Here in Van Nuys

Here in Van Nuys

1 comment on Naivete at the NY Times.

Naivete at the NY Times.


Some samples from the NY Times op-ed page today. All feature a stunning innocence emanating from hard-boiled reporters who should know better:

Thomas Friedman writes:

“I find a gnawing sense of anxiety that Israel is facing in Hezbollah an enemy that is unabashedly determined to transform this conflict into a religious war — from a war over territory — and wants to do it in a way that threatens not only Israel but the foundations of global stability.”

The war against Israel always has been about religion. If it were about land, than the battle over the tiny geographical speck that is Israel would have been resolved 50 years ago.

Paul Krugman writes:

“Would the current crisis on the Israel-Lebanon border have happened even if the Bush administration had actually concentrated on fighting terrorism, rather than using 9/11 as an excuse to pursue the crazies’ agenda? Nobody knows. But it’s clear that the United States would have more options, more ability to influence the situation, if Mr. Bush hadn’t squandered both the nation’s credibility and its military might on his war of choice.”

Did Mr. Bush supply missiles and money to Hizbollah? Did Mr. Bush direct them to kidnap Israeli soldiers? Did the US say: “Israel must be wiped off the map?”

Editorial: “More Than a Cease Fire Needed”

“That means Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice — who has been dragging her feet to give Israel more time to fight — needs to get on a plane and visit Damascus as well as Jerusalem. The longer she delays the more lives will be lost, and the harder it will be to build a lasting peace.”

Wrong. The longer she delays, the longer Israel has to fight Hizbollah, and the greater the eventual chance for “peace” whatever that term means in the Middle East.

Here in Van Nuys's avatar

Posted by:

Here in Van Nuys

Writer/photographer

One response to “Naivete at the NY Times.”

  1. Wad Avatar
    Wad

    Andrew wrote:
    The war against Israel always has been about religion. If it were about land, than the battle over the tiny geographical speck that is Israel would have been resolved 50 years ago.

    If it were about religion, West L.A. would look like Belfast.

    For the Jews that had remained in the Middle East from biblical times to the founding of Israel, they had lived among Arabs, Persians, Kurds and other ethnicities and experienced the same fortunes and misfortunes as anywhere else in the world. It’s not a Muslim problem per se.

    And it goes beyond mere land. If Israel’s neighbors were to sack the country and take over the land, no nation’s fortunes would improve.

    Sadly, the Middle East crisis is political theater that perversely must be maintained by all parties because the alternative would be far, far worse.

    Israel’s enemies need Israel to exist because it unites the people against a common enemy. The Arab nations have the standing armies and artillery to overwhelm Israel, and all the glory of such a victory would be fleeting in less than one generation. The populations will remain restive and the governments have to answer for abysmal social development, political repression and being held on a short leash by the West.

    Once this happens, a barrel of oil will cost as much as a starter mansion in Malibu.

    We must also lower our expectations of states to resolve this problem. William S. Lind is a conservative military theorist who promotes the theory of 4GW, or Fourth Generation Warfare. The Fourth Generation is where the state loses the monopoly on violence and must now deal with non-state groups such as terror cells and guerillas whose means and ends are not easily comprehended by the state and its military forces.

    Lind writes about military theory in a style that makes it easily intelligible to both civilians and military. He has criticized U.S. military performance in the Middle East using this framework. His work can be found on Antiwar.com and Defense and the National Interest, among other sites on the web.

    Andrew also writes:
    Wrong. The longer she [Condoleezza Rice] delays, the longer Israel has to fight Hizbollah, and the greater the eventual chance for “peace” whatever that term means in the Middle East.

    The U.S. has been all but discredited in the international stage. When Rice does show up, her appearance will be greeted by having rocks thrown at her convoy. Even by the Israelis.

    At best her contribution is symbolic, and even that is yielding diminishing returns. Israel will have to go on fighting Hizbollah, and you’ll have a better understanding why after you read some of Lind’s work.

    And this is not a Middle East problem. The world is destablizing. Russia has the Chechens, Mexico has the Zapatistas, Pakistan has damn near everybody with Pervez Musharraf performing the world’s most dangerous juggling act … and even the U.S., which is now seeing the elements of the religious right who desire an American theocracy becoming more mainstream day by day.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment