With the Israel-Hezbollah War well into its sixth day, most of us have figured out which mass media outlets provide breathlessly unenlightening commentary, and which prefer to channel Rodney King with return-to-the-peaceful-status-quo-ante editorial material. With such realistically low expectations in mind, it was thus of interest to read columnist Amir Taheri in Asharq al-Awsat. This London-based newspaper's Arabic and English websites are widely read by elites throughout the Arab world. It's useful to know that a succinct, pro-Western analyis is on offer at this Saudi-royal-family owned source in English, though perhaps not as an Arabic translation.
Iraninan-born Taheri is based in Europe and has written for The Wall Street Journal, The National Review, and many other periodicals. Further background at this spiteful Wikipedia biographical entry.
In his July 15 "Asharq al-Awsat":http://www.asharqalawsat.com/english/default.asp column, Taheri wrote:
[Hamas and Hezbollah] are capable of pursuing a low intensity war against Israel virtually forever. And that, like all low intensity wars, would aim at breaking the spirit of the enemy, persuading more and more Israelis that their homeland is not a place in which to have a normal life and raise children, and that their best bet is to head for safe havens elsewhere. Low intensity war is also bad for any nation's economy. People cannot think of long-term investments when they see missiles raining on them.
At the opposite side of the fight, Hamas and Hezbollah are also facing existential threats... If Hamas ends up by tearing up its own charter and recognising the legitimacy of Israel's existence, it would spell its own doom as a radical Islamist movement. If, on the other hand, it persists with its no compromise stance it will be seen by many Palestinians as responsible for all the hardship they now suffer...
[Hezbollah's prestige] is based on the myth that it defeated the Israelis and drove them out of occupied southern Lebanon... Hezbollah without arms would become just another Lebanese political party, garnering around 20 per cent of the votes.
The Hezbollah faces another, perhaps bigger, problem: it must develop its policies within a broader strategy worked out by the Islamic Republic in Tehran and the Baa'thist government in Damascus. As a result, it cannot simply decide to defuse the situation in the hope of keeping its military organisation intact. Iran, coming under growing pressure on the nuclear issue, is desperately looking for a diversion. And what better diversion than a mini-war that could keep international attention focused on the Israel-Lebanon-Palestine triangle? Syria, for its part, could profit from a limited war, between Israel and Hezbollah, by pointing out that its own presence in Lebanon had been a stabilising force and that efforts to exclude it from the Lebanese scene have generated greater instability.
In a sense, therefore, what we are witnessing is the opening shots in a proxy war between the Islamic Republic and Syria on one side and Israel on the other.
The rest of Taheri's essay is here.
I've followed Amir Taheri's posts for the last three plus years; he's an invaluable source of information and accurate analysis. I usually read his posts at the New York Post opinion columns, but you can also find his works at one site at http://www.benadorassociates.com.
Taheri's analysis is generally well thought out. However, certain aspects of his last two paragraphs indicate a weakness in his perception. The weakness is not his alone; it is shared by many, and has been actively promoted and encouraged by the MSM and not a few governments:
If Israel backs down now and ends its campaign without disarming the Hezbollah it would, in effect, hand Iran and Syria an unexpected victory.
1. However, disarming Hezbullah is not sufficient. It must be eradicated. Leaving even a disarmed Hezbullah intact means that the organization will without doubt regroup and rearm---and reinfiltrate---southern Lebanon. This, simply because the resources of its main sponsor, Iran, are vast; and the "Israel-must-be-destroyed" ideology of the Iran-Syria-Hezbullah axis is resolute (along with Hamas, and I would add the Palestinian Authority as well, though the PA, on the face of it, is more "pragmatic"---keeping in mind that Al Aksa Martyrs and Tanzim are branches of the PA, and that one of the three pillars of the PA is the return of all Palestinian refugees and their descendants to within pre-1967 Israel). This ideology, no matter how much it be ignored or denied, is the raison d'etre of these groups, a guiding force; and the failure to recognize this, which is practically universal---or to even discuss it--- means that the problem is, fundamentally, not understood.
Which essentially means that the regimes that sponsor Hezbullah must, similarly, be eradicated.
For even should Hezbullah be eradicated, if the Syrian and Iranian regimes are left intact, it can only be expected that an identical, organization will take its place, this because the ideology of Israel's destruction is so ingrained, so attractive, and perceived as such a virtuous endeavor according to the prevailing theologico-political ethos.
Why, then, the emphasis on merely disarming Hezbollah?
2. ...an unexpected victory.
And what, in this context, is the definition of victory?
Hezbollah disarmed?
Hezbollah destroyed?
And what of Syria, and what of Iran, Hezbollah's sponsors, supporters, arms procurers and weapons trainers?
For if Hezbollah is allowed to avoid defeat (as the international community, in their wisdom, seem so eager to enable), the arms buildup begins anew, even if somehow (though this is not likely), Hezbollah is prevented from returning to the border with Israel. Missiles, after all, do not respect borders.
And if Hezbollah is defeated, but Syria and Iran emerge unscathed, the problem will continue to fester.
Nor is it clear why such a victory is considered "unexpected." The international community, which essentially orchestrated Hezbollah's return to the Israeli border six years ago (when Israel returned southern Lebanon to "Lebanon"), want this current round of the conflict to end now, with Hezbullah still defiant and armed. Moreover, Hezbullah, Syria, and Iran certainly expect---and intend---to win. If not now, then next time---next year, in two years, etc. For even if Hezbullah does not succeed this time around---and even if Hezbullah is eradicated---Iran and its ally, in their current configurations, have no intention of sitting back and recognizing defeat, but will be preparing in earnest for that next round.
This would also spell the end of Lebanon's new democratic government and the return in force of Syrian and Iranian influence in Lebanon.
This assumes several things: a) that Lebanon's democratic government was, in fact, viable; b) that Syrian and Iranian influence ever departed.
In fact, Hezbullah, with Syrian and Iranian support, was the strongest military force in Lebanon, with de facto in control of the southern part of the country. No one in Lebanon, for a variety of reasons, challenged Hezbollah, and no one is going to challenge it.
With its own strength and the backing of Iran and Syria, Hezbollah had de facto control of Lebanese policy. To the extent that Lebanon was rendered powerless, politically, by Hezbollah, Lebanon was a hostage. But even here one forgets the support that Hezbollah has garnered from significant segments of the Lebanese, and not only the Shi'ites.
Unfortunately, and one hopes this will change (though given the sectarian nature of the place it's hard to see how), it is only realistic to speak of "Lebanon."
At the other end of the spectrum in Palestine, such an Israeli retreat would give a badly hurt Hamas a second lease of life and greater vigour to pursue its radical strategy.
Hamas, already intent on Israel's destruction, does not require a "second lease of life." Hamas, too, needs to be eradicated. Principled organization that it is, nothing short of eradication will change Hamas's ideology.
If, on the other hand, Israel removes the Hezbollah from the Lebanese scene it would be the turn of the leaderships in Tehran and Damascus to come to terms with a major strategic setback that could encourage their internal enemies.
Once again, however, the leaderships in Tehran and Damascus have no intention of coming to terms with Israel's existence. Which is why leaving them intact would be a mistake for anyone truly interested in a breakthrough in the middle east. They, like the Palestinians, are daring their enemies to destroy them, fully convinced that their enemies have neither the nerve nor the ability to do so; and that even if they do have the nerve and ability, the international community will not permit it. They are confident that they cannot be stopped. So far, they are correct.
What is certain is that this conflict will not end until one side wins and another side loses.
True, but this statement is essentially meaningless unless one defines what it means to "win" and what it means to "lose."
The G-8 may try to postpone decision-time for a bit longer. But it is hard not to see that there are two visions of the Middle East, one backed by the United States and its allies, including Israel, the other promoted by Iran and Syria and their surrogates.
Also true. But these two visions are not clearly spelled out. In the US/Israel vision, the other's existence is permitted and encouraged; whereas in the Iran/Syria/Hezbollah/Hamas vision, Israel cannot exist and America, if possible, must be eradicated.
So much for symmetry.
Since a synthesis of the two is not possible, even the G-8 may realise that they cannot prevent a broader regional war.
This is, alas, the only possibly conclusion given the current reality.
Interesting article from UK
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1822923,00.html
"If Israel has the right to use force in self defence, so do its neighbours"
Much has been made in recent days - at the G8 summit and elsewhere - of Israel's right to retaliate against the capture of its soldiers, or attacks on its troops on its own sovereign territory. Some, such as those in the US administration, seem to believe that Israel has an unqualified licence to hit back at its enemies no matter what the cost. And even those willing to recognise that there may be a problem tend to couch it in terms of Israel's "disproportionate use of force" rather than its basic right to take military action.
...
However Israel's latest adventure ends, it will not produce greater sympathy and understanding between west and east, or a downturn in extremism. Indeed the most likely outcome is that a new wave of virulent and possibly unconventional anti-western terrorism may well crash against this and other shores. We will all - Israelis, Arabs and westerners - suffer as a result.
Some famous quotes from Israeli Prime Ministers regarding the Middle East conflict:
"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.
David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): " If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp. 121-122.
"We must do everything to ensure they [the Palestinian refugees] never do return... The old will die and the young will forget."-David Ben-Gurion, in his diary, July 18, 1948, quoted in Michael Bar Zohar's "Ben-Gurion: the Armed Prophet," Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 157.
"We must expel Arabs and take their places." - David Ben Gurion, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.
"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population." - David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.
"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country." - David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.
"There is no such thing as a Palestinian people... It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist." - Golda Meir, statement to The Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969.
"This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy." - Golda Meir, Le Monde, 15 October 1971
"I have learned that the state of Israel cannot be ruled in our generation without deceit and adventurism." --Moshe Sharett, Israel's first Foreign Minister and later a Prime Minister (p.51 Simha Flapan, "The Birth of Israel", 1987)
"The state of Israel must invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the methods of provocation and revenge.... And above all, let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space." -From the diary of Moshe Sharett, Israeli's first Foreign Minister from 1948-1956, and Prime Minister from 1954-1956.
"[The Palestinians] are beasts walking on two legs."-Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the 'Beasts,"' New Statesman, June 25, 1982.
"(The Palestinians) would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls." - Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) Yitzhak Shamir in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988
"If we thought that instead of 200 Palestinian fatalities, 2,000 dead would put an end to the fighting at a stroke, we would use much more force...." - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, quoted in Associated Press, November 16, 2000.
"I would have joined a terrorist organization." - Ehud Barak's response to Gideon Levy, a columnist for the Ha'aretz newspaper, when Barak was asked what he would have done if he had been born a Palestinian.
"Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories." Benyamin Netanyahu, then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, former Prime Minister of Israel, tells students at Bar Ilan University, From the Israeli journal Hotam, November 24, 1989.
Zed Zed (#4),
As mentioned on another thread, I'm aware that Zionists have said some awful things. It's good to remember that, in the same way that it's good to remember the terrible things that leaders of other groups have said.
A few minutes with Google brings up Comment-The Zionist Hatred, which presents most or all of the quotes you offer, with the supporting text word-for-word. Here's how the quotes are prefaced:
Further use of Google shows that some of the quotes khilafah.com has compiled aren't contested--but others are. For example, you said
Yet I read here
To speak plainly, Zed Zed, your comment #3 is obnoxious propaganda, facts salted with lies. I note that the same contribution has been pseudonymously contributed to the open comments of other blogs, adding to flame wars in many cases.
If you wish to comment further on posts I've authored, keep your remarks concise. Since you aren't to be trusted, I expect a valid link will accompany each assertion of fact that is remotely controversial. Winds comments policy here; complain to blogmaster Joe Katzman if you're dissatisfied with this.
AMac
Quote: Since you aren't to be trusted, I expect a valid link will accompany each assertion of fact that is remotely controversial.
Me: Ha ha ha - that is toooo funny. Who are you? I don't trust you. What is your agenda? Who do you work for? I am not Arab and I am not Jewish. I see the problem from am impartial perspective. I don't side solely with either side.
Can you define "remotely controversial"? Is that defined as anything that questions what you say?
The first step to a REAL solution is that the Israelis stop trying to make themselves out to be the victims and that they have been and are victimizers. Only from this realistic position can a solution come.
Why did I post those quotes - to show the core of Isreali 'culture' which drives decision-making. Due to the hateful nature of Isreali culture towards non-Jews a real solution may not be possible.
Please note - I am not anti-Semitic. I state nothing about Jewish religion. I only comment on Isreali politics and foreign policy.
Zed Zed (#6):
No problem.
Your post was succinct, and didn't include any assertions of fact sans links. So no problem there, either.