," 3ringale, but exactly when was Lebanon not ethnically diverse and beset by "differential birth-rates"? | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2880 Registered: 6-2002 |
And whatever might be the causes of the Western world's "problem with Islam". I doubt they include immigration from Korea or Costa Rica! | ||
| marie Citizen Username: Marie Post Number: 1475 Registered: 6-2001 |
"Could there be any lessons here for the US? Anti-semitism is alive and well and thriving in your backyard. | ||
| marie Citizen Username: Marie Post Number: 1476 Registered: 6-2001 |
mer | ||
| marie Citizen Username: Marie Post Number: 1477 Registered: 6-2001 |
If you haven't read it yet, consider adding to your "must read yesterday" list: Preachers of Hate Islam and the War on America by Kenneth R Timmerman, | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15391 Registered: 10-2001 |
Mer! | ||
| marie Citizen Username: Marie Post Number: 1478 Registered: 6-2001 |
Sben, It was a long day! The highlight was when lightening fried the transfor "mer" on the corner of SA and Indiana. My store lit up like Beirut! So, have you read Preachers of Hate yet? | ||
| marie Citizen Username: Marie Post Number: 1479 Registered: 6-2001 |
Sben, It was a long day! The highlight was when lightening fried the transfor "mer" on the corner of SA and Indiana. My store lit up like Beirut! So, have you read Preachers of Hate yet? | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15393 Registered: 10-2001 |
Is there a monarch notes version? | ||
| marie Citizen Username: Marie Post Number: 1480 Registered: 6-2001 |
Nope, but I'll put several highlights up later on today when I get a few minutes. In the meantime, here's some reading you might want to brush up on ( hee hee, can't help myself...) From the attic 1999-2002... "Here's another prediction: Rudy will move to NJ. Rudy will run for governor. Rudy will get elected. Rudy will become President of the USA. I can dream, can't I?" Marie | ||
| Larry Seltzer Citizen Username: Elvis Post Number: 119 Registered: 4-2006 |
Marie, If Rudy moves to NJ then Cory can't be his VP nominee! And presumably they'll run as Democrats because Rudy gets the Republican nomination only on a morning when the rest of the Republican party is sleeping late. | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 311 Registered: 1-2006 |
J. Crohn Lebanon had several deacdes of peace and prosperity until immigration upset the delicate balance. This article explains it in more detail. Its a little long to post the whole thing, but here's an excerpt: The more serious problem: Lebanon's demographics shifted. The constitution was based on the 1932 census, when Christians comprised 54 percent of the population. Regrettably, but predictably, the best educated ethnicity, the Christians, had the lowest birthrate and were most likely to emigrate. In contrast, the poor and backward Shi'ites proliferated—and stayed put. As the demographics changed, the original distribution of power among the groups became increasingly contentious. The Shi'ites demanded a new census. The Christians, who predominated in the cushiest government jobs and were guaranteed half the seats in the legislature, resisted. Then, immigration became the straw that broke the fragile Lebanese camel's back. David Lamb, the Los Angeles Times correspondent in the Middle East, wrote in his 1988 book The Arabs: "Lebanon worked, however artificially, then because one group, the Christians, were clearly in control, lesser minorities were given freedom to maneuver as long as they didn't get too uppity and everyone who mattered was making money. Tensions and hostilities festered only beneath the surface. But in 1970 Lebanon's delicate balance was upset." http://vdare.com/sailer/060716_diversity.htm anon, Obviously, Korean and Costa Rican immigration would not be the same thing, but it is pretty evident that any country that allows significant immigration from Islamic countries is going to have problems. Cheers | ||
| Mtam Citizen Username: Mtam Post Number: 125 Registered: 11-2005 |
G. Webb -- you bring up some salient points with respect to Israel's undermining of the Palestinian position, many of which are discussed within the country itself, and which I myself have observed, though I do not presume, finally to have an answer, because I am not inside there, living. (Though you do leave out Arafat's refusal at Taba, a refusal cost the Palestinians so much, as they then had to negotiate with Sharon, who sure wasn't going to make the same deal). But I think there's really one statement that I stumble upon--the idea of Israel's "racist notion of supremacy in the region." Israel was founded as a Jewish state, yes, with borders recognized by the UN. They are not looking for supremacy in the region, but rather the right to rule their own nation, and define themselves as a nation. A war was fought in 48, since this was unacceptable to some of the Arabs (there is a less-known story of Arabs who stayed, joined the Jewish side, etc.) Yes, it was a conflict, but to call it "racist" is to take us back how many years in this discussion. That is why we now speak of the 2-state solution and what can be negotiated. Whatever the criticisms, I just can't abide by easy words like "racist" without asking: Are you saying that Israel, as it is conceived, has no legitimacy? Is that unacceptable to you? Perhaps it simply is, which then one should state outright, rather than dodging it with such words, as I often find people do--it evades the question of whether one accepts the definition of Israel. I actually accept that to some the idea of a Jewish state in the Middle East is still not right. That's a decision one has to make--it is a country, after all, that willed itself into existence and did so through war. But I don't like it when people, often in Europe and the U.S., cover over that discomfort with such words. Perhaps you meant your statement with respect to the occupied territories--i.e., that they have no right to rule over the Palestinians? Of course--and there's few Israelis that would disagree with you. But is this "racist" or the result of a deeply tragic political situation? To me, rather than slinging names and shrilly always pointing the finger in one direction, one has to not be childish and realize occupation is brutal, for both peoples (indeed Amir Peretz, the defense minister, has long argued that occupation is draining Israel's resources for providing for its own). To me, from Israel's perspective, the more salient discussion is, what can they, as a recognized Jewish state, do to further advance the 2-state solution--withdrawal of occupied territories, reparations, land trades, treaties, status of Jerusalem etc? And therein lies many, many difficult choices that can't be so easily judged. I will add that within Israel, they must grapple with the fact that their population is 20% non-Jewish (including now Filipino workers and their children, for instance), and what that can mean in the future, and how they might pursue a more integrated society with, especially Arab Israelis--who I might add, have absolutely no interest in joining a future Palestinian state--no matter how complex, marginal and ambivalent their lives. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 582 Registered: 3-2005 |
Mtam: "Racism" is a word that in American conversation now provokes such confusing emotions it has lost all its utility. But it is worth posting here this piece of history, a letter written to The New York Times in 1948 signed by Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt, Sidney Hook and many others. Note the language as well as the content: TO THE EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES: Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the “Freedom Party” (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine. The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin’s political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents. Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin’s behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement. The public avowals of Begin’s party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future. A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants — 240 men, women, and children — and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin. The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party. Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model. During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute. The people of the Freedom Party have had no part in the constructive achievements in Palestine. They have reclaimed no land, built no settlements, and only detracted from the Jewish defense activity. Their much-publicized immigration endeavors were minute, and devoted mainly to bringing in Fascist compatriots. The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a “Leader State” is the goal. In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is imperative that the truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Begin’s efforts, or even to expose to its own constituents the dangers to Israel from support to Begin. The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism. (signed) Isidore Abramowitz, Hannah Arendt, Abraham Brick, Rabbi Jessurun Cardozo, Albert Einstein, Herman Eisen, M.D., Hayim Fineman, M. Gallen, M.D., H.H. Harris, Zelig S. Harris, Sidney Hook, Fred Karush, Bruria Kaufman, Irma L. Lindheim, Nachman Maisel, Symour Melman, Myer D. Mendelson, M.D., Harry M. Orlinsky, Samuel Pitlick, Fritz Rohrlich, Louis P. Rocker, Ruth Sager, Itzhak Sankowsky, I.J. Schoenberg, Samuel Shuman, M. Znger, Irma Wolpe, Stefan Wolpe New York, Dec. 2, 1948 | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 758 Registered: 1-2006 |
DEBKA July 22, 2006, 1:57 PM (GMT+02:00) DEBKAfile military sources: Israeli mobile ground troops operate in four Lebanese pockets to hit Hizballah launchers and cut their supply routes from the north July 22, 2006, 1:54 PM (GMT+02:00) The pockets are located at the southern entrance to the Beqaa Valley south Lake Qaroun on the Syrian border, southwest in the Nabatiya plateau, the Tufah region between the Zaharani and Litani Rivers – where Israeli troops cut off the Nabatiya-Sidon highway, and the Haroub, between the Zaharani and Aouali Rivers. Intense air fire focuses Saturday on the citrus orchards and banana groves around Tyre from which rocket fire is directed against northern Israel. More than 65 rockets had fallen on much of Galilee by midday Saturday. Ground forces scouring the groves discovered a whole rabbit warren of fortified trenches and tunnels concealing hundreds of Hizballah fighters. More... At least 10 people injured by 65 Hizballah rockets on Carmiel, Hulah Valley and Kiryat Shemona, Nahariya and Rosh Pina Saturday morning. Sirens in Haifa July 22, 2006, 1:48 PM (GMT+02:00) Click HERE for full-size map. More than 30 Israeli civilians injured, two gravely, by some 87 Hizballah rockets striking Haifa and Galilee on Day Ten of the Lebanon War July 21, 2006, 7:28 PM (GMT+02:00) Most were wounded in direct hit of a Haifa apartment block. An Arab neighborhood of Haifa was also hit. The rockets from Lebanon damaged homes and started large fires in areas around Nahariya, Safed, Golan, Kiryat Shemona, Rosh Pina, Yesud Hamaalah. Israel directs heavy artillery fire at sources of rocket fire in central sector of southern Lebanon. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 759 Registered: 1-2006 |
About the UN peacekeepers in Lebanon, and deaths of Israelis, murdered with their complicity: [David Kopel, July 21, 2006 at 7:12pm] 6 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks United Nations an Accomplice in Hezbollah Kidnapping: After Hezbollah's kidnapping of a pair of Israeli soldiers spurred an Israeli counter-attack, many critics of Israel actions have suggested that the United Nations can serve as a buffer between Israel and Hezbollah. To the contrary, the United Nations has a well-established record of collaboration with Hezbollah in the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) has been deployed since 1978, not long after Israel first entered Lebanon in pursuit of PLO terrorists. UNIFIL was created pursuant to Security Council Resolution 425, for the purpose of "confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring international peace and security and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area." Quite obviously UNFIL has utterly failed to achieve the Security Council's objectives, either before or after Israel's 2000 complete withdrawal from Lebanon. One reason is that UNIFIL does not interdict Hezbollah attacks on Israel. Instead, UNIFIL allows Hezbollah to set up positions next to UNFIL units, in effect using UNIFIL as human shields against Israeli counterstrikes. (Aluf Benn, Israel accuses UN of collaborating with Hezbollah," Haaretz, Sept. 11, 2005.) UNIFIL's most notorious collaboration with terrorists involved the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli soldiers, and the subsequent cover-up. On October 7, 2000, Hezbollah terrorists entered Israel, attacked three Israeli soldiers on Mount Dov, and abducted them Lebanon. The kidnapping was witnessed by several dozen UNIFIL soldiers who stood idle. One of the soldier witnesses described the kidnapping: the terrorists set of an explosive which stunned the Israeli soldiers. Clad in UN uniforms, the terrorists called out, "Come, come, we’ll help you." The Israeli soldiers approached the men in UN uniforms. Then, a Hezbollah bomb detonated—-apparently prematurely. It wounded the disguised Hezbollah commander, and three Israeli soldiers. Two other terrorists in U.N. uniforms dragged their Hezbollah commander and the three wounded soldiers into a getaway car. According an Indian solider in UNIFIL who witnessed the kidnapping, "By this stage, there was a big commotion and dozens of UN soldiers from the Indian brigade came around." The witness stated that the brigade knew that the kidnappers in UN uniform were Hezbollah. One soldiers said that the brigade should arrest the Hezbollah, but the brigade did nothing. According to the Indian soldier, the UNFIL brigade in the area "could have prevented the kidnapping." "I’m very sorry about what happened, because we saw what happened," he said. Hezbollah "were wearing our uniforms and it was too bad we didn’t stop them." It appears that at least four of the UNIFIL "peacekeepers," all from India, has received bribes from Hezbollah in order to assist the kidnapping by helping them get to the kidnapping spot and find the Israeli soldiers. Some of the bribery involved alcohol and Lebanese women. The Indian brigade later had a bitter internal argument, as some members complained that the brigade had betrayed its peacekeeping mandate. An Indian government investigation sternly criticized the brigade's conduct. There is evidence of far greater payments by Hezbollah to the UNIFIL Indian brigade, including hundreds of thousands of dollars for assistance in the kidnapping and cover-up. The UN cover-up began almost immediately. Lebanon's The Daily Star reported the story told by a former officer of the Observer Group Lebanon (OGL), which is part of the UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO). ("UN 'destroyed' evidence after abduction of 3 Israeli troops," The Daily Star, July 20, 2001.) A few hours after the kidnapping, UNTSO learned that two abandoned cars had been discovered. One was a white Nissan Pathfinder with fake UN insignia; it had hit an embankment because it was being driven so fast that the driver missed a turn. The other was a Range Rover; it was missing a tire rim, and was still running when it was discovered. Rather than using the very-recently-abandoned vehicles as clues to rescue the kidnap victims, the UN initiated a cover-up. The next morning, eighteen hours after the kidnapping, a team of OGL and the Indian UNIFIL began removing the contents of the cars. The Range Rover was soaked with blood. Among the contents of the vehicles may have been a cell phone belonging to the terrorists. The UNTSO officer confirmed that the cars contained "extremely sensitive" items which included "current and relevant information that could have been easily linked to the incident." A UNIFIL peacekeeper videotaped the removal of the contents, and attempted to tow one of the cars. According to a much-later U.N. report, there were fifty items taken from the car, seven of them blood-stained. (Report of the fact-finding investigation relating to the abduction of three Israeli soldiers on 7 October 2000 and subsequent relevant events, Aug. 2, 2001.) The end of the UNIFIL videotape featured armed Lebanese men confronting the UN forces, and taking the cars away from the UN. The UN personnel did not resist, because, they later claimed, the cars did not belong to the UN anyway. The UNTSO officer told The Daily Star that the UN ordered its personnel to destroy all photographs and written reports about the incident. The U.N. did not provide the Israelis with the automobile contents, or the videotape, both of which might have helped the Israelis rescue the kidnap victims. Instead, the seized contents of the cars were taken to a town in Lebanon, stored in a safe, and some were eventually returned to Hezbollah. Israel found out about the videotape, and demanded that the UN let Israeli investigators see it. Kofi Annan and his Special Envoy denied that any videotape existed. It is not clear whether Annan was lying, or whether he was misled. Nine months after the kidnapping, July 6, 2001, the UN admitted that is had the videotape. Annan ordered an internal UN Report, which was led by UN undersecretary-General Joseph Connor. (Connor was later implicated in the Oil-for-Food scam.) The report revealed that the UN had two additional videotapes—one of which contained still photographs from the kidnapping itself. The UN investigation declared that there was no evidence that the UNIFIL forces had been bribed, or that the UN had deliberately misled anyone. Even after admitting the existence of the first videotape, Annan refused to allow Israel to view it. He claimed that letting Israel see evidence about the kidnapping would undermine the UN’s neutrality. Thus, Annan insisted on neutrality between innocent victims and terrorists who had used fake UN insignia and who had taken vehicles from UN staff a gunpoint. The United States House of Representatives, on July 30, 2001, passed by a vote of 411-4 a resolution urging the UN to allow Israel to see the videotape. Annan relented, but only under the condition that the tape be edited so as to hide the faces of the Hezbollah perpetrators. He also agreed to give the Israelis some, but not all, of the items which the UN had seized from the getaway cars. On January 29, 2004, the bodies of the murdered Israelis were returned to Israel by Hezbollah, as part of a prisoner exchange. UPDATE: In response to one of the commenters, I've added the following analysis on two questions: 1. By what standard can the UN be considered an "accomplice" in the Hezbollah kidnapping? 2. Is anti-semitism the best explanation of UN behavior? 1. Regarding UN complicity in kidnapping, one can analogize from the rules that are used to decide whether a corporation is criminally culpable for the acts of its employees, or whether a government agency is liable under section 1983 for the acts of its employees. At the lowest level--the four bribed Indians--the trier of facts looks at the entity's efforts to prevent or punish the employee conduct in question, and whether the entity creates a culture in which the conduct is encouraged or tacitly tolerated. For misconduct by higher-ranking employees, prosecutors and fact-finders tend to be more likely to conclude that misconduct is attributable to the entity. If you believe the UNTSO official who spoke to The Daily Star (not exactly a reflexively pro-Israel newspaper), or if you believe that reports of a vast bribery scheme are true, then you might well find culpability on the part of the UN. But I think that my calling the UN an "accomplice" is supportable purely on the undisputed public facts about the UN's concealment and suppression of evidence -- with some of the suppression being conducted at the direct order of the UN's chief executive. I believe the undisputed facts are sufficient to show, at the least, that the UN was an accessory-after-the-fact to the kidnappings. Moreover, the activities of the UN's top staff in New York City, and of high-ranking UN officials in Lebanon, are also relevant evidence for whether there is UN corporate culture of tolerance for terrorism/kidnapping, which is relevant evidence for whether the misconduct of the Indian brigade can be attributed to the UN. As some commenters have pointed out, there is a very long record of the UN being extremely lax towards crimes committed by its peacekeepers in many other places--for example, the rapes of women and girls in former Yugoslavia, Cambodia, West Africa, and the Congo. The global record suggests, again, a corporate culture of indifference (despite official statements to the contrary) towards employee on-the-job involvement in violent crime; the evidence of a global culture of indifference is more evidence which a fact-finder could use in concluding that crimes of the Indian brigade were attributable to the UN. 2. Anti-semitism. I don't think that anti-semitism is the root of the UN's problem with Israel. It's true, as some commentators have pointed out, that the UN is functionally anti-semitic; that is, the UN constantly condemns Israel far more often and more vehemently than it condemns other countries which (even if you believe the worst about Israel) violate human rights much more severely than Israel does. The Eye on the UN website provides copious documentation of the UN's functional anti-semitism. Nevertheless, I think the UN's pervasive anti-Israelism, although anti-Semitic in practice, is not primarily motivated by hatred of Jews. Hitler was genuinely committed to anti-Semitism. He harmed his own military interests by giving rail line priority to trains which were headed for the death camps, putting those trains ahead of military transport trains. Similarly, Hitler would have produced resources with which to fight the war if he had used Jews as slave labor (as many were used before extermination), rather than killing them en masse. Who else would harm their own self-interest in order to kill Jews. The answers include "the government of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the PLO." But only one of these has a UN delegation, and the UN had turned vehemently against Israel long before Iran's government was taken over by Islamonazis. Way back in the 1950s, the Arab bloc at the UN had succeeded in perverting UNRWA so that UNRWA would perpetuate rather than solve the Palestinian refugee problem. The Arab dictators of the day may have personally despised Jews, but I think that the dictators were acting out of self-interest, not prejudice. They recognized that keeping the Arab-Israeli conflict festering was a good way to distract and divert the anger of their own nations' populations. In retrospect, we know that the strategy was only partially successful, since the fomentation of anti-Israel Jew hatred sometimes aroused local forces which the dictatorships were unable to control. Arab government-incited anti-semitism had the advantage of building on historical prejudices against Jews. (It's true that, in the past, Arab Moslem regimes sometimes treated Jews better than did European Christians, but there was also a long record of atrocious abuse of Jews in the Arab world on which the post-WWII Arab dictatorships could build.) But suppose that modern Israel had never been created, and that, after WWII, some other state for a stateless people had been born. Maybe sympathy for the Gypsies, who were also the victims of Nazi genocide, might have led to the creation of Gypsistan (or Romastan, according to the modern usage) in a part of Egypt. (The word "gypsy" comes from the "Egypt", based on the belief that the group originated there.) Or some other persecuted group might have established a homeland in the wastelands of Libya. In any case, I think that the establishment of a non-Arab state would likely have led to military confrontation, and if the attempt to exterminate that state by force had failed, then the Arab dictators would have found political advantage in fomenting hatred of that non-Arab state. Although UNRWA was captured very shortly after it was born, the broader UN assault on Israel didn't get going until the 1960s; the assault peaked in the 1970s, and later receded slightly from its 1970s apex. The anti-Israel assault of the 1970s was merely one element in a successful Soviet strategy of aligning the new UN members, most of them former colonies of Europe, and most of them dictatorships, into an anti-Western bloc. Israel, having the misfortune of being located in the middle of a sea of dictatorships, was a natural target of this UN super-majority; but the same would have been true if Romastan were a pro-western democracy. Today, the Islamic bloc at the UN continues to find local political advantage in anti-Israelism (as it would with anti-Romastanism), while the rest of the Third World finds it advantageous to go along. I don't think that the dictatorship of China, for example, cares one way or the other about Jews or Israel; but the Chinese dictatorship correctly discerns that voting with the Islamic bloc against Israel is a cost-free way to curry favor with Islamic states, and win their support on issues relevant to China. Regarding Kofi Annan, and most of the rest of the UN's leading executives, I would say that, functionally, they are vicious anti-Semites, but that, in their hearts, they are not particularly prejudiced against Jews per se. Rather, their actions are explainable under the principles of organizational behavior. Annan is a career UN employee (the first one to become Secretary-General), and he has risen through the organization by shrewdly placating whoever needs to be placated. His anti-Israel actions are simply the result of his astute calculation of the balance of forces at the UN. If he could gain more power at the United Nations by denouncing Fiji or by defending Israel, he would do so. So there is no anti-semitic conspiracy at the UN, in the sense of a conspiracy directed by people who are deeply motivated by hatred of Jews. Rather, the UN's criminal complicity in the kidnapping of Israelis, like the rest of the UN's anti-Israelism, is explainable as the logical result of a wide variety of UN actors behaving according to their self-interest. 38 Comments | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2587 Registered: 3-2003 |
"Lebanon had several deacdes of peace and prosperity until immigration upset the delicate balance." Well, the delicate balance had been upset many times before, most notably betweeen Christians and Druse! It wasn't "immigration" per se, but a massive wave of radicalized refugees from Jordan that upset things again, for the umpteenth time, in the 1970s. The outcome in Lebanon was a civil war of all against all, which was finally halted by Syria, which came in and restored order through the threat of even more comprehensive brutality--which is, apparently, the way order has always been established in the mideast. (Hafiz Al Assad was a man who, when faced with an insurrection by the Muslim Brotherhood, simply eradicated the Syrian town of Hama where it was based. Women, children, men: between ten and twenty thousand people massacred.) As I'm sure you know, King Hussein did not simply "turn" on the PLO, as Steve Sailer's summary suggests. The PLO had done exactly what Hizballah has done in Lebanon--that is, set up a military state within a state and launched attacks on Israel from it. Only, the PLO went so far as to collect taxes on their own behalf, clashed incessantly with the Jordanian army, and plotted to overthrow the monarchy (whereas Hizzy had become far better integrated into Lebanese politics). Arafat broke successive agreements with Hussein, provoking a conflict in which tens of thousands of people died--the PLO committed atrocities, the Jordanian army massacred Palestinians by the thousands, both sides targeted civilians. And a whole lotta Palestinians were driven into Lebanon. They were not, of course, received as "immigrants," but as refugees, as were those who had fled from Israel in 1948. I point this out because, IMO, to blur the distinction between "immigrants" and "refugees" suggests one can make sweeping predictions about the ostensibly disastrous effects of demographic shifts in general. But I'm sure you can think of examples where such shifts did not result in civil (or other) wars. Obviously, a massive influx of Mexican day labor does not produce the same degree of destabilization in south Texas or California as the massive influx of radicalized, serially disenfranchised Palestinians did in Lebanon. Characteristics of the incoming and receiving populations matter, I think. | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2588 Registered: 3-2003 |
"Maybe sympathy for the Gypsies, who were also the victims of Nazi genocide, might have led to the creation of Gypsistan (or Romastan, according to the modern usage) in a part of Egypt. (The word "gypsy" comes from the "Egypt", based on the belief that the group originated there.)" Oddly enough, the Roma actually originated in India. | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2589 Registered: 3-2003 |
"Or some other persecuted group might have established a homeland in the wastelands of Libya. In any case, I think that the establishment of a non-Arab state would likely have led to military confrontation, and if the attempt to exterminate that state by force had failed, then the Arab dictators would have found political advantage in fomenting hatred of that non-Arab state." Sure. But such hatred would not have caught fire in, say, Indonesia, where there are no Arabs, but there is a Muslim majority. Jew-hatred is a dredged-up feature of Islam, not merely a European import tacked onto Arab nationalism. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1150 Registered: 4-2006 |
kathleen- You have made it your mission to find "self-hating" Jews? Quaint. How about the number of Americans who have written that we should " bend over" for Al Queda? If people don't see your agenda by now they are brain dead. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 763 Registered: 1-2006 |
Insight about hubris. Kramer on Israel vs. Hezbollah « H » email link I am still far from my desk, but I gave an interview on the Israel-Hezbollah war to Haaretz intelligence affairs correspondent Yossi Melman. Here it is: Why do you think this crisis is happening? Hezbollah's hubris has created an opportunity for Israel. Since Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, Hezbollah has basked in the illusion that it defeated Israel--that it somehow discovered a path to victory that had eluded Arab governments and the Palestinian movement. It began to puff itself up, as the only force willing and able to stand up to Israel. Hezbollah lost its respect for Israeli power, and began to portray Israel as unable to sustain a protracted conflict. Nasrallah allowed a personality cult to develop around himself, and Hezbollah marketed him as the only strategic genius in the Arab world. Increasingly, it would seem that the higher echelons in Hezbollah began to believe their own propaganda. I doubt Hezbollah expected the Israeli reaction to be as swift, extensive and destructive as it has been. Hezbollah probably believed it would score a few points in Arab public opinion by a cross-border operation, and that it would make one more incremental change in the rules of the game. It was a strategic miscalculation. Hezbollah didn't internalize changes in the broader strategic climate. The top regional issue today is Iran's nuclear drive, not the fate of Hamas or the Palestinian issue. If Hezbollah had understood this fully, it would have laid very low until needed by Iran in a mega-crisis with the United States. At that point, its threats against Israel would have been added to the overall deterrent capabilities of Iran, and might have caused the United States to think twice. Hezbollah apparently didn't understand this. If Iran was directly involved in the decision, it also shows an erosion of discipline in Iran's own decision-making process. Iran had nothing to gain from this little adventure, and a lot to lose. It may well be that President Ahmadinejad's rhetoric is beginning to cloud judgment in Tehran. In any case, it is in the interests of Israel and the United States to deal with the Hezbollah threat now, and not later in the midst of a far more dangerous crisis over Iran's nuclear plans. So a war now to degrade Hezbollah is a shared Israel-U.S. interest, which means that Israel can wage it without many constraints. Hezbollah now finds itself spending all sorts of military assets that were supposed to serve a much more important purpose than freeing a few Lebanese prisoners or winning a few propaganda points. These are assets it probably won't be able to replenish, and their very use exposes them and makes them vulnerable. In sum, Hezbollah overplayed its hand, and Israel is taking full advantage of its mistake. What is the way to end the crisis? And can Israel defeat Hezbollah? Ending the crisis is obviously not an end in itself. The objective has to be to reduce Hezbollah to a negligible factor in larger calculations, to degrade and deplete its capabilities, to the point where it's about as significant a constraint as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or Jordan. It will take some time to reverse the years of neglect, and Hezbollah will not allow the halo around it to be smashed without fighting back. But Israel has a U.S. license to take its time now and get it right, and it would be foolish not to use it. In any event, Israel has no choice. Islamism has come to fill the space that used to be occupied by Arab nationalism in Nasser's time: an ideology of rejection, resistance and false promise of a Middle East without Israel. Israel's withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza, whatever their merits, have only fed this Islamism with lore of sacrifice and victory. The Islamists have a narrative, and they think the world conforms to it. The narrative is based on a very partial reading of reality. It has to be defeated, just as Nasser's narrative had to be defeated. It took the 1967 war to demolish the Arab nationalist/Nasserist narrative. Israel has no choice but to deliver a blow sufficient to destroy the Islamist narrative, in which Hezbollah looms large. Incredibly, Nasrallah is making the same mistakes as Nasser. By puffing himself up, he isn't deterring Israel; at this point, he's only making himself and his movement a bigger and more legitimate target. Hezbollah has become a prisoner of its own myth, which is that at any moment it can go one-on-one against Israel--and win. It can't, and now is the best opportunity to prove it --to Lebanese Shiites, to all Lebanese and to the rest of the Arab-Muslim world. At any moment in time, it is Israel that can turn Nasrallah either into a cinder or a shadow figure like Osama bin Laden, reduced to sending defiant missives from some basement or cave. And Israel can scatter the big chiefs of Hezbollah like the United States scattered the Taliban. This has to be the objective--bin Ladenization of Nasrallah, Talibanization of Hezbollah--and it is not beyond reach. Of course, bin Laden and the Taliban still exist, but they aren't a regional or global factor. That is the objective here as well. Any number of developments could threaten this scenario. It's not so much what Hezbollah might do, as what mistakes Israel might make. The most obvious pitfalls are too much 'collateral damage' or a reoccupation of part of Lebanon. Either could drain Israeli legitimacy, sap American support and leave Israel isolated. Since this is a new government headed by a new prime minister, it's impossible to predict whether they will know how to handle the unexpected twists that are inevitable in war. How popular, influential and strong is Hezbollah in Lebanon? Lebanon is a divided society. Hezbollah's power base is limited to the Shiite community, and even there, allegiance is not total. Hezbollah basked in the admiration of many Lebanese after Israel's withdrawal, but that aura has been eroded steadily over the past few years. This is because, following Israel's withdrawal, Hezbollah's continued 'resistance' along the border fell outside the national consensus. As a result, we have seen more and more political figures in Lebanon criticize Hezbollah. The Nasrallah personality cult has been a way to keep the faithful in line. Not so long ago, Hezbollah thugs took to the streets after a Lebanese television station broadcast a satire of Nasrallah. The mob burned tires and cars. The episode showed that Nasrallah's moral standing had slipped, and that the movement had been reduced to intimidation to keep up the facade. The point here is that Hezbollah is no longer the darling of Lebanese nationalism, and its recent conduct has made it increasingly look like something foreign. This is certainly the message that is being sent by leaders of most other factions in the country: that Hezbollah has usurped the power of decision-making on war and peace from the legitimately constituted government, and that it is acting outside the Lebanese national interest. The more Israel intensifies its attacks, the more that criticism is likely to spread--even among Shiites. I do not see the country rallying around Hezbollah. Do you expect this crisis will tear apart the fragile fabric of Lebanese society? I don't know about the society, but I do expect it to tear apart the fragile fiction of Lebanese politics. An independent Lebanon is incompatible with an extra-legal, extra-territorial status for any militia. This fact could be papered over before; now it is exposed for all to see. Of course, no one faction in Lebanon is in a position to disarm Hezbollah, and neither is the government. Only Shiite opinion can achieve this. So it is up to Israel to demolish Hezbollah's argument that its arms deter Israel. Israel must demonstrate the opposite: that Hezbollah's arms invite Israeli attack, especially against Shiites. Only if the Shiites themselves realize this, and only if they become the main source of criticism of Hezbollah's strategy, will Hezbollah feel compelled to modify it. This will not happen overnight; it could take months or years. What is certain is that Lebanon is better prepared to confront its devils now than it was 10 or 15 years ago. There is a new generation that does not want to go back to the old days. It is they who will have to come out in the streets to make yet another Cedar Revolution--this time, one in which the Shiites have a predominant role. In addition to interviewing me, Melman also interviewed a number of other authorities on the military-intelligence side. They include Eliezer (Motti) Tzafrir, Reuven Erlich (who prepared his doctoral dissertation under my guidance), and an unnamed Mossad retiree. The piece is worth reading in its entirety. posted Friday, 21 July 2006 | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2591 Registered: 3-2003 |
Joel, who is this Kramer? | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4536 Registered: 12-2001  |
I can accept that Israel's action in Lebanon may be the best of a set of lousy options, but the outcome seems like a bit of a crap-shoot at the moment. Hezbollah is seen, on the Arab Street, as the shield of Arab pride. Nobody expects them to defeat Israel militarily. They just need to fight bravely and kill a few Israelis. The author correctly notes that only the Lebanese Shiites can defeat Hezbollah but withdrawing support. It is too soon to tell who will win the most Lebanese hearts and minds this time around. I don't want to speculate just yet as I don't believe that the news reporting is sufficiently accurate in this regard. | ||
| Mtam Citizen Username: Mtam Post Number: 126 Registered: 11-2005 |
Kathleen, I'm not sure how your post in any way addresses what I had brought up about the word "racist." The excesses of the Stern Gang are well known, and there have always been different voices within Israel, and earlier in the Zionist movement, battling out these implications and histories. The atrocities, of course, are on both sides--this is what David Remnick recently noted in an interview, for instance, but it gets us nowhere. My point is that when people sling that word around so easily, for present day Israel, I suspect it is a cover for their own discomfort either with the idea of Israel or what this conflict has created--one set of people being occupiers. It's much easier to get rid of this discomfort by assuming that one side is wrong, and persistently wrong, and there's a clear road out. I could parachute in lots of articles and quotes to harness either point of view (and by the way, I'm familiar with Tariq Ali and find him rather narrow ideologically). But to me that's intellectually lazy--the easy way out when you want one clear villian. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1161 Registered: 4-2006 |
The "arab street" is at best a nebulous concept, and is applied too broadly to simplistic public pronouncements made by people to media and the like. There are 2 issues in the arab world as a result of Hezbollah's actions, which suggest a weaker, not stronger Hezbollah in the end. The first is the understanding by the arab countries, their governments, educators, religious clergy, and intellectuals that the Persian Iranians are blatantly acting through Hezbollah to have primacy over muslims of the Middle East and to become the leaders of the arab world. The Iranians to their minds are seeking to reconstitute the Persian Empire, which is unacceptable to arabs, so Hezbollah will not be supported. The severe differences between the sunni and shi'a muslims is not well understood by Americans. To the sunni the shi'a ( the minority of muslims, which is the branch praticed by the Iranians) are the worst sort of heretics. Without the existence of Israel these two branches would probably have engaged in their own wars. Sunni countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia see Hezbollah as supporting an Iranian policy of creating an axis of shi'a countries, now including Iraq, which is unacceptable to them as well. The arab countries may mouth some platitudes in support of Hezbollah, but they and significant groups in their countries are firmly in favor of what Israel is doing to Hezbollah in Lebanon as they recognize Iran calls the shots for this organization. |
