Untitled, Because I Can't Fathom One For This Topic
I'm dispassionate when it comes to political events; there are causes and issues that I am obviously passionate about, but they tend to be driven more by reason of philosophy than by political analysis. My research into urban nutrition is an example of this type of distinction. Larger political events, however -- those events that are driven not by policy processes but by political actors, national politics and international affairs -- I tend to become more cynical, lending my personal beliefs to a realist constructivism of the classical variety, my solutions being policy processes and international law as originally intended. It's because of this view that I have little patience for the 'debates' and diatribes of moralists who end up deploring one side or another, masking what is ultimately a thinly veiled contempt for their respective Other in a mask of intellectual and emotional/ethical superiority.
To that end, discussing the Middle East is always a bad affair. Most who claim to be experts are little more than dramtists who follow headlines to suit their tastes or aficianados of very tailored perspectives of history in the region, their slant evident in their too often confident and decisive language. This is one of those places where I view language as being abused, people saying things without understanding what they, or others, are actually saying. When terms are thrown around, such as war crimes, that hold no understanding of its underlying, intended meaning or purpose, than its overall form is cheapened. More often than not, when the terms are used, they're the words of someone not worth listening to.
This is not to say that I don't believe that some people have a good grip on what is going on -- The Head Heeb and yamansalahi have some good stuff there (although I have to take Yaman up on the issue of photographic rhetoric). I'm waiting to hear on Jon, homais, who is in Damascus presently. On a grander scale, it is groups like Bitter Lemons, a dialogue community, or the Israeli New Historians who ask us to do a reality check, to look at things both in terms of what has happened in context. And such is the position I take.
Who is responsible here? Hezbollah, for one, who after six years of doing nothing have gone into sovereign territory, kidnapped the citizens of a neighboring country, and disengenously use the talk of freeing prisoners as their rationale for their actions while simultaneously holding portfolios in the Lebanese unity government. Iran and Syria, who are likely backers to these actions, bear blame. But so too do the United States and Europe for their lack of assistance, a year later, to the Lebanese government, assistance that could have disarmed the militias, given the Lebanese government greater flexability in handling what has amounted to a coup d'etat. Even so, the talk of "OMG Hezbollah has more guns than us" isn't a convincing claim that the standing government doesn't bear some responsibility for keeping Hezbollah in check. Israel bears responsibility for their disproportionate response, which given their ability for precision attacks, could have minimized civilian deaths.
One thing that marks me here, however, is the choice of the situation. Iran's proximety to the conflict, or lack thereof, and the coincidence of the growing tensions of not only the nuclear issue, but also their lack of response to the alternative plan given by the G8+1. The rise of social disturbances in Jordan and Egypt by Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood respectively -- groups both funded by Iran. The latter group releasing sensitive information regarding the Egytian-Hamas negotiations regarding the kidnapped Israeli soldier, which led to the scuttling of the plan. The growing tensions between the military, exiled and civil branches of Hamas, as evidenced by Khalid Meshall saying that he is the authority to be dealt with in the Palestinian Authority, not Ismail Haniya or Mahmoud Abbas, and Haniya's rebuff by military leaders in Gaza to halt rocket attacks at Ashkelon. The choice of Israeli targets in Lebanon, too, is curious, because outside of apartments in Southern Beirut (which may or may not be utilized for rocket attacks as the General Staff of the IDF claims), the bridges, airport, communication and fuel tanks are all the things required for not only an occupation, which not only kills most ideas the idea of Israel re-occupying Lebanon, but also kills the potential for a Syrian re-occupation of Lebanon, which if Hezbollah is being funded by Damascus, could've stood as a figurative, if not literal, Praetorian Guard. And of course, as Yaman points out, there is the issue of the withdrawal plans, the occupation and all the things that, because of all the aforementioned events will probably, in the minds of most, be pushed to the back-burner, while simultaneously being the most prevalent.
All of these issues are connected and equally important. So when people simply look at the death of people, or the back and forth, and simply slip into worlds of anguish, blame, and existential bullshit, I really can't tolerate it. I'm not quite sure what true solution exists to it -- I'm running out of steam -- but all I know is that more often than not all situations require more broad thinking than most are willing to apply to this situation. In terms of policy, Israel has to do what is usually has to do -- streamline its efforts and use international institutions to its advantage rather than use rhetoric to deride them. The civic societies in Lebanon and Palestine need to stand up to their respective antagonists -- Hezbollah and the exiled/military branches of Hamas respectively -- and the international community, and especially Israel should support them. The disorder at the Arab League FM summit could be seen as a good thing, a discussion and debate that could be productive, but can also seen as a Saudi-led Arab group leading against a Syrian-led counter-bloc. But it has the potential to be cultivated -- only if other parties would work to get that potential energy transformed.
Maybe that's what the Middle East needs -- one giant energy transformer.
To that end, discussing the Middle East is always a bad affair. Most who claim to be experts are little more than dramtists who follow headlines to suit their tastes or aficianados of very tailored perspectives of history in the region, their slant evident in their too often confident and decisive language. This is one of those places where I view language as being abused, people saying things without understanding what they, or others, are actually saying. When terms are thrown around, such as war crimes, that hold no understanding of its underlying, intended meaning or purpose, than its overall form is cheapened. More often than not, when the terms are used, they're the words of someone not worth listening to.
This is not to say that I don't believe that some people have a good grip on what is going on -- The Head Heeb and yamansalahi have some good stuff there (although I have to take Yaman up on the issue of photographic rhetoric). I'm waiting to hear on Jon, homais, who is in Damascus presently. On a grander scale, it is groups like Bitter Lemons, a dialogue community, or the Israeli New Historians who ask us to do a reality check, to look at things both in terms of what has happened in context. And such is the position I take.
Who is responsible here? Hezbollah, for one, who after six years of doing nothing have gone into sovereign territory, kidnapped the citizens of a neighboring country, and disengenously use the talk of freeing prisoners as their rationale for their actions while simultaneously holding portfolios in the Lebanese unity government. Iran and Syria, who are likely backers to these actions, bear blame. But so too do the United States and Europe for their lack of assistance, a year later, to the Lebanese government, assistance that could have disarmed the militias, given the Lebanese government greater flexability in handling what has amounted to a coup d'etat. Even so, the talk of "OMG Hezbollah has more guns than us" isn't a convincing claim that the standing government doesn't bear some responsibility for keeping Hezbollah in check. Israel bears responsibility for their disproportionate response, which given their ability for precision attacks, could have minimized civilian deaths.
One thing that marks me here, however, is the choice of the situation. Iran's proximety to the conflict, or lack thereof, and the coincidence of the growing tensions of not only the nuclear issue, but also their lack of response to the alternative plan given by the G8+1. The rise of social disturbances in Jordan and Egypt by Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood respectively -- groups both funded by Iran. The latter group releasing sensitive information regarding the Egytian-Hamas negotiations regarding the kidnapped Israeli soldier, which led to the scuttling of the plan. The growing tensions between the military, exiled and civil branches of Hamas, as evidenced by Khalid Meshall saying that he is the authority to be dealt with in the Palestinian Authority, not Ismail Haniya or Mahmoud Abbas, and Haniya's rebuff by military leaders in Gaza to halt rocket attacks at Ashkelon. The choice of Israeli targets in Lebanon, too, is curious, because outside of apartments in Southern Beirut (which may or may not be utilized for rocket attacks as the General Staff of the IDF claims), the bridges, airport, communication and fuel tanks are all the things required for not only an occupation, which not only kills most ideas the idea of Israel re-occupying Lebanon, but also kills the potential for a Syrian re-occupation of Lebanon, which if Hezbollah is being funded by Damascus, could've stood as a figurative, if not literal, Praetorian Guard. And of course, as Yaman points out, there is the issue of the withdrawal plans, the occupation and all the things that, because of all the aforementioned events will probably, in the minds of most, be pushed to the back-burner, while simultaneously being the most prevalent.
All of these issues are connected and equally important. So when people simply look at the death of people, or the back and forth, and simply slip into worlds of anguish, blame, and existential bullshit, I really can't tolerate it. I'm not quite sure what true solution exists to it -- I'm running out of steam -- but all I know is that more often than not all situations require more broad thinking than most are willing to apply to this situation. In terms of policy, Israel has to do what is usually has to do -- streamline its efforts and use international institutions to its advantage rather than use rhetoric to deride them. The civic societies in Lebanon and Palestine need to stand up to their respective antagonists -- Hezbollah and the exiled/military branches of Hamas respectively -- and the international community, and especially Israel should support them. The disorder at the Arab League FM summit could be seen as a good thing, a discussion and debate that could be productive, but can also seen as a Saudi-led Arab group leading against a Syrian-led counter-bloc. But it has the potential to be cultivated -- only if other parties would work to get that potential energy transformed.
Maybe that's what the Middle East needs -- one giant energy transformer.