Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Who Supports an Immediate Cease Fire in the Middle-East? Part II

[Cover of The Independent 2006.07.25]
(hattip: LGF)
Seems like The Independent, borrowed the graphic from Information, and erased the Danish flag in the »No« column! The two newspapers have a history of working together and swapping stories, so that the Danes can be "educated" by the "great mind" of Robert Fisk [sic!] (As a side note both newspapers are apparently also featuring the painter Paul Gaugin at the moment -- I wonder how deep the editorial collaboration between Information and The Independent really is!)

The purpose of the grapic is clear enough, that the countries in the »No« column are in the wrong and clearly in an overwhelming minority, made even bigger by removing countries that are manifestly in the »No« column, like Denmark. Even the original Danish version didn't tell the whole story, several countries that should have been in the »No« column were put in the »Yes« column (e.g. Canada)

So while the idea behind the graphic most likely were to shame the countries who weren't backing an immediate ceasefire, I choose to view it as a sad commentary to the fact that many countries are sadly under the influence of the anti-semitic forces of Islam and Leftwing politicians.

On the brighter side lets have this graphic shown in Israel, the USA and one other country and one more flag will disappear one at a time and we would all agree.... NOT!

*** UPDATE ***
Canada indeed seems to be in the »No« camp...
Israeli ceasefire no solution to peace in Lebanon, MacKay says
July 23, 2006 - 16:57

OTTAWA (CP) - It's time to start working diplomatically toward peace in Lebanon - but that doesn't mean a unilateral ceasefire by Israel, says Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay.

Speaking Sunday on television, MacKay refused to join other countries who have called on the Israelis to rein in their military offensive in the region.

Before hostilities can end, he said, both sides will have to agree on a solution that will ensure Israel doesn't come under attack again from Hezbollah guerrillas using Lebanon as their base of operations.

"A ceasefire and a return to the status quo is a victory for Hezbollah," MacKay warned. "Let's not forget that this was an unprovoked attack by a terrorist organization . . . . The discussions have to focus on the long-term end of violence in the region."

MacKay's comments were in keeping with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's insistence, since the start of the crisis, that Hezbollah was to blame for sparking the violence and a unilateral Israeli pull-back would not solve the problem.

The Conservative government has come under heated criticism from Arab-Canadians, thousands of whom rallied in Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa and other cities on the weekend to try to put pressure on Harper to moderate his position.

MacKay was non-committal Sunday on whether Canada would agree to participate in any peacekeeping force that might be assembled under NATO or UN auspices.

He also said he hasn't decided yet whether he could help move the diplomatic process along by paying a visit to the Middle East.

For the time being, said MacKay, he is concentrating on making sure every last Canadian who wants to get out of Lebanon can do so.

More than 6,000 had fled the country by Sunday on government-chartered ships, but many more remain.

"The numbers could be as high as 30,000 who may still wish to leave," said MacKay. "What those final numbers will be is an inexact science. But we will be there with the means to remove them as long as there are Canadians there who wish to leave."

Most of the Canadians still in the country are in or around Beirut, but as many as 3,000 are believed to be in war-ravaged southern Lebanon.

Canadian officials announced plans Sunday to send a chartered ship to the most dangerous hotspot in south Lebanon.

The ship, with room for 1,000 evacuees, was set to arrive dockside in Tyre at 7 a.m. to load any Canadians who can make it to the port.

If you know of other countries that are opposed to an immediate cease fire or calling on an unilateral cease fire from Israel please let me know in the comments (links to stories confirming the claim will be preferred) – let's try to get a more realistic picture!


Blogger A Free Man said...

As well as Canada being in the no camp so is Australia!

Also if one looks closely at the Yes box, you can see flags of such influencial and important nations such as Papua New Guinea, Greneda, Jamaica, Bangladesh, Nauru, Albania, St Kits and Nevis, Trinidad and Tobago, Libya, Algeria, Malta and Nepal!

Most of those flags belong to irrelevant tiny countries!

So the Independent is basically saying 'every irrelevant, despotic or Islamic country is against this?

Big deal, they're against every thing involving Israel of the US!

26 July, 2006 14:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In light of recent events... specifically the direct targeting of UN peacekeeping forces after repeated requests for an end to Israli bombardment... no one is in the right anymore. All parties are part of terror activities, and neither side wants a true peace. I agree that this was not begun in the immediate by Israel, but if they want a solution and credibility in the international arena, they are losing what little foothold they might hope to have.

27 July, 2006 00:21  
Blogger Zonka said...


The targeting of the UN forces is unfortunate and regretable, however, it seems most likely that it was either an accident or because Hizbollah was using the UN post as a shield for their operations, which has been known to happen (see: Uriasposten (in Danish but the picture tells the story)). One also wonders why the UN didn't retract the UNIFIL forces when hostilities broke out, there no longer was a peace to protect! And with the current track record of the UN and Kofi Annan in this conflict, one has to seriously wonder whether they are able to be impartial... So far it seems like they have choosen side against Israel!

Your other point about both sides committing acts of terror, I think that is stretching the definition of terror a bit! It's a war and wars aren't pretty for sure, but the difference here is that Israel is making an effort to avoid hitting civilians and other innocents, but it is hard when the Hizbollah is mingling with the civilians and using them as shields and covers for their activities. Whereas Hizbollah intentionally targets civilians (although they argue that there are no civilian Israelis).

27 July, 2006 07:06  

Post a Comment

<< Home