I normally don’t even bother reading the man whose name became the blogosphere’s first verb (“fisk”), but I was researching a post, and I came across Fisk’s take on Hizballah having Scud missiles. This is what leaped out at me:
These hootings and trumpetings have always had a strong element of hypocrisy about them. The Scuds – even if Hizbollah has them – are as out-of-date as they are notoriously inaccurate. In the 1991 Gulf war, Saddam Hussein’s Scuds caused fewer than a hundred deaths. The more Peres thunders about the danger they represent, the more Hizbollah’s allies in Iran – supposedly trying to build a nuclear weapon – take pride of place in public imagination over the continued and illegal Israeli colonisation of Palestinian land.
Let us take a look at the line in bold. Scuds should not be all that big a deal, he says, because in 1991, when Saddam Hussein fired missiles at Israel because America invaded Iraq, not because Israel was involved in the war in any way, “fewer than a hundred” people died. The actual total is 74. And then there were the other costs of war:
Israel benefited from the destruction of Iraq’s military capability by the United States-led coalition, but the cost was enormous. Even before hostilities broke out, Israel had to revise its defense budget to maintain its forces at a heightened state of alert. The Iraqi missile attacks justified Israel’s prudence in keeping its air force flying round the clock. The war required the defense budget to be increased by more than $500 million. Another $100 million boost was needed for civil defense.
The damage caused by the 39 Iraqi Scud missiles that landed in Tel Aviv and Haifa was extensive. Approximately 3,300 apartments and other buildings were affected in the greater Tel Aviv area. Some 1,150 people who were evacuated had to be housed at a dozen hotels at a cost of $20,000 per night.
But there is always more information behind the story when anti-Israel reporters talk about how low the risks to Israelis really are. Tell that to the 74 people who died. Tell that to the thousands of people whose homes were destroyed or damaged. Tell that to the millions of Israelis sitting in their sealed rooms, wearing gas masks, during a scud missile attack—fearing that chemical weapons might be on the scuds they could hear landing nearby.
Other people are so eager to spend Israeli blood in appeasing the Arab and Muslim world. I imagine that before the state of Israel, these would be the people saying that the pogroms weren’t so bad, because most of the Jews were allowed to flee from the town where they’d lived for centuries, instead of being murdered.
Robert Fisk is concerned only with the myth that Israel is a colonialist, imperialist state, oppressing the poor, poor, pitiful Palestinians and everyone else around. The wars? All Israel’s fault, simply for existing. He is as despicable now as he was eight years ago, when his name was turned into a verb. I can think if another f-verb that can be applied to him.
Yeah hindsight is 20/20. The fears were worse than what actually happened. That means that the fears were overblown … according to Fisk.
Of course with Fisk, his hindsight comes from the fact that his head is so far up his hindquarters.
Of course Fisk doesn’t care about dead Israelis. Israelis are mostly Jews. And to Fisk, along with all others of his ilk,
sadly Jews are “life unworthy of life”.
You are not counting the 28 US soldiers killed by a Scud.
He is not counting accuracy improvements due to the shorter range requirement.
He is not counting any technology upgrades based on experience during the past 19 years.
Shorter flight time leaves less time for failures to happen.
Also, makes them harder to shoot down, alas.
Also, is Fisk really the source of the FISK verb? That is cool! Nice bit of infamy (in the Three Amigos sense) I assumed it was a modification of filk, from changing a common song for a folk song on a topic. (Kind of like what Weird Al does).
yikes, meryl, you missed his last sentence!
“What worse can Israel do now against the ruthlessness of the Hizbollah, even after the accusations of war crimes levelled against its equally ruthless rabble of an army?”
so… Israel’s army is ruthless rabble?
/me shakes his head.
So let me get this straight — someone killed by an inaccurate weapon is not just as dead, and the family does not grieve just as much — as if they had been killed by a more accurate weapon?
Wasn’t their supposed lack of accuracy a big reason that the hysterical banners gave for wanting to ban so-called Saturday night specials and so-called assault weapons? (Inaccuracy of the weapons, that is, not inaccuracy of the ban lobby.)
Fisk’s name wasn’t turned into a verb… the word Fisk is much older than Robert Fisk.
Unfortunately, despite the fact your analysis on Robert Fisk is good, that fundamental error means I can’t share your article. It makes you look like you don’t know what you are talking about.
My bad… according to Wiki (bringing Democracy to Knowledge) it is me that doesn’t know what I am talking about!
But I am sure I have known of that word long before the Blogosphere was around…
– S
Backseat Blogger, I didn’t miss it. I didn’t want to quote it on my front page. I’d have to shower every time I read my blog if I did.
Scuds are designed to carry a nuclear warhead. If Iran develops nukes small enough to fit a Scud and hands them over to Hezbollah Israel could face nuclear attack from Southern Lebanon. And as Geoffc mentioned, shorter flight times make them harder to shoot down, although given sufficient warning Israel’s Arrow anti-missile interceptors can shoot down Scuds.
They won’t slap them on a scud. To slow, and though harder to shoot down, they are still to easy to hit.
Better to “give” them to one of the terror groups they run, and let them sneak it in. That way when it goes off Iran can claim ignorance, and Obama will be given an out, so he won’t have to join Israel in wiping Iran off the face of the earth.
Iran will develop nukes. Because the UN doesn’t care, and Obama doesn’t have the testicles to stop it.
Iran will let the terrorists they finance use them. And then say “But it wasn’t us!” When Israel looks to hit back.
The UN will scream that they need more proof, and that any action against Iran will be illegal. And if Obama is still president he will refuse unilateral action in support of Israel.
Israel will obliterate Iran, and several other Muslim hard line countries in the ensuing action. Leaving the area open for civil war, and a crippling shortage of oil. Causing China, Russia, and the good old USA to get into it as they try to “help” former allies.
Yep… Gonna be an interesting next few years. That 2012 crap seems more relevant everyday.