A Sinister Foreign Influence
It’s the old US-Israel story of a country whose own best interests are subverted by the unnatural control its supposed ally exerts on its decision-making. Tony Karon explains.
But Schiff also makes clear that, plainly, the Israelis had no idea what they’d signed up for, which is why, as Winograd concluded, they waded into battle without a plan. (But Winograd doesn’t appear to want to ask why — presumably U.S.-Israeli relationship is a third-rail of Israeli politics that dare not be touched…) They had assumed they were launching retaliatory strikes to punish Hizballah for seizing two of its soldiers; then, suddenly, they were exected — by Washington — to militarily eliminate Hizballah.
I’ve always said that the Israeli cabinet is “Christian-Occupied Territory . . . “
Comment by stm177 —
February 1, 2008 @ 12:31 am
Regardless of the motivation for the war, the Israeli army was still overconfident, and unprepared. The Israelis have to fix that.
Comment by abb1 —
February 1, 2008 @ 4:58 am
The actually existing Zionism is a disgrace. That’s all there is to it.
Comment by Barry —
February 1, 2008 @ 8:48 am
stm77, I think that they’ll have trouble doing that, due to the West Bank. When most of ones’ army is basically police trying to control a large, open-air prison, one’s military readiness takes a hit.
Way back in the 1980’s, an author said that there were two types of armies - plitice armies and real armies. A police army was intended primarily to oppress the citizenry, and secondarily to deter the police army in the neighboring countries. A real army was intended to fight other armies.
The context was the way British units swept through Argentinian units in the Falklands war, but I’ve seen it again and again. It looks like that bit the IDF squarely where they sit.
Comment by Jeet Heer —
February 1, 2008 @ 9:21 am
A very smart post. I think what we have here is what the French call “folie à deux” which Wikipedia helpfully defines in these terms: (literally, “a madness shared by two”) is a rare psychiatric syndrome in which a symptom of psychosis (particularly a paranoid or delusional belief) is transmitted from one individual to another.
Comment by joe —
February 1, 2008 @ 10:05 am
They had assumed they were launching retaliatory strikes to punish Hizballah for seizing two of its soldiers; then, suddenly, they were exected — by Washington — to militarily eliminate Hizballah.
Exactly. When the operation first started, I thought “Well, that’s too bad, but what are the Israelis supposed to do? Of course they’re going to hit Hezbollah.”
But after a couple of days, it became obvious they were going after Lebanon, not Hezbollah, and trotting out the old “no difference between terrorists and the states that sponsor them” card.
Two neocon wars, two absolute disasters for the countries that launched them - and even worse for the countries on the receiving end - and Iran’s clients end up the winners in both.
Idiots.
Comment by Jim Henley —
February 1, 2008 @ 10:07 am
“There will be other wars.”
Comment by Hesiod —
February 1, 2008 @ 10:28 am
The Turks are facing much the same porblem with Kurdish rebels hiting them from camps in Northern Iraq.
Of course, the Bush adminstration didn’t offer to hold Turkey’s coat while they invqaded and attacked them. They actually have been trying mightily to prevent large scale military action by Turkey. [With only partial success]
Because, well, you know why.
Comment by John Emerson —
February 1, 2008 @ 10:58 am
“Christo-Zionist Occupation Government”? No, but only because CZOG is not a good acronym.
Comment by John Emerson —
February 1, 2008 @ 11:00 am
“Armageddonist Occupation Government”? “AOG” still isn’t good. “Armageddonist Entity”? “AE” is a little better but it needs a consonant.
Comment by Dave W. —
February 1, 2008 @ 11:18 am
Say it plainer, Mr. Henley. You are on the right track, but being too cutesy-poo in your expression.
Comment by mpowell —
February 1, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
It’s possible that this relationship, in it’s current form, is less than ideal for both countries. How weird is that?
Comment by William Burns —
February 1, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
Why, it’s almost as if this guy knew what he was talking about:
nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave.
Comment by TGGP —
February 1, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
Via BLCKDGRD, here’s a far left anti-Zionist attack on Walt & Mearsheimer.
Comment by diana —
February 2, 2008 @ 12:18 am
Jim,
I don’t know….Karon’s pretty smart but he’s leaving out an awful lot.
If you remember correctly, the kidnapping of Goldwasser and Regev happened just a couple of months after the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit (june 2006).
Shalit’s abduction was due to major operational screwups, which was due to total arrogance and sloppiness.
After Shalit was abducted, Israel was seething for revenge. This was whipped up by the press and word of mouth. The Hebrew press is not Haaretz - it’s mostly pulp, like the rest of the world. Everybody kept moaning about “our kids” — as if a soldier in uniform is a member of a grade-school soccer team.
Then when the Hizbollah abductions happened, the shit hit the fan. People wanted war — and they were very confident of winning. Perhaps a Sharon might have had the sense and the personal stature to throw cold water on a military “solution” to Hizbollah, but Olmert didn’t. However, he was just dragged along in a popular riptide.
So, if the US is to be blamed for this misadventure, it didn’t have to do much to whip up popular enthusiasm in Israel. The Israelis were frothing at the mouth.
Oh, and don’t forget Krauthammer. He called this war “existential.” Well, last I checked, Israel still exists. I wonder how many times he has used that word with respect to Israel.
If this be Zionism, give me Diaspora.
Comment by diana —
February 2, 2008 @ 12:25 am
Couple more things.
I said that the Israelis were frothing at the mouth, and that the country was seething for war…
…But it was a war that very few really wanted to fight. They wanted the other guy to do the fighting. That was not the case in ‘67, ‘73, or even ‘82. (or the incursion into the West Bank at the beginning of the Sharon regime.) All of those wars were genuinely popular, in the sense of people realizing they had to do their duty and there was no choice.
This was different. You didn’t have guys like Olmert’s son (who lives in Paris, or Uruguay, I forget where) running home to fight. All the middle class daddies who got forced into action were saying, “Who needs this shit?” But meanwhile, the whole country came down with a bad case of war fever. Very strange. Someone on television noted that there wasn’t one battle death from Tel Aviv (prosperous, educated, Ashkenazi), implying that it was a small-town working-class chump’s war.
Sound familiar?
(And please, don’t ask me for studies and URLs. I know this place. This is street shit I’m telling you.)
The Israelis have no one to blame but themselves for the debacle.
Comment by abb1 —
February 2, 2008 @ 2:36 am
Via BLCKDGRD, here’s a far left anti-Zionist attack on Walt & Mearsheimer.
Say what? You find Lenin’s Tomb via something called BLCKDGRD?
Comment by Nell —
February 2, 2008 @ 9:32 am
there wasn’t one battle death from Tel Aviv (prosperous, educated, Ashkenazi)
Which may be another reason, aside from the poignant contrast with/celebrity of his father, that the death of Uri Grossman was so widely noted and deeply felt. (Uri was the son of David Grossman, war opponent, writer, performer, and author of The Yellow Wind.)
The Grossmans are prosperous, educated, and liberal Ashkenazi, who happen not to live in Tel Aviv.
Comment by diana —
February 2, 2008 @ 10:52 am
Interesting point, Nell. I hadn’t thought of it.
For any potential nitpickers: yes, there are poor Ashkenazis, rich Mizrachis, Tel Aviv has a lot of poor Mizrachis (the southern & eastern districts are pure Mizrachi working class or slum districts), and when the war was over, there were a few battle deaths that hailed from the TA area.
But for the most part, the war was eerily like a compressed version of Iraq: most of the battle deaths were Israeli versions of the endless stream of small-town working class boys whose faces you see at the end of the Lehrer News Hour.
In any case, my point is simply that in the period between the Shalit abduction, and the abduction of the two soldiers on the Leb. border, a willing public was fanned into a frenzy of war fever by a cynical government and the media. Which, again, sounds a lot like what happened here before Iraq.