The UN Staged Chicanery

 

UNSC Resolution 1701 proves to be nothing less than a deliberate and carefully orchestrated chicanery, even though the UK Telegraph Opinion leader only claims that 'UN forces fail Israel': "Whatever the Israeli commandos were doing in Baalbek - seeking to capture a Hizbollah leader or interdict arms shipments - their raid underlines the inadequacy of the Security Council's response to the crisis".

The outrage lives on in the comment section at the Telegraph, as we all come to terms with the fact, that we have been had by a bunch of underhanded UN delegates, who schemed corruption and political chicanery behind closed doors:

"It is breaking my heart that once again the world media and the UN are attacking Israel for doing exactly what EVERY government in EVERY country in the whole world is entitled to do - defend it's citizens!! What do they expect Israel to do? Just wait for another round of ball bearing (or worse) headed missiles to land on its women and children sent by these cowards.
When will the media and the UN recognize that Israel is in the vanguard for all of us.
We are all under attack by these ismlamo-fascists whether we want to acknowledge it or not."

"The major part of this problem is the French with their so-called initiative. The French met with Arab leaders in Damascus before meeting in the UN with the US John Bolton and in so doing compromised the resulting UN Resolution. Unfortunately, the US was too trusting of the French who once more displayed just how devious they are when their own self-interest is in play. Thus the fighting will resume just as soon as Hizbollah feels that it has been replenished by Iran and Syria."

"The Israel-Hezbollah situation is a plain as day: The UN will do what it does best: expensive little. The Islamist determination to destroy the Jewish State will persist. Israel will have to fight again."

The question now is however, will Assistant-Thug-In-Chief Nasrallah repeat Yasir Arafat's bungled coup to oust King Hussein in 1970, which lost him all but the certain rule over Jordan? Will Nasrallah overplay his hand or will he continue to cow the Siniora administration into submission and, with the help of Iranian petrodollars, take over Lebanon and create the next Mullahcracy, never of course taking his eyes of the ultimate goal, namely the annihilation of Israel?

The answer is an unfortunate no; Nasrallah would have studied Arafat's mistakes and learned from them. When you read the detailed account of the attempted coup led by Arafat and his PLO thugs in 1970 in 'Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography' by Barry Rubin and Judith Colp Rubin (Oxford University Press, 2003), the resemblance to the current stand-off between Nasrallah's Hezbollah and the Lebanese Government is absolutely striking.

Apart from the U.S. and Britain's notable change of heart  in the region -- in 1970, Britain had refused to help their erstwhile ally, favoring Arafat over its old friend and assuming he would take over Jordan -- nothing much has changed. Appeasing the murdering thugs is still the going currency in most parts of the West and the clear understanding that "creating a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza would block the conquest of all Palestine" ('Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography' page 40) still dictates all Arab policies to indefinitely prolong Palestinian suffering until their common goal of annihilating Israel is achieved.

Worse, the term 'appeasement' is mutating, as it ever more stands for thinly disguised anti-Zionism, thus increasingly turning a blind eye to the nearing atomic Holocaust, which no longer just a few fanatics, but now even 'respectable' UN delegates secretly believe to be the only solution to bring peace and quite to the Middle East and the Muslim world as a whole.

Anne Bayefsky of the Hudson Institute explains:

The United Nations works in regional groups and it works in ways that depend on coalition building, so the Arab league of 22 Arab states and the Organization of Islamic Conference, 56 members, operate in many ways from motivations directly related to anti-Semitism.

They question the existence of the state of Israel. They have engaged in an ongoing battle for the last half-century against the existence of the state of Israel and its manifest itself through the United Nations. [...]

The United Nations has never said a thing about the almost 1 million Jewish refugees forced to flee Arab countries in the wait of the creation of the state of Israel. Instead, the United Nations contributes to this what I call big lie that the occupation is somehow the root of the problem of Palestinian -- the Arab-Israel conflict, when the reality is that the rejection of the state of Israel and an ongoing terrorist fight against Jews in Israel is the root of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

And when pressed hard, even Kofi Annan is unable to deny the disgrace: "Let us acknowledge that the United Nations record on anti-Semitism has at times fallen short of our ideals. The general assembly resolution of 1975 equating Zionism with racism was an especially unfortunate decision".

How else can anyone explain the shameful record, that the UN failed to pass a single resolution addressing the by now conveniently forgotten, yet nonetheless murderous statistic that between 1969 and 1985, PLO groups committed more that eight thousand terrorist acts--mostly in Israel, though at least 435 abroad--killing more than 650 Israelis, over three-quarters of them civilians, 28 Americans, and dozens of people from other countries, not to mention the many thousands who were left maimed and scarred for life.

Let no one be made to act the fool when repeating the mantra that US foreign policies had anything to do with this; that Israel's reactions had caused this hatred.

And let no one argue that Israel occupied Palestinian land, and as such, will always lack legitimacy as a nation, despite the fact, that such lands had been acquired legitimately, that Jerusalem had always been inhabited by a majority of Jews and that the entire region couldn't be anymore anyone's ancestral home as that of the sons of David, if ever there was such a notion.

Do not forget that no such precedent can be claimed in the case of native Indians and other tribes in the Americas nor in the case of Aborigines in Australia. Lest you are prepared to hand back the Americas, Australia and African territories to its natives and tribal leaders, disbanding all nations on these continents; lest you be prepared to rewrite European and Asian history, nay, the history of mankind as a whole, do not allow yourself to fall for this hypocritical disguise, for it is nothing other than naked, ugly racism solely directed against the Jews. Nothing but bold-faced anti-Semitism.

Comments

[Saul Davis]

Kenney: I agree with utilizing the defense that Israel is there as a fait acompli; but I do very strongly believe in asserting the moral defense for the reasons I stated earlier; Mark Steyn forgets that the Islamists are not national, but transnational -- the greater Umma; they are vehemently opposed to nationalists [see Nasser/Mubarek etc. versus the Muslim Brotherhood]; therefore, his argument falls on deaf ears vis-a-vis the Islamists -- they disregard all logical arguments anyway, why should they accept an argument that is completely contrary to their "moralist" [sarcasm on] world-view; for those supporting Israel, the Steyn argument is unnecessary; it is the classical preaching to the choir. The moral argument is to balance the scales of the Muslim and leftist "moral" rights arguments; I do not know if you were a reader here when David Byron was commenting; he consistently espoused the historical rights/morality of the Muslim position, and lack of morality of the Israeli position -- completely disregarding many undiputed facts. He, and his ilk will not at all accept the fait acompli argument; at least the moral argument, with concrete citations to factual authority, "shuts them up" for awhile.

Back on track to Alexandra's article -- I would highly recommend the best of Spengler again; he is really good:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH22Ak02.html

[Kenny]

Saul,

Yeah, just today I saw an excellent Steyn passage that is rather on topic for this thread and captures my attitude to the "who's land is it anyway" debate more or less perfectly:

I don’t really “defend” [Israel] on anything but utilitarian grounds: Every country in the region — Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia — dates as a sovereign state from 60–70 years ago. The only difference is that Israel has made a go of it. So should we have more states like Israel in the region or more like Syria? I don’t find that a hard question to answer.

[Saul Davis]

Patrick: I agree with your assessment of the MMAs; more so than you can imagine; the Islamist fascist psychosis however is somehwhat unique.

[Saul Davis]

Kenny: Thanks! Steyn is great; he really places matters in perspective -- but how do we get the French in that anagram?

[Kenny]

I'm not going to argue at any length for my opinion that trying to counter the illogical appeal to group "ownership" of "the land" with the equally illogical "well, our group was here first" is counterproductive both when reasoning with the rational people (who see the illogic) and when attempting to woo the maliciously irrational (on whom the appeal has no significant propagandistic effect) -- I have to go eat lunch and have much work to do when I get back.

But I thought you guys would enjoy a magnificent one-liner from one of Mark Steyn's e-mailers:

"You can't spell 'eunuch' without both EU and UN."

[nofate]

What is most striking in the Method of Muhammed is the utter absence of any transcendent notion of morality. Unlike in traditional Western religion and philosophy, where God or the Good is the measure of human actions, in Islamism (which after all is simply a pure form of Islam) the measure of human actions is the shifting power tactics and military strategies of a desert brigand and war leader.
Which allows them to adopt any tactic, no matter how barbarous it appears to western sensibilities, including hiding among civilians and parading civilian dead to stage topsy turvy morality plays.
Saul said:
One simple reason for vehemently espousing the historical right, is that it disputes the Muslim claim of an historic right. While neither claim will shield against venomous hatred and the desire of the Arabs to annihilate Israel, there are those of us who believe that it is important to espouse a moral and historical defense [when it exists] when confronted with a perceived moral attack. The Arabs, and their cohorts, consistently espouse the morality of their position for a reason. To fail to defend the morality of the Israeli position implies that the Israeli position does not possess any moral basis, and the raison d'etre of the UN partition no longer exists. That tact in my view is clearly wrong and has serious consequences.
Absolutely. While GD is correct that Israel and her allies should proceed as if their presence is a "fait accompli", I don't think it is too hard to make a moral argument based on the longevity of their claim, over 3,000 years plus of continuous occupation, although not always in the power seat. I need a better historian than I here, but isn't the pally claim based on a much more recent occupancy? Yes, as in the rest of the world, the ebb and flow of civilizations has roughly treated Israel, but what religious or ethnic group in the world can claim to have continuously inhabited a piece of earth for that long? There's also the fact that the Jews have been the target of a religion that preaches to their children from birth that Jews are equivalent to monkeys and pigs. And this did not start until after 600 years after Christ. Their great leader himself targeted those Jews whose property he wanted. The Jews were there long before the Islamists even thought of plundering their way to power. The pattern has not stopped. The point is, there is a very good moral and historical claim that they belong there, and using American Indian tribes or other ethic groups that do not have one/tenth the legitimacy that the Israeli's have, just obscures the argument.

[Patrick]

GD,

I am not going to debate the specifics of your argument concerning US support to either country during this period; however, I would still not say US actions were fertilizer so much as attempts to "prune" the two weeds into a semblance of the flower all would much rather see in that part of the "garden".

For it to be fertilizer, it needs to be in the face of every MMA daily. The large amounts of food we send throughout the third world that have US flags all over it are daily "fertilizer". When any nation places "peacekeepers" on the ground, it is fertilizer.

[Ghost Dansing]

Patrick,

I understand the weed whacking thing...would the following be an example of the fertilizer?

"The Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988) was one of a series of crises during an era of upheaval in the Middle East: revolution in Iran, occupation of the U.S. embassy in Tehran by militant students, invasion of the Great Mosque in Mecca by anti-royalist Islamicists, the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan, and internecine fighting among Syrians, Israelis, and Palestinians in Lebanon. The war followed months of rising tension between the Iranian Islamic republic and secular nationalist Iraq. In mid-September 1980 Iraq attacked, in the mistaken belief that Iranian political disarray would guarantee a quick victory.

The international community responded with U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire and for all member states to refrain from actions contributing in any way to the conflict's continuation. The Soviets, opposing the war, cut off arms exports to Iran and to Iraq, its ally under a 1972 treaty (arms deliveries resumed in 1982). The U.S. had already ended, when the shah fell, previously massive military sales to Iran. In 1980 the U.S. broke off diplomatic relations with Iran because of the Tehran embassy hostage crisis; Iraq had broken off ties with the U.S. during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

The U.S. was officially neutral regarding the Iran-Iraq war, and claimed that it armed neither side. Iran depended on U.S.-origin weapons, however, and sought them from Israel, Europe, Asia, and South America. Iraq started the war with a large Soviet-supplied arsenal, but needed additional weaponry as the conflict wore on.

Initially, Iraq advanced far into Iranian territory, but was driven back within months. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. (It had been included several years earlier because of ties with several Palestinian nationalist groups, not Islamicists sharing the worldview of al-Qaeda. Activism by Iraq's main Shiite Islamicist opposition group, al-Dawa, was a major factor precipitating the war -- stirred by Iran's Islamic revolution, its endeavors included the attempted assassination of Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.)

Prolonging the war was phenomenally expensive. Iraq received massive external financial support from the Gulf states, and assistance through loan programs from the U.S. The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing, to enhance its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. The U.S. Agriculture Department provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans for purchases of American commodities, to the satisfaction of U.S. grain exporters.

The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

[Dan Kauffman]

Lest you are prepared to hand back the Americas, Australia and African territories to its natives and tribal leaders, disbanding all nations on these continents

That seems rather pointless, because if you went to all that trouble, then you would have to give Israel back to the Jews, they having a prior claim over the Muslims to it. ;-)

[Patrick]

Saul,

I am going to pull this a little from the topic to address one of your points (psychology of a 3rd world male). You mention "they play the beggar for the aid/handouts primarily from the USA. The vast majority are virulently anti-USA". I would like to convey a fellow infantry officer's observations from Haiti (I wasn't there) that seem quite apropos for the ME and the members of the UN.

He noticed some of the shame vs blame characterizations we have discussed before. In his view (I believe he is quite correct), we have a major cultural problem when we liberate anyone. From their point of view, we have "unmanned" all the men of military age (MMA) in that country. An evil, brutal leader and his fellow thugs were able to do whatever they wanted for years. The MMA were not able to do anything about them. Somehow, we sloppy and effete (as in [m-w.com]:marked by weakness or decadence; soft or delicate from or as if from a pampered existence) Americans quickly dispatch the thugs in power and then show our happy faces, helping out, crying over the pain of the little neglected children on the street that few locals even notice. Their ideology of what manliness is stands uprooted. The creatures that unmanned them for years have been easily destroyed by this new interloper they have always despised as being weak.

In Haiti, they were lots of run ins with MMA because they quickly learned that we will tolerate what is in their world "deadly insults" and not just immediately kill them. They act in a manner of counting coup to show their bravery and rise in the eyes of their fellow MMA. We let it roll off our backs, but these exchanges can be quite dangerous, for in these places life is cheap (would rather be dead with "honor" than be alive, and cowed by these foreign effete creatures). It can turn deadly quite easily, as they need to "beard the dragon" to prove that they are more manly than the interlopers in their streets (even if they did kill the thugs that terrorized the MMA for years). If these exchanges were not so dangerous, it would be funny, and yet still pitifully sad.

Our continued military force-on-force successes (and Israel's) further exacerbates this problem. To add insult to injury in this unmanning process, we also provide the food and medicine for them year after year. All the requirements of being a man in this culture are being provided by a nation that goes against everything they believe in (protect your family members, thump your chest machismo, slap your women and kids around, humiliate whomever is weaker than you, be the sole provider for your family, etc). The arab world beat their heads in anguish once again as the great Saddam was swiftly destroyed by weak westerners as if he did not even attempt to put up a defense.

In these societies based on fear, perception is as powerful as reality. Unfortunately, we keep stirring the pot and showing that western ways are not weak and perceived prowess does not equate to true power.

Islamo-facists cut their teeth knowing one martyr is worth so much more than any jew or christian, and yet the lesser and greater Satans enjoy all the fruits of paradise right now. They haven't even dies yet. What gives? They easily defeat the untrained martyrs that throw themselves for the glory of Allah. BTW, Why does the Prophet claim the martyrs will only get the same rewards (that westerners have now) only after great suffering and death?

And yet, all the bravado and martyr attacks only irritate the great dragons who quickly forget the mouse that is needling him.

It makes no sense to them why this is so. They need to regain their manhood by threatening the most powerful forces that exist to prove that you are worthy of paradise. Death to America is the mantra of men who know they are not equal in battle, and yet cannot understand why.

Some evil djinn must have stolen all their wealth and given it to the evil westerners along with powerful and evil weapons, for no true-believer could ever be defeated by the weak, decadent...wait a second, they must be evil devils themselves. Ah! That makes the world right. They cannot be men, only evil djinns. Death to the Great Satan! Death to America!

We wouldn't be the great Satan if we did not have everything this wished they had, and the military competence they can only dream about. Envy is a weed and it grows quite well in the "garden" of the UN. Maybe we should stop fertilizing the weeds by stopping the aid and let them have the leaders they deserve. It takes a thug to keep a nation of thugs (what is acceptable in Islam would get you arrested in any civilized town) in check. Of course, the weed would continue to grow without the fertilizer; we would just have more time before we had to cut it back. Make no mistake, we will have to cut it back since it wants to encroach where it is not wanted.

I wonder, with enough pruning and fertilizer, how long will it take to turn this weed into a flower? Can we? Should we just uproot it?

I know this might better fit on the victims of success thread, but it addresses one of Saul's points. We can discuss it further over there.

BTW GD, thanks for the origin of GRILLZ. I had no idea... Do you have a web address for that concert? I would love to watch it. How about just the soundtrack so I can listen to in in my car?

[Ghost Dansing]

Yes Patrick...the whole thing came out like a sort of Rock Opera, or something...or like a really good episode of Kaptain Kangaroo. Glad you enjoyed it.

"The only alternative to war is peace. The only road to peace is negotiation."

"To be or not to be is not a question of compromise. Either you be or you don’t be."

"If we are criticized because we do not bow because we cannot compromise on the question ‘To be or not to be,’ it is because we have decided that, come what may, we are and we will be."

"We don’t want wars, even when we win."

"There is no Zionism except the rescue of Jews."

"One cannot and must not try to erase the past merely because it does not fit the present."

"You cannot shake hands with a clenched fist."

"Let me tell you something that we Israelis have against Moses. He took us 40 years through the desert in order to bring us to the one spot in the Middle East that has no oil."

"There is no Palestine people. There are Palestinian refugees."

"How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to. We can't send it to Nasser by parcel post."

Some quotes from Golda.

How'dya know 'bout da GRILLZ PatrIk :$

During slavery, slaves were of course denied quality dental and vision health care plans. However, on rare occasions, slave owners permitted rudimentary dental surgery to be conducted on their chattel. This, of course, was reserved only for the most valuable male slaves, those that an owner could not bear to lose to death caused by infection related to tooth decay. The slaves that received the dental work often had copper, tin, or sometimes bronze fillings for cavities and replacements. The metal in their mouth became a status symbol denoting their value to the master, and their superiority to the average slave, i.e. the more metal, the more importance. Showing one’s shiny “grill” became a way of notifying others (slaves, masters, etc) that you were important, and ultimately not to be messed with.

[Saul Davis]

Alexandra: Thank you again for a interesting article; it is most apropos now, with the shameful deceit of the French, the UN, and of course our beloved MSM. We sometimes forget the main constituency of the UN -- it is primarily Muslim and Third World nations who blindly follow Muslim positions even while they play the beggar for the aid/handouts primarily from the USA. The vast majority are virulently anti-USA. Israel, in their warped view, is merely the Little Satan to the US' Great Satan. Why should Anan be objective? He knows who he really represents. Why should the traitorous French ever be considered trustworthy partners -- after Oil for Food and the numerous other breach of trust to foster their perceived and warped self-interests. They believe that they can woo the Arabs and Third World nations into their sphere of influence [sarcasm on], with their consistent treachery.

However, I feel that it is critical that we maintain our focus on the real problem. This conflict not only affects Israel and its survival, it affects every one of us in the West. I can continuously write and discuss this problem -- the great Jihad against the West and western culture. However, I believe that Rick Moran and one of his commenters, Dale in Atlanta, have delineated a very timely and on-point discussion of the real problem -- recognizing that Lebanon/Hizbullah is really only one piece of the puzzle. I would highly recommend reading Mr. Moran's article, and Dale in Atlanta's very insightful comment. the url is:

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/08/09/a-hinge-of-history/

Crusader: You were right on-point again -- my compliments; you now have many more who agree with your assessments.

GD: I believe that the final analysis in your comment was quite correct. "But, it seems Israel's neighbors harbor "rejectionists"...those who don't recognize the State of Israel, and lust for its land and its demise.

What to do, what to do?

Israel should play the whole game...if its adversaries want to be "retro"; harking back to times as they were say in Europe, when there was constant fighting and each war brought new Nations and boundaries...so be it!

While you know that I don't think Israel can actually take and hold Lebanon long enough to evict hisballa...Israel can take and hold a "chunk" of Lebanon...say to some line that includes that beautiful Port of Tyre, and make the land its own.
However, the only question is whether Israel will be permitted to defend itself, and at what cost. If the West were united, it would make it much easier for all of us, and undermine the Jihad being waged against us.

I partially disagree with your initial comments [and I believe that these positions were also Kenny's position] for a variety of reasons which I have stated before; I do agree that an element of the defense of Israel's right to exist, is that it in fact exists on that land. But in the Arab world [and in the perception of their numberous Third World allies] that argument is a non-sequitur. They will respond -- that argument is not valid because we have an historic right to that land; it contains one the principal Muslim shrines, etc. If the Israelis claim the land because they are there, the Arabs argue that they are usurpers and deserve to be driven off the land. One simple reason for vehemently espousing the historical right, is that it disputes the Muslim claim of an historic right. While neither claim will shield against venomous hatred and the desire of the Arabs to annihilate Israel, there are those of us who believe that it is important to espouse a moral and historical defense [when it exists] when confronted with a perceived moral attack. The Arabs, and their cohorts, consistently espouse the morality of their position for a reason. To fail to defend the morality of the Israeli position implies that the Israeli position does not possess any moral basis, and the raison d'etre of the UN partition no longer exists. That tact in my view is clearly wrong and has serious consequences.

My apologies for the length of the comment.

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

Ghost,

I am also curious as to whether the "international community" (whatever that really is) has actually given up on any kind of "peace process" in regard to the palestinian state. It seems the Arabs really don't want to negotiate a peace with Israel that is anything other than a brief hudna, and I think the steady inculcation of the jihad mindset in their kids is really coming full circle now.

[RunningRoach]

Ghost,

Well, well! Will the real Ghost please stand up? That was a really good, insightful and reality laced assesment of the world as it is. Love it. What is, IS! Sometimes I believe that you're doing a massive leg pull. I could be wrong.
Regards

JCC

[Michael van der Galien]

Alexandra, thanks for this wonderful post (and the others for the great comments). I am getting a little bit... not blogger burn-out I suppose, but... tired of arguing all the time.
Arguing is generally fine, but it's also extremely nice to just read something that's coherent, logical yet still passionate (and with which one agrees).
Even the comments here are (in 99% of the cases) well-informed, reasonable and informative. Not everyone disagrees, but it's almost always being done in a great manner -> without using insults, etc.
Makes me think about stop blogging myself, to simply read yours and Ed Morrissey's blog and participate in the comment sections of those two blogs.

Anyway, thanks for you article it was great and thanks to the other for the comments. I feel re-loaded again.

As a besides:

I was pointing out that her argument was a problem, because it can be turned against you...like handing someone a stick to beat you with.

I later suggested that it is better to argue from the standpoint of "Israel as an established, Sovereign State...fait accompli", with a policy to expand its territory if further provoked into military action.

I agree, the other approach isn't as effective as one would hope.

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

Hey GD,

Nice post. I have argued all along for limited, focused military strategies. For instance, I once suggested in lieu of actual annexation of land, the denial of land to the Lebanese state, by establishment of a free-fire zone. Sort of smash up anything that moves in a X-km wide strip of South Lebanon. If there are more rocket attacks, the free-fire zone moves Northwards. Repeat as necessary.

Your idea is a slightly more extreme version of Israel's cold-war policy of occupying land to trade away for peace treaties. This has not worked, clearly.

My approach was to involve the enemy's "non-combatants" in the consequences of the wars they support, but clearly that is not without problems either, not the least of which is the squeamishness of the modern West. I submit my strategy would lead to one bloodbath, after which the Arab peoples would realise that there is no victory over Israel that would leave them with anything like a viable society.

Your approach has the problem of not being recognised by the U.N., and more importantly by the U.S. government. However, I support the concept, and it is entirely in accordance with a farily strong precedent historically. But so is attacking the enemy's civilians in wartime.

I guess we argue about which precedent we're willing to return to: refusing to limit ourselves by obsessing about the enemy's casualties, or refusing to limit ourselves by obsessing about not taking the enemy's land.

I personally see it as much harder to justify terrorism to avenge 100 000 dead Lebanese, than terrorism to "end the Israeli occupation", at least in the current times. I don't know if you can win international sympathy with "vengeance bombings". Not saying Hamas and Hizb'allah wouldn't try, but in a sense they would be fighting for something that's long gone, as opposed to fighting to "free" their lands from a very visible, and obvious presence. At least that is probably easier for them to win support for.

Just my take, as usual.

[Patrick]

GD,

Loved your posts on this subject.

Question though...do you have a vblog that has you performing this original work. I would love to see you performing that sing-a-long. I have to tell you that your first post reads as if it would be a Michelle Malkin style video blog.

Send us the link. We have seen an excellent piece of your argument and philosphical side, can we see the broadway side?

LOL! I just can't seem to get the image of you singing and waving your hands in the air out of my head...and yes, I see myself in the audience singing along.

You really shouldn't do that anymore, because the strength of your posts on this thread were excellent.

Quite distracting. Promise me you weren't wearing GRILLZ when you performed this original work....Ah, the visuals...

[Publius Hamilton]

Jess, I feel your pain. I have been, and will be, a steadfast supporter of George Bush. But his lack of public leadership on the war on terror and in Iraq is mind boggling. A Saturday morning radio address is not going to cut it. He needs to be having prime time television addresses to the nation, helping to rally and inspire us. I was hoping Tony Snow would make a difference but apparently not. Bush had a prime opportunity to address the nation after the latest terror arrests in Britain, but he laid low. He has another tonight if the Iranians reject our offer today.

Is this some election plan of Karl Rove to keep him under wraps and let the Democrats continue to self-destruct? A worthy goal, but not at the cost of allowing public morale to continue to slip. (Mea Culpa on the off topic comment)

[Alexandra]

Jess we miss you too...

[jess1dering]

My computer took a turn for the worse
and died.
I miss you guys.
Some days I come to the library to read you. While waiting I watch the dozen or so screens flash images of Barry Manilows fan club or Play-boy Bunny pics, or tetris games or " win a million dollars a day for life" contests being hungrily applied for..... Oblivious to it all..
Some days I listen to NPR and repeatedly have the wind knocked out of me by their portrayal of Israel..... Oblivious to the facts.
Some days, John, I want to BEG the president to talk directly to the people over and over again until they hear him despite the awful cacophony of lies drilled into the minds of the american people .
More and more though , as I see " The Father of all Lies" decieving so many, I want to fall on my knees, praying for the miracle that it will take for decency and truth to prevail.
Truly.....
AND
I really miss you guys.

[Ghost Dansing]

antimedia...not sure we were responding to the same post. Alexandra wasn't discussing Arafat, blood or pigs in her post. The final paragraphs were about:

"And let no one argue that Israel occupied Palestinian land, and as such, will always lack legitimacy as a nation, despite the fact, that such lands had been acquired legitimately, that Jerusalem had always been inhabited by a majority of Jews and that the entire region couldn't be anymore anyone's ancestral home as that of the sons of David, if ever there was such a notion."

"Do not forget that no such precedent can be claimed in the case of native Indians and other tribes in the Americas nor in the case of Aborigines in Australia. Lest you are prepared to hand back the Americas, Australia and African territories to its natives and tribal leaders, disbanding all nations on these continents; lest you be prepared to rewrite European and Asian history, nay, the history of mankind as a whole, do not allow yourself to fall for this hypocritical disguise, for it is nothing other than naked, ugly racism solely directed against the Jews. Nothing but bold-faced anti-Semitism."

I was saying that:

"The fact is, Native Americans, Aboriginals, Balkan sub-states, Former African Colonies, various and sundried ethnic groups, religions, political representations and Barbie look-alikes can, and do periodically claim for themselves geographic and economic re-distributions along lines of logic very similar to the inherent logic of Zionism."

"Actually, the problem is an infinite number of precedents can and do arise, and can be argued. However, I am not prepared to hand back anything to anybody, and would not recommend that extreme solution."

And, while some may disagree with Alexandra's comments from a racist point of view, I was not. I was pointing out that her argument was a problem, because it can be turned against you...like handing someone a stick to beat you with.

I later suggested that it is better to argue from the standpoint of "Israel as an established, Sovereign State...fait accompli", with a policy to expand its territory if further provoked into military action.

[antimedia]

Ghost writes

"... do not allow yourself to fall for this hypocritical disguise, for it is nothing other than naked, ugly racism solely directed against the Jews. Nothing but bold-faced anti-Semitism."

Possibly, but not necessarily.

Possibly? Call for the destruction of Israel and the death of all its people isn't racist? Arafat was the nephew of the "Muslim Furher", but he wasn't racist? Israelis are pigs who make matzah from the blood of Palestinian children isn't racist?

What exactly does it take for something to qualify as racism in your book if genocide doesn't raise the bar high enough?

[nofate]

The price for war with Israel is the expansion of Israeli territory...when war with Israel is no longer provoked, territory will no longer be expanded.
So you're saying that if the islamofascists disarm and stop aggressing on Israel, Israel will no longer aggress. But if Israel disarms, we can be darned sure they will all be dead. Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?
Because, as many of us realize, Islamists Are Acting According to an Ancient Script...the various jihadist groups base their war against non-Moslems on the Islamic sacred writings, particularly the Sira, which, unlike the Koran, tell the Prophet’s life in chronological sequence. Using Muhammed as their model, the jihadis live and think and act within paradigms provided by the stages of Muhammed’s political and military career...After this Islamic state is formed, the third paradigm kicks in. This is jihad, organized violence against non-Moslems for the purpose of building up the wealth and power of the Islamic community and bringing the world under a single Islamic state...there are three basic approaches to waging jihad, called collectively the Method of Muhammed...The Near Enemy is anyone inside Islamic lands, whether it is an occupier or someone who has taken away territory that used to be Islamic...The second method is to fight the Greater Unbelief—the major enemy, which today is the United States...The key point is that, while specific actions by the West might provoke the jihadis to greater attacks, their fundamental strategic and military decisions are not determined by anything done by the United States or Europe or by other major enemies of Islam such as the Hindus, but rather by which Method of Muhammed each jihadi faction follows, and each of these strategies has its own internal rationality, though it is not a rationality that makes sense in non-Islamic terms...What is most striking in the Method of Muhammed is the utter absence of any transcendent notion of morality. Unlike in traditional Western religion and philosophy, where God or the Good is the measure of human actions, in Islamism (which after all is simply a pure form of Islam) the measure of human actions is the shifting power tactics and military strategies of a desert brigand and war leader.
And as for "primordial legitimacy", I'm not sure where the pally's came from, but I am sure they were not the original owners of the area, at least not for the last 3,000 years or so. If I'm not mistaken, they didn't even exist at the time of Mohammed, who spent a large portion of his life leaving a legacy of death and destruction of the people that the palestinians are sworn to destroy, just as their inspirational leader did.

[John Werntz]

Where is Bush?

What is this stuff anyway? From MSNBC:

Bush said he was frustrated by the war at times.

"War is not a time of joy," he said. "These are challenging times, and they're difficult times, and they're straining the psyche of our country. I understand that. You know, nobody likes to see innocent people die. Nobody wants to turn on their TV on a daily basis and see havoc wrought by terrorists."

Is he doing some inept Slick Willie imitation?  "Ah fee-yul yo' pay-yun?"  Good grief! The only pain most mouth-breathing TV watchers feel in this war is boredom.  They're tired of seeing the same old scene of the wreckage of some car-bomb, and of hearing about casualties resulting from someone blowing up a mosque in the name of Allah.

Instead of moping around like a lost little boy, why doesn't he get out in front and show some leadership?  No wonder his ratings are lousy.

[Gang of One]

A Texan and a Mexican are talking politics, and the Texan finally says, "Look here, tell me somethin', amigo: how come it is that you Mexicans hate us gringos so much?"

The Mexican answers, "Well, señor, there are two reasons. In the first place, you stole half our country. And in the second place, you stole the half that has all the paved roads."

Kenny, I have heard a variation on this: when asked who Mexico's most reviled traitor is, the answer most Mexicans give is "Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana." When asked if this is because he permitted the USA to annex half of Mexico's territory, the answer they give is "no ... because he did not give it ALL away."
Go figure ...

[Ghost Dansing]

Thanks Sweety...your such a stud muffin.

Actually, I'm more interested in theosophical artifacts and anachronisms than Kant...but Categorical Imperative continues to be a commonly employed ideation of the lebenswelt.

[Kenny]

I might add one revealing bit of commentary from a good friend...she's now living in America with her Mexican-American husband, but her Jewish family is still in Nazareth, to which they fled from somewhere in Russia (Kate's one of the people with whom I practice my Russian), and they have spent the last few weeks very uncomfortably. With the 22nd coming up tomorrow and a small but real chance that a nuclear bomb is scheduled for detonation, I've been worrying about her family and other Israeli friends of mine. So I asked her if her family had given any thought to leaving Israel. The conversation went precisely this far:

ME: Have your mom and the rest of your family ever considered leaving Israel?

KATE [looking at me like I'm crazy]: Where would they go?

ME [feeling stupid]: Oh, right, I don't suppose the U.S. would give them a visa.

KATE [politely says nothing so as not to rub in the fact that I'm an idiot]

End of conversation.

[Kenny]

Ghost,

I don't know how far I go along with you, but I absolutely congratulate on having done two things that should go a long way to calming your critics:

1. That comment had no references to George Bush!

2. That comment included concrete, practical policy suggestions!

What's more, it made quite a bit of sense. I wouldn't bother with the categorical imperative, not being somebody who is in the slightest impressed with Kantian ethical analysis; but the regression argument is a very good one. There have to be statutes of limitations in international politics as well as in civil law, and for largely the same reason.

The regression argument could be expanded upon at great length, though I won't inflict that upon you. I think I said a while back on another thread that the thing about human beings is, even when something bad happens, they go to work making the best of it, and eventually the good consequences and the bad consequences get all mixed together to where you can't effectively sort them out and you just have to say, "It didn't get fixed back when it coulda been and maybe shoulda been, and so we just have to turn our backs on the past and move forward."

Right now, for example, the Palestinians want "their" land back. But "their" land is now land that has been tremendously improved by the labor and capital of two or three generations of Israelis. And the Palestinians don't want to pay for the capital improvements. Are the roads "theirs"? Are the irrigation systems "theirs"? Are the buildings and infrastructure "theirs"?

I've told this joke before but it seems à propos:

A Texan and a Mexican are talking politics, and the Texan finally says, "Look here, tell me somethin', amigo: how come it is that you Mexicans hate us gringos so much?"

The Mexican answers, "Well, señor, there are two reasons. In the first place, you stole half our country. And in the second place, you stole the half that has all the paved roads."

Enjoyed that comment, GD.

[Ghost Dansing]

"And let no one argue that Israel occupied Palestinian land, and as such, will always lack legitimacy as a nation, despite the fact, that such lands had been acquired legitimately, that Jerusalem had always been inhabited by a majority of Jews and that the entire region couldn't be anymore anyone's ancestral home as that of the sons of David, if ever there was such a notion."

Alexandra, I think you set yourself up and inadvertantly lend legitimacy to the Palestinian's argument that the "land is theirs..." based on some primordial legitimacy.

"Do not forget that no such precedent can be claimed in the case of native Indians and other tribes in the Americas nor in the case of Aborigines in Australia. Lest you are prepared to hand back the Americas, Australia and African territories to its natives and tribal leaders, disbanding all nations on these continents; lest you be prepared to rewrite European and Asian history, nay, the history of mankind as a whole,..."

Actually, the problem is an infinite number of precedents can and do arise, and can be argued. However, I am not prepared to hand back anything to anybody, and would not recommend that extreme solution.

"... do not allow yourself to fall for this hypocritical disguise, for it is nothing other than naked, ugly racism solely directed against the Jews. Nothing but bold-faced anti-Semitism."

Possibly, but not necessarily.

There are two things to note: Infinite Regress and Categorical Imperative

Infinite Regress:

The Regress Argument (also known as The Problem of Criterion and the diallelus) is a problem in epistemology and, in general, a problem in any situation where a statement has to be justified.

According to this argument, any proposition requires a justification. However, any justification itself requires support, since nothing is true “just because”. This means that any proposition whatsoever can be endlessly questioned, like a child who asks "why?" over and over again.

Categorical Imperative:

The categorical imperative is the philosophical concept central to the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant and to modern deontological ethics. He introduced the concept in his Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals.

Kant thought that human beings occupy a special place in creation. He also believed that morality can be summed up in one ultimate principle, from which all duties and obligations are derived. Kant defined an imperative as any proposition that declares a certain kind of action (or inaction) to be necessary. A hypothetical imperative would compel action under a particular circumstance: If I wish to satisfy my thirst, then I must drink this lemonade. A categorical imperative would denote an absolute, unconditional requirement that exerts its authority in all circumstances, and is both required and justified as an end in itself. It is best known in its first formulation:

Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law.

So...Zionism is an argument for right to return to an ancestral land from which one has been evicted at some point in history. The history of nations is indeed an infinite regression of human migration, displacement and establishment and re-establishment...true of Europe, and really, everyplace else including the Levant and greater Middle East.

There are some places where the status quo is finally accepted, borders are honored and at eventually we even end up with things like the "EU" and "United States"...not to mention nations representing myriad colonial artifacts.

Zionism has a pretty long history as an idea, in multiple venues, and for whatever reasons right or wrong ultimately produced a State called Israel in modern times.

It was an idea that had "traction" in its day...however, Zionism as a model cannot be applied as a categorical imperative, without the potential introduction of massive disruptions to the modern status quo.

The fact is, Native Americans, Aboriginals, Balkan sub-states, Former African Colonies, various and sundried ethnic groups, religions, political representations and Barbie look-alikes can, and do periodically claim for themselves geographic and economic re-distributions along lines of logic very similar to the inherent logic of Zionism.

To put forth the Zionist argument postulating Jewish rights of return to the Holy Land as the basis for the State of Israel simply opens-up the potential for infinitely regressive arguments where all concerned attempt to "trump" the others "right"... rather than simply recognizing the imminent fact that there IS a State of Israel that is not going to go away...regardless of how it was established orginally, and regardless of any other arguments intended to undermine its existence.

So Alexandra...all this "justification" stuff. Forget about it!

It just get's you into an infinitely regressing argument, and then you are left with a concept you can't apply as a categorical imperative!

Who the heck wants the Sioux to return to their native homeland just because the Jews did it?

No!

This is how Israel (and Alexandra) should argue, and everybody else can sing along!

"HO HO...HEY HEY...IS-RAY-EL IS HERE TO STAY!...IF YOU MAKE US FIGHT TODAY... WE WILL TAKE SOME LAND AWAY!"

(You guys can quote me on this...it's original but I haven't had a chance to copyright it!)

So, everybody sez: Hey Ghost...what's all this "HO HO...HEY HEY..." stuff?

Well, Israel wants things to be like Central Europe, for example...where all the borders are recognized, sovereignty is recognized, there's trade, there's peace...and there has been for some time (except for silly places like the Balkans that is still doing the "retro" thing).

But, it seems Israel's neighbors harbor "rejectionists"...those who don't recognize the State of Israel, and lust for its land and its demise.

What to do, what to do?

Israel should play the whole game...if its adversaries want to be "retro"; harking back to times as they were say in Europe, when there was constant fighting and each war brought new Nations and boundaries...so be it!

While you know that I don't think Israel can actually take and hold Lebanon long enough to evict hisballa...Israel can take and hold a "chunk" of Lebanon...say to some line that includes that beautiful Port of Tyre, and make the land its own.

While Israel cannot pursue unlimited military objectives...it can pursue limited military objectives when provoked, intended to capture and keep slices of prime territory that would make nice additions to the State of Israel.

And who could stop them?

And what an appropriate policy...Israel's adversaries want the status quo ante, as it was in the "good ole' days" when Nations were cobbled together from the wars of petty principalities...Israel can give it to them and do a little "cobbling" of its own!

The price for war with Israel is the expansion of Israeli territory...when war with Israel is no longer provoked, territory will no longer be expanded.

Totally unjustified...but I'll bet it could be remarkably effective.