.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Emet m'Tsiyon

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Where Does the West Stand on Lebanon?

After the Gemayel murder last week, it seemed that the Western countries, even the long time pro-Arab nationalist EU, were against the murder, against the Syrian-Iranian policy of overthrowing even the remaining semblance of democratic-constitutional government in Lebanon that has been represented by the Fuad Siniora government, with all its faults. But you can never know where the Western states in general or the USA in particular stand unless you know the history of each Western state's relationship with Lebanon. And even then policies do change from time to time, even if they are not always coherent with the broad picture of any particular power's overall Middle Eastern policy.

France, for instance, long prided itself on protecting the Middle Eastern Christians, especially the Lebanese Christians. Then, starting in 1976, it acquiesced or even collaborated in the Syrian takeover of Lebanon as part of a pro-Arab nationalist policy. In this context, Sunni Muslim billionaire Rafiq Hariri became the Syrian-sponsored prime minister of Lebanon and, by the way, a friend of Jacques Chirac to whom he gave some expensive gifts as a token of friendship. When the Assad gang running Syria had a falling out with Hariri and had him murdered [2005], Chirac seemed sincerely angry at his erstwhile Syrian friends. Chirac took part in trying to arrange an international, UN-based tribunal to investigate the murder. Yet, during Israel's war with Hizbullah and since then, France has taken a pro-Hizbullah stance, even threatening to have French forces in Lebanon shoot down Israeli aircraft doing reconnaissance over Lebanon to watch over Syrian-Iranian resupply of the Hizb. This pro-Hizbullah policy obviously endangers the Lebanese Christians, plus Lebanon's chances of staying free of a Hizbullah government, plus the Sunni Muslim Lebanese to whom Hariri belonged to. A policy in self- contradiction, obviously. Yet is the USA so different in its Lebanon policy?

In June 1976, PLO terrorists in Beirut assassinated Meloy, the US ambassador to Lebanon, and two of his companions. Yet,
In the late summer of 1976, the United States government evacuated American citizens from West Beirut using landing craft of the Sixth Fleet: the surrounding coastal area was guarded by Palestinian Fatah guerrillas with tanks and infantry weapons to safeguard the embarkation.
[Harald Vocke, The Lebanese War (New York: St Martins Press 1978), p 62.]
The American policy of bowing to the PLO spread to other Western govts with diplomatic missions in Beirut.
In the summer of 1976, the diplomatic missions of the nine countries of the EEC [forerunner of the EU] bowed to pressure from the Palestinian guerrillas and interrupted relations with the Lebanese Foreign Minister. . . President Franjiyya appointed Camille Chamoun, the leader of the National Liberal Party, on 16 June 1976 [to replace the previous foreign minister who had left the country]. Under the Lebanese constitution, the president is empowered to appoint and dismiss ministers without obtaining the consent of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister at that time, the Sunni Muslim Karame, protested against Chamoun's appointment to the Foreign Ministry and declared that he himself was still acting Foreign Minister of Lebanon [as he had been after the previous FM had left] . . . Karame did not leave the West sector of Beirut, which was controlled by the Palestinians, and it was there and with him that the diplomatic representatives of the EEC states communicated. They boycotted Chamoun out of fear of the Palestinian murder commandos. In despatches to their governments, the European diplomats took the untenable view that it was open to dispute who was Foreign Minister of Lebanon --Chamoun or Karame-- and thus impossible for them to decide on the matter. [Vocke, pp 61-62]
Thus in the summer of 1976 there was a strange symbiosis in Beirut between Western diplomats on the one hand and Palestinian guerrillas and the militias of the Lebanese Muslims on the other. The West German embassy moved into a new office at this time, the actual removal [move] being guarded by the 'Murabitun' militia led by the professional killer Koleilat, who had been responsible for the murder of the Lebanese publisher Mruwweh in 1965. [Vocke, p 62]
Hence, we can never be sure of where the Western powers stand in Lebanon. It is certain, of course, that legality and constitutional legitimacy are not their paramount concern, as we see above. Nor is a consistent anti-terrorist policy visible.
- - - - - - - -

Friday, November 24, 2006

Socialists for Genocide -- Engels and Marx Proposed It before hitler

The only peace in the Peace Process is Peace of Mind for Antisemites
Eliyahu m'Tsiyon

Engels proposed genocide long before Hitler was born. Indeed, it is likely that hitler was influenced by reading Engels. To be sure, his proposed victims were not the Jews but the Slavs, except for the Poles who were good Slavs.

First here is what Engels wrote in "Democratic Panslavism," approved by his friend and mentor, Karl Marx:
To the sentimentalist slogans of brotherhood which are here offered us in the name of the counterrevolutionary nations of Europe [including the Slavs], we reply that hatred of Russia was and still is the first revolutionary passion of the Germans; that since the Revolution [of 1848], hatred of the Czechs and Croats has been added to it, and that we, along with the Poles [= good Slavs] and Magyars [= Hungarians], will only be able to secure the Revolution through the most determined terror against these Slavic peoples. . .

Then it's war. "A ceaseless fight to the death" [quoting the pan-Slavist Bakunin] with Slavdom, which betrays the Revolution, a battle of annihilation and ruthless terrorism -- not in the interests of Germany , but of the Revolution. [p84]"Democratic Panslavism,"
Neue Rheinische Zeitung, February 1849 . The authorities Franz Mehring, Gustav Meyer, & Fernando Orlandi, attribute the above quotes to Engels.
Now here is "Hungary and Panslavism" that Friedrich Engels had published the previous month [January 1849], also approved by Marx who wrote for the same publication [Neue Rheinische Zeitung]:
These remains of nations [the Slavic peoples] which have been mercilessly trampled down by the passage of history, as Hegel expressed it, this ethnic trash always becomes and remains until its complete extermination or denationalization, the most fanatic carrier of counterrevolution, since its entire existence is nothing more than a protest against a great historical revolution. . . [p 63]
The next world war will cause not only reactionary classes and dynasties but also entire reactionary peoples to disappear from the earth. And that too would be progress.
Cologne, January 1849, "Hungary & Panslavism," Neue Rheinische Zeitung, January 1849; p 67 -- written by Engels according to Franz Mehring, Gustav Meyer, & Fernando Orlandi. English translations in Karl Marx and Friederich Engels, The Russian Menace to Europe (Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press 1952 [editors: Paul Blackstock and Bert Hoselitz], page nos. from this edition).

It is doubtful that Lenin and Stalin highlighted these articles to their following in Russia and the Slavic republics of the USSR, the Soviet Union. But these quotes make it clear that today's Judeophobic Left that in fact inclines towards mass murder of Jews is aligned with their distinguished Communist forerunner, Friedrich Engels.

Note that Marx does not advocate war on the Slavs on behalf of a narrow German interest but on behalf of a universal interest in Revolution. Hence, universalists can be mass murderers and warmongers like anyone else. It is interesting that Marx and Engels were thinking in terms of world war as long ago as 1849.

The Italian translation of most of these remarks is as follows:
Ecco "Il Panslavismo Democratico":
Alle frasi sentimentali sulla fratellanza offerteci qui a nome delle nazioni più controrivoluzionarie d'Europa, noi rispondiamo che l'odio per i russi è stato ed è ancora la prima passione rivoluzionaria dei tedeschi; che dopo la rivoluzione si è aggiunto l'odio per i cechi e i croati, e che noi, insieme ai polacchi [buoni slavi] e ai magiari, possiamo salvaguardare la rivoluzione soltanto con il terrorismo più risoluto contro questi popoli slavi. . . Lotta allora, 'lotta inesorabile per la vita o per la morte' [citazione del pan-slavista Bakunin] contro lo slavismo traditore della rivoluzione; lotta di annientamento e terrorismo senza riguardi -- non nell'interesse della Germania, ma nell'interesse della rivoluzione!. . . . Un giorno compiremo sanguinosa vendetta sugli slavi
[Neue Rheinische Zeitung, Febbraio 1849; scritto da Engels secondo Franz Mehring, Gustav Meyer, Fernando Orlandi; K Marx, F Engels, Opere, vol VIII, pp 380-381, 377]
Ecco "Lotta dei Magiari":
La prossima guerra mondiale farà sparire dalla faccia della terra non soltanto classi e dinastie reazionarie, farà sparire anche interi popoli reazionari. E anche questo è un progresso.
[Neue Rheinische Zeitung, Gennaio 1849; scritto da Engels secondo Franz Mehring, Gustav Meyer e Fernando Orlandi. K Marx, F Engels, Opere, vol VII, p 237]
Is it just possible that these bloodthirsty remarks helped to inspire hitler? Indeed, if any capitalists or imperialists might want to kill off a recalcitrant or troublesome people, why, they would have quotes from Marx's close ally and cothinker, Engels, at their disposal to justify such a policy. Can Marx and Engels be our moral guides for the 21st century? Can any Leftist speaking in the name of Marxism or looking up to Marx and Engels as his inspirations and mentors be seen as a moral guide today?

Just bear in mind that many more Jews have been murdered by Arab terrorists since the monstruous Oslo Accords than in the same length of time before them.

CORRECTION: We Regret Our Earlier Uncertainty over the Authorship of "Democratic Panslavism." It Was Written by Engels according to the Authorities on These Matters.
- - - - - - - - - -
Coming: More on the follies of peace-making, the follies of making concessions to mass murderers, the warlike nature of diplomacy, Jews in Jerusalem and Hebron, massacre of Blacks in Tripoli, etc.

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

A Two State Solution? -- Is It Meant to Be a Final Solution?

I Palestinesi hanno un diritto a un stato.
The Palestinians have the right to a state,
quoth Oliviero Diliberto at a war march in Rome
propounding the need for a state for a people unheard of 100 years ago. The march also demanded withdrawal of Italian troops from Afghanistan, as the chant was heard "Ten, one hundred, one thousand Nassiriyas." Nassiriya in Iraq was the location of a suicide bombing in 2003 that killed some 20 Italian soldiers and police. The war marchers also burned effigies of an American, an Italian and an Israeli soldier. The war march took place on 18 November 2006.

Diliberto leads one of the hard-line Communist Parties [Partito dei Comunisti Italiani] in Italy. The softer line Italian CP, led by D'Alema also wants a "palestinian state," as does prime minister Romano Prodi, former president of the European Commission, top governing body of the terrorist-friendly European Union that has endowed the "palestinian authority," led by yasser arafat until his death two years ago, with some five billion dollars [in their Euro equivalent] over the last twelve years since the "palestinian authority" was set up in 1994.

Before answering whether this newly invented people of palestinians should have a state, let us first ask if there is such a people. One hundred years ago, no body had heard of such a people. The Arabs in the country were overwhelmingly Muslims, and as such they were loyal to the Muslim [Sunni Muslim] Ottoman Empire. Even the Arab apologist historian, Rashid Khalidi, who sits comfortably in a prestigious American university, agrees. Khalidi also wrote that in the Ottoman period the Muslim Arabs in Israel did not think in terms of "palestine" or Lebanon or Jordan. Instead, they viewed the whole eastern shore of the Mediterranean, the Levant, as forming al-Sham or bilad ash-Sham, that is to say, Syria or Greater Syria. Indeed, authorities such as Elie Kedourie, Hans Tutsch, Zeine N Zeine, Zia Gok Alp, etc., agreed that before World War I there was little Arab nationalism among the Arabs in the Middle East or Levant, let alone "palestinian nationalism." The Muslim Arabs were loyal to their Sunni Muslim empire in which Arabs from leading familes could get high positions. Sons of the Husseini [Husayni], al-Khalidi and Abdul-Hadi families obtained powerful, prestigious positions in the Ottoman Empire as governors, diplomats, speaker of parliament, etc. The traditional geographic concept of these Arabs was bilad ash-Sham [Greater Syria] and they enjoyed more power and influence as Ottoman officials in a great Muslim state than they would have had in a small state. Hence, the Muslims Arabs in the Land of Israel did not see themselves as Arabs first, let alone palestinians first.
Nor did they have a concept of "palestine" [the Land of Israel] as a country. The term Filastin had been used by Arab rulers before the Crusades but its use was not resumed after the Crusades by either the Mamluk or Ottoman empires. Moreover, the term applied only to what the Roman/Byzantine empire had called Palaestina Prima, the southern part of the country, that is, to southern Samaria, part of the coastal plain, the northern Negev, and the land of Judah [not to be confused with the Greco-Roman term Judea {= IVDAEA} which usually meant all of the Land of Israel]. Filastin did not comprise Galilee or northern Samaria or Transjordan, which the early Arab conquerors had collectively called Urdunn. Hence, "palestine" was not an Arab geographic notion, nor was there a "palestinian people" in Arab tradition, contrary to a great deal of propaganda nowadays.
The "palestinian people" is not a historical or traditional people. It is a post-1948 invention of anti-Israel propaganda and psychological warfare, which was sold to the Arabs as a means of achieving their goal of destroying Israel, the state of rebellious, uppity dhimmis. Yes, the creation of Israel was humiliating to Arabs --mainly because the Jews were the most oppressed, most humiliated section of their dhimmi populations, of their subject peoples.

Secondly, would an Arab state in the Land of Israel, whatever it were called, lead to peace or help the Arab war effort against Israel? If Israel would lose strategically valuable lands that serve as a defense against Arab enemies, whether "palestinian" Arabs or Egyptians or Jordanians or Syrians, then Israel would be strategically weakened and made more vulnerable to Arab attack. Isn't that obvious? Then, an independent state would be able to import heavy weapons at will, as if the present situation of smuggling advanced rockets into Gaza were not dangerous enough. It would also be more powerful than now in the UN where it would have a full vote and regular state member rights to condemn and libel Israel for a new offense, real or contrived, every day. It would not satisfy Arab irredentist ambitions for all of the Land of Israel, while encouraging them to make war due to Israel's weakened geo-strategic position, loss of geographic depth, loss of deterrence, etc.

Hence, a Two State solution would encourage Arab war on Israel by making Israel more vulnerable and making Israel seem more vulnerable. Thus, the Two State Solution might be a Final Solution, and the major "democratic" Western states would not care.
- - - - - -
Coming: more on the Two State solution, Jews in Jerusalem, Engels advocates genocide, etc.

Sunday, November 12, 2006

George Dubya Is Daddy's Boy -- Anti-Israel Jim Baker & Bob Gates Are Back

In 1992, the Israel Communist Party [usually called Hadash, its acronym] ran on a platform of a Two State Solution. That is, a State of Israel and an Arab state of "palestine." The two states would share the Land of Israel west of the Jordan River.

In 2006, President George W Bush of the ostensibly staunchly anti-Communist United States of America, called for two states in the Land of Israel west of the Jordan River, one Jewish state called Israel, the other an Arab state to be called "palestine." In fact, both Bush and his secretary of state, Miss Bitter Rice, expressed annoyance and irritation in 2006 that the Arab state of palestine, which they had first openly advocated a few years before [including in the so-called Road Map] had not yet come into being. Indeed, their attitude on the matter was one of determination mixed with desperation and a sense of helplessness over the inability or unwillingness of the palestinian authority leadership --which the USA and the EU and Japan had funded in the billions of dollars-- to establish internal order in the zones already under their control and to restrain --at least temporarily-- the murderous passions of their several and sundry terrorist gangs, including the PA's dozen or so police and other armed forces.

Let us consider the meaning of the Two State Solution for Israel's military security, and for the physical security of Israel's population. Let us also consider the meaning of a state called palestine for the standing of Israel and the whole Jewish people throughout the world. Is the Two State Solution a Final Solution? Is it meant to be a Final Solution? What about the convergent positions of Leftists and Rightists, of ostensible revolutionaries and super-rich Western capitalists and Arab oil magnates?

First, a little Bush family background. Michael Moore made a movie called Fahrenheit 9/11 based on Craig Unger's book, House of Bush, House of Saud. The book and movie show the close relationship between the two wealthy and powerful families. Whatever we may say about Moore's usual ignorance and hostility toward Jews, the movie demonstrated a long-standing reality. In fact, not only the Bush family has been close to the Saudis, but so have many other powerful and prominent American politicians. The Saudis --that is, bigoted Muslims, champions of the Arab anti-Israel cause-- had friends and supporters in the USA such as the Dulles family, who were great lovers of the Arabs and haters of Jews [maybe they loved the Arabs because they hated Jews-- think about it]. In any case, Moore [and I suppose Unger too] was wrong to imply that only the Bush family was connected to the Saudis. FDR --the great faker-- met King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud [usually called Ibn Saud] back in 1945 on the way home from the Yalta Conference and praised the king afterwards. His successor, Harry Truman's adminstration, gave the oil company ARAMCO special tax breaks in order to be able to pay more to the Saudis without taking the money out of ARAMCO's pockets. Eisenhower's administration was dominated in its foreign policy by the Dulles Brothers. John Foster was secretary of state and Allen was head of the CIA. As I recall, John Foster Dulles [maybe another official, but John Foster most likely] welcomed one of the Saudi royals to America and gave him a pistol in a public ceremony. Some thought that this represented encouragement to the Arabs to go kill Jews. To make a long story short, the Bush family is far from alone in having favored the Saudis. Both Republicans [like the Dulles Brothers] and Democrats helped make them rich.

Now, George Dubya's Daddy, George Senior, went to Saudi Arabia in the summer of 1982 while Israel was fighting Syria and the PLO in Lebanon. He went there for the funeral of the king. I don't recall whether it was Fahd or Faisal who had died. Both were sons of Ibn Saud. Bush Senior got a message to yasser arafat, who was also there for the funeral. The Saudis were big contributors to the PLO & arafat personally. Actually, an article on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, probably in 1985, had reported the story. Probably yasser and George Senior met face to face, although the WSJ reported only transmission of a message, as far as I recall. The message was [pace WSJ] that arafat should keep on fighting the Israelis and not surrender or agree to any terms that the PLO leave Lebanon, which Israel was demanding at that time. Arafat took Bush's suggestion. This means that Bush prolonged the war in Lebanon and that Bush wanted to keep the PLO forces in Lebanon. This means that Bush Senior was working for war rather than peace, that he was working against Israel, that he was working against Lebanon. Now, does the apple fall far from the tree? Is Bush Junior so different?

Something more about Bush the Father. In November 1988, while the absurd semi-revolt [35 % Arabs, 65 % pro-Arab Western communications media] called the Intifada was proceeding in the Land of Israel, the PLO held a congress in Algiers. Shortly before the congress, riots were put down in Algiers with scores of dead. But the Western media paid little attention to those dead. They were more interested in reporting Arab dead in Israel. When Arabs die at Israel's hands it gives the Western media a chance to be self-righteous against the Jews. When Arabs die at Arab hands, the news value is nearly nil. Anyhow, the PLO's Algiers congress came up with a Declaration of a State which implicitly covered all of the Land of Israel, leaving no room for the State of Israel [I read at least two translations of the Declaration plus much informed commentary]. Hence, the Declaration of a State was also a declaration of war. However, the mendacious Western media pretended --absurdly-- that the Declaration had recognized Israel. This was merely because the Declaration had cited the UN General Assembly partition recommendation of 29 November 1947 as being available for use to further the Arab anti-Israel cause [perhaps called "palestinian rights" in the Declaration]. This mention of the Partition recommendation was groundlessly interpreted as a readiness for peace. Yet, in fact, there was no recognition of Israel nor any expression of a desire for peace with Israel. Yet, the mendacious media merrily went their lying way without any serious contradiction from the Israel govt of the time, still led by foreign minister Shimon Peres together with defense minister Rabin [both of the Labor Party], although Yits'haq Shamir [of Likud] was prime minister.

Bush Senior was President Reagan's vice president at the time, and had been elected to succeed him. As a gesture to incoming President Bush, Reagan's State Department decided the time had come for the US to openly dialogue with mass murderer arafat, just as they now want to dialogue with murderers Bashir Assad and Ahmadinajad. This was the beginning of the open US relationship with the PLO which certainly had flourished sub rosa for a long time before. Bear in mind, that this overture to the PLO, to arafat, was made as a favor to Bush Senior by President Reagan.

So much for Bush Senior. Junior Bush has been pretending to be Israel's friend. Well, you can believe what you want. But go back to March 2002. After the massacre at the Park Hotel in Natanyah on the Passover holiday, on the night of the seder, the Israeli people wanted to suppress Arab mass murder terrorism. The army went off on Operation Defensive Wall [Homat Magen] to go into Arab towns like Ramallah, Bethlehem, Jenin, Nablus [Sh'khem], etc., where the Israeli army had not gone into for years. Bush shortly demanded that Israel immediately stop this operation and withdraw all troops from palestinian authority zones right away. Colin Powell went off on a tour of Arab capitals to consider the Israeli problem [the Jewish Problem] and hold hands with distraught Arab leaders. In other words, Bush wanted to allow the Arabs to continue their mass murder attacks. Bush wanted to save arafat from harm. He wanted to protect mass murderers from just retribution.

Is Bush Junior a friend? Does the apple fall far from the tree? And now it looks like Bush Junior is going to start on another anti-Israel offensive. Jim Baker, Bush Senior's secretary of state, is supposed to become an authoritative advisor of Bush Junior with a new, fresh report on how to make the Middle East a worse place for children and other living things. Moreover, Robert Gates, a long-time enemy of Israel and ex-head of the CIA, has been appointed secretary of defense to replace Rumsfeld. If the Democrats want to show their opposition to Bush, then they will oppose Bush's anti-Israel policy, and in particular they will oppose appointment of Gates, which needs the approval of the Senate [with its majority of Democrats] to become final. Ask yourself if Bush Junior is really serious about his "war on terror." Is he really against terrorism? Is he against it anymore than the EU member states are? Consider that the major EU members see the Madrid and London attacks as terrorism, but not the mass murder against Jews. Are the Democrats against terrorism? Are they against the murder of Jews? Are they a real opposition to Bush Junior?
--to be continued
--we will try to answer the questions in the third paragraph above in the next post.
- - - - - - -
Coming: More on Bush and his unwar on terrorism, more on Jews in Jerusalem & Hebron, more on the peace follies, etc.

Friday, November 10, 2006

Hizbullah's War Crimes -- Amnesty & Human Rights Watch Falsify International Law to Smear Israel

The propaganda attacks on Israel --the continual defamation by the media, politicians, diplomats, and so-called "non-governmental organizations" [that are usually funded by governments]-- are meant to defame Jews and Israel and justify attacks on them. These attacks are similar in purpose to smear campaigns against Jews in the past, such as the Damascus Affair of 1840, the Beilis Case, the Nazi lies against Jews, the recent [2001] racist Durban Conference [which pretended to be anti-racist], and others.

Jimmy Carter, ex-president of the United States, has smeared Israel as an apartheid state. This is a big lie worthy of Goebbels. Two American political scientists, Walt & Mearsheimer, falsely claim that Israel controls --and has always controlled-- American policy in the Middle East, thereby disregarding the weight of the American oil lobby and of the immense wealth of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Abu Dhabi, and other oil-rich Arab states, in addition to the ties to Arabs and oil of many influential Americans, just coincidentally including President George Bush Senior, father of the current president, of the aforementioned Carter, of Bush family henchman Jim Baker, and many others. Curiously, most of the so-called Left sides with the big bucks, with the Arabian billions, and joins in smearing the Jews and Israel. Of course, this can partly be explained by the ties of much of the Left to well-established, well-financed foundations which just coincidentally have a Judeophobic policy. This goes too for many "non-governmental organizations" [NGOs] that claim to defend human rights, civil rights, peace, and other Good Things.

Avi Bell takes up the issue of war crimes in the recent war in Lebanon, an issue on which both Amnesty International & Human Rights Watch found a way to condemn Israel more than the avowedly Nazi-like Hizbullah. See our discussion of the international laws of war, including quotes from the documents, here. And here.

Here are some excerpts from Avi Bell's article:

· Hizballah still holds two Israeli prisoners of war incommunicado, without permitting access to the Red Cross, in violation of the laws of prisoners of war in the Third Geneva Convention. Hizballah combatants dressed as protected civilians, thereby committing illegal acts of perfidy. They carried out military operations from civilian areas in order to use protected persons as shields, another violation of the laws of war.
· The accusations against Israel by international NGOs such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are made on the basis of bad or no evidence, linguistic misdirection, non sequiturs, and misapplication or misstatement of accepted legal standards.
· Under the laws of war, if a residential home serves as a base or a hiding place for combatants or a storehouse for weaponry, it is a legitimate military target. Thus, if one sees a residential home bombed, or even fifty bombed homes, this is not evidence per se of a war crime.
· French President Jacques Chirac claimed that Israel’s counterstrike on Lebanon was “totally disproportionate” to Hizballah’s attack on Israel. Yet such a claim has no basis in international law. When states act in self-defense, in response to an armed attack, they may use as much force as necessary to achieve the military objective. Thus the United States could use as much force as it needed in order to topple the regime in Afghanistan; it did not need to limit itself to the amount of force used by al-Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks.
Hizballah launched thousands of rocket and mortar attacks on civilian areas in northern Israel far away from plausible military targets, deliberately targeting civilians in violation of the rule of distinction – one of the most important of the laws of war. Hizballah still holds two Israeli prisoners of war incommunicado, without permitting access to the Red Cross, in violation of the laws of prisoners of war in the Third Geneva Convention. Hizballah combatants fought while disguised as protected persons such as non-combatant civilians, thereby committing illegal acts of perfidy. They placed their military assets and carried out military operations in schools, hospitals, residential areas, and next to international peace-keeping forces in order to use protected persons as shields, another violation of the international laws of war.
Hizballah is an organization that illegally calls for genocide and commits acts of aggression, crimes against humanity, and continues to hold arms in violation of Lebanon’s binding international commitments. By permitting Hizballah to operate in Lebanon, Lebanon violates its obligations under Security Council Resolution 1373, adopted under Chapters 7 of the UN Charter, as well as its obligations under the Genocide Convention.
Bell also takes on Kofi Annan, UN secretary general, and Louise Arbour, a Canadian, another UN highly placed collaborator in smearing the Jews and Israel. Read the whole article at the link above.

Prof Bell is on the faculty of law of Bar Ilan University and is now a visiting professor at Fordham law school, a Roman Catholic institution in New York.
- - - - -
Coming: The follies of G W Bush Junior [Dubya], the follies of Signorina Riso Amaro [Secretary Bitter Rice of the State Dept], the paradoxes of peace-making, Jews in Jerusalem & Hebron, etc.

Monday, November 06, 2006

Angel Ganivet on the Threat of Islamic Jihad and How to Deal with It -- Angel Ganivet sobre la Amenaza del Yihad Islámico y Cómo Hacer Frente a El

What is the danger of Islamic Jihad or militant Islam --or political Islam? And how should the civilized world deal with the problem? These are vey live questions that many people throughout the civilized world, in the East and the West, the South and the North, are asking today. Angel Ganivet considered the issue more than 100 years ago.

Angel Ganivet [1865-1898] was a famous Spanish novelist and essayist who died more than one hundred years ago. He is considered a forerunner of the Generation of 1898, and was concerned in his Idearium Español with the spiritual identity of Spain. As a diplomat, he had a perspective on the world that few other Spaniards had in his time when Spain tended to be somewhat intellectually isolated from the rest of Europe and more backward.

Ganivet obviously knew of the continuing conflict between Spain and the Arabs after the last Moorish kingdom was defeated by Spanish forces in 1492. Muslim jihad warriors at sea, often called the Barbary Pirates, raided the coasts of Spain and southern Italy especially, as well as France, Britain, Ireland, even Iceland, in quest of booty and slaves --who were ordinary people taken captive in these raids. But the Barbary Pirates were conscious of a religious jihad mission, and were not merely eager for material gain, much of which went anyhow to the governments of their home ports in North Africa which sent them off on jihad.

Up till the late 18th century when the famous Spanish minister of state Floridablanca made a deal with Moroccan rulers, huge tracts of the low-lying southeastern coastal region of Spain were depopulated and uncultivated, because of fear of the Barbary Pirates' raids. Depopulating and discouraging cultivation are some of the things that Jihad warriors do. Consider in this regard southeastern Anatolia that was long depopulated and uncultivated in the Middle Ages on account of the continual jihad warfare perpetrated by jihad bands making razzias [ghazw = raids] out of northern Syria. In the Crusader period, Armenians penetrated this area and set up an Armenian kingdom there, which was in fact land claimed by the Byzantine Empire. This Armenian kingdom was eventually subdued by the Turks. The period of continual jihad warfare was dramatized in the Greek epic poem, Digenis Akrites.

Ganivet recognizes the danger of Islamic jihad, although the two passages quoted do not use the word. However, he seems divided in his attitude toward it. On one hand, he wants Islam to be checked, to be hemmed in, divided, prevented from uniting or being aggressive toward the rest of the world, particularly towards Europe. On the other, he does not want Islam to be destroyed, because it has a sort right of age and tradition, since it exists it has the right to continue existing.
Here are two passages from Idearium Español. Note that Ganivet was writing prophetically more than one hundred years ago about the threat of Islamic jihad:
1) Mohammedan power is always terrifying, however sunken down it may seem. It is like the sea: it withdraws and comes back; but this is not a reason for destroying it.
p 136 El poder mahometano es siempre terrible, por muy hundido que se halle; es como el mar: se retira y vuelve; pero esto no es razón para que se le destruya.
2) Islam is dangerous if it is allowed to dominate large territories united among themselves and constituted in a religious federation; because Islam does not propagate itself one individual at a time, but rather in the form of quick, violent bursts in several directions, within its natural geographic boundaries, sometimes crossing over them and attacking foreign peoples. Thus, a renewal of Islam's forces would be possible if any of the sects that are constantly born out of it were free to spread itself in all directions and succeed in rebuilding the unity necessary for combat. A European policy with foresight ought to set out to divide Islam, to intercept those currents, setting up centers of power at various intermediate points that would serve to isolate independent Muslim states from each other, but never completely destroying the political independence of Islam, that, due to the fact that it exists, has a perfect right to maintain autonomous political power. . .
p138 El islamismo es peligroso si se le deja dominar grandes territorios unidos entre sí y constituidos en federación religiosa; porque el islamismo no se propaga individualmente, sino en forma de irrupciones violentas, rápidas, en diversas direcciones, dentro de su demarcación natural geográfica y a veces traspasandola y acometiendo a pueblos extraños. Así, una renovación de las fuerzas del Islam sería posible si cualquiera de las sectas que continuamente nacen de él tuviera libertad para extenderse en todos sentidos y llegara a reconstituir la unidad necesaria para el combate. Una política Europea previsora debe de encaminarse a fraccionar el Islam, a interceptar esas corrientes, fijando en diferentes puntos intermedios centros de poder que sirvan de aisladores entre estados mahometanos independientes, pero nunca a destruir por completo la independencia política del islamismo, que por el hecho de existir tiene perfecto derecho a mantener poderes políticos autónomos. . .
ANGEL GANIVET--Idearium Español (vol 1 de Obras Completas, Madrid, Suárez, 1944) [b. 1865- d. 1898]
- - - - - - - - -
Coming: more on the problematics of peace and peace-making, more on Jews in Jerusalem and Hebron, etc.