"But you cannot read any account of Israeli politics without being struck by the extraordinary domination of the generals. We are familiar with military dictatorships. But Israel is unique in being a military democracy. An electoral system much fairer than our own repeatedly places the country in the hands of warriors, and sometimes (I am thinking of Yitzhak Shamir and Sharon) war criminals. Even when civilians are elected, they are pushed around by the generals. To sustain their position, the warrior chiefs seek to ensure that Israel is constantly on the verge of war. As Moshe Dayan observed, military retaliation is a "life drug". Avi Shlaim summarises Dayan's argument thus: "First, [retaliation] obliged the Arab governments to take drastic measures to protect their borders. Second, and this was the essence, it enabled the Israeli government to maintain a high degree of tension in the country and in the army."* nyt via holden:
The warriors in Israel have almost always been empowered by armed action. (Even while planning the biggest political disaster in Israeli history - Suez - Ben-Gurion was able to depose his peace-seeking foreign minister, Moshe Sharett.) Their interests are best served by escalation, however inappropriate. After the latest attack on Lebanon began, the generals demanded to intensify it. At the cabinet meeting of July 27, when it had already become clear that the assault was turning into a strategic and political disaster, they insisted that they be allowed to mount a full-scale ground offensive."
"More Iraqi civilians were killed in July than in apparently any other month of the war, according to Iraqi Health Ministry and morgue statistics, despite a security plan begun by the new government in June.can everyone please stop saying that 'up to 100,000 people have been killed in iraq' - that information is now TWO YEARS OLD
[]
When the July tally for total civilian deaths is added to Iraqi government numbers for earlier months obtained by the United Nations, at least 17,776 Iraqi civilians died violently in the first seven months of this year, or an average of 2,539 per month.
[]
United Nations officials and military analysts say the morgue and ministry numbers almost certainly reflect severe undercounts, caused by the haphazard nature of information in a war zone."
* Fisk:
"However, it is clear that President Assad now sees himself back at the centre of Arab power after his army's humiliating retreat from Lebanon last year. There was no more need for defeatism among Arabs, he said - a sentiment widely held in the real Arab world but quite absent from President Bush's fantasy Middle East.
That it should be Syria, of all nations, which can state this to so much applause probably says more about Washington than it does about Damascus. And it is, of course, the return of the Israeli-occupied Syrian Golan Heights - see UN Resolution 242 - that lies behind this whole disastrous war."
12 comments:
i can't believe it's not a war crime: U.S. invasion responsible deaths of over 250,000 civilians in Iraq:
'...The figure of 100,000 had been based on somewhat "conservative assumptions", notes Les Roberts at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, U.S., who led the study.
That estimate excludes Falluja, a hotspot for violence. If the data from this town is included, the compiled studies point to about 250,000 excess deaths since the outbreak of the U.S.-led war...'
shameful...disgusting...i, for one, feel personally responsible and very guilty for these madmens' actions.
urgh
i was gonna provide all the details for why the orginal 100000 number was wrong - but i figured the most important thing was to remind people that the 100k number was wrong/old
i first read of that in the Lancet, i think in dec 04...it got almost no play in US media (not surprisingly).
No play in US media was on purpose, IIRC. KGB decreed no discussion whatsoever of Iraqi casualties and the lapdog press fell right in line.
Thank God for Lancet . . . and the internet tubez.
While sitting under the Bo tree, the Buddha asked...
How many deaths in a war based on lies must one cause to be considered a war criminal?
This the Buddha contemplated while sitting under the Bo tree.
LeeB - you are exactly right. there were extraordinary efforts to a) suppress and b) ridicule that report. and of course, it wasnt just Lancet - it was Johns Hopkins as well.
Anon - i suspect Buddha came up with a very small number (if Buddha chose to actually answer the question)
which of the dipshits came out a few years back to say 'we don't do bodycounts.'?
until fairly recently, like, when they did. well, apart from the dead Iraqi civilians thing. anyway, i don't recall ANYone EVer calling the rethugs flip-floppers.
there's a handful of bloggers (like Billmon and Digby) who'd so thoroughly do a better job of informing US exactly where we stand. and Lukery, of course--writer extraordinaire on putting together the Sibel thing. and Plame/Wilson et al. (there's sooo many issues to go around).
anyway, the above--and many more--of the unpaid have been doing a waaaay better job of informing US than the knee-pad wearing 'real journo' dickheads who do get paid.
Ahhh, Rimone! You have such a lovely way with words!
(I ran out of *Amens* yesterday)
LeeB, truth be told, i always used foul language in conversations, but not in my serious writing (which, among other things, has been shunted aside over the last six years).
however, these jokers--these lying halfwit fucks, who are BEING FINANCED BY US TAXPAYERS--have totally brought out the worst in me. my mom cringes when she reads my site but i'm all like 'hey--i call 'em as i see 'em).
unfortunately, i am/get so rabidly insane when reading of their backpedalling and bullshit, any positive ideas i might have, immediately descend into my name-calling and cursing when my total outrage takes over. which it does like a thousand or more times a day.
i blame bu$hCo, actually.
Rimone: I'm with you on the need for more expressive, colorful language. Since 2000, I've been swearing like a salty dog, including in writing where it becomes indelible.
I used to blame everything on Hugh Heffner, but that was before Dopey and Darth.
Kathleen and Rimone, you both have my undying admiration!
I do words for a living (mostly other people's words), and from that perspective I always tell others that what we call "foul language" exists specifically because of situations for which NOTHING else suits.
Who would have thought that in a mere -- what? . . . 24 hours? . . . fewer??? -- of the 2001 inauguration, we would already be sputtering in utter amazement at these bastards?!
They have never let up. Not once. Not once in their drive to return the U.S. to a feudal system complete with lords (masters) and serfs (slaves!) have they even paused for breath. So, as Kathleen said, "more expressive, colorful language" is what they get. It is what they have earned. Hefner was a piker, as we can clearly see now.
What's that bumper sticker say? If you're not outraged you haven't been paying attention!
So, keep it up. Y'all sure as hell are not offending this chickie-baby.
LeeB: ...They have never let up. Not once. Not once in their drive to return the U.S. to a feudal system complete with lords (masters) and serfs (slaves!) have they even paused for breath...
this is what kills me--that in most of the last six years, the Democratic party just played nice until recently.
about that bumper sticker 'if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention,' i bought that at the Socialist Bookstore in NYC about ten years back.
NEVER in the last ten years, has that thought been a more crucial message to US all.
sometimes i feel like ending every one of my posts w/that but i hate to be so redundant (apart from when i do). :-)
ps, it was on my bulletin board in NYC, as well as in Germany and is now proudly the centre of attention on my bulletin board here in England.
Post a Comment