Kindermord bei Qana

From the desk of Joshua Trevino on Sun, 2006-07-30 18:14

The news today brings word of a massacre of children in Lebanon at the hands of the Israeli Air Foce. There is no other word for it: they were asleep, and now they are dead. It is a profound tragedy, an unspeakable horror, and a wrenching consequence of war. It is also, contrary to what you will hear in the coming days, utterly irrelevant to the justice of the Israeli cause, and meaningless to the need for a ceasefire.

The notion that civilians do not die in war is a new and absurd concept: it was not terribly long ago that they were not merely expected to, but meant to. The modern concept of civilian slaughter-as-tactic (or even strategy) was born in the minds of airpower visionaries like Giulio Douhet, and brought to fruition by the likes of “Bomber” Harris and Curtis Le May. (The premodern concept of the same was simply a feature of warfare from time immemorial.) The Second World War saw the maximum application of this concept: and if, postwar, men shrank from it, they did not therefore shrink from that cause, or their belief in the justice of the victors. Let us further note that those who did raise their voices against “area bombing” in the six decades since raised them against that per se – the intentional slaughter of civilians as such. They did not and do not protest, for example, the appalling slaughter of French civilians from the air in the Normandy campaign. Nor should they. There is a difference between murder and manslaughter; war is war; and the Allies were forced by military necessity in a fight against a barbarous foe. Most who think about this – and they are admittedly few – understand this.

What a pity that this measure of sanity is abandoned where Israel is concerned.

Let us call the childrens’ deaths in Qana what they are: a horrific freak of war. They were not intended; they were not actively sought; and they were not the product of criminal negligence. In weeks of war and thousands of sorties against a foe that intentionally hides amongst civilians in the active hope of just this manner of carnage, the remarkable fact is that this hasn’t happened before. Contrary to founding advocates of airpower – and unlike its battlefield foes – Israel does not seek the death of civilians for their own sake. Pace the rationalizations extended to Allied aircrews obliterating Western European villagers unfortunate enough to live near a rail junction, Israel does not even regard acceptance of this manner of death – unintended, incidental, and not worth especial efforts to preclude – as acceptable within the moral parameters of war. The uninformed and the insane will react with bitter derision upon being told this, on the heels of the news from Qana: but their emotional self-indulgence does not negate the fact at hand.

Need it be said – and it is a sign of our fallen age that it does need to be said – Israel’s enemy in this war operates under no such constraint. (One assumes that in bygone days, the difference between a Western democracy and a band of murderous savages would not need repeated explanation.) Hezbollah and the average Islamist do not shrink from direct assaults on civlians as such and as an end in itself. Indeed, it has been their sole tactic in this entire war. If they have not produced scenes of masses of dead children, it is not for lack of trying – it is, after all, the only thing they try for. That they have not managed it is indicative of the confluence of blind luck and Israeli battlefield superiority. But give it time: give it infinite time to launch its rockets and try its luck, as the braying proponents of ceasefire would have it, and eventually we’ll see Jewish children, too, incinerated in their sleep. The difference, of course, is that the perpetrators then will celebrate.

marcfrans: Belgium-Holland (2)

Submitted by George2 on Tue, 2006-08-08 23:08.

3) When I said that developments in France tend to precede those in Belgium it was not because 'Belgium' would be culturally closer to France than to the Netherlands. The majority Flemish people are not. If you replace "Belgium" by its politically powerful 'elite' then we could certainly agree.

We certainly do agree on the politically powerful ‘elite’. However, there is more.

I have worked in the three countries: the Netherlands, Belgium, and France. The Netherlands are much more fit for change: if someone has something to say, he/she says it. Sometimes the discussions are a bit lengthy over there, but there are discussions and they lead to solutions. A discussion means two or more parties talking to each other face to face in an open and respectful manner. I have participated in those discussions. Most of the time they end in a win/win result.

In Belgium direct and open face to face discussions are avoided. Talks are held behind closed doors. The unions do not want open discussions because this would mean their end. An open and face to face discussion means equality. Equality means the end of the union. They can only live on inequality. That’s why the Belgian unions follow the French example: the perpetuation of inequality. They actively seek to build walls and (try to) destroy bridges. They do not shy away from illegal activities to achieve this: hijacking and maiming people. I have worked also under these circumstances. It is ugly and very scary.

In the Netherlands you have unions too. But their role is much less prominent. You may disagree but you are still treated with human respect.

This wish for keeping societal layers (also in Flanders!) makes Belgium as a whole more ‘French’ than ‘Dutch’.

marcfrans: Belgium-Holland (1)

Submitted by George2 on Tue, 2006-08-08 23:05.

2) How can you say that it is the "Flemish side that follws the Dutch" politically, when it is the Belgian government that is the "purple" one, and when the Flemish regional government is led by a 'christian-democrat'?

As I wrote before, the Walloon side does not change. It remains in its ‘PS coma’. Although the left calls itself progressive, it really is static. The changes that they do impose in Belgium are merely cosmetic. It is the Flemish side that can take credit for most of the real and few changes.

The second Walloon party (besides the PS of course) depends on who wins the elections on the Flemish side in the federal elections. The last time the victors were the VLD. This lead to the purple government. The next elections where the Flemish could vote, were the elections for the Flemish parliament. And the result was the inclusion of the Christian democrats, just as in the Netherlands. There however, the socialists stayed out of the government. Trying to get into the government after the murder of Fortuyn by someone from the left, would have been pushing democracy at bit too far.

In the next federal elections you will see that the Christian democrats will also be included into the federal government (maybe with the VLD?). If there will be regional elections after the next federal elections, most probably you will see a (partial) copy of what is going to happen in the Dutch elections next fall.

What the ‘forces’ are behind this, I cannot tell.

More slogans, no 'argument'

Submitted by marcfrans on Mon, 2006-08-07 15:39.

@ Nansi

You continue to parrot slogans ("apartheid state" etc...) and present irrelevancies (American "indians") to the present conflict, and you are definitely not interested in a reasoned 'argument'.

I thought the issue at hand was the current war in Lebanon, which is a war between Hezbollah (really Iran and Syria) and Israel. But, now you have shifted the 'argument' to "the Palestinians are determined to drive out occupation". So, we are not discussing 'Lebanon' any more, are we?

What is the subject under discussion? Is it the current war in Lebanon and who 'started' it? Or, do you want to rehash the whole Arab-Israeli conflict again for the umpteenth time?

It is obvious that you consider yourself at war with Israel, and that you will justify any attacks on Israel on the (false) mantra of "occupation". Many of your 'leaders' clearly state that they want to destroy Israel. So, why fake surprise that the Israelis fight back when attacked?

The likely truth is that you want Israel to be attacked by terrorists, that you are not interested in discussing the current war or 'Lebanon', and that you are not interested in 'solving' or negotiating about the consequences of past aggressions of Arab armies against Israel. So, what more is there to say? You want to continue to participate in the eternal game of tyrants (both religious and political ones). That game consists of creating external 'enemies' (in this specific case "zionists" or jews), with the short term goal of retaining popularity among their masses, but with the long term goal of legitimising or justifying their tyrannical rule.

Israel must withdraw

Submitted by Nansi on Sun, 2006-08-06 15:02.

Occupation is to blame. If Israel gives up occupied land to its neighbors and respects UN resolutions maybe no one will be attacking them

hypocrisy

Submitted by marcfrans on Sun, 2006-08-06 23:03.

@ Nansi

You are obviously good at parroting slogans. But, whether you can 'reason through' an argument still remains to be seen.

Virtually every 'country' in the world in a sense sits on "occupied land", someone's occupied land. Do you think they should all start vacating their lands? Or, is it only those who use terrorism as a means, and who want to 'undo' history, who should get their way?

Talking about "occupied land" in the current hot conflict is funny, indeed. Israel vacated all its "occupied land" in Lebanon six years ago, and what did it get? Peace? Or Hezbollah rockets? So, why should Israel believe that the obstacle is "occupation"? Perhaps the real obstacle can be found in the words of the current Iranian president. Give the man his due, he is at least as clear in stating his intentions as Hitler used to be.

And your reference to UN resolutions is also funny. With regard to Lebanon, these resolutions told (1) Israel to vacate "occupied land", which it did, and (2) they told Lebanon (read Syria and Iran) to disarm Hezbollah and restore true 'sovereignty' (i.e. no militias and other 'private' armies), which they did not. Now, who again did not "respect" UN resolutions? Or do you simply want to repeat your slogans?

Reply to marcfrans

Submitted by Nansi on Mon, 2006-08-07 08:52.

Yes, the Americans stole the land from the Indians and as per your logic since you so much can 'reason through' an argument the Americans do not have to free it. Maybe that explains why an apartheid state supports another apartheid state. But the Palestinians are determined to drive out occupation. They have done it once before and they will not stop until they free the entire land of historical Palestine. The time it will take is irrelevant but signs of it are already on the ground.
Respecting UN resolutions mandates israel to withdraw from all Lebanese and Syrian territory and since Hezbollah claim land that is occupied by israel then they have every right not to disarm and continue their fight.

Moral dilemma of the Jewish masses

Submitted by Miriam on Sat, 2006-08-05 03:36.

"For it is much wiser for Israel to let their own civilians get killed than to destroy Hezbollah"

Same line Gandhi is supposed to have said both to the Hindus and Jews when they were faced with fascist savages. Yet EU made a statue of Gandhi in Euro parliament.

To this day, the 7/11 type savage deaths of Mumbai is far higher than in any other country and yet the greater Civil Society of Hindustan hardly retaliates. That is perhaps why "invite_jesus" called India a MORAL SUPER-POWER. It was India that sent her men for our WW-I AND II, and during Booxer revolution of murder chritians by chinese savages. And yet, we have given far more to the chinese than to the noble, dignified and gracious Hindus who have sacrificed their very lives for the good of the humanity.

I will be happy if holocaust museums are turned into Hindu temples or library for Hindu children. That way, we'd paying the debt in some small measure or a little gesture.

Belgicistische TV

Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2006-08-04 16:02.

@George2

We are in broad agreement w.r.t. "the lies of Belgian journalists". But, you also wrote:

"...what happens in the Netherlands ususally precedes what will happen in Belgium".

I hope you are right in that respect, at least in terms of collective/cultural awareness (bewustwording). Oddly enough, I have always felt that it was developments in France that tended to precede those in Belgium. Perhaps, times are changing?

@ marcfrans

Submitted by George2 on Mon, 2006-08-07 18:29.

Politically, Belgium follows the changes in the Netherlands. Actually, since the Walloon side of Belgium does not change and stays in its PS coma, it is the Flemish side that follows the Dutch example. The 'purple' government that exists now in Belgium, existed years ago in Holland. The next Belgian coalition will reflect the actual coalition in Holland.

Culturally, however, you are right. Culturally, Belgium is much closer to France than to the Netherlands. Actually, there are no neighboring countries in Europe that are so different from each other as the Netherlands and Belgium. A Dutch scholar, Geert Hofstede, quantified 'culture'. Some of his books: "Culture's consequences", "Cultures and organizations; software of the mind".

@George2

Submitted by marcfrans on Mon, 2006-08-07 23:04.

Thanks for interesting comments. If I may, I would like to make a few further qualifications to your comments.

1) It will be very difficult for Wallonia to free itself from the "PS coma". For all practical purposes, Wallonia is a 1-party (sub)state. There is no genuine system of 'checks and balances' in place, and there has been no regular poweralternation among different parties/ideologies for several decades. In short, Wallonia is not a genuine 'democracy' (even though they have elections, just like they do in Belarus or in Lebanon). The same can be said of Belgium, of course, based on the the use of undemocratic practices (like the 'cordon sanitaire', which is an indication of excessive ideological 'sectarianism' at the expense of common citizenship) and the enactment of legislation which selectively criminalises certain kinds of political speech in order to perpetuate power for the ruling cultural AND political orthodoxy.

But, then again, with 'Eurabia' on the way, why should we quibble about such details and qualifications?

Belgian Television

Submitted by joppe on Mon, 2006-07-31 12:22.

The way this unfortunate loss of lives was brought on the 19h journal of the flemish television station "een" clearly illustrates the disgust that flemish media have of Israel and the jewish people in favour of islam.
"Israel has killed at least 50 civilians of whom at least 50% were children"
They were just short of using the term "murdered" but the tone that Israel killed the civilians on purpose was dominant.
On the commercial station VTM they even called it "aanslag" the same terminology that is used for terrorist attacks.
On Dutch TV from Holland you can hear a much more objective representation while still giving exactely the same information.
On the other hand, when muslim youths punches and old man to death on a bus, it is represented as an accident or even incident.
The pro arab, pro-islam attitude of our media makes me sick.

re: Belgian Television

Submitted by George2 on Mon, 2006-07-31 14:03.

If you are interested in what really happened and not in the lies of Belgian reporters, then read the international section of the Dutch Metro edition: http://www.clubmetro.nl/index.php?actie=nieuws&c=1

What happens in the Netherlands usually precedes what will happen in Belgium by 1 to 2 years. So it will take a while before Belgians are free to know the truth about what is really happening in the world and in their own country.

observing - self defense

Submitted by Esther on Mon, 2006-07-31 09:34.

If Israel chooses death over self defense, they will be highly praised - and rightly so.

Praise is not worth much when you're dead. During the Gulf War, Iraq attacked Israel with Scud missiles. Israel did nothing while missiles fell in Tel Aviv and Haifa. The world was so proud, but the world did nothing to protect Israel.

Islam In Europe

Les gosses de Cana

Submitted by keekefretter on Mon, 2006-07-31 04:50.

Le manque total de respect pour la vie des civils affiché par les terroristes musulmans s'étend malheureusement aux gosses.

On se demande alors pourquoi les musulmans sont tellement prolifique.

Sans doute pour l'exportation vers les églises désertes du royaume fédéralebolisé !

Merci.

Keeke

US 23h50

Qana = Pallywood ?

Submitted by rudi on Sun, 2006-07-30 22:00.

If this is true then one can for sure think that Hizbollah are the worse barbarians ever existing that they kill their own children for propaganda purposes. And who knows if the belgo-libanese super propagandist in the area is not involved?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3283816,00.html

IDF: Qana building fell hours after strike

IDF continuing to check difficult incident at Qana village, and attempting to account for strange gap between time of the strike on the building – midnight – and eight in the morning, when the building collapsed
Hanan Greenberg

An IDF investigation has found that the building in Qana struck by the Air Force fell around eight hours after being hit by the IDF.

"From this village rockets are fired almost every day across Israel. The operation carried out overnight is an extension of operations that didn't start last night but before, and during this night we struck a number of targets in the village. All of the targets are being meticulously sifted," Eshel added.....

defense

Submitted by rudi on Sun, 2006-07-30 21:52.

@observing,
And how many Israeli victims should they allow before they get praised? 6.000.000 ?

Israel Must Learn To Choose Death Over Self Defense

Submitted by observing on Sun, 2006-07-30 20:54.

Israel must realize that the true path to their salvation is passive resistance. Until Israel is willing to let their civilians get killed without retaliating and trying to take out Hezbollah's missile launchers strategically placed in densely populated civilian areas, Israel will suffer the disproval of Kofi Annan, Nasrallah and others.
For it is much wiser for Israel to let their own civilians get killed than to destroy Hezbollah missile launchers in civilian populated areas that are pointed at Haifa, Afulah and elsewhere.If Israel chooses death over self defense, they will be highly praised - and rightly so.