OfTheEvent

Back

2007-03-29T20:53:00.001-07:00

So it's been a while. But I come bearing news of paper topics. Maybe that's all I use this for, but it helps to just throw out general outlines, and maybe think as I write.

Within the last day or so I've more definitively sketched out an idea for my Deleuze "Difference and Repetition" paper. I think I"m going to take what Deleuze presents in D&R and try to sketch out its political implications. In short, what are the political implications of Deleuze's ontological project? It seems, oddly enough, that Derrida's political writings lend themselves well to just what this would be. It seems that Derrida's democracy-to-come maps well onto Deleuze's ontology. What's interesting, and this just may be my complete lack of knowledge in the area, but it seems as though there is a lack of writing concerning the relationship between Deleuze and Derrida. I'm not saying it's not there, but it's not real prevalent. Whats more interesting than that is the lack of engagement between Deleuze and Derrida themselves. I think Derrida refers to Deleuze in no more than 5 places, and all that's coming to my mind now is a footnote that Derrida refers to Deleuze. On Deleuze's part in relation to Derrida, I'm not sure how often he refers. Nonetheless, this is somewhat striking to me due to their proximity. Both being poststructuralists in France at the same time, one would think there'd be a more extensive communication between the two, but as far as I can tell, there wasn't. Anyhow, it seems to me that Derrida's democracy-to-come fits well with the role of the eternal return in Deleuze. While many are wary of Derrida's political commitments, whether associating deconstruction with a political temperament of inaction and undecidabilty, as well as a distrust of this quasi-messianic l'avenir that comes with Derrida's democracy-to-come, I think that it is best understood as that which is constitutive of the test of Deleuze's eternal return. The relationship between Deleuze's virtual and actual realms links well to democracy, as such, in Derrida, and various political manifestations thereof. We'll see how it goes.

For my Kant "Critique of Judgment" paper, I think I'm going to use Lyotard's "Lessons on the Analytic of the Sublime" and Deleuze's "Kant's Critical Philosophy". I'm thinking I can read Deleuze as presenting a picture of Kant in which the first two Critiques result in a severe division between on the one hand reason and the laws of nature, and freedom and morality on the other. While Deleuze finds this fissure fascinating, he ridicules Kant's attempt to ressurect a unified account in and through the Third Critique, namely in the latter half of the book concerning the teleological. This section, as well as the Analytic of the Beautful, establishes an affinity between the faculties and nature, establishing subjective purposiveness, etc. It seems to me that the general thrust of Deleuze's reading sees the division rejected by Kant, with a subsequent attempt to salvage. A covering over this fracture, so to speak. This being the case, however, I feel that Deleuze's reading can be supplemented with Lyotard's. Lyotard's engagement with the sublime results in a field in which the subject, as such, is denied, not accomplished. Whereas the beautiful allows Kant to rejuvenate the subject, the transcendento-critical subject, the sublime, in Lyotard's reading, is symptomatic of the fracture of the first and second critique split. Analytic of the Sublime as suplement to Analytic of the Beautiful in Kant's eyes; Lyotard as supplemental to Deleuze in my paper.

I'll talk about Ancient Greek and the Atomists some other time.

We'll see.

Back

2007-03-29T20:53:00.000-07:00

So it looks like this is how it's going to be...

2006-11-12T12:39:00.000-08:00

Dennett, Churchland(s), this is Hegel.........Hegel, this is Dennett and Churchland(s).

Now that we have gotten the formalities out of the way, you will both be part of my paper.

Magritte and Hegel

2006-11-10T12:43:00.000-08:00

So a fellow grad student of mine called my attention to the fact that Magritte painted a painting entitled "Hegel's Holiday". Painted in 1957, this is what it looks like:

He jokingly said I should write my paper for my Phenomenology of Spirit on it; which would somehow go over horribly with Rockmore, because we're dealing with Hegel, not Magritte.

But then I was thinking it'd be interesting not just to analyze the painting in relation to Hegel's philosophy as representing that philosophy, but to, in turn, analyze it from within Hegel. To use Hegel's aesthetic theory to interpret the painting, which Magritte supposedly believed expressed perfectly Hegel's dialectic. So I thought that be a great project. If only I knew Hegel's aesthetics.

Changes

2006-11-01T17:20:00.000-08:00

So it's been a while. This year's been kind of rough, moving away from the people I love and like to a city completely foreign to me with nobody I really know here. And grad school's been a lot of work; but it's good work. It's stuff I really love doing and getting into, it's just that you realize that you spend 8 hours a day immersed in it and kind of wonder what the point is.

The main proprietor of this pressure and confusion was, in a way, brought on by a lack of anything to write papers on. It was getting to a point where I needed to have something started, and hadn't, and should have started figuring stuff out a while ago. So that got to be a bit much. But I sat down and really hammered out paper ideas this past weekend, and began to outline their structure a little bit throughout the week so far.

For Heidegger I initially thought I was going to do this critique of Being and Time, focusing on his use of Discourse as this constituitively primordial structure of Being-In and Being-With. It was going to take on a similar form as the Levinas paper I wrote last year as a writing sample for applications. Basically using trauma discourse as a problematization of traditional conceptions of discourse. But as I kept working with it during the school year, it just wasn't laying out well. There were parts in the book where I could destroy him, and then there were other parts I just couldn't see myself being able to get beyond. He just seemed to have a way to get out of it. So I struggled and struggled with trying to find a way into this critique and couldn't really resolve the problem I was having. And it was beginning to bum me out because it was getting to the point where I needed to start writing, but I had spent so much time trying to work a way into it to no avail. So then I realized I don't have to critique him, but could use his project as a way of facilitating a clearing for traumatic discourse, opening up a space within which it and other ethically demanding discourses could build, grow, and develop. So the beginning of the week was trying to find a way to start heading in that direction, followed by a couple pages written.

For my Walter Benjamin class I haven't really been too worried. Class is really laid back as are the paper requirements. But I hadn't really laid out the structure of the paper yet, so that was worrying me. I was able to do that earlier today, and began writing, with about 8/9 pages pumped out this evening. I decided to try and trace his use of the image of the "threshold" throughout the Arcades Project. And it's been really interesting. It sort of forms this thread throughout the work both implicitly and explicitly. What I'm really interested in is the way in which it could be tied into deconstructive notions of sovereignty. I've read a little concerning it, and just read a paper by Michael Naas last night that addresses Derrida's notion of laicite vis-a-vis sovereignty. Agamben's work seems to be operating within this horizon also. I'm sure a million others. Anyways, I see a similar concern for issues of boundaries and exclusion in Benjamin. I don't think it'll develop in this paper, but the possibilities for future work are definately there.

As for Hegel. No clue. Nobody has any clue what to do with that book, Phenomenology of Spirit. The books goddamn impossible, not to mention the fact that Hegel seems to be able to incorporate anything thrown at him into his project. So who knows. I'll eventually just have to throw something together with blinders on and pump out a pile of proverbial shit.

But making progress on these papers has lifted my spirits.

I can't wait for break and friends.

new

2006-09-13T09:51:00.000-07:00

I realize that it's been a while since I've posted anything in this. But not for no reason. Grad school has finally started after an almost start a year ago, followed by the said year, and then here I am. The move was good, and I finally feel like I'm starting to get settled.

As far as the program goes, I'm really excited for it. It seems to be a department that is on the upswing and is in transition. Or maybe it's at this fork in the road and the exciting part is that it's making decisions as to which way to take (don't even bring in Robert Frost here, please). So that's a good thing. Initially I was worried as to just what classes would be like, but after going to a week of them, they are essentially the same, just on a much higher level.

With that said, I feel like I'm way in over my head as far as a knowledge base goes. While undergrad got the ball rolling for me, a lot of my learning came from me myself. That being the case, I feel like I'm somewaht playing catch-up here. The exciting thing, though, is that I feel that all this information is sinking in faster than it ever has. Maybe that was the problem; it just never sank in before. Anyhow.

I'm taking Hegel's "Phenomenology of Spirit", Heidegger's "Being and Time", and Philosophy of Walter Benjamin. Hegel is an eye-opener. Not in the sense of, man I've never really looked at the world in this way, so much as its the goddamn hardest thing I've ever tried to read. Upside of things with that is that the class is being taught by Tom Rockmore, who is big name in the world of philosophy. Look up Hegel in Wikipedia, and the first bibliographic entry is Rockmore. So he knows his stuff; but what's interesting is that he has this super progressive/controversial reading of Hegel that nobody seems to like. Instead of Hegel the proponent of the Absolute, of a religious Spirit, or of an dialectical reading of history that somehow gave rise to both Marx and Fukeyama and their respective 'end of history's', you get a reading of Hegel as this historical contextualist, almost relativist. So that's refreshing. If you're going to read Hegel, it might as well be interesting.

The Being and Time class is good too. It's being taught by Dr. Rodemeyer who is a Husserl scholar. So we're reading Heidegger through somebody who studies Heidegger's teacher, which should bring in some good historical lineage stuff, or however you want to put that. In other words, we get to see what Heidegger is coming from also. She's real thorough in class and has an intersting class structure, the most exciting of which she previews the reading for next class, and thereby gives the main points/structure of the reading that we'll be doing at home. That way you have an idea of what you're getting into when you start reading, and it eliminates basic questions next time for class. I'm interested to see how the text gets interpreted in class.

And the last class is the Walter Benjamin class. For that, we're reading his "Arcades Project", which is this gigantic text, wherein which he examines 19th century Parisian Arcades. Sounds dry, but the way the book is set up is really cool; it's a bunch of extracts from various texts of the period that Benjamin collected and reassembled, interspersed with his comments and notes, etc. What it ends up being is this analyses of the beginning of capitalism, but read through the eyes of a marxist of sorts that is all the while a mystic Jew to some degree. So there's this interesting dialectical structure going on, as well as this complex relationship between one who dislikes the tenets of capitalism, though is still very open to the glamour and beauty of things, of commodities. It deals with fashion, art, technology, etc.

So yea, that's enough for now. New entries to come; they won't really be political anymore, but will probably be me trying to work out ideas for stuff I'm dealing with in class and these texts, and eventually paper ideas. So until then and stuff.

Locals

2006-08-21T18:21:00.000-07:00

I'm going to attempt to look into some of the more local political stuff going on regarding the upcoming election. Senatorial, gubernatorial, etc. Hopefully I'll be able to write some things about that.

Administration Wanderings

2006-08-17T14:16:00.000-07:00

In today's New York Times, senior administration officials hint at something interesting, and by interesting I mean troubling, and by troubling I mean ironic, and by ironic, I mean troubling.

Faced with a new report which has nothing but confirmed suspicions long held by many, it appears as if the situation facing the Bush Administarion/Iraq government is that of civil war. Not strife, not resistance, but both of those anddd civil war. So what does this mean for the government (in the twofold sense of US/Iraq)?

' “Senior administration officials have acknowledged to me that they are considering alternatives other than democracy,” said one military affairs expert who received an Iraq briefing at the White House last month and agreed to speak only on condition of anonymity.

“Everybody in the administration is being quite circumspect,” the expert said, “but you can sense their own concern that this is drifting away from democracy.” ' (NYTimes, 8-17-06, "Bombs Aimed At G.I.'s in Iraq Are Increasing").

It appears as if the administration that has been put on this earth to spread democracy, to put freedom on the march is now considering alternatives. Unfortunately this won't be the first time that the US has backed such regimes.

Death Toll Update

2006-08-01T15:56:00.000-07:00

Lebanese: 750
Israeli: 51

In addition, it would appear as if Israel has violated UN Security Council Resolution 1559. Unfortunately, the US feels as though Israel hasn't violated this.

Here it is:

Resolution 1559 (2004)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 5028th meeting, on
2 September 2004
The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous resolutions on Lebanon, in particular resolutions 425
(1978) and 426 (1978) of 19 March 1978, resolution 520 (1982) of 17 September
1982, and resolution 1553 (2004) of 29 July 2004 as well as the statements of its
President on the situation in Lebanon, in particular the statement of 18 June 2000
(S/PRST/2000/21),
Reiterating its strong support for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and
political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized borders,
Noting the determination of Lebanon to ensure the withdrawal of all non-
Lebanese forces from Lebanon,
Gravely concerned at the continued presence of armed militias in Lebanon,
which prevent the Lebanese Government from exercising its full sovereignty over
all Lebanese territory,
Reaffirming the importance of the extension of the control of the Government
of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory,
Mindful of the upcoming Lebanese presidential elections and underlining the
importance of free and fair elections according to Lebanese constitutional rules
devised without foreign interference or influence,
1. Reaffirms its call for the strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial
integrity, unity, and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive
authority of the Government of Lebanon throughout Lebanon;
2. Calls upon all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon;
3. Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-
Lebanese militias;
4. Supports the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over
all Lebanese territory;
S/RES/1559 (2004)
5. Declares its support for a free and fair electoral process in Lebanon’s
upcoming presidential election conducted according to Lebanese constitutional rules
devised without foreign interference or influence;
6. Calls upon all parties concerned to cooperate fully and urgently with the
Security Council for the full implementation of this and all relevant resolutions
concerning the restoration of the territorial integrity, full sovereignty, and political
independence of Lebanon;
7. Requests that the Secretary-General report to the Security Council within
thirty days on the implementation by the parties of this resolution and decides to
remain actively seized of the matter.

What Our Congress is Doing

2006-08-01T09:02:00.000-07:00

It's always interesting to see how the US is "officially" handling these issues. Here is a great ZNet article that you should read. I would create a post of my own, but it'd only be a paraphrasing anyways, so why not give you the real thing.

Here it is:

Congress and the Israeli Attack on Lebanon: A Critical Reading

by Stephen Zunes; Foreign Policy in Focus; July 31, 2006

On July 20, the U.S. House of Representatives, by an overwhelming 410-8 margin, voted to unconditionally endorse Israel's ongoing attacks on Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. The Senate passed a similar resolution defending the Israeli attack earlier in the week by a voice vote, but included a clause that "urges all sides to protect innocent civilian life and infrastructure." By contrast, the House version omits this section and even praises Israel for "minimizing civilian loss," despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The resolution also praises President George W. Bush for "fully supporting Israel," even though Bush has blocked diplomatic efforts for a cease-fire and has isolated the United States in the international community by supporting the Israeli attacks.

The resolution reveals a bipartisan consensus on the legitimacy of U.S. allies to run roughshod over international legal norms. The resolution even goes so far as to radically reinterpret the United Nations Charter by claiming that Israel's attacks on Lebanon's civilian infrastructure is an act of legitimate self-defense under Article 51 despite a broad consensus of international legal scholars to the contrary.

In short, both Democrats and Republicans are now on record that, in the name of "fighting terrorism," U.S. allies -- and, by extension, the United States as well -- can essentially ignore international law and inflict unlimited damage on the civilian infrastructure of a small and largely defenseless country, even a pro-Western democracy like Lebanon.

Below are the key provisions of the resolution followed by a critical annotation:

Whereas in a completely unprovoked attack that occurred in undisputed Israeli territory on July 12, 2006, operatives of the terrorist group Hezbollah operating out of southern Lebanon killed three Israeli soldiers and took two others hostage;

Though clearly an illegal and provocative act, Hezbollah's action was not "completely unprovoked." Israel has held three Lebanese citizens for several years who were seized by Israeli forces from within Lebanon and Hezbollah had apparently hoped to work out some kind of swap, as both sides have successfully negotiated previously on several occasions. The seizure of the Israeli soldiers on the Lebanese border was also apparently done in retaliation for the ongoing Israeli assaults on civilian population centers in the Gaza Strip.

Whereas Israel fully complied with United Nations Security Council Resolution 425 (1978) by completely withdrawing its forces from Lebanon, as certified by the United Nations Security Council and affirmed by United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan on June 16, 2000, when he said, 'Israel has withdrawn from [Lebanon] in full compliance with Security Council Resolution 425;'

Israel's current re-conquest of Lebanese territory along its northern border places Israel once again in violation of UN Security Council resolution 425 and nine subsequent resolutions demanding the withdrawal of their forces from Lebanon. Furthermore, Israel never fully complied with UNSC 425: While UN Secretary General Annan indeed recognized in his June 2000 statement that Israel had fully removed its ground forces from Lebanese territory, he has also criticized the repeated Israeli violations of Lebanese air space well prior to the recent outbreak of fighting as "provocative" and "at variance" with Israel's fulfillment of the resolution's demands for a withdrawal of ground troops from Lebanon.

Whereas despite the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, the Government of Lebanon has failed to disband and disarm Hezbollah, allowing Hezbollah instead to amass 13,000 rockets ... and has integrated Hezbollah into the Lebanese Government;

First of all, UN Security Council resolution 1559 does not call for Hezbollah or any other Lebanese political party to be disbanded, only for their armed militias to be disbanded.

Second, the only extent to which Hezbollah has been "integrated ... into the Lebanese government" is in naming Hezbollah member Mohammed Fneish to the power and hydraulic resources ministry, one of 24 cabinet posts. Representatives of all Lebanese parties that receive more than a handful of seats in parliamentary elections traditionally get at least one seat in the cabinet.

Third, in a UN Security Council meeting this past January that considered a report on the implementation of resolution 1559, the United States and the other members approved a statement that "notes with concern the report's suggestion that there have been movements of arms ... into Lebanese territory and, in this context, commends the Government of Lebanon for undertaking measures against such movements." In other words, the Lebanese government has not "allowed" Hezbollah to amass new weaponry; the problem is that their small and weak security forces -- now weakened further by Israeli attacks -- have simply been unable to prevent it.

This clause in the Congressional resolution therefore appears to be designed to try to justify Israel's decision to attack not just the Hezbollah militia, but Lebanon as a whole.

Whereas Hezbollah's strength derives significantly from the direct financial, military, and political support it receives from Syria and Iran ...

Both Syrian and Iranian support for Hezbollah has declined significantly over the past dozen years, particularly since the withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces from southern Lebanon.

In reality, Hezbollah's strength derives primarily from popular support within the Shiite Muslim minority in Lebanon which has suffered from heightened poverty and displacement as a result of the U.S.-backed Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon between 1978 and 2000, the U.S.-backed Israeli bombardment of the Shiite-populated areas of the country from the 1970s through the 1990s, and the U.S.-backed neoliberal economic policies of the Lebanese government that have decimated the traditional economy. As a result of the violence and misguided economic policies, hundreds of thousands of Shiites were forced to leave their rural villages in the south to the vast shantytowns on the southern outskirts of Beirut where many found support through a broad network of Hezbollah-sponsored social services. As a result of gratitude for such assistance and anger at Israel and the United States for their situation, many became backers of Hezbollah's populist, albeit extremist, political organization. In the wake of the forced departure of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the destruction of the secular leftist Lebanese National Movement by successive interventions from Syria, Israel, and the United States during the 1980s, the radical Islamist Hezbollah rose to fill the vacuum. In other words, "Hezbollah's strength" was very much an outgrowth of U.S. and Israeli policy. Indeed, the group did not even exist until a full four years after Israel began its occupation of southern Lebanon.

Whereas Iranian Revolutionary Guards continue to operate in southern Lebanon, providing support to Hezbollah and reportedly controlling its operational activities;

The vast majority of Iranian Revolution Guards returned to Iran years ago. While they played a critical role in the initial setup of Hezbollah's armed militia in the early to mid-1980s following Israel's invasion and occupation of southern Lebanon, their presence today is quite small and they are certainly not "controlling Hezbollah's operational activities." The number of active Hezbollah combatants declined significantly since the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000 (until the call-up of reserves following the initial Israeli attacks) and the movement had long since shifted its primary focus to electoral politics and providing social services for the Shiite community. Furthermore, despite claims by the Bush administration and its supporters that Hezbollah is simply acting as a proxy for Iran, it seems highly unlikely that a populist political party would instruct its militia to provoke a devastating war simply to please a foreign backer.

Whereas the House of Representatives has repeatedly called for full implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559;

The House of Representatives never called for the full implementation of UN Security Council resolution 425 and nine subsequent resolutions calling for Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon during Israel's 22-year occupation of the southern part of that country. Nor has the House ever called for the full implementation of UN Security Council resolutions 446, 451, 465, and 472 calling on Israel to withdraw its illegal settlements from the occupied West Bank and Golan Heights or dozens of other UN Security Council resolutions currently being violated by Israel, Morocco, Turkey, Pakistan, or other U.S. allies. As in the Bush administration, there appears to be a strong bipartisan sense in Congress that UN Security Council resolutions should only apply to governments and movements the United States does not like.

Whereas President George W. Bush stated on July 12, 2006, 'Hezbollah's terrorist operations threaten Lebanon's security and are an affront to the sovereignty of the Lebanese Government. Hezbollah's actions are not in the interest of the Lebanese people, whose welfare should not be held hostage to the interests of the Syrian and Iranian regimes,' and has repeatedly affirmed that Syria and Iran must be held to account for their shared responsibility in the recent attacks;

As the pro-Western government of Lebanese Prime Minster Fuad Siniora has insisted and as recent events have confirmed, the major threat to Lebanon's security and the most serious affront to its sovereignty is clearly the U.S.-backed Israeli government, not Hezbollah. And Hezbollah's political and military activities, like that of other Lebanese political parties, are based primarily upon what the movement's leadership -- however wrongly and cynically -- believe is in the best interest of advancing their political agenda and not that of the Syrian and Iranian governments (whose interests in Lebanon are often at variance with each other as well.) It is also disappointing that such an overwhelming majority of Democrats would be willing to cite President Bush as an authority on the situation in Lebanon following a series of demonstrably false claims he has made about that country and the current conflict.

Resolved, That the House of Representatives ... condemns Hamas and Hezbollah for engaging in unprovoked and reprehensible armed attacks against Israel on undisputed Israeli territory, for taking hostages, for killing Israeli soldiers, and for continuing to indiscriminately target Israeli civilian populations with their rockets and missiles;

Though such condemnation is appropriate, it is noteworthy that this resolution does not also condemn Israeli attacks against sovereign Lebanese territory and its targeting of civilian population centers, essentially backing the racist notion that Israeli territory and Israeli civilians are more important than that of Lebanese territory and civilians. It is also important to note that not a single Israeli civilian had been killed from Hezbollah attacks since well before Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon six years ago until Israel started killing Lebanese civilians when it launched its attacks on July 12.

... further condemns Hamas and Hezbollah for cynically exploiting civilian populations as shields, locating their equipment and bases of operation, including their rockets and other armaments, amidst civilian populations, including in homes and mosques;

This clause appears to be designed to blame the Lebanese, not the Israeli armed forces, for the deaths of innocent civilians. As Human Rights Watch has noted, "Deploying military forces within populated areas is a violation of international humanitarian law, but that does not release Israel from its obligations to take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians and civilian property during military operations." While it is not unusual for outgunned guerrilla movements with popular local support to have equipment in close proximity to civilian population, none of the offices of members of Congress who supported the bill which I have contacted has been able to cite any independently documented cases in the current conflict where Hezbollah has engaged in "exploiting civilian populations as shields." (Two offices cited Israeli government claims to this effect, but the Israeli government has previously made similar claims that were later proved false.)

... recognizes Israel's longstanding commitment to minimizing civilian loss and welcomes Israel's continued efforts to prevent civilian casualties;

This runs directly counter to reports by international journalists, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the United Nations that indicate that Israel has not been committed to "minimizing civilian loss" or preventing civilian casualties. As of this writing, well over 300 Lebanese civilians have been killed, the vast majority being nowhere near Hezbollah military installations. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, a former Canadian Supreme Court Justice, declared that Israel's "indiscriminate shelling of cities constitutes a foreseeable and unacceptable targeting of civilians. Similarly, the bombardment of sites with innocent civilians is unjustifiable." (She also correctly criticized Hezbollah's attacks into civilian areas in Israel.)

None of the Congressional offices I contacted was able to provide me with any data countering these reports. In supporting this resolution, 410 House members have gone on record challenging the credibility of these reputable human rights organizations and UN agencies, which have courageously defended the rights of victims or war and repression for decades. Supporters of this resolution have apparently demonstrated their willingness to misrepresent the truth in order to strengthen President Bush's efforts to undermine international humanitarian law.

... demands the Governments of Iran and Syria to direct Hamas and Hezbollah to immediately and unconditionally release Israeli soldiers which they hold captive;

Regardless of whether Iran and Syria are willing to work for the release of Israeli soldiers, neither government has the power to "direct" Hamas and Hezbollah to do anything. The decision by Congress to overstate the leverage that Iran and Syria have over these movements -- like similar exaggerations of Soviet and Cuban leverage over leftist revolutionaries in Central America during the 1980s -- appears to be based less on reality and more on helping to promote the right-wing global agenda of a Republican administration.

... affirms that all governments that have provided continued support to Hamas or Hezbollah share responsibility for the hostage-taking and attacks against Israel and, as such, should be held accountable for their actions [and] condemns the Governments of Iran and Syria for their continued support for Hezbollah and Hamas in their armed attacks against Israelis and their other terrorist activities;

This appears to provide the legal justification for future military action against Syria and Iran.

Ironically, however, the biggest supporters of Hamas have not been Syria or Iran but Saudi Arabia and other U.S.-backed monarchies in the Persian Gulf. Furthermore, the ruling parties of the U.S.-backed Iraqi government and their militias have long maintained close ties to Hezbollah. By only mentioning Syria and Iran, however, Congress is clearly not concerned about "all governments" that support these groups but only governments that the United States does not consider allies.

Furthermore, given that Israeli attacks have taken far more civilian lives than the Hezbollah and Hamas attacks, why should not the Bush administration also be condemned for its support of Israel's armed attacks against Lebanese and Palestinians?

... supports Israel's right to take appropriate action to defend itself, including to conduct operations both in Israel and in the territory of nations which pose a threat to it, which is in accordance with international law, including Article 51 of the United Nations Charter;

Article 33 requires all parties to " first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice," which Israel has refused to do. Article 51 does allow countries the right to resist an armed attack but not to use a minor border incident as an excuse to launch a full-scale war against an entire country, particularly when the armed group that violated the border was a private militia and not the army of the country in question.

Article 51 also states that self-defense against such attacks is justified only " until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security," which may explain why the Bush administration -- with the near-unanimous support of Congress -- has blocked the UN Security Council from imposing a cease fire or taking any other action. Such a radical reinterpretation of Article 51 allows the Bush administration and future U.S. administrations to justify massive military strikes against foreign countries in reaction to relatively minor incidents provoked by irregular forces within that country.

The International Red Cross, long recognized as the guardian of the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of war, has declared that Israel has been violating the principle of proportionality in the conventions as well as the prohibition against collective punishment. Similarly, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour -- who served as chief prosecutor in the international war crimes tribunals on Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia -- has gone on record declaring that the armed forces of both Hezbollah and the Israeli government have been engaging in war crimes. None of the Congressional offices I contacted was willing to provide documentation that challenged these assessments.

... commends the President of the United States for fully supporting Israel as it responds to these armed attacks by terrorist organizations and their state sponsors;

President Bush is virtually alone among the United States' Western allies and the international community as a whole in his unconditional support for Israel's assault on Lebanon. Since President Bush's most significant role since the outbreak of the fighting has been to block diplomatic efforts by the United Nations, the European community, and others to arrange a cease-fire, this resolution is essentially an endorsement of indefinite war. It is disappointing that all but seven of the House's 201 Democrats would once again give their unconditional support for President Bush regarding a Middle East policy based primarily on the use of force. In backing President Bush in this resolution, Congress has gone on record challenging the broad international consensus that, however reprehensible the actions of Hezbollah and Hamas may be, Israel's actions are excessive and in violation of international legal norms.

... urges the President of the United States to bring the full force of political, diplomatic, and economic sanctions available to the Government of the United States against the Governments of Syria and Iran;

Given that the Bush administration and Congress already have implemented strict political, diplomatic, and economic sanctions against Syria and Iran, it is unclear what more could be done. Indeed, with such strict sanctions already in place, it is difficult for President Bush to exercise any additional leverage short of military action.

... demands the Government of Lebanon to do everything in its power to find and free the kidnapped Israeli soldiers being held in the territory of Lebanon;

Israel has been bombing Lebanese army and other government facilities and has destroyed virtually every bridge connecting the central part of the country (where most of the central government's police and military apparatus is based) to Hezbollah strongholds in the south (where the Israeli soldiers are presumably being held). It is hard to understand, therefore, how the Lebanese government could do much at this point to find and free the Israeli soldiers. It is also noteworthy that the resolution says nothing about Lebanese citizens kidnapped by Israeli forces who are currently being held in Israel.

... calls on the United Nations Security Council to condemn these unprovoked acts and to take action to ensure full and immediate implementation of United Nations Security Council 1559 (2004), which requires Hezbollah to be dismantled and the departure of all Syrian personnel and Iranian Revolutionary Guards from Lebanon;

First of all, it is the United States that has prevented the UN Security Council from passing a resolution condemning the capture of the Israeli soldiers and the rocket attacks on Israel because of the threat to veto any resolution which is also critical of the Israeli attacks.

Second, UNSC resolution 1559 requires the "dismantling and disarming of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias," which would certainly include Hezbollah's militia, but not Hezbollah's far more extensive political apparatus and social service networks. With the Lebanese government unable to force the dismantling and disarming of Hezbollah as long as its armed forces and its transportation infrastructure are under U.S.-backed Israeli attacks, it is hard to understand how the Security Council could "take action to ensure full and immediate implementation" of the resolution other than to authorize the use of force by other countries under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. But such use of force cannot legally be implemented in an internal security issue without the consent of the recognized government.

Third, the report to the UN Security Council on the implementation of UNSC 1559 in January of this year noted that Syria had complied with provisions for the withdrawal of its forces from Lebanon and did not note the ongoing presence of Iranian Revolutionary Guard. (There are reports of a small number of Iranian advisers still in the country, though it is unclear whether foreign military advisers constitute "foreign forces" under the resolution, particularly since a number of Western nations, including the United States, have sent military advisers to Lebanon since the Syrian withdrawal last year.)

In any case, after its forces entered Lebanon last week, Israel clearly violated UNSC resolution 1559. The resolution calls for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Lebanon. Congress, however apparently believes Israel is somehow exempt from this resolution.

Stephen Zunes is a professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco and Middle East editor for Foreign Policy in Focus. He is the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003). This article was posted on Foreign Policy in Focus, July 22, 2006.

Senator from Ohio, Mike Dewine

2006-08-01T08:58:00.000-07:00

In an effort to feel like I'm actually doing something concerning the sad state of affairs in the Middle East, I decided to write my senators, Mike Dewine, and George Voinovich. Only Dewine has "written" me back thus far. My initial letter to him was a basic attempt to get his views on the Israel-Lebanon issue. This is what he wrote me:

July 31, 2006

Dear Patrick:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the current situation in the Middle
East. As you know, in June and July Israeli soldiers were kidnapped by
Hamas and Hezbollah. These actions have led to the current crisis. I
believe it is critical for the United States to do everything it can to
secure stability in the region.

The effort to curb violence and bring peace to the Middle East continues
to be a long and difficult process. It is essential that all parties
involved in this conflict work to minimize civilian casualties. Those
suffering will need our assistance. That is why I support U.S. efforts to
open humanitarian corridors in Lebanon, which will bring in essential food
and medicine.

In addition, I have supported U.S. efforts to bring democracy to Lebanon
and to assist the Lebanese in achieving full sovereignty and an end to the
Syrian occupation. It is important that this crisis not undermine this
progress toward freedom in Lebanon.

Finally, the United States must continue to play a leadership role in the
peace process. We must do what we can to make sure that all the people of
the Middle East can live without fear of further terrorist acts.

Again, thank you for contacting me. If you have any additional questions
or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Very respectfully yours,

MIKE DEWINE
United States Senator

Amazingly, he wrote me back the following day.

I was going to post what I replied to him, but unfornuately, it wasn't saved. I will keep you updated as to his response.

Qana

2006-07-31T08:29:00.000-07:00

The recent airstrike on Qana, bringing about the bloodiest day of fighting in this conflict, bothers me on a number of levels. It's not that it's any different in kind than what Israel has been doing thus far. In fact, it's more of the same. The problem is the way in which it seems to cross a certain line, to overflow its levee.
For some reason, the international community is beginning to make the movements, motions, and act like they've had too much. Condoleezza Rice is attempting to put together a ceasefire and the UN is hoping to get in on the action (although more than likely reluctanly). At the least Annan is going through the motions.
The problem is that Israel, in the wake of the Qana attacks, has agreed to a 48 hour ceasefire in order to investigate into whether or not the attack on Qana was justified, whether Hizbollah was targeted, or whether something terrible had gone wrong to bring about the death of so many civilians. And it is these civilians which Israel repeats that Hizbollah is using as shields. Thus something like Qana is bound to happen as a result of the way in which Hizbollah 'hides' amongst its civilian population. "So see," Israel seems to be saying to the Lebanese,"they don't care about you any more than they care about us. Come with us, we'll take care of you".
For this brief moment, let's pretend that this is exactly what Hizbollah are doing. Then why only civilians killed and no Hizbollah? Curious. One day into the ceasefire, however, Israel has continued launching attacks under the guise that they "were in support of ground forces and so not covered by the 48-hour halt" (NYTimes, "Israel Says No Halt to Strikes in Support of Ground Forces,"7-31-06). Clearly this leaves the door wide open. They seem to be saying "We'll quit striking on the grounds that we may or may not have done something gravely wrong, but in the meantime, we won't stop while we stop". Israel's defense minister is even quoted as saying, "We must not agree to a cease-fire that would be implemented immediately. If an immediate cease-fire is declared, the extremists will rear their heads anew" (NYTimes, ibid). There is an obvious blurring of the term 'cease-fire' and 'halting attacks' going on. The problem is that Israel agrees to halt attacks, but since no formal cease-fire has been put into place, continues to attack. A halting without halt.
But let's not forget why this halting/continuance is going on in the first place, Qana. With what the UN Security Council tagged a situation that causes "great shock and distress" one would expect some form of an international outcry over and above the mimetic cease-fire proceedings carried out by the US, Britain, and others. For after all, the 48-hour non-halt is being put into effect to investigate, right? Is it these members of the international community that are participating in the investigation of this horrific attack on civilians and young? No. Israel is the conducter of the inquiry.

I'm interested to see what they come up with.

British Petroleum

2006-07-25T11:01:00.000-07:00

So the figures just came in. It turns out that BP made $55,000 per minute in the second quarter.

Hm.

Death Toll

2006-07-24T08:07:00.000-07:00

As of 7-24-06:

Lebanese: 380 dead
Israeli: 36 dead

The question is, "Who is the biggest threat?"

Suppliers

2006-07-21T20:43:00.000-07:00

The New York Times today published an article in which it makes clear the United State's stance. Not only is the US supplying Israel with their weapons, and subsequently supporting the "disproportianate" use of force in Lebanon, but they plan to speed up their delivery at the request of Israel. At a time when Condolleeza Rice is planning to make a trip over there and the world is silently watching, the US decides to not only aid, but aid more quickly the Israeli war machine.

If only we could vote on what to do concerning specific issues.

It would be amazing if every day issues came up to be voted on; like if we could vote on whether or not to verbally denounce what Israel is doing; or if we could vote on whether or not to put forth some type of sanction, etc.

If we had a say...

Foreign Policy, of a different variety

2006-07-20T08:10:00.000-07:00

Steven Erlanger of the New York Times recently wrote an article (7/19/06, "With Israeli Use of Force, Debate Over Proportion") addressing the use of force employed by the Israeli military in proportion to both the perceived threats of both Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as both national and international sentiment concerning such threats/actions. The article brought to light, at least for me, some pressing issues concerning not just the Middle East in and of itself, but the United States' behaviour to the Middle East, specifically, and to the international community more generally.
Factically, or as much as can be claimed, at the time of the printing of the article there were "some 230 Lebanese dead, most of them civilians, to 25 Israeli dead, 13 of them civilians". And the scales tip one way. So this is how many have died as a result of this and point intrinsically to the nature of war. Over and above this, however, is the case made by the Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, “Proportionality is not compared to the event, but to the threat, and the threat is bigger and wider than the captured soldiers.” The problem with this is the degree to which threats can be editorialized, skewed, perceived, and misperceived. It's a problem when you act militarily on perceived threats. Why? Because you can be wrong. Or you can be perceived right. But in the end it's how you perceive them. Livni is also quoted as saying, in response to the killing of civillians in and around the headquarters of Hezbollah in Beirut, “When you go to sleep with a missile,” she said, “you might find yourself waking up to another kind of missile.” Well maybe the threat of waking up to a kind of missile may just necessitate going to sleep with one, no?
Possibly the most infuriating point put forth in the article, though, is what Dan Gillerman, Israel's United Nations ambassador said: Referring to complaints that Israel was using disproportionate force, Dan Gillerman, Israel’s United Nations ambassador, said at a rally of supporters in New York this week, “You’re damn right we are.” Isn't this somehow punishable under some type of international law.
If not, then the least that could happen is some type of international condemnation. How about the U.S.? Nope, we're going to wait the fighting out before we do or say anything. Maybe send Condollezza Rice over there. We'll see.

Preemption

2006-07-18T19:30:00.000-07:00

Many made the case in both the build up to the Iraq War and in its ongoing 'wake' that the United States broke new ground with their unprecedented 'preemptive' attack. I know Chomsky makes the case that they single handedly, with this action, changed warfare, or armed combat, or whatever you choose to call it.

Israel, however, in 1967, launched a preemptive strike into Egypt, Syria, and Jordan.

It seems as if the little brother picked up much more quickly than the older one.

2006-07-18T19:07:00.000-07:00

Just began Friedman's "From Beirut to Jerusalem".