Lebanon latest
Renowned Middle East expert Juan Cole provides a comprehensive summary of events so far at Salon. Also, his blog, Informed Comment, gives you daily analysis on events as they happen, describing the misery Israel is inflicting on innocent Lebanese (and Gazans still), as well as reproducing any correspondence he receives from people in the area. Particularly interesting are these "siege notes" written by a woman living in Beirut.
Paul Woodward's daily selection of news and comment from the world's media at War In Context also rewards regular visits, not least because he punctuates it with his own occasional insights, like this one:
"As each day passes, the Bush administration's role in this frenzy of destruction gets closer to that of Ariel Sharon as he stood by during the Sabra and Shatila massacre. This time around, the Israelis are doing their own dirty work, but American complicity is no less now than was Sharon's, twenty-four years ago".
Similarly, Lebanese academic Gilbert Achcar makes the point that Israel has in effect taken the entire nation of Lebanon hostage by severing its links with the outside world, and is now punishing every Lebanese man, woman and child for the actions of one political/paramilitary group.
Israeli academic Ilan Pappe places events in their historic context, whilst his compatriot, the peace activist Uri Avnery, analyses Israel’s strategic aims.
The Guardian reports that whilst Israel devastates Lebanon, the US and the UK are in the background working against international efforts to bring about a ceasefire. Washington’s UN ambassador John Bolton says “The notion that you just declare a ceasefire and act as if that's going to solve the problem I think is simplistic”. Thus the further application of indiscriminate violence is the preferred solution in Washington and London.
Aid groups like the excellent Christian Aid are working to mitigate the unfolding humanitarian disaster. Please donate something if you can.
Labels: Blair
25 Comments:
The reality here is that Hezbollah was and still is attempting to undermine the Lebanese government in order to dominate it. They attacked Israel as part of that strategy, which was intended to leave Hezbollah in greater control. Hezbollah may well succeed in its plan or Israel might foil the plan. That remains to be seen.
Historically, countries attacked by armies, even if the armies have not been technically the government - although that is not at all clear in the case of Hezbollah, which is not only part of the government but controls a portion of Lebanon - have responded strongly, using force to the extent such is possible.
When Americans were attacked by Mexicans, the US invaded Mexico. When the USSR attempted to place nuclear missiles in Cuba, the US nearly ended the world. When Iraqis killed 4 Americans, the US basically flattened Fallujah and killed more people than Israel has killed in the current war.
When al Qaeda destroyed the WTC and part of the Pentagon, killing thousands of Americans, the US invaded Afghanistan and changed the entire government, killing far more Afghan than al Qaeda killed in the US. The Taleban, bad as they were, were, moreover, less involved with al Qaeda than Hezbollah was involved with the Lebanese government.
So, it seems to me that Israel is behaving the way countries around the world behave and have always behaved, namely, they are taking care of their own.
I don't doubt that the Hezbollah leadership have been making some pretty cynical political calculations throughout. But the idea that a morally pristine Israel is just responding as best it can to the devious and dastardly terrorists - just "taking care of their own" - is pure imagination. Israel has its own agenda, which is no less cynical or immoral. Some of the articles above discuss that strategy. Israel is also, it should be noted, currently egaging in terrorism far worse than Hezbollah ever has or could be guilty of.
And yes, other countries have committed crimes too. Not sure I see what your point is.
Israel's strong reaction was the only one that might just have produced the desired result. Which is that Israel's forces can return home, leaving an independant force along the border, which might be able to stop enemies outside of Israel constantly dropping rockets on Israel,amongst other things.
Every time Israel has withdrawn from an aggressive neighbouring land, without leaving any other strong force in its place, that neighbour has soon housed further aggressors. Look at Gaza.
Israel has only ever made incursions into territories that have been proven bases for sending death and destruction into Israel, whether by rockets or suicide bombers. Imagine if you lived in the Isle of Wight and some mob in Southampton kept dropping rockets on your villages for the last 16 years. You would eventually go over and sort them out if you could.
If the international forces do not succeed in preventing a reappearance of Hezbollah attacks, no doubt Israel will have to go in and try to destroy them again.
If the Arabs put down their arms there will be peace. If Israel puts down its arms there will no no Israel.
And as Joe McCain said, "The Jews aren't going quietly this time." And, sorry Mr. Wearing, that will be true whether you and your kind like it or not.
Martin - thanks for your comments.
Perhaps you could explain what you mean when you say that I want 'the jews to go quietly'?
As for the rest of what you say, I'm reminded of this quote from Moshe Dayan, the famed military commander and later an Israeli government minister:
"[Israel] must see the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no - it must - invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation-and-revenge...And above all - let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space"
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html#1967
Your description of the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict as one of plucky Israel defending itself against implacable aggressors doesn't stand against the facts I'm afraid, though you've at least proved an ability on your part to memorise and regurgitate standard doctrine. That doctrine conveniently ignores the fundamentally colonialist nature of Israel's policy towards the Arabs - and the relentless savagry with which that policy has been pursued. I've written more on that subject here
http://www.democratsdiary.co.uk/2005/08/colonialism-in-21st-century-our-ally.html
and here
http://www.democratsdiary.co.uk/2005/09/colonialism-in-21st-century-our-ally.html
and you can find much more on the subject here
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0521556325/026-5524709-4298023?v=glance&n=266239&s=books&v=glance
here
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0745315305/026-5524709-4298023?v=glance&n=266239&s=books&v=glance
and here
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/184467049X/026-5524709-4298023?v=glance&n=266239&s=books&v=glance
Plainly - despite the hysterical rhetoric - Israel faces no threats to its existence whatsoever; not with 200+ nuclear weapons at its disposal along with one of the most powerful militaries in the world. It does however face very real threats to its security which it has not only the right but the obilgation to deal with. It is abundently clear that these security threats will only increase as long as Israel pursues its policy of colonial expansionism, savage repression, terrorism and mass muder of innocent people.
The nature of a viable peace settlement is well known: two states on the 1967 borders (with minor mutual adjustments). That solution is accepted by all the Arab states plus Iran (Khamenei runs foreign policy there, not Ahmadinejad). It is now signed up to by Hamas as well as Fatah, and Hizbollah has said many times that it will abide by whatever solution the Palestinians decide upon. It is an offer that has been on the table in one form or another for over 20 years, and is extremely generous considering the fact that the Palestinians would be giving up 80% of the land that was their home for several centuries and that has been taken from them by force and in contravention of common morality and the law.
Israel, backed by the US, has consistently rejected that generous offer; instead embracing further colonial expansion backed by the vicious state terrorism that has become its hallmark.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/717/sc42.htm
I can only advise that you take a much closer look at the historical record, and consider the fact that Arabs have no less a right than Israelis to security and self determination.
Some points to ponder: Where has Israel "colonised" except regions from which it has been constantly attacked. And when it has withdrawn from those areas the attacks have always started again.
Secondly: what do you make of Arafat's rejection of the deal worked out with Ehud Barak, in which Arafat and co. were offered something like 90 to 95% of their demands? It is very easy to reject a negotiation by putting in one clause, such as a takeover of Jerusalem, that you know cannot be accepted. So far as what land belongs to whom, that just depends how far you go back in history. That applies to almost any nation.
Thirdly: What do you make of the [recent] historical treatment of the Palestinian arabs by other Arab countries, e.g. the Hashemite Jordanians who wiped out nearly 40,000 Palestinians in their rush to grab the west bank, and by their own "leaders" such as Arafat? Do you think it was acceptable for Arafat to syphon off most of the aid money to his private Swiss bank accounts? [And that aid money mostly came from the west USA, not from the oil rich arab countries.]
What do you make of the Gaza greenhouses affair, where Bill Gates plus 4 Jewish US businessmen donated $14million to donate Gaza a booming commercial asset and which was practically destroyed by the arabs on the day Israel moved out?
I think you should go look up some historical records too.
Oh yes, and you talk about Israel's military might. Why do you think they have that power? In order to take over the middle east? Or maybe you think they would like to invade Africa?
They have such forces because on Day 1 of partition, they were jumped by 6 or 7 surrounding arab states acting in concert against the UN charter. The only reason Israel existed past Day 1, and still exists, was its courage and ability to defend itself.
After the dear old Nazis episode [you know, that minor disagreement that probably didn't happen at all, all those barbed wire camps with gas chambers were actually German chicken farms], Israel knew that the only people they could depend on were themselves. They survive because they are smarter, tougher and more industrious. And because the other greatest democracies on earth support them.
If their enemies were not so eaten up with hatred and envy, they could have learned a lot from, and been helped by, the state of Israel. But that idea makes their rulers tremble into their bank accounts. G-d forbid that the ordinary arab populace get some democracy and prosperity. After all, if that happened, what would the Islamic dictators be able to hold up to the world for sympathy?
Boyask – (I assume the comment at at 10.21 is yours as well)
You ask:
“Where has Israel "colonised" except regions from which it has been constantly attacked. And when it has withdrawn from those areas the attacks have always started again.”
Lets take the 1967 war. The idea that this was a war of self-defence is dubious to say the least. As even former Israeli Prime Minister Menahem Begin once commented: "In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that [President] Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." If even the archetypal Likudnik Begin saw 67 as an aggressive war then it seems pointless to persevere with the fiction that it was fought in self-defence.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html#1967
And note that even if had been acting in self defence, Israel's occupation and colonisation of Gaza and the West Bank was certainly illegal under international law. So it’s a bit rich of you to bring up the UN charter, isn’t it?
As for the so-called war of independence, of course in the years immediately following the holocaust the case for the establishment of a Jewish homeland could not have been stronger. But its straightfoward racism to think that the needs of the Jewish settlers simply rendered the rights of the indigenous population irrelevant. You say:
“[Israel has] such [military] forces because on Day 1 of partition, they were jumped by 6 or 7 surrounding arab states acting in concert against the UN charter. The only reason Israel existed past Day 1, and still exists, was its courage and ability to defend itself. ”
In 1947, the Arab population of Palestine was around 1.2 million and the Jewish population 600,000. 92 percent to 94 percent of the land was owned by Palestinian Arabs and 6 percent to 8 percent owned by Jewish settlers. In spite of this, and the population ratio of 2:1, the U.N. partition plan of that year called for a Jewish state on 56 percent of historic Palestine and a Palestinian Arab state on the remaining 44 percent. A significant amount of Arab-owned land was therefore to be handed over to the new Jewish settler state.
Now who can seriously expect the Palestinians to simply have accepted this without question or argument, packed their bags, given up their possessions and walked away quietly, leaving the land that had been their home for centuries to people who for them were simply colonists from Europe? What people in all of human history has accepted anything of the sort?
Despite the unjust way in which Palestine was divided, one could at least argue that Israel had the right to establish itself on the borders allocated to it by the UN. But it did not. It took 78 per cent, not 56 per cent, of Palestine. Even if Israel had been acting entirely in self defence, it did not have the right to define its borders by force of arms in controvention of the UN charter (a document you apparently see fit to bring up when it suits you but ignore when it does not). Nor did it have the right to ethnically cleanse Palestine of its indigenous inhabitants in what Israeli historian Ilan Pappe described as a process of “expulsion, colonization, [30-40] massacres, rape, and the burning of villages”. “Self defence” does not justify “massacres, rape, and the burning of villages”, as I’m sure you’ll appreciate.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521556325/qid=1124803165/sr=8-
http://www.endtheoccupation.org/article.php?id=13
Nor did Israel have the right, in “self defence”, to condemn the population of the occupied territories to decades of deprivation, what the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem described as a legal system analogous to “aparthied” and unremittingly savage violence against unarmed civilians, including children, by the Israeli security forces. I detailed that barbaric record here
http://www.democratsdiary.co.uk/2005/08/colonialism-in-21st-century-our-ally.html
with plenty of links to source material.
And given that the Israeli state conducted itself in this fasion, its rather fanciful to portray the enemies it made in doing so as nothing more than pathologically hate-filled fanatics.
You say:
“what do you make of Arafat's rejection of the deal worked out with Ehud Barak, in which Arafat and co. were offered something like 90 to 95% of their demands?”
As is now well known, the so-called “generous offer” that Arafat rejected was a Palestinian state broken up into several pieces, without control over its own borders or airspace, and without viable connection to each other or to Jerusalem (the heart of Palestinian society for centuries) with the best land on the West Bank taken by the illegal Israeli settlements. The Palestinians were offered little more than Indian reservations – nothing that could seriously be called a state – and no Palestinian leader could ever have accepted those terms. To see this as a “generous offer” is simply to take the racist view that Israel deserves the status of a proper state, whilst the Arabs deserve no more than open prisons.
However, in January 2001 at Taba, negotiations moved toward a solution which went much further towards seriously addressing the Palestinians legitimate concerns. It could have been the basis for a settlement but we’ll never know because Barak stood up and walked away.
More here
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/717/sc42.htm
You ask:
“What do you make of the [recent] historical treatment of the Palestinian arabs by other Arab countries, e.g. the Hashemite Jordanians who wiped out nearly 40,000 Palestinians in their rush to grab the west bank, and by their own "leaders" such as Arafat? Do you think it was acceptable for Arafat to syphon off most of the aid money to his private Swiss bank accounts? [And that aid money mostly came from the west USA, not from the oil rich arab countries.]”
Arafat, Fatah and the various Arab leaders have been a disgrace throughout. Their venal, corrupt behavious has been utterly wretched. What exactly does this have to do with Israel’s criminal conduct? If someone commits crimes, does that give you carte blanche to behave as you like, committing even worse, more brutal crimes? Plainly not. Its instructive to see how often Israel’s apologists ignore its crimes and resort instead to hiding behind the behaviour of others.
On your other points, yes, its awful about the greenhouses. As for the question of “what would the Islamic dictators be able to hold up to the world for sympathy…[if] the ordinary arab populace get some democracy?”. Presumably if the Arab world became democratic there wouldn’t be any “Islamic dictators”.
Now, in both my responses to you I’ve addressed the points you’ve made substantially, at length, and with links to source material. I note your unwillingness to respond in the same way, ignoring points I made in my first response and raising new issues instead.
In my previous reply I also asked what you meant when you said:
“And as Joe McCain said, "The Jews aren't going quietly this time." And, sorry Mr. Wearing, that will be true whether you and your kind like it or not.”
You’ve not replied to my question. Instead, you’ve now said this:
“After the dear old Nazis episode [you know, that minor disagreement that probably didn't happen at all, all those barbed wire camps with gas chambers were actually German chicken farms],”
Given the sheer scale of the suffering caused by the Nazi holocaust it seems to me that insinuations that someone is a closet Nazi or a holocaust denier should not be made lightly. So your making these insinuations - based entirely on your imagination, without an atom of evidence and for the sole purpose of winning an argument without having to bother with facts or rationality - is simply a cynical attempt to exploit the holocaust’s victims, profoundly disrespectful to their memory, and beneath contempt as far as I’m concerned.
The purpose of the comments section is to discuss the issues raised on this site rationally, with reference to the facts and in good faith. Since you plainly have no intention of contributing in this way, I won’t be responding to any more of your posts.
More links to sources backing up the arguments above can be found in my previous, detailed work, on Israeli colonialism
here
http://www.democratsdiary.co.uk/2005/08/colonialism-in-21st-century-our-ally.html
and here
and here
http://www.democratsdiary.co.uk/2005/09/colonialism-in-21st-century-our-ally.html
Oh David, can't you tell a wind-up when you see one? Still, just for completeness, you should have a look at Joe McCain's article [he is the brother of Senator John McCain, and he wrote it in one of the New York daily's during the Lebanese conflict.]
By the way, my reference to the Nazi holiday camps was not cynical. I have lost count of the family I lost first in Russian pogroms, then in the Belsen Butlins. This comment simply relates back to the aforementioned words by Joe McCain [who, of course, is not Jewish and has no particular axe to grind.]
You see, in the end, it really doesn't matter much what you and I say. Nor does it matter how many people parade along Trafalgar Square with murderous placards, or Brighton sea front with bemused expressions.
It does not matter to Israel if people in their comfortable Hampstead homes rant on about "disproportionate". Those people are not living with the daily threat of extermination.
Nobody today is threatening the Arab world with extinction. (No, not even America!)
Israel however, and the Jews generally, have lost count of the times their very existance has been in danger.
And, yes, if a first strike is necessary, rather than wait for half the country to be wiped out before striking back, Israel will strike first and hard. They "aren't going quietly any more", whether it be to Ellis Island or the gas chambers.
Those who celebrate attacks on, and deaths in, Israel by firing the guns in the air, will now have to search the skies anxiously for signs of retribution. The Tsars and Nazis didn't have to do that [or, at least, not because of their treatment of the Jews]. Today, Iranian madmen and sheiks in hiding have to do just that. They can send their poor misguided youngsters into restaurants in Tel Aviv with bombs, but they also have to know that one day the bombs will be coming back to find them IF they don't seek peace instead of bloodshed.
MB - I'm very sorry to hear that your family lost people to the holocaust.
However, when I criticise the actions of the Israeli government, it is far from reasonable for you to imply - with no evidence whatsoever - that I deny the holocaust, that I want "the Jews to go quietly", or that I otherwise fail to appreciate the horrors of anti-semitism throughout history for what they are.
To pluck these insinuations out of thin air is both cynical and to argue in bad faith.
Also, it seems strange for you to invoke the seriousness of the holocaust one minute, and the next minute to use the subject as part of what you now call a "wind-up".
I can hardly continue our discussion if you're going to proceed in this manner. In any case, aside from this, you've not raised any points in your latest post that I haven't already dealt with.
Here is an interesting one: Quote from the Guardian, no less, Aug. 2004. By Mohammad Dahlan, former Palestinian Authority Interior Minister. All of the funds which foreign countries have donated to the Palestinian Authority, a total of 5 Billion dollars, "have gone down the drain, and we don't know where."
That's an awfully big drain.
Known EU donations to Palestinian causes over the past decade come to over $4 billion, plus $10 billion more from the USA and others. "Proper use of these funds would have improved Palestinian Arab lives beyond recognition."
(Not my words!)
But you see improving the ordinary Palestinians' lives would have removed their resentment and made them less keen to destroy themselves and their surroundings. By keeping them in poverty, regardless of aid poured in, their own leaders have an excuse to continue hostilities.
I did not say you were a holocaust denier. I'm sure you are far too bright for that. What I meant was that the relatively recent events of the holocaust give the Israelis no hope of comparative safety outside of their land. To Jews in the Diaspora, Israel represents the one place in the world where they are sure of a kind of safety, even if eventually the land were to be defeated and them with it.
Anywhere else the ghost of the camps will haunt them.
No, not today, not tomorrow. But the thought is always there "Could some future regime wish to wipe us out again?"
In a way I am saying that the only people the Jews can be sure of relying on is themselves. That is why even Jews who are not all that interested in going to Israel still tend to support her, both financially and spiritually.
We know that the slightest dropping of guard there could be the last thing they ever do. Israel can only ever lose one war. How many have the Arabs lost? And they are still around.
Our conversation reminds me of a comment made by a researcher into the Bermuda Triangle mysteries. His motto was "What is the souce of your information?" In other words, he went back to the souces of various stories and found the facts had been changed to suit the mystery! Accurate unbiased records of such things as weather conditions had been totally altered, then written up as fact. Typical Von Daniken approach.
We have to be very careful when we look back at quotes and sources.
Personally I find that as soon as someone begins to comment on the Middle East and similar situations, one can see clearly where they stand and they will never change their view - this applies to both sides.
I do find it fascinating though when a Palestinian is strong and brave enough to stand up in public and admit he got it all wrong. [there have been several].
Don't get me wrong, I am NOT claiming Israel is perfect, and never does anything wrong etc. They are human.
But I do claim that Israel longs for peace alongside its Arab neighbours, while the militant Arabs would hate for a peace to come about, and will do all in their power to prevent it. That is very sad.
You mention YOU have “already dealt with” certain points in our discussion, as if that automatically validates your viewpoint. That is exactly what everyone else in these debates does. They state their view, opinion or assessment, and then claim that is the end of the topic – no opposing view can possibly have any credence or validity attached to it. If this were so, why bother with a debate?
For example, do YOU believe the Israeli claim that Hezbollah [and Hamas in Gaza] deliberately put their rocket launchers in amongst civilians, including hospitals and children, so that any attacks on the rocket launchers could be claimed to be a war crime against civilians? Or do you believe that is simply a lie put about by Israel? Think carefully before you answer because I have seen official aerial video not on public release. It is interesting that Israel is always criticised for not keeping to certain standards of behaviour, when they are really head and shoulders above all their enemies in terms of humanity, as far as is possible in the circumstances. Israel hides its children behind its soldiers, Hezbollah and Hamas hide their soldiers behind their children.
It is also significant that all the past sources and quotes put up in favour of the Israeli point of view are dismissed as false by opponents, while all the quotes and sources put up by opponents of Israel, to support the claim that the plight of the Palestinians is purely the fault of Israel, are claimed to be unassailable.
A lot of the argument has hung on the claim that Israeli territory all belongs to the Palestinians, because Palestinians once lived there [alongside some Jews, and neither had much interest in who the land belong to at that time - I believe it was the Ottoman Empire.] But you can apply that to most countries, depending on how far back you go. Who does the Falklands really belong to? Should the true Celts in Britain start a Holy War to remove the descendants of William the Conqueror, and any other races that have come in before and since? Should the native South American Indians try to kick out all the Spanish and Portuguese now resident there? What about Australia and New Zealand? And of course the USA.
Some would argue the case that such uprisings would be correct and just. But to deal with such problems in practical terms, unless you want to wipe out half the world population, you have to start from the “here and now”. Say you give Israel back to the Arabs [which, regardless of negotiations towards having two States, is what the extremists really want]. Where do the Israelis go? Florida? Whereas there are lots of Arab countries with loads of room.
Or perhaps some people believe the Israelis should have to follow the Jews of Biblical times and disperse into the rest of the world. Why should the Israelis oblige? The rest of the world did not treat their forebears so wonderfully. [Though, interestingly enough, wherever Jews have settled without harassment, they have usually benefited their host country enormously.]
And if the Israelis have nowhere else to go, they might as well die fighting for their homeland, Israel. And we all know what that would mean. Nobody would be able to go anywhere near the Middle East for the next few hundred years without wearing a radiation suit.
So then, you might say, it would be sufficient if the Israelis would simply go back to their pre 1967 borders and stay there. Sufficient for whom? If that were to happen, do you believe there would be no further cross border Katushas or worse, and no more suicide bombers? The Arab extremists don’t want the Israelis to go back to pre 1967. They just want Israel. That’s why no peaceful negotiations, however concluded, will ever be more than a temporary sham until Israel could be sure that the powers behind their Arab neighbours were more interested in peaceful and productive futures than in eradicating Israel. That will be a very long time – I doubt if either you or I will be here to see it, unfortunately.
As with all such situations, the problem is extremism. In Ulster the ordinary folk would probably get on okay most of the time, and the same with “ordinary” Israeli and Arab townsfolk, farmers etc. Even ultra Orthodox Judaism has never suggested that the rest of the world must convert or else!! In fact they go to some lengths to prevent quick and easy conversion. Nor do they want to rule the remainder of the world, converted or not.
Extreme Islam, on the other hand, seems to have just that in mind. Imagine regressing to a 16th century world run by mullahs! Oil rich Iran, run by mullahs, is so inefficient that it has to import refined oil!! You might say this all has little to do with the Middle East troubles, but I feel it does. Islam, in its political-military manifestation, sees Israel as an intrusion on “its” territory. But unfortunately it sees the rest of us as a similar intrusion. So, take Israel out of the picture, and how long before an all-Islamic fundamentalist Middle East sees Africa and Europe as its rightful inheritance [admittedly after Sunni and Shi’ite stop killing each other over imaginary differences in their beliefs.]
I really can’t conceive of activists from the UK Federation Synagogue driving car bombs up to the headquarters of the UK United Synagogue in London and detonating them. But that kind of mentality does seem to govern the behaviour of the different factions of extreme Islam. Could it be they find this easier than indulging in reasoned debate resulting in acceptable compromise?
"You mention YOU have “already dealt with” certain points in our discussion, as if that automatically validates your viewpoint."
My point, MB, is that having made my position clear on these issues I see no value in repeating myself. For example, in my first reply to you I said "Your description of the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict as one of plucky Israel defending itself against implacable aggressors doesn't stand against the facts". I then recounted factual evidence in support of that argument. We've both stated our positions. It seems extremely unlikely that one of us will persuade the other of their point of view. So we're just going round in circles, which is pointless.
"Our conversation reminds me of a comment made by a researcher into the Bermuda Triangle mysteries. His motto was "What is the souce of your information?" In other words, he went back to the souces of various stories and found the facts had been changed to suit the mystery! Accurate unbiased records of such things as weather conditions had been totally altered, then written up as fact. Typical Von Daniken approach.
We have to be very careful when we look back at quotes and sources."
And yet you seem quite happy to use quotes (McCain, Dahlan) and cite the occasional souce (the guardian) when it suits you (though most of what you've said has just been bald assertion).
Now if you want to have a debate where you can cite sources and make quotes, but any quotes and facts cited by the other person are treated as suspicious, then fine, but you'll have to have that debate with someone else.
As I say, I've made my position on these issues clear. And I'm quite happy with the validity and cedibility of the sources I've cited. If you don't like them, then that's for you.
Okay, so let's say all quotes, by there very nature, are subject to verification. I agree I don't have the time or resources to check out what amount to being second-hand quotes, either for or against. I have never been present when somebody important to these events has actually been speaking!
But I would be interested to know what prompts you to the standpoint to put forward?
My standpoint is obvious - I am a middle aged Jew of central European descent, though neither particularly religious nor Zionistic. I naturally see Israel's stance as self defensive, even if on occasion attack is the best means of defence. That defence is, to some extent, not only defence of Israel's statehood and population, but of Jewry around the world.
So, as I say above, much of the reason for my position is my heritage, plus my own assessment of news in print and film such as came in during the Lebanon battles.
May I ask what is your reason for seeing Israel in such a negative light and the various Jihad-type forces ranged against her in such a benevolent light? Your "about me" section is not very comprehensive. Are you, for example, connected with or descended from any of the states/peoples/religions that oppose Israel?
May I also ask, as you are obviously studying these things, how you would envisage the general Middle East situation if your own preferences were to be made reality?
How would you like to see the Middle East situation, from its current position, be resolved? For example, how would you envisage the geographical boundaries ending up, and the political make-up of the ruling powers in the area?
Would you, for example, anticipate genuine, multi-party democracies becoming established in Iran and Syria, as there is in Israel?
Your entire website is devoted to "democracy". Do you see Assad stepping down in the face of a popular vote for the local Green Party? Or even, as a small nod to democracy, do you see Iran stopping the execution of Christian bishops and allowing the Bible to be printed there?
What forces for change to real democracy do you see at work in these countries, and able to succeed there?
Sorry to be a bore and keep coming back, but one small note of yours I missed above, just caught my eye.
You mention my attitude as being "plucky little Israel defending itself against implacable stronger foes" (and you state that this is actually a false assumption to make).
Okay, leave aside for the moment the current situation of Israel's armaments nowadays,largely obtained with Western help and Israel's own advanced technology and expertise and training and commitment, and the fact that just about everyone from about 18 to 40 is effectively in the armed forces because they have to be.
How then do you personally view the nature of the conflict (in respect of strength of arms and numbers etc.) that broke out immediately after partition in 1948? (I believe the official count was 7 Arab countries combining against Israel.)
Do you feel about the attitude which I would adopt, namely that Israel was a tiny new state with rag-bag arms fighting against a numerically vastly superior force hell-bent on wiping her out - would you say that my assessment of that situation is factually incorrect?
"May I ask what is your reason for seeing Israel in such a negative light and the various Jihad-type forces ranged against her in such a benevolent light?"
I see the policies of successive Israeli governments in a negative light, not the absolute entirity of Israel, its people, its culture etc etc. I do not see "Jihad-type forces" in "a benevolent light" nor have I given the slightest indication that I might do.
My views are based on my rational assesment of the factual record.
"Are you, for example, connected with or descended from any of the states/peoples/religions that oppose Israel?"
No
On borders - I've answered this point already.
On democracy - as should be obvious, I would like to see each country in the world develop its own democracy.
There are many obstacles to democracy in the Middle East. One of them (there are others) is the west's backing for tyranny in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the gulf emirates. As for Syria and Iran, one of the obstacles to democracy (there are others) is the fact that the governing elites in those countries can use western aggression towards them as an excuse to increase their authoritarianism and repress the reformers.
If the west and Israel wanted democracy in the Middle East there's plenty our governments could do. But what they really want is friendly regimes - and if those friendly regimes are vicious tyrannies then so be it. So its a bit rich for apologists for Tel Aviv to carp about democracy since Israel's done so much good business over the years with the likes of Mubarak, Sadat, the Jordanian monarchy, the Shah and apartheid South Africa.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1704037,00.html
On "plucky Israel" - I've stated my position on this and I'm loathe to (a) repeat myself and (b) repeat saying that I'm loathe to repeat myself.
But regardless of what one particular government gets up to, surely it is better for a population to be able to remove that government, which is the case in Israel but not the case in practically any other Middle East country. The trouble seems to be more [as in UK] that the only incoming government one is able to vote for is generally no better than the outgoing one.
So far as who a particular nation/government trades with, I think one has to live in the real world. I can't think of any especially squeaky clean nations to trade with, including the UK ! But, again in the real world, you can't have perfection, so I guess human nature dictates that you trade with whoever is best for your own country ni the current times.
So far as the obstacles to democracy in the Middle East countries mentioned, you claim Western interference helps prevents democratic development. I would have thought a bigger obstacle is the predilection for Arab rulers to eliminate opposition to their rule by killing opponents.
Still, I guess we will never agree on this [there wouldn't be aq debate if we did!]. I've passed on the site address to a few friends, hope you don't mind, no doubt they will add their comments in due course.
Here is something that will make your day, if you are not already aware of it. Have a read.
http://www.themiddleeastnow.com/ifamericansknew.html
I've given them your site address.
Just had a look at the site you link to. Here's a sample of its attempted debunking of IfAmericansKnew:
"What Weir doesn't mention on the site is the only times a Palestinian house would be demolished is when the house belongs to a terrorist or a family member of a terrorist or if the house was used to promote terrorism. Israel NEVER randomly bulldozes houses just for fun as this site implies. The ONLY purpose of this policy is to create a deterrent for would be suicide bombers and terrorists."
No sources cited. No evidence. Just pure assertion. Is this the best you can come up with? Martin - with all due respect - this is just time-wasting.
Human Rights Watch did a comprehensive study of Israeli demolitions in 2004. They used rigorous, painstaking investigation to collect evidence and establish a factual record.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/rafah1004/
I read its report and quoted extensively from it in an article I wrote last year
http://www.democratsdiary.co.uk/2005/09/colonialism-in-21st-century-our-ally.html
Here's what I said, quoting from the report:
According to HRW, demolitions were justified on the basis of "vague 'security considerations'" but "in most of the cases Human Rights Watch found the destruction was carried out in the absence of military necessity". For example, "the IDF has consistently exaggerated and mischaracterized the threat from smuggling tunnels to justify the demolition of homes... In July 2004, residents discovered and reported ... an incomplete shaft in an empty house. A few days later, the IDF destroyed the house and seventeen other houses nearby, leaving 205 people homeless".
The report focused on one IDF "rampage" in Rafah, during May 2004. After Palestinian fighters destroyed an Armoured Personnel Carrier killing five soldiers, the IDF launched a operation in Rafah that resulted in the demolition of 298 homes. According to the human rights group "the extent and intensity of this destruction …. appears intended as retaliation for the killing of [the] soldiers …, as well as a show of strength".
Initially, "[the] IDF launched a two-day incursion to recover the soldiers' remains....reportedly killing fifteen Palestinians, including one fifteen-year-old. The IDF razed eighty-eight homes .... including houses that ..could not have been used to fire at the APC or the recovery teams". There followed "a major assault called "Operation Rainbow" that [left] thirty-two Palestinian civilians dead, including ten people under age eighteen...The IDF also destroyed 166 houses". During this second operation "the IDF destroyed houses, roads, and large fields extensively.... In areas ...where incursions were not expected, most of the residents were inside their homes as armored Caterpillar D9 bulldozers crashed through the walls. Bulldozers allowed residents to flee but proceeded with the destruction before they could remove their belongings".
The destruction continued. According to the Human Rights Watch report: "the IDF employed armored Caterpillar D9 bulldozers in a manner that was indiscriminate and excessive, resulting in widespread destruction of homes, roads, and agriculture..: Caterpillar D9 bulldozers cleared "tank paths" inside the camp by plowing through blocks of houses as a general precaution against possible attacks with RPGs or roadside bombs, irrespective of the specific threats that international law requires. The IDF also used D9s to destroy homes near suspected smuggling tunnels and in other areas on a preventive basis, not in response to specific threats. Other house demolitions had no discernible reason".
Not content with this, "the IDF used Caterpillar D9s to indiscriminately tear up roads, destroying water and sewage networks, and creating a significant public health risk in an already vulnerable community. In some areas, water shortages forced residents to leave their homes in search of water, putting them at risk of being shot by IDF snipers for breaking curfew. In total, the IDF destroyed fifty-one percent of Rafah's roads...". In addition, "The IDF razed two large tracts of agricultural land, .... bulldozers spent more than two days systematically destroying two large fields of greenhouses".
The trouble [again] is that one is back to "where does one get ones quotes from - and does that source of quotes have its own agenda in favouring one side of the argument."
So far as my "time wasting" is concerned, it seems to me that comments that support you are considered acceptable and valuable, while comments that oppose your views are considered rubbish and time wasting. Hardly a debate, and hardly worth establishing a web site for.
You might just as well put up a large header saying "David Wearing is always going to be right, don't say anything that opposes his views!"
Mind you, Pennsy fans say the same thing, but we forgive them!
What would be interesting to research [if we had 48 hour days] is precisely how many sites push one side of the argument [actually, any argument] as "the truth" and how many push the other. Probably roughly equal numbers. In which case, ones views are moulded by which side one chooses to believe.
The sad fact is that many people will believe anything, if the opposite view of "the truth" offends them. Again, I stress, that applies to both sides.
m.b. - if you contributed views that were rationally formulated and backed up by the factual record then I would welcome them whatever they were. If you cited credible sources that contradicted my views then I would welcome that as well. In fact such contributions would be especially valuable since they might teach me something new about the issues.
However, as my last comment on this thread (3.37) shows, you're not contributing anything of the sort. The quality of the site you linked to earlier was almost comical, as I demonstrated (and I could've picked far worse examples e,g, its comments on the list of UN resolutions, which were so childish they were almost embarrassing).
Now if you believe that the choice between believing that site and an organisation like Human Rights Watch is a purely subjective one - that there's no objective difference in quality between the two; they just present different sides of what you disdainfully call "the truth" - then that's your view, and you're welcome to it.
It seems to me that you'd rather make bald assertions, insinuate that someone's a nazi or a holocaust denier, question the credibility of their sources, change the subject when your arguments are refuted - all with no evidence provided whatsoever - than make the effort to look seriously into the subject and formulate a rational point of view on the basis of the facts.
Instead, the one time in about ten comments made here that you actually cited a source, it was just the first website you could find that buttressed your prejudices - irrespective of the fact that the site is, putting it mildly, rather less than serious. To then throw your hands up after this risible attempt failed and say that all facts are subjective anyway is just making excuses for your lazy approach.
Many comments ago I said: "The purpose of the comments section is to discuss the issues raised on this site rationally, with reference to the facts and in good faith. Since you plainly have no intention of contributing in this way, I won’t be responding to any more of your posts."
I'm disappointed that I allowed myself to be drawn back into the discussion, but at this point I really will have to draw a line under it I'm afraid.
Well that's really tough! The site I mentioned was indicated to me by quite an interesting and important person but that is not relevant here.
In actual fact, the administrator of that site conversed with me and said that your site is quite mild compared with many she has to deal with. The nicest word she used was "crackpot"!, I guess the world is full of them.
I wish you luck with your M.Sc. studies - I hope it leads to a fruitful and fulfilling career. Perhaps in the fullness of time some moderation will heal the problems in the Middle East and elsewhere on this trouble planet, but I fear that, at its present stage of development, mankind is not ready for that.
I was intrigued by your last comment to the effect that you regretted being drawn back into our conversation. This does rather back up what I intimated before, that you really don't want open debate with anyone who opposes your views. This means you just want to pontificate your own slant on matters without any possibility of having to deal with the contrary point of view. Sounds very iffy to me!
Well, I have better things to do now -
'Bye!
Post a Comment
<< Home