Where are the Lebanese?
I open the New York Times webpage to read the morning news. There, captioning the featured article with photo, titled "News Analysis: Iran's Long Shadow," the following is speculated: Iran’s support for Hezbollah has a twofold purpose: to deflect attention from its nuclear program and to further position itself as a powerful regional player. An analysis, largely speculative, that reflects the Bush administration's perception of Iran and Syria in supporting Hezbollah, both financially and with weaponry. A perception clearly understood in the rest of the world with this parallel: that the U.S. supports Israel with even greater financing and more sophisticated weaponry.I imagine this headline, The U.S. support for Israel has a twofold purpose: to deflect attention from its occupation of Iraq and to further position itself as a powerful regional player. Again, an entirely speculative statement -one that I do not agree with-, but who is to say this wouldn't stand as newsworthy in the Middle East?
I open the NYTimes article, and next to it: FOR THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL DONATE NOW. An advertisement in the column to donate to the Israel Solidarity Fund, its purpose: "Caring for those in need, rescuing those in harm's way, and renewing and strengthening the Jewish people in New York, in Israel, and around the world." The irony of advertising in news sources that posit their assessments as objective, truthful and balanced.
Following the Senate's lead, the U.S. House of Representatives is expected to pass a resolution today in support of Israel's offense against Hezbollah. (Hamas, on the other hand, seems to be ignored.) The Washington Post offers insight into the political motivations of Congressmen and women who are seeking domestic support among Jewish voters in an election year. It would seem that the U.S. elected officials clearly know not what they do; if the U.S. conceives of its position as a Public Relations game -a perverse comparison, considering the lives lost and at stake- then this resolution will only fuel the anti-American-Israel sentiment in the world.
237 dead in Lebanon, 25 in Israel, 500,000 displaced persons in less than one week. The Israeli bombings of Lebanese civilian targets are claimed to be "mistakes" and then further justified as a "consequence" for harboring terrorists. A Greek Orthodox church was bombed yesterday, killing the ten civilians seeking refuge inside, as were targeted privately owned factories -pharmaceutical, dairy and paper manufacturers- as well as new strikes on Beirut International Airport and on roads and bridges that lead out of Lebanon.
Israeli troops entered Lebanon this morning, following yesterday's assertion by the Israeli government that the conflict may continue for weeks. On Israel's second front, tanks rolled into a Gaza refugee camp. Israel's United Nations Ambassador Dan Gillerman stated before cameras on CNN, "What is going on at the moment is a number of Israeli ground troops very near to the border on the Lebanese side, trying to destroy some Hezbollah outposts. [...] This is an operation which is very measured, very local," he said. "This is no way an invasion of Lebanon. This is no way the beginning of any kind of occupation of Lebanon."
Is Israel using disproportionate force? Dan Gillerman then was quoted as saying in a pro-Israel rally in New York, “You’re damn right we are. [...] If your cities were shelled the way ours were, you would use much more force than we are or we ever will.”
The contents of what remains missing in the political jockeying, continued bombing and journalism: the Lebanese.
posted by Jon at 9:28 AM
6 Comments:
I take issue w/ your assertion that the US is using the Israel/Lebannon conflict to deflect attention from Iraq. Given that the US touted Lebannon as the kind of exemplary democracy it hoped Iraq could be someday, I think the current crisis severely undermines their efforts in Iraq and further deteriorates their position in the region. This is no decoy, this is a disaster.
I also think your use of a cartoon is interesting. You know, b/c cartoons coming from Europe always have such a positive effect on the middle east! ;-)
thanks for being such an avid reader of my blog, collin. i agree with you that this event, and the Bush administration's attitude towards the conflict, is a grave disaster.
however, i'll be direct in saying that you've misread the headline i imagined when the NYTimes article. i do not assert that the US is using the conflict to distract public attention from Iraq. to clarify the misunderstanding, let me quote the passage in question:
"'The U.S. support for Israel has a twofold purpose: to deflect attention from its occupation of Iraq and to further position itself as a powerful regional player.' Again, an entirely speculative statement -one that I do not agree with-, but who is to say this wouldn't stand as newsworthy in the Middle East?"
i imagine the headline with a purpose: to show how the speculative nature of such an article could easily have an equivalent in the Middle Eastern press, substituting "US" for "Iran", "Israel" for "Hezbollah" and "the war in Iraq" in place of "to deflect attention from its nuclear program."
speculation -an in the extreme, paranoia- works the same, whether in the US suspicion of Iranian involvement, or the well-known hatred in the Middle East for the US' relationship with Israel. we should be careful to think of what kind of coverage we're receiving and it's slant -even, it's equivalent- to audiences other than those of us reading a US newspaper.
and then again, in light of US policy, we should be careful not to submit to combative argumentation without first having understood the other's argument carefully. ;-)
(you can slap me now.)
Dominators always seem to use the same kind of defense...
1. outright denial - "we are not doing anything wrong/disproportionate."
2. the 180 degree turn - i.e. what is denied becomes what is lauded - "maybe we are responding harshly, but it is totally justified, and in fact, you'd be doing wayyyyyyyy worse if you were in our situation."
In any case, whatever said dominator does, even if it may begin to appear similar to the evils being attacked, is always somehow okay... in fact, it always somehow prooves/reprooves the moral superiority of the dominator.
Oh to be whit(ish) and agrieved. You can do no wrong, and when you do, you can always blame it on evil others, making your "wrong" turn out to be, in fact, the bravest/noblest "right" (because, we must know, in their deepest hearts, this meting out of punishment hurts the Israelis more than it hurts the Lebanese).
Jon: "Blah blah blah."
Collin: "You're wrong."
Jon: "You're not even paying attention to what I said."
Collin: "Blah blah blah."
Jon: "See You Next Tuesday!"
collin: you're definitely made to be a lawyer. there's no doubt about that. what, with all the misinterpretation, taking issue with fake points, giving gravitas to your statements, etc etc, you'll be Feiger in no time! (see you next tuesday.)
smelmoth: thanks for stopping by & for the article link (the editorial). much of what i take a look at before writing the last two entries have been links from blogs, editorials, etc., as well as your standard newspapers in the US & Spain. all the links do help... & i'm amazed at the *quantity* being written about the conflict over internet, on blogs & websites, etc.
Oh, thanks my dear Jon! It's clear you're meant to be an academic, what with your predictably leftist blogifesto, your moral superiority, and your difficulty with criticism. xoxo!
Post a Comment
<< Home