On the contrary, under my understanding of universal democratic principles, no “people” is entitled to have its own country. I said that separatism does not work. That applies to all people, not just Jews. For example, I oppose the black separatism of a Louis Farrakhan just as much as Zionism, and for exactly the same reasons. White separatism was practiced in United States until the civil rights ended it. It was also practiced in South Africa until ended by the great Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu. 

Where there is separatism there must be conflict. There must be war. That is a law of human nature.

PH,

Instead of saying Obama must kiss the rings of Jews, perhaps we could put it in a nicer way and say that at this point, Jews are an important part of Obama’s coalition. He needs Jews. Palestinian sympathizers are a much less influential voting block. It is a tribute to his political skills that he can get both sides to support him, and it gives me hope that he can bring them together in a constructive peace process.

Good article. The movement for one democratic state continues to gain momentum.

Three religions.
One Holy Land.
One Democratic State.

You like this slogan?

I enjoy reading your posts, I find them very entertaining and revealing.

Lilmamzer, you epitomize the arrogant self serving zionist which has given the jewish religion a bad name.

Obama has to get into office first, kissing the rings of jews who control the editorial pages and the news rooms of not only in the media in America but those contolling media worldwide.

I’ll bet Obama curtails some of the Israeli access which has gone unabated these past 7 years, bye bye neocons.

Heres something for you lil.  Who invented you. Baron von Zionistein.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/959229.html

Look, lil, I’m against Zionism and you’re for it. You call Obama a “Zionist”, although he has never called himself that. I would not, but if it makes you feel good, knock yourself out. It does not follow that we agree on “nothing”.  We both want peace and justice -at least I hope so. We agree that “Obama has a fundamental sense of justice and fairness and nothing in his past or present rhetoric and positions suggests he would play the race and bigot card...”. We are both supporting him, because we both believe that whatever happens, these values will guide him. The question is whether Obama can persuade both Zionists and Palestinian sympathizers that that he has both their interests at heart and will not betray either side. Then there can be successful negotiations.

“I’m glad that you and I can agree to put our faith in Senator Obama to handle this problem. ”

I agree with you on nothing.

Obama is a Zionist - quite the opposite from you. Agreed? (didn’t think so)

Obama does not wish to destroy the State of Israel as you would like to have it.

Obama has a fundamental sense of justice and fairness and nothing in his past or present rhetoric and positions suggests he would play the race and bigot card and deny the Jews the right to self-determination in their historic homeland.

You are a bigger fool than I could have imagined if you believe Obama is thinks the way you do.

“To me, we see the right answer standing before us in President Barack Obama - not separatism, but integration, the path of Martin Luther King...”

Prepare to be disappointed that your Jew-problem fixation will not be addressed to your satisfaction by Obama. He is a Zionist, and so was Martin Luther King. Obama has been explicit in his support for Israel as the sovereign hoimeland of the Jewish nation, as was King two generations earlier.

Too bad you won’t spend as much time trying to integrate the 22 Arab nation-states with the same bigoted zeal you display towards the lone Jewish state. Why is that? And if you did, you’d have your work cut out for you. nearly a million Jews from Arab lands were expelled and dispossessed for no reason other than that they dared to live as Jews in a majority Arab population. Israel, of course, has over a million Arab citizens, yet the Arab states are essentially ethnically-cleansed of Jews.

Don’t let that essential fact keep you from your Jew-problem crusade, though.

You have a Jew-problem, and it’s a bad one. You are, in fact, a bigot. I say that not as one who wants to call another person names, but because your repeated calls to deny to the Jews what you would deny to no other people is the essence of bigotry, and it is ugly.

No matter, Wicher, your ideas are neither new nor humane nor fair, and least of all just.

And you will not see your destructive vision come to fruition, ever.

By lilmamzer, February 28 at 1:29 pm #

Wicher - you are a bigoted fool. If your opinions have any sway, it is one that is detrimental to the cause of justice, peace, and fundamental fairness.
----------------------------------------------------
lil,

Before you got to this last statement, I thought we were talking. I was agreeing with you. Why did you want to go and call me names?

I think Zionism is and always has been a bad idea, bad for the whole human race, including Jews. I understand that it is a reaction to millenia of anti-Semitism culminating in the Holocaust, but still I do not believe that Jewish separatism is the right answer, any more than I believe that black separatism is the answer to racism against blacks. To me, we see the right answer standing before us in President Barack Obama - not separatism, but integration, the path of Martin Luther King, of Nelson Mandela. I think this is at the core of Obama’s values and he will apply them to this situation. What’s done is done; there has been pervasive anti-Semitism, there was Hitler, there was a Holocaust, the state of Israel was founded, there was a Naqba, and now we are here.

In the long run I believe Israel’s “demographic problem” is insoluble. History will require Israel to evolve beyond being a Jewish state to a fully integrated multicultural democracy. The question in my mind is how this process can be managed peacefully to the benefit of all concerned.

I’m glad that you and I can agree to put our faith in Senator Obama to handle this problem.

I’m always reluctant to comment on these pages dealing with the Israel-Palestine issue, as the discussion quickly turns into a written version of the Jerry Springer Show.

Ritter’s best comment is that “Palestinian Terrorists” can also be seen as “Palestinian Freedom Fighters” depending on your perspective. Even the killing of the Marines in the barracks in Lebanon can be seen as such [though Ritter of course, as a Marine, would object].

If, say, the Chinese set up military bases in California, and tried to referee (and therefore exacerbate) conflicts among various ethnic groups there, do you think some oppressed group that got the short end of the deal might decide to blow up one of the Chinese barracks? Ah--but that would be “terrorism.”

After all, all the Chinese did was force all the Black people out of Watts and relocate them to the Mojave desert. What’s wrong with that? Then Watts was taken over and settled by Native Americans.

And then, all the Caucasians were removed from Beverly Hills, their homes turned over to Mexican Americans, who had an ancestral claim on the area and were given instantaneous citizenship under the “right of return” law.

Do you think some of those who were forced out of there homes might be motivated to kill Chinese troops? But that would be “terrorism,” wouldn’t it?

As a libertarian, I say get all US troops out the Middle East, today. We are playing the same impossible role as the Chinese in the above scenario. Once foreign meddlers are removed from the scene, people can resolve their conflicts peacefully.

Wicher - you are so tedious.
PT posts a link only, to some Chomsky article, and I respond with my opinions.
And you demand an academic critique with conventional attributions and format?

HA HA HA HA HA

Ahhhhh. That felt good.

I don’t give a rat’s ass if anyone here even reads my posts, let alone agrees with or even understands what I write. I post here for my own amusement, you fatuous, bigoted, left-wing fringe oddball.

If you’ve read any Chomsky, and you had a thinking, critical mind, you would have at least acknowleged the validity of my opinion, if not actually agreeing with it.

Everything you post, Wicher, is a (minor) joy for me to read.

The Israelis retaliated by killing 20 Palestinians, many of them innocent civilians.

So whats new?

Re lilmamzer, February 28 at 7:30 pm #

Why is my opinion ignorant? Because you disagree with it? I’ve read Chomsky, so my opinions are hardly ignorant. That’s an asinine thing to say, Wicher, but not surprising coming from you. His field is linguistics, but it’s completely irrelevant what his academic credentials are; his soul appears corrupted.

-----------------------------------------------------
lil,

You say you have read Chomsky so your opinion is not
ignorant. What you have not done once is to accurately quote Chomsky, in context (say from the article above) and presented your objections in a clear, objective and rational way. So far you have not shown that you have read or understood one word that he says. No one, therefore, should take you seriously.

You have said not one word to substantiate your ignorant opinion of Chomsky, one of the finest scholars in the world.

Why is my opinion ignorant? Because you disagree with it? I’ve read Chomsky, so my opinions are hardly ignorant. That’s an asinine thing to say, Wicher, but not surprising coming from you. His field is linguistics, but it’s completely irrelevant what his academic credentials are; his soul appears corrupted.

Wicher, it’s not defamatory to say that Chomsky is a pop-culture icon of the far-left. It’s a fact. That is why you rush to defend him and the other bobble-heads here always link to him. It makes y’all look bad, really, it does. Chomsky is a laughingstock and for good reason.

He was (and may still be) a brilliant academic linguistics professor, but his bombastic screeds are neo-Marxist pablum.

That’s not defamatory, just a statement of fact. His world-view is as simplistic as it is outmoded and discredited. And what’s worst of all is the equivocation mindset he helps perpetuate. Actually, it’s beyond equivocation. Reading his articles leaves one with the distasteful feeling of having heard an American citizen hold this country’s mortal enemies in higher esteem than his own. The good part is that he is a fringe character and will never be seen as anything more than that. As I’ve said before, he should stick to grading papers and stop embarrassing himself.

lil,

You have said not one word to substantiate your ignorant opinion of Chomsky, one of the finest scholars in the world. All you done in this post is to insult him and lie about him. You have not even tried to adduce a single argument that might convince another person. Why should anybody be interested in your bile?

I don’t agree with Chomsky about everything. But this is not criticism, this is defamatory garbage.

A car bomb to kill a car bomber because car bombing is bad.

That is not justice.

The dissenters like Ritter and Chomsky are not defending Mughniyeh but are pointing out the hypocrisy of assasination justice.

A typical refrain from the arrogant supporters of assasinations via bombings such as this (and our and Israel’s use of missles) is that “we” are assasinating people who kill innocent people. That it is entirely okay to kill “bad people.”

The Western Ethic is killing is bad, but killing bad people is good. Which means, therefore, that killing is not always bad. Killing is good, when killing bad people.

We are justified in killing those we determine to be bad.

Are others justified in killing those they determine to be bad?

And then, what happens when there is “collateral damage” and innocent civilians are killed by “us” when “we” hand out this kind of justice?

Killing those who kill innocents is good, right?

But “we” kill innocents—like some hundreds THOUSAND in Iraq—by accident, right?

Fools all of you arrogant pricks who support assasinations as it ONLY LEADS TO ANOTHER GENERATION OF RETRIBUTION.

You call him a terrorist, of course, as he is trying to terrorize a population into turning on it’s own government’s policies.

Better to ask though, is: what drives a terrorist to do what he does?

But lets go back into the history of why the Marines were in Lebanon, then, if you can come up with any links to support your theories......

Why has America ever sent Marines into other countries (other than the World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam)?

They were sent many times over many years to many places. Always, always they are sent to protect “American interests.” From protecting/evacuating civilians to prop up dictators to help protect American business. Any many other reasons. But always, always, for “American interests.” This too can be said for CIA covert actions.

By Ga, February 28 at 3:43 pm

As for “sticking up for Islamic Jihadi murderers,” that just tells us more about you than he. Chomsky points out, in detail, the hypocrisy of the Western leaders, who have great gobbs of blood on their hands. You and your kind seem to think that America/Israel have pristine pasts and have never done anything even remotely wrong, and that everything everybody else has done is totally without any justification and is only because “they hate us.”

I said what was wrong in my post, but you clearly don’t get it. I called Chomsky’s writing “equivocating crap”. Do you know what that means?

All governments are flawed and fallible and make mistakes, but I’ll bet you my house that you live in a Western democracy and not, say, in Gaza or Syria or Iran. If your leaders have so much hypocrisy and gobs of blood on their hands, why stay here if the Islamic Jihadi guys represent a viable alternative for you?

Again, equivocating crap, which is Neo-Com Chomsky’s broken-record mantra, is, frankly, just pathetic, but not nearly as much as it is for those who incessantly quote and link to him.

Chomsky writes as if the citizens of the United States and Israel have no moral collective right to defend themselves against enemies whose sole reason for existence is genocidal. That much is plain, and that’s more than enough to discredit him from serious consideration in any constructive discourse.

Has it never occurred to you why dead-end leftists like Chomsky will never move beyond the far-left fringe and be considered anything other than an ideological zealot espousing hugely unpopular viewpoints?? Here’s a hint: it’s not because the vast majority of Americans are stupid (how often I read that elitist argument here) and it’s not because the vast majority of Americans don’t have a fundamental sense of fairness and decency.

More equivocating crap from the discredited fringe far-left icon Chomsky.

And just what was wrong with what Chomsky wrote? Was his facts wrong? If so, what exactly and what is the real truth? Be specific. Simply stating that something is “crap” is a useless, meaningless argument. May make you feel good, but it refutes nothing Chomsky wrote. Where are all your scholarly articles we can comapre it with?

As for “sticking up for Islamic Jihadi murderers,” that just tells us more about you than he. Chomsky points out, in detail, the hypocrisy of the Western leaders, who have great gobbs of blood on their hands. You and your kind seem to think that America/Israel have pristine pasts and have never done anything even remotely wrong, and that everything everybody else has done is totally without any justification and is only because “they hate us.”

I hope Obama continues to maintain good relations with Israel and its neighbors after we cut their allowance. 

Since when has U.S. AID become an entitlement? Before the federal government cuts its own citizens benefits, it should begin here.

Mughniyeh, Bin Laden and the like have been prophesied in the May 15th Prophecy

To know with 100% accuracy what will happen next go to the May 15th Prophecy at http://lastdaywaychers.blogspot.com

It has predicted the Invasion of Iraq by Turkey and more

Do you really want to know the TRUTH?

Wicher, you wite: “I am putting my hope in President Obama.”

This is what Obama said two days ago in an interview with Ynet News of Israel:

Q: Some people in Israel and some Jewish American leaders have expressed concern that you would be more sympathetic to the Arab side because of your Muslim background. How do you respond to this argument?

OBAMA: People who know the facts are not worried about my commitment to Israel’s security and the US-Israel relationship. I have overwhelming support among the Jewish community that knows me best, which is the Jewish community in Chicago. It may be that my family roots in Africa and my childhood experience in Indonesia give me some insights that allow me to practice effective diplomacy in the Muslim world. I certainly hope so. And that ability can be used to benefit American interests and Israel’s security, and, I hope, help build a better relationship between both our countries and the Muslim world.

Q:  For many years, Israel has considered the occupant of the White House a very good friend. Will this friendship continue if you become president?

OBAMA: Absolutely yes. I will carry with me to the White House an unshakeable commitment to the security of Israel and the friendship between the United States and Israel. The US-Israel relationship is rooted in shared interests, shared values, shared history, and in deep friendship among our people. It is supported by a strong bipartisan consensus that I am proud to be a part of, and I will work tirelessly as president to uphold and enhance the friendship between the two countries.
============================

There have been other recent interviews and quotes from Obama which show he is, at heart, a Zionist, in that he understands and supports the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their homeland of Israel.

Wicher - you are a bigoted fool. If your opinions have any sway, it is one that is detrimental to the cause of justice, peace, and fundamental fairness.

That’s a fair assessment, but I doubt Israel will re-occupy Gaza in the traditional sense. More likely you will see a hard military campaign to crush Hamas, its leadership cadre, and its ability to kill Israeli civilians by projecting power beyond Gaza (i.e. Kassam missiles). I hope it happens soon. The indiscriminate Arab murders of Israeli civilians is truly gruesome - witness the missile strike on the college in Sderot where a father of four was murdered yesterday.

Y A W N

More equivocating crap from the discredited fringe far-left icon Chomsky.

You fools keep regurgitating the same old spam. Never a new idea or shred of compassion. Just clinical, applied Marxist dogma by a linguist who should stick to grading student papers in his field rather embarrassing himself by sticking up for Islamic Jihadi murderers.

Which came first? I think we have to say that first came the Zionist invasion. Justice requires that Israel has to stop denying the Nakba - the ethnic cleansing of 1947-49 - just as they demand that the world recognize the Holocaust and compensate its victims. If Israel will do this much, there can be meaningful negotiations. But of course there will be none as long as Hamas keeps firing those stupid rockets.

I am putting my hope in President Obama. If anyone can work some negotiating magic, maybe he can.

Howard does not respond in any meaningful sense. He just regurgitates Israeli government talking points. I agree, it’s no use talking to him.

Click on http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16669

Click http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16669

The killing of Mughniyeh will not stoke the fires of the militants, but the continued Hamas rocket attacks and Israeli reprisals will do the trick.  Hamas’ strategy is to derail any serious negotiations between the PLO and Israel and they’re almost there.  As the Kassams do more and more damage and inflict injury and death to Israeli citizens, Israel will have no choice but to re-occupy Gaza.  And th-th-th-that’s all folks!

Do you think there is truth behind this?

http://just-another-inside-job.blogspot.com/2007/04/zi onist-s-killing-of-us-marines-in.html

As you point out, not having been brought to trial and proven beyond a shadow of doubt to have “murdered” marines means he is “alleged” to have murdered marines.
Not to rain on anyone’s parade or the thought of unjustly fallen comrade-in-arms but as exmilitary I remember taking an oath to uphold the Constitution. And under the UCMJ(Uniform Code of Military Justice) I remember reading the catch 22 about having a responsibility to refuse to obey an unlawful order. Just because one has a wacko for a Commander-in-Chief and puts other wackoes in place over the military doesn’t make their orders legal when the political leaders send the military on illegal actions. Few stand up against the orders as war means promotions and an enlarged military for the officiers. No generals or admirals are prosecuted; those who should know exactly what is occurring.
My view at the time was that a bunch of back thumping politicians sent those guys over there for votes back here and by doing so they put a great big bull’s eye on them.

I voted for him twice.

Chalmers, you misunderstand, I got out of the USMC months prior to the tragedy which occured in Lebanon to the 22nd MAU, many friends of mine were killed in that event.  Payback was long overdue.

Targeted assassinations are criminal and I suspect Israel is behind this one and others.  In doing this they have made our own politicians targets.  Politicians surround themselves with their own personal armies and coupled with secret schedules makes them hard to pin down or arrest.

Actually, they were Barack Obama’s words, Howard...... “the crucible of the sword” as applied to white men in particular.

But lets go back into the history of why the Marines were in Lebanon, then, if you can come up with any links to support your theories......

Next you’ll be saying that about Ralph Nader. He’s Lebanese too, uhh, PatrickHenry.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1336

If anyone deserved to go, Mughniyeh did.

Look at the utter failures of the Bush administration, especially in his so-called war on terrorism. As Scott points out, this war is won with the mind, the heart, and with ideas. None are in the province of the heartless, mindless, and incompetent Bush regime.

Like any radical idea, you defeat it with intelligence, example and hope. Revenge against your enemies is exactly the tact of terrorists.

So what does that tell you?

This guy beat Navy diver Stedham to death while his hands were tied; and killed Marines in their barracks while they were there to help Lebanon, not occupy it. A muderous gangster if there ever was one.

As was said here in earlier messages, “ Live by the sword and die by the sword” !!

There you go again Ritter----applying logic to an illogical situation----whatsa matter mit you??!!

Anyway it just proves that wars of attrition just plain suck!  WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE WIN A WAR DECISIVELY AND FOLLOW THROUGH FOR A CHANGE!

Actually, Bubba, you and Scott Ritter are quite wrong about “the lure of martyrdom” in Islam. It is far more central as a theme of self-sacrifice than people in the West care to understand these days.

It was also once central to Christianity but the story of Easter has been so usurped that it has become almost as irrelevant as the Western version of Christianity itself.

To understand this, one must realize the significance of the story of the battle of Karbala and other such historical events in Islam and how they have molded Islamic thought throughout the centuries. http://i-cias.com/e.o/karbala.htm

Even Christianity is really an Eastern religion (Palestine is West Asia) and Americans and Westerners in general have lost their understanding of it as their religion. http://www.ezsoftech.com/mazloom/karbala_gallery.asp

One must understand what is Ashura and who is Husayn to understand anything about Islam http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/K/karbala/

Excellent essay, Scott. 

“Radical Islamic fundamentalism of the sort that produces an Imad Mughniyeh is a nebulous entity lacking a central theme, cause, creed or motivating factor, save one: the lure of ‘martyrdom.’”

You could take out the “lure of ‘martyrdom’” entirely; radical Islamic fundamentalism would remain.  The central theme—regardless of the merit or demerit of its rationale, some of the activities that may follow from it, or anything else—is justice. 

“The key to winning the so-called global war on terror hinges not on our ability to kill terrorists but rather our ability to create conditions that stop producing terrorists.”

Exactly.  It doesn’t hinge on eliminating the lure or “martyrdom.” And “conditions” to could be shortened to ~condition~: justice.  Strive successfully for that, and the rest will follow. 

“There must be a policy of jihad de-legitimization.”

Rather than delegitimise jihad, which would mean yet another campaign ~against~ something, why not promote non-violent resistance?  Non-violent resistance leaves little room for criticism and puts much more pressure where much more pressure is due: on the bastards who do not want justice but simply to dominate. 

“Resolving the Palestinian issue would not cure all that ails the Middle East. But it would go a long way in restoring a sense of stability, a foundation of peace upon which any lasting agreement between Israel and its neighbors, or for that matter the United States and the Middle East, might be built.”

No justice, no peace.

Weell, there ya go, Lefty. Barack Obama would have praised it as “the crucible of the sword”, uhh. Its just a Lebanese “tea party” so why are you upset??? For “god + country” (Allah + Lebanon).......

Yes, thanks, nefertiti, its typical of the USA (and Israel) to demonize whoever they wish to attack. I was hoping someone would ask where the proof is......

The main problem for Lebanon was its civil war, not what the precious Americans or Israelis were up to. How would Ritter and his marines have helped???

The Lebanese Christian militias were perhaps more of a problem than any Islamic (or Islamist) organization then.

Apart from that, Lebanon never saw peace again as a result of the inevitable conflict between the PLO and the Israeli state, Palestinian refugees, etc etc.

Douglas
it was not proved that Mughnia was behind the attacks on the Barracks , it was alleged . the ISraelis never approved of the US forces being there witnessing their Daily Crimes against humanity they wanted them OUT of there, many say it was israel behind such a crime to push the US forces out of them. Mughia was not against Infidels (there is a 40% christians in Lebanon ) he was against those who killed his own people and occupied his land and committed war crimes .

“He is alleged to have carried out numerous attacks against the United States, killing hundreds, but for me, a former Marine, it is the loss of 241 of my fellow servicemen, the majority of them Marines, in an attack on a Beirut barracks attributed to Mughniyeh...”

So what are you saying then, Scott Ritter? That the USA finally had him liquidated as an inconvenience? That’s not so unusual anyway, is it?

Don’t forget that Lebanon is as much a Christain country as Islamic. Why does the USA always mess things up when they arrive to ‘help’?

To Mughniyeh then, the USA was just another infidel, another invader, another illegal occupier. You were HIS enemy and he wouldn’t have given a damn about you, either, Ritter.