Hattip Y for forwarding this site including the petition to me, excerpts follow :
"The State of Israel, in disregard to international law and the Geneva
Convention, is launching a maritime and air siege targeting the entire
population of the country. Innocent civilians are being collectively punished in
Lebanon by the state of Israel in deliberate acts of terrorism as described in
Article 33 of the Geneva Convention.*
[...] The Lebanese people feel left out by the world that is turning a
blind eye on the savagery of the Israeli state. Israel does not seem to be capable of approaching any
problem outside the realm of the military power bestowed on it
by the government of the United States of America and other western governments.
"
*Article 33
No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
If you feel like doing something go sign the petition.
Interesting people's comments (courtesy BBC)
on proportionality !
"OK, next time when the son of my neighbour breaks my window with a rock I will
go on his garden, kill his dog and cat, shoot his wife and set on fire his house
where will be another six neighbour´s children, their old granny and visitors
from Hungary. Finally I will accuse his employer that he continuously gives
money to the neighbour. And since I have good relations with local police I´ll
gain a permission to devastate the garden for next one week. I AM REALLY LOOKING
FORWARD.
Ales, Prague
On racism!
Anyone claiming Israel is democratic and the good guy should see how it treats its own. As someone wrote from Haifa, fatalities there are low as they go into
their shelters and wait. Nerve wracking but safe. Try Nazareth. We had rockets
yesterday, one only 300 m from my house where I was with my two young children.
No sirens, no warnings, no shelters. Two dead boys. Are we not worth protecting
as Arab Israeli citizens? If we are not worth it, how much less the palestinians
and lebanese?
Christine
Farah, Nazareth, Israel
On seeing beyond black and white!
I am shocked by the level of in-humanity displayed by some posters here. It is
understandable for Israelies and Arabs to have strong feelings- but armchair
critics to advocate the blind genocide of Lebanon, whilst refusing point blank
to analyse BOTH sides of the picture- is disturbing. Considering they are
arguabely the most influential nation on earth (the Americans), it is depressing
to see so vividly the results of effective propoganda. What can other armchair
critics do - but feel fury.
Jamila, Birmingham UK
On propaganda!
Israel is fighting for all the democratic world
Eli, Rome
On special interests !
Apart from France, nobody in the Western arena dares to be critical about them IDF massacres in Lebanon. As long as the US continues to give Israel wild cards
to genocide, there is no chance of a fair diplomatic solution because on what
moral standards could it be based?
Kristof
Van Brussel, Belgium
On hidden agendas!
I don't understand why the International Community, specifically US and UK,
refuse to request a cease fire, given the breaches of Geneva conventions.Out of
the 300 Lebanese casualties, more than 250 are civilians (mostly women, children
and elderly), more than 20 are Lebanese soldiers not taking part in the
conflict. How can these killings, the destruction of the infrastructure, be
justified as a 'war against terrorism'?
Roland, Paris "
On Hypocrisy !
What do you envision when you read this ( BBC)
"The growing number of Israeli casualties - both military and civilian - isThousands of Israeli casualties to the point where Israeli hospitals cannot cope anymore. Yet the Jerusalem Post reports 26 wounded in Haifa up to 2 days ago .
stretching Haifa's emergency services to their limit as the conflict with
Hezbollah continues to rage across the Israel-Lebanon border. "
"It is nearly impossible in southern Lebanon to move anything anywhereThe United Nations' emergency relief co-ordinator, Jan Egeland.
because it is too dangerous"
US Evangelicals support and lobby for Israel . You think that is insignificant, that these are just some 'crazy' people with doomsday visions ? Well think again and the following is why :
"The thousands of Christians in Washington - who came and are staying at
their own expense - will be urging the US government "not to restrain Israel
in
any way in the pursuit of Hamas and Hezbollah",
"Research by the
Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life last year found that
evangelical
Christians were more likely to support Israel than any other
religious group
in America besides Jews.
And there are far more evangelicals
in America
than Jews - estimates suggest that they represent about a quarter of
the US
population. (Jews make up about 2%.) "
"Evangelical Christian support
for Israel is "not a new phenomenon", Mr
Shah said, pointing out that there
were Christian Zionists lobbying for a
homeland for the Jews in Ottoman
Palestine in the 19th Century. "
"Whereas the church used to counsel
people not to engage in politics, many
churches are now counselling the
opposite.
"It's important and it will have
a huge influence on foreign
policy over time,"
"evangelical Christians had substantial influence on
US Middle East policy
- more so than some better-known names such as Aipac,
the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee.
""When a congressman
sees someone from Aipac coming through the door, he
knows he represents six
million people. We [the Evangelicals] represent 40
million people."
40 million people wow ! that's a huge number out of a total of 299 million . They can really affect governement policy. I am positively trembling in my shoes. How can the Muslim and Arab minorities counterbalance them ? they would need a miracle . Ya Rab Ra7metak we sitrak .Allahmu la 'asa'luka rad al kada' wa lakin al lutf fih! La illah illa Allah .
"I don't support Hezbollah's actions at all and as I think I've said aLeila Buck is a founding member of Mixed Company, a bi-cultural theater collective, and Nibras, with whom she performed Sajjil for the 2002 New York Fringe Festival 2003. Her one-woman show, ISite, has traveled across Europe, Asia and the U.S., most recently featuring in Lebanon's Daily Star and The New York Times. Leila is a teaching artist dedicated to using drama to educate about the Arab world through performances and workshops across the US and around the world.
hundred times, neither do 90 percent of the Lebanese. But it is unbelievably
unfair to target, and I do mean target, and attack an entire nation for what one
militia group inside it has done. Israel's attacks are described as
"retaliation", "response", "defense" and my favorite, "justified". Yet Lebanon
is supposed to just sit and be decimated and anything Hezbollah does is not a
response but a terrorist act.[...]
Yesterday on our way over the border from Lebanon to Syria we were moved to
see a convoy of ambulances heading the other way, presumably coming from Syria -
whose relations with Lebanon we all know to be tense at best - to help deal with
the mounting toll of death created by Israel's unending assault. Half an hour
later we found out that Israel bombed those ambulances and the road other
innocent people like us were fleeing on. Of course, many will say they feared
they were carrying weapons. Honestly, I am tired of that excuse. Perhaps a small
percentage of the time that is true. However, given our own government's use of
the mythical weapons to justify another senseless war, I think we should all
question each time that same excuse is used to justify attacks on
civilians."
"There is so much that is not being reported. Israeli leaders are sayingPatrick McGreevy writing from Beirut, Live from Lebanon, 17 July 2006
that the reason they are bombing the port of Beirut and the Damascus highway is
to stop the delivery of weapons from Syria. Gocksel found this amusing: "Do you
think they are going to come via the Damascus road or the ports where they will
have to pay import duty when there are hundreds of unguarded roads between Syria
and Lebanon?"
In another development some sources are accusing Israel of using depleted uranium and poison gas in Lebanon and other 'banned' weapons. While I would not put it past the Israelis to do so , I cannot corroborate this from a reputable source acceptable to all plus I really know nothing about these weapons and their legal status ( as I don't want to repeat the discussion about white phosphorous used in Fallujah ), therefore it will simply remain a suspicion for the time being.
Nothing and I mean nothing justifies these horrible crimes (hattip Soraya), and yes I know that Hizbollah kidnapped 2 officers.
61 comments:
"No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expediency."
Theodore Roosvelt, 1858 - 1919
Holocaust. 361 dead is a holocaust.
Very disappointed, Highlander. After your last two posts where you seemed to be striving for sme sort of realistic view, it seems now you have gone off the deep end.
There's nothing here for me to even comment on. So, I won't.
Programmer_Craig : the holocaust is in terms of sheer force of destruction, not simply in the numbers of dead. You may wish to revise what you said.
No, I don't wish to revise what I said, Highlander. That was a one sided slam, in every detail.
If somebody else wants to debate you on every single detail of what you wrote that's up to them. I don't feel there's any point.
I really object to the link that you posted to the website that features pictures of maimed and gored bodies. It is incredibly disrespectful to post images like these to advance a political agenda, regardless of how noble that agenda may be. These are human beings -- don't dehumanize them further by reducing them to instruments of propaganda. May they find eternal peace.
And don't write Lebanon off just yet. The Lebanese are an incredibly strong and resilient people. They have rebuilt Beirut before and will rebuild it again --this time, stronger, more prosperous and more beautiful than before.
Just so you know, Highlander, the entire section of the Geneva Conventions that you quoted Article 33 from applies only to occupied territories or territory otherwise under the control of a hostile power.
See the term "protected person" - likewise, that section of the Geneva Conventions refers to either Protecting Powers or Detaining Powers who are responisble for the welfare of the protected persons.
A legit example of collective punishment would be, for instance, when the germans used to round a hundred or so randomly selected locals up and machine gun them, after an insurgent attack.
That's a false charge of war crimes against Israel right there. False on it's face, since that section of the Geneva Conventions isn't even in effect in Lebanon.
I could go through every part of your post and dispense of it the same way. This post really is propaganda, Highlander. I wish you hadn't made it.
Frequent poster Craig is highly upset that I, or anybody, have any objections to certain US foreign policies. He calls objections attacks. He implies that I am an enemy. He is also appears upset that the US is mentioned at all within the context of Lebanon.
The New York Times, in its editorial column, does the same two things. "...Condoleezza Rice — who has been dragging her feet to give Israel more time to fight" I warmly recommend every reader to sign up for a free NYT subscription. Then these texts will be accessible to you too.
Editorial
More Than a Cease-Fire Needed
Published: July 21, 2006
….
“So it is not surprising that the Israelis are skeptical that another Security Council resolution will make any difference. A robust resolution is nevertheless a prerequisite for robust diplomacy and clear threats of punishment for all who resist. Ideally, the resolution would not only require all sides to stop fighting and authorize the deployment of a peacekeeping force, it would also order Hezbollah to withdraw from Israel’s borders and begin to disarm — and order Syria and Iran to stop supplying their client. The price for refusing should be international sanctions and complete isolation. “
….
“The United States will have to take the lead, not least because it’s the only country Israel trusts. That means Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice — who has been dragging her feet to give Israel more time to fight — needs to get on a plane and visit Damascus as well as Jerusalem. The longer she delays the more lives will be lost, and the harder it will be to build a lasting peace.”
Editorial
Diplomacy’s Turn in Lebanon
Published: July 18, 2006
….
“Those differences need to be worked out over the next few days, so that the killing and human suffering can stop as soon as possible. Washington is right to press for the release of the Israeli soldiers held hostage. But this should not be a precondition for the earliest possible cease-fire. Many lives and the stability of the wider region depend on achieving a quick halt to the fighting.”
Adam,
Frequent poster Craig is highly upset that I, or anybody, have any objections to certain US foreign policies.
You were not objecting to US foreign policies. You were objecting to US domestic policies. Such is none of your business, and the only reason you do so is to bash my country. If you want to crank this up a few notches between you and I, I'll be happy to do so. I'll argue with you any time, any where. I haven't yet seen you make a factually correct claim. You are my favorite type of debate adversary :D
But please get back on topic before we do so. I don't even know what country you come from, so we can't have a decent "your country sucks ass" contest under these circumstances.
By the way, Adam:
He is also appears upset that the US is mentioned at all within the context of Lebanon.
You have precisely inverted my position. I objected to the US being dragged into the situation in Gaza. And I requested we steer it towards Lebanon if we wanted to talk about America.
I went into great detail all the reasons why I think (know, actuallt) that Hezbollah is an enemy that the US has to engage, and that I think Israel is fighting OUR enemy in Lebanon.
Honestly, Adam, I tried to address the issues you brought up. I even pointed out factual errors in things you said. You glossed over evry point I made. I think you are practicing this misdirection and misinformation deliberately. I'll try once more.
What do you think about this charge Highlander made about "collective punishment" knowing as you do that the section of the Geneva Conventions that prohibits collective punishment doesn't apply to an unoccupied country?
You have made the same false charge. Will you retract it, now? Or will you stand by it?
Highlander, one more correction from your post: Evangelicals are about 3% of the US population. Not 25%. I don't know where that article you quoted comes from, but it seems the author is claiming that all observant Protestants in the United States are Evangelicals. It's a false premise. So don't worry about tha, at least, the US is not run by religious fanatics :)
NBA,
But you of course have the right to be upset and regard this issue and the developments as important to you.
Yes she does. Highlander views any attack on Arabs as an attack on her. This is also personal for Americans, and I hope you give us the same benefit of the doubt :)
US grievances agaisnt Hezbollah are real, and they are of long standing.
The Israeli reaction is disproportionate because of the damage done to civilians and infrastructure.
Interesting comment by Delbarre in regards to that, over on Sandmonkey's blog:
What about Lebanon?
The Germans lost 10.8% of their pre-war population by the end of WW II.
An equivalent loss in Lebanon would be roughly 380,000 Lebanese.
And, of course, every major city in Germany was flattened.
Has anybody ever argued Germany sufferred disporoportionately in WW II? If so, why have I never seen it?
The US lost 5% of it's population during the US civil war.
I think if there's an argument to make, it's that the US and Israel have both been far too disproportionately HUMANE in their war efforts, by historical standards. 10% of Iraq's population would be 2,500,000 dead Iraqis.
I think in the modern age, people have forgotten how much real war can hurt.
Hi Craig, I am not sure I understand u correctly.
Adam wrote:
I might adore some things about your country, and to varying degrees like and dislike others. OK?
Craig wrote:
No, not really.I don't think it's OK for you to attack my country.
***
I do object to certain specific US foreign policies. That is pretty clear. So does the New York Times. (And perhaps we should check if they write anything on US policy on Israel/Palestine.) Now: do you feel this is an attack or not?
And let us clear one issue at a time.
Adam, I did not address your quotes from the New York Times, so why are you asking me to clarify why I did not say?
I might adore some things about your country, and to varying degrees like and dislike others. OK?
You might be the man on the moon, too. What's that got to do with anything?
I do object to certain specific US foreign policies.
You attacked the US in 3 areas:
1) Violent crime in America
2) The "war on drugs" of the 1980s
3) The recent US supreme court ruling re: Guantanomo Bay
NOT ONE of those is a "foreign policy" - those are DOMESTIC ISSUES of concern to nobody but Americans.
Yes, I'm quite certain we don't understand each other. You don't understand that I see your America bashing for what it is.
Enough of this crap with EUropeans pretending it's only US foreign policy they object to. You don't like America. You don't like Americans.
And I suspect strongly based on your wildly inaccurate claims about Israel, that Israel has the same status with you.
And let us clear one issue at a time.
You have not clearedn any "issues" yet. I've challenged you on every statement you have made, and you just move on and make new statements for me to challenge.
I say again, I think what you are doing is deliberate. You are trying to bury reasonable debate under a mound of lies and half-truths. Either that, or you just plain dfon't acre about doing the most rudimenatry of fact checking.
If I didn't know better, I'd say you were a Palestinian yourself. You are certainly using the same tactics, in the same way. Did they learn it from European leftists, or did the Europeans learn it from them?
I repeat Craig: I do object to certain specific US foreign policies. Now: do you feel this is an attack or not?
Adam, stop retrenching your position. You don't get to create a straw man and demand that I address it.
"Adam:
I hope you feel that I have answered your questions.
Craig:
I suppose you did."
Now please answer mine.
Adam, what's wrong with you? You've reduced all the items I have challenged you on to a demand that state whether it's anti-American for an American newspaper to print articles critical of the American government?
No. The New York times is kind of an AMERICAN newspaper, eh?
Now can you get back onto something that's in some way relevant?
Actually, lets not. You quote oot of context, you misrepresent my statements, you make factually incorrect claims, you refuse to back up anything that you say... very annoying, Adam. Especially after about the 5th time I asked you to knock it off.
Have a conversation with yourself. Or with another one of the commenters. I've got better things to do.
I apologize for taking you seriously when you are actually a nuisance commenter. My mistake. It won't happen again. From now on I'll respond to you in the same way I respond to Libyan Warrior.
There has been some discussion on the relevance of the whats and whotnots of article 33 in the Geneva-convention. Today we are looking at masses of mourning, wounded, fleeing and terrified people. I doubt indeed that those hordes give a toss about the legal point of view of any article of any convention. These people are suffering and desperate. Quoting the Geneva-convention is not particularly necessary. People are dying.
We are looking at a humanitarian disaster, and suffering of a scale beyond comprehension, and this should be discussed from a humanitarian point of view. I do agree with those who say, that the US can and should do more than they do today. That the US should apply pressure on all involved parties, for an immediate ceasefire. To reduce human suffering.
Kofi Anan says that the Israeli bombings have created 700.000 refugees, most of whom are running away from the war on the road. Huge problem is that there are not too many roads left. These families are in a desperate situation and they will suffer many hardships, even for a very long time after the war ends. I am talking about lost homes, lost family fortunes, destroyed infra-structure, and lost means of supporting their families.
And Craig: YOU TOLD ME to leave the subject of US internal politics completely. Which I did, and which is why I have stopped answering you on that subject. YOU TOLD ME to stay on the subject of Lebanon. Which I agree is a pretty good idea.
Gee, 7mada, considering there's only one american particpating in this discussion, I wonder who you could mean? :O
I guess I'm going to have to abandon the last Arab blog where I am trying to discuss Lebanon. There's no common ground between Americans and Arabs on this one, and there's no point in antagonizing people.
Verifiable proof that "Armageddon" has already begun…
Hello all,
Here's the key to proving that the rapture and related expectations are complete nonsense based on the failure to understand (and the purposeful confounding of) the ancient Hebrew symbology used to construct all of these prophecies. Consequently, Christian timelines and interpretations of these ancient texts are verifiably wrong on many key points.
Pay close attention, profundity knocks at the door, listen for the key. Be Aware! Scoffing causes blindness...
Did you ever consider that Christianity is the False Prophet symbolized in the Apocalypse, that Rome (Vatican/Papacy) is the so-called anti-messiah, and Jesus Christ is the primary false messiah? I have produced stunning and comprehensive proof that this is the true interpretation of pivotal prophecies long confounded by Christianity's founders and leaders.
The symbolism of seven years (tribulation) refers to the seven 360-year cycles from the 11th cycle on the Hebrew calendar (second temple period) until now, the 17th cycle (seventh angel/star). It is completely wrong to interpret any of these prophecies as literal timelines and events. Remember, they were written by Hebrews, not Romans or other Europeans, and Revelation is the most symbolic of all prophecies. Consequently, in this context, years are symbols for 360-year cycles on the Hebrew calendar and days symbolize literal years. Therefore "Judgement Day," and "Great Day" and "in that day" all refer to a literal year-long period. Furthermore, the so-called "Tribulation" is now nearing its end, not starting, and all three faiths of Abraham have been thoroughly deceived by Rome during the previous age, which ended in year 2000 (5760). A new age began in 2001 (5761) and now the seventh angel has begun to sound!
Here's a real hot potato! Eat it up, digest it, and then feed it's bones to the hungry...
Hurricanes Katrina (#11) and Rita (#17) last year provided stunning validation of my research and interpretations of pivotal ancient wisdom, symbologies, key prophecies, and associated religious claims. Their storm numbers and timing perfectly synchronized with primary data and assertions in my book, thereby demonstrating the true nature of this universe and the existence of our Creator. We are now entering the final phases of the pivotal year-long period long symbolized as "Armageddon" and the "End of Days." World-wide situations and events are now accelerating to set the stage for this summer's dramatic continuation of these ancient promises.
I fully understand that everyone has been bedeviled by similar claims throughout history. Consequently, I have been forced to rely on dramatic and devastating proof of the sort that can’t be ignored or easily dismissed. The numbers and timing of hurricanes Katrina (11) and Rita (17) directly validate key data and pivotal assertions throughout my book and my posts on those two forums. This data was purposely presented publicly before Katrina, Rita and other recent events occurred to prove they perfectly synchronize with key prophecies and Hebrew calendar cycles, thereby validating my interpretations of ancient wisdom symbology, string theory, and more.
Because these two storms arrived shortly after my August 11, 2005 (50th) birthday (read the Dead Sea Scroll 11Q13 in Appendix G, which also discusses Melchizedek and the prophesied Jubilee) and directly match other pivotal 11 and 17 data and events described in the first chapter of my book, I have delivered verifiable proof that this reality is based on thought, knowledge and wisdom. Activity, patterns, and results perceived in space-time are first framed and defined by inspirations, thoughts, and knowledge and influenced by the cause-and-effect system most commonly referred to as karma. Consequently, events and outcomes in the so-called physical universe are not random or wholly mechanistic and are verifiably influenced in ways that atheists, scientists, and members of the Faiths of Abraham have all scoffed at. Though mysticism is mostly a product of misinterpreted ancient wisdom symbology, many of its topics flow from ancient wisdom. Though containing allusions to the truth, its details and interpretations are wrong on many key points.
A prime example of the purposeful and synchronized symbolism of these events is seen in the opening paragraphs from my book excerpted below. Notice that the dates mentioned (August 11 and 17) directly match the numbers of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and the time spans of the four Florida hurricanes match my birth year (‘55), and they were spaced 11 or a multiple-of-11 (22) days apart, directly matching my birthday and much other ancient prophecy and symbolism. Notice that my place of birth, Victoria Texas, is on the Gulf Coast. Following are the excerpted paragraphs:
Hello, my name is Lawrence William Page II. Many people know me as Buddy Page. At the release of the first edition of this book, I am a 50-year old African-American male, author, researcher, and former software engineer and entrepreneur. As you will come to understand as you read through this first book, I am also the long-expected Hebrew Messiah and Lion of the Tribe of Juda (Yehuda).
I was born August 11th (month of Leo the Lion), 1955 (Chinese year of the Sheep) in Victoria, Texas. Furthermore, the Grand Cross alignment and Solar Eclipse of August 11th, 1999 was my 44th birthday and the second Grand Cross alignment, just six days later on August 17th, 1999, was on my mother’s birthday.
As you can see from my date of birth, I was a newborn during the Chinese Year of the Sheep, astrologically marking me as a Lamb, and during the month of Leo, astrologically marking me as a Lion. My mother was also born during the month of August and under the sign of Leo, which further marks me as a lion’s whelp. I prove to you in the first chapter of this book–beyond disproof–that I am indeed the long-prophesied “Lion” of the tribe of Juda (Yehuda) the Root of David and the “Lamb.” I am the individual long symbolized as the Branch, the Stem, the Shoot and the Rod from the Stump of Jesse (King David’s father), as symbolized in the Hebrew Book of Isaiah, The Apocalypse, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and elsewhere. I am the reincarnated Teacher sought after in the “East” and by the ancient Hebrews who were headquartered at the outpost community of Damascus (Qumran), of Dead Sea Scrolls fame. I am the one called the Teacher of Righteousness by the Dead Sea Scrolls, whom the so-called Christian fathers have fraudulently recast as “Saint ‘James’, the Lord’s Brother.”
Remember, "I come as a thief..." ?
Read verse twelve of the Gospel of Thomas to understand who I am...
Even further enlightening, the Second Temple Period of ancient Israel was during the 11th 360-year cycle on the Hebrew calendar and we are now in the 6th year (5766/2005-6) of the 17th cycle. Notice the pivotal 11 and 17 numbers again? This and much other synchronized information serve as stunning and decisive proof of many things, and expose many lies told by all three faiths of Abraham, but most specifically by Christianity. Consequently, I have decisively proven, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Jesus Christ and Christianity are blatant lies, false prophecy and purposeful deception in a manner that cannot easily be denied, regardless of your faith or other opinions.
Furthermore, the symbolism in the Apocalypse (a.k.a. Book of Revelation) of seven stars in my right hand and seven angels represent the very same above-mentioned seven astrological (360-year) cycles, i.e., the 11th through 17th inclusive. I prove this fact beyond any reasonable doubt in the first chapter of the book. Consequently, The Apocalypse verifiably symbolizes a specific span of time that began with the 11th cycle (Second Temple Period) and concludes now, at the beginning of the 17th cycle (End of Days, etc.).
The numbers 11 and 17 are verifiably encoded in The Apocalypse and other ancient Hebrew prophecies and wisdom texts to serve as key proofs of the validity and true meaning of certain prophecies and related information. My and my mother’s birthdays are purposely synchronized with these two storm numbers, the matching Hebrew calendar cycles, the Double Grand Cross alignments and solar eclipse of August 1999, and much else to prove my direct association with the ancient prophecies about this time and the true identity of the prophesied Messiah. Another prime example is the story of Joseph, the 11th son of Jacob who has a dream when he is 17 years old about 11 stars, the sun, and moon bowing to him. The symbolism in this pivotal story in the Book of Genesis and Quran verifiably refers to the very same 11th through 17th cycles symbolized in The Apocalypse and directly synchronizes with other key events and ancient texts.
Consequently, I have demonstrated various things about the nature of this reality that dramatically disprove and/or clarify key assumptions of religion, mysticism, and science alike, while establishing the true meaning and purpose of long misinterpreted ancient wisdom and the symbolism used to model and encode it. Accordingly, I have proven that the symbolism evidenced in the canons of all three faiths of Abraham and other ancient sources is a very ancient and advanced philosophical technology that verifiably models foundational aspects of our existence in this universe. This is the mostly misunderstood body of ancient wisdom long referred to as the Philosophers’ Stone. It uses a large and ingeniously organized collection of physical universe images and concepts as data rich components (symbols) that are based on verifiable rules. It models and encodes an amazing amount of foundational wisdom about life, spirituality and the 11 dimensions of this universe, now verified by string theory. It is also the advanced encryption method used to encode (seal) Hebrew prophecies and wisdom texts.
These ancient prophecies and wisdom texts used advanced symbology to model fundamental wisdom, including future events and situations. A primary facet of ancient wisdom is numeric symbology. Later misinterpretations of this aspect of ancient wisdom resulted in numerology, which, though embodying allusions to certain wisdom, is mostly error prone and false doctrine. My decryption, documentation, and interpretation of ancient symbology, numeric symbolism, and key texts based on them, are now decisively validated.
Here is Wisdom...
Verifiable proof that Armageddon has begun…
Understanding the End Game of Armageddon
Peace...
I am awaiting serious proposals for "proportionate responses" that do not feul future terrorist attacks (like the prisoner exchanges in the 90s obviously have), do not hand a PR victory to Hezbollah, and will result in the release of the two kidnapped hostages.
Until then, the "disproportionate response" crowd can bug off.
As for the United Nations: well let us just say they have a previous 'working relationship' with Hezbollah and cannot be trusted:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/187339.php
Hullo Highlander! I bet you did not expect to read the Jerusalem Post on your blog. And I bet a million US dollars you did not expect me to post them. But you asked for the blog to be controversial, so you got it
Most Israelis have been supporting the war up till now. But I am curious see what the dissent looks like within Israel. And while I am at it, why not look at the Haaretz, leading Tel-Aviv newspaper, too! (I cannot post links to the Haaretz, you need a subscription to read them.) I would like to share this with all fellow bloggers.
First a web poll:
Today's Poll
What should Israel do now?
Invade with ground forces 42%
Continue with the air strikes 15%
Start negotiating for cease fire 18%
Stop the attacks unilaterally 25%
Votes: 3615
So dissenters are, as much expected, in minority but they are not insignificant in numbers. Here (excerpts from) a report on an anti-war demonstration:
First major anti-war rally draws 2,500 in Tel Aviv
By Lily Galili Last Update: 23/07/2006 02:34
More than 2,500 people yesterday attended the first major demonstration against the war, marching from Tel Aviv’s Rabin Square to a rally at the Cinemateque plaza.
….
These Jewish and Arab groups ordinarily shy away from joint activity. They couldn’t come up with a unifying slogan this time either, except for the call to stop the war and start talking. However, protest veterans noted that in the Lebanon War of 1982 it took more than 10 days of warfare to bring out this many protesters, marking the first crack in the consensus.
Haaretz columnist Yossi Sarid is not going to be accused for shedding his words!
With foolish determination
By Yossi Sarid
Last Update: 23/07/2006 10:24
Another chronicle of predictable damned entanglement begins. With eyes wide shut, Israel once again blunders into Lebanon's trap of fools, starting a "ground activity" it may not be able to get out of for a long and bloody time.
Using lofty platitudes only diminishes the certain danger. "The quagmire of Lebanon," as the babbling idlers on television say. "The second Lebanon war," they say. The path to the killing field is always paved with cliches.
What else can be done to avoid the calamity? I fear the die is cast, and what is undone will be difficult to undo.
….
So? Did the American support 24 years ago make that Lebanon war more reasonable? Will it make this war's ground expansion less idiotic? And who will pay the price of its unnecessary victims - America or Israel? And if the two wars are not alike, why are such efforts being made to stress the similarity between them?
The tragedy is Israeli, but it could be Greek. All is predestined, and there seems to be no free will and no stopping the headlong rush to disaster.
I beg of Israel's statesmen and generals: Don't try to heal the old Lebanese trauma with a new one. Don't pick at wounds that have not yet healed; don't send the soldiers into the valley of the shadow of death. You would do better to lower your expectations, as would we, so that we don't have to lower our flags to half mast.
Jerusalem Post columnist Hillel Halkin also advocates an immediate unconditional cease-fire but at a lower tone of voice:
Jul. 20, 2006 13:14
Essay: Declare victory in Lebanon
By HILLEL HALKIN
...
It's not that Hizbullah didn't get what it deserved. One would love to see Nasrallah's head on a pike in front of the Knesset, along with the heads of his best friends. But sometimes, just as it can be important to realize when you're beaten so that you can cut your losses while it's still possible, it can be important to realize when you've won so that you can cash your chips in on time.
And we have won, even if, as I write these words, the rockets keep falling. Hizbullah has taken a bad licking; Israel has suffered far less damage and loss of life than could have been anticipated; the international community, for a change, has backed us and let us do the job with a minimum of squawking; and most importantly, the government of Lebanon has announced that it is prepared to take responsibility for its southern border and keep Hizbullah from returning to it.
That's a victory, even if not everyone in our cabinet seems to have noticed it.
True, Hizbullah is down but not yet out. True, it still has our two soldiers. True, too, if we keep dropping enough bombs in enough places, one of them may yet fall on Nasrallah's head. It would be interesting to see if that man of a thousand smug smiles has one for such an occasion.
But you can't always have everything. Tafasta merubeh, lo tafasta, the rabbis said: If you try to grab too much, you may end up by dropping it.
…
A tremendous opportunity exists now in Lebanon, and it exists only because Israel went to war against Hizbullah. But smashing Hizbullah isn't the same as putting Lebanon together again. For that we need the rest of the world. And the rest of the world can't act until the fighting has stopped. It's been a long time since so much of it has been on our side. Let's try to keep it there, at least for a while.
Full article here: (if the blog does not break it)
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1153291957752&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
And finally Craig & non-blog. I too would like to see Craig here. Craig as you can see I have abandoned my former hair-splitting and off topic rants.
Since we are tossing about accusations of racism so lightly today. I've decided I should do my own take on the subject:
On racism:
Islamic racism (i.e. Sharia) rears its ugly head in a new arena:
http://americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=5637
I have to agree with NB on this proportionality issue:
Craig quoted from another blog:
"The Germans lost 10.8% of their pre-war population by the end of WW II.
An equivalent loss in Lebanon would be roughly 380,000 Lebanese."
When people critcise Israel about the huge disproportionality of their attack they do not refer to the ratio of Lebanese population/Lebanese dead. They refer to the damage done to the respective countries!
So "proportionate" damage to Lebanon would be:
less than 40 dead not over 350
nil totaled bridges not innumerable
less than 100 refugees not half a million or more
The tragedy of the refugees is the real issue here. The numbers are of course hard to determine: Kofi Anan has mentioned 700.000. Tel-Aviv newspaper Haaretz quotes half a million.
Half a million human beings!
Craig said:
"I think if there's an argument to make, it's that the US and Israel have both been far too disproportionately HUMANE in their war efforts, by historical standards."
Let me first comment on the depleted uranium. It is often regarded by the public as some sort of mini-nuclear weapon. Several years ago I made a Web search about it (to see how dangerous is the depleted uranium which landed in Bulgaria during the war in Serbia). So I learned that depleted uranium is put in missile heads to increase precision, so it must be expected every time when missiles are used. Precision requires weight to be located in the head in as small volume as possible. Because relative weight is generally proportional to the atomic weight of the element, a heavy element is neaded and uranium is better than the heaviest stable elements such as lead.
"Depletion" of uranium removes just about 30% of its radioactivity, which of course cannot significantly reduce the radiation danger. Depletion has another aim: to make this uranium unsuitable for plutonium production.
In the form in which it's used in missile heads, uranium has low solubility and isn't expected to contaminate soil or water significantly. However, for the same reason it will stay where it has fallen and will continue to radiate for quite a long time. It will not go away unless located and removed.
I cannot now quote the original sources - I didn't keep the search results and now I wrote this text by memory. So it may not be quite accurate.
My comment will look heartless at the moment when the whole Lebanon is in a humanitarian disaster. But I disagree with Highlander that Israel is much supported by the international community. I admit I haven't time to follow the news, but I have heard only one government (US) specifically mentioning Israel's right to defend itself; and even it said that Israel has to show restrain. I don't understand how you are expected to seriously fight a relentless enemy if you are restraining yourself.
The example of France is very, very troubling. I have read before that many Jews are leaving France in the recent years. Some of them explained, "We are less than a million, Muslims are 6 millions. The politicians can count, they see where the votes will come from. What future have we in this country?"
Pres. Chiraq was quoted to say that there is no anti-Semitism in France and Jews must stop complaining, at a time when synagogues were fire-bombed. Only after the murder of Ilan Halimi did he admit the existence of anti-Semitism in France. This was some time after the crime; the immediate reaction of the French establishment was a desperate attempt to hide if not the crime itself, then its nature - to belittle the fact that a Jew had been tortured to death by Muslims motivated to a large degree by anti-Semitism.
I am of course all for democracy, but the events in France reveal an inherent weakness of democracy, the seeds of self-destruction it is carrying. The democratic vote puts a bonus in numbers, regardless of the quality of people making these numbers. So, once non-productive, aggressive or otherwise bad people reach a significant number, we'll see the democratically elected government stepping on the heads of good citizens in order to appease bad citizens. Of course the whole country can go to Hell, but who cares? A dynastic ruler may worry about the future, what he'll leave to his heir and so on, but democratic leaders can think only for 4-5 years ahead, the re-election term.
NBA,
Do you believe in that "proportionate response" thing for criminal acts, too?
If I got caught robbing my neighbors house after having stolen $500 worth of property from him, I'd be sentenced to a few years in prison.
Is that proportionate? Svereal YEARS of my life is only worth $500?
Wouldn't it be more proportinate for me to pay $500 worth of resitution to him, and that's my only penalty?
But that would be silly, wouldn't it? The purpose of criminal pebalties is not to be proportionate, but to punitive. And to act as a deterrent to others who would commit crimes if there wasn't a heavy penalty.
The purpose of waging war is much the same. The penalty for potentially losing a war acts as a deterrent to starting one.
I really don't think this idea of proportionality deserves much discussion. The purpose of war is not to be proportional, it's to destroy your enemy. Always has been. Always will be. The non-sensical posturing of the UN notwithstanding.
That line of argument guarantees that terrorists are going to be able to destroy the world, by the way. Every terrorist attack that was met with an anemic "proportional" response would be an overwhelming victory for the terrorists.
Thanks for asking me to stick around, by the way. I wasn't saying I was abandoning the blogosphere. I was just saying that discussing an issue such as Lebanon with people who disagree so strongly with me is pointless. Hezbollah is an enemy of my nation, and I would gladly kill every single member of Hezbollah I could find, with my own hands. How can I have a rational discussion about Israel's supposed mis-deeds, while Israel is fighting my fight for me?
Excellent point, Programmer Craig.
Israel must take the necessary steps to make Hezbollah think long and hard about killing and kidnapping Israelis in the future.
Appeasement (or "diplomacy" or "talking" as the pro-Palestinian/leftist camp likes to call it) has been tried previously and clearly has not worked.
This is the time for deterrence.
About the use of depleted uranium in Lebanon
What Maya says: It is quite true that the "purpose" of the uranium is not "nuclear". They have been in pretty common use ever since the first Iraq war and the Balkan wars. I always thought the purpose to increase the penetration of the bombs, and not precision as Maya says, but I might be mistaken.
But it DOES radiate. And the result is, according to many researchers, long lasting suffering.
And the suffering is not only on the ground!
Many American veteran organizations have got a thing or two to say about depleted uranium. For those interested, go to Google, make sure you search for NEWS, and see what American media are saying about: veterans +"depleted uranium"
I would be glad to hear from Craig what veterans say about depleted uranium, thanks.
I should add: No, I do not think I have strayed off the subject.
The question is depleted uranium and the long lasting suffering on the ground.
To get any grasp of the suffering, as there is pretty sparse scientific research on that(effects on the ground), we must look where such research is available, which happens to be in the US (effects from handling the stuff).
I would be glad to hear from Craig what veterans say about depleted uranium, thanks.
I don't know anything about it. I've been exposed to quite a bit of myself, as has every other American who served ina combat arms MOS in the last 30 years or so. I'd guess more DU has been used here in the US at our weapons stations and training grounds than anywhere else.
Gotta be tens of millions of American vets who have been exposed to it to one degree or another. If it's that big of a hazard I'd expect we were seeing a lot of effects by now, which we don't seem to be seeing.
I'd be interested in hearing what Maya has to say about it, since she is a biologist and has apparrently looked into it, to some extent.
BTW, Highlander, depleted uranium is not banned. It's a standard munition in every major military force that I know of. Maybe it should be. But it's not.
White Phosphorous is definately not banned, and is in fact the most common smoke munition for all military forces everywhere in the world. I'm sure even Libya uses it. Everyone does. And has, since at least World War I.
The "poison gas" charge, I know nothing about. If they are calling white phosphorous "poison gas" that's absurd on it's face. Infantrymen have been walking through white phosphorous smoke during assaults for 100 years. There are ZERO known adverse health effects, out of hundreds of millions of cases. If that's "poison gas", then what do you call cigarette smoke? :O
Hiya Craig! just a quickie im glad were back on something resembling speaking terms & that we managed to avoid disaster one nanosecond before impact yup we faint-hearted european softies tend to get tear-eyed far too easily :)
to be continued...
Hi NBA,
From your BBC link:
"Indiscriminate shelling of cities constitutes a foreseeable and unacceptable targeting of civilians", she said.
She intends this remark for Hezbollah, but she frames it poorly. Define "indiscriminate" for instance. If Hezbollah was targetting petrochemical plants in Haifa, that's a valid military target. And the fact that they have "missed" 100 times doesn't change that.
"Similarly, the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians, is unjustifiable."
She is contradicting the laws of war with this statement. Directly.
Frankly, I found her statements to be bizarre. It distubs me that somebody who plays so fast and loose with her reading of international laws and treaties has such a prominent position in the UN.
but I'm also happy to give equal rights to Arab girls with long black hairs and big brown eyes LOL.
Well, here is one thing I can agree with you on! :D
By the way, my policy has been to abandon the discussion on any blog where the other commenters begin calling me a jew. Which means, it turns out, that this is the only blog I am still engaging on. But that's only because I broke my own rules (Libyan Warrior called me a jew here a few days ago) because I like Highlander so much :)
Umm Aminah,
Israel is so good at gathering sympathy from the rest of the world.
Could have fooled me! Unless you consider the US and a reluctant Britain "the rest of the world" that is!
"No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expediency."
Theodore Roosvelt, 1858 – 1919
I hate to repeat myself but, now it is necessary to elaborate. As I said several days ago, the present Israeli war strategy is not only massively disproportionate but also pretty inefficient (with regards to the alleged objectives) and even counter-productive. As proportions have been discussed abundantly, let us take a look at counter-productivity. Israel is not only causing excessive damage to the Lebanese people and society, it is also causing excessive damage to its own. Israel hurting itself? Tall order? Nope, I think not!
Counter-productive ?? you ask. Israel’s “bombing campaign” is creating more enemies than it is killing. According to Israeli sources there are currently half a million fresh refugees as a result of the bombings. The Hezbollah are having Christmas (!) in recruiting supporters among the masses of refugees. We are talking about dislodged, desperate, angry people who have lost homes and families, everything to live for. You may think that I am merely speculating. There are plenty historic testimonies (try Google news) of how militants have had great times in recruiting among masses of deprived, in the Middle-East as well as Africa.
Deterrence?? I ask! Some blogger here went something like “ah yes deterrence that is it!” I completely disagree. The concept of deterrence may seem logical. But logic does not cut the cake when we are dealing with human nature. (On a much smaller scale, according to extensive research, the deterrent effect of death penalty is highly debatable.) Deterrence of the Lebanese government? I am pretty sure that the Lebanese government did not want Hezbollah militants on its soil, but they lacked the means to maintain territorial integrity. (And if you think they did have the means then exactly what did the extensive 1982 bombings deter?). Deterrance of the Hezbollah? Yeah, they sure seem like deterrable kinda folks. Nuh!
Adam, what's your suggestion then? Everyone should just submit?
If Israel and the United States are doing as much damge to themselves and their interests as you suggest, that should make you happy, right?
Isn't that what you want? And please don't tell me about the UN. The UN has been in Lebanon for 6 years, and not only have the peacekeepers failed to do anything about Hezbollah attacks on Israel, they have HELPED Hezbollah kidnap and murder Israelis soldiers, and they have attempted to cover up their involvement.
The UN has FAILED. Again. It's now a war. You either want one side to win, or you want the other side to win. Or you are neutral. And I have to say, you do not SEEM neutral to me. You seem like a partisan.
I Am a American and I support America
You're a liar. You've praised Hezbollah, the murderers of Americans, half a dozen times on this blog.
You've said you want Muslims to defeat America, half a dozen times on this blog.
You may technically be american, but your citizenship makes you a traitor.
And what's with calling me a Christian now? You called me a jew a few days ago. What am I now, a fundamentalist jewish redneck christian?
Whatever I am, it's better than a pyschotic Libyan bigot.
Craig!
Thank you for asking, those are fully valid questions. And I might add, even the dark sarcasms coming through your gritted teeth are valid, considering the amount of sarcasm I have previously expelled.
I did intend to elaborate but sometimes The Blogosphere gets very much like The Matrix: dark and cramped. I just HAD to get out, SEE THE SKY, get some fresh air into my lungs. Ah, there I go again, off subject, rats!
I will begin by stating something that - I am very very sorry - may deeply hurt some fellow Arab bloggers. From 1980 – 2006 Israel has had one single decent prime minister. Yitzhak Rabin is a hero. He achieved something all others failed to achieve. Dialogue, peace, a glimmer of hope. How does that make me a partisan? Let me quote Wikipedia: “While the intifada continued Rabin's attitude softened and he became more convinced that the solution to the violence should be found around the negotiation table.” See that. Magic words: “convinced”,”should”,”negotiation”.
I also think that most other Israeli leaders have been monsters. (Peres after siding with Sharon went from being reasonable to the latter.) There is no contradiction in that. I do not judge anybody by their colours. I do judge individuals by their latest deeds.
Why did Oslo collapse? That is a matter of opinion. There are accusations from both sides about whom to blame. During a few years of the Oslo Accord years there was peace. For the third time I repeat: there was not a single terror act by Palestinians on Israeli civilians for slightly more than two years. That is a fact.
Now why do I mention the seemingly off topic Palestinian question? To remind all blog readers of the fact that dialogue, has worked, even in the darkest hours. And, IMHO, it can work in The Lebanon.
Adam, what's your suggestion then? Everyone should just submit?
Stop bombing today. Start negotiations today. You might have read very similar ideas in my quotes yesterday from two different Israeli newspapers.
It is very sad that Israel has manoeuvred itself into a diplomatically frozen position of “WE NEVER NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS”. They have cut deals with the Palestinians before, (often through external mediation), they can cut deals again. Such an approach would have been a lot easier before they destroyed The Lebanon. In the present escalation deal cutting may of course be a huge loss of face, for all parties. But if civilian human lives are less worth than pride, then what kind of animals are we?
Israel would need to concede at the negotiating table. I am convinced that a deal could be cut between Israel, The Lebanon, Hezbollah and NATO. Many people regard the Hezbollah as animals, but I am sure, they love their brothers too. How about this: “We will release 90 Hezbollah members 90 days from today. During those 90 days you will not fire a single rocket not one. You will allow the NATO peacekeepers to heavily reinforce their positions in the south of Lebanon. And if you break this …” Some bloggers may go “what release 90 terrorists ? :O”. Sure I say, with the increasing number of homeless refugees they will soon be recruiting a lot more than 90 every day. And if 90 wont cut it 200 will for sure. You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. Dialogue worked in -93.
If Israel and the United States are doing as much damge to themselves and their interests as you suggest, that should make you happy, right? Isn't that what you want?
A bit blunt, are we not? But the answer is no.
It's now a war. You either want one side to win, or you want the other side to win. Or you are neutral.
Nope. Not at all. You think in terms of winning and losing. I do not. I think in terms of human suffering. I want to minimize civilian human suffering on both sides, as described above.
Craig, you appear to keep wondering: “So if I value Arab lives and Israeli lives equally. Why do I talk so much more about the Arabs.” You asked me something similar before. I do because the scale of the suffering is much greater for the Arabs. I answered this a few days ago:
I might be a softie, but if I see a big kid punching the wits out of a small kid in the street I feel sorry for the small kid, even if the small kid started it. If the big kid is my kid and he comes home with a bruise and the small kid goes to hospital, I tell my kid to hold his fire next time. That is what I feel.
And Craig, I gotta ask you, wtf is this about the UN?
“they have HELPED Hezbollah kidnap and murder Israelis soldiers”
Adam,
And Craig, I gotta ask you, wtf is this about the UN?
“they have HELPED Hezbollah kidnap and murder Israelis soldiers”
Why not research it yourself? It's pretty well documented. I'm off to eat dinner right now, but I wanted to give you the opportunity to check on this yourself and offer up an opinion on it, rather than accepting my sources. It happened some years ago, the last tiem Israeli soldiers were kidnapped by Hezbollah. The Un covered it up for over a year.
I'll comment on this and the rest later :)
How does that make me a partisan?
Your words make you a partisan. As you clearly are. I am also a partisan. And my country is at war. Yours is not.
Israel would need to concede at the negotiating table. I am convinced that a deal could be cut between Israel, The Lebanon, Hezbollah and NATO.
That would not satisfy me. And it would not satisfy my country. It is not one of our objectives to "negotiate" with murdering terrorists. You go negotiate with them as much as you like. Have fun with that.
Many people regard the Hezbollah as animals, but I am sure, they love their brothers too.
Perhaps their brothers will mourn them when they are dead. You don't really expect me to feel pity, for murderers, do you?
You keep repeating the same statements and demanding that I answer differently than I have before. My statements have been perfectly clear. Hezbollah is my enemy, personally. And Hezbollah is an enemy of my country. If you support Hezbollah, you are supporting my enemies. America's enemies. That's all there is to say.
Adam, please don't address any more comments to me. I have nothing to discuss with you. This is the third time I've asked.
In my previous post I may have antagonized people from both camps. I never said I am neutral. In such a polarized conflict, I doubt that neutrality exists. That by the way, does not make me a Hezbollah supporter. I think that negotiations have worked, and can work in The Lebanon. Here is an article from the New York Times. It is an excellent read.
Thoughts on this, anyone?
Spanish Lessons for Israel
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: July 23, 2006
In 1982, many friends of Israel vigorously supported its invasion of Lebanon, arguing that it was only assuring its own security.
In retrospect, though, that assault undermined the long-term security of Israel. The invasion spawned Hezbollah, whose perceived success in driving Israel out of Lebanon encouraged Hamas and other Palestinian groups to adopt more violent tactics.
Today again, Israel believes that it is improving its long-term security by attacking Lebanon. And once again, I believe, that will prove counterproductive.
Israel is likely to kill enough Lebanese to outrage the world, increase anti-Israeli and anti-American attitudes, nurture a new generation of anti-Israeli guerrillas, and help hard-liners throughout the region and beyond. (Sudan’s cynical rulers, for example, will manipulate Arab outrage to gain cover to continue their genocide in Darfur.) But Israel is unlikely to kill more terrorists than it creates.
More broadly, one reason this bombardment — like the invasion in 1982 — is against Israel’s own long-term interest has to do with the way terrorism is likely to change over the next couple of decades.
In the past, terror attacks spilled blood and spread fear, but they did not challenge the survival of Israel itself. At some point, though, militant groups will recruit teams of scientists and give them a couple of years and a $300,000 research budget, and the result will be attacks with nerve gas, anthrax, or “dirty bombs” that render areas uninhabitable for years.
All this suggests that the only way for Israel to achieve security is to reach a final peace agreement, involving the establishment of a Palestinian state (because states can be deterred more easily than independent groups like Hamas). Such an agreement is not feasible now, but it might be five or 15 years from now. Israel’s self-interest lies in doing everything it can to make such a deal more likely — not in using force in ways that strengthen militants and make an agreement less likely.
It’s certainly true that if America were raided by a terror group next door, we would respond just as Israel has. When Pancho Villa attacked a New Mexico town in 1916, we sent troops into Mexico. But that expedition was a failure (just as our invasion of Iraq has been, at least so far).
On the other hand, there are two democracies that endured constant and brutal terrorism and eventually defeated it. Neither Spain nor Britain was in a situation quite like Israel’s (Palestinian terrorists have been more brutal in attacking civilians), but they still offer useful lessons. And both the Northern Ireland and Basque problems were often considered insoluble a couple of decades ago, perhaps even more than those in the Middle East today.
Spain could have responded to terror attacks by sending troops into the Basque country, or by bombing the sanctuaries that ETA guerrillas used just across the border in France. (France was blasé about being used as a terrorist base.) Instead, Spain gave autonomy to the Basque country and restrained itself through gritted teeth, over the objections of those who thought this was appeasement.
Likewise, Britain endured constant bombings by the I.R.A., which enjoyed support in both Ireland and the U.S. and obtained weapons and Semtex plastic explosive from Libya.
Yet Margaret Thatcher didn’t bomb Dublin (or Boston), nor even the offices of the I.R.A.’s political wing in Northern Ireland. When she saw that Britain’s harsh tactics were strengthening support for the I.R.A., the Iron Lady moderated her approach and negotiated the landmark Anglo-Irish agreement of 1985. At the time, that agreement was widely denounced as rewarding terrorists and showing weakness.
Frankly, neither British nor Spanish restraint was a huge or immediate success. Spain had hoped that democracy would end Basque terrorism; instead, it increased. And Mrs. Thatcher acknowledges in her memoirs that her results were “disappointing.”
Yet in retrospect, the softer approach gave London and Madrid the moral high ground and slowly — far too slowly — isolated terrorists and made a negotiated outcome more feasible. That’s why Britain and Spain are today peaceful, against all odds.
That admirable restraint should be the model for Israel, with the aim of making a comprehensive peace agreement more likely — in 2010 or 2020 if not in 2007. The record of Spain and Britain suggests that restraint and conciliation can seem maddeningly ineffective — but they are still the last, best hope for peace.
In such a polarized conflict, I doubt that neutrality exists.
Polarized conflict? You feel "polarized" by Hezbollah terror attacks on Americans and other foreigners? And you are on the opposite side of the conflict as the United States.
To hell with that. Please stop directing things at me. We have nothing to discuss. Attack some other American. Or bicker with Europeans. I don't give a damn. I don't want to talk about this with you. Fourth time I've asked, now. I find your positions personally repugnant. I might be willing to discuss it with you anyway, if you ever bothered to correct yourself when you get caught in factual errors, but you don't. You just continue with the attacks.
I wouldn't engage an arab who used those tactics, but at least I'd understand the hostilty, coming from an arab. I do NOT understand it coming from you, Adam. Keep it to yourself, or vent it on somebody who cares.
And yes, I'm aware you didn't write "Craig" on your comment, but since it's obvious who you meant this for (it was another hatchet job on the US and I'm the only American particpating here) that's just another example of you using cheap tactics.
Sod my opinion Craig. Forget it. Please ignore my opinion. My personal opinion is very insignificant. Really.
The opinion expressed in that NYT article is important. For example:
"Yet in retrospect, the softer approach gave London and Madrid the moral high ground"
What do you say about that Maya?
Adam
I read that article, i did have some interesting points, however the IRA and ETA, although terrorists did avoid civilian targets, although not always. Also they had grivances that could be solved or negotiated with.
However that approach is not likely to work with groups like al qaeda or Hezbollah who have extreme demands like the abolition of Isreal, which cant be met and who deliberately target civilians as targets.
After all why are hezbollah still around, when isreal had left lebannon years ago, before the current conflict, if their grievance was isreal presence in lebannon
highlander what is your opinion on this
As I see all the destruction, a question keeps popping up: If the so called strategy of scientifically humane “surgical bombing” recently was so efficient against the “world’s fourth largest armed forces” (counting what? rivets??) then why is such a strategy not mentioned today?
Are the Katyushas invisible to satellites? Eh?? Perhaps they are firing from underneath the bridges. Or are all of them hidden in dense residential areas?
Alan !
After all why are hezbollah still around
that is a pretty good question, I’ve been wondering the same. We can all see that the UN peacekeepers in the region failed grandly to keep the south of Lebanon clean. And forgive me for being blunt but: did they fail because the UN sucked or because the UN mandate sucked?
I really would like to know. If I were to speculate I would say that another mandate would have been necessary, that they were not given sufficient authority and fire-power.
Opinion Highlander? Anyone ?
Hi NBA,
So you're not one, just a racist Anglo-Saxon brainwashed by Zionists LOL?
No, I was brainwashed by the PLO and the Iranians, in the 1970s, when I was a child :)
it should be an indication sincere discussion is over.
There is no "sincere discussion" with terrorists and their supporters. I keep hearing diplomats say there's no military solution to terrorism. To me, it seems rather the opposite. The history of the last 30 years indicates there is no diplomatic solution to terrorism. The first serious attempt to deal with terrorism by military means is now underway, and there is no evidence that it will not succeed.
On the other hand, diplomacy has been tried 1000 times in the last 30 years. Diplomats are 0 for 1000, as far as I can tell.
Mandela and Arafat have both earlier been labelled terrorÃsts but have later been recived in the White House.
Did either of them ever kill Americans?
In any case, there has been a change in reality since 9/11. The US can and will destroy Hezbollah and Al Qaeda. We HATE terrorists over here, now. Believe it, because it's true.
that when political realities set in, terrorists are not called that anymore but statesmen or at least better than their alternatives and groups not formerly labelled as terrorists get that stamp.
You're talking about past diplomatic approaches, which have utterly FAILED. That's not on the table, anymore. The US will no longer pursue those failed polices. Not if I have anything to say about it.
Did you see the US buckling to the "international community" on the issue of HAMAS? And HAMAS hasn't even killed any americans. How do you think we are going to deal with Hezbollah, NBA?
Are you surprised teh US is not pushing for a ceasfire in Lebanon? I am not. The destruction of Hezbollah is critical to America's interests, in this war on terrorism. If teh Israeli's don't get it done, America will have to, at some point.
Keep waiting for AMerica to back off from that position. I suspect you'll still be waiting when the last surviving member of Hezbollah dies.
I wouldn't be surprised if Hamas and Hizbollah one day were legitimate negotiating partners of the US and EU and even Israel.
HAMAS and HEzbollah are not the same. HAMAS is not an international terrorist group. Hezbollah is. HAMAS is ni not a proxy of Iran. Hezbollah is. HAMAS has not committed crimes against Americans. Hezbollah has murdered hundreds of Americans.
Any US President who trie dto "engage" Hezbollah diplomatically would be impeached.
I'm not saying they should be, just claiming changing political realities might lead to that.
The political reality is that voters in America want terrorists to be killed.
See which politicians have the nerve to go against that.
The world has seen bigger turns of the tide.
America is not the world. As you have pointed out, before. A nobel peace prize and $1.50 will buy you a cup of coffee. Arafat and Carter are the proof. And that raging hatemonger who won the prize last year, whatever the fuck his name is.
NBA, I like you, but I don't think you're seeing things as they are, when you look at America. We do intend to win the war on terror. Mixed feelings about Iraq notwithstanding. Iraq was a neocon brainstorm which I never agreed with, because Iraq was not part of the war on terror prior to 2003, in my opinion. Though it is NOW.
But you won't find many Americans who are ready to play kissy face with terrorists. We're pretty pathological about terrorism at this point in time. And not in any mood to negotiate with people we want to see dead.
NBA, I missed one of you statements :)
My own viewpoint is that if there are important groups of people too uncritical of Israel outside that country, they are easiest found in parts of the US administration, and among many Jews and Evangelical Christians and that's more or less it.
Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the Democrats in the US House of Representatives, just issued a statement condemning Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki for criticizing Israel. She's Italian, I think, and no friend of the Bush Administration :)
Hillary Clinton has been more pro-Israel in her statemenst the last 2 weeks than Bush.
And Bill Clinton offerred to go and die in the trenches defending Israel, if necessary.
The Clintons are anglo-saxons. And, obviously, they are both democrats. And no friends of Bush.
Just neocons, Evangelicals and Jews supporting Israel in the US?
I don't think so! How many Americans have you seen on blogs that don't support Israel? And no, I'm not talking about LibyanWarrior as I consider him to be an enemy infiltrator :)
I know, I know. I only say that because I'm a anglo-saxon jewish fundamentalist christian right-wing zionist redneck.
Of all the things that have been said about me, it's the "fundamentalist Christian" charge that surprises me the most, as most fundamentalists consider me to be a heretic :P
NBA, don't agree with you about what Hezbollah wants. I don't think Hezbollah cares about Israel/Palestine in the slightest. I think it's just an excuse. Hezbollah wants whatever Iran wants. Iran wants a colony on the Mediterranean. Iran also wants the Great Satan to be destooyed. The IRI has always wanted that, and has always worked towards that.
In short, Hezbollah wants the same thing that Al Qaeda wants, though for different reasons. They wants global islamic hegemony. Negotiating with such is negotiating yourself into slavery or forced conversion, NBA.
Craig, you have any comment on this? I'm not a conspiracy theorist claiming IDF is intentionally not discovering their brothers in arms to hit their enemies harder but I'm surprised they haven't brought their soldiers back alive so far.
The US has a missing soldier in Iraq - missing for over two years now. The US has only had a few successes in locating hostages in Iraq, out of thousands of hostages taken. The US never successfully found and of the American hostages in Lebanon in the 1980s.
It's not that easy to find people, when the communities involved are sheltering the hostage takers. Same thing happened in France with that Jewish man who was tortured to death for over a week. The neighbors knew he was there, and knew he was being tortured. Nobody reported it.
NB my man! And U2 a contemporary!
This fits nicely with what I have wanted to say for some time but you just opened this sub-subject now:
My point was - and this is not a critique of US policy but global hypocrisy - that when political realities set in, terrorists are not called that anymore but statesmen or at least better than their alternatives and groups not formerly labelled as terrorists get that stamp.
Pretty much my opinion, and I really do dislike it when somebody calls me of anti-American because I do not consider myself one. ”ah-gee-I-wonder-who-that-could-be-since-I-am-the-only-American-here” Sorry man I just couldn’t resist it :)
Get this now: I am anti-suffering. I am anti-cynical. And if I see bigger suffering I use bigger words.
This for example is cynical: “Our brave friends the French! They speak wise words against the war-mongers. True defenders of unsheltered humans!” Yeah Right! And they are not like looking at their domestic opinion polls eh?
“And the Russians! Putin the proud leader! Speaking up against the oil-robbing imperialistic attackers!” Yeah Right Even More! Nothing to do with lost Russian geo-political influence? Sure.
That list is endless. So, now back: In Lebanon 2000, when Israel withdrew. I think the French were one of the loudest proponents of aiding Lebanon in defending its territory. They spoke a lot. Did they do a lot? Nope.
This is the sad fact. 2000 and on Lebanon would have needed a lot of support do defend its territory from HB and other uninvited military elements. The UN failed, but I believe, and want to believe, that UN could have succeeded if they had sent something more than a feather-weight force! .
The EU also failed. They went ho hum without agreeing on anything, they probably couldn’t even agree on the name of the operation.
As a European I find it very complex to decide if I want a powerful single EU-army or not, but Lebanon sure could have used some help from one.
NBA,
PLO, on the other hand, clearly has American victims.
I was unable to load that article. If what you say is true, so much the more reason to condemn Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.
Although Highlander disagrees, the world holds Libya responsible for the West Berlin disco bombing in the 1980s.
Q paid for that. He paid a high price.
Hezbollah has never paid any price whatsoever to Americans, for American dead. And Hezbollah is responsible for orders of magnitude more terrorism that Q ever was.
Even Musharraf of Pakistan turned from a dangerous guy with nuclear weapons to an ally against terrorism after 9/11.
We aren't at war with dangerous guys. We're at war with terrorists. Musharif is an ally in that war. Without him, Pakistan becomes a terror state. And a nuclear armed one, at that. You do realize what US pre-emption in Pakistan would look like, right?
I repeat, I'm not saying this will happen but I wouldn't be too surprised to see the realities change how improbable they look today.
They already have changed. That's what I'm trying to point out. You're pointing to the 30 year period of history in which the US insisted on treating Terrorists as if they were just criminals.
That's how we got to where we are, today. We aren't going back to that. That thinking would be our deaths (and yours too, by the way) and we do not intend to die. Regardless of what YOU do.
Send me a bottle of good Californian wine if the US ever negotiates openly with Hizbollah ;-)
Some Hezbollah Abu Idiot bigshot just got popped in Lebanon today. I'd rather send you a bottle of wine in celebration of that :P
Only time will tell and even then historians will disagree.
Most assuredly. I'm amazed to hear all the various theories about how Europeans defeated the Soviet Union, these days :D
I don't really disagree with much of what you said. As usual.
I personally never forgave President Reagan for letting the deaths of my friends go unanswered in 1983. And I was (and still am) a big fan of Reagan. He was wrong, then. If he'd gone full bore after Hezbollah in 1983 and 1984, things wouldn't be as they are right now.
Even Osama used Hezbollah's "victory" over the US in 1983 as a recruiting tool. It shopuld have never happened. And it can never happen again. Terrorsist cannot ever be allowed to "win" no matter how marginal such claims are. They have to always lose, and be seen to lose. In a big splashy way.
The assertion that "just neocons, Jews, and evangelicals" support Israel is patently wrong on several grounds.
First, several opinion polls have shown that Jewish opinion on Israel is not, in fact, substantially different than the general American population.
Second, as has already been pointed out by non-blogging, virtually every presidential administration has supported Israel. This extends to the mainstream of the Democratic party.
By contrast, stauch support for Palestinians prevails only among Muslims and the hard (often Marxist) left.
The truth is that most Americans don't have particularly strong opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict one way or the other. Most Americans are not news junkies (like many of us, including myself are) and don't have a very deep knowledge of the conflict. The average American has his or her own interests and concerns, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a low priority in most people's minds. The fact that they are now running news specials on CNN introducing the American public to Hezbollah shows you how little most Americans know or care about the conflict.
I think many Arabs have the false impression that most Americans are as passionate about the issue as they are, but are on the opposite side of the debate. This simply isn't true. To the extent that most Americans are familiar with the problem, they have written the whole affair off as an unresolvable difficulty that isn't their concern. In their minds, the Israelis and the Palestinians (and the Arabs, as well) are just two groups of people who don't get along and will probably never get along. Oh well.
Tommy,
The truth is that most Americans don't have particularly strong opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict one way or the other.
Yes I was under the same impression, and may have blogged so but in somewhat different words...
U mention polls on the American-Jewish opinion on Issies/Pallies. I was always under the impression that the US Evangelicals were far more avid suppers of Israel than the Jewish. Is this so? I also saw some documentary (BBC?) that stated that the Evangelicals are pretty influential despite their few numbers. 3% I read above, well at least that is a bit of relief!
Adam,
It wouldn't surprise me if evangelicals were more supportive of Israel than the general population. I don't see many evangelicals taking the Palestinian side, that is for sure.
Likewise, I wouldn't be surprised if liberal denominations, like the Unitarians, were more pro-Palestinian than average Americans.
Libyan Warrior,
I think some young Americans might be confused about who exactly the president is. I know I sometimes am. I get the impression occasionally that Cheney is more the president than Bush is.
I'm generally a conservative, but I'll be the first to admit that Bush isn't the brightest guy in politics by any means.
Tommy & LW,
LW has spoken loads about the Jewish Lobby. But what do you guys say about the Christian (Evangelical) Lobby,? If there is such a thing, I'm keen to hear...
Adam,
Evangelical groups do some lobbying via groups such as the Christian Coalition. However, it is important to note that the evangelicals have a wide range of goals besides supporting Israel on their agenda, such as the abortion issue, gay rights, etc. While they support Israel in a general sense, I don't think they directly lobby for particular initiatives on behalf of Israel. Evangelical support of Israel is mostly moral in nature.
There is also some support of certain pro-Israeli activities by evangelical Christians of a private financial nature, though this is less significant. For instance, some evangelical Christian organizations assist impoverished, often elderly, Jews from Russia and eastern Europe make the aliyah to Israel.
If this is intentional, it is as much of a war crime as Hizbollah exploding the US Marines barracks in 1983.
Yes, if it was intentional, then it would be a war crime. However, I highly doubt it was intentional. The United Nations seems determined to make an ass out of itself. Three pieces worth reading on the United Nations in Lebanon:
http://www.israpundit.com/2006/?p=1968#more-1968
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/187339.php
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21771_UN_Repairing_Roads_for_Hizballah&only
NBA, that's a very big charge for Koffee Annan to be making based on the anecdotal evidence which is all he has access to at this time.
I don't know what the UN troops are doing there (still) do you? There's no peace for them to be monitoring. And any international force that eventually comes into Lebanon will most likely NOT be UN Peacekeepers, but rather a NATO force or some other coalition of countries which volunteer for that duty. A force that actually DOES have the necessary mandate to disarm Hezbollah, and the authority to do so at gunpoint if necessary.
Peronally, I think it's insane to send peacekeepres into Lebanon. Hezbollah killed 241 US peacekeepres and 56 French peacekeepers in 1983. Hezbollah kidnapped and murdered UN peacekeepers in the 1980s. Recently, UN peavekpeepers have been implicated (but not charged!!) in assisting Hezbollah in attacks on fatal attacks on Israeli troops. Lebanon is not a candidate for peacekeeping missions. No good can come of it. But it's not my call.
I haven't been reading BP or SM much the last couple weeks (due to all the hostility flying around), but I'll go check out the "action" and see what they are talking about, NBA.
I find it interesting how, in every other circumstance, the United Nations will pull its peacekeepers out of the area when things get hot. Here, they insist that the peacekeepers remain around even though Hezbollah has been using UN positions to target Israelis.
More on the UN-Hezbollah alliance:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005611.htm
Of course, I expect ridicuous charges from the Café Annan when he hasn't a shred of evidence in front of him. Annan was the first SecGen of the UN to meet with Hezbollah (a militia that isn't even supposed to exist accoring to UN resolution 1559) and who feels the need to exercise "partiality" between Hezbollah and Israel when the murder/kidnapping of Israeli soldiers that was abetted by UN peacekeepers and covered up by the UN, including Annan himself.
Again, we are talking about the SecGen of the UN exercising partiality between an illegal terrorist organization that is not supposed to exist according to a UN resolution and a legitimate member-state of the UN.
Annan is a terrorist sympathizer. That is the only thing I can conclude.
Post a Comment