Christ- what is wrong with people. Juan Cole, much celebrated in left-wing circles for his intellect, has focused his critical thinking skills on the massacre at Fallujah, and after much deep thinking, he has decided who should be blamed for the brutal murders.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Cole’s “Informed Comment” is as follows:
There is increasing evidence that the brutal attack on the American security guards in Fallujah, and the desecration of their bodies, was the work of Islamists seeking vengeance for the Israeli murder of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. Leaflets found at the scene said the operation was in the name of Yassin. al-Hayat reports in its Friday edition that responsibility for the attack has been taken by a group called Phalanges of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. The group said the deaths were a “gift to the Palestinian people.”
You put yourself in the shoes of an American military commander in Fallujah. He treats with the local clan leaders and Sunni clergy. He tries to get them on the side of the US. He faces hostility, but he is making some progress. And then Ariel Sharon sends US-made helicopter gunships to Gaza and has them fire missiles at people coming out of a mosque, killing 8 and wounding 24. One of the dead is a half-blind paraplegic Islamist named Sheikh Yassin. He could have easily been arrested, and had been in the 1990s. But he was incinerated in a piece of state terror instead. And all of a sudden the people of Fallujah in Iraq are pointing their fingers at the American troops and saying, ‘you did this. You gave Sharon the green light.’ And all the commander’s hard work in building bridges collapses over night. And four US security personnel are dead, and 5 US troops are dead, and the fighting flares up. Thanks, Prime Minister Sharon. Thank you very much.
I don’t even know where to start. Why is the left filled with so many smart people who don’t know anything?
I guess what Mr. Cole is really saying that an Israeli mob should kill some Russian civilians- after all, the Israeli’s have seen so many of their peopled killed with Russian made AK-47’s and former Soviet bloc explosives.
frontinus
I never had a problem with Cole’s bent until he took the same, tired line on Clarke’s Millenium story. His objectivity and fairness was beyond reproach up til then. But despite his recent hiccups I still check his page every day. He reports things I don’t see covered even in such virulent anti-everything rags like Asia Times or World Socialist.
Just as an aside, anyone get a laugh out of the alleged named of this group? “Phalange of…” Killing people is one thing but don’t they have any compassion for what the Phalangists did at Sabra and Shatalla? Internet sarcasm….
shark
One change to his commentary:
Instead of his line: “One of the dead is a half-blind paraplegic Islamist named Sheikh Yassin”
Lets insert this line: “One of the dead was a man responsible for the deaths of thousands of jews due to attacks and bombings carried out under his murderous orders and guidance, a scumbag terrorist names Yassin.”
NOW IT READS MUCH BETTER…..AND MORE TRUTHFUL. Or do dead joooos not count to the left (what am I saying, of course dead jooos don’t count to the left, why did I even ask)
Yan
Snarky tangentially related comment:
Must be tough to share the same last name with people like this. Now you know what journalist Tim Blair feels everyday.
On a more serious note, people like Juan Cole are the reason Middle-Eastern studies departments in this country are so shitty. Their grasp of reality of the field of their own expertise is only higher than perhaps some third rate Afro-American studies Dept’s.
Chalk it up to Edward Said’s legacy.
Francis W. Porretto
Cole and the other most prominent leftists seldom actually argue for their positions. They start from the premise that they’re right, and that anyone who disagrees is either stupid or evil. (See also this.) This reduces one’s audience to:
1. The already converted,
2. Those upon whom haughty disdain and unearned guilt can enforce submission.
So why bother with them? Of course we who differ can’t stand them. How many folks enjoy arguing enough to endure a steady stream of denunciation and denigration of one’s intelligence?
Truly intelligent and tolerant persons are leaving the Left in droves these days. Just one more demonstration that there’s some good to be had from everything.
thirdfinger
What makes you think he is smart? Because he speaks and/or writes in complete sentences? His logic is not just flawed it is STUPID.
JayR
As long as you are going to tar “people on the left” with the same breath, let me ask a question about you people on the right: why is the right filled with simplistic people who are inclined to attach morality to a mere interpretation of why things happen the way they do?
I mean, really, come on. Anybody wiith a greater than sixth grade reading ability who looks at what Cole wrote can tell that he was merely trying to answer the question “why did what happen in Fallujah happen now, of all times?” And he is led, not without reason, to the conclusion that Sharon’s actions in Gaza were a contributory factor.
I don’t think that is an unreasonable conclusion. Anybody who is willing to look at this dispassionately can figure out that
1. Arabs across the Middle East, including Iraq, are angry at what they view as unbalanced US support for Israel. Moreover, many do resent us for supplying the hardware that Israel uses on the Palestinians.
2. Arabs across the Middle East were horrified by what Israel did to Yassin.
It is not a great leap of logic to assume that Sharon doing what he did is not going to do us any great favors in our quest to bring order and democracy to Iraq. That is what Cole meant when he concluded
Thanks, Prime Minister Sharon. Thank you very much.
Note that beyond this statement that what Sharon did may very well not be in our interest, which is a debatable but reasonable position, there is nothing in what he wrote that could be construed as a moral or moralizing position. In particular, he did not provide answers to the following questions:
1. Is the US unbalanced with respect to the Israel-Palestine confrontation?
2. If so, should it be?
3. Is Sharon justified in what he did.
4. Should the US support Sharon in what he is doing.
Not that it matters, but my own answers would be
1. Of course
2. Probably, being that Israel has been a more or less loyal ally, although we can’t really trust Israel to do anything that doesn’t help themselves, regardless of what it means to us. Israel has no permanent friends or permanent enemies, only permanent interests.
3. Hard to say, as I would judge his actions purely on whether they further those of Israel and I’m not sure that they do. But what I think is beside the point, because the whole point of the existence of Israel itself is that they won’t put themselves in a position where they need the charity of others and they won’t ask for anyone’s affirmation. People who don’t understand this can’t possibly understand why Israel does the things it does. However…
4. Just as Sharon is going to put American interests at best a distant second, we need to ask whether what he is doing is furthering our goals in Iraq and I’m not sure (as Cole isn’t) that it always does.
frontinus
I wouldn’t disagree that the U.S. is imbalanced in favor of Israel. Nor would I disagree with or advocate a change from that policy. We’ve done the whole hands-off bit with respect to Jews/Israel in the past and it was an abject failure for decades–from the shameful Evian Conference to arms embargos to numerous wars(including one instigated by France and England) and the USS Liberty. There’s enough history on both sides to support any argument but it’s pretty much a “been there done that” now.
Robin Roberts
Frankly, I don’t think Fallujah had anything to do with the death of Yassin. But assume for the moment that it does, I find the idea that its Sharon’s fault that the thugs in Fallujah make such an irrational connection ludicrous.
cj
JayR, I am offended by your comments.
1. Is the US unbalanced with respect to the Israel-Palestine confrontation?
Your answer: of course. My answer: of course, although I would use a different word than “unbalanced.” In fact, I would restate the question: Is the Israeli or Palestinian philosophy more in balance with the US?
2. If so, should it be? You frame the answer in terms of “allies” and begin the proposition that Israel’s sovereign interests should not be their primary concern. I call foul.
3. Is Sharon justified in what he did. Re: your answer — what in gawd’s name is wrong with a sovereign nation taking the position of “not needing the charity of others” or “asking for others’ affirmation”?
4. Should the US support Sharon in what he is doing? Re your answer: Why in the heck should Sharon do *otherwise* than put American interests a distant second? Is he an elected leader of the USA?
Taking your comments at face value, I find them ignorant. If you are attempting to be sly, I admit, it went right over my head.
JayR
cj, I’m not sure what in my comments could be construed to offend. I am in complete agreement with what you said except for the part where you put words in my mouth.
For the record, since you appear to be literacy-impaired and need clarification, I see nothing wrong with Israel acting in its own interests. In fact, I’m all for it. My point was that Israel’s interests, while closer in alignment than almost any other middle-eastern country to ours, are not necessarily always our interests and that things that Sharon are doing to further his own interests might be harming our goals in Iraq.
Now what could possibly cause offense there?
Slartibartfast
Cole’s making a habit out of being wrong. I seem to remember a hilariously incorrect posting on global warming, but I’m far too lazy to dig it up.
S.W. Anderson
JayR: Excellent response.
The crucial factor that has been and remains incredibly underreported — nearly unreported — in every aspect of our relationship with Arab and Muslim countries is our enduring friendship and alliance with Israel. We in America take it as a given, as a proper and understandable thing. It’s been that way for all the lives of most living Americans, and continuation isn’t questioned.
This makes America, in the eyes of the average Arab and Muslim, an enemy — on cultural, political, economic, social and religious levels. We are to them what Hitler, Himmler & Co. were to us: unspeakably evil.
The main thing bridging this huge chasm of hatred and mistrust is our unyielding demand for a lot more oil than we can produce ourselves and their willingness to accept our hundreds of billions of dollars for oil they have to sell.
By saying this, I’m not suggesting we should end our alliance and ties with Israel. Nor can we afford to go cold turkey and say to hell with them and their oil.
In the short run, our political leaders and foreign policy establishment should put the U.S-Israel alliance at the center of discussion of why we’re such bad news on the Arab street, so we can have an honest understanding about where we stand.
In the long run, we should get serious at long last about reducing substantially our dependence on foreign oil and then disentangle ourselves as much as possible from the anti-democratic, violence-prone, prejudiced and vengeful populations of so many countries from which the oil we buy originates.
Sebastian Holsclaw
“This makes America, in the eyes of the average Arab and Muslim, an enemy — on cultural, political, economic, social and religious levels. We are to them what Hitler, Himmler & Co. were to us: unspeakably evil.”
You are quite right. They see consorting with Jews as really awful. But since that is a bigoted and ridiculous belief, we should try to change the stupid belief, not our laudable behaviour.
JayR
You are quite right. They see consorting with Jews as really awful. But since that is a bigoted and ridiculous belief, we should try to change the stupid belief, not our laudable behaviour.
Well, that’s nice and utopian, Sebastian. And on an idealistic level, I agree with you. But looking at things in a realistic and pragmatic fashion, one would have to agree with the fact that we have to deal with the Arab world as it is today. We don’t have the luxury of spending years reeducating them or disassociating ourselves from them until they see the world as we do.
That’s not to say that we should compromise our own values but rather that we should see the world as it is. At least then we can understand the consequences of the stances we take rather than constantly being bewildered (or pretending to be) every time something happens that we don’t like.
frontinus
Sorry, but they don’t hate us because we’re buddy buddy with Israel. That’s just the stick used to stir up the masses. We were hands off with Israel to such an extent that for the first 40 years of its existence it had to buy arms from Czechoslovakia, West Germany, England and France. I don’t recall Araf, Nasser or any other prominent ME firebrand back in the day railing against those nations. If we cut off Israel(and Egypt) tomorrow they’d march in the streets over Mossadegh or Prince Sultan base. People make the mistake of thinking the guy in the Arab street is somehow different than the guy in the American street. They are just as ignorant and myopic as we are.
JayR
“I don’t recall Araf, Nasser or any other prominent ME firebrand back in the day railing against those nations.”
Then you weren’t paying attention. Nasser hated, hated, hated, England with a passion. This eventually resulted in a war between England, France, and Israel on one side and Egypt on the other in 1956 over the nationalizing of the Suez canal.
A war that England and France would have won, incidentally, if *we* hadn’t intervened and forced them to pull out. This was one of the factors that caused France to pull out of NATO and should be remembered by all those peiople who whine about how dislyal France is to *our* interests. (Not that we didn’t have a good reason to pressure Britain and France, which were essentially that we didn’t want to fight World War III over their colonial escapades, buut the fact remains that we have a history of not backing France when it isn’t in our best interests…)
frontinus
True, Egypt had plenty of economic reason to hate England. I was just pointing out that none of the ME leaders of the 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s that I’ve read singled out countries for supporting Israel. Only after the Soviet’s nemesis began doing it did it become a rallying point.
Yeah, I think we were wise to the game after the whole Indochina/Navarre episode. What did France wait? 5 years maybe before putting the screws to us?
Stuck In Oregon
look at the situation they are always going to find something or someone to keep they populace mad at so they don’t see what a screwed up job that the Arab Countires Government are doing to their own People.