<p>Friedman’s obvious bias towards Israel annoys a number of my most progressive friends too.</p>
<p>However, I don’t agree that it is just about not liking the results of the democratic election in these countries (although concur that this is certainly part of it). The broader question about responsibility of government is an important one. If a government cannot control its people, by a set of laws that have obvious repercussions if they are broken, of what use is said government? </p>
<p>Lebanon has been unable to control Hezbolla, just as neither Hamas nor Fatah have been able to control their armed wings or militias. So, the government cannot control rival factions, and, prior to the recent Israeli invasion in Gaza, the militant groups were doing a bang up job of nearly starting a civil war.</p>
<p>With all due respect, I think it is disingenuous to compare any of the Middle Eastern “democracies” to that of the US, no matter how loathesome our current near single party system is. While my disgust with the differences between the two parties is as least as great as what I perceive yours to be, the US does maintain a system of democratic government with rules and laws and consequences (don’t start on Bush’s ignoring the rule of law…because for 225 years prior, US governments have adhered to constitutional laws) that in no way whatsoever compares to the “democracies” of Lebanon, to the OT, to Iran, especially with their acceptance of militias over which they have no contol, honor killings, kidnappings, covered women who are below second class citizens, etc.</p>
<p>Mini, you said “Israel wants Lebanon to get rid of Hezbollah. That’s like Lebanon saying Israel should get rid of Likud, or the U.S. should get rid of Democrats.”</p>
<p>Only thing is, I haven’t seen Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, and Nancy Peloski riding around in a beat-up toyota pickup firing of AK-47s, RPGs, and tatical missiles, killing people.</p>
<p>"What does that have to do with the price of oil? And which party is Germany and which Churchill? "</p>
<p>It has nothing to do with the price of oil at all, any idiot can see that. Israel has no oil reserves, why would it want to jack up prices? Its the Arabs that won’t recognize Israel who have the oil and are egar to sell it. </p>
<p>As for which party was Churchill and which was Germany, Chuchill’s party was the one who finally staved off the Blitzkreig that treatened to turn Europe into a slave state in the Battle of Britain. Germany’s party, the Nazi party, not Germany itself, was the one that killed 6 million Jews and 6 million gypsies, blacks, and other races and political opponets. The difference is rather obvious.</p>
<p>Yup. The differences are obvious. One enemy captures two enemy soldiers (the other side holding many thousand), and the other rains down terror from the skies on civilian neighborhoods, killing women and children, people that they themselves say had no part in the killing. Of course, if the other side had the power to do so, I expect they would do exactly the same thing. And will do so. That’s what makes the current situation so chilling. </p>
<p>Hilary Clinton, Howard Dean, and Nancy Pelosi don’t need old pickup trucks. They had the leader of the band, old Bill, with nice girl Madeleine, killing half a million Iraqi children (one million people total), in a genocide larger than that which took place in Rwanda-Burundi, and rivaling any one year of Hitler’s reign, and wiping out a good part of a generation. The difference is that the U.S., in the shallowness of its democracy, externalizes its enemies. </p>
<p>“While my disgust with the differences between the two parties is as least as great as what I perceive yours to be, the US does maintain a system of democratic government with rules and laws and consequences”</p>
<p>I agree, strongly agree - but there have been times in U.S. history that the barest inklings of a democracy of difference have risen in the United States (think 1870 - 1920), and it isn’t a pretty picture. And it is one of the reason Republocrats have such a strong history of needing to create external enemies.</p>
<p>Mini, I think both parties in the US are mainly run by corporate profiteers, and the state of persistent war satisfies them both rather nicely. I don’t in any way excuse the US war machine, or the Israeli one, and while I alway did, and stil do, think Clinton was a fantastic orator (contrary to Bush’s bumbling), the death toll under his watch was unconscionable.</p>
<p>I do think there are more interparty differences when one attempts to sweep aside the war machine and its need to “create external enemies” (totally agree). On social wedge issues and spending, the Democrats do not share the GOP party line, and are more consistent with my own thinking.</p>
<p>But that doesn’t change the fact that there is a real and existential threat of Islamic fundamentalism, or “radical Islam”. It isn’t a fabricated threat (although it is threat that Bush exacerbates ad uses to his political advantage), because the Islamists, of any group of people, without question, are creating the most unrest worldwide. I don’t blame all of their extremist and violent views on western colonialism and imperialism either, contrary to Robert Pape’s analysis of suicide bombers.</p>
<p>The US has stirred up a massive hornet’s nest in Iraq, which is spreading across the entire middle east, but the factional and sectarian violence is not the fault of Western interference. The blame cannot be put entirely at the feet of the war machines, but upon the people themselves. </p>
<p>And while we’re at it, are you concerned about the unbelievable human suffering and death casued by the Islamists in Darfur, in Somalia, in Chechnya, among others? The mass murder in some of these places makes the Iraqi mess still look like a cake walk. While we are so busy maligning the US and Israel, are these Islamists given a pass? Not by me. They are part of the great existential threat.</p>
<p>And people who rape 15 year old Iraqi girls, set them ON FIRE and kill their family are “civilized”? How about the ones who set a 9 year old girl in Vietnam on fire? How about the ones who sent (and continue to send) ARMS and WEAPONS and funding to places like RWANDA and SIERRA LEON where women and young children and terrorized and raped and destoryed by western backed militias? The people who committed the atrocities in Vietnam and continue to do so in Iraq and places in between are “civilized”? What about the people in Abu Ghraib? </p>
<p>Wow It didn’t take long for Vietnam to be brought into play. When ARE these people going to move on already?</p>
<p>It is ironic that supporters of a state created, in part, to provide sanctuary for the victims of Nazi atrocities are now comfortable using the most vile and racist language (“sub-human”) to justify violence against Arabs and Palestinians. I suppose that since Israel and its supporters believe they have the high ground militarily, preserving the moral high ground is of no particular importance.</p>
<p>I don’t particularly share the viewpoint at issue. I am pro ALL life, but I do understand where the anger comes from. The islamofascists are a culture of death. There is simply no good way to deal with the ruling parties in those countries/territories. Would that there were, but I don’t see it right now. I am deeply saddened as to the plight of the Lebanese because they’ve worked and fought so darn hard in recent years for self-determination. They deserve much better than this.</p>
<p>The point in bringing up Darfur, Somalia and Chechnya was to pose the double standard always ignored by those who are Islamic apologists. </p>
<p>It wasn’t offered as an example of existential threat to US, I lovegoodbrew, but as an example of Islamic extremism that has no root in Western colonialism. These countries are examples of the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism to the very balance of the world equilibrium, whether or not it poses a danger to us, as Americans, today. I happen to be of the opinion that our personal existential threat, in the US, is very low at the moment. I know others disagree wtih that opinion. However, I do see the growing militancy worldwide, the exploding population of angry young men, and I do believe that there will be a more existential threat to the US in the future.</p>
<p>And the Lebanese, those not affiliated with Hezbolla, basically are powerless at the moment. The government is ineffectual against the rising tide of radical Islam, in the form of Hezbolla, funded by Iran.</p>
<p>However, if anyone thinks we can stamp out radical Islam by trying to “kill it”, they are sadly mistaken. This is Israel’s cardinal mistake, playing right into Hezbolla and Hamas’s hand. They could kill every member of Hezbolla today, and in a month there would be a whole new crew or suicide bombers and rocket launchers, which is just what has happened in Iraq. The world has not faced a movement in history like Islamic fundamentalism, and traditional warfare is an utter failure in eradicating it.</p>
This is an interesting observation. Of course, we have previously faced a movement in history like Islamic fundamentalism, and it lasted for over a millenium. Traditional warfare was no match for it, but high-tech warfare (relatively speaking) was, and did in fact defeat it. I doubt that Western civilization has the stomach for eradication, though, which may prove to be our downfall–our enemy has no such compunction.</p>
<p>I think a lot of you people are missing the point here. Violence in Middle East has very little to do with radical Islam. The state of Israel was created on the lands that Muslims were in posession of for centuries, where the Palestinians lived and ruled. In addition, the city of Jerusalem, one of the most sacred places in Islamic faith, is now under Isrsaeli authority. This would make every single Muslim in the world furious: not only the people of another faith took our lands, but they also took the holy city of Jerusalem. Same exact thing happened in 13-14th centuries, during the Crusades: Western Christians, believing that the holy city of Jerusalem was posessed by people of the “wrong” faith launched military campaigns to take it back.
Radical Islam is not the cause of the tensions, it just escalates them.</p>
<p>Dima1109 posts:“I think a lot of you people are missing the point here. Violence in Middle East has very little to do with radical Islam. The state of Israel was created on the lands that Muslims were in posession of for centuries, where the Palestinians lived and ruled.”</p>
<p>The area that is now Israel was a wasteland at its creation. </p>
<p>“In addition, the city of Jerusalem, one of the most sacred places in Islamic faith, is now under Isrsaeli authority. This would make every single Muslim in the world furious: not only the people of another faith took our lands, but they also took the holy city of Jerusalem.”</p>
<p>I have something to tell you that is going to shock you. Ready? Jerusalem is a holy city for Jews and Christians as well. We know from recent history that when Jews are in control of sacared cities, Muslims can come and go; where the same is not true when Muslims control those cities.</p>
<p>“Same exact thing happened in 13-14th centuries, during the Crusades: Western Christians, believing that the holy city of Jerusalem was posessed by people of the “wrong” faith launched military campaigns to take it back.
Radical Islam is not the cause of the tensions, it just escalates them.”</p>
<p>Radical Islam is absolutely the cause of the current crisis. Israel has existed in its form for over a half a century. It is long past time for everyone to accept that and move on. It’s even more past time to get past Vietnam and the Crusades. I’d like to welcome all of you fine folks to the 21st century!!</p>
<p>With all due respect, i would strongly advice you to educate yourself a bit more ot the history of tensions in the Middle East, as well as some history of the land in general, because clearly all you know about the subject is what channels like CNN are telling you.</p>
<p>Dima posts: “With all due respect, i would strongly advice you to educate yourself a bit more ot the history of tensions in the Middle East, as well as some history of the land in general, because clearly all you know about the subject is what channels like CNN are telling you.”</p>
<p>Clearly you think that the respect due is none. But factually speaking with regard to my knowledge, you have no idea what you are talking about. Absolutely none. You couldn’t be more wrong. Gotta love it. When someone points out how completely one-sided your previous post was, you couldn’t look and see if that was true, you just decided to climb up on your high horse and tell me that I need more information. As I’ve said in other ways on this forum, I’ve studied the middle east for, literally, decades for personal reasons which I will not share with you.</p>
<p>Honestly, I dont give a CRAP about who got there first, somewhere down the line this god or that god promised the land to either the islamic folks or the jewish peeps or the christians. </p>
<p>Bottom line is, they all gotta live together. I will not take an excuse that suicide bombing is OK cause 2000 years ago some guy beat up some other guy. Deal with it.</p>
<p>It is obvious from the history of this entire region (in our lifetimes alone!) that the killing will never cease until both sides (with all the various factions) “grow up” and settle their differences like good “christians” would – forgiveness. It is only too bad that Christianity is not part of their way of thinking. Maybe that is the problem…</p>