July 31, 2006

Maybe Good News

The dictator in Havana has given power to his brother because he is having abdominal surgery that could have a long convalesence.

Cuban President Fidel Castro was undergoing intestinal surgery and provisionally handed over power in the Communist island nation to his younger brother Raul, according to a statement read on Cuban television Monday night.

Fidel Castro, 79, has led Cuba since a 1959 revolution. Raul Castro, 75, is the first vice president of the country, and as such, the designated successor to his brother.

Castro's secretary, Carlos Balenciago, read a letter he said was from the president in which he said stress had forced him into surgery and that he would be in bed for several weeks after the operation was complete. Castro turns 80 on August 13.

Raul Castro also assumes control over the armed forces and the leadership of the Communist Party, according to the statement.

The State Department reacted with caution.

White House spokesman Peter Watkins said: ''We are monitoring the situation. We can't speculate on Castro's health, but we continue to work for the day of Cuba's freedom.'' The State Department declined to comment Monday night.

In Florida, the Cuban community has greeted this news as any lover of freedom must.

The announcement drew cheering in the streets in Miami. People waved Cuban flags on Little Havana's Calle Ocho, shouting "Cuba, Cuba, Cuba," hoping that the end is near for the man most of them consider to be a ruthless dictator. There were hugs, cheers and dancing as drivers honked their horns. Many of them fled the communist island or have parents and grandparents who did.

Don't get well soon, Fidel. In fact, don't get well at all -- do the Cuban people a favor and die on the table so that they can hang your putrid corpse from a lamp post by its heels, like the Italians did to Mussolini.

Babalu Blog has a running post on this most recend deathwatch, noting that we have seen this before.

¡Cuba Libre!

Posted by: Greg at 06:15 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 342 words, total size 3 kb.

A Temporary Bombing Pause -- Sort Of

I was disturbed that Israel would give Hezbollah a chance to recover, reposition, and rearm when I heard about the agreement to stop the bombing for 48 hours.

Israel agreed to suspend air attacks in southern Lebanon for 48 hours after one of its raids on the southern town of Qana left dozens of civilians, many of them children, dead on Sunday, the bloodiest day of the conflict so far.

* * *

J. Adam Ereli, the deputy spokesman for the State Department, which announced the 48-hour pause in strikes, said Israel would use the suspension in bombing to coordinate with the United Nations safe passage for 24 hours for residents who wish to leave southern Lebanon.

Israeli officials said nothing publicly about the suspension early Monday, and Mr. Ereli noted that Israel reserved the right to strike at militants preparing attacks against it.

An Israeli official in the prime minister’s office, who did not want to be identified, simply confirmed the State Department statement, saying, “Israel will be suspending aerial activity over southern Lebanon for 48 hours until the end of the Israeli investigation into Qana.”

At midnight Sunday, Israeli aircraft hit targets in eastern Lebanon, a spokesman for the Israeli Army said Monday morning. The suspension of airstrikes went into effect two hours later, he added.

It is pretty clear what did not happen -- Israel did not target that building and did not intentionally kill civilians. It is also pretty clear what did happen -- in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Hezbollah operated from in the midst of what the convention calls "protected persons" in order to use them as human shields.. Somehow, though, those who demand that the US abide by the strictedst possible interpretation of those documents (and even exceed those standards) have failed to condemn Hezbollah for failing to live up to those same standards of civilized behavior.

Fortunately, Israel has not abandoned all military common sense.

Israeli warplanes did conduct air strikes this morning, but army officials said they were in support of ground forces and so not covered by the 48-hour halt.

And IsraelÂ’s defense minister, Amir Peretz, made it clear in a speech to the Knesset today that Israel intends to continue its ground operations against Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon.

“We must not agree to a ceasefire that would be implemented immediately,’’ Mr. Peretz said. “If an immediate cease-fire is declared, the extremists will rear their heads anew.’’

So let's make the situation clear -- while there is a pause in bombing generally, bombing in support of ground forces will continue in order to continue to purge the jihadi swine from southern Lebanon. Israel rightly recognizes that a cease-fire at this time is not in its strategic interest, and so will not accept any proposal that stops the fighting without ensuring Israeli security.

Posted by: Greg at 03:12 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 488 words, total size 3 kb.

July 30, 2006

Additional Info On Qana

Though it doesn't particularly matter to Israel-haters/jihad supporters, video is out showing Hezbollah launching rockets from civilian areas of Qana. That made the area a legitimate military target. Take a look at the video at Expose the Left and Flopping Aces (scroll down).

In addition, there are now questions about the timing of the building collapse. The Israelis attacked the area around midnight local time -- but the building did not collapse until the next morning.

Senior IDF officers told reporters a short time ago that there is a contradiction in the timing of the bombing of the village of Kana and reports of the explosion that killed more than 50 civilians and set off world-wide condemnation of Israel. Air Force Commander Amir Eshel left open the possibility that Hizbullah terrorists blew up the building or that an unknown cause set off explosives which were stored in the structure.

He explained that recorded information shows that Israeli Air Force planes bombed the building between midnight and 1 a.m. and that the next attack at 7:30 a.m. was up to 500 yards away. He said reports of the killing of civilians came around 8 a.m. "It is not clear what happened" between 1 a.m. and 8 a.m., he said.

Brigadier General Ido Nehushtan pointed out that Hizbullah terrorists have fired more than 150 rockets from the village of Kana since the beginning of the war.

Could the collapse have been triggered by explosives stored there by Hezbollah (there are reports of a secondary explosion)? Could Hezbollah jihadis have "manufactured" the civilian casualties by blowing the building up themselves? Or might they have prevented civilians from leaving a damaged building for the same purposes? Given th six-to-eight hour gap between the attack and the collapse that exists, these are reasonable questions.

UPDATE: The official Israeli statement on Qana, including video of Hezbollah firing from behind residential buildings.

Posted by: Greg at 07:59 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 323 words, total size 3 kb.

Qana -- And Why It Doesn't Matter

With the dawn come reports of the deaths of dozens of Lebanese, many of them children, as a result of an Israeli airstrike on the Lebanese village of Qana.

At least 60 civilians were killed on Sunday after the IAF fired missiles at buildings in the southern Lebanse twon of Qana.

Some 35 bodies have been recovered from a building that collapsed, but more were still stuck under the rubble, Lebanon's official news agency reported.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that the area was a focal point for the firing of Katyusha rockets on Kiryat Shmona and Afula. He said that from the outset of the conflict "hundreds of rockets have been fired from the Qana area."

Olmert stressed that there was no IDF policy of targeting innocent civilians, as opposed to Hizbullah that has launched rockets "with the aim of murdering innocent civilians in northern Israel."

On one level, I feel shock and outrage. I am truly saddened by the deaths of civilians. But my anger is directed not at the Israelis, but at the Hezbollah cowards who have been hiding in and attacking from civilian areas in an attempt to protect themselves and gain a propaganda victory from the deaths of the civilians they put in harms way. It has not been that long since I posted photos that clearly demonstrate that Hezbollah tactic, and the condemnation of the jihadi group by a UN official for doing so.

Yet on another level, I am not at all troubled by these casualties. Lebanon allows Hezbollah to operate freely within its borders. It has a role in the government. It is among the largest employers in Lebanon. Indeed, the Lebanese president has even hinted that he might have the Lebanese Army join forces with the jihadis of the Party of (the false god) Allah against the Israelis who have responded to repeated attacks upon civilian targets from within Lebanon. The Lebanese government has allowed this terrorist menace to flourish, and now all of Lebanon must pay the price -- even if that price involves civilian casualties.

I need go no further back in history than WWII, "the good war". In that conflict, which was certainly an example of what one would call "total war", the casualties of the Axis aggressors were high -- and included many civilians who found themselves in harm's way due to the misdeeds of their government. While American and British casualties were under 1% of their respective populations, the Japanese suffered over 3% casualties, including the deaths of many civilians in the conventional bombing of Tokyo and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Germany suffered the loss of over 10% of its population, including many to the relentless bombing campaigns of the Allies in places like Dresden. And yet no one with an ounce of moral decency would argue that those deaths were unjustified, unnecesary, or disproportionate. Indeed, they were tragic, but they were also a necessary part of bringing about a speedy victory with far fewer casualties on both sides than would otherwise have been needed.

If Israel were to adopt the model used by the Allies in WWII, much of Lebanon would be flattened by now. Even if the much more restrained model used by America in Vietnam were employed, the civilian casualties would be much higher due to the carpet-bombing of entire sectors where the enemy is operating. Israel has not done that at all, and has sought to limit civilian casualties even when it puts Israeli troops at risk.

The events at Qana raise the specter of history repeating itself.

Ten years ago, Israel was forced to suspend Operation Grapes of Wrath against Hizbullah after artillery shells accidentally killed over 100 Lebanese refugees in the same village.

Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora demanded an immediate and unconditional ceasefire and insisted on an investigation into the Qana attack.

The withdrawal a decade ago in the face of world outrage allowed Hezbollah to regroup, rearm, and recruit a new generation of jihadis -- those who fight today. The earlier withdrawal following a tragedy in Qana can in fact be seen as the beginning of a chain of events which gave rise to the current war. Will the same mistake be made today?

War, as General Sherman told us long ago, is Hell. One part of that Hell is that unintended civilian deaths occur -- especially when one side hides among the non-combattants. And yet that cannot be the basis for putting an end to a just fight or accepting a cease-fire that allows the aggressor to regroup and continue its attacks at a later date. Terrorism must not be allowed to succeed; terrorists must not be allowed a strategic victory. Israel must continue its battle against the jihadis of Hezbollah -- not just for its own security, but also for that of Lebanon, the Middle East, and the world as a whole.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Conservative Cat, Adam's Blog, Stuck on Stupid, Freedom Watch, Blue Star Chronicles, Third World County, Madman Returns, Random Yak

Posted by: Greg at 12:56 AM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 858 words, total size 7 kb.

July 29, 2006

Care Packages For Israel

We've all heard of groups sending care packages to American soldiers, both those deployed and the wounded soldiers who have returned to this country. Many of us have participated in fundraising activities for such projects, and have personally sent care packages to troops. From time to time I've placed lnks to such groups on my site.

But I've wondered over the last few weeks if anyone was sending support packages to Israeli soldiers during this time of war. Literally by accident, I stumbled across this company, Israel-Catalog.com that is doing so, and so I offer it up to you if you are interested.

tal-shahar06TalShahar-245x60.gif

They also have made available Support Israeli Children Packages containing toys and candy for Israeli children who have had to spend many hours in bomb shelters due to Hezbollah rocket attacks on the civilian population of Israel.

I encourage you, if you are so moved, to consider an act of charity and love directed towards the Israeli people as they defend themselves from the direct attacks of the Hezbollah jihadi terrorists.

Posted by: Greg at 10:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 182 words, total size 2 kb.

July 27, 2006

Why Were The UN Observers Hit?

The unfortunate deaths of four UN observers in Lebanon were used as an opportunity for the UN's chief Israel-hater, Secretary general Kofi Annan, to launch a verbal assault on the Isralie, claiming the attack was intentional. And at least one press account has tried to make it appear that the UN monitors were targetted.

PEACEKEEPERS spent six hours begging Israeli commanders to halt multiple air bombings near a United Nations observation post before a missile killed four unarmed observers there, it emerged last night.

UN officials said that the monitors made ten phone calls to the Israeli army between 1.20pm on Tuesday — when an Israeli aircraft dropped a bomb 300 metres from the patrol base — and about 7.20pm, when the building was destroyed.

The details came to light as Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, condemned what he called an “apparently deliberate targeting” of the well- documented UN position that had stood in Khiam, southern Lebanon, for 50 years.

I won't get into the fact that if the peacekeeprs have been there for half a century, they have done a very poor job, given the continued attacks on Israel from south Lebanon. Rather, I will point to specific issues that raise doubt about the targetting the UN ooutpost. Rather, the Israelis were after legitimate Hezbollah targets in the same area.

Not that it is easy to distinguish UN and Hezbollah positions, as this photo clearly demonstrates.

flags.jpg

As one of the dead observers -- a Canadia -- noted in an email the day before his death, Hezbollah was operating in the area of the post which was hit.

An apparent discrepancy in the portrayal of events surrounding the deaths of four unarmed U.N. observers in Lebanon threatens to unravel Secretary-General Annan's initial accusation that Israel "deliberately" targeted the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon.

A Canadian U.N. observer, one of four killed at a UNIFIL position near the southern Lebanese town of Khiyam on Tuesday, sent an e-mail to his former commander, a Canadian retired major-general, Lewis MacKenzie, in which he wrote that Hezbollah fighters were "all over" the U.N. position, Mr. MacKenzie said. Hezbollah troops, not the United Nations, were Israel's target, the deceased observer wrote.

Now UN spokespeople have tried to argue that there was no firing of from the vicinity of the destroyed post on the day of its destruction, but that is a rather disingenuous position to take. Are the Israelis only to attack active Hezbollah positions? Or are any Hezbollah positions legitimate targets? The answer is obvious -- any Hezbollah position is fair game in this war that the terrorists started. And if the UN is allowing Hezbollah to opperate in and around UN outposts, then it is an unfortunate reality that there will be attacks in the area. Place the blame where it belongs -- on Hezbollah and the UN, not the Israelis, who are engaged in a legitimate operation to ensure their own security.

UNIFIL press releases even confirm Hezbollah's strategy of using UN personnel as shields for their attacks on Israel.

Read the UNIFIL press releases for yourself to learn that Hezbollah has not just shot at and seriously wounded UNIFIL observers - without any protest from Kofi Annan or The Age. YouÂ’ll also learn that UNIFIL has repeatedly reported Israeli shelling and bombing near UNIFIL outposts because Hezbollah fighters were shooting from right beside them .

Says the UNIFIL press release of 20 July:

Hezbollah firing was also reported from the immediate vicinity of the UN positions in Naquora and Maroun Al Ras areas at the time of the incidents (of Israeli return fire).

Tell me -- where were Kofi Annan's calls for Hezbollah to cease using UN positions as a shield for their attacks on Israel? There were none -- because the anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist Annan considers any tactic used to attack Israel and kill Jews to be a legitimate one. And this is not a new tactic -- for years, hezbollah and hamas have used refugee camps and other civilian populations as shields. Remember the uproar when the Israelis hit a refugee camp some years back? What was generally uncommented upon was that Hamas was firing from just beyond the boundaries of that camp -- realizing that any Israeli response would likely cause civilian casualties, bringing instant condemnation upon Israel.

But then again, why would anyone expect Hezbollah to have any sense of decency, given its long history of Jew-killing jihad? After all, this is the same group responsible for this little attrocity.

The Shiite terrorist group has erected a billboard facing Israel on which it placed enlarged photos showing mutilated Israeli soldiers killed in Lebanon.

Yes, hezbollah even desecrates teh dead and proclaims its disgusting actions to the world.

And some of these dead are israeli soldiers kidnapped from across the border.

Just like the kidnappings that touched off this latest war.

Now whose fault is this conflict, and these deaths?

MORE AT Michelle Malkin, LGF, Small Dead Animals, Harry's Place, Blog-o-Fascists, Iowa Voice, Morning Coffee

Posted by: Greg at 04:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 848 words, total size 7 kb.

July 26, 2006

Israeli Peace Activist: This War Justified

I wonder what the supporters of terrorism are going to make of this column by Zeev Avrahami, a well-known Israeli peace activist? Actually, no I don't -- for most of them he's just one more Israeli Jew to them, and so his opinion only matters if it opposes Israel and its existance.

But to those who have qualms about the current war but still retain a sense of moral decency, I urge you to consider this.

Today, I am convinced that Israel is fighting a justified war. Far from being an "optional war," this conflict was forced upon us. There is a feeling that every positive step taken in recent years has been answered by punishment. Now we are prepared to do whatever it takes to turn Israel into a safe place, even if this means invading Lebanon once again. We also want to sip coffee and play backgammon. We've had enough of rockets from the north and south and suicide bombers from everywhere. We also want to lead a normal life, just like the people in New York, Berlin or Rome who don't have to look up every time a stranger enters their favorite cafe.

We pulled out of Gaza and we have no desire to be pulled back in. We want to go to work, study, raise a family, enjoy the beach, and eat hummus as we watch with delight how the Palestinians use the money they get from around the world to build their own infrastructure, to create jobs allowing them to go to the beach, raise families, and eat hummus. We prayed for hummus and instead we got Hamas.

As the threats come from all fronts and with the backing of Syria and Iran, we are once again faced with our unique reality: We have no place to go. Ask my mother. She was expelled from Iran in 1957 for being Jewish. Now, the Iranians want to force her to migrate again.

I am bothered by the high Lebanese death toll as are most Israelis, but we must also remember that Hezbollah set the tone for this conflict when it asked for hundreds of people in exchange for one Israeli soldier. This war was declared against us and against the Western world. With oil prices rising daily, it's an economic war. With anger still lingering after the Muhammad cartoons, it is a cultural war. Most of all, though, it is a war against a progressive world, and Israel has turned back the clock 24 years to fight it.

I too am turning back the clock. Eighteen years after finishing my military service -- almost two decades after swearing that I would never again wear a uniform -- I called the Israeli consulate in New York and gave them my phone number. If the army needed me, I told them, I would be the first on a plane back to Israel. And Sharon, of course, has still not woken from his coma. But I miss him.

Welcome back to sanity, Zeev -- I congratulate you on recognizing the true face of your nation's enemies.

(H/T Captain's Quarters)

Posted by: Greg at 07:25 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 532 words, total size 3 kb.

July 25, 2006

Proportionality? Bullshit!

The new cry of the anti-Israel supporters of terrorism is that Israel's response to the warfare conducted against it by Hamas and Hezbollah is that the self-defense actions of Israel are not "proportional".

Now I can reach only two conclusions about those calling for proportionality. Either they are disingenuous, or they are stupid. After all, life teaches us that when we face a threat to our lives or our safety, proportional response is not the answer. The response must be overwhelming, absolute, and utterly disproportinate to the threat. The goal cannot be a draw -- it must be the utter subjugation or annihilation of the enemy.

My brother is a sergeant on a police force on the West Coast. We've watched more than one television show or movie in which some scriptwriter has had a police officer shoot a perp in the knee, arm, or hand in order to stop or disarm him. When that happens, my brother laughs, and notes "In real life, that is probably a dead cop." Real cops, you see, recognize that when they pull the trigger they must shoot to kill. If they don't, there is a very real chance that the perp will not be disabled or disarmed, and that he will shoot back or use a blade when the officer approaches. Therefore, they shoot for the chest, in the hope of causing such massive injury (or, of course, death) that there is no chance of that the perp can take any action in response. Any other response is stupid -- and anyone who advocates the use of less than deadly force in that situation either does not understand policework or is more concerned about the life of the perp than the life of the police officer. Cops don't use deadly force often or as a primary course of action -- but they don't hesitate to use it when appropriate.

But with Israel, which is using the IDF to disarm and incapacitate terrorist enemies, the call is for settling for something less than safety and security by using no greater force than the enemy is using.

Take this, for example.

Destroying the Beirut airport, blasting communications towers into oblivion and cleansing southern Lebanon of its civilian population are not measures the world will see as an attack on Hezbollah terrorists. The Israeli campaign is so intense and widespread that it is creating more terrorists than it kills. Proportionate military action might have enhanced Israel's security, but video footage of grandmothers weeping amid the rubble of their homes and bloodied children lying in hospital beds won't make Israel more secure. Hezbollah's stature in the Arab world is growing, and its patrons in Damascus and Tehran must be smugly satisfied.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter how "the world" views Israel. What matters is that the people of Israel are safe. If that makes Israel unpopular, so be it. Experience has shown the Jews that "the world" does little on their behalf, no matter how passive they are. A litany of pogroms and concentration camps demonstrates that. And somehow I doubt that Iran and Syria would make nice if only Israel would refrain from going to extremes in its own defense.

Even Richard Cohen, who calls Israel a mistake, recognizes that calls for proportionality are insane.

If by chance you have the search engine LexisNexis and you punch in the words "Israel'' and "disproportionate,'' you run the risk of blowing up your computer or darkening your entire neighborhood. Just limiting the search to newspapers and magazines of the last week will turn up "more than 1,000 documents.'' Israel may be the land of milk and honey but it certainly seems to be the land of disproportionate military response -- and a good thing, too.

The list of those who have accused Israel of not being in harmony with its enemies is long and, alas, distinguished. It includes, of course, the United Nations and its secretary general, Kofi Annan. It also includes a whole bunch of European newspapers whose editorial pages call for Israel to respond, it seems, with only one missile for every one tossed its way. Such neat proportion is a recipe for doom.

The dire consequences of proportionality are so clear that it makes you wonder if it is a fig leaf for anti-Israel sentiment in general. Anyone who knows anything about the Middle East knows that proportionality is madness. For Israel, a small country within reach, as we are finding out, of a missile launched from any enemy's back yard, proportionality is not only inapplicable, it is suicide. The last thing it needs is a war of attrition. It is not good enough to take out this or that missile battery. It is necessary to re-establish deterrence: You slap me, I will punch out your lights.

Damn straight. Anything less is an invitation for further attack and ultimate destruction.

Now there are those -- including my now banned troll -- who plead the case of the poor civilians of Lebanon. Sadly, they are victims in this -- victims of Hezbollah and their own government. Captain Ed sagely makes the point about where the responsibility belongs for the disproportinal response by Israel -- a response that has led to these unintended but unavoidable civilian casualties belongs.

If Hezbollah finds itself holding a knife in a gunfight, then the blame falls on Hezbollah and the Lebanese government that granted then de facto sovereignty in the south. Wars do not get fought through "proportionality," and they certainly do not end that way. They end when one side overwhelms the other with superior force and dictates terms to the loser, or when one side decides they've had enough and sues for peace. Demands for proportionality lead us to where we are today -- long, bloody wars of attrition that solve nothing and embolden asymmetrical warfare.

How about this for proportionality: Israel comprises about 6.3 million people, while Hezbollah's sponsors, Syria and Iran, comprise a combined 87 million people. Does that mean that the global community will allow Israel to impose a 13:1 death ratio in this war, and to keep killing people indiscriminately until they reach the correct numbers? When the UN and its international dupes start endorsing that proposal, then we can take their demands for proportionality seriously.

Frankly, I think I could accept precisely such a ratio, though I would prefer that it be higher. So keep up the good work, IDF -- leave not one rocket-launcer standing, and not one terrorist alive.

UPDATE: Would you like to know the effect of a "proportionate" response to Hezbollah? It can be inferred from this statement of Mahmoud Komati, a Hezbollah leader.

His comments were the first time that a leader from the Shiite militant group has publicly suggested it miscalculated the consequences of the July 12 cross-border raid in which two Israeli soldiers were captured and three were killed.

"The truth is _ let me say this clearly _ we didn't even expect (this) response ... that (Israel) would exploit this operation for this big war against us," said Komati.

He said Hezbollah had expected "the usual, limited response" from Israel.

In the past, he said, Israeli responses to Hezbollah actions included sending commandos into Lebanon, seizing Hezbollah officials and briefly targeting specific Hezbollah strongholds in southern Lebanon.

Komati said his group had anticipated negotiations to swap the Israeli soldiers for three Lebanese held in Israeli jails, with Germany acting as a mediator as it has in past prisoner exchanges.

Yeah, that's right -- Hezbollah was expecting another proportionate response from the Israelis, and is upset that the Israelis aren't playing by Hezbollah's rules. what's more, he goes on to complain that Israel had this campaign planned and had just been waiting for the opportunity to strike. I guess he feels that it is somehow immoral for Israel to decide to effectively defend itself from an external threat.

So let's clarify the matter here -- proportionate response leads to continued attacks -- because Hezbollah gets what it wants in such situations. Disproportionate response might just succeed in getting Israel some security.

Posted by: Greg at 01:39 PM | Comments (43) | Add Comment
Post contains 1357 words, total size 9 kb.

July 24, 2006

The US Position On The Middle East Situation

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has visited war-torn Beirut as a part of her effort to bring real peace and security to the troubled region. She also brought an initial commitment of $30 million in humanitarian aid to teh region.

Perhaps the most important aspect of the visit to the region has been this statement of the US position onthe current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah terrorists who control much of Lebanon.

According to a Lebanese political source quoted by Reuters news agency, Rice told Berri, the speaker of the Lebanese parliament and a strong ally of Syria, that the situation on the Israeli-Lebanese border "cannot return to what it was before July 12." She referred to the date on which fighters of the radical Shiite Hezbollah organization, which is supported by Syria and Iran, crossed into Israel, killed three Israeli soldiers and abducted two others, triggering the current crisis.

The Lebanese source, describing the meeting's tone as "very negative," said Rice told Berri there would be no cease-fire before Hezbollah freed the soldiers unconditionally and pulled its forces back at least 12 miles from the border, Reuters reported.

In other words, tehre can be no peace in the region so long as the terrorists continue to be in a position to attack Israel at will, hiding beyon international borders for safety. Any plan for peace must therefore eliminate the threat to the security of Israel, which has repeatedly taken steps in recent years to appease the Palestinians with little received in return except more attacks and casualties. An additional goal is enabling Lebanon, which until last year was dominated by Syria, to gain effective control of its own territory from the hezbollah terrorists.

The visit, which Rice said was requested personally by President Bush, was designed in part to show support for Lebanon's government, the first in years to be led largely by anti-Syrian figures. The visit was also aimed at determining what Lebanon needs to support itself and possibly get control over its southern region, now used by Hezbollah to fire rockets into Israel.

"If they could control the country, we would not be in this situation. The status quo has never been stable," said a senior official accompanying Rice.

Ultimately, the issue is Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist groups. Israel has shown that it can negotiate peace with its neighbors and that it is prepared to accept a Palestinian state. On the other hand, the terrorist groups which control the Palestinian authority and southern Lebanon -- not to mention the Syrians, who are among the sponsors of those groups -- are unwilling to settle for anything less than the destruction of Israel. Thus the problem can only be solved by eliminating (or at least neutralizing) those groups.

Posted by: Greg at 08:02 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 476 words, total size 3 kb.

July 21, 2006

The War-Making Cost Of Peace Movements

Thomas Sowell makes a brilliant point -- peace movements and their fellow-travellers lead to more war more frequently, not more peace.

There was a time when it would have been suicidal to threaten, much less attack, a nation with much stronger military power because one of the dangers to the attacker would be the prospect of being annihilated.

"World opinion," the U.N. and "peace movements" have eliminated that deterrent. An aggressor today knows that if his aggression fails, he will still be protected from the full retaliatory power and fury of those he attacked because there will be hand-wringers demanding a cease fire, negotiations and concessions.

That has been a formula for never-ending attacks on Israel in the Middle East.

It is as I pointed out in a comment last night on another thread.

A more realistic end scenario is that it ends with Israel again caving into the international community's call to play nice -- and with the real aggressors (the so-called Palestinians) again being painted as the victims of injustice. That means security for another few years -- until the next time Israel caves into the latest demands of the international community to make concessions. That will set off a new round of the IDF engaging in vermin control -- and Israel being condemned for it.

It is unfortunate that Israel wil not be allowed to crush her foes compleely, for then we might see peace born out of the ashes of the defeat of Hamas and Hezbollah. Instead, these two groups will be permitted to lick their wounds and build up for the next round. Taht is teh pattern we have seen in the past, and which we will see in the future.

Such "peace movements" lead to a moral people giving up the will to "fight for King and Country" (to use the term from the infamous Oxford Union debate). The result is that those who have fewer scruples about engaging in a true war of aggression are encouraged and strengthened.

The most catastrophic result of "peace" movements was World War II. While Hitler was arming Germany to the teeth, "peace" movements in Britain were advocating that their own country disarm "as an example to others."

British Labor Party Members of Parliament voted consistently against military spending and British college students publicly pledged never to fight for their country. If "peace" movements brought peace, there would never have been World War II.

Not only did that war lead to tens of millions of deaths, it came dangerously close to a crushing victory for the Nazis in Europe and the Japanese empire in Asia. And we now know that the United States was on Hitler's timetable after that.

For the first two years of that war, the Western democracies lost virtually every battle, all over the world, because pre-war "peace" movements had left them with inadequate military equipment and much of it obsolete. The Nazis and the Japanese knew that. That is why they launched the war.

"Peace" movements don't bring peace but war.

While usually springing from the most noble of sentiments, such pacifism is generally the basis of false peace and real war.

Posted by: Greg at 05:37 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 540 words, total size 3 kb.

July 19, 2006

Proof That Pat Buchanan Has Jumped The Shark

What kind of idiot makes this statement about the Israeli war of self-defense in Lebanon?

It is immoral, it is un-Christian, it is un-American...

Israel is not a Christian nation, Pat. Nor is it America, where one can safely sit and play Sunday evening quarterback, questioning policy decisions without random missle and terrorist attacks on a daily basis. As a result, virtually any action taken against terrorists by Israel is undeniably moral.

But then again, Pat Buchanan would probably have found something to criticize when the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto rose up against their Nazi captors.

UPDATE: I didn't realize that the moronic moral midget had turned around and made a column out of the inane comment -- and complain about the casualties that immoral Allied forces inflicted upon the innocent German people at the same time. Sieg heil, Herr Buchanan -- you are this week's winner of the Ezra Pound Award for Political Commentary.

Posted by: Greg at 01:53 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.

July 18, 2006

Hillary Gets One Right

I don't say that often, but I have to applaud Senator Hillary Clinton on her stance regarding Israel's war of self-defense and survival.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said yesterday that she supported “whatever steps are necessary” to defend Israel against Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria in the military conflict in the Middle East.

Addressing a crowd of several thousand in Midtown at an impassioned rally for Israel, she said America must show “solidarity and support” for Israel in the face of the “unwarranted, unprovoked” seizure of three Israeli soldiers by members of Hamas and Hezbollah, which she described as among “the new totalitarians of the 21st century.”

“We will stand with Israel because Israel is standing for American values as well as Israeli ones,” said Mrs. Clinton, who joined two dozen political and religious leaders on a stage a few blocks from the United Nations headquarters on the East Side.

(Would that the last sentence read "a few blocks from the former headquarters of the defunct United Nations.")

American values -- like a support for (small d) democratic values and freedom, as well as opposition to terrorism. American values not shared by those who are calling for Israel to stand down and (implicitly) wait to be destroyed by a hoard of seventh-century barbarians.

And she has more to say.

Bringing the threat home, she compared Israel’s military response, which has included heavy bombardment of Lebanon, to a theoretical response by the United States if it faced attacks from neighboring countries. “I want us here in New York to imagine, if extremist terrorists were launching rocket attacks across the Mexican or Canadian border, would we stand by or would we defend America against these attacks from extremists?” she said to roars of approval.

Damn straight, Senator. Keep this rhetoric up and I could almost develop a neutral attitude towards you and your husband.

I'm curious -- does this signal support for taking on the criminals flowing across our border daily, trafficking in human beings and narcotics? Does it signal a support for the American lawmen who face violence at the hands of the criminals?

Not, mind you, that the New York Times can let a news story make it into print without an editorial comment thrown in.

Mrs. Clinton and the other speakers focused almost exclusively on IsraelÂ’s right to act militarily and unilaterally, and the speeches were fiery and resolute, with little mention of civilians in Lebanon and Gaza who have been injured in the fighting.

What the editors of the Times don't realize is that if you support terrorists and harbor terrorists you risk dying with the terrorists -- and your blood is on your own hands. (Perhaps they shoudlc onsider that before tehy publish teh next national security secret on the front page.)

Well said, Madam Senator.

Posted by: Greg at 12:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 477 words, total size 3 kb.

July 16, 2006

In Defense Of Israel

Common sense used to prevail on editorial pages in this country. Not so today, when so many newspapers have come out against israel's war of self-defense against Hezbollah and the Lebanese government that has given these jihadi terrorists a safe haven from which to attack Israel.

One editorial page on which common sense does still prevail, though, is that of the Las Vega Review-Journal.

On June 25, Hamas guerrillas tunnelled across the border into Israel, killed Israeli soldiers, kidnapped Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit, and brought him into Gaza. Then, this week, the Shia terrorist group Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers near the Lebanese border and brought them back into Lebanon.

Israel has responded to these provocations militarily, as any sovereign nation would. And who is condemned for breaking the peace? Why, Israel, of course.

Yeah, folks seem to forget that. Israel didn't go to war in a vacuum. What would we do if Mexico or Canada were providing shelter for al-Qaeda to attack the United States? We all know that the response would be unlikely to involve polite diplomatic notes. Why shouldn't the Israelis respond appropriately to the acts of war committed against it?

At a triumphant news conference Wednesday, Hezbollah's leader, Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah, said his group would not bow to pressure from the Lebanese government or the world community to release his two Israeli hostages, unless Israel agrees to a prisoner exchange.

"What do they want us to do? Hand over the soldiers and apologize?" he asked. "What kind of world are they living in?"

The kind of world we are living in, is one in which kidnappers hand over their hostages ... and are sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Damn straight -- assuming the kidnappers don't end up dead on the floor during a rescue operation conducted by highly-trained professionals. A pity that the Mossad couldn't have punched Nasrallah's ticket right during the press conference, just to make it clear exactly what civilized folks expect to happen to such scum.

Failing that, such provocations can lead to war, an endeavor which never seems to accomplish much for the Arab fans of endless war, except to allow them to beat their chests, wail over their dead and play "victim" some more.

And it has led to another war that will visit endless destruction upon Arabs -- and which will once again be painted as being all the fault of big bad Israel.

Like a sleeping dog that seeks only peace, Israel has backed away so as to give no offense, until there is no further room to retreat. This week, a Hezbollah missile -- possibly manufactured in Iran -- hit Haifa, on the seacoast. Israel now has every right to do whatever proves necessary to stop her tormentors.

Nor have they any remaining right to complain about her bite.

And therein lies a difference. Israel has been engaged in targetted strikes with legitimate military objectives. Hezollah has flung rockets in the direction of israel, not terribly concerned about what it hits. While both sides have caused civilian casualties, there is a difference -- those caused by Israel have been in spite of its best efforts to avoid them, while those caused by Hezbollah have been the objective of the attacks. That is an important difference.

It is now clear what the Arabs mean by "occupied territories" -- to anyone who didn't get it, long ago. If the population of Israel were reduced to 10, and those 10 Jews were living on a houseboat moored in Haifa harbor, the Arabs would bemoan their ongoing victimization by the Zionists, and demand that the Israelis "withdraw from this occupied houseboat immediately."

And would no doubt be supported by the international community, which fears provoking followers of the "Religion of Blow Yourself To Pieces To Killl Infidels".

The world has been patient with such murderous lunacy long enough. Maybe it's time to condemn someone new, for a change.

I agree whole-heartedly -- but don't expect to see anything of the kind.

Posted by: Greg at 07:44 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 678 words, total size 4 kb.

July 15, 2006

Looking For On-Site Blogging Of The Middle East Crisis?

Truth Laid Bear has a list of bloggers in the Israel and Lebanon who are covering the situation. The Bear also has a page devoted to topical posts on the crisis.

(H/T Tammy Bruce)

Posted by: Greg at 08:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

July 12, 2006

Second Front In Israeli War On Terror

A raid by Hezbollah terrorists operating out of Lebanon has resulted in Israeli military action in that neighboring country.

The Lebanese Shiite Muslim group Hezbollah infiltrated the Israeli border Wednesday in a brazen raid, capturing two Israeli soldiers, killing three others and prompting Israeli attacks on the airport in Beirut and bridges, roads, power stations and military positions across the hillsides of southern Lebanon. Five more Israeli soldiers were killed after the army entered Lebanon in pursuit, one of the military's highest one-day death tolls in more than four years.

The capture of the soldiers and the fighting effectively opened a second front for Israel, whose troops entered the Gaza Strip last month in search of a soldier seized June 25. Within hours, reverberations rolled across an already tense region. The United States blamed Syria and Iran for the abduction, and Israeli tanks and troops moved toward the Lebanese border throughout the day. In Lebanon and elsewhere, the attack emboldened Hezbollah's supporters, who greeted the news by handing out sweets and setting off fireworks.

The fighting took a dramatic turn early Thursday with Israeli attacks on the Beirut airport and Hezbollah's television station in the capital's predominantly Shiite Muslim southern suburbs. Lebanese television reported that Israeli aircraft attacked two runways, forcing the facility to close and sending flights to airports elsewhere in the Middle East. Footage showed a column of black smoke drifting over the modern facility, considered an emblem of Lebanon's post-civil war reconstruction.

This is not a conflict Israel sought -- it is part of a response to the murderous actions of a foe tht wants noting less than the destruction of every Jew in the Middle East. Israel has time and again made concessions in search of peace, but the jihadis are unwilling that even a tiny sliver of teh Middle East remain in the hands of non-Muslims..

May God continue to bles teh people of israel, as he did their fathers in days of old.

Posted by: Greg at 10:18 PM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 2 kb.

July 10, 2006

Japan To Act in Own Defense

It looks like Japan may come to realize that the best defense is a good offense when it comes to a rogue state like North Korea.

In their toughest comments to date on North Korea's missile tests, Japanese officials on Monday called for a debate on whether Japan should pursue military capabilities that would enable preemptive strikes at North Korean missile bases. Japan currently does not possess such technology.

At the same time, Japan backed away from pushing for a vote at the U.N. Security Council on Monday on a measure to impose tough sanctions on North Korea. U.S. and Japanese diplomats have continued to face regional opposition to the plan, particularly from China and South Korea, the communist state's most important benefactors.

Ultimately, regional objections must be ignored. The reality is that the North Korean dictator cannot be permitted to have access to nuclear weapons or their delivery systems. That means that force must be applied, because he has repeatedly indicated his unwillingness to give them up.

Posted by: Greg at 10:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

July 03, 2006

Clinton's Legacy?

As it prepares to test weapons that threaten the continental United States, the North Korean dictatorship has announced the intention to go nuclear in the event of a conventional preemptive strike on the launch site or nuclear facilities by the United States.

North Korea ratcheted up the rhetoric in its war of words with Washington by promising an "annihilating strike" with its nuclear deterrent should the United States launch an attack, its media said on Monday.

Over the weekend, North Korea said it would bolster its deterrent in response to a U.S. threat, marking the first time it has so specifically mentioned the subject since a crisis began over its suspected plans to test-fire a long-range missile.

"The army and people of the DPRK are now in full preparedness to answer a pre-emptive attack with a relentless annihilating strike and a nuclear war with a mighty nuclear deterrent," its communist party newspaper said on Monday.

If we have knowledge of where theis so-called "nuclear deterrent" is located, we must destroy it immediately. In addition, Kim Jong Il must now be treated as a target for elimination.

And by the way -- thanks, Bill Clinton, for doing such a great job eliminating the North Korean nuclear program a dozen years back.

Posted by: Greg at 05:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 2 kb.

<< Page 1 of 1 >>
218kb generated in CPU 0.0405, elapsed 0.2274 seconds.
66 queries taking 0.1975 seconds, 323 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.