Back
I haven't posted in ages. This upside-down/backwards German keyboard doesn't help. Travelling, lack of internet connections in my apartment, and back-breakingly difficult German lessons have all kept me away. That faced with the dilemma of planning my post B.A. existence in the coming year or so. Anyway, a lot has happened. Italy won the World Cup and Zidane went down in flames (much like, as a friend pointed out, a tragic Greek hero: stunning career, final test, tragic flaw, destined failure.) Although check out what his mother said about Materezzi--"Je suis dégoutée par ce que j'ai entendu, mais fière de l'attitude de mon fils qui a fait honneur à la famille. Si les insultes qu'il a faites s'avèrent vraies, je veux qu'on m'apporte ses testicules sur un plat" (!!).
But much more importantly, and interestingly, of course, is the new war in the Middle East. I have nothing much original to say--the violence is the inevitable result of Iran's growing awareness of its ability to shake things up in the region and its desire to do so as talks stall on its nuclear program, Olmert's desire to prove his new government capable of facing Hezbollah's threat, and the U.S.'s inevitable support for Israeli security. The key questions seem to me:
1) What will Syria do? Will it continue to support Hezbollah and allow its leaders, weapons, and followers to flee Lebanon into Syria? Doing so will surely bring violence to Damascus and put al-Assad's Baathist autocracy into jeopardy--probably a bad thing, considering the alternatives that exist to secular dictatorship in the Arab world. Can it afford to cut ties to Hezbollah, however, when the group's main sponser--Iran--is increasingly Syria's only friend in the region?
2) What will happen to Lebanon's nascent democracy? Bush is calling on Israel for restraint in its bombing campaign in order to keep Beirut's democratic coaltion goverment from falling. But as an Arab official recently remarked, this effectively means the U.S. telling Israel to drop four bombs instead of five to destroy a target. The U.S. can't afford to lose a semi-stable democracy in the region; look at the alternatives--Iran, Palestine, Iraq.
3) What kind of diplomacy is possible? The U.S. won't officially speak to Iran, Hezbollah, or Hamas, the main players in the current conflict. And unless the rules change, this seems to rule out any effective, U.S. backed bargaining except between the Lebanese government ("Stop providing shelter for Hezbollah") and Israel ("Stop bombing, when you find it convenient"). A permament diplomatic solution to the problem looks unlikely for now.
My predictions: A week or two of continued hostilities. A short Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. Big losses for Hezbollah in arms, manpower, and territory. But not total defeat. A more confident, brazen, and angry Iran emerging out of all of this. An Arab world (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia) awakened to the threat Iran poses to their regional interests. Increasing cooperation between the Arab world and the U.S. to deal with Iran. Increasing impatience on Israel's part with Iran's nuclear program and belligerence.
I greave for the innocent deaths on each side of the boarder. The irony, as it is today with asymmetrical warfare, is that Israel is responsible for far more civilian deaths than Hezbollah while at the same time actively seeking to avoid these deaths, warning the civilian populations of Hezbollah-heavy towns to get the hell out. Hezbollah, on the other hand, has killed very few Israeli civilians despite their earnest intention to do so. The battle of civilization against terrorist barbery itself inevitably becomes barbaric. The price the West has always had to pay for wealth, security and democracy has been the blood of others. Is there another way?
But much more importantly, and interestingly, of course, is the new war in the Middle East. I have nothing much original to say--the violence is the inevitable result of Iran's growing awareness of its ability to shake things up in the region and its desire to do so as talks stall on its nuclear program, Olmert's desire to prove his new government capable of facing Hezbollah's threat, and the U.S.'s inevitable support for Israeli security. The key questions seem to me:
1) What will Syria do? Will it continue to support Hezbollah and allow its leaders, weapons, and followers to flee Lebanon into Syria? Doing so will surely bring violence to Damascus and put al-Assad's Baathist autocracy into jeopardy--probably a bad thing, considering the alternatives that exist to secular dictatorship in the Arab world. Can it afford to cut ties to Hezbollah, however, when the group's main sponser--Iran--is increasingly Syria's only friend in the region?
2) What will happen to Lebanon's nascent democracy? Bush is calling on Israel for restraint in its bombing campaign in order to keep Beirut's democratic coaltion goverment from falling. But as an Arab official recently remarked, this effectively means the U.S. telling Israel to drop four bombs instead of five to destroy a target. The U.S. can't afford to lose a semi-stable democracy in the region; look at the alternatives--Iran, Palestine, Iraq.
3) What kind of diplomacy is possible? The U.S. won't officially speak to Iran, Hezbollah, or Hamas, the main players in the current conflict. And unless the rules change, this seems to rule out any effective, U.S. backed bargaining except between the Lebanese government ("Stop providing shelter for Hezbollah") and Israel ("Stop bombing, when you find it convenient"). A permament diplomatic solution to the problem looks unlikely for now.
My predictions: A week or two of continued hostilities. A short Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. Big losses for Hezbollah in arms, manpower, and territory. But not total defeat. A more confident, brazen, and angry Iran emerging out of all of this. An Arab world (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia) awakened to the threat Iran poses to their regional interests. Increasing cooperation between the Arab world and the U.S. to deal with Iran. Increasing impatience on Israel's part with Iran's nuclear program and belligerence.
I greave for the innocent deaths on each side of the boarder. The irony, as it is today with asymmetrical warfare, is that Israel is responsible for far more civilian deaths than Hezbollah while at the same time actively seeking to avoid these deaths, warning the civilian populations of Hezbollah-heavy towns to get the hell out. Hezbollah, on the other hand, has killed very few Israeli civilians despite their earnest intention to do so. The battle of civilization against terrorist barbery itself inevitably becomes barbaric. The price the West has always had to pay for wealth, security and democracy has been the blood of others. Is there another way?
posted by James at 7:05 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home