[lit-ideas] Re: Cook's Tour (5), the final segment
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 10:33:22 -0700 (PDT)
Lawrence,
My reply to your earlier post was overly snappy, I was
in a bad mood and I apologize. On the other hand, I
may not have reacted that way if you had not prefaced
your post with another remark about "Leftists siding
with militant Islam," or something to that effect.
Even people sympathetic to your general views have
advised you that this kind of ad hominem arguments and
sweeping generalizations are not helpful. Also,
expressing "admiration" for Israel is surely not an
example of reasoned argument.
I haven't got the time now to go through your whole
discussion. Cook has been reporting and writing on the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict for many years and that
is how I know that he is indeed very well-informed.
(Speaks both Hebrew and Arabic, I believe.) It may be
that he considers some things to be well-known to his
readers, perhaps from his earlier articles, and hence
doesn't feel that they should be documented. Certainly
the fact of the US diplomatic, military and financial
support to Israel is something well-known to even a
causal reader of the press. As to the Iranian-Hezbolah
connection, I don't think that he means to say that it
is non-existent but that it has been overblown. He
seems to think that Hezbollah's actions are much more
motivated by Lebanon's internal situation - I think
that he means especially the marginalization of the
Lebanese Shiites vis a vis the Sunni dominated
government - as well as by the Palestinian issue. This
makes sense to me since, after all, the Hezbollah
operates within Lebanon and most or all of its members
today are Lebanese. Let's not forget also that Lebanon
has a significant Palestinian refugee population and
that Palestine has always been a very important issue
for them. I think that Cook is also suggesting that
the Hezbollah really wanted and expected a prisoners'
swap instead of a major escalation. I have to stop
here for now, I may respond to some other points
later.
O.K.
--- Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
