Zombie has extensive photo and video coverage of anti-Israel demonstrations around the world. Not pleasant viewing, but it’s important to understand how much of this stuff is going on and just how virulent it is.
Here’s a video about the inculcation of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic beliefs in Palestinian children, and the use of these children as human shields by Hamas.
A report on the sinister activities of the United Nations agency known as UNWRA.
On a much more positive note, here’s coverage of a pro-Israel demonstration in Italy. Fiamma Nirenstein, a journalist and new member of the Italian Parliament, believes that the obvious thuggishness of Hamas is leading to a revulsion against the “progressive” justification and romanticization of terrorist violence. I hope she is right, but I’m less sanguine. Many of those who identify as “progressives” feel such rage against their own societies that they have no anger left for the terrorist enemies of civilization, and are indeed all too willing to make common cause with these enemies.
more here
http://www.icjs-online.org/index.php?eid=5259&ICJS=291&article=1767
fl
See also Rand Simberg on the return of Moloch.
You might also take note of this:
Merkel blames Hamas for Gaza violence
and this:
Pro-Israel groups demonstrate in Germany against Hamas
The best news is that Israel made a serious attack on Hamas and continued with it without apparent regard to the hand-wringing by people who do not complain when Jews are being killed.
A lot of people know perfectly well what is going on, but are afraid to say anything.
Hamas is destroying the credibility of the people who support it. The cracks may not be obvious yet, but they are there.
y Prof. Paul Eidelberg
Self-restraint as a principle of war is absurd.
Let us recall certain lessons on war by one of the greatest military scientists, General Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831).
Clausewitz’s magnum opus, On War, is studied in military schools to this day. He defines war as “an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will. Violence is the means; submission of the enemy to our will the ultimate object.” For as long as the enemy remains armed, he will wait for a more favorable moment for action.
The ultimate object of war is political. To attain this object fully, the enemy must be disarmed. Disarming the enemy “becomes therefore the immediate object of hostilities. It takes the place of the final object and puts it aside as something we can eliminate from our calculations.”
Clausewitz warns: “Philanthropists may readily imagine there is a skillful method of disarming and overcoming an enemy without causing great bloodshed, and that this is the proper tendency of the Art of War. However plausible this may appear, still it is an error which must be extirpated; for in such dangerous things as war, the errors which proceed from a spirit of benevolence are the worst.”
Not that Clausewitz advocates indiscriminate slaughter. He warns, however, that “he who uses force unsparingly, without reference to the bloodshed involved, must obtain a superiority if his adversary uses less vigor in its application. …Let us not hear of Generals who conquer without bloodshed. If a bloody slaughter is a horrible sight, then that is a ground for paying more respect to War, but not for making the sword we wear blunter and blunter by degrees from feelings of humanity, until someone steps in with one that is sharp and lops off the arm from our body.”
It follows that moderation or self-restraint as a principle of war is absurd. To defeat the enemy the means must be proportioned to his power of resistance, and his power of resistance must be utterly crushed.
The statesman must take into account not only the forces of the enemy. He must solidify the confidence and determination of his people. They must believe in the justice of their country’s cause and understand the importance of victory as well as the consequences of defeat. The statesman must display wisdom, decisiveness, and clarity.
Above all, the statesman must have, in his own mind, a clear view of his post-war goal or political object. The political object will determine the aim of military force as well as the amount of force or effort to be used.
This is the crucial point in Israel’s attack on Gaza. Did the government have a clear view of the goal or political object of this war?
Was it simply to stop Hamas from further attacks on Israel, or was it to disarm and destroy the enemy?
via FL
LG : & readin’ ’bout pro – Israel demonstrations is supposed to make any of us feel better? Don’t see how this is gonna work out for any of the protoganists. Or is this all gonna end like those self – fulfillin’ prophecies, like stated in ’em “holy” books?
“He who lives by the swerd…”