No Responsibility
In a meandering speculation about who is behind the violence in Lebanon and what their goals are, Robert Fisk absolves Syria with this astonishing paragraph:
It is too simple to claim that this is Syria’s work. Syria may have an interest is watching this destabilisation, even - through its security networks - assisting these groups with logistics. But other organisations might have found common interest; the Iraqi insurgents, for example, even the Taliban, perhaps equally small groups in the Palestinian occupied territories. That’s how these things work in the Middle East, where there is no such thing as responsibility - only a commonality of interests. Perhaps the Americans might have learnt something about this if they had not two years ago insulted the Syrians for allowing fighters into Iraq - at which point, the Syrians halted all military and intelligence co-operation with the US.
Silly Americans, trying to hold the Syrians responsible for what happens on their territory. Do they not realize it was in their interest to allow Syria to send jihadis to murder American soldiers and Iraqi civilians?
So there is no responsibility in the Middle East, only commonality of interest. A fascinating and revolutionary concept, worthy of study. Hey, wait a minute. This suggests a sea change in Fisk’s thinking. It means the Americans are not responsible for violence in Iraq and throughout the region. It is only an expression of their commonality of interest with the Iraqi people. Israel, no responsibility … just commonality of interest with the civilized people of the world.
Either that or Fisk, having gone native with the Arab concept that someone else is responsible for everything, inadvertantly deleted the paragraph about, you know, the Crusader-Zionists.
Blacksmiths of Lebanon with regular local updates here. Jade thinks the Syrians protest too much.
Totten deconstructs discussions of responsibility in another theater of Palestinian conflict.
Some art and some bickering over that responsibility thing in comments at Surber.
If you need someone to blame for the current carnage, blame the Palestinian terrorists for whom violence has become a way of life (and death). Forget the rage of the dispossessed and all that sanctimonious claptrap. For the Palestinians preying upon their brethren, terror’s a business.
He manages to find a few others, though.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:09 am on Wednesday, May 23, 2007
15 Responses to “No Responsibility”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:30 am
Jules, it’s not anti-semitism. It’s just that Arabs, like all third world peoples, are a kind of children, or household pet, without actual responsibility for their own actions– they merely react to the provocations of the US (see Chomsky for details).
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:42 am
Jules,
It never ceases to amaze me how truly patronizing the majority of liberals are. The term “limousine liberals” is very appropo for so many of them.
This article simply reenforces the notion of liberal=clueless, as most self-appointed aristocracies are. It’s simply the nature of the beast.
Man, talk about simply not getting it.
Of course, most in the middle east are not helping their case in this matter with that whole “inshallah” thing. Talk about a moral cop-out.
Respects,
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:30 am
[...] by Jules Crittenden. [...]
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:35 am
[...] 23rd, 2007 by mvdg Jules Crittenden highlights the following paragraph from this article by Robert Fisk: It is too simple to claim that [...]
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Jules,
I just wanted to ask that you take the images that have been coming out of Lebanon for the past several days and show them to Nancy Pelosi, and all those who have advocated reaching out to Syria and “talking”. Show them the very human price a moderate nation struggling to be free of tyranny and radicalism has to pay everytime one of those politicians tries to score a few points at home with a photo-op with a dictator over here.
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Perhaps the Americans might have learnt something about this if they had not two years ago insulted the Syrians for allowing fighters into Iraq
Uh…whuh? “Insulted” the Syrians?!? We should have flattened Damascus, and then politely asked them, “Now, who would like to talk peace?”
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Blacksmith Jade,
Would you show them to Condi Rice, too?
May 24th, 2007 at 12:48 am
I would. I’d show them to anyone who would see them. But there is a difference between the two. While Condi’s talks with Syria’s foreign minister took place within the framework of a broader US Middle East policy that has correctly identified (’til now) Syria’s detrimental (more like completely destructive!) role in Lebanon, Pelosi’s visit to Damascus was a marked snub to a policy (and administration) that toted a hard line with the regime. Ms. Pelosi’s actions only underlined that hard line without obtaining any benefits for either the US, Lebanon, or the broader region. The only thing Pelosi achieved was personal gratification at having bitten her thumb at the Bush administration.
Hope you’re happy Nancy, your little song and dance just cost about 70 innocent people their lives, way to go.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:49 am
Correction…underlined is supposed to be undermined!
May 24th, 2007 at 3:40 am
corndog, I had supposed that you had at least a basic understanding of how our government functions–the Sec. of State represents this country in foreign policy matters, and the Representative from San Francisco, even as Speaker of the House, does not. But then, operating within the strictures of governance has been stomped under the petulant foot of children who are unhappy and by God want what they want when they want it.
The toll of the dead and suffering is higher than 70, by the way. If one bothers to read accounts out of the Middle East, Ms. Pelosi’s little photo-op and vote-seeking jaunt has cost those Syrians who disagree with the chinless wonder and his government as well, since said Baathists got the message loud and clear that the U.S. won’t squeak out a protest against a crack-down. We wouldn’t want to taunt them a second time! Nothing must be allowed to get in the way of a good chat with an avowed enemy, after all.
Jules, thanks for the link to Peter’s article. My respect for the man grew enormously when he came out and called the PC way we’re “fighting” this war immoral.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
[...] Crittenden takes on Robert Fisk’s assertions that there are, in reality, no true responsible actors for the [...]
May 24th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Gee, Cousin Salty, I guess I haven’t really studied the law that much. Please educate me on where it says that the Secretary of State “represents this country in foreign policy matters” and the legislative branch does not. Much obliged.
May 24th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
corndog, I know that you are not as ignorant of these things as your baiting suggests. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are a grown man of at least average intelligence. I would like to think that your flippant attitude is simply taken on as an unserious attempt to get me waste my time , while you smile in some kind of victory. I don’t understand that kind of victory. Nor do I understand flippancy in the face of a reality where people suffer and die because of the irresponsibility of those who ought to know better. Or does the Speaker’s perversion of the law and the traditions of this country somehow further your purpose? Do you have a purpose that requires this kind of perversion?
May 24th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
NaCl,
You suggested that I lack the “basic understanding” of how our government functions. I can show you, if you like, both by law (see Legislative branch’s powers in foreign policy matters in Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution: power of commerce (commerce is very broadly construed in our law), international law and declare war. See Executive branch’s powers in foreign policy in Article II of the Constitution: power, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties.), and by tradition where representatives and senators talk to foreign leaders. It happens constantly. My only purpose in challenging you is because I hate automatic talking points that are not based on actual fact. Yes, Pelosi is, in fact, well within her authority to go to talk to whoever she wants to, and Bush himself, later said he was embarassed about the criticism sent Pelosi’s way.
And yes, I do think it’s an important effort - considering where we are and how we got here - for everyone to stop believing what they want to hear and to actually think for themselves, especially for someone as smart as you obviously are. Take a look at my reaction, for instance, to Blacksmith, who disagreed with me, but clearly is thinking on his own two feet.
Best luck to you, cuz.
May 25th, 2007 at 12:54 am
As it happens, those are the vary links to the Constitution I gave in my first response, when I realized that that is exactly the kind of response you were baiting me for. No where does the Constitution give the Speaker of the House the power to treat with countries on her own, and against the advice of those entities charged with foreign policy. The Constitution is explicit that the powers of the President to treat with foreign entities comes from his power as CinC, and the fact that he is voted into office by the whole country and is, therefore, the
representative of the whole people. This is as opposed to a Representative, who isn’t even elected by a whole state, but only a section.
Congress has powers that treat with the policies of the President as a veto power. This President has the authorization of Congress for his policies (whether he ought to have conducted this war the way he has under that authorization is another question, and I imagine I’m as unhappy about things as you are–the difference being that I an now, and was from the beginning, for an all out, ruthless war against the state sponsors of terror).
There are those who think that because I visit here that I am a neo-con. This is stated as a fact by those who don’t have a clue of what the philosophy of Neo-conservatism consists. I do and I couldn’t disagree more. These same people think that I am “for” the war. I am for defending this country, and I do not believe that Just War Theory is any way to fight anything, but a prescription for nothing but long, slow death and destruction–such as that we are witnessing.
If you are going to advise people to think for themselves, I suggest that you first divorce yourself from the flip slogans and various gross fallacies, especially the non sequiturs so beloved of the pet troll that visits here occasionally; i.e., stay on topic. If you have an argument, state it. State your premises. Give us proofs. But please, I beg you, do not pick and choose your facts, ignoring those that do not fit with your argument.
If you think what Pelosi did was productive, please tell me in what way. And, if you can say, tell me what has led you to believe that talking to any of the dictators in the Middle East will have any positive consequence. We’ve seen the adverse consequences, which you still ignore in your comments to me.
Finally, please don’t make assumptions about me because I guarantee you’ll be wrong. And kindly don’t call me “Cuz.” I’m not above a little levity, but not when I’m discussing serious subjects.