No Script

Please Wait...

Ramadan Kareem...

Alexander Cockburn: "Israel" made a huge blunder in Gaza

Alexander Cockburn:
folder_openRegional News access_time15 years ago
starAdd to favorites

Source: Press TV, 10-01-2009
By: Afshin Rattansi

In the minutes preceding and following the (January 9 Tehran time) United Nations Security vote on Resolution 1860 concerning the ongoing "Israeli" aggression against the Gaza Strip, Press TV conducted a live broadcast interview with The Nation columnist and one of the principals of the increasingly popular website Counterpunch, Patrick Cockburn, one of the most insightful commentators on contemporary American politics and foreign policy. What follows is the transcript of that conversation.

Press TV: We are now hearing UN Resolution 1860 will be voted on in the next ten minutes and we were speculating that since the foreign secretary of the UK, David Miliband, came out rather than Condoleezza Rice, this suggests that the US may be vetoing the resolution again, What do you think about a resolution that is voted for by all UN Security Council members except the US?
Alexander Cockburn: That is not a first time: after all there were many resolutions which the US and some complicit, mighty country like El Salvador or something like that, vetoed in favor of "Israel", it would be a familiar path.

Q: You did say in your latest column in The Nation that it may be a bleak panorama except for (Barack) Obama's lack of commenting on the situation, you leave Obama to one side. What do think is going through the mind of people in Bush's administration as they reach the last few days and they give ("Israel") full support and they are not alone because the US Senate supports them as well.
A: The US Senate gave a 100%, unanimous vote I believe. The Bush people they just played out their hand till the end, what one can say? I suppose that they are all hoping to get out of town and wait till they see if they get indicted for torture probably, but that game is over. The obviously interesting thing is what you mentioned and that is Obama's silence and his remark about not liking to see people, children in Gaza and "Israel" killed, he even put Gaza first, what about that and then now the story is that he might initiate through the intelligent services, or whoever, low level contact with Hamas, which would not surprise me. I think "Israeli" made a huge mistake with this whole exercise.
Q: Of course some people say that if Obama said more and said things critical of "Israel", then "Israel" would have gone in even harder than it has done in Gaze, expecting a sea change in US polices before (January) 20th, Perhaps this all seems far fetched.
A: Well I don't know, I think that they (the "Israelis") have miscalculated. When they went in they started quoting what Obama said when he was in "Israel" in 2008, that he would not want his daughters bombed so on and so forth and of course Obama throughout 2008 was licking the boots of "Israeli" lobbyists, as you have to do to be elected president of the United States, particularly the Democratic Party. There is no question a bout it. Whether he will do anything substantive remains to be seen...I am not so optimistic. You have to be insane to be optimistic about the US doing anything constructive in regard to a just settlement in the Middle East. But there might be a little movement.
Q: We were talking to our correspondents earlier at the UN in New York, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in his earlier comments was as usual very luke warm and his words extremely diluted. Yet in the comments of people working for the secretary out in the field in the relief agency, one could could sense genuine anger in their words, especially John Ging on the ground in Gaza. Do you think that Ban ki-Moon, in those few words he used wherein he condemned the "Israeli" attack, do you think that rules him out of the post of secretary general for second term if he wants it?
A: Probably, I mean the role of the UN is negligible, if you look at the last few years, in almost every sphere of human affairs, the role of the UN has been relatively impotent, so he is widely and correctly seen as a complete cocker spaniel of the US , Ban ki-Moon seems one the worst of the lot, he is a totally spineless individual.
Q: And what do you think that Hamas's position should be now because it has been proven that the Arab world would not support Hamas (in the past 13 days), Egypt and Saudi Arabia and others... Egypt knew about the attack, because they wanted to get rid of Hamas.
A: Well I don't know, I think the "Israelis" did a huge favor to Hamas, because it is one thing to have a siege. It is hard to photograph a siege, take pictures of an empty medicine bottle, and all the time they were doing this disgusting besieging of Gaza, not allowing in crucial supplies and having old people and kids die and the rest of it and nobody raised much of a fuss. But by attacking, "Israel" ratified Hamas's position, they demonized Hamas and the whole thing provided Hamas the means to survive and fight back, and I think Hamas is in a position to assert itself not only as a democratically elected government but as the necessary de jure and de facto negotiating opposite number for "Israel". I think "Israel" had to do this obviously because they want to try to win the election, just as (Shimon) Peres tried to do in 1996 but it did not do him much good when he launched Operation Grapes of Wrath against Lebanon.
I think by and large, the whole thing is an exhibition of "Israel's" military superiority; dropping high explosive bombs on school children, they are good at doing that. But over all what they have been doing did not strengthen their position but substantively weakened it.

Q: Why, apart from internal electoral politics in "Israel", how could they make such a strategic blunder, that will perhaps become quite tangible in the years ahead. By not allowing journalists to enter Gaza, did they think that they could stop getting the pictures out?
A: I think that they are just stupid. They had a disaster when they attacked Lebanon the last time, Hizbullah gave them a pasting. They thought that they could do something in Gaza; when did they have any convincing military struggle since when? I guess you can call a draw the war against Egypt in 1973, till the US came and saved their ass. This is a country that defeated five armies in the late sixties and here they are now dropping bombs over school children and trying to wipe out a resistance group in Gaza. This military machine has come a long way down, has it not?
The tendency is to depict "Israel" as omnipotent, by saying, stressing correctly, the inhuman barbarity of what they are doing. Their claim of Hamas fighters being in the UN school is just like the claim they made about all those school children killed in Kana, in 1996 in Operation Grapes of Wrath. They said that Hezbollah dragged in the children's bodies to fake an atrocity.
At the level of the elite the support for "Israel" is constant among the established corporate media and the US Congress, But when you get out among the people--a poll conducted by Rasmussen on December 31, showed people were divided , 50-50 on whether the attack was a good thing, that is an ineradicable figure that should be very worrying to "Israel".
I think the situation is changing and please note the way the mainstream media, the New York Times may go back bankrupt in six months. All these established "Israeli" media are going broke. At our website Counterpunch we have a unique audience of three million. That is a quarter of what the Washington Post has. The whole media picture is changing. The "Israeli" lobbyists that control the media have been greatly reduced.

Q: Do you think the American economy as some analysts say, will implode in the next 12 months in the most powerful economy on earth and how will that affect the US subsidy for "Israel's" budget?
A: No, that is last thing that is going to happen. They will starve the whole of Michigan's inhabitants before they jettison the dollars going to "Israel". (Bernard) Madoff tried his best to steal money from going to "Israel" (LAUGHTER).
I think that progressive people tend to think the worst; they stress "Israel's" invulnerability, and there is even a theory that "Israel" will attack Lebanon next week, I think that is all nonsense, the situation Is more interesting than that, I think this latest attack (on Gaza) was not so much out of desperation--that would be an exaggeration. But there is an election coming up and they (Tzipi Livni's Kadima Party and its allies) thought that an attack would boost their popularity. This is what every "Israeli" government does: You want to win an election then go ahead and bomb a Palestinian child and you may get a vote.
But, by in large I do not think that Obama's incoming administration welcomed this. They did not like to be pushed in a corner and have to come out and automatically say that what the "Israeli" government is doing is great, I think the silence of Obama, though I can understand it as being shameful, but it is very unlikely that a US president will stand up and condemn "Israel". In fact it is inconceivable, but by keeping his mouth shut was not as bad a position as some people take.


Comments

person asad abbas

Imam Moosa Sadar

salam what abt imam moosa sadar and is he live or martyrd ?? plz hezbolla must be respond this issue

person asad abbas

good

salam this site is too good but in this news short news must be enhanced. thx