THE FIRST STEP TO victory on the global war terror will be dropping that stupid name global war on terror. This is the first war in our history where weve declined to even identify who were fighting. In the Civil War, the Union didnt pause to label the Rebs and in World War II we willingly called out the Axis Powers.
I dislike the PC names of things: "Religion of Peace" or "Global War on Terror". Failing to call things by their correct names results in category error. One ends up solving the wrong problem: like strip searching old ladies to avoid profiling young Arab-looking men.
BANGALORE - Tajik President Emomali Rakhmonov's five-day visit to India that ended on Thursday might not have grabbed much media attention in New Delhi, but it is in Tajikistan that India is taking quiet strides toward furthering its ambition of becoming a global player: India's first military base abroad will become operational in Tajikistan soon.
During Rakhmonov's visit, the two countries signed pacts on strengthening cooperation in the fields of energy, science and technology, foreign-office consultation, and cultural exchange. India also offered to rehabilitate the Varzob-1 hydropower plant in Tajikistan.
Two days before the Tajik president's visit, the India-Tajikistan joint working group (JWG) on counter-terrorism met in Delhi. At the JWG meeting, the two sides agreed on bilateral mechanisms to exchange information on various aspects of terrorism, including the financing of terrorism, that affect their two countries. India also offered to provide Tajikistan with counter-terrorism training.
This cooperation is, however, just the tip of the iceberg. Less visible and more significant is the India-Tajik cooperation at Ayni Air Base, near the Tajik capital Dushanbe. Work on the base is expected to be completed next month, and the base will become operational by the year's end.
India is constructing three hangars at Ayni, two of which will be used by Indian aircraft. India will station about 12 MiG-29 bombers there. The third hangar will be used by the Tajik air force. The Indian Air Force (IAF) is also stationing trainer aircraft under a 2002 defense-cooperation agreement whereby India has been training the Tajik air force.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/12/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
In the late 1990s, India set up a 25-bed hospital at Farkhor, near Afghanistan's northern border, where injured Northern Alliance fighters battling the Taliban were treated.
It was to this Indian hospital the injured Ahmad Shah Masood was brought after the attack on 9/10.
Posted by: john ||
08/12/2006 6:43 Comments ||
Top||
#2
This is India's practical way of becoming a de facto member of the Security Council. The criteria are that you must be a major economic and nuclear military power, *and* that you must be able and willing to project those forces.
From that point on, it doesn't matter if you have a seat on the UNSC, you are part of it anyway. You are a player. Even if the rest of the Security Council want to do something, they have to ask your permission first.
Eventually, the major international players will probably have a joint standing army, each under their own flag, stationed at strategic points around the globe. Probably two in Africa and two in Oceania, possibly Indonesia or Malaysia.
An alternative resolution on The Situation in the Middle East.
Its happy hour at the United Nations. After four weeks of Hezbollah-provoked war in Israel and Lebanon, accompanied by much diplomatic hand-wringing, the U.N. Security Council met Friday evening to adopt 15-0 its latest attempt to paper over the real problems: Resolution 1701 on The Situation in the Middle East. This resolution is meant to deliver the ceasefire that Secretary-General Kofi Annan has been calling for, also described in the lingo of the U.S. State Department as a cessation of hostilities.
Unfortunately, if Resolution 1701 has any effect at all, its real meaning is that we now embark on a period in which Hezbollah will seize the opportunity to regroup and reload. The feeble and compromised mix of U.N. peacekeepers and the Lebanese army, which is the force authorized in this resolution, will fail to stop them. Iran and Syria will proceed apace with their terrorist infection and subjugation of Lebanon. The U.N. will wave around this latest piece of paper to try to prevent Israel from defending itself, or, for that matter, defending the rest of us against the Death to Israel! Death to America! Hezbollah agenda. Irans President Ahmadinejad, enjoying yet another confirmation of the U.N.s mincing impotence in the face of guns, bombs, rockets, and terror, will continue his fevered preparations to roll out the nuclear bomb.
Continued on Page 49
Michael Yon issues a warning about the situation in Iraq. Required reading.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/12/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I would disagree over his statement "we must do something now".
On the contrary, we have stopped the insurgency, but now the Iraqis must hash out among themselves how they want to live. Like battling siblings, we have kept them out of danger until they were mature; but now it is up to them to find their own path.
The vast majority of Iraqis will determine their fate. If they want peace and prosperity, we have given them all the tools they need to achieve it. But if they are obstinate and combative, then the bright future they are offered cannot survive.
In the future, either path may be a good one. If they unite, it means that they have it within them to be a single nation. If their differences are too great, which may be the case, then it may be better for all if they part company.
Ironically, the greatest danger of a split is not from the feuding Shiite and Sunni Arabs, but between those two and their peaceful coexistence with the Kurds.
If Iran falls before the US, Kurdish Iran will be irresistably drawn to Iraqi Kurdistan. They could not become part of Iraq, because Kurds would then far outnumber the Shiites. So it would be the easiest thing in the world for Kurdistan to become an independent nation.
This would still leave the Shiite and the Sunnis in the situation they find themselves today--needing to figure out where they stand with respect to each other. Even if their own territory was enlarged by the addition of the Iranian Arab southwest, its religious split mirrors their own. Still Shiite and Sunni having to get along with each other somehow.
It was the situation before the US arrived, and it will be when the US has left.
#2
'Moose, I think I'm with you on this. Saddam was sitting on top of a particularly hideous basket of vipers, and it looks as if they'll need to hiss themselves out.It is growng increasingly clear that it's not "us" vs. "Iran" or "Soddy Arabia", but "us" against "Ummah". We'd best rearrange our thinking, and our strategies in a similar fashion, since "Ummah" does not issue passports or yet have a Bejeweled-Turban-In-Charge.
#3
I wouldn't say that, because this is not a religious war. I have long said it is a war between civilization and barbarism, or more properly, vandalism.
More than anything else, the Moslems we are fighting hate modernity. Though they are surrounded by it, and even have to use it, they hate all technology not mentioned in the Koran. And not just technology, but knowledge, as well.
The Moslem philosopher al-Ghizali and his peers formalized the rejection of innovation and learning, and stopped cold Moslem intellectual progress, though it took many years to spread through the Ummah. It was done for short-sighted nationalistic reasons.
Only with the rise of the British Empire did this stagnation finally start to end. And in truth, it has been a slow war ever since.
But Islam is facing a crisis, as the large number of Moslems who can and do accept modernism are being forced to face the vandals. According to the Wall Street Journal of a few days ago, Islam is losing so many people so rapidly, that if it continues unabated, by 2050 there will be 3 billion Christians.
These are people who believe that Islam cannot have a reformation. But there must be an equal number who believe it can, and must. There only needs to be one strong advocate, one reformer, for them to rally around, for a massive split to take place.
And one in which the vandals are consigned to the wilderness, to embrace their beloved primitivism and die out.
I would support a candidate who introduced a bill in congress saying that Islam is not a religion recognized by the United States, but rather a "philosophy" and thus not protected under the 501 tax code section, be it 501c3 or whatever.
Then I would encourage the congress to remove the hate crime laws relevant to Muslims.
Then we could all follow our conscience on how to deal with them.
Whup comes to mind.
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
08/12/2006 18:54 Comments ||
Top||
In December 1968, Israeli commandos destroyed 13 aircraft of Lebanon's national carrier, Middle East Airlines, at Beirut airport. Why? One of the two Palestinians who hijacked an El Al jet five months earlier had lived in Lebanon. The message then was what it would be for the next ten years: Lebanon must disarm the Palestinians. But its fragile government knew that Sunni Muslims, as well as its leftists and Arab nationalists, would resist any attacks on Palestinians. The Palestinians were their defence against the armed Christian establishment. So the Lebanese faced a choice: destruction by Israel or self-destruction through civil war.
Lebanon's postponement of a decision cost it dear: years of Israeli artillery fire, commando raids and aerial bombardment that displaced thousands of Shia Muslim villagers from the south to the new slums on Beirut's outskirts. In 1975, civil war finally came, without weakening the Palestinian commandos as Israel had hoped it would. Three years later, Israel attempted to put this right by invading southern Lebanon, but still it failed to disarm the Palestinians. In 1982, it went all the way to Beirut to expel the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Thus, a new enemy was born: Hizballah, who took up arms for the occupied Shiites of the south. Any Israeli soldier who served in Lebanon will tell you that Hezbollah was an adversary more tenacious than the PLO had ever been. It took 18 years and a thousand dead soldiers before Israel conceded defeat and left.
Now Israel is back to face down a Hezbollah that would never have existed but for its 1982 invasion. It is a safe bet that Hezbollah will be strengthened by this experience. Its popularity was waning because it supported the Syrian presence in Lebanon when all other Lebanese wanted Syria out. As soon as Syria's last troops departed in April 2005, Hezbollah found itself isolated. It was trying to manoeuvre itself into a better relationship with the other Lebanese, but it had a lot of ground to make up. Now rescue has come in the form of Israel's bombardment.
Hezbollah's harshest critics, including many Christians, tell me they are supporting the Shia militia as the only armed force resisting the Israel onslaught. In a way, Israel has made Hezbollah's case against disarmament for it, showing that the Lebanese army cannot protect the country but dedicated guerrillas can fight back. Far from isolating Hezbollah, Israel has simply made its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, the most popular man in the Arab world.
Hezbollah started this battle with Israel when it captured two Israeli soldiers - in order to trade them for Lebanese prisoners in Israeli prisons (taken just as illegally over an international border) and to support the Palestinians under attack by Israel in Gaza. Hezbollah's alliance with the Palestinians comes from its roots. Many of its first militants, before they got religion, had been trained by Palestinians. After the PLO left in 1982 and the Palestinians of Lebanon were disarmed, Hezbollah became their primary protector. When another Lebanese Shia Muslim militia, Amal, attacked the Palestinian camps in the mid-1980s, Hezbollah sided with the Palestinians - not only against fellow Shias in Amal but in opposition to its backers in Syria. Only Hezbollah takes up arms on behalf of the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, but all of Lebanon is paying for it.
Fifty years ago, CIA agents were finding their way in the newly independent Middle East. One of them, Ray Close, has written how his attempt to stage a pro-American coup Damascus in 1957 forced Syria into the Russian embrace. His colleague Wilbur Crane Eveland delivered money to Lebanon's president to rig the 1958 elections; and Archie Roosevelt (son of Theodore) tried to buy Egypt's president, Gamal Abdel Nasser. Eveland's machinations led to the civil war of 1958, and Nasser ridiculed the CIA by spending the bribe money to build a tower in Cairo known universally as Roosevelt's Erection. Close, whose own forebears were missionaries in 19th-century Lebanon, has embraced a new mission: to prevent imperial adventures by the US and its Israeli client that devour the innocent and invariably fail.
In a recent open e-mail, Close wrote: "One of the definitions of madness is the repetition countless times of the same action, always expecting a different result. For more than half a century, the Israelis have been applying the tactic of massively disproportionate retaliation to every provocative act of resistance attempted by the Palestinians, expecting every time that this would bring peace and security to all the people of the Holy Land. Every single time they have done this, it has backfired. Every single time [his italics]."
Today, Israel is conveying the same message to Lebanon's government as in 1968, 1973, 1978 and 1982: disarm the guerrillas or face destruction. Yet Israel knows that the Lebanese government can no more disarm Hezbollah than it could the PLO. Now, as before, Muslim soldiers would refuse to obey orders to attack their co-religionists, the army would collapse and civil war would follow. Instead, Lebanon is living with the alternative: Israel's annihilation of Beirut airport, the country's road network, telecommunications systems, army bases, water supply and power stations - the entire infrastructure that the country rebuilt when the civil war ended in 1990 - and the slaughter of hundreds so far of its citizens.
What will Israel's latest adventure leave in Lebanon apart from angry and unemployed recruits to Hezbollah with new grievances against their neighbours to the south? What reason is there to suppose that the old actions will prompt a different reaction? What is the definition of madness?
Posted by: john ||
08/12/2006 10:43 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Hezbollah exists because of Iran. Period. Poor Lebanese Shiites can't support a terrorist group. Without Iran, no Hezbollah. And who brought Islamist Iran into existence? We have Jimmy Carter to thank.
Charles Glass seems to think that Muslims are a bunch of noble savages provoked by an evil West into righteous responses. The reality is that there are a lot of poor people in the world. Most of them aren't terrorists. What Muslims are doing isn't all that new - it's an attempt to exact tribute by means of carefully applied violence. Muhammad himself showed the way by organizing a bunch of caravan bandits into one of the largest empires the world has seen. These guys are just trying to expand the realm of Islamic empire and exact tribute from the non-Muslim rabble. Glass seems to think that Muslims are static actors responding to what the West does. The reality is that they are dynamic actors working to reshape the world in their image. Inside every Muslim isn't a Charles Glass struggling to get out.
#2
After the PLO left in 1982 and the Palestinians of Lebanon were disarmed...
hmmmm...then who's shooting all the weapons (small and heavy) in Ein El-Hellhole? I call BS. Also, the Leb prisoners "illegally" transferred across national borders? If Lebanon were to actually, say PUNISH, criminals, perhaps the Jooooos wouldn't have Lebs in their jails. Nice moral equivalence.
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/12/2006 11:05 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I think the fundamental problem with Charles Glass's analysis is that he views military prowess and endurance in battle by upstart forces as evidence of justifiable and righteous grievances. The reality is that military prowess has nothing to do with the justice of a cause, underdog or otherwise. Genghis Khan wasn't any better or worse than the potentates of the gigantic powers surrounding Mongolia. He was just a better military leader than they were.
The Chinese weren't uniquely oppressed or poor as people go when the Communists took over. The PLA was just stronger than Kuomintang forces, which had been shattered fighting a long, exhausting war against the Japanese. The fact is that a war is a contest between two sets of leaderships and peoples. Israel could not prevail in Lebanon because its people (and by extension, its leadership, since Israel is a democracy) were weak, not because Hezbollah was some invincible force given strength by justifiable grievances.
#4
He's right, like causes have like effects. The question is the verity of the first statement. If the first part of a conditional statement is false, the overall statement is true regardless of the truth of the second.
#5
"Three years later, Israel attempted to put this right by invading southern Lebanon, but still it failed to disarm the Palestinians. In 1982, it went all the way to Beirut to expel the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Thus, a new enemy was born: Hizballah, who took up arms for the occupied Shiites of the south."
There is a tall assumption here that Hezbollah was entirely the fault of the Israel invasion into Lebanon. I might appear that way in hindsight, it is pure speculation unless one can show that warnings of this were issued prior to the invasion, any more than it is pure speculation to suggest Hezbollah would not have been created to counter the Palestinian influence in Lebanon.
We knew there was a Sunni Shiite schism in Iraq. Did we know how that would react in 2003? In hindsight, yes, but at the time, no.
Can we extract in either Lebanon or Iraq how much of this unrest is the work of third party outsiders who would be active no matter what Israel or the US does today or did do in the past?
It is a valuable discussion but placing blame in hindsight is just superficial.
Posted by: john ||
08/12/2006 12:29 Comments ||
Top||
#6
j: There is a tall assumption here that Hezbollah was entirely the fault of the Israel invasion into Lebanon.
This isn't just a tall assumption. It's a moronic assumption. Iran has been spending big money mobilizing Shiite terrorist groups throughout the Arab world. The attack on the Mecca's Grand Mosque in 1979 was carried out by Shiites with backing from Iran's mullahs. The problem with doing this in most Arab states is that they had well-organized and centralized security forces that could take down these terrorist movements even in cases where Shiites were the majority. Except in Lebanon, which was overrun with militias and occupied by Syria, which supported whichever terrorist movement would make the most trouble for the Israelis. Which is why Israeli invaded Lebanon. Funny how Charles Glass never mentions Syria's role in supplying both the PLO and Hezbollah as its cat's paw against the other Lebanese factions. But then again, he lives in a fantasy world in which Muslims are the good guys engaged in what he views as a holy jihad against the West.
#7
...his attempt to stage a pro-American coup Damascus in 1957 forced Syria into the Russian embrace.
I'm sure that the Soviets were just innocently hanging out, doing nothing when Syria just flew into their arms.
ZF: It's worse than assuming that everyone else is a static actor. These sorts of arguments presuppose that the US and Israel are the only sources of evil in the world. Everyone else lives in some sort of pre-Edenic paradise and any evil in their society must be caused by some ripple or another of American or Israeli action.
#8
He's right, like causes have like effects. The question is the verity of the first statement. If the first part of a conditional statement is false, the overall statement is true regardless of the truth of the second.
Perfesser, pardon me, but you're an idiot.
If any part of a conditional statement is false the entire statement is false.
That is a mathematical fact.
A-B does not equal A+C if A, B, or C=0
Like causes may have like effects, but more often than not they have dissimilar results.
A more efficient statement might have been as follows,
A attacks B, B fails to respond in a comprehensive manner and A continues their attacks, C decides that B does not have the resolve to suppress A ruthlessly (enough) and thus begins attacking B as well finally provoking a response from B. At this stage D decides that B's response has been "disproportionate" and that B must acquiesce to A and D's demands and calls for a ceasefire. E, who has been on B's side for quite awhile decides that it doesn't have the stomach to stand up to D, caves in, and forces B into a ceasefire effectively giving A and C a de facto positive resolution to the equation.
#11
The real madness underlying our approach to fighting terrorism is the assumption that the terrorists' sponsors can hold us accountable for our foreign policies, but we can't hold them accountable for their terrorist attacks. The reality is that we can hold them accountable - and when we retaliate in a serious manner (i.e. kill significant numbers of people), they back off. The problem is that our leadership isn't wired for retaliation, it's always got be about "a new world order" (Bush I) or "freedom" (Bush II). Thanks to Bush II, we have gotten two democratically-elected Islamist governments in both Iraq and Afghanistan. What are the odds that elections will continue once GI's depart those respective countries?
To understand what happened during the last month, we need to consider several questions.
(A) What Israel needs re Lebanon?
(B) What is the opposition Israel faces?
(C) How quickly it can be accomplished?
What Israel needs is: (i) to hold South Lebanon up to the Litani = defensible border, and
(ii) freedom to retaliate/preempt terror attacks from the rest of Lebanon.
The opposition = (i) Lebanese & (ii) the rest of the World.
The last includes our only ally USA, for two reasons.
(i) USA has plans for Lebanese democracy (won't work any better than Iraqi democracy, but...).
(ii) USA has a, not just ideological, interest in survival of Israelbut not in Israel
powerful enough to be independent of USA.
The process simply cannot be accomplished in one stroke (vide Iraq where US military
won in a few weeks, and been bleeding for 3 years. Or, for that matter, the first (1982)
IDF incursion into Lebanon).
Now, what IDF managed to accomplish under the "incompetent" leadership of Olmert?
The Lebanese
(a) South Lebanese
As the 1982 - 2000 period shown, Israel cannot hold South Lebanon with its population.
Right now, the population is mostly gone, and their support infrastructure is
being systematically destroyed in the process of Hizbi hunting.
(b) Rest of the country.
Suffered a significant degradation of its infrastructure and will require significant international help
to rebuilt. And given Arab (Muslim or Christian) venality, we are talking (i) huge sums and
(ii) fighting over the loot (there is also a minor advantage of less money for Paleos).
Rest of the World.
One of Israel's principal enemies, MSM, suffered a significant loss of credibility.
Another, the UN, appears to be a winner now, but once it confronts the realities on the ground ...
Bush's administration suffered more than a little embarrassment caving in to the Fwench.
This being an election year, I expect to see a competition between Rep & Dem as to
who is more pro-Israel.
To summarize, Israel will start the next round (does anybody here doubts there's going to be a next round?) with some advantages.
#1
g: USA has a, not just ideological, interest in survival of Israelbut not in Israel
powerful enough to be independent of USA.
Israel can't be powerful enough to be independent of the US. Not in a world where it needs foreign weaponry and trade to keep its defense and economy going. Not unless it can magically generate another 70m Israelis in a hurry. Germany and France can be independent because of their large populations. Not Israel. No one's going to embargo either country. Israel is such a nit that it's an easy target for arms and trade embargos.
#2
the US should refuse to pay for rebuilding the south leb infrastructure. F*&k em. They support Hezbollah, they can live in rubble
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/12/2006 9:30 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Yep, fix it yourself, the expense will keep you poor and weak for a long time, maybe poor and weak enough that you can't afford any further troublemaking for a good long time.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
08/12/2006 10:10 Comments ||
Top||
#6
?? HZB can shot against Israel UNIFIL will make nothing. Israel cant answer back
because those nice yelow HZB flags with Blue flags at 50m will be out of reach. External interventionism will even increase more pressure in Israel. Every time the "international community" pressures only makes that to those that are easier to be pressured.
#7
I'm sorry, but I just can't give any credibility to the view that Olmert's dithering was part of a grand scheme. No Israeli would consciously start out to diminish the reputation of the IDF and elevate Hezbollah to equal status with the IDF. Perhaps the title is intended to be ironic. In any event, Olmert won't be in power for more than a month or two after the ceasefire begins. He has committed political suicide by fighting a hesitant, halfhearted war. The IDF is now viewed as beatable and that is not good for the future of Israel and Israelis.
#8
I don't do exact quotes, because I have no memory, but IIRC, Napoleon once said never to assume incompetence was automatically malice and willful intent.
#9
US support is an article of faith for Israel. They know full well that the only reason that Israel survived the Yom Kippor War was the unqualified support given by Richard Nixon. One of the main reasons it has survived since then was the nuclear arsenal developed shortly thereafter and the blood money the US has paid for the past 30 years to neutralize Egypt. The annual economic and military aid along with the special status given to Israel for military technology helps too.
#10
Olmert is a perfect example of why you don't want a socialist, leftist, or lawyer running things. He does not have the support of the IDF members and will be gone in 2 months time.
He has allowed Iran and Syria through Hizb'allah to claim an Arab/Shite victory against Israel. It doesn't matter that they are surounded in rubble this has impact in the tribalist mind. They beat Israel. Israel is now less safe. The US is in a weaker position in Iraq. This is a huge screw up and it's impact will be felt for years. Hizb'allah was allowed to win by Olmert's half actions and incrementalism.
#12
Time will show whether Olmert is a genius. I'm not convinced now.
It would be interesting to run an experiment: let Israel try to stand completely independent of the USA. Fortunately, experiments like this cannot be run.
Alliances go both ways. We support Israel, and in return, we expect Israel not to sell their advanced technology to enemies of the USA - like AWACs for China.
#13
Lebanon = Syria = North Korea > US-the West needs to ascertain the true intent of these nations' top leadership or influential elites vv IRAN-CHINA. In any case, I doubt Dubya will allow or support any scheme which does not finally halt the shelling/terror agz Israel, nor allows Radical Iran + war/terror-centric Islamist fundamentalism to dominate any ME Muslim nation regardless of like or dislike for Israel.
Olmert is an idiot. That is apparent, his pussyfooting is now clearly visible for what it is--incompetence.
Unless IDF, by some miracle, degrades Hezbullah substantially in the next few days what happens next is fairly obvious.
Once the ceasefire sets in, HA will go for Lebanon's jugular. Nasrallah already promissed some days ago that "once we are done with Israel [in this war], we will settle the score with all the Lebanese politicians that oppose us". There is probably no need to elaborate on what "settling the score" means.
So, the next stop in this twilightzone--Hezbullystan.
By his imbecillic conduct, Olmert is being instrumental in creating this potential nightmare.
#3
I'm hoping Olmert is speaking as a "Good Politician," meaning out of both sides of his mouth.
To the UN, Yes, Yes, a cease fire is necessary and desirable.
To the IDF Generals, Kick their asses quickly, permanantly, and kill them all (Or as many as you can) Time is short.
I also recall the dictum, "Better your enemies think you a fool"
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
08/12/2006 10:06 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Gromgoru, Hezbully being a state within state and occupying the SL was bad enough, if they took over whole Lebanon, you think that wouldn't be badder?
However, analysing latest snippets of info... there is a good chance that may not be in cards. The degrading of HA forward force may have been going on a larger scale than the released figures indicated. Also, it seems that the rats may be leaving the ship, or planning to.
Ehud Olmert accepts the ceasefire resolution proposed by the UN Security Council. Reuters says "world powers agreed on Friday on a U.N. resolution to end four weeks of fighting between Israel and Hizbollah.... Draft resolution was set to be unanimously approved by the Security Council later on Friday.... Lebanese government accepted the draft.... Israeli official said the Israeli army would not stop its offensive until the [Israeli] cabinet met on Sunday to consider the resolution..... Prime Minister Ehud Olmert would ask his cabinet to accept the document."
A Haaretz op-ed sarcastically asks, "after all, why did we embark on the war, if not to ensure that French soldiers will protect Israel from the Hezbollah rocket battery."
Wikipedia's official entry for Benjamin Netanyahu says it is "widely anticipated that a no-confidence vote will lead to new elections with Netanyahu becoming the next Prime Minister of Israel."
Who knows?
Posted by: Mike ||
08/12/2006 07:48 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. The Battle of Britain is about to begin.. W. Churchill
#2
There would appear to be a recognition that destroying Hezbollah is impossible without attacking both Syria and Iran. You can expend precious capital from Israel in fighting in Lebanon only to have the leadership and remnants Hezbollah slip into Syria and regroup with arms from Iran. A strategic victory for Hezbollah to be sure. If Israelis are sleeping in bunkers today, we will all be sleeping in bunkers tomorrow.
We are detroying the branch and trunk without destroying the root. All the UN can do is slow the regrowth of the branches while Bush and Condi and Co. figure out how we destroy the roots.
Posted by: john ||
08/12/2006 10:58 Comments ||
Top||
#3
J: If Israelis are sleeping in bunkers today, we will all be sleeping in bunkers tomorrow.
Not likely. Israel can't do whatever it likes for fear of trade and military sanctions. Uncle Sam can. It is by far both the largest market and the strongest military power in the world. The only hope our enemies have is that we won't revert to WWII style rules of engagement. That depends on how many of our people end up dying. The higher the friendly body count, the fewer the restrictions on how we destroy the enemy.
You know how liberals always worry about the fate of enemy civilians? They'll stop doing so if they have to risk their lives under a universal draft. Restrictive rules are for when someone other American is risking his life. Note that George McGovern was involving in incendiary raids over Germany in which millions of German civilians were killed.
#4
John,
Bush, Condi & Co. can't figure out how to 'destroy the root' - because the American people won't accept it. A large chunk of the population believes Bush people engineered this week's airline bomb threat. Lieberman was beaten. The opposition to the Iraq campaign has now risen to - I think - a majority. There's no way this Congress will authorize an attack on ANY other country. Maybe after the next 9/11 (or worse), but I'm not even confident about that. And the Islamo-fascists know it.
#5
The question is whether the 15,000 will have teeth or mearly monitor the return of Hezbulla.
OTOH if Hezbulla doesn't accept then Isreal can say they tried and unleash the hounds.
#6
Nasrallah was on Al-Jizz just now saying they'll observe the cease fire ...AFTER all them Jooooos are out of Lebanon. Cribdeath will be the verdict on the ceasefire
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/12/2006 11:19 Comments ||
Top||
Apparently, I am not alone thinking that Hezbullah will try to take over Lebanon once the ceasefire sets in
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax
WASHINGTON -- For anyone who still thinks the Israeli-Lebanon war is just a border scuffle, one Middle East expert shouts a dire warning:
"As soon as a cease fire occurs, the Hezbollah Blitzkrieg' will crumble the Lebanese Republic of Weimar' and install its own Khumeinist Republic' on the Eastern shores of the Mediterranean. The consequences of such a development are far beyond imagination for the region and the world. Hezbollah would have paved the way for Iran to create the mother of all world threats since Hitler."
So cautions Professor Walid Phares, author of "Future Jihad," a visiting fellow with the European Foundation for Democracy in Brussels, and a senior fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington, D.C.
In an exclusive interview with NewsMax, the Lebanese-born Phares likens the current Hezbollah offensive in Lebanon to a "putsch" -- with the convoluted aims of reestablishing a pro-Syrian-Iranian regime in Lebanon, reconstructing a third wing to the Tehran-Damascus axis, reanimating the Arab-Israeli conflict, rejuvenating Syrian dominance, isolating Jordan, reaching out to Hamas, crumbling Iraq, and unleashing Iran's nuclear programs.
#3
Almost all of the analysis and opinion I've read, all of the dire assessments and future terror scenarios ladled out, require the continued existence of the regime in Iran.
Hezbollah, Syria, et al - and there are likely tens if not hundreds of small unknown groups of fodder running around playing holy jihadi - all depend upon Iranian money, terror networks, state documents, and military assistance. Remove any of these essential assets and it all breaks down.
Without Iran, it basically dries up leaving only scattered cells of losers. Hezbollah, Syria, independent jihadis - they'd implode to a tiny fraction of their current numbers. And nukes wielded by Mad Mullahs? - down the well with their other dreams and myths. Shia ascendancy - dead.
It's as plain as can be. The Iranian regime must be destroyed and their remnant of empire dismantled into its constituent parts.
#5
If that's clear, then why isn't the answer to your question equally clear?
The 1500 aim points were carefully collected by Pentagon planners, according to Gen McInerney. It wasn't idle activity, it was one of several war plans for Iran.
#6
Don't forget the Saudi-Paki nexus. The plane bombing plot didn't involve any Shiites.
Posted by: ed ||
08/12/2006 7:04 Comments ||
Top||
#7
There's no question who will do it, the only question is when?.
As for the Soddies, their turn will come...
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
08/12/2006 8:27 Comments ||
Top||
#8
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/598877/posts excerpt:
Bernadette warns that a new, big war could break out at the turn of the Millennium. On the eve of the year 2000 a final clash between the followers of Mohammed and the Christian nations will happen. In a horrible battle, 5.650.451 soldiers will loose their life and a bomb with great impact will be thrown onto a city in Persia.
If the original text indeed says thrown onto, it would be a remarkable prediction; only since World War 2, bombs were thrown on cities. Air raids were completely unknown in Bernadette´s time. The great number of casualties leaves no doubt that she referred to a Nuclear bomb.
#11
In all seriousness in regards to the Cedar Revolution,
Good Christ...
I weep for not seeing what was right before my eyes...
So many opportunities lost are staring us in the face in such a stark manner today. We have screwed up royally and now we have to reap the whirlwind of the seeds that we have allowed to be sowed.
Brace yourselves, my friends...the days ahead I fear will be trying indeed...
This is a good objective analysis, and I think he's on the right track. Emphasis added.
It appears that Ehud Olmert has accepted in principle the cease-fire proposal offered by the US and France, who apparently recovered somewhat from the swoon it experienced over Arab criticism of the original proposal. . . . Some have hailed this as a breakthrough, while others see it as an unmitigated disaster. The truth is that the proposal gives both sides something while attempting to find what everyone understands will be the eventual outcome of any protracted war, given the reluctance of Israel to attempt another twenty-year occupation of Lebanon.
And it holds an ace in the hole for Israel, which many seem to have missed.
Let's look at the resolution itself . . . . The points adopted in this proposal say nothing of an immediate withdrawal by Israel, nor does it link the war to the issue of Lebanese criminals in Israeli prisons, the motivation for starting the war in the first place. Nasrallah got skunked on the one action he hoped to accomplish, and the resulting prisoner swaps will likey involve only those captured during the war. It also explicitly puts the blame for the war on Hezbollah -- and excludes it from any other legitimation in the document.
In fact, the resolution requires Hezbollah to cease all hostilities, while it only requires Israel to cease offensive operations. Until Hezbollah stops launching rockets at Israel, the IDF has a free hand to take responsive action to stop them and take out their launch capabilities. In effect, it says that Israel can continue the fight until Hezbollah stops attacking them.
The resolution also demands the end of military support for Hezbollah and the exercise of sovereignty over southern Lebanon by the Lebanese government. That demand is not new, and had the Lebanese complied with it last year, this war would never have taken place. The Siniora government will have to control the territory south of the Litani, and according to this agreement, everywhere else in Lebanon, too.
There's plenty to dislike here, too. The agreement makes several flattering references to the seven-point plan put forth by Fuad Siniora, a list of grievances and goals he could easily have copied from a Hezbollah web site. Most egregiously, it continues the UNIFIL force as the conductor for the Lebanese Army, despite its decades-long record of incompetence and outright collaboration with Hezbollah. The UN will deploy a much larger UNIFIL force than in the past, up to 15,000 troops, matching the Lebanese Army contingent. It will also have a mandate for force in order to ensure compliance, although given the lack of will shown in UNIFIL and other UN forces in the past, one has to chuckle inwardly at the suggestion.
Some hoped for a crushing defeat of Hezbollah, especially its command structure, starting with Hassan Nasrallah. Unfortunately, the Israelis dithered too much in its military strategy. In retrospect, the air campaign was a mistake, and the IDF should have been allowed to adopt a massive incursion strategy instead. The threat of such an incursion gained Israel plenty of concessions in this document, but Olmert could have won most of his objectives had he not paid so much attention to the diplomatic tut-tutting adopted towards Israel but not the terrorists it faced.
In any event, an outright victory was very unlikely. Hezbollah remains very popular among the Shi'ite Muslims in Lebanon, a significant portion of the nation. At worst they would have melted into the towns and villages and simply returned later. The best Israel could achieve was to have the Lebanese government take responsibility for the south and hold it militarily to keep terrorists from conducting unfettered attacks on the border. If this agreement gets properly implemented -- a very large If -- then Israel will have achieved those goals without having to conduct another generational occupation of Lebanon.
Lastly, by agreeing to this cease-fire, Olmert puts pressure on Siniora to do the same and to put Hezbollah in a box. If Siniora refuses, then Olmert orders the incursion. If Nasrallah refuses to accede to Siniora's demand to disarm and withdraw as required by this proposal, Olmert can claim that the Lebanese government is hostage to Nasrallah and act to liberate it. Olmert will have worked the appeasers into a position where they will have endorsed further military action by the collapse of their own peace plan.
Everything hinges on Nasrallah. If he accepts the terms and allows Siniora to dislodge them from southern Lebanon, Hezbollah is finished regardless of their public claims. Their raison d'etre is the defense of the southern border against Israel -- and if the Lebanese Army takes that responsibility, then their militia serves no purpose in the middle of Lebanon. If Nasrallah balks, then Israel will have a green light and a wide window to finish the job, and they will have lost very little in the hours it will take for the gambit to play to its conclusion.
. . . One other point is worth mentioning. The Power Line post suggests that the Bush administration didn't want to take the heat for more fighting in Lebanon, which I think is an unfair shot at the White House. Bush and his team made sure that they would not allow the UN to win the war for Hezbollah, and this document at least shows that effort, regardless of its implementation. It's really not our job to hold umbrellas for Israel, and they certainly didn't show too much enthusiasm for fighting the kind of war the post suggests in any case.
Posted by: Mike ||
08/12/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
My quibble is that Olmert would have to have a sudden personality change to act as Captain Ed describes. Up to now he's fit the jellyfish pic to a tee.
It's not a disaster, for this reason: The language of Paragraph 10, point 1, reads "Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations." This is not parallel language. Hezbollah must cease all attacks. Israel must only cease "offensive military operations." Since Israel itself defines its own action in South Lebanon as by definition defensive, not offensive, there's a lot of give here. Besides which, will Hezbollah really cease "all attacks"?
Posted at 5:31 PM
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/12/2006 9:54 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Oh goodie, it's a worthless piece of paper.
Any Hezbollah Rocket passing into Israel is a valid excuse to resume kicking their ass.
Wonderful, promote and reward the Israelli who got that language into the "Cease Fire" paper.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
08/12/2006 10:17 Comments ||
Top||
The plot to blow up US-bound airliners is becoming known as 'Bojinka II,' since it is nearly identical in scope and method to Operation Bojinka, which was foiled in 1995 by Filipino authorities.
But Operation Bojinka II, thwarted by the British authorities at the end of an intelligence-led operation which started in December, 2005, differs in some aspects from the original Operation Bojinka of 1995.
Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Sheikh Mohammad had planned Bojinka 1995 as a timer-triggered operation and not as a suicide mission. They had planned to select US-bound flights from South-East and East-Asia with an intermediate halt. The terrorists chosen for the operation were to leave the plane at the intermediate halt after concealing the timed improvised explosive devices inside life-jackets.
Operation Bojinka II was planned as suicide missions to be undertaken by the terrorists on direct flights from airports in the UK to different destinations in the US.
The second difference is that Ramzi and Khalid had planned to have the liquid explosive smuggled into the aircraft in containers used for keeping contact lens cleaning solution. The planners of Operation Bojinka-2006 had planned to have the liquid explosive smuggled into the aircraft by having it concealed at the false bottom of cans used for keeping power drinks.
The idea was that if the airport security asked them to consume some of the power drink before them, they would have had no problem doing so.
Operation Bojinka 1995 involved using a mixed group of Pakistanis and Arabs, with Ramzi and Khalid, both Kuwaiti residents of Pakistani origin, providing the leadership.
Eighteen of the intended suicide volunteers for Operation Bojinka II are reportedly British citizens/residents of Pakistani origin -- the majority of them Punjabis and some Mirpuris from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, whose parents had migrated to the UK when their land was taken over by the Pakistan government for the construction of the Mangla Dam.
All the Pakistani-origin suspects are Sunni Deobandis. There was also one White convert to Islam in the group of plotters -- Umar Islam, 28, (born Brian Young) of High Wycombe.
According to sources in the Pakistani police, some of the 18 persons of Pakistani origin detained by the British police in connection with the investigation had traveled to Pakistan after the earthquake of October 2005, to work as humanitarian volunteers in the relief camps run by the Jamaat-ud-Dawa, the mother organisation of the Lashkar-e-Tayiba, in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and in the Balakote area of the North-West Frontier Province.
These sources say that during their stay in the relief camps, they were taken by the Jundullah, a Pakistani jihadi terrorist organisation which is close to Al Qaeda, to its training camps in the Waziristan area of the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan for training. They later returned to the humanitarian relief camps of the Jamaat.
The police sources also say that before returning to the UK, they had visited the jail in Sindh in which Omar Sheikh, who masterminded the kidnapping and beheading of Daniel Pearl, the US journalist, is imprisoned, while he awaits the trial on his appeal against the death sentence imposed on him by a lower court.
Jundullah is a new jihadi terrorist organisation, which started operating in the Karachi area three years ago. It was involved in an abortive attempt to kill the corps commander of Karachi in 2004.
Its involvement was also suspected in a suicide car bomb explosion near the US consulate in Karachi on March 2, in which a US diplomat was killed. This explosion took place on the eve of the visit of President George Bush to Pakistan.
Maitur Rehman, a 29-year-old Pakistani from Multan in Punjab, is reported to be the present amir of Jundullah. He had previously served in the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, an anti-Shia terrorist organisation, and the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami.
Two of the suicide bombers involved in the 7/7 London blasts of last year were also reported to have met Omar Sheikh in jail during their stay in Pakistan. It is important to have Omar Sheikh interrogated outside Pakistan by independent intelligence agencies.
Since the 7/7 London explosions, the British authorities have been keeping a watch on British citizens/residents of Pakistani origin visiting Pakistan in order to check whether they might had any contacts with Pakistani jihadi terrorist organisations and Al Qaeda during their stay there.
It would appear that it was during such enquiries in December last year that their suspicion fell on one or more of the persons involved. Subsequent enquiries led to others and to the ultimate discovery of the plot of Operation Bojinka 2006.
Reports in the British and American media indicate that the decision to arrest all the suspects under watch was taken following indications that these suspects were planning to undertake a dry run for the operation by traveling by different flights to the US in order to test the airport security measures before undertaking the operation.
Pakistani and British officials have indicated that tip-offs from Pakistani authorities on the basis of the interrogation of two unidentified persons arrested recently in Karachi and one person arrested in the tribal areas adjoining the Afghan border also played a role in the successful and timely discovery of this plot.
While British officials say that all those involved have been identified and taken into custody, US officials claim that there are still five persons who are at large.
While Pakistani officials have definitely cooperated with the British in the investigation of this plot, the extent and nature of this cooperation is not known.
According to the police sources, Pakistani authorities apprehend that the interrogation of the arrested persons in the UK might bring out that they had links with the Lashkar-e-Tayiba, and this could create an embarrassment for them.
As a precautionary measure to avoid any allegations from the West of inaction against the Jamaat and the Lashkar, General Pervez Musharraf ordered the police on August 9 to place Hafeez Mohammad Sayeed, the amir of the Jamaat, under house arrest for one month. They are hoping that by that time the British investigations would show whether the arrested persons had any link with the Lashkar. If no evidence of such link turns up, he is likely to be released from the house arrest.
The continued involvement of members of the Pakistani Diaspora in the UK in acts of terrorism committed or planned against Western targets poses a dilemma for the British authorities.
While General Musharraf has been providing to the Western countries all the assistance they require after a particular plot has been detected, he has not been acting against the flourishing terrorist infrastructure in Pakistani territory. How to make him act against Al Qaeda and others without endangering his own position in the army, that is the question they keep asking themselves.
They do not realise that the continuing presence of Al Qaeda and other jihadi terrorist infrastructure in Pakistani territory is the only guarantee for him to ensure his continued importance in the eyes of the West. He will continue to follow his present policy of feeding and sustaining the terrorists and sacrificing only those whose terrorist activities are detected by the West.
Unless and until they act against Musharraf, they will have no respite from acts of jihadi terrorism originating or inspired from Pakistani territory.
B Raman
Posted by: john ||
08/12/2006 07:08 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/12/2006 10:34 Comments ||
Top||
#3
As a dumping ground for the trash? (Criminals, etc)
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
08/12/2006 10:34 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Musharraf is a necessary evil. If truly democratic elections were to be held in Pakistan today, jihadists would win, and someone like Osama bin Laden would be in charge. We can only have so many fronts open at a time.
. . . We are inclined, in our snobbish way, to dismiss the Americans as a new and vulgar people, whose civilisation has hardly risen above the level of cowboys and Indians. Yet the United States of America is actually the oldest republic in the world, with a constitution that is one of the noblest works of man. When one strips away the distracting symbols of modernity - motor cars, skyscrapers, space rockets, microchips, junk food - one finds an essentially 18th-century country. While Europe has engaged in the headlong and frankly rather immature pursuit of novelty - how many constitutions have the nations of Europe been through in this time? - the Americans have held to the ideals enunciated more than 200 years ago by their founding fathers.
The sense of entering an older country, and one with a sterner sense of purpose than is found among the flippant and inconstant Europeans, can be enjoyed even before one gets off the plane. On the immigration forms that one has to fill in, one is asked: "Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offence or crime involving moral turpitude?" Who now would dare to pose such a question in Europe? The very word "turpitude" brings a smile, almost a sneer, to our lips.
The quiet solicitude that Americans show for the comfort of their visitors, and the tact with which they make one feel at home, can only be described as gentlemanly. These graceful manners, so often overlooked by brash European tourists, whisper the last enchantments of an earlier and more dignified age, when liberty was not confused with licence.
But lest these impressions of the United States seem unduly favourable, it should be added that the Americans have not remained in happy possession of their free constitution without cost. Thomas Jefferson warned that the tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots. To the Americans, the idea that freedom and democracy exact a cost in blood is second nature.
We went to the fine new museum in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, devoted to the American Civil War. It was the bloodiest war in American history. Americans slaughtered Americans in terrible numbers before the North prevailed. You can look up the names of soldiers on a computer, and I found to my slight surprise that a man called Joseph Gimson served on the Union side as a private in the 37th Regiment of Coloured Infantry, and was "severely and dangerously wounded" in the battle of Northeast Station on February 22, 1865.
We stood at Gettysburg, scene of the bloodiest battle of all, on a field covered with memorials to the fallen. Here Abraham Lincoln gave his great and sublimely brief address, ending with the hope "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth".
Again some Europeans will give an unkind smile. All this sounds so Puritan, so naïve and so self-righteous. We cannot help feeling that the Americans ought to have been able to settle their quarrel without killing each other, and, while we cannot defend the institution of slavery, we wonder whether the North had the right to impose its will by force.
These are vain quibbles. The North went to war and was victorious.
The Americans are prepared to use force in pursuit of what they regard as noble aims. It is yet another respect in which they are rather old-fashioned. They are patriots who venerate their nation and their flag. . . .
The Americans' tactics in Iraq, and their sanction for Israel's tactics in Lebanon, have given rise to astonishment and anger in Europe. It may well be that those tactics are counter-productive, and that the Americans and Israelis need to take a different approach to these ventures if they are ever to have any hope of winning hearts and minds.
But when the Americans speak of freedom, we should not imagine, in our cynical and worldly-wise way, that they are merely using that word as a cloak for realpolitik. They are not above realpolitik, but they also mean what they say.
These formidable people think freedom is so valuable that it is worth dying for.
Posted by: Mike ||
08/12/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"To the Americans, the idea that freedom and democracy exact a cost in blood is second nature."
#6
6: Yep, the difference between Sgt. York and Sen. McCain.
I'm no McCain fan (although I would vote for him over any Democratic candidate, including Lieberman), but McCain flew over North Vietnam when LBJ was president, meaning that the rules of engagement against anti-aircraft batteries was no firing until fired upon. I don't think Alvin York had to worry about waiting for bullets to fly by him before he was allowed to shoot back.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
08/12/2006 9:59 Comments ||
Top||
#8
It can be said that philosophically, most of America is optimistic and realistic; whereas Europe is pessimistic and realistic.
Our common ground, realism, means that neither of us claim to be a sacred people whose founders were gods; we do not seek perfection on Earth, and we look with cynicism on those who do; and that we prefer the clarity of the here and now to a mythical future or past where all our dreams come true, or when everything was perfect.
Even our idealists are grounded. Americans can look out over a patch of nasty, harsh desert and imagine there a New Jerusalem. Just needs some wallpaper and a few throw pillows and there you are. Call it the idealism of low expectations.
Optimism and Pessimism are where we differ. Europeans have had 1500 years to burn almost every drop of optimism out of them.
Endless times, some optimist would lead them forward only to be bitterly stomped out. Their philosophy in their daily lives has become: "Things will go on like this for years and years, and then get worse."
For them, happy endings, even in a movie, are just painful reminders of all the times when there hasn't been a happy ending.
Americans, for the most part, are all about happy endings. We insist on them. We refuse and reject losing, seeing it only as having missed an opportunity to turn a loss into a win. Better luck next time. Every cloud has a silver lining. If life gives you lemons, make lemonade. And a hundred other such homilies.
Add on to that the revolutionary spirit. Americans, again for the most part, truly believe in their revolution. They want to share the wealth, the idea that if people get real democracy, they will be better off no matter where they live.
Plus, they strongly distrust anyone who isn't a democrat. Among our presidents, those who are remembered most favorably are first those that protect democracy and attack tyranny, and then those that spread democracy.
We hold the idea that though we would prefer to live and let live with other peoples, we can no longer afford to be isolationistic. That non-democrats anywhere, left to their own devices, will make trouble in the world.
And this is our biggest pride. That we are not content to profit from non-democrats just because we can, supporting their status quo; but that we always demand that they do something in pursuit of democracy and freedom, no matter how small.
We do not profit directly from this, which befuddles other democracies less inclined to interfere, less willing to spread the revolution. But it is our crown jewel.
#9
Ok, I appreciate the article and the comments, but when I read the title, I became immensely sad, because I read it not as being descriptive of americans as a whole (Americans would die for Liberty), but instead predictive of the future:
Americans shall die for liberty.
Posted by: Mark E. ||
08/12/2006 12:11 Comments ||
Top||
#10
think freedom is so valuable that it is worth dying for
By God Andrew you got it!
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
08/12/2006 15:17 Comments ||
Top||
#1
Pinko blogger, Sirocco, posted this translation of this Qana inspired poison. He doesn't deserve a link.
Gods chosen people
Jostein Gaarder, Aftenposten 05.08.06
From the Norwegian by Sirocco
There is no turning back. It is time to learn a new lesson: We do no longer recognize the state of Israel. We could not recognize the South African apartheid regime, nor did we recognize the Afghan Taliban regime. Then there were many who did not recognize Saddam Husseins Iraq or the Serbs ethnic cleansing. We must now get used to the idea: The state of Israel in its current form is history.
We do not believe in the notion of Gods chosen people. We laugh at this peoples fancies and weep over its misdeeds. To act as Gods chosen people is not only stupid and arrogant, but a crime against humanity. We call it racism.
Limits to tolerance
There are limits to our patience, and there are limits to our tolerance. We do not believe in divine promises as justification for occupation and apartheid. We have left the Middle Ages behind. We laugh uneasily at those who still believe that the God of flora, fauna, and galaxies has selected one people in particular as his favorite and given it funny stone tablets, burning bushes, and a license to kill.
We call child murderers child murderers and will never accept that such have a divine or historic mandate excusing their outrages. We say but this: Shame on all apartheid, shame on ethnic cleansing, shame on every terrorist strike against civilians, be it carried out by Hamas, Hizballah, or the state of Israel!
Unscrupulous art of war
We acknowledge and pay heed to Europes deep responsibility for the plight of the Jews, for the disgraceful harassment, the pogroms, and the Holocaust. It was historically and morally necessary for Jews to get their own home. However, the state of Israel, with its unscrupulous art of war and its disgusting weapons, has massacred its own legitimacy. It has systematically flaunted International Law, international conventions, and countless UN resolutions, and it can no longer expect protection from same. It has carpet bombed the recognition of the world. But fear not! The time of trouble shall soon be over. The state of Israel has seen its Soweto.
We are now at the watershed. There is no turning back. The state of Israel has raped the recognition of the world and shall have no peace until it lays down its arms.
Without defense, without skin
May spirit and word sweep away the apartheid walls of Israel. The state of Israel does not exist. It is now without defense, without skin. May the world therefore have mercy on the civilian population. For it is not civilian individuals at whom our doomsaying is directed.
We wish the people of Israel well, nothing but well, but we reserve the right not to eat Jaffa oranges as long as they taste foul and are poisonous. It was endurable to live some years without the blue grapes of apartheid.
They celebrate their triumphs
We do not believe that Israel mourns forty killed Lebanese children more than it for over three thousand years has lamented forty years in the desert. We note that many Israelis celebrate such triumphs like they once cheered the scourges of the Lord as fitting punishment for the people of Egypt. (In that tale, the Lord, God of Israel, appears as an insatiable sadist.) We query whether most Israelis think that one Israeli life is worth more than forty Palestinian or Lebanese lives.
For we have seen pictures of little Israeli girls writing hateful greetings on the bombs to be dropped on the civilian population of Lebanon and Palestine. Little Israeli girls are not cute when they strut with glee at death and torment across the fronts.
The retribution of blood vengeance
We do not recognize the rhetoric of the state of Israel. We do not recognize the spiral of retribution of the blood vengeance with an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. We do not recognize the principle of one or a thousand Arab eyes for one Israeli eye. We do not recognize collective punishment or population-wide diets as political weapons. Two thousand years have passed since a Jewish rabbi criticized the ancient doctrine of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
He said: Do to others as you would have them do to you. We do not recognize a state founded on antihumanistic principles and on the ruins of an archaic national and war religion. Or as Albert Schweitzer expressed it: Humanitarianism consists in never sacrificing a human being to a purpose.
Compassion and forgiveness
We do not recognize the old Kingdom of David as a model for the 21st century map of the Middle East. The Jewish rabbi claimed two thousand years ago that the Kingdom of God is not a martial restoration of the Kingdom of David, but that the Kingdom of God is within us and among us. The Kingdom of God is compassion and forgiveness.
Two thousand years have passed since the Jewish rabbi disarmed and humanized the old rhetoric of war. Even in his time, the first Zionist terrorists were operating.
Israel does not listen
For two thousand years, we have rehearsed the syllabus of humanism, but Israel does not listen. It was not the Pharisee that helped the man who lay by the wayside, having fallen prey to robbers. It was a Samaritan; today we would say, a Palestinian. For we are human first of all then Christian, Muslim, or Jewish. Or as the Jewish rabbi said: And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? We do not accept the abduction of soldiers. But nor do we accept the deportation of whole populations or the abduction of legally elected parliamentarians and government ministers.
We recognize the state of Israel of 1948, but not the one of 1967. It is the state of Israel that fails to recognize, respect, or defer to the internationally lawful Israeli state of 1948. Israel wants more; more water and more villages. To obtain this, there are those who want, with Gods assistance, a final solution to the Palestinian problem. The Palestinians have so many other countries, certain Israeli politicians have argued; we have only one.
The USA or the world?
Or as the highest protector of the state of Israel puts it: May God continue to bless America. A little child took note of that. She turned to her mother, saying: Why does the President always end his speeches with God bless America? Why not, God bless the world?
Then there was a Norwegian poet who let out this childlike sigh of the heart: Why doth Humanity so slowly progress? It was he that wrote so beautifully of the Jew and the Jewess. But he rejected the notion of Gods chosen people. He personally liked to call himself a Muhammedan.
Calm and mercy
We do not recognize the state of Israel. Not today, not as of this writing, not in the hour of grief and wrath. If the entire Israeli nation should fall to its own devices and parts of the population have to flee the occupied areas into another diaspora, then we say: May the surroundings stay calm and show them mercy. It is forever a crime without mitigation to lay hand on refugees and stateless people.
Peace and free passage for the evacuating civilian population no longer protected by a state. Fire not at the fugitives! Take not aim at them! They are vulnerable now like snails without shells, vulnerable like slow caravans of Palestinian and Lebanese refugees, defenseless like women and children and the old in Qana, Gaza, Sabra, and Chatilla. Give the Israeli refugees shelter, give them milk and honey!
Let not one Israeli child be deprived of life. Far too many children and civilians have already been murdered.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
An alternative resolution on The Situation in the Middle East.
