Wisdom often comes from the most unlikely of sources. Extremist and semi-mad preacher Pat Roberston quite recently said something that made sense: remove Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. While his call for assassination was certainly too extreme, he was correct to suggest that it is time that America takes more affirmative steps for regime change in Venezuela.
Hugo Chavez is a brutal dictator and demagogue who has manipulated a segment of the Venezuelan people in a mad attempt to satiate his own base lust for power. There is no shame, no illegality, no outrage he will not commit to remain in control.
The Venezuelan constitution, courts and military have both been changed to cement his rule. November, 2000 saw Chavez be so bold as to pass a measure through his freshly-stacked legislature allowing him to rule by personal fiat for an entire year. Protected by his also-reconfigured kangaroo courts, Chavez was free to chip away at the block of Venezuelan democracy. Are these the actions of a president or a tyrant?
The fact that Chavez has won several elections and referendums does not decrease the egregious nature of his crimes against liberty. Democracies are not made of elections, but of freedom and self-government. The fact that a violent and disgruntled portion of the electorate is willing to vote away their freedoms and God-given rights, while at the same time using violent and illegal measures to suppress the opposition, only makes the situation in Venezuela more sad.
Chavez's victories at the polls have also been marred by reports of electoral fraud. Just this last Sunday, protesters of electoral fraud and supporters of reforming the chavista-dominated National Electoral Commission were marching peacefully when supporters of the government assaulted them with rocks and tear gas. This sort of violence is now tragically not an uncommon occurrence in Venezuela. My dear friend from Venezuela had two of his friends abducted at a protest and beaten in a van for three hours by the National Guard. Hugo Chavez has done nothing to restrain his dogs and has often condoned and supported the use of violence as a means of political oppression.
Hugo Chavez's infatuation with Cuban dictator Fidel Castro and his praise for socialistic measures are the most disturbing and foreboding signs for what the future might deliver. He is desperately clinging to a failed, moribund philosophy that has never succeeded anywhere save academia. Chavez is now in a consolidated position to follow step with his hero Fidel and move to nationalize private industry and towards a communist economy. This would not only crush the Venezuelan economy, but would lead to widespread destabilization in the region. Faced with a self-inflicted economic collapse, Chavez would have little choice but to blame the United States.
To overshadow the domestic squalor presiding, he would likely try utilizing his oil wealth to spread his "revolution." Venezuela has indeed caused much harm to the region already and helped to prop up Cuba's failing economy with cheap oil. Securing Venezuela would indeed ensure the security of a key American oil supplier.
Chavez has sympathized with leftist rebels in Colombia and given them free reign to operate along his border. This only further complicates the drug war in Colombia and ultimately America. He recently dealt the drug war another blow when he ejected the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency from his country. The danger posed by Hugo Chavez is clear; the solution is not. Assassination is messy and carries the danger of causing much blood as the factions struggle for revenge and power. It would be ideal to remove Chavez without the shedding of blood, yet we do not live in an ideal world and must be willing to make decisions based upon realist considerations. However, it should not be disregarded as an option if the alternative involves more blood and suffering.
An armed insurrection within Venezuela is another very undesirable, yet entirely possible alternative. The United States should begin taking steps to strengthen the opposition in Venezuela (with arms if necessary) and try to convince some of the generals to desert Chavez. If the United States should commit air support and possibly a division of Marines, if need be, the war would be ended swiftly and the opposition could begin the process of rebuilding democracy in Venezuela. The best solution would be the peaceful one whereby Chavez loses the next presidential election. It is the most expedient course for the United States to funnel vast sums of money to the opposition candidate to ensure they get as strong a running as possible. For the interests of peace, pray this last option works. Yet as Thomas Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Ian Ronderos is a senior majoring in the Classics with a supplementary major in Ancient Greek and Roman Civilizations. He is the current president emeritus and chair of the education committee for the Notre Dame College Republicans. He can be contacted at irondero@nd.edu.
Posted by: Steve ||
08/30/2005 10:43 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
What is old, is new again.
Karl Marx was a closet capitalist. So writes French author Jacques Attali in ``Karl Marx ou l'esprit du monde'' (Fayard, 504 pages, 23 euros.)
Attali argues that the theoretician widely blamed for the rise and fall of the Soviet Union was actually a free-marketeer who favored capitalism as a stepping stone to his communist ideal and predicted globalization as we know it today.
That, he says, makes Marx the thinker du jour. Sales of his book suggest he may be right, at least in France: ``Karl Marx'' ranks among the country's non-fiction bestsellers. I think that says more about France than it says about KM.
Like his subject, Attali is something of an overachiever. He graduated from four of France's elite ``grandes ecoles,'' finishing top of his graduating class at the Ecole Polytechnique engineering school.
When the late Francois Mitterrand became president of France in 1981, Attali, then 38, moved into the adjacent office as his special adviser. Some of his ideas later became reality: the Grande Bibliotheque, the giant library in eastern Paris, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, based in London.
Today, Attali is president of PlaNet Finance, a federation of some 10,000 micro-lenders that provide funding to the poorest of the poor. He is also the author of 37 books, including novels, children's stories and a play. The topic of his 38th? Mitterrand, his one-time mentor, who died a decade ago.
Free Marx
On a rainy day last week, Attali settled into a red armchair at Bloomberg's Paris bureau and, between sips of Earl Grey tea, shared his views on Marx, the world and the future.
Nayeri: In your biography, you say Marx has become relevant to the world today. How so?
Attali: Marx was understood as the thinker of Marxism and, more than that, a thinker of Sovietism. Actually, Marxism and Sovietism were built after Marx, and against him. Marx was a thinker of globalization. He was strongly against the idea of taking power for socialism in one country, strongly against the idea that communism could come instead of capitalism. For him, socialism should come after capitalism spreads everywhere in the world, including China and India. Ironically, he explained that the one country where socialism cannot begin is Russia, which is too backward. True, but that is because Marx believed in historism (ref Karl Popper and The Poverty of Historicism)
For Marx, capitalism was huge progress compared to the previous feudal system. Therefore, he was strongly in favor of capitalism as progress toward liberty for mankind. He was in favor of free markets. He was in favor of free trade, explicitly; against protectionism, explicitly. And he explained that socialism, therefore, should come after.
Beyond Capitalism
Nayeri: Do you think that the world according to Marx will ever see the day?
Attali: I'm sure there will be something beyond capitalism.
It is clear that capitalism will win against the previous regime. It will take a lot of time, there will be some fights against theocracies as well as dictatorships. But I believe capitalism is not here forever, meaning more than one, two, three or five centuries. Wow! a Marxist gets a clue and predicts we will win against the Islamonuts.
What is beyond capitalism is a world of free things and (things of) no value, and what we see on the Internet, in (downloaded) music ... is exactly that: the beginning of a world where some things, or everything, will or may become free.
Nayeri: Do you think the U.S. and the West will lose their political and economic dominance of the planet in 50 years' time?
Attali: In 50 years, no. But there is no empire forever, just as there is no civilization forever, and it's clear that the American empire, like the Roman Empire, will begin to decline, and is beginning to decline. As we saw with the Roman Empire, the decline took more than four centuries to happen and what happened after that was a disaster. The fatal blow to the Roman Empire was abrupt climate cooling, so with climate warming (TM) there is no risk of the same fate.
Anarchy or Governance?
The question is how long the decline of the American empire will take, and for me, it will be very long. What will happen after will be global anarchy, such as happened in the early Middle Ages, or the beginning of global governance, if we see a victory of democracy.
Nayeri: Bob Geldof famously said he would like to make poverty history. As the president of PlaNet Finance, do you consider that aim possible?
Attali: It is needed. I don't know if it is possible.
We see that poverty is one of the main sources of violence; terrorism finds its sources in poverty, and poverty finds its sources in violence. Bullshit and demonstrably untrue. But I don't believe that the instruments that Bob is proposing, such as debt relief, are the most efficient ones, because debt relief means debt relief of governments, and the debt of governments is made for buying weapons or whatever. It is more important to help the very poorest to get out of debt. It's what micro-finance is about. I actually agree with him on microfinance. Its perhaps the most important way of jump-starting capitalism in the developing world.
#1
I think this guy read the Cliff's Notes version of Marx. Although Marx's theory of history does say that capitalism is a stage on the way to communism, his theory of economics -- the labor theory of value -- is built from the ground up as a critique of capitalism as inherently exploitive. He may or may not have considered capitalism to be an improvement over feudalism, but he most certainly loathed capitalism in its 19th-century manifestation. As many critics of marxism have pointed out, however, the labor theory of value is bogus, in that it does not recognize profit as the entrepreneur's salary for risk-taking. Moreover, the information on which Marx based his theories was out of date by the time he got around to writing Das Kapital.
As to this line -- "Like his subject, Attali is something of an overachiever" -- it reveals the writer's ignorance more than anything. Marx spent most of his life sponging off of Engels, cheated on his wife, exploited the help, and pissed off everybody who tried to work with him. The fact that some Frenchman is trying to resurrect Marx's discredited theories is an indictment of France's educational system more than anything else.
Posted by: Jonathan ||
08/30/2005 12:25 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Actually, Karl Marx was a commie scumbag. But that's not the PC version.
Posted by: Chris W. ||
08/30/2005 21:05 Comments ||
Top||
As the full implications of the Londonâs terrorism by domestic jihadis sink in, Westerners speak out about the problem of radical Islam with new clarity and boldness.
The most profound development is the sudden need of the British and others to assert what it means to be British, Australian, or some other nationality. In the face of the Islamist challenge, historic identities taken for granted must now be explained and codified.
This can be seen on a diurnal level, where Islamist assertion has provoked a new European willingness in recent months to stand up for historic customs â as seen by the banning of burqas in Italy, requiring a German school boy to attend co-ed swimming classes, and making male applicants for Irish citizenship renounce polygamy. When a ranking Belgian politician cancelled lunch with an Iranian group after it demanded that alcohol not be present, his spokesman helpfully explained, âYou canât force the authorities of Belgium to drink water.â
As shown by two statements on the same day last week (Aug. 24), leading Western politicians are going beyond these minor specifics to address the civilizational heart of the matter.
David Cameron, the British shadow education secretary and one of the Conservative Partyâs bright prospects, defined Britishness as âfreedom under the rule of law,â adding that this expression âexplains almost everything you need to know about our country, our institutions, our history, our culture - even our economy.â Peter Costello, the treasurer of Australia and regarded as heir apparent to Prime Minister John Howard, asserts, âAustralia expects its citizens to abide by core beliefs: democracy, the rule of law, the independent judiciary, independent liberty.â
Cameron also spoke with a bluntness unique in four years of politiciansâ discourse since 9/11: âThe driving force behind todayâs terrorist threat is Islamist fundamentalism. The struggle we are engaged in is, at root, ideological. During the last century a strain of Islamist thinking has developed which, like other totalitarianisms, such as Nazi-ism and Communism, offers its followers a form of redemption through violence.â
Most striking are the growing calls to extrude Islamists. Two politicians have advised foreign Islamists to stay away. Monique Gagnon-Tremblay, Quebecâs international relations minister, retracted the welcome mat from those âwho want to come to Quebec and who do not respect womenâs rights or who do not respect whatever rights may be in our Civil Code.â Bob Carr, premier of New South Wales, Australia (which includes Sydney), wants would-be immigrants to be denied visas if they refuse to integrate: âI donât think they should be let in.â
Costello goes further, observing that Australia âis founded on a democracy. According to our Constitution, we have a secular state. Our laws are made by the Australian Parliament. If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Shariâa law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you.â Islamists with dual citizenship, he suggests, could be asked âto exercise that other citizenship,â i.e., leave Australia.
Likewise, Brendan Nelson, Australiaâs education minister, also on Aug. 24 urged immigrants to âcommit to the Australian constitution, Australian rule of law.â If not, âthey can basically clear off.â Geert Wilders, head of his own small party in the Dutch parliament, similarly called for the expulsion of non-citizen immigrants who refuse to integrate.
But it was the British shadow defence minister, Gerald Howarth, who went the furthest, suggesting in early August that all British Islamists must go. âIf they donât like our way of life, there is a simple remedy: go to another country, get out.â He directed this principle even to Islamists born in Britain (such as three of the four London bombers): âIf you donât give allegiance to this country, then leave.â
These statements, all dating from the past half-year, prompt several observations. First, where are the Americans? No major U.S. politician has spoken of making American-based Islamists unwelcome. Who will be the first?
Second, note the consistent focus on the law and legal issues. This correctly picks up on the fact that ultimately, the Islamist project concerns the application of Islamic law, the Shariâa.
And finally, these comments are likely to be leading indicators of a broader campaign to restrict and remove Islamists â a move that comes none too soon.
Posted by: ed ||
08/30/2005 11:15 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Most striking are the growing calls to extrude Islamists.
Are we talkin' cheese graters or sausage makers? I prefer sausage makers - they're easier on the fingers.
#2
Simple answer: assimilate or leave. That doesn't just include Muzzys, it means the wetback criminals from south of the border. No amnesty; if you're illegal, get back to where you came from. You're not wanted here if you break our laws and the time is coming quickly when those who have done so will be ejected without qualm and without recourse. Permanently. And, if that means fencing and mining the border and breaking relations with Mexico, that's no problem. We'd be a hell of a lot better off in the long run without any commerce with them whatsoever.
Posted by: mac ||
08/30/2005 16:21 Comments ||
Top||
Trimmed to what readers should be able to stomach.
A president like Teddy Roosevelt would have led the Army to the border years ago. And if Fox did not cooperate, T.R. would have gone on to Mexico City. Nor would Ike, who deported all illegal aliens in 1953, have stood still for this being done to the country he had defended in war.
What are these Bush Republicans afraid of? Dirty looks from the help at the country club?
Where is Bush? All wrapped up in the issue of whether women in Najaf will have the same rights in divorce and custody cases as women in Nebraska. Haven't you heard there's a war on. If we can bring democracy to the Middle East we won't have to use nuclear weapons. It's worth a try.
His legislative agenda for the fall includes a blanket amnesty for illegals, so they can be exploited by businesses who want to hold wages down as they dump the social costs for their employees â health care, schools, courts, cops, prisons â onto taxpayers.
George Bush is chief executive of the United States. It is his duty to enforce the laws. Can anyone fairly say he is enforcing the immigration laws? Those laws are clear. People who break in are to be sent back. Yet, more than 10 million have broken in with impunity. Another million attempt to break in every year. Half a million succeed. Border security is homeland security. How, then, can the Department of Homeland Security say America is secure?
Twice, George Bush has taken an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Article IV, Section 4 of that Constitution reads, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion."
Well, we are being invaded, and the president of the United States is not doing his duty to protect the states against that invasion. Some courageous Republican, to get the attention of this White House, should drop into the hopper a bill of impeachment, charging George W. Bush with a conscious refusal to uphold his oath and defend the states of the Union against "invasion."
It may be the only way left to get his attention, before the border vanishes and our beloved country dissolves into MexAmerica, what T.R. called a "polyglot boarding house for the world." Shut up, Pat. You're not helping.
I'm all for eliminating the invaders and deporting all the illegals, but you are not going to bring other people to that approach with articles like this.
#1
Impeachment talk because you don't like a policy will get nothing accomplished, Pat. Yes W. is weak on the border but the political writing on the wall sez he's likely to make some changes in the near future. If he doesn't, he's a failure as a "security-minded" president no matter what happens overseas. If W. doesn't clamp the border now, it won't happen until after 2012, since there is every chance that a certain Rodham will be the next president.
Posted by: Chris W. ||
08/30/2005 0:41 Comments ||
Top||
#2
How about?: 10 year minimum sentence for producing false documentation for illegals; increased criminal sentencing and punitive fines for intentionally employing illegals; 20 yr minimum for intentionally transporting illegals either across international frontiers or within territorial US; mining border areas (frontiers between Peru and Chile and Ecuador and Peru, etc are heavily mined); destructive military response to tunnel base structures that penetrate US territory (37 known tunnels between US-Mexico; 1 tunnel between Canada-US); confiscation of all assets acquired by illegals; reverse show cause onus for citizenship status, imposed on illegals who have shown themselves to be productive members of US society; controlled temporary worker programs under Federal - not self-interested State interests - auspices; cutting the crap (legal solutions are subverted largely by American business; local law enforcement jumps hoops for large employers who want a steady supply of cheap labor).
US Congress legislators make law. Point the finger in their direction, unless the Executive obstructs justice.
Posted by: Vlad the Muslim Impaler ||
08/30/2005 1:09 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Buchanan. *snort* He's the opposite extreme - a sack of (insane) shit set aflame on America's doorstep. WorldNetDaily is the spineless ankle-biter enabler who rings the doorbell this time.
Don't insult patriotic American shit by comparing it to the toxic waste that is Pat Buchanan. At least shit has a purpose to its existence, unlike morally self-castrated filth like Patsy the Pig.
Cancer was too merciful for Nazi-loving sewage like him.
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
08/30/2005 7:59 Comments ||
Top||
#5
You got it, EB - sorry. The Drano smoothie's okay, though, methinks.
#6
Buchanan: Loser, failed candidate, fired as talking head on cable....
how low can you go assho?
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/30/2005 9:50 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Buchanan both the worst president of the United States [served prior to Lincoln] and a failed late 20th Century presidencial candidate. Must be something with the name. Why is anyone listening to this has been? Next Aaron Burr comments on the Jefferson Administration. Away, begone.
#8
Best thing the Repubs did was to eject Buchanon from the party. Unfortunately his move towards the left might cause lefties to rethink their own madness before they have sunk into the mud to far to recover.
#10
For all the apologists out there please answer the fundamental questions that Buchanan is asking here. If the Chief Executive of the United States is sworn to uphold the US Constitution doesnât that mean enforcement of existing laws? Can anyone fairly say this administration is enforcing the current immigration laws? Are the people illegally crossing the borders effectively being apprehended and prosecuted? Is amnesty for illegals contrary to current immigration laws?
#13
Point well taken .com. But "lack of money" is the convienient excuse for "lack of political will". Indeed congress hasn't appropriated the adequate funding for this crisis. Impeachment is an outrageous suggestion by a proven grandstander. But if this is an issue of national security couldn't the President issue an Executive Order which includes federal funding?
#14
Probably not. Funds are line itemed and unless the congressional budget made provision for this, it's almost certainly not the case that the Administration could move legally in the way you suggest.
#15
The administration sees this as a political issue used for leverage with Mexico and rapidly expanding hispanic voting blocs.
I often wonder what the administration deems the threat posed by the openness of the Mexican border.
Do they not take it seriously, is it a congressional failure, or is it really a non issue that is a larger perceived threat than a realistic one.
I don't pretend to know, but obviously there are political overtones and a rapidly expanding hispano base for the GOP no doubt must play into the decisions made.
I just wonder about the reality of the security threat.Is the openness of the Mexican border a real threat? Or do we see foreign agents coming a mile away as it were? By the time terrorists get into Mexico do we own them?
Anyone willing to take this question on? As I said this ain't my cup of tea.
An open Mexican border:security issue or red herring?
So what? Hitler was right about German Shepards being nice dogs and the injustice of the Versailles Treaty to Germany. It doesn't change the fact that he was a racist a-hole, although I owe him an apology for comparing him to a morally castrated hypocrite like Buchanan. Hitler, at least, was honest in his degraded anti-humanistic misanthophy.
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
08/30/2005 13:30 Comments ||
Top||
#17
"misanthropy"
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
08/30/2005 13:31 Comments ||
Top||
#18
We should monitor the border, and even at the lower funding levels we have now, we could do better to turn away illegals.
If anything law-abiding "Hispanic-Americans" agree with the Minutemen, which is all the more reason to hate sub-slime garbage like Patsy the Pig.
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
08/30/2005 13:37 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Buchanon is right that we should take the border seriously. But demanding impeachment is the modern version of calling someone a Nazi. It shows you are simply screaching to hear yourself screach and screaching is annoying.
#20
Hitler ya say. No Stalin or Pol Pot references? Look, Buchanan is a dope who has made a career out of inflammatory rhetoric. That does not erase the fact that the immigration crisis has gotten worse under the Bush Administration. To suggest that the Presidents "Guest Worker" proposal is anything but amnesty is delusional.
Who is arguing with you about how bad illegal immigration is? Not me! They should crack down, and Bush is an idiot for not doing so.
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
08/30/2005 14:57 Comments ||
Top||
#22
DepotGuy, I use the term Hitler specifically because it is commonly known that once you escallate to comparing someone to Hitler there is no debate, just arguement. Same thing with using the highly overused term impeachment.
Both screaming hitler and demanding impeachment have been strong traits of the left since Bush took power. Buchanan has joined them.
He might be right on the border, I believe I said that, but the best arguement in the world will not be heard if you use overly heated terms and turn off your audience.
The Big Lie and Morality by David Cohen August 30, 2005
Isn't it odd that the world accepts the PLO/Palestinian Authority argument that the Palestinian Arabs are a separate people? Isn't it strange that no record can be found of an Arab Palestinian civilization, an Arab Palestinian king, an Arab Palestinian culture, an Arab Palestinian language, or even Arab Palestinian artifacts? Never, nowhere, no how. A belief totally bereft of historical documentation, without any foundation in fact. Zip, zero, nada and, let me add, bupkes.
Isn't it odd that the Arabs themselves have repeatedly expressed the thought that there is no Arab Palestinian people? Isn't it strange that a PLO executive committee member, Zahir Muhsein, in an interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw on March 31st, 1977, said that an Arab Palestinian people does not exist? Likewise, their own brethren in Jordan, Syria and other Arab Muslim countries have made similar remarks. Again, zip, zero, nada and bupkes. heh. he said bupkus.heh.
The Muslim Turks of the Ottoman Empire considered Palestine nearly worthless and permitted Jews to live and work there, albeit with limitations and restrictions, during the nearly 400 years they ruled the area. One of America's great writers and commentators, Samuel Clemens, a.k.a. Mark Twain, visiting the Holy Land in the mid-1800s, stated that the land was practically devoid of inhabitants and useless. Egypt and Jordan owned some of that land during parts of the 20th century, yet never thought about giving it to the so-called Arab Palestinians, because such a people did not exist at that time, let alone throughout history.
It is clearly established beyond any doubt that Jews have had several kingdoms in the area over the course of several thousands of years. The Bible, a foundational document for both Christianity and Islam, clearly makes the case for Jewish claims to the land, however much the nay-sayers may claim to the contrary. Where is the logic of using "the Book" to underscore the other two Abrahamic faiths, yet refusing to accept the underlying Jewish history?
It is well known that the Jews of Palestine bought much of their land from absentee Arab landlords, who sold it to them at exorbitant prices. It is quite true that many Arabs now claiming to be Palestinians are, in fact, immigrants from Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and other Arab countries who came to the area for jobs, because Jews were building something from nothing and warm bodies were needed. When the Arab armies attacked the new State of Israel in 1948, they advised their Arab brethren to vacate the area in order to make it easier for their armies to pass through the land, telling them that they would be able to go back to their homes and take over those of the Jews once the annihilation was completed. Oops, things did not work out as the Nazi Mufti expected and so, they were put in refugee camps for 56 years.
The world forgets that 850,000 Jews were expelled from all the losing Arab countries after that same war and incorporated into Israel at immense cost to the small state, with little or no outside assistance, yet 19 or 20 Arab countries (except for Trans-Jordan and Lebanon) with millions of acres of available land, refused to do the same for their brethren - and the world has been paying for them for 56 years.
The media, academics (particularly those in the relatively new, so-called Middle Eastern Studies departments), leftists and other so-called elites have gravitated toward believing the Big Lie of the Palestinian People with no substantiation in fact or history, no analysis, no research, no documentation, no records. Just because. And, I should also add, largely for reasons of anti-Semitism.
Think for a moment about Josef Goebbels, Hilter's cowardly, anti-Semitic and malevolent Minister of Propaganda. Evil Josef (may he burn in hell forever) said words to the effect that if you say and restate the Big Lie long enough, people will come to believe it, regardless of the facts, despite historical evidence to the contrary. And so it came to be with the Palestinians. A 'people' based on a lie, a total fabrication, without equal in the history of the planet. And laughable to boot, if they weren't genocidal murderers.
As Frank Sinatra used to sing, "Fairy tales can come true, it can happen to you, if you're young at heart", or apparently, even in a heart that is black as coal and evil through and through, as in the case of Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat Al-Qidwa Al-Husseini, a.k.a. Yasser Arafat, a.k.a. Abu Ammar, a.k.a. The Ugly Satan, a.k.a. The Master Terrorist Now just in the nightmares sweet dreams of his beloved piglet Suha. He was friend to the Left, to academia, to the media, to the European Union, to the United Nations, to Russia, to Saddam Hussein, to the entire Arab World (yet which saw fit to expel him and his followers from one country after another due to his killing ways), and the inventor of the Palestinian Myth, first in the hearts of his newly-created people. He was a piece of filth of the first magnitude.
Let's now consider the Holocaust. The Western world, having seen the factual evidence maintained carefully in records, photographs and film by the National Socialists during their 12 years in power, as part of the German need for documentation, knows full well that the deaths of millions of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, religious figures, politicians, partisans, criminals, disabled and sick people, was a real and true event. Yet, we have the Arabs and the Holocaust deniers who say it was not so. How can the rantings of a few deluded and virulently anti-Semitic morons, including PA President Mahmoud Abbas, have any weight in the face of the German necessity to record everything to such a degree?
If arguments without foundation form the basis for recognizing a Palestinian people and their brand of "morality" - one devoid of facts, history and commonly agreed values - then why does the Left, as well as the entire Arab and Muslim bloc continue to use the Big Lie as supportive of their positions? Because it can, because the world easily accepts nonsensical arguments on matters that are factually documented, but read by so few.
Why, when it comes to the matter of Islamic terror against other Muslims and non-Muslims, is the world, led by George Bush and Kofi Annan, so willing to accept the obvious falsehood that Islam is a religion of peace, rather than a cult of terror, enforced through conversion, subjugation or killing? The demand for world domination is expressed in their holy writings, yet few bother to read these texts or to try to put themselves into the perspective of its believers. A case of too much to swallow, but that does not make an incorrect interpretation. Apathy does not win wars.
Morality is not situational. It simply is. Murder is never right. Never. Ethics are not changeable. You either have them or you do not, and you cannot get them back if you fall off the wagon. You can claim to have done so, but you know in your heart of hearts that you are living a lie.
So, why is it that Jewish claims to Israel, founded in history, are overlooked, put out of sight, or simply not considered by the media, academics and even certain governments, and no one points the finger at these people and says they are immoral? Well, folks, I'm saying it here and now. These people are immoral. They are liars and deniers of fact. They are anti-Semites.
From Newsdayâs report of the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza:
Palestinians Friday celebrated what they consider their victory over Israel...
âThis pullout is a result of our sacrifice,â he [Mahmoud Abbas] said, âof our patience, the sacrifice of our people, the steadfastness and the wise people of our nation.â
Still, all was not calm among Palestinians. Two Hamas militants were wounded as they carried an explosive device that blew up accidentally near the evacuated Kfar Darom settlementâŠ
Ah, well. Even when Ariel Sharon hands them a great âvictoryâ, some Palestinians canât stop blowing themselves up long enough to celebrate it. Iâve never subscribed to the notion that this or that people âdeserveâ a state - a weird and decadent post-modern concept of nationality and sovereignty, even if it werenât so erratically applied (how about the Kurds then?). The United States doesnât exist because the colonists âdeservedâ a state, but because they went out and fought for one. The same with the Irish Republic. By contrast the world deemed Palestinians âdeservingâ of a state ten, three, six, eight decades ago, and theyâve absolutely no interest in getting it up and running. Any honest visitor to the Palestinian Authority is struck by the complete absence of any enthusiasm for nation-building â compared with comparable pre-independence trips to, say, Slovenia, Slovakia, or East Timor. Invited to choose between nation-building or Jew-killing, the Palestinians prioritise Jew-killing â every time.
So now Ariel Sharon has given them Gaza. On the face of it, this has a certain logic: The Zionist enterprise foundered in this unpromising territory. No more than a few settlers ever showed any gusto for this particular turf and, with their offspring, in the end mustered no more than eight-and-a-half thousand Jews among one-and-a-half million Arabs.
Nonetheless, the Israelis could have held it without much difficulty for many years to come. Instead, in the short term, Gaza will decay even further into a terrorist squat fought over by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. And, in the long run, its strategic value â as the most appealing location from which to launch the more ambitious Islamist rocketry â will likely turn it into a latterday Taliban Afghanistan: jihad central masquerading as a political jurisdiction.
So why would Sharon enable such a move? If you talk to the more deluded disciples of the New York Times school of foreign policy analysis, theyâll tell you the Israelis have been forced into this by the pressure of world opinion and are doing it as a good-faith gesture to the Palestinians, to the broader Middle East and to the bien pensants of the European Union and the United Nations. I doubt the Israeli Prime Minister could even peddle that one with a straight face at an international conference. He knows the government of the Palestinian Authority is not a âpartner for peaceâ, merely a sewer of corruption whose only political opposition is even more deranged and violent. And he knows the international community only have one response to Israeli concessions and thatâs to demand more, even as theyâre still flaying Israel for having the impertinence to withdraw from Gaza âunilaterallyâ.
A couple of years ago, I had a conversation with a British cabinet minister who was denouncing Sharon for the usual reasons â his âintractabilityâ and so forth. I replied blithely that, au contraire, I thought heâd dismantle the settlements and withdraw from Gaza. The New Labour bigwig was stunned, and, thinking it over, so was I. After all, Sharon had won the 2003 elections in part because he opposed a pull-out from Gaza. I didnât quite know why I said what Iâd said, and I didnât really have a rationale for it.
But, with the benefit of hindsight, maybe that was the point - that Sharon has come to understand, as Bush did after September 11th, that the glorification of âstabilityâ invariably favours the bad guys. Under cover of âstabilityâ, the situation always deteriorates. The worldâs embrace of the Palestinian âcauseâ is now almost complete: Blow up a nightclub in Bali full of Aussie tourists and Scandinavian backpackers and within ten minutes someone will have identified the âroot causeâ as the lack of a Palestinian state. The current intifada has in essence been funded by European taxpayers â and the EUâs auditors donât seem to care. The withdrawal from Gaza was celebrated with promotional materials bearing the slogan âToday Gaza, tomorrow the West Bank and Jerusalemâ, which doesnât sound awfully like a âtwo-state solutionâ but was nevertheless paid for by the United Nations Development Programme, whose logo appeared just underneath the slogan.
Taking their cue from the Palestinians themselves, these various forces have little interest in a Palestinian state itself, only in using the lack of one as a means to undermine Israel and its legitimacy â which in Europe theyâve done very effectively. A continuation of the status quo â whereby the Palestinians are preserved in perpetuity as âdeservingâ a state without ever having to earn one â would only see further remorseless deterioration for Israel in the world. In that sense, any change in the situation would be for the better â especially a change that makes Gaza not Israelâs problem but everybodyâs problem.
Thus, the Egyptians have just deployed their own troops to the strip to replace the evacuated Israeli Defence Force. Why would they do this now the Zionist oppressor has fled and Arab lands are rightfully back in Arab hands? Well, for a very obvious reason: an Islamist squat in Gaza is a far greater threat to the Mubarak regime than it is to Israel. With the Jews out of the way, the Egyptian government can no longer avoid seeing Gaza for what it is. This is one way of re-engaging Arab nations in the grubby reality of Palestinian ânationalismâ.
It was my National Review colleague David Frum who came up with the clearest assessment to date of the Israeli strategy: âCould it be that Sharon is calling the bluff of Western governments and the Arab states? By creating the very Palestinian state that those governments and those states pretend to want but actually dread Sharon is forcing them to end their pretense and acknowledge the truth.â
The Frum thesis sounds right to me. In Britain since July 7th, political figures have twisted themselves into pretzels trying to explain how suicide bombers in London are somehow different from suicide bombers in Tel Aviv â unwilling, even as the double-deckers are exploding across Bloomsbury, to abandon their fetishization of the Palestinian cause, and unable to see that in an ever more Islamified continent the Europeans are the new Jews. Maybe an Islamist statelet on the Mediterranean will concentrate even European minds.
This then is the audacious gamble of the Gaza withdrawal: the best way to demonstrate that the Palestinians are undeserving of a state is to force one upon them. Itâs a dangerous move, but in a tough neighborhood there arenât any other kinds.
#1
I think the rewards from leaving Gaza are many and manifold. Because leaving Gaza is not a singular act, it has dozens of linkages that change the whole situation, many of which are in Israel's favor.
It does force the Paleos to deal with themselves--it is damnably hard to blame a wall for your own, self-inflicted miseries. It is also hard to blame a wall for billions of dollars of aid money that somehow never gets used for its intended purposes.
It forces the Paleos and the Egyptians to deal with each other. Unless the Egyptians also build a wall to keep Paleos out, soon they will be pestered by them too. But unlike the Israelis, the Egyptians have no sense of humor or delicate touch in these matters. They will slaughter them if they misbehave.
On top of that, the Egyptians are Sunnis, and not prone to appreciate the Iranian backed Shiite Hizbullah moving into their new protectorate. After all, they are heretics.
#4
It's been obvious that Sharon is 'calling their bluff' and that his actions have been coordinated with the Bush administration. Perhaps the poker player, Bush, even sold him on the concept. Now that they have a state to ruin for themselves.
I totally disagree with the idea that rockets and artillery coming from Gaza would be a problem. Israel has the capability for immmediate, accurate counterbattery fire. Also, they countrol the sea and could employ naval guns. The whole thing, happening in such a small area, would play out on video so it would be clear who 'started it.' I'd spring for the pay per view.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
