[lit-ideas] Cook's Tour (3)
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 23:32:30 -0700
Cook: This time, however, as Israeli troops struggle back towards the Litani
River and their initial goal of creating a "buffer zone" similar to the one
they held on to for nearly two decades, the Lebanese are rallying behind
Hizbullah, convinced that the Shiite militia is their only protection
against Western machinations for a "new Middle East".
Helm: Skipping the gratuitous description of Israeli's military progress,
Cook asserts that the West is engaged in "machinations for a 'new Middle
East'." This assertion is as gratuitous as his description of Israeli's
military progress. He doesn't describe these "machinations." He merely
asserts that they are going on. He also doesn't explain who the "West" is.
He previously mentioned Israel, the US and France but whether he limits the
West to these three nations he doesn't say.
Cook: Israel and Washington, however, may hope that, given time, they can
break that national solidarity by provoking a civil war in Lebanon to
deplete local energies, similar to Israel's attempts at engineering feuds
between Hamas and Fatah in the occupied Palestinian territories. Certainly,
it is difficult to make sense otherwise of Israel's bombing for the first
time of Christian neighbourhoods in Beirut and what looks like the intended
ethnic cleansing of Sunni Muslims from Sidon, which was leafletted by
Israeli war planes at the weekend. On the US-Israeli view, a nation of
refugees living in an open-air prison cut off from the outside world and
deprived of food and aid -- a more ambitious version of the Gaza model --
may eventually be persuaded to take their wrath out on their Shiite
defenders.
Helm: In the passage prior to this one, "the Lebanese are rallying behind
Hizbullah," but here Cook asserts that "Israel and Washington" hope to
"break that national solidarity by provoking a civil war." Cook implies
that bombing "of Christian neighbourhoods" and "ethnic cleansing of Sunni
Muslims from Sidon" thus somehow unexplained creating a "nation of refugees"
will provoke the Christians and Sunnis to take out their wrath on Shiite
defenders. Hizbollah and Lebanese Shiites are "defenders" it is implied and
"it is difficult" for Cook to "make sense" of "Israel's bombing" unless it
is trying to incite a civil war. The application of Occam's razor here
would suggest that a simpler explanation is to be preferred, namely that
Israel is doing what it said it was doing, to wit, destroying Hizbollah --
part of which involves cutting off Iranian and Syrian support; which Cook
doesn't bother to describe as continuing.
Cook: Hizbullah understands that the proposal to bring in a force of
international peacekeepers is another trap. Either the foreign troops will
never arrive, because on these Israeli-imposed terms there can be no
ceasefire, or, if they do arrive, they will quickly become a proxy
occupation army. Israel will have its new South Lebanon Army, supplied
direct this time from the UN and subsidised by the West. If Hizbullah
fights, it will be killing foreign peacekeepers not
Israeli soldiers.
Helm: Cook asserts that the buffer force Israel is insisting upon is another
trap. Israel has claimed (not something narrated by Cook) that it wants a
buffer between a Terrorist organization. To pattern an assertion from Cook
from a different context Hizbollah has on many occasions in the past
attacked Israel during peacetime. Israel either wants Hizbollah destroyed
or a buffer between it and Israel's border. Cook though asserts that this
is a trap. There are three possibilities Cook considers, all of them traps
(although he mentions only "trap" singular): 1) there will be no ceasefire
because the foreign peacekeepers won't show up, 2) they will become an
occupation force equivalent to the Israeli occupation force, or 3) Hizbollah
will fight and kill the foreign peacekeepers. Now (2) Cook doesn't
distinguished this from a peacekeeping buffer and so doesn't explain why
that is a trap. He has earlier implied that Israeli has failed from a
military standpoint so I don't see why (1) is a trap; which leaves (3)
Hizbollah's inability (presumably) to quit killing.
Cook: But Israel knows the international force is almost certainly a
non-starter, which seems to be the main reason it has now, belatedly, become
so enthusiastic for it. Senior Israeli government officials were saying as
much in the Hebrew-language media on Sunday.
Helm: Cook asserts that Israel enthusiastically supports a peacekeeping
buffer because it knows it is "a non-starter." Why this should be so isn't
explained. Logically Israel should want such a peacekeeping buffer because
its military effort (as Cook tells us) has failed.
Cook: Israel's Justice Minister, the increasingly hawkish Haim Ramon, summed
up the view from Tel Aviv: "Even if it is passed, it is doubtful that
Hezbollah will honor the resolution and halt its fire. Therefore we have to
continue fighting, continue hitting anyone we can hit in Hezbollah, and I
assume that as long as that goes on, Israel's standing, diplomatically and
militarily, will improve."
Helm: It would appear from this that Cook has moved from his previous
statement that Israel's military effort has failed. Otherwise why is it
continuing to fight? How could Israel assume that its standing will
diplomatically and militarily improve unless Cook's earlier statement is
false and that Israel's military effort has not failed?
[To be continued tomorrow, maybe.]
Lawrence
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Cook's Tour (3)
