It is certainly NOT "Republican Americans" who would deny muslims "their right of self-determination".  If anything, it is feckless Europeans and naive-left Americans who would abandon muslims, Tibetans, Cubans, Burmese etc....to their "own" tyrants.  

It is a mark of your "moral relativism" that you seem to think that ANYONE in the muslim world today would have "self-determination".  The only muslims in the Middle East with genuine "self-determination", in the sense of guaranteed (enforced by government) basic INDIVIDUAL human rights, are the muslim citizens of Israel.  Some of them might recognize this, but don't expect most of them to do so.  Blood and etnicity runs much too deep for that (which disproves of course, again, the basic underlying premise of naive-left thinking).   

And what do you mean by their "own" lands?  Everybody in the world sits on someone else's land, in a certain sense.  But only those who continually want to 'undo' history will never know 'peace'. 

If you think that Israel/Palestine is "muslim land", consider the following.  'Jews' were there many centuries before any 'Arabs'.  At the founding of Israel, the jews accepted the UN-mandated partition-plan.  The Arabs rejected it.  They will not accept a nonmuslim/nonarab country anywhere in the Middle East.  They have never accepted  Coptic "self-determination" in Egypt, nor a Berber republic in north Africa, nor a Kurdish republic in the mountains (of Turkey, Irak, Syria), etc... Much more can be said about this, but your assertion of "own lands" is a perfect example of "black and white" thinking.

...of moral relativism.

@ Kapitein

The charge of "a black and white foreign policy outlook" is of course a typical one that is frequently made by moral relativists as an excuse for doing nothing, or for not having to face difficult facts.  It is particularly galling that you put this on the "Reagan administration".  Ronald Reagon knew - much better than you or me - the "black and white" elements of soviet communism.   But that didn't stop him from making a NECESSARY fundamental MORAL judgement that helped to give him sufficient backbone to work for the demise of a monstrous political system, and succeed!. 

If you want a better example of "black and white" thinking, look at the basic premise underlying the thinking of the naive-left (and morally-relativistic) orthodoxy that governs Europe today with regard to immigration policy over the last quarter century or so.  That basic premise was that all cultures are "morally equivalent".  It is of course a nonsense premise that rests on (1) posited ideological dogma and (1) a concomitant refusal to make empirical (and unpleasant) observations about certain nonwestern cultures.  Talking about "black and white", you better look at the incredible stupidity of  so-called (woordkramende) "sofisticated "ideologues who refuse to make observations, as apposed to a very practical man like Reagan.    

...of "moral relativism".

@ Kapitein

Elsewhere on this website I have defined moral relativism as either (1) a refusal to make necessary moral judgements and/or (2) a tendency to posit absurd moral equivalencies.   I fear that the second case applies to you (as it applies to most west-Europeans these days).

You are right that being attacked from both sides of a political spectrum can often be seen as a sign of being "a centrist" politically.  That would certainly apply to all sorts of issues among 'similar' people in 'normal' political struggles in democratic and free polities, where one could assume broad common adherence to basic moral values.  Issues like subsidies to various 'sectors' or companies, or practical voting methods, or legislation governing the telecom industry, etc... These are not directly issues of moral import or judgment which is a matter of personal/individual (moral) virtues. 

But, taking a "centrist" position is not always the "moral" thing to do.  For instance, in the great struggle against nazism in the 1930's, it was not morally just to 'compromise' between freedom and tyranny.   Or, on a smaller scale, if you witness a continuous dispute between 'normal' adults, it may be wise to seek 'accomodation' between reasonable people and reasonable positions.  It may be 'centrist', but it is definitely not moral to seek the middleground between a tolerant person and a murderer.  And it is equally immoral to expect a democratic polity to 'compromise' its survival by forcing accomodation with others who PUBLICLY ADVOCATE its destruction.   But to see this, you must of course be willing TO OBSERVE this latter fact.       

.......

How sick has one to get to hide his/her dirtiness behind the innocence of children? How much lower have journalists and politically correctness to sink before they stop this lowest of the lowest games? I recently saw the movie Die Untergang/The Downfall, depicting the last days of Hitler through the eyes of his personal secretary. The last words of the film were: we all have to look for the truth. This is certainly true for journalists.

In Belgium there are laws to bring non-Belgians to trial in Belgium for crimes against humanity committed outside Belgium. Why not start in Belgium by revealing the complete gruesome truth of the ultimate child abuse? Why not stop hiding behind politically correctness in Belgium, because the costs are getting too disgustingly high? Why pointing abroad?

Of course we have to see those pictures, as proof of the ultimate child abuse, as the ultimate proof of the failure of politically correctness: in order to stay alive it is willing to destroy its own goal: innocence.

Of course we have to see these pictures: nothing but the gruesome truth. The problem is that we’re not told the complete story behind those pictures.

The first thing responsible adults do when they are going to use fire weapons is to remove children. In this case the opposite was done: Hezbollah actively seeks out places where children are present. Why else wouldn’t they be hiding in the countryside, as responsible adults would do?

It is not the showing of the pictures but refusing to tell the full story which is profoundly disgusting: the abuse of children. Indeed Hezbollah can only do this as long as it is sure of a very willing accomplice: the politically correct western media. In stead of revealing the complete and horrible truth, they join this ‘game’, playing with children’s lives, just for reasons of political correctness. We don’t have to go that far back in Europe’s history where the lives of children appeared so low on the totem pole of the then politically correct value system.

.....

Fifth, it is interesting that you mention the Shebaa Farms because the UN has declared these as part of Syria, not Lebanon.  So, that 'excuse' for Lebanese aggression falls flat on its face.  Of course, personally I don't take anything coming out of the craven UN too seriously, but I note that apologists (for radical islamists as proxies for Iran) like yourself, do not either. Fascinating.

Talking about "nobler causes" must be very difficult for you, since it requires an extraordinary amount of foolishness, or willful blindness, NOT to see the reality of the kind of political systems operating in places like Iran, Syria, and yes Lebanon.  I guess you follow the old dictum, 'when something is too ugly to look at, look away, and maybe it will go away and not harm us'.  Well, you are wrong and you obviously do not know history as the best predictor (there is) of the future.

First, yes there are more civilian 'victims' on the Lebanese side.  That's because Hezbollah hides behind (and among) civilians, wheras it is the Israeli military that is going after the Hezbollah (and not Israeli civilians).

Second, in what sense "equate"?  Israel does not tolerate terrorists and 'private armies' in its midst, whereas Lebanon does?  How would you describe a 'polity' that tolerates terrorists on its territory to attack its neighbour?  Irresponsible?  Welcome to Arabia.

Third, I understand you to say that when A gets attacked by B, A would have to respond "proportionately" to B's despicable behavior.  Easy to say for you from behind the NATO umbrella.  I hope you realise that Flahaut does not provide any kind of umbrella.  But perhaps that is idle hope.  

Fourth, I understand you to say that it is OK for Hezbollah to attack Israel, and your excuse is the "Golan Heights".  In other words, the Arab propaganda machine can play you like a yoyo.  If you were attacked four times in the last half century from the same neighbouring "heights" by armies from totalitarian neighbours who all say (in their own language, of course, not for the consumption of naive Belgians) that they want to destroy you, wouldn't you insist first on a negotiated 'peace treaty' before handing back those "heights"?  Come to think of it, given the state of 'kopindegronderij' of contemporary Belgians, perhaps you would not.  

....

"against ... Israelis in the Golan Heights which are illegally occupied"

The reason the Golan is occupied is because Israel and Syria are at war. There is nothing "illegal" about this occupation.

If Syria wants to sue for peace, nobody is preventing them.

And, using the same reasoning, you can justify any terrorist attack in Turkey because the "illegal occupation of Cyprus".

Those of us, like myself, who have worked in the media know how true this is. Death (like sex) sells.