Blog powered by Typepad

« The Darbyshires | Main | Murder most foul! »

Friday, 21 July 2006

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


As I view this whole sorry, intractable mess, through the cold and steely-eyed gaze of a life-time of experience, one thing - and only one thing - is clear. Namely that you're a gibbering buffoon.

Have you been sniffing glue Duff?

...'Softie Lefties' as they cheer on a bunch of fanatical, murdering Islamists to utterly destroy the only democracy in the middle east...

What??

Most 'softie leftie' analysis that I've read on this subject has acknowledged that Israel has the right to defend itself, acknowledged that Israel faces dire provocation and frequent rocket attacks on its people, but at the same time objecting to the wholly disproportionate counter-attack they're currently engaged in - which now looks like it's going to be a full-scale land invasion of Lebanon.

Only you could dress up objecting to Israel's policies here as supporting those who wish to "utterly destroy" the entire state of Israel.

Point of information, Mr Chairman: Little Nell, not Tiny Tim. I think.

Andy, thank you for the deserved correction - I never could abide Dickens and was searching back some 50-odd years in my memory banks! (Fat chance!)

Larry writes: "... at the same time objecting to the wholly disproportionate counter-attack they're [Israel] currently engaged in". I look forward, Larry, to reading your analysis and solution to the problem of what one country can do when it comes under indiscriminate rocket attack from a huge militia based in another country? A United Nations resolution, perhaps? The despatch of sundry Christian pacifist groups to the borderlands, even? Or what about a UN peace-keeping force of, say, Nigerians, Brazilians and Tonga Islanders? Of course, the Israeli's could have the decency to ask the EU to ... er, well ... you know ... er, do something ...!

Perhaps, Larry, my florid style has indeed (and again!) given a misleading impression. There are, in my view, three lots of Lefties. The (fairly) sensible ones I call the 'Kamm-ites'; the 'Softies', who couldn't think their way out of a paper-bag but just chant mindlessly the slogans provided for them by the 'Hard Lefties' - in comparison to whom, I am a starry-eyed idealist! As I have tried to warn my American 'Trot-lot' friend, 'RinR', the Hard Left, touching hands as they do with the Hard Right, desire nothing more devoutly than the destruction of Israel and every man, woman and child who lives there. Not, I must add, just for strategic reasons because of the blow to America, but because they are profoundly anti-Semitic - or what *you* would, in other circumstances, corruscate as 'racist'. You know the blogs to visit and if you're half as smart as you think you are, you should be able to read between the lines.

Very sound, David. On Dickens, I mean.


It's not your "florid style" which is the problem.

I wrote "... at the same time objecting to the wholly disproportionate counter-attack they're [Israel] currently engaged in".

I don't expect you to agree with me, but I *do* expect you to accept that to object to Israel's policies here is by no means the same thing as to support those who wish to "utterly destroy" the entire state of Israel.

As for your fatuous trichotomy, let's see. I reckon you'd count me as a leftie. So therefore I must be either:

(a) A 'Kamm-ite' - a suggestion that I find vomit-inducing;

(b) A 'Softie' - and it follows that I "cheer on a bunch of fanatical, murdering Islamists to utterly destroy the only democracy in the middle east..."

(c) A 'Hard Leftie' - and therefore I am "profoundly anti-Semitic".

So just so as I know, which of these nasty insults is it that you're throwing at me?

There is another sort of leftie that you've overlooked and that is the sort that hears or sees the words 'middle east','Israel' or 'Palestine',covers their ears and flees at speed. I took it up three weeks ago and have felt a good deal happier as a result. By the end of next year I hope to be totally ignorant of any event that takes place outside my flat.

David

Thanks for the link.

I’m reading a lot of noise about whether Israel’s action is proportionate or not. Which if there is not a treaty mandating or prohibiting a specific action without regard to proportionality is International Law. I assume a defense for non-proportionate action is that some weapons control treaty requires it.

So what is proportionate?

That the harm done be less than the good obtained. Which brings us to the irony of the debate

Israel really has no justification for its action unless it can take out Hezbollah’s offensive ability for at least several years. Any force less than Israel is using is disproportionate because it will cause harm with out any hope the good (taking out Hezbollah’s offensive capability.) One could argue from an International Law perspective that this is not enough of good for the harm done, or one could argue that it is proportionate.

But to argue, as many are doing, that Israel’s level of operations should be reduced is to argue that Israel act in a disproportionate manner. Of course the persons who are arguing that Israel act in this illegal manner seem to claim they are calling for proportionality.

I do not see how a government can claim it is fulfilling it’s side of the “social contract” with it’s people if it allows the type of terrorist attacks Hezbollah has been launching. Ensuring national survival and preventing the genocide of it’s citizens is a pretty large good,

Larry, you, yourself, have ruled out one option which only leaves two, or possibly three if you included Clairwil's suggestion with which I have *some* sympathy. As you know, Larry, I am always eager to assist you in piloting your way through the turbulent currents and shoals of political life but in this case you're on your own. I think the old saying applies: If the cap fits, wear it!

"If the cap fits, wear it!"

Flopping arseholes, Duff.

You say that you would "care very little" if the "Israeli's" [sic] were to "fall prey to the sword". Well that's charming, and I would have thought if anyone round here deserved some stick for they're indifference to the Israelis' lives, it should be you. But at the same time you're happy to scattergun shit at whole range of people, all of whom you glibly accuse of being cheer-leaders for the destruction of Israel. Your evidence? Well they're lefties inn't they.

Whichever of your two remaining imbecilic categories I fall into, it follows that I hate Israel and want all the Israelis dead.

That's a horrid lie, and an irresponsible accusation, made on the basis of no evidence at all.

What's that on your head David? Oh, an old-fashioned dunce's hat! I haven't seen one of those for ages! Fits beautifully, and suits you too!

"If the cap fits, wear it!"

Flopping arseholes, Duff.

You say that you would "care very little" if the "Israeli's" [sic] were to "fall prey to the sword". Well that's charming, and I would have thought if anyone round here deserved some stick for they're indifference to the Israelis' lives, it should be you. But at the same time you're happy to scattergun shit at whole range of people, all of whom you glibly accuse of being cheer-leaders for the destruction of Israel. Your evidence? Well they're lefties inn't they.

Whichever of your two remaining imbecilic categories I fall into, it follows that I hate Israel and want all the Israelis dead.

That's a horrid lie, and an irresponsible accusation, made on the basis of no evidence at all.

What's that on your head David? Oh, an old-fashioned dunce's hat! I haven't seen one of those for ages! Fits beautifully, and suits you too!

Spot on, David. Joke recommendation, I mean.

Well done, Larry, another point missed entirely; which is, of course, that *I* don't *pretend* to care about the Israelis (thanks for your English correction, by the way) where-as both the 'Softie Lefties' and the 'Hard Lefties' do. It is a small indication of exactly how much *you* really care that you choose to ignore my challenge to offer up a *realistic* solution as to what Israel can and should do to deal with Hezbollah. Before you remove whichever cap it is you are wearing in order to replace it with a general's cap, remember the essence of the matter is somehow to push Hezbollah and their rockets beyond the range of Israel's cities. If invasion is not permitted, how do they do it?

Incidentally, if you wish to see some examples of those sites whose 'Softie' image conceals a hatred-filled heart, try 'BionOc', 'lenin', 'jews san frontier', 'Meaders' or any of the SWP?Respect sites. But then you knew all about them already, didn't you? Of course, for a more balanced Left-wing view you could try Oliver Kamm, but I gather he nauseates you, and that admission alone tells me everything I ever need to know about you!

Dearieme, always happy to oblige!

The single reason for the existence of Israel, and, incidentally, for the whole-hearted support which that State is given by so many ordinary people, as opposed to the sewage spouted by the massed 'Governments' of this planet; with the honourable exceptions of America and the United Kingdom, is mirrored in the eternal flames of the Yad Vashem memorial site in Jerusalem!

What was attempted by the evils of Nazism and Hitler is echoed by the killers of Hezbollah and Hamas, and if Israel ever forgets this simple truth for one second, they will be blasted off the face of their country!

My best wishes to the armed forces of Israel, that courageous country, for standing up to a bunch of fanatics in the way that we have come to expect of true heroes!


I second what mike says. And I'm a marxist fuckwit.

Note to David...Your leftist categories need updating).

Will, thanks for your note and perhaps you should know that 'Son of Duff' keeps telling me that *I* need updating! As for the categorisation of the Left, it's rather like chasing the final indivisible particle, everytime you think you have it, it splits. However, I confess my broad brush descriptions, whilst having a certain, some might say, tiny, level of humour did lack scientific rigour. But really, and I'm sorry to say this, Will, in a very deep and meaningful way, can one be bothered? The Left, in its various schisms, goes beyond the parody of The Judean Liberation Front and the Liberation Front for Judea!

And talking of Judea let me sympathise with Mike - but only to a certain degree. It is as well to remind oneself that the Jews *conquered* the lands they now possess and some of their methods were ruthless. As I wrote above, "they won by the sword, they must keep by the sword or fall prey to the sword." Whatever I might think as a private person, were I the prime minister, I would only have one objective in view - the national interests of Great Britain. As of today, that very definitely is served by a well-armed state of Israel. But tomorrow ... who knows? Remember, 'we have no abiding friendships, only abiding interests'.

" look forward, Larry, to reading your analysis and solution to the problem of what one country can do when it comes under indiscriminate rocket attack from a huge militia based in another country?"

Well I'm not Larry, but I do have a solution to this. Its copied from the policy we adopted when we in old blighty were under mortar attack.

When the IRA sent a mortar bomb into the gardens of downing street, britain's response was exactly the same as Israel's. We re-invaded Eire, subjected its population to military rule, ruined its economy, bombed its power stations, forced residents to stay under curfew, stole its water supply, built settlements on stolen land, prevented the free movement of goods and any enterprise occuring.

Not only that we went after those who were funding and providing political support to the IRA. Thus we carpet-bombed boston and new york, after giving its residents 24 hours to flee before regarding anywhere in the city as a legitimate target, positioned our navy on the outskirts of manhattan, and closed all the airports. We bombed their economy back 20 years, killed several hundred children (accidently of course) and caused the internal displacement of half the american population.

Oh wait a minute!... we didn't do that did we?

Instead we went after the people who did it, arrested them and put them in jail after a fair trial. We also put in place a political process that, whilst it didn't lead to a perfect solution, did in fact stop the violence and allow the north bit of Ireland the chance to have a prosporous future.

Well, 'E' for Effort, 'PS', but if I might just point out the odd, teensy-weensy differences in the two scenarios.

The IRA gang who mortored Downing Street were based operationally *inside* this country. And the "political process" you refer to, and to which you seem enamoured, was in fact, a surrender, in which we allowed terrorists to get their bloody hands on the levers of power - but only in Ulster, of course, a place that is despised by the sophisticated cogniscenti of Westminster and Islington who can't wait to get rid of the damned place. In return the terrorists agreed not to bomb the City of London which was the really tender part of the soft, underbelly of British life.

Well, it's a policy, I suppose, provided you have an enormous ability to swallow all that crap about 'standing firm and never allowing the terrorists to win', but then, as we know, our politicians have gullets like gannets - and so does the Great British Public, as exemplified by your good self, 'PS'.

As for the Jews, they appear to be made of sterner stuff (no pun intended) and surrounded by a desert ocean of enemies determined to slaughter them all, they are also somewhat more realistic. Well, they would be because, to paraphrase, 'a Holocaust in the morning concentrates the mind wonderfully'. You should try concentrating what passes for yours, 'PS'.

The news that you oppose the Northern Ireland peace process was about as predictable as a Daily Express headline on Princess Diana. Clearly if 10 years of people not killing each other cannot be considered a success one does have to wonder what you consider success, and whether you are actually interested in serious solutions to the matter at hand (The middle East), or merely points scoring. The notion that “we” had to “surrender” to achieve the peace process is farcical, last time I looked Northern Ireland was still part of the UK.

It is true that the two situations are not exact replicas of each other. But they do fall into the same security paradigm – namely counter-insurgency/terrorism against nationalistic forces with a clear constituency (unlike say Al-Qaida which is primarily transnational). Given this we have a vast amount of history in which we can learn lessons. The main one being that if you want the killing to stop, which most of us do, you have to have a political process that results in a settlement reasonable to each side. Thankfully in the Middle East almost everyone knows what that settlement is – the 2-state solution based upon the 1967 borders. The obstacle has always been the refusal of the US and International Community to actually enforce this above the likud party and Israeli right. Largely due to bizarre theological reasons in the Republican Party in Washington.

On the other hand if you want to kill lots of people, strengthen the hand of extremists, and have never ending violence then the lesson is also simple; - over-react with purely military means, escalate the war, severely harm and criminalise civilians and generally act like a drunk football hooligan.

Word, Planeshift.

I should warn you all that I face this keyboard re-enforced with two of my ice-cold dry martinis followed by half a bottle (or there-abouts!) of a rough but definitely workable Italian red and the merest drop of Laphroaig. Consequently, I am more than fueled for some belligerence. However, I am somewhat dis-armed by 'Planeshift'(PS), so I will direct my withering fire at 'Snotty' whose grasp of the English language, surprising in an Irishman, is limited to the equivalent of a Kalahari bushman's incomprehensible clicks and grunts, the only advantage of which, is that we can safely ignore them.

Back to 'PS'! He disarms me because he passed a sort of political litmus test by calling for a *two* state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian imbroglio. Most of the rabid Jew-haters masquerading under the respectable skirts of anti-Zionism insist on a *one* state solution which means, in plain English, a Holocaust. So, well done, 'Planeshift'!

It is therefor, doubly unfortunate that after such a promising beginning, 'PS' sinks into a soppy, pink Disney sunset of wishful thinking in which, for example, "if you want the killing to stop, which most of us do, you have to have a political process that results in a settlement reasonable to each side." What a pity nobody told Hitler, Ludendorff, Bonaparte, Louis IV, Julius Caesar, Hannibal, etc, - to name but a few of the bleedin' obvious. What I'm trying to get across to 'PS' (in the nicest possible way) is that by and large when people start wars they do so in the expectation that they will win them outright and feed on the victory. The only thing likely to bring them to the peace table is defeat or imminent defeat! (For example, the threat aimed at the City of London which galvanised the British governemnt into surrender talks with the IRA, and how long will it take those dumb Islamists to work that one out?)

But anyway, I would ask 'PS', do we, meaning the British, 'really, really, really' *desire* peace in the middle east? (Come along, 'PS', brace up!) The fact is, and believe me it is a fact, that the war between Arabs and Jews suits us rather well. It diverts Arab militants towards Israel rather than England, we get some rather handsome orders for military aircraft from Saudi, there is a reasonable chance that the Israelis will eventaully knock six bells out of the Iranians and the price of oil is kept high which means extra revenue for Gordon Brown (and us) to pay for all those one-parent, black, lesbian workshops without which the country would collapse.

It's an ill wind that blows nobody any good!

God Bless the Free Market!

"...the equivalent of a Kalahari bushman's incomprehensible clicks and grunts"

Incomprehensible to a drunken old cultural imperialist, maybe, but most of the rest of us instinctively know what both myself and the Kalahari are really saying: "Jayzuz yer man Duff is an awful feckin' ersehole".

Frankly, I prefer it in Kalahari!

The comments to this entry are closed.