UN's Fine Men Of Distinction

"Figure with Meat" by Francis Bacon 1954, Institute of Art in Chicago, Illinois

 

UPDATE: The New York Times features ATB on the Lakhdar Brahimi article page.

This won't take long. I will come right out and say it. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is definitely an anti-Zionist - my views on the UN's shameful record of deeply ingrained and widely spread, rabid anti-Semitism are of course well known.

He has to be if he choses special advisers like Lakhdar Brahimi, famous for his anti-Zionist views:

To state their beefs broadly, Brahimi's critics argue that he's an anti-Israel Arab nationalist and Saddam apologist. [...]

Brahimi told a French radio station last month, "There is no doubt that the great poison in the region is this Israeli policy of domination … as well as the perception of all of the population in the region, and beyond, of the injustice of this policy and the equally unjust support … of the United States for this policy." When asked by ABC News about his comments, Brahimi didn't back down, saying, "I think there is unanimity in the Arab world, and indeed in much of the rest of the world, that the Israeli policy is wrong, that the Israeli policy is brutal, repressive, and that they are not interested in peace no matter what you seem to believe in America."

He has to be when he praises Brahimi as "one of the finest mediators and negotiators the United Nations has been privileged to call one of its own", and when he proudly claims that Brahimi "is one of our leading global citizens, whose wise counsel I rely on".

Now why this sudden re-emerging interest in Lakhdar Brahimi? Read today's New York Times Op-Ed penned by Brahimi and you know.

Israel’s need for security is real and legitimate, but it will not be secured in any sustainable way at the expense of the equally real and legitimate needs and aspirations of its neighbors.

And we know what those aspirations are: The Annihilation of the State of Israel, no less.

I was shaking with fury after reading Brahimi's Op-Ed. All the talk of Lebanese and Palestinian suffering and hardship, half of which were Hezbollah fighters in civilian clothing anyway, but not one mention of a single Katushya rocket, filled with ball-bearings and other goodies so as to inflict maximum human carnage, all aimed exclusively at Israeli civilians.

Instead of spreading his thinly varnished anti-Zionist mantra, which, given the true intentions and aspirations of the Arab world, is really inseparable from anti-Semitism, Brahimi ought to take a leaf out of his own book and listen to his past pearls of wisdom:

"But you've got to understand what the other guy is about, even if at the end of the process you decide that there is no ground with this man or woman except to fight them."

Israel did listen and waited patiently for 6 years until Hezbollah walked the talk. Fight was the only option left. Israel just didn't do it hard enough this time round.

"I think a failed state is the responsibility of the people who have made that state fail, and those are generally the people of that country."

No truer words were ever spoken in relation to the Palestinian leadership since 1948.

"What again I tell my people is that no matter how much you know, it's never enough. You will always discover, after the fact, that you've missed something."

Israel just can't afford the luxury to await the atomic Holocaust to discover that after all they meant what they were saying for so many years.

"You are dealing with people who have taken the responsibility of killing their own because they think that they are right, they think that they are serving the interests of their people. They [are] not going to give that up easily, just because you've shown up."

So they don't do much listening do they? In fact, when Palestinians perish in an atomic Holocaust, they'll be celebrated as martyrs in the cause. And this man has the gall to condemn Israeli policy as brutal, repressive, and that she is not interested in peace "no matter what you seem to believe in America". Outrageous.

Instead, MAD - mutual assured destruction - deterrent doesn't work on the likes of Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad; especially not, when 'innocent' civilians of the Hezbollah kind pulled the trigger: Sorry, no return address, I'm afraid. But, Israel, please do continue to exercise utmost restraint.

This day must never come, this headline must never be printed. Period.

Comments

[Raimondo]

The UN has always been a corrupt organization. In Africa's poorest parts UN employees parade around in new vehicles and collect very good hard currency salaries, paid abroad. They are also housed very well. All this is OK, except for one simple fact, they aren't doing anything in exchange...When was the last time they solved, averted or even put a dent in a famine, or a conflict?

In Somalia they sent poor Pakistani, and Malasyan ill equipped troops to die. While their bureaucrats live in the world's wealthies cities and enjoy some of the best office spaces in the world + all kinds of benefits..chauffeurs, limos, etc...

The UN now has devolved even further into an organ for all the disenfrancised illegitimate regimes of the world to bully the rest of us. I'm at a loss to figure out who gains from the UN's existence, besides Kofi Annan, Brahimi and people of their ilk...Shut them down!

[saul davis]

Alexandra: Brahimi simply states publically the true Muslim view of Israel -- the very fact that they [including a UN diplomat no less !] acknowledges that they would even refuse to shake the hand of a Jew is quite telling; how can Israel negotiate with those who publicly seek its destruction? How many times do we have to see public demonstrations in numerous Muslim countries [including our so-called allies] where the masses scream "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" before we understand that the issue is not simply "resistance" or land for peace; but that is not all; it is only the proverbial tip of the iceburg; how many times is the US referred to as the "Great Satan" and how many times have Islamo-fascists repeatedly called for the destruction of the west, and the restoration of the Caliphate, before we are to understand that Brahimi is simply the symbol of the Jihadic call for the destruction of the west; Israel is simply the first step in their goal for world domination and universal Sharia; by getting the French and the EU to agree that Israel is a poison, the French and the EU simply become the Islamic fascists "useful idiots" in their first step towards world domination; if a fellow UN member is recognized as a poison, then how far down the line would those who agree with that statement be, before they assist in attempting to eradicate the prolem; Brahimi is simply a usefule tool of the Islamists' plans for the Caliphate; he is the fifth column point in the UN; he is not merely stating his own personal opinion -- he is much more; he is attempting to obtain the assistance of the "useful idiots" throughout the UN and the world to eliminate Israel [a particular thorn in the eyes of all muslims because Israel occupies what they view as their Holy Land]; he is only one of the many foot soldiers of Islam who are assisting the stated effort of the muslim brotherhood, AQ, Iran, etc. for world domination by Islam; he is using the Goebbel's Big Lie philosophy, and the UN and EU are simply dupes, who do not see his, and the Islamists' true aims; Israel is only the first step; we all must be concerned.

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

Geez gD

How do you "over-advocate" a military solution? It is an either/or, no?

And what if the military solution is all we have? Oh wait, you will play the Yeti card on the military solution. There must be another way, because, well, military solutions are the province of the militarists. But as usual, you provide no alternatives, you merely assert the existence of same, much like the elusive Yeti, sort of your very own Existence and Uniqueness Theorem.

And if we go to War, you can smile smugly to yourself, cross arms, and accuse everyone of "not exhausting all the options", "jumping to the military option", etc.

GD, people like you don't fare well in infantry platoons.

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

GD,

You claim that because SOME military actions have not solved all the problems that led to their being used, therefore NO military solution is ever possible to ANY problem.

Hizb'allah is a Shi'ite "Nazi" party. They provide schools, hospitals, and "social" programs. So did the Nazis. In fact they were elected to do just that. They were not elected to invade Poland. However they had a very public agenda, namely the formation of a 1000-year Reich, that would need to rid the world of the "International Jew".

My point is that in the 1930's, people like you dismissed that sort of talk as merely playing to the crowd, simply the pablum dished up to keep the Julius Streicher's in line. And you were oh-so in love with your diplomacy.

I'm not prepared to bet my life, and the future of my kids, that Hizb'allah isn't cut from the same cloth, or for that matter, their sponsors (and the real Imperialists) in Tehran. They talk the same talk, and they have just been allowed to profit from territorial aggression against a U.N. member state. And the conflict has been Hizb'allified from the getgo - photo-staging, lying about the casualties (all Hizb'allah members are civilians, GD, they have no military ID) and the U.N. sycophant-general accusing Israel of "disproportionate" waging of war. No U.N. investigation into the long litany of warcrimes by Hizb'allah, so FOAD, the U.N. has indeed been hijacked by Hizb'allah in this war.

So if you're so sure that the military solution (which seems to have been exactly what Nazi Germany needed) is not what's needed here, what IS your proposal? Oh, right, GD / Al Gore, you're pretty short on solutions, other than to sit in a big circle, get drunk, and blame all the world's problems on GWB. I forgot.

But I know this. If we are proven right (and I think we will be) then the military solution is gonna cost millions of dead, not a few more hundred. And I will personally blame you , and all those like you. Heck, as far as I'm concerned, I'll be happy to use you as cannon fodder at the front. You will have deserved no better. You can storm the enemy's dug-in machine gun emplacements, those you were so sure we would never have to face.

By the way, levelling Lebanon would crush Hizb'allah, (and kill a lot of Lebanese, which is what war is) and quite frankly, I don't give a damn whether the Arabs or the Persians like me, I want them to bugger off and leave us alone. If dead is the only way (short of surrender and conversion to Islam) to get them to do that, then dead it'll have to be.

And you DID call people who are finally driven to see no choice but the military option, "militarists".

[Ghost Dansing]

"Are you calling FDR a militarist?"

No, are you?

To use military force does not make one a militarist. To propose that military solutions are the only solutions at hand for every problem, and that every problem can be solved with sufficient application of military force is militarist.

To suggest that military might is the sine quo non of moral right, and should be excercised fully in all circumstances of conflict is militarism.

I would say authoritarian militarism in the form of fascism and monarchic imperialism is exactly what was defeated by the military actions of Liberal Democracies in WWII.

"Many national governments seemed unable adequately to respond; and, often with the improvident assent of the masses of the people themselves, new forms of government were set up with oligarchy taking the place of democracy. In oligarchies, militarism has leaped forward, while in those nations which have retained democracy militarism has waned."

Franklin Delano Roosevelt
State of the Union 1937

"...your support of the U.N. is precisely what undermines it, allowing non-state actors like Hizb'allah tp pretty much hijack first a country, then the international diplomatic process, and finally the world body itself. You seem pretty comfortable with accepting a group like Hizb'allah, simply because it is "popular"."

The UN "allows" no such thing, and I "accept" no such thing...and the international diplomatic process is far from being "hijacked" by hisballa.

The question is how do you solve the problem of hisballa in some way that doesn't involve leveling Lebanon...which seems to be your only offering.

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

GD

Are you calling FDR a militarist? He sure wasn't above levelling all of Japan to get the Japanese hardliners out of power. Your problem is this - you have no basis for saying there'd be more war and destruction without the U.N. In fact given the millions who perished in all the pretty much constant fighting around the globe since WWII, I think you once again peddle in lies.

And by the way, your support of the U.N. is precisely what undermines it, allowing non-state actors like Hizb'allah tp pretty much hijack first a country, then the international diplomatic process, and finally the world body itself. You seem pretty comfortable with accepting a group like Hizb'allah, simply because it is "popular".

OK, maybe we rightwingers have to stop blogging, and form our own version of "Hizb'allah". I like it, sort of a cross between Hizb'allah and the IRA. I would name it the "Western Ancestral Resistance Movement", or WARM for short.

Our mandate is to continue the armed struggle against Moslem settlers in the West, the Islamic occupation of our media, and the rampant anti-semitism of the Arabs and Mel Gibson. We announce enemy civilians are our exclusive target, and we eagerly await our chance to address the U.N., and to pick up our Nobel Peace prize for any of the hundreds of ceasefires we'll be agreeing to.

Geez, GD, sometimes I think you really do believe your own BS. Well I guess if you are Al Gore, that's no surprise then.

Marduk,

I hope you don't reside in the West. You might become a victim of Global WARM-ing.

[Marduk]

Here's the bottom line:

Israel's existence is illegal in the first place, Israel is unwelcomed where it is and it'll always remain as such...Israel is looked at as an raping occupation. Hezbollah and Hamas are a national resistance against that occupation of their OWN land. Ever seen 'Brave Heart'? It's exactly like that. I myself would do more than what Hamas and Hezbollah is doing these days if any [deleted by ATB] force tried to occupy the land and country I was born into.

[Ghost Dansing]

"What a COLLOSSAL waste of time, energy, and money. What an IMPEDIMENT to any meaningful progress on this planet. Perhaps the buck stoped with Harry Truman, but so should have this utopian pipe dream. Who was it that said that insanity was trying the same thing multiple times and expecting a different result? What a perfect description of the United Nations."

A popular Republican sentiment...especially with the "Bolton" crowd. However, if you don't give the world a place to sit down around the table and do diplomacy, global policy and international law, you end up with the status quo ante...

The idea of the League of Nations and the United Nations is rooted in other international failures of monumental proportions... certainly if "war" is failure...war would happen more frequently and more violently than it already does, if not for the UN.

Some around here do not consider "war" failure, however...and therein lies the friction.

We would call those who overly advocate and rely on military solutions "militarists"...it is an "ism" like many others...can be a complete ideology unto itself.

Militarism classically goes along with extremist political philosophies and governmental forms, such as Fascism and Communism...and Capitalism in its Colonialist manifestations.

Militarism does not fit well with Liberalism and the concepts of Liberal Democracy...while certainly not a "pacifist" modality, is inherently circumspect in the use of military force, and more sober in its estimation of potential advantages and chances for success.

Those of a militarist bent, around here, amongst other mistakes, continually make the mistake of assuming their military solutions will actually achieve their goal.

The problems in Lebanon are a case in point...those who are now chastising the Olmert government for insufficient use of violence are making the BIG assumption that aggressive military application would in fact be capable of rooting-out hisballa...or even disabling it.

I'm still trying to see who and where is going to "crush" hisballa by military force, short of leveling all of the Lebanon...but of course, for the true militarist, leveling all of Lebanon is acceptable...maybe that reflects the core difference in philosophies in the matter.

Modern Republicanism has a certain habit of thought in all affairs of public policy and law that I refer to as the "bridge" phenomenon.

One builds a bridge over a particularly treacherous gorge. Over time the inadequacies of the bridge become manifest...it falls into disrepair and has many structural problems that would have to be fixed.

Modern Republicanism focuses its energies on critiquing the bridge to the point it forgets about why the bridge was put in place originally...romanticizing about the days before there was this treacherous "bridge"...

So it is in modern Republican Foreign Policy (The UN) and Domestic Policy (Social Security). A kind of historical amnesia is nurtured, that ultimately allows modern Republicanism to claim "Government (itself) is the problem".

For those who wish to remember:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/resource/unhist/jinx1.htm

Could have come through anytime, Cold lonely, puritan What are you fighting for? Its not my security.

Its just an old war, Not even a cold war,

Dont say it in russian,

Dont say it in german.

Say it in broken english,

Lose your father, your husband,
Your mother, your children.
What are you dying for ?
Its not my reality.

Marianne Faithfull

[DiscerningTexan]

There is no greater waste of American Taxpayer dollars (or New York real estate for that matter) than the utterly archaic idea of the UN. If you want to make rational decisons about keeping the world safe for freedom, human rights, and the power of the individual to make his/her own path in life, the UN is the exact opposite of what you would do.

Let's crawl into Harry Truman's thought process: "hey, I know: why don't we put about a thousand self-important, corrupt, America-hating, for-sale-to-the-sleaziest-bidder representatives of dictatorships, mullahcracies, genocidal maniacs, marxists, and even a few token democracies in one room and get them to agree on....ANYTHING worthwhile. This will lead to world "Peace Love and Understanding" (oh wait, that was Elvis Costello...)--And while we are at it: let's give Joe Stalin a veto! He's only murdered 20 million... But since we gave him Eastern Europe I am sure he will just want to hold hands with us and sing Kum-Bah-Yah from now on. After all that League of Nations worked SO well... To pay for it we could just STEAL money out of every working American's paycheck and pay for about 25% of the whole thing. They'll never miss that money, after all it is OUR money, not theirs, and they won't care since we will have WORLD PEACE from now on...Yeah, that's the ticket..."

What a COLLOSSAL waste of time, energy, and money. What an IMPEDIMENT to any meaningful progress on this planet. Perhaps the buck stoped with Harry Truman, but so should have this utopian pipe dream. Who was it that said that insanity was trying the same thing multiple times and expecting a different result? What a perfect description of the United Nations.

[midwesterner]

What struck me about the Brahimi op-ed was that it gives advice to Israel that the Arab side would never take in a million years. Israel should engage Hizbollah, Israel should reach out, Israel should be tolerant. Does Mr Brahimi also advocate the abandonment of the Arab League boycott of Israel? Will Israel be permitted to take its seat in the UN's mideast regional conference? Are Iran, Pakistan, Libya, and Morocco (eg) going to peacefully engage Israel, with an eye towards normalizing Israel's behavior? Are Arabs going to give up their rabid anti-semitism? I thought not.

Mr Bhahimi ought to try his advice out on his own side.

[Ghost Dansing]

Thank God there is still a Liberal Press in America...The New York Times publishing Brahimi's article, and linking BLOGS that critique it. Great going ATB and NYT!

I looked around a little bit and it seems Brahimi is a "mixed bag" of ideas...he has roots in the anti-colonial struggle of Algeria against France, and views the world in anti-colonial terms.

He also is a practiced negotiator, and isn't afraid to "roll with the pigs in the mud"...specifically that translates into encouraging bad actors, like Afghani warlords and hisballa to "get with the political process" and become part of the legitimate government.

That point of view is being tried and challenged in Afghanistan, and it is Brahimi's prescription for hisballa in Lebanon...I'm sure he approves of the same process with HAMAS in Palestinian governance.

That is a dicey game, and we are witnessing with some chagrin the results of "democracy" delivering Islamic Extremists into governance, without renouncing arms or their core philosophy of extinguishing Israel.

Brahimi is not pro-Israel, and, as a diplomat and negotiator, his bias in that regard is noticable...like a large wart on the chin of an otherwise attractive countenance.

Brahimi's bias is not necessarily shared by Kofi Annan, and while probably shared by others in the UN...because it is made up of people, after all...is not easily demonstrable as a consistant policy...The UN has historically helped Israeli causes in a number of crucial resolutions through the years, and in so doing has added an even higher moral tone and authority to Israel's positions by codifying international concensus.

In fact, some of the recent developments such as Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, and the resolution to disarm hisballa are quite in alignment with Israeli goals in the region. The latter suffers mainly from an inability to implement rather than an anti-Israeli bias emanating from UN policy and proclamations.

Take a look at the sequence below...and note Annan's reaction to some revealing utterances in 2004...and also note who was supporting Brahimi at the time with respect to Iraqi governance...Brahimi, of course, made some astute observations on the conditions in Iraq that this Republican administration did not enjoy...and he did run afoul of Chalabi (which is a good and admirable thing in my opinion), however the "...Israel...poison..." remarks are paradoxical given his otherwise good acumen, diplomatic and negotiating skills.

April 23, 2004
Annan Distances Himself from Brahimi on Israel
REUTERS: Annan Distances Himself from Brahimi on Israel

"United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan distanced himself on Friday from comments by his special envoy [to Iraq] Lakhdar Brahimi, who said Israel's "poison in the region" was complicating his search for an Iraqi interim government."

"Mr. Brahimi was expressing his personal views," U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said in answer to questions. "The secretary-general's views, as expressed over the last seven years, do not contain the word poison."

Brahimi told France's Inter radio on Thursday that Israeli policies toward Palestinians and Washington support for them hindered his search for an interim Iraqi regime that can assume sovereignty when the U.S. occupation ends on June 30.

"The problems are linked, there is no doubt about it," Brahimi, a former Algerian foreign minister, said. "The big poison in the region is the Israeli policy of domination and the suffering imposed on the Palestinians."

Brahimi said his job was complicated by Iraqi perceptions of "Israel's completely violent and repressive security policy and determination to occupy more and more Palestinian territory."

Brahimi is a Sunni who, the Wall Street Journal reports, "ran the Arab League when it was cozy with Saddam Hussein."

While we were still fighting in Fallujah Brahimi took to the Arab airwaves to declare that "Collective punishments are not acceptable -- cannot be acceptable, and to cordon off and besiege a city is not acceptable."

Then we stopped fighting. Brace yourself. When asked what the transition government will look like on July 1st, President Bush said "That's going to be decided by Mr. Brahimi."

[rich]

The New York Times is out to destroy the State of Israel.

That is it plain and simple.

Israel is not politically correct and support of the State of Israel is even less so.

But then, America, lead by W. is not politically correct either.

Please do not purchase the New York Times.

[Rightwing guy]

There can be no peace as long as hezbollah is armed and is Iranian funded

[Alexandra]

P.S. Mind you, having just discovered that Brahimi had said that:

he is glad to have never “shaken the hand of a Jew”

perhaps I should revise accusing him of being simply anti-Zionist and call him an outright anti-Semite, and a rabid racist.

[Alexandra]

B.o.P.

Once again you, like so many others, are either mistaken into believing, or choose to believe the conceited notion that bringing forth any criticism toward the state of Israel is synonymous with Anti-Semitism

Er, no, my primary charge against Brahimi is that of 'anti-Zionism', not of anti-Semitism. Having said that, the more polished racist and anti-Semitic academics and intellectuals carefully camouflage their true xenophobia with quasi 'legitimate' criticism of the state of Israel.

All the more important to expose the racist heart and mind when revealed so blatantly as Brahimi has in today's New York Times Op-Ed. Not mentioning any suffering of innocent Jewish civilians throughout the murderous campaign by the Hezbollah thugs no longer qualifies for 'legitimate' criticism, political or otherwise. It simply unmasks the calculated intention to promote a genocidal organization as a legitimate political movement. Anyone with any sense of fairness and impartiality will see that.

To suggest that Israel has a right to exist, would be a Pro-Zionist position.

Yes, absolutely. So?!

You sir [madam], are a Zionist Supremacist, and a racist.

Actually you are misinformed in believing that Zionism is synonymous with 'supremacist' world views, i.e. advocating the supremacy of a particular group, esp. one determined by race or sex. Unless you believe in the myth of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the true definition of Zionism is far from being racist or 'supremacist':

Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, advocated, from its inception, tangible as well as spiritual aims. Jews of all persuasions, left and right, religious and secular, joined to form the Zionist movement and worked together toward these goals. Disagreements led to rifts, but ultimately, the common goal of a Jewish state in its ancient homeland was attained. The term "Zionism" was coined in 1890 by Nathan Birnbaum .

Far from wishing to 'dominate', Jews in 19th century Russia merely wished to survive following the endlessly re-occurring Pogroms. And having a Jewish state was the only way to ensure lasting security for all Jews against the age old hatred and envy to which they had been exposed since time immemorial in virtually all host countries.

As for the 'racist' charge in this context, well, if you consider the wish to have a 'homeland' of your own as 'racist', I guess we're all guilty of racism, myself as a patriotic Christian included.

[North by Northwest]

Congratulations Alexandra on making the pages of The New York Times. I just noticed your update that ATB has been featured on the Lakhdar Brahimi op-ed page being discussed here.

Mr.Bob it looks like you have your wish sooner than you thought.

[N.B. Goldstein]

I couldn't agree with you guys more. The U.N.-civilized Security Counsel has continuously condemned Israel for its policy of self defense, in a region of rabid Arabs out for Israeli blood. The U.N. won't last forever - a morally-corrupt institution can only survive so long in a world that is rapidly polarizing into the camps of Good and Evil. Great post!

[Mr Bob]

Well said, you should actually write the Times with a similar note. I doubt they will post it, but we must keep opposing views flowing in to the terrorists favorite newspaper.

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

B.o.P.

It is not the criticism of Israel that is per se racist. It is the tone of the criticism, and the criticism of no-one BUT Israel in the recent context, that is racist.

So to answer your question, if Nigeria were the only state the U.N. ever drafted resolutions condemning, and it was condemned precisely because it was a "negro" state then, yes, that criticism, and its persistence, would indeed be racist. Add to that criticism of every mistake its military ever made, while fighting people who do not observe ANY laws of warfare, and remaining silent on the abuses of civilians by its enemies, and you have a strong case for arresting people in the U.N., and charging them with aiding and abetting war crimes.

Here at ATB we're always happy to straighten you out, concerning the war criminals in the U.N. (not to mention the U.N.'s travelling paedophile roadshow...)

You're welcome, B.o.P.

[Balance of Power]

[Correction] I was not familiar with your blog until now. I just noticed you are not a "sir" but a "madame" - so please pardon the mistake. However do not let that error take away from my comments overall.

[Balance of Power]

Once again you, like so many others, are either mistaken into believing, or choose to believe the conceited notion that bringing forth any criticism toward the state of Israel is synonymous with Anti-Semitism. This is of course an error in logic used tactically to distract attention away from the real problem.

To suggest that Israel has a right to exist, would be a Pro-Zionist position.

You sir, are a Zionist Supremacist, and a racist.

Perhaps when you start valuing innocent Lebanese lives (as well as Palestinian) just as much as you value those of the Israeli people, perhaps then you will understand how misguided you are. Until then, please... by all means. Go ahead and prattle away in your Supremacist views that Israel and her government are above criticism.

Before I conclude, however, let me as you a simple question that extends from your so-called logic:

Would criticizing an African state such as Nigeria, be overtly racist?

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

Of course, I really pray Israel would get serious already, and fight to win.

She should announce that she is pulling out of the Geneva Conventions, and the U.N., and that that slobbering Jew-baiting war-criminal Annan can go f*** himself.

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

So, Alexandra, here is a question:

Why is Israel still a U.N. member? I can understand the U.S. not wanting to let her precious creation (the U.N.) die, but really what in the world has Israel actually gained by U.N. membership, other than "illegitimacy"?

Surely Israel would be better off walking her own path. I don't rightly know what the consequences to Israel would be if she pulled out, but can they be any worse than they are now? And if they CAN be worse, then I think we must prepare to evacuate Israel in the not-too-distant future. (At least then we could bomb the living daylights out of the enemy without fear of hitting our friends!)

I know, I know, how dare I suggest such a thing, curses and a thousand poxes be upon me, etc, but let's do a mind experiment: suppose the State of Israel were to be moved, lock, stock and barrel, after a suitable "scorched-earthing" of course.

What would Ahmadinejad have then? Missiles that can only reach Europe (like I care), and no proxy target for his proxy army. Yes he'd proclaim a great victory, but at that point he has to prepare for the invasion of the West, or shut the hell up, no?

When (not if) Iran goes nuclear, I think Israel will have no choice but evacuation. Unless she's prepared to declare that she is not like other democracies, and is quite comfortable with blasting millions (not thousands) of little Arab cherubs to the Hereafter...