Is It Too Much To Ask That Middle East Correspondents Not Be Fans of Folks Who Want Me Dead?

CNN's Senior Editor on Mideast Affairs, Octavia Nasr, has stepped down after writing about her "respect" for Sayyed Fadlallah, a top Hezbollah spiritual leader.

Ms. Nasr explained that her respect did not mean a whole-hearted endorsement of everything Mr. Fadlallah stood for -- including his claims that the Holocaust was exaggerated and his desire to exterminate the Jewish state. Rather, she believed that Mr. Fadlallah had, with regards to women's rights, been forwarded a more moderate vision of Shi'ite Islam that condemned "honor killings" and abuse against women. To call him "progressive" on women's rights would be a gross exaggeration, but he was perhaps notably less retrogressive, and grading on a curve I guess that counts for something. And I don't doubt that Ms. Nasr is being totally honest in stating that her feelings of respect stemmed from these issues.

But it doesn't obviate the tiny detail that the organization he was affiliated with, you know, wants Israel to be annihilated (and possibly wants me, personally, dead as well*). As Ms. Nasr admits, Mr. Fadlallah was marginalized in Hezbollah because he was too aggressive in demanding that Hezbollah focus solely on destroying Israel. Given that, I'm frankly stunned by the reaction in some liberal quarters to the news -- essentially alleging that this was kowtowing to a requirement in the media that all figures by biased in favor of Israel. "Bias", here, means a requirement that one not praise folks actively wishing for Israel to be obliterated. That alone demonstrates just how far the plaintive whine about how "the Israel Lobby" suppresses all dissent has extended itself. Why, you can't even praise folks who want to see Israel completely destroyed, and who think its completely okay to murder Israeli civilians (and possibly Jews worldwide), without facing their wrath. Oh, the muzzling! Oh, spare me.

Hezbollah generally, and Sayyed Fadlallah particularly, promote a radical anti-Semitic and anti-Israel agenda which is quite well-known. It is not whitewashed just because Fadlallah supports some progressive less retrogressive reforms inside Shi'ite Islam. I'm reminded of Naomi Klein's hideous reaction to the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Durban II speech, which conceded that it was anti-Semitic, but nonetheless that Jews dared protest it because it distracted from other progressive goals of the conference. Progressivism, here, simply means Jews have to take it in the teeth, because paying attention to our concerns might distract from those of real human beings.

And yes, it's pretty clear that CNN (and other media giants) have a bevvy of rather appalling figures on their payrolls. It's obviously a blot on CNN that it hired someone who referred to a Supreme Court Justice as a "goat f@$king child molester", but I hardly think a universal reduction in standards is the way to solve the issue. I likewise think anyone who thinks Palestine should not exist does not deserve a place on CNN, and certainly not in a senior position in CNN's Mideast desk. If such people are currently working in such a position at CNN, they should step down as well (make me a list -- I'll sign a petition). But it isn't right to ask Jews to play the sacrificial pawn in your media wars. If your progressivism means ignoring equal Jewish rights, it ain't progressivism to me.

* From the New Yorker article:

On the killing of Israeli civilians, Fadlallah said, "In a state of war, it is permissible for Palestinians to kill Jews. When there is peace, this is not permissible." He does not believe in a peaceful settlement between two states, one Palestinian, the other Israeli; rather, he favors the disappearance of Israel.
[...]
"We are against the killing of Jews outside Palestine," Fadlallah said. "Unless they transfer the war outside Palestine." When I asked if they had, Fadlallah raised an eyebrow, and let the question go unanswered.

Back in the Swing Roundup

Go to school, read a book, be a lawyer/
Hell yeah, man, I'm all for the cause.

* * *

New study reveals parents believe all teens but their own to be hyper-sexual (their own teens are entirely asexual).

Fox News is annoyed that President Obama didn't gratuitously insult American Jews (the Jewish community appreciated the gesture). I know exactly how committed the conservative Christian movement is to fully including Jews in the fabric of America.

Statements of Avrom Krengel (chair of the South African Zionist Federation) and Richard Goldstone after their recent meeting.

Lebanon delays asking Hezbollah to disarm.

The Judeosphere predicts a fall into obscurity for Walt & Mearsheimer (the latter's work on neo-realism will not soon be forgotten, but hopefully his ill-considered forays into the study of domestic lobbying and Mideast politics will be).

More evidence of the Catholic Church shuffling around predator priests.

Phoebe Maltz on literature and anti-Semitism.

Zionist Pawn

Headline in a South African paper: "Israel charges alleged Hezbollah 'spies'".

Body of article:

Cairo - Egypt's attorney general has added espionage to the charges against 49 alleged Hezbollah agents, in addition plotting to destabilize the country.

Abdel-Meguid Mahmoud told Egypt's state run news agency MENA late on Sunday that the alleged agents, including Lebanese, Palestinian, Egyptian and Sudanese nationals, have been spying for a foreign group intending to carry out terrorist attacks in Egypt.

Presumably, the paper couldn't fathom that someone other than Israel might have a problem with the murderous terrorist sect.

Via It's Almost Supernatural.

What's There To Talk About?

Abu Muqawama on talking with Hezbollah:

....Second, why on Earth would Hizballah want to talk to us? What would they want from us?

Third, it would be one thing if the only thing Hizballah has ever said about armed resistance was said in the Open Letter of 1985, but Hizballah leaders have repeatedly and consistently defined the organization as an armed resistance movement first and foremost. What's more, this armed resistance is no longer tied into concrete territorial demands that we could conceivably help out with, such as the Shebaa Farms. So that complicates things, both for us in dealing with them and also for them as they try to figure out what the future of their party holds.

Muqawama isn't adverse to talking with "enemies" per se, he just wants to know what exactly we have to talk about with Hezbollah. And I'm not really sure at this point, though I can see the benefit of having some channels of communication in case there is a crisis (I'm skeptical, frankly, that those channels don't already exist already in private).

Why Quiet on the Northern Front?

An interesting non-development Matt Yglesias points out today is that things are quiet on Israel's northern front -- that is, Hezbollah hasn't decided to take advantage of the Gaza chaos to open up a new war front against Israel. Abu Muqawama speculates on some reasons why that might be:

1. Like Hamas (and unlike, say, al-Qaeda), Hizballah has a constituency for which it is responsible. Were Hizballah to attack Israel, it would not want to do so as the result of a hasty decision-making process. Although Hizballah indeed attacked Israel in 2006 at the same time Israel was active in Gaza, that was an operation that had been planned (and attempted, unsuccessfully) for some time. Were Hizballah to attack Israel now, the IDF -- with its ground forces still engaged in Gaza -- could still make life miserable for the Shia population of Lebanon. Keep in mind that in 1993 and 1996, Israel was able to displace well over 100,000 Lebanese from the south on each occassion solely through the application of air power and artillery. In 1993, over 6,000 homes were destroyed. In 1996, more homes than that were leveled -- along with four civilian power plants. So were Hizballah to attack Israel, that would probably be the result of a very deliberate and calculated decision. Because it would be understood that the Israeli response could be devastating.

2. It is possible that Hizballah would very much like to attack but has been counseled by either Iran or its Lebanese political allies not to do so. Again, why this would be the case remains a mystery to me -- and would to all but a handful of Iranian and Hizballah decision-makers.

3. Although the IDF is busy in Gaza, I am quite sure their defenses along the Blue Line are on full alert and expecting an attack of some sort. Could Hizballah launch a few rockets south? Of course. But I think they might have more difficulty pulling off a more spectacular operation like the one on 12 July 2006.

Of course, contra Matt, reason #2 is consistent with Hamas* and Hezbollah being closely tied to Iran and being at least in part extensions of Iran's regional policy towards Israel (admittedly, it does disprove some of the more zombie-like arguments wherein Iran single-mindedly pursues Israel's destruction and Hamas and Hezbollah have no independent agency). Fortunately, reason #1 strikes me as the most likely option. Reason #3 is undoubtedly true as far it is goes, but there is no question in my mind that Hezbollah -- if it set its mind to it and didn't care about the inevitable Israeli response -- could wreak some serious havoc right now even without something as ambitious as its 2006 operation.

* Do people view Hamas as an arm of Iran? I would have thought that the Sunni/Shi'ite split would make that rather difficult. I have no doubt that Hamas and Iran have contacts and connections, but I can't imagine Hamas going so far as to render itself an Iranian client organization.

The Exchange

CNN reports that Israel has agreed to a prisoner swap with Hezbollah, which hopefully will bring home two Israeli solidiers abducted by the terrorist group when it sparked the 2006 war between Israel and Lebanon. Reports are sketchy, however, on whether the two solidiers are alive, and on the contours of the deal itself. CNN notes (accurately) that Hezbollah's top priority in these negotiations has always been to secure the release of Samir Kuntar, currently serving a life-sentence for the cold-blooded murder of an Israeli man and his 4-year old daughter. That this is Hezbollah's number one objective (they view him as a hero) is highly indicative of their continued rejectionist stance: bloody, illiberal, and properly banished from the realm of respectable politics.

As much as I want to see the kidnapped solidiers come home safely (assuming that even is on the table), I previously wrote that the release of Mr. Kuntar has be seen as a red-line. The sheer depravity of his act -- he shot the father to death before his daughter's eyes, then dashed her brains out with rocks -- is shocking even when cast against the entire history of the Israeli/Arab conflict. It is sickening, and the idea that this man will walk free again -- much less to a hero's reception -- is nauseating, not to mention, a banner around which those who thirst for continued terroristic violence will rally around.

As I have relayed in many other analogous contexts, it is ultimately Israel's choice as to how it wishes to mediate these tough choices. But if Mr. Kuntar is released, the global community must make it absolutely clear that the man now walking the street is not just a terrorist, but a uniquely sick and twisted individual who represents the worst in anti-Semitic and anti-Israel pathologies.

UPDATE: The WaPo version of the story reports that Mr. Kuntar will be released.

Finkelstein Says Hi to Hezbollah

Isn't this precious: Norman Finkelstein, recently denied tenure at DePaul University, met with Hezbollah leaders in south Lebanon and took a tour of the area with them. He had this to say:

"After the horror and after the shame and after the anger there still remain a hope, and I know that I can get in a lot of trouble for what I am about to say, but I think that the Hezbollah represents the hope. They are fighting to defend their homeland."

Hope for what, I wonder? And if Hezbollah represents the hope, would Finkelstein say that we all Hezbollah now, then?