[lit-ideas] Cook's Tour (2)
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 22:41:14 -0700
Cook: The reason for Israel's barely concealed pleasure is that Hizbullah
now faces an international diplomatic
and public relations assault in place of the unsuccessful Israeli military
one. Israel, and the United States, are trying to set a series of traps for
Hizbullah -- and Lebanon too -- that will justify Israel's reoccupation of
south Lebanon, the further ethnic cleansing of the country, and a widening
of the war to include Iran, and possibly Syria.
Helm: Cook provides a second reason for "Israel's barely concealed
pleasure" although he confuses things by failing to acknowledge the fact
that he has already provided a reason, i.e., to gain credit for eventually
backing away from its need for a buffer on its border. This isn't a good
example of careful reasoning. However, moving on to this reason, somehow,
Cook implies, Israel has done something in the process of talking through
the resolution with representatives of the US & French teams such that
"Hizbullah now faces an international diplomatic and public relations
assault. Notice that Cook says Israel is seeking this "public relations
assault" because it failed in its "military one." Does that make sense? If
it failed militarily, would it be exhibiting "barely concealed pleasure" at
a possible "public relations assault"? And when has Israel been successful
in the realm of public relations? These assertions sound bizarre.
Helm: following the above without obvious connection is the assertion (not
an argument) that Israel and the US "are trying to set a series of traps for
Hizbullah -- and Lebanon too -- that will justify Israel's reoccupation of
south Lebanon . . ." The trap (although Cook doesn't tell us) is that
Israel wants a trustworthy force on its border because it sees no reason why
it should tolerate further attacks from the terrorist organization
Hizbollah. In order for Hizbollah and Lebanon to fall into the trap, it will
require their determination that they won't tolerate anyone but Hizbollah
and/or Lebanon on Israel's border and that Israel must give up its buffer
anyway.
Helm: Cook goes on to assert (not argue) that this "trap" will justify
"Israel's reoccupation of south Lebanon, the further ethnic cleansing of the
country, and a widening of the war to include Iran, and possibly Syria."
Remember that this "trap" consists of having a trustworthy force in Southern
Lebanon to keep Hizbollah at bay. Cook assumes that Hizbollah and Lebanon
won't agree to such a force and will therefore fall into this trap. This is
but another ploy, Cook implies, in order for Israel to do another thing it
wants to do (besides occupy Southern Lebanon) and that is invade Iran and
possibly Syria. There is no argument here. Cook is not engaging in
"careful reasoning." He is speculating and his speculation is given no
support in his article. This asserted speculation, by the way, seems at
odds with Israel's previous statements to the US that it was not willing to
do to Iran's nuclear weapons development what it did to Iraq's at Osirak. I
have seen no indication that Israel wishes to fight Iran. If Cook has, he
doesn't describe it in this article.
Cook: The clues were not hard to decode. The US Secretary of State,
Condoleezza Rice, characterised the aim of the
resolution as clarifying who is acting in good faith. "We're going to know
who really did want to stop the violence and who didn't," she said. Or, in
other words, we are going to be able to blame Hizbullah for the hostilities
because we have offered them terms of surrender we know they will never
agree to.
Helm: Here Cook takes a statement made by Rice and reinterpret's it based
on nothing. He doesn't provide any careful reasoning to show why he twists
Rice's words. He just twists them. He says "in other words." There is no
logical development, no evidence, no references, and no argument. He just
asserts "in other words."
Cook: The main sticking point for Hizbullah is to be found in the
resolution's requirement that it must stop fighting and begin a process of
disarmament at a time when Israeli forces are still occupying Lebanese
territory and when there may be a lengthy, if not interminable, wait for
their replacement by international peacekeepers. Not only that, but the
resolution allows Israel to continue its military operations for defensive
purposes: Hizbullah only has to look to Gaza or the West Bank to see what
Israel is likely to consider falling under the rubric of "defensive".
Helm: Cook says "the main sticking point for Hizbulluh is" and then instead
of providing a single "main" sticking point he provides two sticking points.
The first is that Hizbullah must stop fighting. Cook seems to find in
Hizbollah's favor here. One has only the tenor of his language to go by (not
an argument). It implies that it is unfair to ask Hizbollah to quit
fighting as long as Israel is still in Lebanon. No cease fire and no
compliance with the resolution. This becomes a "trap" Hizbollah can't
resist falling into. And of course they have no desire to disarm as long as
they are resolved to keep on fighting -- all this cleverly orchestrated as a
public relations victory for Israel so they can stay in Lebanon and invade
Iran.
Helm: Cook then adds another assertion (not an argument) that "Hizbullah
only has to look to Gaza or the West Bank to see what Israel is likely to
consider falling under the rubric of 'defensive'. Yes Israel, after being
attacked, has kept some buffer areas, and has been slow to give back land
that it conquered after being attacked by one of its neighbors. In earlier
times such a thin would be unheard of. If you were in a war and you
conquered a nation, then you could dictate the terms of the truce. It would
be expected that you'd keep a little something especially if the other
nation had attacked you. That happens in just about every war where there
is a clear victor, but Israel is expected to give back every thing it
conquers every time. Just why this should be the case has never been made
clear to me. Certainly Cook doesn't make it clear. I've always thought
that if Israel kept some of the land they conquered each time after they had
been attacked by the Arab nations that eventually they might want to give
that up and recognize Israel while they still had some land left -- but
that's just me.
Cook: Hizbullah has been stockpiling weapons since Israel's withdrawal in
May 2000 precisely to create a "balance
of deterrence", to make Israel more cautious about sating its demonstrated
appetite for occupying its neighbours' lands, particularly when the
neighbour is a small country like Lebanon without a proper army and divided
into many sectarian groups, some of which, for a price, may be willing to
collaborate with Israel.
Helm: Cook asserts that the reason Hizbullah has been stockpiling weapons
is to "create a 'balance of deterrence'. Cook doesn't explain that Iran
supplied Hizbollah with these weapons. I read about Iran's doing this and
recall no mention of "balance of deterrence" as the reason. This is a false
assertion in my opinion. Hizbullah was created in order to export
Khomeini's Revolution. "Balance of deterrence" was never the reason before
and if it has become a reason as a result of some change in the nature of
Hizbollah, Cook doesn't provide evidence of that.
Lawrence
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Cook's Tour (2)
