Italy calls on the U.S. to press Israel on Palestinian conflict

[bemildred]

Italy's Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema called on the United States on Friday to refocus its foreign policy following midterm elections, saying it was time to stand up to Israeli hawks over the Palestinian conflict.

A staunch critic of the Iraq war, D'Alema said he did not expect a sudden shift in President George W. Bush's foreign policy following his party's defeat in mid-term elections.

But he called on Bush to press Israel, where he said the military was lashing out in Gaza to prove its might after failing to defeat Hezbollah in Lebanon.

"I'm referring to a government weakened from the Lebanon conflict, pressed by the right, with the accusation of not being determined enough in its military operation," he said.

Haaretz

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[msmcghee]

2. Since you are never inclined to state your own feelings . .

. . about these things, I'll address my first comments to Italy's foreign minister.

When a person or a nation is attacked and lives - it changes their worldview. It is said that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. One example of this is America's recently ended neo-con experience (hopefully permanently ended) - where millions of normally sane voters elected (2004) a set of war-crazed idiots to high office.

(The 2000 election was due to a combination of a MSM press war against Al Gore, inept Democratic election strategy and the usual stupidity of most of the voters - in that order, IMO.)

Conservatism is a psychological response that's designed into us by evolution. It allows us to survive in times of extreme danger (which includes 99.9% of human evolutionary history). Habitual conservatives are simply those who have grown up under conditions where as adults, they habitually percieve more danger than is actually there.)

Appealing to Israel to not be so "mean" to the Palestinians is probably not going to work. In fact it will have the opposite effect. It will encourage the Palestinian terrorists that the world is coming to their side. They will increase their promises to kill every Israeli that they can - and will probably increase their attacks - because they will believe that their attacks (and Israels reprisals) caused Italy to side with them against Israel.

Back to my reply to you:

I believe these attempts by some on the left to defend Hamas and Hisb'allah against Israel (as is common in this forum) poses a real danger to the future of progressive politics in the US.

As of last Tuesday, any terrorist attack against the US, especially any attack that kills Americans on our soil, will now be claimed by the right as an inevitable result of our collective electoral condemnation of the neo-cons and esp. their policies. They will claim that al Quada saw that we were weakening in our resolve to fight them.

More importantly, that will be the message that many Americans will intuitively "feel" in their gut - an emotional shift to a more conservative worldview that will follow any such attack. They will not be "feeling" that if we had only supported Hamas or Hisb'allah against Israel in the past the attack would not have happened. They will be "feeling" that now is the time to kill every Muslim in the world - like many unfortunately did after 9/11 - and many still do today.

American voters - who had become increasingly disaffected by Republican hypocrisy and corruption - in the face of such an attack - will even more easily become disaffected with their momentary electoral embrace of a more liberal view - which will at that time seem very stupid to them in retrospect.

(Many voted Dem this time simply because there has been no successful terrorist attack on American soil and the threat of attack was therefore not at the top of their emotional list of priorities. Ironically, the Republicans were in power when this attack failed to occur - and therefore the Republicans lost the election. Americans were allowed to shift their emotional focus from defense against terrorism - to corruption in politics. Granted the pukes provided an extremely emotional, well-times view of their hypocrisy and corruption in the last couple of weeks. But, don't fool yourself that this was some kind of shift toward liberal values in America.)

Just as they are today - they will be saying "How could I have been so stupid" - and the neo-cons will just as quickly resume power - this time with a true vengeance - and for the duration of the major worldwide war that we will then wage against any Muslim nation that does not immediately become our ally against those who refuse.

Terrorism, especially Islamo-fascist al Queda terrorism - is a real danger to America and free nations everywhere. Many here at DU think only as far as "Bush and the neo-cons hate al Queda - therefore they must be OK". This kind of stupidity is dangerous (as most kinds are).

Dems need to fight terrorism smarter and with honest values. Al Queda and Hamas and Hisb'allah are our enemy - just as much as they are Israel's enemy. Dems do not need to be embracing terrorism just because the neo-cons faught a war aginst it. As far as we do embrace that terrorism (as many here in I/P openly embrace Hamas and Hisb'allah and sometimes come close to embracing al Queda), and any Americans are killed by a terrorist attack in the next few years - Dems can say goodbye for a long time to our brief reprieve from the dungeons of American politics.

It would be wrong to assume that my desire to oppose terrorism is so that Dems can remain in power. That's just a side-effect. The main reason is that it is part of my liberal beliefs that we should defend free democracies that provide human rights for their citizens - against totalitarian enemies out to destroy them - wherever they are.

Those misguided souls on the left who support totalitarian regimes because they "hate the man" are not expressing any real liberal values. They are expressing their lack of any real understanding of what being liberal means in America and an understanding of the responsibilities that go along with that - and they are doing great damage to those values.

[IntiRaymi]

3. Progressive ideologies transcend Israel.

It is the violation of these progressive ideals that drive what has been called the "left's shift towards antisemitism."
Truth be told, and directly related to this context, any critique of Israel is considered to be antisemitic by some in these forums. And this tactic dilutes the meaning of that label - Use it sparingly, and use it effectively, where it truly matters, and not in hypocritical efforts to gain consensus for land grabbing atrocities. Otherwise you will get a tragic situation: a word that has lost its meaning.
Judaism has historical grievances against european christianity, not islam. Do not forget that.
I am not against Israel, contrary to your impressions. But I am against absurdist actions that seem predicated on racism, arrogance, and greed. How do I view Hizbollah & Hamas? Well, they are the product of a people that have been crushed repeatedly by guess who. I see it all as blowback.
....
You are asking for a get out of jail free card, using a form of blackmail as leverage. All the usual bogeymen are trotted out for this: Terrorists, islamism, neocons. Had you included Mothra, The Joker, and Lex Luthor, your position would have been far more credible as a result.

[msmcghee]

4. Perhaps you could be specific and tell us . .

. . just which liberal values have been violated that have caused this shift on the left to anti-semitism - that you admit is happening.

Better yet, just pick what you think is the one most important liberal value that's been violated.

[IntiRaymi]

5. You label it as antisemitism, which it isn't.

As for your questions, read my post. Your answers are found therein.

[msmcghee]

6. As I suspected.

You are simply not capable of laying out a coherent view . . much less an argument for your assertions. I gave you the perfect opening to prove your case.

And you are resting your case on the same vague accusations that "Israel is mean to the Palestinians" . . with nothing to logically back it up.

I would remind you that most sane people in the world think that it's reasonable to be "mean" to people who repeatedly attempt to kill you and kill your family. So, unless you can show that Hamas has not tried to do that - your claims of "mean Israel" are not worth much.

Here's some more help. Show us that Hamas really means Israel no harm but that Israel's actions have somehow "forced" Hamas to fire rockets at Israeli civilians and dig tunnels to smuggle in explosives and suicide bombers. If you can do that, you win.

In my posts I take a lot of time to completely explain all facets of my position and my underlying reasoning - which should give you plenty of opportunity to attack my position if any of it is inconsistent or objectively wrong.

Just admit it. You have nothing.


PS - Your (intiRaymi) words: (It is the violation of these progressive ideals that drive what has been called the "left's shift towards antisemitism.")

[IntiRaymi]

8. Simple respect for human rights?

I thought it was blatantly obvious in that post.
From a parallel thread:

"Those who over a few months kill more than 1,000 Lebanese and 300 Palestinians for dubious reasons do not have the right to speak about sensitivity to human life. The fact that the public protest against the war did not take off demonstrates that after having lost all sensitivity for the lives of others, we are also gradually losing sensitivity for the lives of our children who are killed in vain. The contempt for human life starts with the lives of Arabs and ends with the lives of Jews."

Also look at this:

"What a long way we have come since the time when we took pride in the fact that, unlike the Arabs, we tried not to kill innocent civilians. And now we have arrived at the shocking reality of the second Lebanon war. For example, the number of people Israel killed is not only almost 10 times higher than the number of people Hezbollah killed, but the number of soldiers Hezbollah killed is three times higher than the number of Israeli civilians they killed, while the number of Lebanese civilians killed by Israel is about three times the number of Hezbollah fighters."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/783711.html

Moral nadir, indeed.
That piece, in Haaretz, speaks of a concept that has been lost, that of the 'purity of arms.' This idea pertains to the moral authority required for waging war in a just manner, and has been enshrined in the concept of 'just war'. That moral authority is being eroded by the kind of things I am opposed to. Perhaps I am your best friend, and you don't even know it.

Of course, I could go on next to the topic of how the 4th Geneva Convention on Human Rights ought to matter in these things, but as official stance, the Israeli government does not recognize their applicability to whatever territories it is occupying at the present.

"Those who over a few months kill more than 1,000 Lebanese and 300 Palestinians for dubious reasons do not have the right to speak about sensitivity to human life."

[pelsar]

21. so its a numbers game?

the number of people Israel killed is not only almost 10 times higher than the number of people Hezbollah killed, but the number of soldiers Hezbollah killed is three times higher than the number of Israeli civilians they killed, while the number of Lebanese civilians killed by Israel is about three times the number of Hezbollah fighters."

so if the israelis didnt leave their homes and didnt go into bomb shelters and let hizballa missles kill them, you would "feel better" and say israel had the moral right to defend themselves?

strange set of values.....(but then you do agree with hizballas attacks on israeli hospitals and schools....)


and learn some history please:
Judaism has historical grievances against european christianity, not islam. Do not forget that......islam has traditionally treated jews like pet dogs...and is strife with anti-semetism in the past and in the present

[IntiRaymi]

24. That is Major General Stern you are arguing with.

I thought that if I quoted an Israeli army source, I would somehow immunize myself from accusations and insinuations.
But, alas, all that happens by way of rhetorics is knee-jerk stuff.
...

[pelsar]

25. Then General Stern doesnt know history....

as far as numbers killed: the allies killed far more germans/japanese they were killed...does that make the allies the bad guys?

and Gerneral Stern should learn some history, the arabs treated the jews as second class citizens.....always "walking on glass".

My reactions arent "knee jerk"....they're consistent. If you believe the "numbers of dead determine guilt" then say it. If you believe that the jews were treated fairly in arab countries, i can easily show you and General Stern otherwise:

for instance in Egypt, 90 percent of the country's 80,000 Jews were denied Egyptian citizenship because they were jews. Many of those Jews had ancestors in Egypt going back centuries.

[IntiRaymi]

26. I'll be sure to notify General Stern of your disagreement.

So there is an issue with virtually everyone in the world?
Or does virtually everyone in the world have an issue with Jews?

I am getting confused here...What about the japanese?

[pelsar]

27. well there is a jewish problem....

that should be obvious, history is full of the jews being kicked out of one country after another, blood libels without end (including iran today, saudi arabia, egypt and syria...and a host of other countries as well. I assume i dont have to list their activities but if your interested its not really a problem.

There is an inordinate amount of focus on the I/P conflict as opposed to lets say Chechnia, West Sahara, Tibet etc,. I suspect part of the reason is that the jews are involved but that wouldnt be the sole reason. For some, yes, for others it would be irelevant.

As far as "the majority is right mentality"...that belongs with the "flat earth society"....just because most people think so doesnt make it true. (If that were the case, i believe there are more muslims believing in Allah than others...so does that mean you now believe in allah?)


As far as my disagreement with the General.....him being a military man doesnt mean he gets to play with historical facts......

[msmcghee]

28. Self delete . .

. . wrong place.

[msmcghee]

29. Just curious . .

. . are you suggesting that there may be some reason that "virtually everyone in the world has an issue with Jews"?

[msmcghee]

31. Geez, have to be more careful.

Ask the wrong question . . and poof, they disappear.

[Vorta]

30. I find nothing progressive about the anti-Israel stuff I read here

[bemildred]

7. I agree with the Foreign Minister's view of the political situation in Israel.

I'm not much interested in this other stuff you discuss, although your speculations about what would happen if another highly successful terrorist attack were to occur here are interesting. It is a problematic issue. Much would depend, in my opinion, on how the political elites here chose to "manage" such an event.

[msmcghee]

9. Please see my post #6 above. Text below added on edit.

Saying that you agree with the FM's words - is really interesting. I never would have guessed that. :eyes:

But at least you replied to my post. Thanks.

Now, go one step further and lay out an objective case for your position. I will respect any honest attempt to do that, even if I disagree. But, I will be merciless with sophistry.

Are you up to it?

[bemildred]

10. No. I'm completely incapable of that sort of thing.

My mistake, I won't make it again.

[msmcghee]

11. Well, I did get close this time. n/t

[bemildred]

12. Within millimeters.

Only my quick reflexes and superior jumping skills allowed me to avert disaster.

[msmcghee]

13. Seriously though . .

. . are my questions unfair, or somehow deceptive?

It bothers me that others on the left could have such seemingly anti-liberal views. Either I'm wrong or you are - but you won't explain why I'm wrong. It's very frustrating. I hope you change your mind some day about engaging.

I'm really not out just to prove that I'm right. I really want to understand your position. But, when you don't explain it - I'm left with some vague "hatred of all things Israeli" - or something even more odious. That's all that seems to makes sense.

But, you seem like a sensible person. That's why I persist.

[bemildred]

14. Well, I appreciate the compliment.

I'm not here to answer everybody's questions or dispel confusion, as I said before. I don't think that it is correct that one of us has to be right and the other wrong. The world is much messier than that. I see no reason to think that arguing with you would go anywhere at all, much as you may wish that were so. We operate from entirely different premises. If you were to respond to what I do have to say in something like the terms in which I said it, I would most likely attempt to respond, but that is still not an invitation to wander off onto subject matter more to your liking and demand that I tag along. Now that is really all I have to say.

[msmcghee]

15. That's all OK - but just to be clear . . .

When you say . .

If you were to respond to what I do have to say in something like the terms in which I said it, I would most likely attempt to respond, but that is still not an invitation to wander off onto subject matter more to your liking and demand that I tag along. Now that is really all I have to say.

"Wandering off to subject matter more to my liking" is kind of disingenuous, don't you think. I am open to accusations of me changing the subject if that is the case. But, recalling our past history, what I believe you mean is that I'm not allowed to ask uncomfortable questions about the subject we are discussing - questions that challenge your assertions - and that's not the same thing.

It would not be so important to me if your posts didn't so often imply that Israel is acting immorally or illegally against Hamas and Hisb'allah. But they do imply that.

You are just not willing to offer an objective justification for that view.

So be it. But, when you do characterize Israel's actions as immoral or illegal, expect me to call your attention to it and ask for justification. And expect me to remind readers that you are either incapable or unwilling to justify your assertions if that remains the case.

Words are important and have consequences. Real people's lives are at stake in this discussion. If you want to use words that can hurt people you should have the courage to defend them. It's the liberal thing to do.

That's all I have to say about that.

[bemildred]

16. You put words in my mouth and proceed to respond to them as

though they were mine:

"what I believe you mean is that I'm not allowed to ask uncomfortable questions about the subject we are discussing - questions that challenge your assertions - and that's not the same thing."

I don't mean what I said, I mean what you want me to mean. You think that is fair? You think that is grown up? Bugger off.

[msmcghee]

17. You're right - I shouldn't put words or meanings into your mouth.

A better way to say it is . .

. . what I believe causes your distress is that I ask uncomfortable questions about the subject we are discussing - questions that challenge your assertions - and that's not the same thing.

If you think I'm wrong show me where I have ever changed the subject on you.

[bemildred]

20. It is the most elementary courtesy to allow other posters to mean

what they have said, and not some other bizarre, juvenile drivel that you have going through your head at the moment. It is elementary. If you are not willing to grant me at least that much autonomy, then you ought also to be able to conduct your inner drama without my help. Then it is you that is not willing to "engage". You do not cause me "distress", you are not allowed to tell me what my inner states are either, or otherwise to infer that I don't mean what I say, or that you are better informed about me than I am about myself. There are no other terms on which I am willing to communicate with you, and that is why I am not interested in communicating with you.

[msmcghee]

22. I'm sorry you're so angry.

But if you don't want me to point out the lack of substance in your anti-Israel posts then be prepared to support your assertions with something besides name-calling or changing the subject.

Cheers

[bemildred]

23. I rest my case. nt

[Andromeda]

18. I hope the foreign minister isn't...

making the mistake of thinking that just because there has been a change in the power structure in Washington that we are going to go "wobbly" on our support for Israel.

Support for Israel is part the Democratic party's platform and that hasn't changed. We recognize Israel's right to defend herself.

[bemildred]

19. He seems to be calling for more active US intervention.

It doesn't sound like he expects or wants the US to withdraw support.