Did the bloody nose that Hizbullah was able to deal to Israel’s once-“famed” military in South Lebanon this summer have the effect of driving some long-time American supporters of Israel almost batty?
I wanted to explore this issue in a post here this evening, with special reference to columns that Tom Friedman had in today’s New York Times and Henry Kissinger in the WaPo.
Hard to write as much as I wanted on the topic, though. I have the paper versions of both papers here in front of me, but you can’t access either of these texts on the web. (I think that as subscribers to the NYT, our family is probably entitled to get into the special “premium” part of their website where Tom Friedman lurks. But I’ve never figured how to do it.) As for Henry the K, his stuff is far too “high-value” for the WaPo to even dream of putting it on their website.
I have frequently disagreed with Tom in recent years. But I do think that, generally, he has tried to be a moral and humane individual. That’s why it was so disturbing to read these kinds of things in the column he had today:
- If Hizbullah could just attack Israel– unprovoked– claiming among its goals the liberation of Jerusalem [excuse me??], and using missiles provided by an Iranian regime that says Israel should be wiped off the map, then it was a war about everything. And Israel had to respond resolutely.
So, gauging the right response was intrinsically hard. In the end, Mr. Olmert bombarded Hezbollah’s infrastructure, and tragically but inevitably, the homes of Hezbollah’s Shiite followers, among whom Hezbollah fighters were embedded.
The Israeli response was brutal, but it did send a deterrent message…
Where can you start to unpack such over-hyped and partisan war-mongering?
The Lebanese of all sects whose homes, roads, bridges, power stations, and other vital inastructure were deliberately targeted by Israel would be amazed by Tom’s description of what happened. Back on July 12 itself, the Israeli government publicly announced that it had decided to go to war against the whole country of Lebanon. (And what amazing accuracy Tom claimed– that those Israeli 2,000-lb bombs could actually discriminate between the home of a Shiite Hizbullah follower, and someone who was not!)
Here’s what Gen. Udi Adam, the head of the IDF’s northern command, said on July 12:
- “This affair is between Israel and the state of Lebanon… Where to attack? Once it is inside Lebanon, everything is legitimate — not just southern Lebanon, not just the line of Hezbollah posts.”
Adam, by the way, handed in his resignation today. He was the guy whose performance during the war was so much criticized by chief of staff Dan Halutz that Halutz put another general in to work over him…
Unlike Tom Friedman, the Israeli political and military leaders understood clearly that the conflict was not about Hizbullah fighting “to liberate Jerusalem”, but about the terms on which each side might win the release of people taken captive by the other side. (Yes, it was also about each side reasserting its deterrent power– and both sides succeeded in doing that, Tom, not just one… )
Here’s what Halutz himself said on July 12:
- “If the soldiers are not returned, we will turn Lebanon’s clock back 20 years.”
Well, Tom goes on and on in that alarmist vein. I can’t re-type it all into here. But he does say this:
- The UN/European force evolving in Lebanon may offer a new model. It’s not “land for peace” or “land for war”, but what I’d call “land for NATO.” Israel withdraws and the border is secured by a force that is UN on the outside but NATO on the inside.
He even gives an approving nod to a quote from the Israeli analyst Yaron Ezrahi who says this might be a model for the West Bank and Gaza, too.
I doubt it. NATO???
And moving rapidly along, here, to Kissinger’s lengthy bloviation (“After Lebanon”) in today’s WaPo… Well, here’s an AFP digest of what HK wrote. But again we have the same frenzied tone as from Tom Friedman, and the same hyped-up worries that, with the rise of Hizbullah and Hamas, the very existence of Israel seems to hang in the balance. Get a grip, guys! Israel still has huge military capabilities and a robust population. What’s more, it is quite capable (if it chooses to, which I hope it doesn’t) to continue oppressing the Palestinians for many years into the future.
Let’s review the facts here a little. Which side is occupying land belong to the other side– the Arabs or the Israelis? Which side has thousands of members of the other side’s population in its prisons– the Arabs or the Israelis? Which side is still many times more capable than the other of affecting the lives and wellbeing of members of the other side– the Arabs or the Israelis?
Israel is doing okay. It is nowhere near the point of being about to be “conquered.” Take a d-e-e-p breath.
Kissinger:
- Hezbollah, which took over southern Lebanon [!], and Hamas and various jihadist groups, which marginalized the Palestinian Authority in Gaza[!], disdain the schemes of moderate Arab and Israeli leaders. They reject the very existence of Israel, not any particular set of borders.
One of the consequences is that the traditional peace process is in shambles…
Gimme a break!
Where does this whole narrative to the effect that there was a humming-along peace process prior to the “assaults” by Hamas and Hizbullah, and then they stopped it in its tracks– what planet does that stuff come from?? Not the planet Earth, that’s for sure. Guys! The “peace process” died many, many years ago. haven’t you been on the same planet here smelling its corpse along with the rest of us?
And who was it who marginalized the PA in Gaza, and then the pro-US March 14 movement in Lebanon? It was Israel and the US that accomplished those amazing feats, much more than Hamas and Hizbullah.
Anyway, Kissinger goes on to hype up the Iranian “threat”, stating as a fact that,
- It works on a nuclear weapons program, which would drive nuclear proliferation out of control and provide a safety net for the systematic destruction of at least the regional order. The challenge is now about world order more than about adjustments within an accepted framework.
Dr. Strangelove lives!
… But anyway, I’ve been wondering what it has been about the events of the past few weeks that have driven these two guys toward the brink of insanity. I think it is this. I think that both of them– Freidman and Kissinger– have operated for so long on the basis of the never-spoken assumption of Israel’s ability to dominate the strategic environment of the entire Near East that what Hizbullah was able to do to the IDF in Jebel Amel (south Lebanon) in the past two months has shaken their worldview(s) to their very foundations.
I mean, if you’re a Tom Friedman, and you write a lot about the Middle East and care about it a lot, and are a liberal kind of a pro-Israeli, you can be “liberal” so long as Israel’s domination of the whole Middle East (and the pro-Israeli narrative’s domination of the US public discourse) both remain unchallenged. But when a ragtag bunch of Shiite militiamen in south Lebanon are capable of bloodying the nose of the great, heroic Israeli military– why, then the rubber of the Friedmanesque “liberalism” smashes hard against the road of his pro-Israelism… and its the liberalism that gets stripped off, isn’t it? (As well as a lot of Tom’s attentiveness to veracity.)
And if you’re Henry Kissinger, and you make gazillions of bucks from “consulting” with a whole range of governments in the Middle East– Israel, Arab government, Turkey, various Central Asian petrocracies– well, you can carry on servicing all those clients with equanimity so long as the assumption of the domination of the enture region by the US-Israeli alliance is never brought into question at all. But when it is? … Well, that just has to be deeply shocking for the old guy; and so now you see Kissinger retreating into a tight little “Euro-heritage power” lager. (a.k.a. NATO, come to think of it.)
But you know what? Today’s world is a world in which all nations and all peoples are vulnerable… Some more so, some less so, but all of us vulnerable, none of us totally self-sufficient. And that’s okay. In fact, it’s part of the human condition, from the very earliest days of humanity.
But I guess for these guys, this is a shocking prospect. Personally, I find it really interesting to see the degree to which, as it now seems, both of these weighty members of the US commentatoriat– and likely many others as well– have been affected by that one little turn of events this summer in distant Lebanon.
“Kissinger warns of ‘war of civilizations”
Is it reality a “war of civilizations” now we seeing or it is as same as the history in 1079 when the Crusades Holy Wars they toured the cities and churches waging and building for the wars under the name of God?
I don’t see differences between what happened before in 1097 and after and now just different time and different people.
Helena
I was much taken by Tom Friedman’s recent pieces advocating dialogue with Damascus.
Of course within two months of an election this might not go down too well with the readers in the New York area who are probably living with the model of a small state surrounded by hordes of people who might drive them into the sea.
What I think we are seeing is a Dunkirk exercise where the frantic efforts to repair the fighting capabilities of IDF is masked by myth building. All we lack is a flotilla of little ships.
I spent an hour listening to Silvan Shalom six weeks ago and as I listened to him telling us that they were defending Western Civilisation by flattening Lebanon concluded that their world view, decision making and leadership is defective.
This leads me to question the whole axis of evil rhetoric. Perhaps the Iranians are really only interested in Economic Development after a generation of war.
The recent aticle by Paul Kennedy in the Independent where he postulated a nuclear detonation in Tel Aviv that resulted in 20 million dead in Iran illustrates the reason why the Israelis are unlikly to be nuked.
There has been an ominous consequence from the Lebanon attack. People I have talked to in Egypt and Jordan agree that it has been illustrated that IDF is not invincible. The Egyptians see the 1973 war as restoring their pride. The 2006 war has got them thinking about how all the residual irritations can be resolved.
The Israelis need to rethink the environment they exist in, before they really do find themselves surrounded by people who want to drive them into the sea.
“We have reached a moral crossroads. In the “new Middle East” defined by Israel, Bush, and the neocons, only Israel and the U.S. may dominate, only they may be strong, only they may be secure. But in the just world that lies on the other side of that crossroads, this is unacceptable. Justice can ultimately prevail.”
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/09/178133.php
The Moral Bankruptcy of Israel’s Founding Idea
By Kathleen Christison is a former CIA political analyst and has worked on Middle East issues for 30 years. She is the author of Perceptions of Palestine and The Wound of Dispossession.”
“Lebanon was on the list, placed between Iraq and Sudan: in Israel’s war on the so-called terror of the Resistance, all the parties triumphed, except for hundreds of deaths and Lebanon itself that has temporarily drifted into international spotlight. The rest of the list is well-known: Iran is targeted in order that its nuclear terror be eliminated, and Syria is another target, because Bush needs to wrongfully deal with it until it adjusts its behavior.”
Who Can Count with the Blind?
http://english.daralhayat.com/opinion/OPED/09-2006/Article-20060914-ac463e90-c0a8-10ed-01b6-e338c3453204/story.html
Friedman: “If Hizbullah could just attack Israel– unprovoked– claiming as one of its goals the liberation of Jerusalem [excuse me??], and using missiles provided by an Iranian regime”
Actually, there are TWO lies packed into that once sentence — the bit about liberating Jerusalem (the Israelis may set pie-in-the-sky war aims; Hizbullah doesn’t) and the bit about using missiles.
It’s amazing how quickly it has become a journalistic “fact” that Hizbullah attacked first with missiles, when actually it didn’t fire its first missile into Israel until after southern Beirut had been pounded by the IAF several times. It was, in other words, a retaliatory strike. But of course, Hiz is a USSD-certified terrorist organization, so it’s perfectly OK for American pundits to tell any lie they please about them.
Kissinger: “It works on a nuclear weapons program, which would drive nuclear proliferation out of control and provide a safety net for the systematic destruction of at least the regional order.”
Translation: “They’re trying to drive us out of the Middle East.”
Kissinger: “The challenge is now about world order more than about adjustments within an accepted framework.”
Translation: They may succeed.
I think the best explanation for the increasingly hysterical tone of the likes of Friedman and Kissinger is the realization that the Boy King and his neocon courtiers have really screwed the pooch in the Middle East, and the Israeli military’s amazing incompetence in Lebanon has only compounded the damage.
It’s amazing how quickly it has become a journalistic “fact” that Hizbullah attacked first with missiles, when actually it didn’t fire its first missile into Israel until after southern Beirut had been pounded by the IAF several times. It was, in other words, a retaliatory strike.
Actually, Hizballah fired rockets into Shlomi, a civilian village well within Israel, as cover for its initial aggression across the international border when its “fighters” kidnapped the two soldiers. This was not “retaliatory” in any sense of the term.
But then, I am sure that your rendition will certainly become blogsphere “fact” for those who confuse their ability to change colors with HTML with a license to re-write reality to meet their ideology.
History did not begin on the day Hezbollah captured 2 IDF soldiers. Did it begin with the Israeli occupation of Lebanon in the 80s? Or is it millenia old?
From a Hezbollah perspective, the organization did not exist until the Israeli occupation. Is the concept of regional domination by Israel contingent on lightly armed Arabs and Persians who cannot fight a heavily armed modern Israeli military? That is the case with the Palestinians. However, with Hezbollah although they had nowhere near the firepower of the IDF they were able to hold their ground despite the IDF offensive. This is new. A relatively lighly armed militia demonstrated better military tactics and fortitude than the mighty IDF. Why does the US and Israel make so much noise about Iran arming Hezbollah? Those arms and financial support is miniscule compared to the $3 billion plus US taxpayers provide the IDF annually for military equipment and arms. In fact during the Lebanon conflict the Pentagon was airlifting battlefield resupply of jet fuel, bunker busters and cluster munitions as well as providing electronic and other intelligence support. Why must the support in the region be one way – in the direction of Israel? It just does not make any sense that Iran and Hezbollah should disarm while those with a long history of belligerence continue to rearm with the most modern military equipment. What is the logic that says that Israel, Pakistan and India can have a nuclear weapons arsenal but Iran cannot?
As an American I keep asking the question what benefit does the US get from its complete and unwavering financial, military, intelligence and diplomatic support of Israel? I have not heard any satisfactory response yet.
Indeed, ab, history did not begin with Hizballah’s aggression in crossing the international border, abducting soldiers and firing rockets into civilian settlements. That still doesn’t change the fact that in this round Hizballah clearly began the aggression, and attempts to alter this perception are simply spin.
As to you “concept of regional domination”, I think that this only holds if you a priori assume that such a concept or desire exists. I really haven’t seen any evidence of this desire for “domination”, except in the minds and words of various propagandists and Hizbollobbyists. (If I remember correctly, Upharsin owes Joshua or David a meal because of his arrogant statements based on such an a priori assumption.)
As to your question, it is indeed a reasonable one. I think that the US gets far greater quid pro quo from Israel than, say it does from Egypt. But that is my opinion. Of course, I have my own question, which is how has Hizballah been able to justify itself as a “resistance” for the past six years when Lebanon has not been occupied (except, of course, by Syria)? I still haven’t received an acceptible answer to that question.
JES, the way you describe “in this round” it sounds like a boxing match with distinct rounds with well defined beginning and end. I tend to disagree – it seems like one long round that has yet to end. In the case of Israel vs Hezbollah the round began with the Israeli occupation of Lebanon in the 80s when Hezbollah was created. That round has yet to end although there have been lulls in the jabs and punches. In the recent cessation of hostilities the UN has reported hundreds of IDF violations which have mostly been aircraft and UAV over-flights as well as tank and bulldozer incursions. There is still firing but at a much less intense level. The round does not seem to have ended.
Hezbollah is a sectarian militia. Labels like resistance don’t mean anything. They don’t need to justify their existence. The fact they exist is all that matters. Either they disarm voluntarily or someone will have to defeat them miltarily. They are not going to disappear because someone wants that. There are many militias in Lebanon with varying degrees of strength and competence. It looks like an internal Lebanese issue. We’ve even had militias in the US.
The quid pro quo that Israel provides is likely better than Egypt but I am not concerned about relativity. What I am interested to know is what benefit does the US gain from its support of Israel. I know what we provide Israel – money, arms, military equipment, intelligence, UN vetos. What do we get in return?
Suicide videos in the absence of anything more concrete are evidence of nothing more than fantasies on the part of those who made them.
It’s pretty much an accepted fact, at least among the still-conscious and alert, that Israeli claims to victimhood and persecution are mostly fraudulent – either delusional or cynically manipulative.
A defeat in Lebanon doesn’t do much to alter that victim image. In fact it bolsters it.
Keep in mind that, as has been pointed out here so well, southern Lebanon has been dealt with severely, and the damage is continuing.
So a counter-image, a kind of continuity of desperation, is created, wherein the next violent assault – Syria? Iran? – can be seen as necessary and inevitable, rather than a further bullying charge toward conquest and colonization.
This view teeters on the brink of paranoia, I realize – but then so did the suspicion, back in March of 2003, that the invasion of Iraq was at best a shared mission with a silent partner.
as cover for its initial aggression across the international border
Good juke International Borders!!! Can you tell us where the Israeli’s International Borders are?
kidnapped the two soldiers.
Captured the two soldiers, when they mistakenly passed the “international Boarders” the side who doing kidnapping are the Israelis when they penetrated to West Bank or to South Lebanon kidnapping those poor Arabs, this is what you call it kidnapping not the POW…
I think that the US gets far greater quid pro quo from Israel than, say it does from Egypt.
Can you put your list here as you think Please?
I am shocked and disappointed Ms. HC that you don’t see Friedman for who he is. I find people like Sharon, Bolton and O-Reilly much less dangerous to humanity. They show their hatred for the oppressed clearly, in no uncertain terms. Schmuck like Friedman sugarcoat it with liberal humanism, and fool a whole lot of good folks (like you, unfortunately). He is one of the worst apologists for systematic corporate murder and the hegemony of the rich white man that I have ever seen. I am sorry.
ab,
with distinct rounds with well defined beginning and end.
That’s it, this Israelis behaviours ab, for years they playing rounds without any peace or end for peaceful living.
Just for reminder, JES denying Shaba’a Farms as occupied land and belong to Lebanon, he argued it’s not belong to Lebanon but the reality is Shaba’a Farms not Israeli land, its occupied land.
Surprisingly Israelis Prime Minister Ehud Olmert recently conditioned the return of Shaba’a Farm with disarming Hezbollah!! Is it a game here or what? If you took a close look of Israeli demands and rounds with its neighbours for years same taken like JES, there is no wrong from Israeli it’s all Arab fault.
Good to some Americans open there minds and eyes like ab and asking real question here waiting for real answer.
People in Middle East see no difference between US as Israel due to US full support and backing for Israelis and it’s like Israel it’s state 51 of US.
“In the Kissinger interview, Fallaci swung from provocative questions such as “you’re not a pacifist, are you?” to flattery that tricked Kissinger into confiding in her. His revelation that he saw himself as a “cowboy leading the caravan alone astride his horse” in “a Wild West tale” caused him so much embarrassment he attempted to retract the assertion.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aBzRy0mvgFv4&refer=europe
Salah, thanks for that link. I hadn’t realized that– as described there– O. Fallaci died yesterday.
I am sure that her family and friends will miss her and I send them condolences.
I should note, however, that she was someone who imho became radically unhinged after 9-11, especially in the Islamophobia that became so rampant in her after then.
The views of Freidman et al surely aren’t that surprising. Their kind of faulty assumptions have changed hardly at all since the Vietnam era.
They can’t, or refuse to, consider the political conditions that give rise to the legitimacy of groups such as Hizballah, or the historical sources leading to it.
Which then leads then to explain the situation in terms of outside support – meddling by Syria, funding and arming by Iran. The next logical step in their illogical musings is advocating attacks on Iran.
While explicit recognition of the origins of support for Hizballah are beyond the pale, in practice they do. It’s clear that support for Hizballah comes from the Lebanese Shia population. The logical conclusion to this, is that to undermine this resitence, it is the society itself that has to be targetted. And it was.
Naturally Freidman sees this as acceptable, though recognising that it is “brutal”, is required for public consumption.
Thomas Friedman has never been anything more than a puffed up, self-important, pseudo-expert nonsense-spouting empty bag of hot gaseous substance. As for “caring a lot” about the Middle East, he cares about Israel. He has never, as far as I could ever determine, given a flying rat’s rear end about the rest of them except as it pertains to Israel’s welfare.
Thomas Friedman has never been anything other than a puffed-up, self-important, pseudo-expert nonsense-spouting empty bag of hot gaseous substance. As for “caring a lot” about the Middle East, he cares about Israel. He clearly doesn’t give a flying rat’s rear end about the rest.
One morning earlier this year I was home sick from work, and I fell asleep in front of the TV. While sleeping, I dreamed I was in the halls of some academic institution, and I began to hear someone who clearly had no clue what he was talking about holding forth about the Middle East. When I realized he was talking to a crowd of people, I decided I could not allow the nonsense he was spouting to remain unchallenged, so I began arguing with him, knocking down one conclusion after another. As I began to wake up, I realized the person’s voice was coming out of my TV, and opened my eyes to see none other than Tom Friedman being interviewed. I laughed aloud when I heard him say in his own unique overblown and pompous manner – for the hundredth or so time in the last three years – that the next six months would definitely be the decisive ones in Iraq.
I have never understood that a Nitwit of the Magnitude of Friedman, whose simple message is: West Is Best, Israel is even Better, and the USA, Land of the Multinational, has the Duty of Enlightening the Dark and Ignorant Rest of The World by spreading the blessings of neoliberalism to every region, especially to the World of Islam, of which he knows nothing, though he thinks he is a Great Expert, (two examples from Juan Cole’s site: http://tinyurl.com/al76w, and http://tinyurl.com/f6uos), could be taken as seriously as he is by so many people.
“I heard him say . . . for the hundredth or so time . . . that the next six months would definitely be the decisive ones in Iraq”
And Shirin, he was always right. The next six months were always decisive, and the decision was always the same.
“I think that the US gets far greater quid pro quo from Israel than, say it does from Egypt.”
The “aid” we give to Egypt is nothing but protection money for the benefit of Israel, and really should be included when calculating the total cost to the American people of supporting the Zionist State.
And speaking of “unhinged,” the rabid dog Charles Krauthammer is foaming at the mouth with war hysteria.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091401413.html
He’s trying to appear rational by making a little list of some of the bad things that will happen after we launch an unprovoked air assault on Iran. The idea is to get all these distractions behind us in a rhetorical way, so we can get on with the business of empire. But he is too deranged to pull it off:
-He says the US Navy can break any “blockade” of the Strait of Hormuz, so our supertankers can keep bringing us our oil. Has Chuck ever seen a supertanker moving through the Strait of Hormuz? Here is a picture of one: http://fsanderse.100megsfree5.com/tanker/Iran%20Hormuz.jpg
Is it even possible to imagine an easier target?
-He figures the Sadrists in Iraq will attack on command from their puppet masters in Iran, but we’ll just kill them. “Many Mahdi will die, but they live to die.” They live to die. Fascist thought at its finest.
-He figures Hezbollah won’t be a problem, because it is “chastened by the destruction it brought upon Lebanon” and “deterred by the presence of Europeans in the south Lebanon buffer zone.” I’m sure this describes exactly how Hassan Nasrallah is feeling right now. Chastened and deterred. Nothing like the presence of a European to make an Arab leader think twice about trying to control his own territory – I mean his buffer zone.
But here is the biggest whopper of them all:
“The mullahs are infinitely more likely to use [nuclear] weapons than anyone in the history of the nuclear age.”
I suppose if anyone brought up Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Chuck would point out that those were “atomic” (fission) bombs, not “nuclear” (fusion) bombs. So it was OK. Anyway, we’re the good guys.
JES: Until you learn the difference between a “rocket” and a “missile,” you should not be so quick to reveal your ignorance.
The missile launch was retaliatory; the rocket attacks were old hat, and inconsequential when compared to Israeli firepower.
The issue was “missiles,” and whether Hizbollah is getting them from Iran and using them offensively.
They may get some from Iran, but they have never used a single one offensively.
A rocket, on the other hand, is a pathetically useless artillery weapon when shot at long distances – or any distance, for that matter.
Do your homework, before you start accusing others of spreading “propaganda” that will become “internet truth.”
JES: Until you learn the difference between a “rocket” and a “missile,” you should not be so quick to reveal your ignorance.
The missile launch was retaliatory; the rocket attacks were old hat, and inconsequential when compared to Israeli firepower.
The issue was “missiles,” and whether Hizbollah is getting them from Iran and using them offensively.
They may get some from Iran, but they have never used a single one offensively.
A rocket, on the other hand, is a pathetically useless artillery weapon when shot at long distances – or any distance, for that matter.
Do your homework, before you start accusing others of spreading “propaganda” that will become “internet truth.”
Sorry for the double post.
Also just realized that JES’s feeble distortion came in response to billmon – which makes it a pretty serious mistake.
You had better pack a big lunch if you want to debate billmon on this (or any other) topic.
Bon apetit.
Dear Thomas Long,
Thank you for your rather superscilious comment on my response to billmon’s inaccurate post.
I do know the difference between a “rocket” and a “missile” (or, more precisely, a ballistic missile)- thank you very much – but that is not what I was taking issue with in billmon’s post.
I would suggest that, in future, you take the trouble to actually read and understand what a person has posted before being so quick to reveal your lack of comprehension.
A rocket may be a “particularly pathetic” offensive weapon in terms of accuracy, which is why it is criminal to use such weapons – particularly the 302mm variety loaded with ball bearings – against civilian concentrations.
You might want to do your homework and look at the press reports from July 12 to see when Hizballah fired its first rockets into Israeli territory in relation to Israeli strikes at Lebanese targets before you start supporting the propaganda that billmon has asserted as an Internet truth.
As for billmon…. Well, he can kiss my tukhas!
Good piece Helena, especially this bit:
‘Which side is occupying land belong to the other side– the Arabs or the Israelis? Which side has thousands of members of the other side’s population in its prisons– the Arabs or the Israelis? Which side is still many times more capable than the other of affecting the lives and wellbeing of members of the other side– the Arabs or the Israelis?’
If Americans are ever to know the answers they will need to hear the questions, and while the idea of them ever being posed in prime time still seems preposterous, I’m quietly confident they will sometime soon. There has been a sea change already, still relatively subterranean it’s true, but there all the same. For this we can think Mearsheimer and Walt, whose careful placement of gelignite around the Lobby has blown grievous if not fatal holes in it’s cover.
In fact, I think much of the hysterical tone in Friedman and Kissinger and others is down to the disquiet about Mears/Walt which dominated their mindset when Lebanon arrived to ratchet it up a notch or two. Walls collapsing on both sides of the house.
Also, I’d like to take this opportunity (given his own blog’s lack of a comment facility) to thank Billmon for his coverage of Lebanon, the best I came across in the US (which unfortunately is not actually saying a great deal – some of my erstwhile favourite sites did their reputations no favours with the ostrich impersonations). Facts and analysis leavened with a mordant wit. Thanks again.
This may be a peripheral comment, but for clarity’s sake, all Hizballah aerial weapons used against Israel were artillery rockets. The are launched and fly in a predictable ballistic arc, with no in-flight or terminal guidance system.
As to their being “pathetic” tactical weapons, nothing could be further from the truth. As far back as WWII the Soviets demonstrated the stunning battlefield effectiveness of Katyusha multi-tube launch system against massed troops or armor. A modern system with GPS information on target and system coordinates and computerized aiming systems can deliver a saturation, time on target forty rocket strike with high accuracy for ranges of 20 to 40 km.
Lacking such systems, Hizballah is reduced to aiming their weapons in the general direction of
targets, guessing at elevation settings, and hoping to hit something.