Israpundit Digest

Support Israpundit


USD

ILS

CAD

Syndication

Blog Traffic

Pages

Pages|Hits |Unique

  • Last 24 hours: 0
  • Last 7 days: 0
  • Last 30 days: 0
  • Online now: 0
Los Angeles SEO

Recent Comments

Sponsors

Sponsor

Dry Bones
Dry Bones

”souvenirs”

Archives

Fair Use

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

LIVE HEADLINE NEWS FEEDS
THERE IS NO DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION

Support Israpundit

USD

ILS

CND


  • October 24, 2011

    Beware the West

    By Ted Belman

    As readers of Israpundit know full well, I have been very critical of the West for its attack on Libya. I went so far as to suggest all the people and groups who are incessant in their attacks on Israel, are complicit or asleep when it comes to the war on Libya.

    Today Robert E Kaplan called me to discuss certain happenings and he pointed out to me the writings of John Rosenthal who had written that

      Actually, there are reasons to doubt Libyan responsibility for both the Berlin disco bombing and the Lockerbie bombing.

      Re. the Berlin disco bombing, I think most Americans don’t realize that the bomber was in fact German. She was tried and convicted. She had been married to a Palestinian guy who is alleged to have had contacts with Libyan intelligence – though she was no longer even married to him at the time that she planted the bomb.


      Re Lockerbie, the evidence for Megrahi’s – and by extension, Libyan – involvement is extremely circumstantial. One of the UN’s own official observers of the Scottish trial, Hans Köchler, has denounced the proceedings as a miscarriage of justice. (See here for related documents.) There is again a German connection – the suitcase containing the bomb was loaded onto a flight originating in Frankfurt – and it even appears that German authorities quashed leads that pointed elsewhere: namely, to Palestinian terrorists. See here, for instance. If one connects all the dots, it certainly seems plausible that Libya and Qaddafi were used as scapegoats and that “Uncle Sucker,” as you say, fell for it.

    Rosenthal also wrote, A Political Court: The ICC, Gaddafi, and Libyan Rebel War Crimes

      Last month, to much fanfare, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Muammar al-Gaddafi, his son Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi, and Libyan military intelligence chief Abdullah Al-Senussi. ICC chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo had filed an application for the warrants in May. Among those celebrating the court’s decision was, of course, the Libyan opposition’s National Transitional Council (NTC), which promised to assemble a special commando unit to arrest Gaddafi. The head of the NTC Executive Council, Mahmud Jibril, even flew to The Hague to mark the occasion. The ICC website features a photograph of Moreno-Ocampo shaking hands with Jibril on the steps of the court.

      Hardly anything could better illustrate the essentially political nature of the International Criminal Court. As is well known, Libyan government forces and alleged mercenaries in the pay of the Libyan government have been accused in media reports of deliberately killing civilians and committing other atrocities. These reports have served as the justification for western military intervention in Libya under the mantle of UN Security Council Resolution 1973. As is less well-known, there is extensive and virtually incontrovertible evidence of horrific atrocities committed by rebel forces in the territories under their control.

      Indeed, the rebels’ contempt for the traditional laws and customs of war is so flagrant that the most telling evidence consists of videos that appear to have been filmed by rebels or rebel sympathizers themselves, either as “trophies” or for purposes of intimidation. One did not need to wait for Human Rights Watch tentatively to acknowledge abuses committed by rebel forces in four western Libyan towns, as it did last week. The video evidence of rebel atrocities has been readily available for months now, almost from the very start of the rebellion. The atrocities depicted in the videos include at least two beheadings, two public hangings, one lynching, several beatings, a summary execution of a group of up to 22 captured soldiers (the so-called Al-Baida Massacre), grotesquely inhumane and demeaning treatment of prisoners, and numerous other more minor violations of humanitarian law.

    Diana West wrote

      Timing is everything. Qaddafi was not killed in retaliation for his attacks on American servicemen in Berlin in 1986, or the downing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1989. He was not killed for his central role in the USSR’s terror networks going back to the 1960s and 1970s. He was killed after coming over to our side of George Bush’s “war on terror” in the final phase of a civil war in Libya in which his regime fought al Qaeda affiliates.

      Horrific as it sounds, Qaddafi was killed because we and our NATO allies joined the other side — the al Qaeda affiliates.

    In this article she quotes Lawrence Auster who wrote,

      We are not a moral state; we are not a state under the rule of law. We are, as Solzhenitsyn said of the Soviet Union, an ideological state, a state that will do anything, violate any agreement, betray any ally or friend, tell any lie, cover up any truth, in order to advance its ideology and its power that is associated with that ideology.

      In betraying and killing a foreign leader with whom we had made peace, we have taken on terrible karma. I tremble to think of how that karma will manifest itself against us in the years to come.

    These three authors have been consistent in their assessment of the Libya attacks.They are all on the right. I don’t have to quote from Pepe Escobar a leftists, to disclose the reality.

    Auster also attacks McCain for supporting this rape. Drudge also sees it our way as does Michelle Bachman (the only candidate to do so).

    This is ominous for Israel.

    As a side note, the West betrayed Libya for oil. Israel has found a vast amount of gas and oil in her international waters. Lebanon has challenged Israel’s ownership of these resources and she is backed by Turkey who is also threatening Crete in her joint exploration with Israel of her international waters. And guess what? America did not support Israel and Germany supports Turkey.

    Beware the West.

  • Posted by Ted Belman @ 5:27 pm | 14 Comments »

    14 Comments to Beware the West

    1. Hesperado says:

      While on the surface, Diana West and Lawrence Auster take the stance of opposition to the Western aid of the Libyan coup, there are important distinctions to make between them –

    2. Ted Belman says:

      Once down to the nuances, I find myself not in full agreement with them. I object to the hypocrisy and the lawlessness. If the west simply say that they did it for oil, their publics can support them or be offended by their actions. I object that they sell it as a humanitarian effort. As to the lawlessness. I object to their double standard as to who to prosecute. In part because Israel is similarly on the short end.

    3. BlandOatmeal says:

      I suppose, Ted, that you’re dividing the world into three parts:

      (1) The West

      (2) The East

      (3) Israel

      Fair enough. I presume that you already assume Israelis are wary of “The East”, since that includes the Arabs and Iranians. What you are saying, then, is that Israelis shouldn’t trust anyone. That’s well-founded, and held up by Bible prophecy.

      When I get into your article, I see that you are mainly criticizing NATO — which, in Bible prophecy, is the ten-headed beast. Fair enough again.

      If you notice the end-time prophecies in Daniel, all the beasts represent, in turn, the greatest empires in the known world: Babylonia, Persia, Greece and Rome. A head with several horns represents an empire that subsequently divided into powerful kingdoms. Alexander’s Greek empire divided, after a war of succession, into four empires roughly centered in Egypt, Syria-Iraq, Macedonia and Greece. The Greek part was held by Demetrius, son of Antigonus, who had been regent for Alexander’s infant son while he still lived, and not one of the four generals who had opposed Antigonus in the war. Those four generals represented Egypt (whence the Ptolemaids), Iraq (hence the Seleucids), Macedonia and Thrace. Lysimachus held Thrace, but, if I remember correctly, the Gauls drove him out; and later, the Antigonid line through Demetrius overthrew Macedonia. Pergamum then rose to power in western Turkey, and became a Roman client, after which the empires began to be swallowed up by the Romans, one after another.

      The four horns of Greece, therefore, did not always represent the same four kings; the number four was more symbolic in nature — perhaps signifying division in a general sense, to “the four winds of heaven”. The ten horns, likewise, of the “horrible beast” that represented the Roman Empire, signified countries which would arise out of the carcass of the Roman Empire. These were the nations of Western Europe, which certainly included Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands, the great empires that divided the world among themselves around the time you and I were born. Add a few other players, to round out the ten, such as Belgium, Italy, Denmark and Sweden, and voila! Ten heads — partly strong, partly weak. the late 1800s, all of these were held together by the “glue” of dynastic connections (iron mixed with clay), but then this many-headed world empire began to unravel.

      Are you still with me? The key is that each of the great beasts, in turn, were the greatest power on earth in their time. The last beast was the Roman Empire, which you might just as well call “The West”. It split in two (two legs of Daniel’s statue), with the western half being overrun by barbarians and the east continuing for another thousand years as the Byzantine Empire. Around the time that the Arabs rose up from desert obscurity and overran 2/3 of the Byzantine Empire, the barbarian kingdoms of the west began to gain their footing and, assimilating themselves to Roman culture, form kingdoms, one after another. The first of these was the Franks, who defeated the Arabs at the Battle of Tours. Under Charlemagne, the Franks became a great empire that rivaled the Byzantines; and from his empire derive the ruling houses of Europe: The Bourbons, the Normans, Saxons, Franconians, Plantagenets, Mecklenbergers, Oldenburgers, Romanovs, Hapsburgs, what have you. They were knit together by an allegience with the Pope (or anti-Pope, according to their fancy at the time). They mobilized holy warriors for the Crusades against the Arabs, captured and held Jerusalem and, in 1204, took Constantinople from the Byzantines. Modern Europe arose from this revived, multi-headed Roman Empire, and thence NATO — the strongest power, by far, in the world today, producing some 3/4 of the world’s weaponry.

      I say NATO arose from this group, but they were not the same entity. The “glue” of dynastic connections does not hold NATO together. Kingdoms and dynasties were uprooted, never to rise again, beginning with the French Revolution that overthrew the Bourbons of France. What replaced the Bourbons was a spirit that had sprung up across the Atlantic, as a “little horn” among the others. That was the spirit of democracy. Up until this time, the beast of Empire was ruled by heads and armed with horns. Under democracy, it was “the beast itself” that ruled, namely, the people — and in the French case, a virulently anti-religious people who slaughtered Catholic clergymen by the thousands. The French people rose up to set themselves in the place of authority, replacing “Divine Right” with the “Popular Will”. They even did symbolic things such as changing all the days of the calendar, rearranging it into 5-day weeks.

      That calendar never lasted, of course, nor did the French Republic. Napoleon took charge of the rabble and began his own dynasty, and later the Bourbons returned. This newly-created beast of democracy was “wounded, as it were, unto death”, with only the United States and subsequent American republics to carry the torch. By the time of the first world war, Dyastic Europe was at its height, three of the grandchildren of Britain’s Queen Victoria on the thrones of the world’s greatest powers: King George in the UK, Kaizer Fritz Wilhelm in Germany and Tsarina Alexandra in Russia. The war, along with the Russian Revolution, dismantled that structure: The UK was controlled by Parliament, and the Monarchy had become purely symbolic; Germany and Russia became republics and, because the US came out of that war as the most powerful country on earth, President Wilson was able to re-shape Europe and the world in such a way that democracy was the way of the future.

      Wilson’s new world order, held together by the “glue” (clay) of the League of Nations, was severely tested by the resurgence of monarchy in Hitler’s “Third Reich”; but after World War II decided the matter, the League was replaced by the more powerful United Nations; which in our day projects its will through its effective military arm, NATO.

      There’s “The West” for you, Ted, in a few more words. Yes, Israel should be wary of it.

    4. BlandOatmeal says:

      oops — I meant “ten-horned” or “ten-toed” beast.

    5. Ted Belman says:

      NATO is a US proxy.

    6. Shar says:

      A good exchange here.

      http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2011/10/appalled-by-qaddafis-murder/#more-30355

      Appalled by Qaddafi’s Murder

      DIANA writes:

      I saw the grisly footage of Qaddafi’s murder on television. I had first to turn off the sound. Then, ashamed, I turned off the television. I have nothing more to say than that I am appalled that my country had anything to do with this grotesque caricature of justice. Actually, to call it a grotesque caricature of justice is to trivialize it. I have no words for it.

      I’m not naive and I realize that the U.S. has taken part in assassinations, killings, etc., but there is something about this that simply takes my breath away. I want nothing to do with it. I’m in a complete state of dissociation with our political leaders, Republican and Democrat. I am thoroughly disaffected.

      I’m not exactly mourning Qaddafi’s death. He was a very bad man who killed Americans. But what do you do? He seems to have reformed a bit in latter years. He stuck to his treaties and stopped baiting the U.S. He even said a few conciliatory, realistic things about Israel. I’m not saying this turned him into a Good Guy, but it showed he was sane. Now he’s gone and we’re supposed to rejoice? No thank you! Libya will turn to hell.

      I do not believe I am alone in feeling so disgusted with just about everything, except my own life, which is going rather well. So I can’t be accused of generalizing my own misery. I am not miserable. Our politics is.

      Laura writes:

      I am appalled too. The average American seems to accept the media’s pro-democracy fairy tale. Our country took part in the assassination of someone who posed no imminent threat to us and, in doing so, aided avowed enemies. This is not a fairy tale, but a horror story.

      — Comments –

      Alissa writes:

      What goes around, comes around. This fiasco only shows how decadent the West has become. It would be one thing to arrest and kill Qaddafi during the 1970’s-1980’s but not now. For the past years Qaddafi has come around with nuclear disarmament, a weak peace resolution with Israel, weaker links to Islamic terrorists and whatnot. I’m sure the neoconservatives and the feminists are currently cheering about his brutal death. Unfortunately it’s not the Arab Spring and the fall of one man will not bring democracy. It’s the eternal Muslim civil war and one tyrant will be replaced by another. One reaps what one sows.

      This is not a fairy tale, but a horror story.

      Speaking of horror stories the amount of horror films released per year has increased considerably compared to the past decades. One theory speculates that this is due to family breakdown and the expansion of horror experienced in people’s daily lives.

      Lawrence Auster writes:

      Commenter Diana is a kindred spirit. I share her feeling that “I’m in a complete state of dissociation with our political leaders, Republican and Democrat [over the death of Kaddafi]. I am thoroughly disaffected.”

      However, I have a question for Diana and for Laura: is your disgust directed only at the killing of Kaddafi, or at the entire U.S./NATO intervention in Libya of which is killing was the end result?

      My point is that it makes little sense to decry the killing, but not the NATO military intervention that led to the killing. The aim of the intervention was the overthrow of Kaddafi. If he was overthrown, and if he didn’t flee the country, then, given the way these things tend to be done in Muslim countries, his unceremonious murder was a very strong likelihood.

      In my view, therefore, if critics of what has happened in Libya want to stand on solid logical and moral ground, they need to denounce the entire intervention, not just the murder of Kaddafi which was the implied and all but inevitable consequence of the intervention.

      Laura writes:

      Is your disgust directed only at the killing of Kaddafi, or at the entire U.S./NATO intervention in Libya of which is killing was the end result?

      No, the intervention itself was deeply wrong. I agree, it’s important to object first and foremost to this illegitimate intrusion into a sovereign nation’s affairs. I recommend the many recent entries at VFR, including this one on Michelle Bachmann’s statement against our involvement in Libya.

    7. BlandOatmeal says:

      NATO is a US Proxy.

      I agree. Without US backing, the French and British would not even have won in Libya

    8. RonL says:

      It is all well and good to call Qaddafy (sp????) a thug, a gangster, terrorist and murderer. He was all this and worse. But who have we supported in Libya if not the Emirate of Barga, AQ in the Maghreb, and other Salafists? What is the REalpolitik here? To help Sarkozy get re-elected so that he can impliment the Mediterranean Union? To help ensure that Europe is flooded with more people from Africa and the Middle East?
      What was our interest, because it seems to me that our efforts were nothing short of helping Al Qaeda.

      Treason doth never prosper: what ‘s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

      Who is will to call our military aid and alliance with Al Qaeda in the Maghreb TREASON?

    9. IlaniYal says:

      Ted and Blandoatmeal

      Nato is not a US proxy, because the US itself is dependent on others for oil and for trade. It’s more realistic to say, NATO is useless. I’m certain it will soon be over for NATO it’s heyday is over, and it’s just an overblown expense that achieves nothing.

    10. BlandOatmeal says:

      Ilani Yal,

      NATO has just taken over Libya, it has propped up governments in Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen, it broke up Yugoslavia and created the states of Bosnia and Montenegro, and it has legitimatized the Turkish occupations of Cyprus and Kurdistan — as well as regular Turkish incursions into Iraq. That’s hardly what I would call “useless”. NATO gives an “international” front to American-instigated military adventures, allowing them to be rubber-stamped by the UN Security Council (where 3 of the 5 permanent, veto-weilding members are in NATO). The US produces about 40% of the world’s weaponry. The other members of NATO produce another 30-35%, and all the rest of the world produces only some 25%.

      As for “depending on others for oil and trade”, let me break this down:

      (1) The world’s major oil producers are US and NATO clients such as Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Kuwait, Iraq, the UAE, Libya, the US, Canada and NW Europe. The US does not depend on other producers, such as Russia.

      (2) European NATO is China’s biggest trade partner, and the US and Europe are each other’s largest trade partners. China and Japan are powerful countries, but they lag far behind the combined strength of NATO

      Check out the facts and figures: NATO, and its leader, the US, calls the shots in this world. Russia has no significant influence outside of tiny neighboring countries like Georgia. China does a bit of trade around the world, but cannot project its power — It hasn’t even deployed one carrier fleet, whereas the US has entire navies in the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, the Pacific Ocean, the Indian Ocean and around Latin America. Even the Anglo-French have forces comparable to those of Russia, China, Japan, India and Brazil.

      Who has successfully stood up to NATO? The Russians? They couldn’t even keep their close friends in Belgrade from getting bombed and losing half their country. The Chinese? They lost an embassy in a not-so-subtle “woops!” by a NATO missle, and could do nothing to retaliate. Who? The Turks? They’re in NATO! The Japanese? They’re allied to NATO; they don’t conduct foreign policy without American permission. The Iranians? If it weren’t for NATO shielding them, the Israelis would have taken them out years ago.

      Admit the obvious.

    11. IlaniYal says:

      Blandoatmeal

      Your figures are wrong, the client states you’re talking of, were 15-20 years ago, move with the times man, you’re in denial. The British were saying exactly the same thing even when their empire disintegrated.

      You can build a cocoon around you and deny the reality, but I prefer the facts.

      Admit the obvious? I did. You need to move with the times. Today. Not 20 years ago.

    12. Alan says:

      First off, to Alissa.

      This is one so-called “Neo-Conservative” (and while I don’t go by labels I’m proud to be associated with the Scoop Jacksons of this country and despise those Neo-Fascists from both the looney left and the “rong right” who use the term as a euphenism for Jews who don’t think like Obama) who DID NOT cheer the death of Qaddafi. Granted, he was a thug, but this war was an ILLEGAL one considering Bonzo Obama knew there were worse rapists and murderers in the world he constantly refused to fire one cruise missile at. I’m talking about his buddies (and stupid Shrillary’s) Assad and Ahmadinejedad. When Neda Soltan was butchered in the streets of Tehran the chimp was laughing, grinning and sucking on an ice cream cone the very day – no outrage, no “boots on the ground” – still none in Syria.

      As for John McCain, please don’t call that RINO a “neo-con”. He served our country true, but he’s a senile goat who really doesn’t know the hell he’s talking about these days, married to a bimbo who almost makes Aunt Esther Obama look good. His defense of this operation goes down as one of his most terrible embarassments of all time, and he has had quite a few – even in his own state where Bimbo’s money and an influx of Liberals have kept him in office.

      As for Lockerbie, my main point today, McCain’s other RINO pal, the one he had advising him in the last election (true he also had Al Haig, God Bless Him) James A-Hole “F the Jews” Baker had convienently whitewashed Syria’s overt participation in the Lockerbie Aerial massacre because the Democratic Party’s Best RINO, Big Oil friend Baker and a Bush Senior (interesting how Lefties smear the last President, as he was much more smarter than his daddy) who gravitated towards the Arabs wanted Syria on board for Desert Storm – American blood be damned. Bush Senior and Baker knew of Syria’s – and Iran’s – culpability in Lockerbie, but that didn’t bother them (read: “Inside the PLO” a book that was a bestseller at the time), they even allowed Assad to smash the Lebanese Christian resistance in Beirut so he would let ONE SMALL ARMORED DIVISION participate in Desert Storm.

      John Frick Root, a New York attorney whose wife was murdered in the skies over Lockerbie, and Daniel Cohen, a well-known author whose own stepfather was a Communist who fought in the Lincoln Battalion in the Spanish Civil War, and whose daughter too was killed (he was a bit of a Leftie before Lockerbie)have correctly pointed the finger at three culprits: Iran, wishing revenge for the shooting down of the Iranian airliner by the USS Vincennes the year before Lockerbie; Syria, always a bosom buddy of the Ayatollahs, and a Palestinian fringe group, the PFLP-General Command – and JIM BAKER, BRENT SCOWCROFT, AND GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH for letting Syria, Iran and the PFLP-GC off the hook. Qadaffi’s agents may have had a role, but it was those countries whom the “REALIST RINOS” and their pal Obama always appease who were the real murderers. Judge for yourself.

      As said, Gaddafi was bad, but Barry Obama’s and James Baker’s friends were much, much worse. If the truth ever came out, there will be hell to pay in this country, that is, if Americans could comprehend the vast implications of this.

    13. bernard ross says:

      Ghadaffi chased the jews from libya after 2000 years residence, the rebels just chased out the one jew trying to restore the synagogue and naively thinking that things have changed. The idea that ghadaffi should be defended because the succeeding barbarians will be islamic nutters is anathema to me. Both sides are the enemies of the Jews, Israel and the west. Perhaps the best we can hope for is that these barbaric nutters on both sides continue their civil wars and kill each other off. The world population has doubled in 60 years and my bet is that most of it is these nutters. Perhaps it is chaos in the lands of the enemies rather than stability that we should be seeking

    14. bernard ross says:

      It was my understanding that ghadaffi was embarked on switching to the chinese as his major client and that much of europes oil comes from libya. Europe has already been hostage to russia for energy and as this appeared to be more their war, perhaps this is correct

    Site Membership



    Google Site Search

    Editor

      Ted Belman

      tbelman3-at-gmail.com

    Mission

      News and Views on Israel, the Middle East, the war on terror and the clash of civilizations.

    Polls

    Why doesn't Bibi want to go "all the way"

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

    RECOMMENDED BOOKS

    LOVE




    Tolerism2

    Iran islam

    Sharing

    mandate4

    Daily Archives

    July 2014
    S M T W T F S
    « Jun    
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    2728293031  

    Selected Israpundit Articles

    Polls

    Why doesn't Bibi want to go "all the way"

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

    Miscellaneous Info

      All Politic Sites