Tuesday, July 25, 2006

A plea for help

Doctors of the World - Greece has reported that conditions in Lebanon are far worse than anything shown on the news. They have issued a plea for help - if you can donate medicine, canned food, long life milk, children's formula, or money - the humanitarian effort in Lebanon is desperate for help of all kinds.

The bank numbers for financial donations for Doctors of the World - Greece in Greece are:

  • National Bank of Greece: 141/29611217
  • Emporiki Bank: 001-29534144 (Athens) and 428/59749064 (Thessaloniki)
  • Alpha Bank: 199-00-2002-002401

If you are outside Greece and interested in helping the efforts in Lebanon, contact the Red Cross. I'm not sure of other programs within Doctors of the World or Doctors without Borders that are in Lebanon at the moment, but I am sure they will be. Still, if you want to make donations specifically for the crisis in Lebanon, make sure you ask before you donate.

UPDATE: Adding a link for UNICEF donations, thanks to Sandra for reminding me about this agency.


Sandra said...

I can't believe how much the U.S. media is under-reporting the actual conditions in Lebanon. I have been reading articles and first-hand accounts from around the world, and when I compare that to what is in most U.S. media, the difference is shocking. More than 500,000 have been forced from their homes, the injuries are horrendous, and supplies can't get to the hospitals. It's such a huge disaster (and yes, I'm donating through UNICEF! Your post is a great reminder to those of us who have extra).


Are the good Doctors of Greece helping the Israeli civilians who have been bombarded by the Hezbollah terrorists also?

Helping the Lebanese is something the world is interested in doing, but ignoring the Israeli injured and dead is shameful, and typical anti-semetic behavior.

Apparently, there is enough goodwill towards Lebanon and the terrorists. I think I'll send my money to Israel and help people nobody cares about.

It's real easy to overlook, but don't forget how this started. It was the Hezbollah terrorists who killed and kidnapped Israeli soldiers. I suppose all you good people think Israel should just take it on the chin each time someone attacks them. What's good enough for Hitler is good enough for others I suppose. Some memories fade easier than others.

Anonymous said...

zardoz says :

X -_-_-_-_-_-_- X

Anonymous said...

Interesting to note how quickly accusations of anti-semitism can pop up. Israel has the right to exist, but this is a completely different matter. On a side note, maybe Israel needs to do a better job of securing its borders.



Yes, you are right. Securing the border would be best. But, unfortunately, difficult. Maybe they could build a wall around Israel similar to the one in Berlin after WWII. Sad, but maybe if Israel closed itself off from the riff-raff, many of it's problems might die down. In fact, since Israel has such a lot of money, why not just fire all the Arabs or Palestinians from their jobs and hire only Israelis or Americans to do the jobs in their country. If you financially discriminate against these terrorists (Arab and otherwise) maybe that would get their attention.

Wouldn't it be funny to see a bunch of regular type Americans working in Israel doing the manual labor jobs that no one else will do. Hell, Americans already do it in Saudi Arabia (for good pay).

Good point Anon

Smitty said...

The Hezbollah and Hamas provocations against Israel once again demonstrate how terrorists exploit human rights and the media in their attacks on democracies.

By hiding behind their own civilians the Islamic radicals issue a challenge to democracies: Either violate your own morality by coming after us and inevitably killing some innocent civilians, or maintain your morality and leave us with a free hand to target your innocent civilians.

This challenge presents democracies such as Israel with a lose-lose option, and the terrorists with a win-win option.

There is one variable that could change this dynamic and present democracies with a viable option that could make terrorism less attractive as a tactic: The international community, the anti-Israel segment of the media and the so called "human rights" organizations could stop falling for this terrorist gambit and acknowledge that they are being used to promote the terrorist agenda.

Whenever a democracy is presented with the lose-lose option and chooses to defend its citizens by going after the terrorists who are hiding among civilians, this trio of predictable condemners can be counted on by the terrorists to accuse the democracy of "overreaction," "disproportionality" and "violations of human rights."

In doing so they play right into the hands of the terrorists, causing more terrorism and more civilian casualties on both sides.

If instead this trio could, for once, be counted on to blame the terrorists for the civilian deaths on both sides, this tactic would no longer be a win-win situation for the terrorists.

IT SHOULD BE obvious by now that Hezbollah and Hamas actually want the Israeli military to kill as many Lebanese and Palestinian civilians as possible. That is why they store their rockets underneath the beds of civilians; why they launch their missiles from crowded civilian neighborhoods and hide among civilians. They are seeking to induce Israel to defend its civilians by going after them among their civilian "shields." They know that every civilian they induce Israel to kill hurts Israel in the media and the international and human rights communities.

They regard these human shields as shahids - martyrs - even if they did not volunteer for this lethal job. Under the law, criminals who use human shields are responsible for the deaths of the shields, even if the bullet that kills them came from the gun of a policeman.

Israel has every self-interest in minimizing civilian casualties, whereas the terrorists have every self-interest in maximizing them - on both sides. Israel should not be condemned for doing what every democracy would and should do: taking every reasonable military step to stop the terrorists from killing their innocent civilians.

NOW THAT some of those who are launching rockets at Israeli cities have announced they have new surprises in store for Israel that may include chemical and biological weapons, the stakes have gotten even higher.

What would Israeli critics regard as "proportioned" to a chemical or biological attack? What would they say if Israel tried to preempt such an attack and, in the process, killed some civilians? Must a democracy absorb a first strike from a weapon of mass destruction before it fights back? Would any other democracy be expected to do that?

The world must come to recognize the cynical way in which terrorists exploit civilian casualties. They launch anti-personnel rockets designed to maximize enemy civilian casualties, then they cry "human rights" when their own civilians - behind whom they are deliberately hiding - are killed by the democracies in the process of trying to prevent further acts of terrorism.

The very idea that terrorists who use women and children as suicide bombers against other women and children shed crocodile tears over the deaths of civilians they deliberately put in harm's way gives new meaning to the word "hypocrisy." We all know that hypocrisy is a tactic of the terrorists, but it is shocking that others fall for it and become complicit with the terrorists.

Let the blame fall where it belongs: on the terrorists who deliberately seek to kill enemy civilians and give their democratic enemies little choice but to kill some civilians behind whom the terrorists are hiding.

Those who condemn Israel for killing civilians - who are used as human shields and swords for the terrorists - actually cause more civilian deaths and make it harder for Israel to withdraw from the West Bank.

HOW THE WORLD reacts to Israel's current military efforts to protect its citizens will have a considerable impact on future Israeli steps toward peace. Prior to the recent kidnappings and rocket attacks the Israeli government had announced its intention to engage in further withdrawals from large portions of the West Bank.

But how can Israel be expected to move forward with any plan for withdrawal if all it can expect in return is more terrorism - what the terrorists regard as "land for rocket launchings" - and more condemnation when it seeks to protect its civilians.

Thanos said...

Smitty, are you ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ of THE JERUSALEM POST? If not, you'd best give credit to the author of the article, or - better yet - post an original thought.

Smitty said...


I actually received it as an email from a friend. I didn't know the source but then again I did not claim it as mine either.

After a quick Google search, I realize that the Jerusalem Post was not the only periodical that the article was published in, but also a few American newspapers as well.

More telling is that you point out my gaffe but have no other challenge to this wonderful article. With all the anti-Semitic propaganda we see on a daily basis, an article such as this is a breath of fresh air.

However, I do wonder if I had posted a pro-terrorist (Hizbullah) article would you have tried to embarass me in the childish manner you attempted?

Anonymous said...

zardoz says :

hiya thanos,,,

could you please recomend a psychologist for the

achooo aw jew ,

and the smitty fellow ,

because if you do not
i will consider coming
to meet you ,, and giving
my permission to be commited
to a crazy house ,,,
because the above comments
are used by peoples who are not in crazy houses,,,,and are walking around......................?

whats their difference with

xm..jonh wayne gacy..?


melusina said...

Actually, Smitty, Ah Ah Ah Jew, Scruffy American, whoever you happen to be, by posting something and not citing a source you are in fact claiming it to be your own. You are welcome to quote articles here, but give your source, even if it came in email and you don't know who wrote it.

By the way, you do realize that Semites constitute more than just the Jewish population - it encompasses a broad sweep of people in the Middle East. People like you must like persecuting the Jews by using the term "anti-Semite".

Personally, I stated before, I don't take sides in this battle. Israel is wrong for going about this in the way they are, and Hezbollah is wrong for putting the people of Lebanon in such jeopardy by their terrorist actions. I am, of course, concerned about people in Lebanon, because they are a country in a great deal of transition and they are getting lambasted unfairly. They actually don't have the same medical resources that the Israelis do, and the casualty numbers in Lebanon are much, much higher.

If I take a side in this whole mess, it is the side of the people - of Israel, of Palestine, of Lebanon, who are caught up in a mess caused by politicians and politics.

I think the liberals who are all chanting pro-Hezbollah chants are wrong too, by the way. But the people of Lebanon have been caught in the middle of this, and they deserve the world's help.

Smitty said...


Thanks for clarifying. I will be clearer about posting quotes from now on.

Regarding the term Semitic, I've used and heard this term used but not like you mentioned. I'll have to read up on what you mentioned to see if I should update my vocabulary.

You are right. Both sides in this conflict are wrong in some way because (I agree) that war is not a pretty thing. However, as a person who supports Jews in general, I feel that the world just doesn't have that many people supporting them and that's why I feel obligated as a decent person to support the underdog. If you open any news source (including BBC and CNN) you'll find that most are siding with the Hizbullah and Lebanon.

Thank you for being civil with me about this issue unlike other mean people I've encountered on other blogs.