"We are redefining our relations with the world," [Iranian] Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a television program last week. "We are managing our relations with other countries based on our national interests and the way we are treated (over the nuclear dispute)."
No surprise in this statement from the Iranian Mullahs last month when Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad was shoring up support from Russia and China during the Asian security summit in China.
But we better revisit such statements pre Hezbollah attack on July 12th, knowing that they knew what was coming. We'd better sharpen our awareness to the fact, that everything the terrorist thugs in Iran were saying and doing during the past 9-12 months was said and done with the full knowledge of the plan to lighten the fuse in the Middle East via their proxy Hezbollah army. This new perspective matters not only in relation to Israel but also to Iran's expansionist strategies for Iraq and the region as a whole.
In short, U.S. Secretary of Sate Condoleezza Rice's mission during her visit to the Middle East must be to diminish "the power of Hezbollah's supporters; i.e. Syria and Iran", as Aljazeera noted - it's refreshing to come across accurate reporting and analysis, with the only difference that Aljazeera is of course condemning the attempt to dismantle Hezbollah and to implement Security Council resolution 1559. Yeah right.....
If Iran failed to continue to be Hezbollah's protector and supporter, it is unlikely to preserve its current position and influence in the region, which, in the eyes of the U.S. government, is a goal worth pursuing.
And if ever you needed proof that Israel has no other choice but to flatten Hezbollah's strongholds, which aren't army barracks or military compounds, but exclusively civilian residential areas, read this interview of what must be the most pathetic commander-in-chief in living memory, and a man who will NEVER touch Hezbollah's stronghold, Lebanese President Emile Lahoud:
I myself built up this army following the civil war and integrated all the religious groups: Muslims, Christians and Druze. This army is there to secure internal peace, but it is not an army to fight a war. [...]
Naturally the strongholds of the resistance are not known. [...]
The exchange of prisoners has always worked perfectly in the past. [...]
Hezbollah enjoys utmost prestige in Lebanon, because it freed our country. All over the Arab world you hear: Hezbollah maintains Arab honor, and even though it (Hezbollah) is very small, it stands up to Israel. And of course Nasrallah has my respect. [...]
We have today around half a million Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, their birth rate is three times higher than the Lebanese. That is a time bomb. [...]
Oh, and speaking of pathetic, don't miss this interview with another 'Hezbollah's spokesperson', Ralph Nader. He calls a Lebanon, governed by politicians unwilling or unable to confront Hezbollah and to implement Security Council resolutions an 'independent' Lebanon, and Israel's wish for peace and protection from Hezbollah's murdering thugs an attempt to 'install' a 'puppet regime'. How much more, dellusional can you get. Get your facts straight, Mr.Nader, and btw we will not be electing a 'Hezbollah spokesperson' in the White House for some time yet....CNN, perhaps....
As for Kofi Annan's claim that the Israeli bombing of a UN post, which resulted in four UN officials being killed, was "apparently deliberate", it is simply outrageous. It defies all reason, how a UN official of Annan's standing dares make such an open accusation. I am so appalled and disgusted by the stand the UN is constantly taking against Israel, that I bow to Wretchard's iron nerves to dissect the latest Annan salvo. As for me, I just turned to the right of Genghis Khan (again)
No one -- yet -- has accused Israel of deliberately firing upon itself. Considering the fact that UNIFIL peacekeeping mission was a dead-letter it should naturally be asked why Kofi Annan, as their ultimate commander has seen fit to keep them in a position of danger where their only chance of safety actually depends on accurate targeting by the IDF. Their positions are manifestly so close to the Hezbollah; their convoys so at risk at being confused with mobile Hezbollah forces that only by the grace of God and the accuracy of the IDF have fatalities been avoided until now. They were willing to take the risk. Annan was willing to make the hay. You be the judge of Kofi Annan's competence both in the care of his men and with respect to the accusation he has made against the IDF.
Even the most cursory glance at Exposing Israeli Agression's blog reveals its author as somebody impervious to the possibility that he is wrong. Therefore I come not to praise Caesar, nor even (it not being worth the trouble) to bury him; but only to extract mild amusement from his folly, thus ensuring that at least some good comes into the world. None of us came into existence without a Divine purpose, and EIA's present function in life would appear to be (a) to serve as a bad example for parents engaged in the task of training their children how to think honestly and rationally, and (b) Democratic-Underground level entertainment for those of us who take a dark amusement in the never-ending pageant of self-destructive human folly...which is pompous way of saying "jerks like me who think the Darwin Awards are hilarious."
I certainly would agree that merely being of Lebanese descent does not make one a spokesperson for Hezbollah. It seems to me a Hezbollah spokesperson would be somebody who, when he speak, spouts the Hezbollah party line, especially in an interview with al-Jazeera that is intended for dissemination throughout the very Arab world in which Hezbollah desires to win as much support as possible and to foment as much anti-Israeli and anti-American rage as possible. Someone, that is, who would say something like, oh, I don't know, maybe something like this:
Ralph Nader a Hezbollah spokesperson? Oh, Alexandra, you silly girl, you really need to stop jumping to unfounded conclusions. I offer humble and obsequious thanks to EIA for shedding the light of his formidable and utterly objective and not-at-all-anti-Semitic intellect on our little corner of the secretly world-dominating Jewish cabal.
Posted by: Kenny Pierce | Saturday, July 29, 2006 at 12:56 PM
Ken,
yes, yes, yes, yes ! and
ha, ha, ha, ha !
Posted by: jess1dering | Saturday, July 29, 2006 at 08:37 AM
I'll betcha Alexandra is used to the old psychological phenomenon of "projection". BUT , just in case we needed a refresher course we have the obviously unbiased, "Israeli Aggression blogspot.com." Ah, life does afford it's comic relief, doesn't it ?
Posted by: jess1dering | Saturday, July 29, 2006 at 08:36 AM
Exposing Israeli Aggression,
So you are calling me a racist AND a Nazi. Hahahaaha, well it won't be the first time, and this is coming from someone who calls his site 'Israeli Aggression.blogspot.com.' and has Hugo Chavez as his patron Saint. Yeah right...You guys make me laugh.Well at least your anti-Semitism is not "overt".
Posted by: Alexandra | Saturday, July 29, 2006 at 02:55 AM
Just because Mr. Nader is of Lebanese ancestry does not mean he is a 'Hezbollah spokesperson'...Using your logic, one could say Lieberman is a "Israeli Defense Force spokesperson" (which he is not). Gotta love the overt racism of the reichwing these days.
Posted by: Exposing Israeli Aggression | Saturday, July 29, 2006 at 02:36 AM
Jess,
I think one of the critical tasks in the societal war is to heighten the distinction between jihad Islam and moderate Islam. Treating them as two separate religions and making the distinction explicit at every opportunity seems a good way to start to me. And I don't think anybody here wants to outlaw Islam; we just want to outlaw any sect that preaches jihad against "infidels," i.e., people who decline to join the sect in question. What would be illegal is not the religion, but the incitement to religiously-rationalized violence.
Speaking of the "War on Terror" rather than the "War on Islamofascism" seems foolish to me. But what I'd really like us to do is to talk as much as possible about the "Civil War Between Modern and Primitive Jihadist Islam," to emphasize that (a) if every infidel were dead the Islamofascists would still be merrily a-murderin', (b) we and the non-jihadists are on the same side against a common enemy, and (c) the jihadists are doing way more harm to fellow Muslims than they are to us.
I kinda like the "Civil War Between Sane Muslims and the Bearded Neanderthal Cave-Dwelling Death-Obsessed Lovers of Goats" but that might be a bit over the top.
Posted by: Kenny Pierce | Friday, July 28, 2006 at 06:42 PM
Ummmm,
*It seems a dangerous precedent to even consider. ?? Freedom of Worship is such an integral and precious part of our "National Essence" . Why compromise something so worth protecting?
*Remember that little law that involved no "politicking from the pulpit", such as endorsing candidates etc. ? Personally. I thought that went too far in meddling in a Churche's business. However, it would seem to me that something along those lines would be very appropriate in this context. Churches are not above the law or I'm sure we'd have "Brothel Churches", "Dope- Dealing Churches, ( just forget about the whole Bingo thing, Okay? ) If a religious leader is inciting violence, that is clearly an illegal activity. It's an activity that is easy to expose and prove, too. Gotta love our "Very Video-Tapeable" world, don't you ? After all ,the ENEMY uses that media like a snake-charmer uses his lute ( or whatever that thing he plays is ) Filming these crazies could be used to educate the public as well as to prosecute dangerous men.
*I believe that if Islam were outlawed, the reaction from moderates would be drastic and destructive and that the end result would only benefit Radical Islam.
*I try always to keep in mind, with them ,that they operate by forcing the "enemy" into actions that make him LOOK BAD.It's a real trademark of evil , if you ask me. That's the whole game with them; how it appears to be, not how it is.
*Honestly, before I'd ban Islam, I'd deport questionable Muslims by the millions. This IS a time of war. Since we can not tell the good from the bad , let those in doubt go to their nation of origin until things are settled here. I do believe that another terror attack in the United States is a given. Perhaps that will inspire a tad more seriousness in regards to the Radical Islam problem.
Posted by: jess1dering | Friday, July 28, 2006 at 05:17 PM
gringoman,
I am a realtive newbie to actually posting on blogs, although I read them for years.
I think the USA has a strong case for banning Orthodox Islam (as I call it).
Posted by: Crusader.NoRegrets. | Friday, July 28, 2006 at 09:57 AM
Crusader/Liquid/Kenny (with apologies to any inadvertently left out.)
Where were you(and a couple dozen more like you) when I needed you for an Internet forum discussion over a year ago when I raised the ur-Politically Incorrect question: SHOULD ISLAM BE OUTLAWED IN AMERICA? (Just raising it, without even needing to take a side, free and open exchange being primary---even if it rarely is in reality.)
Of course this is a provocative question. Of course there are Constitutional issues, freedom of so-called "religion" guaranteed by Founding Fathers whose experience with Islam was pretty much limited to the Barbary Pirates (even that a not very pleasant encounter.) And of course, as Crusader suggests, you can't expect (in gringo parlance) fat Americans to be concerned about the Sword of a certain belief system until they actually feel that blade and its cutting edge and how it can slice and carve, and inspire its users. But last time I looked , the freedom to discuss "ünpopular" topics was guranteed, yea, even encouraged by the beneficiaries of 2500 years of Western Civilization.
Incidentally, if anyone thinks that the Pubs are much more ënlightened" in this regard than the cynical Deans and Clintons of this world, I suggest a quick check of (1)the remarkable business deals being cut with Sheikhs (2) the tax-payer funded conversion of criminals to Islam in U.S. prisons today (3) the building of a Mosque and the prosyletizing in famed Quantico U.S. Marine base. (These are just three that come immediately to mind. I suspect that others can add to the list. Point. The World War is now. It appears to be ongoing, and one side seems to understand that. I won't presume to speak about what Georgie Bush understands.)
Posted by: gringoman | Friday, July 28, 2006 at 02:57 AM
Ghost,
That's why thousands of people have died in countries from one end of the globe to the other in the last five years at the hands of Christian sectarians, and it's why it's all but impossible to find three locations of fatally violent religious conflict anywhere in the world that don't involve Christians on one or both sides...
Wait, something sounds not quite right about that...oh, well, don't have the time to fact-check at the moment.
Posted by: Kenny Pierce | Thursday, July 27, 2006 at 07:03 PM
So Ghost,
"There are strains of "christian" sectarians that are just as virulent as the islamic extremism you are witnessing in the Islamic world."
And which strains might those be?
And don't try to link up with the Spanish Inquisition which inherited most of its methods and ideology from the Islamic Occupation of Spain.
Posted by: Crusader.NoRegrets. | Thursday, July 27, 2006 at 06:44 PM
ooops...typo bread=break
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Thursday, July 27, 2006 at 04:46 PM
"Please note, however, that to attempt to outlaw things that one thinks are immoral or evil -- such as murder or abortion -- does not make one a jihadist, despite the Left's best efforts to stir up dread of the American "theocracy.""
There are strains of "christian" sectarians that are just as virulent as the islamic extremism you are witnessing in the Islamic world.
The only thing between you and it is the historical emergence of the the enlightenment and liberalism from the European petri dish.
The Enlightenment occupies a central role in the justification for the movement known as modernism. The neo-classicizing trend in modernism came to see itself as being a period of rationality which was overturning foolishly established traditions, and therefore analogized itself to the Encyclopediasts and other philosophes.
A variety of 20th century movements, including liberalism and neo-classicism traced their intellectual heritage back to the Enlightenment, and away from the purported emotionalism of the 19th century.
Geometric order, rigor and reductionism were seen as virtues of the Enlightenment. The modern movement points to reductionism and rationality as crucial aspects of Enlightenment thinking of which it is the inheritor, as opposed to irrationality and emotionalism.
In this view, the Enlightenment represents the basis for modern ideas of liberalism against superstition and intolerance. Influential philosophers who have held this view are Jürgen Habermas and Isaiah Berlin.
This view asserts that the Enlightenment was the point where Europe broke through what historian Peter Gay calls "the sacred circle," where previous dogma circumscribed thinking. The Enlightenment is held, in this view, to be the source of critical ideas, such as the centrality of freedom, democracy and reason as being the primary values of a society.
Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Western Enlightenment, but the term now encompasses a diversity of political thought.
Broadly speaking, modern liberalism places the rights of the individual above the needs of the group. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are protected.
In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed. Modern liberalism usually advocates a limited degree of government interference in the free market, often in the form of anti-discrimination laws, civil service examinations, universal education, and progressive taxation.
The theocratic political forces in the United States are about much more than a stand on "abortion". These forces have generally aligned themselves with modern Repulicanism, which is essentially corporatist, authoritarian...and amoral at root, but required these "christian" extremist sects as a figleaf of pseudo-morality and for their singular interests to be used as a political wedge issues; useful for culling votes, but requiring little in terms of governance.
What the extremist "christian" sects get out of it is governmental thought that is regressively unsupportive of tolerance...against the liberal tradition, and an effort to undermine Liberal principles in such a way as to advance their theocratic dogma by governmental domination...just like it was done in the good ole' days...in that way they are "conservative".
Modern Republicanism is indeed trying to bread Liberalism...but not in the way most Republicans think.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Thursday, July 27, 2006 at 04:44 PM
What people who talk about "rights" don't seem to me to grasp, is that rights ought to be respected only in those who respect the rights of others. The fundamental requirement for a person to be able to claim government respect for and protection of a given "right," is that person's willingness to grant others that same right.
If there is a sect -- Christian, Jewish, Muslim or militant atheist -- that declares its own right to kill or maim or otherwise inflict violence upon others solely because the others decline to accept the religious (or anti-religious) beliefs of that sect, then that sect has no right to freedom of religion, being in a state of warfare (even if temporarily a lack of power constrains them to a temporary policy of avoiding open violence) with everyone else in the world. There are such sects that claim to be Christian, for example, and they have no claim on tolerance from the rest of us.
I know perfectly well that there a great many Muslims who reject jihad both theoretically and in practice, and such Muslims have every claim on freedom of religion. But no Muslim who will not openly forswear jihad and any attempt to impose sharia on the rest of us, has any claim to freedom of religion, and should be considered somebody who is only biding his time for the right opportunity to rise up and strike us down. We may find it politic at any given time or in any given place not to attempt to extirpate the jihadist sect then and there; but we have no moral or meta-legal obligation to refrain from extirpation should the opportunity arise.
Please note, however, that to attempt to outlaw things that one thinks are immoral or evil -- such as murder or abortion -- does not make one a jihadist, despite the Left's best efforts to stir up dread of the American "theocracy." I take it as obvious that, even if one thinks James Dobson or the Pope is a jerk, there is still a qualitative difference between their efforts to make abortion illegal, and Osama bin Laden's attempt to enslave the world under his new Caliphate. If it is not obvious to you then I really just don't have the time and energy to spend trying to resolve our difference of opinion at present. (Hint: Dobson wants everybody to live under the same rules, and wants those rules to include, "Don't commit abortion." Bin Laden wants one set of rules for people who accept his theology, and a very different set of rules for everybody else. There, was that so hard?)
Posted by: Kenny Pierce | Thursday, July 27, 2006 at 03:36 PM
Gringo,
Thanks for the plug for the Igout initative. I'm not surprised; many sacred cows would have to be put down to discuss it sensibly. Too bad because--albeit a long, long shot--doing it that way might save many many lives in the long run. So we'll have to deal with Islam the bloody old fashioned way.
I'm afraid the USA will have to take another hit, and a bad one, before people can accept this.
Wasn't it Trotsky who said something to the effect that you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you?
Posted by: igout | Thursday, July 27, 2006 at 01:22 PM
Crusader.NoRegrets, I agree with what you say, and IMHO, I wish that Islam was banned in the USA. At least certain sects. I know that under the umbrella of "religion" that it has it's rights to exist in our democracy and until it is stripped of that and exposed for it's motives to undermine our society and govt, then it will continue to grow and thrive within the coziness of the free world's tolerance. Unfortunate for the majority of us that do live in the luxury of free will, Islam has sent a strong message to anyone that opposes it-- by allowing those that use it's teachings of the quran to develop into the 'global serial killers' that they have become! This didn't happen over night as they would like you to believe via words such as 'hijacked'
IMHO, it's very much like the struggle we see in Lebanon, because sure, many have and are being overwhelmed and bullied into silence and then rewarded through charity payoffs along the way through schools and other things, but one can't deny that there has also been the other percentage that rallied behind the whole process; just anoher islamic jihad gaining political foothold and standing up to the Jews! How could they fight that-- when Allah commands to kill the unbelievers? When push comes to shove or pressure gets more than bearable...the alliance to Allah will always come first to them if not by choice then by force. In their hearts when the time for rational thought is demanded...Allah knows best! It overwrites all common sense to them!
I have said it before and I will say it again, that Islam will force everyone to define what they stand for and what side of humanity one is on! Today we see Israel standing up to this ideology with courage and giving the world the example of a lifetime...but how many other are really paying attention to what we ALL are up against? It's not just the survival of the Jews at stake here--it's all that want to maintain their freedom of free will of choice and the right to exist with those freedoms!
Crusader.NoRegrets, I truly believe that so many are in denial of this threat on any personal level and that unfortunately it will take the enemy standing on their doorsteps for the reality to sink in and at that point--it will be too late.
Posted by: liquid | Thursday, July 27, 2006 at 12:17 PM
CNR, which side do you prefer that I stand on..your left or your right?
Posted by: Dave | Thursday, July 27, 2006 at 11:45 AM
gringoman
de-Islamicisation may be unthinkable now, but after 20 more years of this crap, you'd be amazed at how the NIMBY syndrome becomes the DTMFA syndrome (destroy the m***** f****** already!) Our current state of Western apathy and myopia is a product of luxurious and comfortable living. Despite how much noise it is making, most of us here in the West have no direct experience of Islamic terrorism. The day will come on the curent course, when everyone you know will know someone who has been injured in some way by the followers of the demon-prophet.
One can indeed ask the question "why is Islam a religion and Nazism is not?" I am waiting for the US Nazi Party to go to court and claim their rights to religious freedom. That is why I believe it makes sense to speak of de-Islamification of the ME. Islam is not a religion any more than Communism or Nazism. It is yet another fascist ideology, but this time exploiting not our military unpreparedness, but rather our cultural weakness and self-loathing.
More and more people are starting to see that there is something wrong with Islam. If our history is anything to go by, when the US and Israel quit the UN, and most democracies follow suit, that will be your indication that the game is up, and we are in the DTMFA phase.
Actually you could argue that the US and Israel have already quit the UN. What exactly has the UN been able to get either of them to do lately?
Remember the fact that we are sitting here on the web calling Islam on its garbage means there are many others out there like us. I stand ready to fight for my freedom, and my children. There will be others...
Posted by: Crusader.NoRegrets. | Thursday, July 27, 2006 at 10:59 AM
I can't wait till ya get your translation done Alexandra! Now you got us all rubbing our hands together anticipating!
------------------------------------
I thought you guys might want to take a look at the
Ancient Book of Psalms Discovered and how powerful a find that it was opened to Psalms 83!
Keep not thou silence, O God: hold not thy peace, and be not still, O God. For, lo, thine enemies make a tumult: and they that hate thee have lifted up the head. They have taken crafty counsel against thy people, and consulted against thy hidden ones. They have said, Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance.
(Psalm 83:1-4)
Posted by: liquid | Thursday, July 27, 2006 at 09:12 AM
Crusader,
With the call to "de-Islamize" the Middle East, you are getting into "thinking the unthinkable" territory. This is not for most people---and we must include Americans---fortunately or not---in the category of "most people." Too, "thinking the unthinkable" implies a certain tendency to think at all. If you noticed, what I called 'The Igout Initiative,' an admittedly far-out, yet not uninteresting plan for the Great and Rational Powers to seize the Middle East and its oil---just do it, man!---could not get a reasoned critique---pro or con---even here at Alexandra's high-toned "symposium."
And this is just one tiny symptom. You should have seen the reaction I got somewhere else over a year ago, just for raising the question, "Should Islam Be Outlawed in America?" Not advocating, mind you, just daring to raise the question in a venue frequented by both Righties and Lefties (well, sort of) and watching how the libs and "progressives"were ready for ACLU apoplexy, with screaming convulsions of "wingnut"---any of the infantile tactics to escape the pain of cogitation. It was another clue to how small is today's so-called sense of liberty and free discussion even here in the so-called US hotbed of it all. To save time and space, I'll skip a number of examples that show how pathetically limited is the so-called "discourse" in the U.S.today---certainly with regard to World Religion, Islam. the nature of this war etc etc and that includes both the Dems and the Pubs. The libs, of course, can't understand why they're not taken seriously just because they can play weasel politics and point to Georgie Bush defects that everybody knows about already anyway (and which I knew about even when voting for him in 2004.) Sadly, the Pubs are practically as mired in the PC swill as is the miserable Left that invented that noxious substance. (Ask any realist about the state of the politically correct US military today, six years after the Pubs took it over from the Clintonite damage. A Vietnam combat friend who is in the business has stories by the dozens. Not to be believed, except that they're true and factual, and neither the Dems nor the Pubs give a flying F-bomb.)
So let's for now limit this rant and cut to the actual "thinking" stage in this World War (a term I accept) illustrating the level of today's Western (or American) understanding, as shown in recent posting by the gringommentariat.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
THIS JUST IN (from over 200 years ago, i.e. having---according to perspectives--- everything or nothing to do with the broil of current Middle East headlines---Hamas, Hezbollah, Israelis, lame Lebanon, mullah-blessed rockets, World Powers concerned. Diplomats dispatched etc etc)
"....one hundred years after [Mohammed's] flight from Mecca the arms and the reign of his successors extended from India to the Atlantic Ocean [comprising] Persia, Syria, Egypt, Africa, Spain....The birth of Mohammed was fortunately placed in the most degenerate and disorderly period of the Persians, the Romans and the barbarians of Europe; the empires of Trajan, or even of Constantine or Charlemagne would have repelled the assault of the naked Saracens, and the torrent of fanaticism might have been obscurely lost in the sands of Arabia...."
---Edward Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume II
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gringommentary:1. The term 'Saracen' was often used liberally by ancients as a synonym for Eastern barbarians, cut-throats, assassins, Arab warriors, desert terrorists, intimidators, protection gangs etc---many of whom were converted from their old warlord gods to the charismatic warlord Mohammed's new religion---an aggressive, arrogant monotheism derived largely from Judaism and known as Islam ('submission.') A certain non-Arab North African tribe or nation is also called 'Saracen', sometimes adding to the semantic confusion.
2. 'Muslim crusades'? Much, if not most, of these enormous conquests were of Christianized lands. Here Christianity fell to the marauders (invaders if you will) who now submitted to the Mosque and wanted everyone else to submit, as in Syria, Egypt and Spain. Gibbon, who could do history and could also write, and both majestically, did not use the term 'muslim crusades.' Of course, centuries later, only muslims have been permitted to exploit the term 'Crusaders,' with the tacit consent of the politcally correct West and its new breed of "sensitive"and "educated" emasculatos, including not only the usual socialists and their moneyed elite, but also such nominal 'realists' as the Bush Republicans and many on the Right who hold hands, profitably, with moderate muslims. The muslim invasion and conversion of Christian lands is considered simply de facto history. Christians who, centuries later, invaded formerly Christian, now Islamized lands, are considered perpetrators of historic injustice, condemned by the Unctuous Nations, deplored by the "Pinch" Sulzberger Times and cheered only by the likes of a a 'shocking' Ann Coulter et al.
3.Do Israelis perhaps know Roman and Islamic history better than Americans know it? Or is it even fair at all to juxtapose Americans and a sense of history?
4. Conclusions? None. Draw your own. Just look at the Muddle East today and do it.
Posted by: gringoman | Thursday, July 27, 2006 at 06:45 AM
Well, since things noted here that don't sound shrill and militant is construed as being "pro" whatever it is the majority is "against" (a product of either/or thinking favored by modern Republicanism), let me caveat that I'm an admirer of Israel and fully understand their predicament albeit rooted in an inexhorably complex history that defies any single line of rationalization.
Kenny's (I think it was Kenny's) argument for favoritism is the most convincing...specifically Israel is already a mature State demonstrating qualities of Liberal Democracy that Americans value...superior than anything the other local denizens of the Levant (or greater Middle East) have to offer. Also, the rejectionist adversaries, hisballa, hamas and others by their very attitude goad toward war.
Obviously I'm not a Zionist, nor do I think the 19th-early 20th logic of Zionism is widely practicable today by other groups that might have similar historical claims and aspirations. The old maxim "...let sleeping dogs lie..." is a good maxim within the context of world affairs...unfortunately in the Levant and the greater Middle East the dogs of war are far from sleeping...they are quite awake, barking and disturbing the neighborhood.
I accept Israel fait accompli, Israel's enemy's should also and make Israel a friend...and Israel is, in general, a good thing.
Having said that, frustration with diplomacy leads to much bellicose language, and I might point out that war is hard work...and war provides within itself limits that find the warriors eventually looking to other solutions to their problems.
Simply entertain the possibility that while militarily crushing hisballah in Lebanon might seem an attractive idea, there may be pragmatic considerations which mitigate its possibility.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Thursday, July 27, 2006 at 05:11 AM
hezbollah barracks! ha! good one!
Posted by: cochise wurlitzer | Wednesday, July 26, 2006 at 10:01 PM
Go Israel, go! Plug your ears so you don't hear what the world is saying, and keep them plugged til you've done what needs to be done.
Posted by: igout | Wednesday, July 26, 2006 at 05:40 PM
Alexandra
Thankyou for a most exceptional blog. This is fast becoming my favourite site. There is still one big weakness in my analysis and it is this: I am of course assuming the Chinese and Indians won't actually send their surplus males to fight FOR Islam!
It is very possible that the Chinese might have decided that atheism isn't working, and they're shopping around for a religion to replace Communism. We can hope that that is Catholicism, as the Vatican seems to believe, but we could be wrong. It would be wise for us in the West to at least appear to be winning.
I am also assuming that China and India aren't waiting for us in the West to exhaust ourselves fighting the Islamists, so they can step in and fill the void left by the disappearance of the West as a global force. That does seem to be China's current play, but surely they must know that if we go down, they go down. China is big alright, but they have regional tensions that could tear them apart, and they are not invincible, as the Japanese have shown.
It really seems to me that right now our only hope is Israel, as they are on the front lines of the true war. The enemy must be dealt his first comprehensive defeat here, for Israel's defeat is our defeat. Afghanistan and Iraq were not the victories they could have been, largely due to the inability of the US government to name the enemy. Well in Lebanon, the enemy stood up and named himself. The Lebanese Campaign is the "Battle of Britain" of WWIII.
To the young men and women of the IDF: G-d bless you all. You are all in my hearts and my prayers. I will never, ever forget what you have already achieved in the cause of freedom. You will always be welcome in my land.
Posted by: Crusader.NoRegrets. | Wednesday, July 26, 2006 at 04:54 PM
It is just so surreal to be watching the coverage of the conflict, (non-stop actually, sincing I'm laying in bed with about a billion stitches in my arm. Talk about good timing...), and to be thumbing through various books about Israeli history. Not one thing about this is unique. It has been happening, in one form or another, since 1948. The Arabs, whether terrorists or a nation-state, commit an unprovoked act of war and the UN lays the blame, not on the aggressor, but on the victim.
The more things change...oh wait, they don't.
Posted by: Matt | Wednesday, July 26, 2006 at 03:29 PM
While you are mad you might as well go take a look at the pic in this post...scroll down to the 6:12pm update. ( No graphic warning is required...other than viewing it may elevate your blood pressure)
http://www.israellycool.com/blog/_archives/2006/7/26/2163294.html
Posted by: Dave | Wednesday, July 26, 2006 at 03:10 PM
Incredible Dave! I had just finished my update in the main text, linking to Wretchard, as you posted your comment. I wrote a post about UN's rabid anti-Semitism which it has been spewing up for some time now, and got more and more infuriated as I wrote the lines...but this latest salvo from Annan seriously pushed me over the edge! How dare he suggest that Israel shot at the UN on purpose, I mean how dare he!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Alexandra | Wednesday, July 26, 2006 at 02:47 PM
Great work Alexa! You and Wretchard have been on quite a roll of late. Have you had a chance to read:
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2006/07/knife-thrower-at-carnival.html
Posted by: Dave | Wednesday, July 26, 2006 at 02:12 PM
Lindav,
I could not believe the words coming out of this man's mouth, as I read the interview. He has not been as much in the spotlight as the Prime Minister of Lebanon, who I chastised on Sunday. The photoshop I did was really appropriate for his lame 'death warmed up attitude'.
One thing however is absolutely clear, with the PM and the President of Lebanon respectively having the same attitude, there is no way we will ever get the co-operation from the Lebanese Government to disarm Hezbollah, and our lame excuse that "the Lebanese Government has not succeeded in disarming Hezbollah" is nonsense. They have never wanted to, never tried to, nor do they intend to attempt to do so. They consider them heroes, and talk of the three Lebanese criminals Israel has held as prisoners, a justifiable cause for Hezbollah's existence.
Crusader,
Good analysis. I am at the moment in the process of translating an explosive documentary about this very subject which was shown only in Germany this summer, and as I have access to a specialized internet service was able to download it. Incredible stuff, but it is taking long to translate and also trying to get over the technical problem of putting the translation onto the screen...it is certainly keeping me very busy indeed, but it's worth it, just to be able to make it available on ATB to my readers.
Posted by: Alexandra | Wednesday, July 26, 2006 at 12:56 PM
You must remember that due to the Islamist policy of indoctrinating kids and youths to "fight" Israel, as they call suicide-terrorism, there are very few innocents left in the ME. I would submit that according to the rules and customs of war, enemy children are now legitimate targets of war, unless the Islamists stop their vile practise of conscripting the very young into the terror-camps.
One sad side effect of the complete lack of victory over Islamism thus far, is precisely this problem. Every new generation grows up more indoctrinated, better trained, and more in love with the whole Jihad. They get better and better at playing the media (well, that's the media's fault for focusing on "civilians", and thus giving Hizb'allah a great incentive to keep ensuring the appearance of dead civilians).
It is for this reason that Germany was "de-Nazified" after WWII. It wasn't out of vengeance, but out of the certain knowledge that if Germany was left with all the structures of Nazi ideology intact, and with all the apparatus of state indoctrination in place, that the next generation would march off to make sure that this time they got it right.
There is no other way. Large swaths of the current ME will have to be de-Islamified if man is to continue on this planet. They can do it peacefully themselves through some kind of reformist movement, and some kind of council, or they'll have it done for them. China has a lot of young men with no hope of a bride... India's gender balance is now also tipping alarmingly. If I were a ME Muslim, I'd be very worried for the future.
Posted by: Crusader.NoRegrets. | Wednesday, July 26, 2006 at 11:55 AM
"The exchange of prisoners has always worked perfectly in the past […]"
Of all there is to deplore in what Hezbollah and its promoters put forward as their logic, this business of saying they were simply trying to engage in a bit of peaceful prisoner exchange with Israel just deserves its own special Stupid Vicious Lie from Hell Award. They – Nasrallah of course pushes this talking point as well – would have us think they don’t see as a dealbreaker their outright kidnap of the persons whose freedom they propose to exchange. The stupefying idiocy of this stance would be hilarious were we not ankle deep in the blood of innocents and ringed round by witless “peace” worshippers who furrow their brows in consideration of such nonsensical claims.
I thank God everyday for the strong and the wise in Israel and I pray for their success.
Posted by: Linda Morgan | Wednesday, July 26, 2006 at 11:20 AM