[lit-ideas] Cook's Tour (1)
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 21:50:06 -0700
Omar has seen my disapproval of Jonathan Cook's article as an example of my
Racism (I do admit to be prejudiced against Militant Islam; so I guess I'm
guilty) and challenges my disparagement of Cook's article. Instead, Omar
finds it a "well-informed and carefully argued" and since I obviously don't
agree with that assessment, he suggests I vacate Lit-Ideas and repair to one
more suitable to my lack of understanding. Well, let's put that to the
test. I intend to go through Cook's article to see whether it is as slanted
as I believe it is or as well informed and carefully argued as Omar did
Cook: If there were any remaining illusions about the purpose of Israel's
war against Lebanon, the draft
United Nations Security Council resolution calling for a "cessation of major
hostilities" published at the weekend should finally dispel them.
Helm: Cook's argument here is that the draft UN Security Council resolution
will dispel illusions about the purpose of Israel's war against Lebanon. I
previously posted the information I could find on the resolution. That
information didn't dispel anything for me. He doesn't specify what in the
resolution he is talking about. He doesn't say what illusions he is talking
about. He doesn't provide any facts here. So this is a bust as an argument.
Let's move along.
Cook: This entirely one-sided document was drafted, noted the
Hebrew-language media, with close Israeli involvement.
Helm: Cook argues that the resolution is "entirely one-sided" and he offers
as evidence a notation to that effect by "the Hebrew-language media." He
doesn't say what the "Hebrew-language media" is and he doesn't elaborate on
what they said. Therefore this cannot be seen as an argument at all. It
has the look of one but "the Hebrew-language media" is a vague nothing. It
doesn't pin down the source of the assertion that the resolution is entirely
one-sided.
Cook: The top adviser to the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, talked
through the resolution with the US and French teams, while the Israeli
Foreign Ministry had its man alongside John Bolton at the UN building in New
York. The only thing preventing Israeli officials from jumping up and down
with glee, according Aluf Benn of the daily Haaretz newspaper, was the fear
that "demonstrated Israeli enthusiasm for the draft could influence support
among Security Council members, who could demand a change in wording that
may adversely affect Israel." So no celebration parties till the resolution
is passed.
Helm: Again, this isn't an argument. Olmert may have "talked through the
resolution with US and French teams" but we are not told the content of this
talk. We are given no quotes. Cook provides his assessment based on we
know not what that the undescribed results would have caused Olmert to jump
up and down with glee except that this would disclose how much the US and
French Teams supported Israel. There no evidence for any of this in what he
says. He hasn't produced a premise. He hasn't drawn a valid conclusion.
This comprises nothing beyond innuendo -- no "careful reasoning" can be
found here. Perhaps the daily Haaretz is "the Hebrew-language media" he
refers to earlier, but we can't tell. He doesn't say so and he provides no
reference.
Cook: Instead, in a cynical ploy familiar from previous negotiating
processes, Israel submitted to the US a list of requests for amendments to
the resolution. When Israel agrees to forgo these amendments, it will, of
course, be able to take credit for its flexibility and desire to compromise;
Lebanon and Hizbullah, on the other hand, will be cast as villains,
rejecting international peace-making efforts.
Helm: Instead of telling us what is on the list Israel submitted to the US,
Cook draws the conclusion in advance of any premises other than the possible
inductive premise that Israel has exhibited a pattern having used this
cynical ploy before in "previous negotiating process." The assumption here
is that Israel has asked what it asks for in its current requests (I refer
to articles I posted in the absence of any other information) that
international forces provide the buffer between Israel and the Militant
Islamic organization Hizbollah. This ploy consists of Israel later
abandoning this request, i.e. saying it no longer needs a buffer between
Israel and Hizbollah in order to "take credit for its flexibility and desire
to compromise." I'm afraid this strikes me as utter nonsense. Does Cook
expect anyone without anti-Israel blinders to imagine that Israel would give
up protection on its border in order to gain the sort of credit he
describes? Precisely who is to express admiration for Israel's sacrifice?
[To be continued in Cook's Tour (2)]
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Cook's Tour (1)
