|
Weird but Real
This is weird but very, very real:
With America watching, Israel needs a knockout
But even if Hizbullah does not at this time pose an existential threat to the country – Hizbullah will not throw us into the sea — Israel needs to win this war, and deliver a punishing blow to Hizbullah, for another key reason: to preserve our status as a key strategic US ally.
…
Beyond all the talk about how the US supports Israel because it is the only democracy in the Middle East, and because of shared values, the US supports Israel because it sees Israel as an important component of its own national security dogma, an American bridgehead in a region hostile to the US.
As such, Washington is watching to see how we do. The US wants to see Hizbullah weakened badly; it wants to see Damascus weakened badly; it wants to see Iran suffer the loss of a key proxy. This is in their interest. This will help their own efforts in Iraq.
A democratic Lebanon, something impossible with a strong Hizbullah and Syrian meddling, will enhance the American status in the region, a status that is declining with each passing Iraqi day.
It’s a safe bet to assume that in Washington they are watching very carefully how this war is going, and whether Israel is able to deliver the knockout punch to Hizbullah that the US wants to see delivered. Washington is watching and judging Israel, to see how effective a strategic asset Israel really is.
Added: Abu Aadvark
Real American leadership, such as quickly restraining the Israeli offensive and taking the lead in ceasefire negotiations, could have created a Suez moment and dramatically increased American influence and prestige (especially if the Saudis had delivered Iran in a ceasefire agreement, as I’ve heard that Saudi officials believed that they could). But by disappearing for the first days of the war and then resurfacing only to provide a megaphone for Israeli arguments and to prevent international efforts at achieving a ceasefire, the Bush administration put America at the center of the storm of blame. I think that the Lebanon war will go down in history as one of the greatest missed opportunities in recent American diplomatic history – not because we failed to go after Iran, or whatever the bobbleheads are ranting about these days, but because we failed to rise to the occasion and exercise real global leadership in the national interest.
an tough piece from counterpunch :
Nothing Good Can Come from This War
Is Beirut Burning?
By URI AVNERY
Tel Aviv.
“IT SEEMS that Nasrallah survived,” Israeli newspapers announced, after 23 tons of bombs were dropped on a site in Beirut, where the Hizbullah leader was supposedly hiding in a bunker.
An interesting formulation. A few hours after the bombing, Nazrallah had given an interview to Aljazeera television. Not only did he look alive, but even composed and confident. He spoke about the bombardment – proof that the interview was recorded on the same day.
So what does “it seems that” mean? Very simple: Nasrallah pretends to be alive, but you can’t believe an Arab. Everyone knows that Arabs always lie. That’s in their very nature, as Ehud Barak once pronounced.
The killing of the man is a national aim, almost the main aim of the war. This is, perhaps, the first war in history waged by a state in order to kill one person. Until now, only the Mafia thought along those lines. Even the British in World War II did not proclaim that their aim was to kill Hitler. On the contrary, they wanted to catch him alive, in order to put him on trial. Probably that’s what the Americans wanted, too, in their war against Saddam Hussein.
But our ministers have officially decided that that is the aim. There is not much novelty in that: successive Israeli governments have adopted a policy of killing the leaders of opposing groups. Our army has killed, among others, Hizbullah leader Abbas Mussawi, PLO no. 2 Abu Jihad, as well as Sheik Ahmad Yassin and other Hamas leaders. Almost all Palestinians, and not only they, are convinced that Yassir Arafat was also murdered.
And the results? The place of Mussawi was filled by Nasrallah, who is far more able. Sheik Yassin was succeeded by far more radical leaders. Instead of Arafat we got Hamas.
As in other political matters, a primitive military mindset governs this reasoning too.
A person returning here after a long absence and seeing our TV screens might get the impression that a military junta is governing Israel, in the (former) South American manner.
On all TV channels, every evening, one sees a parade of military brass in uniform. They explain not only the day’s military actions, but also comment on political matters and lay down the political and propaganda line.
During all the other hours of broadcasting time, a dozen or so have-been generals repeat again and again the message of the army commanders. (Some of them don’t look particularly intelligent – not to say downright stupid. It is frightening to think that these people were once in a position to decide who would live and who would die.)
True, we are a democracy. The army is completely subject to the civilian establishment. According to the law, the cabinet is the “supreme commander” of the army (which in Israel includes the navy and air force). But in practice, today it is the top brass who decide all political and military matters. When Dan Halutz tells the ministers that the military command has decided on this or that operation, no minister dares to express opposition. Certainly not the hapless Labor Party ministers.
Ehud Olmert presents himself as the heir to Churchill (“blood, sweat and tears”). That’s quite pathetic enough. Then Amir Peretz puffs up his chest and shoots threats in all directions, and that’s even more pathetic, if that’s possible. He resembles nothing so much as a fly standing on the ear of an ox and proclaiming: “we are ploughing!”
The Chief-of-Staff announced last week with satisfaction: “The army enjoys the full backing of the government!” That is also an interesting formulation. It implies that the army decides what to do, and the government provides “backing”. And that’s how it is, of course.
Now it is not a secret anymore: this war has been planned for a long time. The military correspondents proudly reported this week that the army has been exercising for this war in all its details for several years. Only a month ago, there was a large war game to rehearse the entrance of land forces into South Lebanon – at a time when both the politicians and the generals were declaring that “we shall never again get into the Lebanon quagmire. We shall never again introduce land forces there.” Now we are in the quagmire, and large land forces are operating in the area.
The other side, too, has been preparing this war for years. Not only did they build caches of thousands of missiles, but they have also prepared an elaborate system of Vietnam-style bunkers, tunnels and caves. Our soldiers are now encountering this system and paying a high price. As always, our army has treated “the Arabs” with disdain and discounted their military capabilities.
That is one of the problems of the military mentality. Talleyrand was not wrong when he said that “war is much too serious a thing to be left to military men.” The mentality of the generals, resulting from their education and profession, is by nature force-oriented, simplistic, one-dimensional, not to say primitive. It is based on the belief that all problems can be solved by force, and if that does not work – then by more force.
That is well illustrated by the planning and execution of the current war. This was based on the assumption that if we cause terrible suffering to the population, they will rise up and demand the removal of Hizbullah. A minimal understanding of mass psychology would suggest the opposite. The killing of hundreds of Lebanese civilians, belonging to all the ethno-religious communities, the turning of the lives of the others into hell, and the destruction of the life-supporting infrastructure of Lebanese society will arouse a groundswell of fury and hatred – against Israel, and not against the heroes, as they see them, who sacrifice their lives in their defense.
The result will be a strengthening of Hizbullah, not only today, but for years to come. Perhaps that will be the main outcome of the war, more important than all the military achievements, if any. And not only in Lebanon, but throughout the Arab and Muslim world.
Faced with the horrors that are shown on all television and many computer screens, world opinion is also changing. What was seen at the beginning as a justified response to the capture of the two soldiers now looks like the barbaric actions of a brutal war-machine. The elephant in a china shop.
Thousands of e-mail distribution lists have circulated a horrible series of photos of mutilated babies and children. At the end, there is a macabre photo: jolly Israeli children writing “greetings” on the artillery shells that are about to be fired. Then there appears a message: “Thanks to the children of Israel for this nice gift. Thanks to the world that does nothing. Signed: the children of Lebanon and Palestine.”
The woman who heads the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has already defined these acts as war crimes – something that may in future mean trouble for Israeli army officers.
In general, when army officers are determining the policy of a nation, serious moral problems arise.
In war, a commander is obliged to take hard decisions. He sends soldiers into battle, knowing that many will not return and others will be maimed for life. He hardens his heart. As General Amos Yaron told his officers after the Sabra and Shatila massacre: “Our senses have been blunted!”
Years of the occupation regime in the Palestinian territories have caused a terrible callousness as far as human lives are concerned. The killing of ten to twenty Palestinians every day, including women and children, as happens now in Gaza, does not agitate anyone. It doesn’t even make the headlines. Gradually, even routine expressions like “We regretwe had no intentionthe most moral army in the world” and all the other trite phrases are not heard anymore.
Now this numbness is revealing itself in Lebanon. Air Force officers, calm and comfortable, sit in front of the cameras and speak about “bundles of targets”, as if they were talking about a technical problem, and not about living human beings. They speak about driving hundreds of thousands of human beings from their homes as an imposing military achievement, and do not hide their satisfaction in face of human beings whose whole life has been destroyed. The word that is most popular with the generals at this time is “pulverize” – we pulverize, they are being pulverized, neighborhoods are pulverized, buildings are pulverized, people are pulverized.
Even the launching of rockets at our towns and villages does not justify this ignoring of moral considerations in fighting the war. There were other ways of responding to the Hizbullah provocation, without turning Lebanon into rubble. The moral numbness will be transformed into grievous political damage, both immediate and long term. Only a fool or worse ignores moral values – in the end, they always take revenge.
IT IS almost banal to say that it is easier to start a war than to finish it. One knows how it starts, it is impossible to know how it will end.
Wars take place in the realm of uncertainty. Unforeseen things happen. Even the greatest captains in history could not control the wars they started. War has its own laws.
We started a war of days. It turned into a war of weeks. Now they are speaking of a war of months. Our army started a “surgical” action of the Air Force, afterwards it sent small units into Lebanon, now whole brigades are fighting there, and reservists are being called up in large numbers for a wholesale 1982-style invasion. Some people already foresee that the war may roll towards a confrontation with Syria.
All this time, the United States has been using all its might in order to prevent the cessation of hostilities. All signs indicate that it is pushing Israel towards a war with Syria – a country that has ballistic missiles with chemical and biological warheads.
Only one thing is already certain on the 11th day of the war: Nothing good will come of it. Whatever happens – Hizbullah will emerge strengthened. If there had been hopes in the past that Lebanon would slowly become a normal country, where Hizbullah would be deprived of a pretext for maintaining a military force of its own, we have now provided the organization with the perfect justification: Israel is destroying Lebanon, only Hizbullah is fighting to defend the country.
As for deterrence: a war in which our huge military machine cannot overcome a small guerilla organization in 11 days of total war certainly has not rehabilitated its deterrent power. In this respect, it is not important how long this war will last and what will be its results – the fact that a few thousand fighters have withstood the Israeli army for 11 days and more, has already been imprinted in the consciousness of hundred of millions of Arabs and Muslims.
From this war nothing good will come – not for Israel, not for Lebanon and not for Palestine. The “New Middle East” that will be its result will be a worse place to live in.”
Posted by: r’giap | Jul 26 2006 23:41 utc | 19
@AP2
“I wish someone would do some sort of psycho-social-anthropological study as to *why* the Israelis have such unshakeable faith in collective punishment.”
As someone with an anthropological background, I can only say that I would rather have my head set on fire and put out with a sledgehammer (in the name of science, of course) than be the one who puts my name on an ethnography of the type you are describing.
How can a rapist and murderer play the victim card? I think it has to do with DeAnander’s observation some time ago (I’d link to it, but it would take me awhile to find it), that, as primates, we have a hardwired sense of “justice”. When we covet, when we receive what is not our due, we have to “make it fair” in our own minds. This involves jumping through a tremendous number of psychological hoops in most instances. Ken Lay, for example, truly convinced himself that he was an innocent bystander regarding his little “oopsie” with Enron.
Nobody wakes up in the morning, puts on their black hat, twists their moustache and contemplates what deviltry they can inflict upon an unsuspecting world. Yet deviltry is inflicted, and on a pretty regular basis, too. No matter what we do, we remain convinced that we are the “good guys”; the world is a movie starring us. Since we are the protagonists of any set of circumstances, it’s tantamount to a psychological blank cheque to do anything we can get away with. We can see the results by scanning the headlines. “Making it fair” is how individuals justify their abominable individual actions, and this is one part of the answer to your question.
The Isreali state is no different. States (no matter what number we put in front of them) are just collections of self-absorbed and self-righteous individuals. They act “in their interests”, the same way that individuals do… and the same way that corporations do, for that matter… but that does not make them individuals. Now we’re running into a problem.
To make blanket statements about why “Isrealis” believe anything can be answered in human and psychological terms. Isrealis believe the same things any human being believes. Same goes for anyone. The state of Isreal is a collection of “Isrealis”, true, but it is not the same to say “Why does Israel believe…?” as it is to say “Why do Isrealis believe…?” If you pose the second question, you will be faced with many Isrealis who do not fit the procrustean question you are asking. This is because states and corporations are modal individuals, which we are assured in Statistics 101 do not literally exist.
Obviously, they sure as hell do exist and the consequences of their actions are pretty damned tangible… but which real individuals exist to be held responsible for those consequences? All of them do, to a degree. Ask Bernhard sometime what it feels like to be “German” after the 1940’s. This is also “collective punishment”. If I am hassled in a bar for being American (and I have been… hmm. This bar is a cyber example of that), I am being collectively punished for policies that I have next to nothing to do with and very, very vocally oppose.
That means nothing to someone who does not share the same identity that I do and needs to hold the Modal Individual responsible for their very real crimes. I understand it even if I don’t approve of it. EVERYONE, to some degree, falls into the “collective punishment” mentality at some point. We talk about imaginary modal individuals as if they were people, and we throw entire groups into baskets to talk about “Why do Canadians…?”, “Isn’t it funny when Czechs…?”, “Boy, those Aussies sure like their beer, don’t they?”, et cetera. It’s a short step from there to assigning blanket “victims” and “oppressors” to the equation. The very question you asked, AP2, is a mild collective punishment that you probably weren’t even aware you were committing.
So that’s my brief answer. Human nature allows us to commit atrocities while holding on to our perceived “victimhood”, and we generally fail to distinguish between the actions of an individual as opposed to a collection of individuals. We need to “make it fair”… and if an imaginary Modal Individual is the object of our indignation, then real individuals are going to be forced to pay. Everyone does it.
By the way, I’d like to welcome back Billmon, Alabama and DeAnander into the ranks of active posters here. Each of your cherished perspectives have been sorely missed by me. And if Malooga wants to get off his jaded bottom and drop a quick note here, I, for one, would love to see it. To everyone else… nice job as usual. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Monolycus | Jul 27 2006 3:54 utc | 53
Cripes what a night!
I know that AOL Message boards are usually beneath the radar of our fine group but in the past five nights there has been a coordinated attempt by the extreme right to dominate, bully, insult, slander, and drive away any liberals and moderates. It is the fiercest attempt I have ever seen to conquer a message board. Last night it got so bad that one neocon poster got the e-mail address of a female liberal who was answer back his accusations that all Liberals are racist anti-semites, etc, and proceeded to post fifty threads with her name, e-mail address with offers to have sex and send nude photos. This happened to several people last night. I began to feel like it was another Kristallnacht made just for progressives. I was accused of being a sex slave to George Soros!
Now these AOL message boards have been the front lines of the grass roots culture wars for a few years. I was involved in a court case last December when I witnessed someone making a death threat against the judge in the Schiavo case and turned them in (she was convicted). But the message boards were much worse these past nights and here’s why.
1. These attacks are deliberate, scripted, and coordinated. There are many people putting up the same cut and paste propaganda. They snap back with stock answers when these generate criticism.
2. The most active screen names are either tough, bullying names, anti Liberal names (*LIBSOUTOFUSA for example), or obscene mocking names (Hilryclintoris). They were mostly new to the boards… but not all.
3. They consistently used dehumanzing language, calling Muslims and Liberals “not human,” “inhuman,” “cockroaches,” ” expendible,” etc.
4. They consistently called for a nuclear strike against Iran and stressed the need to “exterminate as many muslims (and liberals) as possible. The thing is, these “kill all muslims,” “deport all Muslims,” and “all muslims are savages, begging to be killed” posts
are in a greater number and intensity and number than at any time, even after 9/11.
5. They gang up on any one who counters thems, suggests alternatives, or declares themselves a Democrat.
What I find interesting was that a number of posters were pointing the finger at Netvocates,a right wing troll company that usually just spins its stuff on blogs. Some one else suspected it was the Randon Group, but I am unfamiliar with them.
Anybody here have any ideas why this activity has begun? I’d sleep better if it was due to a full moon. AOL boards are a wasteland, but I do watch there periodically. After all, Hitler started out in a beer hall, not a university.
Posted by: Diogenes | Jul 27 2006 4:00 utc | 54
|
