In Solidarity

Here I thought i was going to be able to write about something else, when I have been atacked for supporting "islamo-fascism".

Seems the Mad Macedonian is unhappy with my support for innocent people currently being bombed!

He writes:

"The Appeasers, Apologizers, and other assorted Moonbats are out, and about, helping spread disinformation on behalf of the enemies of Civilization.

How do I know this?

A brand new Blog was started the other day by one such Minion of W.A.C.K.I.E. ( World Allied Conspiratorial Kongress of Idiotarians Everywhere ) named Rob, in South Carolina, of all places!

The Blog is called IN SOLIDARITY: Free Lebanon!

It wants you to believe it is a spontaniously created blog set up out of concern for the poor Lebanese to showcase "Writings on the struggle and tragedy of the war in Lebanon."

The posts he’s written, and the websites he’s linked to, and showcased posts from, including a call for a letter writing campaign, make for interesting propaganda, and a catalog of the usual Leftwing suspects, and many you may never have heard about before.

Read it here.

Where to start…

Dear Mad Macedonian,

First off I do support the Lebanese people. I also support the Palestinian and Israeli people. This is not a paradox. The policies of the Israeli government are inconsistent with the interests of its citizens, much like the Bush regimes policies are inconsistent with what’s best for Americans.

Your simplistic analysis of “Islamo-fascism” (you’ve been reading your Ann Coulter I can see, LMAO) is quite interesting.

So you write: “What the hell do you expect the Israeli, or American ( In Iraq ), soldier to do when fired upon by some fanatic inside a house or mosque?”

So when people retaliate when bombs are raining down on them, this makes them “fanatic” by your logic? To answer your question, I expect that Israel abide by international law and refrain from invading a sovereign country. Yes, Hezbollah is an enemy of Israel, but they did not exist until after Israeli tanks first invade Lebanon and rolled over Southern Shi’a civilians who were in their way. Hezbollah is a creation of Israeli aggression. This should have been the first instance that Israel’s government thought about the consequences of massive retaliation when “fighting” terrorists, and decided it was having the opposite effect of creating more resistance and widening the conflict.

I am sure Israeli government officials were capable of recognizing this contradiction.

The answer is the same for the US. No, I don’t think that the US military should be in Iraq. They shouldn’t be there in the first place, enforcing American hegemony in the region, so that Iraqis would naturally take up arms against them. I assume if someone invaded your country you would pat the occupying soldiers on the rear, and not defend your people? You have obviously devoured whole the Bush propaganda that we are “fighting terrorism”.

If you don’t recognize the broader ambitions by the US, then you simply are practicing intentional ignorance.

We did not invade Iraq to rid them of a vile dictator. Nor for WMD’s. Not even to “fight terrorism”. I can name a handful of dictators that the US is presently supporting, despots that Bush lovingly kisses on the cheek.

Before 9/11, China was being fantasized as the next great threat by our neocons. After 9/11 terrorism became the “great monster” capable of justifying our imperial ambitions throughout the Middle East.

You see we couldn’t be fighting terrorism. It’s impossible. We went into Iraq, a country where a brutal dictator was precariously tying together a country (that was thrown together by the British and French imperialists) of Shi’a, Kurds and Sunnis, through intimidation. As bad as the situation was, there were NO terrorist organizations, no terrorist training camps, and no Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Since the US occupation, we have a second coming of the terrorist movement that began in Afghanistan when President Ronald Reagan and the CIA supported the “good” Islamofascists against the Soviet occupiers.

According to expert Peter Bergen, “The invasion of Iraq not only failed to help the war on terrorism, but it represented a substantial setback.”

No, we are not fighting islamo-fascism as you suggest, but instead we are establishing our dominance over a region, and more importantly, cutting it off from those rising powers China and Russia.

Its tragic that so many like you are willing to accept this nonsense, that using terrorism to fight terrorism is a rational way to end violence. You and the Ann Coulters of the world have created this mythical war between Islam and Christianity, not the innocent people in Lebanon being murdered right now. And might I add that Israel is making no distinction between Christians and Sunnis and Shi’a in Lebanon, they are all being killed the same. So where is this religious war jack-ass pundits on CNN and Fox News are alleging? These innocent Lebanese want the same thing I want: A decent life. That’s it. No war, religious or otherwise.

And to further clarify your sweeping statements about my beliefs, a complete stranger to you, I do not endorse any of these leaders in Iran or Syria or elsewhere. My blog is simple. And I am glad to repeat it to you. I support the people of Lebanon as Israel defies the world and turns the country into rubble.

Incidentally, did Ann Coulter learn the distinction between endnotes and footnotes for her latest book? Or, has she not gotten that far?

And yes my name is Rob,

I have rather extensively browsed various blogs covering the Israeli war in Lebanon, and a leading, and contentious, issue common with most involves the notion of terrorism.

This is the dominant myth: Hezbollah is based in Lebanon therefore Israel is justified in its attacks, however painful it is for innocent Lebanese caught in the middle.

Civilian deaths are to be expected, moreover, because Hezbollah hides behind women and children. Israel cannot avoid such “collateral damage”.

Collateral damage, the fancy political jargon word means, more plainly and honestly, the expected but unavoidable murder of civilians. “Unavoidable” only because asserting regional dominance is the goal. If peace, justice and security were the objectives Israel’s policy within the region and towards Palestinians would be far different.

Certainly, massive retaliation would be off the table.

This war, rather this massacre, like so many other wars is “inevitable”; Israel cannot simply stand by and allow these terrorists to kill their people. This is the realist perspective. Inevitable. Justifiable. Proportional. The War on Terror includes Israeli and American military campaigns wherever they so choose.

By this logic it is important to distinguish “our” crimes from “theirs”. Our murder is justified and inescapable; We are protecting ourselves from vile terrorists who seek to undermine our democracy, freedom and so much more. Our weapons are much more sophisticated and therefore kill much more rapidly, but this is not terrorism! No, only the explosives the “other” depends on can be described as such.

An American fighter plane can litter cluster bombs in Iraqi neighborhoods, and when the duds become landmines and children pick them up and lose an arm or more, well, then, this is collateral damage.

But when Hezbollah abducts Israeli soldiers, then the natural response is to burn down Lebanon with an American-made arsenal. It’s all justified in the War on Terror.

Yet, so many carelessly comply with this corrupt double standard.

Compared with last year’s terrorist attacks in London, writes Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, “what’s happening in Lebanon is six times the devastation, six times the agony, six times the trauma, six times the terror of the 7/7 terrorist attacks.”

“But our leaders in UK, US and European governments don’t seem to think so. They have all unanimously fumbled their fingers and mumbled meaninglessly as Israel has proceeded to respond to Hizbollah’s capture of IDF combatants — an action in concordance with legitimate military resistance against illegal occupation — by ruthlessly smashing civilian life and infrastructure in Beirut.”

On this issue of double standards, our terrorism as no more than fighting terror, their resistance as unequivocal terrorism, he notes:

But such terrorist attacks, when targeted against the Other, no longer constitute terrorism at all; in our Orwellian world of media double-speak, they become instead laudable acts of valour. In fact, when an Israeli air strike killed 8 Canadian citizens in southern Lebanon, US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton emphasized that such deaths due to IDF operations are morally different to the deaths of Israelis due to attacks by Hizbollah. "I think it would be a mistake to ascribe moral equivalence to civilians who die as the direct result of malicious terrorist acts," he said. In contrast, Israeli military operations constituted only "self-defense", with the "the tragic and unfortunate consequence of civilian deaths."

Dead Lebanese are unworthy victims. They don’t count. But Israeli lives do. The moral distinction drawn by Bolton is not in fact moral at all; it is political, a political decision to view the lives of one group of human beings as sacred, and another group as functionally irrelevant. Such "moral" distinctions are central to the legitimization of large-scale systematic violence against a particular human group.

Thus, it is a “political decision” to disregard Israeli atrocities.

Bolton and others in the Bush administration are well aware of what is at stake for Israel—and “fighting terrorism” is a clever pretense to see through this ongoing aggression.

Unfortunately for the aggressors—Israel and the US—not all are accepting this politicization of mass murder. Britain has backed off and clearly demanded that Israel end this butchery. All but a few countries want a cease-fire.

Today, many Israelis rallied for peace and to hold their government accountable for this senseless murder and destruction.

Countless others around the globe stand in solidarity with the Lebanese (and Israeli citizens) and in opposition to the Israeli government and all other actors that seek the continuation of Lebanese suffering. Because most people are sensitive to overwhelming human suffering and injustice and one-sidedness. It’s also not difficult to realize that corporate media is mostly garbage. They are busy helping perpetuate the myth and the terror behing Israel’s military campaign.

Turn off the televion, is my advice.

Robb,

Today I found an article written by the neocon Max Boot of the Los Angeles Times.

Here is part of what he had to say:

“The real problem is that Israel’s response has been all too proportional. So far it has only gone after Hamas and Hezbollah. (Some collateral damage is inevitable because these groups hide among civilians.) Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is showing superhuman restraint by not, at the very least, ‘accidentally’ bombing the Syrian and Iranian embassies in Beirut, which serve as Hezbollah liaison offices.

It’s hard to know what accounts for this Israeli restraint, for which, of course, it gets no thanks. It may just be a matter of time before the gloves come off. Or Olmert may be afraid of upsetting the regional status quo. The American neocon agenda of regime change is not one that finds favor with most Israelis (ironic, considering how often the rest of the world has denounced neocons as Mossad agents). The Israeli attitude toward neighboring dictators is ‘better the devil you know.’ That may make sense with Jordan and Egypt, which have made peace with Israel, but not with Syria, which serves as a vital conduit between Tehran and Hamas and Hezbollah.

Iran may be too far away for much Israeli retaliation beyond a single strike on its nuclear weapons complex. (Now wouldn’t be a bad time.) But Syria is weak and next door. To secure its borders, Israel needs to hit the Assad regime. Hard. If it does, it will be doing Washington’s dirty work. Our best response is exactly what Bush has done so far—reject premature calls for a cease-fire and let Israel finish the job.”

Israel, to repeat Mister Boot, should be “thanked” for not bombing, even if by “accident”, Syria and Iran. Israel, furthermore, has acted with great restraint, “too proportional” in fact!

First, let’s ditch the polite word “proportional”: It has run it’s course and really serves to tame our perception of the actions by the war criminals bombing Lebanon. I too am guilty of using it in previous posts, but no longer will be.

We can recall what George Orwell once wrote: “Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

So a look at the numbers: Lebanon has suffered through mass bombing, devastating cities and infrastructure, with roughly 368 deaths to Israel’s 37. Not to minimize the Israeli deaths—they too are tragic and unnecessary. These Israeli losses only reaffirm the rational judgment that Israel should not have reacted this way. Then of course we have Lebanese injuries from the assault, and here we find that, “the onslaught has wounded more than 1,550 people” according to the Lebanese Health Minister Mohammad Khalifeh.

He notes that: "Among the dead are pregnant women, and 30 percent of the wounded are children," and yet, “these are not bullet wounds, we are talking about serious injuries. Missiles hitting children."

So while Boot is correct that collateral damage is “inevitable”, it is only true because we are witnessing international crimes against humanity; Though Max Boot admires the Bush administration’s criminal policy of supporting Israel’s continuation of hostilites. This, while even Britain has demanded a cease-fire and an end to Israeli aggression.

Where exactly, looking at the numbers, is the benign and restrained Israel response Boot talks about? The “all too proportional”? Or is it that from a neo-conservative perspective all bets are off when we follow the national interests of Israel and the US? Let Israel do our “dirty work” and get regime change in Iran and Syria. Never mind the untold human suffering that we leave in our wake as we subjugate people to our demands and pursue “democracy”. Ignore self-determination and international law, this does not apply. High-powered missiles and explosives can recreate more favorable regimes that open up their economies to American investment, comply with Israel, like Egypt and Jordan, and ignore the vast suffering. This is what Boot is really saying.

It is only “proportional” because the neocons are determined to achieve their imperialist plans. Human suffering does not get factored in. He is making this murder of the Lebanese and Israeli people sound justifiable, even easily acceptable, because he believes broader ambitions take precedence over human lives.

But isn’t this fighting terrorism mission that the US shares, conveniently, with Israel supposed to be morally based? To free the people from repressiona and tyranny? When does this part kick in? Long after hundreds and possibly thousands of murdered civilians and the rubble from their surrounding neighborhoods litter the streets?

What about American-Israeli tryanny Mister Boot? Isn’t that possible?

Robb,

“The method of collective punishment so far has proved effective.”

"There is no more Palestine. Finished.”

“Our American friends offer us money, arms, and advice. We take the money, we take the arms, and we decline the advice.”

~ Moshe Dayan, Israeli military leader and politician

In respect to the last quote by Dayan, “we take the money, we take the arms, and we decline the advice,” I have been wondering if that remains true today as George W. Bush and Condi Rice make every excuse to allow Israel to continue to its massacre.

I am not referring to the money or weapons part, no, that is certainly the case still. The total dollar amount US taxpayers have given to Israel is astonishing, and there has been no major decline in funding.

Rather, Israel is attacking Hezbollah and punishing the Lebanese, with American weapons, and with the global superpower’s blessing. But does Israel decline the Bush administration’s advice, or more likely the case, just how in unison are these two governments? I’m guessing that this relationship is cozier, and in particular, Team Bush is more loyal to the broader Israeli objectives, than any Israeli-US partnership in the past.

American Weapons used to kill Lebanese.

It was reported today that the Bush administration rushed out a weapons shipment to Israel to ensure their timely use and the demise of innocent Lebanese.

I’m writing this from Denver, Colorado, just minutes from Littleton, Colorado. Known for the tragic Colombine shootings, Littleton is also home to a Lockheed Martin facility, which makes weapons for Israel, among other countries.

Lockheed produces F-16 fighter planes, as well as F-16 spare parts and high-tech navigation and targeting systems for Israeli jets. More precision to kill Lebanese civilians as they flee.

Lockheed has won many contracts with Israel, and will continue to supply the belligerent nation with WMD’s so that Israel can enforce unequivocal and brutal dominance over the surrounding Arab populations.

“The method of collective punishment so far has proved effective.”

It has been effective in making future hostility between Israel and her enemies– Palestinians and Lebanese and Syrians–certain. Yet, it also assures good business for Lockheed Martin.

Many right wing blogs are busy repeating the Bush fallacy: We need to forcefully rout terrorist organizations and win the people over. Sure, win them over with F-16s and the subsequent agony of pulverized cities.

Lest we wake up and realize that F-16s and cluster bombs are simply the terrorist weapons of the rich, that support for Israel is the deplorable sanctioning of mass murder, we will allow the US–Israeli consortium to drive us into an endless war that may eventually involve several more countries, and certainly grim consequences for mankind.

by Robb Gregory,

I am interested in adding writers to In Solidarity…

In particular, I am hoping for bloggers in Lebanon, or Israel, to provide perspective.

Still, any writer interested in contributing would be great;though, the one prequisite is a shared bias for the human suffering being dealt to Lebanon and Israel by the Israeli government. I don’t even pretend to be fully "objective" and "unbiased", and while there is empirical evidence (i.e. over 300 people killed in Lebanon, past Israeli aggression, US support for Israel, etc.), we naturally have our own normative responses.

As the existentialist philosophers say, it is our subjective values that stimulate our actions, and really, all the choices we make in life. 

So, please leave a message if you are interested in becoming a part of this blog.

Rob,

“There is no military solution.”

These are the words of an Israeli citizen protesting her government’s rigid and murderous policy towards Lebanon.

The Israeli military seems eager to display, on mostly civilians and civilian infrastructure, their American made and American subsidized armaments.

With horror, I review the terrible human cost the Lebanese have been forced to pay; though, sadly, the worst may lie ahead, as Israeli forces ready for invasion of Southern Lebanon to create their “buffer zone”.

Gideon Levy of Haaertz writes: “The real appreciation is for the strong who don’t immediately use their strength. Regrettably, the Israel Defense Forces once again looks like the neighborhood bully. A soldier was abducted in Gaza? All of Gaza will pay. Eight soldiers are killed and two abducted to Lebanon? All of Lebanon will pay. One and only one language is spoken by Israel, the language of force.”