ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

freedom4free wrote:

BernardR wrote:
Freedom4 free left out a card--
THE ISLAMOFASCIST MURDERERS CARD.

The phrase Islamic-Fascism shows your ignorance....

And it won't help to say that the Pres. of U.S. has used the phrase of Islamo - Fascism. He is one of the worst practioners of the English language that has ever occupied the White House.

I know, like all republicans who succeed in life, W. is supposed to be "stupid", isn't he, fruitcake? I mean, that's a sort of a de-mokkker-rat mantra, isn't it?

Two problems:

One, W. has beaten the last two de-mokkker-rat geniuses who ran against him (i.e. however stupid W. might be, dems are provably stupider).

and

Two, he is provably brighter than your own all-time political hero, the "misunderstood genius" Adolf Hitler.

The two significant military actions W. has been involved in so far, Iraq and Afghanistan, despite all the de-mokkker-rat hype, are basically turning into success stories, and producing reasonable facsimiles of slammite democracies or as close as you can get to that. The combat phases of those two actions were over in days or weeks, and two or three thousand American soldiers have been killed in those places since then while serving basically as rentacops which is not their best function and, sure that is regrettable, but many of those soldiers come from heavily de-mokkker-rat infested places like Baltimore or Detroit or LA, and are statistically safer in places like Iraq or Afghanistan than they would be at home.

By way of contrast, your misunderstood genius Hitler's most major military adventure got his country bombed into tommorrow-morrow land, with the misunderstood genius being obliged to shoot himself through the head to prevent Russians hauling him off to a cage in the Moscow zoo.

0 Replies

Quote:

The word "fascist" ( or "fascism") is sometimes used to denigrate persons, institutions or groups that would not describe themselves as fascist and that do not fall within the formal definition of the word. As a political epithet it has been applied to persons and groups on the extreme left, the extreme right and most points in between. It has also been applied to persons of many religious faiths, particularly fundamentalist groups, and it has been used to label a broad range of persons and institutions. Its use as an epithet generally serves to imply that the supposed "fascist" is unreasonably authoritarian. At best, it is considered mildly offensive, although many persons find it highly offensive and inappropriate.

In this sense, the word "fascist" is generally meant to mean "oppressive," "intolerant," "chauvinist," or "aggressive," all concepts that are at least loosely inspired by the ideology of actual fascism. For example, one might accuse an inconveniently placed police road block as being a "fascist tactic" or an overly authoritarian teacher as being a "real fascist." Terms like "Nazi" and "Hitler" are often used in similarly superficial contexts.

By 1944, the term had already become so widely and loosely employed, that British essayist and novelist George Orwell was moved to write: " ... the word ?'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox hunting, bullfighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else."

During the late 1960s and 1970s, it was popular for many leftists to describe a wide range of governments and public institutions as fascist. In the 80's the term was used by leftist critics to describe the Ronald Reagan administration and recently George W. Bush's. In her 1982 book "Beyond Mere Obedience" radical activist and theologian Dorothy Soelles, coined the term "Christofascist" to describe fundamentalist Christians and following the September 11, 2001 attacks a number of right wing commentators, particularly in the United States, began using the term "Islamofascism" to describe Militant Islam.

The term is most often used as a insult with regards to the ruling party being too heavy handed in certain actions for instance it is frequently used against Margaret Thatcher's rule particularly for the actions of the police during the miner's strike.

The Cult British Sitcom, The Young Ones, regularly had the term "fascist" as an insult. Even though it was often used to get a laugh at the expense of Neil, the Hippy.

Other usage of the term
The word is applied similarly to programming languages which place (perceived) excessive syntactic restrictions on the programmer, such as insisting on one space (and no more) between parameters in a command line. The motif of authoritarianism is frequently applied to restrictive computer environments, as in the similar expression "bondage-and-discipline language". [1]

A similar term sometimes used is "reich-wing" usually a term that refers to the especially vocal commentators and hosts of radio talk shows and/or TV shows, such as Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, the wording meant to compare their political views with those of WW2 Germany, the "Third Reich" implying that they go beyond even "McCarthyism" into outright fascism.

Quote
"Fascism -- unlike Communism, socialism, capitalism or conservatism -- is a smear word more often used to brand one's foes than it is a descriptor used to shed light on them." [2] Samantha Power, lecturer at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

SOURCE

0 Replies

Quote:

Main Entry: den·i·grate
Function: transitive verb
Pronunciation: 'de-ni-"grAt
Inflected Form(s): -grat·ed ; -grat·ing
Etymology: Latin denigratus, past participle of denigrare, from de- + nigrare to blacken, from nigr-, niger black
1 : to cast aspersions on : DEFAME
2 : to deny the importance or validity of : BELITTLE

You know, I don't support any form of fascism and think I'm in pretty solid company there. I have no problem saying that those who try to force fascist systems on free peoples should be stopped by any means necessary. So anytime I point out that something or somebody is fascist, it is going to probably be in a denigrating way.

I also have no moral aversion to denigrating child molesters, rapists, murderers, cheats, thieves, etc. in general. I think it is really silly to have a moral aversion to denigrating terrorists.

But obviously there are a lot of silly people around just the same.

0 Replies

To re-iterate

blatham wrote:

Quote:
If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country . . . We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?
David Ben Gurion

David Ben Gurion...terrorist apologist and sympathizer and, one might logically extend from some of you folks' comments, an anti-semite.

I wonder if any of you have bothered to read the numerous articles and commentary posted here originating from Ha'aretz and other Israel sources. It seems unlikely. Much of it would fall within your category of "terrorist apologias" as it has been critical of Kadima policies, earlier Likud policies, IDF militarism, the decision to wage this war in the manner the IDF and Olmert have waged it. That criticism has been of the strategy and the morality of what has just gone on.

You, tico, asked earlier about my use of 'absolutism' as a descriptor for your position. If you find yourself much further to the right that so much of the commentary out of Israel itself, in all cases not merely closer to the issues than you but also much better educated on the issues and history than you, then perhaps it might be a laudatory and beneficial intellectual act to wonder why and how your position has become as radical and unrelentingly absolutist as yours has become.

You argue that "one cannot negotiate with terrorists" and that "one ought not to". This would fall under the definition of absolutist. It is also ahistorical, as I described earlier and has gone on with frequency. I gave examples (ie prisoner exchanges). There are many others including the negotiated truce (successful over a long period of time now) between Israel and Egypt. Suskind's latest book provides examples of how the US goes about this necessary business, but often at some remove from public awareness. Or, you could look at today's Ha'aretz and read about Peretz' call for negotiations with Syria.

But that option remains open to you folks of continuing to read Hanson and Jihaad Watch or listening to Rush and maintaining or furthering your absolutism.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

The two significant military actions W. has been involved in so far, Iraq and Afghanistan, despite all the de-mokkker-rat hype, are basically turning into success stories, and producing reasonable facsimiles of slammite democracies or as close as you can get to that. The combat phases of those two actions were over in days or weeks, and two or three thousand American soldiers have been killed in those places since then while serving basically as rentacops which is not their best function and, sure that is regrettable, but many of those soldiers come from heavily de-mokkker-rat infested places like Baltimore or Detroit or LA, and are statistically safer in places like Iraq or Afghanistan than they would be at home.

Perhaps one of the dumbest and insensitive paragraphs ever written on A2K.

0 Replies

Face it. The one thing which correlates most highly with every form of urban pathology in America is demokkkrat infestation. It is precisely those cities in which demokkkrat machine politics is most firmly entrenched which are the most dangerous and pathological.

0 Replies

Actually, the good news is that, New York under Giuliani being the example, it apparently only takes about ten years worth of demokkkrats being out of power for one of those cities to come back.

0 Replies

Despite the efforts of the liberal press to demonize Olmert for challenging Hezbollah in a badly managed war, there is growing sentiment that it may be Olmert presiding over another unilateral withdrawal that may be the most politically costly to him. After negotiation after negotiation, and agreement after agreement with Islamic terrorist organizations/governments, the people of Israel are no better off and no safer than before. These terrorists do not honor diplomatic agreements that benefit the 'infidels' in any way. Their one objective is to either obliterate all opposition or force the entire world to conform to their methods and ideology.

I don't know whether the results would have been any better, but I think this whole thing would have gone very differently if sombody like Netanyahu had been at the helm. And he seems to have a much stronger position to make another run for Head of state at this time.

Israeli government faces deep post-Lebanon crisis
Aug 18 7:29 AM US/Eastern

Israel's government, under fire over military failures in Lebanon, runs the risk of ultimate collapse with its cornerstone policy of unilateral pullback from the occupied West Bank now off the agenda.

The liberal Haaretz newspaper quoted Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as telling ministers and senior members of his Kadima party during a closed meeting this week that talk about his "convergence plan" would not be "appropriate".

A front-page editorial in the newspaper on Friday, entitled "fight for survival", said the war in Lebanon convinced the premier "that it is impossible to sell the public another unilateral withdrawal". Olmert was "stuck", it said.

"His problem is that in giving up the unilateral withdrawal he is left without a political direction or a diplomatic agenda," wrote Aluf Benn.

The so-called CONVERGENCE PLAN was the centrepiece of Olmert's political programme. He had considered the March 28 electoral victory of the newly-formed Kadima party as endorsement of his plan.

US President George W. Bush had also endorsed it by welcoming Olmert at the White House in May.

But commentators had started to predict the doom of the West Bank pullouts when the war broke out with the Hezbollah militia in southern Lebanon.

Israel launched a massive offensive against Lebanon following the July 12 border attack in which eight soldiers were killed and two captured by the Shiite militia group.

Hezbollah responded by firing 4,000 rockets on northern Israel, killing 41 civilians and 12 soldiers there.

There were more Israeli casualties in the ground fighting that took place in south Lebanon from which Israel had pulled out in May 2000, ending 22 years of occupation but allowing Hezbollah's power to grow.

The further failure of Israel's historic withdrawal from the Gaza Strip to yield promised results also strengthened the resolve of those opposed to more unilateral pullouts from occupied land.

Israeli troops returned to the Gaza Strip on June 28, launching a massive operation there following the capture of a soldier by three militant groups, including the armed wing of the governing Hamas movement.

"The convergence plan died the day the Israeli Defence Forces (army) returned to the Gaza Strip, following the abduction of Corporal Gilad Shalit on 25 June," Benn wrote.

"At that point, it became clear that the legitimacy of the recognised international border offers Israel no protection against terrorism."

When Olmert defended the government's and military's performance in front of parliament, opposition Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu vehemently criticised past decisions to give up territory held by Israel.

"This concept of unilateral withdrawals has collapsed," he said.

"This policy has expressed weakness and above all was conceived by our enemies as a weakness. It should be replaced by a policy of force, deterrence, victory and reciprocity."

Netanyahu is in an ideal position to challenge for the premiership again, as Olmert's Kadima suffers a string of setbacks and its stalwarts hit by scandal.

Defence Minister Amir Peretz's popularity is at all-time low, paying the price for his lack of military experience that many, including within the ranks of the army, believe cost Israel a more decisive victory against Hezbollah.

"If the movement of disgruntled reservists snowballs, the government will be seriously threatened," political analyst Hanan Kristal told AFP.

"Israelis believed the war was justified but it was badly managed," said Kristal, giving Olmert and embattled army chief Dan Halutz no more than six months before they would have to resign.

Justice Minister Haim Ramon, a vocal proponent of the "convergence plan", faces an indictment for sexual harassment while Olmert himself faces a probe into a property deal.

All recent opinion polls show that many Israelis believe the Jewish state did not win the war against Hezbollah and have little faith in the government.
SOURCE

0 Replies

"The very concept of destroying Hezbollah or dismantling it is based on a faulty belief that it is somehow external to the fiber of Lebanon. It is not," he says. "There's nobody tough enough to disarm Hezbollah, or willing to do it if they are tough enough."

The scenario of a politically empowered Hezbollah, with militia remnants integrated in the Lebanese army, would present a dangerous new reality for Israel, which Bearden says is not in a position to restart hostilities against a foe that proved able to withstand its superior military might.

Hezbollah's stand against the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), long regarded as a military superpower in the region, amounts to what Bearden calls the "demystification of the IDF." The implications for Israel are serious, in that Hezbollah's success could embolden other groups in the region, particularly the Palestinians, to overcome internal differences and unite against Israel.

"Israeli rule has just taken a huge hit," Bearden says. "I would imagine right now we're going to see serious discussions among Palestinians who say, 'Why not us?'."

Milt Bearden. In a career spanning three decades, Bearden headed the CIA's Soviet and Eastern Europe Division and served as station chief in places like Pakistan and Sudan. He also ran the CIA's covert war in Afghanistan
http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs8692

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

revel wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
revel wrote:
Palestinians have the right to defend themselves as well, they are under the yoke of occupation and can only fight with what they have. Israel sends bombs into neighborhoods and bulldozes homes in so called "collective punishment" and Hamas sends suicide bombs into Israeli neighborhoods and Hezbolllah sends rockets into Israeli neighborhoods. Its all the same but in the end, Israel is in the wrong because number one we had no business setting up a state for them pushing Palestinians out in the cold and number two they are still occupying Palestine.

There you go, revel. You have picked your side. Let no one accuse you of straddling the fence. You fully support and defend the actions terrorists.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I can understand the Palestinian cause. Make of it what you will. <shrugs>

You aren't just "understanding" their cause. You are condoning their actions. Which include detonating nail bombs in crowded cafes in Isreal, killing as many innocent civilians as they can. That you condone the terrorists is disgusting.

Terrorist apologists make me sick.

Quote:

Israeli army killed 951 Palestinian children and minors since September 2000
Published Date:

The Israeli occupation army and paramilitary Jewish settlers have killed 951 Palestinian children and minors and have injured in varied degrees 18,811 others since 28 September 2000 when the al-Aqsa intifada broke out, according to an official report issued Sunday, 25 June, by the Palestinian Ministry of Health.

The report is based on death certificates issued by Palestinian hospitals in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which Palestinian health officials say assures its accuracy and reliability.

The largely statistical report which covers the period from 28 September 2001 to 20 June 2006 showed that 387 children and minors were killed in the West Bank while 564 others were killed in the Gaza Strip.

It also showed that numbers of children and minors killed by the Israeli army were particularly higher in the first years of the intifada with 187 killed between 28 September and 31 December 2000; 231 killed in 2001; 176 in 2002; and 180 in 2003.

In 2004, only 61 Palestinian children and minors were killed by the Israelis, and in 2005, the figure stood at 84.

So far this year, 32 Palestinian children and minors have been killed, according to the report. The numbers of the injured follow a similar pattern?-high during the first three years of the intifada and then significantly lower since the start of 2004.

As to the age class of the victims, the report pointed out that 18 were 1 year or under; 42 between 1-4 years; 75 between 5-9 years; 255 between 10-14 years; and 561 between 15-18 years.

The report showed that of the injured, 11,937 were from the West Bank while the rest (or 6,874) were from the Gaza Strip. Of the total injured, at least 7.5% sustained permanent physical disabilities.

The report didn't cover the psychological and mental damage sustained by children and minors.

Other studies, especially by the GazaCenter for Mental Health, presented staggering figures of children suffering from the psychological impact of the violence, with manifestations such as neurosis, depression, phobias, panic, and post-traumatic stress.

Furthermore, the report pointed out that 12 children and minors were killed by the Israeli army from 1 May to 20 June 2006, while 117 other children and minors were injured, some critically, during the same period.

Some of the high-profile killings of Palestinian children took place along the Gaza beach on 9 June when an Israeli artillery shell exterminated six member of the Ghalia family, including four children. Three more Gaza children were killed a few days later when an Israeli warplane fired an air-to-ground missile into a crowded street in downtown Gaza, killing nine people including at least three children.

All the figures cited in the report are of children and minors below the age of 18, according to Dr. Riyad Awad, head of the HealthInformationCenter, who prepared the report.

"I am ready and willing to answer any questions with regard to the report. I can tell you that the information contained in the report is 100% accurate," Awad told Palestine Times.

The report put the overall number of Palestinians killed by the Israeli occupation forces and paramilitary Jewish settlers since the onset of the Aqsa uprising six years ago at 4,234, including 1,945 in the West Bank, 2,193 in the Gaza Strip, 82 not registered and 14 in Israel proper.

The overall number of the injured is 57,369, including 32,379 in the West Bank, 15,555 in the Gaza Strip, 8,435 unregistered and 1,000 in Israel proper.

The Israeli B'tselem human rights organization put the number of Palestinians killed by the Israeli army over the past six years at 3,448, including 700 children and minors under the age of 18.

According to a B'tselem report issued on 10 June, 1,651 of the Palestinian victims were not taking part in hostilities at the time they were killed.

It is believed that of the estimated 1,000-1,100 Israelis killed by Palestinians during the same period, around 100 of them were children and minors.

Israeli sources put the number of Israelis injured by Palestinians at 6,000, the vast bulk of which are believed to have sustained minor injuries, including shock and mental trauma.

Most of the Israeli civilian casualties occurred as a result of suicidal (or martyrdom) operations inside Israel carried out by Palestinian human bombers.

Israeli leaders and spokesmen, seeking to maintain a higher moral ground vis-à-vis the Palestinians, insist?-especially when talking to foreign media?-that Israeli forces don't deliberately target Palestinian civilians, especially children.

However, human rights organizations, including Israel's B'tselem, argue that when civilian casualties are so numerous, intent becomes largely irrelevant.

Besides, Palestinian advocates argue that when ?'mistakes' continue to happen nearly on a daily basis, it means they are policy.

source

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

To re-iterate
blatham wrote:
Quote:
If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country . . . We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?
David Ben Gurion

David Ben Gurion...terrorist apologist and sympathizer and, one might logically extend from some of you folks' comments, an anti-semite.

I wonder if any of you have bothered to read the numerous articles and commentary posted here originating from Ha'aretz and other Israel sources. It seems unlikely. Much of it would fall within your category of "terrorist apologias" as it has been critical of Kadima policies, earlier Likud policies, IDF militarism, the decision to wage this war in the manner the IDF and Olmert have waged it. That criticism has been of the strategy and the morality of what has just gone on.

You, tico, asked earlier about my use of 'absolutism' as a descriptor for your position. If you find yourself much further to the right that so much of the commentary out of Israel itself, in all cases not merely closer to the issues than you but also much better educated on the issues and history than you, then perhaps it might be a laudatory and beneficial intellectual act to wonder why and how your position has become as radical and unrelentingly absolutist as yours has become.

You argue that "one cannot negotiate with terrorists" and that "one ought not to". This would fall under the definition of absolutist. It is also ahistorical, as I described earlier and has gone on with frequency. I gave examples (ie prisoner exchanges). There are many others including the negotiated truce (successful over a long period of time now) between Israel and Egypt. Suskind's latest book provides examples of how the US goes about this necessary business, but often at some remove from public awareness. Or, you could look at today's Ha'aretz and read about Peretz' call for negotiations with Syria.

But that option remains open to you folks of continuing to read Hanson and Jihaad Watch or listening to Rush and maintaining or furthering your absolutism.

That is a very interesting quote from Ben Gurion, Blatham, and one which historically, I think, encapsulates a very reasonable Arabic position.

It is no longer a reasonable to hold pragmatically, if one has the wellbeing of one's fellow Arabs in mind, ultimately, but it explains the position very well.

Can you tell me at what stage of his career he wrote, and is there a fuller quote surrounding it?

By the bye, why are people still bothering to "defend" themselves against the obviously utterly intellectually, logically and ethically bankrupt pretence by some of the trolls/Bush apparatchiks here that criticising Israeli policies and actions is to support terrorism?

These people will never cease from their baseless diatribes, and the arguments deflect from interesting discussion, in my view. Let them jabber to each other.

0 Replies

When people are willing to criticize and/or demonize/excoriate/berate, etc. Israel for its actions in this conflict and refuse to criticize Hebollah in any way, then yeah, it really does make a strong case for them being terrorist sympathizers. That's if you consider Hezbollah's activities leading up to and during the war to be consistent with terrorist activities.

Now of course they could attempt to explain how Hezbollah's behavior is perfectly normal for one side of a war. Other than Revel saying that they 'had no choice' (which is a crock but at least is an honest opinion), none of the anti-Israel and/or the pro-Hezbollah apologists will comment on Hezbollah's specific behavior however.

0 Replies

deb

I first ran across this quotation from Ben Gurion in the Walt and Meersheim essay in the London Review of Books. The unedited version is HERE but doesn't include that quotation. Background on the quotation HERE

As to the "why bother?!" question... it's a mix of things; partly, affinity (wavering) for the folks involved, partly a sense of community responsibility, partly the intellectual exercise, and partly curiosity as to how so many individuals can fall so completely and happily under the sway of authoritarian leaders.

0 Replies

deb

ps...wonderful discussion on perceptions of media bias yesterday on PBS. Video isn't up yet, but transcript available HERE

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

David Ben Gurion...terrorist apologist and sympathizer and, one might logically extend from some of you folks' comments, an anti-semite.

No, I wouldn't suggest that he was. As far as I'm aware, he did not condone the tactics of the Palestinians in intentionally target/kill civilians to further their political goals. He understood why they are upset at Isreal ... everyone on this planet understands why they are upset at Isreal, but that doesn't make their terrorist tactics acceptable, and that doesn't mean they should be condoned.

And your being a shill for Suskind doesn't make you more correct on this issue.

0 Replies

And as the discussion this morning has been in part on the appropriateness of diplomacy on the part of Israel, the following is from one of my favorite liberals (emphasis mine):

Diplomacy has a limit

Unless Hizbullah is swiftly disarmed, we will face the awful prospect of an emboldened Iran

Oliver Kamm
Friday August 18, 2006
The Guardian

British political debate about Israel's intervention in Lebanon has, with rare exceptions, run the gamut of opinion from A to C, but with a unifying theme that Israel's actions have been disproportionate to the provocation. In reality, the principal ethical question concerning Israel's military campaign is whether it has been curtailed too soon. The answer lies with the strengthened UN Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil), and the interpretation given to its mandate to "take all necessary action ... to ensure that its area of operations is not utilised for hostile activities of any kind".

Article continues

There is a substantial risk, on historical precedent, that not all necessary action will be taken. Continued failure will be damaging - for Israel, for the government of Lebanon, and for the prospects of a Palestinian state. This was why Tony Blair was right to resist calls at the start of the conflict for an immediate ceasefire, on the grounds that: "If [the violence] is to stop, it has to stop by undoing how it started. And it started with the kidnap of Israeli soldiers and the bombardment of northern Israel. If we want this to stop, that has to stop."

An immediate ceasefire at that stage would have been equivalent to an enduring threat to Israeli civilians from a private army, Hizbullah, aided by a theocratic tyranny, Iran. Much of the anti-war criticism of Blair's position has come from those who condemn his closeness to President Bush and his participation in the Iraq war. But the principle the prime minister was insisting on was fundamental to democratic politics and the integrity of the United Nations. UN security council resolution 1559, adopted in 2004, calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias. That resolution, clearly covering Hizbullah, has not been implemented. In those circumstances Israel is entitled to defend its citizens and its sovereignty.

Israel can't be defeated by Hizbullah, but an existential threat to the Jewish state is not the proper measure of a terrorist group's capacities. So long as Hizbullah remains in southern Lebanon, Israeli civilians face a continuous threat of rocket attacks or periodic incursions. The aim and effect are comparable to those of the suicide bomber in Israeli towns. Death may strike at any time. No democratic government can long survive, or ought to tolerate, a position in which civilians need reserves of courage merely to live within its boundaries.

Israel's acceptance of security council resolution 1701 is comparable in aim to its acceptance of the Oslo accords 13 years ago. It knows that lasting peace requires diplomacy. While pursuing negotiations, however, it must trust to the goodwill of others to support its need for security. Oslo was a noble venture, and had Yitzhak Rabin not been murdered by a religious fanatic, it might have achieved more. But it failed - above all because Israel's Palestinian interlocutor was a duplicitous autocrat more interested in personal aggrandisement than giving Palestinians good government on the road to statehood.

Israel's foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, declared this week: "It was necessary to move on and focus on the political phase, which was in motion from the onset of the conflict." She is right, and her insistence that political negotiation must resolve the conflict on Israel's northern border marks a welcome contrast with Israel's disastrous invasion of Lebanon, and attempted regime change within it, in 1982. But diplomacy, it turned out at Oslo, has a limit as well as a role. That limit will be tested and reached if the enemies of peace draw comfort from the curtailment of Israel's actions against Hizbullah.

On that point, the auguries are not encouraging. President Assad of Syria made an inflammatory speech on Tuesday directed not only at Israel but also at Lebanese political leaders, whom he accused of collaborating with Israel. Most significantly, if Hizbullah is perceived to have been strengthened in a struggle with Israel, the prospects for a pacific southern Lebanon, or a two-state territorial accommodation between Israel and Palestine, are bleak.

Israel's critics will claim that military action has strengthened Islamist militancy in Lebanon and the region. But this is question-begging. Hizbullah and its state supporters also claimed vindication from Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon under the dovish government of Ehud Barak. The bombings of Israeli civilians are a function not of Israeli provocation but of Hizbullah's ideological conviction - that Israel is an illegitimate state - and its capabilities.

Western powers have a particular responsibility. Hopes that the theocratic regime in Iran would moderate over the years have been thwarted. The mere fact that the Khomeini revolution has not spread has apparently made Iran's leaders more determined to operate by proxy, through Shia militias such as Hizbullah. Unifil must now disarm Hizbullah, and be seen to do so. If it does not, then Iran's ambitions in the region, and its transfer of arms, will only burgeon. The prospect that a revolutionary regime headed by a Holocaust-denier and seeking a nuclear capability will enhance its position from an unresolved conflict is the business of all of us.

· Oliver Kamm is the author of Anti-Totalitarianism: the Left-Wing Case for a Neoconservative Foreign Policy
SOURCE

0 Replies

revel: What a surprise that your reading of an article in the Palestinian Times leaves you with the impression that Isreal is a terrorist state. The Plestinian Times, for some odd reason, does not emphasize that when the IDF responds to Hamas and other terrorist organizations, the terrorists hide amongst women and children, thus increasing the possibility of civilian deaths. We just saw that occur in Lebanon, with Hezbollah. So even though Isreal tries to limit civilian deaths they will occur, unless Isreal does not attack the terrorists hiding behind the civilians. In the case of the IDF, the primary target is the terrorist ... with terrorists, the primary target is the civilian.

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/4512/060709palibodyarmorxnl0.gif

http://img350.imageshack.us/img350/224/060725cowardlyblendxry3.gif

http://img350.imageshack.us/img350/6986/060801qanamassacrexci2.gif

0 Replies

The 'Human Shield' LIE Exposed

On the heels of Israel's horrendous massacre of more than 60 civilians in Qana, among them OVER 40 CHILDREN, I will lay to rest once and for all, the colossal lie presented in unison by these mass murderers and their accomplices, in defense of the indefensible - the position that Hizbullah uses civilians as "human shields" against overwhelming Israeli aggression.

Nothing could be more illogical or absurd. Let's examine it carefully.

When someone uses another human being as a "shield," under the plain meaning of the word, it is understood to be a method to deter aggression by adversaries. In order for that objective to be achieved, crucial premises must first exist.

The party who employs the human shield MUST assume that their adversary will hesitate to fire against those shields for fear of harming them.

But in order for that to happen, the adversary must first CARE about the welfare of the so-called "human shields."

If the opposing party DOES NOT CARE about their welfare, then the alleged objective of deterring aggression falls apart.

For example, in the United States, a bank robber might take a hostage to deter the use of overwhelming force by police. In every case, the police DO NOT fire for fear that they might jeopardize the life of the hostage.

In this case, Israel has proved time and again, beyond ANY reasonable doubt, that they ARE NOT deterred in any manner whatsoever from employing overwhelming force against whatever target they see fit, regardless of whether civilians are in the area.

Israel's routine AFTER-THE-FACT attempts to characterize civilian victims of their ruthless aggression as Hizbullah's "human shields" is nothing less than a diabolical effort to twist the meaning of the phrase beyond all recognition.

Once the bogus "shield" or deterrence theory is rejected, the only alternative is to assume the outrageous suggestion that Hizbullah fired from near civilian areas for the purpose of proving that Israel DOES NOT CARE about massive civilian deaths. In other words, not as a method to deter aggression but as a method to win the PR war against Israel. If believed, then indeed Hizbullah succeeded in proving that Israel DOES NOT CARE ONE IOATA about the lives of innocent Arab civilians.

Under such an outrageous theory, civilians cannot be characterized as "human shields," but instead must be called "human sacrifices" for the purpose of exposing Israeli savagery.

If accepted, this theory cannot prove that Hizbullah is cynically using innocent civilians without FIRST establishing that Israelis are savage barbarians.

Hizbullah can only prove about Israel that which is already TRUE.

In such a scenario, Hizbullah's alleged cynicism cannot be a cause in fact of civilian deaths without an intervening and proximate cause - the depraved indifference by Israelis to massive loss of innocent civilian lives.

Make no mistake, Israelis are not only remorseless mass murderers, they are unrepentant liars - the most evil combination known to man

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m25247&l=i&size=1&hd=0

0 Replies

More proof that freedom4free is an absolute kook.

All is well in the world then. (so to speak)

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

More proof that freedom4free is an absolute kook.

All is well in the world then. (so to speak)

Not really a kook, more like a quasi-pro shill of some sort, who reads sort of like a broken record. He no doubt figures he's getting rewarded with 72 virgins in slammite paradise, problem is, the whole thing might just be turned around, and he might be one of PORKY's 72 virgins...

0 Replies

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know