Friday, July 14, 2006

When History bites back

Once, there was a small nation created by international consensus from the ashes of a world war. It included two main nationalities and it was the only free nation in the region, surrounded by larger neighbors who resented it and coveted its land, which they felt rightfully belonged to them. In spite of that, it became a prosperous and free republic, and its citizens enjoyed one of the highest living standards in that part of the world.

As a result of the hostile attitude of its neighbor countries, this tiny country had developed a well trained and superbly equipped military, with advanced weapons and its own arms industry. It was also allied with the Western democracies both by its values and by strategic and practical necessity.

One of this small country's warlike neighbors had a number of its former natives in a part of the tiny nation and began orchestrating riots and other terrorist activity among them in an effort to subvert and conquer their neighbor. When the government of the small country attempted to restore order, the larger nation accused it of violating its former nationals' human rights and committing an "occupation."

A propaganda campaign was begun, claiming that the small country had committed "war crimes" and violated international law. Huge, violent demonstrations were organized by leaders of the larger nation to agitate for the "independence" of their former countrymen.

The larger nation claimed that it could not control the popular anger in the "street" and that it would be forced to go to war and plunge the region into chaos. The case was frequently made that the small country was "racist" and should never have been created at all.

A quartet of nations, including the Western democracies the small nation was allied with, came together to find a solution and a peace plan was created for a two-state solution -- without the input or agreement of anyone from the small country.

The peace plan involved a trade of land for peace, with the former nationals of the larger nation to have an independent state on a large part of the small country`s land.

No one in the Quartet would have considered repatriating the natives of the larger nation back to their original home country, or giving them some of the larger nation`s territory to live on.

When the leaders and diplomats of the small nation protested at this one-sided settlement, they were bullied into acceptance with threats of withdrawal of all aid and military assistance by the very western allies they had counted on for support in preserving their freedom. Instead, they were offered guarantees for the security of their remaining territory.

They were likewise abandoned by the international body that had brought them into existence in the first place. They reluctantly accepted the Quartet`s diktat, counting on the guarantees they were given for their security and territorial integrity. Certain politicians in the small country were even happy at the settlement, since the "occupation" was ended and peace preserved. And the international community congratulated them on making sacrifices and bold moves for peace.

After Munich, Czechoslovakia was forced to withdraw to indefensible borders, leaving a large part of its superb defenses and arms works in the hands of "Slovakia," a German satellite.

Less than a year later Slovakia became Germany`s bridge for invasion, and the tiny country was crushed between Hitler`s Germany and Poland. The international community did nothing to honor its guarantees, nothing whatever...and alone, without a single voice being raised in protest, the Czechs were destroyed.

When the Western democracies threw Czechoslovakia to the wolves they eliminated Hitler`s worry about a strong adversary on his eastern border, paved the way for the Molotov -Ribbentrop Pact with Stalin's Russia and virtually guaranteed World War Two. Had the West stood by Czechoslovakia, Hitler would never have dared to move.

Those who favor bullying Israel into a so-called peace settlement would do well to remember the last time the West betrayed a strong ally to preserve "peace in our time." They might want to consider what a victory of this kind for the forces of Islamic fascism might mean to the West and preserving its freedom.

And the Israelis would do well to remember that all the security guarantees in the world are no substitute for defensible borders and a strong military. And that `security' is not something that can be left to others.

History bites back, especially to those who forget its lessons.


Alexandra said...

Ditto that.
Josh (said with affection) it is a truly inspiring account of how quickly we forget the history lessons that bind us.

Our 'stop or I'll say stop again' policy however has been borne out of a dangerous misconception that in today's world, the Islamists are interested in a co-existence with the infidels.

It is a slippery slope that can only bring us eventually to our knees facing Mecca three times a day.

When my own country of birth in Eastern Europe asked the West for help to fight the horrors of our totalitarian dictator, when we were on the streets in hundreds of thousanads, and could have crushed him they turned away from us, ignored even by the MSM. Only to return and bomb our capital, far away from the genocidal mania of soldiers who had had enough of their women and children being raped by Muslims and being forced out of their own homes by them unless they converted.

Of course it was an over the top desperate reaction, and genocide is never excused, but the Muslims know how to play the game of sympathy all too well, and bomb their own queues of women and children to show the world they are the victims. They also know all too well how to make propaganda with the MSM in cahoots because it makes a good story, and wins prizes.

Do you all remember the famous picture that was printed all over the world, the thin man half naked behind chicken wire, and the day after the US announced the bombings? Well, according to the investigative reports of a German journalist carried out afterwards, the photos and the video from which they were taken, were less than honest. Here is the story in text form and here is a must see video. (you have to sit through a tedious beginning of the video, but the rest is mesmorizing, and really shocked me when I first saw it). The video tells the story well, as it reveals all the other details of how that photo and others including the video, were made to give desired impressions.

The West does not learn its lessons and Israel has. I admire their courage and resolve to put their boys in harms way and hit at the heart of the cancer, hard and fast before it metastasizes, like it did in my own country of birth.

They too have the perils of the propaganda of staged footage that plagues our screens, and decorates our MSM with laurels.

There is no peaceful co-existence with the likes of The Muslim Brotherhood or Hezbollah there is only the law of Shari'a or death. If you choose life, you have to live it without them in your midst, and you take no prisoners.

We have fought this war a thousand years ago, and we have never really stopped fighting it, and probably never will....

Freedom Fighter said...

Baroness, what a pleasure to have you drop by! Make yourself comfortable and let me get you a Bombay martini..or perhaps a vintage, chilled zilavka, in honor of your heritage, if you prefer.

Serbia is a great tragedy, because they were always a staunch American ally,unlike the Croats and Bosnians, who were Nazi allies and cannon fodder.

My late father was involved in newspaper work, and clued me in at an early age how the MSM work..they mostly come up with a herd-mentality `script' on a given story and simply discount whatever contradicts the script when ever possible.

Serbia is a classic example...`Serbs bad, Muslims good.' When in fact there were atrocities on both sides.

So instead of helping the Serbs oust Milosevic, we bombed them and allowed the Muslims to do their own ethnic cleansing, with the result that Bosnia and Kossovo are now jihadi outposts in the southern gateway to Europe...just as in the days of the Ottomans.

My take on the reason for that is that Clinton, like other presidents before him are simply enamored of Saudi and UAE largesse and business as usual, or in the case of Dubbya, have grown up with the Saudis and simply can't imagine their bosum pals as genocidal wahabi jihadis.

Isn't it interesting that no matter how often the US acts to succor Muslims and save Muslims lives (Iraq,Bosnia, the tsunami, Kuwait, etc.) we are STILL the Great Satan and damned for `interfering in Islamic countries'?

As for Islamic disinformation, Israel has been the victim of a multimillion dollar propaganda campaign here in the US and the EU financed by the's not at all a stretch for me to imagine that it was done to the Serbs.

Palestinian poster boy Mohammed Dura was one example, shot by his own people for propaganda, as Der Spiegal and the Atlantic Monthly revealed. The recent `Gaza beach blanket massacre' was another Pallywood production.

Another thing that's not well known is that Reuters and the AP are compelled to hire Palestinian reporters approved the Palestinian Authority..IF they want access to the story.


I also agree with you, m'dear, that this is merely a new phase of an old war,and if it is not stopped we WILL lose our civilization (oh,and's FIVE times on your knees facing Mecca...a comfortable burka is a necessity, LOL)). Israel is merely a front in this war. Their government has had some problems realizing it,but hopefully is now starting to realize that they are in an existential war and recover some of their old spirit.

I think we will too, given time.

My main fear is that the West will force Israel to become our generation's Czecholslovakia `for peace', thus destroying one of our strongest allies. The parallels are striking, especially given some of the rhetoric one hears today, particularly in Europe.

That is something we will have to deal with, sooner or later.

A pleasure to have you drop by, Baroness..

BTW, what do you think of Montenegro becoming independent? Are the Balkans fragmenting too much to defend against jihad?

Fond Regards,

The Old Nail said...

The conflict in the middle east is between two religious ideologies, both of which have used terrorism to further their own aims.
It would be false to think that Israel is the defender of the west, or indeed anything other than a terrorist state itself, dealing with the results of it's own arrogance.

The Muslim threat to the west is very real, Western and Muslim cultures cannot, and will not ever live side by side in peace with us, so to have political correctness, and 'Multiculturalism' enforced on the west as it is done today holds a greater danger to us than the Palestine/israel conflict.

The Muslims are out for themselves, and Israel is looking after israel without concern for anyone else so lets not imagine them as doing anything other than defending the land they stole from its rightful owners.

Anonymous said...

rusty nail:
lets not imagine them as doing anything other than defending the land they stole from its rightful owners.

and just who would be the rightful owners be?
do you have title copies of deeded land?
whose land to you live on?
whoever it is you better leave.

Anonymous said...

Besides the impossibility of comparison between the two situations you describe, you have another flaw in your post.

This is that Czechoslovakia was not caught in the pincer between Nazi Germany and Pilsudski Poland. Nazi Germany yes, but Pilsudski Poland no. How could it be Pilsudski Poland when Pilsudski died in 1935 and the Munich pact occured in 1938?

You are refering to the Sanacja regime in Poland. The so called 'rule of the colonels". They were the successors to Pilsudski, who started the Sanacja regime in 1926. However the Sanacja of Pilsudski was very different from the regime after his death.

Similarly the Cieszyn / Tesz enclave which Poland invaded that you refer to, has a much longer history. It was a site of much contention in 1918/1919 when the borders of eastern Europe were not yet set. Its occupation by the Poles in concert with the Germans was indeed dubious. However, what would the alternative have been? Germany taking it all - a situation not pleasing to the Poles.

As for the early history of Czechoslovak-Polish relations - when Poland was pitted against the Red Army of Soviet Russia and struggling for its own existence, far from helping Poland, Czechoslovakia refused to allow arms to pass to Poland.

Considering how very much more complicated the history of only this one particular incident is, I would suggest that your historical interpretation of not only your Czechoslovak-Israel analogy but also of all the purported historical facts you hold should be reevaluated. Things are more complicated than they usually appear.

-Andrew, a history student in Melbourne

Freedom Fighter said...

Hello Andrew,
I feel, frankly that you're nigggling a bit.

As you yourself admit, it was PILSUDSKI's totalitarian regime that invaded a sovereign democracy..whatever the reason. And those borders were set by the League of Nations,which created both Poland and Czecholslovakia after WWI.

Given the warlike and dictatorial nature of Poland's government at the time, is it surprising thatthe Czechs were wary of them? The fact that the Poles took advantage of the Nazi invasion from Slovakia proves that they were right.

The Poles, like the Germans coveted Czech territory and used propaganda, trumped up `grievances' and violence as tools to seize them.

They also had similar totalitarian ideolgies, and even shared a passion for Jew hatred. Remember the famous quote from the Polish government about `not needing Germany to tell them how to deal with their Jews'?

I also disagree that the two situations are `not comparable'..especially when I compare the rhetoric directed against the Czechs for `standing in the way of peace' and what is being said in some circles, particularly on the Left about Israel moving to indefensible borders or even being removed a s a nation `as a sacrifice for peace'.

Your post does a fair bit to prove how close the parallels actually are.

Thank you for that.

Freedom Fighter said...

I'm frankly a bit surprised by your attitude.

Aside from your equation of Arab and so-called `Jewish' terrorism, which is TOTALLY incorrect and false, your feelings towards Israel stink of rank hypocrisy.

You appear live in Britain, a country formed by blatant instances of terrorism, conquest and bloodshed, and country that was complicit in the Holocaust..and certainly in the amount of deaths that occured.

After the war, Britain did its very best to keep Jews out of the Palestine Mandate, which it only acquired because it agreed to make it a state for the Jews...even sending refugees back to the very concentration camps they had been liberated from...and conditions in the British `refugee' camps for Jews in Cyprus make the `Palestinian' refugee camps look like paradise.

Britain also armed and officered the Arabs in the 1948 War,noatbly the Arab Legion, even though the Arabs made no secret of their goal of jihad and massacre against the Jews.

With all that, Israel has continued to be an ally of the West. seen any Jews bombing your subways lately or trying to take over your country and make everybody a Jew or a slave?

What seems to bother you and some other people, particularly in Britain is that this time the Jews have the means to defend themselves against genocide.

In any case, trashing a country that is fighting those who are your enemies may gratify some people's prejudices,but it is gross stupidity.

Even Churchill was willing to help Stalin if Stalin was willing to fight the nazis.

Thank you for dropping by.

The Old Nail said...

Firstly, in reply to louielouie I would ask how he/she defines rightful owners of a land?
Do you consider that whoever happens to be living in any given land at the moment is thus the rightful owner?
I'm sure I will tell that to my landlord Lord xxxxx when he asks me for the ground rent that I pay to him each year just because my home is built on land his ancestors have 'owned' since 600 years.

I also can't accept that the same post in which I am accused of rank hypocricy can end with mention of Churchill being willing to help Stalin if it furthered his aims.

Stalin killed more of his own countrymen than Hitler did jews - Fact! and yet Churchill was prepared to form an alliance with him!
Churchill is always hailed as the greatest Englishman, but to me he was an imperialist, who sent soldiers to kill his own miners for the 'crime' of going on strike! A bigger Hypocrite you could never meet (except perhaps Bush)

I agree that Britain has indulged in acts of barbarity in it's history, the difference being that it is history, and bore relation to the technology and mindset of another age.

It is quite different to the deeds of Israel/hammas/al-queda etc in that those acts are commited as policy in 2006, not by long dead statesmen.

Israel has 'continued to be an ally of the west' only because of it's links to America's jewish backers, Bush himself said yesterday that to stop this conflict escalating 'Hammas must lay down it's arms' while much of the world condemns Israel for excessive use of force.

As to slavery there are many forms, you are correct I do not wish to become a slave of islam, but neither do I wish to become a slave of international consumerism and corporate finance.

We in Europe have recently witnessed the results of Muslims 'co-existing' with Christians for many years, the Balkans conflicts are witness to the fact that either Old testament or muslim ideologies have no scruples when allied to modern technology.

Freedom Fighter said...

Aaah, now I see.

It' s the Evil Jooos and the International Bankers as well as the Muslims.

I might mention that Europe traded six million Jews for 20 million Muslims..and you appear to be slightly unhappy at the results.

But why bother with mere details?

No matter...there are plenty of websites out there that cater to your particular fantasy.

Just not this one.

Frank said...

One small criticism.

You said: "...paved the way for the Comintern Pact with Russia..."

The "anti-Comintern Pact" was concluded between Japn and Germany and later Italy. The Comintern was an international communist organization sponsored by the USSR shortly after the soviet revolution. The Pact was AGAINST the USSR, not between it and Germany.

The treaty you are talking about above was the "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact", concluded between Germany and the USSR, and ensuring that Germany only had one front to fight in the event of western interference in the invasion of Poland.

Otherwise I found your article excellent. You had me going, and when the denouement came, I found the comparison between Israel and Chechoslovakia appropriate on all major points.

The only major difference between then and now, aside from the obvious geographical ones, is the existence of oil, that chronic bugbear of the left, and lifeblood of the west, without which the left would truly have something to complain about.

From a cynically functional point of view, The existence of oil in the middle east makes Israel more important than Chechoslovia to the western democracies by an order of magnitude.

Yishai said...

Wow. Amazing post. You are so right. We would do well to remember the lessons of history so that we will not duplicate the same bloody mistakes.

Anonymous said...

I took a political science course once in which the professor claimed that Czechoslovakia had the means before the Munich agreement to hold off the Germans indefinitely--- because of its strong mountain fortifications, army, industrial base, etc.--- without significant outside help.

Courtesy of the UK (the main culprit) and France, the Munich agreement removed the border territory (the Sudetenland) containing these fortifications and thereby totally unraveled the Czechoslovak defense system.

The professor also pointed out that, earlier in 1938, many of the German vehicles broke down as they cruised to their uncontested takeover (the Anschluss) of Austria. The rearming of Germany was as yet incomplete, and with a little moxie, the western powers could have done what it took then to defeat Nazism.

We can see something of the old lack-of-backbone and antisemitism problems today in the UK and continental Europe---check

Anonymous said...

Where would conservatives be without Hitler? He's the patron saint of conservatism. Whenever anyone suggests a policy short of scorched-earth war, conservatives invoke St. Hitler to prove that any argument that they disagree with (ie, "hey, let's try to kill and displace fewer civilians"), is tantamount to Munich.

Failing to support Saddam against the ayatollah would have been like Munich, failing to invade Iraq in March 2003 would have been like Munich, failing to light Beirut on fire following Hezbollah's kidnappings would have been like Munich, etc., etc., ad infinitum.

Mr./Ms. Fighter, your post is a thought-provoking one, well worth considering. I just want to advise caution in invoking Hitler.

Also, one can agree with the general principles you lay out-- the Will of the International Community is not synonymous with What Is Just and Right; Defensible Borders are Important; Hezbollah Is Some Pretty Bad People Who Need to Be Beaten Up; but still not support Israel's particular actions in Lebanon on the grounds that they are (1) counterproductive due to the amount of resentment on the part of Lebanese they've generated (2) unjustified due to the amount of deaths, injuries, and displacement inflicted on civilians in Lebanon. No one's advocating that Israel cede territory to Hezbollah; but it's not clear that reducing residential blocks in Beirut to rubble is really going to enhance Israel's long-term security.

Freedom Fighter said...

Bob, you are entirely correct.

Czecholslovakia had strong defences on its German border, and the Skoda arms factory (comparable to Krupp)were located in the part that became `Slovakia'and was torn from Czecholslovakia. The Czechs were defenceless afterwards.
Thanks for dropping by. Here's where we differ.

If people use Munich and Hitler as examples against appeasement, it's because they were particularly egregious examples within living memory, and cost the lives of millions. No mystery there!

As for Lebanon, you make what I feel is a common error in looking at hezbolah as some terrorist loonies outside the Lebanese government. That simply isn't true.

Hezbollah is a major part of the elected Lebanese government, with seats in parliament and several cabinet ministries. It is obvious that at the very least major elements of the Lebanese government were complicit in the attack on Israel.

J O S H U A P U N D I T: Israeli hostages are safe.Lebanon's foreign minister knows all about it.

J O S H U A P U N D I T: `Terrorism' versus acts of war

As such, just like the Hamas attack on Israel, this is an act of war by one sovereign nation against another.

Either the Lebanese government is prepared to exercise the power sovereign governments normally do, or Hezbollah is running things - as Shiek Nasralllah has indeed said.

Infrastructure gets hit in war, and civilians unfortunately suffer, both in Israel and in Lebanon. Particularly when Hezbolah uses private homes as weapons depots and rocket launching sites and uses civilians as human shields. Even UN kingpin Jan Egelund, hardly a supporter of Israel has admitted as much.

The Israelis need to be concerned, first of all, with eliminating the threat to Israel and destroying their enemy...and with PR implications as a distant second.

Thanks for dropping by.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the response.

I believe you might be confusing the Sudetenland-- the area Czechoslovakia conceded at Munich-- with Slovakia, then the easternmost area of Czvkia, now an independent country, and the home of hockey stars like longtime Quebec Nordique Petr Stastny.

You raise many worthwhile issues, which I unfortunately lack the time and background knowledge to address.

Briefly, then, you wrote: "Either the Lebanese government is prepared to exercise the power sovereign governments normally do, or Hezbollah is running things - as Shiek Nasralllah has indeed said."

Well, there are other possibilities, too. Hezbollah is strong in the south. Think of the trouble Pakistan has with its border regions. It's not immediately clear that bombing Karachi would be of great use in stamping out the Taliban in Western Pakistan. Similarly, it's not immediately clear that bombing Beirut is an essential part of fighting Hezbollah strongholds in the south.

Freedom Fighter said...

Hello Anonymous..thanks for dropping by.

Hezbollah is not only `strong in the south' but a totally integrated part of the Lebanese government, with bases in the south, as you mentioned, the Bek'aa Vally near the Syrian border and of course, in the part of Beirut the IDF are bombing.

That's the point.

I find it hypocritical of the Lebanese government to enable Hezbollah's rearming in violationof the peace agreement they signed and mouth off how much they respect them on the one hand and then complain when that devil's bargain backfires.

The Israelis are destroying infrastructure and blockading the country (a) to keep Iran and Syria from resupplying Hezbollah and (b) to keep the two hostages from being shipped out of Lebanon.

Both are totally legitimate wartime operations, in my view.

Buy the ticket, take the ride.

Unknown said...



Unknown said...

BTW, here's a good interview:

Prager & (vs?) Drobny

I'd *love* the opportunity to interact with some Jewish folks on the perspective that Christians have toward Judaism and Israel.

Voyager said...

As you yourself admit, it was PILSUDSKI's totalitarian regime that invaded a sovereign democracy..whatever the reason. And those borders were set by the League of Nations,which created both Poland and Czecholslovakia after WWI

Pilsudski did NOT run a totalitarian regime - only two of those existed in Europe - one the Lenin-Stalin Model and the other the Adolf Hitler Model.

Pilsudski died on 12 May 1935 of liver cancer.........

Analogies between Czechoslovakia and Israel are banal. Better analogies are with Prussia which was a pre-eminent military power subsidised by England as a counterbalance to French power and which consolidated itself by dealing with its enemies, actual and potential to live within secure boundaries.

The Czechs gave Hitler a genuine cause with their treatment of German minorities living inside their borders. The Versailles and Sevres Treaties created states irrespective of the ethnicities of those left inside them........33% Czechoslovakia's population were ethnic Germans concentrated in Moravia and Bohemia bordering Bavaria and Austria.

The French alone had treaties to protect Czechoslovakia and Poland - Britain had none. Could France really go to war to permit ethnic Germans to be denied civil rights ? The League had warned both Poland and Czechoslovakia on rights of ethnic groups and made them sign a separate treaty under the auspices of the Council Of The League

Freedom Fighter said...

Hello Colin, Yishai, Marc, JPMermaid..thanks for the kind words and for dropping by, and welcome to Joshua's Army..I see I have some blogs to check out!

Colin, I'd be happy to exchange some thoughts with you regarding the Christian connection to Israel.

Freedom Fighter said...

Voyager...thanks for stopping by.

Let's be intellectually honest, shall we?

Israel is not `subsidized' by anyone. It is the homeland of the Jews. Once it was established by UN vote in 1948, it was left to the wolves, to sink or swim.

NOBODY sold them arms,and none of the democracies helped them against the Arabs' promised jihad..including the US, which did not begin major military aid to Israel until after the `67 war.

On the contrary, the British did their very best to aid the jihadis, selling them modern equipment and even officering their armies, notably the Arab Legion under Colonel John Glubb.

As for Poland...first of all, Pilsudski's Poland both during and after his death was was a racist, nationalist regime.They just weren't as efficient or as murderous in dealing with their Jews. And they were happy to grab a slice of Czecholslovakia once it had been rendered defenceless by Munich. The last Jews murdered in the Holocaust were Polish Jews liberated from the death camps after the war who attempted to return to their homes..and wee murdered by their Polish countrymen.

I also see that you give creedence to German propaganda about `mistreatment' of ethnic Germans.
Just like the Arabs and the `Palestinians' the last thing the Germans were interested in was rights for ethnic Germans. If that was the case, they could easily have assimilated any who wanted to leave into Germany, just as the Arabs could have assimilated THEIR refugees from the war the Arabs started .

What Germany WANTED was the land and dominance..just like the Arabs want Israel.

Nice sale.

Anonymous said...

Oh, I think I understand now-- Israel is the good guys, so everything it does is therefore, by definition, good.

Wouldn't it be easier for them if they killed more Lebanese civilians, then? Fewer people to give them trouble, fewer would-be Hezbollah terrorists, and Israel would still be beyond criticism.

Freedom Fighter said...

I'm glad you understand, `Anonymous'.

Yes. Israel are the `good guys' in terms of the War against jihad.

While it's country run by humans and therefore imperfect, in comparision with the people they are fighting they are definitely on the side of the west...which is more than I can say for Hezbollah, al Qaeda, Iran and their western appeasors/apologists.

Obviously you see no difference between civilians killed because they are being used as human shields by terrorists and civilians deliberately targeted, as they are in Israel...and in your neighborhood soon, is putrid viewpoints like your prevail.

Congratulations on your moral delinquency, your lack of interest in preservation of your own freedom and for contributing to clarity!

Thanks for dropping by.

Anonymous said...

Mr./Ms. Fighter wrote: "Obviously you see no difference between civilians killed because they are being used as human shields by terrorists and civilians deliberately targeted..."

Not true at all. In fact, I was just arguing this point with a left-leaning person this week, on the same side as you.

The question is, Does the fact that Israel is the good guys, and on our side, give them a free pass to do anything? If tomorrow, while targetting 10 Hezbollah terrorists, they killed 500 civilians, would you care?

My fear is that this action by Israel will be counterproductive. Not because they have no right to defend themselves; not because they must only kill the precise number of terrorists as civilian victims they've endured; but because they're destabilizing a fragile democracy, and earning themselves some bitter and enduring resentment from Lebanon.

Yes, Israel wasn't on anyone's Top 10 List of favoritest things in Leb. even before this action, but I just don't see how a (pre-Taliban-era) Afghanistanesque Lebanon does much good for Israel's security, or PR.

Of course Israel is on our side. But that doesn't mean that it is or should be beyond criticism.

Freedom Fighter said...

Hello Anonymous,
I'm glad to see you appear to realize that your first post was a bit over the top and what you expressed perhaps not indicative of your views.

Of course Israel,like any other nation doesn't get a `free pass' as you put it to `commit atrocities'..and in fact, they never have in the sense of what atrocities actually are rather than in terms of the florid prose that issues from Islamists and their enablers in the West.

Example: Abu Bhreib was not an `atrocity;. Babi Yar was.

Israel taking out Palestinian terorists was not an `atrocity'..Bali and 9/11 were.


The handful of instances that have occured have been unequivocly condemned and punished, just like in the US military.

You asked `If tomorrow, while targetting 10 Hezbollah terrorists, they killed 500 civilians, would you care? '

Let me throw one back at you.If 100,000 Germans were killed in an air raid during WWII but it hastened our victory and saved American lives and freedom, would YOU care?

For that matter,do you have any compassion for the Israeli citizens killed, injured and made homeless by Hezbollah? Is the UN planning any humanitarian aid for those folks?

During wartime, infrastructure gets destroyed and civilians unfortunately suffer. That's why most free nations try to avoid war, and ultimately what ends it once it's started.

As for an Islamist Lebanon, what makes you think that wasn't already well advanced? Certainly Sheik Nasrallah thinks so (viv a vis his famous quote about how `Hezbollah runs Lebanon).

If Hezbollah wasn't already mostly in control, do you think they would have had the nerve to pull off what amounted to an act of war against Israel?

Use yer head, bucko.

Israel is faced with a lose/lose solution unless they defeat and destroy Hezbollah. If they had not responded in force to the attack and kidnappings, the next attack would have been worse, regardless of how `moderate' and self-abasing Israel's response was.

And frankly, not expecting them to respond like any other nation who's territory was attacked smacks of the old situation of `special rules' for the one Jewish nation in existance.

Thanks for dropping by.

Freedom Fighter said...

Hi JPMermaid,
The only prisoners the Israelis are known to have taken are a couple of Hezbollah fighters.

I would also bet that they managed to capture a couple of Iranian Republican Guards in the fighting, but like the Soviets captured by Israel inthe `67 war,that is something that will be kept very quiet.

Freedom Fighter said...

Well, TW.
First of all, you make the mistake of assuming that the totalitarian Polish regime needed to be `supported' by anyone except the military that kept it in power!

The Sejm was a rubberstamp, and the `elections' were largely a formality.

As for the widespread anti-Semitism in Poland, its astounding that anyone who claims a knowledge of history could deny it and blame it on unrepentant Yiddish speakers!

Some major elements of the Polish Church were and are a major factor in this...and it was not too long ago that Cardinal Glemp preached one of his notorious `Easter Sermons' blaming the Jews for killing Christ.

And as you also no doubt know,Lechs Walesa used a political opponent's supposed `secret Jewish identity' to win an election.

Jews were routinely attacked as `outsiders' in the Polish press, denied legal rights and denied entrance into many areas of Polish you also know very well.

There were many Poles who behaved gallantly towards their Jewish neighbors when the Germans came for them, and many of them are memorialized as Righteous Gentiles at Vad Yashem. It was, after all, a Polish Colonel who escaped from occupied Poland who risked his life to carry the news of the Holocaust to the West..and was largely ignored.

But it's also true that there were many more who did not, and it is YOU who do a disservice to the Polish people by glossing over it.

The last victims of the Holocaust were Polish Jews who were murdered by Poles in Kielce, attempting to return to their homes after surviving the death camps.

Again, as you know full well, the Jews had a seperate undeground in Poland and many other countries,because of the danger of anti-Semitic members of the gentile resistance movement betraying them to the Nazis.

It happened in Lithuania to my own great Uncle Laban.

Odd that you mention Stalin. While he was a murderous tyrant and no lover of Jews, he nevertheless permitted Polish Jews able to escape the Nazis to enter Russia, which, as you correctly point out was something much of the west was not prepared to do.

None of this has very much to do with the essay I wrote, but I feel such gross distortions shouldn't go unanswered. Especially for the sake of the Polish people you claim to care so much about.

Oh,one more thing..ALL of Czecholslovakia's territory was awarded to it by the League of Nations when the country was created after World War I. Attempting to whitewash the Polish government's opportunism in seizing territory from a neighbor attacxked bythe Nazis merely because a few Poles lived there doesn't change the heinous nature of the act.

Now...what was that you were saying about rubbish??