[lit-ideas] Cook's Tour (5), the final segment
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 09:22:30 -0700
Cook: So in the coming days, in the wake of this US-Israeli concoction of an
impossible peace, we are going to be hearing a lot more nonsense from Israel
and the White House about Iran's role in supposedly initiating and expanding
this war, its desire to "wipe Israel off the map" and the nuclear weapons it
is developing so that it can achieve its aim.
Helm: Cook references his previous assertion that it is impossible for
Hizbollah to stop fighting. A peace based upon peacekeeping forces or the
cessation of fighting by Hizbollah is "an impossible peace." He than
elaborates slightly upon his assertion that Iran's association with
Hizbollah is a fiction created by Olmert. We learn here by means of another
Cook assertion that the US is in cahoots with Olmert regarding the fiction
that Iran is somehow associated with Hizbollah. We can expect, Cook
asserts, "more nonsense" from the US & Israel who will be inventing the idea
that Iran has a role in initiating and expanding the war. The creation of
Hizbollah by Iran isn't mentioned. The current supplying of Hizbollah by
Iran isn't mentioned. It is anticipated by Cook that it will be regularly
mentioned in the future by Israel and the US in the context he describes,
and he declares in advance that such mention will be "nonsense." Why it
doesn't make sense to relate the history of Hizbollah, it's creation by the
Republican Guard under Khomeini and Iran's ongoing supply and support of
Hizbollah, isn't explained. It is merely asserted that such facts (for they
are facts) will be nonsense.
Cook: The capture of two Israeli soldiers on 12 July will be decoupled from
Hizbullah's domestic objectives. No one will talk of those soldiers as
bargaining chips in the prisoner swap Hizbullah has been demanding; or as an
attempt by Hizbullah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, to deflect US-inspired
political pressure on him to disarm his militia and leave Lebanon
defenceless to Israel's long-planned invasion; or as a populist show of
solidarity by Hizbullah with the oppressed
Palestinians of Gaza.
Helm: Cook makes another assertion about the decoupling of the capture of
the two Israeli soldiers from Hizbollah's domestic objectives. This is an
awkward statement. Who is doing the decoupling? I expect to hear that
Israel has much more than the two soldiers to hold Hizbollah accountable
for, but how is that a Hizbollah domestic objective? Cook asserts that "no
one will talk of those soldiers as bargaining chips." Does he mean
Hizbollah or Israel? He further asserts that no one will talk about an
attempt of Nasrallah to deflect US-inspired political pressure on him to
disarm his militia. What this attempt is or who won't talk about it he
doesn't say. The final clause about the "populist show of solidarity by
Hizbullah with oppressed Palestinians of Gaza" is presumably something else
"no one will talk" about. What support? The coordinating of Hizbollah's
rocket attack with the rocket attacks by Hamas? Cook doesn't say.
Cook: Those real causes of hostilities will be ignored as more, mostly
Lebanese, civilians die, and Israel and the US expand the theatre of war.
Instead we will hear much of the rockets that are still landing in northern
Israel and how they have been supplied by Iran. The fact that Hizbullah
attacks followed rather precipitated Israel's massive bombardment of Lebanon
will be forgotten. Rockets fired by Hizbullah to stop Israeli aggression
against Lebanon will be retold as an Iranian-inspired war to destroy the
Jewish state. The nuclear-armed Goliath of Israel will, once again, be
transformed into a plucky little David. Or at least such is the Israeli and
US scenario.
Helm: After reading this final paragraph it is possible to go back to the
previous one and guess that it is somehow Israel that is doing the
decoupling (although I still can't make sense of that initial sentence) and
the not talking about "bargaining chips" etc. In recalling the way this all
started, that is by Hizbollah invading Israel to capture soldiers and do a
little rocketing of Israel with some Iranian supplied rockets, one can well
imagine that Hizbollah didn't expect the reaction from Israel that they got.
I recall here the oft used line from Hollywood movies, "can't they take a
joke?" In this case Israel couldn't accept with equanimity Hizbollah's
actions. It is possible that they responded with significantly more force
than Hizbollah expected, but I wouldn't want to go so far as to assert that.
I don't know. The timing of Hizbollah's attack with the heat Iran was
receiving in regard to a Security Council resolution possibly imposing
sanctions on Iran has seemed more than a coincidence to some observers, but
I'm not asserting that. I don't know.
Helm: Cook concludes by heaping scorn upon what he anticipates being said
about this war in the future. The rockets were fired, according to Cook,
only to stop Israel's aggression. How the firing of rockets at civilian
targets would do any more than provoke Israel isn't explained. Cook asserts
that these rockets fired at civilians are intended to stop Israel's
aggression. That, he predicts, will be forgotten in the future and Israel
though a nuclear-armed Goliath will be transformed (by agencies he doesn't
describe but presumably agencies in the US & Israel) "into a plucky little
David."
Helm: I do find it difficult not to view Israel as a plucky little David.
Israel's population is about 6,500,000 and it has regularly been attacked by
Arab nations many times its size. It is a "nuclear-armed Goliath" Cook
claims, but isn't that remarkable, at least it seems so to me. Without any
oil and without any natural resources, Israel has transformed itself into a
nation able to defeat the larger and potentially richer nations around it.
Why haven't these nations managed to defeat Israel? They have been backed
by the enormous wealth of oil-rich nations but they have failed. What does
Israel have going for it other than a modern economy and the will to
survive? The fact that they have managed to survive doesn't in my
estimation make them a Goliath. They have pluckily done whatever they could
and thus far it has been enough to prevent Islamic militants from destroying
them.
And so ends the article entitled "The UN Resolution on Lebanon, an
Israel-drafted cynical ploy" by Jonathan Cook, August 7, 2006.
To remind the reader of the impetus for this 5-part analysis, yesterday at
6:39 after first reading Cook's article, I posted comments that included the
following which especially angered Omar: "Thanks for another example of a
Leftist supporting Militant Islam. Your Jonathan Cook is really into it --
quite a lot of venom directed at Israel. I missed your comment, Omar. Do
you agree with this guy?"
Omar responded with, "I am afraid that I've had enough of the racist
nonsense that wants to pass itself for expertise on the subject. In this
paradigm, any Westerner that expresses a position that falls short of
advocating a full-scale genocide against Muslims is "another example of a
Leftist supporting Militant Islam." If that is the level of sophistication
you can reach, I have nothing to answer."
In the same 8-8, 6:39 note I also wrote, "There isn't an argument or any
facts in this missive that I can see, just a lot of anger and vitriol. Some
of it is funny, e.g., the idea that Israel is making up a fake story about
Iran's support of Hizbollah so it can eventually attack Iran. You can be
sure that the US would have attacked Iran by now if it was actively
supplying a paramilitary force attacking the US."
To Which Omar responded with "If that is really what you think about this
well-informed and carefully argued article, you might wish to seek aid in
other forums. I don't even know what you are refering to with your supposed
criticism."
I must admit that my reaction to this comment by Omar elicited a rather
extreme response from me. It would not be overstating the effect to say I
was astounded. I decided to take a close look at Cook's article and the
result is contained in the 5-part "Cook's Tour." I found nothing to cause
me to change my mind. Cook doesn't develop any arguments. That is, he does
not provide premises or evidence that he reasons from in order to draw
conclusions. He makes a series of unsupported assertions. No there is
nothing inherently wrong with doing this, but to assert that Cook's effort
is "well-informed and carefully argued" goes much too far. If he is
well-informed he is being deceptive in order to advance his assertions. As
to being "carefully argued," that statement is utterly false.
The final comment in my 8-8, 6:39 note was ". I admire Israel's restraint."
To which Omar responded with, "Sorry I'm not interested in this kind of
infantile nonsense. I would talk to Eric if I were."
Lawrence
Other related posts:
