Author: Jonathan Schwarz

The influence I (and most everyone else) can have on the ever-greater catastrophe in the mideast is minimal. So why do so many people feel compelled to learn as much as possible about what’s happening? For myself, I’ve decided it’s so that in 2009 when terrorists set off the atomic device ten blocks from my house, I can—just before I turn into a puff of water vapor—shout “I understand EXACTLY why this is happening!”

Anyway:

1. Dennis Perrin imagines what would happen if Israel were Lebanon and Lebanon were Israel.

2. Jonathan Versen, who grew up partly in Beirut, says: “The Middle East is not a dream someone else is having”

3. Billmon reads the accidental transcript of Bush and Blair talking in Russia and thinks:

This is fascinating as well as terrifying. It suggests that Bush and his faithful water carrier both really believe their own bullshit…it’s hard not to be impressed with the level of delusion picked up by that treacherous microphone.

4. Chris Floyd: “…since we do live in a world dominated by vicious (not to say vacuous) sectarian folderol, we should at least try to deal with the actual reality in front of us, not the heat mirages thrown off by warring sects.”

5. Amal Saad-Ghorayeb points out some boring old facts:

The prisoners Hizbullah wants released are hostages who were taken on Lebanese soil. In the successful prisoner exchange in 2004, Israel held on to three Lebanese detainees as bargaining chips and to keep the battle front with Hizbullah open. These detentions have become a cause celebre in Lebanon.

6. Egypt’s Mahmoud Sabit sez: “In a Fragile Situation, Engage Hamas”

You know the funniest part about Israel’s attacks on Lebanon and the likelihood of a much wider war in the mideast? Of course, it’s hard to choose because there’s so much funny about it. But I think the top contender clearly is that, before the invasion of Iraq, the people pushing war kept telling us how “the road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad.”

In other words, invading Iraq would show the dirty Arabs—who only understand force—that we and Israel couldn’t be pushed around. Then the Palestinians would knuckle under in the West Bank and Gaza and we’d all live happily ever after.

One excellent example from a September, 2002 issue of the New Republic can be found here. As you’d expect, it’s written by Martin “I Have Literally Never Been Correct About Anything In My Entire Life” Peretz:

The road to Jerusalem more likely leads through Baghdad than the reverse. Once the Palestinians see that the United States will no longer tolerate their hero Saddam Hussein, depressed though they may be, they may also come finally to grasp that Israel is here to stay and that accommodating to this reality is the one thing that can bring them the generous peace they require.

You could go on citing things like this until the sun explodes. So I’ll just provide one more, from the website of a New York Republican activist. This deserves a Special Jury Prize for having been written in October, 2004:

Indeed the road to Jerusalem led through Baghdad. Without Saddam, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be solved under Bush’s second term. And peace can begin to spread in the region, backed by 3 Democracies.

Right on! Furthermore, with people as wise and informed as this in charge of our foreign policy, I see nothing but even greater success ahead!

ALSO: Be sure to read Dennis Perrin’s exegesis of the current embarrassing performance of liberal radio.

Dennis Perrin asks:

Is there a better Other than Kim Jong Il? A Central Casting classic. And how very retro to have an Asian supervillian in these days of Arab-fear…

Amid the rhetoric and red flags (of all kinds), the basic scenario remains as it has for decades: the US will decide who will or will not own or use WMD, and North Korea currently tops the NO list. Thing is, there’s really not much Bush can do about Kim’s stockpile, especially militarily, as any strike would immediately result in Seoul’s destruction, assaults on Japan, and God knows what else. Indeed, a resumption of the Korean war would be a very bad thing all around, which is why Bush is reduced to telling Kim, “We expect you to adhere to international norms,” a command that is both laughable and serious — laughable in the sense that Bush is instructing anyone on global etiquette, but serious in that such blazing hypocrisy is indeed the “international norm.” There are Masters and there are Servants, and Kim is decidedly the latter, a role he continually rejects.

And that is the true nub of this whole “crisis”: Kim’s refusal to assume the position. I know there are numerous obstacles, mostly domestic, that tie Bush’s hands on this front, but still, how hard would it be to put Kim on the payroll? Lord knows the US has bankrolled far worse, and allows other nations to behave in ways that would get North Korea baked were they to act in kind (see Israel in Gaza), so I really don’t see the problem here. Yes, the native ideologues would bark and foam at the very thought, but a serious geopolitical player would make them choke on their own bile. Picture Richard Nixon arriving in Pyongyang, shaking Kim’s hand and slapping him on the back, reviewing his troops and toasting him at a state banquet. Think Kim could resist that? Please…

But Bush is no Nixon. Hell, he rates below Agnew on the political hustler scale. So, here we’ll remain, stuck between calls for military action and Cold War-style containment, when the solution is right in front of us: pay Kim off. What better way to show him the glories of capitalism?

The rest of Dennis’ sensible suggestions are here.

Many young people come to me and ask: what is fascism? It’s a question political philosophers have studied for decades.

In the end, though, the answer is really quite simple. Here’s a handy guide to understanding what fascism is, and just as importantly, what fascism is not.

IS NOT FASCISM

• Using an attack on a large, prominent building as an excuse to clamp down on civil liberties

• Calling for the execution of the editor of a large newspaper

• Threatening a Jewish family until they flee their city

• Imprisoning citizens for years without charges

• Government lawyers claiming a country’s leader has the authority to “crush the testicles” of a child if necessary

IS FASCISM

• Sending mean emails to Lee Siegel

• • •

You see? As I said, simple. I hope this clears things up.

Now seems like a good time to remember this section from Hard News by Seth Mnookin:

[A]ccording to half a dozen sources within the Times, Raines wanted to prove once and for all that he wasn’t editing the paper in a way that betrayed his liberal beliefs… “My sense was that Howell Raines was eager to have articles that supported the warmongering out of Washington,” former investigative editor Doug Frantz wrote in an email…Frantz, who personally edited some of [Judith] Miller’s stories, went on to write, “He discouraged pieces that were at odds with the administration’s position on Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction and alleged links of Al Qaeda.”

Let’s see. How’s that working out for them?

The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee…said he will write Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, urging that the nation’s chief law enforcer “begin an investigation and prosecution of the New York Times — the reporters, the editors and the publisher.”

“We’re at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous,” King said.

I think the lesson here is clear: the NY Times still hasn’t proven, ONCE AND FOR ALL, that they’re not dirty liberals. But once they do, America’s right will surely leave them alone. That’s because America’s right is all about honest, fair-minded criticism.