Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Israel invades Lebanon

Two more Israeli soldiers have been captured by those dastardly Islamic maniacs (on the BBC) but hold on - what were they doing in the Lebanon? On holiday perhaps? Oh no - they were part of an invasion force.

Gaza in ruinsForgive me for being slow but isn't it a legitimate tactic to capture enemy soldiers who invade your country? What should they have done? Shot them? Given them a present?

Whilst Israel is using the capture of one soldier as an excuse to bomb and kill who the hell they like, in actions that could not possibly return the man safe and sound, the Western press choose to spin the stories in favour of the IDF - why?

Israel's PM has said Lebanon will "pay a heavy price" for capturing the two invading soldiers and the BBC report this straight faced. We invade their country and some of them fought back - the bastards they'll pay for that! The US has also taken the opportunity to make statements against Syria rather than put pressure on Israel to stop the indiscriminate killing.

If this episode shows only one thing it is that those who argue for a two state solution willfully ignore the fact that Israel is no respecter of borders and until the nature of that state is challenged they'll always be a mad dog on the loose.



Renegade Eye said...

The two state solution, I believe just is institutionalized ghettoization, not a solution. There must be a socialist, secular Israel.

AN said...

mmm when you say

"There must be a socialist, secular Israel. "

do you man:

There must be a socialist, secular Palestine? By definitaion israell is a Zioinst state, the geographical area is Palestine

Jim Jay said...

Well I'm not bothered what they call it - RE is right, the two state solution is just rearranging lines on the map and maintaining the economic and military power of an apartheid state.

South Africa didn't need to change its name to make a fundamental shift and I don't think pedantry gets us very far.

grad lad said...

The soldiers who were kidnapped weren't in lebanon. They were patrolling the israel lebanese border when they were attacked and abducted by hezbolah terrorists.

AN said...

But Rhodesia did have to change its name,. becasue the name was explicitly associated with the colonialist steeler state.

Renegade is corect about the need for sdecular state,. but it is not dedantry to note that that can only be acheived by the israeli state being compeltely dismantled.

Jim Jay said...

It is pedantry to tell someone off for using the phrase "socialist, secular Israel" because you believe the word Israel means it must have a Zionist state.

Words are only words - if it's socialist and secular it clearly can't be Zionist whatever it is called.

Rhodesia did not have to change it's name just as neither South Africa nor Venezuela changed their names despite significant structural shifts.

Any future socialist, secular government in the region (which I'm personally quite pessimistic about but that's another question) may or may not decide to be called Israel - it's an irrelevance and to insist people use the words you use in the way you use them leads to pointless conversations like this.

BadMatthew said...

Hey Jim haven't you heard about the revolutionary role of the pedantry, I'm sure I went to a meeting about it at Marxism '85.

AN said...

Well whether it is an irrelevence depends upon whether or not you mind erecting a linguistic barrier that will prevent your message being heard by arabs.

Yes Rhodesia did have to change its name, in any real world political situation, and i am a bit suprised that you don't think the symbolism was an is important.

How could a secular state be called israel. Given the specifically Zionist meaning and origin of the name?

AN said...

At the risk of being a pedant,
Jim: "just as neither South Africa nor Venezuela changed their names despite significant structural shifts."

venezuela has been renamed the "Bolivarian Republc of Venezuela", and the flag has been changed. :o)

Jim Jay said...

Any more pedantry will be deleted as overly dull.

AN said...

well obviously I am tempted to test that, but unfortunately cannot think of anything else pedantic to say on the subject. :o)