Hezbollah and the “occupation” argument
If you look at the wide variety of opinions in the highlighted articles at Real Clear Politics as to how the current Mideast conflict is going to play out, you realize how much disagreement and confusion there is. In truth, we’re in the fog of war, and no one knows. Read them and decide what makes the most sense to you, and then watch as events unfold, no doubt in some direction no one quite foresaw.
That’s one of the many problems with war; it’s unpredictable, and unleashes strong and powerful forces that are destructive to human life, although in the end they can resolve certain issues and topple certain regimes. As Churchill–no stranger to war, and a man who did not shy away from it–said:
Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.
That said, Dennis Ross (former Mideast “peace process” negotiator) has an interesting article in the New Republic about the significance of Hezbollah’s actions in this war, and the message it sends to the world, including the Arab world. For decades, the Arabs of the region have presented their animus towards Israel as the result of Israeli “occupation.” Although the historical record indicates otherwise–the Arab nations tried to destroy Israel long before there was any occupation–it was a convincing argument for many.
According to Ross:
When Hezbollah was fighting Israeli “occupation,” it was untouchable. But the general Arab narrative has been that the violence, meaning terrorism, is driven by occupation: no occupation, no violence. Hamas has already cast doubt on this narrative by launching attacks from Gaza after the Israeli withdrawal, but it is hard for Arab regimes to challenge Hamas’s legitimacy. Hezbollah, however, is another story.
Ross goes on to list the many condemnations of Hezbollah’s recent actions offered by the Arab countries of the region. He sees the situation as an opportunity–a tricky one, to be sure, filled with perilous traps and the need for delicate balance–to check Iran’s rise in the region.
In recent years, Israel has pulled back from the Arab territories it formerly occupied and fortified its borders with the famous defensive fence. These acts had the effect of calling its enemies’ bluffs. But this retreat was widely seen by those enemies as Israeli weakness rather than strength. Now Israel is trying to show that perception to be a false one.
Our Western understanding of “occupation” when Muslims use the word is leading us astray.
We see occupation as marching into an area, putting troops there to hold the ground, maybe add some civilian settlements and doing a little shopping. In essence, an act of taking and holding. We also assume that when the troops and civilians leave, the land returned to the previous or rightful owners, the occupation has ended. We are friends again.
However, that is not how the Muslim world sees it. The god, Allah, created the earth and revealed Islam to Mo’profit. Mo has the god actually giving the world, the planet en toto, to the ummah (worldwide Muslim community.) It is not simply that Muslims live ‘here’ and infidels live ‘there’ and we are one big happy family of man living in our own distinct sovereign lands never to be violated by neighbors.
Generally, the West can live with that, but Islam claims the whole earth as their own choice real estate gifted by the god. In that respect, all those places in which the infidel lives must be subdued and the lands returned to the rightful owner, Islam. Until those non-Muslim lands are returned, by conversion or sword, those lands are considered to be “occupied”.
Until the Lands of War (non-Muslim) are returned the Lands of Peace (Muslim), war will ensue along with the plantiffs cry of “oppression” because Muslims are being stymied (oppressed) by the West in their quest to free the occupied lands. All of Earth is to be in the hands of loyal and devout Muslims for the wars to end and all people must submit to the god and Mo’profit as his messenger-boy.
We see occupation as marching into an area, putting troops there to hold the ground, maybe add some civilian settlements and doing a little shopping. In essence, an act of taking and holding.
You make “occupation” sound very benign. However, the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories is anything but. See Amira Hass:
Life Under Israeli Occupation – By an Israeli .
Notice also that not only Muslim Palestinians, but Christian Palestinians and secular Palestinians too resist the occupation. Edward Said was a Christian. So is George Habash. How do you explain that?
“Notice also that not only Muslim Palestinians, but Christian Palestinians and secular Palestinians too resist the occupation.”
Because anyone in Palestine who doesn’t help resist the “occupation” is executed for collaborating with Israel.
Next question?
“Notice also that not only Muslim Palestinians, but Christian Palestinians and secular Palestinians too resist the occupation.”
Because anyone in Palestine who doesn’t help resist the “occupation” is executed for collaborating with Israel.
I mentioned Edward Said and George Habash as examples of Christian/secular Palestinians who, nevertheless, were against the occupation.
Edward Said did not live in Palestine. He was a professor at Columbia University in New York City, and was in no danger of being assassinated.
As for George Habash, see the Wikipedia entry on him, to see how ridiculous it is to claim that he joined the resistance against the occupation because otherwise “he would have been assassinated.”
Don’t forget Noam Chompsky too. Fruitcakes and whores come in all denominations.
Don’t forget Noam Chompsky too. Fruitcakes and whores come in all denominations.
The discussion was about whether non-Muslim Palestinians also resist the Occupation (without being coerced to do so). If non-Muslim Palestinians resist the Occupation, that would negate the thesis put forward by neo-neo-con in her post.
That’s why I gave the examples of Edward Said and George Habash.
I fail to see how Chomsky comes into this discussion, since Chomsky is not a Palestinian. He’s a Jewish-American.
P.S. “Tatterdemalian” should probably rename himself/herself to “Tattered Logic”.
No, rabbit, that was your discussion, Said and Habash had other agendas and you know it. Why don’t you pull my other finger.
You know full well that any Jewish control of one inch of ground is anathema to orthodox Islam. Indigo Red is correct the only why non Muslims can be allowed to exist is as dhimmi (subjects), under the domination of the Muslim authorities.
If Israel pulled up stakes tomorrow and tele-ported to say somewhere in South America Muslims would turn their attentions to Europe, each other and infidels everywhere. Indigo Red’s analysis is correct.
It is a religion founded on caravan raiding, slavery and continuous warfare. It will have to renounce these aspects of Islam or face subjugation, which has a spotty record, or eventual extirpation.
You fail to account for or explain the fact that until the early 1980s Palestinian resistance to the Occupation was based on secular nationalism. There was hardly any Islamist component to the PLO at that time.
It was only in the early 1980s that Israel is thought to have started covertly supporting and building up Hamas, as a counterweight to Arafat.
Then the genie escaped the bottle.
Much as the USA supported the Islamist mujeheddin in Afghanistan as a counterweight to the Russians, only to be left with a bigger problem on its hands, a similar thing happened with Israel after it helped strengthen Hamas in the 1980s as a counterweight to Arafat and his Fatah group.
and, Rabbit, your point is????
If the problems in the middle east were really about a Palestinian Homeland does anyone really think the issue wouldn’t have been solved by now? The world spends billions of dollars every year on defense and to imply that the State of Israel wouldn’t sacrifice some land if they really thought it would lead to peace is silly. The whole issue is about religious monarch’s who are letting religious hatred run amok so they don’t have to worry about their people demanding change in their own backwards regimes.
Comment removed. Spam.
Edited By Siteowner
Sam, it is considered bad manners here to cut and paste extensively.
In that respect, all those places in which the infidel lives must be subdued and the lands returned to the rightful owner, Islam.
The Spanish conquistadores who conquered the Americas after Columbus discovered these parts used to conquer in the name of God. In fact they had priests from Spain accompany their military expeditions, to bless the land in the name of God. And the natives? The natives were being “saved” through conquest, by being converted to Christianity.
Not long ago, in 1993, Sheik Abdul-Aziz Ibn Baaz supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia said, “The earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an atheist deserving of punishment.”
So, why does the USA continue to support the Saudi monarchy/dictatorship, which patronizes these religious authorities?
I thought the USA stood for democracy against monarchs/dictators, no?
How do you explain the US’s support for King Abdullah of Jordan, the monarchy in Saudi Arabia, and the dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt?
“The natives were being “saved” through conquest, by being converted to Christianity.”
People who believe it impossible to wipe out a religion, or an idea, had best pay attention to the example set by the Spanish Conquistadores.
If Islam is not wiped out, then liberal democracy will be. In many ways, democracy is already dying a slow death of neglect. Like the Roman Empire, it won’t fall because of the barbarian invaders, but because its people decided it wasn’t worth protecting.
Islam is destined to be a footnote in human history, like Communism and the faux-multiculturalism they teach in schools. That is if there is to be any human history. Those are all philosophies for dummies. If humans stay that stupid, there won’t be any human history for much longer.
Herb, in case you haven’t noticed the Saudi’s have oil. But, remember nations have no “permanent friends, just permanent interests.” The House of Sa’ud sees the handwriting on the wall. They have to make nice otherwise their assets get frozen.
All in good time. the Saudi’s do not represent a military threat but their export of virulent Wahhabism does. Some of those boys will need long dirt naps.
What the conquistadores did to the indigenous peoples of the Americas was not and is not sanctioned by anything written in the Christian portion of the Bible.
The Spanish discovered the New World in 1492, the same year the Muslim Moors were finally defeated in Spain and thrown off Iberian Penninsula. The very same day Columbus sailed out of Cadiz harbor, the last shipload of Spanish Jews were also kicked out of Spain.
Much of what the Spanish did in subsequent years in many places around the globe resemble far more the lessons learned under Muslim bondage than anything taught by Jesus.
How do I explain the relationship between the US and the King of Jordan and the House of Saud? King Abdullah is a special case, you see, though not in actuality, he is a quasi-Ameriacn. GASP! Yes, technically he is because his mother was an American even though she gave up her birthright to marry the former king. King Abdullah was also schooled for a time here in the US. Jordan is a moderate Muslim voice amidst the cacophany of kill the Jew shouters.
The Family Saud, well, that’s realpolitik. How would you propose removing them or changing the situation in any way? They do occupy the Land of the Prophet and are, like it or not, the titular head of Islam. The Sauds determine who is permitted on Hajj and thus wield a great deal of nebulous power amongst the 1 billion Muslims who wouldn’t be very happy with radical change in SA and the resulting chaos around the shrine to the big black rock that fell from space.
“How do I explain the relationship between the US and the King of Jordan and the House of Saud? King Abdullah is a special case, you see, though not in actuality, he is a quasi-Ameriacn. GASP! Yes, technically he is because his mother was an American even though she gave up her birthright to marry the former king.”
I see. So, dictators and tyrants are ok as long as they have US ancestry. Thanks for making that clear. So much for the “we’re in it because we’re for freedom and democracy” mantra of the neocons.
The Family Saud, well, that’s realpolitik. How would you propose removing them or changing the situation in any way? They do occupy the Land of the Prophet and are, like it or not, the titular head of Islam. The Sauds determine who is permitted on Hajj and thus wield a great deal of nebulous power amongst the 1 billion Muslims who wouldn’t be very happy with radical change in SA
How to remove them or change the situation? The same way as the US acted with, say, Slobodan Milosevic. Impose tough sanctions, stop doing business with them, don’t buy their oil. It’s the oil revenue which is keeping them in power. They’re deeply unpopular. Once the money stream is taken away, they will be overthrown quickly enough, just as Milosevic was dislodged. Simple, no?
But it won’t happen, because the US is addicted to oil. The addict doesn’t embargo the dealer — unless he’s ready to kick his addiction habit.
Time for some tough self-love! And for some looking at the mirror! Won’t bet on it, though, given the level of sanctimony and self-righteousness.
“Impose tough sanctions, stop doing business with them, don’t buy their oil.”
HC, how do you get to work (assuming you do)? With a bicycle? How do you oil the wheels? How is the electricity that powers your computer generated? And on and on….
If the U.S. stopped buying Saudi oil, someone else would take up the slack, and all that would do is destroy OUR economy.
Stop living in a dream world and look at reality. Some slimeballs *must* be countenanced for a period of time because to do otherwise would be suicide or foolish. We will deal with SA when the time comes.
Well. The US can in fact impose a full naval, air, and land blockade that would shut down SA’s oil. We could in fact then steal SA’s oil by hijacking their oil tankers and what not. We could do the same for the Straits of Hormuz. We would get rich, the rest of the world would have to declare war to break our economic stranglehold. Since China hasn’t declared war to take over Iran to get their oil, it isn’t likely to happen if China had to declare war on the US to gain control of oil. Besides, we would probably offer them lower prices than Iran would if we controlled the straits of hormuzz.
It’s possible, and since it is using the navy, there is no “occupation” or “insurgency”. Sink or swim, that’s it.
The thing I would like to know is whether anyone told Bush that this was an option, and if they did what Bush said in reply.
I hope Bush isn’t doing one of his “delegate” decisions.
a few comments.
1 – regarding a question brought up by one commenter regarding “if george bush is against dictators, why doesnt he do sth about abdallah the king of jordan”.
my answer: jordan may be ruled by one king but fact is that the border with israel is quiet. george bush is just following the simple rule: why fix it if it isnt broken. i agree. as an israeli i have no problem with jordan. I do have a problem with countries that their leaders are calling for the distruction of my country , ISRAEL, every chance they get.
Im more wooried about UN and EUROPE that do not condem this, and still lets Iran continue develope a nuclear weapon. If one thinks that Iran will use a nuclear power to generate electricity for ovens to bake BAKLAVA’s and CAKES he is naive or just plain idiot.
Ive saw a question somewhere in a blog , soething like “how could the UN aprove a jewish state in the middle of arab region?”- well, even if the UN would not aprove (but it did, while some moslim country ignore this decision, while they come running to the UN when its comfortable for them), jewish people have their historic right for their land. Israel was always populated with jews throughout the history, mainly in ZAFED and TIBERIAS.
to conclude my long comment: the acupation is not the problem. the main problem is that the fanatic minority within the palastinians and IRAN (I do believe that we can make peace with the common iranian citizen) are the obsticle for achiving quietness if not peace, in the area.
deal with iran and hamas fanatic extreemists and peace will come shortly. let these fanatics bloom (by ignoring them or just closing an eye)and watchout- trouble will soon come to LONDON (it already began by blowing up the subways) and PARIS as well.
Levi, the point is that people in Jordan (the Jordanians) are disenfranchised, because their ruler is a dictator. So if we’re serious about bringing democracy to the Middle East, then if we do something about Iraq (as we did) but nothing about Jordan (as we aren’t doing) makes us look like complete hypocrites in the eyes of the rest of the world. Because, people then look at us and realize that we’re willing to talk the talk about democracy but we’re going to walk the walk only when a specific dictator is against us (like Saddam) and not when is a toady towards us (as Jordan’s King Abdullah is).
You and I know that all we really care about are our own interests and all the talk about bringing democracy to the Middle East is just soapbox rhetoric made to make us look good and isn’t important in the slightest. But the problem is, through such things as these (moving against Saddam but not doing anything about Abdullah or the Saudi monarchy) we end up exposing to the world how sham our so-called commitment to democracy really is and how what we really care about is our own interests and nothing else.
You and I knew that all along, but the world is now wising up to it and we’re becoming the laughing stock of the world. And that is the tragedy…
Astro, and “we’re becoming the laughing stock of the world” is a bad thing in what way? What part of the saying, “…and the horse you rode in on” don’t you understand?
A decent respect for world opinion is a good thing until world opinion becomes indecent.
we end up exposing to the world how sham our so-called commitment to democracy really is and how what we really care about is our own interests and nothing else.
I’m sure that the rest of the world is shocked, shocked, by your soul-crushing revelation that America cares about it’s own self interest. Oh, the humanity! The tragedy! Their innocence is forever lost.
No nation in the world has ever looked after its own self interest before…oh, wait. They all do. That’s why they exist as nations.
Well, they used to look after their own self-interests. The real tragedy is that many nations around the world now expect America to solve all of their problems, to defend them when they can’t defend themselves, to send them money whenever they need it. These child/nations need to grow up and take responsibility for their own lives.
Lebanon should be a lesson to Europe, which has also let extremists and Islamist paramilitary groups gain power within their borders: an educated, charmingly metropolitan population, fine cafes and a thriving tourist industry do not make a nation viable. A nation is only viable if can look after its own interests, and defend itself and its citizens, especially within its own borders. Lebanon couldn’t do that. Most Lebanese didn’t want Hezbollah within their borders, but they had no say in the matter.
It’s not clear that the Netherlands, France and even Britain can control the extremists and paramilitaries within their borders either. That needs to change.
“We end up exposing to the world how sham our so-called commitment to democracy really is and how what we really care about is our own interests and nothing else.”
Odd how a post about Hezbollah and “occupation” morphs into a condemnation of U.S. policy. I suppose there is but one viper in the world and its head resides in D.C.
I think to radical Islam “occupation” is defined as any place non-Muslims reside. Al-Andalus remains Islamic; the Muslim immigrants in Europe lay claim to their host countries. It is a colonial and imperialist mindset.
The leftist/muslim terror coalition is showing the world much more than it realizes.
Take yourself back to the 1990s, the “push everything under the rug” decade. Go along to get along US policy. The US was still the great satan, but the idiot anti-globalists still broke windows and heads. Still the protest was relatively muted.
Now the idiot lunar night flyers are shrieking to high heaven. Do they think the louder they yell the more people will agree with them? It doesn’t work that way. They alienated Canadian and Australian voters into voting for Howard and Harper. If they stay on track they’re going to alienate US voters to vote for the conservative candidate.
So stupid.
Hey, aren’t you the people that were so sure when Iraq voted it would break the back of the insurgency? (remember Purple Fingers?)When they got a new government the people would unite? When they captured Saddam or killed Zarqawi you could start the rebuilding? The more you are totally wrong in your analysis the more emboldened you seem to be to offer up more and more nonsense.There is a clinical name for this syndrome but I would first suggest you turn off FOX news.
No fish, we just need to turn off people like you.
trotsky:
” Hey, aren’t you the people that were so sure when Iraq voted it would break the back of the insurgency? (remember Purple Fingers?)”
Hey, werent you the people who said we were shoving democracy down other peoples throats? (remember that?)
Dave the Rabbit: “Notice also that not only Muslim Palestinians, but Christian Palestinians and secular Palestinians too resist the occupation.”
So what. There are WASP Americans that ‘resist the occupation’.
You need to listen to this caller from Michael Medved’s show:
Assan says that if the World Council of Imams commanded him to kill non-believers, he would have a hard time not doing it.
Listen to this
Perhaps then you’ll understand what’s really going on. Believe me, I wish I could say it wasn’t so, but from the moderate Muslim friends I have, I know it is true.
The Spanish conquistadores who conquered the Americas after Columbus discovered these parts used to conquer in the name of God. In fact they had priests from Spain accompany their military expeditions, to bless the land in the name of God. And the natives? The natives were being “saved” through conquest, by being converted to Christianity.
Yep–700 years of Islamic rule will do that to you.
So, why does the USA continue to support the Saudi monarchy/dictatorship, which patronizes these religious authorities?
Saudi Arabia is about as good as it is going to be at the present under its current leaders.
I thought the USA stood for democracy against monarchs/dictators, no?
First things first. Can’t do everything at once.
In many respects Spain is still recovering from Islamic rule. It affected Iberian culture deeply.
When Bin Laden mentioned regaining the caliphate of Andaluse as a specific goal, a shiver went through educated Spanish society.
I’m sure that the rest of the world is shocked, shocked, by your soul-crushing revelation that America cares about it’s own self interest. Oh, the humanity! The tragedy! Their innocence is forever lost.
No nation in the world has ever looked after its own self interest before…oh, wait. They all do. That’s why they exist as nations.
Well, they used to look after their own self-interests. The real tragedy is that many nations around the world now expect America to solve all of their problems, to defend them when they can’t defend themselves, to send them money whenever they need it. These child/nations need to grow up and take responsibility for their own lives.
Essentially, the US has inherited the role of England: the England that defeated Napoleon, defended Latin America and free markets, ended the international slave trade, etc.
Anglo Saxons have a long history of wrapping up self interest with idealism, and having the economic and military power to make a real difference.
Blogger is down, I hope temporarily. I can’t post at the moment, but will try to do so in a bit.
I am spanish and certainly feel a shiver everytime I hear Ben Laden talk of reconquering Al-Andalus.
Many europeans are childish and expect USA to solve their problems. Probably that has something to do with the european “estado del bienestar” (welfare state?), that makes us used to be taken care of. But at the sime time it is chic to critizise anything that USA or Israel do. I wonder how many 11-M it will take to wake us up.
Greetings from Spain and sorry for my english.
How to remove them or change the situation? The same way as the US acted with, say, Slobodan Milosevic. Impose tough sanctions, stop doing business with them, don’t buy their oil. It’s the oil revenue which is keeping them in power. They’re deeply unpopular. Once the money stream is taken away, they will be overthrown quickly enough, just as Milosevic was dislodged. Simple, no?
Herbivorous carnivore, are you really Jimmy Carter? Sounds like you want to work the magic Carter worked in Iran in Saudi Arabia.
So, what kind of foreign policy would you approve of? Would you like us to go ahead and invade all non-democratic nations, as a matter of course? How should we go about it: geographically or in alphabetical order? Or should we take them all on at once?
Only a cynic would say that establishing democracy “isn’t important in the slightest.” It is important, but we just figured out why it’s so important only recently. About six years ago, I’d say.
The policy of tolerating dictatorships is a long-standing US policy that we inherited from the Cold War: we figured that as long as a tyrant wasn’t aligned with the USSR, we would leave him be. Because of the stability, you know.
But all that blew up in our faces on 9/11. The “stability” concealed the plotting and planning of AQ and others. Hence the Bush Doctrine, which says that it’s important to establish democracy in the Middle East, under the theory that democracies don’t nurture terrorism.
The Bush Doctrine is only a few years old. We’ve invaded two countries and set up democratic governments there. These things take time. Do you recommend that we hie off to Jordan, Egypt, and SA and depose those dictators? Right now?
You first.
Geez, people. The face of US policy changes every 4-8 years. You can’t fault a president for what he inherits. And you can’t expect him to change it all completely within one or two terms.
Try a different argument. One that takes history and time into account.
.
Democratiya has all you need to know about who in America supported democracy or not.
http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/2006/07/democratiya-interview-putting-cruelty.html
To Sofia:
Thanks for dropping by and commenting. I think all of us in the West should be very concerned. Bin Laden doesn’t make idle threats and soon he may have some terrible weapons, gotten from his buddies in Iran and Syria. Google “electromagnetic pulse,” or “EMP” to see what I mean. Bin Laden and his ilk could use this relatively low-tech weapon to destroy entire countries. Adié³s y buena suerte.
I think the unilateral pullouts from Lebanon and Gaza were necessary and vitally important to yank the ‘occupation’ rug out from under the terror-apologists and European anti-Israel crowd. If the pullout had not occurred, and for that matter the election putting Hamas in power in the palestinian territory, the Euros wouldn’t have begun to wake to the reality of the situation. The only reason “world opinion” isn’t hammering Israel in the usual fashion is precisely because of this. It’s painful, but in the long run I believe it will be shown to be the correct course of action.