The Face of Israel's Determined Foe
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Progress! Arab Editor Acknowledges Holocaust and Israeli Humanity
[SATIRE ALERT!]
This past Tuesday, London’s Arabic-language daily Al-Hayat, published an editorial suggesting that the reason for Israeli behavior in the current crisis is that its leaders are the grandsons of Nazis who posed as Jews to escape Allied retribution and found their way to Israel. You can read the entire article on the MEMRI site. I’ve appended a few highlights.
This past Tuesday, London’s Arabic-language daily Al-Hayat, published an editorial suggesting that the reason for Israeli behavior in the current crisis is that its leaders are the grandsons of Nazis who posed as Jews to escape Allied retribution and found their way to Israel. You can read the entire article on the MEMRI site. I’ve appended a few highlights.
Ehud Olmert’s government perpetrates definite Nazi practices against the Palestinians and the Lebanese. He is a young Führer [actually, Olmert is 61, an age Hitler never reached] , and his generals, like Dan Halutz and Moshe Kaplinsky, are commando generals. The question now is: Is it logical for the survivors of the Holocaust and their descendants to do what the Nazis had done to them?
There is a psychological explanation for this: the victim impersonates the torturer. However, I have another explanation.
Historically, six million Jews died in the Holocaust, and 97.5 percent of the Polish Jews were killed in the gas chambers, and by other means. My explanation is that the number of the Jews who were killed might be higher. All the Polish Jews might have been killed, too, and the Nazi political and military leaders might have realized since 1944 that defeat was imminent and, therefore, assumed the identity of Jews and then fled to Palestine as Jews who had survived the Holocaust.
If this explanation is true, Israel's present political and military leaders are the grandsons of Nazi killers rather than Jews persecuted for centuries at the hands of Western Christendom."I know that my explanation may be implausible, but I cannot find any other logical reason for Israel's Nazi-like practices. The phrase 'Israeli Nazism' is exactly an oxymoron, as if we say, for instance, “Sharon is a man of peace.”
Now, I know at first glance that comments suggesting that leading Israelis are the grandsons of the perpetrators of the Holocaust may seem rather negative and caustic. But that is because you are untrained in the contextualization of things that Arabs and Muslims often say, whereas a trained western analyst of the Middle East would immediately recognize the ground being given here by the writer.
Two points. First, the editorialist did not make the claim that Jews are the descendants of apes and pigs. Nazis were, after all, human beings, albeit nasty human beings. This is a huge admission for an Arab commentator. Second, the author acknowledges that there was a Holocaust and that the Germans made use of gas chambers: “Historically, six million Jews died in the Holocaust, and 97.5 percent of the Polish Jews were killed in the gas chambers, and by other means.” Talk about conceptual breakthroughs!
Now where’s the give on the Israeli side? It's nearly been a week! Given this new and constructive tone, I think that the Al-Hayat comments represent a very real signal that it is an auspicious time for the Israelis to negotiate a comprehensive end to the Middle Eastern crisis.
Friday, July 28, 2006
Warren Speaks!
Former Secretary for States Warren Christopher published an opinion piece today in The Washington Post arguing for an immediate ceasefire. Christopher bases his argument on his experience during past crises. Twice during his tenure as secretary of state he worked with Syria to negotiate a ceasefire following Hezbollah strikes against Israel. He writes (my bolding):
In June 1993, Israel responded to Hezbollah rocket attacks along its northern border by launching Operation Accountability, resulting in the expulsion of 250,000 civilians from the southern part of Lebanon.
After the Israeli bombardment had continued for several days, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin asked me to use my contacts in Syria to seek their help in containing the hostilities. I contacted Foreign Minister Farouk Shara, who, of course, consulted with Syrian President Hafez al-Assad. After several days of urgent negotiations, an agreement was reached committing the parties to stop targeting one another's civilian populations. We never knew exactly what the Syrians did, but clearly Hezbollah responded to their direction.
In April 1996, when Hezbollah again launched rocket attacks on Israel's northern border, the Israelis countered with Operation Grapes of Wrath, sending 400,000 Lebanese fleeing from southern Lebanon. Errant Israeli bombs hit a U.N. refugee camp at Cana in southern Lebanon, killing about 100 civilians and bringing the wrath of international public opinion down upon Israel.
This time Shimon Peres, who had become prime minister after the assassination of Rabin, sought our help. In response, we launched an eight-day shuttle to Damascus, Beirut and Jerusalem that produced a written agreement bringing the hostilities to an end. Weeks later, the parties agreed to a border monitoring group consisting of Israel, Syria, Lebanon, France and the United States. Until three weeks ago, that agreement had succeeded for 10 years in preventing a wholesale resumption of hostilities.
Sound like a compelling argument? Well, there are two problems.
First, on both occasions, as Christopher clearly states, the Israelis initiated the moves toward a ceasefire. I am sure that when the Israelis come to us and ask for our help in arranging a ceasefire, the Bush administration will do just that.
Second, has it dawned on Christopher that the fact that Hezbollah is once again lobbing missiles into Israel, and this time on a grand scale, that the previous ceasefires were nothing more than truces that allowed Hezbollah to further strengthen its position in southern Lebanon? In other words, the Israelis have twice sought a diplomatic solution with no results. And then you have the inter-Arab Taif accord, several UN resolutions, and the presence of UNIFIL in southern Lebanon. Why go down that road again? That’s why the Israelis, thus far, have tried to avoid a ceasefire. Just as the US government helped the Israelis achieve ceasefires in the 1990s when they sought them, we are now trying to help them avoid the imposition of one until they are ready.
The problem here isn’t inconsistency in American policy; the problem is the inability of Warren Christopher to recognize the implications of his own account of past event.
There’s an old definition of insanity for the layperson: insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different outcomes.
And with regard to Christopher’s argument that our support for Israel is hurting “our already tattered reputation,” no matter our policy it will get worse. If we refuse to sell out Israel, yes, our reputation will suffer. But does anyone think that if we abandoned Israel our reputation in the Middle East would improve and we’d gain the admiration, respect, and love of Hezbollah, Hamas, Assad, Ahmadinejad, and bin Laden?
The clouds have already gathered and the storm is coming. We cannot run from it, because we cannot run fast enough. We need the face our future and I prefer to do that with Israel at my side.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Israeli Concessions at Oslo Led to the Intifada
MEMRI-TV is hosting a clip of an excerpt from a 4 July 2006 interview on Iranian television in which Ziyad Abu 'Ein, member of the Fatah Central Committee, had this to say about the Oslo Accords. (Bolding mine)
The Oslo Accords were not what the Palestinian people dreamt of. The dream of the Palestinian people is the return, self-determination, the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, and the liberation of its land. However, there would have been no resistance in Palestine if not for Oslo. It was Oslo that strongly embraced the Palestinian resistance. All the occupied territories - and I was one of the activists in the first and second Intifadas, and I was arrested by Israel several times... If not for Oslo, there would have been no resistance. Throughout the occupied territories, we could not move a single pistol from one place to another. If not for Oslo, the weapons we got through Oslo, and if not for the "A" areas of the Palestinian Authority, if not for the training, the camps, the protection provided by Oslo, and if not for the release of thousands of Palestinian prisoners through Oslo - this Palestinian resistance could not have carried out this great Palestinian Intifada, with which we confronted the Israeli occupation.
Can the reality of the situation be stated more clearly? Fatah wants Israel gone. They’ll accept lesser deals along the way, but will use them to move their plans along so that in the end they can destroy Israel. If I am an Israeli and I read these statements, why in the world would I negotiate or compromise with any such groups?
UNIFIL: Mandate Ends Monday!
Amidst the discussions about the Israeli strike on the UNIFIL position in Lebanon, commentators are missing one important point. On 31 July 2006 the UN Security Council’s mandate, Resolution 1655 of 31 January 2006, expires. I’ve searched press reports and the UN site and I see no evidence that the Security Council has thus far acted to extend the mandate, although it is not inconceivable that I missed some recent extension. If I have, please let me know.
What was the original UNIFIL mandate? The mandate, as it appears on the UNIFIL official website had three parts.
- Confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon;
- Restore international peace and security;
- Assist the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area.
When the Israelis withdrew from southern Lebanon UNIFIL had successfully overseen its first mission. Obviously, the second element of the mission imploded a few weeks ago. And the reason for that implosion was the failure of the Lebanese government to follow through on its responsibilities related to the third part of the UNIFIL mission.
In January 2006, at the behest of the Lebanese government, the Security Council extended, but only for six months, the UNIFIL mandate. When it did, the Council made clear that it had concerns about the failure of the Lebanese government to act in the south.
5. Reiterates its call on the parties to continue to fulfil [sic] the commitments they have given to respect fully the entire withdrawal line identified by the United Nations, as set out in the Secretary-General’s report of 16 June 2000 (S/2000/590) and to exercise utmost restraint;
6. Reiterates its call upon the Government of Lebanon to fully extend and exercise its sole and effective authority throughout the South;
7. Welcomes the steps undertaken recently by the Lebanese Government to strengthen the liaison between its armed forces and UNIFIL, including the establishment of a Lebanese Armed Forces liaison office at UNIFIL headquarters in Naqoura, the appointment of liaison officers to UNIFIL field battalions, and the appointment of a new government coordinator with UNIFIL, and acknowledges the firm intention of the Lebanese Government to preserve the security and, to that end, to reinforce the presence of its armed forces in the southern region and to coordinate their activities with UNIFIL;
8. Urges nevertheless the Lebanese Government to do more to assert its authority in the South, to exert control and monopoly over the use of force and to maintain law and order on its entire territory and to prevent attacks from Lebanon across the Blue Line [the de facto Lebanese-Israeli border], including through deploying additional numbers of Lebanese Armed Forces and Internal Security Forces and taking up UNIFIL’s proposals to
enhance coordination between those forces and UNIFIL on the ground and establishing a Joint Planning Cell, as recommended by the Secretary-General in his report. . . .
Note the bolded (by me) parts in sub-sections 6 and 8, especially the call for the Lebanese government “to exert control and monopoly over the use of force and to maintain law and order on its entire territory and to prevent attacks from Lebanon across the Blue Line. . . .” The phrase about the “monopoly over the use of force” in the south is a clear call for the government to disarm Hezbollah and, in the interim, to prevent it from attacking Israel.
Resolution 1655 also stated (the bolding is mine) that the Security Council was
Gravely concerned at the persistence of tension and violence along the Blue Line, including the hostilities initiated by Hizbullah on 21 November 2005 and those triggered by the firing of rockets from Lebanon into Israel on 27 December 2005, which demonstrated once more that the situation remains volatile and fragile and underlined yet again the urgent need for the Lebanese Government to fully extend its authority and exert control and monopoly over the use of force throughout its territory, as outlined in the Secretary-General’s report of 18 January 2006 (S/2006/26), and concerned also by the continuing Israeli violations of Lebanese air space. . . .
The failure of the UNIFIL mission was the direct result of the unwillingness, or the inability, of the Lebanese government, six full years after the Israeli withdrawal, to exert its “monopoly over the use of force” in southern Lebanon.
The question now becomes: should/will the UN extend the mandate again? Will the United States veto such an extension? And in the absence of an extension, will the UNIFIL force be withdrawn next week?
Thoughts on the UN Incident
We may never know with certainty whether the Israeli attacks against the UN post was accidental or deliberate. After all, people still debate whether the 1999 American bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade was deliberate or accidental.
But you can glean some insights into what was going on in south Lebanon by perusing the UNIFIL reports, which you can read for yourself on the UNIFIL website: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/. Currently, the reports for July 17 through 26 are available.
On 17 July, a UNIFIL task force conducting a humanitarian missions to help Lebanese civilians came under fire when the village they were in was struck twice by the Israelis, who were replying to “Hizbullah fired rockets from the vicinity of the village. “
On July 24 one of the UN observers was wounded by small arms fire that “originated from the Hezbollah side” during a firefight with the IDF. The report also states that a UNIFIL engineering team repaired a road that had been destroyed by IDF strikes. While the UN team’s intent was to reopen the road for refugees, the reopened road would also allow the passage of Hezbollah traffic, which was why the IDF had struck the road in the first place.
On 25 July four Ghanaian solders were wounded by Israeli tank fire. Later that same day Hezbollah fired upon a UNIFIL convoy, but there were no casualties. An engineering detachment once again repaired roads damaged by Israeli fire.
For another interesting “tid bit” visit Charles Johnson’s “Little Green Footballs” site, where you’ll find a link to a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Radio interview with Retired Canadian Major General Lewis Mackenzie, who once served in south Lebanon. Mackenzie makes two points of interest. First, Hezbollah routinely clung closely to UNIFIL positions. Second, Mackenzie states he received e-mails from the Canadian soldier who was subsequently killed in the Israeli attack.
We received emails from him a few days ago, and he was describing the fact that he was taking fire within, in one case, three meters of his position for tactical necessity, not being targeted. Now that’s veiled speech in the military. What he was telling us was Hezbollah soldiers were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them. And that’s a favorite trick by people who don’t have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing that they can’t be punished for it.
And if you check out a back issue of Canadian-Jewish News from 2002, you’ll find this picture, which shows the UN and Hezbollah flags actually flying side-by-side at one of the UNIFIL observation posts in south Lebanon.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Juan: Your Bias Is Showing
Yesterday, the Israelis hit a UN post in southern Lebanon and killed four UN observers. The Israelis have admitted that they did it, apologized, and assured those involved that it was a mistake. Nevertheless, there have been accusations that the attack was deliberate.
Now, while I take the Israelis at their word on this, I’d be the first to admit that the attack might have been deliberate. I cannot say one way or the other. In fact, the only people who know the truth are the actual IDF personnel who conducted the attack. The Israeli government might not even know. What I can state is that no one sitting in an office in the United States can say with anything approaching certainty that the attack was either accidental or deliberate. Despite that, here’s what the noted and self-proclaimed "public intellectual" Professor Juan Cole has to say about the incident, verbatim.
Cole uses a truncated non-quote at the start of the section, namely the phrase “deliberate targetting.” Actually, Annan used the phrase “apparently deliberate targeting.” That’s not a minor point for diplo-speak, since Annan’s language left the door open for him to subsequently acknowledge that the attack, despite his sense at the moment, was a mistake. Such an interpretation is supported in a section of the statement dropped by Cole where Annan asked for an “investigation,” which again assumes a degree of uncertainty. Moreover, in Annan’s latest statement about the situation in Lebanon, he does not even mention the attack or the UN deaths. In short, Kofi doesnt know, and while he suspects he isn't certain. It's Juan cole who is certain.
I also found it strange that Professor Cole chose to link as his source (that his hyperlink carried over from his site, not mine) the PRC’s The People’s Daily. Okay, I suspect that Cole considers the The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz unreliable and biased, and perhaps the entire American press pro-Israel. But if you’re looking for a UN statement why not go to . . . let's see . . . the UN’s official website? Let’s just say that the Chinese communist press is not the first place I go for accurate and unbiased information when I want my comments to be “informed.”
Here’s another point to consider: why didn’t the UN pull its personnel out of southern Lebanon? Why not bring them back to the environs of Beirut? They sure as hell weren’t “keeping the peace.” What purpose did they serve, given the obvious risk of mishap in the middle of a war zone? In asking this question I do not mean to imply that I suspect they were helping Hezbollah or doing anything untoward. I’m just wondering why Annan chose not to get them out of harms’ way before the Israelis rolled over the border. Did the world need their presence to know that Lebanon was being bombed, or that Israeli cities were being hit by missiles fired by Hezbollah from southern Lebanon? And, to return to Cole’s commentary, it’s not as if, hunkered down in their post, they were a position to spot any “war crimes” even if they occurred.
Now, while I take the Israelis at their word on this, I’d be the first to admit that the attack might have been deliberate. I cannot say one way or the other. In fact, the only people who know the truth are the actual IDF personnel who conducted the attack. The Israeli government might not even know. What I can state is that no one sitting in an office in the United States can say with anything approaching certainty that the attack was either accidental or deliberate. Despite that, here’s what the noted and self-proclaimed "public intellectual" Professor Juan Cole has to say about the incident, verbatim.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan expressed shock at the deliberate targetting of the UN peacekeeping base in Khiam, south Lebanon.
' "This coordinated artillery and aerial attack on a long established and clearly marked U.N. post at Khiam occurred despite personal assurances given to me by (Israeli) Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that U.N. positions would be spared Israeli fire," '
The Israelis denied that they hit the base deliberately, but Kofi would know. Why do it? When you have in mind war crimes, it is better not to have neutral observers in the region.
Where to start? How about “Kofi would know”? How would he know? He didn’t know any number of things being done by members of his own organization over the past few years. Why should we expect him to know with certainty what the IDF was doing?
How does Cole know that the Israelis are planning to commit “war crimes”? I suspect that he considers anything the Israelis do a “war crime,” which makes things a lot easier. After all, he has termed the Israeli air campaign “Inhuman.”
What about the quote from Annan? Is that actually what he said in his statement? The answer is . . . not exactly. Here’s the entire statement released by the UN.
The following statement by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan was issued today [25 July 2006] in Rome:
I am shocked and deeply distressed by the apparently deliberate targeting by Israeli Defense Forces of a United Nations observer post in southern Lebanon that has killed two United Nations military observers, with two more feared dead.
This coordinated artillery and aerial attack on a long established and clearly marked United Nations post at Khiyam occurred despite personal assurances given to me by Prime Minister Ehud lmert that United Nations positions would be spared Israeli fire.Furthermore, General Alain Pelligrini, the United Nations Force Commander in south Lebanon, had been in repeated contact with Israeli officers throughout the day on Tuesday, stressing the need to protect that particular United Nations position from attack.
I call on the Government of Israel to conduct a full investigation into this very disturbing incident, and demand that any further attack on United Nations positions and personnel must stop.
The names and nationalities of those killed are being withheld pending notification of their families. I extend sincere condolences to the families of our fallen peacekeepers.
Cole uses a truncated non-quote at the start of the section, namely the phrase “deliberate targetting.” Actually, Annan used the phrase “apparently deliberate targeting.” That’s not a minor point for diplo-speak, since Annan’s language left the door open for him to subsequently acknowledge that the attack, despite his sense at the moment, was a mistake. Such an interpretation is supported in a section of the statement dropped by Cole where Annan asked for an “investigation,” which again assumes a degree of uncertainty. Moreover, in Annan’s latest statement about the situation in Lebanon, he does not even mention the attack or the UN deaths. In short, Kofi doesnt know, and while he suspects he isn't certain. It's Juan cole who is certain.
I also found it strange that Professor Cole chose to link as his source (that his hyperlink carried over from his site, not mine) the PRC’s The People’s Daily. Okay, I suspect that Cole considers the The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz unreliable and biased, and perhaps the entire American press pro-Israel. But if you’re looking for a UN statement why not go to . . . let's see . . . the UN’s official website? Let’s just say that the Chinese communist press is not the first place I go for accurate and unbiased information when I want my comments to be “informed.”
Here’s another point to consider: why didn’t the UN pull its personnel out of southern Lebanon? Why not bring them back to the environs of Beirut? They sure as hell weren’t “keeping the peace.” What purpose did they serve, given the obvious risk of mishap in the middle of a war zone? In asking this question I do not mean to imply that I suspect they were helping Hezbollah or doing anything untoward. I’m just wondering why Annan chose not to get them out of harms’ way before the Israelis rolled over the border. Did the world need their presence to know that Lebanon was being bombed, or that Israeli cities were being hit by missiles fired by Hezbollah from southern Lebanon? And, to return to Cole’s commentary, it’s not as if, hunkered down in their post, they were a position to spot any “war crimes” even if they occurred.
The Faces of the Muslim Brotherhood and "The Israel Lobby"
I recently was browsing the English-language website of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. It has quite a different look than the Arabic version. The former has a western look and red highlighting and the latter a far more militant and Islamist look with a traditional green background. The more important and obvious difference is that on the English-language site you'll find references to Israel as “Israel,” and Israelis as “Israelis;” on the Arabic site the terms used (if my Google translator is working properly) are “Zionist entity” and “Zionists.”
But what I found most interesting involved the section on the English language site called “Online Library.” Two things surprised me about the collection of available readings.
The first was the absence of anything written by Sayyid Qutb, a former Muslim Brother who is now generally considered the “Godfather” of the jihadist movement. Ayman al-Zawahiri, a former member of the Ikhwan and now Qaeda al-Jihad’s number two man, wrote in 2001: “Sayyid Qutb’s call for loyalty to God’s oneness and to acknowledge God’s sole authority and sovereignty was the spark that ignited the Islamic revolution against the enemies of Islam at home and abroad. The bloody chapters of this revolution continue to unfold day after day.” Qutb’s brother, Mohammad, who fled Egypt, later taught at a Saudi university where one of his students was Osama bin Laden.
The second was the inclusion of a downloadable PDF copy of John J. Mearsheimer's and Stephen M. Walt's “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” a report they wrote under the sponsorship of Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. For a discussion and critique of the report read Martin Kramer’s commentary on his website.
It is unfair to presume “guilt by association.” But I would be a tad uncomfortable if I wrote something about the “Jewish lobby” in the United States deemed appropriate for the websites of both the Muslim Brotherhood and David Duke.
But what I found most interesting involved the section on the English language site called “Online Library.” Two things surprised me about the collection of available readings.
The first was the absence of anything written by Sayyid Qutb, a former Muslim Brother who is now generally considered the “Godfather” of the jihadist movement. Ayman al-Zawahiri, a former member of the Ikhwan and now Qaeda al-Jihad’s number two man, wrote in 2001: “Sayyid Qutb’s call for loyalty to God’s oneness and to acknowledge God’s sole authority and sovereignty was the spark that ignited the Islamic revolution against the enemies of Islam at home and abroad. The bloody chapters of this revolution continue to unfold day after day.” Qutb’s brother, Mohammad, who fled Egypt, later taught at a Saudi university where one of his students was Osama bin Laden.
The second was the inclusion of a downloadable PDF copy of John J. Mearsheimer's and Stephen M. Walt's “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” a report they wrote under the sponsorship of Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. For a discussion and critique of the report read Martin Kramer’s commentary on his website.
It is unfair to presume “guilt by association.” But I would be a tad uncomfortable if I wrote something about the “Jewish lobby” in the United States deemed appropriate for the websites of both the Muslim Brotherhood and David Duke.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
CAIR: Bush Administration Resupply of Israel "Unconscionable"
Parvez Ahmed, the Board Chairman of The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued the following statement on Saturday, 22 July 2006.
Why is it wrong for the United States to resupply Israel when the Syrians and Iranians are resupplying Hezbollah? A reasonable and balanced position for CAIR to have taken would be to call on all sides to stop the resupply of weapons.
Why no mention of the Hezbollah rocket attacks against Israeli towns and cities? Hezbollah is actually aiming at, and trying to maximize casualties among, the Israeli civilian poulation. The Israelis are trying to minimize civilian casualties. And if anyone thinks otherwise, they’re idiots. Let’s get real: if the IDF wanted to maximize civilian casualties in Lebanon and Gaza, there would be one hell of a lot more dead Lebanese civilians.
CAIR also assumes that American support for Israel is caused by the political iinfluence of a minority of Americans determined to support the Jewish state: “the self-serving dictates of the pro-Israel lobby.” This is inaccurate. For example, recent polls demonstrate that a majority of Americans support Israel and brand Hezbollah as the culprit in the current crisis. Since 11 September 2001 American support for Israel has grown stronger, and the public image Americans have of Muslims has grown steadily worse. In a February 2006 Gallup poll, only 15 percent of those polled said their sympathies were primarily with the Palestinians; 59 percent responded that their sympathies lay with the Israelis. Only 11 percent said they had a favorable opinion of the Palestinian authority after Hamas’s victory.
CAIR has a problem. Its leadership should begin by realizing that American support for Israel is growing stronger, but not as a result of the machinations of some sinister group of Jews and Neocons. The force driving American public opinion toward even greater sympathy for Israel is, in fact, the behavior of its Arab neighbors, as well as the continuing barrage of global Jihadist attacks against targets considered, by Americans at least, as civilian in nature (the Mumbai [Bombay] bombings in India being only the most recent).
It is unconscionable that our government would rush eapons to a state engaged in vicious and indiscriminate attacks on the civilians and civilian infrastructure of a friendly nation. Thousands of our nation's citizens also remain in Lebanon facing death or injury from these American taxpayer-supplied weapons.There are several problems with the statement. First, much of it is inaccurate. Second, it is reflective of self-delusion.
The baffling decision to assist in the destruction of a nation that has been held up as a model of democratic reform can only serve to harm our long-term interests in the region. Aiding attacks on civilian targets in Lebanon also calls into question our nation's commitment to fighting terrorism in all its forms.
America must disengage its Middle East policy from the self-serving dictates of the pro-Israel lobby. Failure to do so will allow Israel to once again drag our nation into its self-perpetuating cycle of hatred and conflict.
Why is it wrong for the United States to resupply Israel when the Syrians and Iranians are resupplying Hezbollah? A reasonable and balanced position for CAIR to have taken would be to call on all sides to stop the resupply of weapons.
Why no mention of the Hezbollah rocket attacks against Israeli towns and cities? Hezbollah is actually aiming at, and trying to maximize casualties among, the Israeli civilian poulation. The Israelis are trying to minimize civilian casualties. And if anyone thinks otherwise, they’re idiots. Let’s get real: if the IDF wanted to maximize civilian casualties in Lebanon and Gaza, there would be one hell of a lot more dead Lebanese civilians.
CAIR also assumes that American support for Israel is caused by the political iinfluence of a minority of Americans determined to support the Jewish state: “the self-serving dictates of the pro-Israel lobby.” This is inaccurate. For example, recent polls demonstrate that a majority of Americans support Israel and brand Hezbollah as the culprit in the current crisis. Since 11 September 2001 American support for Israel has grown stronger, and the public image Americans have of Muslims has grown steadily worse. In a February 2006 Gallup poll, only 15 percent of those polled said their sympathies were primarily with the Palestinians; 59 percent responded that their sympathies lay with the Israelis. Only 11 percent said they had a favorable opinion of the Palestinian authority after Hamas’s victory.
CAIR has a problem. Its leadership should begin by realizing that American support for Israel is growing stronger, but not as a result of the machinations of some sinister group of Jews and Neocons. The force driving American public opinion toward even greater sympathy for Israel is, in fact, the behavior of its Arab neighbors, as well as the continuing barrage of global Jihadist attacks against targets considered, by Americans at least, as civilian in nature (the Mumbai [Bombay] bombings in India being only the most recent).
Monday, July 24, 2006
Egeland’s Comments, Juan Cole Style
Read my immediately preceding post and then visit Professor Juan Cole’s “web blog “Informed Comment.” This is how he comments on the same story (as of 11:24 pm Eastern).
Jan Egeland, the United Nations undersecretary general for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, said Sunday after touring South Beirut that most of the victims of Israel's attacks on Lebanon have been civilians, and that children are dying.
Cole’s link for the story takes you to Lebanon’s The Daily Star, which of the several reports that I have seen is the only one to conveniently
exclude Egeland’s comments about Hezbollah’s “cowardly blending.” As a result, Cole’s sourcing and commentary suggests that the U.N. Undersecretary made only anti-Israeli comments, which is not true.
Keep in mind that my source, al-Jazeera, is hardly some kind of neo-con outfit. (I could have used the Fox News story but I prefer to check two sources.)
Bias? Maybe haste?
UN Official Blames Hezbollah for Civilian Carnage
Al-Jazeera reports that Norwegian Jan Egeland, the United Nations’ Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, after assessing the situation in Lebanon, accused Hezbollah of contributing to the deaths of hundreds of Lebanese civilians. "Consistently, from the Hezbollah heartland, my message was that Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending . . . among women and children," Egeland told reporters. "I heard they were proud because they lost very few fighters and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this. I don't think anyone should be proud of having many more children and women dead than armed men." Egeland also termed Israel’s response “disproportionate” and called for an immediate ceasefire.
This image from IDF-Israel catches the Under-Secretary’s comments well.
This image from IDF-Israel catches the Under-Secretary’s comments well.
The Lebanese Government and the Hezbollah Kidnappings
The website of the “Islamic Resistance in Lebanon, Hezbollah, has posted a complete transcript of Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah on its website, http://www.moqawama.net/. (You can find a slightly different transcript at MEMRI.) If Nasrallah is being truthful, he informed the Lebanese government in general terms about his intention to kidnap [the MEMRI translation is “abduct”] Israeli soldiers.
[Nasrallah] . . . I told them on more than one occasion that we are serious about the prisoners issue and that this can only solved through the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. Of course, I used to make hints in that respect. Of course I would not be expected to tell them on the table I was going to kidnap Israeli soldiers in July. That could not be.[Bin-Jiddu; the al-Jazeera correspondent] You told them that you would kidnap Israeli soldiers?[Nasrallah] I used to tell them that the prisoners issue, which we must solve, can only be solved through the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers.[Bin-Jiddu] Clearly?[Nasrallah] Clearly. Nobody told me: no, you are not allowed to kidnap Israeli soldiers. I was not waiting for such a thing. Even if they told me no you are not allowed [nothing would change]. I am not being defensive. I said that we would kidnap Israeli soldiers in meetings with some of the key political leaders in the country. I do not want to mention names. When the time comes for accountability I will mention names. They asked whether this would resolve the prisoners issue if this happens. My answer was that it was logical for such an act to solve the prisoners issue. I assure you that our assessment was not wrong. I am not being stubborn. In the entire world, tell me about any state, any army, or any war that was waged because some people kidnapped two soldiers, or even took hostages, not military soldiers. Tell me about a war that was waged against a state because of two soldiers. This has never happened in history.
I’d make four points. First, Nasrallah is obviously unfamiliar with the War of Jenkin’s Ear. Second, Nasrallah fails to mention that after the kidnapping of a single Israeli soldier in Gaza only a week or so before, the Israelis had struck at, and rolled into part of Gaza. Why would he think that they would not do the same in the north? Third, the idea, held by many, that the Lebanese government had no foreknowledge of Hezbollah’s plans may be erroneous. Either that, or Nasrallah is lying. Fourth, the Lebanese government and Hezbollah did not expect the Israelis to react to the kidnapping as they did.
The crisis may yet play out in such a fashion that the Israeli decision to strike at Hezbollah proves to be counterproductive. Unfortunately, while Nasrallah may yet reap the benefits of that decision, poor Lebanon is paying the price for the miscalculation.
India Warns of Terror Attack against US
India, itself a victim of jihadist terror a few weeks ago, has warned American officials of a planned attack by terrorists linked to Iran against the U.S. embassy in New Delhi. The Times of India reports: “the attack is likely to be carried out by a group of 20 terrorists, some of whom have been part of terror attacks in other parts of the world. This group is headed by a terrorist named Jawad Shah Shanas.”
Recall Rice; Send Walker
This morning, as I pondered the options open to the Israelis in their fight with Hezbollah, I flashed back to the advice the noted foreign affairs specialist and novelist Alice Walker offered in The Village Voice back in October 2001. (Remarkably, the link still works after almost five years.) Her advice for the United States:
In a war on Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden will either be left alive, while thousands of impoverished, frightened people are bombed into oblivion around him, or he will be killed in a bombing attack for which he seems quite prepared. But what would happen to his cool armor if he could be reminded of all the good, nonviolent things he has done? Further, what would happen to him if he could be brought to understand the preciousness of the lives he has destroyed? I firmly believe the only punishment that works is love.
Could that be the strategy that the Israelis should pursue with Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader? Perhaps if the Israelis reminded him of all the good things that Hezbollah has done in Lebanon; what if the Israelis took to the streets carrying banners proclaiming their love for Hezbollah and Nasrallah, maybe then the captured Israelis would be released, the rockets would stop hitting Israelis towns and cities, the crisis would come to an end, and Hezbollah would disarm itself.
Bush should recall Condoleeza Rice and appoint Alice Walker as the United States’ special envoy to the Middle East. Love is the answer.
Israelis Prepare for Possible Stay in South Lebanon
According to a report in The Jerusalem Post: “OC Northern Command Maj.-Gen. Udi Adam acknowledged in a briefing at Northern Command headquarters in Safed on Sunday afternoon that the commander of the IDF's civil administration unit had already begun preparations toward the possibility of instituting a military administration in areas captured by the IDF over the last week.” General Adam also denied earlier reports that Israel was establishing a prison for Hezbollah detainees captured in the fighting.
Battle for Bint Jbail
According to press reports (here and here), Bint Jbail, a town and road junction in southeastern Lebanon, is the site of what appears to be a pitched battle between the Israeli Defense Force and Hezbollah militiamen. The engagement is important for two reasons.
Bint Jbail isn’t just another Lebanese town. It’s the unofficial capital of Hezbollah in the south, one of the sites where Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah celebrated the withdrawal of the Israelis in 2000. Hezbollah leaders may have felt compelled to defend the place against the Israelis. For the same reasons, along with its proximity to the Israeli border, the IDF probably was probably eager to have a go at the place. The fact that the fighting, according to the reports, is heavy, from the Israeli point of view, is probably a good thing. I suspect that the IDF would much prefer to engage Hezbollah as close to the border as possible, rather than to have to drive deeply into Lebanon in a pursuit that might turn out to be a repeat of the 1982 invasion.
Sunday, July 23, 2006
“Uninformed Comment”
Juan Cole makes a big deal on his “Informed Comment” blog today (7/23) of a story by Matthew Kalman in the San Francisco Chronicle. Kalman reports that since the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000, the IDF has been planning for possible action against Hezbollah.
More than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to U.S. and other diplomats, journalists and think tanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail. Under the ground rules of the briefings, the officer could not be identified.
I have absolutely no doubt that Kalman has it right, but Professor Cole turns the entire story into some sort of vast Zionist conspiracy. He “comment” is clearly “uniformed” concerning the nature of military planning.
For example, I worked for the Department of Defense for eight years and one day I was rummaging through old war plans when I ran across a copy of an American plan from the 1920s for an invasion of the island of Jamaica, then part of the British Empire. It was one of a number of contingency plans for possible operations against Great Britain, just as there were contingency plans for operations against Japan. But the existence of that plan did not mean that the Coolidge administration was planning to seize Jamaica.
Given the history of the Israeli experience with instability in southern Lebanon, the nature of Hezbollah, its ties to Syria and Iran, its past behavior, and its stated aims, the IDF would be derelict if it did not have plans for actions in southern Lebanon. Those plans would require the gathering of intelligence information regarding targets, just as the United States identified potential targets in the Soviet Union. The fact that we did so (while they were doing the same) did not mean that we intended to attack them, or vice versa. Nevertheless, Cole writes:
That this war was pre-planned was obvious to me from the moment it began. The Israeli military proceeded methodically and systematically to destroy Lebanon's infrastructure, and clearly had been casing targets for some time. The vast majority of these targets were unrelated to Hezbollah. But since the northern Sunni port of Tripoli could theoretically be used by Syria or Iran to offload replacement rockets that could be transported by truck down south to Hezbollah, the Israelis hit it. And then they hit some trucks to let truck drivers know to stay home for a while.
Preplanned? Of course. But that does not mean that the timing was determined by Israel. As for the blockade of ports and strikes at truck convoys on highways, we know that the Iranians are flying supplies into Syria and then trucking them south. We do not know what supplies may have been at sea when the crisis began. Perhaps the Israelis did. And if, as Cole states, the U.S. knew what the Israelis were planning, why didn’t we supply them before they struck, rather than rushing them resupplies now?
Coles also writes critically of SECDEF Donald Rumsfeld: “Iran also supports Syria, and Rumsfeld believes that Syria is helping destabilize Iraq, and is also a patron for Hezbollah.” Duh! Does Cole think that Syria has been helping to stabilize Iraq and is not a patron of Hezbollah? Thank God that’s what Rumsfeld thinks, because if he didn’t, he’d be an idiot.
But Cole goes on:
Because of their fetish for states, the Neoconservatives of the Bush administration are unable to see that the Levant and points east are now the province of militia-parties that dominate localities and wield asymmetrical paramilitary force in such a way as to stymie states, whether local host states, local adversaries, or imperial Powers.
I would argue that the Bush administration does see the reality of the threat posed by non-state actors. That is why it is working to shore up failed and failing states in the region. Lebanon is one of those states.
But the most amazing Cole comment is this: “Israelis tend to launch their wars of choice in the summer, in part because they know that European and American universities will be the primary nodes of popular opposition, and the universities are out in the summer.” I find this truly incredible. Does Cole really believe that when the Israelis choose times for their periodic invasions of their peaceful Arab neighbors, the IDF’s primary concern isn’t the most recent anti-Israeli actions of their neighbors, the current state of the Islamic world, the likelihood of international diplomatic pressure, or the probability of good weather and hard ground for tanks in Lebanon, but rather the academic calendar of western universities? Talk about the self-absorbed and self-important academic.
BTW, do the Israelis actually strike in the summer? Suez ’56 was in October. The Six Day War as technically a spring war, but it was after the end of universities’ spring semesters, so I suppose it was “summer” from an academic point of view. Then there was the Yom Kippur War, also known as the “October War.” The last invasion of Lebanon came early in June, technically spring, but summer for an academic calendar. Nevertheless, I could just as easily argue that the Israelis time their wars to coincide with Oktoberfest, so that Germany is otherwise occupied.
Not everything Juan Cole writes is wrong. Some of it is “informed.” Some of it is debatable, but nonetheless reflects legitimate points of view. But some of what he writes is downright inane.
Ahmadinejad: Zionists Have Triggered Their Own Extinction
Gotta love the guy! According to the official Islamic Republic News Agency, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, you know, one of those foreign leaders who likes to compare Bush to a cowboy, was addressing a meeting of heads of the Iranian education bureaus and informed those assembled that the “Zionists [had] made their worst decision and triggered their extinction by attacking Lebanon….”
He also asserted that the "Zionist regime's attack on Lebanon was a pre-planned scheme to save the regime.” Well, at least he had that right. Imagine the gall of those damned Zionists actually planning to defend themselves instead of sitting about and waiting for President Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khameni, Iran’s “Supreme Leader,” to destroy the “Zionist entity.” "The usurper Zionists thought attack on Lebanon will create a new atmosphere for them in the region,” he told his audience. "They (the Zionists) have committed a big mistake."
About Me
-
- Name:Mike Palmer
- Location:Greenville, North Carolina, United States