The ostensible reason for our intervention in Iraq (well, one of the latter ones) was to bring about a peaceful and stable Iraq through a democratic government. That country has descended into a chaotic state of violence that can only reasonably be labeled a civil war with over 100 Iraqis dying on a daily basis. This can only be considered a catastrophic outcome and quite the opposite of what was envisioned and promised to them when we initiated our military invasion.
Now, in south Lebanon and Gaza, Israel is raining down death and destruction in a conflict so disproportionate in the respective capacities of its opposition that it can simply be described as acting as it wants, how it wants, when it wants. The United States, the only international power, that could effectively terminate this action refuses to do so, oddly, in the name of peace…a “durable” peace…one which somehow should not be initiated with a ceasefire.
The Israelis have actually matched the gall of the U.S. by proclaiming what they are doing is really just as much for the good of Lebanon as it is for their own purposes. By “crushing” Hezbollah they will free Lebanon of an internal oppressor, an unwanted predator that lurks in their midst, undermining their freedoms and liberties. In this, they don’t mention that Hezbollah is, in fact, a political party that has won elections, conducts social programs and maintains many supportable aspects of its relationships with the Lebanese people beyond its military capacity.
If these are the actions of peacemaking, we must be redefining war.
5 Comments:
When you compare the way the world has handled Iran vs. Iraq and threat each country currently poses...which method appears best?
Was it wise to allow Hezbollah to enter the Lebanese political process while it refused to disarm? In direct contradiction to U.N. mandates?
an alternative perspective
Hezbollah, a political party? A political party which has spent twenty years firing rockets into Israeli cities? A political party anouncing plans to send 'martyrs' into Tel Aviv? A political party which fakes photographs and death counts, and waits for the western media (and attendant bloggers) to lap it up and forget about the truth?
You may recall a massacre Israel committed this morning. Awful, really - 40 civilians killed, front-page news on CNN.com. Those bastard Israelis! But wait - it now seems that the Lebanese authorities overestimated a bit. It was actually ONE person.
Oops.
Did you know that, Sineman? Did you bother to check for that little tidbit, buried in the text of a CNN article about something else?
Or are you content to continue spewing your hate and your lies from the comfort of your ignorance?
And to think that I'm a left winger. I remember driving by one of your signs last year, and thinking, Hell yeah! A good guy! But it looks like I need to look for good guys somewhere else - a town where being the good guy doesn't mean being a cheerleader for a hate-filled mob of terrorists.
You disgust me.
And what disgusts me more is that living in this town, and doing business internationally, I can't even publicly express my opposition to terrorism without risking my livelihood.
Anonymous wrote:
"Or are you content to continue spewing your hate and your lies from the comfort of your ignorance?"
I think this guy is using the literary device of irony to make some sort of point. And then anonymous wrote:
"And to think that I'm a left winger. I remember driving by one of your signs last year, and thinking, Hell yeah!"
But several of the signs were defaced last year with the sort of words you use here...perhaps it was the graffiti you agreed with, and not the sign's message. Also, may be wrong, but I don't know many so-called "left-wingers" who actually call themselves left-wingers. On the other hand, a right-wing zealot may well try to pass himself off as being reasonable, moderate, and thoughtful by calling himself a "left-winger".
Presuming that I am "this guy", and that you are using the literary device of *sarcasm* to accuse me of that which I accuse others, I must cop a plea to your charge of hate: I hate it when people repeat anti-semetic lies as truth. I hate it when people accuse other good people of terrorism. And I hate it when people prop up those who are hiding in civilians' houses and firing rockets at my friends and relatives in Haifa. So, yeah, I'll admit guilt to spewing some hate, then.
As for the lies, though, I find your ideas fascinating, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Moving on, accusing me of being a right-wing zealot while ignoring my fundamental points seems anti-productive at best.
The signs that I agreed heartily with were ones critical of the Bush administration - and believe me, there are fewer strange sensations as a Jewish progressive (is that better?) for me than finding the Bush administration my only ally and my usual friends my enemies.
Finally, I'm certainly not trying to pass myself off as reasonable. Few truly admirable people - Einstein, Lincoln, Newton, Jefferson - could be described as "reasonable". If we are to have a debate, could you please refrain in the future from such ad-hominems?
PS: I think the word you're looking for in your description of right-wing zealots passing off as progressives is "libertarian". You can tell those guys because they keep half a kilo of Vicodin out back in case Rush Limbaugh calls in an hour of need.
PPS: Blogspot's "word verification" deserves quite the kudos. It SAYS "word" verification, but the word it gave me was 'Mxpyekr'. I didn't think they'd use *Dutch* words...
To anonymous: well, your most recent comments are certainly more measured and reasonable than your previous and I will retract any negative inferences I made...in short, we can both re-holster our literary devices of destruction. I actually do not feel qualified to comment directly on the Israeli question. What I do resent are suggestions that criticism of Israeli motives/tactics represent anti-semitism or hate. It is this sort of false position that has been used so effectively by the neo-conservative movement in this country in other matters: e.g. a person who criticizes Bush or his government's policies means that a)you are a traitor, b)you hate America, c)you want America to be destroyed by terrorists, d)all of the above, or e)all of the above, plus you are a coward. Fear of being called any of the above has cowed the media and congress and members of the public into allowing Bush and his war-mongering advisors to cause damage that will take decades to repair all because they thought that attacking Iraq would be easy and that the U.S. military was their personal tool to use as they see fit. So, I tend to reject any comments that seem to imply that criticism itself is wrong, though in this case that may not have been your intent.
P.S. I have no newsletter to which people can subscribe.
Post a Comment
<< Home