Congress Expects Islamic Dawa to Support Israel, Condemn Hizbullah
Dawa's Unsavory Past
The AIPAC Democrats in Congress came after Iraqi PM Nuri al-Maliki on Tuesday, condmening him for his refusal to condemn the Lebanese Hizbullah. Al-Maliki had on the contrary complained (quite rightly) about naked Israeli aggression on Lebanon and had called for a cease fire. At his news conference on Tuesday he dodged questions about the issue and said his main concerns were humanitarian.
I respond with a golden oldie from March, 2005.
The US Congress, aside from a strange inability to recognize the disproportionate use of force when it sees it, does not seem to realize that the Dawa Party of Iraq, from which Nuri al-Maliki hails, is a revolutionary Shiite religious party not that much different from the Lebanese Hizbullah.
The members of Congress also don't seem to realize that the Iraqi Dawa helped to form the Lebanese Hizbullah back in the early 1980s. The Dawa was in exile in Tehran, Damascus and Beirut and it formed a shadowy terror wing called, generically, Islamic Jihad. The IJ cell of the Dawa attacked the US and French embassies in Kuwait in 1983, in an operation probably directed by the Tehran branch, which was close to Khomeini.
My understanding is that Nuri al-Maliki was the bureau chief of the Dawa cell in Damascus in the 1980s. He must have been closely involved with the Iraqi Dawa in Beirut, which in turn was intimately involved in Hizbullah. I am not saying he himself did anything wrong. I don't know what he was doing in specific, other than trying to overthrow Saddam, which was heroic. But, did they really think he was going to condemn Hizbullah and take Israel's side?
And if he did, do they think that the Shiite religious parties that backed him would let him stay in office (they are the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Islamic Dawa, and the Sadr Movement of Muqtada al-Sadr)?
Thursday, July 27, 2006
AIPAC Democrats came after Iraqi PM
juancole:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Regime change wasn't a cureall after all? Who could have guessed?
Can somebody help me out...Congress is supporting neocon style destablization (also known as democratization by way of cruise missiles) and refusing to question Israel's method of retaliation...ie...bombing the shit out of Lebanon.
IMO, such support is NOT helpful for Israel's security. How:
1) Pisses of the Arab world.
2) Pisses of the rest of the world.
3) Leads to more radical regimes.
4) Solidifies the power of radical regimes.
5) Creates more terrorism.
6) Lesson for Arab world=get nukes.
7) Gives the fundamentalists in US/Israel/Arab world way too much satisfaction.
So why does Congress act like such support is in fact helpful?
You've been reading those left wing columnists again I see noise. Are you sure you're not one of these?
Maybe I'm being premature about this, but doesn't it seem the Israelis are bogged down in a quagmire? It seems they have to fight like dogs to take small villages- and Hizbollah seems like it can keep up the fight for a very long time. The IDF keeps saying "just give us a week or two and we'll wipe them out" And as each day passes, Hizbollah seems like its had relatively little damage done to it.
At the end of the day, Hizbollah has massively increased its prestige in Lebanon and the Arab world. I think this invasion will have the exact opposite effect of what Israel wanted. Hizbollah will be seen as heroic, and for every guerilla fighter killed, this organization will have plenty of new recruits ready to die for the cause.
What do you think Luke?
as far as i can tell - miguel and noise (and damien, of course!) are both correct.
this has been the biggest cluster-fuck by israel since i dont even know when.
hezbollah appears to have already 'won' - which is a complete disaster for just about everyone concerned (as was starting the war in the first place.)
i dont really have a macro-view of what is going on. there are a few theories floating around: 1) that iran started the war as a pre-emptive strike 2) that this is part of some mega-zionist plan 3) that Hezbollah was amazed at the israeli response 4) that it escalated outta control similar to 1914.
i think the only things that we really know are 1) israel is losing massively 2) the USG helped israel 3) the proximate causes are now irrelevant 4) i cant see any exit strategy for anyone.
So why does Congress act like such support is in fact helpful?
i think cole got it spot on " AIPAC Democrats" - i dont think i've ever seen anything more craven than the maliki speech boycott, and i was FLOORED by howard dean's 'anti-semite' comment today. wtf?
the best frame that i've been able to come up with is that AIPAC should basically be seen as a lobby in the same way that the ATC is (and basically that AIPAC is the same as the ATC). it has nothing to do with any nation - but has been white-anted by the defense contractors and neocon drug-smuggling scum.
it was a nice twist yesterday to see the dems all jump out and scream while the repugs kept their mouths shut. i've never seen anything more orchestrated.
basically, i'm horrified.
Along those lines, here is an interesting post from DailyKOS:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/27/13051/6780
"The universal theme of the Ha'artetz discussion, from one analyst after the other, besides: How did we manage to screw this up so badly, is now: How much is Israel going to have to give up? The commentators all agree that Israel has encountered stronger than expected opposition and has not been able to defeat Hezbollah militarily, nor can they expect to do so. Hezbollah will survive - and it may well come out of the conflict strengthened.
For one thing, it seems to be universally agreed that Israel will have to relinquish the disputed Shabaa Farms area..."
Uh, just one sentence in this article I disagree with...
"As for Israel: it has lost...the monetary cost of this ill-advised campaign"
I think we know which country will end up paying for this war, don't we? A clue: it won't be Israel.
thnx miguel.
i wonder who'll be paying for the infrastructure damage in lebanon. reparations from the US?
Post a Comment