I really do want to talk and have been able to do with lots of other people. I don't think I demanded a response to what I posted - I was fed up with what I see as a seriously one-sided tone a few people are bringing to this thread. I'm happy to try and engage with your criticisms of the original article if you can phrase them in a more balanced manner and at least acknowledge that the guy who wrote it - and adopted a position most reasonable people would view as centrist - isn't totally full of shit. I don't accept your main argument that because Israel is currently the stronger power any attempt to look at the situation in a measured way means you're siding with Israel. So in that sense it's difficult for us to engage with each other because we're starting from fundamentally different assumptions.
I really think, Fuck, that your insistence that Israel is the lone villain in all of this, and the only way to deal with the situation being force is weak. Think. Actually think harder than simply pointing fingers. Resolutions and peace at large does not come from the mundane. It comes from the courageous, the risk-takers, and those willing to Work Together for progress. Not working alone and using force. That's for the weak.
Your insistence that your stance is the only stance and anger at anyone with a differing opinion will keep those wheels spinning in circles.
I really do want to talk and have been able to do with lots of other people. I don't think I demanded a response to what I posted - I was fed up with what I see as a seriously one-sided tone a few people are bringing to this thread. I'm happy to try and engage with your criticisms of the original article if you can phrase them in a more balanced manner and at least acknowledge that the guy who wrote it - and adopted a position most reasonable people would view as centrist - isn't totally full of shit. I don't accept your main argument that because Israel is currently the stronger power any attempt to look at the situation in a measured way means you're siding with Israel. So in that sense it's difficult for us to engage with each other because we're starting from fundamentally different assumptions.
So to summarize your post you're saying, "I'm happy to talk to you, but you disagree with me too much so I can't". And I'm the unreasonable one?
I really think, Fuck, that your insistence that Israel is the lone villain in all of this, and the only way to deal with the situation being force is weak. Think. Actually think harder than simply pointing fingers. Resolutions and peace at large does not come from the mundane. It comes from the courageous, the risk-takers, and those willing to Work Together for progress. Not working alone and using force. That's for the weak.
Your insistence that your stance is the only stance and anger at anyone with a differing opinion will keep those wheels spinning in circles.
No it won't. Cause while you're smokin the peace pipe and painting each other's faces, the movement to boycott, divest from, and sanction Israel is growing worldwide, as more people are made aware of the historic injustices Israel has inflicted upon the Palestinian people, as well as the occupation that continues to this day.
I suppose history will judge who stood with the oppressors and who didn't. Remember the quote I believe by Desmond Tutu, if you are neutral in a situation of injustice you have chosen the side of the oppressor. Good night BSL.
I really think, Fuck, that your insistence that Israel is the lone villain in all of this, and the only way to deal with the situation being force is weak. Think. Actually think harder than simply pointing fingers. Resolutions and peace at large does not come from the mundane. It comes from the courageous, the risk-takers, and those willing to Work Together for progress. Not working alone and using force. That's for the weak.
Your insistence that your stance is the only stance and anger at anyone with a differing opinion will keep those wheels spinning in circles.
No it won't. Cause while you're smokin the peace pipe and painting each other's faces, the movement to boycott, divest from, and sanction Israel is growing worldwide, as more people are made aware of the historic injustices Israel has inflicted upon the Palestinian people, as well as the occupation that continues to this day.
I suppose history will judge who stood with the oppressors and who didn't. Remember the quote I believe by Desmond Tutu, if you are neutral in a situation of injustice you have chosen the side of the oppressor. Good night BSL.
Try working on that anger and insistence of being right. There are many others out there who's opinions matter as much as yours. And Dancin is right. Working for progress and understanding is not being neutral, it's thinking above the black and white that so many are only willing to see. Good night.
An article for anyone who is willing to think differently. This part stood out, relates to this thread with it's high emotions and that finding peace starts at home. Score-settling action will be the source of future conflict. Using force will not solve this situation. It will not bring peace where peace is due.
.If we want to make peace, with ourselves and with the world at large, we have to look closely at the source of all of our wars. So often, it seems, we want to “settle the score,” which means getting our revenge, our payback. We want others to feel what we have felt. It means getting even, but it really doesn’t have anything to do with evenness at all. It is, in fact, a highly charged emotional reaction.
Underlying all of these thoughts and emotions is our basic intelligence, our basic wisdom. We all have it and we can all uncover it. It can grow and expand and become more accessible to us as a tool of peacemaking and a tool of happiness for ourselves and for others. But this intelligence is obscured by emotional reactivity when our experience becomes more about us than about them, more about self than about other. That is war...
Settling the Score
If we started to think about and talk about and make an in-depth exploration of the various wars around the world, we would probably get very churned up. Thinking about wars can indeed get us really worked up. If we did that, we would have plenty of emotional reactivity to work with, because despite all the teachings we may have heard and all the practice we may have done, our knee-jerk reaction is to get highly activated. Before long, we start focusing on those people who caused the whole thing. We get ourselves going and then at some irrational level, we start wanting to settle the score, to get the bad guy and make him pay. But what if we could think of all of those wars and do something that would really cause peace to be the result? Where communication from the heart would be the result? Where the outcome would be more together rather than more split apart?
In a way, that would really be settling the score. That would really be getting even. But settling the score doesn’t usually mean that. It means I want my side to win and the other side to lose. They deserve to lose because of what they’ve done. The side that I want to lose can be an individual in my life or a government. It can be a type or group of people. It can be anything or anyone I point the finger at. I get quite enraged thinking about how they’re responsible for everything, so of course I want to settle the score. It’s only natural.
We all do this. But in so doing we become mired in what the Buddhist teachings refer to as samsara. We use a method to relate to our pain. We use a method to relate to the underlying groundlessness and feelings of insecurity. We feel that things are out of control, that they are definitely not going the way we want them to go. But our method to heal the anguish of things not going the way we want them to is what Dzigar Kongtrul Rinpoche calls pouring kerosene on the fire to put it out.
We bite the hook and escalate the emotional reactivity. We speak out and we act out. The terrorists blow up the bus and then the army comes in to settle the score. It might be better to pause and reflect on how the terrorists got to the place where they were so full of hatred that they wanted to blow up a bus of innocent people. Is the score really settled? Or is the very thing that caused the bus to be blown up in the first place now escalating? Look at this cycle in your own life and in your own experience. See if it is happening: Are you trying to settle the score?
His Holiness the Dalai Lama has said that he promotes the non-violent, non-aggressive approach to the Chinese occupation of Tibet, despite the fact that things thing are getting much worse. He takes this approach because he sees that violence is bound to create long-term resentment in others. This is basic intelligence shining through. Basic intelligence recognizes that the resentment caused by a violent response, by a score-settling action, will be the source of future conflict.
What I am wondering about is, so if people decide on a two-state solution - how will this work out. Will they draw back the borders to what they have been in 1947? The people who had to flee from their land can go back and reclaim it? What will the people do who have lived there since back then? Can something like this happen peacefully? It somehow did in Germany after the country came back together. There were personal tragedies, but they were of course not comparable to what is going on in the Middle East right now. Would there be a peaceful solution that is not going to start another battleground?
Please, Pearl Jam, consider a Benaroya Hall vinyl reissue!
Keep fighting. It just keeps you spinning your wheels, going absolutely nowhere. No one is really interested in peace for the people when they insist on choosing sides. People would rather spin their wheels than to work for actual progress, solutions and ultimately peace. Because that means actually working together and eating our stupid pride.
You're just making excuses for doing nothing. And all that your lazy apathetic selfishness achieves is that it benefits the aggressor in this conflict, and allows a prolongation of the suffering of those under occupation.
But what's actually incredibly offensive and disrespectful is that not only do you profess to not give a fuck about the people being occupied, and oppressed, but that you feel you should try to convince others to adopt that same attitude.
I honestly want you to stop thinking about the situation as you and all the other finger-pointers have been, and start thinking about resolution. Resolution.
Finger pointers? Were those who criticized and condemned the Apartheid regime in South Africa 'finger pointers'? Would you have told them to quit pointing their fingers and to drop their ego's and just hug one another, too? It's a good job there weren't many people like you around then, or the blacks in South Africa would probably still be getting beaten, tortured, and machine-gunned to this day.
Do you really think that that force on the Israeli govt will cause peace? Has war ever caused peace?
Who said anything about supporting war? Nobody did. So why do you keep pretending that those of us who are calling for Israel to comply with it's obligations under international law are pro-war? Seems to me like you've concocted a convenient self-serving fantasy in your head about what peoples motivations ad intentions are, and despite all evidence to the contrary you refuse to let go of your fantasy.
Me saying that we got to get over ourselves and actually work with each other to solve these complicated issues always go unnoticed. Because no one wants to hear that. No one wants to really think about it. Because the blame game, the anger... That's much more interesting (to the few).
Or maybe what it boils down to is that on one side you have those people calling for international law to be implemented, and not vetoed by the U.S, and on the other you have those people desperately making excuses for Israel, and repeatedly lying through their teeth, so that it can perpetuate it's race war against the Palestinians.
But I know you don't care about that, because you have zero interest in the issue. You like to pretend that 'both sides are to blame' because it means you can preach to us all about love, and understanding, and open-mindedness, and Mother Theresa. (Would you have said the same thing during WWII when Jews were being driven away to the death factories? Were both sides to blame then too? The Jewish partisan groups killed people. They resorted to force. Therefore, were 'both sides to blame'? Should they have just let go of their egos and worked with each other, and not pointed fingers?)
Not for nothing backseatlover, but for someone preaching all about peace, you sure are coming off very angry in your posts. Which I think is pretty ironic. You're going at byrnzie non stop and then you're taking jabs at others with your finger pointing comment.
Let me ask you a question, do you have any kids? I'm just wondering maybe if that mite have some effect on your stance. Because most if not all that do have kids and are posting, they're posting how awful and fucked up the indiscriminate bombings are. They're not attacking posters but are actually angry and sad at the actual events. I'm not calling you out, just trying to help myself understand your stance.
I really believe that there are a few people on this thread they would very strongly considering punching another member here in the head if the two should happen to meet. That's the vibe I get. Sorry if anyone doesn't want to hear that.
This thread is no longer about being against war or even about finding solutions for the conflict in Gaza. Don't kid yourselves. It's about several other things though- anger, the need to be right, the little jolt of satisfaction to the ego one gets by clever caricaturing of another in vague or generalized or sarcastic terms, the pride of believing one is more well informed than another and doing ones best to prove to everyone else how righteous and correct we are. Famous for 15 minutes, full of shit 8% of the time. All of us. And no one here has all the answers. I'd bet on that any day.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I can't imagine Wiesel simply spouting propaganda.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.609096 The London Times refused to run an ad featuring Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel speaking out against Hamas’ use of children as human shields.
...Headlined “Jews rejected child sacrifice 3,500 years ago. Now it’s Hamas turn,” the ad began running last week. It reads, in part: “In my own lifetime, I have seen Jewish children thrown into the fire. And now I have seen Muslim children used as human shields, in both cases, by worshippers of death cults indistinguishable from that of the Molochites.
“What we are suffering through today is not a battle of Jew versus Arab or Israeli versus Palestinian. Rather, it is a battle between those who celebrate life and those who champion death. It is a battle of civilization versus barbarism.”
I agree that the Elie Wiesel add is over the top. But so is Hamas's charter. It's up to others to try and work towards a solution, which doesn't mean just yelling "Fuck the oppressors" in a self-righteous way all the time. I don't think the majority of the folks in this thread are doing that - just a few.
I really believe that there are a few people on this thread they would very strongly considering punching another member here in the head if the two should happen to meet. That's the vibe I get. Sorry if anyone doesn't want to hear that.
This thread is no longer about being against war or even about finding solutions for the conflict in Gaza. Don't kid yourselves. It's about several other things though- anger, the need to be right, the little jolt of satisfaction to the ego one gets by clever caricaturing of another in vague or generalized or sarcastic terms, the pride of believing one is more well informed than another and doing ones best to prove to everyone else how righteous and correct we are. Famous for 15 minutes, full of shit 8% of the time. All of us. And no one here has all the answers. I'd bet on that any day.
I agree with this, and certainly have been guilty of aggression myself since I started participating. I'm interested in finding ground to move forward on, even on a place as trivial as a messageboard, and only get aggressive when I feel others are absolutely not even willing to consider modifying their opinions or the possibility they may not be wholly correct. I don't claim to be wholly correct, but I do know narrow-mindedness and rigidity when I see it.
What I am wondering about is, so if people decide on a two-state solution - how will this work out. Will they draw back the borders to what they have been in 1947? The people who had to flee from their land can go back and reclaim it? What will the people do who have lived there since back then? Can something like this happen peacefully? It somehow did in Germany after the country came back together. There were personal tragedies, but they were of course not comparable to what is going on in the Middle East right now. Would there be a peaceful solution that is not going to start another battleground?
I think 1947 borders with a UN controlled Jerusalem is one viable option.
Not for nothing backseatlover, but for someone preaching all about peace, you sure are coming off very angry in your posts. Which I think is pretty ironic. You're going at byrnzie non stop and then you're taking jabs at others with your finger pointing comment.
Let me ask you a question, do you have any kids? I'm just wondering maybe if that mite have some effect on your stance. Because most if not all that do have kids and are posting, they're posting how awful and fucked up the indiscriminate bombings are. They're not attacking posters but are actually angry and sad at the actual events. I'm not calling you out, just trying to help myself understand your stance.
I stopped even reading Byrnzie's posts quite a while ago, except for one post supporting JimmyV's opinion from a different thread. I guess you relate being peaceful to being a walking mat? And, for the record… I do have kids. Which is why I'm passionate about peace.
What I am wondering about is, so if people decide on a two-state solution - how will this work out. Will they draw back the borders to what they have been in 1947? The people who had to flee from their land can go back and reclaim it? What will the people do who have lived there since back then? Can something like this happen peacefully? It somehow did in Germany after the country came back together. There were personal tragedies, but they were of course not comparable to what is going on in the Middle East right now. Would there be a peaceful solution that is not going to start another battleground?
Yeah, I'm wondering the same thing. That's why I keep repeating, what does a real resolution look like? Forcing Israel to back down is using a violent act, and violence only begets violence. It certainly doesn't cause peace. So far, Leeze, you are one of the few really attempting to think what peace would look like. I'm merely attempting to get people to actually start thinking in that direction rather than spinning the wheels of anger and finger pointing. Because, that gets us no where. You'd think more this concept would get into more people's heads.
I really believe that there are a few people on this thread they would very strongly considering punching another member here in the head if the two should happen to meet. That's the vibe I get. Sorry if anyone doesn't want to hear that.
This thread is no longer about being against war or even about finding solutions for the conflict in Gaza. Don't kid yourselves. It's about several other things though- anger, the need to be right, the little jolt of satisfaction to the ego one gets by clever caricaturing of another in vague or generalized or sarcastic terms, the pride of believing one is more well informed than another and doing ones best to prove to everyone else how righteous and correct we are. Famous for 15 minutes, full of shit 8% of the time. All of us. And no one here has all the answers. I'd bet on that any day.
backseatLover12 (and to a lesser degree Leezestarr313), there is a very big distinction to be made between pointing fingers and taking positions. For example, as a politician, you're unlikely to receive respect in justifying a political action until you take a position. Is there anger here? Sure. But there's also a lot of good discussion, and viable solutions have been discussed (they are actually littered amongst the plethora of discussions around these forums).
As for what a 'real resolution' looks like, that's still foggy to me. I think at the very least, retreating to 1967 borders, liberating Gaza and the West Bank and allowing them to govern themselves, pushing the fishing boundaries a more reasonable distance and giving financial assistance to allow Gaza to recover from the primarily Israel-imposed devastation in the region would be a great start.
For those who cite security issues, I believe (and someone with a better concept of international law can confirm or deny this) Israel at that point would be entitled to fortify their agreed-upon borders, and it would be solely in the hands of the Palestinian Unity Government to assuage the security concerns of neighbouring countries (Israel included) in order to create their own trade agreements with them.
Edit: Just to clarify - when I say this would be a great "start", I mean that. I think far more is owed to the Palestinian people than what I've mentioned.
Post edited by benjs on
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
backseatLover12 (and to a lesser degree Leezestarr313), there is a very big distinction to be made between pointing fingers and taking positions. For example, as a politician, you're unlikely to receive respect in justifying a political action until you take a position. Is there anger here? Sure. But there's also a lot of good discussion, and viable solutions have been discussed (they are actually littered amongst the plethora of discussions around these forums).
As for what a 'real resolution' looks like, that's still foggy to me. I think at the very least, retreating to 1967 borders, liberating Gaza and the West Bank and allowing them to govern themselves, pushing the fishing boundaries a more reasonable distance and giving financial assistance to allow Gaza to recover from the primarily Israel-imposed devastation in the region would be a great start.
For those who cite security issues, I believe (and someone with a better concept of international law can confirm or deny this) Israel at that point would be entitled to fortify their agreed-upon borders, and it would be solely in the hands of the Palestinian Unity Government to assuage the security concerns of neighbouring countries (Israel included) in order to create their own trade agreements with them.
Edit: Just to clarify - when I say this would be a great "start", I mean that. I think far more is owed to the Palestinian people than what I've mentioned.
Yeah, I'm wondering the same thing. That's why I keep repeating, what does a real resolution look like? Forcing Israel to back down is using a violent act, and violence only begets violence. It certainly doesn't cause peace. So far, Leeze, you are one of the few really attempting to think what peace would look like. I'm merely attempting to get people to actually start thinking in that direction rather than spinning the wheels of anger and finger pointing. Because, that gets us no where. You'd think more this concept would get into more people's heads.
You sound like a broken record playing to an empty room. And I couldn't care less whether you read my posts or not. I'm still gonna respond to your gibberish for the benefit of others.
What does a resolution look like? A resolution looks like the resolution that's already accepted by the whole World, and which has been repeatedly blocked by the U.S, which uses it's power of automatic veto to prevent it's implementation. But I know you don't care about these details. And once again you continue pretending that anybody in this thread has called for 'more violence'. I'm not sure why you insist on perpetuating this fantasy.
Can Israel Claim Self-Defense Against the Territory It Occupies? International Jurist John Dugard Says No.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: John Dugard, you have also made comparisons between apartheid South Africa and the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories. Could you elaborate on what you think the similarities are?
JOHN DUGARD: Well, if I look at the situation in Palestine, which I know very well as former special rapporteur, if I look at it as a former South African, then I see very similar circumstances prevailing in Palestine as prevailed in South Africa during apartheid. But I think it’s also important to look at the situation in terms of the 1973 United Nations Convention on the Suppression of Apartheid, which defines apartheid and which applies it to situations beyond southern Africa. And essentially, it requires three conditions: first of all, that there should be two groups. Here, there are clearly two groups: the Palestinians and the Israelis. Secondly, that the governing group should commit inhumane acts against the subject group. And that clearly is happening in the occupied Palestinian territory. Israel has subjected the Palestinians to all sorts of inhumane acts. And then, thirdly, this should be done with the intention of maintaining the domination. And one can draw that inference from the presence of settlers in the West Bank, because today one has some 600,000 settlers in the West Bank who actually constitute a colonial enterprise. And as with all colonies, the colonial peoples—or, the colonial power subjects the colonized people to domination. And so, if one looks at these three conditions, I think it’s clear that, in terms of the 1973 Convention on Apartheid, Israel’s policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territory are tantamount to apartheid.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And John Dugard, how do you respond to Israel’s argument that in fact it was attacking Gaza only in self-defense? Your article, of course, is titled "Debunking Israel’s Self-Defense Argument." So could you lay out what you say there?
JOHN DUGARD: Well, it’s very important for Israel that it should portray itself as the victim in the present conflict. And President Obama and both houses of Congress have endorsed the view that Israel acts in self-defense. But as I see the situation, it is very different. Gaza is an occupied territory. It’s part of the occupied Palestinian territory. The fact that Israel has withdrawn its ground troops, or had before the present incursion, does not mean that it is no longer the occupying power, because it has always retained control, effective control, over the territory of Gaza. That’s the test in international law: effective control. Israel controls Gaza by means of the land crossings, by controlling the air space and the sea space, and by carrying out repeated incursions into the territory.
So given the fact that Gaza is an occupied territory, it means that Israel’s present assault on Gaza is simply a way of enforcing the continuation of the occupation, and the response of the Palestinian militants should be seen as the response of an occupied people that wishes to resist the occupation. It has taken this resistance into Israel itself, but it still remains resistance. And I think it would be very helpful to see the occupation of Gaza in the same context as one might see, for instance, the occupation of, shall we say, Netherlands during the Second World War by Germany. It’s an occupied territory, and if Israel uses force against the occupied territory, it’s not acting in self-defense. It’s acting as an occupying power.
...AMY GOODMAN: Could the U.S. be charged with war crimes, as well? I mean, in United States common law, felony murder, it’s both the person who commits the murder and the one who provides the gun. By Friday, when I don’t know how many people had been killed at that point, say, 1,400 Palestinians, the U.S. said they were resupplying Israel with ammunition.
KENNETH ROTH: Yeah. I mean, I wouldn’t hold your breath on a prosecution, but I do think you bring up a valid point, Amy, which is that the U.S., under U.S. law, should not be sending weapons when they’re going to be used to commit war crimes. And so, if U.S. wants to send, you know, the Iron Dome anti-missile defense to Israel, nobody’s going to quarrel with that. But to continue sending Israel the kind of weapons that it’s using to commit war crimes in Gaza should stop. And, you know, there is a precedent for this. I mean, even Ronald Reagan stopped sending cluster munitions to Israel when it was using them indiscriminately in Lebanon. But President Obama, you know, isn’t going to touch that
i think there's more common ground on this forum than people realize, even among people starting from seemingly opposite positions, but it's important to realize that not everybody who defends some of what Israel does hates Palestinians or wants to see them suffer.
So if Israel relinquished air, sea, and land crossing control over Gaza, it'd be a start. I agree.
I can actually see a loosening of restrictions on both Gaza and the West Bank now that the Palestinians are signing up to the ICC. Let's not kid ourselves, the Israeli leadership are shitting themselves about this. It's only a matter of time now before the whole lot of them end up in the Hague charged with multiple war crimes and crimes against humanity. And it's also a possibility - I'm not too sure about this - that certain individuals from Israel's chief sponsor and provider of arms - the U.S - will also end up there.
Comments
Your insistence that your stance is the only stance and anger at anyone with a differing opinion will keep those wheels spinning in circles.
And with that, I wish you a good night.
I suppose history will judge who stood with the oppressors and who didn't. Remember the quote I believe by Desmond Tutu, if you are neutral in a situation of injustice you have chosen the side of the oppressor. Good night BSL.
But what's actually incredibly offensive and disrespectful is that not only do you profess to not give a fuck about the people being occupied, and oppressed, but that you feel you should try to convince others to adopt that same attitude.
But I know you don't care about that, because you have zero interest in the issue. You like to pretend that 'both sides are to blame' because it means you can preach to us all about love, and understanding, and open-mindedness, and Mother Theresa.
(Would you have said the same thing during WWII when Jews were being driven away to the death factories? Were both sides to blame then too? The Jewish partisan groups killed people. They resorted to force. Therefore, were 'both sides to blame'? Should they have just let go of their egos and worked with each other, and not pointed fingers?)
Let me ask you a question, do you have any kids? I'm just wondering maybe if that mite have some effect on your stance. Because most if not all that do have kids and are posting, they're posting how awful and fucked up the indiscriminate bombings are. They're not attacking posters but are actually angry and sad at the actual events. I'm not calling you out, just trying to help myself understand your stance.
This thread is no longer about being against war or even about finding solutions for the conflict in Gaza. Don't kid yourselves. It's about several other things though- anger, the need to be right, the little jolt of satisfaction to the ego one gets by clever caricaturing of another in vague or generalized or sarcastic terms, the pride of believing one is more well informed than another and doing ones best to prove to everyone else how righteous and correct we are. Famous for 15 minutes, full of shit 8% of the time. All of us. And no one here has all the answers. I'd bet on that any day.
The London Times refused to run an ad featuring Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel speaking out against Hamas’ use of children as human shields.
...Headlined “Jews rejected child sacrifice 3,500 years ago. Now it’s Hamas turn,” the ad began running last week. It reads, in part: “In my own lifetime, I have seen Jewish children thrown into the fire. And now I have seen Muslim children used as human shields, in both cases, by worshippers of death cults indistinguishable from that of the Molochites.
“What we are suffering through today is not a battle of Jew versus Arab or Israeli versus Palestinian. Rather, it is a battle between those who celebrate life and those who champion death. It is a battle of civilization versus barbarism.”
No, that doesn't sound like propaganda.
As for what a 'real resolution' looks like, that's still foggy to me. I think at the very least, retreating to 1967 borders, liberating Gaza and the West Bank and allowing them to govern themselves, pushing the fishing boundaries a more reasonable distance and giving financial assistance to allow Gaza to recover from the primarily Israel-imposed devastation in the region would be a great start.
For those who cite security issues, I believe (and someone with a better concept of international law can confirm or deny this) Israel at that point would be entitled to fortify their agreed-upon borders, and it would be solely in the hands of the Palestinian Unity Government to assuage the security concerns of neighbouring countries (Israel included) in order to create their own trade agreements with them.
Edit: Just to clarify - when I say this would be a great "start", I mean that. I think far more is owed to the Palestinian people than what I've mentioned.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
What does a resolution look like? A resolution looks like the resolution that's already accepted by the whole World, and which has been repeatedly blocked by the U.S, which uses it's power of automatic veto to prevent it's implementation. But I know you don't care about these details. And once again you continue pretending that anybody in this thread has called for 'more violence'. I'm not sure why you insist on perpetuating this fantasy.
Can Israel Claim Self-Defense Against the Territory It Occupies? International Jurist John Dugard Says No.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: John Dugard, you have also made comparisons between apartheid South Africa and the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories. Could you elaborate on what you think the similarities are?
JOHN DUGARD: Well, if I look at the situation in Palestine, which I know very well as former special rapporteur, if I look at it as a former South African, then I see very similar circumstances prevailing in Palestine as prevailed in South Africa during apartheid. But I think it’s also important to look at the situation in terms of the 1973 United Nations Convention on the Suppression of Apartheid, which defines apartheid and which applies it to situations beyond southern Africa. And essentially, it requires three conditions: first of all, that there should be two groups. Here, there are clearly two groups: the Palestinians and the Israelis. Secondly, that the governing group should commit inhumane acts against the subject group. And that clearly is happening in the occupied Palestinian territory. Israel has subjected the Palestinians to all sorts of inhumane acts. And then, thirdly, this should be done with the intention of maintaining the domination. And one can draw that inference from the presence of settlers in the West Bank, because today one has some 600,000 settlers in the West Bank who actually constitute a colonial enterprise. And as with all colonies, the colonial peoples—or, the colonial power subjects the colonized people to domination. And so, if one looks at these three conditions, I think it’s clear that, in terms of the 1973 Convention on Apartheid, Israel’s policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territory are tantamount to apartheid.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And John Dugard, how do you respond to Israel’s argument that in fact it was attacking Gaza only in self-defense? Your article, of course, is titled "Debunking Israel’s Self-Defense Argument." So could you lay out what you say there?
JOHN DUGARD: Well, it’s very important for Israel that it should portray itself as the victim in the present conflict. And President Obama and both houses of Congress have endorsed the view that Israel acts in self-defense. But as I see the situation, it is very different. Gaza is an occupied territory. It’s part of the occupied Palestinian territory. The fact that Israel has withdrawn its ground troops, or had before the present incursion, does not mean that it is no longer the occupying power, because it has always retained control, effective control, over the territory of Gaza. That’s the test in international law: effective control. Israel controls Gaza by means of the land crossings, by controlling the air space and the sea space, and by carrying out repeated incursions into the territory.
So given the fact that Gaza is an occupied territory, it means that Israel’s present assault on Gaza is simply a way of enforcing the continuation of the occupation, and the response of the Palestinian militants should be seen as the response of an occupied people that wishes to resist the occupation. It has taken this resistance into Israel itself, but it still remains resistance. And I think it would be very helpful to see the occupation of Gaza in the same context as one might see, for instance, the occupation of, shall we say, Netherlands during the Second World War by Germany. It’s an occupied territory, and if Israel uses force against the occupied territory, it’s not acting in self-defense. It’s acting as an occupying power.
...AMY GOODMAN: Could the U.S. be charged with war crimes, as well? I mean, in United States common law, felony murder, it’s both the person who commits the murder and the one who provides the gun. By Friday, when I don’t know how many people had been killed at that point, say, 1,400 Palestinians, the U.S. said they were resupplying Israel with ammunition.
KENNETH ROTH: Yeah. I mean, I wouldn’t hold your breath on a prosecution, but I do think you bring up a valid point, Amy, which is that the U.S., under U.S. law, should not be sending weapons when they’re going to be used to commit war crimes. And so, if U.S. wants to send, you know, the Iron Dome anti-missile defense to Israel, nobody’s going to quarrel with that. But to continue sending Israel the kind of weapons that it’s using to commit war crimes in Gaza should stop. And, you know, there is a precedent for this. I mean, even Ronald Reagan stopped sending cluster munitions to Israel when it was using them indiscriminately in Lebanon. But President Obama, you know, isn’t going to touch that
It's only a matter of time now before the whole lot of them end up in the Hague charged with multiple war crimes and crimes against humanity. And it's also a possibility - I'm not too sure about this - that certain individuals from Israel's chief sponsor and provider of arms - the U.S - will also end up there.