Peace, Propoganda and the Middle East [Archive]

Drew Van T.

08-02-2006, 07:17 AM

Besides gouging us with oil prices, what has any mideast country done for the U.S. lately? Or ever, for that matter? We don't owe the arab world anything but contempt, for their dictatorships, and in particular for the way they oppress their women.

It would be fantastic if the American policymakers felt that way, too. Because that might mean they would leave the Middle East alone. One thing you definitely can't say is that Washington has left the Middle East alone, to get on with it by itself with its own devices...the disproportionate support for Israel is just another aspect of this obsessive involvement.

Valmore

08-02-2006, 07:22 AM

It would be fantastic if the American policymakers felt that way, too. Because that might mean they would leave the Middle East alone. One thing you definitely can't say is that Washington has left the Middle East alone, to get on with it by itself with its own devices...the disproportionate support for Israel is just another aspect of this obsessive involvement.

It's called "I want those millions of Jewish-American votes." VOTES, BABY!

Lubichev

08-02-2006, 07:22 AM

It was odd hearing "Passion of the Christ" music at the beginning of that.

Drew Van T.

08-02-2006, 07:38 AM

It's called "I want those millions of Jewish-American votes." VOTES, BABY!

Do they vote Republican now? The percentage that does is definitely up, IIRC.

You know what? George W. Bush had exactly the right idea when he first came to office (apart from the continued support for Israel, that is). Namely: he couldn't give a damn about the Middle East. Meaning he was mostly going to leave it alone. It was an absolutely brilliant policy (much more so in hindsight then I thought at the time, but anyway...).

Then the Bearded Nonce from Hell - OBL - had to come along and a ruin a perfectly good president for dealing with the Middle East (or almost perfect...you know, Israel.)

Wesley Dodds

08-02-2006, 07:41 AM

It's not Fox News. Let's face it, Fox is a comedy channel for liberals. "How great are we? More news after these messages."

Tonight it's generic blond pundit in a mini-skirt. "I think the problem with liberals is that they hate America, they have an irrational hatred of the President, they're on Al Qaeda's side, and dissent undermines our resolve in time of war, just like Vietnam. I know Alan is evil because he's a liberal."

Alan Colmes is silent. Somebody gives him a nudge -- he slumps over. He's been dead since 1982.

Time for a caller. He's upset. Sean opens: "Right, we have here a caller who hates America and wants us all to lose the war on terror. Why do you want us to lose the war on terror? And when did you stop beating your wife?"

"I've never stopped beating my -- I don't want us to lose -- I..."

Silly caller, don't engage with people who don't care about honest argument.

"...and that's why liberal moral depravity is eating us out from the inside. It's the culture, they hate our Jesus, they want us to lose because they've been poisoned by Marx's promise of heaven in this life. During the commercial break, I want us all to have a think about how depraved liberals are."

Tonight on Fox! Naked Dating! Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who's the dirtiest one of all? Blond woman with tiny eyes and giant lips waxes a car with her muff, camera jumps around. Soap suds are everywhere, some gay guy with great pecs (shhh, don't tell the viewers, they think fags look like Alan) stands there while 3 drunk girls beg him for the right to give him a pole dance.

"Man," thinks Fox viewer. "The anger makes me feel good and forget about my problems, but it has made me kind of horny..." Sean, you're the cupid of calling liberals names.

But there's a happy ending. Fox viewer's wife (she won't fuck him because she can't stand his gigantic sagging belly) starts reading about socialism and feminism and leaves him and finds out that all this time she'd been selling herself short. She enters the workforce and marrys a guy who respects her and isn't above a little S&M sometimes. Turns out she wasn't frigid! Yay!

Anyway. The real problem isn't Fox. Fox is too stupid to be the problem.

The real problem is the gatekeeper function of the American media. If it's not Democrat and it's not Republican it's not legitimate discourse and it's not reported. I'd go into more detail but now that I've brought it up I'm sure I can count on Mike to tell us about how the two party system makes meaningful political participation impossible.

Valmore

08-02-2006, 07:43 AM

Do they vote Republican now? The percentage that does is definitely up, IIRC.

You know what? George W. Bush had exactly the right idea when he first came to office (apart from the continued support for Israel, that is). Namely: he couldn't give a damn about it. Meaning he was mostly going to leave it alone.

Then the Bearded Nonce from Hell had to come along and a ruin a perfectly good president for the Middle East (or almost perfect...you know, Israel.)

The higher percentage still votes Democrat, last I checked. But still, even the Repubs have to pander to those who might possibly switch. Plus it doesn't hurt that the conservative right crowd knows Israel encompasses where Jesus was born and lived.

And if we really want to overcomplicate things, Israel has a Democratic form of government, which has always been a reason the U.S.A. supports them so much - as a foothold of something more ideal than the radical Arab governments in the Middle East.

Either way, "Peace in the Middle East" seems to be a pipe dream and getting worse all the time. You try to remain optimistic about it and then Israel/Hizbollah pulls off this latest crap...

Typo Lad

08-02-2006, 07:55 AM

It's called "I want those millions of Jewish-American votes." VOTES, BABY!

Eh. The Jewish Vote is a myth.

Wesley Dodds

08-02-2006, 07:57 AM

Valmore

08-02-2006, 08:01 AM

Eh. The Jewish Vote is a myth.

Or so you would have us believe, Mr. Answers to a Higher Authority!

Typo Lad

08-02-2006, 08:02 AM

Or so you would have us believe, Mr. Answers to a Higher Authority!
Did you just call me a weiner?

Valmore

08-02-2006, 08:27 AM

Did you just call me a weiner?

Yes, but in my best Dexter's Labratory voice, "I am de weiner!"

Drew Van T.

08-02-2006, 08:32 AM

T
And if we really want to overcomplicate things, Israel has a Democratic form of government, which has always been a reason the U.S.A. supports them so much - as a foothold of something more ideal than the radical Arab governments in the Middle East.

The fact that Israel is a democracy never did - and probably never will - have a positive influence on the rest of the region.

Because, obviously, they hate Israel. They hate it because of everything that pertains to the Palestinians, and because the state of Israel is in some ways a remnant from the era of colonial oppression. And they hate it simply because it is Jewish - i.e. for racist reasons.

They don't, however, hate Israel because it is a democracy. That's nonsense. On the other hand, it does put democracy in a negative light, simply by being associated all the time with the hated Israel (and with the western powers that are still meddling in the affairs of the Middle East, to this day).

So it is utterly wrong to think of Israel as a "foothold" of democracy. "Foothold" implies a positive presence, and a positive influence. It implies the potential for change for the better. The truth is that it is much more like a "passive but pointless provocation" than a "foothold".

Democracy needs PR, and it has to be sold to the people. Israel is (and has always been) in the worst possible position you can imagine to be selling it. Besides: Israel's exclusive priority has always been survival. It doesn't CARE whether its neighbors are dictatorships or democracies, as long as Israel is safe (and the same can be said about how it sees Hamas and the Palestinians).

The delusion that democracy plays an important role in any of this is, frankly, a very American delusion.

Let us note that Israel being a democracy has not stopped it from doing all the things they do to Palestinian civilians, and are doing to Lebanese civilians right now...

Also: let's be honest about where our priorities should lie, for us as supporters of global democracy: which is more important? The fact that the 7 million citizens of Israel live in a democracy? Or the fact that one billion muslims ought to be living in democracies? (the large part that doesn't, that is). I'm not saying that these two things are mutually exclusive, of course, but it is abundantly clear where the priority should lie.

Samurai

08-02-2006, 09:06 AM

That video was a hoot! It's got 2 discredited old kooks (Fisk and Chomsky), a pimply faced kid who's never had to shave a day in his life yet and runs his "organization" (probably just him and his friend down the street) from his mom's basement, and a couple of Arabs trying to do exactly what they criticize Israel of... defining the language of the reporting in order to pull sympathy to their side! "No, never mind the fact that Israel destroyed its own settlements and pulled out of Gaza (which only made it a launching pad for many more attacks against Israel), and has begged the Palestinian authority to control the terrorists so Israel doesn't have to keep doing it themselves. And forget that the Palestinian terrorists have said repeatedly that all of Israel is "occupied territory", and that the fighting won't end until Israel is destroyed. No, just call the Hamas terrorists "freedom fighters defending their land" and Israelis eating in a pizza parlor or riding a school bus "imperialistic occupiers", and THEN it'll be fair coverage!"

If anything, I think US coverage of Israel is too negative, and too often tries to draw a moral equivalence between terrorists purposely shooting up an Israeli school bus and Israeli soldiers killing a Hamas terror organizer and his bodyguards...

In the end, what is the terrorists' goal? The complete destruction and removal of Israel and all Jewish Israelis from the middle east. What is the goal of Israel? To defend itself and its citizens from almost non-stop attacks. I'd much rather Israel accomplished its goal than the Palestinian terrorists theirs...

Motormouse

08-02-2006, 09:51 AM

If anything, I think US coverage of Israel is too negative, ..

I think you'll find that the U.S. media's coverage of Israel is more positive towards Israel than anyone else's on the planet!

SOGG

08-02-2006, 09:54 AM

Besides gouging us with oil prices, what has any mideast country done for the U.S. lately? Or ever, for that matter? We don't owe the arab world anything but contempt, for their dictatorships, and in particular for the way they oppress their women.

You mean besides fight your proxy wars(Iran/Iraq), invest billions in your umbrella organisations(House of Saud/Carslyle), host summits that cement your hegemony on world trade (WTO Doha)?

Not a thing.

Typo Lad

08-02-2006, 09:55 AM

It's still too negative for Samurai's tastes, which is his opinion and he is welcome to it.

Drew Van T.

08-02-2006, 09:56 AM

As it happens, Julian Borger's most recent piece deals with the striking differences in coverage of the conflict (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/julian_borger/2006/08/post_279.html)...

It's like watching two different wars
Julian Borger
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/julian_borger/2006/08/post_279.html

The US and European media have always covered the Middle East from different perspectives, but flying back to Washington from a stay in London at the height of the Lebanese conflict made it clear to me how wide the gulf has become. Britons and Americans are watching two different wars.

<snip>

This emphasis on Israeli casualties relative to Lebanese was taken to its breathtaking extreme by Charles Krauthammer, a conservative columnist on the Washington Post, who described the Hizbullah rocket attacks as "perhaps the most blatant terror campaign from the air since the London blitz."

<snippety-snip>

British journalism generally celebrates eyewitness accounts with a consistency in emotional tone that discourages cool asides to discuss mitigating circumstances; US television reporting out of Lebanon, by contrast, has occasionally been in danger of becoming all context, focusing on Hizbullah tactics to the exclusion of the humanitarian tragedy. Fox News, in particular, has sought to bolster Israeli public relations. An anchor at one point asked Ehud Barak what he would like the world to know about Hizbullah and Hamas.

Qana has changed the tone, at least for the time being. The account of families huddled together in a building in a doomed bid to keep their children safe and the sight of the small bodies being carried out of the rubble has had the emotional force to break through the usual rules of the game, and has mostly been given comprehensive coverage. But one Fox anchor still expressed concern that any pause in the Israeli offensive would allow Hizbullah to regroup.

<snip>

The difference between British and US polls on the current conflict are striking. Just over a fifth of Britons polled pre-Qana, compared with nearly half of the Americans questioned at about the same time, said they thought the Israeli use of force was proportionate; and another 9% of American respondents thought the Israelis were not being tough enough.

<snip>

Meanwhile, more Iraqi civilians are dying every day than Lebanese, but the horror of that war barely appears on television screens in either country any more. Lebanon is newer and much safer to cover. Anyway, Iraq fatigue set in long ago.

Typo Lad

08-02-2006, 10:01 AM

Interesting. I see more focus on Lebenese Loss (which makes sense, there's more), a token mention of Gaza, and somewhere on page 60 something about Iraq.

Rez Steaua

08-02-2006, 10:08 AM

If anything, I think US coverage of Israel is too negative, and too often tries to draw a moral equivalence between terrorists purposely shooting up an Israeli school bus and Israeli soldiers killing a Hamas terror organizer and his bodyguards...

Now that's a REAL hoot...you're obviously in some sort of denial if you think the US media shows anything but positive portrayal of Israel any chance it gets. Just look at the evidence where Arabs/Palestinians are always shown as "attacking" but Israel "retaliating" as if they with their American F-16, Tanks, bombs are the ones trying to defend themselves. And the commentators you dismiss have WAY more credentials both academic and otherwise than just being "pimple-faced"

To those who think US has no interest in the Arabs and should just leave them alone, well that would be nice if they didn't need all their puppet regimes to Control oil prices and the politics of the region. Could that be why Saudi Arabi and Egypt(both American lackey regimes) are the biggest resources for Al-Quida?

Drew Van T.

08-02-2006, 10:12 AM

Just look at the evidence where Arabs/Palestinians are always shown as "attacking" but Israel "retaliating" as if they with their American F-16, Tanks, bombs are the ones trying to defend themselves.

As far as the "defensive" argument is concerned...I think we can definitely say that when the Lebanese military attacks the Israeli military while they are operating in Lebanon (certainly in the parts that are not even remotely "Hizbullah-controlled"), they are very much in the right to be defending themselves and their territory.

Drew Van T.

08-02-2006, 10:21 AM

Of course, I should add that the Lebanese military is very, very small pickings:

The Lebanese Army is made up of:

* 5 Regional Commands
* 11 Mechanized brigades
* 1 Republican Guard brigade
* 1 Commando regiment
* 5 Special Forces regiments
* 1 Airborne regiment
* 1 Navy Commando regiment
* 2 Artillery regiments

The Republican Guard Brigade is responsible for protecting the president and travels with him wherever he goes.

The army's equipment includes:

* approximately 700 US-made Ford Motor Company M-113 armored personnel carriers
* 100 US-made M-48 A1/A5 medium tanks
* 200 Soviet-made T-54/T-55 medium tanks
* 40 French-made AMX-13 light tanks

The army also has a variety of artillery equipment and ground-based missile systems. The air force currently lacks any operational fixed wing aircraft. Active aircraft include ex-US Army helicopters, which are used throughout the country on a variety of missions:

* 30 Bell UH-1H - approximate
* 4 Robinson R44 Raven II

The air force recently acquired 4 brand new Robinson helicopters, which are used for training purposes. They are based at Rayak Air Base in the eastern part of the country.

I wonder if their ground-based air defences still exist? It was probably the first thing that the Israelis took out.

Shellhead

08-02-2006, 10:32 AM

You mean besides fight your proxy wars(Iran/Iraq), invest billions in your umbrella organisations(House of Saud/Carslyle), host summits that cement your hegemony on world trade (WTO Doha)?

Not a thing.

The Iran/Iraq War was not our proxy war, it was the result of a long history of border disputes between the two countries, especially regarding the Khuzestan region, which happens to be an oil-rich area.

I'm not a Republican, so I refuse accept responsibility for the Carlysle Group's involvement with the House of Saud. Those actions benefit a fairly small group of wealthy oilmen, not the vast majority of Americans.

As for the U.S. hegemony on world trade, that's a grotesque exaggeration. The dollar is relatively weak right now, and we have lost a lot of manufacturing jobs to competitors around the world. We have even been outsourcing service jobs to places like India. Our vast consumption of consumer goods and raw materials won't last much longer when we lose so many jobs. While it's true that the dollar is still the dominant reserve currency, and other countries often by our treasury bills as investments, that will not continue when our economy hits hard times.

Drew Van T.

08-02-2006, 10:38 AM

As for the U.S. hegemony on world trade, that's a grotesque exaggeration. The dollar is relatively weak right now, and we have lost a lot of manufacturing jobs to competitors around the world. We have even been outsourcing service jobs to places like India. Our vast consumption of consumer goods and raw materials won't last much longer when we lose so many jobs. While it's true that the dollar is still the dominant reserve currency, and other countries often by our treasury bills as investments, that will not continue when our economy hits hard times.

I agree, you can't really speak of "American hegemony over the global economy" anymore, not in the true sense. What you do have is a "hegemony of mostly American-based and America-centered corporations, banks and financial power-players." But they are not "American" in the full sense, and likely to be still less so in the near future.

Nick Soapdish

08-02-2006, 01:35 PM

If you want to talk about "footholds of democracy" in the Middle East, there are four others.

Lebanon - a very recent democracy (or nation with some democratic characteristics)
Palestine - same as above

In the case of both of those countries, it's very easy to look at it as though "the West" doesn't want democracy. And both are experiencing quite a bit of strife, courtesy of Israel.

The third is Iraq. Not exactly a shining beacon of success at this time.

And the fourth is Turkey. They're trying to straddle the Middle East and West by maintaining connections with their neighbors, but trying to join the UN. They're having a few problems with human rights' groups, but they do seem to be trying. And Israel and the US are making it very tough on their government because Israel seems to get a blank check from the US when it comes to defending their borders, but the US just counsels patience when it comes to terrorists raiding Turkey from Iraq. The apparent double-standard isn't nurturing warm feelings towards the US.

Shellhead

08-02-2006, 01:54 PM

And the fourth is Turkey. They're trying to straddle the Middle East and West by maintaining connections with their neighbors, but trying to join the UN. They're having a few problems with human rights' groups, but they do seem to be trying. And Israel and the US are making it very tough on their government because Israel seems to get a blank check from the US when it comes to defending their borders, but the US just counsels patience when it comes to terrorists raiding Turkey from Iraq. The apparent double-standard isn't nurturing warm feelings towards the US.

The Kurds should have their own country, instead of getting treated as second-class citizens by the three countries who divided up their land, Turkey, Iran, and Iraq. If the Kurds are conducting terrorist operations against Turkey, that's bad. But when the Turks deprive the Kurds of basic human rights, like outlawing the Kurdish language, non-violent methods are probably insufficient. A democracy isn't quite a democracy when the majority oppresses a minority group through voting... there should be basic human rights available to all.

SOGG

08-02-2006, 01:55 PM

The Iran/Iraq War was not our proxy war, it was the result of a long history of border disputes between the two countries, especially regarding the Khuzestan region, which happens to be an oil-rich area.

Just so we're clear. Jimmy Carter and the American support of the Iraqi incursion in 1980 never happened? And Regan never said that "We could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran" ? Just making sure.

I'm not a Republican, so I refuse accept responsibility for the Carlysle Group's involvement with the House of Saud. Those actions benefit a fairly small group of wealthy oilmen, not the vast majority of Americans.

While that's ... sort of fair, I'd argue that much of the benefits that Americans enjoy vis-a-vis standard of living is due directly and indirectly from Carlysle protecting its interests.

And it's not just republicans that profit from CG's actions. CalPERS, for example, is a public entity that benefits directly from CG's profitability. Employees of Bechtel, etc, also benefit.

As for the U.S. hegemony on world trade, that's a grotesque exaggeration.
The dollar is relatively weak right now, and we have lost a lot of manufacturing jobs to competitors around the world. We have even been outsourcing service jobs to places like India. Our vast consumption of consumer goods and raw materials won't last much longer when we lose so many jobs. While it's true that the dollar is still the dominant reserve currency, and other countries often by our treasury bills as investments, that will not continue when our economy hits hard times.

This bit, I'll answer in a post answering DVT.

The main point of that post was, in case you missed it, yes, the Middle Eastern countries do do things for the US. Just because it's not on CNN doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Drew Van T.

08-02-2006, 02:44 PM

They're trying to straddle the Middle East and West by maintaining connections with their neighbors, but trying to join the UN.

You mean to say "joining the European Union'. Yeah, that's Turkey's main impetus towards becoming more respectful of human rights, including granting minority rights to the Kurds. They can't join the EU without signing up to the European Convention on Human Rights at the same time.

Shellhead

08-02-2006, 02:52 PM

Just so we're clear. Jimmy Carter and the American support of the Iraqi incursion in 1980 never happened? And Regan never said that "We could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran" ? Just making sure.

The U.S. has definitely been involved in proxy wars before. I don't think of the Iran-Iraq was as a proxy war, because the direct cause of the conflict was a long-standing dispute over territory which had intensified in the years leading up to the war. Saddam Hussein didn't care about our hostages in Iran, although he may have been looking to get on our good side for financial aid, or maybe he just hoped that we would dogpile on Iran once Iraq started the fight. I acknowledge that the Reagan Administration did support Iraq by sending weapons and money, but that was later in the war.

Iangould

08-02-2006, 03:59 PM

Well, there's Mearsheimer and Walt's thesis (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html).

It's the Lobby!

Nah, it's just realist foreign policy. If the Israelis were on the other side of the US's National Interest the US'd dump them.

I've commented a number of times that the US/Israel alliance is essentially irrational - that is there's no deep-seated shared strategic interests (e.g. the British and French hated each other but have been allied for the past century due to the common threat from first Germany and then Russia) and Israel contributes very little of value.

Now I think that such an alliance is ultimately not in Israel's interests - because if it ever comes to choosing between America's survival or genuine strategic needs, then America will be compelled to put the interests of its own citizens ahead of those of Israel.

To see such a scenario played out, read up on the relationship between Australia and Britain during world War II - when Churchill was prepared to see Australia invaded by the Japanese rather than weaken the defences of India.

Iangould

08-02-2006, 04:00 PM

And if we really want to overcomplicate things, Israel has a Democratic form of government..

Much like Lebanon and Turkey.

Iangould

08-02-2006, 04:02 PM

I think you'll find that the U.S. media's coverage of Israel is more positive towards Israel than anyone else's on the planet!

As I mentioned a couple of weeks back - the BBC responded to accusations of pro-Palestinian bias by having an independent enquiry into their middle eastern coverage. The conclusion was that they were biased - towards Israel.

They just weren't as heavily biased as the other media.

Iangould

08-02-2006, 04:06 PM

The U.S. has definitely been involved in proxy wars before. I don't think of the Iran-Iraq was as a proxy war, because the direct cause of the conflict was a long-standing dispute over territory which had intensified in the years leading up to the war. Saddam Hussein didn't care about our hostages in Iran, although he may have been looking to get on our good side for financial aid, or maybe he just hoped that we would dogpile on Iran once Iraq started the fight. I acknowledge that the Reagan Administration did support Iraq by sending weapons and money, but that was later in the war.

Saddam would never have attacked Iran without US support - even though the Shah had been overthrown, his military machine was still largely intact.

Valmore

08-02-2006, 04:27 PM

Much like Lebanon and Turkey.

But not much like most of the rest of the region.

berk

08-02-2006, 04:47 PM

But not much like most of the rest of the region.Several of which countries enjoy US support, so it isn't Israel's democratic system that's determined the US to build such close ties with them.

Drew Van T.

08-02-2006, 05:16 PM

To see such a scenario played out, read up on the relationship between Australia and Britain during world War II - when Churchill was prepared to see Australia invaded by the Japanese rather than weaken the defences of India.

Interesting, that.

I'm sure it's very unpleasant from an Australian perspective - then and now - but viewed from the heart of the Empire, maybe it actually made a lot of sense to Churchill at the time.

In any case, it underlines once more that empires are a blight on the world.

Drew Van T.

08-02-2006, 05:20 PM

Several of which countries enjoy US support, so it isn't Israel's democratic system that's determined the US to build such close ties with them.

That is the official rhetoric, however, and the US media repeats it over and over and over again. So the title of this thread is correct and appropriate.

heretic

08-05-2006, 07:11 AM

The Kurds should have their own country, instead of getting treated as second-class citizens by the three countries who divided up their land, Turkey, Iran, and Iraq. If the Kurds are conducting terrorist operations against Turkey, that's bad. But when the Turks deprive the Kurds of basic human rights, like outlawing the Kurdish language, non-violent methods are probably insufficient. A democracy isn't quite a democracy when the majority oppresses a minority group through voting... there should be basic human rights available to all.
Do you know what is sad? The number of people who accepts this or at least consider it a point of sane debate (I am for maximising the rights of Kurds withing Turkey, but can accept disdain for the peospect of partition when the place would end up an economic appendage anyway), that will presume an ultimate goal of finishing off the Shoah if you replace 'Kurd' with 'Arab' and 'Turkey' with 'Israel' in the statement above.

And before you ask, I am apposed to the setting up of Arab 'Bantustans' in the West Bank and Gaza as well.

HTG (Pro-Palestinian Zionist)