Tuesday, August 15, 2006
The Real Test Begins
Finally, Israel and Hezbollah have (mostly) stopped fighting each other in southern Lebanon. This in itself is a breakthrough, but the hardest part is just beginning. It will take the international community's continual involvement and evenhandedness to make this work. Evenhandedness includes not openly declaring that this was a major victory for Israel (it wasn't, if anything, Hezbollah proved once again that it has what it takes to survive in a slug-fest with Israel). Yes, George Bush, I'm talking to you. Israel and the various terrorist organizations it is continually trying to crush are like little boys fighting on the playground: if you want them to stop, you don't tell them that one was right and that he won the fight, that will just make the "wrong" "loser" keep going until he's victorious and in the right. It should be remembered here that Hezbollah thinks they are doing God's work too (and many Lebanese who've just seen their neighborhoods flattened feel that Hezbollah is the only thing standing between them and the armies of the West).
O.K., now that we've established that George Bush is an idiot, we'll continue on to the substance of this here piece. As history has so clearly shown, when left to their own devices, Muslims and Israelis have a tendency to kill each other. The obvious solution here is to not leave them to their own devices. Enter the U.N. international peacekeeping force. There were already observers in southern Lebanon before and during this whole fiasco, but they were unarmed (what were they thinking!?). When you're trying to keep two armed groups from shooting at each other, you need to have more guns than both of groups combined in between them. The one language everybody understands in the middle east is guns. They don't care so much for rules in our sense of the word, the only rule that seems to be constant throughout the region is that the man with the bigger gun has the right of way.
This peacekeeping force has to be armed, and it has to be international. Americans are equivalent to Israelis as far as Hezbollah and the Lebanese are concerned (and they're not too far off the mark). Americans should probably be a part of it, but in a diluted manner. Arabs aren't as angry at Italians, French, or Indians as they are at America. I think it would a very good idea to include some Egyptians and/or Jordanians too, just to keep up the charade of neutrality. These non-Americans are also a lot less likely to look the other way when Israelis push the line, but shoot any armed Arab they see. Stupid and inhuman as Bush has implied they are, Arabs can tell when they're getting the short end of the stick, seeing as that's what they've gotten since the rise of western Europe.
Maybe just as important as the peacekeepers, international public awareness and pressure is going to be needed to keep this whole thing rolling. Politicians are just dogs that do whatever they think the majority of people want them to do, after a bit, they'll just stop trying to do anything in southern Lebanon. We must keep asking "Is the ceasefire still being enforced?" "Are the peacekeepers being fair or are they just continuing Israel's war for them?" "Is a more permanent solution being negotiated?" Politicians don't like questions like this, because then they have to work, and keep going with their project. And the more time you stay with something, the more chance you'll do something that will cost you votes. That's the risk one takes when he/she put his/her name on the ballot. Live with it, and do some good while you're at it.
So, keep interested in Lebanon. Don't just move on when something else steals the spotlight, that's what you're expected to do, and you don't want to be some kind of pawn. Who knows, maybe this will be the start of a more stable middle east.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
To my astonishment, I have mustered up the courage to soak in the majority of you ideas and opinions. Inquisitive as I am, I have come to believe that you, Daniel W., are an absolute liar when it comes to upholding the true integrity of your word. The title of your ‘web-site’ is titled ‘Balanced and Unbiased’. From the majority of you works I find that you are most NOT indeed ‘Balanced and Unbiased’.
My grand pappy (several of you young kids may refer to your father’s father as a grandpa) taught me the true meaning of keeping my word, such as when I told him I had chopped all the wood for the day, when in reality I had went to Mel’s Dinner and had soda pop with Suzanne Rose. When my grand pappy realized that I had not actually chopped that wood, I was whipped with a stick on my rear end (pardon my language). I would really like for you to alter the title of your site to a more fitting one, such as ‘Absurd and Democratic’ OR make your articles more fitting to the title you are using now.
This has been an eye opening event to me to see that mothers and fathers all around the world are, as you young kids say, ‘brain washing’, their children into the trinity of ANTI. -Anti war, Anti Bush, and Anti Republican-. One other observation I would like to note is that every time you refer to ‘politicians’ in your most recent article, they are most defiantly the traits of a Democrat. I hope my comments were constructive.
Sincerely,
Ronnie W. Dempster III
Mr. Dempster, it sounds like you read quite a bit of my writing. I'm sorry that you take issue with my title and content. If you don't know me personally, you don't know that I'm a very sarcastic person, hence the title "Balanced and Unbiased" on a blog that is obviously full of liberal opinions. I'll be the first person to admit that I'm not trying to present just straight facts. I would like to see Republicans go down hard.
I do, however, try to be absolutely balanced and unbiased in how I run this sight: I permit comments damning me, people like me, and our/my ideas because everybody has a right to their opinion, I obtain my facts from mainstream news sights (msnbc mostly) and don't distort them at all (the pattern most of my posts follow is I present the facts of something and then I go off on somebody). I'm sure there's more stuff that I do that's even keeled, but I think I've made my point for now.
On the "politicians" you say are only democrats, I'll admit that George Bush at times doesn't seem to care about getting votes (because he's done getting elected anyway), but he's only one republican politician, a lot of senators and all reps are up for re-election and they all (republicans too) are trying to get votes.
I won't even bother to address the worldwide liberal conspiracy you've just blown wide open.
Daniel W.
Sounds like you are a Fox News/ Bill O'Reilly fan. Dan calling this Balanced and Unbiased is like Bill O'Reilly proclaiming the O'Reilly Factor a "No Spin Zone." Everything is spun and it's obvious to anyone that with any intelligence whatsoever.
Hey Daniel, you flaming democrat. All the Ronnie W. Dempster III was all me you melon headed moron.
I figured it was somebody I knew.
I figured it was that damned Buenger.
Post a Comment