This terminology suggest the “father country” with extensions of ourselves elsewhere. When outside of the country, do we truly refer to “the Homeland” or do we refer to ourselves as Americans and “from America”. There is no Homeland in our American Anthem or traditional songs of pride. Why is this reference so popular with the administration and finding its way into government documents and reports? I am not convinced it is appropriate. I do recognize that it represents an ideology. An ideology that sounds empiric and expansionist in nature, similar to a manifest destiny ideal. The Homeland is a recent creation. America is a tradition rooted in our Revolution. Why is no one questioning “the Homeland” and the references it suggests?

(begin quote)Sacred values
If the Middle East peace process is to be salvaged, Israelis and Palestinians must make symbolic concessions. But time is running out.
By Scott Atran

(H)amas leader and Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya seems to understand that to stop his people’s suffering, his government must forsake his party’s all-or-nothing call for Israel’s destruction. “We have no problem with a sovereign Palestinian state over all our lands within the ’67 borders, living in calm, � Haniya told me in his Gaza City office in late June, shortly before it was destroyed in an Israeli missile attack, “but we need the West as a partner to help us through.�(end quote)

Read the rest at:
http://www.metransparent.com/texts/scott_atran_sacred_values.htm

We sure ought to be playing a role; but will any of the neocon policymakers deign to sully themselves with that distasteful business called ‘diplomacy’? Color me skeptical. In Rooseveltian terms (Teddy), they seem to prefer brandishing and utilizing the bully’s ‘big stick’ to talking softly and earnestly. They seem to prefer the machismo of antagonism to the rest of the “First World’s� preference for using violence as a last resort.

Also, that Atran article dovetails interestingly with this: Hamas Spokesman Blames Palestinians for Gaza Chaos at
http://www.frappr.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=530624

Lastly, the mother-site (provenance) of that Scott Atran article is Middle East Transparent, a bastion of Arab liberalism. Not Islamism or “Islamo-fascism�, but good ol’ secular (mostly) progressivism. Check it out: http://www.metransparent.com/english.html

The proper response to a violent act is to isolate and surround the individuals responsible, humanely removing them from society. For the protection of all life and the quality of our own, we must make every effort to disarm and capture those individuals responsible for the violent act and to dismantle the economic, political, industrial system which sustained those actions. There are no right sides or wrong sides to any of the religious, political or historical conflicts plaguing life

The problem is using violence to end violence ( once and for all) as the above as rationale often leads to. Also there are wrong sides:aggressors.

Harlow:

There is only those who live and those who kill. We all need to unite to isolate violence. We are all in this life together, all life is precious, we must unite against any and all calls to violent actions or policies.

I think you meant there are only those who want peace and those who want war. Those who live, may live and kill or feel that they have to kill to live.

—————

There is, on a previous ROS show thread a discussion of “Islamo-fascism� and there is use of that term here. This is from a recent piece in “the Nation� Magazine by Katha Pollitt, “Wrong War, Wrong Word� ( September 11th 2006)

“Islamo-fascism” looks like an analytic term, but really it’s an emotional one, intended to get us to think less and fear more. It presents the bewildering politics of the Muslim world as a simple matter of Us versus Them, with war to the end the only answer, as with Hitler. If you doubt that every other British Muslim under the age of 30 is ready to blow himself up for Allah, or that shredding the Constitution is the way to protect ourselves from suicide bombers, if you think that Hamas might be less popular if Palestinians were less miserable, you get cast as Neville Chamberlain, while Bush plays FDR. “Islamo-fascism” rescues the neocons from harsh verdicts on the invasion of Iraq ………As I write the New York Times is carrying a full page “open letter” to Bush from the Al Kharafi Group, the mammoth Kuwaiti construction company, featuring photos of dead and wounded Lebanese civilians. “We think there is a misunderstanding in determining: “‘Who deserves to be accused of being a fascist’!!!!”
“Islamo-fascism” enrages to no purpose the dwindling number of Muslims who don’t already hate us. At the same time, it clouds with ideology a range of situations–Lebanon, Palestine, airplane and subway bombings, Afghanistan, Iraq–we need to see clearly and distinctly and deal with in a focused way. No wonder the people who brought us the disaster in Iraq are so fond of it.

for my part you seem to be on the same path as those who preach war and agression.

Withdrawing from militarism and imperialism is sensible, survival oriented and ethical. Probably just not good for business as usual though.

As a matter of fact our dependence on oil is going to be our undoing financially, environmentally and politically.

As regards israel the political relationship should be scaled back to one of recognition and trade only. No military assistance at all, and for that matter that should be the case for all other countries whoever they are.
Ending militarism begins by dismantling offensive war machines and the corporations that profit from their production and use.

You are absolutely right.Plus we will become allies with over a dozen countries and perhaps 200 million plus people. instead of one small country of about 5 million people and no oil.
Better yet why dont we just go ahead and nuke Isreal ourselves.We can kill 5 million jews in one day. I’m sure that will ingratiate us to the Arab world for the next 50 years. They will probably give us a nice discount on a barrell of oil.

Given that our greatest need at this time is a reliable supply of oil, I dont see the benefit of providing support to israel. The whole concept of allies is irrelevant here and we americans need to rethink our relationship in terms that are beneficial to our country rather than israel’s.

The so called war on terror, war on drugs are actually a war on our freedoms and our future survival. Americans need to reorient their world view to one of peace and survival and the actions of misguided allies be damned.
Stop manufacturing, selling and thinking that weapons are a solution to any problem.

Many would be terrorists are now to busy working and making money.They dont have the time or desire to go out and blow something up.

A free and open economy,coupled with a free and democratic government would probably go along way towards ending the violence between Isreal and the Palestinians. Unfortunately the palestinians have been led by totally corrupt leaders,such as Arafat.

To Silvio ; Your comments about Wal-mart are way off the mark and make no sense. A person who works at walmart is free to quit whenever they like. Wal-marts wages are not slave wages,they pay what the job is worth. Noone is forced to work there.
I wish you had actually thought through your Wal-mart comment. It seems Wal-mart is the current whipping boy of the left.

That sounds like a sloppy Hegel taking about World Historical Forces, the Zietgiest and other such words from German philosophy. The problem is the Hegelian tradition—including those thinkers who installed themselves AGAINST Hegel (e.g. Marx)—began their thought from an utterly racist and eurocentric position. They condoned the genocide that occurred in the Americas, labeled non-industrial people as ‘savage’, and were blind to other examples and traditions of society.

Before we wholeheartedly adopt the predominant form of globalization and export it by force, it would seem advisable to think it through a bit more. Is not the so-called rational faith in the free market (the famous ‘invisible hand’) as the solution to all the worlds problems just as mystical and fundamentalist as radically conservative religion? If we are fighting to replace Islamic fundamentalism or so-called Islamo-fascism (a term I do not find valid) with market fundamentalism, is that worth it? Have we really advanced the cause of human beings? Does a poor wage-slave working at Wal-Mart have more freedom than an unemployed member of a social-service providing Mosque? Before you dismiss these questions out of hand, I would ask that you actually think through your immediate responses.

Someone please explain the logic.”

What are you specifically refering too, sidewalker?

Because a peoples have suffered ethnic and religious hatred and acts of genocide, I don’t see how that excuses their own acts of terrorism.

Someone please explain the logic.

“It seems that the entire world except the US is either anti-Israel or neutral. The other side has dozens of hard-core supporters. Is it so objectionable that Israel have a single hard-core supporter?”

You are right in the main, though, the governments of Canada and Australia (both under conservative rule) are supporting Israel and GB under Blair is ambivalent.

I would say that Western Europe in the main is being influenced by the presence of millions of Arabs on its soil.

I suspect that in the near future that continent will become Juderein as more Jews emigrate to Israel and the US. This is one reason why even the French, who don’t want to lose their Jewish community, have decided to take a “more balanced approach to the conflict” French style which means that they don’t use vituperative language to condemn Israel.

However, I see on future for the Jewish community on that continent.

“Why do people on the left hate Isreal so much? And why do they have so much sympathy for terrorist groups like Hammas and hezbollah. Growing up in the 70s and 80s.”

There was an antisemitic streak in the left going back to the 19th c. This isn’t the whole story, of course, as there was and is a progressive non antisemitic left.

However, had the Nazis not perpetrated the crime of genocide against the Jewish people, the Communists would have been recognized earlier on for antisemites they were and are.

http://www.rbas.undp.org/ahdr_2004/AHDR_2004_Executive_Summary.pdf

It’s justifiably critical of the behavior of Israel and the US, but reserves most of the vitriol for the Arab governments. Nobody wins unless governments observe laws, starting with their own…

Chirac may worry about NATO being seen as the “armed wing of the West”, but that’s precisely what it is and what it is meant to be. Hezbollah has no respect for the UN, but they may learn some for NATO. Under more competent command and better strength, a NATO-led coalition will respond in force to provocations, a lesson that the Balkans learned, even if NATO had no plan for the future there”

“Oddly, Chirac never voiced these concerns when the Balkans erupted. His voice was among many who called for NATO intervention even after Russia vetoed any assistance at the UN Security Council. Chirac appreciated the “armed wing of the West” when it suited his purposes,”

Winston – Now we know why Kerry is so proud of his French heritage!

“Israel Wants 2-KM Security Zone; France Surrenders On Behalf Of NATO”

“French President Jacques Chirac said Wednesday that NATO should not lead a proposed international force in Lebanon, saying the alliance is seen in the region as “the armed wing of the West.”

“Israel has suggested it would prefer a NATO-led coalition in Lebanon, not the traditional UN peacekeeping force that has tried but failed to bring peace to Lebanon over the last three decades. France has said a multinational force should be placed under United Nations authority.”

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007622.php

“How the Arabs Compare
Arab Human Development Report 2002

On July 2, 2002, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) released the Arab Human Development Report 2002. The report, compiled by a “group of distinguished Arab intellectuals” led by Egyptian statistician Nader Fergany, has resonated in the Western and Arab media. With uncommon candor and a battery of statistics, the report tells a sorry story of two decades of failed planning and developmental decline. One inescapable conclusion emerges from its sober pages of tables and charts: the Arab world is in decline, even relative to the developing world.

he core assumption of the report is that poverty is not merely a matter of income. As Fergany put it: “A person who is not free is poor. A woman who is not empowered is poor. And a person who has no access to knowledge is poor.”[7] By all these criteria, the Arab region—even some of its wealthiest corners—could only be described as impoverished. In line with this approach, the report went beyond the U.N.’s standard Human Development Index (HDI)—an amalgam of four developmental measures[8]—to include other measures of political and social freedom.

http://www.meforum.org/article/513

Mnay people can talk a good game using phrases like “wars are won and lost one the ground” as if they know what they are talking about but then use that to veer off into B.S. never-never-land.

You used the phrase “empiricaly” well, as a former military officer, I gave you some facts that don’t exactly fit your analysis. That is what the proffedsioanl US military from the rest of the world – using facts to win.

People who thought they new the facts lost the war in Vietnam.

plnelson – you wouldn’t know reality form your arse. Instead of your continual stream of consciousness analysis that seems to only impress OldNick why don’t you bring some facts to the table.

I will say again, the reason I brought up the Vietnam war again, because it is obvious that you simply do not know what you are talking about. The fact that the US was never even close to loosing the ground war argued by poeple who know what they are talking about. So, jsut to shut you up I’ll give one more source and fact so so that you don’t know what you are talking about her and let others surmise what they want to about the rest of your volumous “analysis”.

“During the 1960’s Giap controlled guerrilla operations against South Vietnam and the United States and planned the Tet Offensive of 1968.

In his book, Giap clearly indicated that NVA troops were without sufficient supplies, and had been continually defeated time and again.

By 1968, NVA morale was at it’s lowest point ever. The plans for “Tet” ‘68 was their last desperate attempt to achieve a success, in an effort to boost the NVA morale. When it was over, General Giap and the NVA viewed the Tet ‘68 offensive as a failure, they were on their knees and had prepared to negotiate a surrender.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Camp/7624/Generals/giap.htm

You said that Westmoreland “wasn’t exactly a miltiary genius”?

I would suggest that you take a breath, bring a few more facts to the table and maybe you can stop making a fool out of yourself.

“Somali Islamist orders ‘holy war’

A Somali Islamist leader has ordered a “holy war” to drive out Ethiopian troops, after they entered the country to protect the weak interim government.
“I am calling on the Somali people to wage a holy war against Ethiopians in Somalia,” said Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys of the Union of Islamic Courts.”

I wonder how Ethiopia will fare with all the countries around it being Muslim and many of them controlled by Islamcists?

This too deserves to be explored.

Israel isn’t the only anamoly in the region.

Don’t let the episode title fool you – the hour’s first half is focused on the war in the Middle East. About 13 minutes in, one guest explains that Israel’s government briefs the US government regularly on the ongoing operation’s goals, and has done so from the operaion’s inception. Our government is ‘in the know’. The implication then is that our government condones current Israeli actions.

So what I’d like to know is why Bush pays lip service to the Lebanese government even while his administration condones Israeli destruction of the already weak Lebanese army’s infrastructure – and no, I’m not talking about the Hezbollah militia (which I agree deserves a damn good dismantling).

Why is Israel attacking the only indigenous force in Lebanon that could counterweight Hezbollah?
How does ‘our role’ in any way ‘support’ the Lebanese government?

What am I missing here?