Blogroll Me!
BBC Says Gaza Crisis Is As Bad As Lebanon ...
That's a picture of a patently petrified, poor little Palestinian boy being carted off (to God knows where, for God knows what), by a bunch of big, brave, fully tooled-up, Israeli IDF fellahs.
How do we know he's petrified?
Just take a peek at the little lad's pants -- paying particular attention to the stained left leg of his Levis.
Sort of hammers home how true the term 'peeing one's pants' is when used to describe sheer, unadulterated, abject terror. Eh?
Oops! Pardon us -- please.
Did we just type that terrible word "terror"? We did? Really?
Well now, we wonder why in the world we would want to do that?
Oops, again! We're ever so frightfully sorry!
We almost forgot what we originally intended posting.
Gaza 'crisis as bad as Lebanon'
By Lucy Williamson BBC News, Gaza
Israeli air attacks occur several a nights a week in GazaThe United Nations has called on world leaders not to forget the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, saying it is at least as serious as that in southern Lebanon.
More than 140 people have been killed during Israel's operations there over the past month, many of them civilians.
Delivery of food and other essential items has been reduced to a trickle.
Thirty aid agencies backed the appeal, and one charity spoke of a sense among aid agencies that Gaza's population was being terrorized.
Now, since tonight's another one of those occasions when we're truly 'feeling our age' -- we're sneaking off upstairs and leaving you lot to it.
You know the click-link drill by now.
Read the rest of the BBC's latest Gaza-Crisis report right here.
posted by Richard at Thursday, August 03, 2006
20 Comments:
Richard,
What makes me sad is that rulers and mainstream media in the west don't give a damn about how these people live under extreme conditions ! The official story is that Israel has to defend itself ! I wonder how can people live with their conscience and still be convinced by this storyline !
How? Because ignorance is bliss, Sophia.
In the US, there are many who honestly know no better. Then there are those who do not want to know. And, I see the second group as being the worst of the two, by far.
Are you familiar with the phrase "Bread and circuses,"?
Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq and still Afghanistan (where lately, Brits deaths are increasing alarmingly) -- there are so many places where trouble and strife has been ignited and-or been fueled by the Bush's US and to a slightly lesser extent by Blair's UK - that it's hard to keep up with everything. It must be even harder for folk like you Richard, to cover 'everything'.
But I hope you never stop trying to. Like I hope of other bloggers (several of whom post here I see) of similar dedication and determination won't either.
Another interuption re: more of our blog's interesting visitors -:
==========================
Domain Name (Unknown)
IP Address 194.90.236.# (Malam Systemes)
ISP NetVision
Location Continent : Asia
Country : Israel (Facts)
State/Region : Hefa
City : Haifa
Lat/Long : 32.8156, 34.9892 (Map)
=================================
Which helped lead me here.
Then to this.
And to this
Afghanistan ~ another perfect example of leaving someone else to clear up their mess. Declare victory or "mission accomplished" then just walk quietly away, hoping nobody will notice then gradually forget all about it.
Nice friends you have there, Richard.
Pat Lang has an interesting doc up here-
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/
entitled "Death of a Legend"
The legend being that of the IDF.
It explains a few of the seemingly poor performances of late of the IDF and backs up what mfi has been expecting to happen regarding their image if not their future (if I read mfi correctly, that is)
Dear Richard;
Let me quote Gilad Atzmon, whom I regard, as one of the heart-broken and tearful conscience of both Israel and the Jews, to say something succint about Israel's terrorism and put it in context and also, to add to your remark, which I fully agree with:
"And don't you ever forget, we are the only democracy in the Middle East, when we engage in one war crime or another, when we breach the Geneva Convetion, when we violate any possible humanist call, we always express our people's democtatic choice. We always do it in the name of our people. Don't forget, this war was launched by an Israeli national unity centrist coalition.
This war is the call of the moderate peace-seeking Jewish voice. Unlike Hezbollah, a tiny group of paramilitary militias, our terror is nothing, but state terrorism in its making. Our state terrorism is our democratic choice and it is supported by the world's leading democrats: Bush and Blair.
Israel is getting quite good at "double-speak", not quite as obvious as the White House is, eh, Tom?
Richard, things are much worse in Gaza than the BBC story would have you believe. Random killing has gone on for a long time. Restrictions on food delivery and any delivery of medicines began months ago. Also payment to the Palestinians of tax revenues were cut off.
These things happened because they had the audacity to have a democratic election and then elected the wrong leader last January.
And there is more. But that's enough.
"And don't you ever forget, we are the only democracy in the Middle East, .......
Which goes to show Tom that even somebody of his stature can drink a certain amount of kool aid (to use the American expression.) The other democracy is of course Lebanon.
Gaza is indeed the "obscured" conflict in this... conflict.
The $64.000 question is: will any peace deal also involve the Palestinian question, or will the roadmap stay firmly in Ms Rice's glove compartment. In that case we're still on a crash course...
Richard
Hey Richard, It looks as though that last [one word]post should have a second word ...... "aaaarrggghhhh".
Heh. I wonder if it was the butler what done it?
I don't normally do this Richard but before it goes behind the pay firewall I think you need to see this:
Mr Blair should recognise his errors and go
By Rodric Braithwaite
Financial Times
Published: August 2 2006 19:27 | Last updated: August 2 2006 19:27
Aspectre is stalking British television, a frayed and waxy zombie straight from Madame Tussaud’s. This one, unusually, seems to live and breathe. Perhaps it comes from the Central Intelligence Agency’s box of technical tricks, programmed to spout the language of the White House in an artificial English accent.
There is another possible explanation. Perhaps what we see on television is the real Tony Blair, the man who believes that he and his friend alone have the key to the horrifying problems of the Middle East. At first he argued against a ceasefire in Lebanon. Then, after another Israeli airstrike killed dozens of Lebanese women and children, he finally admitted, in California – reluctantly, grudgingly and with a host of preconditions – that military force alone would not do the trick, and now seems to have told his people to look for something better.
The catastrophe in Lebanon is the latest act of a tragedy rooted in European anti-Semitism and in the expulsion of an Arab people from their ancestral home. Both sides claim the right to self-defence. Neither hesitates to use force to pursue aims it regards as legitimate. No single event is the proximate cause of the current mayhem – neither the Israeli onslaught on Lebanon, nor the Hizbollah rockets, nor the Israeli assassination of Palestinian leaders, nor the suicide bombings. The causes go back in almost infinite regression. In the desperate pursuit of short-term tactical gain, both sides lose sight of their own long-term interests.
The Israelis remember the Holocaust and the repeated calls from within the Muslim world for the elimination of their state, and they react strongly to real or perceived threats to their existence. Whether their government’s methods can achieve their ends is for them to judge. A liberal Israeli columnist has argued that “in Israel and Lebanon, the blood is being spilled, the horror is intensifying, the price is rising and it is all for naught” – a reminder that Israel remains a sophisticated and in many ways an attractive democracy.
But whatever our sympathy for Israel’s dilemma, Mr Blair’s prime responsibility is to defend the interests of his own country. This he has signally failed to do. Stiff in opinions, but often in the wrong, he has manipulated public opinion, sent our soldiers into distant lands for ill-conceived purposes, misused the intelligence agencies to serve his ends and reduced the Foreign Office to a demoralised cipher because it keeps reminding him of inconvenient facts. He keeps the dog, but he barely notices if it barks or not. He prefers to construct his “foreign policy” out of self-righteous soundbites and expensive foreign travel.
Mr Blair has done more damage to British interests in the Middle East than Anthony Eden, who led the UK to disaster in Suez 50 years ago. In the past 100 years – to take the highlights – we have bombed and occupied Egypt and Iraq, put down an Arab uprising in Palestine and overthrown governments in Iran, Iraq and the Gulf. We can no longer do these things on our own, so we do them with the Americans. Mr Blair’s total identification with the White House has destroyed his influence in Washington, Europe and the Middle East itself: who bothers with the monkey if he can go straight to the organ-grinder?
Mr Blair has seriously damaged UK domestic politics, too. His prevarication over a ceasefire confirms to many of our Muslim fellow citizens that Britain is engaged in a secular war against the Arab world and by extension, against the Muslim world. He has thus made it harder to achieve what should be a goal of policy for any British government – to build a tolerant multi-ethnic society within our own islands. And though he chooses not to admit it, he has made us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. These are not achievements of which a British prime minister should be proud.
But in spite of the disasters he has wreaked abroad, in spite of the growing scandal and incoherence of his performance at home, Mr Blair is still a consummate politician. How else can one explain the failure of his party to do the decent thing and get rid of him? Why else does it still appear as though he alone controls the timing and circumstances of his departure? One day we may feel sorry for Mr Blair for the damage he has done to his place in history and to himself. But that moment is not yet. For now, he should no longer attempt to stand upon the order of his going, but go. At once.
Sir Rodric Braithwaite, UK ambassador to Moscow 1988-92 and then foreign policy adviser to John Major and chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, is author of Moscow 1941 (Profile, 2006
Mark, I've got the impression, that he meant it as a sarcasm, to blow their most frequently used cover by extending it to sheer absurdity. (Not an easy thing to do nowadays.)
I love, how he draws attention to the lopsided scale of the conflict and atrocities, while Israel still desperately tries to cling to its prescious 'victim' status.
BTW, I found this article on another excellent Brit site: The Truthseekers. Looks like these Brits getting restless and taking leadership roles.
Well, kudos and "well dones" to Sir Rodric and the Financial Times editor(s). I wonder what Rupert thinks of this?
Though I wonder if this quote is somewhat "tongue-in-cheek"-
"Mr Blair is still a consummate politician. How else can one explain the failure of his party to do the decent thing and get rid of him?"
I think the much more obvious concluusion would be that these Laour politicians area very aware they are dealing with a very vicious regime. That they would be very concerned about ending up like Robin Cook (some must wonder if it was natural causes) or David Kelly (of whom there is NO doubt). With the murderous SAS and MI5/6 in Blair's and his backers' pockets, it would be a brave man indeed who would plot the downfall of this would be Caligular. The coup would need to come from the Praetorian Guard itself.
It would also seem reasonable to assume that the Labour Pollies didn't unseat Blair before the last election as you would normaly expect in the circumstance because they were convinced he would win anyway. Which can only mean they knew "The fix was in".
Richard you've really kept on top of these issues like a bull and deserve a great deal of credit.
And Mark, a superb find, this is very much along my own thinking on this and indeed it can be extended to really look at the Blair regime's entire track record both at home and abroad.
Griffon, well very interesting with Dr Kelly of course and I have to say I was somewhat sceptical about Robin Cook at the time, but you know I think it is cowardice more than anything else and they are in effect condoning (and a part of that vicious regime) As I say a lot, all of this catastrophe has to be a reflection on Labour itself for permitting it.
Keep up the good work guys...
Jul1r4,
Thanks for the encouragement.
I didn't mean to be making excuses for these Labour politicians. They have given in to their fears and/or greed for power.
Clearly they should invidually and collectively grow a backbone or get out and make way for the possibility of someone WITH a backbone, with enough courage to overcome their fears to take their place.
Exactly the same scenario applies in Australia except they're called Liberal here. Mind you, I'm confident our Labor Party would do the same thing.
These Party names are rather Orwellian, aren't they?
Thanks, Mark, for posting the Braithwaite editorial from the Financial Times. It's a significant indication of what looks to me like a sea change in attitude.
I assure you what appears in the Financial Times gets read in important circles in the United States. This editorial will have legs.
...and let's not forget John Smith.
Post a Comment
<< Home