New at Reason
Michael Young is puzzled: Why would any left-wing academic take Hezbollah's side and buffer its image?
Comments to "New at Reason":
Drake | February 28, 2008, 12:12pm | #
I'll take Hezbollah over the State of Israel any day of the week.Mr. Nice Guy | February 28, 2008, 12:27pm | #
"I'll take Hezbollah over the State of Israel any day of the week."As someone who often argues against Israel's positions here on H&R I think hte above comment to be crazy. I take the side of Israel when they are right, and against them when they are wrong, and the same for Hezbollah. I would think that if a left-wing, or right-wing for that matter academic happens to find Hezbollah to be in the right in some specific instance then that hardly makes him in their camp.
Mr. Nice Guy | February 28, 2008, 12:32pm | #
Uggh, just read the Young article...For Young to write about the Israeli attacks that caused 1,200 deaths without any hint of criticism of Israel (you know, the ones who did those attacks) is ballsy even for the "US/Israel always right and now let me tell you how I understand the Arab street" Young...It's folks like Young who make Chomsky and Finkelstein seem like level headed fair-minded observers...SheeshR C Dean | February 28, 2008, 12:38pm | #
Just curious, MNG: How many rocket attacks per day should Israel absorb before it takes any kind of effective military response?Who is ultimately responsible for what happens in Lebanon? Israel, or the Lebanese government that asserts sovereignty over Lebanon? Who should be held responsible for the predictable results of Hez rocketing civilians in Israel from inside Lebanon?
Yeah, its a shame that 1,200 Lebanese died. But do you really think the would be dead today if Hez hadn't been rocketing the Israelis?
Thanks for reading the article MNG so I don't have to. I figured that would be about it.
joe | February 28, 2008, 12:54pm | #
Michael Young tells us that you're either with us or with the terrorists.RC,
You do know that the Israeli attack on Lebanon greatly INCREASED the rocket attadcks, right? That they launched that offensive in response to the capture of two of its soldiers, and not rocket attacks, right?
joe | February 28, 2008, 12:55pm | #
Which means the answer to the questionBut do you really think the would be dead today if Hez hadn't been rocketing the Israelis?
is "Yes."
joe | February 28, 2008, 12:57pm | #
Also, I was unaware that the 1200 dead Lebanese civilians were all government employees.But that's probably because they weren't.
I'm not sure what's more libertarian: collective punishment of civilians for the acts of other civilians, or collective punishment of civilians for the acts of their government.
Episiarch | February 28, 2008, 12:59pm | #
I love Michael Young posts. The beatdown in the comments section always makes me wonder if he reads the threads like the other writers obviously do.Now, if he'd get into it here, that would be entertainment.
Gui | February 28, 2008, 1:09pm | #
Hezbollah, is arabic for termites.So how do you pro-Hezbollah types justify them even being in Lebanon? Are they there at the invitation of the Lebanese government / people? Would you be okay with Hezbollah setting up shop in the US and shooting rockets at Canada? If it's okay for the Lebanese to accept them in their country then certainly it would be okay for you Americans too. Right?
stuartl | February 28, 2008, 1:11pm | #
joe, you are kidding aren't you?What is the appropriate response to another country allowing regular rocket attacks and then capturing some of your soldiers?
Just grin and bear it? Or is there some formula for a precise and appropriate response that is guaranteed to work?
Colin | February 28, 2008, 1:15pm | #
Drake would probably also take Hezbollah over the State of America. And he'd be one of the first they'd eliminate.The Left likes Hezbollah because they like anything runs counter to an established conservative order.
Neu Mejican | February 28, 2008, 1:17pm | #
any kind of effective military response?Is there an effective military response? The IDF certainly hasn't found it.
Cesar | February 28, 2008, 1:18pm | #
Israel can react however they please to whomever they want. They're a sovreign nation.I don't think, however, they have a right to expect the United States to fund them or be their personal cheerleader at the UN.
Nobody is entirely blameless in this. Not Israel, not Hezbollah, not the Lebanese government, not even the Lebanese civilians. Israel took their retaliation/self defense way too far and killed too many people without achieving any progress. Hezbollah may do some good for Lebanese people, but they are hate-mongering murderers who will never stop call for attacks on Israel. The Lebanese government is responsible for what goes on inside it's borders, though they may be unable to control Hezbollah, that does not excuse their responsibility. And the Lebanese people who house and support Hezbollah and share their jew-hating ideals can hardly be called innocent civilians when Israel retaliates/defends herself.
Neu Mejican | February 28, 2008, 1:22pm | #
And the Lebanese people who house and support Hezbollah and share their jew-hating ideals can hardly be called innocent civilians when Israel retaliates/defends herself.The trick the IDF hasn't figured out, is distinguishing between these and they majority of the Lebanese civilians.
Pinette | February 28, 2008, 1:27pm | #
NM,I feel really dirty trying to say that one civilian death is better than another. That said, my understanding was that most of the bombing during the Israel offensive against Hezbollah took place in parts of the country where the populace is very pro-Hezbollah.
i might be wrong.
Kolohe | February 28, 2008, 1:29pm | #
The suprising thing to me at least about this article is the assertion that Mughniyeh is not a big poo-bah in hezbollah. I think the official position of the united states government is that he was a pretty big deal even at the time of his death. But I have not got a chance to read Young's link-thru'sMichael Young | February 28, 2008, 1:29pm | #
Of course I read the threads Episiarch, and take bets on how many comments before someone calls me a mass murderer or brings up a topic related to World War II. Haven't lost yet.nameless joe baiter | February 28, 2008, 1:31pm | #
joe doesn't kid about stuff like this... and when anyone questions him when he knows he's "right" - he'll start calling you nasty names and go all flame on ya.
stuartl | February 28, 2008, 1:11pm | #
joe, you are kidding aren't you?
Let me just fix that sentence:
Colin | February 28, 2008, 1:15pm | #
The Left likes Hezbollah because they like anything runs counter to an established conservative order.
There, you've got joe...
R C Dean | February 28, 2008, 1:36pm | #
You do know that the Israeli attack on Lebanon greatly INCREASED the rocket attadcks, right?Sure. You can expect that Hez would discharge its rockets when they were in danger of losing them. So? That doesn't answer my questions about the responsibility of the various parties.
That they launched that offensive in response to the capture of two of its soldiers, and not rocket attacks, right?
That was certainly the political trigger within Israel. However, it doesn't change the fact that Hez was also rocketing Israel before and after the "capture". This observation also doesn't answer my questions about the responsibilities of the parties involved.
I find it a little ingenuous to refer to the Israeli soldiers as "captured". Hez is not a sovereign nation, and as such was not at war with Israel. Thus, when Hez crossed the border and seized these soldies, I believe the term "kidnapping" is more accurate than "capture.
KD | February 28, 2008, 1:37pm | #
Michael Young | February 28, 2008, 1:29pm | #Psst Michael, if you are willing to cut me in on the winnings (...take bets... Haven't lost yet.) I'll call you a Nazi/Fascist/genocidal mass murderer right here and now.
Of course I read the threads Episiarch, and take bets on how many comments before someone calls me a mass murderer or brings up a topic related to World War II. Haven't lost yet.
Paul | February 28, 2008, 1:42pm | #
Israel acted foolishly in the response to Hezbollah, which is precisely what Hezbollah (and other organizations like them) want.It's unfortunate for the Lebanese civilians, and it's unfortunate for Israel.
The fact of the matter is that Israel is going to be condemned no matter what action they take. However, Israel shouldn't use this as an excuse to simly indiscriminately bomb everything because they know they're going to be criticized anyway.
Having said that, to expect Israel to have no response, or only a diplomatic one when their soldiers are being captured and they're absorbing rocket attacks is just plain foolish.
LarryA | February 28, 2008, 1:48pm | #
It would be really interesting if, one bright morning, the Israelis woke up and said, “Enough is enough. We’re going to buy Baja California and move.”The day after they left, all the Arabs would throw a huge celebration. About the time the bullets they fired into the air hit the ground, they’d go back to killing each other.
And the liberal professors would say, “Oh, dear. Look what Israel and the U.S. caused.”
Ali | February 28, 2008, 1:59pm | #
The day after they left, all the Arabs would throw a huge celebration. About the time the bullets they fired into the air hit the ground, they’d go back to killing each other.When did they do that? LarryA, that is such a collectivist and cruel thing to say! Unless of course you mean they killed each other like in the American civil war, or the Spanish civil war, or loyalists versus Americans in 1812, French against French in the revolution, etc.
Ali | February 28, 2008, 2:00pm | #
Oh, and I forgot, of course to add "like European vs. European in WWII."Ali | February 28, 2008, 2:06pm | #
Of course, amiss from this discussion is the possibility that the Lebanese tolerate of the militant, racist, terroristic HA as a reaction to the Israelis toleration of militant, racist, terroristic Israeli paramilitaries and terrorist groups (haggana, to name one) that existed in the formative years of the Israeli state. Of course the militancy, racism and intolerance of the latter does not justify the former. Both are bloodthirsty bastards. But putting all the blame on one side while coming up with all sorts of excuses for the party you're supporting does not make either right. In fact it only blinds you. So keep up with the blind support here and there, and somehow peace will come to the middle east. If it never comes around, its always easy to blame the other side*.* It is funny how those who criticize the liberals and the Arabs for always blaming the West for the demise of the Palestinians is sooooo similar to those Israeli-supporters who blame none except the Arabs and the liberals for the demise of Israel. Ha!
Paul | February 28, 2008, 2:10pm | #
When did they do that? LarryA, that is such a collectivist and cruel thing to say! Unless of course you mean they killed each other like in the American civil war, orAli, LarryA was visualizing a mock scenario. Hezbollah, Hamas et. al. are famous for firing their AK's into the air in "celebration". LarryA is suggesting that sans Israel, the Arabs would continue (and return to) their centuries old tribal warfare patterns and find a new (old) reason to kill eachother, instead of blaming Israel for everything.
GILMORE | February 28, 2008, 2:13pm | #
In unrelated news, Hamas fires rockets into Israel again todayhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/world/middleeast/29mideast.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Unfortunately, retaliatory airstrikes failed to kill any American liberal-arts college professors. Just some kids watching the guys "resist" israel.
I think the best thing one can say about the whole Israel/Palestine/Neighborhood issue is this =
"The deserve one another"
joe | February 28, 2008, 2:14pm | #
stuartl,What is the appropriate response to another country allowing regular rocket attacks and then capturing some of your soldiers? Why, launching your own rocket attacks onto apartment buildings in order to create a four-digit civilian death toll, of course. I'm sorry, did I not make that clear enough?
I'm not demanding absolute precision in the targeting of military installations. Just a good-faith effort.
joe | February 28, 2008, 2:15pm | #
Gui,I don't know any "pro-Hezbollah types," but if I may:
So how do you pro-Hezbollah types justify them even being in Lebanon?
Because they're Lebanese? And keep getting elected?
Ali | February 28, 2008, 2:16pm | #
Paul, I still don't get it. Give me one example where "all the Arabs" (and I am quoting LarryA here) or a big chunk of them killed each others like savages. The infighting between the Palestinian factions is a modern thing. In fact, as far as the Palestinians are concerned, they rarely fought each other prior to the 20th century (which is not true of other Arab regions, I grant you that, but in those cases it is no different than any infighting between any other groups of people throughout history). In any case, LarryA's comment, as stated, comes across as very condescending. Libertarian disclaimer: "I respect the right of LarryA to say whatever he wants as much as my right to express the fact that what he said was offensive must be respected."stuartl | February 28, 2008, 2:16pm | #
he'll start calling you nasty names and go all flame on ya.I don't think joe will flame me. Even though I may have done a little joe-baiting, I think he will understand my point that the situation is very complex. Short of one side just giving up there is no easy solution for Israel, the Lebanese government, or the west. It doesn't take much effort to point out mistakes every group has made in the region.
As Michael Young points out:
But the reality is that Hezbollah is an immensely complicated question in Lebanon, where a majority of people are at a loss about what to do with a heavily armed organization that has no patience for state authority, that refuses to hand its weapons over to the national army, that is advancing an Iranian and Syrian agenda against the legal Lebanese government, and that functions as a secretive Shiite paramilitary militia in a country where sectarian religious assertiveness often leads to conflict.
LarryA's is the best solution I've seen in a while, but we'd have to get Disney to build a Jerusalem theme park for the Passover Seder.
GILMORE | February 28, 2008, 2:17pm | #
Because they're Lebanese? And keep getting elected?Joe, you ever read "Beirut to Jerusalem"?
I luv dum ppl | February 28, 2008, 2:18pm | #
"When did they do that? LarryA"It IS what Hamas did (and is doing) in Gaza.
Ali | February 28, 2008, 2:18pm | #
Gilmore- Israel killed 150+ Palestinians over the last few days, including bystanders and children. That does not justify the barbarity of Hamas, but if you're giving some news, give it complete.alan | February 28, 2008, 2:18pm | #
"I'll take Hezbollah over the State of Israel any day of the week."Personally, I would not be caught dead supporting either side. Before any one can finger wag 'moral equivelance', the
simple truth of the matter is if the Israelis had any interest in peace, the government would not have allowed, encouraged, and subsidized settlements in occupied territory.
Also, Hezbollah has a history of blurring the distinctions between guerrilla warfare, and terrorism and the type of extortion against civilians one expects of criminal organizations.
I plead neutrality in the matters of old world tribalism I'm only interested in it because a portion of my taxes goes to ensuring that the outcome of these conflicts is actually worse than they otherwise would be.
Ali | February 28, 2008, 2:19pm | #
alan- amen my friend!alan | February 28, 2008, 2:21pm | #
for the sake of decent grammar, that should read:Also, Hezbollah has a history of blurring the distinctions between guerrilla warfare and terrorism. They also engage in the type of extortion against civilians one expects of criminal organizations.
joe | February 28, 2008, 2:21pm | #
to expect Israel to have no response, or only a diplomatic one when their soldiers are being captured and they're absorbing rocket attacks is just plain foolish.Absolutely. At the same time, it is equally foolish to believe that Israel's legitimate right to respond to such provocations justifies the targetting of civilians and civilian infrastructure.
And even more foolish is the belief that such an act is useful. Remember when the pro-western, Cedar-tree types were more popular thasn Hezbollah among the Lebanese population? That was nice while it lasted.
alan | February 28, 2008, 2:22pm | #
cheers Ali, I do find myself in agreement with you on most topics I read on Hit&Run.GILMORE | February 28, 2008, 2:22pm | #
Ali | February 28, 2008, 2:18pm | #Gilmore- Israel killed 150+ Palestinians over the last few days, including bystanders and children. That does not justify the barbarity of Hamas, but if you're giving some news, give it complete.
I posted a link. Was that not enough?
Post your own link if you think there's a more enlightening news source. Dont complain to me.
Al-J says "Dozens". Where's your "150" number come from?
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/38D843CC-4209-4643-A04A-F755BDCC01C7.htm
joe | February 28, 2008, 2:23pm | #
I'll take the State of Israel over Hezbollah any day, if it comes to that.Fortunately, I'm neither a six-year-old nor a lobotomy patient, so I can come up with a more intelligent and decent stance than that.
GILMORE | February 28, 2008, 2:24pm | #
as I'd said earlier, which is consonent with Alan's comment, they can all go to hell as far as i'm concerned. Holy Land be damned.Gui | February 28, 2008, 2:24pm | #
"Paul, I still don't get it. Give me one example where "all the Arabs" (and I am quoting LarryA here) or a big chunk of them killed each others like savages."Darfur, bitch.
joe | February 28, 2008, 2:25pm | #
GILMORE,I started it, then put it down after the Very Serious Author's "Suck. On. This." statement about showing Arabs who's boss made me reconsider the use of my time.
joe | February 28, 2008, 2:26pm | #
Darfuris aren't Arabs.How does somebody manage not to know that?
LT Nixon | February 28, 2008, 2:27pm | #
Mr. Young,Interesting article thank you. I'm definitely no Hezbollah sympathizer as they are actively targeting US forces, as evidenced by their botched kidnapping in Karbala last year which resulted in 5 US KIAs. Not exactly your garden variety "Workers of the World Unite!" type organization.
Gui | February 28, 2008, 2:28pm | #
"Darfur, bitch."No wait, I just remembered. That's Arabs killing black folk. My bad.
Ali | February 28, 2008, 2:30pm | #
Hilmore- I meant 15+. That was an honest mistake. Of those 28 mentioned in the Al-J article, 8 or 9 were children.Gui | February 28, 2008, 2:30pm | #
The War in Darfur (called by some, including the American Government[1], the Darfur Genocide) is a military conflict in the Darfur region of western Sudan. Unlike the Second Sudanese Civil War, the current lines of conflict are seen to be ethnic and tribal, rather than religious.[2] One side of the armed conflict is composed mainly of the Sudanese military and the Janjawid, a militia group recruited mostly from the Arab Baggara tribes of the northern Rizeigat, camel-herding nomads. The other side comprises a variety of rebel groups, notably the Sudan Liberation Movement and the Justice and Equality Movement, recruited primarily from the land-tilling non-Arab Fur, Zaghawa, and Massaleit ethnic groups. The Sudanese government, while publicly denying that it supports the Janjaweed, has provided money and assistance to the militia and has participated in joint attacks targeting the tribes from which the rebels draw support.[3] The conflict began in February of 2003.Ali | February 28, 2008, 2:31pm | #
Gui- So does that make "all Arabs" killing each other? FWIW, what happens in Darfur is absolutely barbaric, criminal and should be stopped.Ali | February 28, 2008, 2:32pm | #
Alan- sure, thanks!Gui | February 28, 2008, 2:33pm | #
"or a big chunk of them"Your words. Granted "big chuck" is open to interpretation.
Gui | February 28, 2008, 2:34pm | #
"FWIW, what happens in Darfur is absolutely barbaric, criminal and should be stopped."So what are the Arabs doing to stop it?
Ali | February 28, 2008, 2:35pm | #
Gui- I was giving LarryA some slack in case he really did not mean "all Arabs". What's your point?Jammer | February 28, 2008, 2:36pm | #
Without getting into the weeds of the Israel vs. Some Subset of Arabs argument, it is my observation that the Left, broadly speaking, is not supportive of any government that supports US policy, and is supportive of any government that resists US policy. The policies in question, and the nature of the governments in question (democratic vs dictatorial) are usually (though not always) immaterial.Hezbollah is anti-US via being anti-Israel. This is why (some) lefties can be seen supporting Hezbollah. Simple, really.
Matthew | February 28, 2008, 2:36pm | #
or that of other Islamist groups like Hamas or Islamic Jihad—thoroughly undermining their ideological principles in the process.Good one! Seriously, what principles?
Ali | February 28, 2008, 2:37pm | #
Gui- What is the world doing to stop it? Plus, where have I been saying that Arabs are innocent angels? I only expressed my distaste for a collectivist offending statement that I do not think is true. "People not killing each other does not automatically make them angels"!Ali | February 28, 2008, 2:39pm | #
If nothing else, Gui, many on this forum know of my criticism of the victomhood (is that not a word? Firefox does not like it) of the Arabs and the complacency of the Arab governments! Many Arabs and Muslims need to grow up and grow some balls!Gui | February 28, 2008, 2:40pm | #
"Gui- I was giving LarryA some slack in case he really did not mean "all Arabs". What's your point?"Well Iraq, then. That's Arabs killing Arabs by the thousands. Do you deny Arabs are fighting Arabs in Iraq?
Gui | February 28, 2008, 2:41pm | #
"Gui- What is the world doing to stop it?"Why is it up to the world? Are you saying Arabs are so impotant that they can't stop killing each other without an "Intervention"?
Gui | February 28, 2008, 2:42pm | #
"If nothing else, Gui, many on this forum know of my criticism of the victomhood (is that not a word? Firefox does not like it) of the Arabs and the complacency of the Arab governments!"I see. So you ARE saying Arabs are impotant. Man, that's goota be tough to face.
Ali | February 28, 2008, 2:49pm | #
Well Iraq, then. That's Arabs killing Arabs by the thousands. Do you deny Arabs are fighting Arabs in Iraq?No I do not. But are they killing each other for the joy of it? For the fact that they are Arabs? Not for the fact that there are some serious (in this case) non-ethnic problems? Anyhow, sure that is one case. Is it a social norm among Arabs to go about killing each other? How is that conflict between Iraqis any different than the conflict between protestant and catholic Irish? That does not make all the Irish killing each other because they are Irish, does it?
Ali | February 28, 2008, 2:58pm | #
Why is it up to the world? Are you saying Arabs are so impotant that they can't stop killing each other without an "Intervention"?No, where have I said that?
To you, they are all Arabs. So why aren't one kind of Arabs stopping other Arabs from killing someone else? It is like a monolith. It is NOT! Why is that so hard to understand? I mean, shouldn't we, by the same token, expected Europeans outside of Spain to intervene to stop the Spanish civil war? In fact it was the fascist nations of Europe that intervened to support the nacionales.
And, I certainly do not advocate intervention. Anywhere! With the exception of a stated request by a nation or a group asking for the help of another nation in defense of their property rights. If another nation, with a popular support of the people, decides to intervene, then this is perfectly legitimate an intervention.
Now you also seem oblivious of the inherent political constraints that prevents Arab leaders from intervening against the government of Sudan. Am I defending those leaders? Hell no! But your blaming of "Arabs" for not intervening in Darfur instead of their corrupt governments tells me that you are either not all that knowledgeable of the workings of the middle east, or that you, well, tend to think of "Arabs" in one "monolithic" way, and that they are all equally... hmmm... let me not put words in your mouth.
Gui | February 28, 2008, 3:00pm | #
"But are they killing each other for the joy of it? For the fact that they are Arabs?"I actually believe they are. And the fact that Arabs are killing Black Folk in Darfur serves to underscore that belief.
We are taught in school that there are many different cultures and I would posit that one of the cultural traits of Arabs, be they in Iraq, Afganastan, Egypt, Gaza, Lebanon, etc., they, Arabs, as a people, have a boner for death.
Gui | February 28, 2008, 3:04pm | #
"How is that conflict between Iraqis any different than the conflict between protestant and catholic Irish?"Protestantism and Catholicism are religions. Arab is not.
Ali | February 28, 2008, 3:06pm | #
I see. So you ARE saying Arabs are impotant. Man, that's goota be tough to face.Huh?
Gui | February 28, 2008, 3:08pm | #
"Hell no! But your blaming of "Arabs" for not intervening in Darfur instead of their corrupt governments tells me that you are either not all that knowledgeable of the workings of the middle east, or that you, well, tend to think of "Arabs" in one "monolithic" way, and that they are all equally... "Yes, that's it. I am just stupid. How convenient for you (and oh so sad for me!).
So by all means, keep the global kill-machine running. Good luck with that and all...
Gui | February 28, 2008, 3:13pm | #
"Afghans aren't Arabs."That would be correct. My error. Did I mention I'm stupid? I forget?
Gui | February 28, 2008, 3:14pm | #
"Quick, now do Iranians!"I love Iranians. We have many here in France. Very decent people.
Gui | February 28, 2008, 3:15pm | #
Iranian Addendum -- Very educated and civilized.GILMORE | February 28, 2008, 3:15pm | #
Gui | February 28, 2008, 2:30pm | #this guy's an idiot.
Oh, wait, he already said that himself
Anybody think his 'footnotes' were funny? I did
Calidore | February 28, 2008, 3:16pm | #
Michael Young,That's because modern scholarship, like liberalism itself, refuses to impose Western cultural standards on non-Westerners. Fine.
Of course, putting on the hat of the cynic, one could argue that if one were to make such judgments it would merely lead to arguments over what cultural standards the West holds to.
Ali | February 28, 2008, 3:19pm | #
Gui- I meant no offense, but you do seem to put all Arabs in one basket. I simply that that is not right, and may harm your cause. If you understand something, how are you going to change it? And I really think that your understanding of the middle east is very shallow.Regarding my comments about Arabs always blaming the West, you seem to somehow see that as if I am glorifying the Arab race. I am not sure how, so let me clarify. What I was saying is that as long as Arabs keep blaming others, they are bound to be stuck in the hellhole that they're in. If they do not grow up and stop getting all mad and crazy on the streets whenever some cartoons are published in Denmark, how would one expect that they advance? But the same way I criticize Arabs for their plaing the victim to everything the West does, I also blame some (not all, otherwise I will, yes, be a "stupid" collectivist ;-) ) in the West who blame only Arabs and Palestinians for all the problems in the middle east. Neither is right!
Daldude | February 28, 2008, 3:47pm | #
Let’s try to put ourselves in the position of the Palestinians for a moment. Imagine that some powerful outside entity (extra-terrestrials, if you like) decide to annex a large swath of America’s most productive regions and give them to some other cultural group – a group that just happens to have been our mortal enemies for generations, with fundamental ideological differences (we'll use communists for this scenario). Even if these communists had been the subjects of horrible persecution and genocide by some other nation, and were given our lands as restitution and insurance against future persecution, its unlikely that any of us would find that of much comfort – especially as foreign soldiers were removing us from our homes and businesses by gunpoint.Its very likely that many of us would react violently, and justifiably so, and that many of us would be driven to publicly rail against all commies everywhere (unjust, but understandable). It’s also quite likely in that the earliest and strongest opposition to this occupation might come from certain American militant groups (especially if they were already organized, well-armed and morally ruthless prior to the occupation) – the White Supremacists, for example, who would capitalize on this anti-communist sentiment and preexisting organization to become the predominant force of resistance. Imagine that the communist occupiers use these incidents of violent rebellion, anti-communist rhetoric, and support of the racist-led resistance as justification to seize much of the land we have left, and to engage in long-term systematic oppression, which might appear to us as having the ultimate intent of either relegating Americans to the status of a permanent subservient underclass, or wiping us out altogether (especially in light of our daily encounters with bigoted and power-drunk soldiers, and the fact that certain occupation leaders had expressly stated that intent).
In this scenario, it seems likely that many Americans – as well as sympathetic foreign liberals and civil rights activists – would suspend their revulsion for the Supremacist’s racist principles for the sake of fighting the greater and more immediate evil of murderous tyranny. It’s also seems probable that the likes of Michael Young or other Reason contributors would not only lavish praise on these foreign supporters for their “solidarity” with the resistance, but accuse any left-wingers who did not express their support as being hypocritical, morally bankrupt, and lacking in “categorical imperatives” – imperatives such as finding active genocide, tyranny, and systematic enslavement to be somewhat more important than racial intolerance, at least in the immediate term.
“We are dying by the 1000s over here, and you want condemn us for being violent!” such a Reason article might say. “Our women are raped, our men humiliated, and our property seized on a daily basis, and you sit there blathering about your conscience not allowing you to support a resistance led by racists! Get your goddamn priorities straight! Hell, if you actually helped us end the atrocities and regain our independence – or at the very least stopped giving our oppressors all your military, financial, and political support – we’d likely oust these extremists on our own. Instead, you’ve got self-righteous columnists condemning those few of you with the moral clarity and courage to merely empathize with our ongoing tragedy, thus insuring that we have no option but to give our support to the cruelest and most violent members of our society – because they are the only ones actually fighting for our survival!”
It's interesting how being the one with the boot on your neck – or at least imagining that you are the one with the boot on your neck – puts things in a different perspective…
Unsubscriber | February 28, 2008, 3:47pm | #
Love this "libertarian" magazine that employs a rabid neo-conservative as their foreign policy-guy and refers to the most popular libertarian candidate running for office as "far right." This is why I have stopped subscribing to your rag, you guys just want to fit in with the douchebags you have happy hour with in DC and LA. Stop ruining a once excellent magazine, go work for New Republican or something, please!Hal | February 28, 2008, 3:55pm | #
"“We are dying by the 1000s over here, and you want condemn us for being violent!”"Everyone is dying over imaginary lines, be they geographical or ancestral.
R C Dean | February 28, 2008, 4:00pm | #
I'm not demanding absolute precision in the targeting of military installations. Just a good-faith effort.Of course, when Hez insists on setting up its rocket launchers next to schools and apartment buildings, the results of the good faith effort are likely to include a lot of collateral damage.
Wendy | February 28, 2008, 4:01pm | #
"We are dying by the 1000s over here, and you want condemn us for being violent!"Nonviolence worked for both Gandhi and King.
Cosmotarian Overlord | February 28, 2008, 4:05pm | #
stuartl | February 28, 2008, 1:11pm | #"joe, you are kidding aren't you?
What is the appropriate response to another country allowing regular rocket attacks and then capturing some of your soldiers?
Just grin and bear it? Or is there some formula for a precise and appropriate response that is guaranteed to work?"
no clearly the appropriate response is to take out the most secular Islamic neghbor of Iran and then allow the Shiites to start committing genocide on the Sunnis. Then let the turks come in and do a beat down on those troublesome Kurds who seem to be ready for another chemical weapons attack(compliments of US imperialism)...then give 30 billion dollars in weapons to the radicalizing agent know as "the house of Saud"...once we do all that we should give a bunch of weapons and money to Israel, but tell them not to use them because we have a lot of extra cannon fodder over here in the states we need to get rid of and Israel taxpayers aren't dumb enough to pay for the ridiculous military contracts to Halliburton and Blackwater that Americans will just eat up.
and if you think all of this is a bad idea then you clearly love Hezbollah and are probably a anti-semite...it is a good thing William F Buckly got rid of all those racist anti-semites like ron paul who don't like giving 30 billion dollar deals to freedom loving Burka-libertarians in Saudi Arabia.
and if you think any of that 30 billion goes to someone named Bin Laden then you are a conspiracy theorist. get real.
Gui | February 28, 2008, 4:07pm | #
"Nonviolence worked for both Gandhi and King."There will never be an Arab equivalent.
Cosmotarian Overlord | February 28, 2008, 4:09pm | #
Joe,Us Cosmos like you for havign the same heros as us FDR, Wilson Mandell House etc...but don't you realize that having some big wars is the best way to grow the governemnt budgets and allow us to have some more protections against market failure...if you didn't allow us to have these wars we'd never get all the selfish, racist, rednecks to expand the government enough to achieve our dreams of a more efficient social-libertarian economy.
Ali | February 28, 2008, 4:21pm | #
"Nonviolence worked for both Gandhi and King."There will never be an Arab equivalent.
Enough said.
Daldude | February 28, 2008, 4:26pm | #
"Nonviolence worked for both Gandhi and King."Not so much for the Tibetans, though.
There's a lot of factors that have to fall into place for the non-violent solution to work. First, you need a truly extraordinary individual like Gandhi or King - people who don't come along very often (and may never again, since tyrants have likely gotten wise to the power of such individuals, and have taken advantage of new advancements in surveilance and intelligence to keep them from ever gaining national prominence). Second, you need a significant segment of sympathetic and conscientious activists within the oppressor's population. Third, you need the morale high ground to get the support of the global community, which is generally gained because the oppressors have a centuries-old history of oppression. The Israelis seem to get a "get out of jail free" card in this regard - likely because they haven't been doing for it that long (yet), still have the sympathetic momentum of the holocaust, and are in the unique position of having a special status in two of the world's most powerful religions...
Bags | February 28, 2008, 4:35pm | #
Unsubscriber | February 28, 2008, 3:47pm | #Drink!
Calidore | February 28, 2008, 4:37pm | #
R.C. Dean,I've never quite understood what the point of attacking the Jiyeh power station was. Do you know why they attacked it?
M. Simon | February 28, 2008, 4:38pm | #
Give me one example where "all the Arabs" (and I am quoting LarryA here) or a big chunk of them killed each others like savages.I believe the Hamas takeover of Gaza was done that way.
In fact if you read Wm. Burroughs "Naked Lunch" (Islam Inc. chapter) you will find that Arab hatred of each other and love of suicide bombing is nothing new in inter Arab struggles. The book was published around 1960.
Ali | February 28, 2008, 4:38pm | #
"Enough said."So you admit it is true?
That you are a collectivist? Knowing what I know about middle easterners, yes I think it is true that you are a collectivist and that you are dead wrong about your assessments and perspectives of Arab people.
Calidore | February 28, 2008, 4:48pm | #
M. Simon,Correct me if I am wrong, but Burroughs only went to Tangiers. Now Tangiers is in Morocco and most Morrocans are to my knowledge Berbers.
Ali | February 28, 2008, 4:50pm | #
Simon,How come your reference (published in 1960) asserts that Arab love of suicide attacks on one another "is nothing new" if suicide attacks as practiced by Palestinian terrorists only started in the last quarter of the 20th century?
If you are referring to regional empires and sovereigns in-fighting for power in history, then how is that any different from the fighting between Europeans since before the dark ages, and leading up to WWII?
Daldude | February 28, 2008, 4:52pm | #
"the Arabs would continue (and return to) their centuries old tribal warfare patterns and find a new (old) reason to kill eachother, instead of blaming Israel for everything"It particularly galling to me how an ethic group having a history of internal violence and oppression somehow excuses or justifies violence and oppresion from an outside group. Europeans aren't to be held responsible for enslaving Africans because the Africans also did that to each other. Americans have no culpabilty for wiping out the Indians because inter-tribal warfare was common.
Again, a little outside perspective is needed. If aliens invaded earth, killing and enslaving humanity. Would they be validated simply be saying "Hey, you people do it to yourselves all the time!"
Daldude | February 28, 2008, 4:54pm | #
Damn the spell/grammar check! Full speed ahead!joe | February 28, 2008, 5:20pm | #
Of course, when Hez insists on setting up its rocket launchers next to schools and apartment buildings, the results of the good faith effort are likely to include a lot of collateral damage.In such a circumstance, a good faith effort would cause some collateral damage, but less than we've seen, since a good-faith effort would involve doing something that doesn't involve pancaking the building.
But a power station? Cell phone towers? This was deliberate collective punishment, and those of you who supported Israel's disproportionate response made it quite clear during the war that you supported that collective punishment. Heck, look upthread - simply living in an area where people voted for Hezbollah is provided as just cause for the Israelis to kill civilians.
And that is the morality of bin Laden.
Mr. Nice Guy | February 28, 2008, 5:55pm | #
Uhhh, Hezbollah was formed to repel the invasion of Lebanon by the IDF. Said invasion lasted years. People don't like being invaded I hear, even if it's by someone you like. They are just so darned hard to convince when it's them being invaded and occupied. Darn 'em!Cosmotarian Overlord | February 28, 2008, 6:14pm | #
Joe,Come on get with the program....we know that we killed those radical extremsit jihadist and their children on purpose...but come one if you don't agree with it then you are a anti-semite...you don't want to be a anti-semite do you?...did you happen to ghost write for Ron Paul once?
StateofIsrael | February 28, 2008, 6:44pm | #
Relax Simon, Gui, and R C Dean, I'm here to help you out . . . woah, I need to sit down for a minute, helping others is not what I do. That was completely out of character to give a damn about anyone else. Okay, I'm out of here -- but you boys better keep at it, ciaoPaul | February 28, 2008, 7:15pm | #
thesimple truth of the matter is if the Israelis had any interest in peace, the government would not have allowed, encouraged, and subsidized settlements in occupied territory.
I agree with this... kind of. I think it's more complicated than that. Remember when the Western left would defend the imperialistic actions of the Soviets absorbing all the surrounding countries as a reasonable attempt to create a "buffer zone"? I think one might be able to attribute some of settlements to exactly that. There is evidence that the settlements (contrary to Israeli claims) contained military hardware, even tanks. This, to the Arabs was seen as a hostile action. To the Israeli's, this was probably seen as a defensive action. Ie, if rocket attacks started coming in from the surrounding hills, the Israeli's had military capability on the "frontier" immediately. An oversimplification? Probably. But I think it's probably a good starting point.
Unfortunately, the Palestinian "cause" lost most of its credibility under Arafat- especially in those couple of years before he died. Oh damn, I promised myself I'd endeavor to forget him.
Paul | February 28, 2008, 7:21pm | #
It particularly galling to me how an ethic group having a history of internal violence and oppression somehow excuses or justifies violence and oppresion from an outside group.Daldude.
It might in your mind, it doesn't in mine. I think maybe what you're blowing right past is that there is no clear agreement on what's oppression and what's a defensive action.
To some Arabs, and the organized militants, the very existence of the Israeli state constitutes oppression.
Although Hamas omitted its call for the destruction of Israel from its election manifesto, calling instead for "the establishment of an independent state whose capital is Jerusalem," several Hamas candidates insisted that the charter remains in force.[41][42] On February 8, Hamas head Khaled Mashal speaking in Cairo had clarified that "Anyone who thinks Hamas will change is wrong", stating that while Hamas is willing for a ceasefire with Israel, its long term goal remains: elimination of Israel by Islam via a jihad against what Hamas sees as Zionist Jewish settler-colonial invaders in all of what he called Palestine.[43]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas
Paul | February 28, 2008, 7:24pm | #
Again, a little outside perspective is needed. If [Jews] invaded [the middle east], killing and enslaving [the Palestinians]. Would they be validated simply be saying "Hey, you people do it to yourselves all the time!"And with reasoning like this, one can't even get a dialog going.
I'm taking the liberty of changing "the earth", "aliens" and "humanity" because I'm understanding your remark to draw a straight line analogy between what the state of Israel represents, and your mock scenario. Talk about perspective...
Paul | February 28, 2008, 7:27pm | #
There's a lot of factors that have to fall into place for the non-violent solution to work. First, you need a truly extraordinary individual like Gandhi or King -Daldude, you think the Palestinians will ever get one?
joe | February 28, 2008, 7:44pm | #
the simple truth of the matter is if the Israelis had any interest in peace, the government would not have allowed, encouraged, and subsidized settlements in occupied territory.This truth is way to simple.
Israel is not a dictatorship. It's a democratic republic, like ours, with competing political forces. Some of whom want peace, and some of whom have an imperialist, manifest-destiny, theocratic vision of "from the Jordan to the Sea." What's more, settlement activity is the status quo, so shutting it down - especially outside of some deal with the Palestinians that got Israel something in return - would require the expenditure of a great deal of political capital by a peace-inclined leader.
When discussing Israeli government policy, it's better to think in terms of our own messy, bipartisan, sausage-making politics, and not in terms of the government's action being the expression of a single, unified vision.
shrike | February 28, 2008, 7:47pm | #
I have a fair and novel solution for this mess.Vacate everyone from the Holy Land and then Chernobyl the entire area. Get the Wall/Temple, the Dome of the Rock, the shrines of the Christ-Nutters, destroy it all.
Then let them back in on the glowing sand.
That would take care of things for a few half-lifes.
Monotheism is a step backward for mankind - pull the string on it.
ala | February 28, 2008, 8:29pm | #
When discussing Israeli government policy, it's better to think in terms of our own messy, bipartisan, sausage-making politics, and not in terms of the government's action being the expression of a single, unified vision.When the world gauges the actions of the United States, they would be wise to consider the actual actions of our military and its support infrastructures rather than the intentions of those of us Americans who disagree with the warfare state like you, or I, or Nancy Pelosi, or the majority of Americans, for that matter.
Likewise, to gauge the intent and seriousness of the state of Israel in seeking peace, you have to look at the permissive acceptance of the settlements by the government.
As the leftist Israelis academic Ran HaCohen would put it, the question whether or not civilians have control of the military in Israel is a rather allusive proposition.
Mr. Nice Guy | February 28, 2008, 8:30pm | #
PaulYou're just muddying the waters. There are some people who think the mere existence of Israel is oppression (though give them some credit, what they mean is that the European Jews who came in and tried to create a nation where there were folks living for centuries [and where those same European Jews ancestors had not lived for about 20 centuries] did a bad thing and should be forced to leave). But the existence of some state of Israel and the current occupation by Israel of thousands of people, depriving them of self-government, or the invasion of neighboring states like Lebanon, are different matters entirely.
You use the analogy of Soviet Russia creating a buffer zone. That analogy suits me fine, but perhaps you're missing the bad implications of Israel in that analogy (hint: they are the Soviets and the Palestianians are the Czechs)...
BTW-I think Israel has the right to strike back whenver Hez or whoever hits them. But some sense of proportion is ethically called for. If you kick my shin I'm not entitled to shoot you in the stomach and then cut off your ears with a machete. Killing 1,200 people and destroying the infrastructure of a struggling democracy is totally out of line in retaliation for the despicable kidnapping of 2 people...
GILMORE | February 28, 2008, 9:56pm | #
Ali | February 28, 2008, 2:16pm | #Paul, I still don't get it. Give me one example where "all the Arabs" (and I am quoting LarryA here) or a big chunk of them killed each others like savages.
Well, here's a few examples of them not exactly getting along like brothers in the unified caliphate =
- Egypt/Yemen/Saudi Arabia in the 60s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Yemen_Civil_War
- Syrians/Lebanese vs Themselves in the 70s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War
- Iran/Iraq in the 80s (ok, only 1 being "arab", but then you get...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_iraq_war
- Iraq/Kuwait in the 90s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_invasion_of_Kuwait
You could also add the '48 fights against Israel, but obviously thats not them fighting *each other*, but is an example of a wide range of Arab countries getting their pissed-offness on against the joos.
And of course in the pre WWI arab world, it was pretty much tribe on tribe for quite a while.
I am not busting your balls, but as far as "the peace loving arabs"... it's a stretch to make the case that Arabs havent had serious fraternal struggles in the 20th century. The story of arabs "unifying" during the revolt in WWI ended in intranecine conflict as well. Sykes-Picot was only possible because there wasnt a unified diplomatic front from the Arab parties, really.
Compared to Europe/Americans? It's not much different longerterm. If you include colonial wars, sure Europe has had a bunch in the last 2 centuries. But there is certainly no history of comity and multilateral diplomacy in the arab states.
GILMORE | February 28, 2008, 9:59pm | #
I should probably add the ongoing Iraq civil war, but thats a given.anonymous coward | February 28, 2008, 10:29pm | #
Gee, what a surprise. Of the three bone fide communists I got to know well in my life, (an Amreican, an Englishman, and a German), they all shared a blood lust. In the first two cases combined with a deep father-hatred...don't know about the third.So...any wonder that all the other garden variety commies want to see certain "classes" in their native culture slaughtered? They just don't have the balls to do the dirty work themselves.
GILMORE | February 28, 2008, 10:38pm | #
anonymous coward | February 28, 2008, 10:29pm | #Yeah.
This guy shows up like, once a month or so on H&R, says something kind of out of context and stupid, then vanishes without defending his dumbness.
Wasnt the last one something about your racism? Cant remember exactly. You and Chalupa or something were on some silly thing.
joshua corning | February 28, 2008, 11:52pm | #
So can I say that the left is fucked for supporting Hezbollah?Or am I evil now?
By the way...that is what Young said in his article.
And the only argument here that I have seen is that Young didn't mention how fucked Israel was for hitting the wrong target in this particular article.
joshua corning | February 28, 2008, 11:54pm | #
Michael Young tells us that you're either with us or with the terrorists.No he doesn't.
He calls into question lefties support for a Terrorist organization.
joshua corning | February 29, 2008, 12:23am | #
Michael Young tells us that you're either with us or with the terrorists.What is most funny about this claim is that no where in the article does Young make such a claim but in fact puts up a quote by Finkelstein that is remarkably similar.
"unless you choose to be [Israeli] slaves—and many people here have chosen that."
So in other words Finkelstein is saying that you are either with Hezbollah or you are slaves .
Sure is informative to read that joe supports this view.
DOB | February 29, 2008, 12:58am | #
the simple truth of the matter is if the Israelis had any interest in peace, the government would not have allowed, encouraged, and subsidized settlements in occupied territory.Umm, did you miss the withdrawal from Gaza?
The people of Israel have demonstrated that if there is even the slightest possibility of peace, they are ready to make the difficult decisions. It is a terrible tragedy for all involved that the Palestinians have never had the courage to do the same.
I never liked the settlements, but the notion that the settlements are the cause of Arab hatred for Israel is nonsense. Those who continue to believe this argument are either ignorant of history or simply delusional.
Neu Mejican | February 29, 2008, 2:54am | #
Pinette | February 28, 2008, 1:27pm | #NM,
I feel really dirty trying to say that one civilian death is better than another. That said, my understanding was that most of the bombing during the Israel offensive against Hezbollah took place in parts of the country where the populace is very pro-Hezbollah.
i might be wrong.
Wow.
Just.
Wow.
Tim Washburn | February 29, 2008, 3:07am | #
Oh, for crying out loud! Terrorists exist to further their bloodlust. Pure insatiable bloodlust. They will NEVER stop killing because they don't want to. They often use excuses, i.e. occupation, oppresion, racism; defense against (enter culture here)al domination, invasion, to justify mass murder. And that's all the are, excuses. They are no better than war criminals. Why should we treat them differently than say the mass murderers of the Balkan Wars of the 1990's? Since Jihad is a "Holy WAR" and a Crusade is also a "Holy WAR" then there should be War Crimes trials. This is not to say that officers or men from Isreal or any other country should not be investigated or tried for War Crimes. Not at all. What I Am saying is that terrorists are not to be treated as if they are the innocent victims when they go on their killing sprees. They made their choice. They must be held to account for their bloodlust. I would compare them to rabid animals but rabid animals don't have a choice, terrorists do.wayne | February 29, 2008, 3:21am | #
Without getting into the weeds of the Israel vs. Some Subset of Arabs argument, it is my observation that the Left, broadly speaking, is not supportive of any government that supports US policy, and is supportive of any government that resists US policy. The policies in question, and the nature of the governments in question (democratic vs dictatorial) are usually (though not always) immaterial.That is an accurate summary. Thanks.
Hezbollah is anti-US via being anti-Israel. This is why (some) lefties can be seen supporting Hezbollah. Simple, really.
wayne | February 29, 2008, 4:10am | #
And yet over the years, an embarrassing number of writers and academics with some access to Hezbollah dutifully relayed what party cadres had told them about Mughniyeh: He was unimportant and may even have been a figment of our imagination. It was understandable that Hezbollah would blur the trail of so vital an official, but how could those writing about the party swallow this line without pursuing the numerous sources that could confirm details of Mughniyeh's past? Their fault was laziness, and at times tendentiousness.Actually, Mr. Young, I think a better description of their fault would be complicity.
Cosmotarian Overlord | February 29, 2008, 9:43am | #
Michael Young is right Hezbollah is a bunch of ignorant, fundamentalist, violent, radical, extremist...that is why we must keep supporting the House of Saud and the new shiite government in Iraq. Those two groups will lead the mid-east into a new rationally secular world. On top of that we need to support the good religous state of Israel because they have a better religion.It is so clear cut that this is the correct thing to do that we should increase our taxes on the american middle class to help fund these great mid-east regimes. If we can't increase taxes enough to pay for it then we shuold borrow a few trillion from Russia and China and jsut make the amercians pay interest on that debt for the next 100 years.
The Expatriate | February 29, 2008, 11:46am | #
It's Tool Time!:Comments from the wing of the Libertarian Party that think the evil "JOOS" are conspiring to rule the world through globalized banking and gun control legislation.
alan | February 29, 2008, 12:25pm | #
Umm,Yes, please start your rant with the signifier of disbelief that has been time tested at least a hundred million times before you came along. No, it doesn't get more annoying with each iteration of the same damn thing you see on every damn forum on the planet.
did you miss the withdrawal from Gaza?
Whoopy-de-shit, on the most choice lands in Palestine even. A quarter million more settlers to go and you may just have a worth while argument to make.
The people of Israel have demonstrated that if there is even the slightest possibility of peace, they are ready to make the difficult decisions.
Sounds like a good start there from your description. If they try a hell of a lot harder, they may even deserve a fraction of the billions the US has sent over the last forty years.
It is a terrible tragedy for all involved that the Palestinians have never had the courage to do the same.
I'm not sure what to make of this. Pot shot at the poor masses in refugee camps by a Westerner living comfortably in a heated room and a laptop, maybe? For all I know, you scrape together enough money from working forteen hours a day in your village in Timbuktu so you can walk
ten miles into town and rent a station at an internet cafe for thirty minutes. I kind of doubt it though. Some forms of rhetoric reek of privilege.
I never liked the settlements, but the notion that the settlements are the cause of Arab hatred for Israel is nonsense.
After the death of Rabin, the settlement enterprise went into hyper overdrive. That is what spurred the second intifada.
Those who continue to believe this argument are either ignorant of history or simply delusional.
I know history all too well, my friend. I can also spot a con job a mile a way, and that is exactly what we have been paying for for the past forty years.
Gabe Harris | February 29, 2008, 12:54pm | #
It is hopeless Alan. If we conduct any rational study of the situation and find that maybe the US should stop supporting radicalizing agents on both sides of the mid-east conflict, then we are automatically considered conspiracy theorist who are anti-semitic.The pure hatred towards peaceful foreign policy initiatives is cult like.
If people at Reason truly believe that our wars in the mid-east are about "spreading freedom" then the guilibilty and ignorance are worse than I thought.
We are wasting our time, just keep investing in commodities. I'm finished with my creative writing therapy experiments here.
assman | February 29, 2008, 1:14pm | #
"If people at Reason truly believe that our wars in the mid-east are about "spreading freedom" then the guilibilty and ignorance are worse than I thought."They are not saying the wars in the Middle East are about spreading freedom. They are just saying that Hamas is evil and they are basically right.
assman | February 29, 2008, 1:32pm | #
Sorry I meant Hezbollah. But both statements are basically correct.Gabe Harris | February 29, 2008, 2:49pm | #
assman,They aren't jsut saying Hezbollah is evil, they are saying "they are evil, so we should continue our interventionist foreign policy."
Michael Young and others here have a long history of denouncing those who claim it is a bad idea to give hundreds of billions of dollars in weapons and aid to the combination of:(House of Saud, Israel, Eygpt, Turkey Shiites in Iraq etc).
Their defense of this policy amounts to we have "to try and spread freedom/democracy". These people refuse to admit that funding the House of Saud and overthrowing the secular Sunnis in Iraq and funding Eypgt are READICALIZING things.
These same people have barney fyfe like eagerness to pull the (anti-semite)trigger on ANYONE who questions the idea of taxing middle class americans to send over to Israel so they can better enforce curfews and create orphans amongst people who don't share their religion.
RMH | February 29, 2008, 5:38pm | #
Are there increasing numbers of new people coming to this site? I just don't remember so many idiots on here.Young's point is that there are those in the academic left that are willing to ignore there own beliefs, in order to have a more positive view of a group they would never normally feel this way towards, simply because the group is anti-US.
Unless you believe that Hezbollah is an organization that is a positive force in the world, or you believe that Young is exaggerating the affinity of the academic left for Hezbollah, I don't see what there is to disagree with. Young doesn't present an opinion of Israel, or its relations with Hezbollah, or Lebanon, or the history of the region, or any of the other BS some people are introducing to the discussion.
Oh, and if you think that Young is wrong, because Hezbollah is indeed a positive force, I seriously question your cognitive abilities.
alan | February 29, 2008, 7:27pm | #
RMH, my post on the topic began with,Personally, I would not be caught dead supporting either side.
After which I briefly explained why I find neither side of this conflict appealing, and felt it necessary to include both sides of the conflict because Hezbollah, after all, wasn't created in a vacuum.
After which, I only responded to those who expressed an opinion on my original post. Funny thing is, those responses, except for Ali's, have been from those who have a problem with my opinion that the we, the US owes Israel nothing.
Personally, I feel no obligation to jump to the defense of any nation, much less as Bill Clinton would have us believe, he would 'fight and die for', the nation we are discussing, but others do feel this obligation. Maybe it is just me, but I find this to be -- funny.
alan | February 29, 2008, 7:30pm | #
dear grammar maven,my apologies,
my opinion that the we, the US owes Israel
should read,
my opinion that the we in the US owe Israel
anonymous coward | February 29, 2008, 10:02pm | #
Gilmore,just so you know I am NOT the same anonymous coward. The Nothing Left article is about leftist intellectuals supporting a particular murderous organization. Making a general observation on the proclivity of the particlular brand of leftists who call themselves communists is not off topic.
Hey, just because everyone else wants to talk about Hezbollah doesn't mean I can't comment on another aspect of the article.
I'm no fan of Hizbullah, but how is Finkelstein praising the Lebanese group any worse than "conservative" figures in the US rubbing noses with the likes of Binny Netanyahu and the Likudniks?
GILMORE | March 2, 2008, 2:55pm | #
GILMORE | March 2, 2008, 2:57pm | #
fuckanonymous coward | February 29, 2008, 10:02pm | #
Gilmore,
just so you know I am NOT the same anonymous coward.
Comment was = You could probably use a better self-identifier either way