A historical parallel

PW would be so proud.

“These places are not villages. They are military bases”... “Everyone in southern Lebanon is a terrorist and is connected to Hizbollah.”

Israel’s Justice Minister Haim Ramon.

Ramon is considered a moderate in Israel. This is what happens when a country is shielded from the consequences of its policies. If Israel had to pay to maintain a massive army at a high level of alert while trying to run a crippled, socialist economy at the same time, instead of being propped up by the US, it would have made a lasting peace long ago. 20 years ago the South African government was in a similar position and made a lasting peace because it had to. It simply couldn't afford any more extremism in blood or money, Israel can. Until that changes extremists will be free to poison the political climate of the only party with power to make peace.

Fools go on about how Hamas or whoever need to make peace with Israel. That's crap Hamas has no more power to make peace with Israel than the ANC had with the SA govt. The only card they hold is that they can make the alternative so costly that there's no choice but to negotiate. A force without a single tank or airplane can't 'push Israel into the sea' or whatever nonsense is in vogue right now. Israel on other hand has the chance to miss making an acceptable peace while it has the chance. Nothing lasts for ever, maybe one day they'll wish they'd made better use of their opportunity.

War and Pieces

This post got me thinking about a few things.

Hezbollah has killed fewer civilians so far than Israel. The captured I"D"F soldiers who started this conflict were also most likely caught in Lebannon. Israel also holds Lebanese and Palestinian women and children in jails as hostages. These are things you don't hear reported on the news. It's a war, you idiots. You never accept the word of either combatant because they will invariably lie to advance their own cause, hence the war bit. Reporting the context behind the events and portraying two diverse sides to the conflict might actually get people to understand what's going on.

I don't understand why we have to support either side. We're Australians, our duty is to our fellow citizens. Anyone who wants to can renounce their citizenship and go fight for whatever side they want. A person who holds Australian citizenship and fights for ANY army or armed force other than Australia (under circumstances where they are not defending Australia) particularly one that has attacked Australian citizens should be guilty of an offence. At the very least they should lose their right to remain an Australian citizen. I don't care what ties you have to whatever country. If you pick up so much as a wet tea towel in its name, tough, you've plumped for them instead of us. If it's what you have to do, it's what you have to do, but we should draw the line somewhere. I'm all for dual citizenship and everything, but not with rifles.

Further our government should not be openly supporting a belligerent in a conflict that has refused to aid us in removing our citizens from their war, that has attacked and killed our citizens and has made clear it's intention to not help us in any way whatsoever to get our people out of Lebannon. It disgusts me to see Howard and Downer licking Israel's balls on TV every night. What do we owe them, or any other country in the ME (except maybe Turkey, for being nice to us even though the Brits made us invade them)? There's a word for supporting people shooting at your countrymen, it's called treason.

More importantly picking a side in a conflict that is none of our fucking business will go some way towards earning the ire of the other side. That would be the side currently angry about us invading Iraq and starting to closely associate us with America. I don't want any part of it. Piss off, the lot of them, I'd rather mini-Mahatma and Shirley Temple stick to improving relations with our regional neighbours rather trying to find more new enemies on the other side of the world.