|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
A boy is attacked by his church/frineds/family for being gay. We rally round and offer what succour we can
A man's country is attacked by terrorists and, unless it is the USA and September the 11th, we criticise his country for fighting back.
How do these add up?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because they're not the same thing?
The equivalent would be to take every person who preaches hate and subject them to a private hell of their own, one where their all-powerful God turns out to loathe them, and cast them out of whichever society they belong to. Are we doing that? No. We're not recommending that? No.
"Standing up", in personal situations like those we have been discussing, means either educating the "agressors" or escaping from the threat. Unfortunately neither of these seem to work on an international scale.
I don't see America as different from Israel, by the way. I think all conflicts are horrible -- countries may win or lose, but those people directly affected almost always lose out.
Who are "we", by the way?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
> A boy is attacked by his church/frineds/family for being gay. We rally round and offer what succour we can
>
> A man's country is attacked by terrorists and, unless it is the USA and September the 11th, we criticise his country for fighting back.
>
> How do these add up?
The two are not remotely comparable ... I, in turn, am totally perplexed as to how you can see any similiarity !
Whatever I may or may not feel about the actions of Israel, I do not think that it has ever claimed that it is invading another country "for that country's own good"!
And I, for one, have frequently criticised both the US and the UK for the "war on terror" response to 9/11 and 7th July ... the complete disregard for fundamental civil liberties both at home and abroad for anyone that the administration decides is of questionable innocence is no less horrifying for its predictability.
I hope that I have not given the impression that I am averse to any country fighting back when its existence or way of life is threatened. I may not like it, but I can see that many feel the necessity (although a pacifist myself, I do not expect others to be). But accepting this does NOT mean that I think that ANY country is necessarily (or even likely to be) a wholely "innocent victim", nor do I accept the assumption that the responses chosen by Israel, or by the US/UK, or whatever, are either appropriate or effective.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think my first answer made sense, now I come to read it again. I think I jumped to the conclusion that you were saying that hate-filled religion equals emotional terrorism, which, while sometimes true, was more likely a projection from me, not you.
However, even so, the two cases are obviously not equivalent. A country is not a person. A political choice is not a personal choice.
Where it is JFR's personal choice to support his country because he loves his country, and to help people in his country because they need help, I think that is very creditable and I would never criticise him for it. That is "rallying round". I would hopefully refrain from criticising the country in the same breath so as to make the distinction clear -- I may not have done that very well and my apologies for any ambiguity. We touched on a similar issue yesterday: the problem of giving advice to someone who believes in God but is condemned for his sexuality, when in fact one would rather he just joined another religion or forgot about God altogether. The solution is to keep criticism separate or deferred.
Where someone's country (and I'm not referring to any specifically here) decides to do something that it's leaders believes is right, but may be controversial, I don't think there's any obligation not to criticise. I always thought governments were there to be criticised. God knows we've criticised the British and American governments enough times.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
israel will forever be in a state of conflict...
They claimed a territory to be theirs but at the expense of the current inhabitants. If the entire world had not felt a deep sense of guilt due to the holocaust incident pslestine would have been left to the palestinians.
Granted, what's done is done but the fact that the area will exist with great tension is not arguable.
I see no connection between this and a person persecuted by his religion/family/friends for being gay.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timmy, I'm with the others on this. You are trying to compare apples and pears. Your thought is a very sweet one, but my own personal feeling is that I have been given overwhelming support from my friends here. All have wished me and mine to be well and safe, and this, of course, includes those who disagree with my country's policies. While the two situations are, of course, not the same are they so very different? Is supporting me at this time so different from warmly supporting a youngster in his acute distress while at the same time roundly criticising the church policies that caused his distress?
I have felt warm personal support here - and it is accepted with much love.
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
The two are entirely dissimilar in nature save for the support. I absolutely agree that they are apples and, well not even another fruit, but perhaps a sack of coal.
The Lebanese are poor pawns here. Regrettably they seem to count for nothing. But I see two types of oppression:
One is the oppression by religious fundamentalists of a person
The other is oppression by religious fundamentalists of a people.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
And the fundamentalism of the Hebrew faith stole palestine from the palestinians....
What form of fundamentalism is approved and what form is rebuked?
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... it's simply a fact that the world was horrified by the holocaust and felt obliged to create a Jewish homeland.
Naturally, the Allies chose their 'God-given' homeland or, at least, part of it - but that wasn't a consequence of Jewish fundamentalism.
Personally, and for reasons of which JFR is aware, I have no reason to be fond of Jewish fundamentalists. I have, however, discovered that perhaps a majority of Israelis is equally disenchanted with the self-righteous posturings of that group.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the displaced Palestinians - but do you realise that there are both Muslim and Christian members of the Knesset? I accept that on a wide range of issues Israel is a very modern and secular state - much more so than the USA!! And do you ever wonder why, despite the huge oil revenues of the Arab states, the Palestinians depend upon Western financial support?
Historically, the Jews were hated in many communities, and not without reason. Because, unlike Islam and Christianity, their religion did not prohibit usury (moneylending), they became rich but, unlike other religions, they did not - until recent times - display any sense of philanthropy outside of their own communities. Shakespeare's Shylock is, in many ways, a justifiable characterisation of the public perception of a Jew.
But do we in the West see ourselves as we were several centuries ago? Of course we don't - if we did, the Spanish Inquisition would make any Jewish misdemeanour appear pale in comparison. Neither do the majority of the Twentyfirst-Century population of Israel correspond to the medieval, avaricious stereotype of Jewishness. They have yet to grasp the nettle of containing the arrogance of the 'religious' community, but they do, at least, recognise the need to do so.
The Jewish community was not responsible for the creation of the State of Israel. They may have wished for it, but it was the Allied powers who created it. I don't like the arrogance which the Israelis showed after the 1967 war, and I don't like the blinkered support that Israel receives from the USA because of the powerful Jewish lobby which exists there. But, at any level, it is wholly unrealistic to suppose that what has been done can be undone. Israel exists, and is not only entitled, but obliged, to defend itself. Imagine the reaction in the USA if an anti-USA group launched rockets against Northern cities from across the Canadian border. Imagine the UK reaction if rockets attacked Liverpool, Manchester and Cardiff from launch sites in the Irish Republic. Get real!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome back to my good friend Cossie. I'm sorry to hear that you and your computer have been under the weather: I wish you both well.
Cossie says that the impetus for the creation of the State of Israel came from a feeling of compassion for the Jews felt in the West immediately after the Holocaust. This does not fit the historical facts.
The establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 was the direct result of the efforts of the Zionist Movement during fifty years. And the Zionist Movement was created in 1898 because the lot of the Jews in Europe and parts of the Islamic world was truly desperate. The turning point came when rampant anti-semitism was discovered in the France, then held to be the bastion of 'liberte, egalite et fraternite' in Europe. The catalyst was 'The Dreyfus Affair'. You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_Affair.
Theodor Herzl [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herzl] was an Austrian journalist covering the Dreyfus trial in Paris. He came to the conclusion that if this kind of anti-semitism had infiltrated the Third Republic what hope could there be for the Jews in Eastern Europe? He became convinced that the only solution for the Jews was their re-establishment in their ancient homeland as a free people. Thus it was that European anti-semitism caused the State of Israel.
Herzl convened the First Zionist Congress in Basle, Switzerland, September 3rd 1897. Shortly after this Congress Herzl wrote in his diary: "At Basle I founded the Jewish State ... Perhaps in five years, and certainly in fifty, everyone will know it." Almost fifty years to the day from then the State of Israel was established. (Herzl died in 1904.]
The turning point in the fortunes of the Zionist Organization came in 1917, when, on 2nd November, the British Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour, sent a letter to Lord Rothschild informing him that it was the intention of His Majesty's government to create a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine, which had just been conquered from the Turks by General Allenby. (This explains why there are so many streets throughout Israel called Allenby, Balfour - and even King George.)
The British undertaking began in earnest when Britain was awarded the mandate for Palestine by the League of Nations in 1922. (Palestine then consisted of what is now Israel, the Gaza Strip, The West Bank and the kingdom of Jordan.) I will not now go into the humiliating story of what a complete ballsup His Majesty's governments made of their mandate. On 29th November 1947 a vote was held in the United Nations at which it was decided to deprive Britain of her mandate and to divide Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. For the governments of the world (as opposed to the citizens) so-called guilt feelings about the holocaust played no part in their calculations at all (if such feelings existed). When the UN held its crucial vote on 29th November 1947 President Truman just couldn't decide whether to recognise the State of Israel or not, right up to the very last moment. The United Kingdom, of course, abstained.
The Jews were hysterical with joy and accepted the partition plan immediately even though it meant giving up part of their ancestral homeland. The Arabs haughtily rejected the plan and vowed to crush the Jewish state if it was created. The British announced that they would terminate their mandate on May 15th 1948 at midnight. On May 14th David Ben-Gurion proclaimed the State of Israel as from the termination of the British mandate.
The vast majority of Zionists (then and now) are completely secular in their lifestyle. (Herzl himself was an atheist.) So you see that the creation of the State of Israel had nothing to do with either religious fundamentalism or with holocaust guilt-feelings.
One last comment before I end this disgustingly long post. A few days ago was the centenary of the final vindication of Alfred Dreyfus. President Chirac publicly apologised for what France had done. Better late than never, I suppose.
And now I am exhausted from all this mental activity. I think I'll go and find a bottle of malt. If you have waded through this right up to the end please apply to the nearest Israeli embassy for your medal.
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i fully agree.
maybe i'm biased because someone i love, lives in israel and the attacks keep coming closer to her home. however, even if she wasn't there, i fully believe in one's rights to stand up for themselves, if attacked. the same applies here.
i see threads and newsgroups and posts everywhere, saying israel this, they started it, israel that, it's their fault... hello, didn't lebanon make the first attack, this time? or is the news i'm reading ALL lying?
anyways.. yeah. i was just saying.
my void does not want.
-- 2.13.61.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>hello, didn't lebanon make the first attack, this time? is the news i'm reading ALL lying?
Which news are you reading?
Most news over here (in the UK) dwells on the direct consequences of the conflict -- and the conflict at the current time is affecting more people at the Lebanon end. It is easy to miss those parts that point out what the Israeli aggression is in response to.
I am guessing in saying that the commentators in America are probably, on the whole, more pro-Israel or at least more outspoken than in other parts of the world. The BBC generally tries to report new facts without opinion or even necessarily historical analysis. At the current time, Israel is more active than the groups within Lebanon, so it is likely to get more exposure as the aggressor.
This is how I understand it. I am not going to comment on the validity of the conflict.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
The BBC (UK service) is viewed as impartial unless you are Israeli or Lebanese. In either case it definitely omits things you would wish to be aired. I have not look at BBC World Service bulletins though
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ghost-girl wrote:
... hello, didn't lebanon make the first attack, this time?
As I understand it, the incident(s) that precipitated the current invasion was conducted by the Hizb'ullah organisation based in Lebanon. I'm not aware of anything that suggests that Lebanon as a country was directly responsible ... opinions vary as to whether the strategy the Lebanese Governement was carrying out in respect of Hizb'ullah was likely to have long-term effects (and even exactly what that strategy was: worst accusation is semi-covert support for terrorists, while more optimistic supporters suggest the Lebanese government had a belief that increasing the economic prosperity of the country would ultimately render Hizb'ullah less attractive, and, indeed, that this straegy was starting to have enough success that Hizb'ullah felt the need for dramatic gestures to increase the scale of the conflict).
In a broader sense, "who started it" is essentially meaningless (I've seen a case made that much of the current problems derive from the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, for example).
The really important question is:
how do we stop it?
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
In situations of political or religious conflict it is pretty well impossible for opposing sides to agree about what is, and is not, 'true'. About the only thing which is demonstrably true is that even eye-witnesses will interpret what they see according to their personal agenda.
You'll see above a long response from JFR, posted following my comment that the formation of the state of Israel was influenced by the holocaust. Now I have the utmost respect and liking for JFR, and I have to acknowledge that my remark was superficial, and simply intended to rebut the suggestion that the creation of the State of Israel was the result of Jewish fundamentalism. Nevertheless, his 'long response' is very much a reflection of the Jewish - or, probably more correctly - the Israeli perspective. It's certainly true that the Zionist movement had campaigned for almost fifty years for a Jewish homeland, but it is also true that the United Nations was significantly influenced by the high profile of 'the Jewish question' after World War II, and the holocaust played a part in raising that profile. The League of Nations, the forerunner of the UN, made Palestine a British 'Mandated Territory', but having shuffled off direct responsibility displayed little interest thereafter. Britain had expressed approval in principle for a Jewish homeland as early as 1917, though no-one could deny that the British administration in Palestine was uninspired. However, British historians do not see it as 'a complete ballsup'. Britain had a mandate to administer Palestine within the law. The fact was that in the 1920s most of the territory was Arab-owned, and (reduced, I admit, to very simplistic terms) Britain had no mandate to dispossess the Arabs; it could only facilitate the ordinary commercial transfer of property to the growing Jewish population. In fact, the orderly aquisition of land by Jewish settlers moved forward apace. Meanwhile, the British administration had to contend not only with Arab-Jewish aggression - the 1929 Hebron massacre looms large in Jewish history - but also with fully-fledged Jewish terrorism, largely directed against civilians and resulting in much greater loss of life; whilst not denied, this factor receives less prominence in the Jewish account. In the closing years of the British mandate, it was felt that the post-war ingress of Jewish settlers was overwhelming the country's infrastructure. This may, or may not, be justified in hindsight - though it's certainly arguable - but the British administration decided that it was necessary to limit immigration. This was no secret, and despite the emotion of the book by Leon Uris and the subsequent film, the fact remains that the 'Exodus' was carrying illegal immigrants who KNEW that they were illegal immigrants. I accept that some of them were fleeing repression, but most were caught up in the Zionist fervour.
The British Mandate was rescinded, and the UN partitioned Palestine into a Jewish state (Israel) and an Arab state (Jordan). Arab resistance began immediately after the plan was announced, and as soon as the British handed over power to the leaders of the new State of Israel, the surrounding Arab nations declared war on the new state. Israel triumphed in this war, and annexed a good deal of Arab territory, so that the 'pre-1967' boundaries are not - as many seem to believe - those proposed by the UN, but include territory previously annexed as 'the spoils of war'.
I don't want to take this further, but I'd suggest that from the above it is easy to see how the three groups involved - Jews, Arabs and the British - have no difficulty in interpreting this history in very different ways. I dislike nationalism, and I don't necessarily support the British view; my whole point is that it is not merely legitimate, but inevitable, that the parties involved will see things differently.
It therefore goes - I hope - without saying that this is in no sense an attack on JFR, whom I like very much; it is, rather, an attempt to demonstrate the fragile nature of truth.
In conclusion, I'd like to respond to NW's post emphasising the urgency of bringing the present conflict to an end. Whilst I have serious concerns about Israeli arrogance - particularly in the case of the destruction of a UN post a couple of days ago (does Israel seriously expect that the world will be satisfied by an enquiry conducted by the Israeli military establishment?) I do recognise the inevitability of the conflict, as I explained in my previous post. NW, in a previous exchange of views you suggested that the Western Powers should withdraw from Afghanistan, because despite the initial bloodshed that would offer the shortest path to stability in the area. I just can't see how you can distinguish that view from the present situation; so long as Israel is attacked by Arab guerilla forces, peace in the Middle East is impossible. Why, then, is short-term bloodshed condemned, if it leads to an improved prospect of long-term peace? (NW - I'm not necessarily arguing a particular viewpoint here - just exploring what I see as a logical inconsistency!)
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
> so long as Israel is attacked by Arab guerilla forces, peace in the Middle East is impossible.
I'm sure that's true - as I'm also sure that as long as neighboring countries or areas feel that their borders are drawn and re-drawn unilaterally by Israel (and that they are subject to invasion and deliberate massive destruction of infrastructure, and abstraction of natural resources) there will be a fertile breeding ground for terrorists. (Note: I'm not commenting on the validity of the feeling, merely its existence).
> (NW - I'm not necessarily arguing a particular viewpoint here - just exploring what I see as a logical inconsistency!)
I acknowledge the apparent inconsistency. But I think, in fact, it is basically consistent to argue that a country which is in (or been rendered into) a state of such internal disarray as to have minimal effective infrastructure or real "statehood" stands its best chance of becoming peaceful if *permanently and completely* vacated by all occupying powers, especially those who are percieved as acting in their own interests rather than the interests of the occupied country. In this sense, I think it necessary for Israel to respect the borders it has drawn (with Lebanon).
It remains my profound conviction that a prosperous, stable, and egalitarian society does not provide the widespread non-participant popular support (concealment, assistance, local appearance of legitimacy) that large-scale guerilla movements require - in Lebanon, in Ireland, or anywhere else - and the establishment of such societies is the only long-term solution to large-scale pseudo-military terrorism.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NW wrote:
As I understand it, the incident(s) that precipitated the current invasion was conducted by the Hizb'ullah organisation based in Lebanon. I'm not aware of anything that suggests that Lebanon as a country was directly responsible ...
The following are snippets from an interview with Hassan Nasrallah on Al-Jezeera TV last Friday. I bring this to your attention simply because of it relevance to NW's thought: I do not think it should be construed as bearing any greater importnace than that. But he does say that the Lebanese government knew what he was about to do. (I do not know who RAF is: presumably, not the interviewer. Maybe another disputant in the programme.)
Hassan Nasrallah: I told them [the Lebanese government] on more than one occasion that we are taking the issue of the prisoners seriously, and that abducting Israeli soldiers is the only way to resolve it. Of course, I said this in a low-key tone. I did not declare in the dialogue: "In July I will abduct Israeli soldiers." This is impossible.
Interviewer: Did you inform them that you were about to abduct Israeli soldiers?
Hassan Nasrallah: I told them that we must resolve the issue of the prisoners, and that the only way to resolve it is by abducting Israeli soldiers.
Interviewer: Did you say this clearly?
Hassan Nasrallah: Yes, and nobody said to me: "No, you are not allowed to abduct Israeli soldiers." Even if they had told me not to... I'm not defending myself here. I said that we would abduct Israeli soldiers in meetings with some of the main political leaders in the country. I don't want to mention names now, but when the time comes to settle accounts, I will. They asked: "If this happens, will the issue of the prisoners be over and done with?" I said that it was logical that it would... And I'm telling you, our estimation was not mistaken. I'm not exaggerating. Anywhere in the world - show me a country, show me an army, show me a war, in which two soldiers, or even civilian hostages, were abducted, and a war was waged against a country - and all for two soldiers. This has never happened throughout history, and even Israel has never done such a thing.
RAF: So, the Lebanese knew about the kidnappings beforehand and, more telling, the true disproportionality of Israel's response is seen in Hizbullah's miscalculation - they never thought Israel would fight for two men. Talk about misguided values! Those darned Zionists actually care about the lives of their people! I knew they were crafty, but this ...
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for taking the time to post that, JFR.
It's the first time I've seen a decent source for the suggestion that the Lebanese government had prior knowledge that kidnapping was being actively considered ... It doesn't, of course, have any direct bearing on whether or not the government was in any sense "complicit" enough for it be sensible to say that "Lebanon" attacked.
cheers
NW
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
The BBC article appears to give a balanced view of the current situation.
In response to NW's post above, I can't accept the validity of his analysis.
First of all, over the last half-century there has been so much resentment between Israel and its neighbours that it is unrealistic to blame either side for the historical record. It is of course true that Israel has acquired a significant part of its current territory by conquest - a situation without parallel in the recent past, except perhaps by the Chinese occupation of Tibet. It is certainly true that the establishment of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories was an act of extreme political arrogance. But it is also true that the first action of the Arab states on the formation of Israel was to wage war upon the new state, and that Israel's right to exist has never been universally accepted. On balance, I see little justification for apportioning blame to one side or the other; the enmity is deep-seated and mutual.
The comparison between Israel and neighbouring Arab states is deeply skewed by heavy inward investment in Israel, primarily fron the USA. But I would remind NW (as JFR once reminded me!) that although several Arab states are phenomenally wealthy as a result of oil revenues, there has been no discernable enthusiasm to invest in Palestinian infrastructure in the way that Western nations have invested in Israeli infrastructure.
Neither can I accept the validity of the doctrine of disengagement. It might well have merit in a purely secular sense, but in the Middle East the political divisions between Arab states are of relatively recent creation and secular loyalties are no stronger than - if indeed they are as strong as - the loyalty to religion. Withdrawal of all foreign involvement in Lebanon is simply not possible. Without foreign aid, Lebanon does not have the wealth to reconstruct and, as NW admits, it is not poverty but prosperity which is the ultimate key to peaceful co-existence. Although financed by Iran and Syria, Hezbollah is primarily a Lebanese organisation, and it is driven not by poverty and envy but by sheer hatred of the very concept of Israel. It's surely unrealistic to expect Israel to honour Lebanon's territorial integrity on a unilateral basis?
I don't approve of the present situation, and I think that there are several incidents for which Israel must to be called to account, but overall I DO find the Israeli action understandable. Whether it is right for Israel to continue is another matter, and responsibility for that lies firmly with the USA. It's clear that the UK is trying to moderate the US stance, but I wish it were doing so rather more forcefully. The 'Special Relationship' is all very well, but it appears that GWB prefers poodles to partners.
Did US Television show the clip from the G8 talks where GWB was talking to Tony Blair, unaware that a microphone was switched on? He wants Hezbollah to stop the 'shit'. It seems that his knowledge of the intricacies of foreign policy is comparable with his knowledge of the English language!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
> On balance, I see little justification for apportioning blame to one side or the other; the enmity is deep-seated and mutual.
Now that is something that I completely agree with, and I would hate to think that any of my posts could have given anyone any other impression.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interestingly though, on our news broadcasts, they are starting to agree that it's Iran and Syria who are helping the terrorist effort along.
Personally I'd like to see President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sporting a sizeable black eye after his recent statement:
>>Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has courted further controversy by explicitly calling the Nazi Holocaust of European Jewry a "myth". <<
It makes you wonder just what he has in mind for Israel and how far he can push his inhumanitarian views.
No, I'm not a Jew, nor anm I particularly an Israeli supporter, but I do object to people who deliberately cause disorder and distress to those who can do little about it. Unfortunately, sometimes you do have to stand up and be counted, and a lot of the little people get hurt in the process. It's called war.
It would be so nice to see both the Syrian and Iranian leaders severely smacked and put back in their place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
History has shown that for Israel to exist it needs a strong and well-equipped army and a resolute political and military leadership. However, by annexing Palestinian territories to build new settlements, and by treating its own Arab and other non-Jewish population as second rate citizens, Israel has itself fuelled the hatred that now seems deeper than ever.
On the Palestinian side the corrupt leadership of Yassir Arafat was unable to create anything resembling a stable political, economic and social system, which in due course might have become a Palestinian state. The struggle between Fatah and Hamas is an indication of the deep divisions within the Palestinian community.
Long before this crisis, people in Lebanon have been asking for a stronger UN presence there, and the international community will have to intervene to stop the ongoing madness, and help Lebanon rebuild what has now been reduced to rubble.
Unfortunately, like in other areas of politics, the present administration in Washington seem more interested in widening the gaps and increasing the hatred between people, than in trying to establish mutual respect and understanding.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
