Saturday, July 22, 2006

* i was gonna give arkin a shout-out for this article which is mostly sensible (and why i read him), but then he says this:
"When the U.S. accuses Syria of being behind the assassination of a former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri, or of harboring Hamas leadership, it more often than not does so based upon extremely sensitive sources of intercepted intelligence. When Israeli officials reveal Iranian military advisers in Lebanon or accuse the Lebanese military of directly aiding Hezbollah fighters in mounting attacks, they do so on the basis of snippets of intelligence -- is that an Iranian accent? -- collected by their own NSA."
* and then there's this post where he writes:
"A far more interesting question here, though, doesn't simply consider a straighforward notion of "proportionality," that is, whether the fact that more Lebanese civilans are dead indicates that the Israeli military responded disproportionately to the danger posed by Hezbollah. The more intriguing question addresses the repercussions of Israel's implied immunity in this asymmetrical war. "
so far so good.

then he notes:
"Hezbollah continues its offensive, shooting about 85 rockets across northern Israel. The city of Haifa is enduring its fourth consecutive day under fire."

(no count of the number of sorties from israel - and i wonder whether HExbollah is on the 'offensive')

he continues:
"Bolton can be confident in his conviction that Hezbollah desires Israeli civilian deaths, and in that, they are either committing murder or violating the laws of war.

Israel, on the other hand, is assumed not to be interested in seeking civilian pain to achieve its military goals. When civilians are killed, the U.S. either excuses the act as self-defense or dismisses any lawlessness by accepting that Israel is using "precision" weapons and thus doing all it can to minimize civilian harm.

It is the same argument that the United States uses to justify its own conduct, failing to recognize the intrinsic lawlessness of attacking the civilian population by destroying essential services."
i'm not sure how he correlates this 'lawlessness' with his scoffing at the notion of war crimes.

i'll say it arkin. arkin is schizo. i suspect that his comments section is most interesting.

No comments: