Below is my personal take in a discussion that has been going on here.Steven Harper, our conservative prime minister, newly elected in December 05, has been brown nosing with Dubya ever since. With now confirmed rumors that the US are participating in the Israeli attack plan, more and more canadians feel that Harper has broken the image of neutrality and tolerance that Canada usually has across the world.
Moreoever, his evacuation plan moves at snail pace, and he has NOT taken action since some Lebenase-born Canadian citizens have been killed in the attacks.
There are rumors that we will go in election mode again in the fall to get rid of this useless politician, and Canadians are down in the street to express their discontent.
My word is this: if your government is supporting the Israeli attack, go in the street and support the protest efforts.
If you are an American citizen, consider your options. The Democrats are not disapproving the Republican support to Israel, which I guess means a third road is starting to be PARAMOUNT.
As far as I'm concerned, if Canada remains conservative, it's likely that I will join the soveignist cause in Quebec or move to France. I have no interest in being affiliated with Harper's support to the massacre of innocents.
The Beaver
Thanks and may the winds of Fate blow your way !
11 comments:
Hi girl!
These last few days I can't help thinking abou all our libanese friends in Dakar and I wonder whether their families in Lebanon are alright and safe...
G
It is good to see some misgivings in Canada about the support by PM Harper of the Israel-US position.
This whole fiasco is a disaster for all involved, save the Iranians.
My heart is heavy with the losses of innocent Lebanese life, and even more so, the fact that Israel has literally dismembered the last 15 years of meaningful, impressive accomplishments of the Lebanese people (however problematic) in rebuilding their infrastructure and economy.
Funny you guys never show the dead Jewish children.
eddie has got a very good point. 15 years of reconstruction and investment, Beirut was becoming a tourist hotspot again, and it is all crumbling down to ruins.
the worst is the ideology behind it: promote democracy and tackle terrorism in a way to erradicate it. But by what means?
As Joe Klein said this week: "the Middle East confrontation ha[s] Bush-folly written all over it". And whoever allies with Bush and its administration to call for an immediate cease-fire will have blood on their hands as well - be it PM Harper or other.
Come over to Europe, Beav! ;)
Qalamana,
It's a tragedy when you think of it... those families have been separated for eons. You know, my sister-in-law was about to go to LEB on vacation on the day they destroyed the airport....
Eddie
Welcome to the Travelling Beaver's!
That is very true. If you visit Ze Blog of Hortense la Chouette, she has put up a very interesting analysis to that effect. Syria and Iran are very likely to be behind Hezbollah....
Unfortunately, the dead civilians have nothing to do with those high-level manipulations....
Alex,
Thank you for visiting. If you have a source for pictures of dead jewish children since the conflict, I'll be happy to post them.
Children are children. No matter their faith, color, or nationality.
I militate for PEACE and against all TERRORISM. I sure hope to have found an ally in you.
Please keep in mind this: while all comments are welcome on this blog, curtosy and respect are paramount no matter what your opinion is.
This being said, you're welcome to share your opinions here.
Nyasha,
yeah, we are at a point were we might have to look again at the definition of the word terrorism.
Per
>Wikipedia
"Terrorism refers to a strategy of using violence, or threat of violence targeted against innocents or non-combatants to generate fear, cause disruption, and ultimately, to bring about compliance with specific political, religious, ideological, and personal demands. The targets of terrorist attacks typically are not the individuals who are killed, injured, or taken hostage, but rather the societies to which these individuals belong. Terrorism is a type of unconventional warfare designed to weaken or supplant existing political landscapes through capitulation or acquiescence, as opposed to subversion or direct military action. The broader influence of terrorism in the modern world is often attributed to the dramatic focus of mass media in amplifying feelings of intense fear and anger."
According to this definition, both the US and Israel are terrorist states, if you look at the death tolls in Iraq and in Israel. This is not to say that Al-Qaeda's minions are angels. They just all belong in the same category.
We have to speak up. Silence, at this point, is equivalent to complicity.
And yes, Europe is more and more enticing.....
Cheers, all !
Interesting. This is one that I have to respectfully disagree on (though I really appreciate your opinion and your choice to voice it). I am saddened that there are lives on both sides being lost. I am saddened that there are terrorist groups which are supported by the communists and other factions with their own agendas, which really place innocents in harm's way. But I don't think they get a hall pass just because they're using human shields, as horrible as that may be.
And Alex has a point.
My dearest Saur♥Kraut,
Thank you for taking this blog as what it really is: a place for discussion in mutual respect. You know that I always value your input and the way you express your own humanity. Thank you, for the heart, for disagreeing with such taste, diplomacy and gusto.
I do have the need for a few clarifications though. Communists? could you please give me an example? Last time I checked they were a dying race.... As for myself, I am a true centrist of socialistic influence, but definitely not a communist. It is my firm beleif tha t extremism in all fields is a dangerous alley for mankind and not in the best interest of the collectivity.
As for the "hall pass", I'm not sure what you mean. I certainly am not in agreement with ANY terrorist action, even when it is desguised as something else. I do feel, however, that in this particular case, the State of Israel is doing something very wrong.
Would you really consider killing over 350 civilians a proportionnate response to the kidnapping of 2 soldiers?
I've never been a big beleiver of "an eye for an eye". But even if I were, this would be grossly over the top.
The moment this disproportion became obvious, and the speakers of the World acknowledged it, any further attack on civilians by Israel became an act of terrorism. By inflicting terror, pain and death to the innocent civilian, they are trying to force a resolution that cannot happen in these circumstances.
Worse, the continuing attacks are making any kind of settlement impossible. All this is doing is destroying a country that has been struggling to rebuild itself over the last 15 years and opening the way for Syria and Iran to use Lebanon as a base for their activities. From all view points, this is stupid and Condo has once again proven that Dubya's politics are NOT about fairness but about ulterior hidden motives.
By the way, that may not have been clear enough, but I do conceide Alex his point. Once again, I am only taking the side of the weak and the helpless: the civilians who have nothing to do with this. If you point me to a reliable ressource with images as striking as the one I chose, but which portrait jewish victims, then let me know and i will gladly add some balance to this post.
As always, thanks for listening :o)
Your e-Friend as always,
Beav'
unfortunately, world politics is far removed from any humanism and morals. Governments learn nothing from history. It is not about making the world a better place, it is surely not about world peace. It never has been and it never will be. I am a "romantic" who actually believes that world peace could be something to be experienced in a foreseable future if only opposing parties were willing to sit down and negotiate. And a superpower like the U.S. used it role as the negotiator, like Clinton tried to do in Ireland and in the Middle East when he was in office.
In my view, the kidnapping was wrong but it did not need to escalate to the bombarding of the Beirut's airport runway. Negotiating would have been a better solution. The soldiers had not been killed. So the Israel response was hurried and inapropriate. It reflects the Bush attitude of "we do not negotiate with terrorists and we shall not show any signs of weakness". Unfortunately, Bush's foreign policy so far has been an utter disaster. Instaed of CONTAINING terrorism, it is BREWING more and more independent cells across the world (UK, Spain, Indonesia, Philippines, etc...) It has also pissed Iran to the point of them having to make a statement through Hezbollah now. Iran felt that the US was messing with them and now they are basically proving that they as well are a force to be reckoned with.
If there is no successful terms to be agreed on within the next few days or weeks, this will turn in a serious war which will bring in actors such as Iran and Syria supported by the rest of the Arab world pitted against the U.S. and any other nation that will support them.
The sad thing? the U.N. which should be able to intervene and which has such a mandate does not have the authority to be listened to. the Peace Corps? a joke. they do not have the muscle to ensure peace in an environment like that. So if you ask me, the U.N. may have excellent intentions but the motivation behind wars today is still one of conquering and controlling certain strategic areas of the world. Whatever stands in its way will be taken out. Humanism, that is utopia. 350 civilians dead? irrelevant to the ultimate goal.
Ever heard of a Lebanese river called Litani ? strudel
www.strudeltimes.it
A reporter on-scene in S. Lebanon has written what IMHO (combined with what I've heard from retired CIA officers like Bob Baer in their interviews in publications and the overseas media) is a damning rebuttal of the common Israeli excuse for civilian casulaties. They are not fighting the largely unprofessional Hamas, they are fighting a well-disciplined, well-trained force of terrorists, paramilitaries and other actors in Hezbollah. These people explicitly do not hide among civilians because they fear being ratted on/targeted by collaborators.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/07/28/hezbollah/print.html
Beav, sorry I took so long to get back to you on this. I wish I could give it more of the time and attention that it deserves. I apologize in advance, because I am SWAMPED lately and it's crazy-hectic.
Would you really consider killing over 350 civilians a proportionnate response to the kidnapping of 2 soldiers? No, you're correct. It's not. But Hezbollah hasn't only killed or kidnapped 2 people (soldiers or not). The kidnapping was part of a long string of atrocities and it was the straw that broke the camel's back.
However, I would still love to see the civilians spared this. Yet I also must point out that their "civilians" are a different breed than ours. For instance, in the US, there can truly be innocents that are not a part of the war...people who don't even approve of it (such as myself). And yet our families are threatened by the terrorists in order to provoke fear.
In the case of Lebanon, these "human shields" are sometimes willingly in place to aid the terrorists. They mistakenly believe that they will keep Israel from attacking the terrorists that are hiding behind their skirts. They are wrong, apparently.
Of course the kids can't speak for themselves or make their own decisions. Sadly, in any war, there will always be civilian casualties. The goal for the US is to keep them to a minimum. I can't speak for Israel, but this is the same thing that they claim, too. I have no doubt the casualties could be worse if Israel intended them to be.
The truth is, as I wrote a couple days ago in my blog, that Hezbollah has been getting away with this for a long time. So far, Israel's the only one that's chosen to retaliate.
Post a Comment