← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Okiereddust
Thread ID: 19278 | Posts: 8 | Started: 2005-07-25
2005-07-25 18:59 | User Profile
Mike Egan writes from Charlotte, NC
Check out todayââ¬â¢s WSJ editorial calling on the US and UK to begin the "Israelization" of the War on terror. Amidst all the puffery, the editorial notes that the most effective action Israel has taken is "the round-up and imprisonment of hundreds of Palestinians deemed security risksââ¬Â¦has been key to reducing the number of terror attacks by more than 90%." Incredibly, the WSJ is actually calling for something along the lines of Eisenhowerââ¬â¢s "Operation Wetback". Or at least the Palmer Raids. Never thought Iââ¬â¢d see the day. Maybe they do not even realize what they have written.
You and your colleagues at VDare are doing a great job. --- ### Okiereddust *2005-07-25 19:07* | [User Profile](/od/user/29) [I](Okie here's the article - I don't realize what they've written either actually)[/I] REVIEW & OUTLOOK London, Again A 21st-century threat; 19th century laws. Friday, July 22, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT Due to some combination of good luck and possible incompetence, Londoners were spared serious casualties in yesterday's apparent bus and train bombings. This is not something to take much comfort in. As the second attack in as many weeks, it means the Israelization of the war on terror may now be upon Britain and, sooner or later perhaps, Europe and America, too. By "Israelization," we refer to the steady stream of bus, cafe, grocery, mall and street bombings to which Israeli civilians have been wantonly subjected these past several years. Unlike the September 11 attacks in the U.S. or last year's Madrid bombings, none of these have been terrorist "spectaculars," in the sense that they required extensive preparation and resulted in three- or four-figure death tolls. Even so, the effects of Palestinian-style terror are in many ways more devastating. No place feels safe; ordinary living becomes vastly more difficult; security costs to government and businesses are massive. And the killing adds up: In a country as small as Israel, nearly everyone had a personal connection to one of the 1,000 Israelis murdered in terrorist attacks over the past five years. Yet "Israelization" also means the methods Israelis have refined over the years to contain the terrorist threat. Throughout the course of the intifada, these methods came in for high-minded criticism as being violations of civil and international law. But as Australian Prime Minister John Howard observed at a press conference in London yesterday with British counterpart Tony Blair, many of the laws currently on the books in the West amount to "19th-century legal responses" to a 21st-century threat. Chief among Israel's innovations--since adopted by the Bush Administration--has been to treat terrorism as something different from criminal behavior, and to respond to it as something more than a law-enforcement problem. In some instances, this has led to actions that make civil libertarians uneasy, particularly the round-up and imprisonment of hundreds of Palestinians deemed security risks, although this has been key to reducing the number of terror attacks by more than 90%. Yet one need not endorse such tactics for Britain and Europe to see that the current approach is failing. Earlier this week, Germany's Constitutional Court set free Mamoun Darkazanli, a German national who is suspected of being Osama bin Laden's principal money man in Europe, on what amounted to a legalism regarding the constitutionality of a Spanish judge's extradition request. That followed on last month's release of Mounir el Motassadeq, who had previously been convicted by a Hamburg court as an accomplice in the 9/11 attacks. Here again, he owes his release mainly to legal niceties, which al Qaeda members are trained to manipulate. Much the same goes in Britain. Late last year, Britain's Law Lords ruled as unconstitutional a 2001 antiterrorism law that gave the government the right to detain indefinitely terrorist suspects who were not British nationals, provided they could not be returned to their home countries (where they might risk torture). The Law Lords' reasoning may have been sound, but it raised the question of what, if anything, Britain could seriously do about suspected foreign jihadists living in its midst other than set them free. As we have learned in recent days, it is precisely such attitudes, along with a laissez-faire approach to all forms of "political" speech, including speech that incites to violence and sedition, that turned London into the European haven of choice for Muslim extremists. Mr. Blair's government is now in the process of outlining plans to ban even indirect statements of support for terror and violence, which might or might not pass constitutional muster. All this has ramifications for the U.S. Even as Europe tinkers with new ways of dealing with terrorism, critics of the Bush Administration seek to return the U.S. to where Europe is today. Thus the relentless assaults on the legality of Guantanamo, the renewal of the Patriot Act and the treatment of U.S. citizens, such as Jose Padilla, who are held as enemy combatants. But whatever one thinks is the best legal framework required to deal with domestic and foreign terrorist threats, what the bombings in London make clear is that the old legal tool kits no longer work. And the sooner we learn to "Israelize" our approach to terror--both in Europe and the U.S.--the better the chances our lives won't be Israelized in turn. --- ### Ponce *2005-07-26 01:23* | [User Profile](/od/user/901) Well, when they put us in a "security camp" I hope that my bunk is close to the bathroom, I get up a lot at night. Unless we get rid of the so called "neocons".....I hate fancy names for Jews and pro-Jews. --- ### jay *2005-07-26 04:19* | [User Profile](/od/user/159) Unreal. This thread needs to be pinned. How on earth can AMericans read that clap-trap, and not snicker? That's an outright indictment of our "free press". To think, that rag calls itself conservative. If anyone's going to "Isrealize" something around me, can you at least notify me, so I can move 500 miles away? We all know what that leads to. Besides, for every Islamic "terrorist" you would get, a thousand Mexican cotton pickers (oops! day laborers) are committing crimes against normal Americans each day. Guess our average citizens matter not --- ### truth *2005-07-26 13:42* | [User Profile](/od/user/846) of course the wsj writer is an idiot, but actually i think this trend should not be dismissed as a bad thing out of hand. broadly speaking, jews are left wing at home and right wing abroad (in israel). this hypocrisy gets people mad. for example, the non-jewish left wing wants jews to be consistently left wing everywhere, so they go on about israel and its racism towards arabs [blah blah blah]. unfortunately as of yet the right has been dumb about the israel situation. yes, buchanan realizes the hypocrisy of jews like dershowitz who let OJ run amok in America but call for torture in Israel. But he responds just like a left winger, by attacking Israel's defense policy. that is dumb. we should play the game the other way. use israeli conduct abroad to justify right wing american actions at home. israel's building a wall to keep out noncitizens? good for them, so should we, just like our good friends the israelis. israel's profiling people likely to commit crimes? good for them, so should we. israel's prohibiting marriages between jews and arabs? hmmm.... and so on. israel is such a sainted country that you can make it into a reverse nazi invocation, one that they aren't expecting. it opens up the debate. at the least it points out the inconsistencies. and those inconsistencies will always be resolved by assuming *first* that israel's conduct is ok, and hmmm-maybe-perhaps america might emulate it. --- ### Angeleyes *2005-08-01 21:32* | [User Profile](/od/user/1513) [u]Chief among Israel's innovations--since adopted by the Bush Administration--has been to treat terrorism as something different from criminal behavior, and to respond to it as something more than a law-enforcement problem[/u]. Somethings are oversimplified with explanations. However, the rhetoric in this case appears to fit the policy: run about the back yard with a shot gun, shooting at anopheles mosquitoes with malaria in their stomachs. As for the policy linkage. Some things take a certain presentation to register. I guess we next start dropping bombs on all Iranian nuclear reactors? *shivers* [QUOTE=truth]of course the wsj writer is an idiot, but actually i think this trend should not be dismissed as a bad thing out of hand. broadly speaking, jews are left wing at home and right wing abroad (in israel). this hypocrisy gets people mad. for example, the non-jewish left wing wants jews to be consistently left wing everywhere, so they go on about israel and its racism towards arabs [blah blah blah]. unfortunately as of yet the right has been dumb about the israel situation. yes, buchanan realizes the hypocrisy of jews like dershowitz who let OJ run amok in America but call for torture in Israel. But he responds just like a left winger, by attacking Israel's defense policy. that is dumb. we should play the game the other way. use israeli conduct abroad to justify right wing american actions at home. israel's building a wall to keep out noncitizens? good for them, so should we, just like our good friends the israelis. israel's profiling people likely to commit crimes? good for them, so should we. israel's prohibiting marriages between jews and arabs? hmmm.... and so on. israel is such a sainted country that you can make it into a reverse nazi invocation, one that they aren't expecting. it opens up the debate. at the least it points out the inconsistencies. and those inconsistencies will always be resolved by assuming *first* that israel's conduct is ok, and hmmm-maybe-perhaps america might emulate it.[/QUOTE] --- ### JoseyWales *2005-08-02 04:32* | [User Profile](/od/user/1066) I think this article shines light on things that are straight out of Thomas Chittum's book "civil war II". For example, > By "Israelization," we refer to the steady stream of bus, cafe, grocery, mall and street bombings to which Israeli civilians have been wantonly subjected these past several years. Somewhere past the phase of demonstrations and protests of the brown crowd, begin the violence. Balkanization comes on in stages so it seems. Some stages pass faster than others. --- ### jeffersonian *2005-08-02 17:29* | [User Profile](/od/user/240) [QUOTE]...what the bombings in London make clear is that the old legal tool kits no longer work. And the sooner we learn to "Israelize" our approach to terror--both in Europe and the U.S.--the better the chances our lives won't be Israelized in turn.[/QUOTE] Amazing. The open borders WSJ now would have us change the "legal tool kit" for the war on terror, I wonder if this means they would support a similar change in the war against Mexican invasion? I agree lets forgo the legal niceities and start the hunting. ---