Discussion in 'Odds & Ends' started by max, Jul 26, 2006.
I have no notion, but what's the origin of this feuding?
something about both claiming to be the owner of israel
´man, you do enjoy these long endless threads, dont you?
as hgb765 said, both sides claim the holy land. not so long ago the christians also wanted it.
It's a bit more specific than that. There are a number of places that both the Jews and the Muslims consider high holy ground. Jeruselem is one of those places. That's the simplest reason.
The more complicated is the existance of fanatical right wing radical Muslim groups who believe that anyone who is not a Muslim has no right to live. These groups are very loud and make more noise than the other less fanatical Muslims so they have become the 'face' of Islam unfortuantly.
They are all we seem to hear about because the newspeople seem to think that bad news is the only news that sells. "Everything is fine in (pick the city)" is far less interesting than "a bomb has been exploded... news at 11"
Excuse me,but why do you think so?
Do you really believe that,all Muslims hate the Jews?
In reallity,it's not *the Muslims* it's mostly the Palestines.
At least it used to be.
But,as prophasis the ehm..same origin and identity(and religion) of all the Arabs,many mulahs and governmens,have increased the antisimitic feelings.But the real reason,is the own gain.Or that they are afraid that Israel will intrude their land tor I really don't know what else..
So,now,many Arabs have strong anti-simitic feelings.
But,note that Muslims = NOT only Arabs.
For the reason why the Palestines hate the Jews,I think the above posters answered.You might want to search a bit to the ehm..seven days miracle :roll: too..
Sad but true.
There are like 1.2-1.3 billion muslims worldwide - most of them don't care about jews at all.
When you put two groups of people who negatively stereotyping each other, having different religious believes, speak completely different languages, and constantly reminding themselves the bloody history they have for each other, that is a burning fire that would not end until the complete annihilation of one of them.
well, actually the arabs only "hate" zionists, not jews in general.
Since the dawn of mankind - well, all life forms on earth, there has been a constant struggle to establish and hold down one's territory. It's not religion A vs. religion B, its more of war for territory. Listen to Sepultura.
Because mythology is a funny thing...
guys about the news, i wanted to hear opinions on this. k you know how the major news stations, like CTV (in canada), CNN, or whatever are owned by jewish people? well if you heard about how Israel was purposely attacking the United Nations bases in Lebanon (peacekeepers), even though they were in constant communication for many many many hours and the UN were warning them that they were getting too close? it was purposely done without a doubt, including a plane which flew right by it and dropped a bomb.
however, these jewish owned news stations completely ignored that, and went on to talk about israelies getting killed by rockets from hezbullah. whereas big world wide news stations, mainly BBC, we're talking about everything, especially israel attacking the bases.
i think most of the hatred towards muslims and arabs is due to the lack of news stations showing the "big picture". they focus on what they want to, to make muslims look bad. also, many of us north americans are unaware of the history between lebanon and israel, and various parts of the middle east (though obviously, quite a lot of people on these boards are aware of the history). i think its mainly a lack of understanding.
also, you cant let extremists dicatate the entire face of islam? have any of you, who say that islam encourages killing and hatred and war to get what you want, actually read the Quaran? if you had, you wouldnt say the stuff you do. but it isnt your fault, its just you arent aware of the "big picture", which causes bias.
i dont want to be racist, or bias to anyone, i just want to hear some opinions on this.
Okay, my opinion: I'm not going to get into "Why" each group hates the other. It's way too complicated-I certainly don't have all, or maybe any answers (though I have some ideas) and I expect to see a lot of simpletons trying to tackle it.
I don't think the Israelis are intentionally targeting UN outposts-of course the Hezbollah sympathizers will jump to this conclusion without any supporting proof. But...if the Isrealis are proven to have done this, it was probably for security reasons (but that does not make it right). They did the same thing to the USS Liberty in 1967.
But re. your comment quoted above...you don't seem unable to separate what is WRITTEN in the Quran (and the Bible) and what HAPPENS in the real world in the name of religion. Both are PART of the religion-you cannot just say "Islam IS the Quran. Period." Religion is also how its adherents, whether moderate or radical, present it to the world.
While the Books comprise the essense of both religions, they don't, to any degree , reflect how the books are interpreted and what happens "out there" in the modern world. Islamic fundumentalists blowing up buses (or, Christians blowing up abortion clinics) is every bit as much of the religion. Oh, I didn't mention, for example, Jews kiilling civilians in a war zone because that's pretty complicated too. The way I see it, the Jews of Israel are not doing this in the name of religion; it is more in the name of their country, Israel. And they are wrong sometimes, and kill innocents, but when they do kill innocents, I do not see them waving the Old Testament around as they do it, as the Christians and Muslims wave their books as the premise for their actions. I do not see anyone DANCING FOR JOY IN THE STREETS, as is the custom in Middle East Muslim neighborhoods following a major terrorist action. Israel, if it's waving anything, is waving its flag-i.e. national security. But anyway, religious terrorism is every bit as much a part of said-religion as the Great Books of those religions.
Max, the conflict between Muslim and Jew goes back to an almost 4,000 year old family feud. Here's a short version of the story in case you aren't familiar with it.
Abraham was told by God that he would have a son by his wife, Sarah. Since she was way beyond child bearing age, Sarah persuaded Abraham to have a child by her handmaiden, Hagar. This was an accepted practice of the time when a wife was barren.
Abraham eventually gave in and Hagar had Ishmael. Later, Sarah did become pregnant as God had promised and bore Isaac. God told Abraham that he would be the father of many nations, that his seed would be God's chosen people, and that his descendants would inherit and dwell in Palestine.
This is where the accounts between the Muslims and Jews begin to differ. It was the first born that was always entitled to the entire inheritance in their culture. The Muslims claim that Ishmael should have gotten the inheritance since he was the first born. They also assert that the Jewish Torah has distorted the truth and that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, that God told Abraham to sacrifice. They believe that Ishmael's descendants are God's chosen people and that the end result of this covenant is the Muslim faith.
The Jews (and consequently Christians) believe that Isaac was the child of the promise and that Ishmael was merely a product of the lack of faith of Sarah and Abraham. According to the Pentateuch (and the Bible), God told Abraham to send Ishmael away so that he and his mother would not cause any problems. As a result, they almost died before God miraculously saved them. God chose Isaac to inherit His covenant with Abraham. Because of this, the Jews and Christians of the world consider Palestine the rightful and God-given land of the Jewish people.
Tradition holds that most of the Arab nations of the world are direct descendants of Ishmael. On top of that, the Muslim faith believes that the Jewish people are thieves that are trying to steal their inheritance through deception and that Christianity has aided them in this unholy scheme.
So, the conflict between religions essentially goes back to a family squabble. Of course, much has happened throughout history between these two sides. One thing is for sure, ever finding any peace between them is going to be incredibly difficult. And, if you believe the most common interpretations of the Bible, it is this conflict that will most likely bring about Armageddon and the end of the world as we know it. In other words, there will be no solution to this conflict except the ultimate one.
4000 years ago there were no Muslims. Muhammad lived in the VI century.
Obviously you didn't read the entire post. I'm by no means knowledgable about Islamic history, but my interpretation of Muhammad is that he was a prophet, similar to Jesus. But Islam is much older than Muhammad just as Christianity and Judeism is older than Jesus.
Christianity isn't older than Jesus... Judeism is.
Oh here we go again... What is the name of the 'Jewish owner' of CNN?
Whoa, be careful with that statement. Malaysia and Indonesia are both Muslim countries, with Indonesia having the largest Mulsim population in the world (250 million at last count). Both countries have banned all imports of Israeli/Israel-origin products.
The hardcore Islamic militants hate western civilization PERIOD. There is no negotiating to be done with them, but they're relatively small in numbers thank goodness. They want nothing less than a world ruled by Islam, and a pretty strict, backwards interpretation of the Koran at that.
But as far as I know these types really aren't super involved with what's going on with Israel right now although I'm sure they lend support in some capacity.
In the United States support of Israel almost borders on the dogmatic, but in other parts of the western world support for Israel is less emphatic, something I'm sure would surprise a lot of Americans.
Maybe what you should be asking is why do Arabs hate the Israelis. And the answer varies depending on which Arabs you're talking about. I hear and read that there are actually Israeli's and Arabs who get along, who are friendly to each other, and even blogging and messaging with each other as bombs explode outside their homes. This is something that doesn't receive much coverage in US mainstream media, probably because it humanizes the Arabs.
Who knows. But that area is a poop storm like no other and I'll be shocked if I see some lasting peace established there in my lifetime. I feel bad for the citizens of Israeli and their Arab neighbors who simply want a normal life, to work, laugh with family, and watch their children grow. Hundreds of thousands of Lebanese people who want nothing to do with Hezbollah are being displaced as we speak, it's an incredible tragedy. It's hard to say if their lives will ever be returned back to normal. Those people are pawns. To some extent, I don't think the more radical Islamic arabs really care about them any more than Israel does. They're just pieces to be moved, blown to shreds, whatever, in order to prove a point on the world stage. It's sad.
So, by your reckoning, Hezbollah and Hamas ARE NOT "hardcore Islamic militants"??? They are the groups that are involved with Israel at the moment.
Maybe you should think that one through.
My understanding is that Hezbollah was formed for the sole purpose of ending what they perceive to be Israel's illegal occupation of parts of Lebanon. And Hamas is the Palestinian version. They are arguably liberation movements, not necessarily bent on world domination so much as combating Israel.
I'm talking about the super hardcore islamic fundamentalist militants, maybe I should have been more clear. Like al qaeda and the Taliban, who don't necessarily exist for the sole purpose of dismantling one country.
Excellent essay on Occidentalism.
And this video The Power of Nightmares is also excellent.
Both are more about the guys I don't think there's any negotiating with.
There cannot be a "thinner" question to be asked, IMO. I suggest you to go and read some reliable material on the Israel/Palestine conflict. Other than that, historicaly, Muslim states are not particularly known to host anti-semitism.
But, Phil, you're right that Hamas is a hardcore Islamic militant group. But Hamas and Hezbollah aren't the guys who really scare me. Although I'm sure if I were an Israeli Hamas would scare the bagel out of me.
I agree with you.I feel very sad after hearing every single day in TV of another family killed,another suicide attack...another bombing.And all,the immigrants from Lebanon,that come here to their way to western Europe..they have nothing,and their mind is left behind,to their homes,to their friends and even some family members that couldn't escape the nightmare.
And then,you go and hear,about the ...*new* Middle East! The change of the status quo that it will bring more peace to the region...Gosh!
I wonder if even themselves believe what they say.
Before the invasion of the Israel,and the seven days miracle,the Arabs were not at all united.They conducted wars with each other,and the nations used to be sworn enemies.And even later...
And now..you see Iran supporting Iraq..!!!How ironic is it?
To see mortal enemies,make at last peace with each other ..why?Because a bigger fish is around.And a much bigger fish is his sidekick.My enemy's enemy is my friend....*sigh*
lol..all those talks,and discussions and how much did it last?Six years..:roll:
About Hamas,I personally believe that they should NOT be labeled as just hardcore islamic millitant group.They are palestine resistance millitant movement..Of course,all the deaths,and the killings,are not justified...they can never be..NEVER.
And what that proves?Indonesia is indeed that country with the largest muslim population,but do these people hate the Jews?Jews that live far away from them..?I don't think so.
Just because the governments have banned imports,that doesn't mean,that among the common people there is hatred for simits!Especially the kind of hatred that Palestinians feel towards Israelis..and vice versa..:-|
And..btw...there are still many muslims,that live outside of Indonesia,Malaysia and the Arab states...
It is dead wrong,to make such generalisations.All muslims hate the jews,all Europeans despise Americans,all women are baseliners etc etc...
Palestinians hate Jews because Jews took their land....we all would too, wouldn't we?
When I saw this thread I got excited. Because I know the answer. Since I usually don’t know the answer, well you get it. I read thru all posts to see what would be said. I knew I probably wouldn’t find a better post than the one I quoted. I was right. To easy.
I beg to differ, it’s not complicated at all. See Lee’s post above for the answer.
I have an extra moment to expand, so I will.
Muslims, or more specifically, the ones who are taught (The Whole Quran) ((every single word)) are told to hate the infidels. That’s anyone who isn’t them, period. End of discussion.
A Christian of “The Bible” heeding God’s written words in the New Testament wouldn’t blow up an abortion clinic. An individual who says or thinks he’s a Christian, well different story.
Muslims who learn the Quaran,learn to show tolerance towards Jews and Christians.The other people who believe in Allah.
I believe your talking about the ones who get the watered down version if you will. I’m friends with several individuals who identify themselves as Muslims, but they never read or study the Quran.
Kinda like someone who calls themselves a Christian then blows up an abortion clinic.
Also like a person who identifies as being a Jew while not practicing Judaism.
Hezbollah is a hardcore Islamic militant group too. Funded and supported by Iran. Both Hezbollah and Hamas have vowed to continue to operate towards a goal of driving Israel into the sea. Given that, I'd hardly label these as mere "liberation" movements. These groups cannot be negotiated with either, at least not concerning the existance of Israel.
If Hezbollah was formed ostensibly and, as you say "solely" to drive Israel out of S. Lebanon, then why did they continue to exist after Israel left S. Lebanon in 2000?
Think US Embassy bombing in Beirut. Think Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut...that was, possibly, Hezbollah's work, so their agenda isn't "solely" Israel.
The Taliban were NEVER bent on, as you say, "world domination", and weren't even all radically anti-US. But by letting al-Qa'eida use Afghanistan as a base, they sealed their fate and became intertwined with AQ.
well phil, thats the problem with being muslim right now. even if you are a good citizen and a proper muslim who actually FOLLOWS what the quaran says to do, your overshadowed by the extremists. but your absolutely right in saying that what they are supposed to do and what they actually do are two very different things. also you have to understand that there are many different types of muslims, mainly suni and shia, who are also against each other very much. it just makes the world a never ending war zone.
I think that if I were a Muslim right now (and having the personality that I have, I'd probably be a "moderate"), I would be VERY angry. Of course the good people are being overshadowed by the bad apples...the 10% or whatever...but you know what, tennis nerd? There comes a time when the "silent majority" has to act...and I just haven't seen that from the moderate/majority Muslim population. I've seen/read everything from tacit to somewhat vocal support, or at least defense of the radical elements. The horrendous acts of the few won't end until the majority acts...I don't see any "grass roots" movement toward this, though. How long are they going to wait...how many of THEM have to die before they act?
I've always said that the ONLY people that can bring an end to Islamic terrorism, ultimately, are Muslims themselves.
well from my understanding from what i saw on the news, its because they help out their fellow countrymen in times of need, especially war?
israel and parts of the middle eas have been at war for a long long time. and all that anger has boiled up till now. pretty soon, there's going to be a full fledged war, which not even the americans will be able to stop
but, there's no way that can happen, because their isnt even unity within the muslims due to the many types. that's the sad part. if your a muslim, you are hated everywhere. whether its because of the extremists, or how they are portrayed, no one likes the muslims. even a place like this forum, look at andres' last post. so while you do have to stand up for yourself phil, you cant do it against the rest of the world IMO. the only thing you can do is live your life properly, make sure you adhere to your religion, and you act as a true muslim. THAT is standing up for yourself. if people have their views against muslims, they arent going to change them, and there's nothing muslims can do about it.
I said arguably. In the USA, they are considered terrorists and in some other parts of the world, a resistance group. Realizing that such ambiguities exist would be a great first step toward finding lasting solutions but I think it causes too much cognitive dissonance for most people to tolerate.
I could be wrong, but I thought Hezbollah's origins were a matter of public record and incontrovertible. If I'm mistaken, if they weren't created for the reasons I stated, please provide a link and I'll make sure not to make the same mistake in the future.
Might it be possible that in their minds attacking Israel's biggest political ally, supporter, and weapons provider is a way of getting back at Israel?
You're right. I should have slowed down the typing. If you were to ask them, they would say they want a world governed by strict Islamic rule, but it's not like they're actively pursuing making this come about.
I'm still not sure what al qaeda is. I heard that it was created by US prosecutors who wanted to prosecute under the RICO act so had to create an umbrella organization. Is it an actual organization with a clearly defined chain of command?
I understand such ambiguities and also understand that a liberation group can just as easily be, ALSO, a terrorist group. AQ also considers itself a "liberation" movement, though it's goals are a lot more ambiguous and broader than taking a single country down...so, obviously it comes down to semantics, but it also comes down to body counts and WHOSE bodies are being blown up.
I didn't say you were mistaken. I'm just asking why, after achieving their stated goal, do they continue to exist and operate. Is it possible that over the years, with the money coming in from Iran, Syria and other Islamic sources, they have grown large, rich and powerful in Lebanon, even to the point of becoming bureaucratic and have "broadened" their original charter to include controlling a good chunk of Lebanon, both politically and geographically, harassing Israel until they or Israel no longer exists, and blowing some infidels to their Hell?
It might certainly be, but the identical premise is used by AQ...all the time, so is their reason legit or is it just a premise to blow up more infidels?
There is definitely a chain of command in AQ, but at the same time, it is ALSO a loosely defined group...many smaller groups claim to be affiliated or "inspired" by AQ, but act autonomously. But the 9/11 operation had a very THICK dotted line leading back to AQ/bin Laden. There is a charter, there are forms that re-cru-i-ts (don't ask me why this word is filtered out) fill out, an oath is taken...AQ has all the elements of an organization with a defined chain of command. But again, there are also more loosely-structured elements...kinda like the loose spokes in a bike wheel, or the spares...(for lack of a better metaphor right now). I don't know anything about the RICO thing you mentioned...bin Laden or one of his associates came up with the name AQ, and based on my poor understanding of the law, prosecuters have plenty of leeway in prosecuting suspected terrorists...all they have to do these days, is basically ignore a lot of the laws that have been in place in the US for 200 years or so-that is, under the Patriot Act and other assorted tramplings of the constitution.
True. Targeting areas with absolutely no military value, packed with civilians is evil. Still, sometimes it seems like one big game of semantics, this whole "terrorist," "freedom fighter," "retaliate" business. Hezbollah still isn't considered a terrorist group by most of the western world, it's recognized by many countries as a legitimate political organization and in the Arab world a highly respected organization at that. Seems to me that actions undertaken by officially recognized governments (or to be more specific, governments who are political/economic allies of the USA), even if these actions fit the description of terrorism to a "t," it's not described as being a terrorist action. A terrorist act is when somebody we're not aligned with does the same thing we do.
I agree. See above.
Hezbollah also runs hospitals, clinics, and schools inside of Lebanon. They do some shady things but they also seem to do some nice things for their own people at least. But to answer your original question, isn't that the way it always goes? Groups which were originally formed to perform a specific function end up continuing on long after their task has been completed. Take our own government for example. A government is supposed to exist in order to accomplish things that individuals can't accomplish on their own. Three examples of that might be a national highway system, a national defense, and establishing educational standards. But at some point our government became preoccupied with creating more government, government for the sake of government. As far as that goes, Hezbollah going from kick out the Israeli's from Lebanon to kick out the Israeli's out of the middle east isn't a surprising transition.
In their mind it's perfectly legitimate. I've been reading a lot of Chomsky again lately. He seems to think that the USA does a lot of things which are technically criminal, and he gives several very compelling examples. We're not that careful about killing innocents either, or allowing others to kill innocents when it suits or at least doesn't work against our stated interests. Saddam Hussein comes to mind.
Whatever. I support Israel more or less. I just think their reaction is a bit overkill no pun intended. Hope we don't read about any mushroom clouds soon.
J D: thanks for the note about the Abraham-Ishmael-Isaac history; that's what I was looking for. I guess I need to find a copy of the Koran and maybe a guide to reading the Koran.
posted on another forum:
July 26, 2006
Lebanon: Winners and Losers
Bin Laden wins, and we lose
by Justin Raimondo
Poor Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. "Liberated" Iraq's chief government official came to Washington hoping to shore up the precarious position of his regime as it teeters on the brink of civil war, and all he got was this:
"Mr. Maliki's refusal to condemn Hezbollah has created an awkward situation for the White House. 'His statements are troubling,' Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic minority leader, said today. 'They raise serious questions about whether Iraq, which is supposed to be our ally, can play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis and bringing stability to the Middle East.'"
"I want the prime minister to denounce what Hezbollah has done," said Reid. "I will lose a lot of confidence in al-Maliki if he does not denounce what Hezbollah has done."
Doesn't Mr. Maliki know which side his bread is buttered on? Of course he should pay more attention to what a single American senator thinks than what they're saying back home about Israel's rape of Lebanon. A puppet trying to cut his strings is bound to fall on his face. Pinocchio, however, thinks he's a real boy, and even began acting like one last week at a news conference held in the "Green Zone":
"The Israeli attacks and airstrikes are completely destroying Lebanon's infrastructure. I condemn these aggressions and call on the Arab League foreign ministers' meeting in Cairo to take quick action to stop these aggressions. We call on the world to take quick stands to stop the Israeli aggression."
This was said in answer to a question from a reporter about the Iraqi government's plans to evacuate Iraqis trapped in Lebanon. Rumor has it that a more extensive expression of his stance will come out in a Wednesday speech to Congress - that is, if it ever takes place.
What Maliki said in the Green Zone is verboten in the Zionist Zone that is Washington, D.C. That city, as Pat Buchanan quipped, is "Israeli-occupied territory." A memorable phrase, that, and particularly evocative of what is happening today, as Congress ratifies Israel's brazen blitzkrieg without even mentioning, let alone condemning, the targeting of Lebanese infrastructure and massacre of civilians. As John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt averred in their Harvard University study of the Israel lobby:
"The bottom line is that AIPAC, a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on Congress, with the result that U.S. policy towards Israel is not debated there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world. In other words, one of the three main branches of the government is firmly committed to supporting Israel. As one former Democratic senator, Ernest Hollings, noted on leaving office, 'you can't have an Israeli policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here.'"
The idea is to control the terms of the debate - that is, to make sure that there is no debate, and that nary a word against Israel or its inordinate influence over American foreign policy ever gets uttered in a major public forum. As if to illustrate the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis in the most dramatic terms imaginable, we read that a gaggle of prominent Democrats is demanding that Maliki be silenced, and have published an open letter to this effect:
"In recent months there have been extensive reports indicating that al-Maliki and many in the Iraqi leadership are increasingly influenced by the government in Iran. Further, they have expressed support of terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, the latter of which was responsible for the death of 241 United States Marines in Beirut. The House should not allow an address from any world leader who has taken such action. We are unaware of any prior instance where a world leader who actively worked against the interests of the United States was afforded such an honor. We urge you to cancel the address."
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert wisely rejected this advice. What is incredible about this letter, however, is that these people are complaining about the leader of the very government they have funded and supported. Now they are saying that he isn't acting enough like a sock-puppet for their tastes.
Well, tough - you made your bed, gentlemen (and gentle-ladies), and you sleep in it.
How dare these hypocrites decry Iran's growing influence: it was their votes that made it possible, their silence as we were lied into war, their complicity in the making of a foreign policy that serves everyone's interests but America's.
The Americans wanted to export "democracy" to the Middle East, and now that they've succeeded they don't much like the results. Maliki is not alone in facing their slings and arrows. Hamas - elevated in a free election to become the ruling party in Palestine - is a "terrorist" organization, and failure to condemn it marks one as an untouchable. Hezbollah, for its part, represents southern Lebanon in the Lebanese Parliament, and yet they are now depicted as al-Qaeda in Shi'ite drag. Instead of hailing their own alleged achievement in constructing functioning Arab democracies, the West is now turning its guns on them - with Israel leading the charge.
This is Bizarro World behavior, once again seeming to confirm my thesis that the 9/11 terrorist attacks tore a hole in the space-time continuum, and we slipped into an alternate universe where up is down, right is wrong, and naked aggression is "self-defense." In line with this, it makes perfect "sense" that a crusade for electoral democracy in the Middle East requires a ruthless war against the winners of those elections. It's Bizarro World "democracy promotion": spark "a fire in the mind," then rush to stamp it out.
Israel's invasion of Lebanon serves the interests of two major players in the Middle East, and America is not among them. First, obviously, Israeli interests: I realize that antiwar commentators are telling us that the invasion doesn't really serve Tel Aviv's long-term interests very well, but this is not based on any military analysis of the country's security needs. Israel is a sliver of Mediterranean coastline that is not at all defensible in its present form: expansionism is built into its objective predicament, as well as the history of the Zionist project.
As the authors of the 1996 policy paper "A Clean Break" argued, Israel has little choice but to expand its power and sphere of influence, or die. The Jewish state, an artificial implant in the region, has from the beginning lived on life support from abroad - and could not long survive without U.S. aid. The authors of the paper, including Douglas Feith and Richard Perle, recognized this expansionist dynamic and urged Israeli leaders - specifically, then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu - to make a "clean break" with the failed defensive policies of the past, and go on the offensive, vowing to end Israeli dependence on America by freeing up the economy and launching a preventive war against neighboring Arab states. The idea was to make Israel independent both economically and militarily.
While not much progress has been made on the economic side - Israel is still among the most socialistic countries on earth, where the state holds decisive power over every aspect of industry - we're seeing the first signs of "progress" on the military front in Lebanon. Events seem to be unfolding pretty much as the Clean-Breakers recommended: "regime change" in Iraq, followed by a blow against Syria and the "securing" of the northern border:
"Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which Americans can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by:
. paralleling Syria's behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli ***** forces.
striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper."
Damascus has always been the focal point of Israeli efforts to finally achieve security and stability. Get ready for air strikes on "select" Syrian targets. If I were Bashar al-Assad, I would abandon the summer palace and go to the French Riviera for the season - although I wouldn't be at all surprised if the IDF buzzed him on the beach.
The other major Middle East player who benefits from the Israeli invasion is Osama bin Laden. The cedars of democratic Lebanon are burning, and the West embraces the arsonists. As Michael Scheuer puts it, this amounts to:
"[V]alidation for Muslims of bin Laden's assertion that the West considers Muslim lives cheap and expendable. They will see that three kidnapped Israeli soldiers and several dozen dead Israelis are worth infinitely more to the West than the thousands of Muslims held for years in Israel's prisons, the hundreds already killed in Lebanon, and the eradication of Lebanon's modern infrastructure.
2nd part in next post.
"So bin Laden wins without lifting a finger. The G-8 leaders, their Arab allies, and Israel have behaved in a way that will burn bin Laden's words deeper into Muslim perceptions and push more to accept jihad as the only recourse. Western leaders can argue forever that they are honest brokers but, because perception is reality, it will be bin Laden's words, not theirs, that echo long and tellingly in Muslim ears."
If al-Qaeda and the Israelis are the big winners in this game, then their worst enemies are the big losers - first and foremost the United States. Washington is stuck with the thankless task of trying to keep together a rogues' alliance of Israel and the Arab autocrats, while losing credibility in the Arab street and even provoking skepticism from our closest allies, such as the Brits.
Lebanese liberals are also big losers: the American green light for the assault sent a clear and unequivocal message to the "Cedar Revolutionaries," one they will not soon forget. The Arab monarchs - the two Abdullahs and Pharoah Mubarak - are also losers, and they have much to lose: their heads, perhaps, or at least their thrones.
American soldiers in occupied Iraq may wind up being the biggest losers if the Israeli rampage is allowed to continue much longer. After all, these guys and gals are smack dab in the midst of a Shi'ite sea: for an American president to personally sanction the slaughter of Shias, which is shown on al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya day after day, is to place our GIs in mortal danger.
Our super-"patriotic" leaders in Washington never fail to invoke the courage and security of "our troops," but somehow this is lost sight of when it really matters. One has to wonder what country is the object of their patriotic fervor - because it sure isn't America.
A thought provoking article - one thing I don't agree with - even Israel won't be on the winners side in the long term.
It just comes down to the old saying - "War itself has no winners only losers!"
It's like a vicious circle! :|
It may be a bit off-topic, but I wanted to share this article and your thoughts on it.
There are many shades of Islam. There are moderates, there are Muslims who don't really adhere to Muslim practices too much, and there are fanatical Muslims who want to shape the world according to strict Muslim doctrine. They believe that to not follow their interpretation of the Quran is criminal. We are a bad influence upon them. But the worst sort of criminal to them is the moderate or part time Muslim. In the end it doesn't matter they want all who don't agree with them dead.
The Taliban Al Queada, Hamas, and Hezbollah all fall into the last catagory.
The Taliban was turning Afganistan into it's vision of how the world should be. Women mush be covered head to toe at all times. Men must have a beard. Women cannot do anything, but have babies and clean house. Islamic practices will be followed to the letter at all times. (prayers, diet etc...). There was zero tolerance for any other way of thinking or being. Watching or listening to a western program was against the law an punished severely. In 2000 they blew up a monument that had been painstakingly carved into a mountain and had been considered a national treasure. The set explosives to it and wiped it out because it was not Islamic (I forget it's origin). That's how life was in Afganistan prior to 2001 and that's how they want the world to be.
As for Hamas & Hezbollah, they're dedication to drive Isreal out of Labanon was simply extended to drive Isreal out of existance. They along with other radicals want to retake possession of some ground they consider sacred according to their tradition.
There are legitimate beefs with Isreal from those Palastinians who live near Isreal. They are assumed to be terrorists and treated like criminals by Isreal. Isreal is very quick to retaliate for terrorist acts, and it usually means suffering for all. Their life is moderated by actions take by Isreal. But what they don't seem to take into account is that Isreal is only reacting to the criminals within them. If they policed themselves and tried to get along peacefully with Isreal the wouldn't have the problems they have.
Bottom line, the world would be a much safer place today without Muslims. Sad to say.
and without jews and christians, and everybody else. ya definitely
The world would be a much safer place without radicals of any sort. Historically Jews, Christians and Muslims have coexisted meerately peacefully. The creation of Israel obviously caused quite a bit of uproar as has the creation of Pakistan and the disput over the Kashmir region. Thank god, there aren't many Phillistines left or we'd have another group of disgruntled people willing to kill anyone over a patch of sand.
tennisnerd, in an earlier post you were talking about jew controlled TV stations not showing the whole story, but you are ignoring the real fact that big corporations with interests in oil and military contracts are the ones who control these organizations. he way you put it makes it sound as if there is a Jewish conspiracy, which is total paranoid BS. You fail to mention the fact that many of the rocket attacks on Israel are ignored, while destruction of Hezbollah installations are shown as if they were grade schools. The conspiracy goes both ways and the end result is more dead people and less control for the poor of the world.
missiles fired in Israel ignored?!? now THATS BS. thats the only thing you see on the big north american news channels. watch the news tonight buddy.
nerd, you obviously have your opinion and I have mine. Try being a little more flexible/open-minded and maybe people will listen to your POV. On my TV I have seen very much about the devastation in Lebanon and UN outpost being attacked with very little on missiles striking Israel.
Thanks for the codescending tone. I haven't had enough of that today.
I heard a TV "talking head" say that if all the countries that hate Israel threw their weapons into the sea, there would be peace in the Middle East and if Israel threw their weapons in the sea, the Muslim extremists/nations would exterminate Israel. A little simple, yes, but likely very true.
Separate names with a comma.