(no subject)
Jul. 25th, 2006 10:43 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
winterbadgerAgain, I'm sidetracked from writing the post I meant to. By rage.
As we're listening to denunciation after denunciation of terrorists, and explanations of why it's OK to destroy an entire country to root out a terrorist group, the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Israel, along with many prominent Israelis such as former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, are celebrating, celebrating the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946 that killed nearly 100 people.
We're penalizing the Palestinians for electing Hamas, who are unrepentant terrorists, and we're applauding the attacks on Lebanon that are somehow excused by Hezbollah's attacks on Israel. But we treat Israel as a staunch and beloved ally, despite their having elected to their highest office several unrepentant terrorists, including Menachem Begin, who ordered the King David attack (in retaliation for the *arrest* of Jews in Palestine and the seizure of papers). And this month Israelis are celebrating a terrorist attack that killed British and other servicemembers and civilians. Members of our Congress are trying to block the Iraqi prime minister from making an address to that body because they feel he isn't sufficiently supportive of Israel, but where is their outrage over the IDF using Palestinian civilians as human shields?
But of course, the Israelis are our allies, who share our values and our goals. After all, our leaders tell us so. And our leaders, like Brutus, are all honourable men.
As we're listening to denunciation after denunciation of terrorists, and explanations of why it's OK to destroy an entire country to root out a terrorist group, the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Israel, along with many prominent Israelis such as former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, are celebrating, celebrating the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946 that killed nearly 100 people.
We're penalizing the Palestinians for electing Hamas, who are unrepentant terrorists, and we're applauding the attacks on Lebanon that are somehow excused by Hezbollah's attacks on Israel. But we treat Israel as a staunch and beloved ally, despite their having elected to their highest office several unrepentant terrorists, including Menachem Begin, who ordered the King David attack (in retaliation for the *arrest* of Jews in Palestine and the seizure of papers). And this month Israelis are celebrating a terrorist attack that killed British and other servicemembers and civilians. Members of our Congress are trying to block the Iraqi prime minister from making an address to that body because they feel he isn't sufficiently supportive of Israel, but where is their outrage over the IDF using Palestinian civilians as human shields?
But of course, the Israelis are our allies, who share our values and our goals. After all, our leaders tell us so. And our leaders, like Brutus, are all honourable men.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-07-25 08:29 pm (UTC)*F*ckin hate politicians
no morals, worse than lawyers at going after money/power there own secret agendas.
Trust no one sigh
no subject
Date: 2006-07-25 08:58 pm (UTC)And I can't even begin to assess the horror of using human beings as shields; it's every bit as horrifying to think that Israel does it as it is that Hezbollah and Hamas bomb from civillian locations and targets civillians as a matter of course. I am glad a humanitarian group within Israel is monitoring and reporting it.
My friend's brother is living in Tel Aviv and has an op ed in JPost today you might find interesting:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1153291988276&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
no subject
Date: 2006-07-25 09:51 pm (UTC)B'tselem does good work; they're not partisan, they criticise faults where they see them on both sides.
Another good organisation (IMO) is Seruv, the association of soldiers who have refused to serve in the occupation of the Palestinain Territories (http://www.seruv.org.il/english/default.asp)
That's a very interesting essay; thank you for sharing it!
no subject
Date: 2006-07-25 09:06 pm (UTC)I accept that Israel's army is a family - when one is kidnapped, it strikes at the heart. But what is happening over there at the moment has the potential to rip apart the Middle East. If it hasn't done so already.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-25 10:00 pm (UTC)My biggest problem is with the *way* the IDF has carried out its strikes. I only know what I read in the papers, but it seems to me that they are causing a lot of collateral damage and striking a lot of dubious targets because they want to "punish" Lebanon for not having eradicated Hezbollah. And it just isn't that simple.
They're not going to get the soldiers back by bombing things. I would have thought they might stop at least some of the shelling by bombing things, but even that seems to be a faulty assumption.
To get the soldiers back they need good intel on where they are and a commando team to get them. Or they need to negotiate with Hezbollah. WHy would Hezbollah think they would negotiate? Because they've done it in the past.
To stop the rocket attacks, they need to go in and destroy the launchers one by one and the stocks of rockets. That will take ground troops and time and casualties.
And then when they withdraw (because they've tried being occupiers, and that doesn't work), the Syrians and the Iranians will simply send more supplies of rockets and more launchers. Unless Lebanon can stop them.
And why would Lebanon want to stop them? Well, if they saw Hezbollah and Syria and Iran as more of a threat to them than Israel; if they saw Israerl as a partner, not an enemy. And what's pretty much guaranteed to keep that from ever happening? Yeah, just what Israel is doing now.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 12:18 am (UTC)"the Middle East sucks. We want a new one"
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 03:00 am (UTC)I laughed. Because I was driving and I didn't want to start crying.
I remember when Carter sat Bomber Begin and "I'm almost as popular as Nasser" Sadat down and told them they *had* to agree. And then begged and cajoled, and pushed, and pulled, and we got peace. A tiny bit. But more than there had been the day before.
We're not going to get any kind of settlement when the US isn't making the slightest effort to act as an honest broker. Not unless someone else steps up. *looks significantly at the EU, who is hiding behind the door and under the table* Right.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 03:09 am (UTC)but
what really stinks the house out, in my opinion, is Bushco.s assertion that because Hisbolla are a 'terrorist' organisation, they are automatically the agressor and the bad guys.
"We support democracy" says Georgie. the fact that this statement in the current context is absolutely meaningless went unquestioned by the watching world.
thanks for that. Does anyone see ships, I wonder.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-25 09:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-25 09:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-25 10:00 pm (UTC)By a fellow nutjob.
Grrrrrr
no subject
Date: 2006-07-25 10:01 pm (UTC)We have a lot to answer for on that score...
no subject
Date: 2006-07-25 10:02 pm (UTC)Considering Sharon's record of the past few years, though, I wonder if he wasn't moderating a bit.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-25 11:20 pm (UTC)Too true. But I'd like to think the Democrats are slightly less nutjobby, and they don't sound like it today.
Considering Sharon's record of the past few years, though, I wonder if he wasn't moderating a bit.
He may have been, or he may just have been being adaptable in pursuing his own goals. Some of the hawks are ultra-religious and are unwilling to accept any dimunition in the boundaries of Israel for any reason. I think some (most?) of them would actually like to expand them. I never saw Sharon as being that religious, more pragmatic: Israel above all else, and Israeli power, as brutal as need be, to ensure that Israel would be safe.
The one thing I do believe people of Sharon's stripe and people of the more religious stripe share is a belief that Arabs are simply subhuman, a lesser race, animals to be killed without remorse no matter what their age, gender, or combatant status if they offer you the least resistance.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-25 10:23 pm (UTC)GET ON WITH IT.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-25 10:55 pm (UTC)And leave Cheney in charge???? Precisely how would that be any better?
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 12:07 am (UTC)No votes whatsoever==massive administrative power.
sweet
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 02:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 03:01 am (UTC)do people vote for the President AND his Vice seperately [as in they both have to win] or as a single unit [ie. the Vice wins by default on the Pres votes]?
I am under the impression that the Vice is not atually voted for *himself* at all - meaning he has no democratic mandate for power whatsoever.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 03:07 am (UTC)He's elected.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but he's a lot more elected than the PM is (in the UK or most other parliamentary democracies). The only people who get to vote for the PM are the PM's district consitutents and his or her party leaders. At least in the US everyone gets to vote for the Presdient/VP team.
We tried it the other way, where each one got elected separately; it was a stupid system and led to very bad outcomes, so it got changed. We still have that in some states; for instance, in Virginia, where I live, the governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general all get voted on separately. It's dumb idea--an executive really needs to be a coherent team.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 03:18 am (UTC)my main [but yet unstated] point is that if, say, Mr Blair were to have a tragic accident, his Deputy [at this point John Prescott.. yes I KNOW] would take executive control. He has been voted on and elected, he's there because the process chose him directly, both as an MP and as Deputy.
The US can make no such claim. The Vice is there because he was chosen by the guy who won, *not* by the voters. They chose him by default, not by direct action. Yet he will still assume executive power.
Is there a better way? Almost certainly... but that is a discussion for another day
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 03:35 am (UTC)If Cheney had been thought too dangerous or too controversial a choice, the Republican Pary would have put someone else on the ticket. If people had thought Cheney shouldn't be VP, they wouldn't have voted fro the Bush-Cheney ticket. This is why VP candidates are generally bland nonentities. Everyone knew Dick Cheny was not that. He has had a lifetime in the public eye in the United States, as a congessman, as secretary of defense, and as WH chief of staff. His health was debated in both campaigns; his tenure in the oil industry was wsieely explored and discussed. He is perhaps the most heavily vetted VP of modern times, and the most controversial, at least since Spiro Agnew and I would say even more than he.
He was selected and voted into office despite all this. He's much more democratically selected than Prescott, for all it's an incomprehensible choice to you and me.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 08:55 am (UTC)and we appear to agree that irrelevent of the arguments in/out of favour for each process, we both have Govt.s [or at least Leaders] we'd really rather not have.
Incidentally, if voter power genuinely counted, Gordon Brown would currently be PM by a landslide vote. To the best of my awareness he holds the greatest majority for a single Minister in Parliamentary history and possibly highest approval ratings.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 11:59 am (UTC)Yep, I think that's for sure. :-)
Incidentally, if voter power genuinely counted, Gordon Brown would currently be PM by a landslide vote. To the best of my awareness he holds the greatest majority for a single Minister in Parliamentary history and possibly highest approval ratings.
What's your impression of him?
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 12:10 pm (UTC)Of the lot currently available, he's my man. It is deeply unfortunate that he's having to do a very bad Blair impression - which is *not* who he is. Or the party would fall in a second.
It is worthy of note that when Blair was running behind in the Election ratings, they held a press conference together. Brown was asked "if you had been Prime Minister during the last year or so, would you have done the same as Mr Blair?"(sic)
he replied "Yes" and turned away from the microphone. Everyone, including Blair, laughed in shocked susprise and within half an hour it was confirmed that Labour were back ahead in the polls.
That is an indicator of the sheer popularity of Brown in this country.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-25 11:27 pm (UTC)Violence solves all problems. Violence never prolongs hatred or deepens divisions.
Look at the Christians and the Jews, the Christians and the Moslems, the Moslems and the Hindus, the Catholics and the Protestants, the Jacobites and the Hanoverians, the Union and the Confederacy, White Americans and Black Americans, Israelis and Palestinians. Violence has solved all those problems. Killing and maiming and burning has left a historic legacy of peace and contentment, amity and concord. Examples to us all for how to solve problems calmly, sensibly, and rationally in a way that will leave everyone feeling as if their needs are addressed.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 12:10 am (UTC)uhm.........
[yes yes yes OK I do agree with you. buggerrit. I fucking dread to think who's going to buy the next Presidency]