Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Rachel Corrie was a US citizen, she was involved in peaceful protests against human rights abuses by the Israeli military. She was deliberately killed by an Israeli bulldozer. How did America react? With indifference.
The biggest problem is the bias in the US media on this issue. Until that changes then people will remain ill-informed and misled. Nothing the Palestinians do will change US policy, change will have to come from within the USA itself which will be hard when the news reports are so biased.
But it doesn’t work as the examples I gave you proved. Westerners who get killed like Tom Hurndall and Rachel Corrie get a lot of media coverage, the average palestinian peace activist gets little coverage if he gets beaten up or shot dead during a protest. The pro-Israel lobby is too powerful to lose influence over human rights abuses otherwise they would have lost influence years ago. The fact is that what matters most to US politicians is their own domestic constituencies. They are not going to jeopardize votes or finance over the persecution of foreigners in a land far away. No senator is going to sacrifice his job over the issue of Palestine. So it’s wishful thinking to assume non-violent portest will make any diffference.
I’m not anti-american, I just oppose certain aspects of US foreign policy. I know a lot of people in the US including serving and ex members of the military. Opinions about government policy vary but my friends are grown up enough to realize that criticism of US foreign policy doesn’t equate to hatred of America. They’d be far more offended by the comments that some people have made about US soldiers than any of my policy criticisms.
Going back to the point, there’s a documentary on the channel 4 news website about tin mines in the DRC that proves my point about exploitation of natural resources. You should also check out http://www.globalwitness.org which explains in detail how the scramble for these resources by richer nations frequently fuels or prolongs conflicts in Africa.
I’m looking at the issue from a legitimacy perspective. The law is not on the side of the Israeli government but is on the side of the ordinary palestinian. If it seems one-sided that’s because legally it pretty much is. Yes the militants break the law when they target civilians but the scale of violations on the Israeli side is much higher. Even today Switzerland condemned Israel for violating the Geneva Conventions in its attacks on civilian infrastructure. The law is clear, Israel must leave the land it took in 1967 and it must respect the rights of innocent civilians. Likewise the militants should not target israeli civilians. Only one-side is occupying and oppressing the other so it is a fairly one-sided affair.
As I already stated, non-violent protests get dealt with brutally with tear gas, baton charges and live ammo. If journalists and paramedics are being shot and killed then what makes you think a demonstrator won’t be? In fact peace activists like Tom Hurndall and Rachel Corrie have been murdered by the Israeli military. They were involved in non-violent protest but were still murdered and defamed.
You could argue the toss about the taking of the Sinai or golan or West bank but the fact remains that it is illegal under the UN charter to take land by war. Security council resolution 242 states clearly that Israel has no right to keep the land it took during the 6 day war. Whatever our opinions the facts are that Israel’s annexation of arab land, its settlements and its wall have no legitimacy under international law. Also its treatment of palestinian civilians has frequently violated the geneva conventions. Those are facts not opinions.
White-trash is just an old american term, commonly used in the South. I guess it’s what they called trailer-trash before they had trailers. It’s used all the time on US tv shows and is not considered racist.
@rubyred wrote:
/apologies to mr bigstuff for warbling to him other night..*shrug* ..I admit my faults :)
When was this?
Getting back to the point, all I’m hearing is just a repetition of the same old stereotypes. You people are obsessed with the size of families which is not really relevant. If a country is poor, the size of a family makes no difference. You’re still going to be poor if you have no kids. As for AIDS, it costs money to do national AIDS awareness and prevention campaigns. Some governments may not have enough resources to adequately inform every single person and to provide medical care for everyone who becomes ill. The problem of education would probably be worse in rural areas.
Also, I keep trying to tell you that its a minority of people who live in abject poverty and squalor like you see in the videos from refugee camps, but the issue of poverty affects entire countries because the states are unable to provide all the services that they should do. The burden of debt and trade restrictions prevent countries from prospering. Africa is rich in natural resources but it is being shaken-down by rich countries who continue to take advantage of Africa’s resources.
As for civil wars and dictators, who is selling them weapons? Who is supporting the dictators? The longest civil war in Africa was the Angolan civil war. The UNITA rebels were being armed and financed by the USA for many many years because it suited america’s cold war objectives. We’re also seeing foreign multi-nationals getting involved in conflicts that surround natural resources such as diamonds or oil.
There will have to be continuous pressure to achieve full debt cancellation and make the trade system fairer (which is the most important issue). Live 8 didn’t make poverty history but it brought the issue of poverty to the top of the agenda. It’s something that needs to be built on.
1 You said attacking a tank was an act of terrorism. You were wrong.
2 Of course if there are clashes between the IDF and militants then the IDF are entitled to shoot enemy combatants.
3 Members of Palestinian militant groups are Palestinian. They are not born to carry out terrorism they are just ordinary people whose frustration with life under brutal occupation drives them into the hands of the hardliners. They are a product of their environment. There are also militant groups who recognize the state of Israel but oppose the occupation.
4 My objection to your posts is that you don’t seem to care about the killing of Palestinian civilians. You actually condone the killing of palestinian civilians while condemning the deaths of Israelis which is both illogical and hypocritical.
5 I never mentioned London and I didn’t justify killing civilians, so you’re way off the mark as usual. They are 2 completely different scenarios anyway.
6 You say nobody negotiates with terrorists which of course is utter nonsense. It happens all the time but on the quiet. Britain did it with the IRA and Israel has done it with Arab terrorist groups. So you’re being a bit naive.
7 The thing to remember about the cross-border attack is that the militants could have attacked a civilian area but chose a military target. Also it’s not as if Israel has not been carrying out acts of violence before, during and after the cross-border raid.The bottom line is that international law requires Israel to leave all the land it took in 1967. All Israeli settlements outside of the state of Israel are illegal as is any part of their wall that is not built on Israeli soil. The 4th Geneva convention also places requirements on Israel with regard to its treatment of non-combatants, requirements that Israel has flagrantly violated for decades. These violations have often amounted to war crimes. International law also prohibits collective punishment so your justification of attacks on palestinian civilians is not valid. You might reject the concept of international law but what is terrorism if not a rejection of international law?
The suicide bombings on civilians are violations of international law too but obviously the lion’s share of the blame for this conflict has to lie with Israel because it has placed itself in direct conflict with its neighbours. It is Israel that has gone beyond its borders not the Palestinians. There is no occupation or annexation of Israeli land by the arabs. The PLO recognized Israel and along with the Arab league offered Israel a comprehensive peace deal but Israel was the one that rejected it. Israel has never offered the Palestinians a complete end to the occupation and it has not accepted the Road-Map in its entirety without pre-conditions.
The annexation of palestinian land, the war crimes, the violations of fundamental human rights and the refusal to negotiate with moderates leaves me in no doubt that Israel must take the majority of the blame for this conflict.
Once again Emma you can’t tell your ar$e from your elbow. Trade is the most important issue with regard to poverty and absolutely nothing was achieved in relation to that issue. At the G8 the excuse was made that everyone had to wait until the WTO talks last december but at the WTO talks nothing was done to create a fairer trade system or to cut subsidies to Western producers. I think Adam Smith in The Wealth Of Nations advocated international trade as a way of creating harmony and prosperity. So all this crap about the size of families is nonsense.
The reason why Africa is poorer since 1984 is largely down to the policies of economic neo-liberalism imposed on countries there by the West. These failed policies ended up benefitting rich western countries but made the african countries poorer. For example many countries were told that they had to open up their markets to Western exports and so their markets were flooded with cheap subsidized produce that harmed domestic production.
Once again you make the mistake of calling all military action by Palestinians terrorism. If a suicide bomber targets a military target then it’s not an act of terrorism. The Palestinians have the right to self-defence and so if Israelis invade their land and attack them they are perfectly entitled to take up arms to resist the Israeli state (excluding civilians). You also seem to forget that the militants are just ordinary people who have had enough of living a life of oppression. You keep saying that the Palestinians should just get on with their lives, but you did not answer how someone can continue farming when their farm gets taken from them so that a settlement can be expanded. What is your answer? How can a farmer farm with no land?
I have never condoned attacks on Israeli civilians but unlike others here I see no difference in the value of an Israeli life compared to a Palestinian life. Killing any civilian is wrong and the fact remains that the Israelis are guilty of killing more civilians than the Palestinians are. So why is it that it’s the Palestinians that get all the blame? The Israeli government has ripped up the Geneva Conventions in the occupied territories and civilians are denied the rights and protections they are entitled to under international law. Yet it’s always the Palestinians who are demonized. The victims of a brutal military annexation of their land are portrayed as the bad guys and the oppressors are portrayed as the good guys.
As for non-violent protest, it hasn’t worked. Non-violent protests get dealt with brutally by use of tear gas, baton charges and live ammo. Even the 1st intifada was supposed to be a form of low-intensity violence. The arabs decided that in the face of overwhelming firepower they would not go toe-to-toe with the Israelis, they decided to throw stones as a protest. To the Israeli soldiers in their armour-plated vehicles there was little danger to them but it was a clear sign of defiance and protest by the Palestinians. Initially, the Israelis didn’t know how to react to the stone-throwing but then the government told the army to go in and start breaking limbs and cracking skulls. Now its commonplace for a stone-thrower of any age to be shot with live ammunition even when there is absolutley no risk to the Israeli soldiers.
It’s easy to sit in the comfort of England and criticize the decision of young men and women to become suicide bombers against Israel but every human being has his or her limit before they will break. It’s unacceptable that Israeli civilians should be killed but these things will happen when you subject people to persecution. There will always be a violent backlash against the oppressor. Our dislike of the violence is irrelevant because the violence is inevitable. If you create a combustible environment then at some point there will be a fire. It’s human nature and it’s inevitable. Push any man far enough and he will become a killer. The only way to stop it is to remove the combustible environment and that can only happen via negotiations and dialogue.
We all know how this situation will play out. There will be carnage on both sides which will lead to the USA pulling its finger out and deciding that something needs to be done and eventually we will see negotiations between the Israeli government and the Palestinian government. So why not just cut out the bloodshed, rhetoric and all the other bullsh1t and just go straight to the negotiations?
You’re off in cloud cuckoo land. First of all, the points I made about national liberation were all valid and germane to this situation. Secondly you keep saying that there’s nothing to stop farmers from farming and fishermen from fishing when obviously there is. You’re in a state of denial. You’re so convinced that your point of view is right that you block out any facts or evidence that contradict your view.
It’s not the farmers and fishermen that are carrying out attacks and even if there were no attacks at all it would not stop their land from being taken or their movement being restricted. When the Oslo peace accords were signed, settlement activity was supposed to cease leading to a removal of the settlements, instead the settlements continued to grow. The taking of land to build settlements is unconnected to any violence. So your far-fetched idea that the farmers could continue farming if there was an end to violence is very naive.
Once again if we follow your argument to its logical conclusion it ends up in nonsense. You say that there can be no negotiation with terrorists and that governments are entitled to do whatever they want in retaliation to terrorist attacks. Thereby you are effectively justifying the attempted genocide in Kosovo. The Serbs were being attacked by the KLA and Milosevic sent in the troops to wipe out the KLA and exact retribution. Applying your logic to this situation then genocide and other war crimes are ok if you were subjected to terrorist attacks. Just like you justify atrocities against the palestinian population because of terrorist attacks, Milosevic justified atrocities against the Kosovar albanian population. You see, your argument is fatally flawed because your reasoning is absurd. If everyone else thought like you we’d be back in the dark ages.
