Here’s to You, Mr. Robertson…
Well, what Pat Robertson said could be true. God could be punishing Arial Sharon for the Mideast Peace Process by visiting a terrible stroke on him.
Likewise, it’s entirely possible that God is punishing Pat Robertson for being a terminal asswipe, by making his lips move, and forcing embarassingly stupid and downright un-christian things to come out of it.
In both cases, it’s not bloody likely, but then hey, I’m not an expert on the mind of God the way the humble Right Rev. Pat is.
And while I’m at it, the blogosphere hasn’t yet coined an honorary term describing me yet either, as it has for Rev. Pat: Idiotarian.
On the positive side for Rev. Robertson, his comments put him in really, really distinguished company.
On the merits, I’m not a huge fan of Sharon either way. I think he’s done what he believes is right for Israel, and I believe Israel’s survival is important; but what is right for Israel hasn’t always been “right” in the moral sense, unless you follow the “God told us to do it” school of foreign affairs, which may have justified some Old Testament slaughters but which is usually frowned on post BCE. Politically Israel is a damn flawed nation, showing an historical callousness to the hurtin’ state of a lot of its neighbors and even some of its non-Jewish citizens (yes, you heard it right, Arab Christians have suffered at Israel’s hand’s too). But it benefits significantly by the thoroughly depraved acts of many of its neighbors, which over time have been openly fascistic (Druze); in pursuit of a toxic mix of radical socialist police states based on ethnic grievance identity (pan Arab socialism/Baathism); and just whacky ass wannabe genocidal islamacism (Hezbollah, AQ, and from time to time – as often as an Irishman goes to church – from the PLO). No, I’m no fan of Sharon and in Israel’s camp due to lack of alternatives; but it’s an essential beachead for liberal democracy and the rule of law in that part of the world, a more or less respectable nation (as much as any nation can be) and Robertson’s and the Iranian lunatic’s statements were way out of line.
- Entries
That's just the sort of casual moral equivalence used by antisemites on the left, as well as well-meaning moderates. I'd love to know what, specifically, you are referring to. Since all of Israel's neighbors are bent on Israel's utter destruction, I'm curious what, exactly, you think is callous about Israel's actions?
It's not that Israel has taken action to survive, it's that sometimes the choice of actions, when there is a choice, is really destructive. A good example is Lebanon of the 80's. Israel had to do something about Hezbollah. That's incontrovertible. But backing Lebanese Christian fascists - see Michael Totten's writings for a reading on the interesting politics of Lebanon - was probably a very bad choice. It was dumb for a couple reasons. First and most importantly (and this is aside from the moral point), if you are going to bet on one side or another in a sectarian pissing match, you are probably wise to pick the side that is going to win it hands down. This is simple pragmatic politics. If you have three roughly co-equal religio-political factions, if you pick one all you do is sow further disarray - unless your goal is to reduce a place to complete anarchy and leave it in a violent, chaotic state, which is profoundly immoral if that is the goal, even if you justify it by thinking it won't ever pose a threat to you again. Second, and this is where the immorality comes in on the face of it, taking an already messed up country like Lebanon and meddling in its internal politics, driving the country form relative disarray into complete disarray, and then wandering away from it, really fucks over all the people who are left living there who don't have a say in the matter. It's like wandering into a family fight at Thanksgiving, encouraging Uncle Hank to scream at your brother Bob, and then leaving when the gravy boats start flying and telling everybody that Hank and Bob can't help it, that's just how they are. It would be one thing to come in and effectively wipe out Hezbollah. That would have been justified and pretty clearly moral. It would have been one thing to do that, and to then hand the country to one faction or the other - a faction capable of running the joint - and then walking away and leaving them to it. It's another thing entirely to walk in there, play the sides (none of whom you particularly like or wish to see prosper) against each other, and then to walk away when you've helped the factions render the place completely ungovernable. Geopolitics is so nice and neat when we discuss it from a comfortable distance, but if you're one of the poor bastards who has to live with this kind of messing about, you would curse the people that inflicted it on you, and you'd curse the people who support it blindly.
That's an example of something I find particularly immoral in Israel's actions. It's not to say that I think all national actions should be governed by morality, rather nations should do what they need to do, and moral concerns should inform their decisionmaking. I believe I was being rather kind when I made the statement I did; a more accurate statement would be that Israel has, when it was convenient, exploited the hurting state of its neighbors, causing great suffering at times when it may not have been necessary, in order to achieve temporary and perhaps illusory improvements in its security situation. I mean come on, when the UN plunked the Jewish refugees down in Palestine, and the refugees realizing their tenuous state started to fight for land, they jacked up not just Palestinian Muslims, but Arab Christians as well. If my family had struggled along for generations and built a little house, and put in a truck farm, and you came along and took it, I'd have a case of the ass. No, I wouldn't chuck bombs. I'd probably come along with a shotgun and kill the mofo that did it, or try to kill the people currently living on the stolen land or house. To conclude that Israel's position in all security matters is morally unambiguous strikes me as the opposite side of the moral blindness afflicting the hard left - it just privileges a different side. And I will repeat, I think Israel's survival is essential to the future of the Middle East, not only because it is the Fort Apache of liberal democracy in the region, but also because it is a permenent challenge and acid test for the Arab nations, and when they can deal maturely and rationally with Israel it will be a sign that their political evolution mindset is such that they can be trusted to deal straight up with the US as true equals in the community of nations, rather than police state-like shaky little brothers.
If this puts me in the camp of the drooling, left wing anti-semites, Spoons, then so be it.
Your description of the Thanksgiving family fight perfectly fits with my view of what we have done in Iraq, except that while Hank and Bob go at it, you steal the turkey and go home.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF, headed up by Paul Wolfowitz) has agreed to give Iraq a $685 million standby loan after Iraq secured a debt exchange agreement for the 11 billion.
In return for the loan, Iraq agreed to reduce its oil subsidies, improve the efficiency and transparency of public financial management, and develop a comprehensive restructuring strategy for its state-owned banks.
A big problem is that Iraqis have come to rely heavily on the social-welfare system. Given the current levels of unemployment and continuing instability, the Iraqi public is not expected to react favorably to cuts in subsidies, including plans to reduce food rations this year and increased fuel prices (up to 200%!). On top of that, production is down considerably from pre-invasion days.
To my mind, if we were serious about helping Iraq, we would work hard and long to get that 11 billion forgiven...rather than help them into the IMF debtors prison.