The Lebanese, Palestinian & Iraqi power struggle to unseat Israel
David Horovitz, Jerusalem Post:
There are those who have branded this latest conflict a continuation of Israel's War of Independence, and there is no little truth in the assertion. On both of the fronts on which Israel has been drawn into heavy fighting, its enemies can make no legitimate claim to be pursuing a territorial dispute: as of last summer, Israel relinquished its hold on the Gaza Strip; in Lebanon, it pulled back to the UN-certified international border six years ago. Except that, in both cases, the Jewish state's assailants are indeed pursuing a territorial ambition - to unseat Israel from its own sovereign lands.Tom Friedman, NY TImes:
This is not a conflict about Palestinian or Lebanese prisoners in Israel. This is a power struggle within Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq over who will call the shots in their newly elected "democratic'' governments and whether they will be real democracies.Democracy isn't about having an occasional election. Democracy is about the people granting certain powers to their government in order to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
There is a strong feeling among the Israeli people: they would prefer a two-state solution. Unfortunately, they know that the actions of neighboring "democracies" makes that impossible. And so the Israelis have got themselves a government that is acting accordingly.
That said, what do you suppose will happen the next time the Lebanese, Iraqis, Palestinians (and Iranians) have themselves an "election?"

Comments
Tom Friedman writes for the NYT.
Billmon only blogs:
http://billmon.org/archives/002523.html
What an f-ed up world.
Posted by: shep
|
July 14, 2006 11:35 AM
And Wolcott (and Ray Close) bring it home:
http://jameswolcott.com/archives/2006/07/punitive_respon.php
Posted by: shep
|
July 14, 2006 01:53 PM
Oh boy.
You're gonna love what I posted over at DailyKos.
But here's the irony -- in a way, I agree with Ray Close: the interests of the US and the interests of Israel are NOT the same.
Shep? That's your cue.Posted by: Ara Rubyan
|
July 14, 2006 02:06 PM
I understand your feelings, Ara but please don't confuse them with truth - that's the mistake the right makes. Think about it: you have a dog in this hunt, I don’t.
I simply don't see an outside existential threat to Israel - she has the overwhelming power advantage - or how having a single Israeli boot on West Bank or Gaza land helps Israel. Quite the reverse, it provides the only justification for her enemies and the only existential threat to Israel - the loss of her moral standing and, therefore, any reason to be.
Killing and punishing innocent civilian noncombatants never has and never can be a legitimate form of "self-defense". Considering that Israel is made from land forcibly taken from the Palestinian people, the onus has always been on her and her supporters to do everything possible to provide them a realistic possibility of a viable state. We've failed miserably, woe upon us. That's how I feel.
Posted by: shep
|
July 14, 2006 03:21 PM
Shep:
The quest for truth is something that cannot be afforded at this time. Maybe later. Right now, there is something that is more urgent than truth and that is strength.
That is the coin of the realm.
Posted by: Ara Rubyan
|
July 14, 2006 04:18 PM
Right now, there is something that is more urgent than truth and that is strength.
That is the coin of the realm.
That way lies disaster, Ara.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood
|
July 14, 2006 05:09 PM
"Right now, there is something that is more urgent than truth and that is strength."
"Every truth is self-acting and possesses inherent strength."
- Mahatma Gandhi
Posted by: shep
|
July 14, 2006 06:48 PM
Gandhi led a nation that outnumbered its colonial masters by 100:1.
Posted by: Ara Rubyan
|
July 14, 2006 06:55 PM
Israel is a nuclear power backed by the full might of the world's lone superpower.
Get a grip, Ara. There is no existential threat to Israel, except Israel.
Posted by: shep
|
July 14, 2006 08:17 PM
Shep:
There is no existential threat to Israel, except Israel.
You've used that phrase on a number of occasions. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Posted by: Ara Rubyan
|
July 15, 2006 06:49 AM
There is no existential threat to Israel, except Israel.
You've got to be kidding. Isn't there a demographic threat, for one thing?
Yours,
Wince
Posted by: Wince and Nod
|
July 15, 2006 09:57 AM
"You've used that phrase on a number of occasions. I don't think it means what you think it means."
To (no dog in this hunt) me, it’s quite simple, really.
Israel has all of the power to decide how to respond to its “threats”, at least for the last forty years. Israel chose to confiscate West Bank and Gaza land and occupy it unilaterally, with all of the policies that has entailed. Israel decides who’s a worthwhile negotiating partner (and who’s a “terrorist”) and what and when they will or won’t negotiate. Israel sets a course for itself when it engages in extrajudicial assassinations, kidnappings, imprisonment, harassment and killing of innocent Palestinians and Lebanese who have role or interest in the blood war. If Israel took a different course, it could immeasurable help itself in moral authority and support from most nations of the world – the only way it will ever defeat the ideology of its enemies.
Blaming everyone else except the dominant military, economic and political power in the region for its woes is simply not rational.
Posted by: shep
|
July 15, 2006 10:31 AM
Wince:
Isn't there a demographic threat, for one thing?
It escapes me at the moment but I read a piece recently that produced research showing that the demographic time-bomb is essentially a myth. I'll try to remember where I saw it and reproduce it here.
Damn that CRS (can't remember sh*t) Syndrome!
Posted by: Ara Rubyan
|
July 15, 2006 11:43 AM
shep:
Israel chose to confiscate West Bank and Gaza land
See, that's where you lose me. The West Bank territory was taken during the Six Day War. No peace treaty has been signed. No doubt it's long overdue. Who are we to blame for that?
Israel decides who’s a worthwhile negotiating partner (and who’s a “terrorist”)
Why the scare quotes? Didn't Arafat fit the description? He was the one who welched on every single facet of the Oslo Accords.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this.
If Israel took a different course
Olmert, who is not a general, may be the one who finally understands that a military solution isn't possible. But that doesn't mean military tactics aren't part of the solution.
Blaming everyone else except the dominant military, economic and political power in the region for its woes is simply not rational.
Shep, shep, shep: who (in the region) is more rational than Israel?
Who are you holding out for?
I'd be curious to hear your answer to this vital question.
Posted by: Ara Rubyan
|
July 15, 2006 11:48 AM
"I'd be curious to hear your answer to this vital question."
You're obviously not listening to a word I'm saying.
Posted by: shep
|
July 15, 2006 12:32 PM
Not true! I am very interested in hearing who you think the rational players are in the region.
Posted by: Ara Rubyan
|
July 15, 2006 01:12 PM
OK, if Israel is in such mortal danger, what security has been purchased by her actions? Can they then be said to be rational?
Posted by: shep
|
July 15, 2006 01:49 PM
It was just announced that eight Canadians were killed and a further six critically injured in Lebanon by an Israeli attack.
I'm rapidly losing any sympathy I have for Israel's position.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood
|
July 16, 2006 03:27 PM
R.I.P.
I can't understand why we're planning possible evacuation of 24,000 Americans to escape an attack from our ally.
Posted by: shep
|
July 16, 2006 06:07 PM
Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of the deceased.
I can't understand why we're planning possible evacuation of 24,000 Americans to escape an attack from our ally.
One of the most troubling things about this war is how completely marginalized the US has become.
Posted by: Ara Rubyan
|
July 16, 2006 07:21 PM