Saturday
Jul152006
"Back off" !?!?!?
Issandr El Amrani
I am still in Marrakesh and wasn't going to blog, but this from Steve Clemons is worth following, if true:
Update: Obviously I'm not the only one thinking the US needs to show some positive leadership on this issue rather than tow the Israeli line, but Marc Lynch certainly has a point:
Although I do not have independent confirmation, I heard the rumor from a well-placed source that Secretary of State Rice attempted to increase pressure on Israel to stand down and to demonstrate "restraint". The rumor is that she was told flatly by the Prime Minister's office to "back off".It may already be too late to stop this developing into a full-scale war, which could have been avoided if the Bush administration had played a restraining role. The responsibility they bear by retreating from the Arab-Israeli conflict in the last few years (meaningless "roadmap" aside") is nearly criminal, and does great harm to American interests in the Middle East and worldwide. This isn't about who they should be backing, it's about statesmanship -- or the lack thereof.
Rice is not one to be told to back off without the other party paying a price. Israel's outrageous, over-the-top military escalations were exactly what the most militarist fanatics of Hamas wanted and exactly what Hezbollah wanted to prompt. Those in the middle of the extremists on all sides are getting crushed.
And it may take this kind of out of control danger that FINALLY wakes up some tough-minded strategists in the White House, Defense Department, and State Department to compel Israel to back off and all other parties to wind down their militant elements.
Note to George W. Bush, please call your father, James Baker and Brent Scowcroft for some advice. Also, get Elliott Abrams to recuse himself NOW from any further counsel on these matters as his perspective is too close to Israel -- and dispassionate counsel is needed.
More later.
Update: Obviously I'm not the only one thinking the US needs to show some positive leadership on this issue rather than tow the Israeli line, but Marc Lynch certainly has a point:
The only reason I’m not calling more loudly for Bush to get involved and take a leadership role in the conflict is the expectation that he would probably do the wrong thing. But at this point, doing nothing is, in fact, doing something. The Bush administration right now looks weak, confused, and vaguely pathetic... which is better than batshit crazy (like the folks who are demanding that America either smile on or even join in a war with Damascus and/or Tehran), but not nearly as good as exercising actual grown-up leadership at a time when the world could really, really use someGulp...
Reader Comments (16)
I wouldn't hold my breath. Just heard a snippet from Bush at the G8 summit that went something like "Hezbollah has started this, they have been launching rocket attacks into Israel from Lebanon and then they kidnapped Israeli soldiers from across the border" (in his usual stupid-Dubya pausing for effect of gravity way, but also trying to sound indignant). Yaani, go forth with our blessing, Israel.
The neocons are baying for more "muscular" action too:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/a66181c0-139d-11db-9d6e-0000779e2340.html
Bush just made another odd remark: "The short term solution is for Hezbollah to stop their attacks. The longer term solution is for all nations to support those who support democracy in the middle east." Huhhhh?
SP:
I also heard that statment and was equally baffled by it. It's as if Bush is being handed written statements from the Israelis and reading (or in his case, attempting to read) them as is.
If true, there is a disconnect somewhere.Look for someone connected to the Heritage Foundation to write a think piece in the next few days explaining why Israel is a beleagured democracy. The problem with the Neocons is that a) the number of dead civilians is rising way beyond 10:1 (not that even 1:1, is acceptable, but they have "standards") and Lebanon, which they look at as a good economic example of semi-free capitalism (with a secret hope that the Maronites and Druze will dominate), is being destroyed to a point past that of the worst destruction of the Civil War- and therein lies the key. Who wants and needs a shattered Lebanon? And how shattered does it have to get before they stop?
(ps: Issandr- let me know if you are hanging out around the university, a friend of mine teaches there)
Lebanon is besides the point. The point is to move Iranian missiles into range and pulverize the zionist pigs. We will start to see 'nonconventional' 8>) weapons rain down on them.
And allow me to thank you for your 40 years of support for our cause against the zionists. Without your support all these years in we could not have accomplished so much. And now we are so close to eradicating them I just wanted to share in the good fortune. Thanks again, and 'next year in al Quds!!!'
hmmmm. Lebanon is beside the point...I don't know why, but I have the feeling that there are quite a lot of people in Lebanon who would disagree with you...
You don't have to wait for the Heritage Foundation to write a commentary. "Hidden" is writing for them, and is telling you that a few hundreds (or thousands) dead Palestinians and Lebanese don't matter. What matters are those Iranians who are using their weapons to "pulverize the Zionist pigs."
"Hidden" messages have to look like those written by misguided Arabs, and not by a Zionist who sees that Lebanon on Fire is "beside the point."
"Hidden" is beside the point...
seriously though, I am waiting for this type of commentary coming from that group (HF and others) because I think tere will be some interesting clues therein.
Zazou - here you go (written by that Amir Taheri fellow rather than neocons, but close enough, eh?) He suggests that if Israel were to retreat now (rather than "remove Hezbollah from the Lebanese scene") it would only encourage Syria and Iran and deal a blow to Lebanon's "new democratic government." This conflict is, in essence, a proxy war between Israel and the US on one side and Iran and Syria on the other, and one must win convincingly.
http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=5639
Thank you, SP! Exactly what I have been thinking. Although I am not that sure about the Iran/Syria part, the US/Israel part is very clear because next stop: Damascus and the US warned Syria they would be coming to get them- we all just assumed it would be the US itself- but, hey, if you have someone else to do the wet work, why get your hands dirty? And then there's plausible deniability...
As for Amir Taheri and the neocons..I do hope you are sitting down. He is respected enough by Commentary to be published by them (June 2006) . Here is what Commentary has to say about themselves:
sorry- tried to get fancy and do a blockquote. here it is:
*The magazine is primarily known as the intellectual home of the neoconservative movement, a brand of skeptical thought that emerged as a reaction to the anti-American radicalism of the 1960’s and is today vitally engaged in the preservation and spread of democracy and Western values. As part of its historical mission, Commentary has always taken a special interest in Jewish issues and the state of Israel. *
And let's hear it for our main man, Bill Kristol himself.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d1e9154e-14e0-11db-b391-0000779e2340.html
Great links, SP.
It appears Condi is going to be dispatched to the region:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.mpl/world/4051244
Lucky them. Issa would have beena better choice.