The Next War in the Middle East - Finkelstein
Drowned Out
Posts: 6,056
I attended a lecture by Dr. Norman Finkelstein last week.
The talk focused mostly on the 2008 Gaza massacre, the blockade, and the Mavi Marmara/flotilla murders, but also touched on the current "peace talks" (and the sham of the supposed settlement freeze)...he also took a few comical shots at our PM Steven Harper and Calgary MP/free speech suppressor/asylum-seeking-US-soldier denier Jason Kenney
The event was sponsored by Canadians for Peace and Justice in the Middle East ( http://www.cjpme.org/ ). He spoke for about an hour and a half, then did an hour+ Q&A...
Links for those interested:
NF's remarks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFomATjDKDs
Q&A: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMokfo-v ... re=related
There are a million talking points in this speech, but I'm curious to hear thoughts on what he says beginning around 57:05. He speaks of the likelihood of an Israeli attack on Lebannon, mentioning former US ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer's assessment this past summer that an attack could come in the next 12-18 months.
Finkelstein states that "Israel has made it clear that they will do to Lebanon what they did to Gaza in 08/09", citing the ""Dahiya Doctrine" (basically; flatten the place) as Israel's strategy (as it was implemented in Gaza 08).
He follows with ominous quotes from Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah (also stating that Israel agrees), which claim that another war between the two sides would be game-changing.
At 1:00:32 he says, 'There is no possibility whatsoever, I put it at zero, There is no possibility that Israel will accept a third defeat in Lebanon. It will not happen. if it looks like a defeat is impending, I do not even believe, and I don't want to sound apocalyptic, but I do not even believe even the US could stop them. They will not accept a third defeat in Lebanon.
But on the other hand, I do not believe, that IF it looks as if the Hezbollah is losing, I do not believe Iran will stay out of it. Not from solidarity, but from self-interest. Because they know, if Hezbollah is defeated, they are next. The only reason they did not enter the war in 2006 (because the whole purpose of the war was to lay the groundwork for an attack on Iran in 2006), the only reason they did not enter the war in 2006, was because Hezbollah won on it's own. When if it looks like an impending Hezbollah defeat, I do not see how Iran will stay out.
And so you bascially have a picture where the two protagonists in the war, neither of them will accept a defeat. It's one of those wars which is very easy to imagine beginning, but for the life of me, I cannot conceive how it will end."
Now, I realize Finkelstein has a reputation for being a bit uh...abrasive in his presentation....but no one can deny his scholarship regarding middle eastern affairs. To hear this kind of speculation was bone-chilling. He was asked in the Q&A session if he was referring to the possibility of Israel using nukes if they were losing this theoretical war and he refused to discuss...he said if that happened, there is nothing left to talk about....
So......? Is the tone of this speech just rhetorical fear mongering to influence opinion against Israel? (Read: anti-semitism
)....or...is Finkelstein just telling it like it is in regards to the immenence of Israeli aggression toward Lebanon, and it's grave implications?
The talk focused mostly on the 2008 Gaza massacre, the blockade, and the Mavi Marmara/flotilla murders, but also touched on the current "peace talks" (and the sham of the supposed settlement freeze)...he also took a few comical shots at our PM Steven Harper and Calgary MP/free speech suppressor/asylum-seeking-US-soldier denier Jason Kenney
The event was sponsored by Canadians for Peace and Justice in the Middle East ( http://www.cjpme.org/ ). He spoke for about an hour and a half, then did an hour+ Q&A...
Links for those interested:
NF's remarks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFomATjDKDs
Q&A: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMokfo-v ... re=related
There are a million talking points in this speech, but I'm curious to hear thoughts on what he says beginning around 57:05. He speaks of the likelihood of an Israeli attack on Lebannon, mentioning former US ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer's assessment this past summer that an attack could come in the next 12-18 months.
Finkelstein states that "Israel has made it clear that they will do to Lebanon what they did to Gaza in 08/09", citing the ""Dahiya Doctrine" (basically; flatten the place) as Israel's strategy (as it was implemented in Gaza 08).
He follows with ominous quotes from Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah (also stating that Israel agrees), which claim that another war between the two sides would be game-changing.
At 1:00:32 he says, 'There is no possibility whatsoever, I put it at zero, There is no possibility that Israel will accept a third defeat in Lebanon. It will not happen. if it looks like a defeat is impending, I do not even believe, and I don't want to sound apocalyptic, but I do not even believe even the US could stop them. They will not accept a third defeat in Lebanon.
But on the other hand, I do not believe, that IF it looks as if the Hezbollah is losing, I do not believe Iran will stay out of it. Not from solidarity, but from self-interest. Because they know, if Hezbollah is defeated, they are next. The only reason they did not enter the war in 2006 (because the whole purpose of the war was to lay the groundwork for an attack on Iran in 2006), the only reason they did not enter the war in 2006, was because Hezbollah won on it's own. When if it looks like an impending Hezbollah defeat, I do not see how Iran will stay out.
And so you bascially have a picture where the two protagonists in the war, neither of them will accept a defeat. It's one of those wars which is very easy to imagine beginning, but for the life of me, I cannot conceive how it will end."
Now, I realize Finkelstein has a reputation for being a bit uh...abrasive in his presentation....but no one can deny his scholarship regarding middle eastern affairs. To hear this kind of speculation was bone-chilling. He was asked in the Q&A session if he was referring to the possibility of Israel using nukes if they were losing this theoretical war and he refused to discuss...he said if that happened, there is nothing left to talk about....
So......? Is the tone of this speech just rhetorical fear mongering to influence opinion against Israel? (Read: anti-semitism
)....or...is Finkelstein just telling it like it is in regards to the immenence of Israeli aggression toward Lebanon, and it's grave implications? Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Israel has been hurling unfounded accusations for months that Hezbollah is preparing for war and that Syria is smuggling arms. and lets not forget all the talk of big bad Iran. Shimon Peres has also accused Syria with supplying the Shiite organization with Scud missiles. Syria has completely denied the charge and called bullshit, and the United Nations says there is no evidence for the accusation.
like i said, Israel will lie through it's teeth to get what it wants. they do it every day.
they can't go on forever getting away with it.
kinda like during operation cast lead when they were first accused of using white phosphorous rounds they claimed it was hamas that was firing them
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'