MyDD :: Bush Allowing Israel To Shell Thousands of Americans

Bush Allowing Israel To Shell Thousands of Americans

by Matt Stoller, Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 04:02:18 PM EST

It's really quite mystifying why the media isn't reporting the fact that Bush is allowing Israel to shell thousands of Americans stuck in Lebanon. Rush Limbaugh is on the case, of course:

Even in the eyes of our ingrate, spoiled-rotten little children, brat-type ingrate citizens in Beirut, it's our fault. (Crying.) "It's a war zone. It's a war! How do I get out? (crying) We're having to shield ourselves from the sun in cardboard." (sobbing) That's embarrassing.

Bush's inaction on Israel is a marked departure from America's traditional 'honest broker' status in the Middle East. While the press is making this war seem like it's a fight between Israel and Hezbollah, it's clear that Bush has taken Israel's side. Just listen to his allies.

Fred S. Zeidman, a Texas venture capitalist who is active in Jewish affairs and has been close to the president for years, said the current crisis shows the depth of the president's support for Israel. "He will not bow to international pressure to pressure Israel," Zeidman said. "I have never seen a man more committed to Israel."

Now obviously Bush is not supporting Israel, he's supporting hard line extremists in Israel, and he's choosing their interests over the lives and rights of thousands of Americans stuck in Lebanon. This is immoral, and bordering on outright treachery. Much of the right-wing Israel lobby in the US shares this same Likud-over-all immoral agenda. Real support for Israel and for Americans would involve calling for a cease-fire and pressuring both sides to come to the negotiating table.

Americans don't want to be involved in this fight except as part of an international force. It is the job of the press to point out the context here, that with our diplomatic inaction, Bush is de facto backing Israeli Defense Force incursions into Lebanon. While I'm not going to say that Israel shouldn't hit back (it should, but it is overreacting), I will say that it is insane that the American public is being denied a real and honest debate over what is becoming a new American war through a proxy state. If Americans actually knew that Israel were shelling American citizens with the passive permission of Bush, we'd see pressure on him to actually stop this treachery.

Bush is a weak and pathetic little man who only reacts to pressure. It is shameful that the press isn't providing the appropriate context to allow Americans to apply that pressure.

Tags: George Bush, Israel, AIPAC (all tags)

Permalink :: 23 Comments :: Post a Comment

What? (none / 0)

Your analysis might be cogent, except that it lacks a great deal in the fact department. How is this incursion the work of "hard-line extremists" with a "Likud-over-all agenda" when the Defense Minister, Peretz, is the leader of the Labour party and a dove? Likud got absolutely drubbed in the last elections, and the government is controlled by a center-left coalition.

It's one thing to be for peace in the Middle East; it's entirely different to turn a blind eye to reality.

"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton

by bluenc on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 04:28:40 PM EST

Re: What? (3.00 / 2)

"the government is controlled by a center-left coalition"

Some "center-left coalition"...! The Israeli government is mainly made up of former Likud members, whose policies differ little from those of Sharon's Likud government -- no surprise, since it's mainly the same people behind the wheel. The fact that Netanyahu pushed Likud even further to the right, causing Sharon and his loyalists to leave it and form Kadima, doesn't mean that they moved drastically leftward.

by JDWalley on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 09:12:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What? (none / 0)

So the Labour defense minister is a hard-right extremist?

"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton

by bluenc on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:32:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Check this out . . . (3.00 / 1)

. . . . listen to this no-questions-asked supporter of Bush's strategy:

"I don't think any country is going to let their soldiers be kidnapped, transported, killed . . . without a serious response."

[The supporter] said he would not second-guess "whether that response was exactly as it should be."

"My hope would be that Israel would use as much restraint as possible. . . . It's in Israel's interest and the interests of peace. But I do think Israel has not only a right but also a responsibility to respond to the Hezbollah attack."

"I stand firmly with the people of Israel and their government as they defend themselves against these outrageous attacks."

Oh, wait. It's Russ Feingold.

Matt, I think you're off-base here. Why should Israel negotiate with a terrorist organization -- especially while its soldiers are still held hostage?

by Adam B on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 04:30:28 PM EST

Re: Check this out . . . (none / 0)

Why should Israel negotiate with a terrorist organization -- especially while its soldiers are still held hostage?

I'm not going to argue with you when you talk like a freeper, which incidentally, you do a lot.

by Matt Stoller on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 04:46:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Check this out . . . (none / 0)

Ouch. I don't think that was called for, but people can render their own impressions.

Okay, more substantive, then. There's no clear answer to this -- I agree with you that the administration needs to play a more active role in facilitating a draw-down of hostilities here.

But from there, I think we part: I can't start from the notion that "if Bush supports it, therefore it's bad." The hard line extremists lost the last Israeli election, and Netanyahu was thrashed soundly -- Kadima is a centrist party, and its defense secretary is a member of Labor, Amir Peretz.

Hezbollah kidnapped Israeli soldiers. It is a terrorist organization. Rather than doing a prisoner swap and rewarding it, Israel responded militarily. From this outsider's perspective, yes, I wish it had avoided Beirut, but I won't profess to know enough about Hezbollah's geographic dispersion to say that it was unwarranted.

Israel isn't stupid. This will end within a week, and there will be no ground invasion. (I hope.)

by Adam B on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 05:00:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Check this out . . . (none / 0)

Adam,

Israel has thousands of Arab prisoners in its jails that have not had a trial or legitimate legal standing to be in jail - does that mean Hezbollah has the right to shell Northern Israel indiscriminately? Of course not. The same standard applies to Israel.

Now, I don't disagree that Israel should respond. Of course they should. They have to. But responding with a full invasion of Southern Lebanon is completely disproportionate, and is done with the tacit approval of Bush and America. That is bad for all sorts of reasons.

And my argument is not that because Bush supports it we don't like it. That's just you making up a strawman, as you usually do. My argument is that Bush is getting us into another war without being honest with the American people.

You really need to figure out a new way to approach politics. Your Lieberman-esque intolerance of dissent and internalization of right-wing frames is a problem.

by Matt Stoller on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 05:35:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Check this out . . . (none / 0)

If Hezbollah controls the southern part of Lebanon, Israel has the right and the responsibility to go in. When the Syrians left, everybody was under the impression that the Lebanese would take control of the South and make sure Hezbollah wasn't running things down there. The government hasn't been able to do it, and Israel is doing what's necessary to protect their people.

I'd like to see a peacekeeping force get in there, but it's not happening. The best alternative is an Israeli invasion.

The original point, though, was that Matt's post was rife with factual inaccuracies. The idea that the Israeli government is hard-right or extremist is laughable.

"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton

by bluenc on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 07:43:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Check this out . . . (none / 0)

"When the Syrians left, everybody was under the impression that the Lebanese would take control of the South and make sure Hezbollah wasn't running things down there."

On the contrary, when the Syrians left, it was clear to everyone that the new Lebanese government wasn't yet strong enough to control the south. Most likely, that's why Hezbollah decided to act now, while they still had the freedom to do so.

"The government hasn't been able to do it, and Israel is doing what's necessary to protect their people."

Considering that Israel is responding to Hezbollah fighers in the south of Lebanon by attacking civilians and destroying infrastructure in the north of Lebanon, it's difficult to see how that qualifies as "doing what's necessary."

by JDWalley on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 08:50:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Check this out . . . (none / 0)

In the end, the Lebanese government was not abiding by the UN resolution, which mandated that Lebanon must control its border with Israel. It never dismantled the militias, and it left Hezbollah alone. As a result, Israel found itself threatened.

To the extent that the Lebanese infrastructure has been attacked, it has been with the purpose of dismantling Hezbollah. Israel has not, to my knowledge, purposely attacked any civilians.

"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton

by bluenc on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:51:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Check this out . . . (none / 0)

Matt, I completely tolerate dissent. I just disagree with you on this one, though I agree that a full ground invasion of Lebanon would be completely inappropriate, as would the intervention of US troops.

This is why I usually stay quiet in these threads.

by Adam B on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 10:05:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: soldiers get captured in war (none / 0)

No offense, but soldiers get captured, civilians get kidnapped. They were no more "kidnapped" than the NVA "kidnapped" John McCain or the Japanese "kidnapped" American GIs on Bataan.

The soldiers in question were at the border, in view of their enemy, and visa versa. The soldiers got careless on patrol and they were successfully attacked. Several soldiers got killed and two were captured. Too bad, that's war. And Israel is on constant war-footing.

Israel's response is a lot like how the city of Philadelphia handled MOVE. MOVE was a threatening, militant, heavily-armed organization, but the correct response wasn't to burn them out and an entire city block down along the way.

If the Israeli gov't thought that was an act of war, then they should have declared war on Lebanon and invaded even knowing Lebanon, except for Hezbollah, was utterly defenseless.

by phillydem on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 05:47:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: soldiers get captured in war (none / 0)

Why would Israel declare war on Lebanon? The Lebanese government has no control over the Southern part of the country, or Hezbollah. If the Lebanese had any kind of military force in that part of the country, Israel probably woulld have just gotten them to take care of it. Since that wasn't an option, they went after Hezbollah.

How exactly is Israel supposed to fight Hezbollah without going into Lebanon?

"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton

by bluenc on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 07:46:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: soldiers get captured in war (2.00 / 1)

Israel doesn't need to be fighting Hezbollah in this ham handed fashion. This is a war of choice, green-lighted by Bush and the NeoCons for domestic political gain.

With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.

by Sitkah on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 08:38:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: soldiers get captured in war (none / 0)

You can argue that Israel's in the wrong, but it's silly to suggest that this is directed by the US. Bush wants Iraq to go well, and if Israel invades it will simply inflame the Shiites in Iraq. If Israel is in Lebanon tomorrow morning, there is a very real possibility that, before long, not even Fox News will be able to question whether Iraq is in a civil war. Bush and Co. will not interfere with this, but they had nothing to do with it.

"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton

by bluenc on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:35:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: soldiers get captured in war (none / 0)

Bush and Co. will not interfere with this, but they had nothing to do with it.

It seems incredibly naive to think that the NeoCons, who have been promoting wider war in the ME, and General Rove, who needs war for political reasons, aren't directly involved.

With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.

by Sitkah on Tue Aug 01, 2006 at 02:50:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: soldiers get captured in war (none / 0)

"Why would Israel declare war on Lebanon? The Lebanese government has no control over the Southern part of the country, or Hezbollah. If the Lebanese had any kind of military force in that part of the country, Israel probably woulld have just gotten them to take care of it."

Precisely! But then, why was Israel's first response to, de facto, "declare war on Lebanon" (Beirut and the nation's infrastructure) rather than Hezbollah, and only later, after "setting Lebanon back twenty years" (in the words of an IDF spokesman), going after Hezbollah?

by JDWalley on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 08:54:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: soldiers get captured in war (none / 0)

Israel was going after the southern part of Beirut, which was largely under Hezbollah control. The urban districts in the north are intact, because Hezbollah didn't have much of a presence there. The attacks in Lebanon have all been aimed at Hezbollah and its infrastructure.

"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton

by bluenc on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:39:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: lose the circular argument (none / 0)

This canard has been repeatedly trotted out by those who are anxious to apologize for Israel's disproportionate response to the capture of a couple of soldiers.

Please point out even one credible source that claims the Lebanese gov't was ever strong enough, post-Syria, to control Hezbollah. Even the Israeli
IDF officials and ambassadors I've heard don't say this. They acknowledge the Lebanese central gov't is too weak to control Hezbollah.

In the end, no matter how much Lebanon might have wanted to comply with the UN resolution, the gov't was too weak to do it. Every one knows and acknowledges that.

What Israel did in demanding Lebanon control Hezbollah was no different from you or I telling a blind man to see or a paraplegiac to walk. It was not only not going to happen, but COULDN'T happen.

That is what makes Israel's attack so unconscionable.

by phillydem on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 05:39:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bush Allowing Israel To Shell Thousands (3.00 / 1)

Nothing is more telling than Rice's statement that the Bush Regime DOESN'T WANT A CEASEFIRE.

Since General Rove doesn't have enough US troops to launch another war before the election Israel is doing it for him.

How can anyone not see right through it?

With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.

by Sitkah on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 08:35:20 PM EST

Re: Bush Allowing Israel To Shell Thousands of Ame (none / 0)

Be careful, Matt! If you posted these sort of thoughts on DU, you'd have dozens of hard-liners calling you an "anti-Semite." (And, yes, I know you're Jewish -- that's just my point.)

by JDWalley on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 08:56:12 PM EST

Re: Israel (none / 0)

Of course Bush is on Israels side! That is the one good thing he has done so far in office! Why would he support a bunch of terrorist organizations that are in connection with Iran and most likely Al-Quaida? I dislike Bush for most of his other views, but I can applaud him on this one. Shame on the Reps. who voted against the pro-Israel bill. Shame on those who disagree with Israel fighting against terrorists. Shame on those who think a cease-fire will last for more than a week.

by mbfeldma on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 01:56:20 PM EST

Re: To Shell Thousands of Ame (none / 0)

Limbaugh:

"Even in the eyes of our ingrate, spoiled-rotten little children, brat-type ingrate citizens in Beirut, it's our fault. (Crying.) "It's a war zone. It's a war! How do I get out? (crying) We're having to shield ourselves from the sun in cardboard." (sobbing) That's embarrassing."

You know, its getting hard to avoid concluding that the leaders of the right wing in this country don't particularly like America, or Americans.

by Michels on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 02:15:33 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.