******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 8:10 AM, Chris Slee <chris_w_s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Michael Karadjis says: "... the Israel-Iran clash is a > war of rhetoric, predicated on geographic distance." > > It is not purely a war of rhetoric. Israel has bombed Iranian targets in > Syria. > While Iran is distant from Israel, Lebanon is not. Israel is worried at the > growing strength of Hezbollah, which is an ally of Iran. Hence Israel takes > military action against the Iran-Hezbollah alliance. There are two issues here. First, whether Israel is "worried" about the "growing strength" of Hezbollah (and hence this is the reason for Israel hitting Iranian/Hezbollah targets), and second, whether these strikes mean that the Iran-Israel "conflict" is something more than a mere "war of rhetoric" as I assert. On the first question, you only "worry" about someone if they are a threat to you. Is Hezbollah (or Iran) a "threat" to Israel, or does Israel consider them a "threat"? I consider the very idea to be one of the more laughable assertions in world politics today. When Israel launched its recent, Putin-sanctioned, attack on Iranian assets in Syria a few weeks ago, it claimed to have wiped out half of all Iranian assets in Syria. That took an hour or so. So let's forget the obvious nonsense that they are a threat. Perhaps Israel is "worried" that they are a mere nuisance rather than threat. For example, they might fire the odd rocket over the border (from Lebanon) or over the occupied Golan line (from Syria). The only problem with this is that they DON'T. Ever. The last time Hezbollah bothered Israel on the Lebanese border was when they captured a few Zionist troops in 2006; Israel responded by destroying half of Lebanon and killing 1500 Lebanese civilians. The last time Hezbollah or Iran attacked unprovoked over the Golan line from Syria was ... NEVER. In terms of *response*-attacks, of the 100 or so times Israel claims it has hit pro-Iranian forces in Syria, Hezbollah responded ONCE (a couple of years ago in response to the attack that wiped out a bunch of Hezb leaders), and Iran responded ONCE (a few weeks ago in response to Israel attacking an Iranian base south of Damascus the previous day, something ignored in most media). The time Hezbollah responded a few years back, Israel responded again, and then all the signals from both sides were that neither wanted more conflict, and they were both satisfied that they had each symbolically done enough for their credibility (being, as I explained, a war of rhetoric). After all, Hezbollah was more interested in getting on with killing Syrians, while Israel likewise wanted to get on with killing Palestinians. So no, I can't see that Israel can be too "worried" about Hezbollah's alleged "growing strength" (growing presumably via the massive wastage of its cadres lives, resources and credibility in slaughtering Arabs for Assad). Why then does Israel keep hitting Iranian assets in Syria? Chris says the fact that it does this shows that it is more than just a "war of rhetoric." But by war of rhetoric, I'm talking about the *explanation* for the conflict - ie, that its purpose is primarily the propaganda needs of the two theocratic and/or sectarian projects - it does not necessarily imply that only rhetoric is involved in practice and never minor clashes (though it does tend to imply that I doubt the "major war" scenario: and given that Israel has been threatening to attack Iran "within days" or "within weeks" for the last 25 years, I think that is vindicated to date). As I said, the war of rhetoric (whereby both sides depict the other as some kind of 4th Reich) is predicated upon geographic distance. When for quite different reasons - ie, Iran's aid to Assad's dictatorship against its people - pro-Iranian forces appear in the vicinity of the Golan which Israel sees as its "border", then the war of rhetoric does put pressure on both sides to "do something", or the nonsense be exposed. Of course, only the stronger side carries out the actions, thereby also helping maintain its role as top regional gang boss, not playing second fiddle to anyone. Israel always makes sure that its attacks do no harm to Assad's war efforts; it never attacks the Iranian cannon-fodder on the ground, when fighting in an Assadist siege (Ghouta for example), only missile storage places etc, missiles which Assad does not need or use for the battle (he has a Russian airforce).. Of course, maybe my explanation is wrong. The problem is that I can't think of a better one. It is certainly not because Iran or Hezbollah are a "threat". It is certainly not because they are an inspiration to the masses of the region to rise up against the imperialist order. The usual explanation falls back on "rivalry", hence similar to the actual Saudi-Iranian regional rivalry. I explained above why that doesn't make sense to me, but I'm happy to listen. > Neither RKOB nor Michael Karadjis mention the conflict between the Turkish > state and the Kurdish people, even though I would have thought that this was > one of the "fundamental and long-term conflicts of interest" in the Middle > East. I forgot that it is necessary to ALWAYS bring up Rojava and the Kurdish issue, no matter the discussion. Sorry about that Chris, but believe it or not, the world does not revolve around Rojava, important as it is. As I said, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "is part of the more general main contradiction in the region, that between all the imperialist and regional reactionary regimes you listed, on one side, and the peoples of the region on the other." The conflict between the Turkish regime and the Kurds is another aspect of this. > > > ________________________________ > From: Marxism <marxism-boun...@lists.csbs.utah.edu> on behalf of mkaradjis > via Marxism <marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> > Sent: Monday, 18 June 2018 1:28:19 AM > To: Chris Slee > Subject: Re: [Marxism] Has the Trump-Kim Summit Opened the Road to Peace in > East Asia? > _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
