The Middle East continues to cause great anxiety in many quarters. But what I find most bemusing are the attitudes of Mr Gillerman, Israel's representative to the United Nations, whose profile has greatly risen during the current conflict. He is a great Orwellian character, much prone to double think. Take his utterances today. He said that if Hezbollah struck Tel-Aviv then Israel would be fully free to attack Tehran. His logic is that because Tehran 'controls' Hezbollah (and, admittedly, it does have great influence) and is a source of weapons for the militants, then any strike by Hezbollah on Tel-Aviv is an attack by Iran. Let alone plunging the whole Middle East into flames, that same logic would justify Hezbollah attacking the USA, because essentially the USA 'controls' Israel and is a source of weapons for the rogue army, I mean, Israeli Defence Force, so any strike on Beirut by Israel (I've lost count) would leave Hezbollah fully free to start bombing Washington D. C. Furthermore, doesn't that logic say that because Hezbollah has attacked Haifa, Israel reserves the right to attack Hom in Iran? It does, but Israel is not saying it will.
Another instance from Gillerman was that this was a war for 'national survival'. Let alone suggesting that the death and destruction in Lebanon, no less than the ruining of a whole state, is the price for Israel's continued survival (a racist connotation that Israeli lives are worth more than than Lebanese stemming from a belief that Israelis are the 'Chosen Ones'), it is also completely false. Hezbollah's stated aim that gets trotted out (which is only one of its stated aims) is that it is committed to the destruction of Israel. Now I could say I am committed to British domination of the whole world. My means to achieve this are meagre though. So what Hezbollah says and what it can do are two different things. Never could it invade Israel the way Israel has invaded Lebanon. It scares Israelis and, from time to time, kills them. Today was the biggest death toll yet in Israel suggesting the military operation has been a failure. But it does not threaten the integrity of Israel the way Israel is doing to its northern neighbour.
One wonderful example from the pompous Gillerman, epitomising double think, was his comment on Kofi Annan's statement that Israel had deliberately targetted a UN bunker, killing four unarmed UN observers. Gillerman was to retort that this was 'unsubstantiated and erroneous'. The first word derives from the notion that although the UN observers complained ten times before being taken out, a report (which will take months when much of the anger will be dissipated) still needs to be compiled to determine what happened. But then, if that is to be the case, for Gillerman to call Annan's complaint erroneous is itself erroneous. To say that the verdict has been drawn before all the facts are in and then to draw your own verdict is the height of fatuousness. Israel is badly losing the PR war with Gillerman spouting off in New York.
One judicious commentator said when embarking on a war of the kind Israel has with Hezbollah/Lebanon (Israel doesn't draw a distinction, why should I?) one must consider was it justified and would it be wise. I agree that Israel was justified in attacking Hezbollah and to a certain extent damaging the south of Lebanon (damaging Beirut is pure folly), although we won't mention Israel's misdeamours towards Lebanese, detention without trial and so on, no, that won't be mentioned. But as can be seen from today, Hezbollah just needs to survive and it will be victorious. As Henry Kissinger said of Vietnam and other such conflicts "the guerrilla wins if he does not lose." And that prospect frightens Israel. Talk of attacking Iran is frustration (Iran itself has played a blinder - this war has distracted the eyes of the world, if not the Security Council of the UN from its nuclear programme, reduces chances of consensus on sanctions for that programme and outrageous statements by the Iranian president are meant to whip up Israeli fury further which subsequently damages Israel in the eyes of the world further). Israel has not been wise. I say Israel as a whole because Israeli commentators said that if Ehud Olmert had negotiated a prisoner exchange as his predecessor, Ariel Sharon, did in 2004 (who'd have thought it, alleged war criminal Sharon - a guarantor of peace), he would have been finished since without military experience he would have looked weak. If that is the case, it not just the government which has been incompetent, but there is something dangerously flawed and incompetent in the Israeli psyche. These snatchings of prisoners were last throws of the dice for militants embattled by their own people. Thankfully for the militants, Israel took the bait. Israel cannot win this war and could never win this war. It's eighteen years in south Lebanon from 1982 to 2000 should have told it that. Ultimately, foolishness has prevailed over calm heads and wisdom.