A very significant development is occurring in how neoconservatives are discussing America's responsibilities in the Middle East: they are now expressly advocating, far more openly than ever before, that Israel's enemies are America's enemies, and that the war which Israel is now fighting is also America's war -- one in which America should immediately intervene. I will write my own reactions to this view later, but for now, I want to simply document the emergence of this argument in very influential circles.
In the past, neoconservatives have danced delicately around the notion that Israel's conflicts should be viewed by the U.S. as its own conflicts. But, to his credit, Bill Kristol yesterday came right out and candidly put his views on the table. In the Weekly Standard, Kristol's column -- entitled "This is Our War" (by "Our" he means the U.S.) -- argues explicitly what many have contended for some time is an unstated belief of neoconservatives: that the U.S. should view the threats to Israel as threats to the U.S., because the enemy is the same, and should join Israel in the destruction of these enemies. Kristol actually argues that President Bush should immediately abandon the G-8 summit in Russia and fly to Jerusalem in order to stand by Israel, in "our" new war, which should be waged against Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, for starters. This article is very significant and I am quoting from it at length:
What's happening in the Middle East, then, isn't just another chapter in the Arab-Israeli conflict. What's happening is an Islamist-Israeli war. You might even say this is part of the Islamist war on the West--but is India part of the West? Better to say that what's under attack is liberal democratic civilization, whose leading representative right now happens to be the United States. . . .
The war against radical Islamism is likely to be a long one. Radical Islamism isn't going away anytime soon. But it will make a big difference how strong the state sponsors, harborers, and financiers of radical Islamism are. Thus, our focus should be less on Hamas and Hezbollah, and more on their paymasters and real commanders--Syria and Iran. And our focus should be not only on the regional war in the Middle East, but also on the global struggle against radical Islamism.
For while Syria and Iran are enemies of Israel, they are also enemies of the United States. We have done a poor job of standing up to them and weakening them. They are now testing us more boldly than one would have thought possible a few years ago. Weakness is provocative. We have been too weak, and have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak. . . .
The right response is renewed strength--in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait?
But such a military strike would take a while to organize. In the meantime, perhaps President Bush can fly from the silly G8 summit in St. Petersburg--a summit that will most likely convey a message of moral confusion and political indecision--to Jerusalem, the capital of a nation that stands with us, and is willing to fight with us, against our common enemies. This is our war, too.
Bill Kristol is one of the most influential neonconservative pundits in the country, if not the most influential, and the fact that he is openly advocating this world-view means that we will be seeing much more of it from the neoconservative precincts which led us into the invasion of Iraq. Already, John Podhoretz in National Review is excitedly celebrating Kristol's argument, and Michael Ledeen is already complaining that the Administration hasn't yet thrown the U.S. militarily into this new war, where we have whole new enemies -- Iran and Syria -- waiting to be attacked:
But we have not heard anything about "seizing the moment." We hear lawyer talk and diplotalk, surrender talk and appeasement talk, and there is no action whatsoever. Is this not the time to go after the terrorist training camps in Syria and Iran? What in the world are we waiting for?
And finally, if we dither through this one, the next one will be worse. Maybe much worse. It's not going away. Stability is a mirage. Chamberlain had a choice between dishonor and war. He chose war and got dishonor. You too, Mr. President. It's the way it works.
And then, from John Hinderaker at Powerline, where the excitement over this conflict is palpable -- they really think this is, finally, our big chance to expand our war beyond Iraq, where things are going really well, into Syria and Iran -- we find this:
Robert Satloff's analysis in the new issue of the Weekly Standard anticipates the direct Iranian involvement in the conflict: . . . .Defeat for Israel--either on the battlefield or via coerced compromises to achieve flawed cease-fires--is a defeat for U.S. interests; it will inspire radicals of every stripe, release Iran and Syria to spread more mayhem inside Iraq, and make more likely our own eventual confrontation with this emboldened alliance of extremists.
It should go without saying that one can believe that Israel is within its rights to defend itself against Hezbollah without also believing that the U.S. should become involved in this extraordinarily flammable conflict. But these neoconservatives don't recognize that distinction. As they are now expressly arguing, Israel's enemies are America's enemies, and this war being waged by Israel ought to become America's war -- and the sooner the better.
I believe it is obvious to most Americans, who have turned completely on the war in Iraq, that it is sheer lunacy to expand that failed war effort to now include American war on even more countries -- including more powerful ones with more powerful allies, such as Iran -- let alone to do so as part of, and in the middle of, an Arab-Israeli war. But if there is one lesson that we ought to have learned over the past several years, it is that there is no militaristic proposal too crazed or extremist to be undertaken by this administration. And anyone who thinks that these neoconservatives now lack real influence within the Bush administration is sorely mistaken.
UPDATE: At Obsidian Wings, Hilzoy has a thoughtful and lengthy analysis of the new war in the Middle East. Without endorsing all of its particulars, she presents a balanced and rational view of what is motivating each party, something which is quite difficult to do for most people when writing about that region.
UPDATE II: I also read this analysis of the Middle East conflict by Billmon yesterday and meant to link to it, because it is superb (again, without necessarily agreeing with each of its claims), and was just reminded to do so by someone who mentioned it in Comments. And I equally recommend Billmon's second post from yesterday on the surprising military adeptness of Hezbollah thus far and what that means for Israel and the region.
UPDATE III: Nobody should take comfort in thinking that a desire for the U.S. to intervene in Israel's war is confined to extremist neoconservative circles. Here is Bush 41 Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger -- generally considered a grown-up foreign policy adult -- with Wolf Blitzer yesterday (h/t Elton Beard via e-mail):
EAGLEBURGER: Finally, I would say so long as the Iranians can put arms into -- into Hezbollah through Syria, I think we have a continuing problem. And I, for a long time have felt we had to get much tougher with the Syrians than we are now. It may be that the Iraq issue has made it more difficult for us to get tough. But the Syrians...
BLITZER: What does that mean, Mr. Secretary...
EAGLEBURGER: Well, what it means to me is that we, for one thing, ought to be putting real pressure on their border with Iraq more than we are, and I think putting economic pressure on them. And frankly, I don't care as well, if we go in along with the Israelis and drop a few bombs on them.
The mindless casualness with which such people blithely advocate starting a new war -- like it's no different that deciding what one will eat for dinner tomorrow -- is breathtaking. There is an influential and determined minority out there craving U.S. intervention in this war. They are searching for any means to expand the war in Iraq to additional countries, all as part of our Epic War of Civilizations, and given their past success in inducing the U.S. to invade Iraq, I think it's a mistake to assume that what they are advocating is too extreme and self-evidently disastrous to become a reality.
Ledeen should be more careful when he's flinging the rhetoric and WWII allusions around: "Chamberlain had a choice between dishonor and war. He chose war and got dishonor." If he actually meant what he said he'd be undermining the war-is-glorious mentality, so I assume that "dishonor" and "war" should be switched in the last sentence.
ReplyDeleteMG
So my hypothesis for a few days now has been along the lines of...
ReplyDelete1. Cheney faction losing ascendancy over Bush (as testified by the rising neo-con howl that he is falling from the True Path into the deadly error of Internationalism) as Bush's polls collapse.
2. Cheney faction (neocons, Wolfie, Perle et al) has a longterm strategy--or "horrible spasm" if strategy is too strong a word--in which Baghdad is just a point along the road to Damascus and Tehran. But the mess in Iraq has punctured the momentum. The plan to bomb Iran is facing resistance in the Pentagon. Backing off from the True Path seems to be causing W's numbers to rise a little.
3. Cheney faction has strong ties to Likud. Mustn't mention this, oh no, it's a dark anti-semitic conspiracy theory, shades of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, etc etc. But it's simply a fact. I'm happy to stipulate that people honestly believe our interests and those of Israel in the ME are one and the same. I disagree, but that seems to be more or less the logic they are pursuing.
4. Suddenly, predictably perhaps, the MSM is full of assertions that the actions on the other side are being "orchestrated" from Syria and Iran. Maybe there's even some truth to it.
So... Maybe even without any real backchannel whispering, or maybe with, it is apparent that it could be useful were Israel to, well, kinda force the issue. Kinda move the dialogue back into more Cheney-friendly territory. Make certain "necessities" plain. Take things, Jack T Ripper-wise, beyond a point of no return. So that we really have no choice but to back their play.
Tinfoil? Not when the official line starts being "We don't want to interfere in Israel's handling of its own security" and the dark mutterings about Damascus and Tehran are getting such prominent play.
Okay, now to go back and actually read the post and see what Glen's take is...
ReplyDeleteDefeat for Israel--either on the battlefield or via coerced compromises to achieve flawed cease-fires--is a defeat for U.S. interests; it will inspire radicals of every stripe, release Iran and Syria to spread more mayhem inside Iraq, and make more likely our own eventual confrontation with this emboldened alliance of extremists.
Ah yes, the two-pronged neurosis that seem to underly every Neo-con idea:
1) Anything less that absolute conquest is humiliating defeat (including cease-fires and peace treaties).
2) If you cannot find a direct connection to pratical interests, obsess about the "message" that one action or another will send that will, somehow make somebody somewhere "emboldened" to attack us later.
This is what happens when your entire experience of war is limited to abstract discussions in oak-panelled halls-- it becomes a form of Heroic Macho Kabuki where your manliness is defined by other people's kids dying the mud.
And now, having read the post... Yup, that's pretty much how I see it. I guess I'd only add the tinfoil hat aspect that I don't think the IDF's "excessive" response to the provocations is something that "just happened." It falls far too neatly into the laps of all those who were ready, right on cue, to start the noise about how we have to get back on track to the general ME war they've wanted since their PNAC days. "Settle all the issues, things related and not" or whatever Rummy's exact words were. All set to go, just waiting for that "Pearl Harbor event." And here's another, just neatly ready to hand, just like it was ordered up special.
ReplyDeleteNeocons of the wild kingdom.....
ReplyDeleteFrom the New Scientist:
Parasites brainwash grasshoppers into death dive
"A parasitic worm that makes the grasshopper it invades jump into water and commit suicide does so by chemically influencing its brain, a study of the insects’ proteins reveal.
"The parasitic Nematomorph hairworm (Spinochordodes tellinii) develops inside land-dwelling grasshoppers and crickets until the time comes for the worm to transform into an aquatic adult. Somehow mature hairworms brainwash their hosts into behaving in way they never usually would – causing them to seek out and plunge into water.
Once in the water the mature hairworms – which are three to four times longer that their hosts when extended – emerge and swim away to find a mate, leaving their host dead or dying in the water."
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7927
One thing we must all rememeber - The Bush administration and their apologists touted Lebanon as one of their foreign policy triumphs.
ReplyDeleteAnytime you see the phrase "global struggle" used in a sentence you can safely accuse the writer of advocating genocide. For what is a "Global struggle" except one in which vast tracts of the worlds population can be considered "the enemy" and thus deserving of death.
ReplyDeleteThese people are insane.
Post-shul (Conservative/ Reconstructionist) discussions I heard this Shabbat featured a.) a lot of sympathy for the captured Israeli soldiers and b.) every bit as much 'What the hell were they thinking? re the attacks, particularly the infrastructure attacks in Gaza.
ReplyDeleteGlenn:
ReplyDeleteI highly recommend you read the book "Open Secrets: Israel Foreign and Nuclear Policies" by Israel Shahak published in 1997. The book contains a compilation of Shahak essays written in the early 1990s that details Israel's strategic plans for the region. For one to think that Israel was forced into the current situation by recent events have it all wrong. What is going on today has been in the planning stages in Israel since the early 90s and one of the key components to this policy was to somehow get the United States mired in a Middle East war "soon after the turn of the century." This strategic aim would be facilitated in the US through pro-Israeli: lobby groups, media, government officals, and special interest groups. What Shahak warned us about in the early 90s is playing out exactly as planned.
The real fanatics in this whole mess are the hard line Israel's and their Neocon supporters. America needs to come to terms with this...and we also need to come to terms with the fact that the fanatical contingent in Israel have nuclear weapons and a will to us them against anyone who stands in their way....even against the US.
I think what comes out of all of this mess is an ascendant Iran (I'm including the US invasion of Iraq). The US has been played for fools due to the neo-cons.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, "But if there is one lesson that we ought to have learned over the past several years, it is that there is no militaristic proposal too crazed or extremist to be undertaken by this administration."
ReplyDeleteThe other lesson we've learned, Glenn, is that the lapdog media will help the administration all it can and the American people are stupid and gullible enough to buy into the con and will turn against it only after everything has turned to shit. If Iraq had gone as the White House had predicted, Americans would have been cheering for the next war.
well said, anonymous; and thanks, Dr Kastner -- I'm going right out to find that book. I've read a lot about Israel's long-standing intentions to occupy the whole of Palestine, by intimidating and driving out the majority Palestinians. That's the geo-political aspect. Beyond that, would you say Israel has some kind of unconscious complex imprinted during the Nazi years, wherein they become the master race, free to exterminate the lesser races surrounding them?
ReplyDeleteI hate casual references to Naziism, but Israel's brutality seems unique for such a civilized and once progressive nation.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteThis current crisis in the mid-east, when viewed from the perspective of your post yesterday about our broken meida institutions shows the real dangers we face right now.
The machine has become the media. And, the message is the method of control.
If we go back to Chomsky's propaganda model from Manufacturing Consent, he and Ed Herman used isolated news events as test cases for the propaganda model and what did they find?
Overall media coverage that was either non-existent or favorable to attrocities that we supported. And, in the reverse, if it was expedient or supported US foreign policy there would be overwhelming coverage and condemnation of an atrocity by the media.
I think the strength of the propaganda model that Chomsky developed well over a decade ago has only been strengthened in the ensuing years.
You said yesterday that our media institutions are so badly broken that the only way to overcome their defects is to litterally create a new one in its place.
I agree.
Meanwhile, dealing with the existing media and pundits in this scary situation...
There is obviously a faction within this administration that is itching to make this a broader war. Personally I think the consequences will be absolutely horrific in everyway imagineable.
One fun thing to think about, $120 a barrel oil.
Bushco, perpetual war, and the elite class.
ReplyDeleteThe elite class are content to have perpetual war if their tax rates approach zero. They don't care if innocent people get killed, they don't care if the United States becomes a pariah, they don't care if terrorism here is the result, they don't even care about the huge budget and trade deficits that he Bush admin has created and that the national debt won't be paid off for generations. They don't care about class warfare and the shrinking middle class in this country.
They put an amoral, arrogrant, ignorant, monkey in the White House because the elite financial, corporate, media class of the United States are making out better
than ever before !
Bill Clinton defends Lieberman's Iraq stance
ReplyDeleteBill Clinton defends Lieberman's Iraq stance
July 14, 2006
HARTFORD, Conn. --Former President Bill Clinton is sticking up for U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman and his support of the Iraq war.
Clinton, who spoke at an Aspen Institute conference last week, questioned why Democrats in Connecticut are focusing on ousting a fellow Democrat, Lieberman.
Lieberman faces a stronger-than-expected Aug. 8 primary challenge by Greenwich millionaire businessman Ned Lamont, who has criticized Lieberman for his support of the war and his perceived closeness with Republicans and President Bush.
"If we allow our differences over what to do now in Iraq to divide us instead of focusing on replacing Republicans in Congress; that's the nuttiest strategy I ever heard in my life," Clinton told the nonprofit cultural organization...
No, slick Willie, the nuttiest thing of all was that the idiotic Democrats were even more easily distracted than the Republicans in buying that preposterous story about a sexual indiscretion.
Good side show, however, for the "The American Idol" crowd and others who are not that discerning in their entertainment tastes...The real events weren't on television or designed for public conspumption...
But getting back to that master deceiver's words, note the insanity of maintaining that "our differences over what to do now in Iraq" is something which should "divide us" less than replacing Republicans with Democrats.
Only a morally bankrupt person would think that putting one's values in front of one's partisanship was the "nuttiest strategy" he ever heard of.
How many hundreds of million dollars does this depraved person want to go around the world collecting from those who make their money by engaging in human traffiking, drug trade, etc. and stuffing the brown paper bags in his back pocket before he and Lady MacBeth will slither back into the forest primevil?
Clinton is no worse than Kristol, but Kristol is no worse than Clinton and the reason is because they're both on identically the same page. Always have been.
Jack and Jill. Willie and Bill.
Let's pass the brown paper bag to Hill.
The amazing thing to me is the entire premise of this argument, that this is part of some worldwide islamic movement is wrong. To add to what halteclere said about there being no connection between the India bombings and the so called GWOT, there's also no connection in this case.
ReplyDeleteBoth Hamas and Hezbollah have long-standing local territorial disputes with Israel. These disputes have nothing to do with Al Qaeda or with some worldwide Islamist struggle. There is some affinity between the two groups, fostered when Israel deported the Hamas leaders to Lebanon in the early nineties, and it is true that Hizbollah took on the Palestinan cause, but it is still a local struggle aimed solely at Israel.
Another silly assumption is that Hamas and Hezbollah are serving as some kind of proxies for the evil and nefarious Iran and Syria respectively. Putting aside the baseless idea that Iran, and especially Syria are part of some global Islamist conspiracy to fight the west, their relationships with Hizbollah and Syria are far from being those of puppets and puppet masters. It is true that Hizbollah and Hamas use Iran and Syria for logistical and financial support, but these organizations very much control their own agendas and have their own interests in mind.
Even Israel, as far as I can tell, does not make the claim that these countries are behind the attacks. At most they blame them for turning a blind eye. There's some Israeli assertion that there was a plan to move the kidnapped in Lebanon to Iran, but that's far from saying the Iranians were pulling the strings on this one.
I think this is a fairly simple case of Occam's Razor. It is clear to see what Hamas and Hizbollah would gain from these kidnappings. It is almost impossible to see what Iran and Syria would gain from same.
The amazing thing is that it was ridiculous to assert that Iraq had anything to do with Al Qaeda in the first place. It is just as ridiculous to say that Iran is directly involved with them, and doubly ridiculous to say that Syria has anything to do with some global Jihad. It feels like a page out of 1984 where the administration points at some imaginary enemy and everybody just falls in line.
(As a side note, I think the best analysis I saw on the net, comes as usual by way of Billmon)
I think a large part of the problem here is that a lot of the people who advocate these hard-line policies never have to live with them on the ground. The US sympathisers of the hard-line Israeli policies are half a world away, and even most of the Israeli right-wing extremists are well-insulated by money, connections, and all the IDF hardware and manpower they've been bleeding their own country dry to get. Israel's economy could be much better than it is, but, as with the US, they spend an awful lot of their national budget driving their war machine; they just have a lot less budget and buffer than the US does.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of the US bolstering Israel with the intent of going after Syria and Iran is horrifying, because it's (again) a question of using war as the only answer. I think there are so many factors involved here, it would be simplistic and reductionist to try to describe them at anything less than book length, but what I think we're seeing is the confluence of the ongoing "He hit me first!" mentality, eschatology, resource politics (not necessarily oil, but water), and all the regional problems with national identity. I'm sure I've missed something.
Great and timely post, Glenn.
ReplyDeleteIsrael Crosses the Line
...As our regular readers know, this turn of events was predicted in this space two months ago:
"War with Iran will probably not begin with a frontal assault by the U.S. and/or Israel on Iran's alleged nuclear weapons facilities, or even a skirmish along the Iraq-Iran border. Look to Lebanon and Syria for the first battlegrounds of this developing regional war. The Israelis know perfectly well that Iran's nuclear ambitions, if they ever materialize, are not an immediate threat: their real concern is their volatile northern border, where their deadly enemies – Hezbollah – are an effective obstacle to Israeli influence. The Israelis are also looking to exploit growing opportunities to make trouble in Syria, where the restive Kurds are their reliable allies, and the brittleness of the Ba'athist dictatorship is an invitation to regime change."...
The Israelis, outraged by what they regard as foot-dragging in Washington, are forcing Uncle Sam's hand. If we won't fire the first shots of World War IV, then they are perfectly willing to do so – confident that we'll follow them blindly into the maelstrom.
Whether the Bush administration will go all the way with the Israelis on this one, is, however, in some doubt. The alleged triumph of the Republican "realists" over the neoconservatives, supposedly symbolized by the ascension of Condi Rice, is counteracted by the Democrats' complete subservience to the Lobby. Already Hillary Clinton is denouncing the administration for "appeasing" Iran, and the sudden reappearance of the neocons in Democratic Party circles is indicative of what is going on here. Foreign policy is merely a reflection of domestic political pressures – which, in this case, surely do not represent either the views or the interests of the American people....
How do we avoid getting dragged by our Israeli "allies" into World War IV?
The short answer: stop appeasing Israel – and start looking out for American interests.... we (unlike the Israelis) have no interest fomenting a wider war – especially while our troops are stuck in the middle of it all, lined up like sitting ducks and increasingly on the defensive....
According to the terrorists, if we had never gotten entangled in the middle east there would never have been a 9-11. And now Kristol is saying, “Bring more on!” Has he or his boss Ruprecht even been to Iraq?
ReplyDeleteThanks, Eyes Wide Open.
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect to Bill Clinton, who's admittedly a better politician than I am, the nuttiest thing I ever heard is that Democrats should willingly put Hillary's ambitions ahead of their own deep concerns about the consequences of current U.S. foreign policy.
In my judgment, the future of the country is at stake -- whether or not my grandchildren even have a country is at stake. The events Glenn covers in this post make that perfectly clear, if it wasn't before.
Win or lose, Democrats simply have to carry these issues to the country, and now has to be the time, whether or not it's convenient for Hillary, let alone Joe Lieberman.
How disingenuous or historically ignorant it is to lump the India blasts together with everything else going on so to emphasize how dangerous Islam is to any and all democratic nations.
ReplyDeleteFrom Malkin and the usual suspects they used this incident to ridicule the “religion of peace” without for a second thinking that a good number of those on those train platforms were Muslims.
This ignorance is astounding. I’ve been on those train platforms and traveled widely in India on trains, there are Mosques everywhere, right across the street from Hindu temples in some areas of Delhi.
These assertions aren’t “bravery” but bigotry – pure and simple.
Without knowing the first thing about history or the situation they reflexively spew their bigotry, so ignorant that they aren’t even aware of how stupid it makes them look to the people of India and many of the victims of this terrorist act.
If anyone didn't go to the Billmon link retsesivi had at the end of his post, he should.
ReplyDeleteWow. Is Billmon ever smart! And apparently he has enough knowledge about modern political history to form opinions about events that are entirely his own and seem incredibly astute.
I haven't read anyone who has the particular slant on these events that Billmon does.
Billmon would be a great person to post guest blogs here if Glenn and Billmon both wanted that.
Anyway, this is the quote that Biillmon had at the top of his post:
He who fights terrorists for any period of time is likely to become one himself.
Israeli historian Martin van Creveld
I agree that we should stand behind Israel, but war is never, and never will be, a solution. In fact, its the problem.
ReplyDeleteI disagree that neocons have significant influence in the Bush administration anymore. I think Bush himself is starting to see the inadequecy of the neo-con arguments. The neocons goading of Bush to engage in military action will surely cause a split in the Republican base.
ReplyDeleteHere's another astute quote from Creveld
ReplyDeleteIn private life, an adult who keeps beating down on a five year old – even such a one as originally attacked him with a knife – will be perceived as committing a crime; therefore he will lose the support of bystanders and end up by being arrested, tried and convicted. In international life, an armed force that keeps beating down on a weaker opponent will be seen as committing a series of crimes; therefore it will end up by losing the support of its allies, its own people, and its own troops. Depending on the quality of the forces – whether they are draftees or professionals, the effectiveness of the propaganda machine, the nature of the political process, and so on – things may happen quickly or take a long time to mature. However, the outcome is always the same. He (or she) who does not understand this does not understand anything about war; or, indeed, human nature.
And here's one I just like:
I must say I dislike your references to my "vast knowledge" and "professional opinion". They are beside the point.
In the last post I accidentally posted as "anon", I forgot to repost that Billmon link which has such a great analysis of what's going on:
ReplyDeleteFailed States
Here's how it concludes.....
...Is there a way out for the Israelis? None that I can see. Humpty Dumpty can’t be put back together again. Fatah and Abbas can’t be restored to their pre-election positions – not without looking like complete Israeli stooges. Hamas (or at least its moderate wing) can’t be brought back in from the cold, not without a loss of Israeli face and credibility so enormous it would probably cause the Olmert government to fall and bring the Likud back to power. The Israelis can’t afford to negotiate for the return of their captured soldiers and they can’t afford to forsake them. They can’t stay in Gaza and they can’t leave Gaza. They can’t invade Lebanon and they can’t not invade Lebanon.
In the past, no matter how bad things got in territories, Israeli governments always have had the option of backing off and leaving bad enough alone – relying on the Army or, post-Oslo, the PA to keep a lid on the situation. That was fine as long as the objective was to grow the settlements and quietly tighten Israel’s control over the land and all its resources. But now that the goal is essentially a second partition, Israeli politicians are finding out the hard way that they no longer have the luxury of malign neglect. After six years of pretending they don’t need a Palestinian negotiating partner, they’ve suddenly discovered, much to their horror, that they need one desperately – but have managed to eliminate all the possible candidates.
It appears that nobody has an exit anymore these days. The only positive suggestion I could make would be to draft Leonard Peikoff. When all else fails, schedenfreude comes to mind....
With a h/t to Gregory Djerejian, the scariest thing about this potential conflagration is that We, the Superpower, are lead by a genius who is in St. Petersburg lecturing Putin on how Russia needs to be like Iraq. Putin, of course, was not left speechless by our President's insanity.
ReplyDeleteI've been following hilzoy's analyses, and that of her very intelligent and insightful commenters. Myself, I haven't the first clue what should be done or by whom, and only know I'm not inclined to read or take advice from the same quarters that assured us Iraq was the model for democracy which would mean exactly this sort of thing would not happen. Yet now they embrace it, with Michael Ledeen depravedly shrieking "Faster, please."
I look forward to Glenn's own actual views on the whole situation.
I don't think the public properly appreciates how scary it is that a guy like Michael Ledeen is one of the biggest influences of this White House (at one time he was the only full time foreign policy advisor employed by Karl Rove.)
ReplyDeleteThe guy actually advocated war with France in 2003 as an extension of the "war on terror". That's how crazy radical this administratio is.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteClinton is no worse than Kristol, but Kristol is no worse than Clinton and the reason is because they're both on identically the same page.
*
Why then didn’t Clinton invade Iraq when he was in power? If he was listening to Kristol he would have. But no, all these crazies and neo-cons didn’t make it into power until Bush and Cheney opened the door to them – and they are now trying “purge” all holdovers from the Clinton years for not sufficiently supportive of neo-con theology.
If there was absolutely no difference between Clinton and Kristol that would not be happening.
Thanks, kos. Didn't know you posted here.
What did Clinton do in office vis-a-vis lunatic neo-con foreign policy misadventures? Don't get me started. Glenn would go bankrupt from the overuse of bandwidth. Apparently you only read the MSM for your information.
As for this: But no, all these crazies and neo-cons didn’t make it into power until Bush and Cheney opened the door to them:
What on earth are you talking about? They were bubbling under the surface when Reagan was in and the entire Bush 41 presidency was about this insane neo-con agenda in its planning phases. You thought it was about taxes? Kristol was (in fact) Vice President during the Bush 41 Presidency. You should bone up a little more on your facts....
If anyone thinks quality doesn't matter, imagine a world in which The Wire appears on prime-time television, rather than The Closer, and Glenn and Billmon write for the Washington Post rather than David Ignatius (check out today's bilge from him) and Charles Krauthammer.
ReplyDeleteWould we even be in the mess we're in if such things were possible? Yeah, I know. In my dreams....
As some have said in the past, Clinton was a really good moderate Republican President.
ReplyDeleteHe was not, however, a neo--con whackjob.
EWO sez - The only positive suggestion I could make would be to draft Leonard Peikoff.
ReplyDeleteLeonard Piekoff
By all that is holy, dear god,goddesses, lords and principalities of darkness, MAKE IT STOP.
bobw:
ReplyDelete"I hate casual references to Naziism, but Israel's brutality seems unique for such a civilized and once progressive nation."
Nazism and Zionism are two ideologies that are interdependent. Both preached purity of race....a "fatherland"/"homeland"....nationalism/ exceptionalism/chauvanism. Nazi ideals were a critical component in advancing the Zionist/ Jewish orthodox ideal...seperation of the races, because without victimhood and separation there is no logical rational for the creation of Israel. So with that in mind, here's an important historical fact: Hilter's biggest financial supporter during his rise to power in the 1930s were European Zionist organizations. This is the God-aweful TRUTH, which is freely discussed and written about in Israel, yet not in the United States. Furthermore, Hitlers accent to power was celebrated by rabbi Dr. Joachim Prinz in the 1934 book titled 'Wir Juden' (We Jews), in which he says:
"The meaning of the German Revolution for the German nation will eventually be clear to those who have created it and fored its image. Its meaning for us must be set forth here: the fortunes of liberalism are lost. The only form of political life which has helped Jewish assimilation is sunk."
[snip]
We want assimulation to be replaced by the new law: the declaration of belonging to the Jewish nation and Jewish race. A state built upon the principale of the purity of nation and race can only be honoured and respected by a Jew who declares his belonging to his kind. Having so declared himself, he will never be capable of faulty loyalty towards a state. The state cannot want other Jews but such as declare themselves as belongig to their nation. It will not want Jewish flatterers and crawlers. It must demand of us faith and loyalty to our own interests. For only he who honours his own breed and his own blood can have an attitude of honour towards the national will of other nations."
Every American should be asking themselves...on what principals/ideals is the State of Israel based on.....and yes the Holocaust was a terrible crime against humanity, however this horrendous atrocity does not end at the door step of the Nazi regime. The Zionist movement must come clean on their involvement in perpetrating this atrocity to boost their argument for the creation of a Jewish state! The Zionist movement must come clean with their unsavory collaboration with the Nazis during WWII and the sell out of millions of European Jews.
...just some food for thought.
By all that is holy, dear god,goddesses, lords and principalities of darkness, MAKE IT STOP.
ReplyDeleteYup. Atlas puked.
I have to say I do think that Israel's enemies ought to be considered the USA's as well. I'm not sure I understand how someone could not view it that way. With that said, this certainly does not mean I believe the USA should be getting directly involved in this particular conflict. It would escalate things far too much to allow the elephants to get dragged in. If Israel should take this as an opportunity to strike Iran's nuclear capacities, though, I can't say I'd be complaining, since someone's gonna have to do that eventually anyway, and Iran is attacking Israel by proxy. Israel could do the world a favor, as they day in the 1980s when they took out Iraq's nuclear capacities.
ReplyDeleteIsrael is one of our most important allies. Enemies of our friends ought to be considered enemies of the USA, particularly in the context of the war with islamist fascists and jihadists. The entire democratic, civilized world should stand in firm solidarity with each other when these terrorist attacks occur in India and elsewhere. This is not the same as saying we should be stupid and get start attacking more countries with our military. The Islamists, in my opinion, would love nothing more than for that to happen, sending the world into more instability and chaos. Can't one recognized that Israel's enemies are indeed our enemies as well without advocating that we should respond the way some necons are suggesting?
Folks, Iran with the assistance of Syria has been using terrorist groups to invade Israel to ambush patrols and kill or capture Israeli soldiers.
ReplyDeleteIran appears to have assisted Hizbollah and probably Hamas in obtaining rockets which are being aimed at cities to massacre civilians.
Why? To distract the world from Iran's nuclear weapons program.
You notice that these terrorist war crimes started when Iran was referred to the security council after months of not so veiled threats by the whack job running Iran that they would launch a terror war if the UN tried to stop them.
What do you think these fascists will do if they get nuclear weapons?
These neo cons are right that Syria and Iran are our enemies. They have both assisted the terror campaigns underway in Iraq which have butchered thousands of Iraqi citizens and most or our KIA there.
We still owe Iran for Hizbollah's murder of our Marines in Lebanon.
Israel is trying to peel Syria off from Iraq by reportedly giving them 72 hours to return the kidnaped soldiers and to cut off Hizbollah. If not, expect the Israeli Air Force to start rearranging key parts of Syria.
Syria knows they are no match for Israel and, hopefully, will pull back from the abyss. However, if they do not and Iran escalates their terror campaign to include US or allied targets in the region, all bets are off.
Right now, this is Israel's war. However, if Iran expands their terror attacks further, it may become our war whether you like it or not.
This bears close watching and grim realistic determination, not celebration on the right or more calls to cut and run from the left
Can't one recognized that Israel's enemies are indeed our enemies as well without advocating that we should respond the way some necons are suggesting?
ReplyDeleteI certainly think so, and I've never been a member of the "blame Israel first" crowd. But the desire to see this rapidly escalating situation spiral into WWIII is obscene, and some are clearly and palpably hoping for just that. Demanding it, even.
They are tragically -- and dangerously -- stuck in a historical time warp in which it is always 1938 Munich, and failure to incinerate the Middle East equals Chamberlain. The idea that any other model for avoiding or cabining hostilities has ever exited, in the entire annals of history, eludes them. Nothing will do but full-on war.
Witnesses: Israel attacks hit central Beirut
ReplyDeleteLebanese prime minister declares ‘disaster zone,’ appeals for cease-fire
AP. Updated: 2 hours, 33 minutes ago
BEIRUT, Lebanon - Israeli warplanes hit central Beirut for the first time and smashed the Hezbollah leadership’s main strongholds, as strikes killed at least 18 Lebanese fleeing the onslaught. Hezbollah rockets continued to pour into Israel, where officials warned citizens that Tel Aviv could be hit.
Following the attacks, Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora called for an immediate cease-fire, saying Israeli attacks had turned Lebanon into a disaster area in need of international aid.
“We call for an immediate ceasefire backed by the United Nations,” Siniora told a news conference in Beirut. “I declare today that Lebanon is a disaster zone in need of a comprehensive and speedy Arab plan ... and (it) pleads to its friends in the world to rush to its aid...”
Oh dear. A naif. Mr. Siniora, I'm sorry to inform you we cannot authorize a ceasefire. There aren't any $$$ for the War Party in ceasefires. Are you dreaming? Also, humanitarian disasters are only of interest to governments if they are caused by natural forces, not by governments.
And what "friends" are you talking about? Individual citizens in the countries of this world who have about as much influence on their governments as Bugs Bunny does?
"Friends is a passe twentieth century concept. Business partners is the term of choice now.
Or did you mean the United Nations?
Ha Ha. Good one. (Psssst....Are you really Steven Colbert?)
Even Israel, as far as I can tell, does not make the claim that these countries are behind the attacks.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Israel doesn't, but I just heard Chimpy on television saying that exact thing.
bart, anonymous (whichever anonymous you are -- blogger's defaults can be confusing sometimes):
ReplyDeleteI'd feel better if you were a little more careful what you wished for, since after today you're more likely to get it, and along with you, me and mine, and frankly, me and mine don't need or deserve it.
We've certainly come a long way since Eisenhower put the leg irons on Israel over Suez some 50 odd years ago, haven't we? We've meddled with and insulted the Muslims, demanded that they humiliate themselves for us, armed the IDF to the teeth and invaded Iraq, and now you'd like us to invade Syria and Iran. (Or is it just nuke them, since -- superb military strategists that you are -- you see no need to engage in wars of attrition?)
What you apparently can't see is that we've already lost this one, as we lost the one in Vietnam, and this one will have real consequences. There'll be no returning to Teheran 20 years from now to sign a new KFC contract with the Ayatollahs.
In truth, I don't expect you to be persuaded by this plea, but I tell you, better me than the whirlwind we're about to reap.
Frank Warren's Ghost said...
ReplyDeleteEWO sez - The only positive suggestion I could make would be to draft Leonard Peikoff.
By all that is holy, dear god, goddesses, lords and principalities of darkness, MAKE IT STOP.
Make what stop? Sheer stupidity of such mythic proportions that a person doesn't know how to read and thinks Bill Kristol is the intellectual heir to Ghandi?
For your information, not that such a word would have any relevance to your mindless, fact-free, miserable existence, AR was an atheist and an anti-authoritarian individual, not running for President of the Tribalists, as Peikoff is.
When you learn how to spell, come back and play with the adults.
Ayn Rand is the one who has a right to puke.
The story of why Ayn Rand, the champion of reason, left Leonard Peikoff, a person she herself knew to be psychologically deranged, in trust of her legacy is a tragic one which has never been written and never will. Those who know have their own reasons for not writing it.
But you keep praying to all that is holy. Maybe the Gods will answer your prayers for rain...
To clarify, I'm not saying the attacks were not coordinated with Syria and Iran (which may or may not be true), but I don't believe they initiated them (I'll take back characterizing them as 'silly'). I do find the idea that Iran would mastermind this to stop a UN move (which as we all know, the US holds so dearly) less than convincing. The idea that the administration is looking for excuses to attack Iran on the other hand...
ReplyDeleteAs for Israel issuing an ultimatum to Syria, that's nothing new. Buzzing the Syrian presidential palace is a staple of Israel's Lebanon policy. Frankly, who else would they threaten?
IDF officer: Israel has no plans to attack Syria:
The source added that even though Syria is playing a negative role in the latest crisis, he believes that it had no direct role in the outbreak of fighting.
"Syria is a negative factor, but it is not strong enough in order to instigate all these events," the source said
And as for
In recent days, senior U.S. administration officials, led Bush blamed Syria for the escalation of violence in the region.
Are we talking about the guy who said this?
I agree wholeheartedly that Kristol is a fool. The idea of having a smaller ally dictate when the United States goes to war is pure folly.
ReplyDeleteThere may come a time when we must confront the state sponsors of terror in the Middle East. But it should be at a time of our choosing and for our own national interests - not the interests of Israel.
Punching above its weight
ReplyDeleteAnother article by Billmon.
Three days in, and it looks like Israel is losing the war....
Another little surprise for the IDF, via the Counterterrorism blog.
According to Israeli Channel 10, Hezbollah was able to hack into the Israeli Army's computer systems prior to the attack.
Back in the old days, the ditty ran: "Whatever happens we have got/The Maxim gun and they have not." But in the information age, technological advantages are much more fungible, and less dependent on overall industrial or economic superiority. Hezbollah clearly has learned a lot since it last tangled with the Israelis. And now it's the Israelis who are learning some things -- the hard way.
Update 7/15 2:30 PM: The Israelis are now claiming their warship was hit by a Chinese-developed, Iranian-made cruise missile, not a drone aircraft rigged with a warhead. This may be true or it may be an expedient lie -- better to claim you were buggered by the Iranians than by a bunch of militiamen fooling around with model airplanes, particularly when such a claim also serves your larger political interests.
But even if it is true, it doesn't change the strategic equation. With or without Iranian help, Hezbollah is making mincemeat out of the myth of overwhelming Israeli superiority. How this will ultimately play out remains to be seen, but it certainly raises the stakes, at least for the Israelis.
BTW, Hypatia, are you ready to take back your support for "Iraq the Model"?
Personally I prefer listening to Bush to reading the whore who writes that site. It makes Frontpagemag.com look like Daniel Ellsberg.
Surprisingly enough, I agree with what "the dog" said about the neocon influence in the Administration (I think it was The Dog).
ReplyDeleteThe comic-book-sized superhero aggression exhibited by neocons such as Kristol seems to have achieved supremacy followed by utter disrepute in world-record time.
With most Americans soured on Iraq and the entire premise of invading that country, with an even larger amount of Americans likely thinking that attacking Iran is in general a bad idea, and particularly now an absolutely absurd idea, the more people like Kristol bloviate that our global posture isn't muscular or violent enough, the more rapid their descent into utter ignominy and their banishment from de facto US government decision making.
We have already seen evidence of the backlash against neocon ideals, shown by Bush's almost complete disengagement from the crisis and his empty expressions of Israel's "right to defend herself." However, what his disengagement from the Mideast disaster demonstrates, more so than the fact that the government has its arms full with Iraq, is the Administration's penchant for extreme policy swings; rather than taking a reasonable middle road regarding foreign policy, the President has simply become the one-trick pony that has lost its trick, opting for an almost petulant international reticence and awkwardness rather than active diplomatic multilateralism.
This will, getting back to The Dog's point, inevitably hasten the already widening rift in the Republican Party. "Establishment" GOP elements and moderates, now controlling the reigns of power and occupying a swath of conservative minds, will increasingly reject the neoconservative "let's fight" wing, and the neoconservatives will become infuriated with the GOP's "lack of spine."
Meanwhile, Cheney, though his spirit demands further military action and international pugnaciousness, will be hamstrung by military and political reality. He will retain the President's ear, but unless events significantly change to allow a politically and militarily feasible return to jingoism, he will be unable or unwilling to fulfill the wet dreams of macho sideliners like Kristol.
At this point, either someone with substantial international credibility and finesse will emerge from the woodwork to engineer a backchannel escape from this escalating nightmare in Palestine, the fighting will somehow exhaust itself on its own and slowly simmer to a low but hot boil, or some wild card occurrence will appear to compel the US to get aggressively involved somehow. Otherwise, military intervention simply isn't in the cards.
EWO, Glenn linked to both Billmon posts in the Update section to this post
ReplyDeleteI see Michelle Malkin is linking to David Horowitz who is asking if Israel should go nuclear against Iran and Syria, and wondering if they will…..
ReplyDeleteproceed to plan B and obliterate them now?
Isn’t it amazing just how casually they are talking about obliterating millions of people with nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike?
Sadly, this is exactly what I expect of them now.
Is there any chance that Colbert is impersonating Bush and the guy we see on television is really Colbert in disguise?
ReplyDeleteI offer this theory as the only possible explanation for this (from retsesivi's link):
Putin To Bush: Thanks, But No Thanks
During a joint news conference Saturday in St. Petersburg, Bush said he raised concerns about democracy in Russia during a frank discussion with the Russian leader.
"I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world, like Iraq where there's a free press and free religion, and I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia would do the same," Bush said.
To that, Putin replied, "We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy that they have in Iraq, quite honestly."
Arisa said...
ReplyDeleteEWO, Glenn linked to both Billmon posts in the Update section to this post
Thanks Arisa! I didn't check back after I read Glenn's post.
Another instance showing how nimble and smart Glenn is. Great!
Glenn, I am glad to see you take on this issue in your usual methodical and rational way. While others are floundering around looking for an answer, you cut right to the chase and pinpoint the main actors in this growing tragedy.
ReplyDeleteBy isolating the influence of the neoconservative ideology, you are highlighting that aspect of what Col. Wilkerson calls the Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal. That is, while there are those who shy away from identifying the strange alignment of neoconservative thought with Zionism and Israeli interests, it is becoming painfully clear that there is indeed some form of collusion going on between these two camps, as well as people in high places in the US government.
The reason for shying away from such accusations is the unsettling notion that they will sound like a brand of anti-semitism. Indeed, I see this danger, but as many on Right and Left are learning, the accusation about such a cabal comes not only from traditional supporters of Israel outside Israel but also from inside Israel itself.
In a perfect world, I imagine, one would like to be the friend of all nations. Israel is right to seek the support and friendship of the US. But then so are other countries. The apparent partiality for all-things Israeli in US foreign policy belie the notion of what used to be called American fair play and giving everyone an equal voice and equal chance.
Referencing the sense of fair play, Helena Cobban, a long-time Mideast activist, who has written extensively on Lebanon, Hamas, and Israel writes today:
What I do know is that the international community as a whole also has a huge stake in all this. We have a stake in seeing a fair and sustainable outcome to all the remaining dimensions of the Israeli-Arab dispute. But we also have a stake in seeing the principles of international law implemented and strengthened at all levels. That includes in the content of the eventual comprehensive Israeli-Arab peace, which should certainly uphold rather than transgress international law.
It also includes in the application of a single standard of judgment to all the acts of violence unleashed in the continuing storm(s) between Israel and its neighbors.
There is another very simple and very important principle at stake here, too. Every single life snuffed out by the violence is equally dear, equally sacred. The lives of civilians, in particular, should all equally receive the concern of the international community.
Israeli interests in the US and in Israel have worked long and hard to manufacture an image that Israelis are "just like us," just like the people next door, and so on. Again, nothing wrong with this. But when it is combined with an equally concerted effort to paint others in "not like us," alien, and stereotypically villainous terms that effort begins to look like what is: self-serving obsequiousness in the halls of power.
As you know, the Israel lobby in the US is strong--the second largest lobby in Congress. With the religious Right, who see many things Israeli fitting into their end-of-times theology, the Israel lobby has an influence on US decision-makers that far outstrips any other interest group in the US.
Again, were this interest group based solely in the US that might not be politics as usual. That is tied to another country is certainly something to question and wonder about. No other country in the world has a voice in so many Congresspersons' throats as does Israel.
Defining why Israel's interests do not in any way coincide with US interests is not an easy matter. After the many years of careful and deliberate PR and media campaigns, it is almost a given that what affects Israel affects me or mine. That might be so--but it should not affect me in a disproportionately unjust way that I harm others who deserve the same respect as I pay Israel.
Coming to the conclusion that Israel's interests do not always or necessarily reflect US interests is not easy to make for people with little time to study foreign policy and the ways of propaganda. They are easily swayed and often take what their politicians do as representing their best interests.
Those who do have training and experience in the Mideast come to some very difficult conclusions concerning Israel. Ray Close, a former CIA analyst in the Near East division, as well as a Member, Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, recently wrote:
Open confrontation of Hizballah by the United States, allied with Israel, will have a powerful impact on the Iranian people, as well. Argue, if you will, that Iran is a known supporter of Hizballah and Hamas, and thus of international terrorism. That is a reality that none can deny. But let’s prioritize our national interests here. It is the people of Iraq and Iran on whom we depend not just for “regime change” in the short term, but for peace and stability (and resistance to terrorism) throughout the region in the decades ahead. It is the people of those countries whose trust and respect we must win. It is the trust and respect of those people that we have lost --- to a significant extent because we are identified in their minds with the narrow interests of Israel. Why is that so difficult for Americans to understand?
As you note, the importance of how closely the US aligns itself with Israeli interests affect not only US security but also the life and well-being of many in the Mideast. The US should return to its tradition of fair play and equal treatment. Don't be played like a rube in a game whose outcome is foretold in advance and which only enriches the deceiver.
Seems every superpower needs an expensive pet.
ReplyDeleteSome may say the Soviets pampered Cuba because they wanted tropical vacations. But I think there is more to see in my own homeland than in Israel. Maybe this is why Zawahiri is so angry. (Besides the psychopathic killer thing, of course.)
From Bart at 5:13pm:
ReplyDeleteFolks, Iran with the assistance of Syria has been using terrorist groups to invade Israel to ambush patrols and kill or capture Israeli soldiers.
Upon what do you base this little claim (other than wishful thinking)?
This bears close watching and grim realistic determination, not celebration on the right or more calls to cut and run from the left
Overlooking to the small fact 'the left' has largely been silent on this unfolding lunacy (which immediately calls into question your perceptions), I'm at a loss as to what you're trying to communicate with these handy catch-phrases.
Are we to bear silent witness as the region descends into chaos, 'grimly determined' that we not allow it to undermine our already badly undermined standing in there?
Or are we to watch carefully, then strike at...well, whoever...at the proper moment with all the 'grim determination' of every other aggressive nation in human history?
This is the problem with little catch-phrases like this, Bart. Macho as they sound, they don't actually say anything. But then that's been you from beginning, hasn't it?
What do you think these fascists will do if they get nuclear weapons?
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think they will do if they get nuclear weapons?
Really Bart - I'm all ears. Yours if the common line, but it's utter bullshit.
Gee, do you think Iran will give said weapons to Hezbolllah or Hamas to detonate in an Israeli city, thereby ensuring that both Damascus and Tehran and much of the surrounding countryside is immediately nuked in retaliation?
Or maybe they'll just fire one directly at the United States, because they're all about mass murder.
Don't be a tool. Right now, Iran's major rationale for getting nukes - and North Korea's, as well - is to have a deterrent to a U.S. invasion.
As bizarre as it is, i guess it's worth something that their agenda finally comes out in the open.
ReplyDeleteWell, the more Ledeen talks, the greater the likelihood that people will realize that he is a wack job. They may also come to realize that the insane are the only people left on their side.
I'd love to see Ledeen debate some of those generals who were openly critical of Rummy. Let Mikie explain to them how we'll execute his proposed battle plan.
I tried to avoid it, really, but since the subject of Iran and nuking came up, I'm morally obliged to report what Billmon had to say back in April.
ReplyDeleteRead at your own peril. EWO, feel free to disseminate ;-)
I see Michelle Malkin is linking to David Horowitz who is asking if Israel should go nuclear against Iran and Syria, and wondering if they will…..
ReplyDeleteproceed to plan B and obliterate them now?
Isn’t it amazing just how casually they are talking about obliterating millions of people with nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike?
I love the sentence from Horowitz which preceded that:
Could you afford to wait to see if Syria will supply the chemical and biological weapons it has cached for Saddam Hussein to Hizbollah and Hamas? Or would you proceed to plan B and obliterate them now?
In Horowitz's mind, Saddam really did have WMDs. He moved them all to Syria, which is holding them now and is going to give them to Hezbollah and Hamas to use against Israel.
Therefore, Israel has to "obliterate them" befoe they can use Saddam's hidden WMDs, currently "cached" in Syria.
This is the fevered lunacy which brought us the Iraq invasion. And those who did have never hidden the fact that Iraq is but the first, not the last, step in their grand war plans.
And those who did have never hidden the fact that Iraq is but the first, not the last, step in their grand war plans.
ReplyDeleteYep. Because surely everything will work out fine this time around.
I read hilzoy's post. Not to dismiss Glenn's view of it, I personally think it is the writing of a very unsophisticated thinker who is light years away from understanding the Mid-East situation in the way a Billmon or a Justin Raimondo is.
ReplyDeleteI also don't agree with every word any of these writers posts, as we each have our own unique view of things.
But hilzoy assumes as many things as she has factual knowledge of, imo, and that seriously undermines her observations.
One simple point is she should read up on the difference between a "kidnapping" (as of a child) and the capture of someone a particular nation or group considers to be an enemy combatant.
In warfare one does not "kidnap" one's enemy: one kills or captures him.
Failing to recognize that distinction leads hilzoy to be able to assert with what she considers to be authority who is completely responsible for starting this latest outbreak of warfare.
In most cases blame lies on both sides, she asserts. Not this one. It's a kidnapping. People shouldn't kidnap others. Ergo....the rest of her argument....
The 0% Doctrine in action, Glenn. Rather than fact checking fantasy, it's fact compressing fantasy 1 into fantasy 2.
ReplyDeletefor completeness sake, and per contractual obligations, I should also offer this post by He Who Shall Not Be Mentioned By Name again.
ReplyDeleteAmerica, did you know....
ReplyDeleteIn April 1994 a Palestinian executed the first known "terrorist" suicide attack in Israel, which killed eight people in Afula. This is the first recorded "terrorist suicide bombing" against innoccent Israeli civilians.
Did you also know....
50 days prior to the attack in Afula Dr. Baruch Goldstein entered a Hebron mosque with a gun killing 29 and wounding 125 worshippers. Shortly after the massacre an angry crowd beat Dr. Goldstein to death. The Israeli Ministry of the Interior would later list the cause of Goldstein's death as "murder".
Unfortunately, there are no suprises in all of this.
ReplyDeleteTo echo others here: at least Kristol and his fellow neocons are now completely out in the open about their agenda and which country they really pledge allegiance to (Hint: it ain't the USA)...
I have yet to read all the comments but these two jumped out at me and I am compelled to respond to one and question the other.
ReplyDeleteBobw... Beyond that, would you say Israel has some kind of unconscious complex imprinted during the Nazi years, wherein they become the master race, free to exterminate the lesser races surrounding them?
I hate casual references to Naziism, but Israel's brutality seems unique for such a civilized and once progressive nation.
Why do you consider them "casual" references? At one time they were considered quite serious.
On December 4, 1948, the New York Times published a letter to the editor signed by over two dozen prominent Jews condemning Menachem Begin and his Herut party on the occasion of Begin's visit to New York City.
Comparing Revisionist Zionism streams to "Nazi and fascist parties", the letter was signed by individuals like Albert Einstein and the anti-Zionists Hannah Arendt and Sidney Hook. The letter began:
"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. (source: NY Times, December 4, 1948).[2]"
Dr. Rudy Kastner...and we also need to come to terms with the fact that the fanatical contingent in Israel have nuclear weapons and a will to us them against anyone who stands in their way....even against the US.
The U.S.S. Liberty comes to mind, and the Mossad is quite capable of false flag ops, but I do not see this as a distinct possibility. The extremists in Israel who assassinated Rabin, don't have access to nukes yet or they would have used them against the Palestinians by now.
Glenn--
ReplyDeleteA response to Update III. I'm not entirely surprised to hear Eagleburger spout craziness like that; I seem to recall him consistently having quite the heavy Kool-Aid breath on talk shows regarding all things Iraq.
I think it's a mistake to assume that what [members of the militant neoconservative minority] are advocating is too extreme and self-evidently disastrous to become a reality.
I feel that this may be in response to sentiments like my earlier post, if not directly so. Let me be clear that, though I don't think we'll be carpet bombing Iran anytime soon in the absence of some new "surprise," I certainly don't take comfort in the fact that most people don't think it would be a good idea. I don't take comfort in any wacko, no matter how apparently lonely, blithely espousing such views in national media.
That said, I repeat that I really don't think America will be fulfilling neoconservative fantasies anytime soon, though this in no way means we should leave those thoughts unchecked in reliance that their idiocy will speak for itself.
The following comes from an Israeli educator, Ilan Pappe, writing at the Electronic Intifada:
ReplyDeleteI have been teaching in the Israeli universities for 25 years. Several of my students were high ranking officers in the army. I could see their growing frustration since the outbreak of the first Intifada in 1987. They detested this kind of confrontation, called euphemistically by the gurus of the American discipline of International Relations: ‘low intensity conflict’. It was too low to their taste. They were faced with stones, molotov bottles and primitive arms which required a very limited use of the huge arsenal the army has amassed throughout the years and did not test at all their ability to perform in a battlefield or a war zone. Even when the army used tanks and F-16s, it was a far cry from the war games the officers played in the Israeli Matkal – headquarters – and for which they bought, with American tax payer money – the most sophisticated and updated weaponry existing in the market.
The first Intifada was crushed, but the Palestinians continued to seek ways of ending the occupation. They rose again in 2000, inspired this time by a more religious group of national leaders and activists. But it was still a ‘low intensity conflict’; no more than that. But this is not what the army expected, it was yearning for a ‘real’ war. As Raviv Druker and Offer Shelah, two Israeli journalists with close ties to the IDF, show in a recent book, Boomerang (p. 50), major military exercises before the second Intifada were based on a scenario that envisaged a full-scale war. It was predicted that in the case of another Palestinian uprising, there would be three days of ‘riots’ in the occupied territories that would turn into a head-on confrontation with neighboring Arab states, especially Syria. Such a confrontation, it was argued, was needed to maintain Israel’s power of deterrence and reinforce the generals confidence in their army’s ability to conduct a conventional war.
The frustration was unbearable as the three days in the exercise turned into six years. And yet, the Israeli army’s main vision for the battlefield is today still that of ‘shock and awe’ rather than chasing snipers, suicide bombers and political activists. The ‘low intensity’ war questions the invincibility of the army and erodes its capability to engage in a ‘real’ war. More important than anything else, it does not allow Israel to impose unilaterally its vision over the land of Palestine – a de-Arabized land mostly in Jewish hands. Most of the Arab regimes have been complacent and weak enough to allow the Israelis to pursue their policies, apart from Syria and Hizballah in Lebanon. They have to be neutralized if Israeli unileteralism is to succeed.
After the outbreak of the second Intifada in October 2000, some of the frustration was allowed to evaporate with the use of 1,000 kilo bombs on a Gaza house or during operation Defense Shield in 2002 when the army bulldozered the refugee camp in Jenin. But this too was a far cry from what the strongest army in the Middle East could do. And despite the demonization of the mode of resistance chosen by the Palestinians in the second Intifada – the suicide bomb – you needed only two or three F-16 and a small number of tanks to punish collectively the Palestinians by totally destroying their human, economic and social infrastructure.
I know these generals as well as one could know them. In the last week, they have had a field day. No more random use of one-kilo bombs, battleships, choppers and heavy artillery. The weak and insignificant new minister of defense, Amir Perez, accepted without hesitation the army demand for crushing the Gaza strip and grinding Lebanon to dust. But it may not be enough. It can still deteriorate into a full scale war with the hapless army of Syria and my ex-students may even push by provocative actions towards such an eventuality. And, if you believe what you read in the local press here, it may even escalate into a long distance war with Iran, backed by a supreme American umbrella.
I think we may need to distinguish between Zionism and Revisionist Zionism here, and throw in Christian Zionism as well.
ReplyDeletere: cynic library and Pappe, just thinking aloud (in print?) here...
ReplyDeleteIf Pappe's correct, is seems logical - inevitable, maybe - that Israel ultimately attempts to widen this war into Syria - if not now, then in the not-too-distant future, and we see that the likes of Kristol and Ledeen are beating the war drums for this explicitly.
From the neocon point of view, an Israeli assault on Syria would be fantastic for a variety of reasons, but mostly because politically, they/this administration are hamstrung here in the homeland right now; we certainly cannot undertake such a campaign. But if Israel does it, and ultimately draws in Iran - as Iran has said an attack on Syria constitutes an attack on the whole Arab world - does that not give us the green light we've been seeking to take a punch at Iran?
In previous postings at his blog, The Washington Note, independent reporter Steve Clemons speculated that Israel wants to force the US into a war with Iran by its invasion of Lebanon. Clemons wrote:
ReplyDeleteOne has to wonder whether Israel's reaction -- so dramatically different than in the past -- is designed to REMOVE from the table certain options America might prefer to have with the Palestinians, with the broader Arab region, and even -- eventually -- with Iran.
Clemons just returned from a long trip to Israel where he met with many Israeli leaders. He also has what has been termed "uber-insider" contacts high in the US govt.
In his most recent posting, Clemons fleshes out the details of how Israel hopes to use this invasion to force the US hand in the Mideast:
The flamboyant, over the top reactions to attacks on Israel's military check points and the abduction of soldiers -- which I agree Israel must respond to -- seems to be part establishing "bona fides" by Olmert, but far more important, REMOVING from the table important policy options that the U.S. might have pursued.
Israel is constraining American foreign policy in amazing and troubling ways by its actions. And a former senior CIA official and another senior Marine who are well-versed in both Israeli and broad Middle East affairs, agreed that serious strategists in Israel are more concerned about America tilting towards new bargains in the region than they are either about the challenge from Hamas or Hezbollah or showing that Olmert knows how to pull the trigger.
Another well respected and very serious national security public intellectual in the nation wrote this when I shared this thesis that Israeli actions were ultimately aimed at clipping American wings in the region. His response:
the thesis of your paper is right-on.
whether intentional or coincidental, that is what is being done right now.
I share these other views only to establish the fact that there is not a consensus either in support of or opposed to Israeli action -- but some are beginning to scrutinize what Israel is seeking to achieve with such flamboyant displays of power that are antagonizing whole societies on their borders.
Keeping America from cutting new deals in the region -- which many in the national security establishment thinks are vital -- may actually be what is going on, and the smarter-than-average analysts are beginning to see that.
Ilan Pappe is an Israeli-born professor at Haifa University, who is well-known as a revisionist or "post-Zionist" Israeli historian. Frontpage did a hit piece on him in 2004.
ReplyDeleteILAN PAPPE:
Advocate of Israel's destruction.
This Israeli traitor is the darling of the campus groups that rally against Israel
A Deal with the Devil
ReplyDeleteA Palestinian Zionist and the End of the World
By WILL YOUMANS
(...)
Walid Shoebat, from Beit Sahour, in the West Bank, is paraded by pro-Israeli organizations on speaking tours, in articles, and radio and TV interviews. An article in Jewish Week announces the secret of his magic: "a former terrorist repents and discusses his metamorphosis on six-city speaking tour." Articles on BBC's website, as well as pro-Israeli organs such as WorldNetDaily and FrontPageMag depict Shoebat on his own terms, as an ex-terrorist now fully supportive of Israel. In Arlene Pecks' words, he went "from terrorist to zionist."
(...)
Shoebat represents the ominous collusion between Christian fundamentalists and supporters of Israel; a recipe for disaster. Though he offers no compelling secular framework, his talks mostly demonize Palestinians and Islam in the kind of language that only affirms the pro-Israeli community's more ignorant misconceptions. He talks about the inherent hate of Islam, being taught to oppose violently Jews and Israel, and the eternal Jewish right to the land. None of his points give audiences the slightest perspective into the movements for peace among Palestinians, nor the substance of their claims against a state that occupies and controls their daily lives (whether or not the Old Testament justifies it).
His goals are deadly. Clearly, he seeks to further polarize Palestinians and Jews with his extremist positions. As with the overall influence of Christian fundamentalism, his theological tenets make reconciliation in this conflict less likely. Peace forestalls the End of Times the end of the World, which some Christian fundamentalists such as Shoebat look forward to enthusiastically. His personal and religious stake is in helping speed along Armageddon ideological maneuvering ultimately much more deadly than anything Shehadeh preached or did. I fear that in their ideological zeal to defend Israel against criticism, American Zionists are making a deal with the devil.
Will Youmans is a California-based writer. He has contributed to 'The Politics of Anti-Semitism,' and the recently released 'Civil Rights in Peril: The Targeting of Arabs and Muslims.' youmans@boalthall.berkeley.edu
This New Yorker piece from last October on Brent Scowcroft -- Bush 41's National Security Advisor -- is sad but illuminating. Scowcroft was somewhat frequently consulted by the Clinton Admin, but has been frozen out of the conversation by Bush 43. Unsurprisingly, Scowcroft's long-standing friendship with Condi Rice has become, to say the least, strained. At their last lunch this transpired:
ReplyDeleteThey also argued about Iraq. “She says we’re going to democratize Iraq, and I said, ‘Condi, you’re not going to democratize Iraq,’ and she said, ‘You know, you’re just stuck in the old days,’ and she comes back to this thing that we’ve tolerated an autocratic Middle East for fifty years and so on and so forth,” he said. Then a barely perceptible note of satisfaction entered his voice, and he said, “But we’ve had fifty years of peace.”
Bill Kristol, of course, weighs in to ridicule Scowcroft's views.
Hypatia.... I haven't the first clue what should be done or by whom
ReplyDeleteThe first thing to do is tug gently at the purse strings, but we don't have any responsible, mentally healthy adults at either end of this relationship. Just two co-dependent, enablers drunk with power.
Ilan Pappe is a well-respected historian trained in the most modern and objective historical tools. He and other "post-Zionist" historians use archival material unearthed from vaults and government libraries to show dramatic mis-relationships between reality and the Israel so lauded by weatern media.
ReplyDeleteThese historians' most controversial claim is that Israel never planned to deal with the Palestinians, using diverse means to eradicate them or unload them on Arab nations.
Scowcroft...Then a barely perceptible note of satisfaction entered his voice, and he said, “But we’ve had fifty years of peace.”
ReplyDeleteSomeone who finally gets what Orwell was hinting at. The wingers always misunderstand Col. Nathan Jessup, a fictional character who was not quoting Orwell when he went on his rant about "rough men on walls". Orwell never said anything like: "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Or: "We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us."
In his essay on Rudyard Kipling (1942), Orwell wrote: "[Kipling] sees clearly that men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilised, are there to guard and feed them."
In his Notes on Nationalism (1945) he wrote: "Those who abjure violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf."
When you go around knocking those "rough men with guns" off the walls, this is what you get.
These historians' most controversial claim is that Israel never planned to deal with the Palestinians, using diverse means to eradicate them or unload them on Arab nations.
ReplyDeleteI think Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt, Sidney hook and other prominent Jews tried to warn people of that in 1948. It starts with "Leibensraum" and proceeds to a "final solution".
Regarding the latest Israel vs. all muslim war, help me understand something:
ReplyDeleteHow does Hisbolla taking hostage of 2 -3 Israeli soldiers, justify Israeli’s action to blow up billions of dollars of infrastructure and killing of hundreds of civilians of Lebanon? Most reports have indicated Lebanon does not even control the Hesbolla, so I am not sure what Israel is gaining by attacking innocent people in Beirut?
How come there is not a single politican that is looking at the situation and sees both parties (Muslims and Jews) should come to the table and discuss peace? Not one US single politician has complained that maybe Israel is using excessive force and is causing a severe situation on its own and they need to show restraint? President Bush is telling Hesbolla should lay down its arms, while Israel is using excessive force in destroying Lebanon and Gaza strip areas. Do our politicians can’t see the obvious – you don’t get peace, by telling only one side to chill out. Do they just lack any spine and are so concerned about the Jewish vote and influence? Or do our politicians really think that you negotiate peace by forcing one side (Muslims) to bend over and let the other guy (Israel) have his way?
What is Israel’s strategy for peace? Attack all muslim countries, stir the hatred pot really well, make it a USA/Israel vs. Muslim war (Christians/Jews vs. Muslims), and then expect the USA to bail them out w/ re-enforcement, and more weapons/aid?
Does the neocons have enough influence to convince the American public that Israel’s war is USA’s war also? Could the politicans convince the American people that we should send more troops there and kill even more of our sons? We have been at war in Iraq longer than our involvement in WWII and have killed more than 3000 of our own kids, exceeding the original cause of the 3000 people dead from 9-11. With USA’s current situation in Iraq/Afganistan, and what a disaster those places have become, and what a horrible ROI (Return on Investment) those places are, do we think adding Syria/Iran/Lebanon/Saudi Arabia to the mix will make it better?
I’d like to hear how the warhawks plan to bring peace to the Middle East? If that is even a goal. Or is it to just go there, kill as many Muslims/detain them in Cuba, etc.
I suppose it would seem anachronistic to suggest to these knuckleheaded warmongers that they read the salient bits of George Washington's farewell address before advocating involvement in a war which has been escalated by a country with which we have no bilateral defense treaty?
ReplyDeleteYeah. Anachronistic.
fyi:
ReplyDeleteprofessor juan cole has smart things to say about the middle east every day. and, he links to sources that are in the middle east, such as al anwar, al jezeera, etc...
if you're posting analyses, his july 11 article is informative, since it's four days old, it pre-dates the escalation with lebanon.
Terrorism expert Larry Johnson weighs in on Israel's insanity:
ReplyDeleteWhile most folks in the United States buy into the Hollywood storyline of poor little Israel fighting for it's survival against big, bad Muslims, the reality unfolding on our TV screens shows something else. Exodus, starring Paul Newman, is ancient history. Hamas and Hezbollah attacked military targets--kidnapping soldiers on military patrols may be an act of war and a provocation, but it is not terrorism. (And yes, Hezbollah and Hamas have carried out terrorist attacks in the past against Israeli civilians. I'm not ignoring those acts, I condemn them, but we need to understand what the dynamics are right now.) Israel is not attacking the individuals who hit their soldiers. Israel is engaged in mass punishment.
How did Israel respond? They bombed civilian targets and civilian infrastructure and have killed many civilians. Let's see if I have this right. The Arab "terrorists" attack military units, destroy at least one tank, and are therefore terrorists. Israel retaliates by launching aerial, naval, and artillery bombardments of civilian areas and they are engaging in self-defense. If we are unable to recognize the hypocrisy of this construct then we ourselves are so enveloped by propaganda and emotion that, like the Israelis, Hezbollah, and Hamas, we can't think rationally. We can only think in terms of tribalism and revenge.
As to the current problems that have spiraled into a near full scale regional war, I’m convinced that the solution to the many issues rests solely upon one defining problem…from which all others emanate and from which all others can be resolved. In fact, in what some may call my fanciful Hollywood formulaic prescription, one particular movie quotation seems to capture the essence of my proposed story line…“If you build it, they will come”. The “it” is none other than a Palestinian state.
ReplyDeleteRead an analysis on the Middle East that posits that the solution to the regions turmoil rests in the immediate creation of an independent Palestinian state...here:
www.thoughttheater.com
Heckuva job, ChimpyNeoconCo:
ReplyDeleteBaghdad starts to collapse as its people flee a life of death
...Were they the Mahdi Army, the Shia militia blamed for drilling holes in their victims’ eyes and limbs before executing them by the dozen? Or were they Sunni insurgents hunting down Shias to avenge last Sunday’s massacre, when Shia gunmen rampaged through an area called Jihad, pulling people from their cars and homes and shooting them in the streets?
For the tragic irony of it all see Voting With Their Feetat Billmon.
...Having rid Iraq of an oppressive regime, we are committed to helping Iraq build a future of freedom and dignity and peace.
George W. Bush
Speech at Boeing Defense Systems
April 16, 2003
Each Iraqi enjoys the right of free movement, travel, and residence inside and outside Iraq.
Iraqi Constitution
Article 42
Ratified October 25, 2005
Like people in all parts of the world, from all cultures and religions, when given the opportunity, the Iraqi people prefer to live in freedom rather than under tyranny.
National Security Council
Strategy for Victory in Iraq
November 2005
Those that can are leaving the country. At Baghdad airport, throngs of Iraqis jostle for places on the flights out -- testimony to the breakdown in Iraqi society . . . In one of the few comprehensive surveys of how many Iraqis have fled their country since the US invasion, the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants said last month that there were 644,500 refugees in Syria and Jordan in 2005 -- about 2.5 per cent of Iraq’s population. In total, 889,000 Iraqis had moved abroad, creating “the biggest new flow of refugees in the world."
Times of London, July 13, 2006
It's not my intention to attack another poster I have often learned much from and on multiple occasions found her writing even thrilling. The fact that she writes so well is a delight in itself.
But Hypatia is a problem. And I bring that up only because her problem is reflected so many places, as in jao, Orin Kerr, the Federalist Society, certain conservatives, often the SC, etc.
It's not enough to be able to identify and passionately describe the evils of communism as a system.
One has to be even-handedly against all forms of authoritarianism, and if you are against authoritarianism, you must be against statism. (Kos, you leave the room now.)
Those were the premises this country was founded on.
The fact that Hypatia lasted as long as she did at Iraq the Model (I assume she is no longer a fan) is symptomatic of a failure to be able to recognize blatant propaganda when it is staring you right in the face.
And if you cannot sort out propaganda at its most obvious from fact, your conclusions are going to be highly suspect.
I can see going to that site once or twice many months ago, but it could not have taken more visits than a few for a rational person to have realized it was simply a paid mouthpiece of the Administration pushing the neocon agenda and shilling for the kind of enforced at gunpoint "regime change" that has led to so much horror.
The fact that someone could not see that readily means it would probably take them years to see Orin Kerr for what he really is.
And then Alito, etc. etc. etc.
Too much time to see the light, and besides, there has to be an authoritarian pocket tucked away in these people. Otherwise they would be revulsed by all instances of brutal repression and tyranny, no matter what form they take...
anon at 7:40: extremely provocative post.
ReplyDeleteThis blog is a great place to learn so many historical facts with which one never was familiar.
I am surprised there are not more vocal Jewish people in the Einstein tradition speaking out these thoughts now. Think what an enormous impact they could have on world events.
A Dog said...
ReplyDelete"I disagree that neocons have significant influence in the Bush administration anymore. I think Bush himself is starting to see the inadequecy of the neo-con arguments. The neocons goading of Bush to engage in military action will surely cause a split in the Republican base."
I don't give Bush any pass on this because he has neo-cons in his admin. Bush was advocating war with Iraq long before he was "elected" pRESIDENT.
He considers himself to be on a mission from God. One has to wonder though why it is if God wanted him to be President that he would have required him to cheat twice to obtain the office. Under Bush's religious philosophy wouldn't God have smoothed the way?
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteIsrael's intent cannot be understood by what their leaders say to the outside world. What is said to the outside world is an enterprise in deception. Israel's intention should only be judged by what their leaders say to their constituency and by their actions. For Israeli leaders to claim their recent military action instigated by the "kidnapping" of Israeli soldiers is an obvious deception...and a weak one at that.
Now moving to David Horowitz and his call for nuking Syria or Iran is indeed 'fevered lunacy.' Ironically however, this fevered lunacy to nuke Syria, specifically, has been an option seriously considered since the Yom Kippur War debacle. Little do people know, Moshe Dayan lobbied for a nuclear response to Syria during the 1973 war, but was stopped by Golda Mier. Unfortunately, there exists an even more radical contingent within the Israeli establishement that will not back down on this 'final option' this time.
Here's the dilemma - if the tide turns against Israel on their military offensive (if it should happen to expand into Syria and Iran)and their back is against the wall....Israel will give Bush a choice: either you take on Syria and Iran militarily or we'll be forced to use nukes against them. With US military convienantly in the neighborhood I would suspect Bush would bail them out of the mess they created. Either way it is a win-win for Israeli policy aspiration in the region.
I doubt if you'll see the very wealthy neo-cons volunteering to actually go fight, and you can be damned sure they're not going to volunteer for the tax hike that would be necessary to expand our insanity in the middle east. They'll be wanting the middle class to pay for the war, and the poor to fight it.
ReplyDeleteThe attempts by the neocons like Kristol to lump all Muslims together as Islamofascists is a cynical attempt to simplify a very complex Islamic world. Anti-Western attitudes are undoubtedly expanding amongst Muslims, but to try and pretend they are developing into a monolithic threat to world peace is intellectually dishonest to the extreme. Just as an example.....the Iranians were / are adamantly opposed to the Taliban and Al Queda, even to the point of offering to help the US in the early days of the Afghan War. And, the invasion of Iraq has helped to heighten the Sunni / Shia schism in the Islamic world even further.
ReplyDeleteI can't quite decide whether or not if I believe the neocons are crazy enough to get us into an all-out war with the entire Muslim world, especially since the threat this presents to world oil supplies would have such a negative impact on the world's economy, and to their own personal wealth. But then I remember that they may see this as the only way to hold onto political power in the short term.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteDo you think Israel's war is our war? I'm dying to know what you think.
The anon who comes here to savage Paul Craig Roberts approaches from the "left" but is really someone far to the right of David Horowitz. Only a fascist (yeah, shove it) would hate PCR the way he does.
ReplyDeleteHe trots out the Alan Dershowitz shrill hysteria (HELP! HELP! YOU ARE ALL ANTI-SEMITES!) to seek to silence any discussion of any issues specifically to do with certain militant factions in Israel or American support for those same factions.
I don't think anyone has any criticism of any Jewish people in our own country (other than the usual personal disputes which occur between people) other than the support of some for a foreign policy and global agenda many here reject.
My own observations lead me to conclude that most moral people in this country very much admire the Jewish Community's position on questions of civil liberties. Until the neocons were let loose, I'd say that a consensus of educated, moral people looked to the Jewish community as leaders in the fight for human rights.
I wrote to PCR to ask him about his former articles about Democrats stealing elections and how to reconcile those with his recent articles about Republicans.
Here is what he replied to me:
I call them as I see them and can make
mistakes like anyone else. I think Republicans stole
Bush's re-election. His first election was wrong on
both sides. News reports led me to the conclusion
that some partisan Democrats were counting or
recounting some votes in an unsupervised way. The FL
supreme court, I thought, intervened badly. The US
Supreme Court intervened even worse.
A problem with many Americans is that they know only
party truth. They are confused by people who hold
both parties to account.
I believe that Bush's attack on civil liberty is the
worst since Lincoln's, and I believe that the neocons
have an undeclared agenda in the MIddle East.
PCR
Now, you cowardly, neocon fascist bastard who won't even put a name to your calumny, there cannot be any question that the MSM reported the Florida elections in a way that would have led any reasoanble, non partisan viewer to suspect funny business on the part of the Democrats. If you deny that, you are being your usual dishonest self.
PCR is not an oracle. He calls them like he sees them at the time. Unlike you, he is a heroic, moral, compassionate human being very much reminiscent of the best of the people who founded this country.
Mr. Roberts is a gentleman. I have never been accused of being one so permit me to observe that you are a disgraceful, duplicitous human being. I'd say worse, but in a post where the subject is PCR, I should restrain my baser instincts.
Buchanan may in fact be anti-semitic. I don't know as I don't have enough facts to make such a ruling. But PCR is as unbiased as any person in America. Read his articles on the injustices for minorties in our judicial system, if you can take some time away from your day job, shilling for fascism.
Being principled is not something that is "in your philosophy, Horatio."
Why does God hate non-Coke heads so much that he won't let any become President?
ReplyDeleteLet's all remember that it was Hamas, and weeks later after seeing the response that Hamas got, Hezbollah that started this incident. Personally I respect Israel for defending their people and for refusing to negotiate a prisoner exchange for return of their captured soldiers. If Israel had caved in and negotiated a prisoner exchange it would have been seen as a successful strategy by Hamas and Hezbollah. Which would lead to the capture of Israelis as a matter of policy anytime there was a dispute between Hamas, Hezbollah and Israel that Hamas and Hezbollah wanted to see end in their favor.
ReplyDeleteThat being said. I don't think that that should lead us into war with Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and/or Syria.
Besides being against such a war on moral grounds there are practical limitations to what we can do that are ignored by those advocating a wider war. Because of Bush's middle east strategy that has led us into an unjust invasion of Iraq and an unjust continuation of the war in Afghanistan our military is already close to the breaking point. Despite denials by Rumsfeld et al this is the experience of three back to back tours in Viet Nam speaking. Not to mention the fact that with an all volunteer force that is already having trouble meeting recruiting goals, one has to wonder where the advocates think they are going to get enough troops to fight an expanded war in Iran which is twice the size and has twice the population of Iraq along with an additional expansion in Syria.
Two other not inconsiderable problems the advocates ignore are that Iran is a member or soon will be of the shanghai co-operation association with China and Russia which is a NATO like alliance. The military implications of this pact are unclear but we already know that both Russia and China sit on the U.N. security council with veto power over any U.N. resolution that would sanction any war we might want to engage in with Iran and/or Syria. Independent action on our part would once again make us the worlds rogue agressor nation.
Last but not least we are currently financing the war in Iraq through borrowing to the tune of 2.5 billion dollars per day. Much of that money comes from China which might see fit to just stop financing our wars of aggression.
Quite frankly, moral consderations aside, we simply cannot afford another war
This is trivial, considering the gravity of the issue being discussed here, but Eyes Wide Open, please, more respect for the bard:
ReplyDeleteHamlet, Act I, Scene V.
Hamlet: There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Love ya, but WS is sacred. :-)
This "lazy" pronouncement from Eagleburger is not new. Just a few weeks ago on (I think) the Situation Room, he couldn't even be bothered to pronounce the name of Iran's president, saying to Wolf Blitzer "I'll leave that to you." Now that's a statesman!
ReplyDeleteFor hilzoy:
ReplyDeleteU.S. accused of kidnappings in Iraq
07/14/06 "Salon" -- -- Congress has demanded that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld hand over a raft of documents to Congress that could substantiate allegations that U.S. forces have tried to break terror suspects by kidnapping and mistreating their family members. Rumsfeld has until 5 p.m. Friday to comply.
It now appears that kidnapping, scarcely covered by the media, and absent in the major military investigations of detainee abuse, may have been systematically employed by U.S. troops. Salon has obtained Army documents that show several cases where U.S. forces abducted terror suspects’ families. After he was thrown in prison, Cpl. Charles Graner, the alleged ringleader at Abu Ghraib, told investigators the military routinely kidnapped family members to force suspects to turn themselves in.
A House subcommittee led by Connecticut Republican Christopher Shays took the unusual step last month of issuing Rumsfeld a subpoena for the documents after months of stonewalling by the Pentagon. Shays had requested the documents in a March 7 letter. "There was no response" to the letter, a frustrated Shays told Salon. "We are not going to back off this."
Christopher Shays is an interesting subject. He happens to be one of a handful of politicians in this country I respect. I am not suprised on an issue of conscience, he'd step up to the plate.
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteFrom Bart at 5:13pm: Folks, Iran with the assistance of Syria has been using terrorist groups to invade Israel to ambush patrols and kill or capture Israeli soldiers.
Upon what do you base this little claim (other than wishful thinking)?
Iran created Hizbollah in the 80s.
Iran and Syria have been supporting Hizbollah since then.
An Iranian drone attacked an Israeli ship and long range missiles attacked Israeli civilians. No one suspected Hizbollah had this kind of weaponry and does not have the capability of producing it itself. The Israelis claim that Iranian revolutionary guards were firing the missiles.
Bart: This bears close watching and grim realistic determination, not celebration on the right or more calls to cut and run from the left
Overlooking to the small fact 'the left' has largely been silent on this unfolding lunacy (which immediately calls into question your perceptions), I'm at a loss as to what you're trying to communicate with these handy catch-phrases.
Let me be clear then.
The left has hardly been silent. The Kos Kidz and similar anti semites on the left here and in the EU have been attacking Israel non-stop since Israel started defending itself.
The left's usual MO in crises like this is to reject any use of military force and send in Jimmy Carter to bribe the enemy to lie that they will be good in the future.
Hopefully, this can be resolved diplomatically without US military involvement as some of the fools on the right who have never fired a shot are calling for.
However, if Iran starts attacking our interests or allies to escalate this conflict, we may have to use military force in a massive "disproportionate" way to deal with Iran no matter what the left says.
Counterpunch:
ReplyDeleteJuly 14 / 17, 2006
The IDF is Hungry for War
What Are They Fighting For?
By TANYA REINHART
.....Since ending the occupation is the one thing Israel is not willing to consider, the option promoted by the army is breaking the Palestinians by devastating brutal force. They should be starved, bombarded, terrorized with sonic booms for months, until they understand that rebelling is futile, and accepting prison life is their only hope for staying alive. Their elected political system, institutions and police should be destroyed. In Israel`s vision, Gaza should be r! uled by gangs collaborating with the prison wards.
"There is an influential and determined minority out there craving U.S. intervention in this war."
ReplyDeleteNow can we stop these bloodthirsty criminals?!
We, the majority who are against the wars and occupations we're losing now, must keep them in the minority.
No more war. No more bush cabal, conservatives, neocons,republicons, or right wing whackos. Enough! Impeach!
Say it, write about it, demand it. It's the solution. Just thinking about it brings hope
(what a novel feeling!).
Bush is looking exta deranged lately. With the thought of impeachment swirling around in his head maybe he'll cave right away. Having no honor he'll take all his pals with him. If you don't think the majority of we the people can impeach this bunch of dripping with blood and money criminals you've fallen for their propaganda.
It's our duty. Say it. Impeach! It's fun! We could be shrill. Or snarky even!
If nothing else A. Cuntler's head might explode. Could be fun!
Hi Glenn, me again trying to rouse the rabble:)
Take care, Jan
bgno64 said...
ReplyDeleteBart: What do you think these fascists will do if they get nuclear weapons?
What do you think they will do if they get nuclear weapons?
Best case: Iran gets nukes and then starts black mailing the Gulf oil states by launching ballistic missiles like NK.
Worst case: Iran really is run by religious nut jobs willing to risk martyring thousands of Muslims to destroy Israel. Iran has a group like Hizbollah attack Israel with a nuke or two, then deny it was them hoping that the rest of the world will limit what Israel will do..
If you tell me this worst case is unreasonable, you are right.
Read some of the things Iran has been saying over the past year and tell me how reasonable they are.
Look at the current suicide terror campaigns and tell me how reasonable Islamic fascism is.
We are fighting a death cult.
It is easy for you some 5000 miles away to throw the dice with other people's lives. For those in the actual firing line, the calculus is entirely different.
The Kos Kidz and similar anti semites on the left here and in the EU have been attacking Israel non-stop since Israel started defending itself.
ReplyDeleteThe left's usual MO in crises like this is to reject any use of military force and send in Jimmy Carter to bribe the enemy to lie that they will be good in the future.
bart, this kinda thing is really beneath you.
1) These are calumnies, pure and simple. Mischaracterizations at best, outright lies at worst.
2) Even a committed ideologue must realize that the conflict between Israel and the Arab Palestinians is more complex than your simple framing of it admits.
3) Calling people anti-semites who, by any objective measure, aren't anything of the kind, is slander. Does it really not bother you to vilify people without any evidence whatsoever that they fit your description?
It's difficult to take anyone seriously who thinks that such nonsense is persuasive. If you want to debate issues, I for one will listen to you. If you'd prefer to count coup, and unfairly -- nastily in fact -- I'm done with you, as are so many others who comment here.
Gotta love the way billmon doesn't write 2,000 word essays that drone on and on - now there's someone that ought to right a book!
ReplyDeleteCourse, the circle of links has already created the "experts" that are used to steal the heritage of liberalism and the progressive movement - so we won't see tons of links to his site.
It is so obvious that most people skip the wordy thesis on the frontpage and just come here to fire away. No wonder our resident trolls frequently take over the dialog.
Counterpunch:
ReplyDeleteJuly 14 / 17, 2006
"The IDF is Hungry for War
What Are They Fighting For?
By TANYA REINHART
.....Since ending the occupation is the one thing Israel is not willing to consider, the option promoted by the army is breaking the Palestinians by devastating brutal force. They should be starved, bombarded, terrorized with sonic booms for months, until they understand that rebelling is futile, and accepting prison life is their only hope for staying alive. Their elected political system, institutions and police should be destroyed. In Israel`s vision, Gaza should be r! uled by gangs" collaborating with the prison wards.
The IDF is more than willing to end their occupation. All Hamas has to do is return the Iraeli soldier they captured unharmed. Hamas, who are the ones that started this have so far been unwilling to do that one simple act that would end the current conflict.
Anonymous @ 12:21
ReplyDeleteWhat are you on about? Could you be a litle more explicit please?
William Timberman said...
ReplyDeleteBart: The Kos Kidz and similar anti semites on the left here and in the EU have been attacking Israel non-stop since Israel started defending itself.
The left's usual MO in crises like this is to reject any use of military force and send in Jimmy Carter to bribe the enemy to lie that they will be good in the future.
bart, this kinda thing is really beneath you.
1) These are calumnies, pure and simple. Mischaracterizations at best, outright lies at worst.
Go read Daily Kos and some of the other leftist sites. You will find some of the worst kid of anti semitic garbage.
Go read what leaders and press in the EU are saying. Hamas and Hizbollah have been pouring over 1,000 missiles into Israeli towns and cities (a war crime)with nary a complaint, but as soon as Israel starts leveling terrorist centers, the EU gets all hot an bothered about Israeli overreaction. How can you explain this double standard as anything but anti-semitism?
Afterwards, tell me that anything I said above is untrue.
As for the shot about sending in Jimmy Carter, see the rank appeasement of NK before they got nukes.
If my description does not fit yourself, then ignore it. I didn't say all the left was like this. However, this dreck is coming primarily from the left in the US and EU.
2) Even a committed ideologue must realize that the conflict between Israel and the Arab Palestinians is more complex than your simple framing of it admits.
Israel and the Palestinians will have to work out their own problems. Hizbollah's attack at what was probably Iranian prompting has nothing at all to do with Palestine. The fact that it coincided with Iran being referred to the security council is more than a coincidence.
"And countries like Lebanon, which seems to be getting annihilated because they house a certain element in their midst (as if another nation didn't like an element in this country and then eliminated our infrastructure systems by bombing us) are the victims."
ReplyDeleteIf we had a group in NYC that disliked Canada enough to start firing rockets at them from there and the U.S. refused to do anything about it, I would find it hard to fault Canada for attacking NYC in their own defense.
By not doing anything about it Canada could rightly assume that the U.S. government tacitly approved of the attacks.
bart: Hamas and Hizbollah have been pouring over 1,000 missiles into Israeli towns and cities (a war crime) with nary a complaint
ReplyDeleteA war crime, as in Hiroshima, Dresden, Tokyo, etc. The targeting of civilian populations was invented by the West, if not by the U.S. We just wound up being better at it than anyone else. If we think that this sort of warfare is legitimate, why would we expect Hezbollah to think otherwise?
bart: as soon as Israel starts leveling terrorist centers
And powerplants, bridges, airports, highways full of refugees, etc.
bart: Hizbollah's attack at what was probably Iranian prompting has nothing at all to do with Palestine.
Arguable. The Palestinians have allies, just as Israel does. Hizbollah, Iran and Syria spring to mind, just as the U.S. does when thinking of Israel. Tell me again why it is that a Hellfire missile strike on a car with a Hamas official in it that kills three kids playing in the street nearby is not an act of terrorism, but tunneling under the Israeli border, killing three IDF soldiers and capturing another is.
I'd like to complain about all of this, but to whom should I address my complaint? Is Hizbollah the sole responsible party? I'm sure you know more history than that, bart.
William, I'll try to clue you in, since I have been around to see it. There is one anon who is dissatisfied with the left leaning blogosphere for reasons that seem to have something to do with Kos. As you read this blog more, you will see that the anon comments usually once in each thread. In the end, it seems like a grudge mostly to me.
ReplyDeleteBart, on the other hand is as slipery as shooter, but doesn't seem to rely upon WND as much. He is unable (or unwilling) to distinguish between opposing the policies of the Israeli government and being anti-semitic. I think it comes from the same basic frame of mind that is shown through his comments in other areas. He perceives disagreement with the current administration as being against the country as a whole. In his statements here, he ignors that there are many Israelis who disagree with their government. There's a name for that in the circles Bart inhabits.
As for me, I just want peace. If it takes Jimmy Carter coming in to do what he has proven he can do (seems that his work is still holding) then that's an option I'm for. I can't stand it when someone disparages the work Carter did. Bart is so wrapped up in his flag he cannot see it. You can spar with him if you like. Others do all the time. He doesn't really say much that isn't completely predictable. He's been proven to play fast and loose with facts. He feels no shame and will continue to post here.
gris lobos, just like shooter, your analogy fails. There is no history of NYC being occupied by Canada. Shooter's analogy is a bit closer, but we haven't been at war with Mexico for a long time. The sides in the "shooting war" we seem to have now are asymmetric.
William Timberman said...
ReplyDelete"Is Hizbollah the sole responsible party?"
In this particular instance along with Hamas yes they are. Israel has repeatedly stated that all that Hezbollah and Hamas have to do to stop the attacks is to simply return unharmed the Israeli soldiers they captured in the unprovoked attacks that they conducted against Israel.
Kristol's words say it all:
ReplyDeleteDon't "convey a message of moral confusion and political indecision."
It's all about posturing. The world could be be going to hell in a handbasket, but they are going to look decisive, goddammit!
You reap what you sow.
gris lobo,
ReplyDeleteBy not doing anything about it Canada could rightly assume that the U.S. government tacitly approved of the attacks.
Your point is logical. But what are all the facts? Aren't these terrorist groups shadowy associations who move from place to place and could be anywhere?
If there was such a faction in the US, if the government could eliminate it certainly it would have a responsibility to do so.
But should the government incur huge civilian casualties of its own citizens attempting to eradicate a slippery association of terrorists which goes from the equivalent of "safe house" to "safe house"?
On the other hand in defense of the point you make, there are members of this group in the Parliament. That would indicate either government tolerance, or a population that would be somewhat supportive of this group.
I don't really know enough about any of these facts to come to any conclusions. I don't like to see warfare in general, and I especially don't like governments to have hidden agendas which they keep from their own citizens.
shooter242: Pretty much everything in life is more complex than a one paragraph sketch, but so what?
ReplyDeleteSo what? In that direction you'll find hell, if it's hell you're seeking. And I'm perfectly willing to concede to you and bart that the Palestinians and their allies have decided that hell is their only recourse. Regrettable, but understandable in the sense that "Give me liberty, or give me death" was understandable.
Were we and the Israelis to negotiate with them in good faith, which despite what most folks in the U.S. have been given to believe, we have never done, some progress might be made.
I hold no brief for Muslim culture, for all sorts of reasons, many of which I'm sure you're aware of, but I believe that respect for the enemy is the first step toward peace. Not a superficial respect, but one born of a sincere attempt to understand how their culture came to be what it is, and an equally sincere attempt to see the world as they see it. It wouldn't hurt for our policy makers to learn a little Arabic and Farsi while they're at it, and a little history.
The Israelis are in an impossible position. I don't know what I would do had I been born and raised in, say Tel Aviv. I can well understand why they might feel that their choices are limited, and that war is the only thing that keeps them safe. They are no more responsible for the tragic mistakes of history than the Palestinians they've displaced.
Nevertheless, "Shema Yisroel," and the IDF air force can no more guarantee their survival than "Allahu Akhbar," and a supply of Katyusha rockets can return the Palestinians to the homes they were forced to abandon 58 years ago.
We should not, as Americans, take any pleasure in pouring gasoline on that fire. To do so is a mortal sin, and a shame that will follow us as long as histories are written.
dorita said...
ReplyDelete"gris lobos, just like shooter, your analogy fails. There is no history of NYC being occupied by Canada. Shooter's analogy is a bit closer, but we haven't been at war with Mexico for a long time. The sides in the "shooting war" we seem to have now are asymmetric."
My analogy has nothing to do with occupation of any geographical point on the map.
It does have to do with whether a country that is fired on has the right to defend itself from those who are firing on it. Regardless of whether it is a nation state or a group of individuals.
If the building or house across from where you live contained a group that was shooting at you and neither the police nor the building owner would do anything about it, I would defend your right to defend yourself by firing back at those firing at you to the point of destroying the building they were firing at you from.
Your other options I guess would be to run away, or cower in the corner until a bullet hit you and killed you.
Israel doesn't have the option of running away and they aren't the type to cower in the corner.
Given Hezbollah's attacks on Israel from Lebanon I support their same right to defend themselves that I would in your or anybody elses case.
gris lobo: In this particular instance along with Hamas yes they are
ReplyDeleteIn this particular instance. If you can abstract a single instance out of a horror that has lasted for three generations, and assign blame on that basis alone, then as far as I'm concerned, you have no moral standing whatsoever in this discussion.
william timberlane: Sorry. Sometimes as I creep along at a not so petty pace*, I forget that not everyone recognizes the most famous quotations from the Bard.
ReplyDeleteNext time I'll cite the play and source. He certainly deserves recognition each and every time for his sheer brilliance.
*Just threw that in to see if you were paying attention:) And now the h/t to show I learned my lesson.....
"Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow / creeps in this petty pace from day to day / to the last syllable of recorded time. / And all our yesterdays have lighted fools / the way to dusty death."
[Macbeth, V.5.18-22]
PS. William Timberlane, I enjoy your posts because you are such an unusually smart and articulate person.
William Timberman said...
ReplyDelete"gris lobo: In this particular instance along with Hamas yes they are
In this particular instance. If you can abstract a single instance out of a horror that has lasted for three generations, and assign blame on that basis alone, then as far as I'm concerned, you have no moral standing whatsoever in this discussion."
That's fine with me. If you think you are going to solve the larger problems of the middle east over this one issue then I believe you are extemely naive and have no moral standing in this discussion either.
This single issue can be resolved by Hamas and Hezbollah returning the Israeli sodiers they captured in their unprovoked attacks.
The larger issues have been worked on by diplomats far more skilled than you or I for decades without success. But the bottom line IMO is that you should solve the problems that are immediately solvable and then continue to work on the larger issues. The type of attacks that Hamas and Hezbollah engaged in that started this immediate problem do nothing to solve the larger issues and in fact aggravate them farther.
gris lobos, again it fails. You said:
ReplyDeleteIf the building or house across from where you live contained a group that was shooting at you and neither the police nor the building owner would do anything about it, I would defend your right to defend yourself by firing back at those firing at you to the point of destroying the building they were firing at you from.
This has actually happened to me -- with more than one of my neighbors, more than once. With the fireworks, I gave up on calling the police because they never come. Three times a year, I go to different neighbors and explain to them how dangerous their actions are. I have never had to go to the same neighbor twice.
WRT gun fire, I have gotten them into my debt. I do things for them. The gunfire has stopped. For now. I am not naive.
You can defend my right to act with aggression, but can you also agree that it is not the best solution? I have found other ways. It is only a neighborhood.
You analogy fails.
HWSNBN said:
ReplyDeleteIt is easy for you some 5000 miles away to throw the dice with other people's lives. For those in the actual firing line, the calculus is entirely different.
HWSNBN thinks that Dubya and his neocon buddies is listening to the likes of HWSNBN. Then again, he thinks he's a lawyer. He's as loony as they are.
Cheers,
This is one of the best, most interesting threads on any subject i've read. I'm glad Billmon now seems to be discovered. He is one of the most interesting writers on current events. Thanks again to Dr Kastner for the comment on Naziism and Zionism.
ReplyDeleteas the evening goes on, the tone of the discussion changes. I havent read everything but I see Anonymous taking a new position from his earlier one, or maybe it's a different "anonymous".
Many writers here seem to have strong links to Israel -- emotional or ideological. I used to, but I now see Israel as a mirror or condensed version of the US. As such, I dont see that its wars should be our wars -- in fact, just the opposite. I wish someone else would take over "our wars" and let us get back to living sensibly as equals with the rest of the globe.
Israel has become a monster, and even if your uncles and aunts are living there, you cannot support the actions of that state without becoming monstrous too.
gris lobo: unprovoked attacks
ReplyDeleteKyrie eleison. Unprovoked. Occurred out of nowhere, did they? Totally innocent of historical context, were they?
I apologize for my earlier comment. Those without understanding are absolved of moral responsibility for their misconceptions.
clarification: the last comment by "Anonymous" should have been credited to "bobw". I dont want "anonymous" blamed for he/she didnt say.
ReplyDeletedorita said...
ReplyDeletegris lobos, again it fails. You said:
If the building or house across from where you live contained a group that was shooting at you and neither the police nor the building owner would do anything about it, I would defend your right to defend yourself by firing back at those firing at you to the point of destroying the building they were firing at you from.
This has actually happened to me -- with more than one of my neighbors, more than once. With the fireworks, I gave up on calling the police because they never come. Three times a year, I go to different neighbors and explain to them how dangerous their actions are. I have never had to go to the same neighbor twice.
Your comparison fails. Fireworks although dangerous are not in any way the same as someone shooting bullets at you trying to kill you. The Hezbollah rockets are not fireworks.
William Timberman said...
ReplyDelete"gris lobo: unprovoked attacks
Kyrie eleison. Unprovoked. Occurred out of nowhere, did they? Totally innocent of historical context, were they?
I apologize for my earlier comment. Those without understanding are absolved of moral responsibility for their misconceptions."
Thanks for your condecension. Exactly how is it that the Israelis on guard provoked the Hamas to dig the tunnel and attack them?
Everyone commenting on this issue should take a look at Justin Raimondo's article on antiwar.com. He is very clear that Israel is pulling the strings here, in accord with a plan conceived in 1996 with the help of neocons Feith, Hadley and Wurmser, of toppling Syria and ending Iran's support of Hizbollah and Hamas. Removing Saddam was the first step in that plan. Now, if the US wont do it, Israel is ready to go after Iran, and has started the war in Lebanon as the pretext. go to antiwar.com and read Raimondo. Very scary!
ReplyDeletedorita said...
ReplyDeleteOne last thing dorita, I very much doubt that your neighbors kidnapped your kids and were holding them hostage prior to firing off their fireworks.
Glenn posted this to draw fire, and/or start one. He has. Excellent.
ReplyDeleteMy take is simple. I do not blame all Israelis for the actions of their current governement anymore than I blame all Palestinians or Muslims for the actions of a few.
bobw said...
ReplyDelete"Everyone commenting on this issue should take a look at Justin Raimondo's article on antiwar.com. He is very clear that Israel is pulling the strings here, in accord with a plan conceived in 1996 with the help of neocons Feith, Hadley and Wurmser, of toppling Syria and ending Iran's support of Hizbollah and Hamas. Removing Saddam was the first step in that plan. Now, if the US wont do it, Israel is ready to go after Iran, and has started the war in Lebanon as the pretext. go to antiwar.com and read Raimondo. Very scary!"
I'll take a look at it. I don't see how at this point that they could be pulling any strings but if they are found to be doing so I am certainly open to changing my opinion.
Gris Lobo said...
ReplyDeletedorita said...
One last thing dorita, I very much doubt that your neighbors kidnapped your kids and were holding them hostage prior to firing off their fireworks.
You can both be right, depending on the situation. Not all situations call for Gris Lobo's methods. Not all situations would be ameliorated by Dorita's methods. Dorita may not have the tools for Gris Lobo's methods. He may lack the tools for her methods.
I could relate an humorous anecdote from my studies in CJ about early attempts at hostage negotiatians, prior to the advent of developing that skill set among our LE, but I'll spare you all.
Gris Lobo, you're right. Condescension is odious, but it's sometimes the only honest response to someone who happens into one of the most bloodthirsty conflicts in history and thinks figuring out who hit who first is all he has to do to separate the righteous from the sinners. Wars don't ever lend themselves to that kind of simplistic analysis, and this particular war is even more morally ambiguous than most.
ReplyDeleteI apologize for the condescension -- we're all God's chillun after all -- but I certainly can't, and won't apologize for giving ignorance the name it deserves.
Bart... It is easy for you some 5000 miles away to throw the dice with other people's lives. For those in the actual firing line, the calculus is entirely different.
ReplyDeleteIs he perhaps quoting some anonymous Iraqi prior to our invasion or just being an obnoxious idiot who killed irony? Who knew that irony was really the first casualty in war. I always thought it was the truth. But if you'd been paying attention, the truth was KIA in some war long ago and that was that.
Gris Lobo... I'll take a look at it. I don't see how at this point that they could be pulling any strings but if they are found to be doing so I am certainly open to changing my opinion.
ReplyDeleteEveryone is pulling strings. Some people are actually lighting fuses.
This is Geo-politics, GL. It's a chariot race and all the players will jockey for position.
Anonymous 2.... I havent read everything but I see Anonymous N taking a new position from his earlier one, or maybe it's a different "anonymous".
ReplyDeleteMany writers here seem to have strong links to Israel -- emotional or ideological. I used to, but I now see Israel as a mirror or condensed version of the US. As such, I dont see that its wars should be our wars -- in fact, just the opposite. I wish someone else would take over "our wars" and let us get back to living sensibly as equals with the rest of the globe.
Israel has become a monster, and even if your uncles and aunts are living there, you cannot support the actions of that state without becoming monstrous too.
We are ubiquitous and legion.
I see that we can support the Israelis and Palestinians who work to promote peace and condemn the war and those who monger for it. Just was we can support our own troops and condemn the wars.
Full disclosure: I am not a pacifist.
Hey Glen,
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of ridiculous trickery is going on with Scalia's descent on Hamdan in which he attempts to endorse the presidential signing statements?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_07/009182.php
What the hell is this? You can't create law in a dissent?
See Kevin drum at the Wa Monthly
This situation is worrisome. I've read some crazies are all excited that this may be armageddon.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if Bush is so desperate he would pander to the nutcases who want an end of the world.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteThe link to the montly got cut off in the last post.
Here is the link
Generally, I think you are a thoughtful writer and thinker, and I agree with you completely on Spector's lies about the NSA compromise, but on Israel and Iran I disagree. I think the left is profoundly anti-Israel and it weakens them, because they end up supporting and making excuses for a radical ideology that is the opposite of all of their most valued ideals. The irony is that Israel exemplifies Democratic ideals and yet ends up being an object of scorn with the left. It is quite insane and intellectually inconsistent.
ReplyDeleteFurther, your suggestion that Iran is not a serious threat that must be dealt with now is misplaced. Clearly all diplomacy has failed with Iran. They continue to project terror and terrorist ideology throughout the world. They fund Hizbollah to the tune of 100 million a year. (Saudi Arabia is second in the funding terrorism department) They also fund Hamas. Why would you not perceive them as the biggest threat to peace and stability? Jimmy Carter was a failed President because he allowed this Islamic fascist theocracy to hold Americans hostage and not pay a severe price. Democrats paid a price for his weakness with years in the Presidential wilderness. We should have destroyed the Iranian theocracy then and we delay now at our peril. In fact, had we invaded Iran instead of Iraq, we would have been far better off. But my theory is that Bushco thought Iraq would be easier and easier to justify. Nevertheless, failure to acknowledge this totalitarian islamic threat is a fatal mistake. By the way, Reagan made the same mistake with regard to the bombing of our Marines in Lebanon by, guess who, Hezbollah. The problem with Iraq is that it was a secular state that was a check on radical Islamic ideology. By invading Iraq, we helped Iran become more powerful in the region... obviously, a continuing example of the stupidity and incompetence of Bush et al. Or the deliberate actions of those behind the oil industry, never a friend of Israel. We should not keep making the same mistakes. This is a visceral issue that marks the left wing Democrats for failure every time. And I just don't get it. The failure of the left to apprehend this important issue will lose election after election. If the left doesn't support Israel, why would Americans trust them? Because the left is more concerned with Israel's sworn enemies who embody none of our ideals? What is this apologist crap for islamic ideology all about? The Republicans are venal idiots but the left in this regard is just as bad. If the left is wishy washy on an issue as black and white as this, we need a miracle to save our Republic from the crazy right wing Republicans and the equally crazy left wing Democrats. Except of course, the Republicans are good at winning or stealing elections. Maybe we have been using proportionate force in the way we campaign...never want to hit those Republicans too hard, do we? Yes, left wingers are great proponents of proportionate force in all things political and Israeli. And we just keep doing it. Failure to support Israel is a failure to support all progressive ideals that Democrats value. It is inconsistent and hypocritical. WE demonstrate our weakness to all when we don't fight rhetorically and sometimes physically real threats to our most important ideals. I am disappointed in you Glen...a little too much political correctness...take a look at "Just War Theory" at theobjectivestandard.com It is a brilliant analysis of these issues.
Maybe you'll re evaluate your position after reading this essay. I recommend it to everyone.
gris lobos,
ReplyDeleteYou leave out the gun fire in my life -- which has come from across the street.
Okay, fireworks burned down my neighbors garage, which just happened to be about 3 feet from my home.
Your analogy fails; over and over.
anon 3
ReplyDeleteIf you had any sense you would be a true "pacifist."
When can we disabuse ourselvse of the idea that pacifists are weak? God as my witness, I have been called all sorts of names on blogs this week, mostly "bully" and a**hole. Which is it? Am I a meanie or a pussy?
Doesn't matter.
Generally, I think you are a thoughtful writer and thinker, and I agree with you completely on Spector's lies about the NSA compromise, but on Israel and Iran I disagree.
ReplyDeleteI think the left is profoundly anti-Israel and it weakens them, because they end up supporting and making excuses for a radical ideology that is the opposite of all of their most valued ideals. . . . Further, your suggestion that Iran is not a serious threat that must be dealt with now is misplaced.
I never expressed any of the opinions which you are attributing to me here in order to explain why you disagree with me.
This 1996 report for Netanyahu, A Clean Break, whose authors include Feith, Perle and Wurmser, might be useful reading right now.
ReplyDelete(in an aside, Turkey's importance is interesting, too, considering Sybil Edmonds' insistence that the FBI basically had a mole mis- or not translating information about financial networks.
And Perle went on to write An End to Evil with Frum. From this article about the book:
Their attitude becomes clear in the book's second paragraph. "The war on terror is not over. In many ways, it has hardly begun. Al-Qaida, Hezbollah and Hamas still plot murder, and money still flows from donors worldwide to finance them." One might wonder why they didn't write "Al-Qaida, the Basque ETA and the Tamil Tigers still plot murder." After all, none of these groups except al-Qaida attack Americans. (In 1983 Hezbollah blew up 241 Marines in their barracks in Lebanon, as well as the U.S. embassy, but only after American troops blundered in there and foolishly took the Phalange/Israeli side in the Lebanese civil war. Hamas has never targeted Americans: Its quarrel is with Israel.)
--
bart- I would gladly prefer paying off someone rather than a war. The only people who seem to prefer war are those who don't have to fight them or live through them.
What do you think Saddam's price might have been? A billion to leave with his sons, etc., to install the puppet Chalabi? Even that would be preferable to what we see happening in Iraq now...because that war is a mess and is hurting the U.S. (and btw, soldiers who are being redeployed there know they're going back into a worse situation, so please don't try to say things are great but this doesn't get reported. this is the information they have been given...and this is from a soldier going back very soon.)
I'm not a great fan of Chalabi, but that billion for Saddam (plus whatever Chalabi extorted) would have been soooo much better spent than the bankrupting war that's going on now...costing how many billions? That billion would've been preferable and worth the cost if no American or Iraqi had to die in the current mess that looks more and more like a march of folly.
I'd have gladly pay a billion to have a member of Al-Q take out Osama, too. --tho he's probably already dead now.
both of these options would have been better than what we have to deal with because of a bunch of zealots who never had to fight a war themselves.
I am actually quite pleased that Kristol has come out and said what many neo-cons think but, before his article, dared not to utter.
ReplyDeleteLet's see how many US citizens are willing to see young Americans die in wars for Israel.
The Iraq war was essentially fought for Israel's interests as much as for those of the US. But that fact was artfully hidden.
Kristol has opened up Pandora's box.
πολύ καλά!, william timberlane.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to the on-line references Glenn makes, I'd recommend an article in the most recent Foreign Affairs, by Barry Rubin. The piece talks about the changes taking place in Israel, as the voting populace absorbs the idea that the Palestinian leadership (at least) is not interested in peace.
ReplyDeleteThat realization has manifold implications. That there is no settlement possible leaves Israel in a very difficult predicament, one that is not easily addressed by the use of traditional military force, as Billmon's analysis makes very clear.
dorita said...
ReplyDeleteanon 3
If you had any sense you would be a true "pacifist."
When can we disabuse ourselvse of the idea that pacifists are weak? God as my witness, I have been called all sorts of names on blogs this week, mostly "bully" and a**hole. Which is it? Am I a meanie or a pussy?
Doesn't matter.
Ahh, Dorita... you read into my words meaning that is not there but you make an excellent point.
I do not think pacifism is synonymous with weakness. On the contrary, I think it takes great strength to live that way. OTOH, I am reminded of Joseph Campbell's anecdote about the Jains. They refused to even pick fruit to eat, preferring to wait for it to drop from the trees. As a result, he observed, there are very few of them around today. As for you, I think you are a dear and a sweetheart.
;-)
From bart at 11:59pm:
ReplyDeleteIran created Hizbollah in the 80s.
And the US 'created' Usama Bin Laden around the same time period. So? Any evidence Tehran exercises real control over the group these days?
Iran and Syria have been supporting Hizbollah since then.
Again, evidence please?
An Iranian drone attacked an Israeli ship and long range missiles attacked Israeli civilians
When and where? Full citations please, complete with evidence this was Hezbollah's op.
The Kos Kidz and similar anti semites on the left here and in the EU have been attacking Israel non-stop since Israel started defending itself.
So a handful of comments on a single weblog and an unspecified number of unnamed commentators from the EU constitute "the left" now?
You don't realize how completely pathetic that sounds, do you?
Where is the collective public outcry for Israel's unilateral surrender? Where are the left-wing religious leaders calling for its destruction? Where are all the left-wing pundits and columnists crying out for Muslim domination of the region?
As I said, pathetic. At least your next two paragraphs were reasonably intelligent.
Then you finish with
However, if Iran starts attacking our interests or allies to escalate this conflict, we may have to use military force in a massive "disproportionate" way to deal with Iran no matter what the left says.
"To escalate this conflict"? So you've bought the line Israel's actions should be supported without either question or reflection?
There's an old saying: "Only fools and profiteers desire war." All the profiteers are in Washington.
Guess that makes you the fool.
Glen...a little too much political correctness...take a look at "Just War Theory" at theobjectivestandard.com It is a brilliant analysis of these issues.
ReplyDeleteOf course there are "just causes" for war. We don't need Randian cultists to tell us that, although our standards for what is a "just cause" may be different from others.
From anonymous at 4:43am:
ReplyDeleteFurther, your suggestion that Iran is not a serious threat that must be dealt with now is misplaced. Clearly all diplomacy has failed with Iran.
Considering serious diplomacy hasn't even been tried as yet?
They continue to project terror and terrorist ideology throughout the world. They fund Hizbollah to the tune of 100 million a year. (Saudi Arabia is second in the funding terrorism department) They also fund Hamas.
Granted. And the US pours an equal amount into Israel's coffers every year. Does this make us equally culpable for every Palestinian and muslim injured and killed by Israeli actions?
Why would you not perceive them as the biggest threat to peace and stability? Jimmy Carter was a failed President because he allowed this Islamic fascist theocracy to hold Americans hostage and not pay a severe price.
You need to look at history a bit more closely:
1. It was radicalized anti-Shah students who seized the embassy in 1979, not this phantom "Islamic fascist theocracy" you lot like to blame for everything.
2. It was the Carter Administration, through intensive negotiation, that freed those hostages.
3. Carter lost the 1980 election only partly because he over-emphasized the hostage situation; Reagan also proved the better campaigner.
4. Finally, it would be interesting to hear from you exactly what "severe price" you would have had the newly-installed, barely stable Revolutionary Council in Tehran pay. Surely you aren't suggesting we should have nuked Tehran or tried to invade the country back then?
Ah Shooter has finally hit the problem on the head: 'One sided understanding'.
ReplyDeleteNow only if he could look in a mirror and see this problem, then progress will have been made.
The hypocrisy of the war lovers is sickening.
Shooter... Let me put this a different way then, the real secret to peace isn't understanding, it's that the opponents ACT peacefully.
ReplyDeleteNot even close. People can "act" peacefully while plotting your demise. Understanding is key to any interaction, but the real "secret to peace" is "justice and harmony" and you would know that if you had a cursory understanding of ancient Greek philosophers. If there were harmony there would be justice then there would be peace. They don't call it "asymetrical warfare" for nothing.
Eyes Wide Open:
ReplyDeleteI'm tempted to reply "Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments," but the sad truth is, the only Greek I have is liturgical. Latin I can handle, though, if you'd like to throw in a little Vergil now and again. :-)
(My favorite sonnet, by the way -- I'm sure you know which it is.)
Billmon doesn't have the first clue and the fact that you would link approvingly to someone who called the kidnapping of the three Israeli soldiers legitimate military activity (despite the fact that they were seized in Israel, not Lebanon or Gaza) is most distressing.
ReplyDeleteWake up, conservatives are not the enemy; radical Islam is. Hezbollah will soon be out of southern Lebanon, as UN Resolution 1559 has long called for.
Mark... Wake up, conservatives are not the enemy; radical Islam is.
ReplyDeleteNot when it was lopping of alleged commie heads for you, dumbass! The shoe is on the other foot now. Smell it!
"What used to be called liberal is now called radical, what used to be called radical is now called insane, what used to be called reactionary is now called moderate, and what used to be called insane is now called solid conservative thinking."
Tony Kushner
anonymous:
ReplyDeleteI think the left is profoundly anti-Israel and it weakens them, because they end up supporting and making excuses for a radical ideology that is the opposite of all of their most valued ideals....
I think you think there's a monolithic "left" with their own "Hammer" to enforce party orthodoxy.
There are some that "make excuses", there are some that pick the other side entirely (see, e.g., here), there are some that try to hew to the arete's razor edge of what middle that's left.
I give Glenn credit for inviting a bit of discordia -- or more that the usual -- on his blog, particularly when it's a subject a bit outside his usual topics of discourse, and it is so divisive (and such an invitation to violations of Godwin's law). But to ignore it is to ignore the elephant in the room; one of the biggest factors shaping U.S. policy in many ways, both foreign and domestic. Not to mention some of the ethical and legal issues that arise are quite similar to those we are also facing.
... The irony is that Israel exemplifies Democratic ideals ...
Obviously, there are those that would disagree. Hamas won the last elections, for better or for worse. Israel hasn't been immune to bad government, corruption, even assassinations (including its own leaders). Then there's the vote for (some) Arabs ... hey, seems I remember similar "issues" being raised here recently, no? But I would like to at least posit that looking for "democratic ideals" in a cesspool of violence is to really be missing the boat....
... and yet ends up being an object of scorn with the left. It is quite insane and intellectually inconsistent.
I don't think so. Certainly not any more than (Likudnik) Israel and Israeli policy being the darling of the fundamentalist, apocalyptic Christian right (you might want to ask why that is, though).
Do you consider yourself a leftist, BTW? If not, then I suggest you tell your lessons on how to think to someone who cares....
Cheers,
Billmon doesn't have the first clue and the fact that you would link approvingly to someone who called the kidnapping of the three Israeli soldiers legitimate military activity (despite the fact that they were seized in Israel, not Lebanon or Gaza) is most distressing.
ReplyDeleteHow funny - I linked to two different commentators and, in doing so, expressly said that I don't necessarily agree with every particular statement in each post.
Nonetheless, one anti-Israeli commenter complains that one of the posts (Hilzoy's) characterizes what Hezbollah did as a "kidnapping," while a pro-Israeli commenter complains that the other post (from Billmon) fails to characterize it as a "kidnapping."
My post was not about trying to figure out who is in the right in this conflict. Engaging in debates over who is in the right - Israel or its neighbors - is a thankless, hopeless, pointless task - and I agree with Hilzoy that both sides typically act out of very different views of their own self-interest, and neither side is every purely right or purely wrong.
But my post wasn't about any of that. It was about efforts to induce the U.S. to intervene in this conflict, regardless of who is right or wrong in that conflict.
Tony Kushner
ReplyDeleteAre you the playwright Tony Kushner, nor some other Tony Kushner?
anonymous:
ReplyDeleteWe should have destroyed the Iranian theocracy then...
In 1953, you mean? Yes, might have worked. Wouldn't have cost a cent, nor a single U.S. soldier's life. Read Stephen Kinzer's "All The Shah's Men" if you want to educate yourself. Then, come back and talk....
Cheers,
Glenn, I understand the point of your post, and I wish you would be more careful in your praise...a close reading of Billmon's work regarding this issue is very disturbing. His bias against Israel screams trough every post he has made since the crisis broke out.
ReplyDeleteThis is not a war against Lebanon, it is a war against Hezbollah...unfortunately, Lebanon didn't take the necessary steps, and Hezbollah continued to rule southern Lebanon in an unelected fiefdom - until now...
Fantastic analysis, and very scary observations. The degree to which support of Israel is unquestioned in this country is astounding. Thank you for shedding light on this.
ReplyDeleteGlenn: My post was not about trying to figure out who is in the right in this conflict. Engaging in debates over who is in the right - Israel or its neighbors - is a thankless, hopeless, pointless task - and I agree with Hilzoy that both sides typically act out of very different views of their own self-interest, and neither side is every purely right or purely wrong.
ReplyDeleteIt may not be possible to determine who started it. I characterize this in terms of a bar fight. By the time it gets to punches being thrown, who said what to whom and why is almost beside the point. Of course, to come to any type of resolution there must be an airing of reasons on both sides -- then some form of compromise.
On the other hand, I do think that why the neocons want the US to enter this fray--why it's important for the US to identify itself with Israel--originates with attitudes and moral conclusions that the US should not associate itself with.
These sentiments and attitudes include the following from the evangelical traditionalist writer, who publishes under the pseudonym Spengler at Atime.com. At his forum he writes:
The big problem with the theory of Universals is: how do we know that a Universal is real? We can imagine a pink dragon candy-striped wings, and give it as detailed attributes as we do a housecat, but the housecat exists, and the pink dragon does not. By the same token: the relief officials of the UN, the diplomats of the Arab countries, and the ideologues of the Muslim Brotherhood can give to the Palestinian nation all the attributes of a nation, but it remains a Wechselbalg, unable to live on its own -- whereas the Jewish State is as prosperous as you please. Reality intersects; it is not merely what we wish, or we imagine. The Palestinians -- and as I have written often, the Iranians -- cannot bear the reality in which they find themselves and are determined to break out. Failed peoples should of course accept the mediocrity of their circumstances and let their culture, their customs, their language, the honor of the ancestors and the significance of their own lives vanish -- but they resist doing so. When they resist ferociously the result is a war of attrition amongst peoples with horrendous results.
It is this idea that peoples are too weak to live, that history has determined their existence a victim which underpins much of the neoconservative triumphalism that I believed your piece was directed at.
arne: In 1953, you mean? Yes, might have worked. Wouldn't have cost a cent, nor a single U.S. soldier's life. Read Stephen Kinzer's "All The Shah's Men" if you want to educate yourself. Then, come back and talk....
ReplyDeleteThere's also this article by Robert Dreyfuss about how Eisenhower funded and promoted Islamic jihadism as a counterweight to the Soviet Union's influence in the Mideast.
The Washington post has a big article about this today.
ReplyDeleteErin said...
ReplyDeleteTony Kushner
Are you the playwright Tony Kushner, nor some other Tony Kushner?
I'm not Tony Kushner. But I'm sure he reads Glenn. All the smart people do, left and right.
That was at Maryscott O'Connors blog today. My Left Wing.
http://www.myleftwing.com/frontPage.do
Whoever Tony is, it's his birthday today. There is a photo of him there.
Please someone; why is it a good idea for Isreal to create "failed states" on its borders?
ReplyDeleteGlenn.... But my post wasn't about any of that. It was about efforts to induce the U.S. to intervene in this conflict, regardless of who is right or wrong in that conflict.
ReplyDeleteAnd the US must intervene, as it has done in the past, as a fair and impartial (as far as that is possible) mediator. Some administrations have done this and actually achieved amazing results. Any guesses as to what party those Administrations belonged to?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeletePlease someone; why is it a good idea for Isreal to create "failed states" on its borders?
It's either that or Israel becomes a failed state itself. At this rate, it's just prolonging the inevitable. Billmon gives them 30 years, tops.
Mark...This is not a war against Lebanon, it is a war against Hezbollah
ReplyDeleteSomeone should mention this to Fox News.
Yes a Syria destroyed and turned into a churning Iraq is preferrable to Bashir Assad- so we can have a gaza west bank lebanon syria iraq arc of total chaos. Yes and when will Kristol's children be signing up? My son has already done a year in Iraq and I have no desire to see him in Syria or Iran for that matter. The blood hounds may want war but whose interests are really being served?
ReplyDeleteside note- notice today the media is all abuzz about the origin of the rockets hezbollah is firing. How about the origin of the bombs and bullets and hardware Israel is using and has used the past 40 years? They treat us as if we are soo stupid
To Arne, Glenn, et al
ReplyDeleteI am the anonymous who is amused by a call for proportionate force vis a vis Israel, etc. and is generally apoplectic at the left's reaction to Israel's defense of itself.
I again ask everyone, especially Glenn, to join with me in this discussion after reading the article at theobjectivestandard.com "Just War Theory" vs. American Self-Defense.(click on Foreign Policy) I just discovered it and it is really brilliant. I am not an Ayn Rander and just happened upon this site, but was so impressed with this journal in general, I subscribed. If you notice, it is for those who are tired of same old
same old conservative and liberal ideology. It is also very long but well written and persuasive.
I am assuming everyone here is still susceptible to thinking and being open to new ideas, unlike the right wing.
Glenn, usually I am most impressed by your writing and logical analyses. I am a lawyer as well and your explanations of legal issues is not only usually right on, but clear headed. As I said, what you wrote about Specter is perfect.
What bothers me is the psychology of progressive thinkers and the progressive movement vis a vis the rabid right wing that smokes them too often.
One of my theories is that progressives are not as passionate as wingers or their passion doesn't resonate with a large enough group to have a substantial enough impact. And this Israel situation is a good example of my point. Glenn, who is so passionate and logical in other posts (like Specter) becomes wishy washy where Israel is concerned. And the issue of course is the use of force when the other side is not logical or motivated by normal factors. Maybe because the situation is so immune to reason on one side that we look for some logical explanation for irrational behavior. But ultimately, we must decide what our principles are and determine who comes closest to emulating them--Israel or Hizbollah or Hamas or Syria or Iran. Anyone who thinks this is a tough question needs to read John Dean's book about their own follower personality.
Moral Equivalency is a problem with the left. Witness Arne comparing the election of Hamas with the democratic institutions of Israel. Obvioiusly there is no time to fully point out the lunacy of that statement and it begs the question of anti semitism and an undrstanding of the psychology propelling the left in this direction. Again, I think John Dean's new book, which I will pick up today, is about psychogical research into why people support certain crazy philosophies. But it is equally applicable to the left and the right.
This psychology of the left may be a reason why we are losing elections or that our leaders are such wusses. Does anyone disagree that our Democratic leaders appear weak compared to Republicans. (by the way, I think the Republican clones would exhibit their own weakness if they were ever seriously challenged) But it is difficult to avoid seeing this in terms of approach.
Democrats always appease the Republicans and never or rarely take on a fight for principle. They act with fear in mind too often. Look at courageous Feingold...all by himself. Here too, we see a similar personality. The left is an apologist for radical islamic ideology...the poor Palestinians, the poor Arabs. It is they who have rejected peace, time and time again. I feel the Israelis have been too constrained as I feel the West has been too constrained in attacking radical Islam and all that it implies.
Unless there are those of you who might prefer living under Sharia law, and are unaware that under Islamic doctrine, you won't have any choices, your arguments are those of appeasers. In order to negotiate, you must have a partner. The stated objective to destroy Israel must be taken seriously. Sometimes negotiation and peace and not viable alternatives. And sometimes you need to fight it out in trial, and sometimes, you need to
fight it out in public. And sometimes you need to fight it out with weapons. But when you do, your objective should be to win and vanquish your enemy, not question their crazy motivations.
I was outraged when John Kerry didn't fight the election results by challenging the vote in Ohio. He was an appeaser, as are all of you here who apologize for Arab behavior and institutions over many years. Name one Arab country who has progressive institutions approximating those in the West. Doesn't someone find something wrong with that? Money isn't the issue..look at Arab wealth. They sure don't help their neighbors except by funding terrorism. And where are the passions for the Kurds to have their own state. I could go on and on and you would be tired reading...but the ignorance and failure to think about this psychologoically, historically and logically is exactly the problem with the left and Democrats in general.
The fighting instinct is missing, and we must figure this out. What are you fighting for when you support Hams's right to impose Sharia law? As a woman, I find Islamic philosphy reprehensible and think any woman who supports this type of thinking is an idiot and deserves subjugation themselves. I'm willing to fight any day an Islamic philosophy that subjects women to a life of fear and subordination...even if they have been brainwashed this way. The idea of women being forced to wear burkas...this is what you crazy women opposed to Israel support? Get real and off your do gooder sop.
Republicans are good street fighters and don't play fair and Democrats are busy following some set of ethical limitations that don't exist for everybody except themselves...a very uneven playing field. Democrats should respond in kind when attacked by REpublicans. They should give as good as they get. Kerry should have made the REpublicans go to court again to win this election. What happened in Ohio was manifestly unfair and more importantly, we'll never know everything because Kerry didn't send the hordes of lawyers waiting to be called that day. He backed down.
We must support Israel because it is right. It has tried to play by the rules,but has been constantly rebuffed. Now after we see the results of years of peace talks, we want to be like Kerry, the statesman in his mind, and not fight for what is right. That's why Democrats lose. They are not fighters for principle. Unfortunately, the Republicans take advantage of the Democrats "ethics" and fear. So look what we have here from appeasement.
There is no moral equivalency in this story. Stop ingesting the left propaganda and use your brain. (which is not to suggest the right isnt one big propaganda machine either)
Hizbollah uses civilians as human shields and hides all of their rockets in civilian areas. Maybe when those civilians realize what that means things will change. But Israel accommodating terrorist tactics is a recipe for suicide. There are 10,000 rockets in Lebanon, located in the heart of civilian areas. It is a tactic that shows no regard for human life. The onus should be on them, not Israel. And when you finally figure out why you don't passionately support Israel (maybe it's because Bush does--which is a terrible reason to not evaluate it for yourself) you will realize why Democrats are in the minority and can't get traction...the same reason Kerry gave up before he could let the world know what was really going on in Ohio. It was criminal appeasement. And it's a Democrat shortcoming. And we should all think about it. Read that article.
Get back to me. //d
and all of you who have a problem with moral equivalence....as we all should know, democracy is not about voting. It is about the institutions underlying them
William Timberman said...
ReplyDeleteGris Lobo, you're right. Condescension is odious, but it's sometimes the only honest response to someone who happens into one of the most bloodthirsty conflicts in history and thinks figuring out who hit who first is all he has to do to separate the righteous from the sinners. Wars don't ever lend themselves to that kind of simplistic analysis, and this particular war is even more morally ambiguous than most.
I am not trying to separate the righteous from the sinners. The simple fact is though that the gunfire isn't going to stop so that the talking can restart until this one problem is solved.
If you insist on ignoring the first step how do you ever intend to get to the end.
I apologize for the condescension -- we're all God's chillun after all -- but I certainly can't, and won't apologize for giving ignorance the name it deserves.
Sorry but I don't think that trying to solve the first step of a problem is ignorance. You are trying to solve the whole issue at once while I am trying to get the first issue solved so that the larger process can be worked on.
Not to mention the fact that you make assumptions without knowing where it is I stand on the larger issue.
As far as I am concerned you are so completely set in what you feel is the right way to go that you are completely unwilling to listen, which is not conducive to problem solving unless you can somehow turn yourself into a dictator and impose your solution on others.
dorita said...
ReplyDeletegris lobos,
You leave out the gun fire in my life -- which has come from across the street.
Okay, fireworks burned down my neighbors garage, which just happened to be about 3 feet from my home.
Your analogy fails; over and over.
Only in your own mind dorita.
I will leave it to the other readers of these posts to decide for themselves whether my analogies are apt or not.
P.S. I challenge everyone here to get a copy of books used to educate Arabs and Israelis. The hate propagated by the Arabs to their young is a good example of how they view education and peace. Generations brainwashed with hate. Let's get the books out. Let's start looking at facts. Not little trivial issues or tit for tat. Big issues. Lies told in school books...holocaust denial...Elders of Zion....these are generations being schooled to be martyrs. This is a psychology of hate that is not easily explained. In fact, the object is to make Israel the scapegoat for the corruption of their own goveernments. It is everything we despise as progressives and I get ill when i see progressives be so obtuse...as frustrated as I get when I see the right lobby for diminishment of our constitutional protections...and their supporters buy into it lock, stock and barrel./d
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Kristol may be correct vis a vis Syria and Iran does not negate the fact he was wrong about Iraq. More importantly, there are acts of aggression that can be undertaken that do not rise to the level of war. Taking out terrorist training camps seems reasonable to me. I doubt that it will start a war and it is worth the benefit of making it clear to terrorist regimes that there is a price to pay for hosting and promoting terrorism. Of course, consistent with that, we should be demanding that Saudi Arabia cease funding terrorism. But it is surely in our interests to restrain the expansion of radical islam.
ReplyDeleteWe are much more powerful at the moment than Iran let alone Syria. Clearly, the harboring of terrorists and the maintenance of training camps is adverse to our interests. We waited too long in Afganistan which is why we had 9-11.
The fact that Bush jumped into war with Iraq prematurely and under false pretenses doesn't change the fact that a more limited involvement militarily could have yielded results. We must not confuse the incompetence of the Bushies with the possibility that a more competent plan would have produced a better result. As an example, you cite Kristol stating that we should support Iraq and Afganistan, in this same context. Clearly the plan for a pluralistic and secular democracy is an utter failure...however that does not mean it wasn't possible under different leadership.
The use of power to protect your interests when diplomacy fails or the ideology is completely antithetical to western values is of paramount important. The free flow of a global economy cannot tolerate too many crazies in the world. Sometimes force is all that works. We can't become appeasers...that is a recipe for disaster...and on that note, I relate back to your post on the extreme right violent blog speech. Do we sit back and do nothing? It's outrageous what the right is getting away with ...so how do we deal with this radical ideology that gets more poisonous by day. It is because the progressives have not fought back in kind that the righties continue their schoolyard tactics. Rational dialog or persuasion is ineffective...so what do we do--give up? I suggest we learn to street fight too.
BTW, Israel funds terrorists, too.
ReplyDeleteThat's part of the game. It's an ugly game, but don't act like America's shit don't stink, or Israel's shit don't stink. So does yours.
Anonymous...We are much more powerful at the moment than Iran let alone Syria.
ReplyDeleteDeluded fool. We have never been weaker and less significant, with less options or cards to play since... I'm not sure when but it's probably longer than we would be capable of admitting.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteP.S. I challenge everyone here to get a copy of books used to educate Arabs and Israelis.
Wow! You read Hebrew and all the languages that are used for schoolbooks for young muslim chiildren? No. You don't. Wanna see something you can read? Look at old American schoolbooks for a laugh.
I see a pattern. The hardcore righties come at you head on. Frontal assault. Failure. Then the indirect assault on the flanks, obliquely. Failure. Always the same. When your position is indefensible, attack!
ReplyDeleteWingnuts in a nutshell.
What are the prevailing wind patterns over there?
ReplyDeleteOr if we're going to do it with "boots on the ground" where are we gonna get 'em from? And how are we gonna protect 'em against IEDs? And how are we gonna pay for 'em?
ReplyDeleteOr if we're gonna do it with non nuke "air power" how we gonna make sure they don't have a problem with our killing lots of them and blowing up their homes and roads and bridges and mosques and schools, etc.?
ReplyDeleteAnybody have any idea what Israel's manifest destiny is?
ReplyDeletePuts me in mind of that Laszlo Letter to Ray Kroc, "I see you've sold ten million McDonalds burgers. How many more to go?"
ReplyDelete"Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteP.S. I challenge everyone here to get a copy of books used to educate Arabs and Israelis. The hate propagated by the Arabs to their young is a good example of how they view education and peace...."
What about education of hate in Israel? Why don’t you talk about what Israeli school children are taught and the textbooks they use today? This is important and must be debated in America if we truly want to fight “terrorism.”
Jewish school children in Israel today are taught Halakhah, which is the legal system of classical Judaism (Talmudic Law). The text is written in Hebrew, hence is not easily accessible by non-Hebrew speaking people. So what does Halakhah teach? It teaches that Jews are exceptional and superior to all other beings on earth and in God’s eyes Jews are the only ‘true human beings’ (ie ‘the Chosen people’). Halakhah says that Non-Jews (Gentiles) as an earthly being are below human (Jew), yet above animal. So how does this belief translate to Jew and non-Jew interaction? To take one example, according to Halakhah, a murder of a Jew is the most heinous crime that can ever be committed. However when the victim is a Gentile, the laws are different. For instance, if a Jew murders a Gentile the Jew is only guilty of the laws of Heaven and is not to be tried in court. Although the Halakhah rule originate from classical orthodox Jewish text it is not only taught in Israel today…these archaic rules are today woven into the fabric of the Israeli legal and political system. Hence, when one speaks of justice and Democracy in Israel, it only applies to Jews. This belief system also extends outside of Israel.
If that’s not institutionalized bigotry being taught to Israeli school children…I don’t know what is.
Which "powers" have undersea - i.e., submarine - nuclear strike "capability"? Would half a dozen submarine-launched atomic warheads be "traceable"?
ReplyDeleteGris Lobo:
ReplyDeleteSorry I missed your response; I was occupied upthread. So, if I understand you correctly, blaming Hizbollah for an unprovoked act of war is step number one. And step number two is?
And why is it exactly, given step number one, that anyone in the Gaza Bantustan, or Syria, or Iran, or the part of Lebanon ruled for almost two decades by Christian Phalangists and the IDF, want to listen to step number two? Aren't they doing a lot better, carnage and destruction notwithstanding, with their current sttrategy?
Let me elaborate: the U.S., Israel's guarantor of last resort, has its bloody hands fully occupied elsewhere in the Middle East. The Israelis, for the first time since 1973, are faced with a military force that can actually do them some serious damage, and oil, at Friday's closing, was running at about $78 a barrel, just $2 or $3 below its high in 1983 (in adjusted dollars.)
If I were a student of Sun Tzu, I'd say that our need to talk is greater, at this point, that theirs. This is a first. It hasn't been this way since, oh, the Balfour Declaration.
So tell me, what can we do to them to encourage them to come back to what has been, up to now, a rigged negotiation table.
This is the logic of war. We supported it when we had all the advantages, but now, malheureusement, we think we'd like to talk. Can you see how that might be considered contemptible?
GL:
ReplyDeletePardon, that should read "its high in 1973..."
dr rudy is one sick anti semite...another example of a polluted left...who are as bad as the right...just as Chavez is a leftist crazy dictator...they exist on both ends and in full bloom on a lot of liberal sites...and this on Glenn's blog. Glenn, do you see this? This is who visits your blog. OK Dr. Rudy, provide school system, curriculum and books you refer to. Supply the evidence....book, verse, chapter.
ReplyDeleteThis type of venom will definitely hurt Democrats and split the party
Bart,
ReplyDeleteKeep their feet to the fire, and ratchet it up...It is amazing to me how similar the extreme right wing is to the extreme left...and I am disappointed in Glenn that he approvingly referenced Billmon...
This is my first time blogging here and I thought the level of discourse would be intelligent because Glenn is so logical and exacting. I still respect most of what Glenn writes. But I am shocked at the some of the things I'm reading though. One guy does not know recent history and is obviously unfamiliar with Google...others spout nonsense and invective...it's so depressing...and when I see dailykos bloggers against Barbara Boxer for supporting Lieberman, it gets ugly.
anonymous:
ReplyDeleteMoral Equivalency is a problem with the left. Witness Arne comparing the election of Hamas with the democratic institutions of Israel. Obvioiusly there is no time to fully point out the lunacy of that statement and it begs the question of anti semitism and an undrstanding of the psychology propelling the left in this direction.
You read more that what I said into what you read. I never said they were the same; I merely mentioned that Hamas was elected in an election that wasn't totally bogus. For better or worse, you have to deal with that reality. Your claim that "Israel exemplifies Democratic ideals" certainly isn't based on any mutual consensus around here, and you'd do best to explain why (and in what way) you think that Israel's "democracy" is better than that in the territories. Then you might ponder on what it would augur for the region even if the Palestinian elections were perfect.
As for "moral equivalency", where do you get that argument out of me? I'm perfectly willing to comdemn both sides of an argument when I think they're both wrong. How about you? Is Israel's "democratic" notions WRT Arab residents OK because it's better than some other unnamed country? I'd say I'me seeing more shades of "moral relativism" from you here than from me; comparing levels of democracy to see which "exemplifies ... ideals" (or at least, the ideals you prefer to emphasise).
I dare say you haven't really thought too much about the situation yet. Perhaps you'd be better off listening for a while before lecturing others.
Cheers,
anonymous:
ReplyDeleteObvioiusly there is no time to fully point out the lunacy of that statement ...
Seeing as it's an impossible task, I'd agree.
... and it begs the question of anti semitism...
Your misuse of the phrase "begs the question" is noted. But yes, let's talk about my "anti semitism". You first. Let's put some facts on the table, and see if we can discuss this allegation of your rationally.
Cheers,
anonymous:
ReplyDeleteAs a woman, I find Islamic philosphy reprehensible and think any woman who supports this type of thinking is an idiot and deserves subjugation themselves.
You are aware, I suppose, that other religions aren't too fond of complete equality for the sexes. Are you Baha'i (that's one that has that as a principal tenet of their religion)? But certanly Orthodox Jews don't have female rabbis (and the ultra-Orthodox even keep the guests separated by gender at weddings). Then there's the Catholics, etc.
Yes, fundamentalist Islam is pretty sh*tty to women (and education, and music and art and other such things). While extreme, also echoed in fundamentalist or ultra-religious groups of every stripe. I'd condemn them all; I'm no fan of religion personally, and the "conservative" ones seem to me repressive in many ways I find deeply objectionable....
Cheers,
The people who believe the rest of the country won't support the neoconservatives possible moves into Syria and Iran have a short memory. When it comes to war, conservatives and liberals can be made to have a thirst for it. All it takes is a powderkeg event or newstory to sway the people and this country will be hot-to-trot for an no-holds-barred mideast war. The administration will wait for some such event or atrocity to take place, the reporters will sway the masses, Bush's opinion polls will shoot through the roof and the bloodthirsty march will begin again. Haven't we learned anything from the past 15+ years? Americans are suckers for American propaganda - they'll swallow anything when it comes to what the media feeds them. Mark my words.
ReplyDeleteQuite simply- Israel is an albatross around our neck.
ReplyDelete"Quite simply- Israel is an albatross around our neck."
ReplyDeleteand can Americans do anything to come out of Israeli slavery...I can't see it happening in the near future...carry on being slave to your masters and die defending their satanic dream of world dominance thats what the country created for...
I'd read some batshit-crazy stuff on Obsidian Wings before (not by hilzoy) so I was skeptical, but was impressed to see such a lucid and rational summary of this topic, continuing even into the discussion in comments.
ReplyDeleteHi Glen.
ReplyDeleteI'm in Beirut right now. It's difficult to do much analysis, since, well, I can hardly sleep due to Israeli bombs, missiles and shells hitting throughout the night.
In any case, I'm keep record of what's happening on the ground here.
The Israeli government is, along with the U.S. government, asserting that Syria and Iran are somehow responsible for the actions of Hezbollah and Hamas in their kidnappings.
ReplyDeleteIsraeli government sources have been quoted as saying a preemptive attack on Syria is in the works, which would bring Syria's close ally Iran into the war.
Iran, we should all note, is a very close trading partner of (and SCO Observer Member with) Russia and China. Since 1998, Vladimir Putin has asserted that he will use military force, when necessary, to secure uninhibited access to key markets and strategic resources. We should also note the close alliance between Korea and China in the discussion.
Israel's actions could lead to a very large conflict. With our military forces stretched thin through Iraq and Afghanistan, that is not something that is in the best interests of the American People if civil defence is genuinely a top priority.
That is to not even mention the horrendous civilian death toll that has been inflicted upon the people of Lebanon and Palestine (but has been marginalised or ignored in the U.S. media). So far roughly 150 civilians have died in Israel's "precision" attacks against Hezbollah, while a grand total of 3 hezbollah militants have been killed
If this is "our war," then may god forgive us, for we genuinely know not what we do.
We are watching a mini-100 year war in this region ~50 years and counting. Some people here are advocating support of Israel, while losing track of the bigger picture. How do we settle a long term violent confrontation such as a 100 year war? I can't find any examples where a war on this scale ever settled the original problem.
ReplyDeleteI have advocated elsewhere the possibility of giving amnesty to residents (both Israeli and Palestinians who are tired of the perpetual war and wish for a better life). We could use some fraction of the ~10 billion we give Israel every year to help them get located. Maybe some of these people would to do the jobs we don’t want to do!
Why am I reading here a lot of "We must support Israel". Shouldn't we be encouraging both sides to take a time out? This works with kids some times.
We are in the
The War in the Middle East is a distraction as the US erodes our rights at home. As Israel launches an aggressive war, US gov't cages peaceful protestors, pressures book outlets to drop the book "America Deceived" by E.A. Blayre III, and illegally wire-taps all phones. Soon, the US will attack Iran (opening a 3rd front) and put the region into chaos. Add in a false-flag attack within the US (another 9/11) and the people will beg for One World Gov't.
ReplyDeleteLast link (before Google Books is pressured to stop selling the book):
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0
William Timberman said...
ReplyDeleteGris Lobo:
"Sorry I missed your response; I was occupied upthread. So, if I understand you correctly, blaming Hizbollah for an unprovoked act of war is step number one. And step number two is?"
Sorry I've taken so long to get back and reply.
The first step isn't to blame Hezbollah but to simply get them to release the soldiers they kidnapped. That should stop the bullets from flying. If it doesn't then I recommend steps to force Israel to stop the bombing. At that point Hezbollah has to stop firing rockets into Israel also. or steps need to be taken internationally to force them to stop.
At that point the talking can begin again.
how God changed Jacob-the deceiver, into Jacob-the man of God.
ReplyDeleteGod said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.Genesis 32:28
God gave Jacob a new name, that is, Israel. Jacob means one who deceives. But Israel means one who reigns with God. Israel would be the name of the new nation God promised to bring forth from the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.24,000 Israelites who cohabitated with Moabite women and worshiped Baal. "And the Lord said to Moses, take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun..." Num 25:4,9 [Definitely a civil rights violation]All the citizens of Jericho, except for a whore and her family. "And they utterly destroyed all in the city, man and woman, young and old, and ox... with the edge of the sword." Josh 6 "They" make a grisly game of it , using the superstitious number 7 popular in the Bible. [Joshua competes with Moses, the leader he replaced, for the title of Gods number 1 hit man as he follows Gods orders.]Moses kills an Egyptian deliberately for beating an Israelite. Ex 2:12
He then becomes God's Lawgiver. One of his commandments straight from God is thou shalt not kill (murder). [Two wrongs don't make a right. Was Moses a murderer even before he led the Israelite rebellion??]
After first purposely hardening Pharaoh's heart so that he will not see the Israelites free, God, through the black magic of Aarons rod, visits ten terrible plagues upon the unsuspecting Egyptians. Ex 7-11 [Even the innocent animals are victims of this truly evil black magic.]At the time of the Flood, a disaster not uncommon to the tradition of other religions, Noah, an imbiber, and his family are the only persons deemed righteous enough to be saved from drowning. All others, including pregnant women and children, are given no opportunity to survive the rising waters. Gen 7,8
Jews believe that world was created in 6 days - with God resting on the 7th day. This occurred about 7000 years ago. Well - wrong! We now know that the universe is about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years. But the Jews still believe it anyhow.The Jewish god is modeled after the early oppressive kings. In those times kings had absolute power and if they got in a bad mood - they might have thousands slaughtered. Since God is the supreme king - then he would be the ultimate oppressor. The God of the Bible fits this model. He's a tyrant who loses his temper and slaughters a lot of people when he gets pissed off. And he gets pissed off because he's not worshiped the right way. Think about it - God needs animal sacrifices? The being that created all the universe - all the galaxies - needs people to sacrifice animals to it? hmmmmm ... do you buy that? The God of the Jews is nothing more than a petty tyrant modeled after their petty tyrant kings - and that's according to THEIR beliefs!So - if the Bible isn't real - then God didn't pick the Jews as the "Chosen People" and Jews are just ordinary people - just like all the rest of us. If you give up the Old Testament - then you have no basis for claiming that God gave you property in the Middle East. It takes away your justification for slaughtering Muslims because it puts you on the same level as they are. Jews of course believe that they are superior to Muslims and are therefore justified in taking their land.God never gave any land to any group of people. Those who slaughter others in the name of God are religious terrorists, nothing more.Hey Jews! It's not OK to slaughter other people! If you think it's wrong to be persecuted - then it's it wrong to persecute others? Figure it out! You are not the chosen people - and it is not OK to commit terrorist acts against non-jews. You're no better than the fucking Arabs! If Jews are so fucking smart - then why are you stuck in the past?
I therefore pose this question to all wise Jews everywhere. If you believe in something and it turns out that what you believe in is wrong - doesn't it make sense to abandon what is wrong - admit your mistake - and move on to what is right? How wise is a man who clings to false knowledge? Who among the Jews will stand up and defy the death of the Jewish Tree of Knowledge and create a new model for the advancement of wisdom? How can you claim to be the chosen people when your Tree of Knowledge is dead and your vision of the future is looking into the past? Think about it next Sabbath when you honor a commandment that has no basis in reality whatsoever.God said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.Genesis 32:28
Wow!!Jacob/Israel