"If it's provable we can kill it."
Or, the enemy of peace is not Hamas or Hezbollah - it's Israel
Published on August 4, 2006 By EmperorofIceCream In Politics
There's a useful history of terrorst strikes against America and her interests in the copy of Human Events for the week of July 31st 2006. (Link)

I won't force those suffering from an aversion to Ann Coulter to read the article - these are the relevant details - but technically speaking this is not an actual quote. I've edited what she has to say in the interest of what I have to say; but I'm very happy to give the Diva of the Right full credit for everything enclosed in quotation marks.

"November 1979: Muslim extremists (Iranian variety) seized the U.S. embassy in Iran and held 52 American hostages for 444 days.

-- 1982: Muslim extremists (mostly Hezbollah) began a nearly decade-long habit of taking Americans and Europeans hostage in Lebanon, killing William Buckley and holding Terry Anderson for 6 1/2 years.

-- April 1983: Muslim extremists (Islamic Jihad or possibly Hezbollah) bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 16 Americans.

-- October 1983: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) blew up the U.S. Marine barracks at the Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines.

-- December 1983: Muslim extremists (al-Dawa) blew up the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing five and injuring 80.

-- September 1984: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) exploded a truck bomb at the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut, killing 24 people, including two U.S. servicemen.

-- December 1984: Muslim extremists (probably Hezbollah) hijacked a Kuwait Airways airplane, landed in Iran and demanded the release of the 17 members of al-Dawa who had been arrested for the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing two Americans before the siege was over.

-- June 14, 1985: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) hijacked TWA Flight 847 out of Athens, diverting it to Beirut, taking the passengers hostage in return for the release of the Kuwait 17 as well as another 700 prisoners held by Israel. When their demands were not met, the Muslims shot U.S. Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem and dumped his body on the tarmac.

-- October 1985: Muslim extremists (Palestine Liberation Front backed by Libya) seized an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, killing 69-year-old American Leon Klinghoffer by shooting him and then tossing his body overboard.

-- December 1985: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed airports in Rome and Vienna, killing 20 people, including five Americans.

-- April 1986: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed a discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen in West Berlin, injuring hundreds and killing two, including a U.S. soldier.

-- December 1988: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 on board and 11 on the ground.

-- February 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, possibly with involvement of friendly rival al Qaeda) set off a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center, killing six and wounding more than 1,000.

-- Spring 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, the Sudanese Islamic Front and at least one member of Hamas) plot to blow up the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the U.N. complex, and the FBI's lower Manhattan headquarters.

-- November 1995: Muslim extremists (possibly Iranian "Party of God") explode a car bomb at U.S. military headquarters in Saudi Arabia, killing five U.S. military servicemen.

-- June 1996: Muslim extremists (13 Saudis and a Lebanese member of Hezbollah, probably with involvement of al Qaeda) explode a truck bomb outside the Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds.

-- August 1998: Muslim extremists (al Qaeda) explode truck bombs at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 and injuring thousands.

-- October 2000: Muslim extremists (al Qaeda) blow up the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors.

-- Sept. 11, 2001: Muslim extremists (al Qaeda) hijack commercial aircraft and fly planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, killing nearly 3,000 Americans."

It's patently obvious that it's not Israelis carrying out these attacks - and just as patently obvious that so-callied allies such as Saudi Arabia are involved to a degree that makes them far more worthy of invasion and national dismemberment than was Iraq. But nonetheless, Israel, it's mere existence, as well as the gross political sponsorship of Israel by America, is at the root of every single one of these attacks.

When the body becomes diseased is it better to treat the symptoms, or the cause? The 'war on terror', already an apparent and open failure, looks set fair to become the equivalent of a cure for cancer that is worse than the disease itself. It breeds those willing to die, so long as they can kill a few of their enemies as they do so. At the same time it makes a mockery of those values enumerated in the Declaration of Independence - the human rights with which God endowed all people, not Americans alone.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

America... bastion of truth, justice, and freedom - except where Israel and those who resist its illegitimate and unlawful depredations are concerned. Israel is the example nonpareil both of the failure of the UN as anything other than a theatre of deceit in which the members of the Security Council strut and preen, and of the irrelevance of so-called 'international law' in the face of determined State action.

I have no love for the UN (as much a joke as its predecessor, the League of Nations) nor for international law, which I consider to be no law at all since none of it was issued by a legitimate Sovereign Power capable of enforcing it. However, much is made of the failures of Iraq and Iran to abide by the 'resolutions' of the UN Security Council - while no mention at all is made of the resolutions which Israel blithely ignores. The current sitution in Lebanon is the most flagrant, blatant and brutal breach of (in particular) Security Council Resolution 425, which reads -

"The Security Council,

1.Calls for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries;


2. Calls upon Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory;


3. Decides, in the light of the request of the Government of Lebanon, to establish immediately under its authority a United Nations interim force for southern Lebanon for the purpose of confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring international peace and security and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area, the force to be composed of personnel drawn from States Members of the United Nations.


4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council within twenty-four hours on the implementation of this resolution.


Resolution 425 was issued on 03/19/1978 (Link).

The following link leads to a list of other UN resolutions, issued between 1955 and 1992, all of which have been treated by Israel with utter disdain. (Link)

How many times, before the invasion of Iraq, was it made plain to the public that a casus belli in that ongoing debacle was Iraq's failure to comply with the resolutions of the Security Council? How many times, in the ongoing furore over Iran, has it been made plain that it is Iran's refusal to comply with the will of the 'international community', as expressed via the UN, that is one of the principal justifications for economic sanctions, and possibly even another military adventure to 'enforce' that will?

The list of resolutions breached by Israel is longer than both my arms put together. But no one mentions that fact.

The origin of every terrorist attack against the USA lies, at its root, with Israel and America's patronage of that criminal, intransigent and bloody-handed monster. For reasons that entirely escape me, America is besotted with Israel, incapable of seeing that its interests require an immediate curtailment of all military, economic and political sponsorship in order to bring Israel firmly to heel and remind the Israelis of exactly which state is the client and which the Patron.

Not until that political nettle is grasped and pulled up by the roots can there be any hope of a 'victory' in the 'war on terror'. Granted, Hamas and Hezbollah carry out the acts, acts that in themselves are no less heinous than those carried out by Israel, but the origin of the disease of political violence is not with them. It lies with the intransigent zealotry and racially motivated hatred of the Israelis - and their treacherous sympathisers here in the USA who, by working to support the interests of Israel, work directly against the interests of America and her people.

I can hear the cries of those who sympathise with Israel - but the Arabs started it all, they attacked first. That might be true had not the Jews of the day (there were no Israelis before the founding of Israel in 1949) been forced upon the region ('Palestine' did not exist until its creation as a consequence of the Paris Peace Conference of 1919) by the British in pursuit of the goals of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which states, in part, that -

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." The failure of His Majesty's Government to fulfil that 'clear understanding' is only one testimony to the demise of Britain as a Great Power.

The land now known as 'Palestine' was expropriated at the hands of the European Great Powers of the day, constituting the first attack in the conflict between Arabs and Jews. What makes the aggression of the Jews in the Middle East even more repellant than it appears to be is the fact that, since 1934, an alternative to Jewish depradations in 'Palestine' has existed in the JAR, the Jewish Autonomous Region of the former Soviet Union, which continues in existence to this day. (Link)

Israel is an illegitimate creation of the European Great Powers of the early twentieth century, fashioned as an answer to the political needs of the day - needs long since forgotten, as relevant to today as are the dietary requirements of dinosaurs; it is equally an illegitimate creation of religious fanaticism at least as great as that of Hamas or Hezbollah. Ancient Israel was destroyed millenia ago: to say that the texts of the Bible give legitimacy to Israel's existence now is on a par with a claim that the ancient kingdoms of Wessex and Mercia ought to be revived simply because they once existed.

"... A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture. Among the Jews there is no large and stable stratum connected with the land, which would naturally rivet the nation together." (Joseph Stalin, 1913).

That remained true until the creation of 'Palestine' as a site of expropriation, and of 'Israel' as the agent of that expropriation - all done in the name of interests that are as dead as Balfour himself. The JAR remains as a viable, peaceful, successful alternative to the chaos produced by the creation of 'Israel'. And if Jews wish to live in peace, as they claim, it is to that homeland that they ought to return - willingly or not.

There is too much at stake, for America and the world, for the existence of Israel any longer to be tolerated. Its mere existence, as the illegitimate creation of regimes long since dead and turned to dust, destabilises a region crucial to the interests of many millions more than make up the population of both ancient Israel and its modern counterpart put together - and those of you who espouse the Utilitarian concept that the good of the many ought to outweigh the interests of the few should immediately begin agitating for renewed and effective control of Israel by the USA, for Israel's termination as an independent political entity, and for the return of the Jews to the only homeland they have legitimately had since the destruction of ancient Israel.

Modern Israel is a plague-spot at the heart of the Middle East. It will continue to infect the world with the violence of its presence until, like any tumour, it is excised and the contamination of its existence is cleansed and healed."

Comments (Page 2)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Aug 05, 2006
Israel and it's citizens are repeatedly and violently attacked, Israel responds, and it's Israel that's at fault. Very twisted logic.
on Aug 05, 2006
Israel and it's citizens are repeatedly and violently attacked, Israel responds, and it's Israel that's at fault. Very twisted logic.


Yes Mason according to such logic it is their fault because they won't just die.
on Aug 05, 2006
#13 by EmperorofIceCream
Fri, August 04, 2006 11:49 PM


Jews rule, the English drool.


They have bad teeth, too. Enlighten me - what is 'the Jews rule'?


I forgot the english have no sense of humor, was a joke simon.
on Aug 05, 2006
I doubt seriously that Palestine would be in the hands of the "Palestinians" if Israel hadn't been re-created. Most in the indigenous middle east were nazi-affiliated, and thereafter Soviet affiliated, so there's no chance we'd have been pals with these fundamentalist Neanderthals now either way. We'd have wanted some kind of foothold in the middle east during the cold war, so what Israel now holds would still have been held by those perceived to be 'infidels'.

Whoever it would have been, Turkey, whoever, would have been at least as heavy handed as Israel in keeping the natives down, so they'd have been just as inflammatory and provocative. All you get with the 'God's Chosen' aspect is people who are more apt to mercilessly guard our shared interests there. Israel isn't going to go to the highest bidder, and they'll fight to the death to see to it that it remains in their hands. You can't say that about any other "ally" in the middle east.

The only possible difference is had we had a colonial-style, Arab puppet holding Palestine, they would have most likely killed most of the Palestinians decades ago, and scattered the remnant all over the middle east in the form of refugees. It would be a more consolidated Palestine, but it would be just as hated and provocative. I don't think anyone who studies history would imagine a circumstance where the toll in atrocity wouldn't be far, far higher.

Terrorism is about harnessing the will of oppressed people in the middle east, not Israel. Israel is just an excuse. If they weren't thinking about Palestine they'd be wondering why the hell they are living in the middle ages while the rest of the wold looks down its nose at them. The last thing anyone in power in the middle east wants is for the common man to lose his focus.
on Aug 05, 2006
P.S. I find your idea of "illegitimate" kind of facetious, given you generally promote the idea that anything you can get away with is 'legitimate'...
on Aug 05, 2006
P.P.S. I take that back. There's another possible outcome. Had our Palestine puppet fallen to radicals as other puppets did, Palestine would be in the hands of fundamentalists, just as Iran is now. Imagine all the fundamentalist fervor turned on the Husseins and Assads one at a time. If you look at what Israel soaks up in terms of radical angst, it might be possible that bin Laden's idea of a homogeneous middle east would already exist.

I can't see how Israel's existence hasn't been in our extreme benefit throughout the cold war and after.
on Aug 05, 2006
To: BakerStreet

Glad to see you still up to your old tricks: respond to something I didn't write about (whether 'Palestine" would still exist if Israel did not; whether the region would be more peaceful if Israel did not exist; would we have profited more from Israel never having existed or from its continued existence) as though I had written on that topic - and then dismantle arguments I didn't create in favor of one of a variety of positions I haven't assumed. You remind me very much of KFC in this regard: you use a somewhat similar but more sophisticated technique (it would be hard to be less sophisticated than KFC) to the same end - the justification of an ambivalent cynicism that requires the 'defeat' of the arguments of others to sustain itself. I fell for it once, as I did with the insect KFC. Not again.

I argue that the creation of Israel was an illegitimate act, that it's continuation is illegitimate (all in terms of the UN and internal 'law' - and pointed out that I deny the validity of both while others do not - and it's those others who practise a persistent double-think in relation to Israel).

And if the struggle is about motivating minds to hatred, as you claim, then there can be no better pretext for or justification of that hatred than America's continued sponsorship of an entity that violates UN resolutions at every turn, violations that are routinely ignored while the infractions commited by others are held up as international scandals and proof of membership in an 'axis of evil' that exists only in the mids of demagogues such as Bush, Rumsfeld et al.

Whatever other motivations for hatred exist, why should America's behaviour in actively promoting one form of hate go unchallenged and uncondemned?

Other than that single point you responded to nothing I actually posted. And I shall treat the rest of your comments in the same fashion.
on Aug 05, 2006
I addressed exactly what your premise is; that Israel is the "enemy of the world". The inevitable conclusion is that we'd be better off without them doing what they do, and I don't think so. You didn't even address the legitimacy of Israel until about halfway through your article; the rest is a rundown of the supposed results of Israel's existence.

Thus, I was addressing what might have been the results of its NON-existence. Hearing you talk in high fashion about international law and all that is like hearing Satan judge people according to the ten commandments, frankly. This is more of the same "I believe in being a bully anytime you can get away with it... unless you are someone I don't like... and I don't like anybody... ".

"Whatever other motivations for hatred exist, why should America's behaviour in actively promoting one form of hate go unchallenged and uncondemned?"


Fundamentalist Islam is a hateful belief system that would rot on the vine without someone to hate. If we forcefully disbanded Israel and handed it to fundamentalist Islam they'd spit on us as we walked away. What did Israel have to do with the horrors they undertook to Hindu cultures further east, that continue still today?

Hell no, and you know it as well as I do. If they weren't killing Jews they'd be killing Hindus. If they weren't hating Israel they'd be hating us directly. Fundamentalist Islam is only tolerant of other beliefs once they've conquered you, and then only if you pay the appropriate Sharia-imposed taxes and do exactly what they say.

You know this. You have no love for international law, either. I've read your personal values applied to numerous situations too many times to believe you'd have half a qualm about Israel totally exterminating everyone in Gaza and Lebanon. One must wonder, then, what motivates you to this extreme...
on Aug 05, 2006
To: Adventure-Dude

This whole conflict would be avoided if Syria and Iran would tell Hezbollah to stop.


Then why is Israel not at war with Iran and Syria? Surely the mighty IDF is not afraid...? If their true enemies are in Damascus and Tehran, why is Israel bombing Lebanon, a virtually defenceless nation (defenceless except for Hezbollah, apparently)? Israel is not at with either of them because it has concerns that it could not win - justified concerns, as Hezbollah is demonstrating so strikingly. Wait and see. Israel will be the second nation in history to use nuclear weapons in war, against Iran's known nuclear facilities. As I've said elsewhere (Link) - I admire the ruthlessness involved. That doesn't mean I think it will be good for America's interest to be seen as the sponsor of the Jewish nukes making deep fried crispy-crunchies out of Arabs.

Do you think that would be a good thing?

But I have YET to see anyone from YOUR side recognize that it takes TWO to live at peace and TWO to be at war.


As you say, it takes two to make peace - but only one to cause a war, and to continue it, as Lebanon amply demonstrates. Unless what's happening in Lebanon isn't a war, after all, but simply one more invasion to expropriate land, on the justifiable premise that it make life more difficult for Hezbollah. In case you missed it the first time I'll say again that I admire such ruthlessness. I'm not codemning them. I'm pointing out that they are a threat in themselves. Religious mania allied with nukes is not a good thing, whether its Jewish or Muslim religious mania.
on Aug 05, 2006
To: BakerStreet

If they weren't killing Jews they'd be killing Hindus.


Let them kill Hindus then. Particularly non-American Hindus. Have you somehow mistaken anything I've said for humanitarian concern? I don't care how many dot-heads they despatch. Mad-dog Jews are as bad as mad-dog Arabs. And that's the point that you are once again refusing to acknowledge and attempting to mystify, KFC-style. Israel acts as a terrorist state and it's lauded as a nation of heroic resistance to tyrrany. The equally demented Arabs act in terrorist groups, murdering by suicide bomber as readily as Israel carries out extra-judicial killing by Gunship, and Washington and London are on fire with condemnation, thunderously denouncing the evils of terrorism.

Those supporting Israel are, perforce, hypocrites. I dislike hypocrisy.
on Aug 05, 2006
Israel acts as a terrorist state...

This is the part of the equation I fail to comprehend. How do you equate a nation responding to violent attacks with terrorism? It just doesn't wash.
on Aug 05, 2006
#22 by little-whip
Sat, August 05, 2006 4:05 PM


Now..what was it the jews rule again?


capitolize that J in Jews!! ya fraggfin granfglicle poozsnating freak!
on Aug 05, 2006
#26 by EmperorofIceCream
Sat, August 05, 2006 8:11 PM


Those supporting Israel are, perforce, hypocrites. I dislike hypocrisy.


I support Israel, would support them against any country but america, might even support them then.

Death to towell heads!! death to rag heads!! death to white people!! come to think of it Death to everyone BUT BIG HOOKED NOSE Jews!
on Aug 05, 2006
To Moderateman

Death to everyone BUT BIG HOOKED NOSE Jews!


Ok. I can go along with that.

See? Now I understand all this Israeli aggression. You're all just pissed the Blacks got the big dicks and all you Jews got was huge noses.
on Aug 05, 2006
To: MasonM

This is the part of the equation I fail to comprehend. How do you equate a nation responding to violent attacks with terrorism? It just doesn't wash.


Look at the nature of the acts. What difference is there between killing by diktat via Gunship and killing by diktat via suicide bombers? They are the same acts: murder without recourse to justice. The fact that you're obsessed with who does what to whom rather than with what's done, and that you have decided in advance that one party is justified as defending itself while the other is to be condemned for defending itself, probably explains your difficulty in comprehension. I believe your problem is prejudice.
4 Pages1 2 3 4