Gaza @ MindSay 
israel
Israel has far fewer restrictions
Over the last week, many are asking why India does not "do a Gaza" on Pakistan, referring, of course, to an emulation of Israel's use of force against Terrorists Hamas-run Palestine, a territory from which rockets rain down on Israeli soil with reliable frequency (if not reliable destructiveness ...).
The answer for this question comes always with a painful grip on reality, is simple: India does not because it cannot.
Here are five reasons why:
1. India is not a military goliath in relation to Pakistan in the way Israel is to the Palestinian territories. India does not have the immunity, the confidence and the military free hand that result from an overwhelming military superiority over an opponent. Israel's foe is a non-sovereign entity that enjoys the most precarious form of self-governance. Pakistan, for all its dysfunction, is a proper country with a proper army, superior by far to the tin-pot Arab forces that Israel has had to combat over time. Pakistan has nukes, to boot. Any assault on Pakistani territory carries with it an apocalyptic risk for India. This is, in fact, Pakistan's trump card. (This explains, also, why Israel is determined to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran.)
2. Even if India could attack Pakistan without fear of nuclear retaliation, the rationale for "doing a Gaza" is, arguably, not fully present: Israel had been attacked consistently by the very force--Hamas--that was in political control of the territory from which the attacks occurred. By contrast, terrorist attacks on India, while originating in Pakistan, are not authored by the Pakistani government. India can-- and does--contend that Pakistan's government should shut down the terrorist training camps on Pakistani soil. (In this insistence, India has unequivocal support from Washington.) Yet only a consistent and demonstrable pattern of dereliction by Pakistani authorities-- which would need to be dereliction verging on complicity with the terrorists--would furnish India with sufficient grounds to hold the Pakistani state culpable.
3. Israel enjoys impressive support from many countries especially from the Americans, in contrast to the Palestinians. No other state--apart, perhaps, from Britain--evokes as much favor in American public opinion as does Israel. This is not merely the result of the much-vaunted "Israel lobby" (to use a label deployed by its detractors), but also because of the very real depth of cultural interpenetration between American and Israeli society. This fraternal feeling buys Israel an enviable immunity in the conduct of its strategic defense. India, by contrast--while considerably more admired and favored in American public opinion than Pakistan--enjoys scarcely a fraction of Israel's "pull" in Washington when it comes to questions of the use of force beyond its borders.
4. Pakistan is strategically significant to the United States; the Palestinians are not. This gives Washington scant incentive to rein in the Israelis, but a major incentive to rein in any Indian impulse to strike at Pakistan. However justified the Indian anger against Pakistan over the recent invasion of Mumbai by Pakistani terrorists, the last thing that the U.S. wants right now is an attack--no matter how surgical--by India against Pakistan-based terror camps. This would almost certainly result in a wholesale shift of Pakistani troops away from their western, Afghan front toward the eastern boundary with India--and would leave the American Afghan campaign in some considerable disarray, at least in the short term. So Washington has asked for, and received, the gift of Indian patience. And although India recognizes that it is not wholly without options to mobilize quickly for punitive, surgical strikes in a "strategic space," it would--right now--settle for a trial of the accused terrorist leaders in U.S. courts. (Seven U.S Citizens were killed in Mumbai: Under U.S. law, those responsible--and this should include Pakistani intelligence masterminds--have to be brought to justice.)
5. Israel has the privilege of an international pariah to ignore international public opinion in its use of force against the Palestinians. A state with which few others have diplomatic relations can turn the tables on those that would anathematize it by saying, Hang diplomacy. India, by contrast, has no such luxury. It is a prisoner of its own global aspirations--and pretensions.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Global Meditations Network".
Unsubscribe send email to global-meditations-network-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
Subscribe go to http://globalmeditations.com/subscribe.html
To contact Barbara Wolf via email, use bjwolf@globalmeditations.com
You may freely send the newsletters to anyone.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
| Hello from my heart, everyone, this is Barbara Wolf. Global Meditations Network. http://www.globalmeditations.com Once again, there is serious conflict between Israelis and Palestinians at the Gaza Strip. This is a moment when families gather throughout the world to celebrate Peace and Love, and yet, the Gaza problem flares There are 9 billion people living on this planet. Think for a moment how WONDERFUL it would be if today, at this moment, the 9 billion are concentrating on loving each other. Think of the JOY! Love is the highest positive energy frequency. Love from the heart. Thought is energy. What one thinks, IS. Think positively and that is the energy sent out. Today, at this moment, let us send out the positive energies of Love. ------- I have just returned from lecturing at a symposium in India. We were given garlands of marigolds to wear around our necks. Marigolds are grown in gardens to control pests, such as mosquitoes. Marigolds are pest control. For a moment, let us modify the thought form called 'marigold' so it is conceived of as a flower of Love, the highest frequency for positive energy. With the mind, drape the 9 billion people of this planet with garlands of marigolds holding the Love frequency. THAT is a positive act we can all do. All acts have to be accounted for. A stone is thrown into the water, and this stone creates chaos shown to the eye as ripples of water When the stone has settled to the bottom and the water has become calm, because the act of throwing the stone has happened, there can never be a return to the original status. Throw a stone of positive energy/Love into the frequencies of 9 billion by draping them with garlands of marigolds holding the Love frequency and note that the 9 billion can never return to the original status. That is the theory of chaos. ------- While I was lecturing at a symposium in India, on December 14, Indian warplanes flew over Pakistani territory. This is an act of war. The negative frequencies of war were very strong throughout the day. That evening, 10 pm, was the global teleconference, PEACE IN INDIA: PEACE IN PAKISTAN. Perhaps you participated in this teleconference of peace. For l/2 hour, there was an intense concentration on positive energy of peace coming from the world to the two nations, India and Pakistan. The following day, December 15, the negative frequencies between the two had substantially modified. It does not take 9 billion thinking positive thoughts to change the negative into the positive. The fraction needed is really quite small. Yes, we all know what is happening just now in Gaza. Yes, it is terrible beyond belief. My heart breaks, as does probably yours, for what is happening; for what is happening in so many places in this world. Let us pick up the broken pieces of our hearts and mend them with Love, and then let us send out the Love frequencies to the nine billion. Peace, Love, and Light, Barbara Wolf |
His pro-terrorism friends include Joe Biden, a self-described "Zionist" who backs the Israel occupation, David Axelrod, Obama's chief political strategist, Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff who supports the occupation and violence against Palesteine.
Almost all Presidents since Roosevelt have backed Israel's occupation, and all Presidential candidates must support the occupation if they want to have any opprotunity to win in November. By definition, Israel is a terrorist state, the US sending billions and billions of OUR tax dollars in military aid so that the Israeli military may kill and torture thousands of innocents civilians every year.
If Obama stood for real change, he would end all aid to Israel, reset the borders to pre-1962 boundries, and surround himself with anti-terrorism progressives. By his actions already, we can see Obama is following in the steps of his Republican predeccesor, closing any opprotunities to end the violence in the Middle East.
The foolishness of Arab appeasers at the reception of distorted half truths from the Arab sympathetic Mainstream Media (MSM) always makes Israel the villain when so-called Arab civilian casualties occur when Israel defends itself from attacks Jew hating Arab terrorists who call themselves Palestinians.
Evelyn Gordon writing for the Jerusalem Post reveals the full story that the MSM and Palestinian propagandists leave out.
JRH 3/6/06 (Hat tip to ICEJ News)
**********************************
Civil Fights: The canard of 'disproportionate force'
Mar 5, 2008 21:35 | Updated Mar 6, 2008 14:44
International denunciations of Israel came thick and fast this week. The EU's rotating president, Slovenia, condemned the "disproportionate use of force by the Israeli Defense Forces against the Palestinian population in Gaza." UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon slammed Israel's "excessive and disproportionate" response to Palestinian rocket attacks. Even the US State Department urged Israel to "exercise caution to avoid the loss of innocent life," which is merely a milder version of the same premise: that Israel is to blame for all Palestinian civilian casualties, either because it uses "disproportionate force" or because it exercises insufficient "caution." Yet media reports on the fighting in Gaza reveal that in fact, the blame frequently lies with Palestinian behavior.
Take, for example, an Israeli air strike that killed two Palestinian teenagers last Wednesday. According to The New York Times, "witnesses in Gaza told the Palestinian news media that the civilians were hit while standing at a launching site watching Hamas militants firing rockets." There can be no more justified military activity than targeting terrorists in the very act of firing rockets at civilians. If that is "disproportionate," all military activity is. Moreover, since Hamas eschews uniforms, the IDF has no way to distinguish rocket crews from civilians who are cheering them on. Thus any civilian who rubbernecks at a rocket launch is clearly and deliberately putting himself in danger - which in itself should absolve Israel of responsibility.
BUT MORE importantly, for that very reason, most armed forces do not allow civilians in firing zones. The IDF, for instance, generally declares active combat areas "closed military zones" from which Israeli civilians are legally barred, and it enforces such orders. Other Western armies do the same.
But Hamas needs civilian casualties to fuel Palestinian and international anger at Israel. So rather than barring civilians from its launch zones, it welcomes them. And if they do not volunteer for the victim's role, it co-opts them - as happened last weekend: "Palestinian gunmen took up positions in homes while the civilians were still inside," Haaretz reported.
Firing back at people who are shooting at you is also clearly legitimate military activity; no law of war obligates soldiers to let themselves be mown down without a fight just because there are civilians nearby. Moreover, soldiers have no way of knowing whether the civilians have fled or are still inside a house; all they can be certain of is the presence of gunmen.
Under such circumstances, civilian casualties are inevitable. But those casualties are not caused by "disproportionate force" or insufficient "caution"; they are the direct result of Hamas's decision to use civilian homes, with the people still inside, as bases for targeting Israeli soldiers.
Moreover, civilians are not always innocent. Those whose homes were invaded by Hamas were presumably unwilling hostages. But some Palestinians voluntarily serve as "human shields" for terrorists - and by actively aiding and abetting terror, they turn themselves into combatants.
In one widely publicized case in November 2006, for instance, the IDF, seeking to avoid civilian casualties, announced two planned air strikes 30 minutes in advance to enable civilians to leave. Instead, Hamas used the loudspeakers of local mosques to urge civilians to flood the area and serve as human shields. Hundreds did so, and the IDF - precisely because Israel tries to avoid civilian casualties - consequently aborted the strikes. Yet these civilians were hardly "innocent": They deliberately intervened in an armed conflict on the terrorists' behalf.
What is most noteworthy about such incidents, however, is what they say about the Palestinian claim - mindlessly parroted by the international community - that the IDF fires indiscriminately, without regard for civilians. In fact, Hamas summoned civilian reinforcements precisely because it knew a civilian presence would prevent the air strikes. And the civilians came for the same reason - not because they sought death, but because they knew the IDF would not shoot them.
IN ANOTHER incident that same month, hundreds of Palestinian women purposely entered a combat zone to shield gunmen besieged by IDF soldiers. Again, they were deliberately abetting combatants. And again, they knew they could do so safely, because the IDF would not shoot them. And indeed, the soldiers held their fire as the wanted men escaped by mingling with the crowd.
In July 2006, The New York Times described another Gaza battle as follows: "[Israeli] soldiers fired at groups of armed Palestinians who fought in the streets, sometimes surrounded by curious and excited children." Why any parent would let his children outside during a gunfight is a mystery. But unless these parents were deliberately sacrificing their children for propaganda purposes, such behavior demonstrates a truly extraordinary faith in the IDF's efforts to avoid harming civilians.
Contrast this with Palestinians' behavior when the combatants are not Israelis. During last May's Hamas-Fatah infighting, for instance, the Times reported: "The streets of Gaza City were empty except for the gunmen, with shops shuttered and residents remaining indoors, usually in interior rooms farthest from the windows." No "curious and excited" children surrounding the gunmen in these battles: Gazan parents who trusted the IDF with their children's lives evidently placed no similar reliance on Palestinian forces.
THE MEDIA reports above, and numerous others like them, make three things clear: (1) Palestinians know full well that Israel strives to avoid civilian casualties; indeed, as their behavior demonstrates, they count on this. (2) Palestinian civilians frequently deliberately put themselves in the line of fire - either to help the combatants, or, like those "excited children," merely to cheer them on. (3) Palestinian terror groups deliberately foster casualties among their own civilians: Not only do they not discourage civilians from entering combat zones; they force them to do so - for instance, by invading civilian homes - when there are no volunteers.
In short, Palestinian civilian casualties usually result not from "disproportionate force" or "insufficient caution" by the IDF, but from Palestinian behavior, on the part of both civilians and terrorists.
But of course, realizing this would require actually reading reports of the fighting. It is much easier just to skim the headlines and issue stock condemnations of Israel.
__________________________
© 1995 – 2007 [sic] The Jerusalem Post. All rights reserved.
Here is a Ralph Peters essay on how Hamas won its victory over Fatah. It was sent via the American Congress for Truth email list.
JRH
*************************
WHY HAMAS WON
By RALPH PETERS
Via ACT Email
Fri, 29 Jun 2007
June 19, 2007 -- HAMAS won its shut-out victory in Gaza with alarming ease. And the reason Hamas won is even more alarming: Fanaticism trumps numbers.
You'll hear no end of explanations for the terrorist triumph: Hamas was backed by Iran; Gaza is Hamas' base of support; some Fatah units ran out of ammunition . . .
All true. And all secondary factors.
Fatah's security forces in Gaza outnumbered the Hamas gunmen. Fatah had stockpiles of weapons and military gear (now in Hamas' arsenal). Fatah even had the quiet backing of Israel and America.
And Fatah folded like a pup tent in a tornado.
Hamas won because its fighters are religious fanatics ready to die for their cause. Fatah runs an armed employment agency under the banner of Palestinian nationalism. Most of the latter's security men are on the payroll because relatives or ward pols got them jobs. And they want to stay alive to collect their wages.
The result was predictable. Our government pretended otherwise. Now hairs should be standing up on the backs of thousands of necks, from the White House to the Green Zone.
Yes, Iraq is more complex than Gaza. But once you pierce the surface turbulence and look deep, the similarities are chilling: Iraq's security forces do include true patriots - but most of the troops and cops just want a job, or were ordered to join up by a sheik or a mullah, or are gathering guns until their faction calls.
The al-Qaeda-in-Iraq terrorists, the core members of Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army and the hard-line Sunni ghazis are willing to die for the victory of their faction and their faith. They believe they're doing Allah's will. It gives them a strength we rush to explain away.
The raw numbers suggest that Iraq's fanatics don't stand a chance. The government has a far greater numerical advantage than did Fatah. But numbers often mislead analysts during insurgencies: Iraq's government wouldn't last a week without U.S. troops.
The lesson from Gaza is that such wars are neither waged nor won by the majority of the population. A tiny fraction of the populace, armed and determined, can destroy a fragile government and seize power.
Polls showing that most Iraqis "want peace" and don't support the extremists only deceive us (because we want to be deceived). It wouldn't matter if 99 percent of the Iraqis loved us like free falafel, if we're unwilling to annihilate the fraction of 1 percent of the population with the weapons and
will to dictate the future to the rest.
At the height of last week's fighting in Gaza, one Palestinian in 300 carried a weapon in support of Hamas - a third of one percent of the population. Now Hamas rules 1.5 million people.
Numbers still matter, of course. But strength of will can overcome hollow numbers. And nothing - nothing - gives men a greater strength of will than religious fanaticism.
We don't want to hear it. Secular virtues were supposed to triumph. They didn't, but we still can't let go of our dream of a happy-face, godless world where nobody quarrels.
Our refusal to acknowledge the unifying - and terrifying -power of extremist religion has deep roots. As academics rejected and derided faith in the last century, even the Thirty Years' War - the horrible climax of Europe's wars of religion - was reinvented as a dynastic struggle, or a fight for hegemony, or a class struggle.
But the Thirty Years' War was about faith. All the other factors were in play, but the core issue, from the Protestant coup in Prague in 1618 to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, was religious identity. And the atrocities committed on both sides make Iraq look like amateur hour: Wars of religion always demand blood sacrifice. (It was a compromise of bloody exhaustion that ended the Thirty Years War.)
Our problem is that, of those who rise in government, few have witnessed the power of revelation or caught a life changing glimpse of the divine. They simply can't imagine that others might be willing to die for all that mumbo-jumbo. Our convenience-store approach to faith leaves us numb to the passion of our enemies.
The true believer always beats the feckless attendee. The best you can hope for is that the extremist will eventually defeat himself.
And that does leave us some hope: Fanatics inevitably over-reach, as al Qaeda's Islamo-fascists have done in Iraq, alienating those who once saw them as allies. But the road to self-destruction can be a long one: The people of Iran want change, but the fanatics have the guns. And sorry, folks: Fanatics with guns beat liberals with ideas.
Faith is the nuclear weapon of the fanatic. And there's not going to be a religious "nuclear freeze." It doesn't matter how many hearts and minds you win, if you don't defeat the zealots with the muscles.
____________________
American Congress for Truth is a 501c3 non-profit organization. Everyday, ACT is on the front lines fighting for you in meeting with politicians, decision makers, speaking on college campuses and planning events to educate and inform the public about the threat of radical Muslim fundamentalists to world peace. We are committed to combating the global upsurge of hate and intolerance.
American Congress for Truth (ACT) , P.O.Box 6884, Virginia Beach, VA 23456
Email: member@americancongressfortruth.com
Showing 1 - 5. [ Next ]
