Category Archives: Middle East

In Politics, Rubbish Rises to the Top

Bush, Democracy, Iraq, Israel, Middle East, Politics

When Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Dan Gillerman, piously pontificates that the actions of the Israeli government are for the benefit of the Lebanese people (of which, in his atomistic mind, Hezbollah is not a part), and aimed at “freeing them of the cancer of Hezbollah,” I feel bilious.

It’s the same sickness rising one gets when Genghis Bush promotes his actions in Iraq as of benefit to the Iraqi people, a million of whom are now impoverished, displaced, aid-dependent refugees in their own country.

If these pols are such populists and democrats, why did they not let the beneficiaries of their humanitarian humbugs vote to accept or reject their ‘good deeds’? Why not ask the people you are supposedly helping if they want your liberating bombs? Or is this ‘charity’ compulsory?

I’d disrespect Gillerman less if he cut the treacle, and said, “We hate what we’ve become, but we have no option but to kill more innocents than guilty?

Israel in Lebanon is coming across in a worse light than is America in Iraq, even though the reverse is true. The first incursion, as bad as it is, was a response to provocation; the last, nothing of the sort. Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11 and Saddam and Osama never sat in a tree kissing.

But so stupid are the Israelis that they keep commandeering the American rhetoric with respect to Iraq to justify their actions. I guess their thinking goes something along the lines of, “Iraq: hmm, that went well, so let’s take that ‘experience’ and its language and put it to work for us Lebanon.”

BAB Letter of the Week: Lebanese Must Choose

Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Middle East, Terrorism, The Military

As I said, “Letter of the Week” is a feature I’ll endeavor to keep up on Barely a Blog. In response to “Israel Risks Squandering Moral High Ground,” John McClain, a retired Marine who served in Lebanon from 1982 to 1983, shares his insights. I don’t necessarily agree with his argument, mainly because he equates the collective with the individual. (“Facing the Onslaught of Jihad,” while a little dated, discusses some of the issues invloved.) However, his reasoning is realistic—we operate within the confines of the nation-state. He was, moreover, right THERE in the thick of things:

Dear Ms. Mercer,

As a retired Marine who spent from August of 82 through early spring 83 in Beirut, I have a personal connection with what is taking everyone’s attention at this particular moment. I was there when the IDF was there, and when U.S. forces interceded to keep the IDF from confronting the Syrian Army in southern Lebanon. I got to know many Lebanese people, the ordinary workers at the Airport for the most part, and both Muslim and Christian Lebanese were apparently grateful for our intervention.
As you point out, Israel withdrew in full accordance with the U.N. demands, and left Lebanon up to their own defenses. The U.N. did absolutely nothing to enforce any other aspect of its resolution and denigrated all those who disdained their obvious bias.
Now that Israel has been forced to go back, there is no such thing as “losing the moral high ground” when it comes to defending your own Nation. This right of self-defense is an extension of what we consider a “natural right of self-defense.” As a person, and under actual attack, there are no reasonable limits in one’s acts of tactics used for survival.
The issue with Lebanese civilians is entirely the fault of the Lebanese people themselves. They have chosen to make Hezbollah part of their nation, and when that part of their chosen nation attacks another sovereign nation, the attacking faction represents Lebanon, so the onus of “cause” falls on their own shoulders.
The defense minister of Lebanon has said that if Israel launches a ground offensive, he will have no choice but to oppose the IDF with the Lebanese Army. Why is it that the Lebanese Army has the capacity to confront the world’s most experienced modern military force—one that no one has defeated—yet they cannot disarm terrorists who are their own citizens? The two things cannot co-exist, either they have the forces to defend their nation, and therefore are fully responsible for what their people do, or they can’t confront their own enemy, and under such circumstances, they must accept the incursions by Israel as legitimate defense not only of Israel, but of the free and democratic people of Lebanon. If the Lebanese people don’t see it this way, then they have openly declared their support for Hezbollah, and therefore must accept what ever befalls their nation as the results of their own actions or inactions.
The greatest lesson my mother ever taught was one that caught me harshly every time. She raised us with the full understanding that we were responsible for our own actions regardless of outside influences. The lesson was: “not to decide is to decide,” and it completely encompasses this issue today. If the Lebanese people wish to be counted as part of the civilized world, then they cannot accept terrorist groups as part of their legitimate government. If they choose to keep Hezbollah as a legitimate part of their government, then they must accept that the enemy of Hezbollah is their enemy also, and they must be prepared for the response of their enemy to the actions of their Hezbollah compatriots. When I was walking the streets of Beirut, I believed the people who seemed happy for our intervention. All the good intents are of no value if they are not supported by action, and the Lebanese people have long accepted the notion that a substantial part of their citizens are terrorists and wish to see Israel gone. Just as the United States cannot distance itsself from what the U.S. Army does [and Israelis from what their army does.–ILANA], neither can the Lebanese disassociate themselves from what their fellow citizens do in the name of Lebanon. I can have no pity for anyone who will not fight for their own freedom, and the people of Lebanon have had ample opportunity to choose sides. They apparently have, and they will reap the whirlwind.

Sincerely,
John McClain
GySgt, USMC, ret.

“Yo, Blair, How Are Ya Doin’?”

America, Britain, Bush, Middle East

By now everybody has seen the footage of a masticating Bush, at the G8 summit in St Petersburg, who, mouth agape, barked at Blair:

“You see, the thing is what they [Russia] need to do is to get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it’s over.” And, “I felt like telling Kofi to get on the phone to Assad and make something happen.”

Magnus Linklater of Times Online “rather warmed to Mr Bush’s gangsta rap summary of the crisis in Lebanon.” I must echo Linklater, this time, even though I’ve consistently opposed Bush over the years, describing him as “a bulldog with more bite than brains.” He can amuse, though. And to be fair, Dubya has a point this time.

Linklater’s is, however, a qualified amusement, with which I too concur:

“…the picture that emerges of the Bush-Blair relationship, revealed by that brief snatch of overheard conversation, is a depressing one. Even allowing for the verbal shorthand in which they talk, there is something shallow and simplistic about their world view. Neither gives any indication that they are pursuing a dynamic or creative approach to solving the current crisis, and policy seems to consist of a few half-formed ideas spun out at random. An approach to the hellish bombardment of Beirut that reduces negotiations to a quick image-building trip to the Middle East, and refers laughingly to a key player in Syria, does nothing to suggest a firm grasp of the situation.”

I would venture, furthermore, that the base (and basic) Bush-Blair banter does a lot to dispel conspiracy theories about what Our Leaders get up to when they think the microphones are off. Tinfoil-hat types often bang on about hidden agendas (and wars for Israel and oil). But, as is rather obvious, what you see is what you get.