MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Speaker, what are we witnessing in the Middle East?MR. NEWT GINGRICH: Well, let me, let me offer three observations. First, this is not the fifth day of the war. This is the 58th year of the effort by those who want to destroy Israel. As Ahmadinejad, the head of Iran, says, he wants to defeat the Americans and eliminate Israel from the face of the earth. So we should not see this event in isolation. There is an Iran/Iraq/Syria—I mean, an Iran/Syria—was an Iraq before Saddam was replaced—Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas alliance trying to destroy Israel.
Second, the Israelis withdrew from Gaza to create the circumstance of peace. The Israelis withdrew from south Lebanon to create the circumstance of peace. They now have a thousand missiles fired from Gaza, they’ve had hundreds of missiles fired from south Lebanon. You clearly have Iranian involvement, there are at least 400 Iranian guards in south Lebanon. Apparently it was an Iranian missile fired by Iranians which hit an Israeli warship yesterday. The United States should be saying to Syria and Iran, “South Lebanon is going to be cleared out. We are for Israel and the Lebanese government breaking the back of Hezbollah, getting rid of all 10,000 to 13,000 missiles, and we will decisively stop any effort by Syria and Iran to intervene.”
...
I mean, we, we are in the early stages of what I would describe as the third world war, and frankly, our bureaucracies aren’t responding fast enough, we don’t have the right attitude about this, and this is the 58th year of the war to destroy Israel. And frankly, the Israelis have every right to insist that every single missile leave south Lebanon and that the United States ought to be helping the Lebanese government have the strength to eliminate Hezbollah as a military force, not as a political force in the parliament, but as a military force in south Lebanon.World War III?
MR. RUSSERT: This is World War III?
MR. GINGRICH: I, I believe if you take all the countries I just listed, that you’ve been covering, put them on a map, look at all the different connectivity, you’d have to say to yourself this is, in fact, World War III.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Biden, is it our war?
SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN (D-DE): Indirectly, it’s our war. It seems to me it’s partially our responsibility. I don’t, I don’t agree with the World War III analogy, but I do believe that here we had Israel get out of southern Lebanon. I was there for that election, I was “an official observer.” All the talk from everyone in the parties in Lebanon, that they had to get rid of Hezbollah. The, the U.N. Resolution 1559 said that the—that as, as Israel got out, the, the army of the Lebanese people were going to move and take over that responsibility, they didn’t.
But I might add that we didn’t do anything to help them. We didn’t do anything at the time to help train them. We didn’t do anything at the time to give any attention to it. And now we are, because of our lack of a prevention strategy, we’re left with no option here, in my view, but to support Israel in what is a totally legitimate self-defense effort. How can they, in fact, sit still when they have all these rockets that are very sophisticated sitting on their border, knowing they’re being—going to be fired at them and expect to stand there and the rest of the world sitting around?
And the last point I’ll make, Tim, is I find it fascinating people talk about has Israel gone too far. No one talks about whether Israel’s justified in the first place. Let’s assume Israel’s overreacting. I want to see the world stand up and say, “By the way, this in fact, is an unprovoked effort on the part of a terrorist organization supported by two countries to undermine the democratic state.” Until they say that, I think it’s awful—I think it’s a secondary question whether Israel’s gone too far.Cease-fire?
MR. RUSSERT: Speaker Gingrich, President Bush, should he try to intervene in this latest Middle East crisis, seek a cease-fire?
MR. GINGRICH: No. I mean, I think it is explicitly wrong and I think Senator Biden and I are basically in agreement on this. It is explicitly wrong to bring pressure on the victim. I mean, Israel did everything it could to withdraw from south Lebanon, and the result was terrorist missiles. Israel withdrew from Gaza, creating an opportunity for a self-governing Palestinian people to create a place of prosperity, and they’ve created a place of terror. And I think for us to now say—imagine that was Miami. Imagine Miami had missiles being fired at it every day. Remember that when Israel loses eight people because of the difference in population, it’s the equivalent of losing almost 500 Americans. Imagine we woke up this morning and 500 Americans were dead in Miami from missiles fired from Cuba. Do you think any American would say, “Now, we should have proportionate response. We shouldn’t overreact”? No. We would say, “Get rid of the missiles.” And, and John F. Kennedy, a Democrat who understood the importance of power in the world, was prepared to go to nuclear war to stop missiles from being in Cuba.I don’t, I don’t think that, that any realistic person who’s being fair about this is going to focus on Israel. That’s why I don’t want people to think of this as a five-day war. As Senator Biden said, there has been a continuing failure of opportunity to strengthen the Lebanese government. There’s been a failure of opportunity to train and, and, and reinforce the Lebanese Army. There’s been a failure to say, “Look, we are ultimately going have to get—we’re going to have to defeat Hezbollah, and if that means in the long run we have to do something about Syria and Iran, then we need to face up to this.” Ahmadinejad, as recently as yesterday, the leader of Iran, said...
MR. RUSSERT: What do you mean do something about Syria and Iran?
MR. GINGRICH: I mean do whatever it takes—look, let’s say that tomorrow morning the Syrians decide to engage Israel. Let’s say the Iranians decide that they’re going to reinforce their 400 Iranian guards.
MR. RUSSERT: What do you do?MR. GINGRICH: Well, the first thing you do is say they’re not going to have any over-flight privileges.
MR. RUSSERT: Isn’t it...MR. GINGRICH: The second thing you do is you say to the Syrians, we have great capacity to pressure the Syrians if we want to. I gave a speech at the American Enterprise Institute three years ago and said that the State Department approach of trying to deal with this dictatorship would fail. I think by any reasonable standard, trying to be nice to the Syrians, trying to understand the Syrians, is a dead loser as long as this dictatorship is there, because the planning meetings with Hamas and Hezbollah occurred in Damascus with the Iranian and Syrian ministers.
MR. RUSSERT: But an attack by Syria or Iran on Israel would be considered an attack on the United States?There's more, too. Great job, Mr. Gingrich & Senator Biden.MR. GINGRICH: I think it should be, it should be an action that we would reinforce the Israelis and others in doing what is necessary. And I think we have—clearly have the capacity to do something. I’m not describing going—widening a war. I’m saying the first step has to be to understand, this is an alliance- -Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas—and you can’t deal with it in isolation.
Holy Cow...from their mouth to the American Public's ears!
ReplyDeleteWell, the American Public that needs to hear this was in church when it was on TV this morning.
ReplyDeleteIt needs to be played in 30 second sound bites during commercials for America's Got Talent.
I agree mostly with both of them although I worry about Newt's implicit agitating for war with (us and) Iran. The one big complaint I have about all the discussion on this topic is that any time anyone questions what Israel *should* do, they're drowned out with shouts of what Israel has the *right* to do. The two aren't necessarily the same.
ReplyDeleteJH - Amen.
ReplyDeleteChana - Sad but true...
JA - Granted. However, in this case, I think the reverse problem exists: People are saying "They can't, they can't! It's 'disproportionate'!!" when it's exactly what they should be doing.
Sure, some are. But most (including basically all the Dems AND the whole "liberal" media) aren't.
ReplyDeleteUm, what media are you watching?
ReplyDeleteI'll give the mainstream Dems credit, as I did Biden here. I won't give the fringe-left any credit, as their anti-semitism is coming out of the woodworks (have you seen a Kos thread recently?).
But the media is much closer to that fringe.
NYT editorial:
ReplyDelete"With the circle of violence in the Middle East expanding alarmingly, it is important to be clear about not only who is responsible for the latest outbreak, but who stands to gain most from its continued escalation.
Both questions have the same answer: Hamas and Hezbollah. And Israel needs to be careful that its far-reaching military responses, however legally and morally justified, do not end up advancing the political agenda that Hamas and Hezbollah hard-liners had in mind when they conceived and executed the kidnappings of Israeli soldiers that detonated the fighting. "
i.e. they agree Israel has the *right*.
WaPo:
"WHEN ISRAEL withdrew its troops from southern Lebanon in 2000 after more than two decades of occupation, it also issued a warning: Any cross-border provocations by Hezbollah, the militant Shiite group, would elicit a severe military response. So there can be no surprise at the violent reaction to Hezbollah's ambush of an Israeli patrol Wednesday, in which three soldiers were killed and two others taken captive by the guerrillas. And there can be no doubt that Iran and Syria, Hezbollah's chief sponsors, bear responsibility for what has instantly become the most far-reaching, lethal and dangerous eruption of cross-border fighting in the Middle East in recent years.
Europeans and others in the international community are already criticizing as excessive Israel's swift military response. Conspicuously they have said comparatively little about the volleys of dozens of rockets Hezbollah rained down on northern Israel yesterday. In fact, given the all-too-familiar patterns of violence and retribution in the Middle East, the Israeli attacks are entirely predictable, and precisely what Hezbollah and its patrons must have expected and even wanted. But for Israel, the pressing question must be whether its reprisals will be effective in achieving the desired results -- retrieving the soldiers taken hostage and reasserting Israeli deterrence in the north."
Same deal.
I don't watch t.v. news. Maybe they're saying different. But I doubt it.
The WaPo's editorial was surprisingly good - SoccerDad talked about that this morning. The Times' is in direct opposition to what you said above - they say they have the "right", but "shouldn't" anyway.
ReplyDeleteI'm not watching TV, but online news sources and the bits of radio I heard are alternating between whether or not they have the "right", but they're a) coming as close to accusing Israel of crimes against humanity as you can and b) saying "shouldn't" over and over.
It's so bad that Israel filed a complaint with the International Federation of Journalists and threatened to withdraw from the organization, after the IFJ accused Israel of trying to "quiet press orgs with which they don't agree" when they bombed a Hizbullah TV station.
By the way, they are replaying this interview over and over. I saw it last night myself...
ReplyDeletePersonally, I care less about what the NYT and WP and others print on the editorial page and far more about their "news" coverage on the front page. Many more people will pay attention to the front page than the editorials.
ReplyDeleteEzzie:
ReplyDelete"The Times' is in direct opposition to what you said above - they say they have the "right", but "shouldn't" anyway."
That's exactly what I said above. They are saying "shouldn't" but people argue that Israel has the right, which they agree with!
Scraps,
"Personally, I care less about what the NYT and WP and others print on the editorial page and far more about their "news" coverage on the front page. Many more people will pay attention to the front page than the editorials."
That's probably true, but it's obvious what the editorial says, while so-called biases on the front page are generally in the eye of the beholder. People argue about nuances of words of phrasings of headlines, ignoring of course (unintentionally -- see
"confirmation bias") all the examples which lean in their favor. You think that Palestinian sympathizers don't think the Times is biased against Palestinians? Of course they do.
JA - Sorry. I should have said that it agrees with my point: That they're saying "shouldn't" even when the real truth is "should".
ReplyDeleteThis is World War Three. This is June 28th 1914.
ReplyDeleteErr... agree that it's a strong possibility.
ReplyDeleteEzzie:
ReplyDeleteI wasn't commenting on the should/shouldn't debate, just criticizing those who argue against "shouldn't" with "but they have a right!" It's a non-sequitor but it's all over the freaking place.
Should/shouldn't, I've kind of given up on. I favored the peace talks, I cautiously favored disengagement. But I must admit I just have no idea at this point what will or won't work to anyone's best interest. I tend to think the problem is intractable and so Israel's goal should be to minimize casualties within the bounds of fairness rather than trying to solve the problem once and for all (whether it's "fair" or not.) Maybe a trickle of Israeli deaths, awful as it is, is as good as it gets over there. It's sure better than WWIII, if Newt (on preview -- and copy editor!) is right about that.
However, "letting them kill a few of us a year" isn't going to win anybody any elections.
I think that Israel should finally destroy the terrorists once and for all, and that will solve the problem once and for all. Until now, every time they were close, the world made them stop. I think it's time the world let them finish.
ReplyDeleteI worry that there will always be more. And we mustn't forget the costs in Israeli lives as well as Arab civilians.
ReplyDeleteJA - I'm not. See Trep's post for my attitude on this: I don't like his analogy, which I think is *not* how it should be done, but I do like the idea of ensuring that the other side has given up.
ReplyDeleteI know people cry "atrocities" when they hear W. T. Sherman, but I think he said it best in the Civil War - you have to make them no longer want to fight.
But this is assymetric. It could easily be the case that war is much worse than the status quo. In the civil war, the sides were more evenly matched. I'd understand if Israel tried to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes, but trying to wipe out e.g. Hezbollah through force could cause more harm than good. I'm not saying it *would*, but I think it's important to think about. War sucks. Even for the "victors."
ReplyDeleteIt could be, but I think people have decided that's simply not true. Furthermore, people are sick of living a life like that. Period.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, people are sick of living a life like that. Period.
ReplyDeleteI understand that and I don't blame them. But I still fear it's a bad way to make crucial decisions.
"Err... agree that it's a strong possibility."
ReplyDeleteYeah, same here.
I understand that and I don't blame them. But I still fear it's a bad way to make crucial decisions.
ReplyDeleteThe first part of the answer was the main point: People think this is probably the best way, especially if the disengagements (S. Lebanon, Gaza) prove to not work.
I really enjoyed looking at your site, I found it very helpful indeed, keep up the good work.
ReplyDelete»