The orgy of terrorism and lawlessness that came in the wake of Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip has a local angle
Palestinian gunmen burst into a house in and tried to kidnap the parents of Rachel Corrie, who was killed in 2003 as she protested the impending demolition of a house in the southern Gaza town, according to their host.Rachel Corrie didn't kill herself in vain after all. Not only was her dream of ending the Israeli occupation of Gaza realized less than three years after she died, but she also saved her parents' lives! Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 04, 2006 08:58 AM | Email ThisThe five gunmen, who also appeared to be affiliated to the ruling Fatah movement, eventually relented after being told who their targets were, according to Samir Nasrallah, in whose house the couple was staying.
Corrie was crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer in 2003 as she tried to stop it from demolishing Nasrallah's house. Her parents, Craig and Cindy, have repeatedly visited Nasrallah since. They left Gaza safely after the incident, Nasrallah said.
This fight has been going on for too long, and there's no way we can solve their problems.
Posted by: Libertarian on January 4, 2006 09:37 AMBut it's not like the Corries are on the terrorists' side, nosirree!
Apparently, however, the terrorists think they are.
Posted by: ScottM on January 4, 2006 10:03 AMI am tired too. If we let go now we will have the nuclear holocast with ten years. Have you heard the whack job in Iran who will soon be in charge of the button to release the holocast? He has been taking speech lessons from Dean, McDermott and Co.
Stefan, where do you find this stuff? It is too weird to be true.
Posted by: swatter on January 4, 2006 10:06 AMIF THEY CAN NOT GET THEIR COLLECTIVE ACTS TOGETHERE AFTER 5000 YEARS, MAYBE THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO DEAL WITH THIS PROBLEM.
Posted by: TACOMA PHLASH on January 4, 2006 10:22 AMProbably not till the knife is sawing at their necks.
The ungrateful useless idiots will never know the threat to western civilization.
The Corries will hold a press conference and say "they made an honest mistake," and that "if not for imperialistic western support for the fascist government of Israel the Palestinians would not be forced into actions of liberation." Or some or Barbara Striesand.
Posted by: JCM on January 4, 2006 10:44 AMI don't think we'll need genocide to solve this. Before Arafat ran Palestine, the Israelis and Palestinians got along quite nicely. Palestinians would commute to work from the territory into Israel and everyone seemed to like it.
I think President Bush has the right idea: Threaten those who are hostile to peace with force, deploy troops as necessary, depose said despots and replace with democracy. Wash, rinse, repeat. Next on the hit list is obviously Iran and Syria.
You'll notice a few things have changed in the Middle East:
(1) Israel has become bold again. This keeps bad people scared. See, Israel actually has a bigger military presence in the Middle East than the US. All we have to do is let them off the leash and they'll clean up the place.
(2) Syria's government is fracturing between those who don't want their butts kicked and those who are asking for it. Head of intelligence recently fled to London to escape the wrath of Bush. Vice president has previously fled.
(3) Lebanon's people are exerting themselves at the polls. Hizballah is having a hard time keeping them suppressed.
(4) Libya has recently had US travel restrictions lifted. The people there are biding their time until Khaddafi kicks the bucket. And Khaddafi is a lot more cooperative, having surrendered the contraband that Saddam transferred there before the invasion.
(5) The old Soviet middle-eastern countries are a lot more cooperative with the West.
Things are looking up there. At this pace, we'll have real peace in the Middle East within 20 years.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on January 4, 2006 10:48 AMI said from the beginning that taking out Hussein and freeing Iraq would more isolate Iran and Syria. Who does Syria have around them anymore?
What I didn't realize was the ease of crossing from Iran to Syria from the north.
Give war a chance because diplomacy didn't work?
Posted by: swatter on January 4, 2006 10:55 AMDidn't von Clausewitz not say that war was just the continuation of policy by other means?
Posted by: Marc on January 4, 2006 11:56 AMNah...
Posted by: Mike H on January 4, 2006 12:47 PMLib... so, we should just "stay out of it" and ignore the threats that occur outside our borders? I think we tried that in the 1930s. Didn't turn out so well. So, we are on the defensive and that's just fine with me. Being on the offensive just gave us the first WTC bombing, Kobar towers, and 9/11.
Staying out of the Pali/Israeli conflict would be nice, but isn't practical. I prefer being on the side of Israel personally. After all, I doubt they have roving bands of lunatics going around kidnapping civilians like the Corries.
Posted by: megs on January 4, 2006 01:39 PMAs far as staying out of it goes, we should have never gotten into it to begin with. Let's develop a neutral policy towards both sides.
Posted by: Libertarian on January 4, 2006 01:49 PMThe Palestinian terrorists on the other hand, clearly recognized the Corries as valuable sympathizers/useful fools for their cause.
Posted by: Zippo on January 4, 2006 02:22 PMSince they all hate us and only look at us as the resque squad should they need it, why bother to align ourselves with any of them?
Let's declare victory in Iraq and bring those troops home to watch the southern border.
Posted by: Libertarian on January 4, 2006 02:37 PM"The Canadians hate our guts."
Don't care. They should be more concerned with keeping the fraying fabric of their country together.
"The Mexicans hate our guts."
Don't care. However, I do find it interesting we have to prevent people from coming INto America, as opposed to leaving.
"Needless to say, the people of the Middle East hate our guts along with just bout everybody else in the world."
Really. Don't. Care.
Foreign policy isn't a popularity content. It's a matter of protecting our interests first, and doing the right thing second. Fortunately, many times those factors go hand-in-hand.
While I can agree with some of the isolationist ideals, that just doesn't cut it anymore. If we refuse to support (which we would be doing by taking a neutral position) the only, current, fully functional democracy attempting to survive in the midst of a hornet's nest of radical fundamentalist jihadis, just what would we stand for?
Like it or not, the Isreali/Palastinian conflict impacts us, and I'd prefer oppose the side which blows up women and children for committing the heinous crime of waiting for a bus.
Posted by: jimg on January 4, 2006 03:03 PMThe Islamofasicts goal is for you to either convert to Islam or live in dhimmitude.
The mid-east conflict is the excuse de-jour. Withdrawal from world events will not stop the Islamofasicts. It will only delay the fight, and bring it here.
Posted by: JCM on January 4, 2006 03:53 PMWE GIVE THEM MONEY...BUT ARE THEY GRATEFUL
NO, THEY'RE SPITEFUL AND THEY'RE HATEFUL
THEY DON'T RESPECT US..SO LET'S SURPRISE THEM
WE'LL DROP THE BIG ONE AND PULVERIZE THEM
ASIA'S CROWDED AND EUROPE'S TOO OLD
AFRICA IS FAR TO HOT
AND CANADA'S TO COLD
AND SOUTH AMERICA STOLE OUR NAME
LET'S DROP THE BIG ONE
THERE'LL BE NO ONE LEFT TO BLAME US
WE'LL SAVE AUSTRAILIA
DON'T WANT TO HURT NO KANGAROO
WE'LL BUILD AN ALL AMERICAN AMUSEMENT PARK THERE
THEY'VE GOT SURFIN'TOO
BOOM GOES LONDON AND BOOM PAREE
MORE ROOM FOR YOU AND MORE ROOM FOR ME
AND EVERY CITY THE WHOLE WORLD ROUND
WILL JUST BE ANOTHER AMERICAN TOWN
OH HOW PEACEFUL IT WILL BE
WE'LL SET EVERYBODY FREE
YOU'LL WEAR A JAPANESE KIMONO
AND THERE'LL BE ITALIAN SHOES FOR ME
THEY ALL HATE US ANYHOW
SO LETS DROP THE BIG ONE NOW
The affliction seems to be hereditary...
Posted by: South County on January 4, 2006 04:06 PMThen that makes us no better than them.
Posted by: Mike H on January 4, 2006 04:23 PMThen let's be neutral.
Posted by: Libertarian on January 4, 2006 04:28 PMWhich of these scenarios do YOU think has more change of succeeding?
Posted by: Deadwood on January 4, 2006 06:02 PMThanks for reminding me how great a wit Randy Newman is.
Posted by: Organization Man on January 4, 2006 07:45 PMWhy do you care what Europeans, Canadians, and Mexicans think if you actually beleive that we should "look out for us and forget about anyone else. Don't you think these countries are upset because we ARE looking out for ourselves to begin with?
You say, "If Islamofacists are the problem, let's use nukes to solve it. Kill 'em all and let God (Allah?) sort it out!" Aside from the extreme rhetoric, you are not making sense unless you believe that we are NOT taking care of ourselves by aggressively taking the fight to our enemies in Iraq.
If Israel is hurt we are hurt. Our support for Israel must be resolute if we expect to forestall disaster on our own shores. The Palestinians are self appointed political footballs of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iran. Iraq used to be the most imminent threat to Israel, now they are not. Nukes look to be inevitable in the region. I want Israel to thrive there because it is the hope (along with Iraq) for a civilized Middle East. No one else in the area has behaved responsibly.
I'm sure you have a central point. What is it?
Posted by: Amused by liberals on January 4, 2006 10:02 PMIt's because of WHO WE ARE.
There's a reason why the shot that started the Revolutionary War was called the "shot heard 'round the world". We sent a message to every tyrant, every despot, every outpost of evil anywhere in the world that the righteous and just citizens of their country AIN'T GONNA TAKE IT NO MORE. That's some scary stuff, if you know what I mean.
Look at history! King George hated us because we threatened his oppressive government! The South hated the North because they wanted to DO THE RIGHT THING and free the slaves (Remember, they attacked us first!) Hitler and Hiro Hito hated us because WE WERE THEIR ONLY REAL THREAT.
The Wahhabi terrorists hate us because we are doing more to turn their people back to their former glory than they could do with all the terrorist camps and money in the world. They blew themselves up to get adulation and the muslim world is turning their backs on them and embracing American ideals of EQUALITY, FAIRNESS, and BROTHERLY LOVE. My goodness! If the Arabs fall for this "crap" they're going to lose their power and end up like the foaming hate preachers who are powerless here in America.
Europe hates us because a bunch of COWBOY HICKS who can't even speak their own language HAS CONQUERED THE ENTIRE WORLD with the tip of their cowboy hat. They've been trying to do this since Julius Ceasar and not their fanciest princes could pull it off. Here we are with the masses of the world worshipping the Coke products we distribute and begging us to bomb them next!
The Kim Il Jongs, Hugo Chavezes, Fidel Castros, Saddam Husseins, and Osama bin Ladens know what we stand for: We as a people want these tyrants dead or deposed, and now we've proven we have the national political backbone to do it. The liberal Democrats, the ones who hate freedom but preach it, the left-wing socialist socialites in Europe, the old Red Communists who have found their way back into power in Russia, all of them know that America's success is their failure. They want to see us crash and burn for cutting taxes and helping the poor buy homes. But you know what? We're doing fine, thank you, while their own countries are BURNING TO THE GROUND.
There is a global war, and it's been fought since 1776. It's a war against TYRANNY, and America is winning this battle. Never in the history of mankind has this standard been raised so high, been so attacked and so well defended, and advanced so far! We preach a gospel that the common man can lead his own life, that chains and shackles are not natural, that freedom is won not with gunpowder but with purple ink, and above all, no one should cower beneath a tyrant!
Remember when Jesus said he wasn't here to bring peace, but a sword? This is what he was talking about. When you stand up for the right, all the bad guys get mad at you and want to shoot you down. They hate WHO YOU ARE, not your actions. You CAN'T negotiate for peace. You CAN'T leave them alone---they're the ones attacking you! You CAN'T walk away without giving up everything you hold dear: honor, integrity, fidelity, and pure, raw goodness. Your only option is to stand TALLER, walk BIGGER, and move FORWARD over the dead bodies of tyranny and oppression. Once you've made the conscious decision to do the right, you paint a target on your back, and evil won't stop from their attack unless you compromise your values.
Why do the American people side so strongly with the Israeli people? Because of all the countries out there who claim democracy, Israel is one of the few who ACTUALLY GET IT. I look at the list of great democracies who are consciously doing the right thing and at the top of the list are the USA and Israel. I can't think of a third country. Each of the candidates have severe problems with socialism and oppression. And look what the world has done to Israel! What has Israel done to deserve all the negative press? They have been saints in this conflict, outshining even Mother Theresa. My word! Look at what these people are putting up with, and how calm and restrained they have been throughout it all. Could you honestly say that you would be as restrained, patient, and kind to your enemies if they put you through the same horror?
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on January 5, 2006 02:47 AMBottom line - appeasement did not work then and it will not work now, or ever.
Posted by: fred on January 5, 2006 09:31 AMYes, the U.S. was a party to the Treaty of Versailles, but signed reluctantly. A weary, ill Wodrow Wilson acquiesced to the punatory clauses Clemenceau, Lloyd George and Orlando demanded be imposed on the German people, opening the door to the Nazis in the late 20's/early 30's. You may also recall that the U.S. Senate, led by Republican isolationist Henry Cabot Lodge, refused to ratify the treaty.
That isolationism prevailed throughout the 1930's, leading us to remain on the sidelines until attacked. Britain and France declared war on Germany in Sept. 1939 partly because of their mutual defense treaty with Poland was violated and partly because they realized they were next on Hitler's list.
I agree that appeasement will not work. George W. Bush may not be Churchill, but he's certainly not Clinton (Chamberlain).
Posted by: Saltherring on January 5, 2006 02:02 PMAll too true.
All too often left unsaid.
Liberals say that the Treaty at Versailles caused WWII by placing crushing economic restrictions on Germany. They also say that capitalism and Laissez Faire in America (stock speculation) caused the depression. Neither belief is true.
We all lived in a world economy from the turn of the 20th century forward that gradually collapsed through the 1920's. Versailles didn't help, but Fascism arose as a supposed "Third Way" between Bolshevism and capitalism that amounted to totalitarian socialism. European (including Italy and Germany) turned away from market forces in favor of socialist command economics. FDR pursued socialist schemes all of which failed, and presided over 12 years of economic depression without solving ANY of America's economic problems.
It took the war to re-array attitudes about freedom, individualism, and capitalism and restore economic prosperity around the world. In contrast, after the war, the Soviets established the dark empire of economic disaster, human poverty and oppression that lasted for over 40 years more.
Market forces are the only natural economic and social levelers ever invented that work to grow prosperity for all levels of human ability. Those who refuse to acknowledge this fact, including nearly all liberal Democrats in America, will always resent Capitalism's successes and try to destroy it.
I still hear Democrats assert that Bush's tax cuts hurt our economy when the facts show the opposite is true. In effect they bite the very hand that feeds them, but then . . . resentment is not smart and beliefs are not necessarily based on facts.
Thanks for the great comments.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on January 5, 2006 03:27 PMBut Kirby Wilbur is also wrong for receiving a "friend of Israel award" that says he is putting the interests of Israel ahead of America's best interests.
Americans should only focus on what is in AMERICA'S best interests.
We need to heed the words of our First President, George Washington, and what he said regarding this in his farewell address to the nation.
http://www.liberty1.org/farewell.htm
So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
Posted by: Jeff on January 5, 2006 06:20 PMSure, we can all have an opinion, but that opinion should be based on what's right for America.
To get involved to the extent that Friend of Israel Award Winner Kirby Wilbur has and to the extent that Darwin Award Winner did is wrong.
Just so I am being clear I do want to state that what Rachel Corrie did and what her parents are doing is far, far worst than what Kirby has done. At least Israel is an ally. And Rachel Corrie did what she did out of hatred towards America. Her parents shouldn't be allowed back into America as they are a bunch of traitors.
So, I am sorry if you got the impression that I was making a moral equivancy argument. I will leave that to Steven Spielberg.
Posted by: Jeff on January 5, 2006 09:45 PMSure, we can all have an opinion, but that opinion should be based on what's right for America.
To get involved to the extent that Friend of Israel Award Winner Kirby Wilbur has and to the extent that Darwin Award Winner Rachel Corrie was involved is wrong.
Just so I am being clear I do want to state that what Rachel Corrie did and what her parents are doing is far, far worst than what Kirby has done. At least Israel is an ally. And Rachel Corrie did what she did out of hatred towards America. Her parents shouldn't be allowed back into America as they are a bunch of traitors.
So, I am sorry if you got the impression that I was making a moral equivancy argument. I will leave that to Steven Spielberg.
Posted by: Jeff on January 5, 2006 09:46 PMGird up. Stay the course. Fight until the last enemy is disarmed or dead. There is no other way out.
Posted by: ERNurse on January 8, 2006 11:06 PM