July 16, 2006

• Oh, civilians from Lebanon? Their mother's must be dirty terrorist whores! I've been very worried for a dear Lebanese friend - who has gone silent...
• Over here, the BBC seems to be doing a good job of reporting casualty figures on both sides.
• BBC News can usually be reiled upon for a balanced account of international news.
• The whole world is going blind, just as Gandhi predicted.
• This is such a shame. There were a lot of high hopes for Lebanon what with the end of the civillian war and the pullout of Syrian troops, something that I thought I would never see in my lifetime.
• I think the apparent acceptance by western politicians of whatever Isreal wants to do is much more disturbing. Not that Isreal doesn't have valid reasons to defend itself, but they seem to have crossed the line between acceptable response into the naked agression. At least I would like to see western nations take a truly neutral position with regards to Isreal. At this point I wouldn't even be opposed to some agressive military intervention from the UN to stop the fighting.
• Pre-Godwinned for your protection.
• > I think the apparent acceptance by western politicians of whatever Isreal wants to do is much more disturbing. european politicians have already condemned israel's actions (and hezbollah's, for that matter). one reason i think israel is given a lot of leeway by western politicians because it's a parliamentary democracy surrounded by hostile or potentially hostile "less democratic" states. it is very much in "the west's" interest to support israel. another reason is simple guilt over the holocaust, though i think this is beginning to diminish as younger generations take power.
• Haven't Israelis voted their leaders in, thus setting their current volatile foreign policy? How much popular support does this have in Israel?
• I don't know why, but I have this weird feeling that the poster has an opinion on the subject. If only we had more clues as to what it could be!
• I don't give a shit what the US Media reports.
• Israel has killed 8 Canadians in southern Lebanon.
• Yesterday, Canada said that Israel's war is just. Perhaps it is, but would Canada now like to make its statement more precise? Perhaps the war is just - what do we mere mortals know? - but targeting (foreign) civilians is not.
• one reason i think israel is given a lot of leeway by western politicians because it's a parliamentary democracy surrounded by hostile or potentially hostile "less democratic" states. I guess if you consider an apartheid state democratic. Where "citizenship" and "Jewish-citizen" carry different gravity. Where the few Arabs allowed to exist in Israel proper are treated as second class citizens. Where there is no constitution, because any written form of the enforced law would illustrate the abject racist tone of the state. In theory the state of Israel was a good gesture but unfortunately it would be impossible to execute without being racist. I have also uploaded a video discussing the current position of Israel. It is a bit dated in the face of these new developments, but very current in the history of the subject. I would wish some of you would take the time to watch it. I am not an anti-semite but one that has followed this egregious human rights violation for many years. The video has a disclaimer which I thought made it viable for upload to a video service. HERE
• Nobody is right in this, and frankly, I don't even care any more. Lebanese civilians died? So what. Lebanese civilians gave Hezbollah free access through their country, seats on the governing body too. Israelis voted for their oppressive policies, decided to settle on contested ancestral lands knowing full well they wouldn't be well recieved. Decided to reprise against civilians instead of the ones that committed the acts. They too will reap what they sow. Frankly, the whole lot of the middle east doesn't deserve peace, doesn't want it, and isn't going to get it until somebody commits genocide, and after listening to both sides go on and on about how the other side started it, and they are victims, I hope it happens soon.
• And I don't care which side wins. Jews, Arabs, Christians, Moslems, ... in large numbers they all behave exactly the same.
• I think colonial attitudes have a role in this. After WWII, a boat load of small countries were made protectorates of western nations by the UN. (Wanted to provide links, but coulldn't find anything on target.) Palestine was under British control when Israel was established in 1947. My guess is that no one forsaw that (1) the control and influence of the Brits would evaporate so quickly or thoroughly, and (2) that the Jewish immigrants would be so aggressive in their own interests in a rebound from the generations of helplessness in European ghettos. Has anyone studied that era? glammajamma - it took ages for that link to load, and even when it appeared to be fully loaded, it would stop when the woman with the pearl necklace showed up.
• maybe its overloaded. It only took me about 5 seconds from click to movie playing. Of course I probably have a great deal of stuff cached. I considered several upload options, LiveDigital was the only one I found that met the size requirements and did not require some ridiculous client to upload (I use linux). I would recommend this site to get the most comprehensive history of Israel. Before I knew the history of any of this and was just curious I read the Library of Congress country study and was repulsed. To put this in context I saw news and wondered what was going on over there, and had know leaning either way. These entries may have changed since last time I read it, and I do believe lobbying activities could have the original entries edited.
• and had know leaning either way. no not know
• Ah, it loaded. And makes real sense. (Also, the references to the results of illegal military occupation have so many echoes in Iraq.) Ok, back to the rest of it.
• Lebanese civilians died? So what. Lebanese civilians gave Hezbollah free access through their country, seats on the governing body too. American civilians died on 9/11? So what. American civilians allow the School of the Americas to operate on their territory, voted in a party that sponsered an illegal invasion in the Middle East.
• Trying to define this conflict with analogies to the past is an attempt to simplify a unique, horrid mess that has no comparator nor any easy solution.
• I've been very worried for a dear Lebanese friend - Someone currently living in Lebanon that I've emailed sporadically with since three years ago just answered a query... the fact there's no way out for anybody really gets me angry. Good luck, H. Good luck, everyone.
• Ah, come on Berek, What does the School of the Americas have to do with 9/11? And the "American civilians" thing is a nicely emotinal touch. So, if the military had voted in the current administration, would it be more authentic. Or, did the voters who voted the party in know before hand that they would invade. You really need to reconsider your scattershot technique. A really good troll knows the issues at least enough to present a deceptively cogent appearance.
• I don't want to press this too hard because I think you mean well. But Berek, I take it that by "illegal invasion," you mean the Iraq War? Unjustifiable actions done by one party in the present do not retroactively justify past crimes committed against that party in the past.
• American civilians died on 9-11. I've rethought my feelings about the U.S. since that point. I think you think I should have sympathy for us too after we've meddled for years in the Middle East and proven that we are no more rational than al-qaida when it comes to deciding who lives and dies. Does that mean they deserved it? No. Deserves got nothing to do with it. But if it will end the wars and petty squabbling, I'm all for some more killin. Because its not like there was gonna be any less of it. It was just a question of when.
• I wish we could get rid of all religions and just start worshipping love
• Spent a good part of yesterday reading through Robert Fisk's 'The Great War for Civilization.' Certainly gave some food for thought, though it is VERY dense. One thing I don't think anyone has mentioned is the role armaments play in all of this. American arms manufacturers sell a shitload of arms to Isreal, and from what I read in Fisk, the Isreali's are somehow allowed to 'claim' certain portions of US military inventories as is, without 'buying' them as such, and therefore without having to leave a papertrail of all the armaments they have recieved. It seems pretty unorthodox and odd, if it is as Fisk says it is. And of course, British and Australian companies also sell a big fuckload of arms to the Middle East. So I'm not blaming the US here. Anyone who can make a buck wants to make ten, so why not sell to every motherfucker? <-- seems to be the attitude. This is a conflict I have never studied deeply, I suppose because it is so complex, but in my opinion, a "they started it" mentality coupled with a "fuck them, they killed us, let's kill them" mind set doesn't really help in ANY conflict. I guess I always thought that the responsibility lies with the 'bigger' of two parties in conflict (be it in a playground or a geo-political area of the world). The 'bigger' party has more power and thus has the chance to step down from aggression, and de-escalate a situation. Whereas the 'littler' party is unlikely to 'step down' in fear of being wiped out. I don't know-- maybe that's naieve.
• Frankly, the whole lot of the middle east doesn't deserve peace, doesn't want it, and isn't going to get it until somebody commits genocide, and after listening to both sides go on and on about how the other side started it, and they are victims, I hope it happens soon. *cues Kermit and the Rainbow Connection*
• I am sorry this "both parties are equally guilty" f-ing pisses me off. The Palestinians have been under occupation for decades. They have lived in a prison, and their casualties far exceed Israel's, and that is just in the act of violence, lets not even consider a completely crippled economy, piss poor health care, and absolutely no political infrastructure. So after years of this, years in which NO ONE does anything about it, they vote in Hamas, DEMOCRATICALY! Why? because they have been pissed on in a world that has claimed it would attempt to balance the scales in situations like this. Pissed on by a country that has consistently vetoed any attempt of settling the conflict, one that claims democratic non-racist attitudes but feeds heavy weapons to a COLONY setup basicaly on race. This is ethnic cleansing a slow deliberate cleansing. I don't know how one can equate the violence of a suicide bomber who is the minority in an occupied race based state to violence incurred by an F16 and Tanks. To make it clear Palestine has no "Army" they are not allowed. So these military craft are attacking civilian buildings, because there are no military ones. Hamas is the one thing Israel cannot tolerate, a governement that will not roll over like others have in the past. Hamas is the culminations of decades of frustration and humiliation, they are a f-ing righteous anger risen from the belly of a disenfranchised people. Don't tell me they haven't tried other approaches, prior to this intifada they did. Many peaceful protests took place, they still do, you just never see them. Ghandi succeeded because the world's eyes were on him. Israel and the US have made completely sure no one will ever see a palestinian Ghandi hit the air waves. The reasoning of "both sides are at fault" is a scapegoat. It is saying I don't want to know what my country is REALLY doing. Because then one might have to face some bitter truths. "And he condemns USA and Israel strongly both for their Palestine policy." "Palestine is the most important issue of the world of Islam." I know I am new here and sorry if I offended but I can't read garbage and not say anything.
• My point was just that saying we shouldn't feel sorry for the innocent civilians dieing in Lebanon and the West Bank is the same as saying we shouldn't feel sorry for American victims of terrorism. The citizens of most Mid East countries have had little or no say over who their leaders are for decades. Starting during the Colonial era and continuing through the Cold War era and the post Cold War era. It just seems to me to be the height of cruelty to have no sympathy for the average people over there.
• Well, at least no one cares about the Canadians.
• > I guess if you consider an apartheid state democratic. yes, i consider israel democratic. i don't think it can be termed an apartheid state in the sense that south africa was. i think the treatment of arab israelis bears some resemblance to apartheid, but they can and do elect representatives to the knesset, which i'd consider a key difference. this is not to say that there aren't problems in israel. nor is it to say that israel is a model democracy; i'm simply trying to explain one reason why western governments cut israel so much slack. thanks for the livedigital link: i'm about halfway through watching. it's an eye-opener with regard to the u.s. media.
• I heard from my sister in Beruit. She is Canadian, in summer school at the American University. She says that there are loud bangs, and the building shakes, which happen at random times. There is dust and smoke, and despair. Her things are packed into four bags. She ranks them in order of which are most important, and which to abandon first. Least important are books, papers, classwork, and research documents. Next is clothing and trinkets. Then there is the computer. Most important are the passport, wallet, cash, UBS stick, sleeping pills and earplugs, phone, sunscreen, and lipstick. She is very angry and sad. She asks family and friends not to worry, but there are tears in her text.
• Israeli Democracy Fact or Fiction? Israeli Democracy: A Promise As Yet Fulfilled Israel: an apartheid state? Israel's apartheid Israeli Apartheid And Terrorism:
• I know I am new here and sorry if I offended but I can't read garbage and not say anything. I ,for one, respect (and agree with) your comments glama. Speaking up can only make this place even better. Thanks for the link to the video.
• > Israel: an apartheid state? absent any suggestions or recommendations from you, i read this one. i stand by my comment above, viz.

  the treatment of arab israelis bears some resemblance to apartheid, but they can and do elect representatives to the knesset, which i'd consider a key difference.

  find another term for the treatment of arab israelis. it's not apartheid in the sense implemented in south africa (no vote; separate public services; no "inter-racial" marriage or even sex).
• i'm glad your sister is okay, earwax.
• am sorry this "both parties are equally guilty" f-ing pisses me off. The Palestinians have been under occupation for decades. If you choose to hate someone, or some race, the responsibility is yours. So *they* killed your brothers and sisters. So *they* took your land. You are still responsible for the hatred (or the forgiveness) inside you. What Palestine needs is a Nelson Mandela. What they've gotten is a series of stupid, corrupt and now extremist leaders. They insist that all of Palestine's problems are because of the Israelis. What do you call it when you believe that someone else is to blame for everything that's wrong in your life? It's psychosis. I'm not saying that Israeli actions are faultless. Indeed much of what they've done shows a contempt for the Palestinian population. But if you're the weaker party in a war, what do you do? Continually provoke devastating responses from the bully next door? Or do you get wise?
• Thanks, roryk, but she is not safe yet. I have told her that she is only a leaf in the wind, and that, evenutally, she will have interesting stories to tell her family. But, the adventure has to end, first.
• Israel and the US have made completely sure no one will ever see a palestinian Ghandi hit the air waves Media control, especially today in the age of the Internet is very difficult if not impossible. I watched CBS and ABC coverage yesterday. They had footage of civilian casualties in Lebanon. This morning in our city newspaper, the front-page headline in bold covered the death of the Lebanese-canadians including photos of the children who died in the Israeli attack in Southern Lebanon.
• StoryBored I would ask you watch the video and read my previous post: "Don't tell me they haven't tried other approaches, prior to this intifada they did. Many peaceful protests took place, they still do, you just never see them. Ghandi succeeded because the world's eyes were on him. Israel and the US have made completely sure no one will ever see a palestinian Ghandi hit the air waves." roryk if you read the entire article they go in depth on how Israel is like an apartheid state, and the very serious similarities between it an South Africa.
• THEY are always bad WE are always good WE don't like THEM in our neighbourhood THEY lob a bomb at US this morning WE pitch ten back at THEM in warning Each day the mess gets worse and worse As frightened leaders lack the will to put peace first
• Beeswacky, that hits the nail on the head.
• No Berek, if I was going over there, strapping bombs to myself, or firing missiles at civilians, THAT would be the height of cruelty. But frankly, I'm all out of compassion for my fellow man. He does it to himself, and all the screaming at the world won't stop it, I can't stop it, and I'm all out of outrage. And both sides, if not equally at fault, are SO at fault that the distinctions of who bears the blame and who should be revenged upon are UTTERLY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. The Palestinians and Hezbollah and to some extent all the arab states, have proven they are just as bad as the Jews. And if, magically Israel disappeared and the Palestinians got everything they want, it would be Sunni and Shia. So I don't give two shits for any of them anymore. Israel may have given them the opportunity to prove that they were the basest of human beings, but then they went and did it. I haven't forgotten the Lebanese Palestinians shooting AK-47s in the area and giving us the victory sign after 9-11. Perhaps I am bad as them, but I'm not rejoicing. I just want it all over. And I don't care who dies anymore. I've done everything I can to behave responsibly in my own life, I can't stop it, my countryment are divided into the same two camps as the combatants SO THEY ARE ALSO JUST AS BAD. And as soon as you say that one side is still worse than the other, that one side deserves to be able to be allowed to kill the other and suffer no repercussions, YOU ARE JUST AS EVIL. I'm not going to continue troubling myself about it, I just wish it would end. And it won't end until one side or the other doesn't exist any more. Its within their power to move back from the brink, but they have failed to do so again and again and again and again. I'm not stupid enough to expect different results the next time when the inputs are all exactly the same.
• "Its okay, understandable, justifiable, to support murder... because they murdered us first". ^^^This is the face of evil^^^
• "And both sides, if not equally at fault, are SO at fault that the distinctions of who bears the blame and who should be revenged upon are UTTERLY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. The Palestinians and Hezbollah and to some extent all the arab states, have proven they are just as bad as the Jews." I never see Europe lumped all together like I do the Middle East. "Israel may have given them the opportunity to prove that they were the basest of human beings, but then they went and did it. " Gave them the opportunity. Their life is as miserable as it can be outside of direct concentration camps. "I haven't forgotten the Lebanese Palestinians shooting AK-47s in the area and giving us the victory sign after 9-11." Maybe thats because every weapon pointed at them is stamped "Made in the USA" and every veto against a UN resolution bears the same stamp. "And as soon as you say that one side is still worse than the other, that one side deserves to be able to be allowed to kill the other and suffer no repercussions, YOU ARE JUST AS EVIL." I am saying if I was a Palestinian I would do the same damn thing. And this is part and parcel of the US view. In the lap of luxury they ask not to be involved, they don't want to take a side, because then they may have to commit to something outside the immediate pop culture distraction. If one side is right and the other wrong, relativism has to be shelved, and a postmodern deconstructivism falls apart. More importantly one has to hold an ideology and morality, that you would have to argue for, one that may lead to further reflection and consequent unpleasant conclusions. This outlook is basically what has paralyzed the left in the United States.
• ""Its okay, understandable, justifiable, to support murder... because they murdered us first". ^^^This is the face of evil^^^" So every war through history cannot be justified. Every European Nation should have rolled over to the Nazis? The American Revolution should have never occurred? We should have never attempted to stop genocides? Sometimes, you have to fight evil things. Welcome to the real world not the fantasy world of the first world.
• Yes you would, glamajama. And if you are Israeli, you would to. And the U.S. can't make them do anything. If we stopped supporting Israel, Egypt, Syria, Iran would roll over them in a flurry of tanks. They tried to do it before. And if we try to broker peace, the suicide bombs start going off in cafe's in Gaza. The situation is intractable, and we are powerless to stop it. The people who are sustaining it must stop it, and they won't.
• Yes, and because we utterly annhilated the Nazis, thats why the war ended and there was peace. We defeated their armies, broke the will of the nation, committed horrible atrocities. And we debased ourselves doing it, and have been hated by Japanese and Germans alike for Dresden and Hiroshima. Fortunately, they decided that the killing had to end sometime, and they surrendered. Nobody will do that in the middle east.
• Also, there is a subtle difference between murder and killing that I think you missed.
• I am saying if I was a Palestinian I would do the same damn thing. And after you did it, you'd give the Israelis the means to justify their own behavior to themselves; the Israeli reaction would, again, allow the Palestinians to self-justify the sort of behavior you endorse, which would allow Israel to justify another response... it goes on and on like this. "They deserve it," as an anthem for murder, is not a justification; it's a rationalization.
• So every war through history cannot be justified...sometimes, you have to fight evil things. Israel is evil? So, in your opinion, the proposal for peace set out at Camp David in 2000 was akin to Chamberlain's agreement with Hitler?
• "And if you are Israeli, you would to." No I wouldn't because I have empathy for my fellow man. Being Israeli is not a prerequisite to being evil. Did any of you watch this video. If you notice many ISRAELIS argue that they understand perfectly well why Palestinians attack them. Sometimes you have to take a side. "And the U.S. can't make them do anything. If we stopped supporting Israel, Egypt, Syria, Iran would roll over them in a flurry of tanks. They tried to do it before." This is not a problem with the Middle East states but a European Jewish Colony established in the middle of Muslim states. See Muslims have a long history of being responsible to family -->township--->state--->Islam. This racist state is an affront to Islam and closely resembles many WWII era fascist states. Remarkably Jews living in these territories under the Ottoman empire experienced relative peace under Islamic rule.
• I’ve been talking to some Lebanese folks and they’ve been saying they understand why Israel is pissed and the soldiers should be sent back, but the Lebanese army hasn’t been able to disarm Hezbollah and chewing up the country’s infrastructure and killing civilians isn’t the best step to help disarm Hezbollah. Basically the government is at odds with the militia (Hezbollah) which has support from a chunk of people in Lebanon, but apparently a lot more people outside the country (Iran and Syria). Meanwhile a whole lot of people in Lebanon who don’t like Hezbollah are getting killed by Israeli bombs and Hezollah get’s to go “See? I told you so.” I mean some Lebanese shop keeper is supposed to go up against a guerilla organization that’s supported with money and weapons from Iran and Syria or his neighborhood gets taken out by Israeli attack bombers? That’s some kind of choice? It’s a sad situation.
• I am saying if I was a Palestinian I would do the same damn thing. I think i see where you're coming from. That video of the Palestinian occupation is upsetting and makes one angry. But here's the rub: You aren't the first person to get angry. There are thousands of very angry Palestinians right now. Yet forty years of anger has gotten what exactly? In 1948, South Africa was on its road to apartheid. Conditions for blacks in South Africa were likely *worse* than the terrible conditions for the Palestinians. Now in 2006, the Palestinians are still stuck in anger and hatred while South Africa has abolished apartheid and is slowly making its way into a brighter future. All because of the courage of FW DeKlerk and Nelson Mandela, two men decided to take the path of reconciliation and non-violence.
• "Israel is evil? So, in your opinion, the proposal for peace set out at Camp David in 2000 was akin to Chamberlain's agreement with Hitler?" Do you mean this Camp David.
• > Basically the government is at odds with the militia (Hezbollah) it's a bit more complex than that. hezbollah is much more than a militia; it's also a political party with 28 seats in the 128-seat parliament and (had or has currently, i'm not sure) 2 members of the cabinet. like the plo and hamas, hezbollah garners a lot of support at the grassroots level by sponsoring hospitals, schools, and public services.
• "In 1948, South Africa was on its road to apartheid. Conditions for blacks in South Africa were likely *worse* than the terrible conditions for the Palestinians. Now in 2006, the Palestinians are still stuck in anger and hatred while South Africa has abolished apartheid and is slowly making its way into a brighter future." Wait I was alive in the 80's and we all know the attention brought to the public eye about apartheid. many big artists got together and collaborated on protests . A major motion picture covered it as well.
• Glamma, i would also be interested to hear what sort of solution you would propose for peace in the region.
• Oh, I think his proposed solution is fairly clear.
• glamajamma, from your links, you seem to think that I support Israel's actions. I don't. In fact, I agree with the Slate piece you linked to, especially its conclusion: it would be naive to place the blame on either side alone. Anyway, I don't think there's much point to discussion here. You've clearly made up your mind, so much so that you see those who disagree with you as sympathizers with evil. Discussion is unproductive.
• Wait I was alive in the 80's and we all know the attention brought to the public eye about apartheid. many big artists got together and collaborated on protests . Which is exactly what i'm saying is needed here. Non-violence has been tried in Palestine and it hasn't worked yet. But that's no reason to quit. The thing about non-violence is you *keep trying it* until it works. And people still get killed and crap still happens. But slowly, the cycle of anger gets broken. If you want to see a movie about non-violent struggle in South Africa, check out the story of Steve Biko in the film Cry Freedom. Biko was a non-violent student protester who was killed by the South Africans in the Eighties. Worldwide outrage marked the beginning of the end of the apartheid. His single death did more for genuine change than what a hundred suicide bombers are trying to do in Palestine.
• Poor Lebanon - such a decent, civilised country, yet devastated merely because it happens to be next to Israel. The mystery in all this is why the US gives its unconditional allegiance and unstinting support to Israel and whatever Israel does - in defiance of its own interests. roryk, you point out that 'arab israelis' can elect members of the Knesset: but you know Irish voters were able to elect members of the British Parliament once upon a time - did that legitmise British rule, in your view?
• “it's a bit more complex than that” posted by roryk Pax Syriana is a hell of a lot more complex than that. But as far as the U.N. is concerned Hezboullah is a militia. But none of that gets covered. What does the U.N. want the Lebanese army to fight with? They should have asked for help earlier, but it’s not like they’re not asking now. And yet the bombings continue.
• If all of the men who are leaders of America, Israel, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, etc. would step down and turn over their positions to women (preferably mothers of young children), all of this would be over in a day or two. I'm serious.
• > Basically the government is at odds with the militia (Hezbollah) it's a bit more complex than that. hezbollah is much more than a militia; it's also a political party with 28 seats in the 128-seat parliament and (had or has currently, i'm not sure) 2 members of the cabinet. like the plo and hamas, hezbollah garners a lot of support at the grassroots level by sponsoring hospitals, schools, and public services. I would go as far to say that Hezbollah is even more complex than that. Hezbollah can be viewed as a cultural element of present-day Lebanon. It's not just a matter of getting Hezbollah to stop doing this shit, as POTUS so nicely put it, or disarming them. Sadly, I agree with Mord in the sense that I see no end to this ongoing conflict until there is a widespread and catastrophic result.
• I haven't forgotten the Lebanese Palestinians shooting AK-47s in the area and giving us the victory sign after 9-11.\ This was proved to be an urban myth, or outright fabrication. Some footage of Palestinians shooting in the air, not in response to 9/11, was falsely used. The story was quite easily debunked. And yes, I will do some research and find you a linky.
• Having said that I believe non-violence is the only practical way out for the Palestinians, I'm pessimistic that they will rise to the challenge. Here's something not mentioned in the video that you uploaded glamma: the fact that raw anti-semitism is endemic amongst the Palestinians. Plenty of holocaust-deniers, plenty of "Jews are sons of pigs and dogs" , plenty of Protocols of Zion stuff, hardline racism. This left them room psychologically to move in the direction of reconciliation. The blacks in South Africa may have hated the oppressive whites but it wasn't ideological. They didn't refer to whites as the Great Satan or the bringers of all evil.
• oops "left them room" ---> "leaves them no room"
• Right Glamma, you would sit by and let rockets be fired at you from outside your borders because of your sympathy for the Palestinians. Or perhaps you are saying you would be the one firing the rockets? You'ld give up your home to them. Come on, now. Yes, some Israeli's sympathise with the Palestinians, they still aren't going to stand by and be murdered by them. This is not a problem with the Middle East states but a European Jewish Colony established in the middle of Muslim states. See Muslims have a long history of being responsible to family -->township--->state--->Islam. This racist state is an affront to Islam and closely resembles many WWII era fascist states." Right, Moslem rule is less racist. I see that. They'll let the Jews all live in peace once they wipe Israel off the map. Its an affront to somebody's religion that those nasty Jews are in the middle of their territory. Well, I agree with your proposed solution. Somebody has to win. If its the Arab states who destroy Israel, at least then we can move onto the next conflict. I'm guessing it will be why the west won't subjugate itself under Sharia law. Let the bombings continue until morale improves.
• If all of the men who are leaders of America, Israel, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, etc. would step down and turn over their positions to women (preferably mothers of young children), all of this would be over in a day or two. I remember seeing an interview with a Palestinian mother, she may have run for election for Hamas, saying how proud she was to have had several of her sons martyred for Palestine. And on Israel's side: Golda Meir, renowned female prime minister of Israel in the 60s and 70s during the 1967 and 1973 wars. Also authorized the death squad that avenged the deaths of the Munich massacre. It's not a gender issue. It's a tribal issue.

• roryk, you point out that 'arab israelis' can elect members of the Knesset: but you know Irish voters were able to elect members of the British Parliament once upon a time - did that legitmise British rule, in your view?

  no it didn't in my view, but it was a step in the right direction (compared, for example, to the situation under the penal laws). i'm not trying to justify israel's actions. i've tried to do two things here with reference to israel: (1) offer an explanation for why the west gives israel so much leeway (democracies prefer democracies) (2) draw a distinction between apartheid as implemented in south africa and the position of (pre-1967) arabs in israel. i think arab israelis are marginalized by the israeli state, but it's not apartheid, which is a term that has a very specific meaning. i accept that israel's democratic credentials are flawed, but elections are held and arab citizens do have a voice.
• Berek, I looked for a rebuttal of the Palestinians celebrating, I couldn't find it. I wish you luck. But thats not my point. My point is that I'm not celebrating any of this. But I do want an end to the conflict, and since neither side occupies the moral high ground, I don't care which side loses. With the sort of attitudes around the area, that the other side deserves every death heaped upon it, its not going to end. They want death, they want to dole out death, they aren't ready for peace.
• Could be worse. Syria and Israel.
• The majority of the people in the Middle East do not want to kill anyone, do not believe that the other side deserves every death, and are indeed ready for peace. The answer is definently not genocide. Did Hitler's or Stalin's or Mao's or America's genocidal war against the Native Americans or Phillipines solve anything? No, they just made matters worse in the long run.
• The Israelis, even the ones sympathetic to the Palestinians still live in Israel, so clearly they think they have a right to be there. And the civilian elected government overreacts at every chance and while some Israeli's express concern, they continue to elect hardliners. Palestinian mothers want their children to grow up to be suicide bombers. The Arab media is loaded with anti-semitic cartoons. In the democracies, terrorist organizations are voted in as easily as parties that eschew violence. And you expect me to believe the people want peace? Bullshit. Pull the other one.
• The Israelis, even the ones sympathetic to the Palestinians still live in Israel, so clearly they think they have a right to be there. And the civilian elected government overreacts at every chance and while some Israeli's express concern, they continue to elect hardliners. Palestinian mothers want their children to grow up to be suicide bombers. The Arab media is loaded with anti-semitic cartoons. In the democracies, terrorist organizations are voted in as easily as parties that eschew violence. And you expect me to believe the people want peace? Bullshit. Pull the other one.
• If the middle east wanted Peace, why not offer to take in the Palestinians who are living in the occupied territories? I mean, why not? Does noone have room for them other than Israel? If Israel wanted peace, why not give up the land and leave. But no, I see Israelis with guns on rooftops every time their government tries to return a parcel. And the idea of giving up their homeland is anathema to them. So clearly they prefer the continuous fighting.
• On another note, I just saw on the evening news that Bush is finally going to be evacuating Americans from Lebanon. The kicker is that he's billing the evacuees for the evacuation! WTF?!
• Woohoo, I hope they get peanuts with their $300 plane ticket. Only in America do we charge *taxpayers* to get them out of a warzone when one of our "closest allies" goes bananas. On the other hand, being bombed is free, I hear.
• "I wish we could get rid of all religions and just start worshipping love" The basis of every religion is love, it just gets corrupted by people looking for power.
• UM, no, the basis of every religion is power. The idea of love is just a tool they use to acheive it.
• OK, I have to admit I haven't read in detail all the comments. But in general, I will say that Mord is correct. I want to see the end of hostilities as much as anyone. But it will ultimately come at the expense of the (radical) Islamists (I don't include the few who seek to live peacefully with their neighbors). The radical Islamists just don't have the power and the force of will that the West has (because we love our stuff above Allah), and they will not prevail. They can and will provoke another attack against our country; let them try. I am strictly opposed to giving up our rights to privacy to face this "enemy," but why should I walk away? I actually support Israel in its attack; they aren't trying to hack away civilian rights, they are going full-bore after the aggressors! And in this country we have our rights whittled away. I say bullshit on the arguments of "restoration of executive power." I realize that America is in a tough spot, because of our tenuous alliances, but why can't someone point out the hypocrisy?
• > Palestinian mothers want their children to grow up to be suicide bombers. mord, that's a pretty sweeping statement. have you interviewed all palestinian mothers? is this 100% of them, or just a simple majority? i think most palestinian mothers, the vast majority in fact, just want their children to be allowed to grow up.
• glamajamma: If you read CBC article, you will see that in 1947, the Palestinians were offered a settlement which would have given them more land and made Jerusalem a neutral city; the Jewish people in Palestine were for this settlement, but the Arab were not. This was a terrible lost opportunity. The Palestinians have suffered greatly, but they have also responded not with civil disobediance, but with violence. This is not a simple victim and agressor situation - this is a terrible, messed up, violent situation in which a great many non-combatants - Palestinian and Israeli - have been hurt and killed because of the pig-headed brutality and hatred of extremists on both sides.
• find another term for the treatment of arab israelis. it's not apartheid in the sense implemented in south africa (no vote; separate public services; no "inter-racial" marriage or even sex). posted by roryk at 02:53PM UTC on July 17, 2006 Segregation would be a good word. Separate schools (suposedly but not really equal), separate housing areas, large areas of the country where they are not allowed to buy property, infringement of basic rights of movement, harassment and different treatment at the border (non Jewish Israeli citizens are required to line up with foreigners at the border, while Jewish Israeli citizens go through quickly), heavy discrimination in employment. And all this is how non-Jewish Israeli citizens are treated, let alone the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza who do not have any citizenship rights whatso ever. Blacks in the United States could vote, but no one would suggest Jim Crow laws were not a serious impediment to their rights as citizens.
• Early this morning, a BBC crew ventured into Southern Lebanon, where the Israeli military is focusing the latest round of attacks on Hezbollah. Footage:
• I don't know what you people have against an innocent bit of fun.
• Well back to the typical racist arguments of radical Islam. I wonder if Europe measures Americans by the radical right that likes to bomb abortion clinics or blow up federal buildings, and the radical right isn't even under the heel of a racist regime. The 1947 deal was a joke. Hell 1967 borders are a bit of a joke even though at this point MUCH of Palestine would accept this. Understand this, unlike the rest of the "natives" in history, people from the Middle East did not buy into colonization. I am sorry if their reaction to it was from the start "F You." Maybe they should have been more compliant like South Africa and the American Indians, because GOD DAMN IT they need to know their place. The racism is palpable and this thread is beginning to make me nauseas. As for bombing Lebanon. Last time I checked Israel had lost around 12 civilian lives, Lebanon 150. I don't see a justification there, I see a war crime. Islam has had a long history of peace with other cultures, but since WWI the territory has slowly been bent over without lube. The problem is that the lack the resources that would have made them competitive, outside just oil, has made them a target of the West. The west essentially wants Islam to bend to it's will, but it has resisted with every thread of its being, and because of that they are "fanatical loons." As for the "feud" between Shia and Sunni..... Have you had a look at Ireland? Why do the scales never balance. Why is fairness in judgement such a hurdle for white America.
• this thread is beginning to make me nauseas. This is a common reaction to many of my posts :-). But hang in there. I would sincerely like to hear what you would suggest would be the way to achieve peace in the Middle East. The trouble is that time is quickly running out. Although we're talking of victims in the hundreds right now, at some point somebody's likely going to get their hands on a nuclear device and then we'll end up with a peace of a different sort.
• "I would sincerely like to hear what you would suggest would be the way to achieve peace in the Middle East." There will never be peace in the ME.
• There will never be peace in the ME. Oh, but of course there will! Just don't hope for it in this lifetime...
• "But hang in there. I would sincerely like to hear what you would suggest would be the way to achieve peace in the Middle East." First the idea of a "Jewish State" has to be recognized for what it is, racist. It is just as viable as a "white state." Just because you have suffered at the wrong end of the stick does not mean basic morality gets rewritten. Many Palestinians would accept a 1967 border solution, but that has been pushed so far to the side they have given up hope. Personally I would dismantle Israel as a "Jewish State" because it is and offense to multiculturalism and relativism. No one is entitled to anything solely based on race. Even with a return to a 1967 border we will have a philosophical impact on Western thought. We will have a race state, and not comparable to one based on geographical history, but one based on modern colonization. Dismantle Israel, unify the state, and enforce a peace. Of course then you would see many Jewish Radicals that formerly wore the garb of the IDF pop up, and some Muslim radicals as well. Prior to this stupid little country springing up out of nowhere Muslims and Jews got along pretty well, and I think that can be achieved again. Zionism is the same level of radicalism we can see in any religion and to condone it because of the holocaust is like trying to heal a child's broken leg by letting him act like a brat.
• Like to follow that one may say that the feud is too old and too bitter to reconcile, but I think South Africa, even with the bumps in the road, has proved otherwise.
• Dismantle Israel, unify the state, and enforce a peace This is one solution. The thing is who is going to do the dismantling? The Israelis are a defacto military superpower with over 100 nuclear warheads.
• I had typed a response but closed my browser real fast because my boss walked into my office. I will get back to you in a few.
• MonkeyFilter: I had typed a response but closed my browser real fast because my boss walked into my office.
• No Berek, I'm sorry, its not racism. If the average majority of people wanted peace badly enough, they would have it. They would make it impossible for the radical moslems to function in their societies. Noone operates in a vacuum. Your example of the radical right wingers who blow up abortion clinics. Those people are captured, and imprisoned by people who probably sympathize with them. Its conservative justices that put them in jail for life or execute them. This is not seen in the middle east, where just like if a Jew kills an Arab, its automatically justified, the Moslems turn around and say the same thing if an Arab kills a Jew (its always justifiable retaliation... usually some pablum is given about how every Israeli serves in the military, so they ALL are culpable). They'll house him, hide him from the authorities and parade through the streets, a build shrines to him. If they actually despise the act, which peace loving people would, then why do they not cast them out? If a group of mobsters was operating in my neighborhood, and there wer no police to turn to, I'd form a possie of my neighbors and go after them. Not sit on my hands and say I condemn it, I'm innocent, yet I do nothing to stop it. I'm sorry, they, Moslems and Jews alike don't want peace, and neither holds any moral highground. If they want peace they have to prove it. I have seen no evidence of this. But the last refuge of a scoundrel is to call any justifiable criticism racist. And yes, I hate Islam. I also hate Judaism and Christianity with a passion. Any religion that encourages people to cede reason and autonomy to an absent father figure in the sky. I don't trust Islam to behave any better than Judaism when it is in charge, and the list of crimes the moslem states have committed is just as long as the list of crimes the Israelis have committed. The only difference is that the crimes were committed against their own people. There are no innocents, and there will be no end to this until the majority of people REALLY WANT PEACE. Not just to do it lip service.
• Furthermore, 150 lives on one side and 12 on the other is not unbalanced. Dead is dead, you presume to put values on each individual life, and outside of an actuarial table, it can not be done. Let the killing continue until the people are really and truly tired of it. If that means nuclear armageddon, then lets be done with it.
• Sorry, reply was to glamajama, not Berek.
• Lebanon civilian deaths morally not same as terror victims -- Bolton
• NY Times - Israeli Planes Batter Lebanon Again, Killing 30 People
• Won't nuclear armageddon make things a bit unpleasant for those of us left behind? Y'know, fallout and all?
• I'll just go to a yacht club on the shore, pick from the dozens of available ones, and sail away to antartica. Or australia.
• At least after a nuclear apocalypse we'll have to start valuing each and every remaining human being in order to survive, instead of blowing each other up over a piece of stupid desert and stupid ideologies.
• Then again, maybe thats too hopeful, that a few nukes going off over what amounts to property won't shock people enough and realign their opinions about what constitutes acceptable treatment of the other. They'll just find a new way of blaming the old enemy.
• Well I find it atrocious that defenceless Lesbians are being attacked in this manner. *shaves legs, dons push-up bra and lipstick in self-defence*
• *is glad he's not the only one who keeps reading the sidebar that way*
• *was thinking about adding his continual misreading of lebanese to the thread on simple concepts* > Lebanon civilian deaths morally not same as terror victims -- Bolton

  "It's simply not the same thing to say that it's the same act to deliberately target innocent civilians, to desire their deaths, to fire rockets and use explosive devices or kidnapping versus the sad and highly unfortunate consequences of self-defense," Bolton noted.

  i must confess myself as failing in the appointment of bolton to understand for the job his true virtues. clarity by him in expression would not, it appears, the highest priority to have been placed upon being.
• Dismantle Israel, unify the state, and enforce a peace. In sum: the extirpation of a nuclear armed sovereign nation; the forced expatriation of approximately 6M people (a number that lends itself to historical comparison, a point that will not be lost on either those involved or their supporters around the world, numbered amongst whom is the single strongest military and economic power on the planet), a significant portion of whom, you admit, will be, shall we say, somewhat reluctant to leave? To be followed by the handover of all governmental and a significant portion of economic assets to another racial group, the government of which is dominated by an admittedly violent fundamentalist religous faction with a long history of engaging in terror operations, followed by a period wherein other nations will enforce this process, presumably for the aforementioned new government to get up to speed. I feel like I'm forgetting something.
• Does MoFi have that "best answer" thing installed yet?
• Yeah but
• I'm workin' on it! I'm workin' on it!
• One of my friends from Lebanon just sent me this link. Warning: It gets a bit graphic as you scroll down.
• I feel like I'm forgetting something. Probably the cream of tartar.
• It gets very graphic. But it's important that everybody see it.
• TUM: and the Elmer's glue. Can't have an attachment without it. Skrik: graphic, yes.
• Well back to the typical racist arguments of radical Islam. Right about there I stopped reading. If you think radical Islam and radical Christianity are even close to equivalent, you aren't paying attention, or you need to work on your critical thinking skills. There's no comparison. Radical Christians in the US want to deny marriage rights to homosexuals. Theocratic governments in the Middle East execute them. Women in the US, in some states, have a tough time getting an abortion. The most radical on the right would outlaw it, maybe even in cases of rape. Never mind access to abortion, women in the Middle East are put to death if they're raped. Islam is infected by radicalism in ways that simply don't compare to any other religion on the planet today. Pretending otherwise is delusional.
• I think the US could fit 6M people in Montana or N. Dakota. Especially if Canada pitched in a bit of Saskatchewan. We would have to buy back the property of the people already there, but eminent domain would allow it. Of course the the Dakotans would start blowing people up. But you know they wouldn't leave. That patch of desert is just too spiritually important.
• Israel will continue to exist. Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and glamajamma will have to recognize this, and accept it, before peace has a chance in the region. Israel's government policies are flawed, and their treatment of Palestinians is inexcusable, but their right to exist has to be acknowledged before they can be persuaded to change.
• > One of my friends from Lebanon just sent me this link (fromisrael2lebanon.com) a blog post that provides some information on the context of the first two pictures here (the kids writing on the missiles).
• If you think radical Islam and radical Christianity are even close to equivalent, you aren't paying attention You mean the radcial Christianity that has bred guys like Timothy McVeigh, abortion clinic bombers, white supremacists, abortion doctor asassins, and end times prophecies? Don't forget that it was radical Christian theological beliefs, specifically the importance of recapturing the holy lands, that influenced Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
• How U.S. Weapons Manufacturers Profit From Middle East Conflict
• One of the reasons the Europeans have been reluctent about condeming Iran and Syria is that they make so much money sell weapons to them.
• Don't forget that it was radical Christian theological beliefs, specifically the importance of recapturing the holy lands, that influenced Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. Without 9/11, all Bush's purported radical theological influences mean doodly squat.
• > Without 9/11, all Bush's purported radical theological influences mean doodly squat. we're in the realm of counterfactuals, but i reckon iraq would've been invaded even in the absence of the september 11 attacks.
• I'm sorry, its still not even close to equivalent. And the people you mentioned were fighting within the borders of their nation, not starting wars with our neighbors. And they were policed by the same society they came from. Still are. Doesn't happen in the middle east or we wouldn't be here. When was the last time the Palestinian authority arrested the leaders of the Hamas and put them on trial? And furthermore, if you're saying that Christianity deserves to be held accountable for producing guys that bomb abortion clinics, thats an idea I can get behind.
• U.S. Speeds Up Bomb Delivery for the Israelis
• The current situation in Lebanon would have never happened if we hadn't invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. The bungled situation in those two places strengthened and emboldened the anti-western forces in Syria and Iran. This made them realize that this was a good time to push a scenario that could possibly result in America leaving the middle east completely. The thing is, it is Christianity that is responsible for this whole mess. Starting with the old White Man's Burden od the colonial era continuing on through our modern version of this. Bush invaded because of his religious views.
• It certainly is quite possible that the U.S. would have eventually made it into Iraq without 9/11. We know that Mr. Bush harbored revenge fantasies against Saddam for trying to kill his Daddy. And we've certainly seen that he and his cronies are the sort of fellers who will move any mountain and manufacture any rationale to get what they want. But I think there's a case to be made for the theory that without 9/11 they may not have been able to drum up the support they needed to carry out their agenda. Too bad we'll never know for sure.
• Bush invaded because of his religious views. I doubt this because before 9/11, if i remember correctly, one of the (true) jokes about Bush was that he didn't even know the name of Pakistan's president. Afghanistan was the last thing on Bush's mind. Back in 2000, the big foreign policy concern was China. Remember the plane that was taken down by Chinese jets? Funny isn't it how 9/11 has distorted world views...
• Yes, by all means, wherever people are dying we must immediately send more weapons.
• Compassionate Conservatism
• Picture Album
• The Damned
• I'd like to think USians are smart enough to not make conflict-escalating decisions like these. But the number and status of people I know who voted for GW Bush in 2004 seriously altered my thinking on that issue. Can we go back to the television-is-a-meme-controlling-blowtorch thread? Cause there was less actual brutality in that one. Or was there?? Ooooh- pro-vock-a-tive!
• I saw a picture today of a Lebanese man holding the body of a baby pulled out of the rubble, its head a pulp of blood slime on its shoulders, destroyed like a smashed melon. The child was something like only 18 months old, still wearing it's terry-cloth suit. It stirred something very still & quiet inside me, cold & tiny like a collapsed star yet engulfing, not hate yet not cessation of passion. Like the moment before an eruption; before the big bang. Like a wild tornado frozen in a single moment. It was some kind of emotion that there are no sets of human words yet created to convey. Like simultaneously wanting to reach out & destroy all the maniacs in the world, & at the same time end all destruction everywhere. It's as if an emotional response is held at the event horizon of emission, frozen by the gravity of its own magnitude.
• I was wrong. Your soul is not black. It is indeed the color of the dawn.
• White House release calls for Israel to hit Syria
• See my WWIII post for how this will turn out.
• Anthony Bourdain: Watching Beirut die
• Anthony Bourdain rox.
• (Tried posting earlier, nothing happened) This is the final note from my sister, about her trip on the ship of the damned, to escape from Hell: Journey begins with many many hours in a huge air-conditioned conference center near Beirut port, getting “processed” and waiting. From the windows we admire the vast cruise ships in the harbor. Then we get on buses, which swing along the dock, past the cruise ships, to an tiny and ancient Turkish ferry. (“You’ll be looking for a man named One-Eyed Willie,” some Red Cross jokester said to our bus driver.” “Sorry, can you repeat more slowly?”) We pile in and wait as the ferry fills, and fills more, until 400 souls are packed on a boat meant for 150. The A/C doesn’t work. Quickly many of us seek the comfort of the deck and there we watch Beirut recede, and as we watch, Dahieh is bombed again, 3 times and the smoke rises in mushroom clouds. We’d been told it would be a 6-8 hour trip, but the great cruise ships speed by, and people start trying to extract information from the Turkish crew (no Canadian reps on board, no medics), and the news comes out: 20 hours. Soon the hellishness of our conditions become apparent. Inside the cabin it is unbearably hot and stinking. The toilets overflow. No toilet paper; I hoard tissues like gold. People fill all the chairs, the café benches, and the floors. Children howling. Mothers try keep flies off their babies’ faces. One poor woman traveling with her 4 children got seasick and fainted. I happened to see her baby crawling up the stairs to the deck, grabbed him, and handed it to someone who knew where he came from. Many of us resort to sleeping on the iron deck, which is only unbearable as opposed to absolute hell inside. The deck fills with our sleeping bodies, resting heads on pieces of cardboard; a mom and daughter use her guitar case as a pillow. Out here it is cooler but the stench of diesel and tar is overwhelming. Nowhere on the boat can I draw a good breath.
• More: Next day the heat rises. The only food available is for sale in American small bills. (I convinced them to take Canadian.) We seek shelter in the small shadows of the lifeboats. Our clothes and the ladies veils are ruined with drips of tar spewing from the smokestack. I have to say there was a camaraderie and caring among us, people looking out for each other. Had some fascinating conversations to pass the time. I’ll just mention Yusuf, originally Palestinian, now owns a Hasty Market in London Ontario, who taught me some beautiful poems in Arabic and wrote them in my book. His young wife traveling to Canada for the first time. Some people live in Canada and visit Lebanon, or really manage to divide their time between the two. Well-to-do people wearing a fortune in gold jewelry. More heart-wringing are the families who have lost everything and are traveling to one relative in Canada, or people who left their families behind and hope to bring them later—their life is on a shoestring. But the physical discomfort is such that it’s hard to think of the future or of what’s happening in Lebanon. I cannot overemphasize the many kinds of stench. We arrive in Mersin. 2 hour wait in stinking hot passport control. Pretzels and juice. Our clothes are soaked through with sweat and it is again like hell. Here finally are some Canadian workers, with vague information: “You are going to a stadium in Adena to rest while you wait for your flight.” Uh-oh, euphemism control! “Rest”?? 2-hour bus ride. I don’t know where all these places are. The stadium is, after what we’ve been through, paradise: it’s air-conditioned, we all get a fresh towel and bar of soap, and the place is paved with thin blue mattresses that feel divine after the iron deck. The food id good, the mayor of Adena donated kebabs. Wait, wait, wait. The din of voices and children crying disperses around the stadium. We can’t leave the building except to walk on the small grounds, where the Turkish people observe us like zoo animals. Notice the calm and simplicity of life here: slow-paced bicycle riders, 3 on a tiny motorbike, laundry and grape vines on the roof. Some of our number get onto planes that night. Only about 150 are left to retire to our heavenly 3-inch foam mattresses till the morning. Wait, wait, wait. There’s one telephone, one TV. When Turkish CNN shows Lebanon we gather round to try to decipher: body bags; two babies in a morgue; Israeli tanks penetrating the south; Israeli soldiers practicing on virtual reality, which obscenely shows buildings and not people. Some of us weep.
• Finally, there was a flight in the morning, and they arrived in Montreal yesterday. What can one say, but "Welcome home."
• Thanks for sharing that, EarWax.
• Glad that your sister's ordeal is safely over, EarWax.
• Thank you for sharing that with us EarWax, glad your sister is safe.
• Indeed.
• " .
• Anthony Bourdain Q & A Re: Beirut
• U.S. Intelligence on Hizballah and Iran
• Qana casualties .
• All in a good cause.
• Israeli Cluster Munitions Hit Civilians in Lebanon
• More from HRW: Israel/Lebanon: End Indiscriminate Strikes on Civilians
• Four short clips of things Americans never see on TV
• Damn, I wish JUST ONCE I could see an American reporter say, "That's not the question I asked. The question I asked was..." and be able to keep saying it until he got an answer. And John Snow's rainbow tie is STYLIN'! Fes must've picked it out for him.
• I totally *heart* Jon Snow. And for the ultimate example of British journalists asking the same question until they get an answer, the inimitable Jeremy Paxman's finest hour
• um? what happened to my linky? the inimitable Jeremy Paxman is what that meant to say... why oh why oh why can't we have a preview button? wait, what? ... we do have a preview button? really? oh. never mind then.
• We have a preview button? You sure?
• Ear Wax, I somehow missed your comments until today. I'm so glad your sister is safe, and I think daily of those who still aren't. Thank you for sharing that.
• Jostein Gaarder, him of Sophie's World fame, came out yesterday saying that he no longer recognises the state of Israel, and that a people who consider themselves to be the chosen people of God are ipso facto racists. Predictably, the Israeli embassy pulled a Godwin on Gaarder this morning, comparing his article in Aftenposten with Mein Kampf. I think someone should tell the Israelis that Godwinning is really fucking old, besides being a non-sequitur.
• I don't want to toot my own horn, but this is exactly in line with what I was talking about. I know some people would have preferred me isolated from the discussion, but his argument goes hand in hand with my own.
• Many religions consider themselves to be God's favourites. To selectively criticize one over the others is the same kind of bigotry you claim to abhor.
• If Gaarder no longer recognizes the state of Israel, then presumably he should also no longer recognize Iran or the Vatican.
• Why is the task of the moderate (the voice of reason) in the middle east? Is it because they have to fight two enemies? In Lebanon, the moderate has to fight both Hezbollah and the hawks of Israel.
• Crap! "Why is the task of the moderate so difficult in the middle east?"
• I'm getting the impression that the task of the moderate is getting pretty darn difficult all over the world.
• The war in Lebanon has become a new animal for an American perspective on Middle East perceptions of Moslems. Lebanon is a diverse culture and many religions, but remarkably they have solidified behind Hezzbolah. Hezzbolah has become the de-facto army of Lebanon. This manifests itself in Lebanon's rejection of the UN security draft. Regardless of how some may wish to paint Hezbollah, you must recognize that they are not affiliated with Al-Qaeda, they do not condone targetting civilians, they had denounced 9/11. The Middle East seems to be painted with a broad racist brush here. Unfortunately for those in power, Lebanon is becoming an example of a diverse culture that supports an islamic group as liberating to all the religions in the region. I do not condone groups such as Al-Qaeda and it appears neither does Nassarallah. I unfortunately do not have high hopes for this charismatic leader. He is a strong fair leader, who is intelligent enough to revile zionism, while embracing judaism. He supports pluralism and rejects a shia suni divide. all these factors have put a target on his head. The Christian American fascists and Judeo Fascists need this person killed, because like Chavez in Venezuela, he is a strong leftist leader that produces for his people. As for moderation. The horrors that have been perpetuated under the new global capitalism have produced the state we are in. Apathy and negligence of the American people in recognizing the wounds it inflicts on the rest of the world has produced many resistance movements, some of these are evil such as Al-Qaeda. Some are legitimate such as Hezzbolah, the Bolivarian revolution, the EZLN, etc. Can the G8 summits occur without massive protests occurring? The time for painting the world in a wide simplistic brush has come to an end. The lies are coming to the point where they are denounced. Because of the current state of affairs the Fascists such as the Bush administration, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, and other regimes are reacting in a fashion which is causing massive casualties, but solidifying the leftists. The heart of Americans wishes to embrace pluralism, but these feeling have extended too far to those who undermine humanity as a whole.
• That's so cute how you run around calling everyone fascists. Can you call me one too? I'm feeling left out.
• I do not condone groups such as Al-Qaeda and it appears neither does Nassarallah. I unfortunately do not have high hopes for this charismatic leader. He is a strong fair leader, who is intelligent enough to revile zionism, while embracing judaism. This is a New Yorker backgrounder on Hezbollah from 2002. It's a long but informative read. The author meets Lebanese academic Amal Saad-Ghorayeb who has argued that Hezbollah are fundamentally anti-Jewish (though she is by no means a simple critic of the organisation):

  Saad-Ghorayeb is hesitant to label Hezbollah's outlook anti-Semitism, however. She prefers the term "antiJudaism," since in her terms anti-Semitism is a race-based hatred, while anti-Judaism is religion-based. Hezbollah, she says, tries to mask its antiJudaism for "public-relations reasons," but she argues that a study of its language, spoken and written, reveals an underlying truth. She quoted from a speech delivered by Hassan Nasrallah, in which he said, "If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli." To Saad-Ghorayeb, this statement "provides moral justification and ideological justification for dehumanizing the Jews." In this view, she went on, "the Israeli Jew becomes a legitimate target for extermination. And it also legitimatizes attacks on non-Israeli Jews."

  It is in my experience a failing of the left to idolise anyone who is standing up against your enemy. They are not necessarily your friend. I'd personally put Chavez in the same category, if comrades in the Venezuelan anarchist movement are to be believed. I heartily agree that "The time for painting the world in a wide simplistic brush has come to an end".
• Rocket88 your post lacks content. If you don't believe that Israel and the current US administration (backed by the fundamentalist right) is not fascists please argue against it by all means. Or if you wish for me to elaborate on how these states are fascist please ask for it. Don't just be snarky because you disagree with the comment. This whole thing may get me banned, but I feel my arguments have been cogent and supported not only by myself but academics as well, to include Jewish academics. I wasn't the only one that thought Israel was becoming Fascist. Refer back to my post where Einstein talks of the Israeli political figure Menachem Begin. A character who goes on to become Prime Minister. Considering you don't know me, let us look to Einstein and his past humanitarian position in history. And of course his position on Begin. Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model. During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute. Now if you want to argue these points, please do so, but snark is on the level of Shawn Hannety or Rush Limbaugh.
• Abiezer_Coppe in response I refer to my previous link here. Nasrallah himself has made several anti-Jewish statements, which have been blown up by Zionist propagandists. These backward statements reflect the fact that decades of Zionist oppression of Palestinians and Lebanese does create prejudiced views among some of the oppressed. Many South African blacks would no doubt have blamed whites, rather than the system, for their oppression during the period of apartheid. However, these occasional statements are at odds with more serious analyses by Hezbollah. Its website, Alghaliboun.net, contains articles that make explicit that its fight is against Zionism and not with Jews. One such article, “Judaism is not Zionism”, after highlighting “a very important fact” that “Israel’s brutal policy is rejected by many Jews all over the world”, goes on to stress that “it is Zionism that Muslims criticize, not Judaism or the Jewish nation — Muslims respect all God’s religions, prophets and messengers”. This falls in correlation with everything I have read on Islamic Law. Wiki link.
• glammajamma, I have little doubt that the propaganda's swirling thickly on all sides in this, but here's Amal Saad-Ghorayeb again, wondering what Hezbollah's thinking was. Smacks of 'provoking the revolutionary crisis' to me, and makes them complicit in the horror Israel is visiting on Lebanon. Solidarity has to be critical, otherwise you find yourself apologising for the indefensible, or defending reactionary ideologies. In this case, you might join Hezbollah at the "spearhead of the [Islamic] umma", which would not be pointing to any worthwhile goal as I see things.
• glammajamma, I have little doubt that the propaganda's swirling thickly on all sides in this, then I would wonder why you would try to paint hezzbollah as anti-semitic in the first place. Why was the point brought up if you yourself doubt it's validity? Secondly wondering what Hezbollah's thinking was. Smacks of 'provoking the revolutionary crisis' to me Well here is the reasoning behind this: The Hezbollah attack was staged to capture soldiers to use for a prisoner-exchange with Israel, a strategy adopted by both sides in the past. According to Human Rights Watch, targeting and capture of enemy soldiers is allowed under international humanitarian law. I would also note Israel has ofter taken part in activaties that could be seen as acts of war against a sovereign nation. From the same article: He (Israeli Brigadier General Meir Caliphi) said the only real activity from Hezbollah was when Israeli planes invaded Lebanese airspace and they fired anti-aircraft guns. Only two civilians sustained minor injuries as a result of the shelling, he said. The article continues: In the three weeks since that day, news reports, based on statements from various government officials from Israel and the United States, infer Hezbollah began attacking northern Israel with rockets,..... However there is no evidence Hezbollah intended, or indeed started, a sustained rocket attack on Israel. you find yourself apologising for the indefensible I don't understand your point here. I am not apologising for anything. Israel is acting in a fascist manner with no respect for human life. reactionary ideologies Zionism is the only reactionary ideology here! I would like to add that any article that starts with "Hezbollah's Apocalypse Now" is rather suspect. Especially since Nasarallah had already made it clear he intended to capture Israeli soldiers to facilitate a prisoner exchange, because that is the only choice he has in freeing lebanese prisoners, which he had done in the past. More importantly the status of said Israeli soldiers when they were captured is still in question, were they inside Lebanon or not. Not to mention the complainst that prior to this Israel has been accused of frequent illegal border crossing in the past.
• If you think about it, "semite" includes both Arabs and Jews, so I'd guess that Hezbollah is basically "anti-Jew." And, I think that Israel still suffers from the legacy of centuries of pograms, including the holocost, and about 60 years of being surrounded by fellow semites who want them to just leave. I think their stockade mentality is understandable. And, the West has backed Israel since we were responsible for setting them up there to begin with. The Palestinians, of course, want their former territory back, which is understandable, as well. Plus, Israel has been suspicious of their Arab neighbors, maybe with reason, to the point that they they've treated the Palestinians about as badly as they were treated during the centuries of diaspora in Europe. And, their Arab neighbors have sided with the Palestinians. I believe that this is a stand off of epic proportions, based pretty much on tribal thinking on both sides, and that applying terms like "Nazi" to either side gets us nowhere. Nor,is it likely that that thinking will solve the problems. What you're really doing, glammajamma, is supporting the continuation conflict in the MidEast. Incindiary language is a great way to get incindiary results.
• glamma - I'm not 'trying to paint' Hezbollah as anti-Semetic, I'm informing you of an article I read where a credible scholar contradicts your assertion about Nasrullah not having anything against Jews per se. I made the remark about propaganda because I get all my information second hand, so don't necessarily accept what I read at face value. But the claim of an anti-Jewish ideology strikes me as credible, if even only a portion of the rest of the New Yorker article is true, and coupled with things I've read elsewhere. I was aware of the prisoner exchange idea - in the second article I linked to Ms Saad-Ghorayeb is of the opinion that Hezbollah strategists were aware that such actions might provoke an Israeli response of the destructive scale we are seeing. Considering the forces in play, this strikes me as cavalier. Hezbollah were risking this disproportionate response to advance their agenda. Bad politics and bad tactics. I say apologising ('being an apologist for') because you are taking the side of Hezbollah in an uncritical fashion, whereas they do represent a reactionary ideology - Islamism - and use tactics that are indefensible - attacks on civilians. These remain wrong regardless of the wrongness of Israel. I would be surprised if Ms Saad-Ghorayeb is responsible for the headline that aroused your suspicions. that's usually the sub-editor's job. I suspect they were playing off the line 'I cannot help but cast the current conflict in apocalyptic terms' in the body of the article. She mentions this was Hezbollah's 'year of the prisoners', which may mean they did expect the border raid to end in an exchange, but also offers "insights into the party's motives that go well beyond the prisoner exchange that it publicly claims...the seizure of these two soldiers also reflects Hezbollah's broader goals -- both its domestic political agenda and its regional, strategic one." She then sets out what she believes the latter are.
• If you would have read all my comments you would have seen Hezzbollah's take on Judaism vs Zionism, which is in direct line with my own. You must first realize that zionists are the only jews that find judaism and zionism one in the same. Many Jews do not support Zionism, as I have pointed out in the previous posts. Incindiary language is a great way to get incindiary results. Well I am sorry if you find a fascists state acceptable. Once again I call them fascist, something I have supported in previous posts, and is yet to be contradicted. Let me quote some of the great Israeli leaders: “[The Palestinians] are beasts walking on two legs.” – Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, “Begin and the ‘Beasts,”‘ New Statesman, June 25, 1982. “We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?’ Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said ‘Drive them out!” – Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979. “There is no such thing as a Palestinian people… It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn’t exist.” – Golda Meir, statement to The Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969. “Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories.” – Benyamin Netanyahu, then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, former Prime Minister of Israel, speaking to students at Bar Ilan University, from the Israeli journal Hotam, November 24, 1989. “(The Palestinians) would be crushed like grasshoppers … heads smashed against the boulders and walls.” – Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) Yitzhak Shamir in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988 “I would have joined a terrorist organization.” – Ehud Barak’s response to Gideon Levy, a columnist for the Ha’aretz newspaper, when Barak was asked what he would have done if he had been born a Palestinian. “Everybody has to move, run and grab as many (Palestinian) hilltops as they can to enlarge the (Jewish) settlements because everything we take now will stay ours…Everything we don’t grab will go to them.” – Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of the Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, Nov. 15, 1998. US. Former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was once quoted as saying about Americans "We own the banks and the media. Without us they are a stupid people." I say again Israel is a facsist state, like Nazi Germany, and being such needs to be dismantled for global security and a humane and just world. This could possibly involve conflict but the alternative I fear is much more dire!
• Regardless of how some may wish to paint Hezbollah...they do not condone targetting civilians . Human Rights Watch: Hezbollah must end attacks on civilians Quote from the story: "Lobbing rockets blindly into civilian areas is without doubt a war crime," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch." Nothing can justify this assault on the most fundamental standards for sparing civilians the hazards of war."
• Those quotations do reflect insidious attitudes on the part of various Israeli leaders. Begin was a terrorist in the 1940s. Sharon was responsible for atrocities. But i would ask you if, in your readings, you've come across any quotations from Arab/Palestinian leaders that are equally insidious?
• I say apologising ('being an apologist for') because you are taking the side of Hezbollah in an uncritical fashion, whereas they do represent a reactionary ideology - Islamism - and use tactics that are indefensible - attacks on civilians. These remain wrong regardless of the wrongness of Israel. And like I said Israel is the reactionary entity here. Zionism is a violent racists ideology. If you reference where I have linked to in the past Hezbollah has never had a desire to establish a Islamic state, unlike Israel. You are taking the fact that he is Islamic as being reactionary. Being Islamic is just an symptom of geography. This is where the terrible level of racism is occurring in America. If a group defends itself from an aggressor and Islamic, they are automatically labelled extremists. Nassarallah in contrast has been very moderate in his approach to the state affairs of a multi-religious state. Regardless of what you would like to paint him as in regards to zionists, you cannot argue that he has not encouraged a pluaralistic state in Lebanon. Which is the threat he poses to Western Ideology, because he is not fighting Christianity or any other follower of the book, he is fighting a facsist state. His presence in Lebanon and his take towards the other religions undermines the image of the radical Islamist. His growing popularity also poses a threat, because as people follow him, they follow an ideology that contradicts the islamo-fascist image people would like to buy into. I would also point out rocket attacks have been solely against settlements, which are illegal. Secondly Nassarallah has threatened to hit Tel Aviv if Israel continues to hit Beirut, something he has said he has been holding off on. Why is that? I would imagine like many people he distnguishes between a states soil and its illegal occupied territory. I do not feel for settlers in Israel, they are a violent hooligans that are recruited to settle in the occupied territories and drive out Palestinians. They are extremely militant and fundamentalist, on a level you could not dream of painting Nassarallah.
• I would reitterate my statement on hitting settlements, and go as far as to say these zones are military just by their existence. Secondly I would like to see some statements in regards to Israel, that may be examined either as anti-semitic or anti-fascist, or possibly anti-colonial. To further your understanding on the colonial nature of Israel I recommend: Israel: A Colonial-Settler State?
• I would also point out rocket attacks have been solely against settlements Whoa, there. Haifa is not a settlement. It is neither on the West Bank nor part of the Gaza strip.
• Hi glamma. I distinguish between Islamism and Islam - the former a fairly modern politcal ideology, the latter the various, rich and storied religious tradition. In the form that Islamism takes in Iran, which has close ideological ties to, and is a backer of Hezbollah, it countenances the hanging of gay people and the suppression of trade unions, to name just two manifestations of reactionary ideology. I fear supporting Hezbollah because they are opposing imperialism (or whatever) will be a repeat of supporting the Iranian revolution, as many on the left did at the time, notwithsatnding the assurances they currently offer that you outline in your post.
• Hi glamma. I distinguish between Islamism and Islam - the former a fairly modern politcal ideology, the latter the various, rich and storied religious tradition. In the form that Islamism takes in Iran, which has close ideological ties to, and is a backer of Hezbollah, it countenances the hanging of gay people and the suppression of trade unions, to name just two manifestations of reactionary ideology. I fear supporting Hezbollah because they are opposing imperialism (or whatever) will be a repeat of supporting the Iranian revolution, as many on the left did at the time, notwithsatnding the assurances they currently offer that you outline in your post. That is in complete contrast to the state that was established in Lebanon. This could have been a perceived threat for the future, but since post-Syrian withdrawl that has been proven to be completely false. Abiezer_Coppe you keep on wanting to paint Hezzbollah into a fundamentalist organization, but keep failing. They encouraged a multi-religious state in Lebanon in the past. Now they are completely different? Your logic is completely flawed. They could have already done this in Lebanon, but they refused that system when given the opportunity.
• Abiezer brings up a good point. I remember following the Iranian revolution in the late 70s. At the time it was very popular for the left to denounce the Shah of Iran (he imprisoned dissidents). I remember because I was sympathetic to the anti-Shah movement. When Ayatollah Khomeini stepped to the fore, he was embraced by outsiders as the leader to take Iran out of repression. Now here's the kicker: Khomeini gave interviews where he said he was in favor of democracy. It was exactly what we wanted to hear. But what happened after he came to power? The implementation of a brutal crackdown, many times worse than the Shah. Prominent among the many victims, the followers of the Bahai faith.. Meet the new boss, worse than the old boss.
• The lesson of the Iranian revolution is that just because you're the underdog doesn't mean that you are more virtuous than your opponent.
• First of all Nassarralah was given the opportunity to take power in Lebanon and he declared he wanted a democratic government and refused the opportunity. He didn't do what Khomeini did. Secondly The shia movement, was never the under dog they have always had a huge presence in Iran. It wasn't an underdog it was a popular movement. Thirdly these regimes only seem to rise and be popular under harsh conditions or perceived outside threats, which is completely viable when one considers the history the US has with Iran. Fourth by by lumping Hezbollah in with Iran you are practicing the same form of racism that has us in Iraq, and Israel in Lebanon. You should stick with that argument though, it plays into the US's apparent racist ideology. Yes they accept money and rockets from Iran, just like Iraq at one time under Hussein accepted chemical weapons, money, and weapons from us. What is your point?
• I have yet to see one example of Nassarallah preach Islamo-fascism! If you plan on following through with the conjecture that he is somehow not pluralistic, please produce evidence that contradicts his proven history in Lebanon.
• I think we've got to the nub of it for me here glamma. It seems you think that Hezbollah can provide or be part of a worthwhile solution for Lebanon. I think that given sufficient preponderance (I think their restraint is tactical given the balance of forces in Lebanon) they are likely to become something akin to the regime in Iran. I base this assumption on their ideological roots and association with the Iranian regime. It's not a question of becoming something different, but a question of what is possible for them to achieve at given points in history. Time will tell. I am strongly opposed to Israel's actions, both at present, and in the history of the conflicts in the region. Hezbollah arose in response to these, but that doesn't make them progressive. They are an authoritarian party, with an ideology based on a very paternalistic interpretation of Islam, and they have embraced martyrdom, including it seems for the population they purport to be defending.
• I have yet to see one example of Nassarallah preach Islamo-fascism! Maybe not, but the roots of Hezbollah are deeply set in the Iranian theo-fascist mold. The original manifesto by Hezbollah's spiritual leader, Sheikh Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah has the following quote: "We are often asked: Who are we, the Hizballah, and what is our identity? We are the sons of the umma (Muslim community) - the party of God (Hizb Allah) the vanguard of which was made victorious by God in Iran. There the vanguard succeeded to lay down the bases of a Muslim state which plays a central role in the world. We obey the orders of one leader, wise and just, that of our tutor and faqih (jurist) who fulfills all the necessary conditions: Ruhollah Musawi Khomeini. God save him!"
• I am strongly opposed to Israel's actions, both at present, and in the history of the conflicts in the region. Hezbollah arose in response to these, but that doesn't make them progressive. They are an authoritarian party, with an ideology based on a very paternalistic interpretation of Islam, and they have embraced martyrdom, including it seems for the population they purport to be defending. You have a talent for disregarding every argument I make against this and striding ahead with the fact that it is Islamic and hence out for Islamic domination. you take aspects of Islam and make them de-facto evil. This is all without any support, and declarations by Hezbollah, anything at all. You just say it so it is. I am going to reitterate, please substantiate this argument. Ironically the one organization that does not have the track record of Islamo-fascism is the one you are attacking, while Suadi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait and other countries have active repressive regimes, based on Islam. Maybe you should go after Syria too, just for good measure. embraced martyrdom, including it seems for the population they purport to be defending. I reitterate, The capture of Israeli soldiers, is not against international law. The question of where the soldiers were when they were captured is in question. Israel has a history of violating Lebanon's border, substantiated by the Israeli General I quoted earlier. This is an act of war. The fact that Israel had struck Beirut civilian areas with ridiculous force before any rocket attacks is an act of war. You of course continually talk about Hezbollah being Islamic. You do not argue or even touch the points I made on Zionism and fascism. For you Islamic is evil and Western is good, hence leading to the current state of affairs we exist in. Storey Bored: I concede that in its early incarnations it did want to establish an Islamic state, but in the spirit of pluralism and to avoid further secretarian violence Hezzbollah has rejected that stand, and would only establish one if it was democratically elected.
• You have a talent for disregarding every argument I make against this and striding ahead with the fact that it is Islamic and hence out for Islamic domination. glama - you're ignoring the distinction I made between Islamic and Islamism. There's a wealth of resources out there on the net to inform you about the distinction. You just say so, so it is Yes, that's my opinion. I outlined the reason in my last post, - the ideological and other links to Iran. Again, there's plenty of resources out there for people to decide for themselves if this is true. I hope you realise that what you offer are fundamentally just opinions as well. The embrace of martyrdom is part of Hezbollah ideology. I argue that their embrace of death allows them to be cavalier about the consequences of their strategies to the civilian population. I am indeed ignoring your opinions on Zionism and fascism.
• Israel isn't fascist - it's a discriminatory state, a colonial state, but it's still democratic. They have elections, Israeli citizens vote for their leaders, they have dissent within the country (far more dissent than allowed in China, for example). Fascism is inherently opposed to democracy. See, I think you don't actually know what the word "fascist" means. Israel is not an authoritarian single party regime. Apartheid South Africa was not fascist (though the franchise was severely restricted). The States during segregation was not a fascist state. A state can do many questionable things, and be subject to criticism, without being fascist. A state can be racist, and I believe the state of Israel to have problems with defining its citizens by their ethnicity, without being fascist. This is why Godwin's law exists -- people misusing the word "fascist". It turns it into just a buzz word - anything you don't like is "fascist".
• glamajamma - It isn't a black and white issue, and it seems like you are twisting yourself in knots to defend Hezbollah. Frankly, you can rightly condemn Israel's actions and completely disproportionate response, but both sides have been targetting civilians, and both sides have committed war crimes. I don't know anything about the history of Hezbollah, but judging by their recent actions alone, they have targetted non-settler, civilian populations. Denying this just makes you look blind and ignorant. That they haven't killed as many people has to do with their lack of technology - if they could kill as much as Israel, they would. That said, Israel is also committing war crimes and, due to their wealth and technology, killing ten times as much. They are actively targetting the civilian population of Lebanon - the spokespeople will claim that they are targetting the rockets, but the rockets are being fired from groves, and the Israeli missiles are targetting the nearest buildings (and killing the civilians sheltering within). They are just lying when they say that they are targetting the rockets. glamajamma - attack on Israel on what it does - and you will have much to criticise. But if you aren't also as willing to turn a critical eye on Hezbollah and Hamas, people will question your objectivity, and then the truth of what you say. Your criticism of Israel is actually undermined by your feeling that you must defend the other side.
• well put jb. i'd add that there's a huge amount of propaganda and spin put out by all parties in the middle east, such that any reports should be viewed critically.
• Israel isn't fascist - it's a discriminatory state, a colonial state, but it's still democratic. They have elections, Israeli citizens vote for their leaders, they have dissent within the country (far more dissent than allowed in China, for example). Fascism is inherently opposed to democracy. See, I think you don't actually know what the word "fascist" means. From your description I would say you have no idea what fascism is. It is an economic and ideological/nationalist system. Secondly Israel is not democratic. I suggest you first look into the JNF then determine what constitutes a democracy, because equality cant be one of them, because Israel is only equal for Jews. I would also look into their identification system, and license plate system. Some call this being an Israeli national vs a citizen. Each carries its own weight. this of course is not isolated to arabs, Christians are also second class citizens. This is why Godwin's law exists -- people misusing the word "fascist". It turns it into just a buzz word - anything you don't like is "fascist". In an ironic twist by using Godwin's Law every time it comes up, when someone is fascist you say it isn't because of Godwin's Law, so no one is fascist.
• Yes, that's my opinion. I outlined the reason in my last post, - the ideological and other links to Iran. And as usual you have completely disregarded my statements I have posted with support of Hezbollahs track record in Lebanese history and with a broad stroke declare they are Shia and get weapons from Iran, they must be just like Iran. Regardless of statements made by Nassarallah I have posted, positions they have taken politically I have posted, and their proven track record in Lebanon. None of that matters because of martyrdom, an aspect of Islam not just reserved to shia. Of course because you know absolutely nothing of Islam, you have no perspective to put things in, so I will try to explain. In Islam there is a responsibility to your family, then your village, then your state, then Islam. Unlike post-Lutherian Western thinking, Islam sees itself as part of a whole. Martyrdom is not only an embrace of the afterlife, but defending part of the whole of Islam. See in Islam the individualistic mindset is not part of the philosophy. The individual is part of the whole. I suggest you read Hobbes to get an idea of how Westerners at one point thought like this as well. It may speak to you in a language you understand, because as it stands right now your statements, Abiezer_Coppe, are so culturally biased it is ridiculous. Of course in retrospect martyrdom is really no different then dieing for your country under the banner of patriotism. Which just re-enforces my belief in your cultural bias. Which I guess is part of the problem with the US take on the Middle East, a complete lack of understanding of the thought process. I would also point out, even the non-fundamental or even atheist Middle Easterners have many of these basic concepts inherent in their thinking because it as much a cultural aspect as a religious one. Interestingly enough Judaism has gone hand in hand with Western thinking for years, and even though Zionists commit heinous racial crimes against a civilian population in Lebanon and Palestine, no one says anything. But of course jb wonders why I defend Hezbollah so much. well it is quite simple. We have supported a corrupt system of control in the entire region, supporting despots and the fascist regime of Israel for years. Israeli citizens have taken part in genocide against the Palestinians, and anyone choosing to live in the racists state is by de facto condoning its behavior, or at least the concept of a racially pure state. I have as much regard for the standard Israeli citizen as much as a skin head. Their ideology is twisted, ancient and dangerous. So yes when we speak of rocket attacks versus F-16 "smart bombing" Beirut, I don't care about the rocket attacks. Especially when we speak of 50 dead Israeli citizens, when Israel does this in an afternoon with little regard for Palestinian life, they have been doing it for years and years. They were doing this during cease fires and prior to the intifada. When Nassarallah speaks of wiping Zionism from the map, I agree with him. that fascists nationalist ideology, is dangerous to anyone. Dangerous on two levels: 1.) the ideology is inherently violent 2.) the apparent desensitization to what fascism is has created an atmosphere in which it can raise its ugly head again, only substantiated by jb's argument and misunderstanding of what Fascism is.
• From your description I would say you have no idea what fascism is. Actually, because I have never studied fascism, I turned to my husband, who specialises in the military and political history of the 20th century and has spent a great deal of time thinkinig about and studying fascism (not just Germany, but also Japan and, of course, Italy) in the course of understanding the twentieth century. fascism is poorly defined and many arguments have been made over the definition. But what is clear is that my poor and second hand understanding is still greater than your own. You do not know what you are talking about, and just going on and on will not change that. Israel is not an authoritarian state. It is a democratic state. It does not even have a racially limited franchise, as South Africa did, and as the United States unofficially did in some districts in the early twentieth century. It does restrict full citizenship rights based on ethnicity - this undermines the democracy, but does not make it a fascist state. It's a lot more complicated than that. That you do not know the difference is ignorance, perhaps willful. Frankly, I question how much you even understand on the Middle East, as you refer to Christians as separate from Arabs. Most Christians in Israel are Arabs - Arabs belong to more than one religion (since Arab is a language/ethnic division, not a religious one). I do know about their identification system, as I have a friend who is a Palestinian Christian. I know about the rampant official and unofficial discrimination. No one in this thread has denied that Israel is a racist and discriminatory state, no one has suggested that the settlements are legal under international law, no one has even suggested that they think that Israel's response is anything but disproportionate (thought it has been noted that other countries might have reacted the same way to attacks on their civilian populace). But this does NOT make them fascist. You have just decided that what you don't like = fascist. We all may as well stop listening to you, because at this point your arguments just degrade into nonsense. You aren't interested in looking at what is happening on the ground and thinking about realistic solutions which reflect reality. As a final bit of ridiculousness, you claim that Abiezer Coppe is "so culturally biased it is ridiculous", someone who lives in a country radically different from where he was born, who works every day with people from other cultures (and speaks and reads their language?), and who is far more well read in the political literature from different times and cultures than I ever hope to be - and who risks his own safety and security to help promote democracy in this other culture. Do you even know the source of his online name? He has confronted ideology of all different kinds, from 17th century mystic ranters to 20th century marxism and anarchism -- and all through his interactions on this site has shown considerable intelligence and insight. Even where I disagree with him, I respect him and I know that he speaks from both study and experience.
• So wait, you admit you know nothing of fascism, your husband knows nothing of fascism, but is interested in pursing study in it. I have studied extensively on political philsophy and cultural studies have cited explanations and examples and even great intellectuals such as Einstein, saying Israel is being run by fascists, and you still say I am wrong. Apparently from your perspective, someone who has not studied Islam, political philosophy or the history of Israel, still consider Abiezer Coppe a more credible source because he studied a rather obscure insane fanatic, and you like what he says. This is mind boggling. As for Abiezer Coppe's take on communism and anarchism I would love to read his input on these subjects, since I have studied these extensively from Camus to Fromme, of course this is not the venue. JB with no schooling in these subjects maybe you should refrain from making statements of what you want to be true and getting upset when I contradict them, because they are not. If you want to make an argument against Zionism being fascist, make an argument, but "It is not" is not an argument. Zionism has a long history of being compared to fascism on many fronts such as by; socialists, christians, jews, and communists. I am stating nothing new here. I am trying to be level headed here but apparantly JB finds "But what is clear is that my poor and second hand understanding is still greater than your own." with no substantial refutation is enough for her. Personally I feel the last comment was rather pointed and aggressive. I feel my points were made here, it is really up to the common American to educate themselves on the politics of this situation, as well as the ideologies. I think continuing this on Monkeyfilter would just piss off the mods. I am welcome to email correspondence or I could set up a blog to discuss the issue, but if you are going to resort to "It's not" please don't contact me. That is just childish, that is not a dig at JB, but a fundamental truth of the matter. Unfortunately as many critical philosophers point out the postmodern world does not want to have a truth about anything.
• Can you read? My husband has STUDIED fascism - and he continues to. He's finishing a PhD in 20th century military and political history - in a year, he could be teaching university courses on fascism. What the hell do you want, Mussolini to come to your house and hit you on the head explaining how fascism does have certain recognisable traits? (My husband is actually just corrected me - Japan wasn't fascist, it was ultranationalist. Now he's going on about the debates that historians and others have about how Fascism is defined.) I'm being honest and willing to turn to an authority when I'm not an expert. As for your authorities - Einstein was a great man and a great thinker, but you are not a great reader. In the quote you pulled up, he was talking about a pre-Israel gang, not the state of Israel. To misuse quotes is dishonest. Also, I was taking issue with your insulting and entirely uncalled for dismissal of Abiezer as culturally biased, when he has show far more liberality of mind and appreciation of different cultures and ways of thinking than you ever have on this site.
• Some traits of fascism, as shown in the 20th century (coming from Dreadnought): - supreme leader with supreme authority - militarism above all else - belief in the purifying and morally improving character of violence and warfare - some nod towards the government control of economy through selected large companies/business empires run by an oligarchic business elite - intolerance of dissent Something which is not necessarily a mark of fascism is racism - the Guomingdong were a fascist regime (in the 1930s and 40s), but had no racial platform. Neither was racism a central tenant of Italian fascism (and the Italians did invent the word). Whereas racism was part of American law until the Jim Crow laws were struck down, but at no time was the US a fascist state. Israel is a military power, but its society is not militarised and dissent is tolerated. It, in fact, is a society which is in debate with itself. It does not have a supreme leader with supreme authority. It's failing to fit the basic model of a fascist state.
• In fact, the fact that Israel is democratic is very important. Israel is an example of where democracy can go, and that democracy is not always an assurance of equality or respect for human rights. In a democracy, the majority can oppress a minority (and often will) unless firms steps are taken to prevent this and to protect the rights of all citizens - indeed, to protect even the rights of non-citzens. In other democratic countries, majority heterosexuals deny the right of marriage to homosexuals. Majorities have long oppressed minorites, including and especially native minorities, in such democratic countries as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. That doesn't make them undemocratic - it just means that democracy is a flawed system. (It's also the best of all the alternatives.)
• Your definition of Fascism is flawed but like I said I am backing out of this thread, you can email me and I will be more than happy to discuss it with you. UNLESS of course tracicle came in and said "Go Ahead." then I would be more than happy to pursue it here. As for the Einstein quote read who he was writing about specifically and then find out about that person, Menachem Begin, before you just brush it off.
• Listen JB democracy does not have any correlation to the "rise" of fascism. You are historically putting your foot in your mouth. Just email me, and drop it here.
• "democracy does not have any correlation to the "rise" of fascism" Please go on and explain this, so those of us who are so unversed in history may learn.
• Here's my cultural bias, glama. I subscribe to a universalist poltical philosophy, crudely put, based on humanitarian, secular, libertarian and communist ideals. Islamists subscribe to a different universalist philosphy, crudely put, based on mystical, religious, authoritarian, and patriarchal ideals. The point I originally intervened to make was that many who regard themselves as leftists or progressive in the West are too quick to ally with reactionary movements like Islamism because of an apparent coincidence of interests. In my opinion (based largely on that of numerous comrades from regions where Islamism is a political factor) there is no common ground to be had. I might add that it strikes me as the type of cultural bias you accuse me of - is this all people in certain cultures can aspire to? - to somehow privilege (or not to hold them up to the same standards as I hold anyone else) Islamist politics because of its roots in the historical and social contexts where it currently flourishes. Universalist ideas of course aspire to transcend such boundaries. Islam did just that in its great early mediaeval spread, and so have secular humanist ideals at a later date. I refrained from explaining at length because I gave you the benefit of the doubt as to ability to comprehend and read around the subject for yourself. I thank you for your introduction to Islam and suggested reading list. None of the the things you have posted about Nasrallah's words or Hezbollah policy statements convince me, because my reading of history makes me think these are meaningless when set against the long-term goals of the Islamist ideology. I may well be wrong, but that's where I'm at. I could turn your words round at you and say that, regardless of the role Iran played in Hezbollah's founding, and the large sums of money they have injected into the project, you are willing to accept at face value public pronouncements by the politician Nasrallah to the effect that Hezbollah's goals and interests are substantially different from those of the Iranian regime. You may well be wrong. Thanks for your kind words jb - I was actually enjoying the out-of-hand dismissal. It seemed of a piece with the rest of glama and I's interaction. I do indeed speak and read the language here
• JB either email me or wait for tracicle to give the go ahead.
• I got me humanitarian and humanist mixed up there. That's what you get for trying to sound clever.
• The biggest argument about why Israel is not a fascist state is what JB said about voices of dissent. In Israeli newspapers, you can read editorials which are critical of the military actions in Lebanon. A fascist regime wouldn't tolerate this type of criticism.
• I'm curious - does the military in Israel have the same kind of restrictions on speaking politically as they do in Canada or the US (where recently several generals had to resign before they could criticise the current military policy publically)? In Canada and the US, it is never the military, but politicians who claim to speak for the military, who make public statements on miliatry policy. I'm just curious if it is the same way in Israel.
• JB either email me or wait for tracicle to give the go ahead I wouldn't wait all day on tricycle's permission - everyone knows he's a total fascist.
• You don't know that, Quid, since you can't define fascism to my satisfaction.
• On further reflection there's a good argument that the Israeli administration of the Occupied Territories is fascist in nature. In the Occupied Territories, there is censorship, abrogation of civil rights which include ad hoc detention, imprisonment without trial, censorship, commercial and school shutdowns, travel restrictions, torture and beatings.
• StoryBored - that is a good point, though I would actually say authoritarian/undemocratic, since I prefer to go with a more narrow definition of fascism (as it's useful to describe a particular ideology). Stalin, after all, was a complete bastard dictator, but definitely not a fascist.
• I'm quite enjoying some of the more thoughtful contributions this discussion has evoked. I'm guessing, Abiezer, that you're libertarian on social issues and communist on economic ones, but perhaps it's not as simple as that. I think your points are well made, in any case. One small quibble. Do you think Islamism has a mystical component? My impression (no more) is that it tends to be rather literalist and hostile to the mystical strands in the Islamic tradition. I suspect that the real motor driving the phenomenon is a looser version of old-fashioned nationalism, with a distinct fault-line between the Arabist and Persian varieties. But I'd welcome a better-informed view.
• A fair cop Plegmund, I phrased that badly, especially in the context, and I think you're right about the hostility to mystical traditions. I was trying to say that it's an ideology based on authority from a transcendental power - God - as opposed to a set of values worked out by people amongst themselves without reference to supernatural agency, which is what I prefer in my politics. Of course, much of the left did arise out of moral traditions informed by religion, but that's a different question to my mind. I'll bore you with my cockamamie economic ideas in a more appropriate place.
• Stalin, after all, was a complete bastard dictator, but definitely not a fascist Hmmm. I guess the missing element there (and in the administration of the Occupied Territories) is "belief in the purifying and morally improving character of violence and warfare".
• The point I originally intervened to make was that many who regard themselves as leftists or progressive in the West are too quick to ally with reactionary movements like Islamism because of an apparent coincidence of interests. Yes! In your opinion, where do you think the apparent coincidence of interests lies? Is it just commonality in an opposition to the reigning world order? Or is there another intellectual angle?
• What, glammajamma, you start an argument, then when you discover someone actually knows what they're talking about you decide to back out? You're making me laugh, thank you. If jb is willing to continue the discussion with you, then have at it. I am intrigued to see what your argument regarding fascism will be. Otherwise, you're starting to make yourself look kind of silly.
• StoryBored - here the obvious appeal of Hezbollah will be their successful resistance to Israeli military intervention in Lebanon. I agree that some see wider coincidences, in the vein of anti-imperialism or opposition to Western hegemony, globalisation and so on. I'm not entirely unsympathetic, but my reading of history says that even temporary tactical alliances with ideologies that are as bad as or worse than the currently prevailing ones are almost always a bad idea. I'd rather work positively for the values I believe in where and when I can, than fall in behind any and every movement in the global South that is shooting at the same targets for reasons of their own. That doesn't preclude critical solidarity, and certainly not links with people who share the same core values in different parts of the world.
• What, glammajamma, you start an argument, then when you discover someone actually knows what they're talking about you decide to back out? Actually no, being a newb here I don't want to piss off the regulars to the point that I get banninated. So when her posts start getting aggressive, I backed off. Now I am gonna come out swinging. In the little amount of time I have. I have to DJ tonight, so I will make this as quick as possible. First of all Fascism was a response to the industrialized world. Worsening living conditions, especially in post WWI Germany created an environment for revolutionary ideas. Where socialists embraced the industrial revolution as the coming the socialist revolution, the facsist who actually had adopted the moniker of "socialist" but in no way was, despised socialism as well as industrial capitalism. The Fascist wave played on an ideal to return to an old world capitalism, such as could be found in the Roman Empire. This appealed to the protestant population, and one can see why if you read the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Now i will remind the readers this is what they preached not what they practiced. The fascists also played on the concept of a chosen people of God, sound familiar. The Germanic world was to return to the ways of Empire, such as under the Roman's, erradicate industrial capitalism, and rule with racial superiority. I could not attest to know how Nazi's reconciled this with siding with the Italians, unless they made a correlation with them and Ancient Rome. Fascism also plays up to heavily nationalism. This nationalism is then threatened by interior or exterior threats. The populace must be led to believe that they are under constant threat by lesser beings, sub-humans. In this case the mud-races(not my term, my daughter would be considered muddy! squue)/jews/Russians (man did they hate the Russians)etc etc Now to clarify I wanted to find a quick and dirty difference between nationalism and patriotism, and I thought this was pretty good. "Patriotism is proud of a country’s virtues and eager to correct its deficiencies; it also acknowledges the legitimate patriotism of other countries, with their own specific virtues. The pride of nationalism, however, trumpets its country’s virtues and denies its deficiencies, while it is contemptuous toward the virtues of other countries. It wants to be, and proclaims itself to be, “the greatest,” but greatness is not required of a country; only goodness is." — Sydney J. Harris found here of course that isnot an analytical definition but an acceptable one. The problem with nationalism is that it makes the nation morally beyond contempt. Now lets cover some key points here. On an economic level, I could not attest to Israel's Fascist nature, but the desire to return an old world to its former glory is without dispute. It is also without a doubt they effectively shut down any kibutz in the area, the failed attempt at socialism. I did find this though- Agriculture is a major industry, making Israel almost self sufficient for food. Natural resources, such as diamonds and gems, are major exports. Because of Israel's strained relationship with its Arab neighbors, almost 25% of the national budget is spent on the military. here Doesn't seem like they have any industrial complex!?!? Funny thought that you should argue earlier in your post that fascism believed in war and their major industry is war! I am not done yet so dont bother responding. I think these things have a letter limit.
• The economic motives are hard to argue on any level, where it stand as important and a major reason for Nazi support, that is not neccesarily true for Zionists, but with 64% of industry as service, it wouldn't be completely indisputable. NOW the meat and potatoes. 1. "chosen people of God" Do I have to argue this point? But what people must learn to accept is that this justification is completely flawed, in the post-Boasian world, and is inherently racist. Where as any other major religion, one can become one of the flock. It is only through matrilineal descent is one considered a Jew by Israel. <--- That is fucking racist! So by flip flopping from calling itself race or religion, Israel has effectively muddied the waters in this area for quite sometime. Let us not forget as well that "God's chosen people," is the same terminology used by the Nazi's. 2. "return to the ways of Empire" - Where Nazi's wanted to return the old empire, so do Zionists. One only has to google Eretz Israel, to get an idea of the zionist position on this. I don't even need to quote anyone. 3. "nationalism" - Well their is no doubt that Zionism is a nationalist movement. I don't even think Zionists would argue this. They are on a mandate from God. Of course all you have to do is read some comments on blogs, or reactions to Israeli criticism in the US to witness this nationalism. I am short on time, so if you want to explore that further, we can. 4. Perceived threat from outside, or in. Even though the Palestinians have no standing army, and a mrginal police force at best, before the intifada when they chose peace over violence, even in the face of this, Israel still claims that Palestine is a constant threat. Interestingly enough I had read an article, right as Lebanon kicked off, that Hamas made a statement recognizing Israel's right to exist. I can no longer find that article. If this were true the implications would be mind boggling and would reveal an agenda much more insidious then could be imagined prior. Now regardless of the fact that Israel is surrounded by people that want to "push them into the sea" and that Palestine would be no different then the borders they secure everywhere else, they still claim a Palestinian sovereign state would be a threat to them, and the populace belives this. Let me see I may be done. let me reread. I have covered some of the major points of the fascism, and why it sprung up. I would like to deal with some key issues that were brought up though. Fascism does not have to counter democracy as long as fascism is popular. See one of the inherent flaws of Democracy is what Mill called "the tyranny of the majority." This is how the Nazi's were elected into power. don't fool yourself into believing that democracy deals deadly blows to fascism, it doesn't, it can coexist quite nicely. Especially when you have around 3 million people under your boot that are not allowed to take part in elections. Secondly on democracy in Israel, I would argue that Israel controls all of Eretz Israel. this is under their control, they build settlements over the entire area. as can be seen here Obviously these will never be dismantled, since they are expanding their operations. So we may as well call all of this Israel. don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise, but yet 3 million people living in that territory cannot vote under the government that controls that area! This is for one major reason, if Israel were to be democratic to these people and let them choose their own fate. the Jewish state would be no more. A state called "the JEWISH state" would no longer exist.
• Just as an FYI the Fascism info came from Willis Truitt, PhD. One of my greatest professors. R.I.P.
• I think what the above discussion demonstrates is that labelling doesn't add much to the discussion. Calling something "fascist" leads to the unsurprising discovery that we have two different definitions of fascism. I agree with most of your definition glama, but I think the key concept that's missing from it is the allowance of dissent. I was discussing this thread with a good friend, and she had the insight that it's more productive to talk about the respective actions and behaviours of Israel/Hezbollah rather than using labels whose definitions are subjective.
• The Fascist wave played on an ideal to return to an old world capitalism, such as could be found in the Roman Empire. This appealed to the protestant population, and one can see why if you read the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. So that explains neatly why the most famous fascist leaders were an Italian, an Austrian and a Spaniard. It also explains why in Italy and in Spain, the Catholic Church was given prominance over all other churches.
• glamma's definition defines something he doesn't like - it does not define fascism. Fascism is a thing - it is/was an ideology, and people called themselves fascist when they believed in something particular. Stalin=!not a fascist. Mussolini=fascist. Both were evil, dictatorial,, authoritarian and murderous - and the non-fascist even more so. Fascism is a particular ideological construct (one, however, my grade 7 lunch lady was still a fascist). It would be like me going around calling you all Hussites just because you believe in recieving communion in both kinds, with no reference to all the other aspects of Hussism. You evil heretics. But more serious - the fascist governments did gain power through democractic channels, but part of their fascist platform was to dismantle that democracy, including (as StoryBored points out) making dissent illegal. Theirs was a program in active opposition to democracy, which was seen as a failed system. There were fascists and fascist-curious (like bi-curious, only with more violence) people in other countries, including the heir to the throne of Britain. ----------- My whole point is that in getting wrapped up in shoe-horning current day Israel into a pattern it does not fit, you are ignoring the complexities of what is really happening there. Israel's actions are not simply that of an authoritarian regime acting to extend its authority, nor have they had to invent the threat to their security - the threat is not perceived, but real. These threats are fueled by Israeli actions in the occupied territories and their disproportionate responses there and in Lebanon, but that does not make them less real. But in ignoring the reality of what is happening and going with a very poor model (I notice that you cite a philosopher, and I respect the argumentative abilities of philosophers, but they are not always the best at evidence-based thinking), you blind yourself to talking seriously about what is happening. StoryBored had a very good point that the government of Israel is an authoritarian regime without any check of law or rights in the Occupied Territories, for which they can be strongly criticised. Actually, sometimes I seriously wonder why sanctions against Israel have not been proposed, as they would be against any other country acting that way against so much of its populace. But I really do know why - because the geopolitical situation is that Israel has been an western ally in the region, and a cessation of support could lead to their being overwhelmed (and the other countries would not just leave them alone, minding their own business). It is a crazy, messed up region, and no solution will be easy or quick. But turning a blind eye to the violence and hatred on both sides will not help in defusing either. Offtopic request - can we all embrace the frequent hard return? It makes the posts easier to read.
• Sorry - I was being too clever with my faux programming notation, and ended up with a double negative. I meant to write either "Stalin=!fascist" or "Stalin - not a fascist". Now I notice that a Turkish film director has called Bush a fascist, and I feel the same thing. Criticise based on what they HAVE done. Bush is a crook, his government is corrupt, he is a grave danger to American civil rights, and committing war crimes (by holding people without trial). But calling him a fascist is like walking around saying that the NDP are Communists or Stalinists. (They dropped that whole nationalisation of industry thing way back). Then again, it seems to be totally working for the right wing to say everyone who doesn't love big business must be in bed with Castro or want to be Stalin, so maybe the left should just join them in their reality-free ways.
• the fascist governments did gain power through democractic channels, but part of their fascist platform was to dismantle that democracy Woah, woah some fascist governments got where they were through quasi-democratic channels, but by no means all. Franco gained power by winning the civil war. Mussolini got power by a sort of quasi coup. Hitler never polled more than 5% of the German vote ever, and got into power by forming coalitions. All those little fascist states in central Europe got into power by being set up by the Nazis. Some fascist regimes had quasi-democractic political wings before coming to power. Some didn't. Some dealt with the rump democratic institutions in their country by stacking the assembly with yes-men, some dissolved assemblies altogether and some just ignored them. To glama: Look, I appreciate you trying, but your thinking on fascism is just out of date. Fascism wasn't simply an economic thing and while the history of fascism is clearly related to nationalism and imperialism, those concepts alone not enough to define it. For example, the UK was both nationalist and imperialist in its history, and was never a fascist state. Furthermore, fascist regimes, particularly the Nazis, did strongly embrace socialism. When the Itallian Fascists took their seats in parliament for the first time, there was a strong question as to whether they were going to sit at the extreme left or the extreme right of the house. They chose the right, and that choise has gone a long way to pidgeon-holing them ever since. In fact, a good working undergrad-level defenition of fascism is 'a right-wing movment that apropreated the previously left-connotated ideologies of nationalism and socialism'. At any rate, I don't see what any of this has to do with Israel.
• I received a great deal of of criticisms and healthy input, but after DJing last night I did not get much sleep. I will either wake up today and respond or get back to you tomorrow.
• After watching Bush on teh neus last night, smirking when he talked about the casualties and telling the warring parties they need to make peace, then hearing that he can't be bothered to meet with representitives from Israel and Lebanon, I'm thinkin' we have an asshole for a president. Wait, have I said that before? A man of peace indeed. Like he's really worried about civilian casualties! I'd say the killings are pretty casual in our own non-war.
• The assault on Lebanon was premeditated - the soldiers' capture simply provided the excuse. It was also unnecessary.
• George Galloway discusses Hizbollah on Sky News
• It's a pity he didn't dress properly for the occasion.
• I like his non-confrontational approach.
• But kidding aside, he does raise a good point which is that after twenty six days, Israel really is losing this war.
• Do you think so, StoryBored? It seems like they are just decimating Lebanon.
• The thing is, jb, they've destroyed virtually everything except the missile launchers which were the target. Failure to stop the missiles hitting northern Israel is gradually becoming embarassing for the Israeli government. If they don't manage to stop them soon, I'm afraid they may adopt even more aggressive tactics, though I prefer not to think about what those might be.
• Alas jb, what you say is true, but the Israelis measure success not by "damage inflicted" but by "safety gained". 160 rockets fell on Israel yesterday, making the offensive look like a complete failure. The Israeli army has this news today: Israel replaces commander of Lebanon operation Replacing the general in the middle of a war is, I think, unprecedented in Israeli history.
• Yeah, but the recent general wasn't brutal enough.
• Scott Ritter: The Grave Consequences of Supporting War in Lebanon
• Ritter's article is somewhat blemished by this statement: "This has led to fiery rhetoric on the part of Hezbollah and its supporters, which has been exploited by Israel and the United States to paint Hezbollah as an organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Nothing could be further from the truth." When Hezbollah says they want the destruction of Israel, they don't really mean it because...because...Ritter says so.
• Yeah, Ritter has an amazing ability to go back and forth from making good points to completely bizarre statements.
• The bombing of a Lebanese power plant sparks an ecological catastrophe in the Mediterranean.
• "They left us. The Americans are just watching this happen," she said. "All that the Cedar Revolution was is gone."
• Well with the UN resolution and a peace keeping force imminent, it appears it will all be over soon. Israel is desperately enacting a heavy offensive in Lebanon, in a last ditch effort to show they won. If they don't produce those two missing soldiers, or kill Nassaralah, this will be the biggest political blunder of their history. They have claimed they have taken strategic points, but since Hezbollah is a guerilla force there is no real way of telling. In many instances they have stated in the face of a huge force they would drop back and wait for their moment to strike. Israel will also never have the motivation to invade Lebanon again. Hezbelloh, love them or hate them, has just secured Lebanon's border for a very long time. Israel will probably have to barter an exchange for their soldiers which they should have done in the first place, and hundreds of Lebanese died for naught. Tony Blair has also pointed out that this event is in direct correlation with a lack of progress in Palestine. The neo-cons face another Vietnam in the Middle East, and in Nassarallah another Ho Chi Minh. When will the super powers learn.
• Anthony Bourdain in Beirut
• Look, I appreciate you trying, but your thinking on fascism is just out of date. Fascism wasn't simply an economic thing and while the history of fascism is clearly related to nationalism and imperialism, those concepts alone not enough to define it. For example, the UK was both nationalist and imperialist in its history, and was never a fascist state. Furthermore, fascist regimes, particularly the Nazis, did strongly embrace socialism. When the Itallian Fascists took their seats in parliament for the first time, there was a strong question as to whether they were going to sit at the extreme left or the extreme right of the house. They chose the right, and that choise has gone a long way to pidgeon-holing them ever since. In fact, a good working undergrad-level defenition of fascism is 'a right-wing movment that apropreated the previously left-connotated ideologies of nationalism and socialism'. At any rate, I don't see what any of this has to do with Israel. Why does no one choose to support any of their arguments with work cited, or key authors on the subject. You also fail to provided a definition. I have repeatedly cited outside sources, and substantiating works, and you just flippantly disregard it. I never claimed fascism was not anti-democratic I said it didn't have to be. This is a complete strawman. I can give you extensive works to support my claims and I have, such as Weber, a crucial piece to understanding Western ideology. I am sure you have never read it. Or Marvin Harris, who through his essay on the sacred cow in India clearly demonstrates the infrastructure, structure, super structure are quite relevant and are applicable in my definition here. Of course my explanation works in the Hegelian dialectical sense, and to follow of course a Marxist sense. Please don't write off my ten years of personal and academic study to an "undergraduate definition." When most people are reading mass produced history books, Harry Potter, Crichton, and King, I am reading Adorno, Marcuse, Marx, Hegel, Kant, Lacan, Freud, etc etc etc. Then to follow with dialog between my friend who is to attend New College with 3 degrees, History, Religious Studies, and philosophy. I have not picked up a piece of fiction in five years and that was Dostoevsky, I was finishing out most of his collected works. Which might I add have philosophical and political implications written into every page. Do you even know why Luther was elected the most influential man of the millenium? Did you even know he was? Do you know why this is relevant to my discussion? See Adorno talks directly to this ideology, in which the postmodern "academic" wishes to skewer the definitions in dialog, hence ruining any dialog. He says for modern western academics to face reality would explode their world outlook. I am just starting the Dialectics of Enlightenment (the title is criticism of "enlightenment"), I would love to email you some juicy quotes. If you don't think my definition is valid that is fine, but I know my definition in regards to the Nazi's hold so I will call them Nazi's not fascist.
• So what's the deal with "Islamic fascism"?
• If you don't think my definition is valid that is fine, but I know my definition in regards to the Nazi's hold so I will call them Nazi's not fascist. Heh, well that's progress! (I keed, I keed). Okay this may not throw any light on anything but since we're talking definitions how about this one straight from the dictionary: fascism n. 1. a governmental system led by a dictator hving complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. (Random House Dictionary (unabridged, 1996). dictator n. a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government. (op. cit). Your definition of fascism is clearly not the dictionary definition. But you are entitled to your definition, let us call it "fascism(gj)".
• Now the interesting thing about fascism(gj) is that it is defined above by four characterizations: 1. chosen people of God, 2. return to the ways of empire, 3. nationalism and 4. perceived threat from outside. But let's see who else this definition applies to: 1. Chosen people of God. a) (Hizb Allah)= "the party of God". b) "We are an umma linked to the Muslims of the whole world by the solid doctrinal and religious connection of Islam, whose message God wanted to be fulfilled by the Seal of the Prophets, i.e., Muhammad." Quote from Hezbollah's spiritual manifesto. 2. Return to the ways of empire. "If they go from Shebaa, we will not stop fighting them...Our goal is to liberate the 1948 borders of Palestine...The Jews who survive this war of liberation can go back to Germany, or wherever they came from." - Hassan Ezzedin, Chief spokesman for Hezbollah as quoted in New Yorker article cited above. 3. Nationalism. "Friends, wherever you are in Lebanon... we are in agreement with you on the great and necessary objectives: destroying American hegemony in our land; putting an end to the burdensome Israeli Occupation...". - quote from the spiritual manifesto. 4. Perceived threat from outside. a) "Jews are a lesion on the forehead of history." - Ibrahim Mussawi, director of English-language news at Al Manar, (Hezbollah official tv channel. b) "the Jews are a pan-national group that functions in a way that lets them act as parasites in the nations that have given them shelter." Hussein Haj Hassan, Hezbollah representative for Baalbek in the Lebanese parliament. Both quotes from New Yorker article, Oct 14/21 2002.
• Glamajamma: I don't know what it is that you feel you have to prove, but dude! Dreadnought gives a condensed definition of fascism (and I'm certain the "undergrad-level" comment was not a swipe at you, it was more a reference to the fact that the very question of what constitutes fascism is multi-faceted and controversial in academic circles), you quote that definition, and then say that he "failed to provide a definition?" Plus, your tone isn't helping matters. You seem far more determined to "score points" than to have a dialogue, and the whole insult thing (for instance, condescendingly asking a PhD history student if he "even knows who Luther was"... hell, I know who Luther was, and I'm a dumbass musician) and your bizarre need to validate yourself by listing a bunch of authors whose works you've read are not very becoming. No one here is questioning your intelligence, it's obvious that you've thought deeply about these things and that you're well-read, and I think your heart is in the right place here- my first instinct is always to side with the underdog, and that would seem to be the Palestinians/Lebanese in this case (although I'm pretty much disgusted with all parties involved over there). Some people are just disagreeing with you, as is their right. No one is telling you that you're not allowed to have your own opinion. Weirdly, by incessantly arguing the point in such a confrontational manner, it's almost as though you're telling everyone else that they are not allowed to have an opinion that is not in full accord with your own.
• 1. Chosen people of God. a) (Hizb Allah)= "the party of God". b) "We are an umma linked to the Muslims of the whole world by the solid doctrinal and religious connection of Islam, whose message God wanted to be fulfilled by the Seal of the Prophets, i.e., Muhammad." Quote from Hezbollah's spiritual manifesto. Unfortunately this definition does not work, because unlike Zionism, Islam embraces anyone that wishes to embrace it. Where Zionists believe they have been chosen by god as a race. Hezbollah is a group that believes they are followers of god. You are missing the racists intentions here, which is part and parcel to Nazism 2. Return to the ways of empire. "If they go from Shebaa, we will not stop fighting them...Our goal is to liberate the 1948 borders of Palestine...The Jews who survive this war of liberation can go back to Germany, or wherever they came from." - Hassan Ezzedin, Chief spokesman for Hezbollah as quoted in New Yorker article cited above. This is not a return to empire, which you could make an argument for and you have done poorly, but a retuen to civility. I mean read the quote for whoeveres sake Our goal is to liberate the 1948 borders of Palestine 3. Nationalism. "Friends, wherever you are in Lebanon... we are in agreement with you on the great and necessary objectives: destroying American hegemony in our land; putting an end to the burdensome Israeli Occupation...". - quote from the spiritual manifesto. this is not nationalism. and a weak argument. Many third world countries wish to liberate themselves from global capitalism and its leading proponent the United States. This reflects a complete misunderstaning of nationalism. 4. Perceived threat from outside. a) "Jews are a lesion on the forehead of history." - Ibrahim Mussawi, director of English-language news at Al Manar, (Hezbollah official tv channel. b) "the Jews are a pan-national group that functions in a way that lets them act as parasites in the nations that have given them shelter." Hussein Haj Hassan, Hezbollah representative for Baalbek in the Lebanese parliament. Both quotes from New Yorker article, Oct 14/21 2002. Where no one else has acted as an agressor since 1967, Israel ahs been aggressive actively against Muslim people and nations. I mean really they are estimating 1000 lebanese people dead. They are also a nuclear power, etc etc etc. This is hardly an argument that Hezbollah is fascist, it is actually the contrary. I could argue that Hezbollah is nationalist, but not following the lines you chose, but why encourage a weak argument to make itself stronger in its falsehood. I would also add that a militarized civilian population is part of Israel infrastructure. Everyone must serve in the IDF.
• I am going to follow with something else. The US perception of the rest of the world seems to be skewed to the point of ridiculousness. Why do I argue, because I want America to wake up from its stupor. The world is fucked up, because we make it that way. Fukyama was so far from the truth when he said this was the end of history. On the contrary the world has reached a boiling point of ideologies. while the rest of the world confronts the threats and as borders dissolve under relatavism, we must face the realities of a change in the direction of how we perceive our neighbors. The neo con resurgence is not so much a tactic to seize power, but on the contrary a rejection of the ideology that is rising in the rest of the world. We are no longer different, and in that borders and the state seem to lose their signifigance. Can we say we are a democracy when our policy affects entire nations. How does their vote count in our decision making? These apocalyptic visions of the right in all nations is not so much a rejection of the dissolution of morality, but a fear of the coming homogenization. A human/e world. American's don't seem to grasp we are literally at a turning point in history. Of course some may argue that my vision is equally apocalyptic, but since I think we would not see the end results until long after I am dead, I don't think so.
• Here's a question, glama. Country A invades B driving Country B's inhabitants out of B. Now years pass. The children of Country A inhabit Country B. How many years do you think must pass before you would consider descendants of Country A as having some right to live in B? The argument being that children have no say in where they happen to be born. If all the original invaders have died off are the children still responsible for the invasion?
• In response to these quotes, glama: "Jews are a lesion on the forehead of history." - Ibrahim Mussawi, director of English-language news at Al Manar and b) "the Jews are a pan-national group that functions in a way that lets them act as parasites in the nations that have given them shelter." Hussein Haj Hassan, Hezbollah representative for Baalbek in the Lebanese parliament. You wrote: Where no one else has acted as an agressor since 1967, Israel ahs been aggressive actively against Muslim people and nations. I mean really they are estimating 1000 lebanese people dead. They are also a nuclear power, etc etc etc. But the quotes don't talk about Israelis. The quotes talk about Jews. Isn't that interesting?
• Weber was an interesting thinker, but kind of messed up when he tried to make such all embracing theories of history. Actually, all that philosophy and theory you are reading is not really the best thing to understand history and political systems. Historians don't read just theory (though some find it useful in moving from the specific to the abstract), they read the documents and evidence from the period. And, frankly, when the evidence doesn't match the theory, it had better be the theory that is thrown out, not the evidence. Earlier, you talked about how fascism rose out of Protestanism. How does this square with the fact that of the three main fascist countries in Europe in the thirties, 2 were by a vast majority Catholic, and the third mixed heavily Catholic and Protestant -- and that fascism was taken up in China, by people who were not Christian at all? That particular theory is not a good model. This whole fascism debate/argument/free for all began when I took issue with your misusing a concept (which describes a particular ideology) for something which did not fit the closest thing we have to an accepted albeit fuzzy definition. Fascism is not a good model in which to understand Israel's current actions in Lebanon, though it may be a possible model to understand their government in the West Bank. But trying to shoehorn them in does disservice to understanding what is happening. That said, I am ashamed to say that though I don't know where Luther was born, I do know that his father intended him to be a miner, and instead he became an Augustinian monk, and that he really did not like the Pelagian heresey. He also always believed in consubstatiation, which became a major point of controversy with his fellow protestant thinkers.
• StoryBored - Actually, when I first read your summary of glammajamma's fascism definition, I admit that I thought about a certain large country to the south of our mutual homeland. Which made me feel like I mentally Godwinned the thread.
• Heh, jb, that occurred to me too. The thing about fascism(gj) is that we could probably apply three out of four clauses of the definition to just about any country that's been in a war in the past century. I agree heartily with your other point. Historical theories, the grand sweep of abstract constructs can be terrible traps. History isn't science but it's at its best when its practitioners take a scientific mindset. Facts first, then theories. Not the other way around.
• But more importantly, how do you feel about consubstantiation (aka Real Presence) vs commemoration (plain old communion)? (now we're onto the REALLY contentious issues)
• And we all know what Luther thought about the Jews too, nasty old fucker. Transubstantiation is yer man anyway. I mean, the Council of Trent has spoken, innit?
• Erm, consubstantiation has many strengths and includes among its supporters some key notables, as does commemoration which is also a fine, fine doctrine... *edges towards door*
• that would be an ecumenical matter!
• that would be an ecumenical matter! Feck!
• New Seymour Hersh article: Test Case: Washington’s real interests in Israel’s war.
• Good links, all. Thanks, homunculus, as always.
• This all is a prelude to the real objective. They're securing Israel's flank first. Some bigger stuff is about to go down.
• Thanks, homunculus, that's a pretty good piece. Here is an article: Hezbollah's Other War that gives an insight into the byzantine world of Lebanese politics, its emerging democracy and Hezbollah's role in it.
• You mean to say that the situation in Lebanon is actually complex? That's not what I heard.
• You beat me to the punch with your last link homunculus (as always, and I applaud you!). The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different result. Some bigger stuff is about to go down. Well now, that's what I've been saying since last year to no avail. I've had to stock up on the industrial strength version of Head and Shoulders to remove all the pesky tinfoil flakes.
• "Europe's left-wingers are supporting us Lebanese against Israel and its war crimes. Thanks, that's great...yet it would be better if the left, which is by definition progressive, grasped the specificity of the situation it is dealing with, rather than contenting itself with generalisations motivated only by hatred of American foreign policy and sometimes of America itself."
• The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.
• Unless they are Canada. Everybody likes Canada. Except for Quebequois separatists.
• Hezbollah chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has said he would not have ordered the capture of two Israeli soldiers if he had known it would lead to such a war. This is a funny statement, which seems to endorse in a backhand way the actions of Israeli hawks.
• he would not have ordered the capture of two Israeli soldiers if he had known it would lead to such a war *boggle*
• Except for Quebequois separatists. But deep down, they like Canada too, because without Canada, they'd have to turn on each other.
• "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it." Voltaire (1694 - 1778)
• That God, he's great!
• and good!
• Eyewitness Lebanon: In the land of the Blind. That anarchist communist perspective you've all ben waiting for (contains pictures of dead children)
• Breaking the Silence. After a day or two, a 12-year old kid climbed on one of the APCs. There were lots of guesses about his age. First they said he was 8, later, that he was 12. I don’t know. In any case he climbed on an APC and one of our sharpshooters killed him. I already mentioned, we were looking for kids. The neighboring company also had an incident with a kid or teenager, climbing an APC, who was also killed. Some of us said that this whole operation was unnecessary as its purpose was to kill kids, while others said that it was very good.
• President Jimmy Carter: And the oppression of the Palestinians by Israeli forces in the Occupied Territories is horrendous. And it's not something that has been acknowledged or even discussed in this country. The basic problem-- LARRY KING: Why not? JIMMY CARTER: I don't know why not. You never hear anything about what is happening to the Palestinians by the Israelis. As a matter of fact it's one of the worst cases of oppression that I know of now in the world. The Palestinian's land has been taken away from them. They now have a encapsulating or an imprisonment wall being built around what’s left of the little tiny part of the holy land that is in the West Bank. In Gaza, from which Israel is now withdrawing. Gaza is surrounded by a high wall, there’s only two openings in it, one into Israel, which is mostly closed, the other into Egypt, the people there are encapsulated. And the deprivation of basic human rights among the Palestinians is really horrendous. And this is a fact, it’s known throughout the world. It is debated heavily, constantly in Israel. Every time I am there the debate is going on. It is not debated at all in this country. via Democracy Now
• That Democracy Now article is a good interview, well worth reading.