Link only goes back here.

Since L is doubtless busy, I'm giving you the link here.
This editorial has one of the nicest bits of understatement I've read in a long time:

Mr McCain had previously courted the Rev John Hagee, in spite of the fact that he holds a number of unorthodox views. Mr Hagee believes, for example, that the European Union is headed by the Antichrist and will unleash the war that leads to the Apocalypse. This is a serious misunderstanding of the role of the EU...

British sense of humour. Don't know if y'all picked this one up from NYTimes, on Israel's 'American Problem'. Written by the douchebag Jeffrey Goldberg, but still sensible points. Great quote:

One leader, Joshua Katzen, of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, told me, “I think that Israelis don’t have the big view of global jihad that American Jews do, because Israelis are caught up in their daily emergencies.” When I asked him how his Israeli friends responded to this, he answered: “They say, ‘When your son has to fight, you can have an opinion.’ But I tell them that it is precisely because your son has to fight that you have a harder time seeing the larger picture.”

Would this "larger picture" be similar to the traditional Irish American support of "the Cause"; a support not shared, to put it mildly, by any actual Irish people I have known?

Very similar, yes. This also reminds me of how Nasrallah's popularity increases with the distance to Lebanon.

Well, you got that one wrong Klaus. Nasrallah, like the leaders of other tribes in the Lebanese tribalocracy, enjoys a lot of unconditional support and popularity among his. And it happens that his tribe, the Shias, happens to be both the most numerous in Lebanon and the least divided.

What you've said would have applied perfectly to Saddam though.

"This also reminds me of how Nasrallah's popularity increases with the distance to Lebanon."

I also completely disagree with this. Nasrallah may be hated (even if grudgingly respected) by some Lebanese, but he enjoys massive popularity in whole swathes of the population. He is also without a doubt the most popular Arab public figure in the entire Middle East.

But, back to the OP. American influence in the ME is declining almost by the week. As a consequence, the traditional powers in the region - Egypt, KSA, and assorted less influential puppets - are becoming almost irrelevant. It was little Qatar which brokered the recent deal in lebanon, and it is non-state (and avowedly anti-American) actors like Hamas, the Mahdi Army and Hizballah, who are calling the shots and commanding public opinion throughout the region.

There can be no question that the decline in US power spells big trouble for Israel. Not so much because of the $3 billion a year it will no longer be able to rely upon, but because the redrawing of the political map in the ME can only be bad for Israel, given the hatred it has provoked among the huge majority of Arab people. Also, it seems highly unlikley that any future world power will want to take on the burden of Israel at the expense of relations with the far more significant Muslim and Arab world - Israel's 'thriving high-tech economy' notwithstanding, whatever Zionists would have you believe. Of course, none of this will happen overnight, but at the same time it is true that, by historical standards, US power is declining quite rapidly. I fear, however, that things will get worse before they get better.

Israel got along just fine before the Americans decided to become their unconditional ally, and they'll get along fine afterwards. That "high-tech economy" is actually the city of Tel-Aviv (metro population 3.15 million, in a country of 7.2 million. In many ways, Israel IS Tel-Aviv, and vice versa). As the Vietnamese proved by accident with Saigon (Ho Chi Minh City now?) it's really really hard to kill a healthy city economy - only one thing can do it, as I will note below.
Shoot, even Shanghai, in China, managed to survive a half-century of communism and still come out on the other side doing just fine, which is a pretty amazing thing.
The Arab world has places like Beirut and now Dubai. If the Arabs had been smart about this stuff, they would have clamped down hard on the whole internal strife thing in Lebanon back in the seventies, before it gave Israel a chance to invade an already weakened country. They should have nurtured Beirut as a rival to Tel-Aviv, which would have necessarily involved crushing tribalism.
Back then, it might have worked. Now, after the genie of tribalism has been allowed to rule the day, not so much.
City economies are quite literally built from the block up, and national economies are just collections of successful urban areas and their hinterlands. Ethnic/religious tribalism allows them to be disassembled block by block. It's the one reliable way to destroy a city. The consequences will eventually be felt nationally, if the city is important enough. Lebanon is finding that out.

Another Zionist patronising "the Arabs" with a lecture about the free economy and 'tribalism'. Are you watching, Thomas Friedman?

Never mind the fact that Israel - for decades the world's biggest per capita recipient of charity - have long gone out of their way to deliberately retard Arab development. Witness their shooting up of Lebanon's civilian infrastructure for one example. But it is amazing to think that so many people honestly believe that just because some Israelis are clever with micro chips, all of their huge demographic, political and strategic problems are somehow insignificant. Talk about a state of denial. Comparisons between Tel Aviv and Saigon or Shanghai are facile at best. If Israelis seriously think that the future of Zionism lies with a few computer chips (made by precisely those Israelis most likely to flee a sinking ship when the going gets tough) then they are in even more trouble than even I believed.

Murphy, I'm afraid pantom got it right the whole way.

Israel sure did a tremendous amount of damage throughout the region. But throwing the responsibility of the general Arab economic retardation on Israeli bullying is approaching the problem backwards. And denying the fact that Israel's strength as well as Arabs' weakness are structurally internal in many areas prevents Arabs from 1) assessing the picture and self-diagnosing accurately 2) taking the necessary corrective measures to reverse the situation.

Not that people here love self-flagelation or are unsympathetic to Arab issues, so take those understatements friendly, but you probably won't be heard on this blog for displaying the kind of lack of sophistication that misses the points above. In the same vein, a knee jerk "you're a patronizing Zionist" reaction or illiterate economic talk won't exactly convince.

"But throwing the responsibility of the general Arab economic retardation on Israeli bullying is approaching the problem backwards."

This may be true - but since nobody here actually did what you are accusing them of, it is entirely irrelevant, and an example of what is commonly known as 'strawmanning.

"And denying the fact that Israel's strength as well as Arabs' weakness are structurally internal in many areas prevents Arabs from 1) assessing the picture and self-diagnosing accurately 2) taking the necessary corrective measures to reverse the situation."

I'll ask you to quote the words where I wrote this. Nobody here - as far as I can see - is denying the many faults in Arab societies. It's just that it really is a bit much for a Zionist to come along with that whole silly "Singapore of the Middle East" canard, while at the same time refusing to acknowledge (as you at least do) that Israel has gone out of its way to retard Arab economic development, and that it seems clear that Israel would be extremely nervous about any prosperous AND independent Middle East power. Look at how obsessed they are with Iran - and no, it's not because of Ahmedinejad's misquoted speeches.

"t you probably won't be heard on this blog for displaying the kind of lack of sophistication that misses the points above"

Yeah, you're right, I suppose all that highly sophisticated, erudite discussion about how, 'shoot', Shanghai is relevant to a post about the future of Zionism went way over my head.

"In the same vein, a knee jerk "you're a patronizing Zionist" reaction or illiterate economic talk won't exactly convince."

If I feel that the poster was talking in the same patronising Freedman or Lewis-esque terms that Arabs have been hearing for decades, I am going to say so. It's not like you've made any contribution to this debate yourself. As for 'illiterate economic talk' perhaps you can tell me just how Israel's 'high tech economy' (which, by the way, is heavily dependent on Israel being in a permanent state of conflict) is going to overcome its looming demographic crisis, fading military deterrence, and the coming loss of an all-forgiving superpower patron.

I think Klaus's Nasrallah example was pretty good. Sure he [N, presumably not K] enjoys massive popularity among the Shia of Lebanon (and most Arab Shia elsewhere), but what's that? 40% of the population? Outside of that layer, he's not "massively popular", as Murphy claims, but somwhere between "respected" and "hated", with most probably settling for "distrusted" -- he's a Shia zaim and they're not Shia. And yes, to finish off the mathematics, he probably does have far more than 40% popular support in for example Egypt or Algeria, where only those sold on anti-Shia/anti-Iran rhetoric seeing any reason at all not to like him. (But yes, Saddam was an even better example. After his death he's practically been canonized in some quarters -- it's revolting to see.)

Israel has gone out of its way to retard Arab economic development

What?

What the bloody fuck are you on about? Domestic bad governance has retarded the development of Israel's neighbours, not fucking Israel [Ex Palestine, which is occupied and thus actually directly influenced].

As for the Israeli economy, your illiteracy is in presuming that the economy depends on the conflict - most of the private economy in Israel that is hi-tech and export oriented, the major driver for development has fuck all to do with the conflict, and arguably pays a price for the existence of said conflict in terms of lost opps, higher cost of financing, etc.

Demographic crisis is .... speculative, and countries can transition, esp. by moving to higher value add (high tech) and outsourcing labour intensive activities to labour plentiful sub-contractors. Japan is a fine example. Singapore as well. Fading military deterrence is arguable - the Israeli military is not well-suited for engaging in guerilla warfare in neighbouring countries, but is more than capable of crushing any of the band of incompetents around them should anyone be so stupid as to try to directly attack. The rockets are more an annoyance and psychological stress than a real threat.

Bloody idiotic bollocks.

"Sure he [N, presumably not K] enjoys massive popularity among the Shia of Lebanon (and most Arab Shia elsewhere), but what's that? 40% of the population?"

What's that? By far the largest sect in Lebanon, that's what. Since Nasrallah enjoys huge support among this group (who may actually number more than the 40% commonly cited) and also enjoys the support of many non-Shias, it seems spurious for you to claim he is not extremely popular in Lebanon, and elsewhere. Enjoying the near-unconditional support of "only 40%" might be no big deal in more homogenous societies, but in a country where public figures are closely tied with sect, and where Nasrallah represents by far the largest sect, it amounts to his being very popular indeed.

"Outside of that layer, he's not "massively popular", as Murphy claims"

It really gets tiresome discussing with people who don't read what you write. I never said he was 'massively popular' outside of the Shias. However, he certainly enjoys a popularity which transcends sect, to a degree which is unusual in an extremely sectarian society like Lebanon.

"Saddam was an even better example"

Apples and oranges. Firstly, while it's hard to provide cold facts, I don't believe Saddam enjoyed the widespread popularity you claim - he was despised by most Gulf Arabs, for example. Secondly, he was of course hated at home. However much you may be unwilling to believe it, the same is not at all true of Nasrallah.

It's always amusing to see an unexpecting fat little finger on a red button, followed by the rhetorical gentle "don't"; then the inevitable, lemmingstic slow motion of darwinian autodestruct.

Lounsbury,

"What the bloody fuck are you on about? Domestic bad governance has retarded the development of Israel's neighbours, not fucking Israel [Ex Palestine, which is occupied and thus actually directly influenced]."

Again, I haven't denied this one bit. However, Israel's direct attack on Lebanon's civilian infrastructure in 2006 could well be interpreted as an attack on that country's economy, for reasons which had nothing to do with any military advantage.

"As for the Israeli economy, your illiteracy is in presuming that the economy depends on the conflict - most of the private economy in Israel that is hi-tech and export oriented,"

I'm afraid you are missing my point entirely. Even if Israel's economy is guaranteed to be dynamic for the indefinate future (hardly the case) nobody has yet explained to me how it is going to help it overcome all the other problems it faces.

"the major driver for development has fuck all to do with the conflict, and arguably pays a price for the existence of said conflict in terms of lost opps, higher cost of financing, etc."

Not so according to Naomi Klein and others, who have said that the Israeli economy is very much dependent on the 'privatization' of security and warfare which has boomed in the last few years. But, as I've said, the details of Israel's economy are irrelevant to the discussion.

"Japan is a fine example. Singapore as well."

Example of what? Ethnic colonial states despited by hundreds of millions of people in the vicinity?

"Demographic crisis is .... speculative, "

Here you go missing the point again. There is nothing at all 'speculative' about the fact that immigration to Israel is at a very low ebb, and that already, that country's best and brightest are dodging military service and moving abroad. Should the going get tough in Israel, it can only be assumed that this trend would gather pace. Given that there is no prospect of any major Jewish immigration to Israel in the near future, soon Jews will be in a minority in Israel and the OT combined. Since Israel will not/cannot 'give up' the settlements, and since it will never have peace without so doing, sooner or later it is going to face a major crisis.

"t is more than capable of crushing any of the band of incompetents around them should anyone be so stupid as to try to directly attack"

You seem not to have been keeping up. "Conventional" warfare between two state armies isn't where it's at in the ME right now. Just as Israel was humiliated by Hizballah, the US were made fools of by the Mahdi Army. Plus, it's hard to imagine that any army which includes Gilad Shalit in the front line is going to have the upper hand forever. Technological superiority can only take you so far. Again, demographics and economics have their part to play: Few of the million or so Jews (and "Jews") from the former USSR have much commitment to Israel, and many have already left rather than serve in the IDF. Not out of any grand principle, more that they'd rather by in Moscow or Seattle making money than cruising around Gaza in a Merkava.

Add in the fading of the US as a superpower, and talking about high-tech economies seems beside the point. Which of course is what I've been saying all along, even if some are too obtuse to see that.

murphySince Nasrallah enjoys huge support among this group (who may actually number more than the 40% commonly cited) and also enjoys the support of many non-Shias, it seems spurious for you to claim he is not extremely popular in Lebanon, and elsewhere.

Yes, he's probably the most popular leader in Lebanon, since he's the leader of the biggest sect and even has a tiny following outside of it; and yes that makes him "extremely popular" compared to other leaders in Lebanon, whatever that means. But the point here is that he tends to be MORE popular outside of Lebanon, where people's feelings are unencumbered by the fact that he's not just a glorious resistance leader -- he's also head of a thuggish religious militia with ties to foreign countries. And that's what I believe Klaus commented on.

As for Saddam, yes, the fact that he was mostly hated at home is precisely what makes it a better example.

"he's also head of a thuggish religious militia with ties to foreign countries"

In other words, pretty much like every other 'leader' in Lebanon, except far more competent and far more popular.

Sure, those far away from Lebanon and its conflicts are going to have a more simplistic picture of Nasrallah. But that doesn't change the fact that he IS immnensely popular among his own constituency in Lebanon, nor is it surprising - it's always easer to idolise people from a distance. And I still think the comparision to Saddam is a poor one.

In other words, pretty much like every other 'leader' in Lebanon, except far more competent and far more popular.

Exactly, although again, "far more popular" is mostly because of the size of his constituency. Walid Jumblat has an unrivalled standing in Druze circles, but they're 5% of the population. Does that mean he's an extremely popular Lebanese politician or not? Is it even a meaningful question? No.

And I still think the comparision to Saddam is a poor one.

Maybe that's because i's not a comparison between Nasrallah and Saddam, it's an illustration of what Klaus said. We could take Hamas instead, if that makes you happier. They have consistent support of about 1/3 of Palestinians (similar to Fatah), but they're far more popular on any given street in Cairo. "The Cause" in action.

"Does that mean he's an extremely popular Lebanese politician or not? Is it even a meaningful question? No."

Why not??? Normally, the larger the support you have, the more popular you are considered to be. Honestly, it really does appear that you are reluctant to admit that Nasrallah enjoys huge domestic support. The fact that most - though by no means all - of that support comes from one (albeit by far the largest) sect in the country does not make him any less popular.

"They have consistent support of about 1/3 of Palestinians (similar to Fatah), but they're far more popular on any given street in Cairo."

I'm skeptical about any 'polls' done in occupied Palestine. Many of the organisations involved have clear political biases. Anecdotal evidence, unreliable though it of course also is, often indicates that Hamas are far more popular than that. This, despite a savage international campaign SPECIFICALLY intended to punish the Palestinian people for their support of Hamas. Even if one in three Palestinians still support Hamas - despite having been subjected to immense hardships because of it - I would say even that is more than impressive.

Why not??? Normally, the larger the support you have, the more popular you are considered to be. Honestly, it really does appear that you are reluctant to admit that Nasrallah enjoys huge domestic support. The fact that most - though by no means all - of that support comes from one (albeit by far the largest) sect in the country does not make him any less popular.

It's more that I'm reluctant to admit that there's any such thing as "domestic support" in Lebanon. But in so far as there is, I have no problem whatsoever admitting that he's more popular than pure sectarian mathematics would have it -- "grudging respect", I said, from many members of other sects.

I'm skeptical about any 'polls' done in occupied Palestine. Many of the organisations involved have clear political biases. Anecdotal evidence, unreliable though it of course also is, often indicates that Hamas are far more popular than that. This, despite a savage international campaign SPECIFICALLY intended to punish the Palestinian people for their support of Hamas. Even if one in three Palestinians still support Hamas - despite having been subjected to immense hardships because of it - I would say even that is more than impressive.

Okay, if you remove the savage Zionist bias, Hamas has 100000% support -- but it's still twice that in Cairo. Now please let's leave this silly discussion.

Murphy,
I think you've managed to miss the point that Saddam's popularity was being compared to the IRA--a hero to some abroad, hated by anyone not on their payroll at home--not to Nasrallah. Specifically, Klaus extended my Jewish American:Israeli::Irish American:Irish analogy for uncritical support of the cause to foreign Arab:Lebanese support for Nasrallah. Shaheen then said that this was a poor analogy because Nasrallah is very popular at home, and foreign Arab:Iraqi support for Saddam would be a better analogy to whatever analogy I made in the first place as a throwaway comment that I don't care about anymore. Anyway, everyone agrees (presumably including Klaus now) that Saddam/Nasrallah is a poor analogy. That horse is dead, kindly stop whipping it.
All of us, as far as I can tell, agree that Nasrallah is hands down the most popular politician in Lebanon and I think you also would agree that he isn't a particularly nice man, and that many of the people in Lebanon who do not care for him, do not care for him at all, which limits the utility of his very real popularity.
As for Israel bombing Lebanon's civilian infrastructure as part of a campaign to retard the economic development of neighboring countries and Iran, it reminds me of an old Jewish joke about God and Satan.
Satan: Lord, find me something to do! I am so bored.
God: I have given you your task. You are to test humans by tempting them to sin.
Satan: I know, but every time I go to visit a human and tempt him to commit a sin, he's already done it by the time I get there!

Um. Regarding pantom's discussion of cities:

City economies are quite literally built from the block up, and national economies are just collections of successful urban areas and their hinterlands.

Since the US has, by and large, built its colossal suburbs assuming cheap petrol, it's going to take a little while to rearrange their cities for better mass transit, and their economy will suffer before then. It's going to take more than buying a smaller car. I wonder if any of you old timers remember the previous oil crises, if that had consequences for infrastructure.

"Naomi Klein"

You are indeed an idiot to cite to me that economic illiterate cunt Klein.

This is boring, believe as you bloody well want. I shall merely be amused.

I think it's fair to say that Nasrallah is very popular in large parts of Lebanon, and the "diaspora" and regional Arabs.

Arab economic retardation has little to do with Israel for the most part, the pattern was there when Herzl was a sperm.

Re: Klaus and American urbanity. We like our big cars. Japanese cars became dominant when they became fuel efficient AND big. There were suburbs before expensive oil, during expensive oil, during cheap again oil and during expensive oil rebounds. Actually in the late 70s, the southwest suburbanized due to central air conditioning, and *expensive* oil which made middle class Texas possible. Many Americans migrated to suburbs where oil price spikes were good for the economy.

Land. We have lots.
It always amazes me how much there is west of the Mississippi, to which I've only been a few times, being the Bronx boy that I am.
Shoot, to me New Jersey is spread out.
Chicago is spread out. Downtown Chicago.
I mean, you can actually see all the buildings, whereas in NYC, they're so close together that only if there's construction going on next to one do you get to see what the original architect had in mind. I remember that with the Chrysler building, where some building near it was torn down to build a new one. For a short time, you could look up from the street and really appreciate it. Can't anymore, of course.
As for American urbanity, don't underestimate it. An unappreciated side-effect of the Reagan and post-Reagan flattening of tax rates is that it relieves pressure on the cities, where the folks with high incomes are. The predictable result has been an increase in the population, and an even greater increase in the younger population, of successful cities like NYC and LA. Working age folks, not surprisingly, migrate to where the work is, all other things being equal. Since taxes are now more equal, the migration into the cities in the US, and the depopulation of rural counties, especially in the Midwest, by the way, is by now an established trend, even if it's little remarked on yet.
Yes, we have colossal suburbs, but we also have ridiculous amounts of land. It's a luxury we can afford.

Also, I'm highly amused by my characterization above, by Murphy, as a Zionist. Might be the first time anyone ever said that about me.
But I do know a good joke about Hadassah:

- What's the plural of yenta?
- Hadassah.

I know, probably sexist. I'll duck now.

". I shall merely be amused."

Go ahead, snigger till you drop if it makes you feel good.

Me, I'll continue to consider myself vindicated by the fact that neither you, nor anyone else here, has even tried to tackle a single one of the substantive points I made. Oh well, why am I surprised? It won't be the first time someone here has made an OP and then refused to discuss any of the arguments made about it.

Murphy,

Can you please enumerate the "substantive points" you've made again please? Among all that calling-people-Zionists stuff I can't really make them out.

(Seriously, I'd love to tackle them but really can't see what they are.)

Thanks.

--MSK*

M -- I've tackled one. Youve said Nasrallah is popular. You are right. Tackled and no first down.

Matt, pantom,

I was mainly thinking about the combination of huge suburbs, long way to work, big cars and higher petrol prices. I don't know how much higher the oil has to go before this lifestyle is unaffordable - quite a bit, probably - but I take from your comments it actually has to unaffordable, not just more expensive, before it has consequences for infrastructure.

Dear MH,

Nasrallah's popularity in Lebanon is a bit like Hillary Clinton's in the US - those who like him, REALLY do so & are willing to go through fire for him, but those who don't, REALLY dislike him.

He commands over Hisbullah, which commands the Shi'ite areas, and that quite hegemonically. But nobody really knows how many Shi'ites would vote for Nasrallah/HA in a free election with truly secret ballots. I know from anecdotal evidence that even in the deep South, i.e. the area that took & takes the brunt of Israeli operations, HA by no means is universally loved.

As for non-Shi'a Lebanese, Nasrallah is respected and even admired for having led the resistance that threw out the Israeli occupiers, but many (if not most) are weary of his & his party's ultimate goals and their willingness to use force to obtain them.

Example: During the latest "events" the FPM forums (i.e. Aoun's party that is allied with Nasrallah/HA) were full of agonizing calls to end the fratricidal violence. Inter-Lebanese fighting was (& remains to be) seen as the ultimate taboo.

So ... when it comes to a popularity contest inside Lebanon, Nasrallah could be one of the most popular leaders, but already Suleiman is getting mad props and HA's May Follies have cost Nasrallah a lot of (however grudging) support among non-Shi'a but even among his own constituency.

And his "I am proud to be a member of the party of the vilayet-e faqih" didn't particularly help.

--MSK*

MSK --

I am inclined to believe your assessment is correct.

I was, of course, addressing Murphy and his/her contention that no one has "tackled" points raised.

I agree with the point made that Nasrallah is popular (within the constraints MSK describes) and disagree with the implication, and agree with others who also dispute it, that Israel has had a great role in general Arab world economic backwardness.

Me, I'll continue to consider myself vindicated by the fact that neither you, nor anyone else here, has even tried to tackle a single one of the substantive points I made.

You made no substantive points, you have hand waved, citing vaguely Naomi Klein, an economic illterate and hard-Left scaremonger to support your eventidently fuzzy minded idea Israeli economic growth is driven by conflict (or citing the brief Leb land war for proof of Israel destroying Arab economies - which is absurd on its face, two wars w Lebanon does not make "Arab economies" in the plural). Your comments on military are equally stupid - conventional warfare is not over, if one wants conquest that is what is needed. Israel's real needs are to defend current territory, for which its military is unsurpassed and more than a deterrent. That is not going away. Occupation has always been, however, a different game. Declining deterrence is idiotic rubbish talk by people who can't distinguish between two different situations, apples and oranges.

Hand waving hyperbole and a level of fundamental confusing and fuzziheadedness on the level of Klein is not substantive arguments, it's argument by ignoramuses. I have grown tired of that.

"It won't be the first time someone here has made an OP and then refused to discuss any of the arguments made about it"

If that's referring to my ZIonism/nub one. I can't believe I even bothered to go so far as to even follow up to clarify there (though I did but only because poor Eva L was being unfairly savaged), as my subject and point was, to reference Basil Fawlty, "Can't we get you on Mastermind, Sybil? Next contestant - Sybil Fawlty from Torquay, special subject the bleedin' obvious."

I didn't refuse, I had other things to do than argue flat earth, includng a yet-to-come post on a related topic.

MH,

You're more than welcome to keep believing that the earth is flat ... We're not going to try to convince you otherwise anymore.

I will also take Murphy's silence as indication that s/he has re-read what s/he'd written before & didn't find his/her points all that "substantive" anymore.

--MSK*