Heretics' almanac

A note on Annapolis

The multilateral talks scheduled to start in Annapolis tomorrow aren't getting a lot of optimistic press. The hostess, Condi Rice, has ratcheted down expectations quite a bit, and neither side is holding out much hope for a serious breakthrough. Setting aside the fact that most breakthroughs tend to occur when they're not expected, it's worth wondering why everyone is so downbeat ahead of this summit.

The significance of the Six Day War

These days 40 years ago, Israel was in war with Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, who also had quite a bit of help from numerous other Arab countries. There's been lots of press about the political (and to a lesser extent, military) legacy of the war. Everyone agrees it was a stunning victory for Israel and humiliating defeat for the Arab regimes; and there's an emerging concensus that Israel's territorial gains were a mixed blessing. In particular, a lot of pundits think that the role of occupier has served to tarnish Israel's moral standing and reputation among the nations.

Yom haZikaron

Every time I've visited Israel, I've been unsettled by the ubiquitous presence of young men and women carrying assault rifles, slung over their shoulders as they go about the regular business of taking a bus, hanging out at a cafe, etc. I don't like rifles, and it's hard to get past the feeling that something isn't quite right when there are so many guns, handled with such familiarity.

Today, Israel commemorates its war dead: the soldiers, police officers, bus drivers, and passers-by killed in the course of the last nearly 100 years since Jews became a noticeable factor in the area now known as Israel. This is a day of regret, not celebration. Another country - virtually every other country - would have erected an triumphal arch somewhere to justify the war dead; but not Israel. Today, names will be read, photographs shared; stories told, about individuals whose loss forms a nearly unbearable sacrifice for the Israelis.

Carter's folly

There should be a club for intellectually brilliant but currently embittered heads of state who seek attention for being openly hostile to Israel. Jimmy Carter and Kåre Willoch might be charter members.

Carter has written a book about peace in the Middle East (calling it Palestine Peace or Apartheid, lest anyone should wonder about his bias), and his whole premise is that:

There will be no substantive and permanent peace for any peoples in this troubled region as long as Israel is violating key U.N. resolutions, official American policy, and the international "road map" for peace by occupying Arab lands and oppressing the Palestinians.

In other words, as long as these pesky Jews persist in this annoying and frankly inconvenient habit of defending themselves.

Now, I realize that some readers may think that my reaction is hyperbolic. But let's consider the argument and the evidence.

The shameful self-righteousness of the Norwegian media

Document.no reports that the Norwegian press took note of the criticism against their coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict, reflected over it for about 2 nanoseconds, and then dismissed it. If the Israelis feel bad about the way the press treats them, they only have themselves to blame.

At this point, I think that most people and certainly Norwegian Jews, would rather put this whole thing behind them and leave the status quo alone.

Obviously, the Norwegian editorial elite really doesn't care. They are so steeped in their own superiority complex, prejudice and left-wing dogma that any appeal to reason, compassion, or decency gets shrugged off like annoying flies. It doesn't matter that you prove error after error, fallacy after fallacy, after their writing. They're editors, so it must necessarily follow that they're pretty close to infallible.

Who won remains to be seen

There are (at least) three ways to look at the current situation around the Lebanese-Israeli Blue Line:

1. With the Lebanese army and a vastly expanded UNIFIL filling in the void created by the disengagement between Hizballah and Israel, there is a reasonable probability that things will stabilize in the area: Lebanon will get a new lease on its sovereignty, there will be greater alignment for a peace treaty between Israel and Lebanon, and one more front in the Arab-Israeli conflict will go away.
2. Hezbollah has been beaten enough into the ground that Iran and Syria will abandon the Nasrallah surrogacy for the foreseeable future. There may be a low-level conflict between Hezbollah and the Lebanese army, with occasional intervention by Israel on the Lebanese side, but Hezbollah is no longer a major player in regional politics.
3. The radical factions in the Arab world sees Hezbollah as the victor in the war and models further warfare against Israel, the US, and pretty much everyone else on the Hizballah model, which is pretty familiar to what mobsters would do - take over an area, combine bribes, good works, etc., with intimidation and violence, and then attack an enemy using ruthless tactics. In this case, the 2006 war on Hizballah is simply a portend to much worse to come.

The predictions cover all these three, and then some, but I don't think anyone really knows for sure. The dust hasn't settled.

Israel better not blow it

The world community, and the US in particular, has given Israel an unprecedented opportunity to do something that they've never done before: actually win a war. In every single previous war, Israel was forced to accept armistice talks before the hostilities were resolved, and the results are in plain sight.

The Israeli government better not blow it. And I'm not optimistic, based on their track record. Here are some things they need to pay attention to:

• Damage to Lebanon. Not knowing just how much is left of Hizballah, the Lebanese government is acting all outraged over the toll on the civilian population and infrastructure. And the BBC World Service today gratuitously ate it up, making it seem like Israel was destroying things for no good reason. Israel has to be able to explain its targeting, again and again if necessary.
• Destroying Hizballah. One can only hope and assume that Israel entered this war to finish it once and for all. If Israel withdraws from Southern Lebanon leaving Hizballah intact, the whole effort is wasted, and the international community will institutionalize the notion of "proportional response."
• Media relations. For heaven's sake, invest in this for once. It is way too easy for the BBC and the other lame-oh journalists to go to Lebanon and cover the suffering there. Israel has to make it equally easy for these journalists to get the facts and perspective to understand what this war is all about. Or else they'll accept what they're being fed and where they're being directed.
• Fight for durable peace. Once this operation is over, Israel should be the first out of gate offering to negotiate a permanent peace with Lebanon and negotiations with Syria; all the while making it clear that Israel has absolutely no territorial or strategic ambitions over Lebanon.
• Humanitarian profile. Think of innovative ways to alleviate the suffering, both among non-combatant civilians and expatriates. Be clever about it, make it a priority, and publicize it. It's astonishing how many foreigners there were in Lebanon, and Israel shouldn't make enemies out of all them.

What follows Summer Rains?

Maybe it's simple fatigue, but the endless op-eds you'd expect to find about the political implications of Operation Summer Rains aren't that easy to find. The Norwegian Socialist Left party wants to recall Norway's ambassador to Israel, which probably won't happen, and wouldn't make one iota of difference if it did.

There are lots of predictable reactions, of course. Those on the anti-Israel side feel it's an overreaction, an attempt at re-occupying Gaza, collective punishment, subversion of Palestinian democracy, a war crime, etc., etc. Those who support Israel on principle defend the operation because it has a just military rationale (rescuing an abducted citizen) and took place in the context of unbearable provocations (something like 800 Qassam rocket attacks in less than a year).

There is talk of an uncontrolled escalation, the Norwegian UN official Jan Egeland is scolding everyone and warning of a humanitarian catastrophe. Arab heads of state are expressing their outrage, etc., etc.

Here's my take:

The sad state of Middle Eastern "expertise" in Norway

Aftenposten has ordained a new "expert" on the Arab-Israeli conflict, one Gro Hasselknippe, of FAFO, the Labor Union's research organization.

First, let me say that this expert is more considered and less dogmatic than most of the Norwegian "experts" on this issue. She makes an effort to distinguish between her opinion and the facts, provides context for her answers, makes caveats. So she's above average, which unfortunately isn't saying much.

In a recent online Q&A, she made the following egregious errors that are emblematic of the European outlook on the conflict:

Ørnhøi's dreams and delusions

In what has to be an astonishing display of provincial ignorance, the has-been Norwegian radical socialist politician Stein Ørnhøi told Aftenposten that the foreign minister, Jonas Gahr Støre, needs to learn more about the Middle East. He needs, Ørnhøi says, to learn the difference between the occupier and the occupied, pointing out that Hamas surely will accept Israel's right to exist when Israel accepts the Palestinian right to a state. (Hamas obviously didn't get Ørnhøi's memo).

Ørnhøi is the ignoramus, of course. But what is interesting, or discouraging, is what passes as "knowledge" in the current debate. I agree with Ørnhøi that Støre has a lot to learn, but the foreign minister is still way ahead of Ørnhøi, who seems to get his knowledge from dreams that he has after he's eaten too much too late.