• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why should Europeans protect Israel?

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Why should Europeans protect Israel?

The enlarged Nato/Unifil force is not going to preserve 'peace'

By Robert Fisk

08/26/06 "The Independent" -- -- First, it was to be a 15,000-strong foreign army to reinforce the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, Unifil. Now it is to be about 7,500. And it will not disarm Hizbollah. And anyway, Hizbollah refuses to be disarmed.

The French would send 200 men; then they sent 400. Then the Italians would send 3,000. Then the French would send another 2,000, making their total contribution 2,600, including the company that has remained in Unifil since the French were hurled out of the peacekeeping organisation back in 1986 after fighting Shia militias in the Lebanese village of Marrake (of which no mention will be made, any more than it is on the BBC). And now the Belgians might send 700. And the Turks? Well, the Lebanese Armenians are objecting to their contribution on the grounds - perfectly accurate, though the BBC will not tell you this - that the Turkish army perpetrated the genocide of one and a half Christian million Armenians in 1915. Oh, what a wondrous plot we weave when first we practise to deceive.

This, of course, applies to everyone in the Lebanese swamp. Self-deception - or self-delusion - has become a cancer throughout both the Middle East and the west; and amid the EU countries that are now bidding to send their young men to sacrifice their lives in Lebanon. They are going to preserve peace, we are told; they are going to maintain a ceasefire; they are going to save lives.

So a big Ho-Ho-Ho from the world of reality. The enlarged Nato/Unifil force is not going to preserve "peace". It is going to maintain a " buffer" zone to protect Israel after the latter's dismal failure to destroy, disarm and liquidate the Iranian-armed Hizbollah guerrilla army over the past seven weeks. The UN may deny that it is a buffer zone for the Israelis - but if it was a buffer zone to protect Lebanese (the numerically higher victims of this latest war), it would be based, surely, inside the Israeli frontier. But no, it is there to protect Israel.

Note how the Arabs have accepted this. Note how we have accepted this - how we have sublimely gone along with the idea that Israel's security and happiness are more important than the security and happiness of the millions of Muslims also living in this region. Our soldiers are to be deployed to protect Israel. Do we really think that the Arabs don't realise this? And do we think that our western governments don't realise this when they huff and puff over whether to send soldiers to the Middle East?

Needless to say, the Americans and the British want no part of this mess. After Iraq and Afghanistan, they have no stomach to defend Israel, let alone Lebanon. Their job is to push the European masses into the bog they have created by their injustice and cowardice in the Middle East. President Bush promises "intelligence" assistance to the Unifil force - which means Israeli "intelligence", and we all know how good that is - while Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara offers not a single hero to give his life, which is as well after his outrageous sacrifice of British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But while Europe's other political masters dithered this week, BBC World Service laid down a familiar narrative for its listeners. "It seems," said their man on The World Today, that the Europeans - how I hate these cheap clichés - "are prepared to talk the talk but not walk the walk." In other words, those bloody Wops and Frogs and Boche, not to mention the Dagos and the ungrateful Finns and Norwegians, were gutless little chicken **** when it came to standing by their European principles.

Those principles, it is now clear, are supposed to be the sacrifice of their soldiers' lives for the latest UN Security Council Resolution cooked up by America and France (and, a bit, by Lord Blair) in New York. But the BBC got it completely wrong. The Europeans are not nervous about military losses or unclear mandates. They had plenty of both in Bosnia.

What is happening in Europe is that a growing number of states that had nothing to do with the Balfour Declaration or the Sykes-Picot agreement or the 1948 Middle East war or the 1967 Middle East war or the 1973 Middle East war or the 1982 Middle East war in Lebanon or the 1993 Israeli bombardment of Lebanon or the 1996 Israeli bombardment of Lebanon or the latest 2006 bombardment and "petit" invasion of Lebanon (after Hizbollah's outrageous provocation by crossing the international frontier) are simply sick and tired of clearing up the dirt after these filthy Arab-Israeli wars.

Most of Europe had no part in the Balfour Declaration. Much of Europe had an unforgivable role in the Jewish Holocaust. But the decades pass by, and the generations now being asked to sail to the Middle East do not even have parental guilt to absolve for the genocide of the Jews of Europe, any more than modern Turks can be proclaimed guilty for their grandparents' rape and murder of one and a half million Armenians. The Europeans, to put it mildly, are tired of being asked to atone for the sins of their grandparents. Maybe it is time, they are asking, for the Israelis and Arabs to pay for their own sick wars.

There is nothing immoral in this. President Bush claims that the Israelis won their war against the Hizbollah and humbled the organisation's supporters in Iran and Syria. Yet not even the Israelis claim this.

Now the Europeans - and perhaps the Turks, and certainly the poor old Lebanese army - are supposed to achieve all Israel's failed objectives. And when they fail - as they assuredly will, because Nato is not going to go to war with Islam - Israel will accuse them of abandoning poor little Israel.

The French will be reminded - as they were under the first Unifil mandate - that Vichy France handed its Jews to the Nazis, and the Belgians will be reminded (no doubt) that half their country was pro-Nazi and the Italians will be reminded that they elected fascism into power, and the Spaniards will be reminded that Franco was a fascist.

And the Arabs will sit silently by and watch the Europeans betray them all over again. And the winners? Syria. Iran. And all those enraged by the injustice and hypocrisy of our "democracies".


Source: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14708.htm
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1221881.ece
 

egroen

Member
Is this posted because you agree with Fisk, or just to prompt discussion?

I am quite certain it is not simply "guilt" which prompts european countries to aid Israel. From an entirely tactical point of view, as long as Israel exists it serves as an unfortunate buffer to the rest of the world for radical muslims to focus their anger and destructive energy upon, keeping much of it away from the western world. On the other had, destroying Israel is one of their few unifying causes and may be keeping them from going at each other.

Without Israel, would they merely implode or would they maintain focus to go after the next 'Great Evil'?

-Erin
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
The European forces aren't there to protect Israel. They are there to keep Hizbullah from attacking Israel so Israel doesn't kick the crap out of them again.

Shoot and whine....

They complained about Israel defending itself and now they complain about a force standing between Lebanon and Israel to keep Hizbullah from continually attacking Israel. :sad4:
 

kai

ragamuffin
the UN forces are there to preserve a buffer zone to stop Hezbollah from attacking Israel, Israel doesnt need any protection its the Lebanese who need protecting from any Israeli /hezbollah contact. I consider the article racially abusive
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
kai said:
the UN forces are there to preserve a buffer zone to sto Hezbollah from attacking Israel, Israel doesnt need any protection its the Lebonese who need protecting from any Israeli /hezbollah contact. I consider the article racialy abusive

No kidding.
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
egroen said:
Is this posted because you agree with Fisk, or just to prompt discussion?

What is the point of posting it if i already have specific opnion?

Of course it's for the sake of the discussion because i thought it's an interesting article. :)
 

kai

ragamuffin
c0da said:
How so? I'm too knackered to read through the article properly.

In other words, those bloody Wops and Frogs and Boche, not to mention the Dagos
 

bender118

Member
They are'nt there to protect Isreal, they are there to make sure Isreal does'nt turn Lebanon into a big parking lot
 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
So a big Ho-Ho-Ho from the world of reality. The enlarged Nato/Unifil force is not going to preserve "peace". It is going to maintain a " buffer" zone to protect Israel after the latter's dismal failure to destroy, disarm and liquidate the Iranian-armed Hizbollah guerrilla army over the past seven weeks. The UN may deny that it is a buffer zone for the Israelis - but if it was a buffer zone to protect Lebanese (the numerically higher victims of this latest war), it would be based, surely, inside the Israeli frontier. But no, it is there to protect Israel.

I think the whole article main point is to say that:
(1) Israel did not manage to defeat Hezbollah
(2) The French and US designed the scheme in UN to send in UNFIL to separate the Israel and Hezbollah
(3) This will give time for the Israel to study what went wrong again in 2006, and plan for a better war plan for the next invasion of Lebanon
(4) The UNIFIL is needed there so that the Hezbellah will not be able to launch rocket attack, so Israel could claim that she had achieved some of the objective of the war.
(5) The Europeans are smarter now, they looked at those UNIFIL killed by Israel a few weeks ago in Lebanon, and hence are very reluctant to send their army in to 'keep peace'

Simple question:
Is the UNIFIL there to prevent Hesbellah from attacking Israel or
Is the UNIFIL there to prevent Israel from attacking Lebanon?

We all know that UNIFIL can never protect Lebanon and prevent Israel from attacking Lebanon, from those poor UNIFIL killed and not a word of apology from Israel (may be a word or twoo)
So UNIFIL must be there to protect Israel from the rocket attack from Hesbellah.
 

Booko

Deviled Hen
greatcalgarian said:
(2) The French and US designed the scheme in UN to send in UNFIL to separate the Israel and Hezbollah[/quote

:biglaugh:

Oh yeah! The French and our gov'ts working together to design a scheme!

I suppose all that friction between Bush and Chirac is really just *cover* because as everyone knows, those two are really secret lovers. :sarcastic

The French and US gov'ts right now couldn't devise a scheme to cook dinner, much less manage wars and the UN.
 

kai

ragamuffin
greatcalgarian said:
I think the whole article main point is to say that:
(1) Israel did not manage to defeat Hezbollah to defeat an enemy such as Hezbollah they would have to totally decimate Lebenon the loss of life would be horrendous
(2) The French and US designed the scheme in UN to send in UNFIL to separate the Israel and Hezbollah I agree
(3) This will give time for the Israel to study what went wrong again in 2006, and plan for a better war plan for the next invasion of Lebanon I agree
(4) The UNIFIL is needed there so that the Hezbellah will not be able to launch rocket attack, so Israel could claim that she had achieved some of the objective of the war.if there are no more rocket attacks then they are happy
(5) The Europeans are smarter now, they looked at those UNIFIL killed by Israel a few weeks ago in Lebanon, and hence are very reluctant to send their army in to 'keep peace' they will come

Simple question:
Is the UNIFIL there to prevent Hesbellah from attacking Israel or
Is the UNIFIL there to prevent Israel from attacking Lebanon? both but it will take consensus they will not stop any concerted attack by force of arms they are a kind of deterant of the willing

We all know that UNIFIL can never protect Lebanon and prevent Israel from attacking Lebanon, from those poor UNIFIL killed and not a word of apology from Israel (may be a word or twoo)
So UNIFIL must be there to protect Israel from the rocket attack from Hesbellah.
no rocket attack=no Israeli attack

your kind of logic is what makes peace very hard indeed the Lebanese get a chance at peace and people start condeming countries who will be sending men and women there to basically help , they dont have to go there, they are trying to help people live in peace
 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
kai said:
no rocket attack=no Israeli attack

your kind of logic is what makes peace very hard indeed the Lebanese get a chance at peace and people start condeming countries who will be sending men and women there to basically help , they dont have to go there, they are trying to help people live in peace

You missed the point. A mess was created, and UN was dragged in to bear the burden of an unthankful job.

The 'peace' was installed to save the face for the Israel. Though at the same time it is also helping to stop the Israel for slaughtering of the Lebanese. Haven't you read about the last three days of the war prior to the final 'peace', Israel was dropping cluster bombs like nobody business? Imagine those poor UNIFIL, they will be the victim of those unexploded bomb left behind......

Your kind of logic will make peace possible, where justice are not being observed, and the strong and powerful dictates the term of peace, and the poor and weak and suppressed will just tolerate what is dictated to them.

My logic is that justice will finally prevail for the weak and oppressed.:149: and true peace will be there when the oppressor give up their quest for unfair treatment of the weak.
 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
Booko said:
greatcalgarian said:
(2) The French and US designed the scheme in UN to send in UNFIL to separate the Israel and Hezbollah[/quote

Oh yeah! The French and our gov'ts working together to design a scheme!

I suppose all that friction between Bush and Chirac is really just *cover* because as everyone knows, those two are really secret lovers.

The French and US gov'ts right now couldn't devise a scheme to cook dinner, much less manage wars and the UN.

You have not watched "The French Connection"?:p
 
  • Like
Reactions: kai

kai

ragamuffin
greatcalgarian said:
You missed the point. A mess was created, and UN was dragged in to bear the burden of an unthankful job.

The 'peace' was installed to save the face for the Israel. Though at the same time it is also helping to stop the Israel for slaughtering of the Lebanese. Haven't you read about the last three days of the war prior to the final 'peace', Israel was dropping cluster bombs like nobody business? Imagine those poor UNIFIL, they will be the victim of those unexploded bomb left behind...... i read somewhere they were going to help clean up unexploded ordinance

Your kind of logic will make peace possible, where justice are not being observed, and the strong and powerful dictates the term of peace, and the poor and weak and suppressed will just tolerate what is dictated to them. would you rather they didnt bother and just let the two sides slug it out and we can just count the dead at the end and blame america

My logic is that justice will finally prevail for the weak and oppressed.:149: and true peace will be there when the oppressor give up their quest for unfair treatment of the weak.
i fail to see your logic have you a better solution
 
Top