Welcome To The Middle East, Israel

"Maquette de décor pour 'Labyrinth' " by Salvador Dali 1941, Private Collection, Spain

 

'Welcome to the Middle East, Israel' as a heading introduces us to the notion that Israel has finally understood the rules of the game

Instead of abductions working against Israel, to the extent of extorting an entire country, abductions now work against abductors and their countries.

In a world where Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad and his lackey Assad dream of a "Middle East in which leading pro-US Arab states such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are weakened and Iran becomes the new regional superpower. The destruction of Israel is part of the dream, which is shared by Syria.

Iran is working hard to realize Ahmadinejad's dream, destabilizing the "Shi'ite Crescent" stretching from Iran to Iraq to Syria; and from Syria to Lebanon, where the Shi'ites are the largest minority."

President Bush understands this reality and his Administration fortunately realizes that our security is inextricably linked with that of Iraq and Israel. Never have the words 'We must win this war against the axis of evil' rang more true and have been confirmed, as during these days of bloodshed in Iraq as well as in Lebanon and northern Israel.

So how does the war against Hezbollah differ from others?

Well, this is the first time Israel has began speaking the "Middle East" language. After 60 years the Israel Defense Force has finally began to understand the rules of the region.

This is occurring to the astonishment of our enemies, who are used to seeing Israel stutter in a foreign language, detached from the region. And this is enough to change the Middle East, as the prime minister rightly said.

In the Middle East the stronger party is not attacked but rather the weaker one is, particularly when it is unprepared. Israel attacked the Hizbullah unprepared for the campaign. [...]

Civilians have never played a role in the Middle East. In the Iran-Iraq war thousands were killed, without it bothering one side or another.

The Spiegel explains in more detail how "the late King of Jordan had no qualms about using his might to put down a Palestinian uprising during "Black September" in 1970. He ordered refugee camps to be bombed. Between 3,000 and 5,000 people died. The PLO then moved its headquarters to Lebanon. Arafat moved to Cairo and later to Tunis.

Former Syrian President Hafis al-Assad, the father of Syria's present ruler, pulled no punches in fighting insurgent members of the Muslim Brotherhood. He devastated the city of Hama in February 1982, killing between 10,000 and 30,000 civilians. No one accused him of "genocide" -- and if someone had, al-Assad would have asked his critics not to meddle in the domestic affairs of his country.

Which highlights yet again the double standards applied to Israel, despite the fact that she in contrast to her Arab neighbors, is not ignoring the moral obstacle, which was cynically taken advantage of by the opposite side: hiding behind its civilians as Hezbollah did in the village of Qana in south Lebanon. But this time fair warning and precision guided missiles are the limit to her forbearance. Beyond that Israel is this time not prepared to compromise.

The IDF's hands are now free to destroy the Hizbullah, which to the organization's astonishment has remained exposed, devoid of its women and children behind whom they seek shelter.

To continue with The Spiegel, adding another perspective; succinctly but rather vividly

Of course it would have been better to disarm Hezbollah when it was still possible to do so relatively easily. But such a decision would have been difficult to justify within Israel -- and it would have caused the world to brand Israel as an aggressor. And so UN Resolution 1559 vanished into the mists of history, and the Israelis -- who can only think and plan in the short term -- said to themselves: "Ichije tov" -- "It'll work out somehow."

And since they didn't commit the necessary atrocities straight away, they're now paying twice the cost. They're fighting an enemy they underestimated and they're being pilloried as aggressors.

You'd think Hezbollah was a group of children who had been playing with matches in the barn -- and that the Israelis insanely stoked the fire until the whole farm burned down. That kind of view is widespread in Germany. This is a nation where people will seriously debate whether a civilian airplane hijacked by terrorists should be pre-emptively shot down. But Israel is supposed to wait for Hezbollah to fire its rockets and then go complain to Kofi Annan.

And given the UN's increasingly virulent anti-Zionist stand, blaming Israel for having effectively 'created' Islamofascist sentiments throughout the region as well as the world as a whole, whilst in reality merely defending itself against age-old and never abating Arab anti-Semitism and military aggressions ever since her inception, I fear that the UN's hitherto implied 'solution' to sacrifice the State of Israel for the sake of world peace will eventually be sanitized as an issue warranting a 'legitimate debate', as an unfortunate choice of a lesser evil

In order to eliminate the fuel of Islamic fundamentalism, the West would have to abandon Israel.

The justification to preserve world peace would coincide with Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad's dream of a world without Zionism, albeit it'll be expressed with assurances of utmost regret and heart-wrenching reluctance. "Even if Israel were to succeed in defeating Hezbollah and Hamas tomorrow -- the day after tomorrow there would be new groups with different names, ready to continue the struggle against the omnipotence of the Washington-Jerusalem axis."

That is why we must unmask and resist such despicable hypocrisy wherever we find it, with its inherent genocidal tendencies, and whenever the appeals to respect international law and the rules of the game are solely directed at Israel, and never at those who believe that all means are justified in the struggle against her.

Comments

[weekenderman]

Ghost: "Manslaughter" is actually the most lenient term that can be used to describe what happened at the Dyke Bridge on Chappaquidick Island on July 18, even if we take into account only what Senator Kennedy consented to confess.

Knowingly and willingly leaving a human being, who might have been rescued, to die a slow and tortured death would be considered by many to be, morally if not legally, downright murder.

Although a young woman had lost her life in most mysterious circumstances that night, the Massachusetts police and judicial authorities during all the following months did not find it necessary to subject the person directly responsible for the event (or those who could have given important information about it) to any form of legal interrogation.

And the secret proceeding that was initiated after this long delay a joke.

[Saul Davis]

PS: When I said: "This article really has very little if anything to do with the President's actions in Iraq, or elsewhere," I was referring to the manner in which the War was being conducted, and the criticisms of GD; I recognize that Alexandra's article, and the article in Der Spiegel, related to the war in Iraq; but those discussions, I believe, related to Iraq as one element in the GWOT, and the necessity to succeed in order to win the GWOT, just as the ability of Israel to defend itself against terrorist actions is another key element in the GWOT. The criticism of the President regarding that War either miss the essence of the articles, or are ad hominem.

[Saul Davis]

Ghost: My apologies, but I will break my rule of not responding to your comments (which I admit I have broken on a few occasions in the past), because I believe I have now begun to recognize a truly unique talent of yours that I may have missed until now -- not really, but it now deserves comment. My compliments on your unique ability to go off topic and revert virtually every discussion of Alexandra's articles back to an attack on the President; that is a unique ability, and demonstrates a hyper level of BDS. This article really has very little if anything to do with the President's actions in Iraq, or elsewhere, other than his willingness to allow Israel to defend itself against extreme terrorist action that no civilized nation would tolerate. If an award would be given for BDS, I would nominate you for the Gold Medal in that category.

For those of us who would like to remain on topic, please read Mr. Steyn's usually insightful comments on this topic.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn06.html

He is on the point in every sense of the word. Alexandra is quite "liberal" (Alexandra, no insult intended -- this is the generic use of the term) in allowing comments, even for those who wish to drag the comments off topic. My personal recommendation is that we not respond, and that we remain on topic.

[Ghost Dansing]

You think he murdered Mary Jo? How come?

[weekenderman]

Drunkeness is not Kennedy's only problem, Ghost. I'm sure in the back of his mind he's also remembering that there's no statute of limitations for murder, so he's got to be over-the-top in all his other assertions in the hope that people forget about his past.

[Gjost Djansing]

"No, I'm not conceding anything like that, Ghost. What I am saying is that someone who is a known drunk and has proven to be a lier and cheater cannot be trusted with the facts. Teddy Kennedy has a distorted view of the world, and it's all on the record for those who care to listen."

Of course not, because you are simply throwing a red herring into the discusion of Dubya's demonstrated incompetence by referring to an incident that happened several decades ago...and about which you trully have NO facts...only strident assertions and inuendo...as it has always been with the Chappaquidick issue.

Ted Kennedy's view of the world is just fine, and seems to be in alignment with the world view of many true conservatives (as opposed to this extremist mess that brought this Republican administration to power).

I have demonstrated that, and can do some more.

You haven't proven to me, or anybody else that Ted Kennedy is a liar, or a cheater or anything else.

Meanwhile, over 2500 American troops are dead because Dubya has incompetently led "the charge" in the wrong direction...but the "true believers" seem to be OK with that.

And you want to talk about drunks...geez...

[weekenderman]

So, what you're saying is that even a drunk with a bad reputation could see this Republican administration's incompetent handling of the war on terror through fogged and blood-shot eyes?

No, I'm not conceding anything like that, Ghost. What I am saying is that someone who is a known drunk and has proven to be a lier and cheater cannot be trusted with the facts. Teddy Kennedy has a distorted view of the world, and it's all on the record for those who care to listen.

[weekenderman]

Ideological inbreeding has the same deleterious effects as genetic inbreeding.

Yes, and that's why we haven't seen a sober non-womanizing Kennedy since JFK.

Oh yeah, not even him.

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

Ghost

Chappaquiddick speaks to Kennedy's moral character. If GWB had had a "Chappaquiddick" in his past, you'd never, ever let it die. Oh, wait, CBS tried for just that, and all they got was this lousy ANG memo...

And Ghost, it ain't ad hominem if it's (1) true, and (2) relevant to a discussion about mental competence.

[Ghost Dansing]

So, what you're saying is that even a drunk with a bad reputation could see this Republican administration's incompetent handling of the war on terror through fogged and blood-shot eyes?

I agree.

But then, if ad hominem character assassination against a long-term Senator, was returned to office by his constituency time and time again over decades, is all you can offer as evidence his remarks should be dismissed...well...just sayin'...you're obviously right and everybody else is wrong.

So...the original point was that even the "arch-liberal" Teddy Kennedy was quite "onboard" with the war on terror...pointing out the incompetent prosecution of that war by this Republican administration is quite a different matter.

So, since we don't like "Liberals" (they still haven't a clue about what Liberism is...ALL real Americans are Liberal) observing the obvious, let's see what some commie U.S. Generals had to say about this whole thing a few years ago:

Lt. Gen. William Odom Director of the National Security Agency, 1985-88

It's a huge strategic disaster, and it will only get worse. The sooner we leave, the less the damage. In the months since the invasion, the U.S. forces have become involved in trying to repress a number of insurgency movements. This is the way we were fighting in Vietnam, and if we keep on fighting this way, this one is going to go on a long time too. The idea of creating a constitutional state in a short amount of time is a joke. It will take ten to fifteen years, and that is if we want to kill ten percent of the population.

Gen. Merrill 'Tony' McPeak Air Force Chief of Staff, 1990-94

We have a force in Iraq that's much too small to stabilize the situation. It's about half the size, or maybe even a third, of what we need. As a consequence, the insurgency seems to be gathering momentum. We are losing people at a fairly steady rate of about two a day; wounded, about four or five times that, and perhaps half of these wounds are very serious. And we are also sustaining gunshot wounds, when, before, we'd mostly been seeing massive trauma from remotely detonated charges. This means the other side is standing and fighting in a way that describes a more dangerous phase of the conflict.

The people in control in the Pentagon and the White House live in a fantasy world. They actually thought everyone would just line up and vote for a new democracy and you would have a sort of Denmark with oil. I blame Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the people behind him -- Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary Douglas Feith. The vice president himself should probably be included; certainly his wife. These so-called neocons: These people have no real experience in life. They are utopian thinkers, idealists, very smart, and they have the courage of their convictions, so it makes them doubly dangerous.

The parallels between Iraq and Vietnam have been overblown (of course he was saying this a few years ago), because we were in Vietnam for a decade and it cost us 58,000 troops. We've been in Iraq for nineteen months and we're still under 1,200 killed. But there is one sense in which the parallel with Vietnam is valid. The American people were told that to win the Cold War we had to win Vietnam. But we now know that Vietnam was not only a diversion from winning the Cold War but probably delayed our winning it and made it cost more to win. Iraq is a diversion to the war on terror in exactly the same way Vietnam was a diversion to the Cold War.

And there is plenty more...bad news doesn't get better with age, and Chappaquiddick doesn't have anything to do with it. That is what is called "irrelevant".

Ideological inbreeding has the same deleterious effects as genetic inbreeding.

[Alexandra]

Barry,

I started to respond to your comment in agreement, and ended up writing a whole post...

[Barry Meislin]

In order to eliminate the fuel of Islamic fundamentalism, the West would have to abandon Israel.

Sort of reminds me of that other thoughtful sentiment expressed about 70 years ago:

In order to eliminate the fuel of Nazi ambition, the West would have to abandon the Jews.

[weekenderman]

Jess: Many of us here are left to assume that RL has emotional issues, which would explain his seemingly bi-polar tendencies.

He seems to have at least a little knowledge of military terms, so maybe he's a veteran who was harmed in a conflict? So far he hasn't answered any questions or given any other hints about his background or personal life, so we're left to wonder. Maybe he's just a troll who is purposely trying to make believers in Jesus Christ look bad?

Whatever the reason, I agree with you that his behavior does reflect very poorly on the Body of Christ.

[jess1dering]

Thanks, John. That was thooughtful of you. I look forward to checking those sites out.

************************************************

I, unfortunately, did see RL's comment. It was vile.
How can a comment like that and a comment like Jesus is Lord proceed forth from the same mind?
Could someone PLEASE explain that to me ?
It sure does make Jesus look bad.

[John Werntz]

Jess1dering [Sat, 8-5, 12:33 AM]:

Oh, I forgot. And thank you, Jess, for your kind words of welcome. I'll do my best not to abuse it.

[John Werntz]

jess1dering:

Off topic here--apologies--but on Thursday 8-3 at 10:29 PM you asked about the availability of a database dealing with law.  There are many.  In particular, Lawcrawler is a meta-database that has links to sites specializing in Federal law, State law, precedents, various areas of law practice, etc.  These sites are chockablock with what the pros call "terms of art," hence they are difficult for the layman.  Even so, as a total ignoramus in the law, I can assure you that the layman can learn a lot by perusing such sources. 

If you''re interested, have a look at Orin Kerr's Guide to New Law Students, called "How to read a decision."  This is an indispensable crutch for any poor soul trying to dope out "Hey, what did De Jedge say in this opinion?  Good hunting, Jess.

[weekenderman]

The last thing I remember Teddy nailing was a young lady in Chappaquiddick on July 19, 1969, Ghost.

Lest we ever forget . . .

[Ghost Dansing]

Looks like Teddy nailed this one...drunk or not.

[weekenderman]

As I've stated before, I never had a problem with the displaying of the banner that read "Mission Accomplished" that day (though it's important to rememeber that banner was NOT requested by the White House).

At the time, it was an appropriate way to announce to the world the overthrow of Saddam Hussein -- one of the primary stated reasons we had for invading Iraq. The banner was NOT meant to announce that our entire mission in Iraq had been accomplished -- otherwise, why wouldn't our troops have returned home right after the President's speech on the carrier?

By the way, to put forth Teddy (Bare) Kennedy as a messianic prophet on this matter (or any other) is laughable on many levels. That guy can't even find his car after a visit to the pub, much less a solution to any so-called quagmire in the ME.

[RL]

worldmagblog.com
thedefendersusa.org

God bless you Alexandra, and God bless America.
Amen. Jesus is Lord

"America the Beautiful" Ray Charles

(check-out the nice slide-show by this title at, youtube.com Thank You)

"The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten." Calvin Coolidge

SEMPER FI

[Ghost Dansing]

Oh, Democrats support the President in the War on Terrorism...we would just like him to prosecute his wars competently.

Ted Kennedy said in 2003 the focus on Iraq has drawn the nation's attention away from more direct threats, including al Qaeda, instability in Afghanistan or the nuclear ambitions of North Korea.

"I think all of those pose a threat to the security of the people of Massachusetts much more than the threat from Iraq," Kennedy said. "Terror has been put on the sidelines for the last 12 months."

"Nearly six months have elapsed since President Bush flew out to the aircraft carrier and declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. Today, we all know all too well that the war is not over; the war goes on; the mission is not accomplished. An unnecessary war, based on unreliable and inaccurate intelligence, has not brought an end to danger. Instead, it has brought new dangers, imposed new costs, and taken more and more American lives each week."

"We all agree that Saddam Hussein was a murderous tyrant, and his brutal regime was an affront to basic human decency. But Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorism. Our invasion has made it one."

US Senator Ted Kennedy
Senate Floor Remarks
October 16, 2003

"No one disputes that America has lasting and important interests in the Persian Gulf, or that Iraq poses a significant challenge to U.S. interests. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."

"How can we best achieve this objective in a way that minimizes the risks to our country? How can we ignore the danger to our young men and women in uniform, to our ally Israel, to regional stability, the international community, and victory against terrorism?"

"There is clearly a threat from Iraq, and there is clearly a danger, but the Administration has not made a convincing case that we face such an imminent threat to our national security that a unilateral, pre-emptive American strike and an immediate war are necessary."

"Nor has the Administration laid out the cost in blood and treasure of this operation."

"With all the talk of war, the Administration has not explicitly acknowledged, let alone explained to the American people, the immense post-war commitment that will be required to create a stable Iraq."

"The President's challenge to the United Nations requires a renewed effort to enforce the will of the international community to disarm Saddam. Resorting to war is not America's only or best course at this juncture. There are realistic alternatives between doing nothing and declaring unilateral or immediate war. War should be a last resort, not the first response. Let us follow that course, and the world will be with us – even if, in the end, we have to move to the ultimate sanction of armed conflict."

"The Bush Administration says America can fight a war in Iraq without undermining our most pressing national security priority -- the war against Al Qaeda. But I believe it is inevitable that a war in Iraq without serious international support will weaken our effort to ensure that Al Qaeda terrorists can never, never, never threaten American lives again."

"General Hoar advised the Committee on September 23 that America's first and primary effort should be to defeat Al Qaeda. In a September 10th article, General Clark wrote: "Unilateral U.S. action today would disrupt the war against Al Qaeda." We ignore such wisdom and advice from many of the best of our military at our own peril."

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. Our intelligence community is also deeply concerned about the acquisition of such weapons by Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria and other nations. But information from the intelligence community over the past six months does not point to Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States or a major proliferator of weapons of mass destruction."

US Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
Friday, September 27, 2002

But Dubya is going to capture Baghdad any day now, and there are only a few chunks of Afghanistan back in the hands of the taliban.

BAGHDAD, Aug. 4, 2006 -- Thousands of Shiite Muslims marched though the Iraqi capital on Friday in support of Hezbollah guerrillas battling Israeli forces in Lebanon, answering a call by radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr to rally to the cause of their fellow Shiites.

Throngs of Shiite men, most clad in white burial shrouds that symbolized their willingness to die, gathered in the northeast Baghdad slum known as Sadr City. Then they marched toward the center of the capital, chanting: "We will step over America. We are Hezbollah" and "How can we sleep tonight? We have a quarrel with Israel."

Hey Dubya! You Go Girl!

[weekenderman]

Senator Feingold may support the right of Israel to exist and defend herself against attacks by Hezbollah, but by sympathizing with the militants who run Palestine and by saying that Israel's new wall should be torn down once "peace" is established" he shows he's extremely naive about the reality of never-ending Islamofascist hatred in the Middle East.

Because doesn't support our President in the war against terror, Feingold needs the door to hit him on the way out. He's trying to be like Hillary and have it both ways.

[Jay lessing]

Someone here wondered how Jews would vote in November,I can't speak for all the Jews but I will vote Democrat. So will most of the Jews I know. The UN has not been sympathetic to Israel since the USSR gave up on having Israel in its sphere of influence. I don't see this issue breaking along traditional left/right ideological lines. My Senator is Russ Feingold,perhaps the most liberal man in the senate and he supports Israel in this struggle. Chuck Hagel is a conservative Republican and he has called for a cease fire-go figure. If the Hezbollah get a cease fire now they will use it rearm and regroup. The ap reports that they are asking Iran for SAMS,lets hope Israel can push them back before they can deploy them.

[Ghost Dansing]

"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."

Zionist thought has many 19th Century parallels...it is essentially colonialist in nature, and became a European colonial solution to rampant and chronic anti-semitism. Zionism was and is very complex...and was never a completely accepted (by Jews) or homogenous idea...it meant different things to different people and had different purposes.

For a pretty interesting history see:

http://www.mideastweb.org/zionism.htm

Also, note the issue of "Christian Zionism":

Christian Zionism is the belief among some Christians that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, is in accordance with Biblical prophecy, and is a necessary prerequisite for the return of Jesus to reign on Earth. This belief is commonly, though not exclusively, associated with a portion of evangelical Protestants, mainly in English-speaking countries outside Europe.

This belief is distinct from the general political belief that the Jews have a right to a national homeland in Israel (see Zionism). Christian Zionism, as a specifically theological belief, does not necessarily entail sympathy for the Jews as an ethnicity or for Judaism as a religion. Since the biblical text is filled with references to Israel, it is common for Christian Zionists to emphasize the Jewish roots of Christianity, and even to promote Jewish practices and Hebrew terminology as part of their own practice; however, Christian Zionists commonly believe that to fulfill prophecy, a significant number of Jews will accept Jesus as their Messiah, and that in the last days, such Messianic Jews will practice a thoroughly Hebraic form of Christianity.

Many Christian Zionists believe that the people of Israel remain part of the chosen people of God, along with ingrafted gentile Christians. This has the added effect of turning Christian Zionists into supporters of Zionism, whilst providing one factor in an emerging sense of animosity towards Muslims in Western society.

Similar to Zionism as a 19th Century political solution that sprung from the loins of colonialist thought, ideas like "manifest destiny" have had considerable impact on history...see the similarities as a "justification" in the minds of the American people within that zeitgeist:

"Manifest Destiny is a phrase that expressed the belief that the United States had a mission to expand, spreading its form of democracy and freedom. Advocates of Manifest Destiny believed that expansion was not only good, but that it was obvious ("manifest") and inevitable ("destiny"). Originally a political catch phrase of the 19th century, "Manifest Destiny" eventually became a standard historical term, often used as a synonym for the territorial expansion of the United States across North America towards the Pacific Ocean."

"Manifest Destiny was always a general notion rather than a specific policy. The term combined a belief in expansionism with other popular ideas of the era, including American exceptionalism, Romantic nationalism, and a belief in the natural superiority of what was then called the "Anglo-Saxon race" (referring to white Americans and Britons). While many writers focus primarily upon American expansionism when discussing Manifest Destiny, others see in the term a broader expression of a belief in America's "mission" in the world, which has meant different things to different people over the years."

"The phrase "Manifest Destiny" was first used primarily by Jackson Democrats in the 1840s to promote the annexation of much of what is now the Western United States (the Oregon Territory, the Texas Annexation, and the Mexican Cession). The term was revived in the 1890s, this time with Republican supporters, as a theoretical justification for U.S. expansion outside of North America. The term fell out of usage by U.S. policy makers early in the 20th century, but some commentators believe that aspects of Manifest Destiny, particularly the belief in an American "mission" to promote and defend democracy throughout the world, continued to have an influence on American political ideology."

However, the seeds of "manifest destiny" were sewn very early in American colonialization...this I found particularly fascinating:

"We shall be as a City upon a Hill, the eyes of all people are upon us...," the Puritan John Winthrop wrote. The Puritans who disembarked in Massachusetts in 1620 believed they were establishing the New Israel. Indeed, the whole colonial enterprise was believed to have been guided by God. "God hath opened this passage unto us," Alexander Whitaker preached from Virginia in 1613, "and led us by the hand unto this work."

"Promised Land imagery figured prominently in shaping English colonial thought. The pilgrims identified themselves with the ancient Hebrews. They viewed the New World as the New Canaan. They were God's chosen people headed for the Promised Land. Other colonists believed they, too, had been divinely called. The settlers in Virginia were, John Rolf said, "a peculiar people, marked and chosen by the finger of God.""

The sense of divine election and the identification of the Americas with ancient Canaan were used to justify expelling America's Indigenous Peoples from their land. The colonists saw themselves as confronting "satanic forces" in the Native Americans. They were Canaanites to be destroyed or thrown out.

"Since the Europeans arrived in North America, Indigenous Peoples have lost millions of acres of land. Theft, murder and warfare, forced removal, deception, and official government land programs have deprived them of their territories. Land rights of Native Americans were never taken seriously. Rather, they were seen as obstacles to the colonists' need for land. The Puritans did not respect the farms of Native Americans. They sought "legal" ways to get their land. If a Native Americans broke one of the rigid Puritan religious laws, the fine was paid by giving up land. In this manner, some Puritans were able to amass large landholdings through the Massachusetts courts. John Winthrop, for example, obtained some 1,260 acres along the Concord River."

"Native Americans had a very different idea about land. "Originally there were no lands owned by individual Indians. All land was held in tribal status, and its tribal governing body, the council, or headmen would allot pieces of land for each family to use...". The Pilgrim idea of land was based on individual, private holdings. How ironic for a people who modeled themselves on ancient Israel! Ancient Israel's understanding of the land and its distribution was more like the Native-American idea of land than their own. That was overlooked by the Pilgrims!

Some references:

God's New Israel: Religious Interpretations of American Destiny (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1971). The quotations are from this book: Winthrop p. 43; Whitaker p. 33; Rolf p. 26; Langdon p. 99 ; Stiles p. 88; and Jefferson p. 65. The information about the Great Seal is found on p. 65. See also, Joseph Gaer and Ben Siegal, The Puritan Heritage: American Roots in the Bible (New York: A Mentor Book/The New American Library, 1964).

The Conquest of America: How The Indian Nations Lost Their Continent (New York:Monthly Review Press, 1993), p. 69.

One Hundred Million Acres (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1973), p. 14.

Then there is Australia:

"Contact with British settlers, beginning in 1788, initially led to economic marginalization, a loss of political autonomy, and death by disease. So-called pacification by force culminated in the late 1880s, leading to a massive depopulation and extinction for some groups. By the 1940s almost all aborigines were missionized and assimilated into rural and urban Australian society as low-paid laborers with limited rights; many aborigine children were taken from their natural parents and given to foster parents to promote assimilation."

"In 1976 and 1993 the Australian government enacted land-rights legislation that has returned to the aborigines a degree of autonomy, and court decisions in 1992 and 1996 recognized aboriginal property rights. The recent increase in aboriginal population reflects improved living conditions and a broad and inclusive definition of aboriginal identity on the part of the government. Their average standard of living and life expectancy, however, are not comparable with that of most Australians. In 1999 the Australian government issued an official expression of regret for past mistreatment of aborigines, but has opposed issuing the formal national apology sought by aborigine leaders, fearing that would encourage claims for compensation."

And let's not forget the history of the American Colonization Society...who perceived a Zionism-like solution to the inequities of practicing slavery:

"The American Colonization Society, founded in 1816 to assist free black people in emigrating to Africa, was the brainchild of the Reverend Robert Finley, a Presbyterian minister from Basking Ridge, New Jersey. Finley believed that blacks would never be fully integrated into American society and that they would only be able to fulfill their potential as human beings in Africa, the "land of their fathers." He saw colonization as a charitable work, one that would benefit American blacks and Africans alike through the spreading of Christianity to Africa. He also thought that it would prompt a gradual end to slavery."

"In keeping with the popular thought of the day, Finley saw the presence of blacks in America as a threat to the national well-being and the quality of life for whites. He said that free blacks were "unfavorable to our industry and morals" and that removing them would save Americans from difficulties such as interracial marriage and having to provide for poor blacks."

[Ghost Dansing]

Well...given the results of Dubya's foreign policy, you'd think that he amahinijad's drinking buddy...as Kenny would say: "Just Sayin'"

[Michael van der Galien]

Alexandra,

It seems that RL left a comment in which he or she greatly insulted, probably, me. Because you have taken it off, I can, sadly, not read it myself since I would greatly enjoy reading what a rapid anti-semite who probably has pictures of Hitler hanging in his / her bedroom, has to say about me.

But, of course, it is your website and as such, I respect your decision.

RL, you must seek help immediately. I fear that you are a danger to others and to yourself.

[liquid]

[Sorry Liquid, I sincerely apologize that comment stayed even for a minute longer. I was not there..It's deleted now ]
-------------------------------------

By no means do you owe me an apology sweetie! It's a Saturday and you, like everyone else deserves to walk away from your blog and enjoy your time with your family and to get a fresh breath of "weekend rejuvination" without worrying that a regular poster here will take advantage of it and continue to spam your blog with everything hateful for Israel or leave perverted comments.

I just chose to not add anything at the time because "my reactionary side" was about to show it's ugly head! Ha Ha

You know...its just that it's like when you talk to someone that talks in circles about Evolution and they continue to quote Darwin over and over and yet when it comes to the subject of war and survival...the Darwin quote of 'Survival of the fittest' is suddenly not allowed!

I really do think that these are times that "test the soul" and it's amazing how when we move from one topic to another how quickly it can expose just whose side each of us are on! Some must realise that when you try to have one leg in one camp and the other in the enemies camp that eventually you are going to start feeling the "wishbone tug" ---there will come a time that one will choose under that painful force and the agonizing vociferation will always expose which way you lean.

[Alexandra]

I apologize everyone, I was not there to see it. I have deleted RL's comment and given him a final warning. Again, I am really sorry. I would not be this tolerant, but he has been commenting on this blog for a long time, and has never been despicably and disgustingly rude, as he has been now. I have however now made it perfectly clear that I have had enough, and will not tolerate even the slightest disruption again.

By the way RL,

The definition of Zionist, which you seem to think is an insult:

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.

[brian]

By the way, my contempt for the two commenters has grown from just strongly disliking their comments to a genuine feeling of real disgust for them as people. Do not try to justify that which appeared above, for it is indefensible. If I could reach you I would be tempted to commit an offense of a physical nature. You make me sick.

[brian]

More sickening agitprop from the usual suspects. RL and Ghost, if you hate Isreal so much, what they are doing is so bad, why aren't you hauling your chickenhawk asses to Lebanon to defend the poor Hezbollah social workers then? Put up or shut up, as you all like to say. Chickenhawks for terror, both of you. If America is awful, Isreal is awful, and you passionately believe this, then by all means apply your chickenhawk standard you so quickly throw at those in leadership positions today to your own "beliefs". If you won't, then it is you who have no authority to speak on this topic. I'm sure that Hezbollah recruiting would be glad to hear from you, since they appear to be shorthanded these days.

[liquid]

I had something I wanted to add here today, but after reading RL's perverted response to Michael, I basically won't be adding anything...just because I wouldn't be nice at all right now in sharing anything.

*folds my hands and restrains my comments out of respect for Alexandra's blog*

[Sorry Liquid, I sincerely apologize that comment stayed even for a minute longer. I was not there..It's deleted now ]

[jess1dering]

Mornin' Folks!
Have you read the latest speech by Ahmadinejad. Hold on to your hats
as you read his words.!
**********************************************
"Tehran seems to do its best desperately to get involved. I'm starting to think, that Ahmadinejad might be up to something, not the next couple of years, but maybe even within a few weeks or mostly months. Of course I could be wrong, but the signs are there." MvG

Me too, Michael.
He seems emboldened as of late. I have to wonder if that old-time-radical-Islaam propaganda hasn't won China over and he has recieved some assurances of support. Is that possible ??. China seems innocent and guileless enough to be had. In other words, radical Islams' determination to have it's way , truth be damned, might be a frame of reference that China can't fully comprehend. If, in a nations character there is any loyalty to truth ,that whole concept of "lying your a** off for Allah" and doing so with NO conscience pangs might prove effective. I can see how China could be lead to perceive us as a rabid aggressor. That coupled with the OIL/self-interest factor might tip the scale considerably.And let's face it, Ahmadinejad has a charisma and a determination that we haven't seen in quite awhile ................................ I wish we had another word for charisma that denoted EVIL appeal. Since the root of the word charisma is about love, I hate to use it for men like Hitler and and Ahmadinejad. I have seen him referred to as " Gorilla Boy ", but I'll refrain from calling him that.

************************************************

Brian,
Indeed the civilized world is paralyzed. It's amazing to witness so many supposedly bright men hiding from the truth of the horrors of radical Islam. They are like little children , afraid and hiding under a blanket.

[RL]

"the point" ?

More zionist-extremist hyperbole, from a rabid zionist.

[DELETED BY ATB.
RL HOW DARE YOU SPEAK LIKE THAT TO ANYONE HERE? WHAT SITE DO YOU THINK YOU ARE ON? THIS IS NOT A PORN SITE. LAST WARNING, YOU ARE NOW STEPPING OVER THE LINE.]

[Michael van der Galien]

RL:

Are the Israelis systematically torturing Arabs? Wow I didn't know that. They had me thinking that Hizbullah was deliberately killing civilians, that Muslims (extremists) abuse (young) women, they had me thinking that homosexuals are tortured and executed (by hanging) in Iran by the government...
They had me thinking that it are Muslims who carry out terrorist attacks throughout the world.

They had me thinking that Iran wants to create an entire different Middle-East ruled by sharia law.

They had me thinking that...
you get the point.

[Michael van der Galien]

Rich said:

Wish I could see more of the same from Europe.

Good. Read some of my articles about it.

;)

Anyhoo: great article Alexandra, both yours and the one from Der Spiegel.
Antimedia emphasized something very important (although he seems to have misunderstood Alexandra's comment about this as NxN points out):

In order to eliminate the fuel of Islamic fundamentalism, the West would have to abandon Israel.

This is precisely what the extremists want us to think. Just like Neville Chamberlain. If we give them Israel, they'll leave us alone. Like hell they will. Hell is what they'll bring to our shores the minute we let them have Israel.

This is so true and we need to repeat this time and time again. Ahmadinejad's (and the other thousands of extremists') first main goal is to destroy Israel. The second main goal is to install sharia through the entire Middle-East. The third main goal is to fight against the West. (They work on these goals all at the same time btw)

There ultimate goal is not simply to create a Muslim middle-east: it is to create a world dominated by Islam.

If we let them destroy Israel, they will attack us on a large scale next. What we saw in NYC, London, Madrid, andsoforth, is nothing compared to what they'll do if we let them destroy Israel.

Brian:

Up till recently, I believed that the Ahmadinejads and the Nasrallahs were crazy, but not stupid enough to follow through on their threats. I'm re-examining that belief now given the developments since this war began. It's 1938 all over again.

I agree. I thought that Ahmadinejad would delay the war with Israel (which is his goal) with years and years because I don't think he'll be able to beat Israel at this point in time, especially if the West will back Israel up. However; Tehran seems to do its best desperately to get involved. I'm starting to think, that Ahmadinejad might be up to something, not the next couple of years, but maybe even within a few weeks or mostly months. Of course I could be wrong, but the signs are there.

[RL]

hey Alexandra, don't you have "Israel" fatigue yet ?
Do you personally know what it is like to be terrorized and tortured by those "peace-loving" zionists ?
Why do the Israeli zionists consistently practice brutal, cruel, and merciless torture on their incarcerated Arab population ? Please try to get a clue. Thank you and God bless you Alexandra. Amen.

nkusa.org
Jewsagainstzionism.com
Boycottisrael.co.UK

[Ghost Dansing]

There is a constant undercurrent...a straw man...a notion here that many or at least some disagree with the notion that the preznit of Iran and hisballa are very bad and dangerous people.

The topics carefully avoid the incompetence this Republican administration has demonstrated in dealing with ANY of these issues effectively, and how mistaken choices and policies have actually exacerbated the situation.

Dubya and his neocons did not go into Iraq with enough troops to establish law and order. They disbanded the entire Iraqi Army...now we’re trying to recreate it. They did not do enough planning for phase four and rejected all the planning that had been done previously to maintain stability after the regime was overthrown. They underestimated the nature and strength of the insurgency, the sectarian violence and the spread of Iranian influence.

This Republican administration succeeds only in achieving the opposite of its aims — with the number of American troops in Iraq scheduled to increase, not decrease, and the violence and instability spreading.

Then we have administration’s reality disconnect on the Taliban in Afghanistan, where every new claim of success has been followed by new evidence of failure.

The Taliban have been written out of the war by administration flackery, but they keep coming back like a bad penny.

Because of the administration’s strategic blunders and record of incompetence in executing, they simply continue to preside over failed policy.

The only emerging from the strategic blunders and incompetence of this Republican administration is Iran...and America is now poorly positioned to counter any of Iran's mischief, because the Republicans decided to elect a bunch of loud-mouthed chickenhawks that, when it's all said and done, can't deliver the goods, and only make things worse.

Everybody here keeps railing against the UN...the UN is a shining example of success compared to this Republican adminstration's lackluster contributions to the situation in the Middle East.

[Alexandra]

NxNW, thanks for the clarification.

Antimedia,

In this instance it is very dangerous not to read Spiegel's entire article where they go to great lengths to explain that THIS is where the UN is going, rather than that THIS is the solution. You know by now it would not be something I would ever advocate.

In the interest of clarity however I have expanded on my paragraph preceding your quote from the Spiegel, spelling it out, so that there is no possibility of any misunderstanding:

And given the UN's increasingly virulent anti-Zionist stand, blaming Israel for having effectively 'created' Islamofascist sentiments throughout the region as well as the world as a whole, whilst in reality merely defending itself against age-old and never abating Arab anti-Semitism and military aggressions ever since her inception, I fear that the UN's hitherto implied 'solution' to sacrifice the State of Israel for the sake of world peace will eventually be sanitized as an issue warranting a 'legitimate debate', as an unfortunate choice of a lesser evil

[jess1dering]

Hmmm,
if I could only remember the Post where KP gave in depth instruction on creating a link....:)

[Brian]

Thanks, Jess, for the latest post.

The world is paralyzed. More specifically, the civilized world is in paralysis in the face of the rhetoric coming from its enemies. Of course Ahmadinejad wants a cease fire; all the better to give Iran and its proxies time to regroup, rebuild, and rearm so that the ultimate goal can be achieved: wiping Israel off the map. The momentum is going his way, if the current PR war is to be used as a guide. By next week, he just may have the cease fire he wants, thanks to the generous capitulation of certain "allies" of ours, and the U.N.

Up till recently, I believed that the Ahmadinejads and the Nasrallahs were crazy, but not stupid enough to follow through on their threats. I'm re-examining that belief now given the developments since this war began. It's 1938 all over again.

[jess1dering]

< HTML ="http://voanews.com/english/2006-08-01-voa53.cfm/A>

[jess1dering]

Hi John,
Thanks for caring :)
Hope we hear more from you.
*************************************************

I thought the following complemented the topic at hand quite nicely.
...................................
Amadinejad calls for Israel’s destruction again; silence ensues

Posted on August 3rd, 2006 at 11:33 am by Meryl Yourish.

Filed under: Israel, Anti-Semitism, Iran

Once again, the president of Iran, a UN member state, calls for the destruction of Israel, a UN member state, in violation of the UN Charter, and his calls are met with silence from the international community.

PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia Aug 3, 2006 (AP)— Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis is to destroy Israel. In a speech during an emergency meeting of Muslim leaders, Ahmadinejad also called for an immediate halt to fighting in Lebanon between Israel and the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah.

“Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented,” he said.

Ahmadinejad, who has drawn international condemnation with previous calls for Israel to be wiped off the map, said the Middle East would be better off “without the existence of the Zionist regime.”

Israel “is an illegitimate regime, there is no legal basis for its existence,” he said.

Oh, wait, there’s one nation that responded to Gorilla Boy’s threats.

In Jerusalem, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev responded by noting the ties between Ahmadinejad’s regime and Hezbollah.

“Our operation in Lebanon is designed to neutralize one of the long arms of Iran Hezbollah,” Regev said. “Hezbollah is their proxy, being used as an instrument of Teheran to advance their extremist agenda and the blow to Hezbollah is a blow to Iranian interests and a blow to all extremist jihadist forces in the region.”

Wait, a search of Google News found me one source that is protesting the Iranian call for the destruction of Israel: Tony Blair.

In a press conference early Thursday afternoon, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said that he finds it astounding that President Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be “wiped off the map” as a solution to the Middle East’s problems.

“If someone else were to call for Iran or Syria to be wiped off the map, people would be tearing the house down!” he added.

This is true. Imagine, if you will, that Israel called for the destruction of Iran. Just imagine the reverberations in such a case. In fact, let us remember the reverberations when President Bush called Iran, Iraq, and North Korea the “Axis of Evil.” (And by the way, he’s been proven right.) The world roared in outrage.

And yet, not a peep when the president of a nation threatens the destruction of another sovereign nation, as well as the legitimacy of its existence—which was, of course, upheld by the UN in 1948.

The Jew-hatred of the Islamic world continues unabated and unchallenged, even as Israel is fighting for her life.

[John Werntz]

Hello, everyone.  I am John, from Old War Dogs.  I don't wish to intrude  on a séance of the Friends of RL--just kidding--but since no one has commented here in the past few hours, I will risk it.  I simply want to see if I can format a comment in TypePad, complete with hyperlinks and

Block quotes if such are called for.

If this works as I hope, you will be hearing from me on occasion.  If not, you won't have missed much.  You've guessed it: Constant Lurker desperately seeks attention.  Cheers to all of Alexandra's fans.

[Brian]

Does anyoen care to venture a guess as to how Jewish Americans will vote this November, given the apparent capitulation of the Democrats to Israel's plight? It's no longer the party of FDR, that's for certain, and Democrats seem to be going out of their way to be neutral at a time when neutrality is foolish.

[North by Northwest]

Antimedia,

I think you misread. Alexandra was highlighting the terrifying reality that the UN is softening the world into believing that at some point in the near future such a debate to 'sacrifice' Israel could legitimately be held - after all, by ever more increasingly referring to the need to address issues 'surrounding 1947-48 agreements', the UN is in fact gearing up to take the position, which in a nutshell amounts to this: We the UN General Assembly made a mistake in 1947 by approving the Partition Plan and to allow the State of Israel to be proclaimed.

Alexandra and the Spiegel were exactly making your point, so you do in fact fully agree and not disagree that any such notion represents nothing but pure anti-Semitic evil and must at every turn be, as Alexandra put it, "unmasked" and "resisted". I would hate for your misunderstanding to take hold and gain momentum and I'm sure you wouldn't want that either.

[karen]

I trust Israel more than that(weakness, in-decision, hesitance)... it's been at this a long time. I'm praying, unrealistically (it seems)that the Left of this country sees the light, so to speak, about the truth of all going on in the ME.

I mean, come ooooonnn; how the h-e-double-LL can they not see it's Terrorists attacking Israel? It's Israel that stands for DEMOCRACY, women's rights, education, free choice in life/of life!!!

And yet, it's the Right-winged bloggers that fly the flag of Israel, it's the Right-winged bloggers that support our friend, Israel. And then get accused of hiding anti-Semetic inclination subconsciously, a la Mel Gibson.

Good Lord, paint me red and use me as a fire hydrant- i just don't get it.

[antimedia]

I completely disagree with this.

In order to eliminate the fuel of Islamic fundamentalism, the West would have to abandon Israel.

This is precisely what the extremists want us to think. Just like Neville Chamberlain. If we give them Israel, they'll leave us alone. Like hell they will. Hell is what they'll bring to our shores the minute we let them have Israel. (Nevermind that Israelis have a say in this matter, and I sincerely doubt the Israels would go quietly into the gentle night.)

The time to say NO is now.

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

I fear that any "international force" in South Lebanon will simply be a far more effective screen for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, er, I mean Hizb'allah, than their women and children have proven to be.

I suspect Caroline Glick has it bang on about Olmert. He is a weak little man, in way over his head, and wanting nothing more than to slink away home and tend his garden. America, this is what a John Kerry presidency would have looked like. Olmert has deferred to Dr. Rice to get him out of his "quagmire", and the Iranians and Syrians have watched, and learned.

The next time, the Jihadis won't make the same mistake of striking too early. They'll make sure they have their troops ready, supplied, in position, and when they roll right over the blue helmets, Annan's successor will be able to do nothing to save Israel from a massive "conventional" attack. I hope US troops are ready to fly in at a moment's notice, because Ahmadinejad is clearly convinced that Israel is ready for the killing.

As the last two days went, I've become convinced Israel's generals are also becoming paralysed by Olmert's infectious indecisiveness. Whatever happened to holding Syria accountable? I hope and pray Olmert is using some kind of "Jedi mind trick" on Hizb'allah, Syria and Iran, because he is acting right now like a man who is desperately afraid of winning.

For Iran to defeat Israel, it is enough to bog the IDF down in a bitter frontier war of attrition, and they need only enough bodies to keep the bullets flying. At some point, perhaps after 50 000 Iranian casualties, the Israeli line might begin to crack. And Ahmadinejad will have the cover of nuclear weapons to threaten any European country that tried to assist Israel, and of course to threaten Israel with the "final solution" should Israel think of tipping the balance in her favour by using a few candles of her own. I hope Israel has a more credible deterrent than just "OK, if you nuke us we'll nuke Tehran". Israel, think bigger than that.

I could see after two or three months of all-out warfare, Ahmadinejad offering the Israelis a ceasefire with safe passage from "Palestine", to a Western country of their choice, or some such thing. It's not hard to imagine that, since he's read the mood in the West perfectly. The voices on the Left would gather strength and would seriously welcome the chance to "put right" what they see as the Great Mistake.

"Ah, if only there were no more Israel, there'd be peace in the world at last." Don't believe me? Poll after poll in Western Europe shows that is EXACTLY what the Europeans think.

I hope to G-D above that I'm wrong.

[rich]

Thanks very much for pointing out the article. It is excellent. Wish I could see more of the same from Europe.

The first comment is silly. All we require of our Mideast allies is that they not attack or physically or economically support attacks on Israel. And that is all we could get. If we want what the first commenter suggests, we would have no allies in the middle east.

Is that what the first commenter desires?

Hezbollah was on the way to taking over Lebanon. If this war stops that, the world will be a better place.

[Brian]

Abandoning Israel at this juncture would be suicidal, in that it would send the message our enemies wish to hear: America will cave, and will not fight for its beliefs.

Israel is the canary in the coal mine. As goes Israel, also goes Europe, America, Western civilization.

A good companion piece for Alexandra's post is this from VDH, below. He echoes my comment here yesterday: this has all happened before, and world opinion is allied against the West, even emanating from Western societies.

http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson080406.html