Naveed Haq converted to Christianity before shooting up the Seattle Jewish Federation
The obviously he was a crazy person. Christians attacking Jews in the U.S. simply can't be terrorists.
Obviously. Otherwise, where would that leave Mel?
Naveed Haq converted to Christianity before shooting up the Seattle Jewish Federation
Sweet! You Christians are crazy.
(But didn't he identify himself as a Muslim-American before he started shooting? Maybe there just wasn't time to say "I'm what your essentialist dogma would consider a Musim-American....")
Shouldn't it be "selective quotation"? "Selective editing" is redundant, unless you mean that some parts of the quotation were edited but not others.
He'd also expressed interest in Mormonism. Given that he was changing religions like some people change underwear, I'm sticking with "crazy".
If you're converting to Mormonism, changing your underwear is a requirement.
Footnote. I have to say, I'm confused by the reference to "some denominations of Mormonism" and "the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and some of its offshoots."
It's clear, I hope, that I bring up Haq to ridicule Hewitt's breathless condemnation of "the MSM" because they float the possibility that Haq was a crazyperson. "We need to know more," he orders, secure in his anti-terror command center(tm). And when we do, we think Hewitt is even more of an ass.
"Your legal profession at work."
But I thought Hugh Hewitt said they'd become public intellectuals?
I would opporate under the assumption they were problably not even as good at the job they quit as they are at the one they're holding on to now.
8--Wikipedia seems to have a policy of referring to "Mormonism" as a group of related movements, with the Utah-based official LDS as one subset of a broader category. It's kinda new to me, but their main entry on "Mormonism" makes a pretty good argument.
Hm. I'd never heard of the Community of Christ.
What does it mean (if anything) to not be "against" Hezbollah, but to "condemn" it for its violence? Hezbollah, as a terrorist organization, is defined by its use of violence. The really disingenous person here is Dingell, not Hinderaker.
One of the PhD students at the Chicago Theological Seminary is a Community of Christ minister -- he appears to have a job locked in at their seminary once he finishes. So within a generation, we could have a pretty good idea of what radical-left Mormonism looks like in practice. Finally.
What does it mean (if anything) to not be "against" Hezbollah, but to "condemn" it for its violence?
Compare: "I'm not against the Republican party—I have no party affiliation myself, you see—but I do condemn it for its fiscal irresponsibility."
GB, please. I know you can do better than that. Dingell's point is plain. Hinderaker purposefully cuts off the quote mid-sentence. If the AP did this, you'd be holding it up as evidence of the perfidy of the dread MSM.
Hezbollah, as a terrorist organization, is defined by its use of violence.
So you condemn their hospitals and orphanages?
Hindraker should have run the full quote, which is mealy-mouthed enough without any selective editing.
"I'm not against Hezbollah, but I condemn it for its violence" sounds like "I'm not against gay people, but I condemn them for having sex with each other."
Some people call this "Love the sinner, hate the sin." Dingell's motto seems to be "Love the terrorist, hate the terror."
I feel that Apo's allusions deserve a little elucidation, for readers like myself. From Wikipedia:
Hezbollah not only has armed and political wings but also boasts an extensive social development programme. The civilian wing also runs hospitals, news services, and educational facilities. Its Reconstruction Campaign ('Jihad al-Bina') is responsible for numerous economic and infrastructural development projects in Lebanon.[15][16] The group currently operates at least four hospitals, 12 clinics, 12 schools, and two agricultural centres that provide farmers with technical assistance and training. It also has an environmental department and an extensive social assistance programme. Medical care is also cheaper than in most of the country's private hospitals and free for Hezbollah members.[4] Most experts believe that Hezbollah's social and health programmes are worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually.[4] Hezbollah mainly gets its money from donations. It is widely thought that Hezbollah receives financial help from Iran and Syria, although Iran denies this[17], and Hezbollah denies receiving aid from Syria.[4]
Love the terrorist
You're misrepresenting Dingell in the service of a pat conclusion. Bad show.
GB's position relies on violence being necessary to the existence of Hezbollah. I'm not much of an expert here, but it seems Hezbollah flourished for a time, much of 2000 till recently, in which it was not engaged in violence. Granted, it started out as a resistence movement (and I suppose that's the right word, since it apparantly formed after the Israeli invasion of 82), and therefore a violent movement, but it seems to have morphed into something more.
It's wonderful that Hezbollah has provided some social services in Lebanon. Unfortunately, with respect to its relations with Israel, all that is totally irrelevant. What is relevant is Hezbollah's longstanding policy of terror attacks against Israel.
Even the worst dictators in the world run schools and hospitals in their own countries. Doesn't make 'em saints.
#19: Well, it just sounded better than "take a lukewarm, non-committal position towards the terrorist..." Sue me.
In any case, Hindrocket et al. are stil wankers. GB's argument leads to "Since Dingell doesn't support Hezbollah's argument, Dingell doesn't actually support Hezbollah," not, "Dingell thinks Hezbollah's terrorist activities are A-OK!!".
Here's some background on good ol' peaceful Hezbollah:
In a 1999 interview, Nasrallah stated "Three things comprise our minimal demand: an [Israeli] withdrawal from South Lebanon and the Western Bqa’ Valley, a withdrawal from the Golan, and the return of the Palestinian refugees. On the future of the State of Israel he expounds: "Everybody talks nowadays about accepting the reality and coexistence, or any other form of settlement with Israel." However, he views "realism in a different way". To him, "Israel is an illegal usurper entity, which is based on falsehood, massacres, and illusions, and there is no chance for its survival."[57]
Speaking at a graduation ceremony in Haret Hreik, Nasrallah announced on October 22, 2002: "if they all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."[58][59] The New York Times qualifies this as "genocidal thinking"[60], whereas the New York Sun likens it to the 1992 Hezbollah statement, which vowed, "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth."[61] Michael Rubin qualifies his goal as genocide too, quoting Nasrallah ruling out "co-existence with" the Jews or "peace", as "they are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment."[62] The Age quotes him like so: "There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel."[63]
But hey, they build schools!
Actually, I'm interested in whether anyone here supports Dingell's position, or thinks its a an OK but not great position. Myself, I don't know much so I don't have an opinion, but I am annoyed at Powerline's dishonesty (the more so because they're really pushing that this doctored news story get spread around, because they know it will set off triggers in people's heads. And they know that it wouldn't do that if the full quote were revealed. They're not just dishonest, they're consciously dishonestly manipulative.)
GB, there are plenty of Israelis, to the highest levels of government, who will talk in eliminationist terms about the Palestinians. It's not official policy, granted. But, really, they ain't saints, neither. But, hey, they build schools!
I don't think Dingell has taken a real position on the conflict. If pressed, I suppose I'd define his position as "violence is bad".
His statement is in the grand tradition of political fence-sitting. It's the kind of thing you say when your primary concern is to avoid offending anybody.
I should have been more explicit in 27. What I was getting at is that Dingell, but not categorically condemming Hezbollah, seems to imply that, if they stop the violence, then we and others can engage with them. Just as we engage with other nations/political parties which are far from morally savory. (Like Israel)
Damn that sneaky Dingell, trying not to offend anyone. I mean, it's not like there's any Lebanese people in Michigan or anything.
#27: GB, there are plenty of Israelis, to the highest levels of government, who will talk in eliminationist terms about the Palestinians.
O RLY? Find me a quote — no, better make that "plenty" of quotes — of Israeli politicians in the "highest levels of government" ruling out co-existence with a Palestinian state, calling for the death of the last Palestinian on earth, etc. Bonus points if it's the prime minister, since Nasrallah is the leader of Hezbollah.
You'll find plenty of Israelis opposing unlimited Palestinian immigration into Israel, but that's not the same thing at all.
His statement is in the grand tradition of political fence-sitting. It's the kind of thing you say when your primary concern is to avoid offending anybody.
And that's why hinderaker et al. are right to portray him as a supporter of terrorism?
I don't think Dingell has taken a real position on the conflict. If pressed, I suppose I'd define his position as "violence is bad".
I support that position.
Actually, I don't think Dingell is thinking about Hezbollah's social services or whatever. It sounds like he doesn't want to say he's against Hezbollah, because that would sound like he's actively supporting Israel (the other side of the conflict). And Dingell presumably wants to condemn (many of) Israel's actions as well. As do I, and let's not have any intimations that this is a pro-terrorist position or anything. More "two wrongs don't make a right, and I will resist calls to side with one rather than another."
31, offhand I think that statement is exaggerated, but there was that Gandhi guy who was assassinated who was the Housing Minister and supported transfer. But genocidal talk is probably more widespread among American conservative pundits like Reynolds, J. Podhoretz, and Coulter.
Sarcasm's okay
But swearing is out of bounds?
I see how it is.
The Israeli citizens who were forcibly removed from Gaza not so long ago had plenty to say about the nonright of the Palestinians to exist. But, I wrote what I did on the remember of what I've read before. Let me go google...
(The Palestinians) would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls."
-- Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) Yitzhak Shamir in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988
Well, I'm feeling lazy. Encountered quite a few quotes calling Palestenians various sorts of animals, and other quotes saying that the Israelis should take all their land, or that any land they had was illegitimate...but, in the few minutes I looked, not so many calls for genocide among government officials. So, maybe not so much calling for them all to be killed, but def. denying them basic humanity or their ancestral land. Admittedly, not as bad. Still, not exactly nice.
I am so not bothering with a conversation about Hezbollah. I will bother to point out that the post is about Hewitt and Hinderaker being willfully misleading in their editing of Dingell's statement. This remains true no matter what one thinks of Dingell's position or of Hezbollah.
Tourism minister, sorry. And transfer may not equal genocide (though it would surely involve killing lots and lots of people), though it does have something of that association because of Hitler.
Labs, if you don't condemn terrorism, that makes you objectively pro-terrorist. Didn't you get the memo?
#36: Insulting the person you're debating with is out of bounds, in my book. You can do that rather easily by swearing, but also by other means (including sarcasm, if you carry it far enough).
Granted, there's an element of subjectivity at work here. However, I don't believe anything I've written here is insulting to the people I've been addressing. If you disagree, I'm happy to have my transgressions pointed out.
A Google of "no arabs, no terrorism" or "a good arab is a dead arab" gets a fair number of hits, some indicating that these are popular slogans. No high-up leaders though. (I don't know how important David Ha'Ivri is).
Shit.
Just testing the system; profanity is allowed here at Unfogged.
#35: In your money quote, note the use of the subjunctive "would be".
Without the full context, we can't know what Shamir really meant. Maybe he said something like, "If the Palestinians ever tried to wipe out Israel, they would be crushed like grasshoppers..."
Which brings us back full-circle to the importance of not selectively quoting people.
#42: I don't presume to set the rules for everyone here.
Also, as has been well discussed in an earlier thread, profanity is not automatically insulting; it depends on the context and manner in which it's used.
Hindraker should have run the full quote, which is mealy-mouthed enough without any selective editing.
"I'm not against Hezbollah, but I condemn it for its violence"
First off, he didn't say that, either. But I'm not sure what he said was so crazy.
But dude, take away the violence and Hezbollah is just Sinn Fein without the IRA. Without the terror, there is no terrorist. I don't know about you, but if al-Qaeda had just been a society of men with longish beards that like to sit around and drink tea and chat about Desperate Housewives I wouldn't give a damn about them. Because the terror is the important thing!
So he should say he's against a political party even if it didn't sponsor violence? Or maybe just against non-violent Muslims? Come on.
43. fair point. I saw that, but decided I needed to post so I could go get coffee. I am ready and willing to say that. from what i've read, the Israelis, by and large, don't seem to me to be as hate-filled as their neighbors.
Now I've got some Paul m.f. Patton to read.
#45, I agree with you completely. The problem is that you can't just separate out the terrorist violence from Al Qaeda, or from Hezbollah. It's their defining characteristic.
You might as well say, "If tigers wouldn't eat me, I should like to have one as a pet."
It's their defining characteristic.
Says you.
#48, says them, not me. See #25.
O RLY?
C'mon, dude. That's been upgraded.
The problem is that you can't just separate out the terrorist violence from Al Qaeda, or from Hezbollah. It's their defining characteristic.
So what's wrong with condemning them for that violence?
Nothing per se, but Dingell is engaging in a bit of Kerryeque nuance to say he's condemning Hezbollah for violence, yet not opposing the group itself. The group is what's causing the violence.
That same argument could be easily applied to America.
53: And nuance is a problem because our present HULK SMASH policy has worked out so well?
"If tigers wouldn't eat me, I should like to have one as a pet."
I would. like a tiger for a pet.
But the group is an important force in Lebanon no matter what, and it's not going away, so at some point Israel and America are going to have to deal with it.
I had decided that was too frivolous to post but I hit the button by mistake, so oh well.
On the other hand, you speak for me in this regard. Although I'd prefer a snow leopard. Mmm. Big kitty.
There were people who had a one-eyed jaguar in a cage about a block from our fraternity when I was at UNC. Kinda sad all caged like that, but on the other hand, what a totally impressive animal. I spent a lot of time sitting beside the cage while it stared at me with its one good eye.
I do not get at all what Gaijin Biker is going on about. Dingell condemned Hezbollah; he said so right in the damn clip. Within context it's pretty obvious that he's not saying "no, I don't condemn Hezbollah," he's saying "no, I don't take sides."
32: Thanks, B, you're too kind banned!
Kerryesque nuance would be a hell of a lot better than most of the imbecile shit our present leaders slop out to us. He wasn't a good candidate in my opinion, but he would have been a good President.
Dingell seems to have intended to refuse to become a pro-Israel, anti-Hezbollah partisan, in order to be an honest broker. He doesn't support everything either side does, but supports their mutual right to exist. Hezbollah represents a large population which is not friendly to Israel, and if Hezbollah per se disappeared the problem would still be there.
You make peace with enemies, not with friends, and if you want to broker a peace you have to talk to the bad guys.
Eliminationism is not official policy and it's probably not a majority opinion either, but sometimes I have trouble figuring out what Israel wants the Palestinians to do, other than surrender unconditionally.
Jaguar screams very impressive. Not long ago I heard the panther/cougar/puma called "largest of the small cats." Never heard that before, it clearly has the panthera phenotype. Anybody know what that's about? Is it a dna relationship? head-to-body ratio? (most big cats have larger heads).
Regarding screams:
"If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down?
We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason."
61: I guess so.
66: My all-time favorite deep thought.
Nowhere near as good as:
Isn't it a shame that whole families can be torn apart by something as simple as wild dogs?
Hezbollah, while a terrorist organization, is a totally different animal from Al Qaeda or, say, Black September. They are an important political actor in the region, and you are simply not going to eliminate them without a wholesale invasion and retooling of the Lebanese political structure. Given that, any peace in the region is going to have to accommodate them in some fashion. In fact, current shit aside, a not-totally-implausible argument could be made that having Hezbollah around is a least-bad option because it stabilizes the region and keeps significantly less rational nasties from propagating.
Yeah, too bad Bush stole the fucking election. Kerry would've been a nice change of pace.
Bah, I meant to prepend a "57 is right" to 69.
And Landis tested positive for synthetic testosterone. Boo, hiss.
72: . . . further undermining the already-declining "honest Quaker" stereotype.
What does it mean (if anything) to not be "against" Hezbollah
What it means to me is: This isn't my fight. I don't feel obligated to pick a side any more than I do between the Greeks and Turks in Cyprus or the two guys slugging each other in the mall parking lot.
The group is what's causing the violence.
Violence seems to be an equal opportunity employer in the Middle East right now. Picking a side under the current circumstances means supporting the violence of one side or the other. I gather that you feel you must do so, but pretty much the rest of the world disagrees.
Just wait til a fat-n-sassy black woman wins the tour.
I agree with the fantasy satirist Terry Pratchett that the only reason we put up with cats and their vile predatory ways is due to their soft fur and purring. If they were covered in scales, we'd see them for the unpleasant bastards they really are.
So, big cat that can disembowel me rather than just bat at my ankles. No thanks.
75: (I knew that and went for the cheap joke anyway. Shameless, I know.)
79: Don't come crying to me with your problems.
Once in the Berlin zoo, which then (I hope no longer) still had the old-fashioned kind of big cat area that was basically a barn with stall-sized cages housing the poor fucking animals, a leopard suddenly screamed about fifteen feet from me. Dear god, it was the most terrifying sound I've ever heard. I nearly shat myself.
78, 79: Snakes are nicer than cats. And what does Terry Pratchett know?
If they were covered in scales
Are there any mad scientists reading? I totally want a scale-cat. I can pay.
56, 58: Too frivolous? For Unfogged? Has a whimsy ban been imposed in my absence?
86: Right. I don't know what came over me. Some sort of vestigial sense of seemliness. Mustn't let it get out of hand.
I'd agree that the Powerline, et al, quotation, was selective, and a bit weasely, but having read the fuller full quote, I'd have to say that one presented by Sadly, No!, and here, is also extremely arguably selective.
The fuller full quote, in my view, makes Dingell's remarks amazingly stupid, and quite legitimately condemnable. So I'm fully coming down on Gaijin Biker's side here, insofar as I've skimmed the thread.
Dingell argues that we must be "a friend to all parties," including Hezbollah.
And, yeah, I don't think comparing Hezbollah to Al Qaeda is particularly out of line.
I don't think there's much to be gotten from trying to be a "fair broker" with either group. I don't think that anyone with sufficient knowledge of Hezbollah could reasonably think so (yes, I'm tautologically saying that if you disagree with me, you don't know enough; oh, well).
The rest of Dingell's quote, if it were only to be applied to "the Arab countries," and "the region" and their peoples, etc., as regards needing to gain trust and be an honest broker, could be quibbled with, but is generally a quite reasonable perspective.
The problem is that he applied it, at least in his oral statement -- and I realize that oral statements aren't always well-considered -- specifically to Hezbollah. And that's where it all melts down.
It's also helpful to keep Dingell's specific record and history in mind; he's not just Any Democrat as regards the Middle East, but one of the most consistently tending-to-be-biased against Israel representatives in Congress. So it's hardly as if a) there's no context here; or b) looking skew-eyed at his comments is the same as simply attacking Democrats-In-General. One might also bear in mind that Dingell's district almost surely has the largest number of actually pro-Hezbollah voters in the United States.
When he says "Well, we don’t, first of all, I don’t take sides for or against Hezbollah or for or against Israel," I take him at his word; that's consistently been his position for as long as I'm aware.
So I don't agree that what he said was, as Sadly, No! put it, "Dingell was actually advancing a bone-standard ‘honest broker’ position" and that viewing it otherwise is "attempting to fool people."
But, damn, I hate to be put in the position of having to get anywhere even in the same county as might be regarded as defending Powerline. Eeeuuuwwww.
Dingell, specifically of Hezbollah: "...but I think if we’ve got to talk to them and if we don’t — if we don’t get ourselves in a position where we can talk to both sides and bring both sides together...."
Can someone please explain to me precisely how this might be supposed to work? Exactly? Hezbollah is going to be brought "together" with Israel how, over what? Hezbollah is going to be brought to accepting Israel's right to exist? Who's kidding who? Who believes that?
These are the guys who reached out to Argentina to cause hundreds of Jewish casualties. Did Argentina become part of Palestine when I wasn't looking?
Yeah, Hezbollah can be talked, surely, into temporary truces. That's the best it's ever going to do. I think huge chunks of Hamas might eventually, conceivably, be brought around to better, someday, in the long term. But not Hezbollah. Not their leadership (it's worth noting that hardly all supporters of Hezbollah share all the views of their leadership, of course, any more than all members or supporters of Hamas rejectionists uber alles and forever).
But the leadership of Hezbollah will no more ever make peace with Israel or the U.S. than al Qaeda will. And expecting to talk to them and get more is no more reasonable than expecting that trying to be an "honest broker" can get both al Qaeda and the U.S. together in peace.
So that's the problem here. In my view. That's the part where if people think otherwise, I think they really know relatively little about Hezbollah. Sorry.
Apo: "What it means to me is: This isn't my fight. I don't feel obligated to pick a side any more than I do between the Greeks and Turks in Cyprus or the two guys slugging each other in the mall parking lot."
Hezbollah regards America and Americans, the Crusader-Zionists, as as much the enemy as it does Israel. It advocates killing Americans everywhere. (As does Hamas, incidentally.) Good luck with having that neutrality thing work out. Odds are you'll never be hurt by them, but maybe you'll be passing a Jewish Federation building at some unlikely moment, someday.
Until September 11th, no terrorist group in the world killed more Americans. Apparently a little-known fact. Hezbollah was killing Americans in mass numbers before they started killing Jews.
And, hey, let's forget about Hezbollah killing 241 American servicemen. Why care? And why remember their blowing up the U.S. Embassy, killing 63 people?
I'm sure that Hezbollah doesn't remember, and celebrate, after all. If we just say we're neutral, I'm sure they'll change their minds.
And does anyone remember David Dodge? Probably not. He was the President of the American University of Beirut that Hezbollah kidnapped in july, 1982. Then there was Terry Anderson, American University of Beirut librarian Peter Kilburn, and Benjamin Weir, a Presbyterian minister. They tortured William Buckley to death. Then there was Martin Jenco. David Jacobsen. And so on and on.
All for being Americans. Not Jews. Not Israelis. Americans.
Really, this "I'm neutral" thing might bear rethinking. Though we could always try trading arms with Iran to get results from Hezbollah, again. Otherwise, I really suggest the rethinking.
Oh, yeah, other history: Sept. 20, 1984, the bombing of the U.S. Embassy annex northeast of Beirut, killing 24 people.
Dec. 3, 1984, the hijacking of Kuwait Airways Flight 221; when the Hezbollah demands weren't met, they killed two American officials from the U.S. Agency for International Development.
June 14, 1985: TWA Flight 847 was hijacked and forced to land in Beirut. When Hezbollah demands weren't met, Robert Dean Stethem, a U.S. Navy diver, was shot and his body dumped on the airport tarmac.
Those who forget the past....
consistently tending-to-be-biased against Israel
Otherwise known as "representing his constituents," for which he needn't apologize.
In any case, the "they're implacable, so we must be steadfast" line is usually the extremist position in any conflict. I wonder if people hostile to Israel could come up with a list of unjustifiable things Israel has done?
Can someone please explain to me precisely how this might be supposed to work? Exactly? Hezbollah is going to be brought "together" with Israel how, over what? Hezbollah is going to be brought to accepting Israel's right to exist? Who's kidding who? Who believes that?
This is insane. AFAIK, you could have said the same about every Arab country for the first half of Israel's existence; you wouldn't say that today.
Although, on the larger point, I think it's right that Dingell's position isn't just the standard "honest broker" line, because he does have to be more sympathetic to Hezbollah than most. That doesn't make Powerline's editing less dishonest though.
"I wonder if people hostile to Israel could come up with a list of unjustifiable things Israel has done?"
Obviously. I have no trouble making a long list, myself. I'm hardly an Israel uber alles type, or Israel-can-do-no-wrong type, either.
Ditto we can all make long lists of unjustifiable, terrible, things the U.S. has done. The crucial distinction, of course, is that not so many people use this as an argument to dissolve the U.S. into another state, and that the U.S. isn't a few miles across, in existential danger.
When things are better off for Israel, I'm extremely critical of it. When times are bad, I'm more defensive. Not unusual psychology, I think.
SCMT: "AFAIK, you could have said the same about every Arab country for the first half of Israel's existence; you wouldn't say that today."
They weren't motivated by their utter allegiance to Ayatollahs Khomenei and Khamanei, and their extremist religious convictions. (Which is also the distinction between the core of Hamas and Fatah.) This is the whole point. So: not so insane.
You think US support of the occupation of Lebanon might have had something to do with the events you cite above?
They weren't motivated by their utter allegiance to Ayatollahs Khomenei and Khamanei, and their extremist religious convictions. (Which is also the distinction between the core of Hamas and Fatah.) This is the whole point. So: not so insane.
Until it becomes acceptable to talk about the American theocratic movement as a real threat (something I also think is sort of crazy), I'm not treating that as a serious argument. There have been lots of religious or religion-influenced governments in the course of history, and an awful lot of them have found a way to bend interpretation to their interests, rather than the other way around. Iran may want Israel off the map, but it will never sacrifice its own existence for that end. (And I've seen respectable speculation that one wing of Hamas wanted to do a deal with Israel, and that fact motivated another wing to kidnap the soldier.)
And as I mentioned upthread, Hezbollah is a powerful force in Lebanese politics (and has, if anything, been strengthened by all this bombing) and isn't going away, so at some point everyone's going to have to figure out how to deal with it.
Dingell argues that we must be "a friend to all parties," including Hezbollah.
Here are the three sentences from which that's taken:
First of all, our problem is that we must be a fair and honest broker and a friend to all parties. The resolution didn’t make us that. We have to have the trust of both of the people of Israel and the people of the Arab countries around it, in order to help resolve the problem.
That sounds like a bone-standard "honest broker" position to me, and I think picking out "friend to all parties" distorts what he's saying.
You might think it's a mug's game to try to be an honest broker with Hezbollah, but the question is whether Dingell did advocate that or something else. So your lengthy recitation of Hezbollah's atrocities is off point. (Anyway, I doubt that there can be any regional settlement that doesn't involve Hezbollah in some way. As per teo's 98.)
As for the idea that we must be intolerant of any criticism of Israel because it's in mortal danger right now: One-eighth of Lebanon's population, at least, has been made refugees. As part of deliberate Israeli policy. I'd say it's Lebanon that's in danger, and we should be especially wary of passing resolutions that appear to support the inhumane and misguided policies that Israel has been pursing.
Terry Pratchett certainly seems to fall on the dog side of the fence, but The Amazing Maurice & His Educated Rodents does somewhat redeem him for his sins.
I submit that scale-cats would be snapped up by a niche market that would recognize their awesomeness whereas scale-dogs would be viewed as the oversized rats they really are. I will brook no misquotes or fence-sitting, as the cats are clearly only violent when provoked and no number of allusions to obedience training will sway me from this position. If you reject scale-cats, you are objectively pro-dog. Comity merely encourages the canine.
"You think US support of the occupation of Lebanon might have had something to do with the events you cite above?"
Oh, sure. And clearly blowing up Embassies, and kidnapping university teachers is an appropriate response. Good defense.
SCMT: "Until it becomes acceptable to talk about the American theocratic movement as a real threat (something I also think is sort of crazy), I'm not treating that as a serious argument."
I am unaware of them using thousands of rocket launchers on random civilians. So this seems a curious attempted parallel.
"(And I've seen respectable speculation that one wing of Hamas wanted to do a deal with Israel, and that fact motivated another wing to kidnap the soldier.)"
Yes, that's vaguely in the realm of truth, but with due respect, SCMT, the fact that you put it this way, and can't even mention, say, Ismail Haniya, or Khaled Mashal, is strongly suggestive to me of the level of knowledge you bring to the issues.
Teofilo: "...Hezbollah is a powerful force in Lebanese politics (and has, if anything, been strengthened by all this bombing) and isn't going away, so at some point everyone's going to have to figure out how to deal with it."
I'm quite open to suggestions.
On large, screaming cats: I grew up in the mountains, and would occasionally hear a mountain lion in the distance. They sound, as my grandmother put it, "just like a woman being killed." It is a terrifying sound when you're small. I cannot even begin to imagine hearing one up close like that. I think I would have shit myself and fainted, and I'm not really being sarcastic with that.
Once, I had the fortune to see a fresh track deep in a nature preserve and considered myself quite blessed for it, both as an experience and as a warning to turn the fuck around and go home.
"Here are the three sentences from which that's taken...."
And talk about taking sentences out of context....
"...(Anyway, I doubt that there can be any regional settlement that doesn't involve Hezbollah in some way."
The problem is, wishing doesn't make things so. Sure, that sounds great. Also, "diplomacy" should solve all problems. And everyone should make peace.
And ponies for everyone.
Is Hezbollah going to voluntarily surrender most of its arms, and agree to not attack Israel (and, not incidentally, quit being a bunch of complete thugs in Lebanon, brutally enforcing Sharia, and constantly threatening to renew violence against the other factions)? What conditions will make that happen? What offer? What, specifically, can you suggest can be done to make that happen?
Beyond wishing.
Because if you have answers, then you're ahead of everyone I'm aware, and we might have a start.
"As for the idea that we must be intolerant of any criticism of Israel because it's in mortal danger right now...."
Sorry, I must have missed the comment you're responding to, there: which one suggested that?
Gary, to be clear about it, are you on board with the "bomb them back to the Stone Age" thing, or is this mostly frustration and despair talking? Or other?
And talk about taking sentences out of context....
Gary, those were his first three sentences. You quoted a bit of them that dreadfully distorted what he'd said. I don't see that the fuller quote changes the meaning at all, and you certainly haven't provided any evidence for it; just, in this case, baseless snark.
"As for the idea that we must be intolerant of any criticism of Israel because it's in mortal danger right now...."
Comment 95, in which you suggest that mentioning bad things that Israel has done is inappropriate because Israel is only a few miles long, and people are opposed to its existence, and things are going badly for it right now. By the same token, it's inappropriate to mention bad things that Hezbollah has done since people are currently using those things as justification for turning southern Lebanon into a free-fire zone. (Which is literally true. You can look it up.)
You're clearly not interested in a rational or intellectually honest discussion of this, so bye.
Yes, that's vaguely in the realm of truth, but with due respect, SCMT, the fact that you put it this way, and can't even mention, say, Ismail Haniya, or Khaled Mashal, is strongly suggestive to me of the level of knowledge you bring to the issues.
You should totally keep that in mind when you're President and you're selecting Middle East advisors. But otherwise, who the fuck cares? You're making nonsense arguments, and you know it. The underlying question at issue is whether deals can be struck between enemies. Happens all the fucking time. That you seem unaware of this makes me wonder what world you live in.
102: I've always wanted to see a cougar in the wild. I realize that that's idiotic and romantic, but still. They're really my favorites, I think. It annoys me when people build houses in foothills, have a toddler eaten, and shoot cougars.
106: Gary can obviously speak for himself, but my impression of his position is that he thinks this is a world in which enmity against Jews is different from other kinds of enmity. If that's the case, it's probably not particularly useful for us to keep piling on him on current goings-on in Lebanon.
I have no sympathy for the toddler-eating cougars. Gorgeous animals, big pointy teeth and an arms race is the only fair answer.
They're extremist cougars, you see.
"I don't see that the fuller quote changes the meaning at all, and you certainly haven't provided any evidence for it; just, in this case, baseless snark."
He says, specifically in the context of Hezbollah, and the resolution: "First of all, our problem is that we must be a fair and honest broker and a friend to all parties. The resolution didn’t make us that."
As a statement in a vacuum, as I said, that would be anodyne. When specifically about Hezbollah, it is not. He goes on to elaborate about Hezbollah:
DINGELL: Well, we don’t, first of all, I don’t take sides for or against Hezbollah or for or against Israel.
ANCHOR: You’re not against Hezbollah?
DINGELL: No, I happen to be — I happen to be against violence, I think the United States has to bring resolution to this matter. Now, I condemn Hezbollah as does everybody else, for the violence, but I think if we’ve got to talk to them and if we don’t — if we don’t get ourselves in a position where we can talk to both sides and bring both sides together, the killing and the blood let is going to continue.You're not going to say he's not talking about Hezbollah, are you?
"...in which you suggest that mentioning bad things that Israel has done is inappropriate...."
Of course, I said nothing remotely of the kind.
DaveL:"Gary, to be clear about it, are you on board with the 'bomb them back to the Stone Age' thing, "
Why on Earth would you even think it reasonable to ask that?
"You're clearly not interested in a rational or intellectually honest discussion of this, so bye."
I'm sorry: have I been insulting or rude or impolite? How have I been irrational or dishonest? (And, gee, thanks for saying so.)
SCMT: "You're making nonsense arguments, and you know it."
No, I believe we have different knowledge bases.
I'll ask for the third, and perhaps last, time, but this time to you, SCMT: what proposals do you suggest should be made to Hezbollah that you believe they'll accept? (Thanks, also, for the implication that I'm being intellectually dishonest. This is becoming unpleasant, which I should have expected. Why the personal attacks?)
And while I'm not here to tutor people, a piece on Hezbollah from the Grauniad, not exactly a source biased towards Israel. Note this part:
Hizbullah prides itself on its secretiveness and discipline. "We don't take anyone who knocks at our door and says 'I want to join'. We raise our fighters. We take them when they are young kids and raise them to become Hizbullah fighters. Every fighter we have believes that the ultimate form of being is martyrdom." The three men nod their assent.
Shia symbols and mythology play a big role in the ideology of Hizbullah, especially the tragedy of Imam Hussein, the grandson of the prophet who in the 7th century led a few hundred men against the well-organised army of the caliph in Damascus. He was slain in Karbala, and Shia around the world commemorate these events in Ashura.
"Every one of those fighters is a true believer, he has been not only trained to use guns and weapons but [indoctrinated] in the Shia faith and the Husseini beliefs," Ali says.
He and his fellow fighters have been preparing for the latest conflict with the Israelis for years and he acknowledges the support received from Iran.
[...]
For Ali and his comrades, the latest conflict is a war of survival not only for Hizbullah but for the whole Shia community. It is not only as a war with Israel, their enemy for decades, but also with the Sunni community. Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt have all expressed fears of Iranian domination over the Middle East.
"If Israel comes out victorious from this conflict, this will be a victory for the Sunnis and they will take the Shia community back in history dozens of years to the time when we were only allowed to work as garbage collectors in this country. The Shia will all die before letting this happen again."
He says that even if the international community calls on Hizbullah to disarm as part of a peace deal, he and his men will not lay down their arms. "This war is episode two in disarming Hizbullah. First they tried to do it through the Lebanese government and the UN. When they failed, the Americans asked the Israelis to do the job."
[...]
And even when the battle with the Israelis is over, he adds menacingly, Hizbullah will have other battles to fight. "The real battle is after the end of this war. We will have to settle score with the Lebanese politicians. We also have the best security and intelligence apparatus in this country, and we can reach any of those people who are speaking against us now. Let's finish with the Israelis and then we will settle scores later."You really might want to consider believing them.
"106: Gary can obviously speak for himself, but my impression of his position is that he thinks this is a world in which enmity against Jews is different from other kinds of enmity."
The simple answer is that no, I don't think that. The more complicated answer is, well, there are unique aspects to Judenhass.
In essence, it's certainly no different than any other form of bigotry or racism. The history, though, is unique, and in rather, um, special ways.
Anyway, my opinions about Israel's current policies are mixed, complex, and as yet, inconclusive. Yes, it was probably a mistake to say anything here.
How anyone can take this obviously 100% clearly utterly subjective, and nothing other than subjective, description:
When things are better off for Israel, I'm extremely critical of it. When times are bad, I'm more defensive. Not unusual psychology, I think.... and then claim it says: "...that we must be intolerant of any criticism of Israel because it's in mortal danger right now...."
And then recharacterize it again to claim that I wrote that I "suggest that mentioning bad things that Israel has done is inappropriate...."
Well, I have no idea how that works. But obviously those versions have nothing to do with what I actually wrote. Not unless we truly live in a solipsistic universe.
Why on Earth would you even think it reasonable to ask that?
You're truncating the question. There were two alternatives offered and you're quoting only the first. My assumption is that the second is more likely, but if it's accurate, then we're just parsing a Congressman's rhetoric, and that's not all that interesting. Or, as noted in the prior post, maybe there's a third alternative.
Gary, I'm familiar with the 20+ year old attacks on American interests in Lebanon. When you plop yourself down in the middle of another country's civil war (like Iraq), you expect those sorts of things.
Good luck with having that neutrality thing work out.
That "neutrality thing" might work out better if, say, we had actually been neutral over the years. Of course, we haven't. But it isn't too late to start. Regardless of Hezbollah's rhetoric toward the US, the fight between them and Israel isn't my fight. You have every right to pick a side as your own, but neither I nor John Dingell have to, despite your haughty dismissal of our knowledge of the history of the region.
Why on Earth would you even think it reasonable to ask that?
Because you keep pressing everybody else for their proposals without offering one of your own. From what I can tell, you consider the IDF's position correct. Until you state otherwise, it's perfectly reasonable to ask that.
Gary, this is hardly the first political situation around the globe thought to be insoluble due to the extremist nature of the opponent. Most of them were solved with varying amounts of violence and treaties. And most of them were preceded by various agents arguing 'You can't reason with those people. They're extremists. Their leaders are crazy.' Usually, the end result was 'those people' deciding to support different leaders because their political needs (which do not always coincide with their leaders) and economic goals had been met.
"There were two alternatives offered and you're quoting only the first."
Well, that was the one that considerably bothered me that you'd think it necessary to ask. I take it you're quite unfamiliar with my long, long, long history of writing on the internets on the topic (most of which is googleable on my own blog, or via GoogleGroups, not that, of course, I'd remotely expect anyone to care enough to bother; I'm just saying that you're clearly pretty unfamiliar with my views), or my nearly thirty-year history of supporting Meretz and its predecessors and successors, working for Peace Now, advocating for Israeli-Arab peace, for Israeli-Palestinian peace, arguing with those who claim it can never happen that they're wrong, and so on.
I could link to plenty of posts I've made just in the last year about how I think Hamas can eventually largely be brought to the peace table, my links to polls on how Palestinians largely want peace. And so on and so on and so on.
But I really don't have to prove myself to folks whom I suspect have done relatively little to actually work with Palestinians, and whose knowledge of the situation and history and particulars is essentially quite glancing.
So, given that almost thirty years of effort, then hearing from people who can't even name the leaders of Hamas, and "have heard" things, that I'm some sort of wacko hardliner: well, that's pretty absurd and ridiculous.
Then, to be condescended to, on top of that: well.
Otherwise, discussions about Israel with people who only know what they read in the newspapers is always frustrating. I'm not, otherwise, particularly in emotional despair at the moment; I am, to be sure, generally pessimistic and sad about many matters related to Israel/Palestine/Hezbollah. I'd love to have easy answers; quick solutions, too. But I've never seen them, and, yeah, I do find superficial discussion fairly frustrating. So I'll likely bow out here.
"My assumption is that the second is more likely, but if it's accurate, then we're just parsing a Congressman's rhetoric, and that's not all that interesting."
Nope, it isn't.
I'm sorry: have I been insulting or rude or impolite? How have I been irrational or dishonest? (And, gee, thanks for saying so.)
Yeah, you have. You're being condescending, you're pulling out the, "you obviously don't know as much as I do" card, you're actively being a jerk.
Oh, sure. And clearly blowing up Embassies, and kidnapping university teachers is an appropriate response. Good defense.
It's not a defense of Hezbollah's actions, just an acknowledgement that its enmity toward the US isn't congenital or irrational.
For example, those marines Hezbollah killed in Lebanon weren't just sitting around minding their own business on a base in California. Nor was it clearly crazy or evil for Hezbollah to view them as non-neutral in that conflict.
Let me repeat, none of the above is a defense of Hezbollah's politics or actions, but their politics and actions are far from inexplicable and didn't just arise out of nothing.
You really might want to consider believing them.
Gary:
This is part of what's driving me nuts. You hear the same thing about Ahmadinejad, you heard the same thing about Hussein. The underlying argument (as per 114) is that these people are different, and so we are allowed to do different things to them. It's of a piece with the "they're crazy, so we can't trust them not to seek their own annihilation" argument. I don't buy it, and I'm suspicious of its deployment, because in recent memory it's been used to very bad ends.
I'd love to have easy answers; quick solutions, too. But I've never seen them, and, yeah, I do find superficial discussion fairly frustrating. So I'll likely bow out here.
Given the number of times you've said pretty much exactly this about the topic at hand, perhaps it's time to follow through. Participating in conversations to scorn the other participants isn't particularly attractive.
(This comment applies only to this particular topic. Please don't take it as a general slam on you.)
116: "You're being condescending,"
Yes. Sometimes there is cause.
"...you're pulling out the, 'you obviously don't know as much as I do' card,"
Again: only with cause.
Of course, you are never condescending, so you're entitled to critique me. And if someone were, say, explaining that they'd heard that Gloria someone was all about the bra-burning and man-hating, and that they'd never heard of, say, Shulamith Firestone or Robin Morgan, and that everyone knows that feminists are brutal man-haters, you wouldn't dream of being condescending.
Nonetheless, I've not been in the least personal, I've not attacked anyone, I've not even been rude, let alone abusive.
I've suggested that people might want to seek more information and perspective. And I criticized John Dingell.
But: "you're actively being a jerk."
So: bye. Better things to do.
In general, the form of argument:
"P. None of you could possibly know enough to offer an argument for not-P. I do not need to argue for P. Therefore, P."
is hardly persuasive, though probably instantiated in several top journals.
Condescension is rude, Gary. You asked if you'd been rude, I said yes you had. Whether or not I am myself rude on occasion is irrelevant, and defending rudeness with silly ad hominems of that sort is also rude.
Anyway, given that you often say that you are unaware of how you come across, I was genuinely answering your question, rather than simply "critiquing" you. Apparently on this particular instance the "am I being rude?" question was rhetorical.
Gary's departure, like converting to Judaism, requires three attempts.
What SCMT and others are saying is of course true; conflict is always eventually followed by resolution. But in plenty of places in the world, this can take a really long time. Northern Ireland, Afghanistan, Cyprus, Chechnya, and surely other places as well.
But, even so, what's the other option? Gary, this question is to you. If you think Israel or the US can never engage in discussion with Hizbollah, then what? Israel's heavy-handed attempt to wipe them out doesn't seem to be working. Can Israel do anything more militarily other than make Lebanon a crater-filled wasteland. And while Israel pursues its current policy, it's making new enemies. I'm unclear about your position. Do you think the current strategy is working? Because you seem to be against a more destructive approach, yet you strongly imply that Hizbullah must be wiped out.
125: And then you throw the dog poop on her shoes.
126: Gary seems to be more "against anyone but him talking about it" rather than more any particular position.
fuck to oboe. "more" s/b "for" which means I'm now taking the time to post a second comment to correct a comment that was snarky and quasi-rude to begin with.
I'll let myself out.