The most recent New Yorker contains another call from the Left — this time from David Remnick — for an immediate cessation of hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel:
That strand of Middle Eastern optimism [the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza] is now a memory. Olmert is fighting a war on two fronts—in Gaza against Hamas and in Lebanon against a large and sophisticated Hezbollah militia—and it is entirely possible, if sense and diplomacy do not quickly intercede, that the region, already inflamed by the Bush Administration’s invasion of Iraq and the murderous insurgency that has followed, will face a danger level not seen in decades. By the end of last week, a ground war seemed imminent. Some observers speak forebodingly of 1914, but the most immediate result of this war will likely be to undermine the Israeli consensus for territorial compromise with the Palestinians, shatter the fragile Lebanese polity, and radicalize more Muslims in the region and beyond.
Every statement in this paragraph represents a Cloudcuckooland, totally removed from actually reality. Let’s start with that halcyon image of Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza. Israel didn’t withdraw to beneficently grant the Gazans the state that they’d so longed for and so richly deserved. Israel withdrew to create a defensible border and a defined enemy nation state. David Remnick also seems to be conveniently blind to the fact that, before Hamas invaded Israeli land and kidnapped Cpl. Shalit, precipitating Israel’s war against Gaza, the Gazans were not lying around picking daisies. Instead, beginning immediately after Israel’s withdrawal, the Gazans sent thousands of qassam, as well as a few katyusha rockets into Israel. So, while the Gazans may have been optimistic about their new forward position in attacking Israel, without having direct Israeli oversight slowing them down, I’m not sure what Remnick is talking about.
Remnick’s next statement is that unless Israel is forced to stand down, things will get worse — and that’s where I got the title of my post. It’s clear that the view from the Left, whether in our MSM, from our Demos, from the Euros, or from the UN, is that Israel should definitely not get a chance to win because, gasp!, people might die. I have a newsflash for the proponents of this vapid viewpoint: people are already dying. Since Clinton’s much vaunted peace initiatives (you know, the ones that led Howard Dean to announce that the Democrats had created peace between Israelis and Palestinians), Palestinians have carried out hundreds of suicide bomb attacks, specifically targeted at civilians (especially women and children), resulting in thousands of deaths, and tens of thousands of injuries. Palestinians have been dying in droves too, although they’ve mostly been losing soldiers, not civilians. In other words, Remnick’s nostalgia to the contrary, we’re not looking at a single moment in time dividing the killing fields from a time of peace. Instead, what we had then was a slow attrition, with Israeli civilians as the prime target, and what we have now is geniune war casualties between soldiers on both sides. Quantitatively, probably not much different; qualitatively, hugely different.
The last sentence of Remnick’s deceptive little paragraph is just as stupid, in that it again posits some halcyon time before July 2006. As my preceding paragraph makes clear, there was no halcyon time. Hamas, Hezbollah, and other pretty faces out there were calling for Israel’s total destruction, and Israel was back peddling from everything in a naive belief that she’d get something out of that. (As you know, I’m hugely pro-Israel, but when it comes to Israel’s zero learning curve in these negotations — in that she always seems to think the Arabs will abide by the terms of any given agreement and grant her a respite from death — I’m reminded of the old statement, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice; shame on me.”)
So, Remnick’s disingenous writing to the contrary, he can’t really think that a ceasefire will bring a return to “peace.” What a cease fire will do is deny Israel a chance at decisively disabling Hezbollah. That possibility is, apparently, too dreadful to contemplate, because it will disrupt the blood soaked status quo that has dominated the Middle East for so long. Better the poisonous stagnant water you know, filled with the bodies of the Jewish dead, than a possible future where a terrorist organization that is steeped in American blood too is knocked out of commission for a while.
And yes, as I write this, I’m not blind to the fact that, even if Israel scores a decisive victory now, and disables Hezbollah, that may will be a short term solution. Hezbollah, with Iran’s help, will re-arm, but the time that takes will still give Israel breathing room, which counts for a lot, and it will buy serious time. As we know, things can change over time. The Middle East is no longer the pre-9/11 stagnant pool it once was. Things are changing fast and, if Israel can clear some temporal and physical space for herself, those changes may be to her benefit. Remnick and his cronies, however, don’t want Israel to have that option.
Despite decades of evidence that Arab’s use these ceasefires to regroup, and then to attack again, Remnick wants Israel to stop while she has the advantage — which is tantamount to ensuring an Israeli loss. As I said in my post title, in the world of the Remnick’s, in any conflict, victory is not an option. As things stand now, Remnick is either very stupid, which I doubt, or very evil because, no matter how he dresses his little screed up in the language of love and peace for all, anyone who seeks a return to a status quo that allows Hezbollah to regain its strength, all the while laughing madly in the arms of its Iranian overlords, is a very bad man.
UPDATE: More on why Israel should be helped, not harnessed.
UPDATE II: Here’s a reminder about what happens during those “ceasefires,” as well as a reminder about how complicit the UN has been with terrorists.
Talking to Technorati: Israel, Hezbollah, Hizbollah, The New Yorker, David Remnick
the thing is though bookworm, the ‘left’ isn’t in charge of setting policy and they currently have no influence…
…soo, they can pretty much ‘call’ for anything and it won’t matter a whit. in a couple of weeks, when israel still wants to bomb (or occupy) lebanon and the bush white house, under international pressure, begins to ‘call for a cessation of hostilities’, will you be making posts on how outrageous that is?
principally, the ‘left’ is just doing it’s job.
peace
“the ‘left’ is just doing it’s job.”dagon
Evidently, the difference between honest disagreement and treasonous behavior escapes you.
Hi Dagon,
I’m genuinely confused by your post. Bookworm did a serious deconstruction of a published article. Her view, which I share, is that the author was wrong in his assumptions and in his proposals. I cannot imagine you believe that it is the left’s job to get it wrong. Rather than meaningless conclusory statements, how about discussing Bookworm’s arguments, whether you believe they have merit and, if not, why you disagree.
DQ,
i’m more or less just objecting to any and all blanket statements about ‘the left’. the views of that particular columnist are his own and it’s not productive to attribute how he feels to the broader group. this works both ways of course and i try to point out similar failings when people that i agree with try to do the same with those that appear to be pundits on the ‘right’.
this type of rhetoric is sloppy and does the nation harm. hence the ‘left’ in parentheses. i was using bookworm’s phraseology to point out that since the ‘right’ is ostensibly in control, many on the ‘left’ (one guy in this case)feel it is their job as the loyal opposition to offer opposing viewpoints.
i by no means meant to imply that the author represents the prevailing view of all leftists. that is patently ridiculous, particular in view of this conflict, where something like 80% of self-identified american jews who voted, voted for kerry and i’m agnostic as to how the majority of that group feels about the conflict.
peace
I disagree with Bookworm because Steven Colbert’s interiview with Wexler was just too funny.
Just to point out something, but in a representative republic, no one faction controls anything. Even in a parliamentary system, they often have coalitions of two parties that share the position portfolios. In the US, power is balanced in such a way that no one party ever controls a decisive majority of power.
The Senate’s obstruction of UN ambassador John Bolton and various other behind the table deals concerning SC Justices, are pretty obvious clues to a serious political analysist.
Let me set the record straight and save Book some time, so she can blog about fascinating stuff I’d love to read.
It’s clear that the view from the Left, whether in our MSM, from our Demos, from the Euros, or from the UN, is that Israel should definitely not get a chance to win because, gasp!, people might die.
Book used the “Left” twice. One in general relation to the article author, and a specific reference in the bold above. In addition, with Dagon’s comment that 80% of American Jews voted for Kerry -which may or may not be true but it is at least twice as many voted for Kerry as Bush-, that additional piece of information allows us to have a clearer picture of things. It is clear from the view of the Left, that Jews support the Democrat party, when the Democrat party advocates cut and run and isolationist rhetoric. In that instance, the John Kerry philosophy of the global test, and retreating in order to stop casualties, is obviously against Israel’s current policy. So, it’s pretty much true that those who voted for John Kerry are on the “Left”, and it is true that those who voted for John Kerry would rather Israel not fight, because fighting kills people.
I don’t think a lot of Jews are interested in winning. Not in the sense an American Jacksonian is interested in winning, anyways. Many Democrats went over to the Republicans during reagan’s term. Former Dixiecrats and what not, went Republican. So why are Jews in America still voting for John Kerry and the Democrats? Hrm, maybe they are so conservative, they are unable to change their family voting patterns, *shrugs*.
The sentence I quoted from Book is not only clear to me, but it should be clear to a lot of other people as well.
Hi Dagon,
I’ll grant you that neither the left nor the right is totally monolithic, but there is a striking consensus of opinion on the left. All you have to do is visit the liberal blogs on a daily basis to see that there is not a lot of disagreement going on there. Bush is evil. War is bad. The US should let itself be ruled by international law. The UN is good. Israel should not fight to win. I wrote a blog on liberal bumperstickers the other day, ones like “There is no way to peace, peace is the way” or “Peace is patriotic” or “No war for oil” or “Bush is not my president.” There does not seem to be a lot of analysis or deep thought behind these cliches. Certainly, I have had great difficulty engaging liberals who have blogged here in reasoned discussion of the issues.
Rather than saying that treating the left or the right as one entity is harming the nation, let’s address the underlying issues. Do you agree with the substance of Bookworm’s deconstruction of Remnick’s article? If not, why not?
Wait, Bush isn’t evil? Hey DQ
don,
well for one thing, i reject the premise that israel can effectively wipe out or marginalize hizbollah to the extent that their actions will minimalize bloodshed in the long term. in fact, as we’re seeing now, i believe their actions will serve to further radicalize the region and swing support on the arab street much closer to hizbollah’s side, risking a widening of the conflict:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/28/world/middleeast/28arabs.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin
–this is not a good development no matter how you look at it, unless your goal is ‘war without end’. israel has ratcheted up the scale of this conflict and if it boils over, the us will have no choice but to get involved militarily.
therefore, the ONLY rational course of action is to call for a cessation of violence on BOTH sides; pressure hizbollah to completely disarm and remain as a humanitarian organization with un or arab league troops remaining in south lebanon.
israel of course does not want this as they have planned an attack and re-occupation of lebanon for a long time; waiting only for an incident to provide them with enough rationale that international pressure would be weak enough to allow them to deal a death blow to hizbollah. the world has largely relented but it appears that the israelis underestimated how entrenched hizbollah was. this will escalate past the ‘few more weeks’ that the us has given israel to get the job done and as other arab nations come off of the fence (to the side of hizbollah), this will turn into an epic mess…
..a mess that the united states cannot afford to become embroiled in. hence, a cease-fire and the immediate initiation of talks is the best course of action. this doesn’t satisfy the revenge motive or aid in israel’s plans for hegemony in the region but it is in the best interest of the middle east and more importantly, america.
peace
Terroists can’t be pressured. That’s just the nature of asymmetrical war.
Hrm. Anyways, somehow my comment got formated away (2 up). Again, to DQ, if you think it is bad here, you should see what occurs at neo neocon’s site. The site’s name does not attract the most enlightened of individuals in the comments section.
Dagon has put his finger on a huge problem with thinking on the non-conservative side of things (how’s that, Dagon, for not classifying people as “Lefties?”). He says “in fact, as we’re seeing now, i believe their actions will serve to further radicalize the region and swing support on the arab street much closer to hizbollah’s side, risking a widening of the conflict:” The underlying premise of this statement is that the Arab and Muslim forces arrayed against Israel were not previously radicalized. While I won’t go into detail here, saving it perhaps for the greater effort of a full post, I’m of the opinion that the neck of the woods in which Israel lives was already radicalized. To me, Dagon’s statement is about as logical as saying I believe their actions will serve to make water in the region more wet. You can’t increase something that has already fully realized its nature. Arabs, Persians and Islamists, a Venn diagram with huge overlap, have for years been killing over cartoons, blowing up our buildings, planting bombs all over the world, and calling for everyone’s death and destruction in the most bloody terms — that strikes me as the extreme of radicalized. Since we cannot make them “more” radicalized — they’ve already done that on their own — all we can do is challenge and, I hope, defeat them at every turn so that our efforts suck the radicalization out of them.
“israel of course does not want this as they have planned an attack and re-occupation of lebanon for a long time”
I really have a hard time buying it–especially after seeing Israeli settlers being forcibly removed from Gaza by Israeli troops. The further Israel expands her borders, the more indefensible they become. I really don’t envision Israel harboring hegemonic desires over a larger territory if the logical end result is less security. However, I have no trouble believing that nothing short of Israel ceasing to exist will ever satisfy a significant segment of the population in the Middle East and this includes leaders of countries with the resources to carry out that goal. Haven’t they proven this by repaying the Gaza turnover with kidnappings and rockets?
“a cease-fire and the immediate initiation of talks is the best course of action”
That might work if hezbollah and hamas were actually honorable but they always end up using the time to regroup and re-arm. They’ve been talking for decades so calling for more talks reminds me of Einstein’s definition of insanity: “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
bookworm:
“The underlying premise of this statement is that the Arab and Muslim forces arrayed against Israel were not previously radicalized.”
–i’ve got a question for you and i’m really curious about your take. the biggest source of wahabist terrorism is saudi arabia, our staunchest ‘ally’ in the region. since you seem to believe that the muslim forces arrayed against israel are beyond any reasonable diplomacy and our government appears loathe to pressure the saudis to curb the madrasses and other radicalizing aspects of their culture, what do you propose that we do about the them?
military action?
peace
I recommend waiting on Saudi Arabia. There is reason to believe that Osama stacked the deck on 9/11 with Saudis because he attempted to make us react to his attack by attacking Saudi Arabia. So do the unexpected, attack Afghanistan and Iraq. Which we have done. Get rid of Iran and Syria, which is yet to be done.
Osama’s original problem was with the Saudi government. If terroists can get you to attack some nation with bombs, then the terroists can move in and get popular support in the condition of a humiliated and failed state, that has been proven to be unable to defend itself.
Book should know the psychology of terroists by now and how they operate and manipulate others.
It benefits the terroists when you attack them and bomb them. If I believe this, why then do I always advocate aggressive action? It’s simple. I don’t advocate attacks, I advocate executions, assassinations, and decisive annihilation of the enemy. That is different from a bunch of teenagers pushing each other around.
Any military action against Saudi Arabia, in relation to Israel, is pushing people around. Nothing more. Action against Saudi Arabia is not decisive, it cannot be given the strategic and logistical situation. The problem with Saudi Arabia is how the State Department in the US treats the Saudi government, Book. Remmeber Dick Clark who authorized the escape of Saudi diplomats without Presidential authorization? They are neck full of people who hobnobed with the Saudis. This internal insurgency must be crushed first, before you can take any action against Saudi Arabia.
I remember US citizens, being beholden to Shariah law about the children of US citizens to a Saudi citizen, having their children forcibly kept in Saudi Arabia and the bribed State Department did nothing to stop it. This was an american woman and a Saudi man. Bad choice, but still, State did nothing to try and get the woman custody. Hobnobbing and giving favors to the Saudis again.
I recommend no military action be taken book, but I do recommend you destroy the careers of 50% of the bureacrats in the State Department, including the Dick Clarks. There are ways. THe power of bureacracies is that you can’t get rid of them and you can’t get past them.
In Summary, Bookworm, I just think it is weird that Dagon is asking about military operations in Saudi Arabia after just saying that attacks fuel popular support of terroists. Is he saying that we should attack Saudi Arabia because we have the higher moral ground and because this will help terroists like Osama gain support in his home state of Saudi Arabia? Or is he attempting to render the hypocrite argument by claiming that all nations must be invaded if you believe diplomacy is not an option.
The intellectual flexibility of the possible argument matrixes, is so aesthetically appeasing to me.
Not so aesthetically appeasing.
ymarsakar:
“There is reason to believe that Osama stacked the deck on 9/11 with Saudis because he attempted to make us react to his attack by attacking Saudi Arabia.”
–actually i think osama stacked the deck on 9/11 with saudis because he himself is a saudti, the heart of the movement is saudi and saudi arabia is the world’s source of whabist terrorism.
so do we wait it out and give the world’s largest feeder-factory of islamic terrorism a pass?
peace
So now Dagon is a hawk? When the Left has moral justifications and pretexts, they don’t care who they blow up and kill? Rather interesting.
Osama had direct control over who was slotted into the operations. Quite a micromanager he was, via his Ops Officers. Terroists are not wholly irrational, they do do things for a reason. You just have to find it out.
There is a very specific reason why Osama chose the personnel that he did, to send them to America to learn piloting. Osama knew we would react, but he didn’t know how we would react. The best way to control this is to stack the deck ahead of time.
How about you, Dagon, being a hawk about Israel winning and we’ll give you Saudi Arabia in the bargain. Horse trading, an Arab trade.
ymarsakar,
i’m just asking you or anyone else who cares to answer what would be the best way to deal with saudi arabia, a place that everyone agrees is the genesis of al qaeda and the seedbed of wahabist terrorism.
i’m not advocating hitting the saudis but asking people what we should do in light of bookworm’s assertions about how to deal with radicalized muslims in the context of the israel/arab conflict.
i don’t think you can do it militarily. she does. therefore i’m asking what she (or you) think we should do our ‘allies’, the saudis who continue to foster an environment and a refuge for this sort of behavior to incubate.
peace
ymarsakar
“There is a very specific reason why Osama chose the personnel that he did, to send them to America to learn piloting. Osama knew we would react, but he didn’t know how we would react. The best way to control this is to stack the deck ahead of time.”
–err, al qaeda was a home-grown radical movement with it’s genesis in saudi arabia and it’s madrassas. the ethnicities of these men was ’self-selected’.
it’s kind of like being shocked that a plurality of ira bombers turned out to be irish.
peace
Dagon-
“anyone else who cares to answer what would be the best way to deal with saudi arabia”
I say we institute a policy of manifest destiny which, while historically used by both parties, was originally conceived by the Democrats in 1845.
kevin
“I say we institute a policy of manifest destiny which, while historically used by both parties, was originally conceived by the Democrats in 1845.”
–meaning what? btw, i’m not a democrat so i also don’t understand the relevants of that tidbit.
peace
Dagon-
“Advocates of Manifest Destiny believed that expansion was not only good, but that it was obvious (‘manifest’) and inevitable (‘destiny’).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny
As for the Democrat tidbit–it was more to point out that I can actually agree with Democrats when they have a good idea–no offense was intended
kevin:
“Advocates of Manifest Destiny believed that expansion was not only good, but that it was obvious (’manifest’) and inevitable (’destiny’).”
okay..i know what manifest destiny is but what are YOU advocating, the us and israel conquer these peoples and their territories? please be more explicit.
peace
Bookworm hasn’t answered, so she can’t be “for or against”. The reason why you asked the question in the first place is to put people in the spotlight. Are you suggesting, Dagon, that you already know the answers to your questions ahead of time? You’re letting too much slip.
You’ve already heard one answer, Dagon. But you haven’t done anything with it. Little will change if you repeat your question.
You are against Israel’s actions, and as a way to defend yourself, you want to ask Bookworm about Saudi Arabia, to which you’ve already let slip that you believed she supported military action before she answered.
don’t think you can do it militarily. she does.
I think you can militarily get rid of Hizbollah, which is all that matters. How about telling us what you would do specifically about Saudi Arabia.
ymarsakar,
first thing first, bookworm wasn’t just talking about hizbollah. she was referring the muslim’s in the ‘region’ already being radicalized, which was the point of my post regarding the arab street now rallying about hizbollah.
bringing up saudi arabia was more than germaine in this context because one of the reason’s bw was lambasting rennicks column was because of rennicks claims that israel would inflame the region. she believes that israel can effectively neuter hizbollah and i say even if, so what? what are you going to do about the radicals in saudi arabia?
bottom line, i think that the idea that israel can help ’stabilize’ the region through force is more than naieve, it’s patently ridiculous.
so as you can see, there’s no need to defend myself against the position against israel’s military actions.
“You are against Israel’s actions, and as a way to defend yourself, you want to ask Bookworm about Saudi Arabia, to which you’ve already let slip that you believed she supported military action before she answered.”
–i wasn’t assuming anything.
it’s a very simple question particularly in light of previous comments. [muslim's want to destroy israel, israel has a right to attack countries that harbor radical muslim's. saudi arabia is the home of the MOST radical muslims, therefore....]
“I think you can militarily get rid of Hizbollah, which is all that matters. How about telling us what you would do specifically about Saudi Arabia.”
–getting rid of hizbollah even if possible will do nothing without a long-term diplomatic plan for the region. and i’ve already answered on what to do about saudi arabia.
peace
Dagon-
“us and israel conquer these peoples and their territories”
A little less ambitious than that–we just nationalize the Saudi oil fields for the U.S. Once oil and oil profits are out of the picture, I doubt we’d give the Saudi’s a second thought.
I agree with your assessment of the Saudis so we can defend this action by stating that they have unwisely spent their oil revenues by supporting terrorists and living opulently, so now the oil fields belong to us. We then make sure that these savings are passed to U.S. citizens at the pump–think of how that will impact the poor who spend a significantly larger portion of their income for gas and heating oil. (I was in Saudi in 2000 and the price for gas was 25 cents/gallon.) The greens would be satisfied, since we wouldn’t need to drill ANWR, and a significant source of funding of terrorists will have been negated. Sounds like a winning scenario.
kevin:
i’m with you it’s just that i don’t think china or russia would stand for any of that. might be more trouble than actually developing an energy economy that is clompletely independent of fossill fuels, thus enabling us to ‘not give them a second thought’.
just my opinion.
peace
China and Russia would have to declare war, and the only reason they are negotiating with Iran for oil is because they are unable to project power that far. The US’s naval capabilities have no such limitation.