When cynicism is the new realism
I remain flummoxed by the lack of substantive analysis of the Israel-Lebanon crisis in the press, and by the fact that no one seems sufficiently agitated about the situation.
Isn't Israel's action rather textbook "disproportionate response"? And is there anyone other than me who thinks the action was blessed -- perhaps more than that -- by the U.S. as an opportunity to build a casus belli against Iran, after deciding the previous script probably couldn't stand up to a second run-through?
I'm afraid I'm not consoled by the latest effort to split Syria from Iran -- it feels like a surgeon trying to isolate the area for incision.
I hasten to add that this paranoia is mine, and mine alone, and not informed by anything in particular. But you'll have read it here first.
Isn't Israel's action rather textbook "disproportionate response"? And is there anyone other than me who thinks the action was blessed -- perhaps more than that -- by the U.S. as an opportunity to build a casus belli against Iran, after deciding the previous script probably couldn't stand up to a second run-through?
I'm afraid I'm not consoled by the latest effort to split Syria from Iran -- it feels like a surgeon trying to isolate the area for incision.
I hasten to add that this paranoia is mine, and mine alone, and not informed by anything in particular. But you'll have read it here first.
4 Comments:
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 7:40 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 6:35 AM
-
esquiver said...
-
- 12:50 PM
-
esquiver said...
-
- 12:55 PM
Post a CommentDear Mr. E:
While I am not sure what "when cynicism is the new realism" means, I am not troubled, because I rarely understand what you are talking about. However, I could not agree more with your dismay at the lack of any real analysis of the Israel-Lebanon crisis. My distress reached new heights when the world's press fixated on the fact that Mr. Bush used the word "poo-poo" in a private conversation with Mr. Blair--as opposed to the fact that WHAT Mr. Bush said was simplistic caca (to coin a phrase). If you recall, Mr. Bush said that blocking Syrian support of Hezbollah would "make this whole thing go away." Right. As if the Party of God sprang from Bashar al-Asad's forehead, fully armed and ready for battle, a week or so ago.
Call me crazy, but aren't these the people who split off from the Amal movement in 1982, and spent the next 18 years fighting the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), until the IDF left/ran away/were driven from south Lebanon? Not to mention that in addition to governing southern Lebanon, Hezbollah's social and health programs provide hundreds of millions of dollars of services annually. And Mr. Bush thinks these people are just going to go away? Or that Hezbollah only has fake "grassroots" support--just like the groups squawking that global warming still needs more further study? That's the biggest laugh I've had since the one about the smoking gun from Saddam Hussein's Iraq coming in the form of a mushroom cloud. If only Mr. Bush had said that all we needed to do was cut off the support from Exxon, and all this merde about how global warming is a myth would go away....But we digress.
I have no doubt I have grossly abused the purpose of your "comments" section, and no doubt anyone who has had both the patience and good grace to have borne with me this far is saying "good grief! Get you own blog and bore your own imaginary friends, and leave poor Mr. E's friends in peace already!" Point well taken--So I'll end with a little joke:
Knock Knock!
Who's there?
Wikipedia.
Wikipedia who?
Wikipedia says "It's no secret that Hezbollah receives financial help from Iran, but not from Syria." Hezbollah, citing to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. IRINnews.org, July 22 2006.
Now if only we can just get Syria to stop...Oh, never mind.
I remain,
Bill Droth
PS Thank you for your concern about the door catching me on my fat cyberass.
If it makes you feel any better, E, my very pro-Israel colleague here agrees entirely that this is a back door into Iran being done at the behest of the U.S. But as much as she hates Bush, she still supports Israel here. (FYI she is Indian, married to a *liberal* [i.e., not pro-Israel all the time] Jewish-American.) She admits that her support of Israel is probably colored by the thinly veiled anti-Semitism, masquerading as anti-Israelism, that she believes pervades western Europe.
I'm generally pro-Israel too, A, and I don't actually blame them for taking the U.S. up on what must have been a very attractive offer, even if we suppose they could have refused. I do blame the U.S. for offering -- frankly, with hegemony comes greater responsibility.
I'm not surprised your Indian colleague is pro-Israel, nor that she perceives Western anti-semitism. Once one gets past all the swastikas everywhere here (which, of course, mean something else entirely in the South Asian context, as you probably saw in Sri Lanka), it's striking just how much Hindus (as I'm assuming your colleague is?) have neutral-to-positive regard for Jews. I think part of it is "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thinking, but also appreciation for the lack of proselytizing, which is their beef (so to speak) with Christians.
Dear Bill,
Did you know that when your comment notification pops up in my gmail account, the supersmart google keywords sales/news advertising algorithm dispassionately considers the content you've supplied, and then suggests:
"Liberated British Mothers Want No Restriction on Breast Feeding In Public"?
I'm just saying.
Yours,
E.
<< Home