Billmon:
[G]iven how well Hezbollah is doing so far, it doesn’t look the Israelis can deliver a knock out blow — not in a few weeks, or a few months and probably not even in a few years.
Back to Main
July 15, 2006
WB: Punching Above Its Weight
Comments
Israel is losing this war the same way it “lost” the October 1973 War — by not crushing its enemies swiftly and completely, and then rubbing their faces in their own impotence and humilation.
Except using a-bombs the IDF is doing what it can do. It is trying to crush Hisbollah and (unrelated folks in Lebanon.)
But crushing enemies is simply wrong. Both morally and as a strategy.
One of the definitions of madness is the repetition countless times of the same action, always expecting a different result. For more than half a century, the Israelis have been applying the tactic of massively disproportionate retaliation to every provocative act of resistance attempted by the Palestinians, expecting every time that this would bring peace and security to all the people of the Holy Land. Every single time they have done this this, it has backfired. Every single time. The national philosophy (it is really deeper and more significant that just a military tactic) that underlies this devotion to massive over-reaction, and particularly its corollary, collective punishment, is obviously and demonstrably foolish and futile. It does not intimidate or deter the Palestinians, and it never will. It hardens their determination to resist and to defy. I don’t care whether you consider the Palestinians to be terrorists or common criminals or freedom fighters or national resistance heroes. If you are an intelligent and sensitive human being, you learn from your past mistakes and you make a rational decision to try something different. The Israeli leadership for all these many generations has been incapable of performing that really rather simple mental and moral exercise.
U.S. Policy in Lebanon by Ray Close, a former CIA analyst in the Near East division
The same judgement goes for other colonial wars. Against weekness, hyperstrength is not a good weapon. Moral behaviour and justice are.
“This could be scare mongering. The Israelis may be exaggerating Hezbollah’s capabilities to provide political cover for a prolonged and bloody campaign in Lebanon.”
As nearly as I can tell, everything attributed so far to Hezbollah has an odor of false flag to it. I’m not suggesting that they aren’t defending themselves (they are and more power to ’em), but you’re telling me they’re using medium range missile systems and unmanned drone aircraft that the combined tentacles of MOSSAD and the CIA didn’t know they had???
I hate crediting the Alliance with an abundance of forethought, but it might have been in anticipation of these very events that the neocon-Likud elements in the White House began the meme that Iraqi WMDs were quietly spirited away into Syria. By building up Hezbollah in this way, they might be killing two birds with one stone (viz. justifying “regime change” in Syria and ultimately Iran while post-justifying their actions against Baathist Iraq).
Posted by: Monolycus | Jul 15 2006 4:42 utc | 2
The Israeli leadership for all these many generations has been incapable of performing that really rather simple mental and moral exercise.
And the reason, b, that they have been incapable of that simple mental and moral exercise is that they have not had to. Their present mad ways are totally underwritten by the United States of America.
They are willing to spend the last American dollar on their fantasy of eliminating the Palestinians from Palestine. In fact they’re so drunk with the power that American dollars, weapons, vetos, and now total subservience can bring that they’d rather like to expand a bit on their original plans of expropriation.
Taks away their crack pipe and their pipe dreams will end.
Without the American dollars they’ll make peace soon enough. They’d have done so decades ago if the US had not enabled their wild run, had not given them the rope to hang not only themselves but us Americans along with themselves. Not to mention the Palestinians.
Democracy requires a certain minimal participation by “the people”. That minimum has not been forthcoming in America. The results are as we see them. A political system sold to the highest bidder.
Take it back or lose it forever. It’s that simple.
Posted by: John Francis Lee | Jul 15 2006 4:43 utc | 3
With its foreseeable offensive in Gaza and its vigorous efforts in the Lebanon the Olmert government in Israel demonstrates the indifference to the possibility of a peace with its Muslim neighbors that has characterized its short history.
In general, there is a certain disingenuous quality to the statements made by many Israelis to “outsiders” concerning their real attitudes toward the Arabs. Having been on the scene by chance a few times while the IDF “shot up” rock throwers with steel cored riot ammunition and then “ball” ammunition I can only say that indifference to maiming and severe injuries inflicted on the “natives” seems to be a “motif” of Israeli exercise of power in the “territories.”
John Francis Lee: “Without the American dollars they’ll make peace soon enough.”
Maybe true years ago, but Israel has the weapons now and, as you so correctly state, “they are drunk with power”.
Not militarily, of course — The IDF could turn Lebanon into a parking lot if it wanted to, and if it’s willing to take enough casualties it can probably push Hezbollah away from the Israeli border and suppress the rocket attacks (or at least most of them.)
I think this may more serious for the IDF than many realize.
There has never been a war (4th generation or otherwise) that has been won solely through the use of air power. Yet with much of Israel’s armor occupied in the occupied territories and even the Navy now licking it wounds, the Israeli Air Force is basically on it’s own in Lebanon.
To push Hizbolah back, the Israelis are going to have to pull their tanks out of Gaza – which means a vengeful Hamas on their rear. But if they don’t redeploy, Israel proper is at the mercy of Hamas’ increased (and previously unforseen!) missile capability – not to mention other nasty surprises the Shiites may be waiting to use.
The Israeli high command has blundered into a two front war, and now finds itself with its forces poorly positioned and the enemy holding the initiative.
A cakewalk this ain’t.
For what it’s worth, Israel pretty much did lose the Yom Kippur War, at least on the Egyptian side. Yeah, they were winning when the mediators intervened, but the israelis got fucked by the first two weeks of the war, and it was massive US assistance that kept them on their feet. Even at the end, Egypt was still capable of fighting on, and Israel did not have the capability to *hold* territory, nor take Suez City. As with most things israel, you have to be very careful about what books you read on the topic. The ones published right after the war are actually the most accurate, to my guessimate.
Posted by: shah8 | Jul 15 2006 5:48 utc | 7
John Robb points out today, that the new Army/Marine Counterinsurgency Field Manual fails to even mention 4th generation warfare. Seems like the military establishments of Israel and the U.S. have got shit between their ears, rather like the fans of Monster Trucks, where form has so totally transcended function as to become at best, a carnival novelity. But then again, if these powers were to actually embrace 4th generation warfare, they would have to understand the cultures to be exploited, and that might develope into empathy — and who could control that? And perish the thought of our “Shock and Awe” gun-slinger president reduced to sending in an army of peace corps workers with guns. No, we’re stuck in this rut for a reason, and has to do with not so much as winning, but looking like a winner. And thats a strategy, thats bound to lose.
Posted by: anna missed | Jul 15 2006 5:50 utc | 8
Rick Happ :
True that Israel has well-integrated itself into the international war industry, but it takes money, lots of it to keep an unproductive war machine going. Wars only destroy, they produce nothing but broken hearts and broken bodies. And profits for the war criminals, of course. A classic case of the least profit for the smallest number.
And a lot of our money, the money we borrow and give to the far-right wing in Israel, is used to drown out the Israelis who want peace. Consistently deliver the dough anywhere on earth and you will have an ammoral following at your beck and call. Look at the US.
No. I believe that if the money is cut off the multi-fronted war in the Middle East will wither and die on the vine. There’s a reason why they call them war profiteers. Take the profits out of war and it looks a lot less alluring to mishapen ogres whose greed they feed.
The profits for the few who enjoy them are great enough that they will never voluntarily give them up. That applies to the corrupt Republicrat/Demoplican machine in the USofA. They receive a tremendous amount in kickbacks from the far-right in Israel. Our own, borrowed money is used to perpetuate its very theft.
I don’t know if the spigot will be turned of on the Israeli wars in Palestine and Lebanon, or the US war in Iraq. I know it’s a simple matter to do so : elect a House of Representatives that will represent us Americans and our interests instead of the international mob’s.
And when the money’s dried up and the war is ended we need a statue to the US Marine Smedley Butler erected in Washington DC, preferrably on the Mall, with “War is a Racket” prominently displayed in foot high bronze letters.
Posted by: John Francis Lee | Jul 15 2006 6:08 utc | 9
Christ…Fredo, The Decider, fell off the wagon again, w/Putin… (note brown bottle, presumably beer, on table by right hand)
Posted by: jj | Jul 15 2006 6:39 utc | 10
John Francis Lee,
I do wish America would turn off the spicket, but Israel does have some good industry, especially in the electronics and communications industries. I know the antennas I purchased for our County Wireless Internet Project came from Israel and they were excellent.
As far as the House of Representative doing something, I bet the Israeli Lobby and their friends
have tens of thousands of people calling their representatives to support the Lebanon invasion.
Also, it is possible that Israel will increase its holdings with this latest war. Right now, lebanon is taking a pounding
Right now, lebanon is taking a pounding
Damn Israel, damn them..that must be why I can’t reach any of my chat mates…damn them to hell.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jul 15 2006 7:32 utc | 12
This from Digby today (i’ve often wondered about this);
…………………………………….
I’m reminded of this little anecdote from Tom Friedman back in 2004. Since he actually sources it to an identifiable person rather than the usual cab driver, I tend to think it might just be true.
I was speaking the other day with Scott Pelley of CBS News’s ”60 Minutes” about the mood in Iraq. He had just returned from filming a piece there and he told me something disturbing. Scott had gone around and asked Iraqis on the streets what they called American troops — wondering if they had nicknames for us in the way we used to call the Nazis ”Krauts” or the Vietcong ”Charlie.” And what did he find? ”Many Iraqis have so much distrust for U.S. forces we found they’ve come up with a nickname for our troops,” Scott said. ”They call American soldiers ‘The Jews,’ as in, ‘Don’t go down that street, the Jews set up a roadblock.”’
Posted by: anna missed | Jul 15 2006 7:43 utc | 13
Yep I’m with Shah8 on the Yom Kippur war. The Sinai was a wasteland of Israeli/amerikan tank hulks within the first few days of yom kippur. This caused a few heads to roll from the pentagon down the road to Bendix or General Motors; whichever lame assed contractor sold the unmanouverable, thin skinned fire traps to the pentagon then onto Israel.
The Egyptians did the job with Russian wire guided missiles. These were steered onto the target by operators post launch. In a way far more low tech than what the ISus were playing with, but like the astronaut hi-tech ball pen Vs pencil parable, simple often works best.
That was why Sadat had to be included in Carter’s hugfest. Up until then it was considered somewhat unconventional having an Arab at a Mid East peace conference, (“Next thing they’ll be letting the women and shoeshine boys in, what! Mean to say who ever heard of sitting down to make a deal with the natives?”)
It was also why Sadat got offed. As far as the people of Egypt and most of the rest of the ME were concerned Sadat had turned victory into defeat. Once Egypt had demonstrated that the Zionists could be beaten, no matter their technology, the feeling was that Syria would also do much better next time.
It may have scared ISus so badly that the decision to set Israel up with thermo-nuclear devices was finally reached.
It was certainly about that time that the genuine “Axis of Evil”: apartheid South Africa, (where Israel tested it’s nukes), Israel, and Taiwan became a tight little posse of shirtlifters.
All made a bomb (pun intented) on providing weapons to the parts of Africa, Asia and Latin America that USuk/France couldn’t reach because of those tiresome UN regulations about not giving guns/mines/radar/missiles to tyrants who used them on their own population.
Yom Kippur badly shook up many pre-conceptions about the state of the world, particularly those regarding the accessibility of oil.
That ties in with something else.
It took a few cracks of the whip by the Arab states before they managed to take advantage of Israeli arrogance, which had developed from IDF military dominance after a few ‘victories’ on the trot over a short period in the 60’s. Remember Gamal Nasser kicked serious Israeli, Brit and French butt in ’56.
That same feeling of arrogant superiority is about Israel now. But Israel hasn’t fought with another nation state since Yom Kippur. Lebanon doesn’t count as it was knees on canvas from a long and bloody Civil War when the IDF slipped up it’s back passage.
The biggest favour amerika has been doing for Israel since Yom Kippur is keeping the sock puppets rich and happy.
The goodies have been spread far enough through the Egyptian Army so that asshole Pharoah; Hosni Mubarak doesn’t have to worry too much about assasination any more.
I dunno whether Syria’s failure to achieve the same military advantage as Egypt did, was what kept the dollar juice out of Damascus, or whether old man Assad gave amerika the big knock-back.
As discussed in the other thread, too many vids of blown up Palestinian or Lebanese women and children will negate Croesus’ wealth.
It seems everyone, not matter what side their heart tells ’em should win; is certain the IDF will win militarily. Me, I’m not so sure, Israel is the Goliath in this movie and my money is on the underdog.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 15 2006 7:44 utc | 14
This from Digby today (i’ve often wondered about this);
…………………………………….
I’m reminded of this little anecdote from Tom Friedman back in 2004. Since he actually sources it to an identifiable person rather than the usual cab driver, I tend to think it might just be true.
I was speaking the other day with Scott Pelley of CBS News’s ”60 Minutes” about the mood in Iraq. He had just returned from filming a piece there and he told me something disturbing. Scott had gone around and asked Iraqis on the streets what they called American troops — wondering if they had nicknames for us in the way we used to call the Nazis ”Krauts” or the Vietcong ”Charlie.” And what did he find? ”Many Iraqis have so much distrust for U.S. forces we found they’ve come up with a nickname for our troops,” Scott said. ”They call American soldiers ‘The Jews,’ as in, ‘Don’t go down that street, the Jews set up a roadblock.”’
Posted by: anna missed | Jul 15 2006 7:45 utc | 15
That Friedman quote is absolutely true (never thought I’d say that!).
There are stories all the time in the press where Iraqis are quoted calling us “jews.” Here’s one from journalist Nir Rosen, in an article that’s worth reading in full:
As her husband was taken away, one woman angrily asked Allah to curse the soldiers, calling them “Dogs! Jews!” over and over. When his soldiers left a home, one officer emerged to slap them on the back like a coach congratulating his players during halftime in a winning game.
Of course it doesn’t help when you copy Israeli tactics:
After the Center for Army Lessons Learned sent a team of personnel to Israel to study that country’s counterinsurgency tactics, the Army implemented the lessons it learned, and initiated house demolitions in Samara and Tikrit, blowing up homes of suspected insurgents.
Posted by: Vin Carreo | Jul 15 2006 8:07 utc | 16
I blogged this one on my Lebanese-American site. Then I went off on a bit of a rant. I’ve been swarmed by right-wing troll commenters and had to respond. Go ahead and have a look. Here’s hoping Billmon notices, I am grateful for his blog.
Everyone was shocked and surprised at the US destruction of Iraqi infrastructure and its non-replacement despite the billions raked of by Halliburton, Bechtel and the rest. People kept waiting for a good year for the reconstruction to take place. It was assumed things would eventually get up to speed.
Now the purposeful Israeli destruction of the infrastructure in Gaza and now in Beirut puts that into perspective. The identical neocon war plan in both instances. Salt the earth as the Romans did to Carthage. They intended to destroy Iraq and leave it waste just as they intended to destroy Gaza and Beirut and leave them waste.
The depravity of these people cannot be overestimated.
Posted by: John Francis Lee | Jul 15 2006 11:55 utc | 18
John Francis Lee: “Now the purposeful Israeli destruction of the infrastructure in Gaza and now in Beirut puts that into perspective. The identical neocon war plan in both instances. ”
Yeah, destroying the infrastructure and even whole towns is not fighting “terrorists” or a “few insurgents in their last throes” as they are described year after year. Somehow that point gets lost.
Israel is losing this war the same way it “lost” the October 1973 War
I wish that was true…
There has never been a war (4th generation or otherwise) that has been won solely through the use of air power.
They don’t care. Look at Iraq. Did the US troops try to hold territory? They did not. They established a small zone, which they will make bigger. They will built special, ‘safe roads’ between it and new bases.. and the Badlands, which are thrashed. Ok, maybe it is not a good comparison, the US wasn’t / isn’t much interested in Iraq except to control Iraq ressources, plunder (US citizens) and keep the arms trade chugging, and Israel wants Land. And it wants that river ..the Litani. (reading further, I see John and Rick saying similar.)
‘They call American soldiers “The Jews”
:: Within two minutes the doors of his home were blasted open and “a strange looking group of people” stormed inside, according to Said Walid Ahmed, a 40-year-old teacher who lives in the neighborhood.
“This force is not totally unknown to us here in Fallujah,” Ahmed, who witnessed the incident from a nearby house told Inter Press Service (IPS). “They are a special force of Americans that assassinates more people than it arrests.”
Ahmed described the force from the helicopters as “big men with
long hair and beards, some wearing earrings, and others with little black caps on the top of their heads at the back.” ::
Asia Times, 13 July
AT is an excellent and respectable paper. Weird, huh.
Posted by: Noirette | Jul 15 2006 13:42 utc | 20
The genesis of Israeli anti-insurgency tactics seems to be France/Algeria to US/Vietnam to Israel/Gaza to US/Iraq and so on. The fact that every war has been lost seems to be irrelevant to the hard headed realists who run such things.
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 15 2006 14:21 utc | 21
And then there’s always the possibility that we are seeing a conscious attempt at provoking some kind of serious atattack against the West in retaliation for what Israel is doing.
Would play nicely into Cheney’s hands, pre-election.
Posted by: SteinL | Jul 15 2006 14:45 utc | 22
If any of you dropped by and commented at my blog, thank you. I was getting swarmed by hate-comments – some right wing blogger picked up my feed. I’m a Lebanese-American blogger with family in South Lebanon pinned down in their (Christian) village. Thanks so much for helping out, I’ve tried replying by email but some of the kind commenters used aliases (as I do)
thought some here might be interested. there is a thread on a blog usually dedicated to frequent flyer travel where a poster who lives on a kibbutz in northern israel and another who lives in beirut are sharing first hand accounts of what is going on around them. it is refreshing for the empathy that takes the place of much of the vitriol you encounter elsewhere on the net. i am in the middle of reading it and recommend it.
Posted by: conchita | Jul 15 2006 16:49 utc | 24
Norette,
On the same line of thought, this quote from Paul Craig Roberts in his article today on anti-war.com:
“The US and Israel haven’t the troops needed to defeat and occupy Syria, Hizbollah and Iran with conventional forces. Pentagon documents have described two ways in which the Middle East can be secured for Israel. One is the use of nuclear weapons. The other is the destruction of all infrastructure – power plants, water and sewage systems, hospitals, schools, roads, bridges, ports, and a reduction of much housing to rubble by powerful conventional bombs. In other words, an air war that never ends.”
French President Jacques Chirac was even harsher in his comments about Israel, saying, “One could ask if today there is not sort of a will to destroy Lebanon, its equipment, its roads, its communications.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203776,00.html
NYT is at work pushing NeoNut Agenda. AngryArab notes:
This from WarPost art. by impt. author that he links:
If Israeli soldiers and civilians are the targets of Iranian- and Syrian-backed terror, then the Iranian and Syrian militaries must become targets for Israel.Necessary Steps for Israel – Confronting State Sponsors of Terror Is the Only Option
Posted by: jj | Jul 15 2006 18:34 utc | 27
Oops, first clip from NYT omitted – not quite all here today…
the New York Times has a picture of a demonstration in Iran in which a picture of Hasan Nasrallah was shown, while there were similar demonstrations with Hasan Nasrallah’s picture in many Islamic countries, including Turkey and Indonesia, but New York Times wants to reinforce its Iranian conspiracy scenario.
Sounds like Dear Leader has serious hangover today – he yakked on radio ’bout how his tax-cuts reduced the deficits…
Posted by: jj | Jul 15 2006 18:39 utc | 28
The US and Israeli leadership are addicted to the theory that they can intimidate opponents who routinely use suicide bombing as a tactic. This leads one to ask whether top policy makers in both nations have assistants who help them tie their shoes.
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 15 2006 18:45 utc | 29
Debka is reporting that the missile that hit the Israeli ship was an Iranian Silkworm.
The warship was struck from Beirut by an Iran-made C-802 shore-to-sea missile of the Silkworm family. Weighing 715 kilos, with a range of 120km, the missile is armed with a strong anti-jamming capability, which lends it a 98% success rate in escaping interception.
The Israeli ship is armed with an advanced Barak anti-missile system, which may have missed the incoming missile. Israeli military planners must now look at the vulnerability of the navy following the appearance of the first Iranian C-802 missiles.
Not being snarky citizen k, –and maybe I’m missreading you here–, but no one has as of yet explained to me the difference in a suicide bomber and a
Israeli helicopter gunship.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jul 15 2006 19:38 utc | 32
not a complete surprise – but watching cnnskybbc – bullshit most of these hot days & nights & the complete absence of ‘arab’ voices & the absolute preponderance of israelis spokesmen & so called experts who seem to have their talking points straight from donald rumsfield
so too their anchors who go from the deliriously debile nic whatever his name is, anderson ‘am i a young god’ cooper, & the slew of barbituated blondes who wouldn’t know tripoli from their tits, or a katushya unless it is a name of a men’s perfume for the modern man
noticed also that the comment from putin that de’d prefer a democracy a little different from how it operates in iraq – has completely dissapeared from reports from moscow
it is not that i am surprised but it is a little shameless even for them
old joe goebells had nothing on them
Posted by: r’giap | Jul 15 2006 19:54 utc | 33
I’d be somewhat skeptical of the silkworm story – if the ship had been hit by a C-802 then it would have been cut in half with the loss of far more than 4 personnel, and with little chance of making it back home before it sunk; 700kg missiles with an explosive warhead travelling at a few hundred miles per hour have a very deleterious effect on ships the size of the vessel that was hit.
The level of damage reported and the relatively low loss of life is consistent with the explosive drone story.
Posted by: dan | Jul 15 2006 19:55 utc | 34
This missile that hit the Israeli warship.
smacks of USS Liberty,,,,,,,,
That said, Robert Fist reported on Sky News about two hours ago (believe it or not!!!) that Hezbollah hit a strategic IDF radar facility in northern Israel.
Billmon is right, Hezbollah have all the aces here (and Israel is playing right into their hands) and Olmert is wantonly killing civilians and Bush was fucked over by Putin at the press conference today.
Escalation………. Mossad are working on it.
Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jul 15 2006 20:14 utc | 35
Uncle: In this case there is a clear difference. It is possible that a show of force and shock-and-awe can deter someone from using a gunship, but opponents who have shown a willingness to explode themselves (or to find pawns who will do so) are unlikely to be susceptible to such tactics. It seems obvious to me that suicide bombers will not be deterred by the possibility of their own or their neighbors deaths and that attempts to indimidate them by violence are evidence of exceptional stupidity.
My intention here is not to debate the moral algebra of whether it is worse to use gunships or human bombs, I’m unconvinced that such a discussion can be illuminating.
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 15 2006 20:28 utc | 36
Putin Jabs Bush: ‘We Certainly Would Not Want…The Same Kind of Democracy As They Have in Iraq’
meanwhile, like 911, Katrina, Boy King sits doing nothing… w/the exception of spouting Aesopian language and meaningless meaningless rhetoric.
while many believe, US ‘could be going bankrupt’ while many more, including myself suspect that sitting and doing nothing is a part of the Grover plan.
Example: Foreign Companies Buy U.S. Roads, Bridges Roads and bridges built by U.S. taxpayers are starting to be sold off, and so far foreign-owned companies are doing the buying. And wont the tax payer be surprized.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jul 15 2006 20:36 utc | 37
Example II:
Welcome to the future, invest now! Repatriation Airways .
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jul 15 2006 20:52 utc | 38
In this case there is a clear difference.
There very well may be a clear difference in your view, however, I remain unmoved. Your saying you would rather not discuss the difference however your view is right? Moral algebra? Indeed.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jul 15 2006 20:58 utc | 39
if i understand my bbcskycnn correctly – all the israelis are doing is kindly reminding their neighbours lebanon that they have some members of the family who ought to dissapear & if they could be so kind – the israeli will do it on their behalf
what i understand alos from their commentaries is that the usuk are lands of light with deep love in their heart wishing to export the best of their already undervalued societies
how they connect or do not connect the dissapearance into air of the iraq olympic committee is obviously beyond their visionary powers
Posted by: r’giap | Jul 15 2006 20:58 utc | 40
Uncle, you under featured yr. Great link on US going broke. Prob. ‘cuz we’ve discussed it so much. But when it comes from one of Am-‘s most distinguished economists, in a paper written for Fed. Reserve Bank of St. Louis, the Big Question is why is this written up in Brit. paper, rather than NYT/WarPost Headline? It’s the obvious way to shut down this Iran War yak.
Article’s analysis dramatized imortance of blogs beating the drum for radical increases in taxes on the rich & corporations. Otherwise Elites will Destroy pensions, Social Security & Medicare as well as imposing massive National Sales Tax. To wit:
The United States is heading for bankruptcy, according to an extraordinary paper published by one of the key members of the country’s central bank.
A ballooning budget deficit and a pensions and welfare timebomb could send the economic superpower into insolvency, according to research by Professor Laurence Kotlikoff for the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis, a leading constituent of the US Federal Reserve.
Prof Kotlikoff said that, by some measures, the US is already bankrupt. “To paraphrase the Oxford English Dictionary, is the United States at the end of its resources, exhausted, stripped bare, destitute, bereft, wanting in property, or wrecked in consequence of failure to pay its creditors,” he asked.
According to his central analysis, “the US government is, indeed, bankrupt, insofar as it will be unable to pay its creditors, who, in this context, are current and future generations to whom it has explicitly or implicitly promised future net payments of various kinds”.
….
Paul Ashworth, of Capital Economics, was more sanguine about the coming retirement of the Baby Boomer generation. “For a start, the expected deterioration in the Federal budget owes more to rising per capita spending on health care than to changing demographics,” he said.
“This can be contained if the political will is there.
Posted by: jj | Jul 15 2006 21:12 utc | 41
So, when Repatriation Airways Scam happens under Pres. from JackAss Party, will kos ban such a diary?
Posted by: jj | Jul 15 2006 21:17 utc | 42
Uncle: I think you misunderstand the point of my argument which is purely strategic altough you want to see me as trying to excuse the Israelis.
Posted by: cit | Jul 15 2006 21:19 utc | 43
No, cit, or ck, I was trying to engage you to clarify your comments. If that is to much to ask, the fucking say so.
I wrote above I very well could be misunderstanding you. There is no excuse for either side. Both have blood on their hands.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jul 15 2006 21:35 utc | 44
the Big Question is why is this written up in Brit. paper, rather than NYT/WarPost Headline?
kotlikoff’s paper, Is the U.S. Bankrupt?, is originally from conference presentation dated Oct 20-21, 2005 (pdf [211kb]) though i see that it has been reformatted & rereleased this month here [146kb]. the txt appears the same.
here is kotlikoff’s faculty page w/ links to further writings.
Posted by: b real | Jul 15 2006 22:03 utc | 45
The world has turned. There can’t be a negotiated cease-fire. There is no state to negotiate with, only Terrorists or Defenders of Islam depending on your viewpoint. Israel can’t allow missiles to keep hitting their cities. They will have to reoccupy Lebanon and depopulate a 40 mile buffer zone. As Muslim genocide escalates so will retaliation. With Syria and Iran as the only states existent in opposition, a bombing campaign is sure commence. Israel and the USA do not have enough troops to occupy Syria and Iran. Once the steerage of a couple oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz are hit with drones, the US economy will collapse. The only question is will the USA be forced out of the Middle East by economic pressures or will a nuclear exchange occur first.
Posted by: Jim S | Jul 15 2006 22:42 utc | 46
Uncle: let me try again. For the moment, let’s put the morality of gunships versus suicide bombs to the side and consider things from a cold realpolitik point of view. Use of suicide bombing as a tactic appears to me to, operationally, indicate disregard for lives of innocents, desperation, and willingness to die for the cause (as indicated by the “suicide” part). You may find it laudable or despicable – this has no bearing on my argument here. My point was that it seems unbelievably idiotic to try to frighten suicide bombers with the fear of death, chaos, and hopelessness. Isn’t this like trying to drown a fish? Do they think that someone prepared to blow themselves up in a crowded cafe today will see the bombing of a village and be intimidated or horrified? “Oh god, now that I know the Israelis are willing to use force, I’m too scared to blow myself up, I could get hurt.” The utter stupidity of this shock-and-awe tactic is hard to comprehend.
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 15 2006 23:00 utc | 47
THIS IS ALL BULLSHIT:
The message that Israel was trying to send to Lebanon’s government and citizens seems unclear. On one hand, the Lebanese hear that the Israeli government does not plan to allow Hezbollah to return to its positions in southern Lebanon. That is too tough a mission for the Lebanese government, so people wonder what Israel wants and why it is attacking targets that are not related to the positions in the south, like the Beirut-Damascus highway or the airport. link
Call the damn border a DMZ & send in Nato troops/UN troops to patrol it. End of Story.
Stop blowing up the world, or go to Jupiter, you Bastards – all of you. The F***ing elites hop their private planes to “the Riviera” and leave the rest of us to have our lives destroyed…
Posted by: jj | Jul 15 2006 23:22 utc | 49
Call the damn border a DMZ & send in Nato troops/UN troops to patrol it. End of Story.
This might work if US/Israel would permit UN troops into Gaza and the West Bank. They never will. And why should Lebanon be the DMZ?
Put it in Israel.
Posted by: biklett | Jul 16 2006 0:30 utc | 50
Attacking Hezbollah is no more the reason, than getting back the ‘kidnapped’ p.o.w. was the real reason for levelling Gaza.
If the UN is serious about peace making, then peace keeping, the dmz would have to be around the pre 67 Israeli borders.
But since USuk would come over all undemocratic and veto anything like that there’s no point in even discussing it.
If people in amerika or any of the other whitefella moral vacuums want to try and slow down the slaughter it would be smart to point out a few salient points:
There hasn’t been any credible evidence presented that the few craters, or one building with a hole in the side of it, many news crews and an Israeli politician with a strong New York accent standing outside of it, were caused by Hezbollah or any other Islamist warriors. As for the boat; that story changes about as much as the story about a boat in the gulf of tonkin did.
Whatever the truth of these incidents are, no one will really know until it is too late to put the genie back in the bottle.
Discrediting these flimsy yarns plays into two very popular amerikan memes of the moment. One that the BushCo morons couldn’t lie straight in bed, and two, that Arabs are technically incompetent.
Whatever the truth of the matter is, there is no doubt that as discussed earlier, this is a desperate attempt by BushCo to salvage something from the mid term elections other than a long prison sentence for his crew.
Eventually the Palestinians, Iraqis, Iranians, and Lebanese will prevail. However the cost will be high and a shitstorm will have been created. The thing about shit storms is some shit always rises to the top so that even if the Arab nations come out of this the least worst off, there is every chance they will be under someone else’s thumb.
But despite having absolutely no interest in the outcome of the amerikan pseudo democratic process, pulling this apart asap will prevent the death of more innocents.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 16 2006 0:36 utc | 51
The Palestinians have been begging the UN for peacekeeping troops for years and years. Guess who keeps vetoing it?
Posted by: Ensley | Jul 16 2006 0:49 utc | 52
Hey #51. There was a UN peacekeeping force on the 1967 borders, but when Nasser decided to attack Israel, he asked them to get out of the way and they did!
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 16 2006 0:53 utc | 53
well citizen k @ #53 I don’t know where you got your history but Israel launched an attack on Egypt in 1967 using claims that Gamal Nasser’s comments on the state of Israel needing to be abolished in favour of a state which represented all citizens arab, jewish, and xtian as meaning that Egypt wanted to kill all jewish citizens. The threats emanating out of Israel caused Egypt and Syria to mass their troops close to their borders.
Israel started this conflict just as it started all other conflicts designed to gain liebensraum, in a deliberate act to expand it’s borders throughout all of Palestine.
Since this storm was brewing Nasser advised the UN that if attacked Egypt couldn’t guarantee the safety of the blue caps. They withdrew and Israel attacked Egypt.
I remember the sequence of events distinctly as it led to the destruction of our student socialist movement. A couple of members who had been fully supportive of actions we had taken in in commemoration of the anniversary of the Sharpesville massacre, and NZ’s involvement in Vietnam, became quite unhinged when a motion was passed that we send a group of students to a protest against Israel’s aggression.
Their opposition wasn’t because they believed ‘Egypt had started it’ but because they believed Israel was a special case, a homeland for Jewish people, and that homeland included most of what until quite recently has been referred to as the occupied territories and therefore Israel’s aggression was ‘excusable’.
As for the Palestinians like most zionists these alleged socialists denied such a thing existed.
Those people claiming to be Palestinian were Arabs who had invaded Israel after all the jewish people left a couple of thousand years before.
As awful as that time was for the people of the Middle East and to a much lesser extent for a bunch of 13 and 14 year old schoolkids who lost friendships never to be regained; the ‘socialists when it suited them’, did me a big favour, in that I learned for the first of many times that politics is about what you do, not what you claim to believe in.
After 67 despite requests from the UN, Egypt, Syria and Palestine the apartheid state of Israel has consistently refused to guarantee the safety of peacekeepers on the pre 67 borders. Amerika has used it’s security council veto to prevent blue caps being imposed as they were in the original settlement.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 16 2006 2:53 utc | 54
Well #54, I hate to dispute such an authoritative analysis of the 1967 ME war an eyewitness to a New Zealand student socialist organization, but
Since this storm was brewing Nasser advised the UN that if attacked Egypt couldn’t guarantee the safety of the blue caps. They withdrew and Israel attacked Egypt.
is an orwellian way of agreeing with me. Nasser ordered the UN to withdraw their buffer zone troops and the UN did. (and then he cut off Israel’s oil by blocking the Gulf). I don’t give a shit whether in your mind Nasser was forced to do so because of his deep concern for the lives of UN soldiers or whether, more likely, he was like George Bush too stupid to realize that “bring it on” is something you shouldn’t say if you can’t walk the walk.
My point was that the entire notion of UN peacekeepers is a fraud since they only appear to stay in place as long as there is no danger to themselves. Pretty damn useless.
BTW want to give us the date that the PLO accepted UN resolution 247?
On 27 May the President of Egypt, Abdel Nasser, declared: “Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight.”
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 16 2006 3:21 utc | 55
xUS Admitting they’ve begun war on Iran??
Israel, with U.S. support, intends to resist calls for a cease-fire and continue a longer-term strategy of punishing Hezbollah, which is likely to include several weeks of precision bombing in Lebanon, according to senior Israeli and U.S. officials.
For Israel, the goal is to eliminate Hezbollah as a security threat — or altogether, the sources said. A senior Israeli official confirmed that Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah is a target, on the calculation that the Shiite movement would be far less dynamic without him.
For the United States, the broader goal is to strangle the axis of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pooling resources to change the strategic playing field in the Middle East, U.S. officials say.
Whatever the outrage on the Arab streets, Washington believes it has strong behind-the-scenes support among key Arab leaders also nervous about the populist militants — with a tacit agreement that the timing is right to strike.
“What is out there is concern among conservative Arab allies that there is a hegemonic Persian threat [running] through Damascus, through the southern suburbs of Beirut and to the Palestinians in Hamas,” said a senior U.S. official who requested anonymity because of sensitive diplomacy. “Regional leaders want to find a way to navigate unease on their streets and deal with the strategic threats to take down Hezbollah and Hamas, to come out of the crisis where they are not as ascendant.” by Robin Wright
Posted by: jj | Jul 16 2006 7:10 utc | 56
Strategic bombing??? who are they kidding now?
All Sharon ever did was give Hamas more and more power by attacking Arafat & the PA every day. Who is serious now that these people we have helped to power through stupid policies are the real target? Who put the Shiites in power in Iraq and whose plan was that to begin with? The neocons always wanted a state of permanent war.
Everybody needs to re-read this and check the point by point playbook:
A Clean Break
excerpt: Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon… And that’s after the stated plan to get rid of Saddam.
Olmert is a new man in charge and can’t back down… he needs Bush to save his behind by calling for a ceasefire but the maniacs in charge in this country are bent on bankrupting us forever and creating total instability. What is their playbook? Left Behind???
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 16 2006 7:31 utc | 57
Those people claiming to be Palestinian were Arabs who had invaded Israel after all the jewish people left a couple of thousand years before.
do you have a citation for this? From the information I’ve come across, there has been no time in the history of Palestine that Jews did not live in the area.
Jews were not a majority of the population, nor did they rule the area after they were conquered by the Romans. In 135 c.e, the Emperor Hadrian put down a Jewish revolt, outlawed Judaism, sold many into slavery, forbade Jews from entering Jerusalem, and many Jews migrated to Babylonia, where they were treated better than the Romans treated them.
Hadrian renamed the area Syria Palaestinia at this same time as part of the Roman attempt to erase Judaism from the area. Jews created centers in other cities in what we know as Palestine/Israel when they were forbidden to enter Jerusalem, which was also renamed Aelia Capitolina.
In 438 c.e., Empress Eudocia again permitted Jews to live in Jerusalem.
In 638 c.e., the Caliph again permitted Jews to live in Jerusalem after they had been expelled by the Persians.
In 1187 c.e., Saladin allowed Jews and Muslims to live in Jerusalem.
For 200 years, during the Mameluk era (approximately 1200-1400 c.e.), Jews lived in the area and also migrated back into the area from Europe. Jews were allowed to re-establish schools. During the Ottoman Turkish period that followed, Jews continued to live in the area and continued to establish synagogues, specifically in Jerusalem.
The Ottoman period was followed by British colonial rule. Again, Jews lived in the area now called Palestine, although, again, they did not rule. additionally, there were restrictions on their access to Jerusalem, for instance.
The majority of the population was Arabic, but a significant Jewish population existed in the area contiguously, from the fall of Jerusalem, to the Roman Empire, to the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
If this history is incorrect, I’d appreciate some citations that show otherwise. Everything I’ve looked up about the area demonstrates that the Jews never left, tho their numbers declined greatly after the Romans and then Christians tried to destroy them.
All of this information is available online via history timelines from encyclopedias, and Karen Armstrong’s books, history of god and battle for god also go into some of this.
In Washington, a senior State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, also said the United States was disinclined to seek a cease-fire “because the Israelis have made it abundantly clear that that’s not what they’re going to do.”
Instead, he warned that the situation could worsen significantly in the coming days. A “fairly long and drawn-out process” lies ahead, he said.
…
In Tehran, most ordinary Iranians are convinced that Hezbollah’s move was timed to ease pressure on Iran and its nuclear program at the G-8 summit and at the United Nations Security Council later this week, said Babak Rahimi, an expert on Iran and Islamic studies at the University of California, San Diego, who is currently visiting Tehran.
“That’s the rumor here, that the timing of this is not a coincidence,” he said. “The argument is that this was done to show the U.S. and Israel: `This is what happens if you continue your belligerence.'”
However, the ferocity of Israel’s response has caught Iranians off guard, in turn fueling the convictions of hard-liners who believe U.S. pressure over Iran’s nuclear program is just a prelude to an inevitable U.S. attack against Iran. “They’re saying this nuclear stuff is just a ploy, and that what is happening shows that their true intention is to attack us down the road,” Rahimi said.Israel-Hezbollah fight may draw in new combatants
Is there any part of our govt. that’s not under the control of AIPAC, or the mad NeoNuts? doesn’t seem to be…Just this vast echoing silence, as this apparently captured state catapults into the Abyss…Jesus bloody Christ…
Posted by: jj | Jul 16 2006 7:46 utc | 59
Israelis bombing Beirut suburbs, incl. power plant.
Hez. hit Haifa railway station at busiest time of morning. Says they’ll hit petrochemical plants if Israel continues bombing Beirut…
Posted by: jj | Jul 16 2006 8:05 utc | 60
Establishing hegemony can be such a b**ch, fauxreal
Little Christian schoolgirls get in the way!
Israeli settler attacks ecumenical accompanier in Hebron
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 16 2006 8:23 utc | 61
My historical notes have nothing to do with establishing hegemony, anonymous poster or rightward pointing arrow or whatever. I’m disputing the remark, which is obviously a lie, that either you or another anonymous poster/rightward pointing arrow made about the history of the population in the area.
facts are so inconvenient sometimes, aren’t they?
they might interfere with trying to establish hegemony by constantly repeating a lie about the population of an area of the world, for instance.
I cant see how this whole thing is going well for the neo-con agenda, after all they’ve brought the Shiites to power in Iraq, thereby increasing Iran’s power. Their overall plan — that a Shiite “democracy” in Iraq would prove instrumental in achieving a popular revolution against the mullahs in Iran is pretty much D.O.A. Now, with an Israeli anti-Shiite incursion into Lebanon — clearly, state sponsored terrorism (by definition), undermines the WOT through U.S./Israeli linkage, and further illuminates the hegemonic (as opposed to democratic) intentions in the region. Recent squawking by King Abdullah and Mubarak about the rise of Shiite power, and their criticism of Hezbollah’s rocket attacks would underline this (right arabist) point of view. Philosophically, the neo-cons would see an outbreak of regional civil war — probably the greatist threat facing the region — as an okay result, having failed in their misguided original intents. At least everyone would have forgotten why (and who) it all got started. The problem for the realists in the administration is that if this gets out of hand, it’ll probably bankrupt — both countries.
Posted by: anna missed | Jul 16 2006 9:18 utc | 63
faux,
for what ever reason, i appreciate the historical refresher (context)
Posted by: anna missed | Jul 16 2006 9:22 utc | 64
So what Nasser wanted to destroy Israel. I, like most of the rest of the world wants to see Israel destroyed. That doesn’t make Nasser anything other than a human being. Why? Because just like their apartheid former friends in South Africa, the state exists solely because of the degradation, misery and death in inflicts on others.
Nasser was entitled to say what he said, just as he was entitled to blockade a nation that was killing raping and torturing it’s inhabitants.
That was a mild response aimed and getting the murderers to desist. Preferably without further war. The English media talks about the PLO crossing the border to attack Israeli positions, but doesn’t mention the far greater numbers of Palestinians being driven out the other way into Egypt and Jordan by IDF crimes against humanity.
Before President Nasser could negotiate further, Israel attacked. A point which is even supported by your link from the english propagandists who had supported Israel to the point of actually joining in on Israel’s invasion of Egypt in 1956.
If there is one issue more than any other that the english have consistently lied and deceived on it is Egypt under Nasser. He didn’t touch his forelock as he kicked the english assholes out of Egypt as the brits like to imagine the people on the Indian sub-continent did.
But your post falsely claimed Nasser decided to attack Israel.
My point about Palestine never having been empty was quite simply that. Unlike the claim made by Zionists that Palestine as we know it, Israel that they claim it to be, was solely the territory of jewish people before they left, where-upon Arabs from other places invaded.
Any sympathy at all for Israelis is undeserved because jewish people had been migrating to Palestine for centuries and the Palestinians had been more hospitable than most cultures placed in that situation would be. After all as those people referred to as mexicans by the recent migrants to the US know, even moving a few hundred miles north of where your family has lived for centuries can get you imprisoned or shot.
Yet that Palestinian courtesy was repaid with theft, slaughter and rape. Why is it that when a gang of Israeli and amerikan murderers turn up to a mosque and machine-gun the inhabitants they aren’t arrested, they are protected by the Israeli army and police?
This current murder of Lebanese and Palestinian civilians is just more of the same. It will simply make the rest of the peoples of the lands east of the mediterranean more determined than ever to rid themselves of this blot known as the state of Israel. Ultimately those people will prevail, with or without roads, hospitals, electricity and schools because every crater will serve as a further reminder of the atrocities which have been committed upon them.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 16 2006 9:33 utc | 65
And so #65, we come to this. First you state
well citizen k @ #53 I don’t know where you got your history but Israel launched an attack on Egypt in 1967 using claims that Gamal Nasser’s comments on the state of Israel needing to be abolished in favour of a state which represented all citizens arab, jewish, and xtian as meaning that Egypt wanted to kill all jewish citizens. The threats emanating out of Israel caused Egypt and Syria to mass their troops close to their borders.
and then you are forced to admit that
So what Nasser wanted to destroy Israel. I, like most of the rest of the world wants to see Israel destroyed.
And we see that you consider it ok to paraphrase deceptively and that for you it is an act of unprovoked aggression for Israel to attack a nation that demands its destruction and imposes a blockade on it. You insist it is a crime for Israel to refuse to return to 1967 borders that you consider illegitimate anyways. Of course, this is what the Israelis always say – there is no point in negotiating with people who are fixed on an eliminationist agenda. For you it is immoral for the Jews to flout UN resolutions returning them to 1967 borders, but only justice for the UN established existence of Israel to be repudiated.
And to make it all even more inspiring, you come from New Zealand, a nation established by exceptionally bloody theft and violence and the use of automatic weapons against spear armed natives not so long ago. Of course the English colonists had no claim to the land other than pure rapacity and racism. In fact, in 1967 while you were having your delicate socialist sensibilities harmed by those dreadful kikes, the Maoris were forming the Brown Panther PArty to demand their land back. After the racist, treaty breaking, Pakeha colonists evacuate NZ, why don’t you come back and explain your theories about the Jews again.
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 16 2006 13:26 utc | 66
faux… ah, I see the problem, you’re confusing your anonymous posters. I believe that whoever it was you were replying to was citing the Israeli line on the Palestinians: that they don’t really exist as a people. I don’t think that their point ws about the disappearance of the Jews from the area, although of course your point about their continued presence is a very very important element of the Israeli claim to the land.
I am a different anonymous poster, who also, if you will note, pointed out some FACTS which are often ignored by those championing a right to hegemony while they so often seek to make your point. Personally, I think the “continued presence” line is irrelevant to the protest about Occupation policies, even though it’s so often cited as some sort of justification for them.
Posted by: the 2nd anonymous poster, not the first | Jul 16 2006 13:51 utc | 67
PS My posts were numbers 61 & 57, but I do have to dispute something you replied to the person who wrote 65.
You wrote:
My historical notes have nothing to do with establishing hegemony
This is far from true. The “continued presence” line is constantly cited as a raison d’etre for such an establishment, and all the policies justified in its name.
Posted by: 2nd anonymous poster | Jul 16 2006 13:56 utc | 68
By the way, unlike the author of post 65, do not wish to see Israel destroyed. I do, however, wish that my country the USA would enforce international law when it came to our policies on Israel and the rights of Israel’s neighbors and those who are under its Occupation.
Posted by: 2nd anonymous poster | Jul 16 2006 13:58 utc | 69
2cd anonymous:
Perhaps you see the problem some of us have with the “international law” line of argument that is so often, as in #65, used to attempt to make eliminationism more palatable. For our Pakeha colonialist correspondent, international law is an excuse, no more.
And while we are at it, I saw this inspiring note this morning.
Near the village of Marwaheen on the border with Israel, vehicles carrying two families fleeing after Israeli warnings to leave the village were hit, leaving 15 people dead, including several children, police said. The cars were set ablaze, and some bodies were flung into a ravine.
Residents said they had first gone to a United Nations position to take refuge but were turned down. The army said it had targeted an area used by Hezbollah to launch rockets.
In addition to the inexcusable murder by the Israeli army, we find a new note of whiny excuses for their incompetence, but it’s comforting to find that the UN peacekeepers are still protecting civilians with the same level of panache and dedication that they have showed so many times before. Massacres of civilians are an ancient human trait, but the UN has brought something new to the mix – a level of sheer hypocritical uselessness, of cruelly false hope, of pretend humanism, that is really outstanding.
If you want international witnesses to gaze at your slaughter from a safe position, you can’t do better than the UN.
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 16 2006 14:14 utc | 70
2cd anonymous:
Why do you think that the US, in the midst of an illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, and a foreign policy that brings it into alliance with everyone from the dissident boiling Uzbekis to the nun-killing freedom fighters of El Salvador, should particularly concentrate on Israeli violations of international law?
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 16 2006 14:18 utc | 71
citizen k
Actually, I never did beat my wife!
It seems to me the points I made have been made by others long long before the invasion of Iraq. But, since you ask, the ones who seem to feel God should punish anyone who does not support the policies of “Greater Israel”, as well as all the political supporters of Neocon policies, were the ones who supported the invasion of Iraq, the Clean Break Plan, etc etc
Frankly, you can dispute the application of international law all you like, but if you value democracy, and despise policies that elevate the rights of those of one race or one religion above all others who happen to dwell side by side with others, then I’d suggest you apply these values equally to all. And, historical perspective, as so often cited in this conversation, is also good for the gander. These policies were in effect long before there was a Hamas or a Hizbollah or even a Saddam Hussein, and they will go on fueling such groups and their supporters for as long as they continue to be enforced despite long-standing international protest & UN resolutions, etc etc
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 16 2006 14:27 utc | 72
Oh, and I don’t consider it irrelevant to the proportion of concern about Israel that it is the only country that seems to get unquestioning support from my government (including, for example, via policies such as the invasion of Iraq & a reveral of 30 years of diplomacy policy) and my tax dollars… not to mention the current destabilization of the Middle East and the destruction of what is still a fragile new peaceful democracy in Lebanon and its infrastructure.
Posted by: the 2nd anonymous poster | Jul 16 2006 14:38 utc | 74
#72 – my objection to the international law arguments is that it is so often made in bad faith. Consider our Pakeha colonialist correspondent who simultaneously decries Israel’s horrible failure to accept UN resolutions demanding a return to pre-67 borders while applauding Nasser’s call for destruction of Israel in contravention of UN resolutions. What can we make of that except that for a liar and bigot, any excuse will do?
As for your position, it strikes me as an unlikely faith that the tail wags the dog. Whenever Israel has ignored a command from the US boss or argued a US position, the US government has been quick to remind them who is the client and who is the master. For example, the bitter Isreali objections to US AWACS sales to Saudi were brushed aside by the US. The theory that Israel controls US policy rather than the other way around seems to have no basis other than a superstitious belief in the Jewish conspiracy. US policy in the ME is consistent with US policy worldwide. (by the way, aid to egypt is roughly equivalent to aid to Israel)
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 16 2006 14:59 utc | 75
anna missed I agree with the main point(s) of your post, but:
Their overall plan — that a Shiite “democracy” in Iraq would prove instrumental in achieving a popular revolution against the mullahs in Iran is pretty much D.O.A.
How could that have worked? That wasn’t the plan. The aim was political burnt-earth (not to mention other aspects) – get rid of Saddam, Saddamites, Baathists (still Arab Nationalists in a way), the supporting clans (Sunnis), and the institutional trappings of the State that gave it its power – the Army and the Police, first of all; Ministries, next. (Like de-nazification, metaphor which was used at the time.)
Then, in la-la land, political, democratic, re-birth. In line with this idea, the Americans worked quite hard to get Sunnis on board, in the Gvmt, etc. These aims were certainly sincere on the part of many, even if they seem at odds with an implicit underlying gaol, or a combination of hapless actions that lead to a supposedly undesired result – destruction and chaos.
Posted by: Noirette | Jul 16 2006 15:51 utc | 76
my post, again, was a response to a statement in another post, because I see eliminationist rhetoric from both sides, tho the eliminationist rhetoric I hear in the U.S. comes from Bushbots, not liberals…tho maybe they’ve said the same. Until both sides can accept the others’ right to exist, I do not see how peace is possible.
so, if I saw that someone on this site posted that Palestinians have no right to be in the area, I would also dispute that, in the same way that I would oppose eliminationist rhetoric from Hutus and Tutsis, to use an example that demonstrates to me how horrific such ideas are.
As it now stands, there seems to be no rational response from the powers-that-be on either side. In that case, it would seem that a cease-fire is the best people can hope for at this time to stop the sufferering of innocents.
Noirette,
I think there is reasonable evidence concluding this was their plan i.e. especially david wormser — that the promotion of the new “democracy” emminating out of Najaf (Iraqi style) would undermine and support a popular revolution in Iran against the mullahs in Quam (Iranian style). The neo-cons desire “regime change” in Iran above all else, but want an internal Shiite revolution to prevent the oil producing regions from breaking off. Of course, it is (was) a hairbrained scheme, in the extreme — but how else to account for the radical change in policy from back to bush 41 & clinton. Now that the fruits of such a plan are proving very bitter indeed, what we see now is backsliding to the realists, pro arab position.
Curious, how the internal differences within the U.S. foreign policy establishment, are being played out in real terms on the ground, are germinating not a new order of things — but a spreading Shiite/Sunni civil war that can easily engulf the entire region. If Israel/U.S. think they can control the civil war fallout that would result from bombing Syria & Iran into regime change, they better look at what they have done in Iraq as the model of what to expect. As it would, in the short run reduce the threat of the authoritarian regimes in question, but like iraq, would produce a more virulent in the long run — alah Hezbolla.
Posted by: anna missed | Jul 16 2006 18:44 utc | 78
Always keep in mind that 90% of the oil exported from the Persian Gulf area — Iraq, Iran, etc — stays in Asia; supplying China, Japan, India and so forth, in that order. By America creating puppet govts in these countries, it effectively has taken control of the oil flow and therefore the economies of three of the fastest growing giants on earth.
The ultimate goal is not “democracy” in the Middle East but rather controlling to our advantage the economic growth of China, Japan and India.
Posted by: Ensley | Jul 16 2006 19:45 utc | 79
The hypocrisy is Israel’s not mine. The terrorists who sought to establish Israel did so by using the collective guilt/racism felt by Europeans post WW2 to establish a state on another’s land.
Israel has continually sought to expand the geographical boundaries of that nation by breaking UN Nations resolutions of the type that they had first used to establish their immoral state. One of these ‘breaches was Israel’s invasion of Egypt in 1956 long before the time you accuse Nasser of ignoring resolutions. My point about resolutions by the UN is simply this, that the ‘stacking’ of the security council by Pakehas (white people from Europe or originally from Europe) has created a situation where when such resolutions are breached by friends or the guilty baggage of Pakehas (baggage such as jewish people that had been chased out of Europe) then the security council resounds with calls for enforcement.
When resolutions that call for justice for people who are no friends of Pakehas such as ‘raggedy arabs’ are breached no matter how much noise comes out of the general assembly, the security council remains silent.
The current attempt at killing all non-jewish semites in and around the lands to the immediate east of the Mediterranean is just such an example.
Pakehas (an excellent word. Some say it means white shit but Te Reo linguists say no. Certainly my maori friends say it means no such thing to them, on the other hand some of the maori people I work with consider pakeha and shit to be about the same level of worth) have many more agendas at stake than ‘helping out the jews’.
They are busy trying to implicate Iran in this by claiming some of HB’s weapons come from Iran. This is just another approach at getting the oil by hook or by crook and because most pakehas are more interested in oil than trying to be ‘fair’ and ‘balanced’ about the slaughter, sodomy, and rape of Palestinians by Israelis, they may well get that dog to really get the fight going.
More hypocrisy because if one were to say that it was fair enough to bomb those supplying weapons to the participants most of amerika could be justifiably reduced to a parking lot.
Palestinian people imagined that they would protected by international law so many times yet their hopes have been dashed.
Supporters of the Palestinian People aren’t double dealing when they ask for the law to be enforced and then support breaking that law themselves. They are merely attempting an interim survival of as many Palestinians as possible until just international law is enforced objectively.
In life or death situations; demanding that the victims of illegal assaults don’t break laws in self defence, to prevent their demise is just the sort of hypocrasy Palestinians have come to expect from mealy mouthed pakehas.
Still back to the UN resolutions here are some of the ones Israel has ignored and or violated since it’s inception. The list below comes from here:
Summary of Security Council Resolutions Affirming the
Applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention
1. SC Resolution 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967 [Adopted at 1361st meeting – unanimously]
Calls upon the Government of Israel to ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants of the areas where military operations have taken place and to facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of the hostilities; and recommends to the governments concerned the scrupulous respect of the humanitarian principles governing the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of civilian persons in time of war, contained in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949; and requests the Secretary-General to follow the effective implementation of this resolution and to report to the Council.
2. SC Resolution 259 (1968) of 27 September 1968 [Adopted at 1454th meeting (12-0-3) (3 abstentions were Canada, Denmark, U.S.)]
Deploring the delay in implementation of resolution 237 (1967) because of the conditions still being set by Israel for receiving a Special Representative of the Secretary-General; requests the Secretary-General to urgently dispatch a Special Representative to the Arab territories under military occupation by Israel following the hostilities of 5 June 1967 and to report on the implementation of resolution 237 (1967). Requests the Government of Israel to receive the Special Representative, to cooperate with him and to facilitate his work.
3. SC Resolution 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969 [Adopted at 1512th meeting (11-0-4) (4 abstentions were Colombia, Finland, Paraguay, U.S.)]
Grieved at the extensive damage caused by arson to the Holy Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem on 21 August 1969 under the military occupation of Israel, recognizes that any act of destruction or profanation of the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites in Jerusalem or any encouragement of, or connivance at, any such act may seriously endanger international peace and security; and calls upon Israel to scrupulously observe the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and international law governing military occupation and to refrain from causing any hindrance to the discharge of the established functions of the Supreme Moslem Council of Jerusalem; condemns failure of Israel to comply with aforementioned resolutions.
4. SC Resolution 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979 [Adopted at 2134th meeting (12-0-3) (3 abstentions were Norway, U.K., U.S.)]
Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East; calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories. Establishes a Commission consisting of three members of the Security Council to examine the situation relating to settlements and requests the Commission to submit a report to the Security Council.
5. SC Resolution 452 (1979) of 20 July 1979 [Adopted at 2159th meeting (14-0-1) (1 abstention was U.S.)]
Considering that the policy of Israel in establishing settlements in the occupied Arab territories has no legal validity and constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949, accepts the recommendations contained in the report of the Commission; calls upon the government and people of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem; and requests the Commission, in view of the magnitude of the problem of settlements, to keep under close survey the implementation of the present resolution and to report back to the Security Council.
6. SC Resolution 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980 [Adopted at 2203rd meeting – unanimously]
Accepts the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report of the Commission of the Security Council (on settlements); determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.
Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem. Calls upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories; and requests the Commission to continue examining the situation relating to settlements, to investigate the reported serious depletion of natural resources, particularly water, with a view to ensuring protection of those important natural resources of the territories under occupation.
7. SC Resolution 468 (1980) of 8 May 1980 [Adopted at 2221st meeting (14-0-1) (1 abstention was U.S.)]
Recalling the Geneva Convention of 1949 and expressing deep concern at the expulsion by the Israeli military occupation authorities of the Mayors of Hebron and Halhoul and of the Sharia Judge of Hebron, calls upon Israel as occupying Power to rescind these illegal measures and to facilitate the immediate return of the expelled Palestinian leaders; and requests the Secretary-General to report upon the implementation of this resolution.
8. SC Resolution 469 (1980) of 20 May 1980 [Adopted at 2223rd meeting (14-0-1) (1 abstention was U.S.)]
Recalling the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and in particular article 1, which reads “the High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances”, and article 49, which reads “individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive”, strongly deplores the failure of Israel to implement resolution 468 (1968); and calls again upon the Government of Israel, as occupying Power, to rescind the illegal measures taken by the Israeli military occupation authorities in expelling the Mayors of Hebron and Halhoul and the Sharia Judge of Hebron.
9. SC Resolution 471 (1980) of 5 June 1980 [Adopted at 2226th meeting (14-0-1) (1 abstention was U.S.)]
Expressing deep concern that the Jewish settlers in the occupied Arab territories are allowed to carry arms thus enabling them to perpetrate crimes against the civilian population, calls for the immediate apprehension and prosecution of the perpetrators of these crimes and condemns the assassination attempts on the lives of the Mayors of Nablus, Ramallah and Al-Bireh. Expresses deep concern that Israel, as occupying Power, has failed to provide adequate protection to the civilian population in the occupied territories in conformity with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention; calls again upon the Government of Israel to respect and comply with the provisions of the Convention as well as with the resolutions of the Council, calls once again upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories; and reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem.
10. SC Resolution 476 (1980) of 30 June 1980 [Adopted at 2242nd meeting (14-0-1) (1 abstention was U.S.)]
Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem; strongly deplores the continued refusal of Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly; and reaffirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Reiterates that all measures taken by Israel which have altered the geographic, demographic and historical character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council; and reaffirms its determination in the event of non-compliance by Israel to examine practical ways and means in accordance with relevant provisions of the U.N. Charter to secure full implementation of this resolution.
11. SC Resolution 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980 [Adopted at 2245th meeting (14-0-1) (1 abstention was U.S.)]
Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the “basic law” on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions; affirms that the enactment of the “basic law” by Israel constitutes a violation of international law and does not affect the continued application of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem; determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular, the recent “basic law” on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith. Decides not to recognize the “basic law” and such other actions by Israel that, as a result of this law, seek to alter the character and status of Jerusalem; calls upon all members of the U.N. (a) to accept this decision, (b) and upon those States that have established diplomatic Missions in Jerusalem to withdraw such Missions from the Holy City; and requests the Secretary-General to report on the implementation of this resolution before 15 November 1980.
12. SC Resolution 484 (1980) of 19 December 1980 [Adopted 2260th meeting-unanimously]
Expressing grave concern at the expulsion by Israel of the Mayor of Hebron and the Mayor of Halhoul; reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 to all the Arab territories occupied by Israel in 1967; calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to adhere to the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention; and declares it imperative that they be enabled to return to their homes and resume their responsibilities.
13. SC Resolution 592 (1986) of 8 December 1986 [Adopted at 2727th meeting (14-0-1) (1 abstention was U.S.)]
Reaffirms that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem; strongly deplores the opening of fire by the Israeli army resulting in the death and the wounding of defenseless students at Bir Zeit University; calls upon Israel to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949; and further calls upon Israel to release any person or persons detained as a result of the recent events at Bir Zeit University.
14. SC Resolution 605 (1987) of 22 December 1987 [Adopted at 2777th meeting (14-0-1) (1 abstention was U.S.)]
Taking into account the need to consider measures for the impartial protection of the Palestinian civilian population under Israeli occupation, strongly deplores those policies and practices of Israel, the occupying Power, which violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories, particularly the opening of fire by the Israeli army, resulting in the killing and wounding of defenseless Palestinian civilians; and calls once again upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to desist forthwith from its policies and practices that are in violation of the provisions of the Convention. Requests the Secretary-General to examine the present situation in the occupied territories by all means available to him and to submit a report no later than 20 January 1988 containing his recommendations on ways and means for ensuring the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilians under Israeli occupation.
15. SC Resolution 607 (1988) of 5 January 1988 [Adopted at 2780th meeting – unanimously]
Having been apprised of the decision of Israel, the occupying Power, to “continue the deportation” of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories, reaffirms once again that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem; calls upon Israel to refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilians from the occupied territories; and strongly requests it to abide by its obligations arising from the Fourth Geneva Convention.
16. SC Resolution 608 (1988) of 14 January 1988 [Adopted at 2781st meeting (14-0-1) (1 abstention was U.S.)]
Reaffirming resolution 607 (1988) of 5 January 1988, deeply regrets that Israel, the occupying Power, in defiance of U.N. resolutions, has deported Palestinian civilians; and calls upon Israel to rescind the orders and to desist from forthwith deporting any other Palestinian civilians from the occupied territories.
17. SC Resolution 636 (1989) of 6 July 1989 [Adopted at 2870th meeting (14-0-1) (1 abstention was U.S.)]
Deeply regrets the continuing deportation by Israel, the occupying Power, of Palestinian civilians; calls upon Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied Palestinian territories of those deported and to desist forthwith from deporting any other Palestinian civilians; and reaffirms that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable to the Palestinian territories, occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and to the other occupied Arab territories.
18. SC Resolution 641 (1989) of 30 August 1989 [Adopted at 2883rd meeting (14-0-1) (1 abstention was U.S.)]
Deplores Israel’s continuing deportation of Palestinian civilians; and calls upon Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied Palestinian territories of those deported and to desist forthwith from deporting any other Palestinian civilians; and reaffirms that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable to the Palestinian territories, occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and to the other occupied Arab territories.
19. SC Resolution 672 (1990) of 12 October 1990 [Adopted at 2948th meeting-unanimously]
Reaffirming that a just and lasting solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict must be based on its resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) through an active negotiating process which takes into account the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel, as well as the legitimate political rights of the Palestinian people; expresses alarm at the violence which took place on 8 October at Al-Haram Al-Sharif and other Holy Places of Jerusalem, resulting in over twenty Palestinian deaths and the injury of more than one hundred and fifty people, including Palestinian civilians and innocent worshippers. Condemns especially the acts of violence committed by the Israeli security forces, resulting in injuries and loss of human life; calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is applicable to all the territories occupied since 1967; and requests, in connection with the decision of the Secretary-General to send a mission to the region, that he submit a report to the Council, before the end of October 1990, containing his findings and conclusions.
20. SC Resolution 673 (1990) of 24 October 1990 [Adopted at 2949th meeting-unanimously]
Reaffirming resolution 672 (1990) of 12 October 1990, deplores the refusal of the Israeli Government to receive the mission of the Secretary-General to the region in violation of resolution 672 (1990); urges the government to reconsider its decision and insists that it comply fully with resolution 672 (1990); and requests the Secretary-General to submit the report requested in that resolution.
21. SC Resolution 681 (1990) of 20 December 1990 [Adopted at 2970th meeting -unanimously]
Having received the report of the Secretary-General on ways and means of ensuring the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilians under Israeli occupation, and taking into consideration the statement by the President of the Council on 20 December 1990 *; urges the Government of Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to all the territories occupied by Israel since 1967 and to abide scrupulously by the provisions of the Convention; and calls upon the High Contracting Parties to the said Convention to ensure respect by Israel, the occupying Power, for its obligations under the Convention in accordance with article 1 thereof.
Requests the Secretary-General, in cooperation with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to develop further the idea of convening a meeting of the High Contracting Parties to the said Convention to discuss possible measures that might be taken by them under the Convention; also requests the Secretary-General to monitor and observe the situation regarding Palestinian civilians under Israeli occupation and to utilize and designate or draw upon the U.N. and other personnel and resources present there, in the area and elsewhere, needed to accomplish this task; and requests the Secretary-General to submit a first progress report to the Council by the first week of March 1991 and to report every four months thereafter.
22. SC Resolution 694 (1991) of 24 May 1991 [Adopted at 2989th meeting – unanimously]
Declares that the action of the Israeli authorities of deporting four Palestinians on 18 May is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is applicable to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem; and deplores this action and reiterates that Israel refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported.
23. SC Resolution 726 (1992) of 6 January 1992 [Adopted at 3026th meeting – unanimously]
Strongly condemns the decision of Israel, the occupying Power, to resume deportation of Palestinian civilians; reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem; and requests Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported.
24. SC Resolution 799 (1992) of 18 December 1992 [Adopted at 3151st meeting-unanimously]
Strongly condemns the action taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to deport hundreds of Palestinian civilians (on 17 December 1992); expresses its firm opposition to any such deportations by Israel; reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and affirms that deportation of civilians constitutes a contravention of its obligations under the Convention; and demands that Israel ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied territories of all those deported.
25. SC Resolution 904 (1994) of 18 March 1994 [Adopted at 3351st meeting – unanimously (Draft was voted on in parts, with the U.S. abstaining on two preambular paragraphs. No vote was taken on the text as a whole.)]
Reaffirming its relevant resolutions, which affirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 to the territories occupied by Israel in June 1967, including Jerusalem, and the Israeli responsibilities thereunder, strongly condemns the massacre in Hebron committed against Palestinian worshippers in Al-Ibrahimi Mosque, on 25 February 1994, during the holy month of Ramadan, and its aftermath which took the lives of more than 50 Palestinian civilians and injured several hundred others. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to continue to take and implement measures, including, inter alia, confiscation of arms, with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by Israeli settlers; and calls for measures to be taken to guarantee the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilians throughout the occupied territory, including, inter alia, a temporary international or foreign presence, which was provided for in the Declaration of Principles, within the context of the ongoing peace process.
Requests the cosponsors of the peace process, the United States of America and the Russian Federation, to continue their efforts to invigorate the peace process, and to undertake the necessary support for the implementation of the above-mentioned measures; and reaffirms its support for the peace process currently underway, and calls for the implementation of the Declaration of Principles, signed by the Government of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization on 13 September 1993 in Washington, D.C., without delay.
Prepared by the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations
Check out the abstentions! It should also be remembered that in most cases in order to turn outright vetos into mere abstentions the resolutions often had to be watered down to near meaningless.
The cure for this is not to ignore or destroy the UN but to fix it. An opportunity do so may occur soon when both USuk and their israeli proxies run out of enough huff and puff to blow anyone’s house down.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 17 2006 0:34 utc | 80
Y’know, deceiving ourselves about the history of the area and the nature of the conflict is not going to bring peace. I apply that to arguments made on both “sides”, here, as well as those made by people actively involved in the conflict. It is all a moral swamp, and it will take great moral strength to reclaim any of it.
Prayer is perhaps in order.
Posted by: Randolph Fritz | Jul 17 2006 0:46 utc | 81
It isn’t very edifying to see apologists for Israel hanging around MoA deliberately implying that those who argue for the abolition of the apartheid state of Israel are arguing for the casting out of all jewish people from the state that would replace Israel.
This is the sort of cheap rhetorical trick best left to Fox News.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 17 2006 0:50 utc | 82
thanks for the links to the UN resolutions. I really appreciate it when people post data.
I suppose someone could choose to think I’m an apologist for Israel by responding to a line in a post that was factually inaccurate. It’s not true, but that doesn’t seem to matter. The line in the post stated that “all jews left the area thousands of years ago.” I found out that wasn’t true. That in no way serves as a valid argument for apartheid Israel.
poster 82 seems to want to pretend that the line was not posted. but it was. it’s no rhetorical trick to point it out and say it’s not true.
but this is a subject that is rarely subject to reason, so I’m not surprised at the attempt to associate any attempts to look at others’ statements as the equivalent of fox news.
I’ll withdraw from this “conversation.”
peace
@fauxreal
Keep in mind the flurry of propagenda attacks of late.
For instance, Ask yourself…
Has this or another thread been hijacked?
An excellent and insightful analytical piece:
‘Netwar'[flooding the channel] (pdf).
The modern incarnation of CoIntelPro activities within the perfect anonymity of Blogs? ‘Net CoIntelPro, where agents would be assigned multiple topics/blogs to track and monitor and ‘engage/influence/disrupt/misinform’ confuse with a series of defined almost schizophrenic, yet relatively consistent, individual ‘persona’s’
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jul 17 2006 3:05 utc | 84
#80 lots of words but the dishonesty of your argument is plain to see. When Nasser calls for the destruction of the state of Israel in violation of the UN Charter and the resolutions that established Israel, that’s good because the Israelis are zionist racist scum. When the Israelis refuse to accept UN resolutions calling for return to pre-1967 border, thats a terrible flouting of international law. So, like everyone else, you don’t take “international law” seriously, it’s just a shoddy excuse. You can offer up this transparent bullshit that Nasser was calling for a hippie commune of brotherly love to replace the horrible Zionist State, but nobody is fooled – the fate of the Jews in Israel if the Arabs had won the 1967 war would have been grim indeed.
As a white colonialist living on land violently stolen from Maoris, you apply typical white settler self-righteousness to the inferior peoples. It’s ok for the Christian white man to machine gun Maoris and take their land, but those cheating, conspiring, disreputable Jews – why even comparing the situations must make the blood boil. Dreadful impertinence. Have the boy take them out for a whipping!
One thing that the Jews learned from European civilization, that the Maoris undoubtedly learned, and that the rest of the world learned, is that the guilty feelings of the white master are not worth as much as a well armed military force or even as much as, say a treaty of Waitangi or a shred of used toilet paper.
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 17 2006 3:08 utc | 85
#82 – Fox news could certainly use you. You write
israel launched an attack on Egypt in 1967 using claims that Gamal Nasser’s comments on the state of Israel needing to be abolished in favour of a state which represented all citizens arab, jewish, and xtian as meaning that Egypt wanted to kill all jewish citizens.
when what Nasser said was:“Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight.”
So really, give them a call. I think you have a flair for it.
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 17 2006 3:16 utc | 86
read what people write and there will be no misunderstandings:
From#54
Talking about some of the jewish kids who were members of a student socialist group I wrote:
Their opposition wasn’t because they believed ‘Egypt had started it’ but because they believed Israel was a special case, a homeland for Jewish people, and that homeland included most of what until quite recently has been referred to as the occupied territories and therefore Israel’s aggression was ‘excusable’.
As for the Palestinians like most zionists these alleged socialists denied such a thing existed.
Those people claiming to be Palestinian were Arabs who had invaded Israel after all the jewish people left a couple of thousand years before.
What I meant was that these kids maintained a fairly standard zionist line, that the land they called Israel and Palestinians called Palestine ‘belonged by right to the jewish People who had been ‘driven out’ The line which is pumped out with monotonous regularity on a fundie xtian TV channel by playing a tape of some NY academic member of an obscure zionist sect. She claims to have historical evidence that the ‘Arabs’ moved in after the jews had left.
It’s fairly standard zionist fare and has a certain resonance with the architects of apartheid who established a university to ‘prove’ that the Boers were the longest residing inhabitants of South Africa. All the ‘kaffirs’ or bushmen had died out and the ‘Bantu’ only came in to ship from the hard-working Boers cup.
I then restated my position in #65 with
“My point about Palestine never having been empty was quite simply that. Unlike the claim made by Zionists that Palestine as we know it, Israel that they claim it to be, was solely the territory of jewish people before they left, where-upon Arabs from other places invaded.
I don’t think I was that obtuse becase a different poster at #62 tried to explain it with:
“faux… ah, I see the problem, you’re confusing your anonymous posters. I believe that whoever it was you were replying to was citing the Israeli line on the Palestinians: that they don’t really exist as a people. I don’t think that their point ws about the disappearance of the Jews from the area, although of course your point about their continued presence is a very very important element of the Israeli claim to the land.”
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 17 2006 3:45 utc | 87
While I have no doubt that any attempt I make to respond to the current bunch of ad hominem attacks will result in the same passive aggressive “woe is me lookit what that asshole has called me” that people who would rather argue someone’s character than a viewpoint, generally seek, I am going to say what it is that I find so abhorrent about those who try to ‘be fair’, ‘lookit Israel’s point of view’, or even though this weeks ‘score’ is over 100 dead Lebanese to less than 10 dead Israelis, still want to “consider the Arabs/Lebanese/Palestinian/HB faults/breaches/mistakes as well’
It is people who want to see the other point of view, victimise the victim, eg by saying a woman may not have been raped if she dressed more modestly that are usually the hypocrites.
In the case of the Palestinian fight for freedom; this is usually because reason and ethics informs them that the Palestinian refugees throughout the occupied territories, Gaza, those parts of Palestine given to the Hashemites in return for their quisling conduct, and Egypt plus all other parts of the ME are correct to claim that Israel is an anomaly that cannot exist if peace is ever to be found for all the people of the region.
On the other hand something inside of them perhaps it is too much bullshit pushed into them from an early age, perhaps they have friends or family who argue passionately for Israel, or perhaps their politics are just a knee jerk against authority which they don’t really believe. Whatever but when push comes to shove these types will back Israel or betray whatever other humanist issue that they claim to support with their heads and no heart.
The Maori Pakeha thing that citizen k’s hurls around hysterically is redolent with examples. I can go into town here and find any number of people who will argue that the Treaty of Waitangi has been breached every which way.
However ask those same people to do something that involves a real sacrifice, then they start ‘yes but’ing about whether Tangata Whenua have also breached the treaty imposed upon them, or telling me that “Maori are their own worst enemies” or some other wriggle away from responsibility, reality or action.
Maori children are dying every week from inter-generational sexual and physical abuse. When a really bad case occurs such as the 8 week old twin brothers who were bashed to death in June just about every white shit in the country rises to tells the talkback station/workplace/news media how horrible it is. They scream for keys to be thrown away or sometimes even capital punishment. Yet any suggestion of doing something to actually prevent these murders from happening such as pouring real resources (houses, jobs, hope) into those Tangata Whenua who are at the bottom of the heap the “Yes But”s begin their bullshit.
Worse suggest acknowledging that this is not a situation entirely of the perpetrators making, then the same sort of ‘yes but blame the victim’, mentality becomes even more vitriolic than the sewerage pouring from the mouths of the closet Israel apologists at MoA.
Still such hypocrisy does have it’s small entertainments. I haven’t seen citizen k so ‘staunch’ in his/her seeming condemnation of Israel for quite a while. This sort of “I want to sit on both sides of the road” behaviour is best ignored though. Because at any moment, any perceived provocation can cause apologists to fly off again.
Only ‘they’ are allowed to question Israel/pakeha behaviour/ or whatever other value it may be they hold a dualistic point of view on.
If anyone is bothering to read this far I shouldn’t concede the next bit but I will if only to see how it becomes twisted.
I don’t deny that I have said something that I know is likely to provoke these hypocrites, but I gave up trying not to provoke them long ago.
The unstable nature of such people’s belief systems can never really enable accurate prediction, so why bother.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 17 2006 3:50 utc | 88
phil s, computer hard drive crashed a few weeks ago. lost all email addresses. can you please send me yours?
Posted by: conchita | Jul 17 2006 4:04 utc | 89
#88 – your opening premise is that Israel doesn’t have a right to exist and needs to be demolished as a state. You’re not clear on what should happen to the Jewish and Druse inhabitants, but let’s let that pass and consider how peculiar the rest of your argument is when this premise is understood. Because most of your argument is a complaint about the failure of the Israelis to follow UN regulations. The fundamental premise of the UN is the integrity of the nation state – and the UN recognizes Israel as such a state. So (1) UN regulations be damned, Israel should be violently destroyed and (2) the nasty Israelis are criminal because they don’t follow UN rules. Did you learn jurisprudence from Kafka? You seem to be deeply offended that the Israelis will not cooperate in their own extinction. The Israelis argue that Palestinians never accepted the 1967 borders, that their is no point in negotiating with them because they see every concession as just a step towards genocide. And you validate their argument (Where I disagree with the Israelis is on what the implications of that bad faith are, but our settler correspondent helps us to see one of the causes of the current disaster).
As for the Maori issue, I merely note that you and your standard of living depends rather immediately on violent theft. Since you apparently are willing to continue to live in NZ under the opressive, racist, colonial regime that holds our bothers in captivity, yeah, you are in a curious moral position. The nations in the world just differ in the length of time since their founding injustice. The Saudis did not come to power via consensus nor did the Chinese government nor that of the US. Yet these nations take part in the system of international law without drawing your righteous indigation. Somehow it’s the Jews and their sins that capture your imagination – not the sins of your homeland and the pirate spoils you are willing to help consume, or of your colonial parent in the UK, or the worlds superpower, or the Oil Lords, or even the Generals in Burma or the Sudanese slavers or the Russians in the caucasus. It’s the damn Jews that bother you and it is the destruction of the state of Israel that draws you like a spring of refreshing water in the desert, like an island of refuge in the seas of injustice. And your colonial culture is one that has a long history of prejudice against Jews. Yet, you angrily deny that prejudice of any sort might motivate you. Perish the thought that your dislike of Israel, your sense of betrayal by the NZ jews who disagreed with the White Bwanas moral judgement, your emotional and angry reactions might have anything to do with 10 centuries of British anti-semitism. How could anyone suggest such a thing?
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 17 2006 4:23 utc | 90
fauxreal (post #58 here and post #24 on “Failed States”),
I was not aware of the history details, and I thank you for them. There has been so much disinformation in postings lately. If only World Geography/History was better taught in America. Civics is not even taught in schools anymore. George Bush could use a few lessons, that’s for sure. Americans knew little about life in Iraq and religious differences that coexisted (certainly coexisted better than now), and perhaps if Americans were better educated, the Iraq war may have never happened. With the years of sanctions and now this latest U.S. war on Iraq, one wonders if any of the Iraqi people can recover.
All this make one wonder what is the future for the people of Lebanon, Palestine/Israel. As the stage is set and the curtain opens on an Iran/Syrian theater, what will happen? I wonder if this destruction of infrastructure in Lebanon is to protect (insulate) Israel from Syrian supplies and forces when/if the real war begins.
Anyways, I want to repeat what anna missed said (post#30 of ‘Failed States’):
What exactly was wrong with the ethnically/religiously mixed Palestine state, pre-1947? And has it been worth the long forgotten divide and conquer strategy of its former colonial masters? And is this where the partition talk in Iraq will enevitably lead — to 60 years (or more) of misery?
Posted by: Rick Happ | Jul 17 2006 4:44 utc | 91
“arguing for the casting out of all jewish people”
They are. Or reduction to second-class citizenship, which is what they had in much of the Arab world. There’s really very little positive in the radical Islamic position on Israel.
Damnit, folks, stop deceiving yourselves. There is little compassion in the leadership or majority popular positions of either side.
Posted by: Randolph Fritz | Jul 17 2006 6:01 utc | 92
Someone out in public hears cries and comes across a person beating another to death. The passer-by tells the attacker to stop but the attacker doesn’t. He shouts for help no one comes yet still the beating continues until it gets so bad that he threatens the attacker who immediately turns around and hits him. Then the passer-by whacks the attacker partially in his own self defense and partially to help the by now barely breathing victim.
The police finally arrive where upon everyone accuses each other of assault. The police scratch their heads and after the attacker offers them a few dollars and a long chat between the attacker and the policemen about friends they have in common the police threaten to arrest both the victim and the passer-by unless they allow the assault to continue.
Silence then the beating starts again. The attacker picks up a rock and just as he is about to smash the skull of the prostrate victim, the victim kicks him in the nuts. The attacker screams so that the police turn around and hold the victim down for the attacker to get a better shot. Eventually the passer by says “Look coppers this fight is going to get nasty I can’t stand by and let this happen so I suggest you shoot through because me and a few mates are about to put a stop to this”. The police go and the attacker whacks the by passer with an iron bar.
According to citizen-k the passer-by Egypt and the victim Palestine along with anyone who supports their view that the police should stop the whole deal, are a mob of hypocritical lawbreakers.
The state of Israel needs to be abolished because it only caters to one group of people. For example the Druze citizen-k claims to concern himself with now have to follow Jewish law after the spiritual leader of the Druze community in Israel, Shaykh Mowafak Tarif, signed a declaration calling on all non-Jews in Israel to observe the Seven Noahide Laws as laid down in the Bible.
If Shaykh Mowafak Tarif did such a thing in China amerikans would claim that this was proof that the Chinese govt controlled the religion. What it means in Israel is complex as many of the Druze particularly those from the former Syrian occupied territories gobbled up by Israel don’t go along with the quislings amongst some of the Israeli Druze.
The xtian arabs in Palestine aren’t impressed with Israeli religious freedom. They have had churches blown up, they aren’t allowed to celebrate xmas in bethlehem anymore and are being pushed out of Jerusalem.
The state of Israel founded to be a special home for a group of people of one religion in a land which contains many religions must be destroyed if peace can ever come to Palestine. Saying that is racist? I don’t get it.
It occurs that all of the invective launched against President Nasser comes from one BBC story. Since we are talking about a man who in the post world war 2 period along with Sukarno, Nyrere and Kenyatta electrified the third world, that seems a little harsh.
The BBC and Nasser were like CNN or Fox and Castro. Wikipedia has a bio of Nasser here
A piece of Wikipedia on Nasser Israel and Britain from 1956:
Shortly before his full assumption of power, Nasser signed an agreement with Britain that provided for the withdrawal of all British uniformed military personnel from the Suez Canal Zone, although a small civilian force was allowed to temporarily remain. This agreement finally gave Egypt true full independence and ended tensions between Britain and Egypt. Shortly after the treaty with the British, Nasser won forty million dollars in combined financial aid for economic development from the British and Americans.
The next year, 1955, Nasser received additional promises for fifty-six million in western money to aid in financing the construction of the Aswan High Dam which Nasser and his allies had begun planning shortly after the revolution. The planned dam would create the largest man-made lake in the world, generate electric power for much of Egypt, provide water for irrigation, and control flooding along the Nile River. In September 1955 Nasser shocked the West by signing an arms deal with East Block country Czechoslovachia. Consequently, in July 1956, the Western Powers retracted their financial offers, forcing Nasser to search for alternate methods to finance the dam. On July 26, as part of a plan to raise money for the dam, and as a powerful reminder to the west that Egypt would do as it pleased, Nasser announced the nationalization of the Suez Canal.
Nasser realized that the nationalization of the canal would provoke a strong reaction from the West, especially Britain. However, Nasser believed that Britain would not be able to intervene militarily for at least two months after the announcement, and dismissed the possibility of Israeli action as “impossible”. In early October, the United Nations Security Council met on the matter of the Suez Canal and adopted a resolution recognizing Egypt’s right to control the canal as long as it continued to allow passage through it for foreign ships. After this agreement, “Nasser estimated that the danger of invasion had dropped to 10 per cent”.
He was wrong. On October 29, Israeli forces moved into the Sinai Peninsula, and on October 31, a joint force from Britain and France entered the Canal Zone. However, President Eisenhower and the American government urged the three nations to withdraw their forces, and on November 5, 1956, the Soviet Union issued an ultimatum demanding the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Egypt. Britain, France, and Israel complied, and gradually removed their forces, ending what became known as the Suez Crisis
What was that about Nasser attacking Israel again? Oh 1967! Even the BBC’s revisionism concedes Israel attacked first then.
Although Nasser wanted Palestine to become part of the United Arab republic, this was a secular state which already contained Coptic xtians and alexandrian jews. And yes there were attacks on jewish communities each time zionists used Egypt as a base of operations, but given the acceptance of the Copts in Egypt there is no reason to believe that a United Arab Republic would have treated jewish people who had been in Egypt even longer than the xtians, any differently than the Copts.
Nasser had a vision of a single Arabic State not a caliphate as some pan Arabists now fight for and as we can see from his initial attempts to give the actual politics side of the business to Ali Maher then Naguib he wasn’t chasing power as much as a belief and assumed power when he saw no other way to ensure his pan Arabist dream come about. Even then he fell foul of Syrian politicking and the United Arab Republic reverted back to being a nation of one, Egypt. It was the closest the Arab nations ever came to uniting and most who remember these time remember that pakehas around the world considered him a far greater threat than Castro.
#attn citizen k If you do wish to engage on a serious debate of NZ’s colonisation I suggest you study the history a little. A great deal of blood was shed when the english and french first invaded. But the Tangata Whenua more than held their own. A treaty was signed in 1840 which despite attempts even now by many Pakeha to breach it or destroy it, still stands, unlike the 100+ treaties between the US federal govt and native american people.
I am certain of my own acts in NZ with Tangata Whenua and will not sully my relationship with the first people of NZ by using that relationship as a lever in a debate with a two bob each way zionist.
So if personal attacks on people you disagree with is your thing go right ahead. I couldn’t care less about any judgement of me based on your peculiar worldview.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 17 2006 7:35 utc | 93
Well, what can one do with a hagiography of Nasser coupled with a defense of British colonialism in NZ? Laugh?
Cry?
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 17 2006 14:17 utc | 95
Surely, we can agree that Israel exist de facto and de jure.
So whether it has any right to ‘exist’ is sorta besides the point.
Does the US have the right to exist? Does an imaginary entity like SERBIA have the right to exist? Should Switzerland continue to exist? Some people say, No.
Whether it was a good idea to create it in the first place…and if it was ‘right’ to do so…can be of important historical and academic interest; but not on the ground today, except insofar as various parties will take up these historical arguments.
Israel, as a nation state, is clearly internally racist, violent, repressive, scornful – and should be condemned for it. As for its relations to its surroundings, today’s news is enough.
It does not adhere to ‘democratic principles’ or ‘international law’ – for what they are worth – that is inescapable, too.
Neither does Zimbabwe.
If people would look, even in theory or hypothetically, to what the way forward might be, it would help. Maybe. In the very long run.
Posted by: Noirette | Jul 17 2006 15:51 utc | 96
Noirette- this has been the focus and question of my posts on this issue.
to state such an idea, however, leads to accusations of “ad hominem” attacks and “hysteria” and “unstable nature of belief systems” while eliminationist views do not. in other words, in a statement of his eliminationist views, debs does what he accuses others of doing, but tries to cover for himself by accusing others of what he does. (and making these personal attacks after I stated that I was not going to engage in the fruitless conversation…while, yes, claiming others make personal attacks when the entire focus, for me, was on eliminationist views…boggles the mind, really.)
Maybe you’ll have better luck pointing out the lack of viability in such thinking in light of the present world. Good luck. I’ve found it’s really useless.
Noirette,
quite right.
If you believe in peoples right to have a humane government with a bit of representation it is obvious that Israel does not live up to that in the occupied territories. It is equally obvious that few if any of its neighbouring states lives up to it either.
So in my opinion the way forward includes looking beyond the fictionous enteties of states and looking at questions of representation, human rights and power.
Citizen k way upthread,
Massacres of civilians are an ancient human trait, but the UN has brought something new to the mix – a level of sheer hypocritical uselessness, of cruelly false hope, of pretend humanism, that is really outstanding.
If you want international witnesses to gaze at your slaughter from a safe position, you can’t do better than the UN.
Yes, the UN peacekeeping missions do not enforce peace (and the history of such attempts should learn any would-be war-to-save-peace enthusiast a bit or two). However what the UN does really well is observe, and many UN missions consist only of observers. In those cases where both sides wants peace but does not trust each other, an independent observer is really useful. So I do not agree with the scorn.
And to our dear anonymous commentators (including debs),
could you please use a nick. I am a fan of this system letting you post comments without providing any particular information. However this from time to time results in name-less comments (of accompanied by an extra comment further down “It was me in number ZZ”). It makes it much easier to follow conversations if you have one nick and stick to it (with variations permitted of course). Please?
Posted by: A swedish kind of death | Jul 18 2006 2:00 utc | 98
Dear Swede: UN Observation has a value when two closely matched powers need a third party. However over the last 15 years UN soldiers have turned their backs on so many horrible massacres, stepped aside for so many butchers, for what? I
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 18 2006 2:06 utc | 99
citizen k,
It’s quite late in the thread, but just to reply to your 75:
Surely even you have heard of AIPAC… no conspiracy theory necessary (and no need to tarnish anyone with that brush). The power of PACs is quite well documented within the Beltway – especially those powerful enough to deep six a politician’s career. No mystery there.
As for aid parity, you may consider the Christian Science Monitor a pretty good source for “facts.” And this article was written before the latest “special aid” approval.
You might also check this article from the Harvard Israel Review
excerpt: With its $3 billion annual aid package, Israel today receives more aid on better terms than any other nation in the world.
Posted by: 2nd anonymous poster | Jul 19 2006 6:42 utc | 100