Shah from Global American Discourse left this comment to one of my previous posts:
So far as the relationship between Israel and Arab neighbors, the media tend to use "dependency theory." They are too critical to Israel, simply because it is stronger, and too lenient to Arab terrorists, simply because they are weaker.
No one can expect fair and objective viewpoints.
Now Shah is no slouch here. He has an advanced degree in Poli-Sci and even beyond that, is a very intelligent young man. Just follow his links at his blog to his website and read his profile there, and you'll see. (Who knows? He may be Prime Minister someday.)
Shah has hit upon something that deserves further examination. Anyone that has any understanding of the "Dependency Theory", can see the situation in the Muslim world. Since the day oil was discovered in the Middle East, the oil consuming nations have jockeyed with each other to ensure favor from the oil-producing Arab states. To do that, the modern mercantile nations have supported some pretty oppressive dictators and monarchies. All of this has been at the expense of the Arab people.
Add to that, the growth of carbon based fuels as the primary energy source and you have the makings of a system of great wealth vs. great poverty. The rulers that control the resource (so greatly coveted and desperately needed by the great oil-consuming nations) have made themselves wealthy, allowed the masses to live in poverty, and have extorted the rest of the world to do it. Instead of developing their societies into multi-faceted economies, they have created a nightmare scenario.
There are many that hypothesize that if free elections were held today in Saudi Arabia, al Qaida-like candidates would win control, much like Hamas has done in the Palestinian Authority and like many years prior, in Iran. And the concern is not just there, either. You also have to consider Jordan, Syria, and the emirates. They too have a large gap in the socio-economical structure.
Now, when you put this into perspective, you can see why the U.S., Russia, China, and Europe, ALL walk the tight line where the Middle East is concerned. The fear of being cut off from badly needed oil (therefore, wrecking an economy) always weighs heavily on their minds. This is why China and Russia have balked at getting too tough with Iran. It is also a primary reason that Europe hasn't been able to be more forceful in their negotiations.
With Iran being the primary sponsor of Hezbollah, the world that depends on Iranian oil is now (in effect) crippled.
Ask yourself, just how long has the UN been grappling over this? And then take a look at the progress (or lack thereof) that has been made. It is no wonder at all why Iran has felt emboldened and empowered and is trying to create a smokescreen in Lebanon. The UN is slower than the seven-year itch, because of the grip that these Iranian mullahs have over the oil-hungry members. No one wants to take a risk, and to some degree I cannot fault them. But how much longer must we all be kept hostage? How much longer must the will of the extremists be considered over and above that which is right?
What to do? How do we see this threat for what it is and yet protect the interests of the nations that depend on Iranian oil? We must face these questions and more, over the next few months. Because, this thing is not going to go away by itself. And something is going to have to be done, or this thing WILL get out of hand soon. One thing that must absolutely happen, is the Arab states must be willing to step up production to meet the shortage that will most likely occur, if the UN sticks by its guns and implements sanctions aginst Iran for non-compliance. Because you know very well that Iran will shut off the flow of their oil, as leverage (even to their own detrimant); and you also have to know that they most likely will not comply, at least not at first.
Then, the world has to stick to their guns and not relent. It will not be easy, but if the Arab oil-producing states step up to the plate, they too can be assistive in dealing with this clear and present danger, we all face at the hands of Iran. They too have a stake in this and it will require some help from them, too.We can watch as Israel cleans Hezbollah's clock, right now. And that is certainly what is required at this point in time. But down the road, we had all better be thinking a couple of moves ahead, or we will be right back where we are today. Treating the symptoms, does not always guarantee a cure.
For everyone that is still skeptical about my last post (on the ability of Islamic jihadists to manipulate the media), you might want to take a look at this video posted by and at, Always On Watch. It's 18 minutes or so, but it is certainly worth your time. If you really want to have all of the facts before you form an informed opinion, you need to see this. You've seen the MSM's constant barrage of how horrible life is in the Palestinian territories, now look at some exceptionally poignant footage that may shed some light on some things. Many will dismiss it. But for those that sit on the fence and are not quite sure what to think, this will give you something to think about, as you try to make some sense of it all. I find this video a very compelling and damning piece of evidence that cannot be dismissed. In my opinion, it confirms what many have suspected and believed for some time now. This also calls to mind the famous video showing a little Palestinian boy huddling with his father in what appeared to be Israeli crossfire, only to get killed. That was something that was highly suspicious, some time ago. But it got dismissed by the MSM, as paranoid delusions of the right wing and Zionists. This video here, makes it very difficult to say this is bogus, now. So, go check this thing out for yourself, if you haven't seen it already. Do it. Then give some thought to this, and then give some thought to the fact that there is a major discrepancy in the timelines, of the airstrike in Qana and the collapsing of the building.
Take a good look at this piece, found over at EU Referendum.This demonstrates a lot of what I have been saying, about how the enemy uses the media and the media often willingly cooperates. Take a good look at it. It does not invalidate the seriousness of the tragedy, but it is designed to play on people's emotions to the degree that they use less of their intellect, when forming an opinion on all of this.Hat Tip: Purple AvengerAddendum: Another piece that helps explain this further on the same blog.Note the part that says:...what is especially interesting is that sometime after dawn a call went hour to journalists and rescue workers to come to the scene. And come they did, in droves. Says Israel Insider, while Hezbollah and its apologists have been claiming that civilians could not freely flee the scene due to Israeli destruction of bridges and roads, the journalists and rescue teams from nearby Tyre had no problem getting there.
From the Ottawa Citizen comes this story on Hezbollah's cowardice. The words of a Canadian United Nations observer written just days before he was killed in an Israeli bombing of a UN post in Lebanon are evidence Hezbollah was using the post as a "shield" to fire rockets into Israel, says a former UN commander in Bosnia.
Using the UN as a shield is nothing new to these cowards. They did it the last time the UN had forces there. It's like the little brother that picks a fight with his older brother, then runs behind his mother for cover. Hiding behind the skirts of the UN is one thing, but if that's not enough to demonstrate just how despicable this bunch is, here is a story from the Australian newspaper, the Herald-Sun, complete with photo evidence.THIS is the picture that damns Hezbollah. It is one of several, smuggled from behind Lebanon's battle lines, showing that Hezbollah is waging war amid suburbia.
The images, obtained exclusively by the Sunday Herald Sun, show Hezbollah using high-density residential areas as launch pads for rockets and heavy-calibre weapons.
Dressed in civilian clothing so they can quickly disappear, the militants carrying automatic assault rifles and ride in on trucks mounted with cannon.
That's not the half of it. The world community is quick to condemn Israel for the Qana attack yesterday. But when you ask the same people that are quick to condemn them about Hezbollah using innocents as shields, they most always say: It's horrible, BUT ISRAEL........Israel shouldn't do this, Israel shouldn't do that, Israel should show restraint, Israel should fight with one arm tied behind their backs, etc.Well here at PYY. we call it clearly and plainly, so that there is no doubt. Hezbollah is a bunch of cowards, plain and simple. If they had Allah on their side and he was all-powerful, shouldn't they be prevailing against the so-called "evil" Israelis, without using these cowardly techniques? Well, they are not prevailing, are they? And you want to know something else? Israel IS fighting with one arm tied behind their backs. Imagine the carnage and the overwhelming defeat Hezbollah would have suffered by now, if the other hand were loosed. In fact, Israel is to be commended for showing the remarkable amount of restraint that it has shown, up to this point.
From the AP comes this story.
Israel agreed Sunday to halt air attacks on south Lebanon for 48 hours in the face of widespread outrage over an airstrike that killed at least 56 Lebanese, mostly women and children, when it leveled a building where they had taken shelter.
The announcement of the pause in overflights _ made by State Department spokesman Adam Ereli _ appeared to reflect American pressure on Israel. Ereli, who was in Israel with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said Israel reserved the right to hit targets if it learns that attacks are being prepared against them.
Is this a ceasefire? Yes and no.
Yes. It may be called a suspension, but in reality it is a form of a cease-fire. The wording is careful and deliberate. But make no mistake, it is a cessation of a form of firing and is hopefully a sign that this can be dealt with, sooner rather than later.
No. It comes with some conditions. Throughout all of this, Israel (in my opinion) is rightfully maintaining that if they are attacked during this voluntary cessation of air- attacks they reserve the right to strike back (thus, ending said the cessation of said activity). But whatever you wish to call it, it is an opportunity for diplomats from all nations to figure out how to best deal with this situation. But for them to be successful, they must deal with some stark realities.
Let's look at this a little closer and ask ourselves some deeper questions, here.
Who? Just who are the players involved, here?
Well, there is no doubt that both Lebanon and Israel are a part of this situation. And I do not think there is any doubt that Syria and Iran have their hands in this. Hezbollah is merely their proxy force. This is precisely why, any lasting agreement must include them.
This issue and the Iranian nuke situation are central to this whole mess. It is my firm belief that Iran has been putting off dealing with the nuke issue, so they could buy time. This is time that they have used to arm Hezbollah with long range missiles. Whether they are close to obtaining a nuclear weapon is the subject of much speculation, but one thing is for sure. There has been a resounding failure of the world community of great magnitude, to recognize this.
Syria is so bent on getting the Golan Heights back, they are using this opportunity to be a player too. It is my firm belief that Syria has been an instrumental intermediary, between themselves and Iran. They are looking at having some bargaining power, if the UN ever gets their act together long enough to try and help resolve this crisis. They want a slice of the pie, so to speak.
More than anything, at the forefront, there needs to be pressure applied to Syria to stop acting as an ally and go-between to Iran and Hezbollah. Then, there needs to be some real substantial action from the UN, in the Iranian situation. These things cannot be addressed with just Israel and Lebanon, alone.
Why? Why is it important to act while this cessation is in effect?
If this continues to escalate, there will be more incidents like the one that occurred earlier today, in Qana. This is not going away by itself and I would not expect Israel to relent in their goals one iota, unless they can be assured that these attacks on Israel can be guaranteed. Would any other nation expect anything else, if they were the ones being attacked in the same fashion that Hezbollah has attacked and provoked Israel?
And the only way to guarantee this for now and in the future is, disarming Hezbollah and allowing Lebanon to take control of their own sovereignty. This means Iran must stop, Syria must stop, and Hezbollah must choked off and not allowed to continue committing blatant acts of terror in Israel, and throughout the world.
What? What is the deeper meaning to all of this?
I suspect that if I haven't lost some of you by now, here is where most of the rest of you will get off.
This is part of the master plan that Iran has dreamed of since the Islamic Republic was installed by radical fundamentalists, known today as Islamofascists.
Don't buy it, you say?
Well take a look at this montage of cartoons and pictures found over at Mike's America. Look at this real good and see what this reminds you of. Look and see the irony of it all and if your mind is truly open, you will see the hypocrisy that the world is showing towards Israel, today. If you are truly objective in your attitudes, you will also see just what the nature of this enemy, truly is.
This is a fight for Israel's existence. This is a fight against those that seek their annihilation. In Nazi Germany, they tried it as an internal measure, from within. Now, the Islamofascists are trying to finish the job Hitler started, by using external measures. They cannot crumble and eliminate Israel from within, the Israelis have way too much resolve for that. Jews cannot turn on themselves. Iran, Syria, and other hostile regimes cannot do it without provoking a large response from Israel, and possibly even the U.S. But what they can do, is use proxies and they are doing it right now.
They are desperately trying to sway the world opinion their way, by complaining about the brutal nature of today's earlier attack. Non-stop media outlets (to include Fox) are hyping and re-hyping the civilian casualties. But, how many have reported the fact that most of the victims are being reported as being women and children? If this strikes you as the least bit odd, mustn't we also consider that the men were all fight and using civilians, as shields?
How much should that point be emphasized in all of these rantings about just how utterly horrific this attack was on innocents? How much responsibility should Hezbollah assume in this? In my view, a lot.
Plug him in and watch him go. Dean said in Wednesday's speech that Democratic incumbent Bill Nelson is "going to beat the pants off Katherine Harris, who didn't understand that it is ethically improper to be the chairman of a campaign and count the votes at the same time. This is not Russia and she is not Stalin."
Yeah, that's Howard for you. But let's read this article and see if him comparing Katherine Harris to Stalin is the real story, here.Harris holds a commanding lead in the bid for the Republican nomination Sept. 5 against three lesser-known opponents, but she trails Nelson by 37 percentage points, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday.
Now we see the story. Bill Nelson leads Harris by 37%. Yet, Howard Dean, DNC Chairman, is campaigning for Nelson? There are two ways to look at this.1. If I am Nelson, I say to Dean, "Thanks buddy, but I have a 37% lead and this thing is in the bag and I do not need you to help me.". Because if anyone were physically able to screw up a 37% lead at this stage of the game, it would be Dean.2. Why isn't Dean helping out in the tighter races, where there is a need for hard campaigning at this stage? Answer: Because the Dems do not want him screwing up their chances to pick up seats, there. Put him where he can do the least amount of damage, as humanly possible. I like that strategy. If you think about it, it makes good sense. Call it pro-active damage control. But the best strategy the Dems could implement, is get rid of him. The best strategy they could have ever implemented is NOT even pick him to be the Chairman, to begin with. He is a major liability and embarassment to most anyone that has any hopes of getting elected on the Dem ticket, both now and in the future.
From the Indianapolis Star (via RCP) comes this essay by Pierre Atlas. Dr. Atlas has always written some thought-provoking pieces and this is no exception. But the one portion I would most like to highlight is this little snippet (which is central to why the UN is an irrelevent and ineffective body):There are many United Nations resolutions addressing the Middle East, and usually it is the Arab and Muslim world that demands their enforcement. But in this conflict, Israel is the party calling for the implementation of a U.N. resolution -- Security Council Resolution 1559, which for two years has called for Hezbollah's disarming. Much of the Arab and Muslim world, on the other hand, is conspicuously silent on 1559. Also ignored is the fact that Israel fulfilled the demands of Security Council Resolution 425 by completely withdrawing from Lebanon in 2000.
Can you see why the UN is kaput? Right now the UN is debating about what to do about Iran, North Korea, and is now having to contend with the Israeli-Hezbollah war. They cannot agree on anything. They debate, hold seminars, meeting, conferences, symposium, and other worthless gatherings of the world's (so-called) elite. And they still cannot get anything done.But that's not the half of it. UN Resolution 1559 was agreed upon and passed. So, what happens? It's ignored.For the most part, the world does not respect the UN. The radical elements that threaten world peace and stability, damned sure don't. China doesn't, Russia doesn't. They obstruct, they manipulate. But they very seldom cooperate. So why should Hezbollah care about what Resolution 1559 calls for? The funny thing in all of this is the scuttlebutt about getting a UN peacekeeping force in place in Southern Lebanon. The UN cannot even maintain a tent in Baghdad, what makes anyone think they have the will and the guts to stand in the way of Hezbollah? It is certainly way beyond me.Let's get serious for a moment. The UN didn't have the resolve to stick the situation out in Baghdad, they cut out the moment they were attacked. So, now, UN forces are somehow going to have the stomach to stand down Hezbollah, on Hezbollah's own turf (turf they have controlled for years)? What do you think will happen, when they get hit by Hezbollah? Does anyone really believe that the presence of UN forces means a damned thing to these thugs?By the way, I still have that cabin in the mountains of central Florida, for sale. Please leave all inquiries, in the comment section.
From Drudge:FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2,693,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,801,000
FNC BRIT HUME 1,648,000
FNC SHEP SMITH 1,559,000
FNC GRETA 1,491,000
CNN COOPER 1,128,000
CNN KING 1,097,000
CNN ZAHN 890,000
CNN DOBBS 784,000
CNNHN GRACE 460,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 369,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 365,000
You can criticize Fox News all you want. They are beating the pants off of the competition. You can say only stupid people watch Fox, but if you do, you have to ask yourself something.How many stupid people watch news at all?They can tell you what the subject was on Jerry Springer, alright. But I have never known them to watch any news shows that require any thinking, with any regularity. What is particularly interesting is the little war between Olbermann and O'Reilly. Olbermann is really getting desperate and acting like a real horse's ass to get some viewers. And it isn't working. O'Reilly isn't my favorite by any stretch, because I think he is an arrogant and pompous ass. But he still has the numbers and Olbermann doesn't. Olbermann should have stayed on ESPN.
So argues Diana Muir in her essay entitled, So Hezbollah Can't Be Crushed? I do not think it's a matter of can they be crushed, it's more a matter of will they be crushed? Will the world community allow it, or will they broker a deal to stop it? Make no mistake, it can be done.Check this piece out. It's a good read, but I do feel it has one flaw. See if you can find it.
Two posts ago I posed a question or two, about what I perceive to be some conflicting data coming from three different sources of information, on France. And I have to say I got some lengthy responses that (predictably) differed, with some of the material that was presented. Rather than type out long individual responses in the comment section; I figured that by the time I was done, I'd end up with enough for another post. So, here it is.
While I think all of the commenters raise some interesting points, in their analyses, I think some may have missed the broader point I was getting at. Maybe I failed to make it clear. If so, that's my fault. And I apologize, if that is the case.
Let's look at the word perception for a moment.
Despite the fact that the Pew poll was favorable to the French and their attitudes towards Jews, there still is a perception that the French are biased against the U.S. and Israel. I showed some examples of the French media and their perceptions toward Israel and the U.S., as well as some instances documented by, and commented on, from a writer that some very much disagreed with. I countered it with the Pew poll.
One of the points I was trying to subtlely make was, despite the polls that showed otherwise, there were some instances that gave the perception that the French government and the French media were at very least, biased against Israel and the U.S. And I noticed in the responses, most responders that were critical of the article, spent much more time and effort trying to refute its contents, than trying to address the media quotes.
The French media (as well as the French government) are the mouthpieces of the French people. And in many instances that is all many people have to look to and consider, when trying to form an opinion on the situation. I do not think it matters much that one of the publications was/is owned by an American company, or not. They are French papers, printed and circulated primarily for French people. Anyone that can read French can read and understand them, but the people that do not speak French are at the mercies of the translators. So, regardless of ownership, they are French.
When they are negative towards Israel or the U.S., it doesn't matter who owns them. If they print anything negative, many in the world will interpret that as indicative of current values. I don't, because I know that the media is very often biased and very often does not reflect a true picture. (And I say that from personal experience with my own media.)
But many people do. Their perception is based on what they read.
Many French people have attitudes based on the very same principle, as what I described. They read the negative French press. They read the American versions that sometimes contradict the French version, many times by being counter-critical towards the French. And then they form their opinions based on that.
Why am I saying all of this?
The broader point (I think) is that instead of trying to spend inordinate amounts of time trying to argue and tear down the arguments of the other, the key to understanding and bridging the gaps between us, is understanding the differing perceptions, and why they are so.
Now, I have some thoughts on why I think their is a gap of misunderstanding between some people. If you think back in history, you will note that the US and France have always had a healthy rivalry and some level of competition. For as long as I have been alive, this has been the case. Go back to WWII and you can understand why we are at the point we are at, today. We have bickered and argued, but when the chips have been down we have been there for each other. Today is no exception.
Let's try something here that illustrates what I am saying.
Perception: Americans thought that DeGaulle's efforts to be less dependent on America after the war, were acts of ungratefulness.
Was that so? No. At least, I don't see it that way.
I think that he never wanted to allow France to get into a position it was in, ever again. Can't blame him for that. But I didn't just get my ass shot at for 2-3 years in a foreign land, trying to liberate people I didn't know, losing many friends in the process. A lot of the people that did, developed their attitudes based on their perceptions, at that time. They then passed those same values on to their children. Right or wrong, that was the reality of the situation.
Perception: America wanted to drive the train and be the hero, not giving any credit to the contributions made by the brave men and women of France.
That's also not true. While many were angry that DeGaulle kicked American forces out of the country (while still owing money to the U.S.), many of those same veterans (that got their asses shot at in France), told me of the stories of the French resistance. They also said that without the help of these brave men and women, we would have likely lost many more lives, had they not softened up the enemy before our arrival and during our advance.
So, while it is important to refute the myths, the misinformation, the exaggerations, and in some cases the outright malicious lies that are present between our nations, the first step in that process is to broaden our vision to see the bigger picture. We need to understand why these things exist and why the perception is so very different from opposite sides of the pond.
Many French that have stereotypical views of Americans have never been to America. The only contact they have with them, is the tourists. And tourists are not a good picture of average Americans. Many Americans that are hypercritical of France, have never been there either. Their only frames of reference are the French media, the French government, and the handful of French people they encounter throughout their lives.
Both sides can get defensive, when their perceptions are challenged and dig themselves into a foxhole. Both sides have people that are extremely stubborn, in that respect. But both sides also have a story to tell, if the other side would only listen.I have said before and I will say again, the media and the government stance on issues is never a full and complete indicator of what individual citizens think. However there is one area that I do believe Americans have been deficient in their understanding. I believe that France (and to some degree, Germany) openly criticize the U.S. and Israel as a smokescreen. They must publicly take certain stands because it is expedient to do so. But covertly, they have provided more assistance, support, and cooperation than they are willing to reveal. And that's okay. But when the choice is made to do this out of public view and to do it while appearing to be critical, the perception that France works against the US and Israel will always be there.
