Israel is a Problem
"Dear Friends Everywhere, I live in al-Twam, between Beit Lahia and Jabalia Camp. The Israeli troops are moving towards the area where I live. They are 2km away. In the last two days, 35 persons were killed and 120 injured. The Israeli troops are shooting and shelling randomly the houses of the civilians ... Now, while writing this email, at 10pm, the tanks are about 500m from my home. In the coming hours, my home will be in the invaded and reoccupied areas. I do not know what might happen later. My children are hearing the shootings and explosions. They understand that they are exposed to a threat from which no one can protect them ... The only thing I thought I could do is to send this appeal - and hope. Safwat Diab."
More here from the Guardian.
More here from the Guardian.
posted by George W. Bush at 10:19 AM
8 Comments:
Meanwhile, the Palestinians did NOTHING WHATSOEVER to provoke such an action.
What do you suppose the proper response is from Israel? What would a proper response look like?
Negotiation, the punishment, if we can call it that does not fit the crime.
This was from the commentary section after the article I posted, I tend to agree with this as to the overarching theme behind what is going on here:
"I'm afraid that I suspect that this whole sorry affair is only starting and has nothing to do with the kidnapped soldiers. Israel has had soldiers kidnapped before, and has done deals for their return before, so now, why this sudden, dramatic and unprecedentied escalation? In light of this, what could explain this apparent over-reaction and obscene use of violence against a largely innocent and unsuspecting civilian population, coupled with threats to put the Lebanon back "20 years"?
I hate to say it, but I suspect that Israel, by invading the Leb, is intentionally hoping to provoke a reaction from Syria which will then have a knock on effect and force a reaction from Iran, or at the very least, fearing such a reaction, the US will hit Iran first. Already the White House are calling on Tehran and Damascus to resolve the situation. It's not Tehran thats bombing civilian power plants. It's not Damascus thats killing children in their own home.
The Bush administration has uncharacteristically backed-down with Iran, following the Europeans to the negotiating table. Perhaps worried that their American ally is losing their nerve, and worried at the prospect of a nuclear Iran (be it civilian or military) Israel hopes to push the situation and force someones hand and the kidnapping of one of their soldiers has offered them the perfect opportunity.
I know how this sounds and yes, it is speculation. Honest I'm not a conspiracy theory nut, but no country is ruled by irrational men, and if their actions appear so, there must be a reason. And this is how I see it."
Condemning a response for being inappropriate does not oblige the condemner to come up with an appropriate one.
Put another way: I don't know what the appropriate response is. But military escalation has historically only served to make things worse. Clearly playing the eye for an eye game, just makes everything worse. If Israel considers itself a civilized, first-world nation, it has the responsibility to find out what that appropriate response is, because what they're doing now ISN'T WORKING.
"Condemning a response for being inappropriate does not oblige the condemner to come up with an appropriate one."
That sums up the Democratic Party in the US today. I don't have any ideas, but I don't like yours. Perfect.
THE TRIUMPHANT RETURN OF HURTLEG!!!! And with a characteristic broadside to the Dems. It's good to have you back, brother.
That also sums up (if I may throw you a bone) the general thrust behind the United Nations, every time they pass some toothless resolution condemning some nation for some inappropriate behavior. It sucks being powerless to back up one's strident condemnations.
I have enjoyed my sabatical. I quit my job I hated, took a month off, and started my new gig a couple of weeks ago. I won't have as much time to blog as in the past since I have a job I actually like. I'm also headed to Thailand for work in about a week and a half.
That being said, I love the observation of the UN. Welcome to the real world where the UN is irrelevant and Bush has to do what is necessary without their approval (sorry France, you don't get to veto our foreign policy).
As for GWB, who is Israel supposed to negotiate with. They have been trying to give Gaza and the West Bank back since 2000. Israel unilateraly pulled out of Gaza earlier this year. For this they get a daily barrage of rockets.
Where's the possible compromise. One side (Israel) thinks there is a compromise to had with the 2 state solution. The other side believes that Israel should not exist. Not much room for compromise.
I find the argument of disproportionate response absurd. Israel has tried tit for tat since the 1st intifada in '87. Look where it got them. Time for something new, like bombing the shit out of them and let the population that voted for this government share in the pain.
I find the escalation with Lebanon ominous. I don't know enough of what's going on to understand this. Other than Hizbullah (sp?)being based in the south and attacking Lebanon. Everthing I had read is that the government was fairly moderate (Rose revolution? I forget which). I guess the government isn't strong enough to kick them out.
It will be interesting to see if this escalates to include Syria and Iran.
"That sums up the Democratic Party in the US today. I don't have any ideas, but I don't like yours. Perfect."
Here are some of the Democratic Party's ideas. Another one was to not invade Iraq and start a civil war whose outcome we couldn't control. You may not like their ideas, and I know that repeating the "Democrats have no ideas" meme is easier than arguing with their ideas, but they have ideas nonetheless.
As far as I can tell, the current crop of Republicans have just a couple of ideas that they cling to fiercely, regardless of the consistent failure of those ideas to deliver. Only a truly cataclysmic failure of their ideas--like ignoring Clinton admin and CIA warnings about terrorism in favor of their initial obsession with the consistently failed missile defense boondoggle--seems able to move them even an inch.
I'll grant you that Republicans have, in recent times, been much more successful than Democrats in selling their ideas to Americans (coupled with the electoral advantage they gain from the unrepresentative aspects of our electoral system), but that doesn't really mean the Democrats have no ideas, does it? For example, Republican ideas about privatizing social security, meddling in the personal decisions of Terry Schiavo's husband, restricting federal research funds for embryonic stem cell research, and invading Iraq without an exit strategy, have been spectacularly unsuccessful in political terms, but if they lose control of the House or Senate this November because of these dipshit notions of theirs, will I be justified in saying they have no ideas?
Post a Comment
<< Home