An exceptionally surreal and confabulatory item in the New York Times this morning, even by that publication's very high standards of deliberate obfuscation and sincerely disordered thinking -- and as usual, it's not always easy to tell the two apart:
Unrest in Syria and Jordan Poses New Test for U.S. Policy"Vital to American interests" requires translation as always; in this case, it clearly means "of interest to Israel". Why else would Syria conceivably be more "vital" to the US than Libya? Or Jordan, for that matter?
By MARK LANDLERWASHINGTON — Even as the Obama administration defends the NATO-led air war in Libya, the latest violent clashes in Syria and Jordan are raising new alarm among senior officials who view those countries, in the heartland of the Arab world, as far more vital to American interests.
Deepening chaos in Syria, in particular, could dash any remaining hopes for a Middle East peace agreement, several analysts said. It could also alter the American rivalry with Iran for influence in the region and pose challenges to the United States’ greatest ally in the region, Israel.
And how about "dash any remaining hopes for a Middle East peace agreement"? Really, it's astonishing that they can bring themselves to commit this stuff to paper. What hopes? Indeed, whoever had any such hopes? Certainly not the Israelis, unless by "peace" you mean Israel's complete domination of the region and its reduction of the Palestinians to utter unresisting subjugation -- if not, indeed, their expulsion from Palestine altogether, an option increasingly favored in Israel.
So our man Landler is off to a strong start, Times-wise; but it gets better.
Syria ... could pose a thorny dilemma for the administration.... Having intervened in Libya to prevent a wholesale slaughter in Benghazi, some analysts asked, how could the administration not do the same in Syria?Bomb, bomb, bomb Syria! One would certainly like to know who these unnamed "officials" and "analysts" were that Landler talked to. It's pretty clear what their, and his, top priority was.Though no one is yet talking about a no-fly zone over Syria, Obama administration officials acknowledge the parallels to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi....
Mr. Assad had also probably disqualified himself as a peace partner for Israel.... with his population up in arms, analysts said, he might actually have an incentive to pick a fight with its neighbor, if only to deflect attention from the festering problems at home.
Hence, I suppose, that coy little Popian finny-tribish phrase "its neighbor." One imagines a neighborly back-fence conversation:
Syria: Howdy neighbor! Hey, wow, is that an atom bomb on your deck?Why the periphrasis? Perhaps because in a 1200-word story ostensibly about Syria and Jordan, the word Israel clangs eleven times, like the monotonous tolling of a harsh cracked bell(*). Did Landler have a merciful impulse to spare us at least once? Or did it fleetingly occur to him that he might have become a little too... obvious?
Israel: Fuck off. Oh, and hand over that kiddie pool, asshole.
-------------------------
(*) 'Jordan' occurs only four times; 'Iran', seven.
Comments (10)
...reduction of the Palestinians to utter unresisting subjugation — if not, indeed, their expulsion from Palestine altogether, an option increasingly favored in Israel.
Expulsion has been on the menu all along, only it was written in a 'nonprinting script' intended only for the eyes of other kibbitzers. In 1895, when Hitler and Stalin — the two most infamous fans of "population transfer" in 20'th century — were playing their boyhood games at Braunau am Inn and Gori, respectively, the father of Zionism, Theodor Herzl was already toying with plans in Vienna for ethnic cleansing of Palestinians (to be carried out "discreetly and circumspectly"). Ilan Pappe is under no illusions about the final outcome favored by most Israelis either:
Posted by sk | March 27, 2011 3:22 PM
Posted on March 27, 2011 15:22
a couple Libya articles that may be of interest:
Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html
Libyan rebels 'sign oil export deal with Qatar'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12875810
Rebels say Qatar ready to market east Libyan oil
http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/03/27/idINIndia-55916120110327
Posted by FB | March 27, 2011 5:09 PM
Posted on March 27, 2011 17:09
Y'know, blogfather, I think they're genuinely worried now.
Jewish colonialism isn't even kosher for an increasing number of stateside members of the tribe.
I'm sure they'll hand over the cake, if the orgs ask for it - but Israel isn't a blooming desert for a lot of me erstwhile cousins. It's an embarrassment.
Balfour's Mistake is in trouble.
This is their worry showing.
Posted by Jack Crow | March 27, 2011 6:27 PM
Posted on March 27, 2011 18:27
I think you're right, Jack. The orgs are inveterate pollers, and what all their polls show is that younger Jews are increasingly indifferent to Israel. Of course, mass support was never as important as the support of a relatively small number of well-heeled potential campaign donors, with a single-issue indifference to parties; but presumably these old Maecenases are not immortal either.
Posted by MJS | March 27, 2011 6:53 PM
Posted on March 27, 2011 18:53
Jack Crow:
...Jewish colonialism isn't even kosher for an increasing number of stateside members of the tribe...
I've encountered this myself over the last few years, and not only from "tribalists" much younger than me, as you might expect.
It's cause for guarded optimism, maybe. Or whatever would pass for guarded optimism if you're me...
Posted by ms_xeno | March 27, 2011 9:18 PM
Posted on March 27, 2011 21:18
I don't even understand the first two paragraphs of the article. Presumably, since Syria is already accused of funneling arms and money to Hizbollah from Iran, any challenge to its government would "alter the rivalry with Iran" in the US' favor.
And what is this shimmering, holy, almost palpable "peace process" to which Asad would no longer be invited?
Do Times reporters consciously engage in this kind of mystification, or are they fooling themselves?
Posted by senecal | March 27, 2011 11:56 PM
Posted on March 27, 2011 23:56
Ms. X, MJS -
Couple years back I happened to be working a mgt. gig at a location which happened to sport seven of us Jews and partial Jews, which incidentally got us labeled The Seven Jews (how's that for imagination?).
Of the seven, only one had any positive opinion about Israel - and she was already sort of gungho, with a mom who was J4J and a dad who was 20+ years into a military career. She ended up heading off to the Coast Guard, and later to the Eretz, presumably to put in two.
Even my most consciously Jewish co-mgr, who took a yearly to Auschwitz to commemorate grandparents, was more prone to criticize "stupid Israelis" than not.
When I asked her once about why she avoided temple and supporting Israel, she mused that she didn't want to pay high seat prices for religion (temple fees are high, apparently; I don't know, my mom went Catolica and stayed that way) or kill people because some Europeans got pissed in the aftermath of Hitler and managed to fuck even that up.
Anecdotal, I know - but it seems to support the polling mentioned above.
What happens when Foxman's Jihad runs out of new recruits will be interesting copy, any way it's seen.
Posted by Jack Crow | March 28, 2011 12:37 AM
Posted on March 28, 2011 00:37
I've encountered this myself over the last few years, and not only from "tribalists" much younger than me, as you might expect.
The guardians of the faith are doing their best to keep the young 'uns in line by scaring the bejesus out of them and making an example of those who talk back.
Posted by sk | March 28, 2011 12:37 AM
Posted on March 28, 2011 00:37
Timespeak never ceases to surprise and delight. "Wholesale slaughter." Does anyone pay retail these days?
Posted by IOZ | March 28, 2011 10:49 AM
Posted on March 28, 2011 10:49
My Jewish ex-mother-in-law had a favorite joke:
Q: Why did ha-Shem make WASPs?
A: *Somebody* has to buy retail.
This particular WASP would be quite happy with some retail slaughter as long as he got to compile the shopping list. And he'd pay a premium for it, too.
Posted by MJS | March 28, 2011 2:38 PM
Posted on March 28, 2011 14:38