.jpg){kind=small}
mini.jpg)
In May, Akiva Eldar wrote in The Nation about a felicitous encounter he had with an Egyptian cab driver who picked him up in New York City. The man followed Eldar’s reporting religiously and praised it effusively. In the course of the article, Eldar notes an important column that Israel’s most popular daily columnist wrote criticizing Haaretz’s commentators for their attitude toward Palestinian terror:
…Nahum Barnea wrote in November 2000 (in a publication of the Israel Democracy Institute) that “there are Israeli reporters who do not pass the ‘lynch test.’” These, he wrote, are journalists who could not bring themselves to criticize the Arabs even when two Israelis were savagely murdered by a mob in Ramallah. Barnea…went on to argue that our [the journalists'] support for the Palestinian position is absolute. He concluded, “They have a mission.” I was honored to be mentioned as one of those journalists, alongside my fine colleagues Gideon Levy and Amira Hass.
I admit to being guilty as charged.
Me too. You see, I resent the fact that there is a “test” that you must pass in order to be considered truly supportive of Israel when it suffers a terror attack; that you must be prepared to bray for blood vengeance or else be insufficiently patriotic or pro-Israel or whatever term you’d like to use. Similarly, I’d like to think, in fact I know, there are Palestinians who don’t scream for vengeance whenever the Baruch Goldsteins, Natan-Zadas, or the IDF perpetrates a ritual act of bloodletting. There must be those on both sides who understand that the acts of individual terrorists do not mean that an entire people have hatred of the other inscribed in their DNA; or even that the horrific acts of a national army represents a destiny of perpetual war for both peoples.
The genesis of this post was entirely contrary to most posts based on ideas contributed by readers. This one came from an especially hateful and annoying one, Bill Pearlman, who wrote in reply to my last post about the bulldozer terror attack in Jerusalem:
…You should check out the lynch test has [sic] spelled out by Nahum Barnea. Sombody [sic] with way more reason to be bitter than you. You fail miserably…
Since I’d never heard of the “lynch test” it set me to Googling which turned up Akiva Eldar’s sterling piece from The Nation. Without Pearlman’s ankle-biting comment, I wouldn’t have learned that I proudly failed Nahum Barnea’s test, which insists that all red-blooded Israel supporters must hate ALL the enemy when a SINGLE one commits an act of blood lust.
Haaretz’s Brad Burston has definitely passed the lynch test with this churlish, obtuse rant:
The attack came after the latest in a series of attempts by groups in the States, some of them atheist/anarchist, some of them Muslim, some of them Jewish, to lobby Prostestant churches and respected universities to divest from Caterpillar, because the IDF uses its bulldozers to demolish Palestinian homes.
I would like to hear them now. Just once. I would like them to divest from terrorism. Not understand it as the natural outgrowth of the crimes of occupation. For once, I would like my sisters and brothers on the left to be every bit as hard on their comrades the Palestinians for taking a bulldozer and crushing Jews, as they are on Israel for bulldozing homes.
Why would anyone on the left or otherwise NOT understand terror as a “natural outgrowth of the crimes of Occupation?” In the Israeli context terror and Occupation walk hand in hand. What Burston does not understand is that believing this does not condone terror. It does not say Palestinian terror is justified. It merely says that such terror is not an evil without cause. This is what Burston refuses to concede.
He continues:
…What’s a decent person supposed to think?
That it’s all right to launch rockets against residential areas during a cease-fire, because the occupation is still going on? That it’s all right to crush Jewish civilians, because the occupation has not been halted and settlers continue to build homes?
…What’s a decent person to think when the man who drove the bulldozer was himself the father of two, a construction worker from East Jerusalem, whose desire to kill Jews – and, in so doing, further soil and damage the cause and name of Palestine – was greater than his feeling for the mother who had to throw her baby from a car to save it?
What is astonishing about this monologue is that Burston refuses to understand the suffering the Occupation inflicts on the Palestinians. Does he believe that the Palestinians must simply acquiesce to that suffering; or perhaps protest it by writing letters to the prime minister? If the Occupation brings deadly violence to the everyday lives of Palestinians, does Burston think that the same will not happen to Israelis? What specifically indemnifies Israelis from feeling any pain when their army inflicts pain on another people?
What is astonishing about the following passage is that from the rampage of a single troubled Palestinian, Burston has extrapolated the innate hatred of the entire Palestinian people for Jews from time immemorial:
I, for one, would like to ask for proof of what it is that Palestinians really want. I no longer believe that it’s as simple as wanting statehood.
This is what I don’t yet want to admit: that for all these years…what a critical mass of Palestinians want most, perhaps even more than statehood, may be as simple as the vile thrill of vengeance, as straightforward as nothing more than seeing Jews dead and gone.
Here Burston has become entirely unmoored. He has used the beserk ramapage of a single troubled Palestinian and extrapolated from it an innate hatred of the entire Palestinian people for Jews. This is without doubt racism of the most pernicious sort. Yes, Burston and all Israelis have the right to feel anger for this attack. But their anger should be directed at the individual and not the individual’s nation. Once again, Burston is engaging in the politically bankrupt act of assigning collective guilt.
Let me be clear about what I am not saying: I am not saying that such acts of terror on both sides should not be condemned when they occur. That should go without saying. Terror does not bring peace closer. It only leads to more terror. That is why violence of any kind is reprehensible. It is why I am in favor of bringing both sides before the bar of international justice for their heinous acts.
But if there is going to be violence–and of that we can be sure given that we’re talking about one of the more blood-soaked regions of the world these days–we must not fall into traps set for us by false allegiance to a set of prejudices that make the enemy out to be demons and us out to be superior to them.
Related posts:
- Study Finds Israelis Question Zionist National Narrative
- Ethan Bronner’s Pro-IDF Stenography Continues
- U.S. Stifling of Goldstone Report, Yet Another Major Political Gaffe
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Tags: akiva-eldar, barnea, brad burston, jerusalem bulldozer terror attack, On Not Passing Israels Lynch Test, Palestinian terrorism as natural act
Richard says, “What is astonishing about this monologue is that Burston refuses to understand the suffering the Occupation inflicts on the Palestinians. ”
I suggest that it’s not a matter of whether or not he and his clones understand the suffering. These posts are rather a calculated campaign to smear and undermine the divestment/boycott campaign by suggesting, as he does in this quote, “The attack came after the latest in a series of attempts by groups in the States, some of them atheist/anarchist, some of them Muslim, some of them Jewish, to lobby Prostestant churches and respected universities to divest from Caterpillar, because the IDF uses its bulldozers to demolish Palestinian homes”, that the campaign actually leads to, and is responsible for, attacks on Israeli civilians.
If the “occupation” makes Palestinian violence against Jews at least somewhat “understandable”, the I would say that NO ONE in the world has more right to be violent than the Jews, since no one has sufferend more in history, and even recent history than the Jews.
@ellen:
That’s precisely right. Even if you give Burston the benefit of the doubt, this is at best sloppy reasoning since clearly the 2 events have nothing to do w. ea. other. Trying to connect them in any way involves twisted reasoning.
@bar_kochba132: The Jews DID use violence in response to their suffering & the goal of securing their own State. They used violence against Arabs, the British AND their fellow Jews w. whom they disagreed. But Jews now have that State and should not need to engage in the types of terrorist acts Palestinians use against them in order to maintain the State.
I’m sick of ANY political arguement that has to play the “Victim” Card.
Last night on Tivo, I watched an amazing documentary “Meeting David Wilson” (http://www.meetingdavidwilson.com/?/About) about a young African-American man who developed a relationship with a middle-aged man who’s Great-great grandfather owned the young man’s great-great-grandfather.
In speaking of the African-American struggle he said “If we can understand our ancestors and understand the strength that they had, then we should realize by extension that we have that same strength — that we’re not the descendants of victims but victors.”
The suffering of our ancestors, both recent and ancient, should not and does not give us “carte-blance” to commit any act.
“Yes, Burston and all Israelis have the right to feel anger for this attack. But their anger should be directed at the individual and not the individual’s nation. ”
Would you grant Burston and all Israelis not only the right to feel anger not just over this latest murderous attack, but others before it (e.g., the yeshiva student murders), and to direct their anger not only at the individual dead terrorists, but also at the many Palestinians, including family members, who would celebrate them as “shahid” (martyrs)?
@DC Doc:
No.
But if Israel destroyed the homes of any Jew who killed any Palestinian civilian then I’d feel there was a whole lot more balance to the endless cycle of vengeance.
I want to be sure I understand your response, since it appears to be a very telling one:
Referring to Hossam Dwayyat’s murderous rampage of 7/2/08, “credit” for which was quickly claimed by several Palestinian organizations (e.g., the Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine), Richard Silverstein wrote, “Burston and all Israelis have the right to feel anger for this attack. But their anger should be directed at the individual and not the individual’s nation.” Asked whether he would grant Burston and all Israelis “the right to…direct their anger not only at the dead
terrorist(), but also at the many Palestinians, including family members, who would celebrate (him) as a ’shahid’,” Silverstein answered with one word, “No.”
I have not misrepresented the original question to you, nor your response, have I? Do you wish to clarify or qualify your answer in any way, perhaps disputing that these terrorists are in fact celebrated by “many” Palestinians, including Palestinian media, surely a very important component of Palestinian society?
[I am ignoring for the present what followed your "no." It remains to be seen whether the Dwayyad family home will be destroyed, and what followed told us nothing more about the Silverstein grant to "Burston and all Israelis" (non-Israeli Jews too, or just Israelis?) of a "right to feel anger for this attack" (and others like it, or just this one?) Your resort to the "endless cycle of violence" trope here is revealing, though.]
Also, you characterized this attack as the “beserk ramapage of a single troubled Palestinian.” Was Dwayyad somehow exceptional among those individual Palestinians who have set out to kill as many innocents as they could in other rampages, e.g., the East Jerusalemite Palestinian who murder 8 yeshiva students and wounded 9 more in March, or in your view are they all “beserk” and “troubled”?
If any assignment of “collective guilt” to the Palestinians is improper, even “racist,” according to Silverstein, then it is also improper, even “racist,” in Silverstein’s view to assign any “collective guilt” to Israelis? But doesn’t Silverstein regularly task Israelis collectively for what individuals among them do, while rarely doing the same, that is generalizing the responsibility to the larger community, when Palestinians are the acters?
@DC Doc:
You have conveniently omitted the fact that Israeli intelligence has been able to uncover NO LINK bet. the terrorist & ANY Palestinian militant group. And believe me they’ve tried. Any terror group can claim credit for an attack. But the Israelis are very good at connecting dots in these cases & have been unable to do so here. As in some terror attacks this guy appears to have been a drug user & convicted rapist who’d just had enough & decided to go on a rampage. THe authorities can uncover no political affiliation, no ideological motivation, no recruitment, no smuggling of weapons to him to perpetrate his act. Nothing. I’m not saying this wasn’t an act of terror. But it was seemingly a spontaneous act of terror, which sometimes does happen.
Yes, for the reason I outlined above.
No, I don’t & you’re either deliberately misrepresenting my views or are too sloppy to characterize them properly. I don’t blame Israelis “collectively” for what individuals do. I don’t blame the entire Israeli people for the actions of the IDF or even the politicians who nominally control it. I don’t blame the entire Israeli people because a Shin Bet agent decided to beat up a skinny 24 yr old Gaza photojournalist simply because he’s won an international journalism award & the former wants to teach the latter a lesson about “who’s the boss.” And just as I don’t assign collective responsibility to all Israelis for what individual miscreants have done in their name; I expect Bradley Burston not to do the same regarding Palestinians.
The Palestinians are so utterly de-humanized in Burston’s mind that clearly a murderous rampage by an individual Palestinian is some kind of necessary outgrowth of a hateful, murderous, bestial (sub-)people. Based on his comment, I don’t think Burston sees Palestinians as individual human beings at all. I agree Richard, this is very deep hard-core racism.
Right, I did not take note of that fact. Nor did I note that the sun rose in the East yesterday and we can expect it to do so day after day from now on.
I accept that this “troubled” East Jerusalemite acted on his own in the sense that he was not an agent of any of the many Palestinian terrorist groups. (You refer to them as “militant” groups, but will you allow me to characterize them as “terrorists” organizations, or must we eschew that “T” word here?) Similarly, I accept that many of the “troubled” individuals who have gone on murderous rampages before this latest one were acting on their own, not as agents of any groups. That was the case with the “troubled” East Jerusalemite who four months earlier broke into a yeshiva and murdered eight students and wounded nine. But the fact that these individual actors may not have been dispatched on their murderous missions by any particular Palestinian terrorist group does not mean that they were in no way “linked” to their fellow Palestinians.
Palestinian school texts, Palestinian teachers, Palestinian clergy, and Palestinian media, that is not “fringe” elements but rather those most representative of Palestinian society, teach Palestinian children from an early age to hate Jews qua Jews. I would challenge you to cite a precedent for such systematic inculcation of anti-semitism other than the Nazis. Can you?
Do you think that the Palestinians bear no more responsibility for the heinous crimes committed by these “troubled” individuals like Dwayat than Americans do for the heinous crime committed by that truly troubled (no political or ideological motivation, simply psychopathic) individual who murdered those little girls in that small Amish schoolhouse out in the country? Did anyone here in America come forward afterwards to rationalize the killing of those children, let alone celebrate their murders? The murder of innocents is regularly celebrated by many Palestinians and their collective voices, the perpetrators remembered as “shahids.” (Yes, if we go back 15 years, we have the case of the “troubled” Baruch Goldstein, who was celebrated by a small number of fellow extremists did after he went on his “berserk rampage.”)
You say you know there are such Palestinians, and no one would imagine otherwise, that is that every single Palestinian was a vengenance-seeker. So what? No would imagine that every single German during the time of Nazi rule hated Jews, but Germany, that is Germans collectively, bore responsibility for the atrocities committed.
Why emphasize the fact that Dwayat appears to have acted alone, since you react no differently when Jews are beaten to death by Arab mobs? You make clear that nothing that individual Palestinians on their own or groups of Palestinians do together affects your “absolute” position. Jews must no feel anger toward any not immediately involved in these atrocities. If they do, Richard Silverstein will denounce them as “racists,” though he will not call Palestinians out as racists, no matter how racist their actual words and conduct.
I’m sorry, I must have missed it. Exactly what was that reason? Would you please spell it out again.
I am not trying to do misrepresent your views, I am trying to be unequivocally clear what exactly those those views are. If you would respond directly to the question I posed you, that would help. For example, would you “disput(e) that these terrorists are in fact celebrated by ‘many’ Palestinians, including Palestinian media, surely a very important component of Palestinian society?”
@DC Doc:
Again, you show how little you understand Palestinian experience. They don’t need to be propagandized into the views that they hold. Actual everyday events are quite enough to create quite hostile attitudes among them toward Israelis. Again, it is not Palestinian propaganda that creates terrorists, it is the Occupation. That is not to say that I justify terror in any way because I don’t. But I understand its cause & understand that ending the Occupation will deeply diminish the motivation for terror.
If a militant group sent him they bear responsibility. If he did he of his own volition, the Palestinian nation is not collectively responsible for his actions.
How much do you know about the settler movement? Goldstein is revered by large numbers of extremist settlers. That is not a small number. And he is still revered to this day. Yigal Amir also has a significant coterie of right-wing nationalists who pine for his release & justify his bloody deed.
Are you saying that Palestinians are engaging in genocide against Israelis just as the Nazis did against the Jews? If you are, then you have no historical sense of proportion whatsoever. If you aren’t, then you’re not making much sense because the Nazis were well on their way to eradicating half of world Jewry as a result of the Holocaust. So yes, there IS a sense of collective national guilt in the German instance. There is no such crime on the Palestinian side.
You attach great significance to the idolizing of Baruch Goldstein (a “troubled” individual who went on a “berserk rampage”?) by some settlers, though the vast majority of Israelis and Jews worldwide, including Israeli officialdom and the media, loudly and unequivocally condemned Goldstein’s crime at the time (1994). Meanwhile, you attach little or no significance to the idolizing of Palestinians who commit crimes like Goldstein’s (the murderous bulldozer attack, the killings of the yeshiva students in March, the killings of the reservists in Ramallah, etc.), though any condemnations of their crimes are delivered sotto voce, if at all, by Palestinian leadership, who more often and more loudly celebrate their terrorists.
(Remember Arafat eulogizing the “Engineer,” who taught so many terrorists to make deadly explosive devices? How about Abbas, Arafat’s successor calling in recent days for the Palestinian heroine Dalal Mughrabi, who murdered 36 Israeli civilians and wounded 71 more thirty years ago, to be honored by being reburied next to the grave of the Palestinians’ George Washington, Arafat? No encouragement of terrorism against Israelis by the head of the PA, who says, “We want to turn Dalal’s funeral into a national wedding.”? And has anyone ever heard Ismail Haniya, Hamas’s prime minister, condemn any act of terrorism against Jews?)
Attorney Silverstein argues on behalf of his Palestinian clients that it matters not that their society encourages terrorism against Israelis, because he maintains individual Palestinians need no encouragement to murder Israelis, they would do so in any event as a result of their individual experiences of the “Occupation.”
In a civil lawsuit, that might mean no proximate causation, and hence no legal liability. It is doubtful that such an argument would have any legal force in a criminal case against any Palestinians other than the actor him/herself (e.g., conspiracy). Silverstein says he is not justifying terrorism (“That is not to say that I justify terror in any way because I don’t.”), “But I understand its cause & understand that ending the Occupation will deeply diminish the motivation for terror.”
Silverstein is simply not much concerned about Palestinian/Arab expressions of antisemitism however reminiscent they may be of Nazi antisemitism, since neither the Palestinians, nor Israel’s other Muslim enemies have been able to mount a genocide against the Jews, even if they have voiced appreciation for the Nazis efforts to exterminate the Jews and at times a desire to do it themselves.
For Silverstein it isn’t the thought that counts, it is only success that matters.
The “Palestinian nation” may through its chosen leaders and its media lionize its most successful terrorists, those who have killed the greatest number of Israeli civilians (e.g., Mughrabi, Kutar, the “Engineer”), but the “nation” never bears any collective responsibility for the terrorists’ actions? If a “militant” group was behind the attack, it is that group that bears the responsibility; if the “troubled”
individual acted of his/her own volition, the responsibility was wholly his/hers?
RS: …???
@DC Doc: You’ve complete bolloxed my entire argument. I raised the celebrations of Goldstein not to say that all Israel is responsible for his crimes. But only because you are obsessed with Palestinian hero-worship of terror martyrs, while you entirely discount that the same phenomenon happens within Israel.
THis is not only a lame attempt at wit, it’s just plain dumb. I’m not an attorney and the Palestinians are not my clients. You’re treading on very thin ice in terms of violating my comment rules. Claim one more time that I’m an advocate of Palestinians to the detriment of Israelis & you’ll be toast here.
Frankly, I don’t give a damn what the legal ramifications would be. My argument isn’t based on legal grounds & comparing it to a criminal or civil case is completely irrelevant.
Ah, there you go again comparing Palestinians to Nazis. What a stupid, lame argument. Is that what passes for rational discourse on the militant pro-Israel right? This is yet another violation of my comment rules which warn that neither Israel nor the Palestinians may be compared to Nazis.
Pay attention DC Doc. You have commented multiple times in this thread. Your last comment violated several provisions of my comment rules. You may not participate in this comment thread again (though you may participate in others). If you do, it will affect your future status as a commenter.
I’m jewish and apologise for the actions of the founders of modern Israel and their acts of terror in the stern gang. Its clearly the politicians not the jewish people who should be held accountable
If you research the subject you will find hijackings letter bombs and hotels blown up by the Israelites in the 1940’s are acts not supported by fundamentalst Judaism.
In Africa right now in the Congo & Darfur many millions more than perished in the holocaust have been slaughtered, yet none of the major powers seem to give a toss.
Likewise Israel has had the”Bomb” for years but where is the nuclear reglatory commission when it comes to policing Israel?
Injustice breeds resistence, and Israel’s survival depends on her ability to address injustice not on building walls.
So Richard, are you in general agreement with the sentiments expressed by Norman above? It seems to be his view that the modern state of Israel was illegitimate from its earliest beginnings, or at least grievously tainted, perhaps more so than any other nation that came into existence after WWI.
@neurodoc: No, I’m not. And based on the hundreds of words I’ve written replying to your comments you shouldn’t even have to ask the question.
@Richard Silverstein: Shouldn’t even have to ask the question?! You didn’t take exception to anything Norman Ninja said in his 7/27 comment, though you usually reply quickly and forcefully, many times contemptuously, to those you disagree with.
And just 10 days ago you wrote, “Comparing the relative callousness of Israel vs. Hezbollah I’d be hard-pressed to say which is better or worse.” I think it not at all improbable that someone who follows these things as closely as you do and says he can’t readily distinguish Israel from Hezbollah would see Israel as illegitimate from its earliest beginnings, or at least grievously tainted, perhaps more so than any other nation that came into existence after WWI.
(Oh, BTW, you started this thread, “…I proudly failed Nahum Barnea’s test, which insists that all red-blooded Israel supporters must hate ALL the enemy when a SINGLE one commits an act of blood lust.” It wasn’t a SINGLE Palestinian who committed that “act of blood lust” in Ramallah, though, it was a mob of them, and they were not widely condemned by their fellow Palestinians for what they did.)
@neurodoc:
How do you know whether I took exception to his comment or not? You asked me specifically whether I agree w. it or not & I told you I didn’t. I believe in most circles that’s considered “taking exception.”
There are 10,000 comments in this blog. Even if you say that 4,000 were posted by me (which may be too high a number), that leaves 6,000 posted by others. Do you think my job in life is to respond to every single commenter you don’t like here? Sorry, but I’ve got better things to do in life than satisfy your concerns.
If you bothered to do any research here (which I know you can’t be troubled to do–is that how you pursue medical research in yr chosen profession? I hope not) you’d find hundreds of comments by me taking issue with far-left commenters whose views I find truly detestable. That’s not to mention the hundreds of comments by such people I’ve trashed because they’re so disgustingly anti-Semitic.
Say what? How do you get that? Because I believe that both Hezbollah and Israel have acted callously that means I believe that Israel as a state is illegitimate??? What are you smokin’? Have you read anything I’ve written here? Have you read that I’m a progressive Zionist? Have you read that I distinguish bet. the policies of a nation with which I thoroughly disagree; & the nation itself, which I support? No you haven’t read that although I’ve written it numerous times here.
Is it because you’re lazy? Can’t be bothered? Or is it just easier to make ignorant assumptions about someone’s views whom you don’t like?
@Richard Silverstein: How do you know whether I took exception to his comment or not? You asked me specifically whether I agree w. it or not & I told you I didn’t. I believe in most circles that’s considered “taking exception.”
Again, you usually (always?) reply quickly and forcefully, many times contemptuously, to those you disagree with. Norman Ninja’s comment went unresponded to until I asked if you were in general agreement with his thinking. Only then, more than two days after his post, did you simply say, “No, I don’t,” with no elaboration on where/how the two of you part company. So, you had to be prompted to “take exception,” and when you did, it was nothing like the vehemence that you let loose on those you brand as “right-wingers.”
@Richard Silverstein: Have you read that I’m a progressive Zionist?
A man professes to love his wife dearly, but he is never heard to say anything positive about her. Indeed, he regularly speaks of her in the most unflattering way, sometimes shockingly so. He even likens her to women in their community whose reputations reside in the gutter. Asked how he can profess to love his wife so much, when he says hateful things about her for all to hear, he becomes visibly agitated and angry, shouting, “Damn it, I have said and written many times that I lover my wife dearly.” Would you take him at his word?
A Zionist of whatever ideologic stripe who can’t readily distinguish Israel from Hezbollah?! (“Comparing the relative callousness of Israel vs. Hezbollah I’d be hard-pressed to say which is better or worse.”)
@neurodoc:
Awhhhhh, I’m so sorry that I didn’t take exception on the proper timetable & with the proper emotional vehemence to make you happy. Believe me, that IS one of my goals in life…
@neurodoc: I have no interest in allegories or fairly tales. Once again you confuse criticism of Israeli policy with criticism of Israel’s existence. If you don’t understand the diff. then far be it fr. me to elucidate it now.
I certainly CAN distinguish bet. Hezbollah & Israel. It’s only in their willingness to use terror & violence against ea. other’s civilian populations that I don’t distinguish bet. them. A bruch on both of them for their moral blindness.
neurodoc,
For me Hizballah is a fine example, because absolute most of their actions during the years of security zone and since then were aimed specifically at Israeli military (and Tzada”l – the Israeli-sponsored South Lebanon Army), yet Israel has always unjustifiably called them “terrorists”. This always looked to me like an expression of impotent anger at a well disciplined and effective opponent. Moreover, I suspect that calling them “terrorists” caused Israel – subconsciously – to underestimate their real strength, that comes also from the wide base of support they enjoy among the South Lebanon population, support that they earned mainly by establishing effective social services.
Richard, do you agree with Peter D that Israel “has always unjustifiably called (Hezbollah) ‘terrorists.’”? Or do you think, as I do, that Israel, along with the US and the Europeans, has quite justifiably characterized Hezbollah so, since the label fits them to a “T.”?
@neurodoc: I think my past writing about Hezbollah answers all yr questions on the subject, but I’ll repeat myself since you can’t be bothered to Google “Hezbollah” here & find out what I’ve written about them.
Hezbollah is a complicated beast. Like Hamas, it serves important social & political functions within its religious/ethnic community in Lebanon. THese are entirely legitimate functions & are the reason for the movement’s strength within Lebanon.
But Hezbollah also uses tactics like rocketing Israeli civilian population centers & kidnapping Israeli soldiers which are not legitimate (especially not punishing civilians in this way). So, yes Hezbollah is willing to stoop to acts of terror (bombing the U.S. & French military barracks) & can be called terrorists in this sense.
But we must place Hezbollah’s attacks in the context of Israeli actions which punished Lebanese civilians terribly. We must place the kidnapping in the context of Israeli refusal to negotiate for release of scores of Lebanese prisoners held for years w/o any legal process whatsoever. So I find it difficult to call Hezbollah “aggressors” in this conflict. If they are aggressors then Israel is equally culpable on that score.
Hezbollah are bad actors & I don’t approve of what they stand for. But I find Israel’s behavior during the war even more odious since they had military superiority in every way & used it with such indiscriminate & horrific results.
neurodoc, feel free to address me directly too.
I stand behind my words. The only times Hizballa targetted Israeli civilians were at times of escalation (Din u-Heshbon, Envey Zaam, Second Lebanon War and such) which were also the times that Israel targeted Lebanon civilians with much greater might and effect. So, while I don’t justify Hizballa actions, I cannot see how calling them “terrorists” is not a case of a kettle calling the pot black.
Some like to point out that while Israel bombed military targets and occasionally missed (collateral damage), Hizballa targeted civilians on purpose; that Israel had no choice since Hizballa “hid among civilians”. I don’t think it is a very convincing argument: for example, Kiryat Shmona that was a target of many Katyusha attacks is a home to Hiram Brigade (no classified info here, don’t worry) where I myself used to serve. The same goes for Safed, were the Northern Command is located. So, why cannot Hizballa claim that Katyushas they fired on Kiryat Shmona or Safed were intended for IDF bases and “just missed”? I don’t know whether Hizballa ever claimed that, but nonetheless?
@Richard Silverstein: “Hezbollah is a complicated beast. Like Hamas, it serves important social & political functions within its religious/ethnic community in Lebanon. THese are entirely legitimate functions & are the reason for the movement’s strength within Lebanon.”
Yes, Hamas “serves important social & political functions within its religious/ethnic community in Lebanon. There are entirely legitimate functions…” is the way most Hezbollah apologists begin. A few quick responses to the “good” Hezbollah case:
1) That this organization, which operates with money supplied by the Iranians, flowing from drug production in the Beka Valley, and criminal enterprises abroad, does good things for those within its own religious/ethnic community not foolish enough to challenge them, cannot mitigate the evil it has been perpetrating in the Middle East and beyond for more than 25 years, anymore than what positive things Hitler did for a downtrodden Germany in the ’30s mitigated unparalleled evil he accomplished over the course of his more than 10 years in power.
2) Nasrollah and Hezbollah ought not be confused with Mother Teresa and the Sisters of Charity, doing good works for their own sake consistent with their Catholic faith. Hezbollah’s power comes from “good works,” along with its awesome Iranian-trained militia, guns and missiles, ruthlessness, media and propaganda (Al Mansar) apparatus, etc.
3) Hezbollah’s exercise of power has resulted in many times more deaths of fellow Lebanese and non-Israelis than of Israelis and Jews outside Israel. Between Hezbollah’s exercise of power within Lebanon and Syria’s, the chances of anything like a democratic government for Lebanon are those of a snowball in Hell.
As for Hezbollah’s impeccable bona fides as a terrorist organization, considered by many Western intelligence services as first among impressive competition, I’ll address those in a response to Peter D later. Suffice to say for the moment, there is no sense in which Hezbollah does not qualify as a terrorist organization, so reason to be grudging with that label (“can be called…”) or limit its sweep (“in this sense”).
If you think I have this wrong, I expect you will tell me. I would only ask that you respond on point, so we can see clearly who is able to make the better case.
It might also be observed that terrorism complements those “good works” that Hezbollah does on behalf of the Shia population. It may be seen as both a source of Hezbollah’s considerable power within Lebanon and the region, and as an expression of that power, letting more than just the Israelis see what it is capable of. Fellow Lebanese oppose Hezbollah at their peril, and many have paid with their lives for trying it.
@neurodoc: Do pls. tell us where your expertise in Hezbollah comes from? No doubt everything you “know” on the subject comes from highly partisan sources. But I’m curious to know where specifically yr “information” comes from.
No doubt Hezbollah is funded by Iran just as Israel receives advanced weaponry & financial assistance fr. the U.S. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Or have you forgotten that old saying? I never said that Hezbollah were altar boys. I don’t know about their funding & where it comes from. It’s possible that some of it comes from less than reputable sources. It’s possible it comes entirely or almost entirely from reputable sources. I’ll lv. that issue to you since it troubles you so.
You have compared Hezbollah to Hitler. That is a violation of my comment rules. Do it or anything else in violation of these rules & you will be banned. You are warned.
I love to preserve dumb comments like this in amber for the time when they are proven absolutely wrong. And this one will be in due time.
Thanks for giving me a chuckle. IF I think you have this wrong???! When have you ever gotten anything right??