Plumbing the depths of despair

Shimon Perez, Israel's president, states, "Israel's aim was to provide a strong blow to the people of Gaza so that they would lose their appetite for shooting at Israel."

The "people of Gaza"? Mr. Perez, did you mean to include those hundreds of dead children in your 'lesson'? I think the answer can only be yes, when you bombard neighbourhoods and schools. In other words: collective punishment, just like Lebanon in 2006. Last I checked, that is still a war crime.

I think Israel is a wonderful place, and I hope they do achieve peace with all their neighbours -- including a revived, independent, and sovereign Palestine. But I also think Israel's military and political leadership have demonstrated the worst kind of brutality in recent years.

I don't assume it's because they're bad people, though some of them may well be. I suspect it comes much more from genuine emotion, and well-considered strategy, but also from the fundamental laziness made possible by having such an overwhelming military advantage over your enemies.

Faced with terrorism and insurgency, and difficult choices and compromises, it probably seems very tempting, when diplomacy fails, to simply bomb the hell out of your adversaries. But we all know violence is a downward spiral. More succinctly: Israel have just created the next generation of Hamas militants in Gaza -- i.e. all the young survivors who just lost their homes, schools, siblings, parents, or friends. I imagine Israel will be hearing from many of those young victims in a few years' time.

This is probably a vain hope, but perhaps with an adult in the white house, Israel won't be given a blank cheque when it comes to violence. Perhaps Israel's leaders will be obliged to take a more progressive and humane path for the next few years. I'm sure it's no coincidence that they are winding down their Gaza operation on the eve of Barack Obama's inauguration. As one frequently sees spray-painted on utility boxes and walls in Tel Aviv: "know hope"

And the cycle continues

There goes America again, arming people in the Middle East:

BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) -- Military aid began arriving Friday after the United States said it will rush supplies to the Lebanese army fighting al Qaeda-inspired Islamic militants barricaded inside a Palestinian refugee camp in the country's north.

Hey, now they're arming the Lebanese government, after arming the Israelis so they could bomb the whole of Lebanon last Summer. Whatever the US is trying to accomplish here, it isn't peace.

"I certainly hope that the Lebanese government will be able to deal with these extremists," Rice said. "It's just another example of extremists in the Middle East who are trying to destabilize democratic governments."

Rigghht, and the US didn't destabilize the same government by letting Israel pound the crap out of the country (whose government is democratic and US-friendly) all within the last year? Of course they did, and moreover they knew they were doing so. Israel didn't just bomb Hezbollah guys in foxholes, they took out most of the major infrastructure -- and America supported that. Now this. What kind of careless games are they playing with peoples' lives?

And furthermore, the next time America is attacked (whether a military attack like the Cole or a terrorist attack like 9/11) maybe people in the US would be so good as to refrain from pleading "why do they hate us so much?". Given the years of "involvement" in the region's conflicts, perhaps Americans should consider that allowing their government to arm factions, take sides, and invade countries in the Arab/Muslim world is bound to result in a few enemies -- ones who don't hate you for your freedom fries, or because you're beautiful, but because you destroyed their lives. Just something to think about really.

[ I visited Lebanon in November, 2005 ]

Thanks, Israel

From the BBC today:

The conflict in Lebanon has caused devastating damage to the local economy and environment of the ancient port of Byblos. Byblos was not bombed, but it has been deeply damaged by the Israel-Hezbollah war. The harbour and the rocks and the beaches of Byblos are disfigured with oil. It spread up the coast in a thick slick after the Israelis attacked storage tanks at the Jiyyeh power station south of Beirut.

I visited Byblos in November -- here are photos (1, 2) of its beautiful little ancient harbour -- and it was one of the highlights of my Lebanon-Syria trip. I'm sure it will be beautiful again someday. I wonder if Israel will be helping to clean this up?

Lebanon Pt. 3

From the BBC today:

With a truce between Israel and Hezbollah raising hopes of peace in Lebanon, much of the focus is moving towards the task at hand: how to rebuild the country and how to pay for it. ... Tunisia's president has called for an emergency summit of Arab leaders, urging collective support for the rebuilding of the war-torn country. And Sweden has taken a lead in the West by organising a donor conference on 31 August, which some 60 countries and aid agencies are expected to attend.

"The world community now has to give its support to Lebanon's recovery and to the Lebanese people who have been severely affected," says Swedish Foreign Minister Jan Eliasson.

Maybe Israel and America can help pay for it.

I mean, since they're the ones who blew everything up.

If they don't, and the country descends into chaos yet again, then all that rhetoric about supporting emerging democracies (such as Lebanon) will seem pretty empty.

Sullivan makes an equivalence

Conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan, who has chosen his side in the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, tries to counter some of the scenes of horror from Lebanon with this.

This Was Once A Car ...and then a Hezbollah Katyusha rocket arrived.

Well Andrew, I do feel sorry for the owner of that car. Someone's insurance premiums are really going to skyrocket!

In the meantime, if you have a strong stomach and there are no children about, have a look at some of Israel's handiwork here.

Sullivan and Israel

To conservative (but sometimes sensible) blogger Andrew Sullivan, the destruction of Lebanon is justified as part of the existential struggle of the state of Israel. An email from me to Andrew:

So, just so I'm clear, you support this, right?:
http://visopsys.org/andy/cat/2006/08/Lebanon-pt-ii.html

Because Hezbollah attacked a military patrol on the wrong side of the border? That's the threat to Israel's existence?

(the whole "threat to Israel's existence" thing is laughable anyway. They could kill every Arab in the Middle East if they were allowed to)

Did you notice that Hezbollah only fires rockets at Israeli cities in *response*, and that the other day, they largely stopped when Israel paused its attacks?

You know as well as anybody that Olmert needed a provocation so that he could swing his dick around, proving his tough-guy bona-fides, because he didn't have the military resume of Sharon.

Ever been to Lebanon? I visited in November. It was becoming beautiful again. The Lebanese have worked so hard to put conflict behind them. They are a natural democracy. They are friends of America. They barely *have* a military, for crying out loud.

Israel are bullies.

No response to that. But then, maybe that's to be expected. To Andrew, people who oppose the actions of Israel are anti-Semites:

The current war is not only bringing out the Jew-haters in America, like Mel Gibson, but also in Europe. Yesterday, one of Norway's leading writers, Jostein Gaarder, author of best-seller "Sophie's World," with 26 million copies in print, wrote an astonishing op-ed in Aftenposten, Norway's leading paper. It's called "God's Chosen People."

Here's a translation of some of the Gaarder piece to which he's referring:

There is no turning back. It is time to learn a new lesson: We do no longer recognize the state of Israel. We could not recognize the South African apartheid regime, nor did we recognize the Afghan Taliban regime. Then there were many who did not recognize Saddam Hussein's Iraq or the Serbs' ethnic cleansing. We must now get used to the idea: The state of Israel in its current form is history.

We do not believe in the notion of God's chosen people. We laugh at this people's fancies and weep at its misdeeds. To act as God's chosen people is not only stupid and arrogant, but a crime against humanity. We call it racism...

We acknowledge and pay heed to Europe's deep responsibility for the plight of the Jews, for the disgraceful harassment, the pogroms, and the Holocaust. It was historically and morally necessary for Jews to get their own home. However, the state of Israel, with its unscrupulous art of war and its disgusting weapons, has massacred its own legitimacy. It has systematically flaunted International Law, international conventions, and countless UN resolutions, and it can no longer expect protection from same. It has carpet bombed the recognition of the world. But fear not! The time of trouble shall soon be over. The state of Israel has seen its Soweto.

We are now at the watershed. There is no turning back. The state of Israel has raped the recognition of the world and shall have no peace until it lays down its arms.

I don't like the tone of this either, in that it's a bit overwrought, but that's all. Is it not legitimate to be enraged by what Israel is doing in Lebanon? To Andrew Sullivan, this is anti-Semitism. Some people, like Andrew, willfully refuse to recognize the difference between disagreeing with Israel, and racism. It's not that he doesn't know the difference, of course, and I don't even think it's necessarily malicious -- it's just intellectual laziness. If you're engaged in debate, and the person on the other side of the issue resorts to crude (and inflammatory) name-calling, it usually means they've run out of worthwhile arguments -- they want to shut you up. One way to end a meaningful debate in a hurry is to start calling the other person a racist.

Mr. Sullivan does have ideas about the current Hezbollah-Israel conflict, and here they are: The survival of Lebanon is a worthwhile cost of Israel asserting itself, and deterring Hezbollah from cross-border skirmishing. People of Lebanon be damned. Dead civilians be damned.

That's a legitimate position to hold (though I happen to stongly disagree), but let me turn Andrew's name-calling around on him: Mr. Sullivan has nothing but contempt for Arabs and Muslims, and displays a typically American (sorry!) combination of derision, arrogance, and ignorance. Even while he mocks them, he can't be bothered to learn the difference between a burqa and a hijab.

He didn't change his mind about the Iraq war until lots of Americans started dying. Tens of thousands of dead Arabs didn't really rate a second thought. Why? Maybe for the same reason he doesn't care about the suffering in Lebanon. But I wouldn't want to start name-calling.

Lebanon Pt. II

Some nice before and after shots of Israel's handiwork, courtesy of CNN. This is a suburb of Beirut by the way -- this is not a place from which Hezbollah has been launching rockets. This is not even in the "conflict zone". This is Israel destroying the lives of thousands and thousands of Lebanese civilians:

Criminals.

Lebanon and Israel and America Pt. 2

So today, the leader of Hezbollah threatened to attack Tel Aviv:

"If you hit Beirut, the Islamic resistance will hit Tel Aviv and is able to do that with God's help," Nasrallah said in a televised address.

He justified it this way:

"You attack our cities, our villages, our civilians, our capital, we will react," he said. "At any time you decide to stop your aggressions on our villages and towns and cities and our civilians, we will not hit any settlement or any Israeli city."

Trying not to sound too biased, I guess I'd have to say that sounds reasonable. Notice that when Israel temporarily suspended airstrikes, Hezbollah stopped firing rockets? And that when Israel resumed airstrikes, Hezbollah fired more rockets than ever before?

While it's true that Hezbollah provoked the whole mess, it was a minor provocation compared to what has followed; they attacked an Israeli military patrol, not civilians. Israel has responded by punishing the whole country of Lebanon and killing civilians (and don't say it isn't deliberate -- if you level apartment buildings, you at least don't care if you kill civilians). In return, of course, Hezbollah has done likewise, firing rockets at Israeli cities. This is the nature of warfare. Both sides try to inflict pain on the other.

Now, why has Israel responded so drastically to a minor provocation? After all, the two sides have been skirmishing at the border for a long time now. So, why? Because new Prime Minister Ehud Olmert needs to show he's a tough guy. He wasn't seen by the Israeli public as being a strong military leader, the way Sharon was. He views this as his opportunity to beat his chest and establish his bona fides.

By most accounts, Israel has been waiting for the right provocation to justify this operation. Notice everyone seems to have mostly forgotten about those 2 abducted soldiers. And besides, Israel now has 30 or 40 more dead soldiers, plus a couple of dozen dead civilians. Worth it? Not to save 2 soldiers it isn't, especially when Hezbollah offered a prisoner exchange. They've exchanged prisoners with Israel before.

Now, here's Condoleezza Rice's response to Hezbollah's latest threat:

"The international community needs to say to Hezbollah that these kinds of threats are also not helpful at a time when the international community, the Lebanese people, the Israeli people, all want an end to the hostility," she told "Larry King Live" in a taped interview to be broadcast Thursday night.

So, it's okay if Israel makes threats, and targets civilians and infrastructure. It's not okay when Hezbollah does it. Got it. And America is trying to pretend to be a moderating force here? They arm one side, and make excuses for one side. They are on Israel's side, and everyone in the World knows it, so let's not try to pretend otherwise. For Lebanese people, that must hurt; Lebanon has been the most pro-western and pro-American country in the Middle East, not to mention the only natural Arab democracy.

By the way, opinion polls do not support Rice's assertion that the Israeli people want an end to the hostility.

America allows Israel to continue its offensive, ostensibly to give it time to weaken Hezbollah, but can't abide Hezbollah fighting back? Got it. And who really suffers here anyway? Israeli civilians, and much more so, Lebanese civilians. Sounds like a plan.

Punishing all of Lebanon, of course, is the point. Israel wants to punish the Lebanese people until they decide that supporting Hezbollah isn't worth it. On the contrary, I think Hezbollah is going to come out of this with more popularity than ever.

I hope Israel and America end up with a big black eye over this. I don't approve of Hezbollah's continuing fight with Israel (after Israel's withdrawal from Southern Lebanon a few years ago), but at this stage, I hope they have the last laugh. And I bet they will.

Lebanon and Israel and America Pt. 1

This article describes a mass burial of Lebanese bombing victims in the city of Tyre:

A Shiite sheik arrives and begins talking to members of the media. I pull him aside and ask him one question: "What message would you send to the people of America?" "Israel?" he asks. "No," I reply. "America."

"I love the people of America. It's the government I hate. Tell the American people that we received their gift. The missile that they gave to Israel - we have received it, and this is the result," he says, motioning to the coffins.

Lebanon Pt. I

I think some people who know me are probably wondering why I haven't commented about the current situation in Lebanon, given the fantastic trip I had there a few months ago, and given my already negative feelings about Israel. I think really, I'm just so sad and pessimistic about the whole thing that I can't really come up with anything appropriate to say. I'm in a state of disbelief about the pointless destruction and the punishment of innocent people, both in Lebanon and Gaza, by a supposedly enlightened country, with the unflinching support by the US. The mind just boggles. What are they thinking? That this will contribute to peace in the middle east? That Hamas and Hezbollah will just give up and go home? That Lebanese and Palestinians and Syrians and Iranians will just eventually bow down and give in to Israeli/American will? Or, just maybe, will this radicalize more people and spawn a new generation of Jihadis? What seems like the most likely outcome to you?