So, did you hear about the Hamas Parliament speaker who, during a sermon on Sudanese television, called for Allah to kill all Jews and Americans?
You didn’t? Why might that be? After all, this happened about three weeks ago, was reported by Memri TV on April 13 the very same day, hit Digg on April 20, and was reported by CNSNews on April 26.
And you still didn’t hear about this?
Could there be a reason why the media ignored such an extraordinary statement by a Hamas official who happens to currently be the acting speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, or was this just an innocent oversight by a media obsessed with more important issues?
Regardless, the shocking video is available here courtesy of Memri TV, and the transcript follows (emphasis added):
Ahmad Bahr: "You will be victorious" on the face of this planet. You are the masters of the world on the face of this planet. Yes, [the Koran says that] "you will be victorious," but only "if you are believers." Allah willing, "you will be victorious," while America and Israel will be annihilated, Allah willing. I guarantee you that the power of belief and faith is greater than the power of America and Israel. They are cowards, as is said in the Book of Allah: "You shall find them the people most eager to protect their lives." They are cowards, who are eager for life, while we are eager for death for the sake of Allah. That is why America's nose was rubbed in the mud in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Somalia, and everywhere.
[...]
America will be annihilated, while Islam will remain. The Muslims "will be victorious, if you are believers." Oh Muslims, I guarantee you that the power of Allah is greater than America, by whom many are blinded today. Some people are blinded by the power of America. We say to them that with the might of Allah, with the might of His Messenger, and with the power of Allah, we are stronger than America and Israel.
[...]
I tell you that we will protect the enterprise of the resistance, because the Zionist enemy understands on the language of force. It does not recognize peace or the agreements. It does not recognize anything, and it understands only the language of force. Our Jihad-fighting Palestinian people salutes its brother, Sudan.
[...]
The Palestinian woman bids her son farewell, and says to him: "Son, go and don't be a coward. Go, and fight the Jews." He bids her farewell and carries out a martyrdom operation. What did this Palestinian woman say when she was asked for her opinion, after the martyrdom of her son? She said: "My son is my own flesh and blood. I love my son, but my love for Allah and His Messenger is greater than my love for my son." Yes, this is the message of the Palestinian woman, who was over seventy years old – Fatima Al-Najjar. She was over seventy years old, but she blew herself up for the sake of Allah, bringing down many criminal Zionists.
[...]
Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, vanquish the Americans and their supporters. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them all, down to the very last one. Oh Allah, show them a day of darkness. Oh Allah, who sent down His Book, the mover of the clouds, who defeated the enemies of the Prophet – defeat the Jews and the Americans, and bring us victory over them.
Any questions about why our media would never report this? Think that if a member of the Israeli Knesset made such statements about Palestinians and Muslims you might have heard about it?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
But I thought islam was a r
May 2, 2007 - 10:10 ET by The Wicked ConservativeBut I thought islam was a religion of peace? I don't understand. You fools on the left worship islam because it's anti-Christian. Just open your eyes for one moment and see who is intolerant. Where, oh where is the peaceful majority of muslims denouncing claims like this? Where I say? Dirty little secret is they agree with him. I don't understand. This is not a fight we have the stomach for in America. We're so crippled by PC we've become a nation of pansies. We're going to rollover and allow our selves to be raped ratrher than offend the very people who WILL DESTROY US GIVEN THE CHANCE. Truth can no longer can stand alone. It needs our help.
Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish. Talk sense to a
liberal and he calls you a racist, sexist, biggot, homophobe, denier.
what to do
May 2, 2007 - 10:21 ET by treshanFirst, why didn't fox news cover it? Second, blah blah blah islam isn't a religion of peace. The farthest of the right always complain about the extremists within islam, but the real threat is how we engage the middle east in foreign policy. Everyone knows that extremist militants within the religion want to kill jews and americans. However, america obviously needs to look at the history of the middle east and listen to experts on both sides to achieve any progress.
First, why didn't fox news
May 2, 2007 - 10:39 ET by The Wicked ConservativeFirst, why didn't fox news cover it?
Well, sadly, it seems of late that Fox needs to follow people like AP to find stories and then they just filter off the agenda and report it.
As for every other point you incohesively you dumped there I have one question...Huh?!?! The whole religion of peace thing is a rebuff to the leftist sycophantic approach to the third rail of all things muslim. Everyone knows that extremeist islam wants us dead?!?! If it's some terrorist in a cave that's one thing, when it's one of the top hamas politicians calling for our destruction, it's a far graver problem. History of the middleeast eh? I suppose you still cling to the delusion that the crusades were an invasion? Well they were actually a response to several hundred years of islamic imperialism. The muslims just haven't stopped their imperialism. It's just taken a new form. They use our weakness, liberalism, to invade the culture and take it over. Just look a France. Why the hell shouldn't I and my far right compadres complain about extreme islam???
Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish. Talk sense to a
liberal and he calls you a racist, sexist, biggot, homophobe, denier.
reply
May 2, 2007 - 10:52 ET by treshanYeah I guess fox news is falling behind like the msm!
Second you have every right to complain about militant islam. I'm just saying, don't just complain about it. Read and offer a specific solution. For example, setting up benchmarks in iraq.democrat or republican, both know that we are not going to be in iraq forever.
reply
May 2, 2007 - 10:52 ET by treshanYeah I guess fox news is falling behind like the msm!
Second you have every right to complain about militant islam. I'm just saying, don't just complain about it. Read and offer a specific solution. For example, setting up benchmarks in iraq.democrat or republican, both know that we are not going to be in iraq forever.
monk.a.rona...don't know much
May 2, 2007 - 10:51 ET by vrwc13monk.a.rona...don't know much about Islam do you.
To say that it is only the "radical" ones embracing violence, is ignorance. Their prophet taught that conversion is necessary and there is a three step process:
btw, the other "great" piece of peace taught by their prophet is...follow the above and conquer them all, but if at such a time you cannot, offer peace, until such time you can come back and finish them off.
face piles of trials with smiles
con fron tation
May 2, 2007 - 15:43 ET by tejanodiablowhen they confront me, snicker-snack goes the action on my vorpal .30 cal. carbine
never look a gift skunk in the tail ..
"blah blah blah islam is
May 2, 2007 - 11:10 ET by Ruths husband Ben"blah blah blah islam isn't a religion of peace." Well, at least you got that part right.
"Sticks and stones can break my bones, but liberal ideology can result in the death of millions of innocent Americans." -Me
Complaining
May 2, 2007 - 11:15 ET by EllisWyatt"The farthest of the right always complain about the extremists within islam"
And we also complain about the so-called "moderate" Muslims who don't speak out against their more radical brothers and sisters.
"... but the real threat is how we engage the middle east in foreign policy."
I'd sure like to find this mythical foreign policy that will turn the Middle East into a place more friendly to the West.
If you're not outraged at the media, you haven't been paying attention.
Just another instance of the
May 2, 2007 - 10:15 ET by BeowulfJust another instance of the MSM bias that doesn't exist. After all, as of a week or so ago, the MSM were both conservative lapdogs and they, through their pliancy, had helped make the (false) case for going to war. So how can they be accused of pandering to a cause whose avowed goal is the extermination of Israel, all Jews everywhere, and now all Americans? And pandering it is, through not reporting this type of diatribe. And we also need to keep in mind that the Lebanese beat the hell out of the Israelis not so long ago (of course, we must ignore the fact that Israel was pounding them until Israel decided to withdrawal). And the same will happen if/when the 'Crats get their way and make us leave Iraq precipitously... I can see the headlines now: Hizbollah beats Israel and Al Qaeda whips America...
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Correct me if I am wrong bu
May 2, 2007 - 10:15 ET by MightyMouthCorrect me if I am wrong but, doesn't Hamas directly or indirectly receive US taxpayer dollars? I hope I am wrong about this.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
International monies go to th
May 2, 2007 - 13:51 ET by BeowulfInternational monies go to the Lebanese government, as a leftover bribe from the early 90s peace talks. It was part of an incentive package (called the Oslo Accords) for the Arafat-led PLO to at least attempt to act civilized. Arafat actually officially "recognized" Israel at least partially due to these agreements (and the money that came with them).
So, in answer to your question, yes, technically we do give Hamas money, but it is as part of an international aid packet, which, I believe has to go through Israel first (Israel withheld the money during the most recent conflict - remember Hamas not being able to pay for their own government for a while?).
The Closed Mind Builds Strong Barriers
Oh Allah, vanquish the
May 2, 2007 - 10:27 ET by Dave ROh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, vanquish
the Americans and their supporters. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and
kill them all, down to the very last one.
That statement should be tattooed inside the eyelids of every member of the nose-picking, booger-eating bedwetting liberal MSM.
It will be most interesting to see what our resident terrorist-enabling surrender- monkey trolls here at NB will have to say about this.
Bet we get the "but....but....this guy doesn't speak for all Muslims" horse sh*t we usually get from these naive fools.
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-
Neal Boortz.
If Allah is so great, why can
May 2, 2007 - 11:47 ET by mattmIf Allah is so great, why can't 100 million Arabs wipe out itty bitty Israel? Why is every Islamic-ruled country a barren desert? Why are Muslims incapable of propagating their "faith" without force or subversion?
The MSM Anti-Christians like to cite fear, judgement and punishment as a means of discrediting Christianity, yet a cult like Islam, which preaches violence and murder, is off limits to criticism.
We need a modern day Elijah
May 2, 2007 - 10:28 ET by vrwc13We need a modern day Elijah to answer these "Baals"
18 "I have not made trouble for Israel," Elijah replied. "But you and your father's family have. You have abandoned the LORD's commands and have followed the Baals. Elijah went before the people and said, "How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him."
But the people said nothing.
...
24 Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the LORD. The god who answers by fire—he is God."
Then all the people said, "What you say is good."
25 Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, "Choose one of the bulls and prepare it first, since there are so many of you. Call on the name of your god, but do not light the fire." 26 So they took the bull given them and prepared it.
Then they called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. "O Baal, answer us!" they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made.
...
36 At the time of sacrifice, the prophet Elijah stepped forward and prayed: "O LORD, God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command. 37 Answer me, O LORD, answer me, so these people will know that you, O LORD, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again."
38 Then the fire of the LORD fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench.
39 When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, "The LORD -he is God! The LORD -he is God!"
40 Then Elijah commanded them, "Seize the prophets of Baal. Don't let anyone get away!" They seized them, and Elijah had them brought down to the Kishon Valley and slaughtered there. 1 Kings 18 (emphasis mine)
face piles of trials with smiles
But you just don't undertand
May 2, 2007 - 10:42 ET by Prester JohnBut you just don't undertand that it is all Bush's fault of course. Or at least that is what the Washington Post opinion page says:
The Abandonment--How the Bush Administration Left Israelis and Palestinians to Their Fate
This is the tragedy of America's situation now in the Promised Land: Never has the Arab-Israeli issue been more critical to our national interests and to our security, yet rarely have we been so uniquely ill-positioned to manage it -- let alone resolve it. In a post-9/11 era, the cause of Palestine drives recruits to al-Qaeda and helps generate lethal levels of anti-Americanism. But for almost seven years, the Bush administration has hung a "Closed for the Season" sign on serious Arab-Israeli diplomacy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702049.html
The author lists all the problems--the poverty, the useless Arab leaders, the violence etc etc, but in the end it's still all Bush's fault.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't EVERY U.S. President over the last 40 years, Republican and Democrat, Conservative and Liberal tried desperately to act as a mediator in this whole mess??!! Maybe, just maybe, the problem is with one or both of the parties involved, and not us?
Maybe?
Media:cheerleaders for Hamas & all denigrators of America.
May 2, 2007 - 11:25 ET by PlaceboThe treasonable leftists in the mass-media and others of this insipid but sinister ilk, simply, despise America and Israel; the former, in particular. They are out and out nutters whose perverse perception is, America (their country) is the true Great Satan. The fact that Hamas has called for the murder of Americans and Israelis plays with the seditious ideology of our mass-media, as well.
However, even our president has chosen to arm Hamas/Fatah for some inane reasoning. Hopefully, Bush will see the follies of this decision and renege on arming these bloody scumbags.
For mass-media, however, there is no hope. They are cheerleaders for Hamas and all, whom revile America.
The problem with the Lefties
May 2, 2007 - 14:15 ET by BeowulfThe problem with the Lefties is that they are in the minority. Yet in their tiny little minds, they are right and the other 95% is wrong. So their only answer is to defame and discredit everyone else.
As has been plain to see time and again, the lefties procedure is to spew their rants, lie about their level of support, launch personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with them, lie about what they said in the first place, break any rule to gain their objectives, lie some more about anything convenient, "moderate" their goals, lie about their new level of support, spew some more invective against anyone still disagreeing with them, watch their objective fail, lie about their results and throw more money at it, blame everyone but themselves for their failure, and finally, do it all over again and again, failing each time.
And I know this to be true. I've read their playbook, and it's all right there, organized numerically step by step in black and white :-)~...
At least the extreme Righties are also in the minority but usually they actually accept the fact...
The Closed Mind Builds Strong Barriers
Hate, mediation and other issues
May 2, 2007 - 19:52 ET by belagThese statements by Hamas are disturbing to say the least, but I don't believe anyone is surprised by these statements, are you?
Yes,
there is a climate of hate in the Middle East against US. It's
sometimes quite overt as in the case of Osama Bin Laden, who regarded
himself as the vanguard of Palestinians, sometimes it's hidden.
First of all, let's be clear about one thing. Suicide bombings
are not ok. Not in Christianity, not in Islam, not as a human being.
What
do you feel should be the attitude against these suicide bombers? They
should be condemned, yes. They should be countered by laws and other
means necessary yes. But, what's the most effective tactic of
countering it?
I'll give you my view. Every crime, however
abominable, has elements of legitimate grievances. Nobody blows himself
up for totally random reasons.
For me, religion is this very idea. Respect your neighbour. Listen to him. You may not agree, but listen to him.
Ask yourself these questions. How many of you know the history
of the Israel-Palestine conflict? What are the issues involved? What's
the Israel position? What's the Palestinian position? What's the US
position? What's the world opinion?
This will give you an idea about where you stand. If you don't know about them, should you make and effort to learn?
I'll give you my opinion. You can agree or disagree with it, whichever you prefer, of course.
The
main issue in the Israel-Palestine conflict is territorial. Each side
claims it has sovereignty over some land. How do you resolve that?
It
has many possible solutions. We could have a religious resolution. We
could have a millitary resolution. We could have a terrorist
resolution. Or we could rely on international law.
My position is
that we should rely on international law. It's not perfect, but it has
the advantage that most of the people in the world agree with it,
including an overwhelming majority in the US.
Well, who's the authority on international law? The World Court.
In
2004, the World Court ruled that Israel has sovereignty over pre-June
1967 war borders. That means, the whole of West Bank, Gaza and
Jerusalem are Occupied Palestinian Territories. They belong to
Palestine. The decision was 14 to 1. The US judge was opposed.
Should
you accept international law when the US is opposed? Well, that's a
decision for you to make. You can make arguments either way.
Now,
let's look at the official positions of all of the relevant parties.
This is just the official position. May or may not be what the
practical realities are.
Let's look at the position of Israel
on this. Israel rejects this judgement both formally (through its
Supreme Court). And practically, by building settlements in the West
Bank and Jerusalem.
Palestine has supported this tacitly since
mid 1970s and formally since 1980s. Hamas is ambivalent on it, but it
says it will accept it if the Arab states in the region agree.
What
about the Arab states? The relevant Arab states in the region, Syria,
Jordan, Egypt etc. issued a statement a few weeks ago supporting this.
As they have done for about three decades now.
Their position: Full peace and recognition for Israel in exchange for full withdrawal.
You can ask yourselves if any of you saw this in the "MSM".
What about US position? It rejects the World Court decision. It vetoed two security council resolutions in 2004-5 debating this.
What
about world opinion? Well, that's a hard thing to measure. One forum is
the UN. You may or may not agree with it. But here it is. Every year,
there's a resolution in the General Assembly about the "Palestine
problem". For about thirty years, the vote has been more or less the
same. 160 to 2. US and Israel opposed.
In conclusion, you may or may not agree. But I feel that the questions I raised are important to this conflict. This has nothing to do with "left" or "right". "Conservative" or "liberal". I myself am of what can be called "far-left", but I don't raise any of those issues here.
I'd be happy to hear any comments.
belag...Your thinking scares
May 2, 2007 - 19:57 ET by Clear thinkerbelag...
Your thinking scares the crap out of me!
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Be tolerant!
May 2, 2007 - 11:38 ET by misterbillNobody
Uses
Killing
Except
The
Hatefilled Islamic
Extremists
But
Always be
Sure
That
America
Resists
Deadly
Statements!
C'mon you guys!! Cant you se
May 2, 2007 - 12:06 ET by Buckeye_Paul01C'mon you guys!! Cant you see the solution to the middle east crisis?
What we need to do is to extend our hand out in friendship to middle eastern nations and begin a dialog to create trust. We need to appease the middle east through negotiation....NOT WAR!! We need to polish our tarnished global standing and repent for "warring for oil" and our imperialistic & capitalist American pursuits.
Not until we pass the "global test" will we be able regain our good standing among righteous world leaders (IE...Like Hamas). When our respectability returns, we'll be able bring about true changes in the middle east through diplomacy, and Hamas leaders will no longer feel the need to call for death to Americans. As for the Jews? Well, they deserve what they get because of their greedy ways, and they don't belong in Israel in the first place. The Palestinians are victims of the Jews!!
Sincerely,
The Sleazy "Drive By" MSM......and libs everywhere
:)
misterbill - that's not ver
May 2, 2007 - 12:13 ET by Jack Bauermisterbill - that's not very compassionate.
You got my vote.
Until they urinate plutonium.
May 2, 2007 - 12:30 ET by Dave RUntil they urinate plutonium. :-)
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.
The media is afraid to tell t
May 2, 2007 - 12:38 ET by Gat New YorkThe media is afraid to tell the truth. The Muslim relgion is not a religion of peace. They have proved it time and time again. You can point to countless instances of terror and hatred. But you can't point to instances of non-violance and peace. And if these so-called moderate Muslims object to it - then prove it and eradicate the extremists in your own religion.
I just had an epiphany - I ca
May 2, 2007 - 14:40 ET by BeowulfI just had an epiphany - I can answer why the "moderate" Muslims aren't doing or saying anything about the extremists.
The goal of the Islamists is world domination, conversion by the sword of all other religions, establishment of the Caliphate world-wide, and the global establishment of Sharia law.
As the media is soft-balling the Islamists if not actually aiding them, the "moderates" can sit back and catch no heat for doing nothing.
If the Islamists were, by some astronomical chance, to achieve their desires, the "moderates" will jump up and yell that they were "beleivers" the whole time.
If, as is much more likely, the Islamists lose (read: DIE), the 'moderates" will proclaim (backed up by the MSM) that they never supported the Islamists, but were afraid to do anything against them.
In America, that's called a win-win situation...
The Closed Mind Builds Strong Barriers
Well, here goes. Long time re
May 2, 2007 - 21:09 ET by DBWWell, here goes. Long time reader, first time poster.
The biggest ignored fact of "belag" ,and most anti-Jewish, is that at one time or another at least one of the countries have attacked Israel just because it exists. The land that Israel ended up with as a result of these attacks is just a buffer.
Buffer?
May 2, 2007 - 23:07 ET by belagFirst, to avert any misunderstanding. I'm not anti-Jewish. I unequivocally condemned the suicide bombings.
Let's look at your statement. What're the questions any honest and rational person should ask about that? Here're a few which I think are important.
a) Who decides that the surrounding countries pose a threat to the existence of Israel? Is it Israel? Is it US? Is it UN? Is it the Arab states?
b) There's a fundamental principle of international law. You cannot acquire land by war. Does this "buffer" violate that? If yes, do you reject international law? If not, why doesn't it?
c) What do you think of the relative military force of Israel and the surrounding region? Is it justified to keep that land as a buffer, today?
d) The land may be a "buffer". But what of the people living on the land? Is Israel treating them like "first-class citizens", in other words, comparable to a citizen living in Tel-Aviv, for instance?
If you have comments and/or additional questions, I'll be happy to respond.
And I used to think you came
May 2, 2007 - 23:51 ET by NL207And I used to think you came here just to tell us about your junk science. And then you go and prove me wrong by telling me al about bad policy too!
Your questions are those of an idiot.
a) The definition of the terms you have used is your answer. to be a threat, a statement must provoke the emotion, fear, in the listener. Fear is a subjective experience. Only Israelis can decide if they fear their neighbors. Therefore, Israel decides if it has been threatened.
b) Law is the imposition of rules of conduct with the implied threat of corrective force if they are violated.
There is no international body of competent jurisdiction which can arbitrate land disputes between sovereign nations and impose settlements, as a court can between indviduals, without the consent of the sovereign nations involved in the dispute.
Therefore, there is no such thing as "International law".
c) This relative strengths of the military forces of Israel and its neighbors has no bearing on the possesion of the conquered lands. Because the conflict is asymmetric, conventional military forces are not a safe meausre of security.
d) Israel, as a sovereign state may set whatever policies it desires over lands it controls. This is implicit in the condition, "sovereign".
Maybe you should stick to junk science.
Responses to questions?
May 3, 2007 - 00:59 ET by belagI'll ignore all the name-calling.
Let's look at your responses. And let's look at the consequences.
An elementary moral principle is, standards should be uniform. In light of this elementary principle let's examine those statements.
If you apply the standard across the board, you're called principled. If only to one side, you're called a hypocrite.
a) You say Israel decides whether the surrounding states are a security threat or not. Does every sovereign state has that right? Ok, what about the possibility that the neighbours might say that Israel is a security threat and attack it? Would you accept this reciprocal principle?
b) Well, if you insist that there's no such thing as international law, I cannot really say anything much. I'll continue, however.
The principle of international law I quoted was a simple and fundamental one. It's inadmissible to acquire land by war. Do you disagree with that principle?
Again, let's apply the same standards. What if everyone decided there isn't any international law and do as they please? You think Palestinian suicide bombers are legal?
In my opinion, there is something called "international law". It's actually pretty well defined and broad, as set in the United Nations Charter. The International Court of Justice indeed has the authority to pass legal judgements on land disputes.
c) The relative strength of military is indeed relevant, in my opinion. If it turns out that Israel has more military force, it weakens the argument that Israel's existence itself is threatened.
d) The reasons I mentioned the condition of the people living in the Occupied Territories are very simple.
First, if there's evidence (and there is an overwhelming amount of it), it weakens the case that Israel considers the people living there its own citizens. I could elaborate on that if you want.
Second, if you belive Israel has the right to do whatever it pleases in its own territory, what about Kosovo? Why did NATO go after Milosevic?
Or take Saddam Hussein. Did he have the right to kill his own people?
Must not be
May 3, 2007 - 01:21 ET by Mr. BishopYou must not be from this country... The International Court is not recognized as having any authority over the United States. As a consequence, their opinion matters little to me, nor their alleged powers. Second, the United Nations is a farce organization, that also I have little respect for. As such, the idea of "international law" is a bogus concept, that only liberals accept -- since they want the United Nations to govern the United States, with no sovereignty of our own. As such, every single statement you made concerning international law, I will completely ignore.
Now, you took what NL207 wrote on the subject of sovereign state, and deliberately attempted to twist it into something he did not suggest, nor did he intend for it to suggest such a thing.
On the subject of Israel -- they do, in fact, have every right to defend themselves. They are under an almost constant attack from outside their borders, and inside their borders from Islamic extremists. You state that if a country has more military force, it weakens the argument that its existance is threatened. This is a grossly erroneous statement. Unlike in the past, where wars were fought between two uniformed persons, on a battlefield between two opposing countries -- Israel and the US have been under attack from non-uniformed terrorists. These terrorists, that attack Israel and the US, are anyone ranging from kids, to adults, male and female. Also, unlike in past wars where these combatants used readily identifiable weapons, these terrorists use explosives usually strapped to their own bodies in some fashion, or else detonate them from a distance with a cell phone. How do you combat this? Having a superior military force does not take into account, the ability of an enemy to attack with no warning due to not knowing specifically who that enemy is. A country can easily feel their existance is threatened, when you are attacked by an enemy that does not wear a uniform, or attack in conventional methods, against a military force. Most of the time, terrorists attack unarmed civilians because they are easy prey.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
International law and security
May 3, 2007 - 02:01 ET by belagI feel there has been a misunderstanding, arising from imprecise language.
First, this has nothing to do with "liberal" or "conservative". It's a moral question.
It's a moral principle only when it's applied across the board. So, I fail to see why my response to NL207 was invalid. If you want to elaborate on some point, feel free to respond.
1) Regarding international law, I certainly did not intend to imply that the international law applies in US. Certainly the US feels no compulsion to follow international law.
There are two sort of responses to this:
a) Specific. The principle I quoted. Is it admissible to acquire land by war?
b) In general. Is the principle of having an "international law" bad? Let's consider an analogy. You can decide if it's a fair one or not. Do you think having laws in the US are a bad idea? They curtail freedom? Do you think every citizen should considered absolutely free? How do you decide if your freedom is not infringing upon others' freedom?
2) Israel has every right to defend itself. That's one of the fundamental principles in the UN charter, incidentally.
I accept the argument that a country can feel threatened by the suicide bombers even if they're not in uniform.
Let's look at a few questions it raises.
a) If a country itself is the sole judge of whether it feels threatened by something, how do you make it accountable? How do you decide whether it's just lying for its own ends or not? And when what it does has international consequences, how do you resolve it?
b) How do you combat the suicide bombers? This is a tactical question. You're quite right when you say that a superior military force will not combat this. Well, ask yourself what Lebanon, Palestinians and Israel are doing about it? Hezbullah gets its rockets from Iran. Israel gets its weapons from the US.
My view, you can agree or disagree. To stop him, find out why he's blowing himself up? The crime itself may be abominable, but are there legitimate grievances? These things don't come out of a vacuum.
Well, ask yourself. The questions I raised in my first post, are they reasonable? How many of them have you thought about? What did you find? What conclusions do you derive from your findings?
Understand the enemy?
May 3, 2007 - 02:27 ET by Mr. BishopI will only address one question you asked tonight before I go to bed, and that is the question you asked about finding out why someone blows himself up. Why? Because he's a coward. There is no other explanation, other then that. Your idea of "understanding" the enemy, is nonsense. Did we fight to "understand" the Germans in WWII? No -- we fought them until they gave up and quit. Did we fight to "understand" the Japanese? No, we fought them until they gave up and quit. You don't fight to "understand" an enemy -- you fight to kill them, until they quit. This ridiculous notion that we have to somehow "understand" an enemy, to see why they fight, is just that: ridiculous. If a person is blowing themself up, your idea of looking to see if they have a "grievance" to be solved, is just plain stupid. Yes... stupid. If they have a "grievance", they have two choices: Take it up with the party who they have a grievance with, or attack that party. They choose to attack, and they do so in a cowardly manner. Therefor, your "argument" fails on that merit.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
Why blow yourself up?
May 3, 2007 - 11:46 ET by belagYou see the tactical solution of the problem of the suicide bombers differently than me, fine. That's your right.
As to the part about taking up issues with the opposing party, I feel history has much to teach us about this subject. For the first 30 years of the Israeli occupation, there were no suicide bombings, not even violence really. You can check this if you like. They were really trying to talk to the opposing party. And they came up with a solution. A fair solution. A solution supported by the whole world (outside Israel and the US). Literally, the whole world.
The suicide bombings started only very recently, as little as 6 or 7 years ago. (By the way, the Washington Post was right about one thing, there haven't been "final status" talks between Israel and Palestine since 2001). Against that background, I'll consider the crime itself to be contemptible, but not because they are cowards. It's because they're desperate and hateful.
Well, that's my opinion. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Belag
May 3, 2007 - 14:54 ET by Noel SheppardBelag,
First off, it is offensive to refer to Israel as an occupation. Can you prove historically who actually has legal title to any of this land? Furthermore, didn't the Palestinians voluntarily leave in 1967 just prior to the Six Days War? As such, didn't they abandon their own property in the belief that Egypt and Syria were going to defeat Israel?
Moving forward, your knowledge of suicide bombing is incredibly lacking. The first known suicide attack in Israel took place in 1972 at Lod airport in Tel Aviv. Furthermore, such bombings have been quite commonplace in Israel since 1993. As such, your contention that this practice only started recently is totally false.
As for this area being "non-violent" for the 30 years after the occupation, are you talking about post-Six Days War in 1967? Doesn't that therefore completely ignore the Yom Kippur War in 1973? And the Seven Days war with Lebanon in 1993? ns
Occupation?
May 3, 2007 - 16:10 ET by belagFirst, to clear up any misunderstanding. I did not refer to Israel as the occupation. The pre June 1967 borders of Israel are recognized by everyone in the world. The UN and the Arab states included. I therefore don't think my remarks were offensive. If they are, I would like to know why.
I refer to the occupation as the conquered territories of the 1967 war: namely, West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem.
It's helpful the define "occupation". Well, this is not science. The immediate question is: who defines "occupation"? Who is the authority to say that this or that person owns this land?
Well, you can have your own view. I'd like to hear your view on that.
I mentioned my view. Let's follow international law.
I would seriously dispute the statements about the "non-violent" nature of the Occupied (again, West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem) territories. But that would be too long of a post. If there's a future post on Lebanon and/or Egypt I might try to address those things there.
However, I wish to raise these questions. You can figure whether they are worthwhile questions and find the answers themselves. Who attacked who? What were they fighting about? Who gained territory? Who lost it? What was the position of Israel? What was the position of the Arab states? Of the US? Of the UN? Of the world?
<edit>
I wanted to add a few more questions which are at the heart of the matter. What are the conditions of the people living in the so-called "Occupied Territories"? Do they have freedom? Do they have similar conditions like the rest of Israel? What do they think of Israel? Of the Arab states? Of the UN? Of the US? What are their demands? What's their productivity? Their unemployment rate? Their economy?
belag, what is this ,an exam?
May 3, 2007 - 04:47 ET by old crobelag, what is this ,an exam? I’ve been up cramming all night, so I will take a shot at it. First off NL207 is right, you are an idiot. Next, tell me when Israel has attacked a neighbor without provocation. You state they have no need for their large military? What world do you live in? In response to your above queries just this a) Israel is accountable by the fact that it has shown no aggressive tendencies in the past 50 years. What neighbor of theirs can you say the same of? Your unsure if Israel is lying for it's own ends? It's freakin trying to survive in an area surrounded by fanatics who wish to see it, it's people and it's religion wiped off the face of the earth. b) By killing them before they can detonate their bomb. There is NO "legitimate grievance" in existence that allows someone to walk in and blow up innocent women and children. How can you use the words "moral" and "suicide bomber" in the same thought process?
To answer your last 4 questions - no, all of them, I hope an A on my final exam, and lastly, your an idiot.
Sorry about the name calling, I usually try to refrain from such tactics, but my command of the English language is limited, so I used the most concise word available to convey my "feelings" on your postings.
All interesting questions bel
May 3, 2007 - 07:55 ET by dscottAll interesting questions belag, but they are a distraction from reality. The reality is: A country's independence, cultural identity and self determination/governance is the military ability to maintain it's sovereignty. One can quibble all day long about is it fair, the history, the state of utopia or what others think, in the end these considerations are irrelevant. The only final determination of sovereignty is the willingness to fire the gun in your hand, end of story. Sounds cynical?
So answer the only relevant question. How long would Israel have existed as a nation if it didn't have an army? We all know that answer, there it is, the debate is over.
As far as legitimate grievances, as far as nations are concerned, none what so ever. The only direction any finger of guilt can be pointed is at the person whose hand is attached to the finger. The decision to militarily force one's will upon another country resides solely with the leaders of that country. e.g. Syria lost the Golan because it gave pretext to Israel by engaging in armed conflict, it's called the spoils of war. Had Syria been moderately successful in 1967, the northern half of Israel would be in their hands and no one would be complaining at this time.
Legitimate grievances as far as individuals, I will agree with you there in as far as only the Palestinian land owners. I believe it was a fundamental mistake on Israel's part not to allow individuals to return to their property when they fled in 1967. They would have spent far less money (not to mention lives and suffering) buying the property than having to continually defend themselves against suicide attacks. Had they allowed them back, there would be no Palestinian refugee camps to this day continually supplying cannon fodder for Pan Arab Nationalism, the PLO previously, Hamas, Hezbollah or al Qaeda of OBL. Don't get me wrong, the refugee camps did not cause terrorism, they however continue to be a fertile recruiting ground for those power hunger groups needing cannon fodder to advance their particular cause.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Questions and reality
May 3, 2007 - 12:08 ET by belagI agree with some of the things you've said, but not all of them.
The refugees are indeed the problem and they have a reservoir of hatred there which breeds terrorists.
As to the rest, well, it seems to me you're saying (pardon me if I'm wrong) that force rules the world and it ought to rule the world. Well, this may be your opinion and I won't argue it, but in my opinion it's somewhat different. Force rules the world, yes. But it ought not to. So what message are we sending to the world if we ignore the Palestinian side of the issue? It's ok to rule the world by force. Nobody's stopping you.
All I'm asking is, is it unreasonable to see the history of the conflict before you judge it? Is it unreasonable to hear the other side of the problem? You may agree or disagree with my conclusions, but I think the questions I raised in my response to DBW and in my first post are reasonable and honest questions.
Let's me attempt to answer your question. Would Israel survive if it has no military?
None at all? No country has 0 military. So I guess we can set that aside.
Let's say if it has the military it has today or even, say in 1985, twenty years ago. I think that question answers itself. You can look at the military power of Israel in 1985 and the surrounding areas and judge for youself if it had any reason to be threatened (militarily - there were no suicide bombings then).
About the "spoils of war" thing. The UN (however corrupt, ineffective, whatever you may call it) was set up for precisely these sort of things. After WW2, many of the people thought, it was no longer ok to acquire land by war. You can, of course, disagree. But that's a fundamental principle of international law enshrined in the Charter.
Most of the groups and indivi
May 3, 2007 - 19:29 ET by DBWMost of the groups and individuals that have attacked Israel and continue to do so are not doing so because they have justification or rights that are being violated. All of the conflicts that have been officially called wars against Israel did for one reason. That reason was not to take anything back or vindicate anything. It is the reason I previously stated. It has only been because Israel exists.
I also realize that since they have had land they have taken from these wars that some people feel justified to retaliate in a multitude of ways. But again, there are quite a few of the peoples that are doing these acts that are from other established countries which don't even border Israel. And again, for the same reason.
Civilized people from every area of the world protest in most the same ways, without unfettered violence.
Many of the countries which vote against Israel do so because they are following the majority, or "consensus". Just becuase an overwhelming majority of people believe something doesn't make it any more right.
Hate against Israel?
May 4, 2007 - 10:52 ET by belagYou believe that (most of) the attacks on Israel are because it exists, not to take back anything. Fine. You're entitled to your view.
Let's look at the issue of "consensus". As in the global warming thing, it doesn't mean that the majority is right. What it does say, in my very modest view, is that if I'm against the majority, it teaches me a bit of humility. It's entirely possible that I'm right and the majority's wrong, but again, in my very modest view, the burden of the argument is higher. I may not agree with the "consensus" but I say, let's listen to what they have to say. Surely, there are some people there who are not out to destroy Israel and have legitimate demands.
My concluding point is, I'm not trying to impose my political views upon you. I merely raise the kind of questions I'm interested in: namely, let's forget the land for the moment and look at the people on the land. What is their condition?
These are at the heart of the matter I'm interested in, and it's up to you to decide if these are worthwhile questions.