Jason Horowitz’s fine piece on the Lieberman-Lamont race in this week’s Observer contains a stretcher, or 2, from N.Y. Congressman Anthony Weiner:
‘[T]he Palestinian position seems to be perfect for the Internet world of pithy back-and-forth and 30-second You Tube tapes, where the Zionist position is more at home in a seven-page New York Review of Books article,” said Representative Anthony Weiner, a pro-Israel hawk who opposes the war in Iraq.
Well, first of all, Weiner voted for the war in Iraq when it mattered, October 2002. Changed his mind later, after all the bloodshed began.
And as for the New York Review of Books, it has been the most courageous voice in this country in questioning the U.S.’s blind support of Israel. Look at Tony Judt’s now-famous stunner in 2003 calling for a binational state in Palestine, or Michael Massing’s exploration of the power of AIPAC over Congress, which has been cited again and again by critics of the lobby, or Henry Siegman’s call in April for U.S. pressure on Israel to negotiate with Hamas. Now that is pithy.
This isn't exactly on topic…but I don't see the relevance of Israel to the Lieberman-Lamont race. If Lamont gets elected, his positon on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will almost certainly be the same as Lieberman's. Every AIPAC-sponsored bill can count on the automatic support of at least 80 Senators. Why would Lamont want to take a position critical of Israel, given the political (and fundraising) costs that would entail?
I also have to add that, contrary to the fantasies of Anthony Weiner and Dan Gerstein, American liberals are deathly afriad of touching the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Just look at the silence in the liberal blogosphere about Israel's collective punishment of Gaza.
I am afraid I have to agree : thanks to Nasrallah's stupidity in launching a guerrilla offensive, rather than trying to outlast the Western campaigns, a regional war is now imminent, and the Western powers will naturally win it, by using overwhelming air power against whole populations. 'Western public opinion' is in no condition to oppose this, and if the Left pretend that it is they are holding out irresponsible hopes to the unfortunate victims, who would be rationally best advised to surrender and sue for peace, since martyrdom really isn't such a good thing, whatever the odd religious fanatic may claim.
Needless to say, I take no pleasure in this assessment, I am just being realistic.
Rowan,
Victory ain't what it used to be. The decisive victory of '67 gave Israel years of terrorism.
The decisive victory of the US in Afghanistan and Iraq has left us in an impossible situation.
And as for "western public opinion" I have seen little sign that it has any affect on the hopes and fears on the Islamic world.
Its hard to sue for peace when you feel an obligation to avenge the death of a family member.
A little mental experiment: think of your house or your mother's house bombed with 6 or 7 of your family inside. Would care if it was an accident? If it conformed to the practices of modern war? If it was justified by UN resolution?
It takes a lot of dying before people are ready for peace.