John Aravosis kills 34 children

I think it's well known to anyone who has ever logged on to John Aravosis's blog that he supports Israel right or wrong and has even written a neocon screed saying that Israel was just plain being too nice with those damned Arabs.

From AmeRicAVOSIS:

Israel is being too nice
Commentary, by John Aravosis, political consultant and freelance journalist.
About.com, March 29, 2002

While it's not very PC (politically correct) to say so, the region's only capitalist democracy has shown more restraint over the past 18 months than it's given credit for. While Palestinian terrorists have intentionally attacked civilian targets in Israel with the intent of killing as many innocents as possible - including recent attacks on a young girl's Bat Mitzvah, and a private Passover dinner - the Israelis have targeted their attacks at military and police and other governmental structures of the Palestinian authority, or at the individual terrorists themselves.
Have some civilians died as well in the Israeli attacks? Sure. But there is a big moral difference between intentionally targeting small children for death, and targeting known terrorists who hide among children.
...
Arab and European governments must put their own pressure on the Palestinians to stop the violence, now. Lest Israeli patience finally run out, and the Palestinians and their all-too-comfy Arab neighbors learn how bad things really can get when the region's only military superpower gets pushed too far.

I think that's enough.

I guess Israel must have read this and now they are taking his advice. "They kill our civilians so we'll kill theirs." Of course, that will stop them forever, eh?

So Israel has unleashed a blitzkrieg of sorts on just about all of Lebanon. But what does Johnny A-list say about all this? That Israel is STILL being too nice. They're not expanding this thing into a regional war.

Today, he tries to justify his earlier claims while abandoning the thought that killing civilians is bad.

Israeli air strike kills 34 children
by John in DC - 7/30/2006 01:00:00 PM

But...

Israeli said it targeted Qana because it was a base for hundreds of rockets launched at Israeli, including 40 that injured five Israelis on Sunday. Israel said it had warned civilians several days before to leave the village.

So here's the ethical question of the day. Someone is firing hundreds of missiles at your citizens each day, and launching them from civilians areas because think they think you won't hit back (or hope you do, and thus kill civilians, causing a storm of bad publicity). As for the civilians, it's an open question whether they are helping harbor the guys with the missiles or not, i.e., whether or not they have a say in telling Hezbollah to take a hike (and if they do have a say, would that change your answer)?

So the question is this, under those circumstances, what do YOU do as the leader of country that's receiving 100 rockets a day raining down on your cities?

Second question, which I've posed before. At what point does a local citizenry become responsible for the crimes it supports? When Israel is on the receiving end of bombs, I hear a lot of talk about how every Israeli is a legitimate target because they all support the government. So does the same apply to every Arab, every Muslim, every southern Lebanese, and every American?

I'd just like to see some real discussion of where the line is here, and why some folks seem to care less when the targets are Jewish civilians. Comment (155) | Permanent Link |

BUT? But what? The kids deserved it for supporting Hezbollah?
He's provoking debate, which is good, but he's doing it by hiding his true opinions behind "ethical delimmas" to be discussed. Maybe he is learning that he can only get stupid people to give him money under the right circumstances, yet his ego will NOT allow him to reverse his stance on Israel.

Let's just give the run down of all his pro-war posts that stirred up so much shit.

First, it was the post where he said he didn't have a problem with Israel bombing Tehran and Damascus. (What about Riyadh and Cairo?)

Is Israel going to attack Syria and Iran?
by John in DC - 7/15/2006 10:20:00 AM

Rumors have started.

A few weeks ago, Israeli had its fighters buzz the Syrian presidential palace. That was rather gutsy, and in-your-face. There's speculation in some circles that Israel may bomb Damascus or Tehran in the coming weeks, and I have to say, I'm not sure I'd have a problem with that.

My logic is this. Israel bombing civilians, bad. Israel bombing Lebanon when Hezbollah is the problem, bad (and I have a hard time believing Lebanon has the ability to do jack about Hezbollah). But the real culprits here are not the Lebanese, they're Syria and Iran who have been causing hell in Lebanon for decades.

If Israel has concrete proof that Syria and Iran are directly responsible for supporting Hezbollah and supplying them weapons, etc. (and I'd be surprised if they didn't), then it's difficult to say that Israel can't, or shouldn't, counterstrike against two countries that are attacking Israel via proxies.

Controversial, yes. But while I'm not 100% committed to this strategy, particularly because of the possibilities of any attack on Damascus or Tehran possibly spinning things out of control, it surely makes a lot more sense than the approach we took to dealing with Iraq. Perhaps a shot across the bow, or down their throat, could help "contain" Iran and Syria. It's not clear how letting them get away with murder, quite literally, is helping anything.

Thoughts?
Comments (835) | Permanent Link |

Yeah, he's got no problem with pre-emptive bombing campaigns. It's war and war is hell. And since the US is supplying bombs to Israel so they can carry out their devastation in Lebanon, I guess he's also got no problem with Iran sending some bombs over here. Maybe he wouldn't mind if some Iranians crashed a plane or two into the Pentagon. But, here he even says that Israel's bombing of Lebanon is bad and that their killing of civilians is bad. Gotta love his contradictory logic. But that didn't last long.

When a people support a government that does bad things, is it all right to hold the people responsible?
by John in DC - 7/16/2006 10:19:00 PM

It's a question much bigger than Lebanon:

The Western-backed, anti-Syrian prime minister Fuad Saniora held back tears as he vowed on Lebanese television Saturday night to curb the guerrillas, desperate to stop Israel's onslaught.

But on Sunday, President Emile Lahoud — a pro-Syrian and an ally of Hezbollah — pronounced that Lebanon "will not surrender" to Israel's attempts to batter it into submission.

Few believe Saniora could move against Hezbollah without throwing the country into further turmoil. The army he would have to send into the south has many Shiite members, who might balk at fighting their brethren in the guerrilla force. The country's large Shiite population would be outraged.

People like to talk, especially, I've found, in Europe and the Middle East, about how they hate the US government but like the American people. They say you can't hold a people responsible for what its government does. That's always struck me as odd, since we live in a democracy where the people are the government, and in the case of Bush, 50% or more of the American people, up until recently, supported the man's folly.

When the people support the government, as in this case the Shia in Lebanon likely don't want the government clamping down on Hezbollah and its missile attacks on Israel, at what point are the people responsible for the actions of their own government, and at what point should they be held responsible for those actions?

Meaning, if Hezbollah missiles are killing Israelis, and Hezbollah's actions are supported by Lebanon's Shia population, doesn't Israel have the right to retaliate against the Shia in Lebanon? At the very least against their utilities and their roads? Putting aside the wisdom geo-politically of such action, morally isn't it any country's right to strike back?

Or, if you think that the Shia in Lebanon don't share responsibility, then do you also believe that Americans who supported Bush, and who voted for him twice, and who supported the war in Iraq don't share any of the blame for the mayhem Bush has unleashed over the past six years?

Comments (333)| Permanent Link |

Even though he asks this as a question seemingly meant to provoke discussion, it sure seems like he's trying to justify his earlier statements supporting Israel's actions. I guess "being held responsible" to Johnny means killing them. And if the government of a country really is an extension of the will of the people (not likely) then I suppose by extension that Johnny A-list has killed at least a few dozen children by his support for Israel.

I was wrong. Israel is really really really bad.
by John in DC - 7/17/2006 01:45:00 AM

Apparently there's money in my future so long as I tailor what I write to reflect the views of my contributors. Just got the following email.

John,

I am one of your many silent regular readers. I read, but never post. Until the last few days I have highly respected your judgment and analysis, and have contributed to your blog more than once

Your posts on the Israel-Lebanon situation read as if they were written by a strident pro-Israeli.
I fully agree with Gilliard.

Unless you come to your senses, you have lost a contributor, and possibly a reader.

John P.

Not to mention, would there be something wrong if I were pro-Israeli? I didn't realize that was another category of free speech and free thought that we've now Dixie Chicked.

Comment (0) | Permanent Link |

Yes, this is the post that REALLY set his "base" off. Notice there are no comments because Mr. A-list deleted them all. How petty is it to publicly post a private email from someone who pays him for his lame opinions? And I suppose Johnny can be pro-Israel all he wants, if he's willing to live up to his standard of "being held responsible" for their actions.

But then he constantly contradicts himself when it's convenient.

Bush extends duty for thousands of US troops in Iraq. He was serious when he said there'd be no withdrawal.
by John in DC - 7/28/2006 10:57:00 AM

It's time the American people took George Bush at his word. Yes, he's incompetent and a bit dumb, but he's been pretty consistent with his foreign policy. And Bush said he wasn't going to withdraw from Iraq, and he means it. So if you like US troops being bogged down in Iraq for the next several years - Bush himself said the next president would have to decide if the US ever pulls out (nice cop out) - then keep voting Republican. They've already told us repeatedly that theirs is the party of war. You like war, vote for them.

Comments (72)| Permanent Link |

What? I thought you liked war, Johnny? Hold those Shia "responsible" for their support of Iran. Hold those Sunnis "responsible" for their support of Syria. Hold them all "responsible" for the poll that said most of them feel that attacks on US troops are justified. Hell, that's not even the government. That came straight from their mouths. I guess it's time to bomb them all to hell.

In conclusion, Johnny Aravosis, Mr. A-list, has, by his own logic, killed quite a few Lebanese children. Maybe someone should "hold him responsible."