|
|
February 22, 2002
It has occurred to me,
It has occurred to me, as I've flipped through the pages of FrontPage, Salon, Drudge and others over the past two weeks, how much easier it must be to simply adopt a position on something and then move on. Take the Israeli conflict, for example. Dealing with it as a mere observer is exhausting (I can't imagine what it's like to deal with it as a participant). Every day presents new events that, if one is being mindful, demand a fresh examination of one's position. How much simpler it would be to have taken The Position. To have made a decision: I am for the Israelis! I am against the Palestinians! I think that they're all weasely little humans fighting over a scrap of wretched earth! Right now, I kind of like that last one.
But think about it: with The Position, one need not be concerned with fresh developments. They all fit into the Position. Everything simply reinforces it.
Perhaps I should go get one. I wonder where they're sold?
February 25, 2002
Two articles in the New
Two articles in the New York Times that I read back-to-back created a curious juxtaposition for me today. The first was about Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street reporter who was murdered with medieval glee by Muslim extremists. The second was about a baby named Jack.
Here we have Ahmed Omar Sheikh, partially educated in the West. Recruited at the age of 19 by the Pakistani-based Harkat ul-Mujahedeen, he was given an assignment to kidnap Westerners and hold them against the release of imprisoned Muslim extremists. He bungled it. Ahmed was arrested, and the hostages went free. Now, he’s bungled again. His Jaish-e-Mohammed cronies may have gotten Pearl to mumble their slogans, but they’ve killed their hostage, gained nothing, and created enough political will to root out the radical elements of the Pakistani intelligence services.
Which brings me to baby Jack. While still in utero, it was discovered that Jack’s aortic valve was constricted. If left untreated, he would have been born with a scarred and useless left ventricle, and faced death or a half-million dollars’ worth of risky surgery. Doctors went into his mother’s womb and operated on his grape-sized heart, expanding the faulty valve with a tiny balloon 1/8 of an inch across. Jack was born on February 21 in Boston, six weeks premature but with a healthy heart and an energetic disposition.
These are the kinds of things we can do here in America. While Muslim extremists behead Western newspaper reporters in a pathetic attempt to excuse the failures of their own society, Americans are performing life-saving surgeries on infants before they are even born.
This should be interesting. Prince
This should be interesting. Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud has apparently tossed off an olive branch of sorts. We'll see what comes of it.
UPI story here.
February 26, 2002
Safire on the Saudi peace
March 04, 2002
I have a slogan in
I have a slogan in my head, spoken in a tinny yet sonorous Movietone News announcer's voice: "The exit strategy...is Victory!"
Complete with warbling, uplifting lo-fi orchestral punctuation.
What Tom Daschle "gets" is how to float a trial balloon and see how the public reacts. He would've done much better if he had said, "Mr. President, we need to know how we're going to win this!" instead of looking forward to the moment when we pack our bags and go home because we've had enough.
Trent Lott didn't fare much better. With his stern, frowning admonition ("How dare [Daschle] criticize the President when we've got troops in the field�) he reflects the simpleminded lackey's unwavering obedience to his Master's voice.
Daschle was right to ask for some more information, but wrong to frame it in terms of defeat. Lott was right to call for strong support, but wrong to frame it in terms of uncritical obedience.
It is a reflection of the thick-witted provincialism of American politicians of all stripes that a significant portion of the leadership in the D.C. swamp doesn't understand the historical nature of the burgeoning conflict.
Our enemies believe that the God of history is on their side. They take the long view, and they want the world. It's our job to stop them from taking it.
Interestingly enough, the New York Times article on the exchange doesn't mention Daschle's "exit strategy" comment--probably for the reasons cited above. Doesn't sound good, does it?
A reader writes in response
A reader writes in response to my comments Sunday about the veiling of women:
"The problem with this argument [made by Hasan at-Turabi] is that it places the blame for women's objectification on women's bodies, as if they are inherently dangerous and by their very existence produce spontaneous eruptions of lust in the innocent men who walk the planet with them.
The objectification lies not within the female form but in the eyes of the beholder, who refuses to look at a woman (however she is clothed) as a person rather than an object. When Victorian women were covered in cloth from neck to foot, their male compatriots managed to objectify their ankles.
Veiling a woman to render her "non-erotic" is like treating smallpox with a topical salve."
That is indeed the problem with that argument, and it’s why I’m not advocating veiling women.
What Turabi is saying, in effect, is that it is within the nature of males to objectify women. There is no male “innocence,” here, quite the opposite. It is because all men cannot be relied upon to have developed the refinement required to respect the personhood of women that it is more practical to short-circuit their natural tendencies. It is not the uncontrollable, destructive sexuality of women that Turabi sees as the problem. It is the uncontrollable, destructive sexuality of men, and the blame is theirs. As pointed out, even female ankles could not escape the Male Gaze (to use a drippingly PC term from the bowels of Academia).
To put it another way, Turabi might have regarded it as a sad commentary on the state of Muslim culture that its men cannot be relied upon to exert a civilized restraint upon their thoughts and inclinations. My point was that, inasmuch as the solution of the veil is problematic, so too is the American solution. Our solution is, of course, no solution at all. Nothing is covered, nothing is hidden, all is exposed, and there is no longer a tradition of male restraint or refinement.
Turabi did not say that the veil rendered the woman “non-erotic,” he said that it prevented her from being viewed as an “erotic image.” The difference between “erotic” and “pornographic” is famously one of interpretation, but in its most refined sense the erotic seems to have more to do with what is hidden than what is exposed. In the same article Shabbir Akhtar holds that the veil renders a woman more erotic, which is to say that it lends a refinement to female sexuality that is missing in a pornographic culture such as America’s.
Given that objectification is such a problem, solutions to it ought to be examined for their efficacy. The veil, at least, has the potential to instruct a society by offering a tangible sign that such objectification is not the mark of high culture. Here in America, there is no such potential.
March 06, 2002
Our Good Friend and Ally
Our Good Friend and Ally may be spying on us. Who'da thunk it?
March 08, 2002
FrontPage links to this story
FrontPage links to this story of freshman mortarmen in Afghanistan.
There's a sequence at the end that's almost comedic: first, our boys are pinned down by al-Qaida mortars, firing from three positions over two miles away. So they call in air support. Two of the positions are flattenned, but the other ridegetop position stubbornly remains untouched. The 'Qaidas--wily devils that they are--hide until the air support's ordinance has detonated, then pop up, wave mockingly, and fire off some more mortars. Somehow, they manage to do the same thing when our boys return fire with their 60mm mortars.
But, ah! We know mathematics, and are also wily. Our Captain Butler has his mortarmen calculate how long it's taking the shells to reach their targets. As it turns out, the 32-second travel time gives the 'Qaidas plenty of time to hide as soon as they hear the mortars go off.
So, the good Captain calls in air support, and orders his mortars fired at the exact moment the mortarmen hear the ordinance detonate. The 'Qaidas hide, then pop up, wave mockingly...and explode.
D'oh!
March 12, 2002
So the Israelis aren't spying
So the Israelis aren't spying on us. That's a relief. Daniel Pipes cries "foul!"
Good thing we've got the Internet to tell us what's what, huh?
March 13, 2002
Interesting to note how ABC
Interesting to note how ABC News backs up UN policy initiatives by choosing the footage it shows. This evening on the 6:30 newscast, I watched a Palestinian fire his automatic rifle pop-pop-pop at an Israeli tank from a position behind a building. There was a pause while he pulled his rifle up, checking it, and then the area he was using for cover simply exploded into flame and smoke as the tank put a shell right into it. It’s a good thing they got him, or those anti-tank bullets he was using could have gone right through that armor and killed everyone inside!
Given the reported American authorship of the Resolution and President Bush’s scolding of Israel for its recent activities, it seems as though America may be taking on the parental role required: If you kids can’t get along, you can both go to your rooms without any supper.
Not exactly a trenchant political analysis on my part, but lord someone needs to smack those folks around over there. Recently, I’ve gotten so deeply involved in the mess that when things really started to heat up—a dozen dead one day, thirty the next, and on and on—I started to simply feel sick at heart. Every day, it was more of the same…Palestinians proving their faith and devotion to the cause by hurling themselves into death with the grim resolve of martyrdom…Israelis proving the size of their nationalist balls by taking out individual riflemen with tanks.
Wicked monkeys, all.
March 18, 2002
Hmmm. When was the last
Hmmm. When was the last time a sitting American Vice-President engaged in shuttle diplomacy among Arab nations? That would have been Al Gore, in April-May of 1998. He visited Israel for its 50th Anniversary celebrations, then swung by Saudi Arabia and Egypt, essentially just saying hello.
Over the course of 1999, former Secretary of State Albright visited Egypt (three times), Saudi Arabia (twice), Jordan, and Syria (twice). Former Secretary of Defense William Cohen visited Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Kuwait, Jordan, and Oman, also in 1999. In 2000, Albright visited Syria and Egypt. In 2001, Colin Powell visited Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait.
Vice President Cheney, on the other hand, visited Kuwait, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and Yemen, one after the other...and swung through Israel on his way out. One visit by the second-most powerful man in the United States to nine Arab nations, plus Turkey. The only Arab nations he didn't visit? Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Syria wasn't named in the "axis of evil," but might as well have been.
It's just a hunch, but something tells me that there was more to those visits than, "Guys, we're really, really serious about this Palestinian thing." Cheney has delivered the message to those Arab countries that we give a damn about, and to those non-Arab countries that are strategically important to the efort: we are going to take action against Iraq.
Add a boatload of 1,000 Kurdish refugees appearing from nowhere to dock in Sicily, with attendant airtime on tonight's national evening news, and you've got the first bits of media mortar slapped onto the foundation stones of our eventual invasion of Iraq. 300 of the refugees, Our Man Peter Jennings tells us, are children. Seven or more are pregnant, one has already been airlifted off and given birth.
Remember the Kurds? Sadaam Hussein killed lots of them, using nerve gas and other nasty things.
Let's see...Vice-President of the United States...nine Arab states...Kurdish refugees on the evening news...gosh.
We'll be bombing Iraq within six months.
March 19, 2002
Here's a potential propaganda conflict
Here's a potential propaganda conflict for you. This Wasington Post article summarizes the New Yorker magazine report linking Iraq to al-Qaeda. However, the report indicates that the terrorist group Ansar al-Islam, trainined in al-Qaeda camps, is made up of Iraqi Kurds as well as Arabs.
So, let us sit back and witness the fine parsing that Standard Media, Inc. and our Government will have to perform: the Kurds are oppressed by the Tyrant Hussein, and we must liberate them. But these Kurds are bad terrorists, and we must shoot them.
March 20, 2002
There are two pieces today,
There are two pieces today, from opposite sides of the political spectrum, that perfectly encapsulate two disparate ways of looking at the world and the people in it.
The first is the lead piece in Frontpage Magazine, by Editor David Horowitz. In it, he paints his usual ideological portrait: we are entering the time of Great Conflict, where the near East will try to destroy the West. We are entering a war that will permit no compromise, only victory or our destruction. Israel, he maintains, is our front line position in this war. That country and its neighbors are like the two stones of a mill, and their heavy, grinding points of contact are the end product of the driving force of the cultures of the West and near East. It is an abstract piece, where nations represent not individuals but ideologies, and clash in the rarified space of ideas as much as--or more than--they do on the real fields of battle.
Contrast that with this piece in today’s Salon. It’s an interview with Filmmakers B.Z. Goldberg and Justine Shapiro, whose documentary “Promises” is up for a Best Documentary Oscar. Made between 1997 and 2000, the film follows seven young Israeli and Palestinian children as they live their young lives in the midst of burgeoning conflict. I saw the film when it aired on PBS in December, and it is indeed very affecting…heart breaking, actually. To see such young children already mouthing the ideas and prejudices of their elders is nearly enough to rob one of all hope. ‘Nearly’ enough, I say, because one of the documentary’s centerpieces is the meeting of Faraj, a Palestinian boy, and Yarko and Daniel, two Israeli boys, at Faraj’s refugee camp home. For a brief moment, the commonality of the human desire to know and be known is there. But, by the end of the film, checkpoints and increased hostilities have prevented further meetings. Faraj, now two years older and entering a disillusioned adolescence, has the nascent spark of the Intifada in his eyes. Yarko and Daniel have pulled back, both because of the danger and, one senses, because of their parents, who seem to have decided that they have done their bit for peace.
It is these children, and thousands like them, who are the grist between Horowitz’s millstones. These are the young people who will grow up imbued with the ideologies of their parents, and who will be ground to dust by the forces of history. It is all very well for Horowitz to blame the Arabs, and to portray the Israelis as vanguards of Western democracy who just want to live in safety. It’s very tidy, rhetorically comfortable, and an easy position to argue from. It’s also overly simplistic, and very nearly inhuman. Ideologies are created, believed, and conveyed by people. They do not descend to earth from somewhere in the ether, like voodoo spirits, to ride their hapless subjects.
That we must defend ourselves from the ancient sacrificial evil of our enemies is beyond question. But we must be careful that we do not become cavalier about those human beings who will pay the price during the course of that defense.
March 27, 2002
Even though I'm not willing
Even though I'm not willing to trek with him to the land of the Eternal Straight European, Pat Buchanan occasionally sums a position up succintly:
"While Israel is indeed our ally in the war on terror, its annexations of Arab land, its dispossession of the Palestinian people, and its denial of their right to a homeland and state of their own on land their fathers farmed for a thousand years are a principal cause of this war and a primary reason why America's reputation has been ravaged in the Arab world."
This is written in the context of a refutation of moralist William Bennett's stalwart defense of Israel, which is based upon the idea that, because America and Israel are "both democracies," our fates our "intertwined."
For a long time, I was of the opinion that Israel, with its avowed purpose as an ethnic state, and its legal privileges and rights given expressly to Jews alone, didn't quite deserve the name "democracy." In the course of defending America's own ethical evolution, however, I belatedly realized that (of course!) America, too, had a stage of growth in which a portion of its citizens weren't accorded full benefit and protection of the law and the rights laid out in the documents of our founding. With great effort and struggle, we moved on, and we continue to struggle with the moral legacy of our less-than-illustrious past. We had the luxury of doing so on a vast continent, with few agressors along our borders. We were lucky.
Israel is not so lucky. There is dynamic and impassioned debate within that country about every aspect of its existence: its Orthodoxy, its secularism, its wars, its peace...everything. We here on our large and comfortable continent hear little of this debate, which is unfortunate. It has often been remarked, in fact, that were it not for the constant pressure of outside aggression, the nascent state would have dissolved into the chaos of civil war long ago.
Imagine, then, if America had been beset on all sides by violent aggressors in the mid 19th century. How likely is it that our great universalist reforms would have come to pass when they did?
When we observe the Middle East, we are looking at history on the hoof. A great failing of the American psyche is our impatience with the pace of history, perhaps best exemplified by Bill Clinton's last-ditch Middle Eastern diplomatic efforts in the final months of his presidency. As a nation we have grown so much, so fast, that we reel from the speed of the changes, and think that our social, cultural, and political vertigo is the normal state of being in the world. This affects our outlook on the rest of the world. We demand that Israel reach the point of universal respect for all peoples, immediately. We demand that the Palestinians learn lessons of democracy that took Europe centuries to learn, and which we here in America are still studying. We forget that, at the beginning of this century, the Middle Eastern "nations" weren't even lines on a map.
So no, Mr. Will, Arafat most likely isn't going to preside over a "placid little democracy." And Israel really doesn't have the time or the space to deal with the niceties of universalism that we are privileged to be able to deal with here in America. The reason that the conflict seems so intractable, senseless, and endless is because it is the American way to expect the proper changes to be implemented immediately and, once that is done, we strive to believe that the problem is solved. Then, we're surprised and outraged when--for example--a coalition of African Americans sues a bunch of corporations and demands reparations for a practice that ended almost a century and a half ago.
It would be nice if, rather than demand that everyone simply "get it," we could focus our efforts--and our use of force--on creating conditions that would make such "getting" possible. But that's vague and impractical at best. Too many people are dying.
So--as usual--I am left simply shaking my head at all of the angry screaming monkeys, flinging their feces at one another as they fight over their scrap of jungle.
One way or another, history will provide the solution. It is highly unlikely that it will be a pleasant one.
Remember when the Arab world
Remember when the Arab world wanted us to stop bombing for a month, out of respect for their sacred holy days of Ramadan?
Here's why we didn't.
More war wiggling. Apparently, we're
More war wiggling. Apparently, we're moving a whole mess of military equipment from our base in Saudi Arabia to the ever-so-slightly-more-America-friendly country of Qatar.
Let's see...is Qatar on VP Cheney's list of "Arabic Countries I Visited"? Why, yes! Yes it is. Of course, the AP says the equipment moves began several weeks ago, but my Chomsky-sense is tingling! I suspect vast imperial conspiracies afoot! We're saying one thing, and doing another! Look out! It's an atrocity on the wing! Oppression in the offing! The public is being propagandized!
Good god, my ideology is aching.
April 01, 2002
In response to Bruce Thornton's
In response to Bruce Thornton's "Indifference to History," I sent the following. I borrowed some words from other bits I've written here. There's much more to be said about Thornton's somewhat blinkered view of the evolution of humanity's moral sensibilities (not to mention his seemingly simplistic view of history in general and in particular), but you only get 400 words for posts to the illustrious Front Page forums. This bit weighs in at a hefty 403 words. Let's see if they actually post it:
"In 1882, Zionist Leon Pinsker published an influential tract called “Auto-Emancipation: An Appeal To His People By A Russian Jew.” In it, he writes:
“If we would have a secure home, give up our endless life of wandering and rise to the dignity of a nation in our own eyes and in the eyes of the world, we must, above all, not dream of restoring ancient Judaea. We must not attach ourselves to the place where our political life was once violently interrupted and destroyed. The goal of our present endeavors must be not the "Holy Land," but a land of our own.”
Pinsker suggested establishing the Jewish homeland in Asiatic Turkey, or on a tract of land in the still-open ranges of North America. Pinsker knew that, however symbolically important Jerusalem and the ancient lands of Israel were to his people, the area was crowded with incompatible histories, rife with turmoil, and soaked in blood.
When Mr. Thornton speaks of “moral responsibility and the hard price one must pay for one's choices,” he seems to ignore the choice made by the early Zionist leadership to reject Pinsker's very sensible—and historically aware—admonition. Had they listened, the Jewish homeland might be located in a place where the Israelis are not beset by enemies on all sides and compelled to make impossible choices between humane behavior and necessary defense against an inhumane enemy.
That tantalizing historical possibility aside, Mr. Thornton seems to view history as an inevitable force that is entirely beyond human influence. He portrays it as a juggernaut that marches onward with unstoppable force. That view allows Mr. Thornton to claim that, because the idea of the nation is foreign to Islamic civilization, they have no right to adopt it, and any attempt to do so is suspect. If this is true, then what hope is there in appealing to the moderate elements in Iranian secular society? What is the purpose of overthrowing Sadaam Hussein? The tide of history has already borne the national ideal past them. It is too late for them.
Mr. Thornton's appeal to history is to be respected. However, the fact that history shows us that humanity has always behaved in a certain way does not mean that humanity must always behave in that way. I am no “right-thinking liberal,” but it seems to me that the simple existence of a historical precedent should not guarantee its conservation."
[It's posted. Good for them. --IW]
April 11, 2002
Huh. I seem to have
Huh. I seem to have wrung every last bit of personal relevance out of the Middle East. I've got nothing more to say about it. That's good; I was getting bored.
I think I'll start publishing serialized fiction bits, now. That seems like fun, not so much of a drag...not so much with the heaviness and the death.
Doesn't that sound nice?
April 23, 2002
"Both autocratically through the courts
"Both autocratically through the courts and democratically at the ballot box, America is being de-Christianized; becoming a pagan country. As Vaclav Havel said, what we seem to be trying to create is 'the first atheistic civilization in the history of mankind.'"
So laments Pat Buchanan. To be blunt: paganism is not atheism, Pat, it's just not your brand of theism. So sorry. The shedding of YHWH is a necessary step in the evolution of ethical humanity. The question is whether we've done it too soon, because old man Allah is up and running and strong. There is a problem there, and a big one. While the Books of the Jews do indeed contain that old tribal magic, that Chosen People ethos, all of the tribes that the Israelites hated, killed and defeated--the Amalekites, Amorites, Ammonites, Hittites, Girgashites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites, and so on--are merely names now, and have faded into the strata of history. Not so the Book of the Muslims. In it, their Most Holy Prophet says that Allah commands hatred of the Jews, and the Jews as a people are still very much with us. We don't need to hem and haw about how "maybe" the tribes mentioned in the Muslim Book are "related" to the modern Jews, the way that some try to relate the Canaanites to the modern Arabs.
Read More...
April 25, 2002
Have you read the latest
Have you read the latest NYT headline? “Saudi to Warn Bush of Rupture Over Israel Policy.”
Apparently Crown Prince Abdullah is going to warn President Bush that his support of Ariel Sharon will indicate that Saudi national interests are no longer American national interests. They’re threatening to use the “oil weapon” and throw us out of our Saudi bases. Good thing we’ve been moving all of our stuff to Qatar and Kuwait.
How about this, Prince? “American to Warn Abdullah that if Any More of His Citizens Crash Planes into American Buildings America Will Fuse His Oil Wells Shut with Nuclear Weapons.”
Or, “American to Warn Abdullah that When The Revolution Comes and His Outraged Populace Puts Him Against The Wall Along With His Entire Corrupt Regime, He’s on His Own.”
Or even, “American to Warn Abdullah: Go Ahead, Make My Day.”
This bluster is so much hot, dry, desert air. As though Saudi Arabia’s national interests have ever been ours. As though, when push comes to shove, we won’t finally tell them to take their hate-filled Madrassas, their Qu’rans, their murderous jihadists, and their oil and insert them forcefully into their colons along with a heaping quantity of the sand which comprises 90% of their “nation’s” territory.
I remember vividly something that one of bin Laden’s cohorts said, as they were videotaped laughing about the 9/11 attacks. Referring to the attack on the Pentagon, this chortling associate remarked, “They must have thought there was a coup.”
That was the moment when I realized that many if not most of the Arabs have absolutely no idea about the nature of what’s been built here in America. I said to the terrorist on the television, “We don’t have coups here, you jackass.” He couldn't even conceive of a nation where violent civil unrest is the exception rather than the rule and the government hands power over to its successor without chaos, bloodshed, and death. Such a place was entirely outside of his experience, and I suspect there are many like him throughout the Arab world.
For all its scandals, blemishes and flaws, our government still governs by consent of the governed. Unlike the Crown Prince, President Bush doesn’t have to worry that the oppressed, ignorant and illiterate masses will rise up and kill him and his entire family, because (believe it or not) our masses are largely free, educated, and literate, and they know better. The depth of the ignorance of those who have sworn to destroy us and of those who—like Prince Abdullah—aid and support them is astounding. Watching the video of that tiny-minded would-be tyrant enjoying his momentary success made me realize, then and there, just how much we really are the City on the Hill, and just how strongly those seething, hating masses resemble the dark barbarian hordes.
We should pull out of the region entirely, and pay eight dollars a gallon for gas. We’ll surround the area with ships, planes and troops, to keep them from getting out. And then we’ll watch as they tear each other apart and destroy everything that’s been built there since 1900. Then, maybe—if we’re feeling magnanimous, and if they haven’t decided to hit America again in some way—we’ll help them rebuild. That’s what we did for Germany. That’s what we did for Japan.
Of course, we only did that because we’re corrupt oppressors who hated the Germans and the Japanese and wanted to destroy their faith and their way of life.
April 26, 2002
In the midst of a
In the midst of a long and somewhat muddled piece in The Nation by Michael Massing (in which, despite the fact that practically every Afghan he spoke to is happy with American involvement in their country, he worries and frets that we're Not Doing The Right Thing there) I found the following tidbit:
"Indeed, Marla Ruzicka, who came to Afghanistan on behalf of Global Exchange, the activist group, to organize families victimized by the US bombing to demand compensation from Washington, told me that she was encountering a problem: People were so pleased with the results of the bombing that many were reluctant to protest it too vocally. (A report on her activities in the New York Times, headlined Shattered Afghan Families Demand U.S. Compensation, did not mention this.)"
That article--published way back on April 8--is now considered a moneymaker by the New York Times, so I couldn't read it (view an abstract here). I suspect, however, that the NYT article and Massing's work are of a piece. Massing gives the distinct impression that it is somehow the Americans who will bear the blame when civil conflict inevitably returns to the war-torn land. This is despite the fact that
"Daily, two filled-to-capacity UN planes fly in development experts and humanitarian workers from Islamabad, Pakistan. In an effort to combat rampant malnutrition, the World Food Program (WFP) is providing food to more than 6 million Afghans. The Danes are helping to de-mine the country, the Germans to rebuild its water and sanitation systems, and the Japanese to reconstruct its housing. In the Marco Polo restaurant, a modest but well-lit establishment that serves the usual Afghan fare--lamb kebabs, fried chicken, sautéed spinach--NGO officials squawk into their global-reach telephones, directing relief efforts."
Apparently, the United States will be held accountable if the European-headed reconstruction efforts fail. Massing is supported in his effort to demonstrate the all-encompassing responsibility of the United States by several on-site European critics, who suggest that the American military mindset will result in disaster. He calls US reconstruction efforts in the region "illusory" a paragraph after writing:
"The United States is financing an estimated 80 percent of all the food aid being distributed by the WFP in Afghanistan. The US Embassy was so involved in helping plan a recent back-to-school event in Kabul that when I asked for some background material, I was inadvertently handed a detailed script specifying each official's every move."
Later, he states
"The United States is providing the country large sums of humanitarian and economic aid."
For a nation whose President has emphatically denied his desire to engage in nation-building, we're doing quite a bit of it. This, of course, is on top of the billions we spent forcing the tyrannical Taliban government from power, not to mention offering political, financial, and military support to a stabilizing interim government. But according to Massing and the Europeans, we're just not doing it right. Apparently we're not clever enough, or subtle enough, or blessed with the acute sense of history required to rebuild a nation.
Fine. I'll grant Massing that. Then how about this: why don't all of those clever, subtle, historically-minded Europeans stop their armchair grousing and commit more of their billions to rebuilding Afghanistan? Let them fund the other 80% of the WFP's budget, and let them head out into the Afghan countryside to make nice with all of the various warlords. Since America isn't very good at all of that complicated stuff--Massing says we have neither "the will [nor] the skill" to address the problems--wouldn't it make more sense to simply let the Europeans handle it entirely, so that we can concentrate on making it possible for them to formulate more philosophical objections to our lowbrowed militaristic worldview?
Perhaps I'm missing something. Perhaps, figuring that they could rely on the American military machine to defend them if the need arose, the governments of Europe have invested all of their extra cash into massive social programs to improve their citizens' quality of life. That must be it. Europe doesn't have the money to rebuild Afghanistan itself, just like it doesn't have the strength to smash tyrannical governments when necessary. Therefore, it will be up to the United States to prevent civil war, because the Danes, the Germans, the UN, all of the NGOs, and an International Security Assistance Force made up of soldiers from 18 European nations are (somehow) powerless to do so.
May 08, 2002
I wonder if the French
I wonder if the French will hold the Jews responsible for this?
Of course, we know who to blame for this.
But for some reason, we still don't know who's responsible for this.
Fortunately, you can still get an excellent steak in Argentina.
This has been "Irrelevancy Minute." Brought to you by:
Allen's House of Figs
and
Texaco
May 21, 2002
More happy news, this time
More happy news, this time from Our Man Rumsfeld. Again, nothing that we didn't already know. This was followed up twenty minutes ago by more finger-pointing in Iran's direction.
Now, I've invested quite a bit of effort on these pages in defense of Bush's pre-9/11 administrative record with regard to national security. It should be remembered, however, that a record on paper is just that. It is the action that counts, and lately I've been wondering, "Where's my war?" In pre-television WWII days, there were posters everywhere, brochures about how to recognize Jap subs off of American coastlines, newsreels From The Front with every feature, radio broadcasts by our trusted media voices. I myself have a book-mark sized alert from the National Forestry Servive warning that "Forest Fires Help The Enemy" by producing smoke that could be used as cover by said Jap subs. Probably nonsense, but such ephemera kept the public on its toes and reminded them about what was going on far overseas.
What've we got today? A poorly-publicized color-coded national alert system and a political leadership that's scrambling to make a scandal out of a memo. Where are the posters in our cities' subways? HOW TO RECOGNIZE A SUICIDE BOMBER: Look for the bulky jacket...the nervous jitters...the sweats...muttering of prayers...visible wires at the wrists or on the hands... WATCH YOUR SURROUNDINGS. Goddamn but this PC civil-rights crap is crippling us. Where are the posters telling people who to call if they're suddenly living next to three young Middle-Eastern students who rent a one bedroom apartment month-to-month and have no furniture? Are we going to let the right of people to behave suspiciously negate proper intelligence gathering?
Where are the daily briefings on the evening news about what our government is doing? Even if all it's doing is maintaining readiness, for God's sake don't leave it to the media to decide what the public needs to hear. President Bush should be on the television every Sunday for fifteen minutes in prime time telling us exactly what's what.
This week, all we've heard is the FBI telling us to prepare for suicide bombs, the Secretary of Defense telling us to prepare for the use of weapons of mass destruction, and Senators telling us that extremists are smuggling themsleves into the country in ill-secured container ships. Where the hell are the people telling us what they're doing to stop it, how the citizenry can help, and whether or not we need to enlist? We're at war here, people, and the enemy is within our borders. I don't give a shit that Attack of the Clones hasn't beat Spider-Man's gross yet. I really, really don't. Yet that's what seems to be at the forefront of the American media consciousness.
I'm spoiling for a fight. Kicking out the Taliban was great and all, but I want blood and guts and gore and veins in my teeth, man! I want every would-be terrorist to know without a doubt that Allah will not save the population of his town, his city, his nation, if he raises a hand against us on our own soil. I want pictures of vast plains of burnt desert littered with the husked remains of enemy soldiers and the smoking wreckage of a thousand tanks. I want the State Ass of every terrorist sponsor to be so utterly and thoroughly kicked that an entire generation will instantly lose the false hope presented by religious extremism.
Where's my war?
From the the Islamic Republic
From the the Islamic Republic Wire services, we have this fine item about how Iran and Germany are recognizing each others' important role in the development of their respective corners of the world. Among the items being discussed in the Iran-Germany forums are technology transfers.
Great! So the small nuclear device that Iran delivers to its terrorist buddies will be made with precision German components, ensuring its efficient operation and timely detonation.
Also from the same wires, news that "hundreds of thousands" will gather to protest America's genocidal war policy.
Aw, shucks. High praise indeed, coming from a society whose holiest book calls for the extermination of the Jews. We must be doing something right!
May 22, 2002
As was inevitable, the footage
As was inevitable, the footage of Daniel Pearl's murder has surfaced on the Internet, as an .ASF version of the propaganda videotape produced by his murderers. I've seen it, but won't link to it...if you want to find it, do your own searches.
After footage of Daniel mouthing scripted propagandistic comments (subtitled in Arabic) interspersed with footage of (among other things) Palestinian casualties and Sharon shaking hands with Bush, he is shown being decapitated, and his severed head is held aloft as the "National Movement for the Restoration of Pakistani Sovereignty" slowly scrolls through its demands in English. They are:
The immediate release of prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
Return of Pakistani Prisoners to Pakistan
The immediate end of the US presence in Pakistan
The delivery of F-16 planes that Pakistan had paid for but never received
They warn that if these demands are not met, this scene will be repeated "again and again."
It's that last demand that gets me. These people are so fundamentally incapable of thinking normal human thoughts that it makes sense to them to slit the throat of an American, display his severed head...and then demand American military hardware.
There is only one way to deal with such barbarically stupid animals: find them, and kill them.
Any person who believes that the proper foundation of a sovereign state consists of the kidnap and murder of newspaper reporters, who cannot see the stupidly insane illogic of demanding military equipment from the government of a country whose citizens he (or she, for that matter) has sworn to kill, no longer deserves any of the basic consideration afforded to human beings. They have surrendered their human capacity for rationality in favor of the rapacious animalistic indulgence of militant religious fervor. They are to be put down like dogs, before their bloodied barking infects others.
Words cannot adequately describe the contempt with which I view these "people."
May 23, 2002
And in the midst of
And in the midst of my hunkering down, I contemplate my bloodlust in the dark. There was a time, when I used to hang out with these folks, that I would have found such a call for death and devastation abhorrent, and a reflection of the worst tribal instincts of humanity. "There is no way to peace, peace is the way." It sounds so nice, doesn't it? Somebody else said something like that once…what was his name…he wore sandals…that nice boy from Nazareth? Got nailed to a tree? Oh yeah—Jesus!
Along with what Jesus said in the book of Mathew (5:39) and Paul's insistence that vengeance belonged to the Lord (Romans 12:19) there are similar passages in the texts of everything from Confucianism to Islam. An interesting take on Jesus' injunction to turn the other cheek is that he referred to a Judaic law, established by God and enforced by the judiciary of Israel, which precluded personal vengeance. Furthermore, governments are enjoined to "execute wrath on those who practice evil."
I suppose that's what I want, here: to see some wrath executed. The Peaceweavers and others like them would have me believe that, had Bush said "As a peaceful nation we send out a call to the people of the world to join us in having war no more," an "overwhelming change of consciousness" would have resulted. The trouble is that such faith is only that, faith. I doubt very much that the masses who cheered as our towers fell would join us as we "change old violent ways and together raise our consciousness, act compassionately, and have the moral courage to do what is right and noble for all living beings." As nice as such sentiments are, they have as much real impact as attempting to levitate the Pentagon to stop the war in Vietnam. Such mysticism will not serve us well when our enemies are attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. Pursuing unconditional peace in the face of indiscriminately murderous hatred results in being indiscriminately murdered. It may elevate one personally and even spiritually to think the good thoughts and hum that cosmic Om, but it is not our personal and spiritual elevation that is at stake here, it is our nation and our civilization.
Of course, such thinking isn’t really in evidence anywhere within the real political spectrum at the moment, which is just as well. And I am indeed satisfied with our activities to date, which amply demonstrated that we will bring down governments in response to attacks upon us. But there is an extension to that, and it must be admitted: when our enemies finally execute the Big Nasty, there will be no quarter given. No sympathy for innocent civilians. No opportunity for negotiation. No debate about anything except the target. For that reason alone, the State sponsors of terrorism had better hope that we have the best intelligence on the planet. Because if an American city falls, an entire nation will be turned into ash with forty-eight hours, and we will choose that nation based on what we know about our attackers.
I wish we lived in a world where we had the luxury of precise moral action and delicate consideration. But we don't. That is a terrible truth. Brutal action against us will be met with a hammer blow of incredible magnitude. I’m good with that. If that renders me "unenlightened," so be it.
Hopefully, that hammer won't have to fall.
Probably, at some point, it will.
June 19, 2002
The Mid-East bit in today's
The Mid-East bit in today's Bleat must be read. (So must the rest of it; always. Reading Lileks is like a good hot cup of someone else's happy life each morning...hopeful and helpful. Usually, anyway.)
Lileks knew some Ukranians, who--like many other folks in the Soviet bloc--had experienced their share of oppression. He writes:
"Sixty years of occupation, oppression and mass extermination, and not one of these men would have taken the war to girls on a bus bound for a Moscow high school. Not one. If a Uke had burst into a home of a Russian official and shot his little girl in her bed, they would have been deeply ashamed that their cause had been corrupted thus - the Metropolitan of the church would have condemned it, the activists abroad would have denounced it, the children kept from the news lest they think that opposition to the Soviet occupiers justified splitting open a baby's head in her mother's lap."
That right there is the Palestinian Difference. Their apologists in the West (hey, Chomsky!) and elsewhere want us to believe that terrorism is a desperate measure taken by desperate people to achieve a good and noble end. And yet, as Lileks pointed out: people everywhere have suffered, and have lashed out in organized fashion. Those who support the Palestinian cause seem to think that any resistance to the idea that their noble cause excuses their tactics is a de facto condemnation of violence as a tool of legitimate resistance. It's not. Sometimes violence is, indeed, the only recourse in the face of oppression.
But look at the Palestinians' targets. Their deliberately chosen targets. An Army barracks? Squads of soldiers on patrol? Helicopters? Tanks? No. Pizzerias. Nightclubs. Buses. Markets. Children in their beds.
There's regrettable violence that is a means, and then there's celebrated violence that is an end. Where are the organized Palestinian militias, bravely fighting against the superior firepower of the IDF? Why is it noble to sacrifice oneself by suicidally detonating an explosive packed with nails on a bus instead of raising a rifle against the oppressor, side-by-side with your comrades-in-arms? The answer is clear enough: it is not the sacrifice that is important. It is the killing of the Jews that is important. The goal is not liberation, it is eradication.
Does anyone really believe that a Palestinian state formed at this time could possibly be anything other than murderous, tyrannical and barbaric?
July 09, 2002
Here's a NYT story about
Here's a NYT story about the Israelis shutting down the offices of Sari Nusseibeh, an Oxford- and Harvard-educated Palestinian leader who would be an excellent replacement for Arafat.
And here's a Google search on Mr. Nusseibeh. Have a look, just quickly...pick a few articles...and see if you can figure out exactly how this Israeli move is supposed to support Bush's recent call for new, reasonable leadership for the Palestinians.
I certainly can't.
July 10, 2002
"Nusseibeh, who recently was criticized
"Nusseibeh, who recently was criticized by some Palestinians for being a signatory to a newspaper advertisement denouncing suicide bombings by Palestinians, was at a conference in Greece when, at 9 a.m., about 60 police surrounded the two-story office building that houses the administration of the multi-campus university."
This just gets better and better. Not only are the Israelis pouncing upon a Palestinian moderate, they wait until he's out of the country to do so.
Very brave of them. After all, underneath that Oxford-educated exterior and tweed jacket, Nusseibeh carries a Rambo-esque physique and is trained in twelve different methods of unarmed combat. He's Shibumi-don. He can kill you six ways with a piece of paper and disembowel you with a stapler. He would have held the IDF off for days. Blood would have run in the street.
And, oh--he would have gotten media exposure. Can't have that. Much better that we maintain the fiction that all of the Palestinians are bomb-wrapped suicide-monkeys.
And from Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Green, Mr. Reynolds, Ms. Girl...silence.
Folks, this is a man who has been advised by a fellow Palestinian academic to "associate more with his people, especially refugees, instead of right-wing Likudi Israelis."
This is a man who has said, "The average Israelis are just the same as the average Palestinians… and just as human."
This is a man whose family holds the key to the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, and has a really snazzy website to tell you all about it.
Isn't this the sort of man that Israel ought to be encouraging to seek office?
Or is the fact that he has rightly criticized the excesses of Israeli treatment of the Palestinian population just too much for them to bear?
Isn't this the sort of man that President Bush had in mind when he demanded new Palestinian leadership?
Or was that just empty rhetoric?
Clearly, I have unearthed my
Clearly, I have unearthed my head from the sand of my news blackout, for just a little bit...the Nusseibeh story was just too provocative.
And, if anyone happens to be wondering: you will find a full range of positions on Middle Eastern affairs blurted out onto these pages...from unsparing condemnation of Palestinians...to unreserved disgust with tribal Israelis...then back again...from high praise for the ethical riches of Jewish culture...to appreciation of the virtues of Islam. Well, not so much with that last one...there's something that's just wrong there, with their Big Holy Book.
At any rate: each view is expressed with poundings of the chest and great weeping, along with perfect conviction, until I write something diametrically opposed to it, when I will profess to believe that instead.
This is because I am in fact several people.
Difficult to understand, I know, but I've got some medication and the doctors say we're all doing just fine, thanks very much for asking.
And now: I will reconcile my devotion to complete government implementation of social justice with my total commitment to utterly unfettered capitalism. For this task, I believe I shall require a salad fork, a shaved Chihuahua, and a length of hard rubber hose.
And finally, concluding today's Sari-fest,
And finally, concluding today's Sari-fest, here are a few stories related by Uri Avnery in January of this year, lifted wholesale from the Gush Shalom website. Gush Shalom (roughly, "Peace Bloc") is a self-described "extra-parliamentary organization" founded by Avnery in Israel in 1993. They are part of the "other 100%" of the Israeli population that's trying to find a different way out of their situation.
I find the following to be of great interest, because it opens a small window into the cultural divide between Arabs and Jews that makes the whole mess so intractable, and offers a glimpse of the internal Israeli debate that is virtually absent from major media reports here in the United States. There is of course room for argument and denial, as always. But my purpose in presenting this here isn't to claim justification, only to offer perspective.
"The Ongoing Blood Feud
Sari Nusseibeh, the new Palestinian commissioner for Jerusalem, tells an interesting story:
Once, driving under pressure because he was late for a lecture at Bir Zeit University, he inadvertently hit a woman crossing the road to catch a bus. He stopped, of course, helped the woman up and offered to take her to hospital. But she told him that she was quite alright and in a hurry to catch the bus. So he gave her his name and phone number, as well as the name of his insurance company, and forgot all about it.
Weeks later his father, the former Jordanian minister Anwar Nusseibeh, returned from abroad. He called his son and said: "You have done a very bad thing."
When Sari understood that his father was alluding to the almost-forgotten incident, he told him that it was not his fault and that the woman was not hurt, also that he had given her his phone number and the address of the insurance company. But the father said: "You have not done the main thing: apologized. In fact, you impugned the honor of their family and ours."
The father took his son, collected a few dozens notables and led a large convoy of cars to the village where the woman was living. Her family received them politely and graciously accepted their apologies. The honor of the aggrieved family was restored and everybody was satisfied.
Nusseibeh applies the lessons of this episode to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "Let’s assume that everything happened unintentionally," he said, "The Jews were fleeing from Europe and did not intend to hurt the Arabs. All they thought about was to set up a state of their own after all they had suffered. But the Arabs were hurt. Hundred thousands of Palestinians lost their all and became refugees. You must first of all honor them by asking for their forgiveness."
I remember similar things being said by the great British historian, the late Arnold Toynbee, some 40 years ago. He sent me the copy of a speech which, he believed, the President of Israel should address to the Palestinians. In it he was to ask for their pardon for the harm done to them, emphasizing that the Jews did not mean to cause it.
What we have here is a difference of cultures. Sari himself was educated in England (where his father served as Jordanian ambassador) and behaved as Europeans and Israelis would: exchange personal data and leave the rest to the insurance companies. It saves time and trouble, so one can rush on, as demanded by a technological society.
Arab culture is different. In it, honor plays a role, as part of an ancient and wise tradition, designed to prevent blood feuds and bloodshed that can go on for generations.
Nusseibeh has another instructive story. He was asked to join a delegation of notables after an accidental killing. The delegation, numbering some 70 persons, went to the home of the bereaved family, requested forgiveness and asked how much money the family demanded as consolation. The father of the man killed asked for 10 million dinars, a huge sum that the other family was, of course, quite unable to raise. But it was all a part of the ceremony.
"I relinquish 5 millions in the honor of President Yasser Arafat," the father continued, "I relinquish 1 million in honor of..." and so on, until it came down to a reasonable sum. Agreement was reached and bloodshed avoided.
The whole procedure is called Suluh Asha’iri, or tribal conciliation. The "Hudneh", which President Katzav proposed to offer in Ramallah (an initiative aborted by Sharon and Peres), is a part of this process. But this runs counter to the mentality of Israelis, especially Ashkenazis, which goes: "Never apologize, always deny everything, otherwise you will be asked to pay."
Clearly the Zionist enterprise, which sought to save the Jews and create a Jewish homeland, has caused grievous harm to the Palestinian people. The historian Isaac Deutscher tried to describe the course of events by giving an example: "A man lived in the upper floor of a building which caught fire. To save his life, he jumped out of the window and landed on a passer-by below, wounding him badly. Since then, there has been a bloody quarrel between them."
Even if this is not a perfect analogy (as no analogy can be), it is clear that the jumper must recognize the suffering he has caused and apologize to the man hurt. The Palestinian refugees, whose honor was trampled and who lost all, need this very much. An apology is a prerequisite to any practical solution. As the Bible tells us (Proverbs 28, 13): "Whoso confesseth and forsaketh (his sins) shall have mercy."
But this is the most difficult thing for Israelis to do. They are afraid to admit that they even inadvertently caused harm. They want to forget the whole thing and leave it to their insurance company (the United States) to pay compensations.
The insult felt by the Palestinians because of our ignoring the disaster we brought on them is one of the basic reasons of the blood feud, that goes on from generation to generation. It is still killing every day."
July 22, 2002
Interesting. The NYT reports today
Interesting. The NYT reports today that Israel has agreed to withdraw from Sari Nusseibeh's offices, saying that the action had "brought Israel a rebuke from the Bush administration." They described Nusseibeh as a "moderate," which he is. The article also mentioned that Shimon Peres, the Israeli foreign minister, has announced that Israel is prepared to withdraw from some West Bank cities and release 10% of the $600 million in Palestinian funds it froze 22 months ago.
The WaPo also reported the withdrawal from Nusseibeh's offices, but did so in the context of the Peres announcement, putting the Nusseibeh item about a third of the way into the article. The WaPo characterized Nusseibeh as "the chief representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization in Jerusalem," and offered a detail about the agreement signed with Israel in exchange for reopening his offices: he is not to use the premises for political activity.
The Jerusalem Post quotes Nusseibeh as saying,
"I signed an affirmation that this university is a non-governmental organization, an academic institution. It will not be a representation office for the Palestinian Authority."
They've only inconvenienced him, however. He said he would continue his activities elsewhere. Basically, it boils down to this: Israel is harassing the man. Is it because he shows promise as a possible successor to Arafat, a successor who will be reasonable, intelligent, and humane? In short, a serious partner for peace? I hope not. That would certainly give the lie to any number of Israeli statements about the desired outcome of the situation, especially considering Sharon's repeated (and quite justifiable) insistence that he will not deal with Arafat.
Or are they harassing him because, at the time of the IDF action at his university offices, Nusseibeh was:
"...holding secret talks in Greece with Ami Ayalon, a former chief of the Israeli Shin Bet security service. During the informal meetings, Nusseibeh and Ayalon discussed compromise proposals on some of the thorniest issues dividing the two sides, including the refugee issue. The draft is now being considered by Palestinian intellectuals."
One of the things observers remarked upon during the last-ditch efforts by Clinton to achieve some sort of legacy-making Middle Eastern peace accord was how well the heads of the Israeli and Palestinian security forces got along with each other during the marathon negotiations at Camp David. Not the heads of the military forces, mind you, but of the local police. The people who actually have to implement all of the orders and commands and schemes that the politicians come up with on a day to day basis. Those are the people in the streets, dodging the rocks, firing the bullets, and making the arrests, day in and day out. Those are the people with real, first-hand, practical knowledge of how things are for the ordinary citizens on both sides of the conflict.
And those are the people Nusseibeh is trying to work with.
You can read a translation of a recent interview with Nusseibeh here. It's quite clear that the man is being very, very careful with the words he speaks in Arabic. If, as he claims, Israel is out to crush the Palestinian enterprise, then he's probably a target of the Israelis. If that's not true, then he's still a target of several Palestinian factions and in danger of getting a bullet in the head and being hung by his feet from a lamp post. He's well aware of that.
In Jerusalem, reliable on-the-scene observer Tal G. wrote on July 15 (1:27PM), nearly a week after the IDF closed Nusseibeh's offices:
"I haven't had much to say about the Sari Nusseibeh affair - that's partly because the media here hasn't been giving it a lot of attention. The weekend papers were much more interested in the now dead 'Jewish village' bill. It might be that Nusseibeh has a higher profile abroad than he does here."
Fascinating. A Palestinian of great intellect and insight walks on a razor's edge, putting his life in danger by voicing reasoned opinions about the nature of the conflict and its possible resolutions, and the Israeli media makes nary a peep.
There also wasn't much of a peep here in America about the White House statement concerning Israel's actions of July 9. This is the "rebuke" mentioned in today's NYT, and it was issued on July 10:
"The recent closure of Mr. Sari Nusseibeh's Al Quds University offices in Jerusalem is a troubling event. The President has called for opening the political landscape to moderate voices. This action does not contribute to the fight against terror, does not promote reform of Palestinian institutions or advance the other goals outlined by the President in his June 24, 2002 speech. We are discussing the situation with the Israeli Government."
Which answers the questions I asked on the same day:
"Isn't this the sort of man that President Bush had in mind when he demanded new Palestinian leadership?
Or was that just empty rhetoric?"
The answers seem to be: yes, he is, and no, it wasn't.
July 23, 2002
Having recently lambasted MoDo for
Having recently lambasted MoDo for using a tragedy and the unfathomable anguish of victims' families to make little points, I will now proceed to do much the same thing. Because I am accountable to no one! And I'm not syndicated all over the bloody planet.
With that in mind, let's look at some leads about today's assassination of Hamas leader Sheik Salah Shehada.
From the Washington Post:
"An Israeli F-16 warplane fired a missile into a Gaza City neighborhood tonight and killed at least 15 people, including a militant Hamas leader, according to Palestinian and Israeli officials. More than 100 people were reported injured in the blast."
Number of times "children" are mentioned: two (once in a photo caption).
From the New York Times:
"An Israeli warplane fired a missile early this morning into the Gaza City home of a top leader of the violent group Hamas, killing at least 15 people, including several children, Hamas and hospital officials in Gaza said. Officials said more than 140 people were wounded in the attack."
Number of times "children" are mentioned: five.
From the Jerusalem Post:
"In a targeted strike, Israeli Air Force jets bombed a building in Gaza City early Tuesday killing Hamas military commander and terror mastermind Saleh Shehadeh and 14 other people, including nine children, military sources said."
Number of times "children" are mentioned: three.
From the BBC:
"The militant Palestinian group Hamas has confirmed that the leader of its military wing has been killed in an Israeli air strike on a residential building in Gaza City. Sheikh Salah Shahada was among at least 15 people killed, including eight children, in the missile attack."
Number of times "children" are mentioned: two.
From the Guardian (U.K.)
"Britain, the EU and the UN today condemned Israel's missile attack against the leader of Hamas, as the death toll from the strike rose to at least 15, including at least eight children."
A few hours later, after White House Press spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters, "This heavy handed action does not contribute to peace," and rejected any comparison to civilian casualties incurred during the American action in Afghanistan, the Guardian lead was changed to:
"The US president, George Bush, has joined Britain, the EU, the UN and Arab nations in condemning Israel's missile attack against the leader of Hamas, as the death toll from the strikes rose to at least 15."
Number of times "children" are mentioned in the original story: five. In the revised story: four.
The only paper to mention the fact that Shehada's wife and children were not, in fact, killed in the blast: the New York Times. The only paper to quote Sharon's approval without quoting his expressed regret at the loss of civilian life: the Guardian.
The Guardian also presents us with a screaming purple example of hypocrisy by quoting Palestinian information minister Yasser Abed Rabbo: "We warned the Israeli government against attacking civilians. The Israeli government is playing with fire."
Now then: this is just a small sampling of accounts from five newspapers in the U.S. and in England. The information is flying fast and furious, changing every couple of hours. Still, the magical incantations of language are visibly at play. Who wants us to know what?
The New York Times and the Guardian want to make very sure that we know that the Israelis killed children in the process of carrying out the assassination: they mention the word five times, and that's not including mention of Shehada's daughters. The New York Times, especially, wants to hammer the point home by quoting someone who "had seen the body parts of several children." The Jerusalem Post also wants us to know about the young victims, but makes it clear that the attack was a "targeted strike."
In its revised story, the Guardian places more emphasis on the American condemnation of the attack, indicating that they want Europeans to know that America Shares Their Outrage.
Who was this Shehada fellow? In a May 27 interview, he is quoted as saying, “We do not target children, the elderly, hospitals, schools or temples, although these temples openly call for killing Muslims." The irony! But most of the references to the man contain some version of the following: 1) Shehada is currently considered as the head of Hamas in Gaza; 2) Security sources say Shehada is close to Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and is in effect the main contact between the organization's political and military wings; and 3) Shehada is personally responsible for most of the attacks carried out by Hamas from Gaza.
Israel wanted to get this guy. So they got him. In the process, they killed seven or eight children and some adult civilians. We all know that "dead children" is a bad thing, no matter whose side you're on. Therefore, the Just The Facts Award goes to The Washington Post. They tell you what's what, then move on, assuming you can make your own judgments and inferences. The Let Us Do Your Thinking For You Award is shared between the Guardian and the New York Times, although the New York Times still thinks that it was nominated for the Just The Facts Award. The Jerusalem Post and the BBC share the We're Restraining Ourselves Somewhat Award.
With all of the carefully couched moralizing and fact-flinging, it is left to Ha'aretz, the Israeli daily, to casually mention the most important tidbit of the day:
"The [Israeli] cabinet was not informed of the decision to assassinate Shehada, and the decision was made by Sharon and Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer alone."
Read that again, if you would.
Although Yitzhak Levy, a Minister representing the National Religious Party, condemned the assassination because the Cabinet wasn't convened, Ha'aretz reports that "several months ago the cabinet gave Sharon a cart blanch [sic] to carry out assassinations without convening the cabinet beforehand."
As a society, Israel has placed the moral burden of extrajudicial assassination--and indeed, of the entire conflict--on one man. There is no due process, here. Prime Minister Sharon is, in effect, General, Judge, and Jury. He occupies a civilian position, yet has been given sole authority over the use of military assets in the pursuit of individuals deemed to be enemies of the state. He will do all of the distasteful and morally questionable things that must be done during this conflict. And, like the generals of other ethical societies, when the war is over he will be shed like an evil cloak and sent off into the desert, bearing the sins of his people with him.
I almost feel sorry for the man.
Almost.
Ooo...ahhh! By way of the
Ooo...ahhh!
By way of the omnipresent clean-toothed Mr. Reynolds comes this forthright bit of sense from The American Prospect about why the Afghanistan/oil/Unocal pipeline conspiracy theorists are full of shit up to the eyebrows. Author Ken Silverstein just lays it out, saying (essentially): it's the economics, stupid!
Like the squinty-eyed idiotic fatheads who think that the American government arranged for the demolition of the WTC and the Pentagon, however, devotees of such theories are unlikely to be convinced by small things like facts and cogent arguments.
Sometimes, I just wanna smack people around, you know? With a ball-peen hammer. Or maybe bit of two-by-four, with some good nails in it.
Whatever's handy.
July 24, 2002
This morning, Ha'Aretz reports: "Senior
This morning, Ha'Aretz reports:
"Senior officials said Wednesday that had Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer known that innocents were in the vicinity of the attack, they would have put off the assassination of Hamas military chief Saleh Shehadeh."
In 1996, Israel's security forces assassinated Yahya Ayyash, known as "The Engineer." Ayyash was a master bomb-maker for the Palestinians. The method? They managed to pack a cell phone in one of his hideouts with 50 grams of high explosive. He took a call, and the phone-bomb was detonated by remote control from a plane flying overhead when Ayyash's voice was positively identified. Horrible. And very, very clever.
Six years later, they can't figure out that dropping a one-ton bomb onto a residential apartment building is going to cause civilian deaths? I don't think so.
Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Silvan Shalom is quoted as saying:
"Anyone who thinks or imagines that the prime minister, the defense minister, or the army chief of staff would have decided on and approved carrying out this attack in this place knowing that this would harm innocent people, simply has no idea what he is talking about."
I watched Dan Rather interview Sharon on CBS in April, shortly after a visit with Colin Powell. Rather asked how the meeting went, and Sharon responded in that muddy voice of his, the words flowing easily: "It was a friendly meeting. I welcomed him to Jerusalem, the capitol of the Jewish people for over 3000 years, and the united and undivided capital of the state of Israel forever." Rather's question was simple. But Sharon's response was a statement of immovable ideological principle. It was unrelated to the subject of the query, and in no way connected to the concerns or curiosity of the man sitting in the chair across from him. I watched him say it, and it rolled off his tongue like a mantra, a memetic incantation, almost a prayer.
I think that Sharon, as one poster at Tal G has written, "made the moral calculus that it was worth civilian casualties in order to kill this Hamas leader." The poster said that "someone" made that calculus. But it was Sharon. Every time something "regrettable" happens in Israel, I think back to April, and his smoothly rhythmic statement. He is, and always has been, a man who will do what is necessary, regardless of the concerns of those around him. People who pretend otherwise are fooling themselves, and need only look at Sharon's long military career to see repeated examples of his necessary actions.
The Israeli people know this. That's why they put him in power: they're frightened, justifiably so, and they want security, which is their right. As a martial culture they appreciate the value of a leader who will take on the moral burden of command and do what needs to be done. They put Sharon in storage after the Lebanon War, and brought him out again when he was needed.
It's a very old, very sad, and very human story.
July 29, 2002
In his Ha'Aretz Op-Ed, Defense
In his Ha'Aretz Op-Ed, Defense Editor Ze'ev Schiff attempts to formulate a response to the IDF's assassination of Shehada. Perhaps it's the translation from the Hebrew, but the results |
