babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Israel Bombs Syria

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Israel Bombs Syria
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 06 October 2003 03:20 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is puzzling.

A country engages in an overt act of war against a neighbour and there's barely a peep on babble. I looked around the internet, and there's barely a peep anywhere else either.

Is this too minor an incident to warrant discussion, or is everyone so freaked out at the possibility of escalation that they have trouble responding?

Why Syria? Why now?

Is Sharon trying to goad Syria into a fight, in the belief that the US will rush to Israel's aid and invade Syria? The US does appear to be losing its stomach for the conflict in Iraq, and perhaps Sharon fears the USians have lost the interest in attacking Iran and Syria that they once had.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 06 October 2003 04:03 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What exactly did they attack? It could be like the time Israeli fighter jets flew into Iraq (or was it Iran?), blew up a nuclear facility, then went home and that was the end of it.

If the target was of a military nature, I'd say that Israel is piss scared of having one of it's neighbors try and start a war, one no doubt being somehow involved with Palestinian militants.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 06 October 2003 04:08 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
UN delays vote on Israeli, Syrian clash

quote:
Syria called on the UN to condemn an Israeli air raid near Damascus as "military aggression." The attack was Israel's deepest in Syrian territory in decades.

But Israel's ambassador defended the move, arguing that a Palestinian training base had been targeted. He accused Syria of harbouring terrorists.


I was right- Israel sees a potential threat, and goes apeshit because they fear that neighboring countries are going to gang up on them with the help of Palestinian militants.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
'topherscompy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2248

posted 06 October 2003 04:10 AM      Profile for 'topherscompy        Edit/Delete Post
by bombing syria, israel gets a few things, including relief from many that they didn't hit arafat, plus israel and syria are still technically at war, so some of the intl' law arguments can be ignored, and on top of that they might have blown up a real terrorist training camp.

the possibility of escalation is real i think, but it would take quite a whopper of a response by syria to get the yanks involved at this point... something along the lines of a claim of responsibility for a major bombing on ba'athist letterhead might do it.


From: gone | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 06 October 2003 04:13 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think we're all a bit too used to the ongoing saga of war and destruction to really let the latest skirmish in the Middle East sink in.

However, am I the only one who has noted the irony that Israel chose Yom Kippur to conduct this attack, when 30 years ago another war was precipitated by a surprise attack?


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 06 October 2003 04:17 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But Israel's ambassador defended the move, arguing that a Palestinian training base had been targeted. He accused Syria of harbouring terrorists.
------
I was right- Israel sees a potential threat...

That's their story, anyway.

Don't you find the language used by the Israeli ambassador strangely similar to that used by US government officials prior to their attacking Afghanistan and Iraq?

He is probably speaking Washington's language for a reason.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Foxer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4251

posted 06 October 2003 05:13 AM      Profile for Foxer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Doc - no you're not. 30 years, almost to the day, almost to the HOUR, on the golan heights? geez, that's a bit of a coincidence to take out a 'training base'.

I don't like this one little bit. The israelis have released precious little to show it was a current, in use training base. I mean, for all i know it might have been. But again - where's the proof?

The us won't be able to rein them in on this one - they're in no position to lecture about attacking without adequate proof or world wide approval.

Maybe this will just blow over - but geez, there couldn't BE a worse time to be doing that kind of thing. Even if there WAS a base, this was not a great way to handle it. I sure hope they know what they're doing. This could really make things worse in that part of the world.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 06 October 2003 07:45 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
This is puzzling.

A country engages in an overt act of war against a neighbour and there's barely a peep on babble. I looked around the internet, and there's barely a peep anywhere else either.

Is this too minor an incident to warrant discussion, or is everyone so freaked out at the possibility of escalation that they have trouble responding?


Well, I did post about it in that "Another one." thread since it was apparently a response to that suicide bomb on the weekend. I wasn't sure whether to start a new thread or not when I posted it, but I think you're right. This is momentous, and scary too.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
evenflow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3493

posted 06 October 2003 10:41 AM      Profile for evenflow        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I was right- Israel sees a potential threat, and goes apeshit because they fear that neighboring countries are going to gang up on them with the help of Palestinian militants.

What kind of reckless, paranoid logic is that? We bomb you because we think you're a threat to us (in fact, we know you're a threat since we've been bombing you for a long time now and you're probably getting desperate)

It is surprising that there is such little coverage of this story, although I have noticed a few reports on it today. Israel has nothing to fear from Syria's plea to the UN though as they are only yet another US veto away from being held accountable. Is it any wonder other nations are increasingly troubled that both US and Israel are 'above the law', as it were?

The US has already made what might be called "preliminary pre-emptive warnings and threats against Syria and their right to WMD's to serve as the groundwork to justify an eventual pre-emptive attack" against Syria, and impatient as he is, this is probably Sharon's way of getting the ball rolling a little sooner. No doubt Bush will have to have another "please pace yourself, Sharon; in the meantime here are some additional US taxpayer paid blackhawk helicopters to help you fight terrorism" conversation with him.


From: learning land | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 06 October 2003 11:45 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Well, I did post about it in that "Another one." thread...

That would be the "peep."


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 06 October 2003 01:20 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's the lead story with banner headline in today's Toronto Star, so i'd hardy say the story is buried. It's getting more attention than South African bombing of Zimbabwe etc used to get, at any rate.
From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 06 October 2003 01:42 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mebbe an editor at the Star saw this thread last night and thought they'd better cover the story today?
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 06 October 2003 02:58 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Shots Fired on Tense Lebanese-Israeli Border

quote:
Shots were fired from Israel over the border into Lebanon on Monday, Lebanese security sources said, one day after Israeli planes bombed inside Syria. "The Israelis fired in the air over Lebanese cars on the road between Kfar Kila and Adayseh with the excuse that they came under fire from our side," the security source said.

"But no one fired from our side and there are no injuries on our side," he added.

The incident comes a day after Israel launched its deepest air strike into Syria in 30 years, attacking what it called a training camp for Palestinian militants.



From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 06 October 2003 03:21 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Israeli warplanes violate Lebanese airspace

Yeah, I know. What's new?


quote:
Israel’s air raid in Syria prompted Lebanese officials to condemn the offensive and announce their support of Syria, which called for Arab League and UN Security Council meetings.
President Emile Lahoud instructed the Foreign Ministry to back Syria’s call for a Security Council meeting to protest Israeli violations of Lebanese airspace and the air raid on Syria.
Speaker Nabih Berri slammed the Israeli attack and declared that Lebanon would stand in support of Syria. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Rafik Hariri called on the international community to “assume its responsibility in deterring Israel, which is threatening regional peace and security, and challenging international laws.”
In a statement, Hariri said that Israel, “which refused to admit the failure of its military option, thought that by hitting neighboring Arab countries, it would escape from its own domestic security and political problems. Lebanon is standing by Syria in its current hard times, the same way Syria stood by Lebanon, and is calling on the international community to restrain Israel and its government, which continues to be the only threat to international peace.”
Hariri had contacted French President Jacques Chirac by phone and conferred with him over the latest regional developments, the statement added.
Foreign Minister Jean Obeid slammed the Israeli air raid, predicting that it would not achieve its aims.
“If the raid was meant to terrorize Syria, then it has missed its target,” Obeid said in a statement. He condemned the move, stressing that the “message” the raid represented was “wrong.”
He added that Lebanon not only condemned the air raid, but regarded itself as being “in the same trench with Syria.”
The minister also said that Lebanon was in full solidarity with Syria and he called on Arab states to “raise their voice in condemnation of this raid.”
Obeid had made the statement in Paris before flying to Moscow for an official visit.
Chouf MP Walid Jumblatt said after a meeting with Hariri on Sunday that the “timing of the Israeli aggression on Syria was unjustifiable,” adding that Israel was fetching for excuses to hit “right and left.”
Former Prime Minister Salim Hoss said in a statement that the Israeli attack could not have been possible had it not been to the unwavering US support for the Jewish state.
Minister of State for Administrative Development Karim Pakradouni strongly condemned the air raid, which took place at dawn Sunday, in an area not far from the Syrian capital.
“There is no explanation for this air raid except that (Israeli Prime Minister Ariel) Sharon was using it to bypass the hawks and absorb the public outcry in Israel at his failure to take appropriate action to deliver security and stability to his country,” Pakradouni said.
He added that it was not easy to provoke Syria into a military confrontation that Sharon “needs in order to strengthen his regional status.” Pakradouni added that the Phalange Party expressed solidarity with Syria and called on the rest of the world to “interfere to put an end to Israeli arrogance.”
In other reactions, Tyre MP Qassem Hashem said the Israeli “exceeded all red lines.” In a statement, he said that the raid aimed at “reshuffling regional cards after Sharon’s policy failed to bring an end to Palestinian attacks, despite Israel’s attempts to terrorize the Palestinians.”
More criticism of the Israelis air raid came from the vice-president of the Higher Shiite Council, Sheikh Abdel-Amir Qabalan, the Democratic Party and the Gathering of Popular Committees and Leagues.
For its part, the Lebanese military issued a statement saying that eight Israeli warplanes had overflown Lebanon early on Sunday, between 4.30am and 5am. It is not clear if the planes were the ones that launched the air raid.

I've included the whole article because Daily Star links don't seem to be maintained after a few days.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 06 October 2003 03:22 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
[QBI was right- Israel sees a potential threat, and goes apeshit because they fear that neighboring countries are going to gang up on them with the help of Palestinian militants.[/QB]

While the Israeli people are doubtless fearful of the surrounding countries, I think that Sharon and the leadership surrounding him know perfectly well that Israel has massive military superiority over everyone in the region. Sharon has always played offense, not defense. The public reason seems pretty dashed specious, and pitched to pander to the fears of the Israeli people and the prejudices of the American leadership. But I'm not sure why they did do it.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 06 October 2003 04:01 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The 'strike while strong' policy has been at the core of the fascist Revisionist Zionism practiced by Sharon since its first articulation decades ago. This policy dictated the provocation of Syria over the Golan Heights, as well as the extreme response to Egypt over the closing of the Gulf of Taba even though high-ranking Israeli and American military analysts knew full well that Nasser was not preparing for war.

Keep repeating to yourself, "Sharon is a man of peace, Sharon is a man of peace" and everything will be just fine...

Don't worry, this won't hurt a bit...


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 06 October 2003 04:38 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I never said tnecesarily this was the right response, only that I can see why the Israeli government would so such a thing.

Although I read that there were no casualties. So if this base was until its destrction OR at any time in the past involved in terrorism, nothing bad can come out of its destruction unless terrorists use it as a lame excuse to use mroe suicdie bombers.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 06 October 2003 05:33 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
nothing bad can come out of its destruction unless terrorists use it as a lame excuse to use mroe suicdie bombers.

Was that hypothetical speculation really necessary?

By the way Gir, ease up on the sauce, you're slurring all over the screen.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 07 October 2003 12:45 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Escalation?

From the BBC:
Lebanese kill Israeli soldier in border clash

Al-Jazeera's report is substantially the same

[ 07 October 2003: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
workerandparasite
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4521

posted 07 October 2003 02:30 AM      Profile for workerandparasite     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Escalation?

I don't think this counts as much of an escalation. according to the BBC it was Hezbollah militants that carried out the killings....and its not like these guys have recently decided on a policy of killing Israili soldiers.

[ 07 October 2003: Message edited by: workerandparasite ]


From: Victoria (Transplanted Mackenzie-ite) | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 07 October 2003 02:42 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The BBC quoted "Military Sources" as claiming Hesb Allah was responsible.

quote:
But Hezbollah - backed by Syria and Iran - denied it was involved in the incident, while Lebanese officials said the shooting had not begun on their side, maintaining Israeli troops fired at two vehicles on a road in the south of the country.

Two Israeli provocations of neighbours in two days?

What's going on? Is this for domestic consumption? The IOF, despite it's brutal methods in the Occupied Territories, has been unable to stop, but instead has provoked, attacks on Israelis.

Is bombing Syria and shooting into Lebanon a way to show the Israeli voter that the Likud is doing something about "terror"?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 07 October 2003 03:08 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, consider this... ever since the WTC attacks, Sharon has probably been gleefully imagining the new discretion he'll have in the use of force. He no doubt has been picturing his military unfettered and rapacious, hiding every atrocity behind the cover of fighting terrorism.

Unfortunately (for him, I mean), the white house has been very uncooperative, trying hard to rein him in so that their atrocities will garner wider support. Too much chaos everywhere can get the electorate pretty fed up. So Sharon, fuming at his dependence on Big Bushie, has been sitting on his hands (not really, of course, but relative to what he'd like to be doing), waiting for the sign that he can cut loose.

Yet now it seems that support for Bush and for military misadventures, even under the anti-terrorism banner, are falling apart. Iraq is a mess, and the left gets louder and angrier every day. It may be that he's tired of playing with kid gloves just to give Bush more credibility, and he figures that if he waits much longer the window will have passed and global tolerance for his butchery will be at an all-time low. And maybe he's afraid that the president who comes after Bush won't be at all accomodating to his killing sprees.

So why not jump in now before it gets too late? Provoke some conflicts and start hitting hard while there are still some people left who believe that kind of behaviour is a solution rather than a problem. He can get some licks in and pull back just as he feels that public opposition is getting unmanagable. Just a theory.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 07 October 2003 12:41 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I suppose this response, from Arabs, is predictable, but "men of peace" certainly aren't getting the job done:

quote:
"The Israeli monster is out of control now, no one can stop it. It has gone crazy," said Walid, a resident of Burj al-Barajna camp. "All Palestinians abroad are targets now."

The Israeli raid was widely seen to have further damaged any prospect for Middle East peace.

"All this talk about peace is false. What the Israelis really want is new massacres," said Abu Salah, a resident of Beirut's Shatila camp.


I suppose someone from Shatila could be expected to have strong opinions about heavily armed Israelis visiting their neighbours.

Outrage over Attack

[ 07 October 2003: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 07 October 2003 12:46 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
then again we have the more reasonable response as written in today's Globe and Mail editorial:

Israel's right to react


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 07 October 2003 12:58 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, what member of Likud wrote it?

So reasonable for you mean one-sided and biased? No surprise there.

What would be a surprise if you acknowledged that Palestinians, a people bearing one of the most sustained, brutal, and barabaric occupations of the last century have the same right to respond with whatever means are available.

Now that would be surprising.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 07 October 2003 01:01 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wondered about that editorial this a.m. These lines especially:

quote:
If Israel raids the West Bank or Gaza Strip to flush out the terrorists, it is practising collective punishment against the Palestinians. If it attacks a terrorist base in another country, it is breaking international law.

Two points:

But Israel DID practise collective punishment after the Haifa bombing. Israel didn't just go in to "flush out terrorists": it went in to bulldoze the bomber's family home. That is a violation of the Geneva conventions.

And yes, violating the air space of another country and bombing sites in another country -- those are both violations of international law.

I wonder who wrote that editorial. We used to know who was on the Grope board, but they've been less gossipy lately.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 07 October 2003 01:41 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I wonder who wrote that editorial.

I also found it odd that nobody took credit for spewing that bilgewater, but some folks are concerned with their public image, I suppose.

Wingy made a good point. If someone took the Likud logic - that attacking one's perceived enemies wherever they may be found, is "self-defence" - and turned it around so that Palestinians were to use the same argument, then someone like Mishei, a person who provides propaganda support for Likud, would become a "legitimate" target.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 07 October 2003 03:47 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

I also found it odd that nobody took credit for spewing that bilgewater, but some folks are concerned with their public image, I suppose.

Wingy made a good point. If someone took the Likud logic - that attacking one's perceived enemies wherever they may be found, is "self-defence" - and turned it around so that Palestinians were to use the same argument, then someone like Mishei, a person who provides propaganda support for Likud, would become a "legitimate" target.



Are we trying to revise media history here? The Grope has NEVER had signed editorials. In fact with the exception of the Kingston Whig Standard no Canadian newspaper have signed editorials. No, this reflects , I believe, a general feeling and it is correct.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 07 October 2003 04:09 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:

Are we trying to revise media history here? The Grope has NEVER had signed editorials. In fact with the exception of the Kingston Whig Standard no Canadian newspaper have signed editorials. No, this reflects , I believe, a general feeling and it is correct.

"A general feeling"? Who, exactly, was consulted on this "general feeling"?

Speaking of "general feelings", international law reflects a general feeling that acting upon paranoid fantasies and attacking other states without provocation is not acceptable behaviour. It is also a general feeling, as skdadl has pointed out, that collective punishment of civilian populations is not acceptable behaviour.

It is my own feeling that this cry baby routine in the editorial "but they won't let us do anything we want whenever we want without repercussions" is shallow enough for anyone with common -- dare I say general? -- sense to see through.

Where does that leave our local Israeli apologists, I wonder?

[ 07 October 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
RookieActivist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4089

posted 07 October 2003 04:14 PM      Profile for RookieActivist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You're right to say that nobody signs editorials. However, it does not necessarily represent the general feeling, nor is it correct.

A more accurate sense of the "general feeling" can be seen in the Grope's past polls, where 2/3 of those polled said that Israel was not justified in its actions. True, this is an internet poll, and is not necessarily entirely accurate, but it should reflect the "general feeling."

The editorial is the newspaper's stance on the issue. When the newspaper takes such a biased stance on an issue like this, in such a blatant way, it boggles the mind how Zionists can say that the media is anti-Israel.


From: me to you | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 07 October 2003 04:14 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think that the point was (at least, mine wasn't) that the editorial wasn't signed -- of course, they traditionally are not.

My point was that the Grope used to tell us who the current collection of young whippersnappers was, as a group. A decade ago scarcely a day went by when we didn't hear in some column or other about what a cozy time the still wet-behind-the-ears neo-cons (many of whom shortly afterwards de-camped to the Pest) were having in the boardroom.

There are usually three or four people writing the editorials, and usually people know vaguely who does what. Perhaps Marcus Gee is on the board right now; that would explain this flaccid effort.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 07 October 2003 04:17 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Grope has NEVER had signed editorials. In fact with the exception of the Kingston Whig Standard no Canadian newspaper have signed editorials. No, this reflects , I believe, a general feeling and it is correct.

The first sentence is correct.
The rest is just the normal apologising for terror that we have come to expect.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 07 October 2003 04:23 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, I certainly saw Marcus Gee (-whiz) written all over this editorial. If you look closely, you can see the chocolate milk and PB&J stains Marcus left on it before rushing to catch the school bus.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 07 October 2003 04:28 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From the editorial: "No nation on Earth has been through a terrorist offensive as sustained and savage as Israel is enduring today."

How many states (the confusion of 'nation' and 'state' is imprecise and usually evidence of some sort of ethnocentrist, even proto-fascist leanings) are involved in an illegal military occupation which employs the dehumanisation and abuse of a large group of people because they are racially/ethnically unfit according to the dominant ideology of the occupying state? How many states currently hold over a million people hostage based on their identity? How many states are currently involved in colonial expansion?

I will add that I don't feel that any of this justifies the deaths of innocent civilians on either side by the terrorist acts of the Israeli state and/or her citizens, or at the hands of Palestinian or other Arab suicide bombers. The above is pointed out so that we don't lose sight of the very important fact that Israel is not 'innocent' in the plight which her people face. To paraphrase Jacques Derrida's appropriate reaction to the 9/11 incident, my expression of grief for, and sympathy with the victims of terrorism, indeed the victims of all political violence does not stop me from saying that noone is politically guiltless.

[ 07 October 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 07 October 2003 04:32 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Our local Asper-rag has a short list of names of those who contribute to the editorials.

But then, authorship of the article isn't really the issue, is it?

How do we get sidetracked like this? I'm mishtified.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 07 October 2003 05:27 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:

The first sentence is correct.
The rest is just the normal apologising for terror that we have come to expect.

Other than the Whig Standard , what other Canadian newspapers have signed editorials?

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 07 October 2003 05:34 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
Other than the Whig Standard , what other Canadian newspapers have signed editorials?

It's when you do stuff like this that it is clear that your efforts to derail discussion are deliberate.

Note where he said "the first sentence (the one relating to the issue of signed editorials in the Globe) is correct" (emphasis added). Granted, the issue of the Whig was in the second sentence, but outside of your usual pedantry, the issue is covered.

Back to topic. What of international law, Mishei? Does it not apply to Israel?

[ 07 October 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 07 October 2003 05:47 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Where does that leave our local Israeli apologists, I wonder?
Like I said before. Freedom of the press means Freedom To Lie to the public. When you get these apologists writing for Asswipe Asper and the Globe, readers think they are reading Canadian news when in fact they are reading Pro-Israel propoganda bullshit. And this is often regurgitated here by our babble apologists for Israel.

There is no apology or excuses for Israel for:

GENOCIDE
BRUTALITY
MASS IMPRISONMENT
HUMILIATION
OCCUPATION
DEGRATION
ISOLATION
VIOLATION

Attacking Neighbours...
ETC...

There is no apology and no excuses for this barbaric behaviour.


From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ubu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4514

posted 07 October 2003 06:25 PM      Profile for Ubu        Edit/Delete Post
Despite the 12000+ posts to Middle East issues, I think the reason it took so long for someone to post a new topic on this issue is that years and years of failure and injustices on both sides have led people to lose all hope. Was anyone really surprised that Israel bombed another country? Was anyone really surprised that the Palestinian militants set up another suicide bomb?

As someone completely removed from the Israel=Palestine debate, I think it is clear that Israeli agression and mistreatment of Palestinians leads to the frustration that causes a select few to take matters into their own hands in ways that are even more agressive and unjust. Hope for true peace is virtually non-existent. It may have been a while since Israel has taken military action directly against Syria, but it doesn't surprise me. It doesn't surprise anyone. Just like it wouldn't suprise me if the Americans moved to strike against another country (eg. Iran).

The only solution is for Jews and Muslims to become more accepting of others' beliefs and to understand that it is impossible to satisfy each others historical land claims. This is the only way to live in peace (whether together or apart). Since both of the above solutions are impossible, those removed from the issue are saddened by the violence, but feel helpless to do anything about it. Helplessness breeds apathy.


From: position is relative | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 07 October 2003 08:51 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The only solution is for Jews and Muslims to become more accepting of others' beliefs and to understand that it is impossible to satisfy each others historical land claims. This is the only way to live in peace (whether together or apart). Since both of the above solutions are impossible,

This isn't a question of religion or of religious beliefs, despite the efforts of some to make it seem so. Many Palestinians, for example, are Christians, living under the same occupation as Muslims.

This is a question of power. Religion isn't the problem.

The solution is not impossible. There is nothing inherent in either Judaism or Islam to make this impossible. Muslims and Jews have lived together in peace before, in al-Andalus and in pre-Zionist Palestine.

Extremists would have us believe that separation and isolation of Jew and Arab into two camps is the final solution. I believe they are wrong.

They have to want to live together in peace today and tomorrow for it to happen, however.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 07 October 2003 10:07 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Apparently the provocations will continue:

Israel Draws Up Syrian Targets

quote:
A Palestinian official, who refused to give his location or affiliation, said: "This step shows that Israel plans to press ahead with its assassinations policy and to give it an international dimension.

"Do they think this will scare a group of people who are willing to die for their cause? If so, this is where they are very wrong. I am dead since 1948 and nothing scares me or any Palestinian man, woman or child."

Another official said in Syria: "This is a very cheap form of blackmail against Syria because it refuses to bow to US and Israeli pressure."



From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 08 October 2003 01:09 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You know, Mishei, the fact that you keep hammering on this editorial thing while the rest of us have moved along moves me to point out to you this picture:


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
EarthShadow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3391

posted 08 October 2003 01:23 AM      Profile for EarthShadow        Edit/Delete Post
Is that the best you can do, Dr. Conjob?
Why it's obviously your hamster with a halo!

From: somewhere in a circle | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 08 October 2003 02:31 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If Mishei can sidetrack into irrelevancies, so can I.

As for your potshots at me, I think they should be framed and memorialized as a demonstration of the immense mental power you apply to posting here on babble.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 08 October 2003 04:48 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
More from Beirut's Daily Star. Again, they don't maintain their links, so I've pasted the whole article.

quote:
Pro-Syrian sources laud response to Israeli strike
Damascus praised for ‘wise approach’

Zeina Abu Rizk
Special to The Daily Star staff

A clear Syrian desire to avoid an escalating cycle of reprisals emerged in recent days as Damascus reiterated its commitment to a just and comprehensive peace and emphasized that it had the capacity to defend its interests if necessary.
After Israel’s bombing Sunday of an alleged Palestinian camp in Ain al-Saheb, 15 kilometers from Damascus, speculation as to what Syria’s reaction might be is rife.
Prominent Lebanese politicians have pointed to Damascus’ “pragmatism” and its “wise approach” to politics in the region but added that Syria had a “deterrent force” which it would not hesitate to use if it was left with no other choices or if it was backed into a corner.
While Syria was not a superpower, “Syria is not a weak country and it has the means to defend itself,” one source said, refusing to elaborate.
The sources said Israel was trying “to export its internal crisis to the region” in a bid to keep running forward regarding the Palestinian question, but Syria would not be driven to any kind of escalation. It was about time for Israel to show some pragmatism of its own, the sources added.
The sources also said that any attempt by Israel to escalate would only backfire. Israeli public opinion is opposed to violence, they said, and Israelis do not want a new war.
The sources also praised Hizbullah’s “wise” stand and the resistance’s self-restraint and its refusal to let Israel drive it a new cycle of violence.
Some see Hizbullah’s self-control as a reflection of Syria’s desire to avoid any mistakes that could reflect negatively on Damascus. Syria’s overall reaction to Sunday’s attack was mild, despite a complaint filed by Damascus against the Jewish state at the United Nations Security Council. Judging from comments made by government sources close to Damascus, Syria wants to see the attack on Sunday as an isolated event. Over the past couple of days, Syria has clearly tried to downplay or even disregard the entire episode.
The sources said that in spite of US pressure against it, Syria is in a much better condition today than it was last April, when the US first invaded Iraq.
The collapse of the “road map,” the international peace plan for Middle East peace, is one of the factors that have strengthened Syria’s position. Another factor is that the possibility of any US military action against Syria has decreased dramatically. Syria has also improved its relations with major countries in the region, notably Turkey.
A major Israeli attack on either Syria or Hizbullah could stir up Shiite resentment against the US occupation of Iraq, the sources added.
The sources also stressed the extreme difficulty of stopping militants from crossing the Syrian-Iraqi border, as it is situated in the middle of the desert and is 600 kilometers long. What’s more, the sources added, those going to fight in Iraq were Islamists who have long been at odds politically with the Syrian government and do not receive Syrian support.
But even if Damascus is in a difficult situation, it does have things under control, the sources said. The next major issue likely to have a substantial impact will be the fate of the Syrian Accountability Act in Congress, which is expected to be passed ­ or vetoed ­ soon.


Click fast.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 08 October 2003 08:13 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When amongst other terrible exagerrations Israel is accused of "genocide" well then we clearly see the animus held against Israel by some here.

Israel has NEVER committed genocide. Never. those who claim this viscious lie do so as a means to demonize the Jewish state and the Israeli people. The charge of Genocide is an evil manifestation of yet another attempt to blame Israel for crimes it whas never comitted and would NEVER commit. Shame on you.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 08 October 2003 11:37 AM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
When amongst other terrible exagerrations Israel is accused of "genocide" well then we clearly see the animus held against Israel by some here.

Israel has NEVER committed genocide. Never. those who claim this viscious lie do so as a means to demonize the Jewish state and the Israeli people. The charge of Genocide is an evil manifestation of yet another attempt to blame Israel for crimes it whas never comitted and would NEVER commit. Shame on you.


LOL , Holy Hyperbole. Was Israel not directly responsible for Shatila in Lebanon? If you pull the trigger, is it the bullet that killed or you? Are you trying to say that Israel never committed any form of ethnic cleansing on it's way to state hood in the late 40's? Here you go apologizing, and trying to re-write history as many Pro-Israeli historians do. I would be like me arguing that Palestinians never committed suicide attacks against it's occupier. LMAO, Mishei, your love & respect for everything Jewish and Israeli is admirable and warranted, however your lies and decpetion are not, for which your are a true Blind Patriot! If not blind then a supporter of the crimes commited by the Israeli Barbaric Goverment who see's what's happening and turns a blind eye. You cannot spread these lies.

The 1948 Genocide Convention

quote:
Genocide is defined in the convention as the commission of any of a number of enumerated acts “with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.”

The acts specifically cited in implementing legislation for the convention include killing, inflicting serious bodily injury, or causing mental impairment through torture or drugs of members of the group. Also cited are the subjection of the victimized group to conditions of life designed to bring about its demise, restricting births within the group or transferring, by force, children of the group to another group.

In one fashion or another, Israel has already been fingered for committing each and every one of these crimes against the Muslim and Christian Palestinian people.



From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 08 October 2003 11:58 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is you that is misusing the language. NO, Israel has never engaged in trying to murder an ethnic or racial group in the manner described under this Geneva convention. You know it, the world knows it and those like you trying to pin this demonic action on Israel do little justice to the cause of peace. Lying and stretching the truth to make defensive acts of war appear to be genocide makes many roll their eyes at your chutzpa realizing that much of what you say must be taken with a ton of salt.

As for the tragedy of Sabra and Shatilla, we need not argue this yet again. Yes Israel had some responsibility no question. But the bottom line is that Christian phalangits murdered Muslims and you try to put the gun in the hands of Israelis. It absolves the real murderers and it is shameful to do such a thing.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 08 October 2003 12:14 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
It is you that is misusing the language. NO, Israel has never engaged in trying to murder an ethnic or racial group in the manner described under this Geneva convention. You know it, the world knows it and those like you trying to pin this demonic action on Israel do little justice to the cause of peace. Lying and stretching the truth to make defensive acts of war appear to be genocide makes many roll their eyes at your chutzpa realizing that much of what you say must be taken with a ton of salt.

As for the tragedy of Sabra and Shatilla, we need not argue this yet again. Yes Israel had some responsibility no question. But the bottom line is that Christian phalangits murdered Muslims and you try to put the gun in the hands of Israelis. It absolves the real murderers and it is shameful to do such a thing.


Shame on you for defending this horrific act and shifting blame.
quote:
do little justice to the cause of peace
If anyone here does little for peace, it is you who continues to not acknowledge the numerous crimes comitted by Israel and use the "democratic State" as your defense/apology.
quote:
But the bottom line is that Christian phalangits murdered
Wrong again, it was Israel who initiated the idea and worked closley with the Phalangists to make the operation a success. The Israeli's, under Sharon's role as Defence Minister, sealed off the towns so the the Christian Phalangists can kill these Palestinian refugees and Lebanese Citizens, who were not only Muslims, but Christians too!

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 08 October 2003 02:19 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
...defensive acts of war...

While I might agree that genocide is too strong a term to describe the actions of Israel (I personally prefer Kimmerling's neologism "Politicide") it is only through the Time-Space-Commonsense Twister (available from your local Israeli apologist for the small price of your common sense and decency) that events such as the following -- commonplace in the 1948 war -- could be called 'defensive acts of war'...

quote:
Tantura: "The people of Tantura were rounded up and led to the beach, where the men were separated from the women and children. The men were either seated or made to stand against a wall and were shot at the back of the head. Another 100 or so victims were dispatched in this phase."

Cited in: Ilan Pappe, "The Tantura Case in Israel: The Katz Research and Trial," Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Spring, 2001), pp. 19-39.

Deir Yassin:

quote:
"Fahimi Zeidan remembered hiding with her family when the house door was blasted open. The guerrillas took them outside. 'They shot my brother Mahmoud in our presence, and when my mother screamed and bent over him, they shot her too.' Then the children were put against the wall and fired upon."

Cited in Matthew Hogan, "The 1948 Massacre at Deir Yassin Revisited," The Historian , Winter 2001.

Just the tip of the iceberg. We shouldn't forget that efforts to displace tens of thousands of Palestinians were undertaken by the Haganah and Jewish irregular forces. A most stunning example, among many, is the case of Lydda. Beginning around July 12, 1948, Israeli forces used the excuse of a light skirmish with Jordanian troops near the towns of Ramle and Lydda (Lod) to clear the surrounding area of nearly 70,000 Palestinian civilians. The operation was replete with summary executions, looting, rapes, and other atrocities.

Interestingly, and for comparison with the circumlocutions of our local apologist, this is the way an official article on the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (IMFA) website (http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0h2h0) rewrites the issue to obfuscate the reality of ethnic cleansing:

"However the Palestinians did not call their uprooted people displaced persons. They were instead referred to as refugees, even though most remained in the Palestinian homeland and lived at most only 20 to 40 kilometers away from their homes. For example, the Arabs of Lod and Ramle moved to the Ramallah area, which is 30 or 40 kilometers away from these towns. There were also Palestinians who fled, or were expelled, from Palestine and went to Arab countries: Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan."

So, we do get a partial admission that there were Palestinians expelled from Palestine (never mind that a 'Palestinian homeland' has been actively denied by Israeli official policy for decades), but we are told that these "went to Arab countries" (presumably no longer Israel's concern). What is left out is that the Arabs who "moved" to Ramallah (only a few miles away at most, we are comforted to know; as though the distanced travelled had some bearing as the measure of the crime of ethnic cleansing) were brutally cleansed by Haganah troops.

Perhaps not suprisingly, our local self-proclaimed 'leftwing' thinker and Israeli apologist has the chutzpah to take a position as false as that of the IMFA (though without the admission of expulsions, and though it comes in the form of an apologetic) and stoops to calling what amounted to ethnic cleansing (doubtlessly the kind of thing that Blind Patriot referred to) "defensive acts of war".

This, we are to believe, is a "moderate" position.

[ 08 October 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 08 October 2003 02:47 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Courage:
While I might agree that genocide is too strong a term [ 08 October 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]
Not really courage, but I understand your stance. Let's call it a slow death.

This is a very interesting article and a must read. Yes, even you Mishei for which it reflects,
Zionism's Bad Conscience.

quote:
the modern democratic state is defined by its claims of universality.

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 08 October 2003 02:58 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gilles Deleuze points out that the Israeli defense of the violence needed to establish their state is forever based on the claim that, "We are a people like no other" (Diaspora, Holocaust, Antisemitism) while the Palestinians have forever been saying, "we are a people like any other".
From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
RookieActivist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4089

posted 08 October 2003 07:20 PM      Profile for RookieActivist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Canada has also committed genocide in our history. Why is there not more of a movement to pay reparations to our Native peoples for the acts that we committed during our Country's founding?
From: me to you | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ubu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4514

posted 08 October 2003 08:07 PM      Profile for Ubu        Edit/Delete Post
In response to al-Qa'bong:

You wrote:
"This is a question of power. Religion isn't the problem... The solution is not impossible. There is nothing inherent in either Judaism or Islam to make this impossible. Muslims and Jews have lived together in peace before, in al-Andalus and in pre-Zionist Palestine... Extremists would have us believe that separation and isolation of Jew and Arab into two camps is the final solution. I believe they are wrong."

I agree with you that power is the main problem. Clearly, however, this power problem would not have developed, were it not for division along religious (and linguistic) lines (not to mention the delineation of arbitrary borders by third parties, but I digress).

I agree with you that there is nothing inherent in either religion to make peace impossible. I also agree with you wholeheartedly that the isolation into two camps is not the solution.

My point was only to say that, in response to the original post (why is there so little response to Israel's bombing of Syria), that there is so little response because outsiders to the issue are accustomed to Israeli agression and Palestinian 'terrorism,' and there is no solution in the foreseeable future until people stop hating one another. Palestinians have no reason to stop hating the Israeli's while they continue to occupy them, deny their rights and bomb them. Terrorist bombings by extremist nuts only gives Israel justification for their actions and the cycle continues.

How on Earth will the cycle be broken ? One side has to give an olive branch. Unfortunately, Israel is in no mood to stop the bombings/occupation and Palestinian extremists will always exist in such an environment (especially due to the increasing poverty they live in). I think religious intolerance truly is relevant here and until some headway is made on this issue, peace is an unattainable goal.

First, there needs to be either a full-fledged Palestinian state (good luck) with borders drawn to the Palestinian's liking, or full-fledged cohabitation with equal rights for all (not even on the radar). Then we need to wait at least 50 years until the generation growing up in this environment of hatred can forgive and forget. Let's face it... there is not much hope. So us outsiders become apathetic and change the channel/turn the page/click another link whenever we see the headline "violence in the middle east." What else is new ?


From: position is relative | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca