Showing posts sorted by date for query MY FAVORITE MUSLIM. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query MY FAVORITE MUSLIM. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Monday, October 28, 2024

The Latest Absurdities From the Columnists of the New York Times


 October 28, 2024
Facebook

Photograph Source: Haxorjoe – CC BY-SA 3.0

The two leading foreign policy columnists for the New York Times are Thomas L. Friedman and Bret Stephens, whose opeds are frequently apologies for Israeli policy.  In the past week, both used the occasion of the death of Yahya Sinwar to make the futile case for “Build[ing] Peace from Sinwar’s Death” and marking Sinwar’s death as an “opportunity” for the dawn of hope,” respectively.  Once upon a time, Friedman was an excellent correspondent in the Middle East, based in both Beirut and Jerusalem, and the author of From Beirut to Jerusalem, which was an intelligent and thoughtful account of the region.  Stephens has long been a right-wing apologist for Israel, once having served as the editor of the Jerusalem Post.

Both journalists argue that it is up to the Palestinians to take the lead in building a more politically moderate Middle East and to create conditions for the start of real diplomacy.  Neither Friedman nor Stephens acknowledges the difficult task of getting access to a new Hamas leadership or the even more difficult task of getting a notoriously right-wing Israeli government to compromise on any aspect of an Arab-Israeli peace plan.  Stephens risibly refers to the possibility of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “living up to his Churchillian self-image,” (whatever that could possibly mean).

Thomas L. Friedman in the New York Times, October 2024:

“A reformed Palestinian Authority, with massive Arab and international funds, would attempt to restore its credibility in Gaza, and the credibility of its core Fatah organization in Palestinian politics—and sideline the remnants of Hamas.”

I would argue that the general consensus is that the Palestinian Authority is hopelessly corrupt to the core (helped to that condition by Israel), and there is no support for its president, Mahmoud Abbas.

“…the participation of a reformed West Bank Palestinian Authority in an international             peacekeeping force would take over Gaza in the place of the Sinwar-led Hamas.”

The notion that Israel will ever accept a two-state solution, particularly after the horrific nightmare that took place on October 7, 2024, and its demolition of both Hamas and Hezbollah, is particularly far-fetched.

“The death of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar…creates the possibility for the biggest step  toward a two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians since Oslo [1993], as well as normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia—which means pretty much the entire Muslim world.”

Netanyahu has never believed in the creation of a two-state solution, and this has been true for the past 30 years ever since the Oslo Accords endorsed such a solution thirty years ago.

Bret Stephens in the New York Times, October 2024:

“But the opportunity in Sinwar’s death and Hamas’s military evisceration is that it begins             to open a space for young  Gazans …to openly and assertively reject Hamas’s brand of             maximalist fanatical, Islamist policies.”

Stephens doesn’t name any specific Arab leader capable of creating the “conditions for another attempt by Israel and the Palestinians to negotiate a different future in both Gaza and the West Bank.  To do so, the Israelis would have to withdraw settlements from the West Bank and foreswear future fortifications in Gaza.  Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant are talking about the exact opposite—adding to the settlement projects in the West Bank and returning settlements to Gaza.  As for the so-called young Gazans in northern Gaza, they are simply waiting to die, according to Philippe Lazzarini, the head of the main UN aid agency for Palestinians.

“Creating well-supplied humanitarian safe zones (perhaps administered by NATO security forces) for Gazan women, children, the elderly and men who have passed a security screening can further safeguard civilians and separate them from potential combatants.”

There is no reason to believe that Israel would ever accept “NATO security forces” in Gaza.

“Finally, an Arab mandate for Palestine…could provide a long-term answer for all sides: a credible Arab-led security force in Gaza; European-led economic reconstruction; a  long-term path toward a politically moderate, economically prosperous Palestinian state; and closer ties between Israel ad friendly Arab states.”

Similarly, there is even less of a possibility that Israel would accept an “Arab-led security force in Gaza.”  Friedman and Stephens surely know this.

Neither Friedman nor Stephens cites the criminality and inhumanity of Israel’s bombing campaign, which includes the murderous ethnic cleansing being conducted in northern Gaza, a region that Israel previously claimed was devoid of a Hamas presence.  According to Lazzarini, the Commissioner-General of UNRWA, the smell of death is everywhere in northern Gaza, where Israel denies entry to the missions needed to clear the bodies or provide humanitarian assistance.

These Israeli actions are the major obstacles to getting a cease-fire in Gaza and Lebanon, and ensure that the measures cited by Friedman and Stephens cannot be employed. Israel’s continuing attacks on aid workers in Gaza, its continuing refusal to allow aid into Gaza, its continuing bombardment of schools and hospitals belie any intention to reach an agreement with Palestinians.  Nevertheless, Secretary of State Antony Blinken maintains that “The fundamental questions is: Is Hamas serious?,” regarding the possibility of cease-fire talks.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu does everything possible to embarrass U.S. envoys trying to arrange a cease-fire in the region.  Friedman and Stephens believe that the Biden team has an important role to play, but Netanyahu goes out of his way to embarrass the United States on its diplomatic missions.  The latest Israeli effort was to intensify the bombing campaign in Lebanon as Secretary of State Blinken was completing his 11th mission to the region to arrange a cease-fire.  And to make matters worse, the bombing campaign targeted the historic coastal city of Tyre, one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world and a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 1984. Thus far, Israel is not prepared to take any steps to advance the cause of peace, and the Palestinians and the Arab states are powerless to do anything about this.

Plus ca change, plus ce le meme chose.

Melvin A. Goodman is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and a professor of government at Johns Hopkins University.  A former CIA analyst, Goodman is the author of Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA and National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism. and A Whistleblower at the CIA. His most recent books are “American Carnage: The Wars of Donald Trump” (Opus Publishing, 2019) and “Containing the National Security State” (Opus Publishing, 2021). Goodman is the national security columnist for counterpunch.org.

By Ignoring MAGA’s Racism and

Antisemitism, the Corporate Media Helps 

Trump


October 25, 2024
Facebook

Nicolle Wallace. Screengrab MSNBC.

What do the MAGAs have to do to show their racism and antisemitism? Walk through a town and lynch every Black person they encounter, which was how it was done in the old days? Shoot up some more synagogues? How about those who marched shouting “Jews will not replace us”? Trump calls them good people.

The waving of the Confederate flag and calling Black guards niggers was not enough? Donald Trump’s dining with Nazi sympathizers and praising Hitler was not enough. Praising his generals who were so great they lost the war? Is the Tea Party’s depicting President Obama as a witch doctor not enough? Presenting a poster with Obama lying in a casket. Presenting President Obama as a pimp and Michelle as a whore. Trump telling audiences that the Vice President slept her way to the top, or that she is garbage and scum and that she’s dumb, not enough? That she has a low I.Q. Latinos are poisoning the blood of America and trying to replace white people, leading to a lone nut shooting Latinos at an El Paso Walmart. Do the media attribute racism and antisemitism as motivators of Maga? I don’t see any evidence of it.

Take October 23. For Nicole Wallace appearing on MSNBC, Trump voters were motivated by Anti-Elitism, the favorite excuse for MAGAs used by the New York Times columnists. I quoted their columnist Timothy Egan in Alta Magazine.

Timothy Egan, who is based in Seattle, weighed in last November: “I understand the tribalism, the urge to push back against condescending libs and the suffocating ubiquity of political correctness, the sense that only Trump can save a certain way of life.” Egan even blamed progressives for Trumpism. “The left shares the blame, with its cancel culture, groupthink stridency, and identity politics—tactics now picked up by the right.” Identity politics? The title of one of Egan’s books is The Immortal Irishman: The Irish Revolutionary Who Became an American Hero. Egan identifies as Irish!

It took Vance’s paling around with Tucker Carlson, who cites a Nazi apologist as a great historian, for Bret Stephens to decide to vote for the Vice President. Before that, he implied that Black Lives Matter was a threat to Jews, even though the ADL has condemned Trump regularly for his Anti-Semitism. After he endorsed Kamala, he wrote a speech for her to deliver to close her campaign.

Nicole Wallace went on to list anti-media sentiment, economic despair, anger, and rage at anyone in charge of anything as the reasons for MAGAs supporting Trump. Later that day, even Jen Psaki said that MAGAs were people who’d been left behind when Trump had middle-class support, as well as those who inhabit the upper classes. The insurrection included people with nice pensions, economic perks, and Social Security. Among them were policemen and firefighters. David French said that Trump’s supporters are those who are lonely.

Katy Tur asked Symone Sanders-Townsend why the race was close. Why is it neck and neck? Sanders-Townsend, one of the handful of media pundits who does her homework, said because they like Trump’s policies. Tur gave my favorite excuses for MAGAs, one of whom attacked Nancy Pelosi’s husband with a hammer, and another who fired shots into one of the Democrats’ campaign headquarters. She said that MAGAs are upset that they can’t tell the jokes they told ten years ago, and their patriotism is mistaken for racism. Pelosi charges that Tur supports Trump.

A right-wing panelist appearing on the same program said that the race is close because the nation is divided and noted that the Vice President needed to put more meat on the bones. Like Stephens, he was among the media white men who coached her and decided that she failed the CNN interview held on October 23. Anchor Chris Jansing said they were upset about the economy and immigration.

Few noted that Trump didn’t show up for the debate. So by ignoring the elephants in the room, racism and antisemitism, because the MAGAs buy their advertiser’s products, the pundits and public intellectuals help Trump by “sane washing” a mosquito-brained petulant 78-year-old infant. If he’s elected, it’s because millions of Americans are spoiled, which has been the theme of my 40-year project, The TerriblesTwosThrees, and FoursTerrible Fives is near completion. The Terribles lost my niche as one of the establishment’s favored tokens. After a couple of hatchet jobs by surrogates, New York publishers dropped The Terribles.

The late John O’Brien of the Dalkey Archive Press promised to publish my books regardless of sales. So did Robin Philpot, the Montreal publisher of Baraka Books,

who published The Terrible Fours and will publish The Terrible Fives. I’m lucky because they were done when New York publishers dropped Richard Wright and Chester Himes’s books. I also publish books. But having read thousands of manuscripts, I realize that talent is common and I’m better off than eighty percent of American writers, but I think that with The Terribles I’ve tapped the American Zeitgeist. Check this out. Seventy-seven percent of Americans, the most privileged group in history, say the country is headed in the wrong direction. I’m sure that thousands of mothers in Sudan who hold their children as they die of malnutrition would like that wrong direction. The child in Gaza who lost her legs and an arm in from bombing would like that wrong direction. She said, “What good is my life now?”

Tuesday, October 15, 2024

 

War on Gaza: Israel Wants To Finish the Job Washington Started After 9/11

As the conflict expands across the Middle East, western leaders refuse to implement any red lines for Tel Aviv

 Posted on

Nearly a decade ago, a leading Israeli human rights activist divulged to me a private conversation he’d had a short time earlier with one of Europe’s ambassadors to Israel. He was shaken by the exchange.

The ambassador’s country was then widely seen as one of the most sympathetic in the West to the Palestinian people. The Israeli activist had expressed concerns about Europe’s inaction in the face of relentless Israeli attacks on Palestinian rights and systematic violations of international law.

At the time, Israel was enforcing a lengthy siege on Gaza that had deprived more than two million people there of the essentials of life, and it had repeatedly bombed urban areas, killing hundreds of civilians.

In the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, Israel had intensified its expansion of illegal Jewish settlements, leading to a surge in violence from settler militias and the Israeli army. Palestinians were being killed and driven off their land.

The activist asked the ambassador a simple question: What would Israel need to do for his government to act against it? Where was the red line?

The ambassador paused as he thought hard. And then, with a shrug of the shoulders, he responded: there was nothing Israel could do. There was no red line.

A decade ago, that comment might have been interpreted as evasive. A year into Israel’s erasure of Gaza, it sounds utterly prophetic.

There is no red line. And more importantly, there never has been. That conversation took place many years before 7 October 2023, when Hamas broke out of Gaza and killed more than 1,000 Israelis.

That date is not quite the turning point, the rupture, that it is universally presented as.

Hamas’s brief jail-break from Gaza certainly triggered an explosive desire for revenge among Israelis, who had grown used to being able to subjugate and dispossess the Palestinian people cost-free.

But more importantly, it offered a pretext for Israel’s leaders to erase Gaza – to carry out a plan they had long harboured. And similarly, it offered western states the pretext they needed to stand with Israel and excuse its savagery as Israel’s “right to defend itself”.

Horror show

Call the events unfolding over the past 12 months in Gaza what you will: self-defence, mass slaughter, or a “plausible genocide”, as the world’s highest court has termed it. What can’t be debated is that it has been a horror show.

In the first two months alone, Israel destroyed more of Gaza proportionally than the Allies managed in Germany during the entire Second World War. It carried out more air strikes on Gaza than the US and UK did against the Islamic State group over a period of three years in Iraq.

The official figures are that Israel has so far killed more than 42,000 Palestinians in Gaza – more than half of them women and children – through relentless and indiscriminate bombing of the tiny, overcrowded enclave.

According to human rights groups, more children were killed by Israel in the first four months of its bombing campaign in Gaza than were killed in four years of all other global conflicts combined.

Oxfam reported last week that in the past two decades, no conflict anywhere else in the world has come close to killing so many children over a 12-month period.

But the true death toll is far higher. Gaza, bombed into 42 million tonnes of rubble, lost the ability to count its dead and wounded many months ago.

Last week, a group of nearly 100 American doctors and nurses who have volunteered in Gaza’s healthcare system as Israel has systematically eviscerated it wrote an open letter to US President Joe Biden. They estimated that the death toll was nearly three times higher than the official figure.

They added: “With only marginal exceptions, everyone in Gaza is sick, injured, or both. This includes every national aid worker, every international volunteer, and probably every Israeli hostage: every man, woman, and child.”

Medieval-style blockade

Back in July, a letter published in the Lancet medical journal put the figure still higher. Using standard modelling techniques, drawing on data from previous wars in which densely populated urban areas were destroyed, a team of experts concluded that Gaza’s death toll would reach much closer to 200,000, based on conservative parameters.

That would amount to nearly 10 percent of Gaza’s population killed outright by Israeli bombs, disappeared under rubble, dead from medical conditions that could not be treated, or dying from mass malnutrition after a year of an Israeli medieval-style blockade of food, water and fuel.

Israel appears certain that there are no red lines, and as a result, things have only gotten worse since the Lancet letter.

In September, deliveries of food and aid into Gaza sank to their lowest level in seven months, according to figures from the United Nations and Israel.

In other words, Israel’s stranglehold on aid to Gaza’s starving population has actually intensified since May, when Karim Khan, the British chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), requested arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for crimes against humanity.

One of the main charges was that the pair were using starvation as a weapon of war.

Israeli leaders are so confident that the US and Europe are watching their backs that, according to a Reuters report last week, Israel’s military authorities have in recent days been blocking UN-chartered aid convoys from entering Gaza.

Netanyahu clearly isn’t worried about being dragged to the dock of a war crimes tribunal at The Hague any time soon.

One-sided anniversary

If western politicians have no red lines when it comes to Israel, much the same can be said of the West’s establishment media.

They barely report on conditions in Gaza anymore, apart from the occasional headline figure of deaths from Israel’s latest bombardment of a school shelter, refugee camp or mosque.

Media outlets marked the anniversary of 7 October this week but, predictably, most have done so from an exclusively Israeli perspective – as the day when 1,150 Israelis and foreigners were killed during Hamas’s attack, and a mix of some 250 captured soldiers and civilian hostages were taken into the enclave.

The BBC, for example, has been heavily promoting its documentary We Will Dance Againrecounting the experiences of Israelis who attended the Nova rave close to Gaza, which turned into a killing field.

Similarly, Britain’s Channel 4 aired a documentary titled One Day in October, billed as “an intimate and shocking account of the Kibbutz Be’eri atrocity”. Some 100 kibbutz inhabitants were killed that day and 30 hostages seized.

Notably, more than a dozen of those residents in Be’eri were killed not by Hamas, but by the Israeli army, after an Israeli tank was ordered to fire into one of the homes where Hamas was holed up with them.

Israeli army commanders on 7 October invoked the highly controversial Hannibal directive, authorizing soldiers to kill their comrades to stop them from being taken captive. On that day, Israel appears to have applied the directive to civilians too. One of the people killed by the Israeli tank fire in Be’eri was a 12-year-old girl, Liel Hetzroni.

Western media outlets have so far almost completely avoided drawing attention to the role Israel’s Hannibal directive played that day.

This week, in a sign of how one-sided the media’s portrayal has become, the Guardian hurriedly removed from its website a review criticizing the Ch4 film for failing to provide any context for the Hamas attack on October 7 – decades of military oppression and siege conditions on Gaza. The review provoked a predictable storm of protest from leading Zionist journalists.

No consequences

7 October was not only the day Hamas launched its surprise attack on Israel; it was also the day Israel began its slaughter of Palestinians in revenge.

The day marks the start of what the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has concluded amounts to a “plausible genocide” – one that Israel has barred foreign correspondents from covering in person. Instead, the slaughter has been live-streamed for 12 months variously by the population under attack, and by the Israeli soldiers committing war crimes in plain view.

In a sign of how odiously anti-Palestinian western media coverage has become over the past year, the supposedly liberal Observer newspaper – the Sunday sister paper of the Guardian – chose to give space last weekend to British Jewish writer Howard Jacobson to equate the reporting of the thousands of young children killed and buried alive in Gaza with a medieval, antisemitic “blood libel”.

The paper even chose to illustrate the column with a photo of a blood-smeared doll – presumably suggesting that the massive death toll reported by every human rights organization was false.

The only major broadcaster to try to honor the civilian victims in Gaza and the experiences of those who have survived – just barely – since last October was not a western outlet. It was the Qatari channel Al Jazeera.

Its documentaryInvestigating War Crimes in Gaza, uses footage shot by Israeli soldiers and posted to social media as they carried out horrifying atrocities against the civilian population.

The soldiers’ delight in broadcasting their war crimes – and the license they received from Israel’s military authorities to do so – underscores the confidence in Israel that there will never be any consequences.

Unlike the western media, Al Jazeera humanizes the Palestinian victims of Israeli atrocities, giving them a voice and a backstory that the western media has largely reserved for the Israeli victims of 7 October.

Courts dragging their feet

Similarly, there appear to be no meaningful red lines, at least so far, for the world’s two highest courts in responding to Israel’s destruction of Gaza.

The ICJ agreed to put Israel on trial for genocide back in January, after hearing the case made by lawyers representing South Africa, and Israel’s response.

One might have assumed, given that genocide is the ultimate international crime, that the court would have fast-tracked a definitive ruling. After all, the people of Gaza do not have time on their side. But a year into the slaughter and imposed starvation, there is only silence.

The same court has in the meantime ruled belatedly that Israel’s 57-year military occupation of the Palestinian territories is illegal, that Palestinians have a right to resist, and that Israel must withdraw immediately from Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Western politicians and media have ignored the significance of that ruling, for obvious reasons. It provides the historical context for Hamas’s breakout from Gaza after its illegal siege by Israel for 17 years. Hamas is proscribed as a terrorist group in the UK and other countries.

The problem for the ICJ is twofold. It is under enormous pressure from the US global superpower not to declare a genocide in Gaza by Washington’s favorite client state. Such a verdict would tear off the veil, exposing western powers as fully complicit in that supreme crime.

Secondly, the court has no enforcement mechanisms outside the UN Security Council, where Washington enjoys a veto that it routinely wields to protect Israel.

On much the same grounds, the ICC is also dragging its feet. Khan says he has enough evidence to issue arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant for crimes against humanity. European states are obligated to enforce any arrest warrants, so unlike an ICJ ruling, this one could be carried out.

But for months, the judges of the ICC have delayed approving the warrants, despite the urgency, apparently because they, too, are fearful of incurring Washington’s wrath.

Both courts can be in no doubt that taking on Washington in these circumstances is a suicide mission.

On the one hand, Israel has shown that it will not abide by any of the legal red lines once insisted upon by the West to avoid a repeat of the horrors of the Second World War. And western powers have demonstrated that not only do they have no intention of restraining Israel, they will assist in its violations.

On the other hand, by hesitating month after month, the two international courts discredit the very rules of war they are there to uphold. They have returned the world to an era of jungle law, but now in a nuclear age.

International law is being shredded in the maw of a US-imposed, self-serving “international order”.

On the warpath

It is that utter lack of accountability from the centers of power – from western politicians, western media and world courts – that has paved Israel’s way to escalate its bloodletting to now encompass the occupied West Bank, Lebanon, Yemen, and Syria.

Israel’s theatre of war is rapidly expanding to fully embrace Iran, too. The world is braced for an imminent Israeli attack.

There is already an undeclared regional war, and the risk grows daily of this expanding into a world war – and with that, all the inherent risks of a nuclear confrontation. But why?

For Israel’s apologists – a group that includes the entire western establishment, it seems – the narrative is a simple one, though rarely articulated clearly because its racist premises are so hard to miss.

To make Israelis feel safe again, Israel needs to reassert its military deterrence by crushing Hamas and its supporters in Gaza. To do so, Israel must also take on those in the wider region who refuse to submit to Israel’s – and by extension the West’s – civilizational superiority.

The mantra of Israel and its apologists is “de-escalation through escalation”. In blunter language, the policy is an updated colonial one of “beat the savages into submission”.

Israel’s critics – now mostly silenced as “antisemites” – argue that Israelis can never be made safe simply through military aggression rather than diplomatic solutions. Violence begets more violence. Indeed, Israel’s decades of structural violence against the entire Palestinian people led us to this point.

And, they note, Israel hasn’t just ignored diplomatic options; it is actively tearing down any chance of them bearing fruit. It assassinated Hamas political chief Ismail Haniyeh, a relatively moderate figure, as he was leading negotiations towards a long-anticipated ceasefire in Gaza.

And it now seems likely that Israel chose to kill Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, shortly after he had agreed, along with the Lebanese government, to a 21-day ceasefire while the international community worked on a peace deal.

‘Clash of civilizations’

But this only gets halfway to understanding the problem.

True, Israel now appears determined to finish once and for all the job it began in 1948 of eradicating the Palestinian people – the native population its western-backed, settler-colonial project was predicated on removing.

Israel has repeatedly failed to ethnically cleanse historic Palestine, while the fallback position – decades of apartheid rule – could never be more than a holding measure, as South Africa’s experience proved.

Now, armed with 7 October as the pretext, Israel has rolled out a genocidal program instead; first in Gaza, and, if it gets away with it, soon in the occupied West Bank.

But Israel has long had a much grander ambition – one that it is getting a second bite of the cherry to achieve.

More than 20 years ago, a group of extreme ideologues known as the neoconservatives seized the foreign policy initiative during the presidency of George W Bush. They have since become a permanent foreign policy elite in Washington, whichever administration is in power.

What is distinctive about the neoconservatives is the centrality of Israel to their worldview. They regard Israel’s unapologetic Jewish supremacism and militarism as a model for the West – one in which it returns to an unashamed white supremacism and militarism in a revived spirit of colonialism.

Like Israel, the neoconservatives see the world in terms of a never-ending clash of civilizations against the so-called Muslim world. In this context, international law becomes an obstacle to the West’s victory, rather than a guarantee of global order.

In addition, the neoconservatives view Israel as the battering ram to keep the US in charge of international affairs in the world’s main oil spigot, the Middle East. Israel lies at the heart of Washington’s policy of full-spectrum global dominance.

The neoconservatives have long been sold on Israel’s strategy for achieving such dominance in the Middle East: by Balkanizing it. The aim has been to demand utter subservience to Israel, with any source of dissent not only punished, but the social structures that support it crushed into ruins.

In Gaza, that method has been on full show. In destroying government buildings, universities, mosques, churches, libraries, schools, hospitals and even bakeries, Israel has sought to reduce the Palestinian population to the barest of human existence. National identity, and the desire to resist, are luxuries no one can afford. Survival is all.

Israel is beginning to roll out the same scheme for the occupied West Bank, Lebanon and Iran.

Destabilizing the Middle East

None of this is new. Just as Israel is currently grasping the pretext of 7 October to justify its rampage, the neoconservatives earlier seized on al-Qaeda’s destruction of New York’s Twin Towers on 9/11 as their opportunity to “remake the Middle East”.

In 2007, former NATO commander Wesley Clark recounted a meeting at the Pentagon shortly after the US invasion of Afghanistan. An officer told him: “We are going to attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years. We’re going to start with Iraq, and then we’re going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.”

Clark added of the neoconservatives: “They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control.”

As I documented in my 2008 book Israel and the Clash of Civilisations, Israel was supposed to carry out a central chunk of Washington’s post-Iraq plan, starting with its war on Lebanon in 2006. Israel’s attack there was supposed to drag in Syria and Iran, giving the US a pretext to expand the war.

This was what the US secretary of state of the time, Condoleezza Rice, meant when she spoke of the “birth pangs of a new Middle East”.

The plan went awry largely because Israel got bogged down in phase one, in Lebanon. It blitzed cities like Beirut with US-supplied bombs, but its soldiers struggled against Hezbollah in a ground invasion of southern Lebanon.

The West subsequently found other ways to deal with Syria and Libya.

To the bitter end

Now we are back where we started, nearly 20 years later. Israel, Hezbollah and Iran have all been preparing for this second round.

The western-Israeli goal, as before, is to destroy Lebanon and Iran, just as Gaza has been destroyed. The aim is to smash the infrastructure of Lebanon and Iran, their governing institutions, and their social structures. It is to plunge the Lebanese and Iranian people into a primaeval state, where they can cohere only into simple, tribal units and fight among themselves for the bare essentials.

There is no evidence that this goal is any more realizable today than it was two decades ago.

Even Israel’s top military spokesperson, Daniel Hagari, has had to admit: “Anyone who thinks we can eliminate Hamas is wrong.”

The Israeli army is once again floundering in southern Lebanon against Hezbollah’s guerrilla fighters. And Iran’s very limited, sampler ballistic-missile attack on Israeli military sites last week showed that its arsenal can get past Israel’s US-supplied defense systems and hit its targets.

But Israel has made clear that for it, and for the US military titan behind it, there is no going back.

Last week, US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said the quiet part out loud: “We’ve never wanted to see a diplomatic resolution with Hamas.”

According to “conservative” calculations from Brown University’s Costs of War project, the US has already spent more than $22.7bn on military assistance to Israel over the past year – equivalent to more than $10,000 for every Palestinian man, woman and child living in Gaza. Washington’s pockets appear to be bottomless.

For Israel and the US, there are no red lines. The same holds true in European capitals. They appear ready to continue this to the bitter end.

Jonathan Cook is the author of three books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and a winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His website and blog can be found at www.jonathan-cook.net. This originally appeared in the Middle East Eye.