Rather usual criticism of Israeli settlement activity meets unusually forceful response:
"The Europeans called for an immediate halt to settlement activity, adding that they hoped the government would follow through on its promises to bring settlers guilty of violence to justice.
"If instead of contributing to the stability of the Middle East, they invest efforts in inappropriately bickering with a country with a law and justice system that knows how to deal with lawbreakers, then they are losing their credibility and making themselves irrelevant," the Foreign Ministry stated in response to the European criticism."
A few comments:
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Lust for oil?
An interesting article about some deeps social reasons behind the American invasion of Iraq.
Brief summary: In the wake of the spectacular collapse of the Soviet Union, Americans (and perhaps most of the World) became convinced in the superiority of the American social and economic systems. The benefits of the globalization/international trade were obvious, as well as the fact that “[T]he hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist,” - the hidden fist being the powerful and highly moral American military:
"Americans took it for granted that their own approach to democracy should and would apply universally. They believed themselves better positioned than any would-be competitor to capitalize on the promise of globalization. As for high-tech military power, Desert Storm had already testified to American prowess; what some were calling the Revolution in Military Affairs would translate a clear edge into permanent supremacy."
These beliefs were shared equally by the Democrats and the Republicans - for example, by Bill Clinton and his contemporary speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (this should not come as a surprise, if you have a good enough memory to remember the bi-partisan support for the Iraq invasion.)
9/11 came as a shock, which was quickly followed by denial in the form of an attempt to re-assert the American power. Saddam Husein was just a natural target:
"From this perspective, designating Saddam Hussein as Enemy No. 1 made a great deal of sense. Granted, Iraq was not involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. Hussein’s regime had only the most negligible links to al-Qaeda. And, of course, Iraq’s stockpile of nuclear and biological weapons turned out to be a figment of fevered imaginations. But critics who employed such facts to charge the Bush administration with deception or incompetence missed a larger point: The real aim of Operation Iraqi Freedom was to demonstrate that the United States still called the tune to which history marched. For such purposes, Hussein’s ramshackle regime presented an ideal target."
The rest is history. I suspect that the more the smoke clears, the clearer we will see that the reasons for the invasion of Iraq were deeper (although not necessarily more morally justifiable) than merely George Bush's animosity towards Saddam Hussein or the American lust for oil.
Brief summary: In the wake of the spectacular collapse of the Soviet Union, Americans (and perhaps most of the World) became convinced in the superiority of the American social and economic systems. The benefits of the globalization/international trade were obvious, as well as the fact that “[T]he hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist,” - the hidden fist being the powerful and highly moral American military:
"Americans took it for granted that their own approach to democracy should and would apply universally. They believed themselves better positioned than any would-be competitor to capitalize on the promise of globalization. As for high-tech military power, Desert Storm had already testified to American prowess; what some were calling the Revolution in Military Affairs would translate a clear edge into permanent supremacy."
These beliefs were shared equally by the Democrats and the Republicans - for example, by Bill Clinton and his contemporary speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (this should not come as a surprise, if you have a good enough memory to remember the bi-partisan support for the Iraq invasion.)
9/11 came as a shock, which was quickly followed by denial in the form of an attempt to re-assert the American power. Saddam Husein was just a natural target:
"From this perspective, designating Saddam Hussein as Enemy No. 1 made a great deal of sense. Granted, Iraq was not involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. Hussein’s regime had only the most negligible links to al-Qaeda. And, of course, Iraq’s stockpile of nuclear and biological weapons turned out to be a figment of fevered imaginations. But critics who employed such facts to charge the Bush administration with deception or incompetence missed a larger point: The real aim of Operation Iraqi Freedom was to demonstrate that the United States still called the tune to which history marched. For such purposes, Hussein’s ramshackle regime presented an ideal target."
The rest is history. I suspect that the more the smoke clears, the clearer we will see that the reasons for the invasion of Iraq were deeper (although not necessarily more morally justifiable) than merely George Bush's animosity towards Saddam Hussein or the American lust for oil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)