I’m glad Helena has already focused our attention on Friday’s WaPo essay by David Ignatius. I think it worthy of further comment, particularly to draw out his points about Israel’s endgame and about the role of international opinion.
Yet like Helena, I question several of his assumptions, beginning with his acceptance of the “received wisdom” in Washington that Iran somehow is responsible for all Hezbollah actions. But more on that in a separate essay.
I do appreciate Ignatius’ laconic observation that “you can’t help but feel that this is the rerun of an old movie — one in which the guerrillas and kidnappers end up as the winners.” Just as in 1982 and beyond, Israeli military assaults into Lebanon and Gaza have little chance of earning Israel any meaningful friends within the targeted territories.
Then, Israel invaded Lebanon to “smash” Palestinian terror; in the process, as Yitzak Rabin later ruefully observered, Israel “let the Shia genie out of the bottle” and in the process catalyzed the creation of Hezbollah. What “unintended consequences” will arise this time?
How does Israel’s targeting of power stations, airports, civilian infrastructure, etc. win any “hearts and minds?” Any chance the tactics will persuade anyone to side with Israel? Do Israeli leaders care? Or is this more about “deterrence” and “collective punishment?”
If I understand them, Israeli diplomats are resorting to the curious argument that all Lebanon is subject to punishment because it has permitted itself to be “occupied by terror,” referring to Hezbollah. That argument might work in the US media, but it no doubt would be absurd to the civilian masses in central Lebanon, presently “terrified” by Israeli jets, bombs, shells, and rockets.
More likely, Israel’s latest round of iron-fist “collective punishment” will steer and harden opinion in favor of those more radically disposed towards Israel. And as several commentators have already suggested, Israel’s intent may be precisely to undermine both the Palestinian and Lebanese governments. With the ensuing political collapse, Israel’s ultra-hardliners can then say, “see, we have no one left to negotiate with….” So we are “forced” for reasons of “security” to reoccupy a “buffer” (at least) in both Gaza and Lebanon. And while we’re at it, let’s move the “security fence” further out and get back to building more “buffer settlements” on the West Bank.
President Bush initially seemed concerned that Israel’s fierce response to the Hezbollah provocation might destabilize Lebanon’s fragile democracy; he has pointedly refused requests for the US to call for a “cease fire.” When his Press Secretary, Tony Snow, was asked what might the President “try to do with Israel, as far as making them hold back a little bit on attacks,” Mr. Snow bluntly replied, “The President is not going to make military decisions for Israel.” Whether intended or not, it makes the Bush Administration appear to have given Israel a “green light,” to be “holding its coat” while Israel gets its pounds of flesh.
Never mind that it is unprecedented for an American President (pre-Bush that is) to appear to take such a hands-off approach to a violent flare up involving Israel. Now how is Bush’s Karen Hughes going to spin this one? Will anybody believe America is being an “honest broker?”
America can’t risk such a cavalier approach. Remember Iraq? Matters are horrific enough there; amid the growing “faith-based” civil war, the worst of the insurgent actions against American forces has been in areas with significant Sunni population. So far that is….
All too predictably, the Israeli actions in Gaza and especially Lebanon are inflaming Iraq’s majority Shia population. Several Friday sermons, including one from powerful firebrand cleric Muqtada al-Sadr made ominous threats, holding the US responsible for Israel’s tactics. If even more influential Iraqi Shia leaders break their silence and come out also condemning Bush’s seemingly unwavering support for Israel, then frankly, the remaining weak bets on Iraq are off the table. And it simply won’t wash (except in the American media) to blame it on Iran.
Even in Lebanon, US coat-holding for Israel may be catalyzing new unforseen alliances, as suggested by several observers quoted in Friday’s San Francisco Chronicle.
By supporting Israel, the administration… is losing its standing with the Lebanese public and the fragile democratic government in Beirut — which has been Bush’s poster boy for Western-style democracy in the Middle East, experts said.
“They believed that they were the center of the Bush administration’s democratization program, and to suddenly have their international civilian airport bombed without much protest from the U.S. is pretty shocking for the Lebanese,” said Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
Clayton Swisher, an expert at the Middle East Institute who was in Lebanon last week, said the disillusionment with the United States there has been brewing for some time.
“Christians in Lebanon are trying to distance themselves from America and forging a Christian-Shia alliance,” Swisher said, referring to Hezbollah, a Shiite militant group. “These things, they flash like wildfire in the region, much faster than the Bush administration can catch up with.”
But never mind how counterproductive Israel’s actions are upon opinion elsewhere, Israel is concerned about American opinion. As such, Israel’s chief propagandists, residing in controlled beltway thinking tanks, have been dominating the American TV media for the past two days. (I’ll add a footnote on just how omnipresent certain figures have been, once I have today’s transcripts to compile.)
Yet America and Israel are not the world. A “decent respect for the opinions of mankind” does still matter. Here, David Ignatius’ point about global opinion, in the form more broadly understood as “international legitimacy” is on target.
“… in countering aggression, international solidarity and legitimacy matter. In responding to the Lebanon crisis, the United States should work closely with its allies at the Group of Eight summit and the United Nations. Iran and its proxies would like nothing more than to isolate America and Israel. They would like nothing less than a strong, international coalition of opposition.”
Yet whatever Iran’s wishes here, President Bush’s refusal thus far to take seriously international revulsion as Israel’s extraordinarily disproportionate actions will do little to improve America’s or Israel’s “international legitimacy.” To be sure, Israel’s “Amen chorus” in the US will counsel America to dismiss the opinions emanating from United Nations Security Council and the General Assembly — to condemn, veto, or ignore them — at least if the subject of international concern is Israel.
But if it continues to do so, the US is in danger of becoming the only country of significance left defending Israel’s ongoing collective punishment strategies towards Gaza and Lebanon. I can hear many of my friends saying in frustration, “well so what? Who needs the rest of the world?”
We do. To fight a “global battle” against the scourge of terror, we inescapably must work harder to build effective global coalitions, with all nations, not just one of them.
In any case, the timing of this crisis could not be more inconvenient for the American President. Now that he’s isolated in his hands-off defense of Israel, how exactly then is the President to convince the G-8 to line up behind him in seeking punitive measures towards Iran over its nuclear program?
Below, I append a list of key quotes as I have them from assorted world leaders and their views on Israeli actions.
Quotes from around the world:
French President Jacques Chirac (speaking on French National TV, for Bastille Day):
“One may well ask if there isn’t today a kind of wish to destroy Lebanon — its infrastructure, its roads, its communications, its energy, its airport. And for what?… I find honestly — as all Europeans do — that the current reactions are totally disproportionate.”
Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero:
In my view, Israel is making a mistake… It will only lead to an escalation of the violence.”
Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi:
recognized Israel’s legitimate concerns and condemned the kidnapping of the soldiers. But “we deplore the escalation in the use of force, the serious damage to Lebanese infrastructure and the civilian casualties of the raids.”
The Vatican secretary of state, Angelo Sodano,:
“The Holy See deplores the attack on Lebanon, a free and sovereign country,” adding that he felt for the people “who had already suffered in defence of their independence.”
Germany’s Deputy Government spokesman, Jens Ploetner:
“On the one hand, Israel has the internationally recognized right to self defense. But at the same time we ask our Israeli friends and partners not to lose sight of the long-term consequences when they exercise this right. Here we think care should be taken about the situation in Lebanon, which is a fragile entity as a state and could be further destabilized.”
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki:
“The international community and the UN must intervene to stop this crime.”
Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono:
“Indonesia repeats its call for Israel to stop its military action.”
British Prime Minister Tony Blair:
“I totally understand the desire and the need for Israel to defend itself properly and I also understand the plight of Lebanon and the Lebanese government, not to say the many Palestinians that are suffering as well”
Russian President Vladimir Putin:
“I consider that all sides implicated in this conflict should immediately stop military action.”
Norwegian foreign ministry spokeswoman Anne Lene Dale Sandsten
“We feel the Israeli attacks on Lebanon are completely unacceptable.”
Even if the President is back to “not giving a hoot about international opinion” (because he does what he thinks is right, regardless of opinion polls), I think the President and his political advisors might especially sit up and take notice of the following AP report about dissent building even at home, beginning with a sudden warning from a prominent and conservative US senator:
A leading Senate Republican on Friday urged U.S. restraint from supporting Israel’s military campaign against Hezbollah, citing the problems it may cause in the war in Iraq and efforts to disarm Iran.
Sen. John W. Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, issued a written statement Friday calling on the Bush administration to “think through very carefully how Israel’s extraordinary reaction could affect our operations in Iraq and our joint diplomatic efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue.
“This is a very critical time for the U.S. in the Middle East, and the Israeli actions will certainly have an impact beyond Lebanon and Gaza,” Warner warned.
Well written Senator Warner. Are any of your colleagues listening?
——————
Relevant Footnote: Saturday’s Washington Post carries a surreal cover story by Scott Wilson suggesting that Israeli Prime Minister Olmert’s strategy is different from that of Ariel Sharon precisely because of its concern for maintaining the support of “international opinion.” The evidence? Well, it seems Olmert has taken a page from the Rumsfeld/Meyers “shock and awe” strategy to rely on air power rather than costly ground operations that in the past have turned world opinion against Israel.
Wilson blandly quotes one Israeli official who claims that, “The way he [Olmert] is making decisions gives a lot of weight to international approval.”
Wilson might want to get on the internet and do a reality check. One wonders how he and his Israeli sources define international approval? Maybe they mean only in terms of Bush and the US Congress?
You forgot Hugo Chavez’s chestnut, where he accuses the U.S. of assisting Israel in a “Holocaust.”
Of course, given that Israel just signed a free trade agreement with Mercosur, you may forgive me if I don’t really give a rats ass about what Chavez or these other world leaders say.
Because 30 or so years ago, Israel had this cute image as the plucky little state that people fawned over. It was quite cute. Yet Israel was subject to actual boycotts and sanctions, and failed to have normalized relations not only with Arab and Muslim states, but almost the entire non-aligned movement, not to mention several power or superpower states like China and Spain.
Now Israel has relations with just about everyone. The Arab boycott doesn’t even work at a primary level, let along secondary or tertiary levels.
So while issuing pronouncements critical of Israel may be good as a form of appeasement, it really doesn’t have much of an effect. The country is better off economically and politically then it was when people thought of it as the plucky underdog.
Ultimately, Israel will be more concerned with defending itself then receiving a certificate of good behavior from Jacques Chirac or anyone else. The only reason such statements are really objectionable is not because they hurt Israel, but because they encourage Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran to continue their rejectionism.
As this past week’s events have starkly shown. It is not Israel that needs to be stood up to.
Israel was conceived and born in terrorism, the ethnic cleansing of settler colonials. All this talk of rockets on Haifa, where as early as 1947 the Israelis were involved in the most vicious ethnic cleansing, even forcing Palestinains to drown in the sea. Cf. Israeli historian Benny Morris’s research on this; like any good Israeli, he however wishes all the Palestinians had been raped, murdered or robbed.
Israel was conceived and born in terrorism, the ethnic cleansing of settler colonials. All this talk of rockets on Haifa, where as early as 1947 the Israelis were involved in the most vicious ethnic cleansing, even forcing Palestinains to drown in the sea. Cf. Israeli historian Benny Morris’s research on this; like any good Israeli, he however wishes all the Palestinians had been raped, murdered or robbed.
Scott,
“let the Shia genie out of the bottle” and in the process catalyzed the creation of Hezbollah. What “unintended consequences” will arise this time?
Same as US doing in Iraq now, “keep in mind “Shia” there in Lebanon represented by Hezbollah leaders most of them Iranians, exactly like Al Sistany in Iraq and other group and miliia like Bader!!!!
Israel and the U.S. behaving as war criminals have achieved what might have been thought impossible: they’ve made that demagogue Ahmadinejad sound rational, at least in some of his comments.
So while issuing pronouncements critical of Israel may be good as a form of appeasement, it really doesn’t have much of an effect.
Of course it doesn’t. After all, the Lords and Masters in Washington are chearleading whatever Israel does, so Israel can do whatever it wants, and what it wants is to Kill and Destroy. So it sents its Machine of Death and Destruction (also known as IDF) to do just that, to kill, to destroy, and to maim, while the ministers in Jerusalem accompany this bloody business with their usual boasting about how superior Israel is, and how Israel will teach the Beasts Beyond the Borders a lesson they’ll never forget.
For you all this may be a source of pride.
For others it’s just misery.
The modern state of Israel is the worst thing that’s happened to the Jewish people since the Holocaust.
Menno, it does not have so much to do with the lords and masters in Washington as it does that, notwithstanding the various quotations Scott pasted together, most of the world has in fact accepted Israel both diplomatically and economically. The U.S.’s support has probably helped that stick, which is one of the better accomplishments of American foreign policy that, not surprisingly, enjoys strong bipartisan support.
Here is a good column from Ahmad Qisa’i regarding Indonesia’s policy toward Israel.
http://www.agoravox.com/article.php3?id_article=4954
Diplomatically, Indonesia refuses to recognize Israel and issues the perfunctory criticisms of it in situations such as this. Most recently it barred its Fed Cup team (women’s national team) from playing a scheduled tie in Israel. This accomplishes nothing and just hurts the Indonesian tennis players who have worked so hard to get their team to a very competitive level for an Asian country (as a result of the refusal to show, they will forfeit the match, which was a playoff for the “World Group” and be demoted to less competitive regional play next year).
Yet he also notes that trade between Indonesia and Israel amounted to $140 million in 2004 and $160 million in 2006. Moreover, the two country’s business associations have reached a memorandum of agreement which will expand technical and business cooperation, a clear benefit for Indonesia.
Qisa’i aptly concludes: “Showing sympathy and solidarity to the Palestinian people does not mean that we have to sacrifice our national interests. Kadin has given this example. Being able to play more active role in international forums to pressurize Israel to solve the conflict in the region peacefully is more important for Indonesia than boycotting a tennis tournament.
If India, another staunch supporter of the Palestinian cause, can work hand in hand and even opened up a diplomatic tie with the Jewish state without lessening its support to Palestine and the Palestinian people, why Indonesia can’t do the same? Kadin’s decision to go ahead with its business cooperation with MAI is, in my opinion, a big step forward to improve the economic condition and investment opportunities in Indonesia. Let’s play the game of tennis.”
The empty pronouncements and one sided condemnations of Israel do very little to help the Palestinians. All they provide is a hollow form of rhetorical support and hinder any meaningful resolution of the conflict.
I don’t know about “international opinion” but two lead stories on the front page of today’s New York Times would appear to herald a dramatic change in “Sunni opinion”. The first three paragraphs of the stories give you the picture:
Militia Rebuked by Some Arab Countries
With the battle between Israel and the Lebanese militia Hezbollah raging, key Arab governments have taken the rare step of blaming Hezbollah, underscoring in part their growing fear of influence by the group’s main sponsor, Iran.
Saudi Arabia, with Jordan, Egypt and several Persian Gulf states, chastised Hezbollah for “unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible acts” at an emergency Arab League summit meeting in Cairo on Saturday.
The Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, said of Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel, “These acts will pull the whole region back to years ago, and we cannot simply accept them.” Prince Faisal spoke at the closed-door meeting but his words were reported to journalists by other delegates.
(by Hassan M. Fattah)
In an About-Face, Sunnis Want U.S. to Remain in Iraq
As sectarian violence soars, many Sunni Arab political and religious leaders once staunchly opposed to the American presence here are now saying they need American troops to protect them from the rampages of Shiite militias and Shiite-run government forces.
The pleas from the Sunni Arab leaders have been growing in intensity since an eruption of sectarian bloodletting in February, but they have reached a new pitch in recent days as Shiite militiamen have brazenly shot dead groups of Sunni civilians in broad daylight in Baghdad and other mixed areas of central Iraq.
The Sunnis also view the Americans as a “bulwark against Iranian actions here,” a senior American diplomat said. Sunni politicians have made their viewpoints known to the Americans through informal discussions in recent weeks.
(by Edward Wong and Dexter Filkins)