Israel is Right To Defend Itself

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by red states rule, Jul 28, 2006.

  1. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Charles Krauthammer is a brilliant writer and he rips the liberal talking points to shreds.



    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/4077881.html
    July 27, 2006, 9:35PM
    Stop demonizing of Israel for merely defending itself


    By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER


    What other country, when attacked in an unprovoked aggression across a recognized international frontier, is then put on a countdown clock by the world, given a limited time window in which to fight back, regardless of whether it has restored its own security?

    What other country sustains 1,500 indiscriminate rocket attacks into its cities — every one designed to kill, maim and terrorize civilians — and is then vilified by the world when it tries to destroy the enemy's infrastructure and strongholds with precision-guided munitions that sometimes have the unintended but unavoidable consequence of collateral civilian death and suffering?

    Hearing the world pass judgment on the Israel-Hezbollah war as it unfolds is to live in an Orwellian moral universe. With a few significant exceptions (the leadership of the United States, Britain, Australia, Canada and a very few others), the world — governments, the media, U.N. bureaucrats — has completely lost its moral bearings.

    The word that obviates all thinking and magically inverts victim into aggressor is "disproportionate," as in the universally decried "disproportionate Israeli response."

    When the United States was attacked at Pearl Harbor, it did not respond with a parallel "proportionate" attack on a Japanese naval base. It launched a four-year campaign that killed millions of Japanese, reduced Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki to a cinder, and turned the Japanese home islands to rubble and ruin.

    Disproportionate? No. When one is wantonly attacked by an aggressor, one has every right — legal and moral — to carry the fight until the aggressor is disarmed and so disabled that it cannot threaten one's security again. That's what it took with Japan.

    Britain was never invaded by Germany in World War II. Did it respond to the blitz and V-1 and V-2 rockets with "proportionate" aerial bombardment of Germany? Of course not. Churchill orchestrated the greatest land invasion in history that flattened and utterly destroyed Germany, killing untold innocent German women and children in the process.

    The perversity of today's international outcry lies in the fact that there is indeed a disproportion in this war, a radical moral asymmetry between Hezbollah and Israel: Hezbollah is deliberately trying to create civilian casualties on both sides while Israel is deliberately trying to minimize civilian casualties, also on both sides.

    In perhaps the most blatant terror campaign from the air since the London blitz, Hezbollah is raining rockets on Israeli cities and villages. These rockets are packed with ball bearings that can penetrate automobiles and shred human flesh. They are meant to kill and maim. And they do.

    But it is a dual campaign. Israeli innocents must die in order for Israel to be terrorized. But Lebanese innocents must also die in order for Israel to be demonized, which is why Hezbollah hides its fighters, its rockets, its launchers, its entire infrastructure among civilians. Creating human shields is a war crime. It is also a Hezbollah specialty.

    On Wednesday, CNN cameras showed destruction in Tyre. What does Israel have against Tyre and its inhabitants? Nothing. But the long-range Hezbollah rockets that have been raining terror on Haifa are based in Tyre. What is Israel to do? Leave untouched the launch sites that are deliberately placed in built-up areas?

    Had Israel wanted to destroy Lebanese civilian infrastructure, it would have turned out the lights in Beirut in the first hour of the war, destroying the billion-dollar power grid and setting back Lebanon 20 years. It did not do that. Instead, it attacked dual-use infrastructure — bridges, roads, airport runways — and blockaded Lebanon's ports to prevent the reinforcement and resupply of Hezbollah. Ten-thousand Katyusha rockets are enough. Israel was not going to allow Hezbollah 10,000 more.

    Israel's response to Hezbollah has been to use the most precise weaponry and targeting it can. It has no interest, no desire to kill Lebanese civilians. Does anyone imagine that it could not have leveled south Lebanon, to say nothing of Beirut? Instead, in the bitter fight against Hezbollah in south Lebanon, it has repeatedly dropped leaflets, issued warnings, sent messages by radio and even phone text to Lebanese villagers to evacuate so that they would not be harmed.

    Israel knows that these leaflets and warnings give the Hezbollah fighters time to escape and regroup. The advance notification as to where the next attack is coming has allowed Hezbollah to set up elaborate ambushes. The result? Unexpectedly high Israeli infantry casualties. Moral scrupulousness paid in blood. Israeli soldiers die so that Lebanese civilians will not, and who does the international community condemn for disregarding civilian life?

    Krauthammer is a Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist based in Washington, D.C. (letters@charleskrauthammer.com)
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    On this one, I have to agree with you. It sums up what's been going on, quite accurately.
     
  3. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Charles Krauthammer is one of the best writers out there, and he counters the liberal talking points with logic and common sense.
     
  4. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    What other country was established by U.N. mandate regardless of the wishes of the indigenous population?
     
  5. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    We have logic and reason with Charles and then we have the liberal media....


    http://newsbusters.org/node/6600

    NYTimes Gives 'World Powers' Duty to End Israel's Actions - Failure USA's Fault
    Posted by Warner Todd Huston on July 27, 2006 - 14:00.
    Isn't it generally assumed that when two countries are at war, that it is the right and duty of those countries actually in the conflict to decide when that war might be over and how it is prosecuted? Certainly other nations might attempt to diplomatically intervene to help resolve the crisis but, when all is said and done, isn't it still the duty of the warring parties to arrive at their own conclusions?

    Not according to The New York Times. The Times has pronounced it the duty of the "World Powers" to end Israel's security measures in Lebanon as if neither Israel nor Lebanon have a thing to say about it.

    Naturally, it's all the USA's fault that they couldn't agree on a policy, too.


    "World powers failed to agree Wednesday on a plan to end the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, underscoring the power of the United States to prevail when it comes to dealing with Israel."

    So, these "world powers" want to stop the war, quite regardless of what caused it, but that darned old USA has taken sides again.


    "In their formal statement, the United States, the Europeans, and Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia expressed a vague 'determination to work immediately to reach with the utmost urgency a cease-fire that puts an end to the current violence and hostilities.'”

    But, here is something that contradicts the claim that these “world powers” have a place to interdict here. On one hand, these "world powers" seem to think that they have the right... no the duty.... to intervene in this conflict and stop the war, yet when it comes to creating a military force that could help ensure this "peace" they imagine is their duty to create, suddenly that effort is one that they don't think is their job!


    "But the Europeans, who are expected to make up the bulk of any force, as well as the United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, said that it would be impossible politically to send the world’s most powerful military alliance, which is so closely identified with the West, to police a conflict between Israelis and Arabs."

    Why is it OK for these powers to interdict on one hand but not the other? Isn’t that a clear contradiction in the story that the Times is not pointing out?

    So, let me get this right, New York Times: It's OK for these "world powers" to make the claim that it is in their power to stop the war, but it ISN'T in their power to create a force of their own people that they can send to help enforce this peace?

    It is hardly disputed that this action in Lebanon started over the ultimate refusal of the Lebanese government to live up to its promised UN commitments to eliminate Hizbullah. Yet, Jaques Chirac insists that the same "world powers" that insisted Lebanon eliminate Hizbullah now won't even ask them to live up to that agreement anymore.


    "Mr. Chirac, who did not rule out French participation or even command of a force, said it could only be deployed after a cease-fire and a solid political agreement was in place. In the absence of a political agreement, he added, an international force would not “have the capacity or the mandate to disarm Hezbollah,” which he said had to be done by the Lebanese authorities."

    So, he'll trust the same government that already failed to fulfill its past commitments to fulfill them now, but he won't agree to force them to do so to get his sought after "peace"? Chirac's refusal to admit to the fact that Lebanon's failure to fulfill its agreement was the entire reason the Israelis went into the area in the first place reveals his support of Hizbullah and bias against Israel.

    Chirac is, in essence, saying that the entire onus is on the Israelis and none on the Lebanese. Yet, the French still demand that the fighting stop, even though they are directly and wholly supporting Israel's enemy, giving them succor and protection, and offering Israel nothing in return to entice them to the bargaining table.


    “'We demanded an immediate cessation of hostilities, and the majority of the other parties insisted on our line,” the French foreign minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy, said in a telephone interview from Rome, but the Americans disagreed."

    This story is one contradiction after another.
     
  6. theHawk
    Online

    theHawk Registered Conservative

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    10,888
    Thanks Received:
    2,071
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +5,777
    Please don't tell me you people are buying into this bullshit.
    It is a WAR between two groups. It is IRRELAVANT if 3rd parties feel its justified, or if one side has a "right" to remain where they are. The fact is both sides feel strongly enough in their beliefs that they will fight, they will die, they will wage war on the other. Condemning or condoning it from the outside isn't going to change the fact that they will fight their war.
    There is nothing we could possibly do to ever change either side's beliefs to the point where they will stop waging war. The Zionists believe its their right to be there, fine, they can believe whatever they want, just don't ask me to fight your war for you! And Arabs feel they were wronged when the UN created the state of Israel in their lands. We cannot change the mistakes made in the past. And I will not die for them either.

    Stop with this gung-ho lets fight for Israel bullshit.
     
  7. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    We see who the liberal media is supporting.........




    http://newsbusters.org/node/6604

    Norwegian Cartoonist Likens Israeli Prime Minister to Nazi Prison Camp Commandant
    Posted by Noel Sheppard on July 27, 2006 - 10:57.
    It is safe to assume that few Americans are going to forget the Muslim outrage a few months ago over cartoons of the prophet Mohammed published in a Danish newspaper. Well, the Jerusalem Post reported Tuesday (hat tip to NRO Media Blog) that a Norwegian newspaper published the cartoon to the right depicting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as a crazed Nazi prison camp commandant:

    Invoking a scene from the film Schindler's List, one of Norway's largest newspapers recently published a political cartoon comparing Prime Minster Ehud Olmert to the infamous commander of a Nazi death camp who indiscriminately murdered Jews by firing at them at random from his balcony.

    The caricature by political cartoonist Finn Graff appeared on July 10 in the Oslo daily Dagbladet.

    Think this created riots and death threats in Norway? Hardly:

    In response, the Norwegian Israel Center against Anti-Semitism, an Oslo-based organization comprising Jews and Christians, has appealed to the government to speak out against hatred of Jews.

    "We have launched a campaign to get Norwegians to send letters to the minister of justice to make Norway a safer place for Jews," said center founder Erez Urieli by phone from Oslo.

    For a little more background:

    In the cartoon, Olmert is likened to SS Major Amon Goeth, the infamous commandant of the Plaszow death camp outside of Krakow, Poland, who was convicted of mass murder in 1946 and hanged for his crimes.

    While in charge of Plaszow, Goeth would go out to the balcony on his villa, and engage in target practice by aiming his telescopic rifle and firing at random at Jews imprisoned there, often killing them.

    The scene was famously depicted by director Steven Spielberg in his 1993 film, Schindler's List..

    Is it safe to say that because Jews throughout Europe aren’t rioting and setting fire to neighborhoods the American press will ignore this?
     
  8. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511

    Exactly. :rock:

    America First!
     
  9. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    People said the same thing in the 1930's
     
  10. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    And again, the buildup was a result of jewish antagonism.
     

Share This Page