On Aug 4, 2006, at 6:39 PM, Marvin Gandall wrote:
> =================================
> I mean no disrespect, Joel, but I understand your response as
> pretty much
> symptomatic of the chronic despair which becomes acute in the case
> of the
> well-intentioned Israeli and overseas Jewish left at times like
> these: a
> deep-seated reflexive fear for Israel's survival coupled with shame
> and
> disgust at the brutal one-sided military might it brings to bear on
> resistance movements originating in impoverished and oppressed
> civilian
> populations.
>
> It was easier to support Israel when it wasn't occupying Arab
> territories
> with a high-tech military and its political culture tended towards the
> social democratic left rather than the conservative and even
> fascist right.
> Now your view of the society and what it stands for is much more
> ambivalent,
> and your response, in effect, is to cover your eyes and declare "a
> plague on
> both your houses."
I appreciate part of what you have to say above - but where you take it in the last line here is a little presumptive (ouch.) The conclusion is incorrect. A simple commitment to social justice in the region can lead one to rationally feel this way, without the clearly reactive behavior of disappointment you attempt to identify here.
>
> It is not an "utterly nihilistic conflict". Both sides have limited,
> rational aims. One of them will be shown to have miscalculated, but
> each has
> acted in a calculated rather than irrational fashion.
I disagree. Its important to not take too seriously what each side has side stated to be their calculated aims. you're ascribing too much reason to their actions. what is important is to look at the fact that whatever constellation of aims might be invoked by each warring party, (and how these stated aims change over time), none ultimately guarantee safety, deterrence or an end of conflict. they guarantee their exact opposite, which in its own way might be the reason you're looking for.
>
> The Israelis were looking for a pretext to destroy Hezbollah
> because its
> arms build-up posed a growing threat to their security and because
> they and
> the US reasoned the political fallout of a quick, decisive victory
> would
> lead Hamas, the Syrians, and Iranians to be more accomodating to
> their joint
> power in the Middle East. Hezbollah understands that if it is able to
> survive the onslaught, it and the other resistance movements and
> regimes
> will emerge strengthened and in a better position to press for a
> regional
> peace settlement which takes their interests into account.
I disagree with the first sentence here. Though Israel clearly had prepared plans for the actions it is executing now, it was totally unprepared for this conflict, as evinced by its lack of a rational diplomatic and military response to the initial attack by Hezbollah. The Israeli 'reasons' have only evolved over the course of the conflict. The American rationalization of the benefits the Israeli response you describe here are correct, but they are separate from the original Israeli responses, and only emerged as Israel's American patron has asserted control over Israeli policy and given it the shape and direction it has now. One could say the same thing about Iran's management of the Hezbollah post-facto. I agree though in your reading of Hezbollah - they stand to win either way because Israel cannot beat them.
>
> Rather than lead to "endless future conflicts", the outcome of the
> war may
> well provide the impetus necessary to move the stalled peace process
> forward. It is the pre-war status quo which has been the
> prescription for
> the region's intermnible instabilty.
Careful here - the cost in civilian lives has been too great to justify such a potential reading of the conflict. I also respectfully disagree on what this specific conflict has engendered - greater instability in the Middle East, not greater possibilities for a peace breakthrough.
>
> Also:
>
> 1) Do you believe Hezbollah or Hamas have the will and ability to
> impose
> repressive Islamic theocracies in secular Lebanon and Palestine,
> and would
> an attempt to do so justify armed intervention in your view by
> Israeli and
> US forces to prevent it?
This is a good question, and I understand - like the question below - why you are asking this. Here's my response:
I believe both organizations have the **desire** to create bourgeois theocratic states. Whether they are able to impose such is largely dependent on their respective domestic circumstances. Palestinian society, for example, is highly differentiated in terms of the secular/religious divide, and Lebanon is far too multi-confessional (as it is frequently described) to allow such a state to be comfortably created. Under no circumstances do Israel and the United States have the right to dictate what form of government Palestinians and Lebanese voters choose for themselves, either diplomatically or militarily.
>
> 2) Do you believe Hezbollah or Hamas or the Iranians, for that matter,
> realistically believe they can overthrow nuclear-armed Isreal state
> by force
> of arms, or do you accept their objectives and military
> preparations are
> mainly defensive in nature, ie. to end the US and Israeli
> occupations of
> Arab land and contain Israel within its 1967 borders?
To begin with, I'd separate Hamas from the Hezbollah and Iranian examples. That's conflating far too much, because it assumes ( if this is what you intended) that all three parties here are in ideological sync and affinity. Hamas and Hizbollah have been at odds as much as they have been in sync, despite the fact that both have received support from both Syria and Iran. Its fairer to draw congruencies for denominational and ideological reasons between Hezbollah and Iran.
I believe that the Iranians feel more confident about their military relationship with Israel than ever. Part of how one can read the present conflict in Lebanon is Iran seeing how far it can go in impacting Israel militarily, without having to go directly to war with it, in much the same way that the Americans have viewed Israel's actions in Lebanon as being a test of the strategic limitations of Iranian regional ambitions. Right now, despite the havoc wreaked upon Lebanon, both Iran and Hezbollah have a lot to feel good about. Despite Israel's horrific military response, Hezbollah has been able to continue delivering 150-200 missiles on northern Israel every day.
That is a remarkable military achievement because it has clearly demonstrated an Israeli vulnerability that was heretofore undocumented. Whether this means that Iran and Hezbollah believe that they can and will attempt to 'wipe out israel', i'm not entirely certain. In the interim, they are at least demonstrating a capability of deterrence, irrespective of the costs to Lebanon. That in itself is nothing to laugh at, particularly given Israel's military capabilities.
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>