1. I do think liberalism has turned people's brains to mush. Should I not say that? If that's so cripplingly belittling to others that they can't scrape themselves off the floor, then I guess my analysis is more accurate than I thought. I'm not here to be polite. If I have little or no respect for an idea or ideology, I'll say so.
Semantics are a powerful tool that you can use to your advantage, or you can choose the other route: to pound someone into submission (via an ad hominem attack) to ensure that their voice's quality is degraded. You have chosen the latter, and by doing so, you degrade your own voice. It is incredulous to me that so many are willing to neglect basic civility to get a point across, when it is detrimental to do so in this way.
Also, I never claimed atheism is the opposite of religion. Atheism is a lack of belief in god, no more, no less. It's not the end-all-be-all solution to the world's problems but I do think it's a step in the right direction.
Religion is just another demographic for one position of power to say unto another that someone else is worth less than us. It is no different than any nationalism, which, again, I believe in - but not if it conflicts with basic humanitarian instincts which I put the onus on each individual to check for conflicts and choose accordingly which to follow. Something I vehemently oppose is justification and rationalization of inhumane acts via religion, or any 'grouping' of society for that matter.
"Rather than telling the world why they should abandon their concept of a god - why not ask them if their moral compass as set by their god aligns with the humanitarian that resides within everyone?" Um...because it doesn't. By definition. I've read the bible so I know that if you're referring to any of the Abrahamic religions, I can toss those out in a second. A god who floods the earth killing millions of innocent men, women, and children? I'd say that god doesn't exactly "align with the humanitarian that resides in everyone." Thanks, you've now, in one easy swipe, just allowed me to add billions of people to my list of those I don't have to ask stupid questions to.
I'll take the blame for this one - I should have been clearer. I'm not proposing an all-or-none acceptance or denial of religious law: I'm saying before a human does something in the name of religion, that's the question they should act. I agree that the god of the Bible is brutal and heavy-handed, but that's a personal opinion.
2. "In a few paragraphs, you showed me that, indeed, I am not an atheist." Wow. I'd no idea how impactful my words could be. To repeat, being an atheist simply means that you don't believe in god. I find it astounding that in a couple paragraphs I've somehow accidentally shown you that there is cause to believe in a god.
Again, my fault, and I'm happy to clarify. What I should have said is that, based on the words you wrote, I would never be content to call myself an atheist. It is a group (and yes, 'everyone else' aka non-believers, indeed form a cluster) which I would want no participation within, based on the concepts which tend to hold true independently of which atheist you speak to. I did actually mention that I do believe in a god (just an atypical concept of one), so I suppose I would be ineligible to join the party anyways.
"As an aside, ironically, one of the major reasons I would hesitate to call myself an atheist, is that being an atheist seems to involve the parts of religion that I dislike most." Again, it just means one who doesn't believe in a god but please continue..."an irrefutable belief that one's ideas are correct." Nope, not irrefutable. Show me one shred of evidence for the existence of god and atheism is refuted. It's easy!
Not to be technical here, then, but wouldn't this make you an agnostic?
"The incessant desire to spread that among the masses." So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that the marketplace of ideas is one in which atheists should not compete. Why is that exactly? Shouldn't we encourage anyone with an idea or world-view to express it? To put it up for criticism and give it's fair shot? Why do you find this so upsetting? So, because atheists believe they are correct in their assessment that there is no god and want to tell others about it, it somehow has made YOU "hesitant" to call yourself an atheist???
I am personally disgusted by 'mission'-related concepts typically designed to exploit a lack of knowledge or inherent ignorance in people. I have told Christian missionaries that to their faces when one began to preach about Jesus Christ while teaching Buddhist children with me, and I have done the same to Jewish preachers (including two rabbis in different occasions) who try and belittle my 'Jewishness' and try and recruit me for their ultra-Orthodox sects too.
"The notion that tolerance begins with people outside of your set of beliefs, rather than within. In a few paragraphs, you showed me that, indeed, I am not an atheist." Your evidence for a deity which supports your belief in your "nontraditional god and spirituality" is that some or all atheists are dicks... Good one, man.
I don't think I used the word dick, did I? Pretty sure I suggested intolerance was a notion highly visible within atheism (just as it is within religion, which I gather you have no regard for), and one I was unwilling to support.
3. I'll sum this one up. Big mosque = people feel good. Cremation + mumbo jumbo about the soul = people feel good. Man tragically loses sister + becomes a Jew = man feels good. Man loses son + teddy bear + two men crying = men feeling good. All cute stories but heartstring-tugging anecdotes do not evidence make. Why can't you see that at the core of all the stories you told was the reality that it's US who can be so beautiful at times? Religion was our invention and if some people use it for heartwarming moments some of the time, that doesn't make it anymore valid or anymore truthful.
The end result may be the same whether I arrive at happiness from a sandwich or a religious experience, but the religious experience to arrive there is a bridge I would not propose burning.
Thanks for your response. I still disagree with you but I really appreciate what you wrote. You're an intelligent guy (or gal?) but I just don't see what your clinging to. It seems you're an atheist by another name. There is no atheist club that you or anyone else wouldn't be allowed into. You're smart enough to know that but your just being stubborn about labeling yourself. The funny thing is that we probably agree on the real world application of our philosophies but not so much on their descriptors. Anyway, thanks for writing me back.
Much appreciated - and I'm a guy by the way.
As for what I'm clinging to - it's nothing more a critical notion that we should accept each other for who ever we are, independent of the feasibility of a premise. In my mind, I think you're probably right about the application of our philosophies, and for that I'm grateful. Thanks for keeping this as a respectful disagreement
As for labelling myself, my belief is that if you took the summation of the energies in the universe, you'd have arrived at God, or the Universe. I feel that, independent of what you call it, it is our inherent duty to do what we can to protect the 'something bigger' that we all belong to. I'm actually a bit curious now to hear whether you believe this would be considered atheism or not.
'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
I should also add, october22, I'd be lying if I said I've never been guilty of stubbornness, so my apologies for that!
I'm stubborn as fuck, man, all good. Thanks but definitely no need to apologize to me, that's for sure! Also, haha yes you're clearly a dude in your avatar. I'm just on my phone and couldn't really see.
As for your question... Since there is no authority on what is atheistic or not other than a strict definition of the word, I'd say that your belief is deistic. Where you'd find God at the summation of all the energies in the universe, I'd simply find a number. I just think you're taking it one leap too far. That's probably where our biggest difference is.
I'm not so sure. I mean, one of the biggest problems facing us as a species is environmental destruction, so wouldn't it be wise to begin learning, or at least appreciating, ideas of a religious/spiritual nature that are concerned with our relationship to the natural environment, such as paganism and/or animism?
But in general I pretty much agree with your entire post.
No need for religion to encourage a connection to the natural world.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
As far as I know the following statements are still in the charter.
"The day of Judgement will not come until the Muslims fight and kill the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslim, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."
If you're willing to be critical of Hamas in any way it would help me feel like you are attempting to look at situation in the fairest light, acknowledging your own biases (as I have mine). It's just not as simple as you're right and I'm wrong, which seems to be your immovable position. Life's never that simple.
I should also add, october22, I'd be lying if I said I've never been guilty of stubbornness, so my apologies for that!
I'm stubborn as fuck, man, all good. Thanks but definitely no need to apologize to me, that's for sure! Also, haha yes you're clearly a dude in your avatar. I'm just on my phone and couldn't really see.
As for your question... Since there is no authority on what is atheistic or not other than a strict definition of the word, I'd say that your belief is deistic. Where you'd find God at the summation of all the energies in the universe, I'd simply find a number. I just think you're taking it one leap too far. That's probably where our biggest difference is.
I'm trying to follow you guys here,so Ben is Of the thinking They Allmighty and the universe and everything are one.And 10/22 you are saying the same but its a numerical formula when you follow it down the worm hole,correct?
I really need to start getting high before reading these posts. Some deep thought stuff,for sure.And man are there some bright members on here.Very cool.
As far as I know the following statements are still in the charter.
"The day of Judgement will not come until the Muslims fight and kill the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslim, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."
That's gotta go man. That's just gotta go.
What's interesting about the talking point of the Hamas charter is that I don't think any Palestinians have ever actually read this supposed document. It's an anachronistic work that only gets publicity in Western media, which follows Zionist talking points in general, to distract from real grievances and substantive issues on the ground. It's a piece of paper that was written by ideologues about 25 years ago, and not the actual political operators who run the organization. As I already mentioned with regards to the way they use the "Jews" (which you unsurprisingly ignored) it is due to a particular context of dealing with a "Jewish state".
The way these few ideologues depict religious imagery in the document is de-contextualized and is based on a particular reading of scripture - which would be akin to saying that Pat Robertson's interpretation of the Bible is the basic tenet of the Republican Party. Would we assume that every person in Florida who votes for Republicans wants homosexuals to be stoned? Probably not. You know what's interesting? The entire evangelical Christian right in the US actually believes in supporting Israel, not as an end in itself, but it hastens the return of Jesus, who upon returning to Earth forces all the Jews to convert or be killed and go to hell. This is an actual belief held by tens of millions of Americans, but Israelis are more than happy to take their money and open their doors to their lame tour groups. In other words, ideology ultimately doesn't matter as much as we think it does, unless we want to use it to vilify our enemies.
If you look at the way Hamas and other Palestinian groups have actually conducted themselves, which is what I've been repeatedly trying to get you to do in this thread, it is based on political expediency and the concept of compromise. The fact that they have ceded 78% of their historic homeland and agreed to establishing a state on the remaining 22% (West Bank and Gaza) rarely gets mentioned. They have agreed to long term truces that Israel has routinely broken. Their resistance mission has become limited to ending the occupation of those territories, not to ending Israel as a state. That much has become accepted even among Israelis who know better and certainly the Israeli political establishment when they're in terse negotiations with them and not crying in front of the cameras.
I ASK AGAIN: Who are these members who make up the "majority" of "Hamas's power structure" that you claim call for the "annihilation of Jews" even today? Stop ignoring this question and either own up to the fact that you made it up or that you are wrong. You continue to ignore what the leadership has actually said on the public record without supplying any real evidence, or actually responding to the arguments I'm putting forward.
You seem to have a problem that I'm not critical of Hamas to your standards. I am actually very critical of them, including the way they've governed the Gaza strip over the past few years -- the issue here is that I think that 1) their poor governance is largely due to an illegal blockade and the maintenance of an occupation by Israel; 2) their method of governing the Palestinians is irrelevant to the conflict itself, in which one party is occupying and oppressing another. You continuously ignore the power balance and the fact that the onus is ENTIRELY on Israel to end the conflict. As I said before in this thread, if Hamas continues to target Israelis even after the occupation is ended, equal rights are awarded to Palestinians, and that refugees are allowed to return to their homes, then I will be the first to condemn such violence. Until then however, international law even allows an occupied people the right to resist the occupation; 3) I think that my criticisms of the movement come as a Palestinian for Palestinians. But I think that people such as yourself who are not Palestinian have no right to comment on what an occupied or oppressed people do to resist. Your efforts should be focused on telling the occupying power, whom your government supports to allow the occupation (of which the resistance in simply a response to it) to continue, to stop. I don't think people wasted much breath critiquing the ANC in the height of the anti-apartheid struggle. But then again, history has shown that there are always people doing what they can to falsely attribute moral equivalency between oppressed and oppressor.
I just wish that as a fellow atheist, Ed would go further.
I see a lot of these flair-ups in the world as religion buckling in it's final death throws and that's a great thing. For all of these faith-based wars I hold personally responsible, to one degree or another no matter how small, every religious person and those who support any religion as an acceptable belief system. Every time you hear someone talk about their faith and you sit quietly without challenging them, you're somewhat responsible for allowing this nonsense to continue. It's no different than someone making racist remarks in your company. You have a moral obligation to not sit quietly by and tolerate that shit. You're providing fertile ground for insanity to take root.
There is no short term solution to the problems in the Middle East and other religious conflicts, but there is a long term solution to them; teaching all of our children naturalism, humanism and an atheistic world-view.
I can pretty much guarantee that the vast majority of you will tear me apart for this because modern liberalism has turned your brains to mush. I'm still interested in your thoughts.
Oh, and if you ever teach your children that they're in any way one of "god's chosen people"...well then, fuck you.
You sound as proud of your militant and intolerant views as an extremist jihadi or Jew or Christian or Buddhist.
Hey, thanks man!
It was late so I wasn't sure if I was getting my point across.
I can't compete with (nor would I like to) the amount of death, destruction and misery those other groups inflict upon the world so to know you think my rhetoric at least competes with theirs makes me feel great. Since I'm only fighting with, ya know, words and stuff, I have to make sure they at least live up to the intensity of the enemies of humanity you mentioned.
Thanks again for the encouragement!
You're not competing with them, you're running side-by-side with them. Those who promote tolerance and pluralism are your competitors.
I appreciate what you're saying, fuck, but I think we see tolerance a little differently. My idea of tolerance simply means that I believe you've the right to believe whatever you'd like without having your head chopped off. It doesn't mean that I won't speak up when an idea completely sucks.
So the line that is crossed from "tolerance" to "intolerance" for you is beheading -- that's good to know. Anything up until then I assume is in the realm of "tolerance"? As for what you actually think, here's what you wrote in your original post:
"Every time you hear someone talk about their faith and you sit quietly without challenging them, you're somewhat responsible for allowing this nonsense to continue. It's no different than someone making racist remarks in your company. You have a moral obligation to not sit quietly by and tolerate that shit. You're providing fertile ground for insanity to take root."
According to you, it is immoral to even allow someone to speak about their faith. You then falsely attribute someone talking about their own beliefs in God, to them being racist against another people. You also don't spare any words when you say flat out that "that shit" should not be tolerated. You also pretty much call for a very fascist way of "educating" our children only what you believe in, and not what others believe in:
"There is no short term solution to the problems in the Middle East and other religious conflicts, but there is a long term solution to them; teaching all of our children naturalism, humanism and an atheistic world-view."
This level of arrogance is what makes you a militant extremist the same way jihadi, extremist Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, etc., groups are. You think only your worldview is right, and not only that all of theirs is wrong, but that is must be fought against (not necessarily violently, though you've yet to make yourself clear on that, I think. You did speak out against beheadings, but that's about it.)
You also demonstrate poor knowledge of the history of the Middle East in general -- for instance you conveniently leave out the fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was mostly secular for the first several decades. Religious groups did not really become involved until the 1970s-1980s. Most of the main Zionist leaders in the early 20th century were themselves atheist, but it did not stop them from advocating the expropriation of another people's land through ethnically cleansing them. Secular regimes, and communist ones which advocated a similar type of militant anti-religionism such as that one you are calling for also committed some of the worst crimes in human history. You conflate issues and try to find any anecdotal evidence to blame everything on religion, but it's actually just poor scholarship and research skills at the end of the day. It's perfectly ok if you don't believe in it at all, or if you even think religion is bad for the human soul or whatever the hell else you might think -- but benjs is right when he says (from what I understood) that the ideology you are espousing actually takes some of the more intolerant interpretations and trends from religion and simply removes the God factor from them.
Gaza 2014 has clarified the international struggle By Mark Braverman
Telling the truth
Five years ago I attended a conference in Boston entitled “One State for Palestine/Israel.” It was March 2009. Gaza was still smoldering from Operation Cast Lead, in which 1400 Palestinians were killed between December 27th and January 18th. Israeli historian and author of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine Ilan Pappe was one of the speakers, and he talked about genocide. My God, I thought, he’s saying the G word. It was not hurled as an accusation, it was not shouted for effect. It was a cry for help, and Pappe made that explicit. Cast Lead, he said, was Israel’s entry into a new phase of its project to take all of the land and to rid the territory of the indigenous Arab population. This is a test, Pappe said, and more is coming — will the world do something? Will you sitting in this university lecture hall do something, before it is too late? I learned later that Pappe had issued this call to the international community in 2006 in an Electronic Intifada piece entitled “Genocide in Gaza.” The slaughter of Palestinian civilians was no act of self defense or lamentable consequence of war, Pappe pointed out in the article. It was, rather, part of an ongoing program linked to Israel’s founding: “When Israel was absolved from any responsibility or accountably for the ethnic cleansing in 1948, it turned this policy into a legitimate tool for its national security agenda.” “Only international pressure will stop Israel,” he told us that day, citing the Palestinian call for BDS. “Nothing apart from pressure in the form of sanctions, boycott and divestment will stop the murdering of innocent civilians in the Gaza Strip… In the name of the Holocaust memory, let us hope the world will not allow the genocide of Gaza to continue.”
When Genocide is Permissible
Pappe’s reference to the genocide of European Jews was pointed. In the Israeli propaganda machine and indeed for the Jewish community as a whole, the term is only to be used in reference to Jewish losses and Jewish suffering. Certainly any acts committed by us against others is justified by virtue of our historic traumas (this is Marc Ellis’s concept of “Jewish innocence”) and could not possibly be spoken about in the same terms used to describe Jewish victimization. Last week this rule was broken by Orthodox American Jew Yochanan Gordon, in his piece entitled “When Genocide is Permissible” published in the Times of Israel, in which Gordon posed the question, “What other way then is there to deal with an enemy of this nature other than obliterate them completely?” The article was pulled the same day and Gordon forced to apologize, the editors claiming that “We reject any such notion or discussion associated with even entertaining the possibility of such an unacceptable idea.” The denial is disingenuous – what was unacceptable was not the idea of a genocidal Israel, but that posing the question came so uncomfortably close to an acknowledgement that genocide of the Palestinians is the Israeli reality. Gordon broke the rule by speaking the truth about Israel’s intentions and articulating the justification for its actions.
Now comes Pappe’s latest piece, published in the Electronic Intifada on July 27th, “To the family of the one thousandth victim of Israel’s genocidal slaughter in Gaza.” From the depths of his horror, Pappe speaks the truth and makes a pledge to the Palestinians. “This is 2014,” he writes, “the destruction of Gaza is well documented. This is not 1948 when Palestinians had to struggle hard to tell their story of horror; so many of the crimes Zionists committed then were hidden and never came to light, even until today. So my first and simple pledge is to record, inform and insist on the truth.”
This is Pappe’s pledge to the family of the one thousandth victim:
“I feel the urge today to make a pledge to you, which none of the Germans my father knew during the time of the Nazi regime was willing to make to him when the thugs committed genocide against his family. This is not much of a pledge at your moment of grief, but it is the best I can offer and saying nothing is not an option. And doing nothing is even less than an option.”
Pappe’s pledge continues with a call for BDS:
“I pledge to continue the effort to boycott a state that commits such crimes. Only when the Union of European Football Associations throws Israel out, when the academic community refuses to have any institutional ties with Israel, when airlines hesitate to fly there, and when every outfit that may lose money because of an ethical stance in the short-term understands that in the long run it will gain both morally and financially — only then we will begin to honor your loss.
So I pledge today not to be distracted even by friends and Palestinian leaders who still foolishly pin their hopes on the long-gone ‘two-state solution.’ If one has the impulse to be involved in bringing regime change in Palestine, the only reason to do this is for a struggle for equal human and civil rights and full restitution for all those who are and were victimized by Zionism, inside and outside the beloved land of Palestine. This is what I can pledge — to work to prevent the next stage in the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.”
Calling the churches
Pappe’s call for international grassroots action prompts consideration of the growing church movement for Palestinian liberation, especially in response to the 2009 “Moment of Truth” document by the leaders of the churches of Palestine, which calls on the international community to witness and come to the aid of the occupied Palestinian people. Now, as in other historical eras, politics meets theology: the Old Testament prophets speaking truth to power; the Roman occupation of Palestine in Jesus’ time; Germany under the Third Reich; Jim Crow America; popular liberation movements in Latin America; South Africa under Apartheid. Now, the churches are again called to stand for justice, as evidenced by the emergence of the global kairos movement. Kairos, in the words quoted in the U.S. “Call to Action” kairos document, is the “moment of grace and opportunity, when God issues a challenge to decisive action.” The words are taken from the 1985 South Africa Kairos document, a prophetic statement that marshaled the churches of South Africa and ultimately the world to stand against the heresy and evil of apartheid.
The momentum of this movement was in evidence in the recent action of the Presbyterian Church USA to divest from companies profiting from the oppression of the Palestinians. At their General Assembly in Detroit in June I watched the Presbyterians struggle to follow the gospel imperative to divest in the face of massive pressure – from within the church as well as from without — to hold back from this action in order not to risk a rupture with the institutional Jewish mainstream. By this time – the Presbyterians had been considering divestment at every biennial conference since 2004 — everyone knew it was apartheid and the church had to stop supporting it, but taking the pledge was hard. It passed, but barely, 51-49%. As the movement to bring the church around to a faithful stand grows, so will the internal struggle intensify, pitting courage and faithfulness to fundamental Christian principles against political caution and institutional timidity. Having watched this struggle unfold in Detroit, the testimony of one man in particular stands out for me – a pastor from Ohio, Andries Coetzee, who during the deliberations spoke out with particular passion and eloquence. Last week, in response to the bombing and invasion of Gaza, Coetzee posted a short piece entitled “With renewed violence in Gaza, Presbyterian Church’s Israel disinvestments are a nonviolent contribution to peace.” I encourage you to read the whole blog, especially for how Coetzee responds to the challenging comments. It is clear that it is his experience growing up in apartheid South Africa that provided the moral platform for this pastor’s clarity and courage. “I personally support divestment and spoke in favor of it on the plenary floor,” he wrote, “based on my experience of growing up in South Africa during the height of the apartheid years, as part of the white Afrikaans-speaking minority who oppressed the black majority.” The lessons he draws for today speak loud and clear:
“The emotional impact of such a system of oppression based on fear of ‘the other’ is tremendous, on oppressed and oppressor alike, and is still, I believe, at the root of many of the struggles we face in South Africa today. As whites supporting apartheid, we denied the humanity of our fellow black citizens by denying them basic human rights, and in the process we became less than human ourselves through our support of a brutal system of violence and degradation. It is because of this, the dehumanization of myself and others, that I thank the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the international community for their courage in divesting from companies during the 1980s that profited from oppression in South Africa, even though the Reagan administration failed to take an appropriate moral stand by opposing sanctions against the apartheid regime. It was through divestment and increased isolation that we as a minority realized that we were on a path of self-destruction, and that the powerful were forced to negotiate. Divestment helped us gain insight as to how we were viewed in the eyes of the world and forced us to realign ourselves with the values of nonviolence and peace. For me, the decision to economically divest was a decision to invest in South Africa and all her people, and helped lead us on a path of healing and hope in the midst of fear and destruction.”
As long as it takes
As criticism of Israel and of U.S. policy intensifies, in particular now in response to the carnage in Gaza, defenders of the status quo redouble their efforts to shore up support for Israel. On July 30th Mondoweiss reported on a rally in support of Israel in New York City. Readers were treated to the spectacle of politicians who lined up to take the microphone to do what they thought they needed to do to hold on to their seats. Mondoweiss’ headline was what made me click on the email: “Israel now, Israel tomorrow, Israel forever!” were the words that issued from Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, New York Eighth Congressional District, Brooklyn and Queens. For anyone not recognizing the allusion, click here. (Really, click on the link.)
Jeffries is African American.
To which there can be only this reply:
BDS now, BDS tomorrow, BDS as long as it takes.
It’s important to tell the truth because the media and the politicians – especially those in both industries identifying as liberal or even progressive — will continue to uphold the status quo by promoting moderate solutions that do not acknowledge or address the root cause — in short, that do not tell the truth. This is illustrated by the not one but two OpEd columns featured in this past Sunday’s New York Times. Roger Cohen in “Why Americans See Israel the Way They Do” spills most of his ink describing recent eruptions of anti-Semitism, especially in Europe: “Hitler’s name has been chanted, gassing of Jews invoked,” but with no discussion of what acts are prompting this hatred. Cohen concludes this appeal to eternal Jewish victimhood and vulnerability with an homage to the “balanced” discourse: “I find myself dreaming of some island in the middle of the Atlantic,” muses Cohen,”where the blinding excesses on either side of the water are overcome and a fundamental truth is absorbed: that neither side is going away, that both have made grievous mistakes, and that the fate of Jewish and Palestinian children — united in their innocence — depends on placing the future above the past. That island will no doubt remain as illusory as peace.” Yes, as illusory as seeking peace without confronting the tyranny of the powerful. Under the fold we then have Thomas Friedman in “How This War Ends.” As ever, reporting from Planet Friedman, the internationally celebrated columnist here appeals to moderation on both sides that will yield viable political solutions. In Friedman’s scenario, Hamas joins Fatah in a unity government, which then negotiates with Israel to create a Palestinian state. Friedman knows this can’t happen because Israel, supplied by genocide-enabling U.S. arms and emboldened by abjectly cowardly U.S. diplomacy, won’t let it happen. Friedman acknowledges as much in his penultimate sentence, but he can’t go where he needs to go: to the regime change Pappe talks about, brought about by international pressure not from politicians but from civil society.
Nope. You're pretty much wrong on all counts with regards to what I think, fuck. I'll happily admit my ignorance of many things but none of them were in any way enlightened by your previous post. I knew all that shit already, thanks. I also don't come on here to be scholarly or prove or provide any scholarship. I don't need to get into the weeds of your argument to defend the principals of my own.
I don't have time to go through everything but I'll touch on a few things:
"According to you, it is immoral to even allow someone to speak about their faith." I never wrote that. I said without challenging them. If you're going to quote me, at least read the quote.
"You then falsely attribute someone talking about their own beliefs in God, to them being racist against another people." No I didn't. Go back and read it again.
"You also don't spare any words when you say flat out that "that shit" should not be tolerated." Cool, you got one right. I did write that and I meant it.
"You also pretty much call for a very fascist way of "educating" our children only what you believe in, and not what others believe in." I'm sorry you think it's fascist to teach kids naturalism, humanism and that they shouldn't believe in things for which there is no evidence of.
"This level of arrogance is what makes you a militant extremist the same way jihadi, extremist Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, etc., groups are." No. No, it doesn't in any way make us the same. I actually laughed out loud with that one though, thanks. Shit, that might have come off a but arrogant. It's ok though. I don't mind being arrogant because unlike you, I can recognize the difference between an arrogant prick and a fucking MILITANT EXTREMIST JIHADI. If you honestly consider them the same, then I see no reason to ever respond to your arguments in the future.
And finally, this gem "You think only your worldview is right, and not only that all of theirs is wrong." Well...yes. How many worldviews can one man hold? In specifically the context of this conversation, my worldview as an atheist is informed by my lack of belief in god. How is it possible for me to simultaneously hold as equally plausible the worldview of every religion on the planet? Sorry, fuck, but they are mutually exclusive. I do think that only the things that I think are right...are right. Watch, I'll show you how it works: Electronic music sucks. I'm right! Pretty cool, no? I get to be right all the time and it works with both my personal opinions and irrefutable facts! I can take it a step further and this is the beauty of thinking that what you think is right...is right. Check this out: One day someone may play for me some electronic dance music that's fucking amazing. I'll leap out of my chair, have an epiphany and declare that electronic dance music is awesome! Does that mean I've been wrong all along? Well, yeah I guess it does but you know what? Now that I know it actually is awesome, I know that what I now think is right...is fucking right again! I'm still right!!! In the light of new evidence or new circumstances, my opinion can change and I get to be right all over again. It's pretty cool when you think about it.
You wrote a bunch of other very well written stuff that I disagree with but I'm out of time, sorry. We'll probably have to agree to disagree unless you want to take one more shot at me which is totally fine.
PS: I've never understood the "you-think-only-what-you-think-is-right-is-right" argument. If someone can explain it to me I'd love to be proven wrong so I can be right again. Thanks.
Nope. You're pretty much wrong on all counts with regards to what I think, fuck. I'll happily admit my ignorance of many things but none of them were in any way enlightened by your previous post. I knew all that shit already, thanks. I also don't come on here to be scholarly or prove or provide any scholarship. I don't need to get into the weeds of your argument to defend the principals of my own.
I am not convinced that you knew all that, given that much of the history I went on about I believe is in direct contradiction with your ideology, but if that is truly the case then I'd love to see how you reconcile historical facts with your beliefs.
"According to you, it is immoral to even allow someone to speak about their faith." I never wrote that. I said without challenging them. If you're going to quote me, at least read the quote.
"You then falsely attribute someone talking about their own beliefs in God, to them being racist against another people." No I didn't. Go back and read it again.
I'll concede on the first point, but did you or did you not say: "Every time you hear someone talk about their faith" followed by "It's no different than someone making racist remarks in your company." That sort of equivalency is what I was drawing attention to.
"You also pretty much call for a very fascist way of "educating" our children only what you believe in, and not what others believe in." I'm sorry you think it's fascist to teach kids naturalism, humanism and that they shouldn't believe in things for which there is no evidence of.
No, I just think it's fascist to regulate what people should be allowed to teach their kids. It's this same logic that was employed by fascist regimes. History: it's a cool thing to study, and you might be surprised to find that you're not the first to believe this or to put it into action.
"This level of arrogance is what makes you a militant extremist the same way jihadi, extremist Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, etc., groups are." No. No, it doesn't in any way make us the same. I actually laughed out loud with that one though, thanks. Shit, that might have come off a but arrogant. It's ok though. I don't mind being arrogant because unlike you, I can recognize the difference between an arrogant prick and a fucking MILITANT EXTREMIST JIHADI. If you honestly consider them the same, then I see no reason to ever respond to your arguments in the future.
And finally, this gem "You think only your worldview is right, and not only that all of theirs is wrong." Well...yes. How many worldviews can one man hold? In specifically the context of this conversation, my worldview as an atheist is informed by my lack of belief in god. How is it possible for me to simultaneously hold as equally plausible the worldview of every religion on the planet? Sorry, fuck, but they are mutually exclusive. I do think that only the things that I think are right...are right. Watch, I'll show you how it works: Electronic music sucks. I'm right! Pretty cool, no? I get to be right all the time and it works with both my personal opinions and irrefutable facts! I can take it a step further and this is the beauty of thinking that what you think is right...is right. Check this out: One day someone may play for me some electronic dance music that's fucking amazing. I'll leap out of my chair, have an epiphany and declare that electronic dance music is awesome! Does that mean I've been wrong all along? Well, yeah I guess it does but you know what? Now that I know it actually is awesome, I know that what I now think is right...is fucking right again! I'm still right!!! In the light of new evidence or new circumstances, my opinion can change and I get to be right all over again. It's pretty cool when you think about it.
Dude, what the hell, you just cut my sentence in half. What I wrote was this: "You think only your worldview is right, and not only that all of theirs is wrong, but that is must be fought against (not necessarily violently, though you've yet to make yourself clear on that, I think. You did speak out against beheadings, but that's about it.)"
Of course I'm not saying that you have to accept other worldviews. My point was NOT ONLY do you think yours is right and theirs is wrong, but that you actively believe in combating other worldviews till everyone believes in what you believe. This is the same logic that extremist religious groups believe in, which is the comparison I made. Obviously I'm not saying that you are going around forcing people through violence, but extremist Christians in the US don't even necessarily use violence to shove their intolerant views down people's throats (obviously a few do, such as those who bomb abortion clinics, assassinate doctors, etc., but I only speak with regards to ideology right now, not action).
I, on the other hand, believe in pluralism. Not just that, but I as a Muslim believe that pluralism is a necessity, and that we have much to gain through other worldviews, and I don't actually think everyone should be Muslim. I think everyone should believe in what they believe is best for them, so long as they don't hurt people. The Quran itself says, "O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes [so] that you may know one another." In other words, this verse emphasizes that the purpose of being different is to learn from one another. You, on the other hand, emphasize the necessity of believing in one worldview (which is not necessarily a belief in itself but a regulation of other people's beliefs). I think it's extremely problematic, and its the same problematic worldviews that extremists (who corrupt the religions and conveniently ignore verses like the one I quote above) have. But I'll end my criticisms here since it doesn't seem you're up for (or have time for) a real in-depth discussion here.
Enjoying the turn this thread has taken. The dialogue between benjs and october22 is quite interesting and the mutual respect, regardless if they agree with each other, is enlightening.
Post edited by backseatLover12 on
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,770
edited August 2014
^^^ Agreed! THIS is what would make this thread worthwhile and productive. And really, although the majority of the total posts here are argumentative and combative, the majority of those people who have posted here whether they/we agree or not have been civil exchanges. And the sad thing is that some of those here who choose to be combative and rude actually have some useful information to disseminate to the thread, but who want's to listen to someone verbally bashing people over the head and belittling them? Not my idea of a productive discussion.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Some times more aggressive people try to kick the kids they don't like off the court. We all have a right to make our statement as long as it isn't a personal attack.
I don't see it that way at all. What I see is that some people on this thread thought that they could dictate the terms of the discussion, and got upset when they failed. They weren't upset with certain posters trying to excuse and justify Israel's latest massacre of thousands of Palestinians - that was perfectly acceptable to them, because it played into their own lazy narrative which conveniently pretended that 'both sides are to blame', thereby allowing them to preach about 'love', and 'open-mindedness', and 'egos', and the need for 'understanding', while completely failing to grasp the reality of the situation in the occupied territories.
Thousands of people under occupation were being massacred by the fourth largest military in the World - a military given 100% support by the U.S government - their government - and yet they thought they could get away with dismissing the one-sided nature of the conflict by setting the framework for the discussion within boundaries that completely failed to appreciate or consider the basic truths of what was actually happening, and whilst completely disregarding the historical and political context.
Fortunately, for those people who were genuinely interested in the issue, they failed. Though I didn't see any evidence of any hatred. That's an exaggeration which reeks of pettiness. I did see a fair degree of annoyance and frustration though. Many people chose to address the real issues and to find concrete, constructive courses of action to take with which to protest the slaughter. It's perfectly understandable that they would get frustrated with other posters patronising them, and criticising them, and preaching to them that they should drop their anger and do nothing instead - all in the name of some one-eyed interpretation of Eddie Vedder's statement at the top of the page.
Those that declared Eddie's original statement to be exclusively about Gaza, and who then accused him of backtracking when his second statement confirmed that assessment was incorrect, have no real business accusing others of having a one-eyed interpretation. Really now. That accusation reeks of hypocrisy.
Flame away.
Post edited by JimmyV on
___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,770
"I don't see it that way at all". Of course you don't. No argument there. But that's OK, right? Differing opinions do not negate being civil, right?
"dictate the terms of the discussion" Wait a minute, who told whom they shouldn't post here? Not I.
"reeks of pettiness" Yup. all over the muther fucking place.
"I didn't see any evidence of any hatred." Look again, mate.
"completely failed to appreciate or consider the basic truths of what was actually happening" I've heard that several times. Simply not true. Those kinds of responses just didn't happen where and in such a way that some wanted them to happen.
"annoyance and frustration" True, on all sides.
"Many people chose to address the real issues" ...ummm, except being anti-war. Gotta do the old facepalm on that one.
"drop their anger and do nothing instead" Another completely unfounded statement. I can't speak for others but you know that is not true of me at least. I've explained that in detail.
"one-eyed interpretation". Now look, the last time I was a cyclops for Halloween was before you were born, young man! :-))
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Wait a minute, who told whom they shouldn't post here? Not I.
Backseatlover did, on numerous occasions. She kept telling people that this thread is about 'peace', etc and that those of us who were 'angry' should leave and go post in the AMT instead.
Those that declared Eddie's original statement to be exclusively about Gaza, and who then accused him of backtracking when his second statement confirmed that assessment was incorrect, have no real business accusing others of having a one-eyed interpretation. Really now. That accusation reeks of hypocrisy.
Flame away.
Except his second statement didn't 'confirm' that interpreting his comments at Milton Keynes to be about Gaza was incorrect. It's obvious to anybody who saw his speech at MK that he was talking about Gaza. You're deluding yourself if you choose to believe otherwise.
And just why do you suppose he felt the need to modify and soften his angry comments at MK? It wouldn't have anything at all to do with the fear of being branded an anti-Semite would it? It wouldn't have anything to do with not wanting to get dragged into the dirt of Israel's propaganda war, would it?
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,770
"'pro-war', right?" I didn't say that, B.
Hey, you all have a great time working this out. It's hard to keep up with the young Intellectuals, although I will say, those who think they have all the answers are usually the ones with the most to learn. I appreciate that you want to make a difference but please keep in mind that we all care in our own way or wouldn't bother with any of this and that none of needs further abuse. Thanks.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
"Many people chose to address the real issues" ...ummm, except being anti-war.
How does addressing the issues and confronting the realities of the massacre of hundreds of people mean that somebody is therefore not anti-war? You need to do a bit of work on that logic my friend.
Those that declared Eddie's original statement to be exclusively about Gaza, and who then accused him of backtracking when his second statement confirmed that assessment was incorrect, have no real business accusing others of having a one-eyed interpretation. Really now. That accusation reeks of hypocrisy.
Flame away.
Except his second statement didn't 'confirm' that interpreting his comments at Milton Keynes to be about Gaza was incorrect. It's obvious to anybody who saw his speech at MK that he was talking about Gaza. You're deluding yourself if you choose to believe otherwise.
And just why do you suppose he felt the need to modify and soften his angry comments at MK? It wouldn't have anything at all to do with the fear of being branded an anti-Semite would it? It wouldn't have anything to do with not wanting to get dragged into the dirt of Israel's propaganda war, would it?
Ah, but it isn't about what Eddie did or didn't say. It is about in one breath accusing others of having a "one-eyed interpretation" of that statement and in the next declaring those that disagree with your interpretation are "deluding" themselves. That is hypocrisy, plain and simple.
Now, as for what he did say, I don't know of anyone who has claimed the MK speech was not about Gaza. The disagreement has always been whether the speech was about Gaza exclusively, and whether or not it was a condemnation of Israel. There are countless reasons he could have decided to clarify his words, not the least of which was the clear projection placed on them by partisans on both sides of the Gaza conflict.
You can call that thinking delusional, or you can call it one-eyed. You cannot call it both without being guilty of hypocrisy.
Ah, but it isn't about what Eddie did or didn't say. It is about in one breath accusing others of having a "one-eyed interpretation" of that statement and in the next declaring those that disagree with your interpretation are "deluding" themselves. That is hypocrisy, plain and simple.
No, it's not hypocrisy. It's listening to what he said. He was talking about Gaza, and about giving taxes to a country that drops bombs on babies. The U.S doesn't give taxes to Syria or to Russia. And last I checked the Syrian government isn't going across borders and taking land that doesn't belong to them, and the Russians aren't dropping bombs on babies. Therefore, I think it was perfectly obvious what he was talking about. And it was also perfectly obvious to all the supporters of Israel who condemned him for it during the following days.
As for his second statement, and people taking a one-eyed view of it, I stand by what I said. No hypocrisy is involved. Certain people here kept repeating the mantra that Ed was indulging in some sort of hippy flower power peace and love mantra. He wasn't. He was pointing out that the fans of this band come from every corner of the planet and that we are capable of putting our heads together and doing something about the injustice in the World - specifically the injustice that inspired his angry comments in MK. In the closing part of his comment at the top of this page he says "I know that we can’t let the sadness turn into apathy." This does not mean that we should sit in front of our keyboards typing "LOVE, LOVE, LOVE" and hoping that will somehow solve any of the Worlds problems. He wasn't saying that we should all start reading the words of Mother Theresa, discover our own inner peace, and then disconnect from the World. You can be a spiritual person, but that doesn't mean that you have to be a selfish asshole.
Therefore, when people begin looking for concrete, viable ways to express their opposition to injustice, and of ways to protest the mass-murder of innocent civilians, they shouldn't have to put up with being patronized and condescended to by a few individuals who think that their apathy and ignorance of World affairs is something to be applauded and imitated. Quite frankly, it disgusts me that some people want to preach about 'love', and 'understanding', and 'Just let it go!!', whilst babies are being blown to pieces with their tax dollars.
I think maybe you should listen a little closer to what you said first. It was about your accusation first and interpreting Eddie second. But I don't expect that to happen. Winning the online argument is far more important than being even slightly introspective and self critical.
I think maybe you should listen a little closer to what you said first. It was about your accusation first and interpreting Eddie second. But I don't expect that to happen. Winning the online argument is far more important than being even slightly introspective and self critical.
You 'don't expect that to happen'? You don't expect that I'm going to agree with you that I made a hypocritical comment? I've already answered that accusation. I know exactly what I said. No contradiction in any of it. I don't think you actually know what you're even arguing about.
I think maybe you should listen a little closer to what you said first. It was about your accusation first and interpreting Eddie second. But I don't expect that to happen. Winning the online argument is far more important than being even slightly introspective and self critical.
You 'don't expect that to happen'? You don't expect that I'm going to agree with you that I made a hypocritical comment? I've already answered that accusation. I know exactly what I said. No contradiction in any of it. I don't think you actually know what you're even arguing about.
I do not know yet who your loved one was. She might have been a baby a few months old, or a young boy, a grandfather or one of your children or parents. I heard about your loved one’s death from Chico Menashe, a political commentator on Reshet Bet, Israel’s main radio station.
He explained that the killing of your loved one, as well as turning Gaza neighborhoods to rubble and driving 150,000 people from their homes, is part of a well-calculated Israeli strategy: this carnage will destroy the impulse of Palestinians in Gaza to resist Israeli policies.
I heard this while reading in the 25 July edition of the supposedly respectable Haaretz the words of the not so respectable historian Benny Morris that even this is not enough.
He calls the genocidal policies so far “refisut” — feebleness of mind and spirit. He demands far more massive destruction in the future with the knowledge that this is how you behave if you want to defend your “villa in the jungle,” as former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak described Israel. Inhuman wilderness
Yes, I am afraid to say the Israeli media and academia are fully behind the massacre apart from few, hardly audible voices in this inhuman wilderness. I am not writing this to tell you that I am ashamed — I long ago dissociated myself from this state ideology and do all I can as an individual to confront and defeat it. Probably it has not been enough; we are all inhibited by moments of cowardice, egotism and maybe a natural impulse to take care of our family and loved ones.
And yet I feel the urge today to make a pledge to you, which none of the Germans my father knew during the time of the Nazi regime was willing to make to him when the thugs committed genocide against his family. This is not much of a pledge at your moment of grief, but it is the best I can offer and saying nothing is not an option. And doing nothing is even less than an option.
This is 2014 — the destruction of Gaza is well documented. This is not 1948 when Palestinians had to struggle hard to tell their story of horror; so many of the crimes Zionist committed then where hidden and never came to light, even until today. So my first and simple pledge is to record, inform and insist on the truth.
My old university, University of Haifa, has recruited its students to disseminate Israel’s lies all over the world using the Internet, but this is 2014 and propaganda of this kind will not hold water.
Pledge to boycott
But surely this is not enough. I pledge to continue the effort to boycott a state that commits such crimes. Only when the Union of European Football Associations throws Israel out, when the academic community refuses to have any institutional ties with Israel, when airlines hesitate to fly there, and when every outfit that may lose money because of an ethical stance in the short-term understands that in the long run it will gain both morally and financially — only then we will begin to honor your loss.
The boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement has had many achievements and continues its tireless work. The obstacles still include the false allegation of anti-Semitism and the cynicism of politicians. This is how an honorable initiative by British architects to force their colleagues in Israel to take a moral stance rather than be accomplices in the criminal colonization of the land was blocked at the last moment.
Similar initiatives were sabotaged elsewhere by spineless politicians in Europe and the United States. But my pledge is to be part of the effort to overcome these hurdles. The memory of your loved one will be the driving force, together with the vivid memory of the suffering of the Palestinians in 1948 and ever since.
......
Defeated
For their sake, mine and yours, I wish we can also dream of the day after — when Zionism will be defeated as the ideology that governs our lives between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean sea and we all have the normal life we crave for and deserve.
So I pledge today not to be distracted even by friends and Palestinian leaders who still foolishly pin their hopes on the long-gone “two-state solution.” If one has the impulse to be involved in bringing regime change in Palestine, the only reason to do this is for a struggle for equal human and civil rights and full restitution for all those who are and were victimized by Zionism, inside and outside the beloved land of Palestine.
May whoever is your loved one rest in peace knowing that their death was not in vain — not because it will be avenged and revenged. We do not need more bloodshed. I still believe there is a way of bringing evil systems to an end with the power of humanity and morality.
Justice also means bringing the murderers who killed your loved one and so many others to court, and we must pursue bringing Israel’s war criminals to trial in international tribunals.
It is a far longer way and, at times, even I feel the impulse to be part of a force that uses hard power to end the inhumanity. But I pledge myself to work for justice, full justice, restorative justice.
This is what I can pledge — to work to prevent the next stage in the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.
Comments
As for what I'm clinging to - it's nothing more a critical notion that we should accept each other for who ever we are, independent of the feasibility of a premise. In my mind, I think you're probably right about the application of our philosophies, and for that I'm grateful. Thanks for keeping this as a respectful disagreement
As for labelling myself, my belief is that if you took the summation of the energies in the universe, you'd have arrived at God, or the Universe. I feel that, independent of what you call it, it is our inherent duty to do what we can to protect the 'something bigger' that we all belong to. I'm actually a bit curious now to hear whether you believe this would be considered atheism or not.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
As for your question... Since there is no authority on what is atheistic or not other than a strict definition of the word, I'd say that your belief is deistic. Where you'd find God at the summation of all the energies in the universe, I'd simply find a number. I just think you're taking it one leap too far. That's probably where our biggest difference is.
"The day of Judgement will not come until the Muslims fight and kill the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslim, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."
That's gotta go man. That's just gotta go.
The way these few ideologues depict religious imagery in the document is de-contextualized and is based on a particular reading of scripture - which would be akin to saying that Pat Robertson's interpretation of the Bible is the basic tenet of the Republican Party. Would we assume that every person in Florida who votes for Republicans wants homosexuals to be stoned? Probably not. You know what's interesting? The entire evangelical Christian right in the US actually believes in supporting Israel, not as an end in itself, but it hastens the return of Jesus, who upon returning to Earth forces all the Jews to convert or be killed and go to hell. This is an actual belief held by tens of millions of Americans, but Israelis are more than happy to take their money and open their doors to their lame tour groups. In other words, ideology ultimately doesn't matter as much as we think it does, unless we want to use it to vilify our enemies.
If you look at the way Hamas and other Palestinian groups have actually conducted themselves, which is what I've been repeatedly trying to get you to do in this thread, it is based on political expediency and the concept of compromise. The fact that they have ceded 78% of their historic homeland and agreed to establishing a state on the remaining 22% (West Bank and Gaza) rarely gets mentioned. They have agreed to long term truces that Israel has routinely broken. Their resistance mission has become limited to ending the occupation of those territories, not to ending Israel as a state. That much has become accepted even among Israelis who know better and certainly the Israeli political establishment when they're in terse negotiations with them and not crying in front of the cameras.
I ASK AGAIN: Who are these members who make up the "majority" of "Hamas's power structure" that you claim call for the "annihilation of Jews" even today? Stop ignoring this question and either own up to the fact that you made it up or that you are wrong. You continue to ignore what the leadership has actually said on the public record without supplying any real evidence, or actually responding to the arguments I'm putting forward.
You seem to have a problem that I'm not critical of Hamas to your standards. I am actually very critical of them, including the way they've governed the Gaza strip over the past few years -- the issue here is that I think that 1) their poor governance is largely due to an illegal blockade and the maintenance of an occupation by Israel; 2) their method of governing the Palestinians is irrelevant to the conflict itself, in which one party is occupying and oppressing another. You continuously ignore the power balance and the fact that the onus is ENTIRELY on Israel to end the conflict. As I said before in this thread, if Hamas continues to target Israelis even after the occupation is ended, equal rights are awarded to Palestinians, and that refugees are allowed to return to their homes, then I will be the first to condemn such violence. Until then however, international law even allows an occupied people the right to resist the occupation; 3) I think that my criticisms of the movement come as a Palestinian for Palestinians. But I think that people such as yourself who are not Palestinian have no right to comment on what an occupied or oppressed people do to resist. Your efforts should be focused on telling the occupying power, whom your government supports to allow the occupation (of which the resistance in simply a response to it) to continue, to stop. I don't think people wasted much breath critiquing the ANC in the height of the anti-apartheid struggle. But then again, history has shown that there are always people doing what they can to falsely attribute moral equivalency between oppressed and oppressor.
"Every time you hear someone talk about their faith and you sit quietly without challenging them, you're somewhat responsible for allowing this nonsense to continue. It's no different than someone making racist remarks in your company. You have a moral obligation to not sit quietly by and tolerate that shit. You're providing fertile ground for insanity to take root."
According to you, it is immoral to even allow someone to speak about their faith. You then falsely attribute someone talking about their own beliefs in God, to them being racist against another people. You also don't spare any words when you say flat out that "that shit" should not be tolerated. You also pretty much call for a very fascist way of "educating" our children only what you believe in, and not what others believe in:
"There is no short term solution to the problems in the Middle East and other religious conflicts, but there is a long term solution to them; teaching all of our children naturalism, humanism and an atheistic world-view."
This level of arrogance is what makes you a militant extremist the same way jihadi, extremist Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, etc., groups are. You think only your worldview is right, and not only that all of theirs is wrong, but that is must be fought against (not necessarily violently, though you've yet to make yourself clear on that, I think. You did speak out against beheadings, but that's about it.)
You also demonstrate poor knowledge of the history of the Middle East in general -- for instance you conveniently leave out the fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was mostly secular for the first several decades. Religious groups did not really become involved until the 1970s-1980s. Most of the main Zionist leaders in the early 20th century were themselves atheist, but it did not stop them from advocating the expropriation of another people's land through ethnically cleansing them. Secular regimes, and communist ones which advocated a similar type of militant anti-religionism such as that one you are calling for also committed some of the worst crimes in human history. You conflate issues and try to find any anecdotal evidence to blame everything on religion, but it's actually just poor scholarship and research skills at the end of the day. It's perfectly ok if you don't believe in it at all, or if you even think religion is bad for the human soul or whatever the hell else you might think -- but benjs is right when he says (from what I understood) that the ideology you are espousing actually takes some of the more intolerant interpretations and trends from religion and simply removes the God factor from them.
Gaza 2014 has clarified the international struggle
By Mark Braverman
Telling the truth
Five years ago I attended a conference in Boston entitled “One State for Palestine/Israel.” It was March 2009. Gaza was still smoldering from Operation Cast Lead, in which 1400 Palestinians were killed between December 27th and January 18th. Israeli historian and author of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine Ilan Pappe was one of the speakers, and he talked about genocide. My God, I thought, he’s saying the G word. It was not hurled as an accusation, it was not shouted for effect. It was a cry for help, and Pappe made that explicit. Cast Lead, he said, was Israel’s entry into a new phase of its project to take all of the land and to rid the territory of the indigenous Arab population. This is a test, Pappe said, and more is coming — will the world do something? Will you sitting in this university lecture hall do something, before it is too late? I learned later that Pappe had issued this call to the international community in 2006 in an Electronic Intifada piece entitled “Genocide in Gaza.” The slaughter of Palestinian civilians was no act of self defense or lamentable consequence of war, Pappe pointed out in the article. It was, rather, part of an ongoing program linked to Israel’s founding: “When Israel was absolved from any responsibility or accountably for the ethnic cleansing in 1948, it turned this policy into a legitimate tool for its national security agenda.” “Only international pressure will stop Israel,” he told us that day, citing the Palestinian call for BDS. “Nothing apart from pressure in the form of sanctions, boycott and divestment will stop the murdering of innocent civilians in the Gaza Strip… In the name of the Holocaust memory, let us hope the world will not allow the genocide of Gaza to continue.”
When Genocide is Permissible
Pappe’s reference to the genocide of European Jews was pointed. In the Israeli propaganda machine and indeed for the Jewish community as a whole, the term is only to be used in reference to Jewish losses and Jewish suffering. Certainly any acts committed by us against others is justified by virtue of our historic traumas (this is Marc Ellis’s concept of “Jewish innocence”) and could not possibly be spoken about in the same terms used to describe Jewish victimization. Last week this rule was broken by Orthodox American Jew Yochanan Gordon, in his piece entitled “When Genocide is Permissible” published in the Times of Israel, in which Gordon posed the question, “What other way then is there to deal with an enemy of this nature other than obliterate them completely?” The article was pulled the same day and Gordon forced to apologize, the editors claiming that “We reject any such notion or discussion associated with even entertaining the possibility of such an unacceptable idea.” The denial is disingenuous – what was unacceptable was not the idea of a genocidal Israel, but that posing the question came so uncomfortably close to an acknowledgement that genocide of the Palestinians is the Israeli reality. Gordon broke the rule by speaking the truth about Israel’s intentions and articulating the justification for its actions.
Now comes Pappe’s latest piece, published in the Electronic Intifada on July 27th, “To the family of the one thousandth victim of Israel’s genocidal slaughter in Gaza.” From the depths of his horror, Pappe speaks the truth and makes a pledge to the Palestinians. “This is 2014,” he writes, “the destruction of Gaza is well documented. This is not 1948 when Palestinians had to struggle hard to tell their story of horror; so many of the crimes Zionists committed then were hidden and never came to light, even until today. So my first and simple pledge is to record, inform and insist on the truth.”
This is Pappe’s pledge to the family of the one thousandth victim:
“I feel the urge today to make a pledge to you, which none of the Germans my father knew during the time of the Nazi regime was willing to make to him when the thugs committed genocide against his family. This is not much of a pledge at your moment of grief, but it is the best I can offer and saying nothing is not an option. And doing nothing is even less than an option.”
Pappe’s pledge continues with a call for BDS:
“I pledge to continue the effort to boycott a state that commits such crimes. Only when the Union of European Football Associations throws Israel out, when the academic community refuses to have any institutional ties with Israel, when airlines hesitate to fly there, and when every outfit that may lose money because of an ethical stance in the short-term understands that in the long run it will gain both morally and financially — only then we will begin to honor your loss.
So I pledge today not to be distracted even by friends and Palestinian leaders who still foolishly pin their hopes on the long-gone ‘two-state solution.’ If one has the impulse to be involved in bringing regime change in Palestine, the only reason to do this is for a struggle for equal human and civil rights and full restitution for all those who are and were victimized by Zionism, inside and outside the beloved land of Palestine. This is what I can pledge — to work to prevent the next stage in the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.”
Calling the churches
Pappe’s call for international grassroots action prompts consideration of the growing church movement for Palestinian liberation, especially in response to the 2009 “Moment of Truth” document by the leaders of the churches of Palestine, which calls on the international community to witness and come to the aid of the occupied Palestinian people. Now, as in other historical eras, politics meets theology: the Old Testament prophets speaking truth to power; the Roman occupation of Palestine in Jesus’ time; Germany under the Third Reich; Jim Crow America; popular liberation movements in Latin America; South Africa under Apartheid. Now, the churches are again called to stand for justice, as evidenced by the emergence of the global kairos movement. Kairos, in the words quoted in the U.S. “Call to Action” kairos document, is the “moment of grace and opportunity, when God issues a challenge to decisive action.” The words are taken from the 1985 South Africa Kairos document, a prophetic statement that marshaled the churches of South Africa and ultimately the world to stand against the heresy and evil of apartheid.
continued...
The momentum of this movement was in evidence in the recent action of the Presbyterian Church USA to divest from companies profiting from the oppression of the Palestinians. At their General Assembly in Detroit in June I watched the Presbyterians struggle to follow the gospel imperative to divest in the face of massive pressure – from within the church as well as from without — to hold back from this action in order not to risk a rupture with the institutional Jewish mainstream. By this time – the Presbyterians had been considering divestment at every biennial conference since 2004 — everyone knew it was apartheid and the church had to stop supporting it, but taking the pledge was hard. It passed, but barely, 51-49%. As the movement to bring the church around to a faithful stand grows, so will the internal struggle intensify, pitting courage and faithfulness to fundamental Christian principles against political caution and institutional timidity. Having watched this struggle unfold in Detroit, the testimony of one man in particular stands out for me – a pastor from Ohio, Andries Coetzee, who during the deliberations spoke out with particular passion and eloquence. Last week, in response to the bombing and invasion of Gaza, Coetzee posted a short piece entitled “With renewed violence in Gaza, Presbyterian Church’s Israel disinvestments are a nonviolent contribution to peace.” I encourage you to read the whole blog, especially for how Coetzee responds to the challenging comments. It is clear that it is his experience growing up in apartheid South Africa that provided the moral platform for this pastor’s clarity and courage. “I personally support divestment and spoke in favor of it on the plenary floor,” he wrote, “based on my experience of growing up in South Africa during the height of the apartheid years, as part of the white Afrikaans-speaking minority who oppressed the black majority.” The lessons he draws for today speak loud and clear:
“The emotional impact of such a system of oppression based on fear of ‘the other’ is tremendous, on oppressed and oppressor alike, and is still, I believe, at the root of many of the struggles we face in South Africa today. As whites supporting apartheid, we denied the humanity of our fellow black citizens by denying them basic human rights, and in the process we became less than human ourselves through our support of a brutal system of violence and degradation. It is because of this, the dehumanization of myself and others, that I thank the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the international community for their courage in divesting from companies during the 1980s that profited from oppression in South Africa, even though the Reagan administration failed to take an appropriate moral stand by opposing sanctions against the apartheid regime. It was through divestment and increased isolation that we as a minority realized that we were on a path of self-destruction, and that the powerful were forced to negotiate. Divestment helped us gain insight as to how we were viewed in the eyes of the world and forced us to realign ourselves with the values of nonviolence and peace. For me, the decision to economically divest was a decision to invest in South Africa and all her people, and helped lead us on a path of healing and hope in the midst of fear and destruction.”
As long as it takes
As criticism of Israel and of U.S. policy intensifies, in particular now in response to the carnage in Gaza, defenders of the status quo redouble their efforts to shore up support for Israel. On July 30th Mondoweiss reported on a rally in support of Israel in New York City. Readers were treated to the spectacle of politicians who lined up to take the microphone to do what they thought they needed to do to hold on to their seats. Mondoweiss’ headline was what made me click on the email: “Israel now, Israel tomorrow, Israel forever!” were the words that issued from Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, New York Eighth Congressional District, Brooklyn and Queens. For anyone not recognizing the allusion, click here. (Really, click on the link.)
Jeffries is African American.
To which there can be only this reply:
BDS now, BDS tomorrow, BDS as long as it takes.
It’s important to tell the truth because the media and the politicians – especially those in both industries identifying as liberal or even progressive — will continue to uphold the status quo by promoting moderate solutions that do not acknowledge or address the root cause — in short, that do not tell the truth. This is illustrated by the not one but two OpEd columns featured in this past Sunday’s New York Times. Roger Cohen in “Why Americans See Israel the Way They Do” spills most of his ink describing recent eruptions of anti-Semitism, especially in Europe: “Hitler’s name has been chanted, gassing of Jews invoked,” but with no discussion of what acts are prompting this hatred. Cohen concludes this appeal to eternal Jewish victimhood and vulnerability with an homage to the “balanced” discourse: “I find myself dreaming of some island in the middle of the Atlantic,” muses Cohen,”where the blinding excesses on either side of the water are overcome and a fundamental truth is absorbed: that neither side is going away, that both have made grievous mistakes, and that the fate of Jewish and Palestinian children — united in their innocence — depends on placing the future above the past. That island will no doubt remain as illusory as peace.” Yes, as illusory as seeking peace without confronting the tyranny of the powerful. Under the fold we then have Thomas Friedman in “How This War Ends.” As ever, reporting from Planet Friedman, the internationally celebrated columnist here appeals to moderation on both sides that will yield viable political solutions. In Friedman’s scenario, Hamas joins Fatah in a unity government, which then negotiates with Israel to create a Palestinian state. Friedman knows this can’t happen because Israel, supplied by genocide-enabling U.S. arms and emboldened by abjectly cowardly U.S. diplomacy, won’t let it happen. Friedman acknowledges as much in his penultimate sentence, but he can’t go where he needs to go: to the regime change Pappe talks about, brought about by international pressure not from politicians but from civil society.
Tell the truth.
BDS now, BDS tomorrow, BDS as long as it takes.
I don't have time to go through everything but I'll touch on a few things:
"According to you, it is immoral to even allow someone to speak about their faith." I never wrote that. I said without challenging them. If you're going to quote me, at least read the quote.
"You then falsely attribute someone talking about their own beliefs in God, to them being racist against another people." No I didn't. Go back and read it again.
"You also don't spare any words when you say flat out that "that shit" should not be tolerated." Cool, you got one right. I did write that and I meant it.
"You also pretty much call for a very fascist way of "educating" our children only what you believe in, and not what others believe in." I'm sorry you think it's fascist to teach kids naturalism, humanism and that they shouldn't believe in things for which there is no evidence of.
"This level of arrogance is what makes you a militant extremist the same way jihadi, extremist Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, etc., groups are." No. No, it doesn't in any way make us the same. I actually laughed out loud with that one though, thanks. Shit, that might have come off a but arrogant. It's ok though. I don't mind being arrogant because unlike you, I can recognize the difference between an arrogant prick and a fucking MILITANT EXTREMIST JIHADI. If you honestly consider them the same, then I see no reason to ever respond to your arguments in the future.
And finally, this gem "You think only your worldview is right, and not only that all of theirs is wrong." Well...yes. How many worldviews can one man hold? In specifically the context of this conversation, my worldview as an atheist is informed by my lack of belief in god. How is it possible for me to simultaneously hold as equally plausible the worldview of every religion on the planet? Sorry, fuck, but they are mutually exclusive. I do think that only the things that I think are right...are right. Watch, I'll show you how it works: Electronic music sucks. I'm right! Pretty cool, no? I get to be right all the time and it works with both my personal opinions and irrefutable facts! I can take it a step further and this is the beauty of thinking that what you think is right...is right. Check this out: One day someone may play for me some electronic dance music that's fucking amazing. I'll leap out of my chair, have an epiphany and declare that electronic dance music is awesome! Does that mean I've been wrong all along? Well, yeah I guess it does but you know what? Now that I know it actually is awesome, I know that what I now think is right...is fucking right again! I'm still right!!! In the light of new evidence or new circumstances, my opinion can change and I get to be right all over again. It's pretty cool when you think about it.
You wrote a bunch of other very well written stuff that I disagree with but I'm out of time, sorry. We'll probably have to agree to disagree unless you want to take one more shot at me which is totally fine.
PS: I've never understood the "you-think-only-what-you-think-is-right-is-right" argument. If someone can explain it to me I'd love to be proven wrong so I can be right again. Thanks.
Of course I'm not saying that you have to accept other worldviews. My point was NOT ONLY do you think yours is right and theirs is wrong, but that you actively believe in combating other worldviews till everyone believes in what you believe. This is the same logic that extremist religious groups believe in, which is the comparison I made. Obviously I'm not saying that you are going around forcing people through violence, but extremist Christians in the US don't even necessarily use violence to shove their intolerant views down people's throats (obviously a few do, such as those who bomb abortion clinics, assassinate doctors, etc., but I only speak with regards to ideology right now, not action).
I, on the other hand, believe in pluralism. Not just that, but I as a Muslim believe that pluralism is a necessity, and that we have much to gain through other worldviews, and I don't actually think everyone should be Muslim. I think everyone should believe in what they believe is best for them, so long as they don't hurt people. The Quran itself says, "O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes [so] that you may know one another." In other words, this verse emphasizes that the purpose of being different is to learn from one another. You, on the other hand, emphasize the necessity of believing in one worldview (which is not necessarily a belief in itself but a regulation of other people's beliefs). I think it's extremely problematic, and its the same problematic worldviews that extremists (who corrupt the religions and conveniently ignore verses like the one I quote above) have. But I'll end my criticisms here since it doesn't seem you're up for (or have time for) a real in-depth discussion here.
They weren't upset with certain posters trying to excuse and justify Israel's latest massacre of thousands of Palestinians - that was perfectly acceptable to them, because it played into their own lazy narrative which conveniently pretended that 'both sides are to blame', thereby allowing them to preach about 'love', and 'open-mindedness', and 'egos', and the need for 'understanding', while completely failing to grasp the reality of the situation in the occupied territories.
Thousands of people under occupation were being massacred by the fourth largest military in the World - a military given 100% support by the U.S government - their government - and yet they thought they could get away with dismissing the one-sided nature of the conflict by setting the framework for the discussion within boundaries that completely failed to appreciate or consider the basic truths of what was actually happening, and whilst completely disregarding the historical and political context.
Fortunately, for those people who were genuinely interested in the issue, they failed. Though I didn't see any evidence of any hatred. That's an exaggeration which reeks of pettiness. I did see a fair degree of annoyance and frustration though. Many people chose to address the real issues and to find concrete, constructive courses of action to take with which to protest the slaughter. It's perfectly understandable that they would get frustrated with other posters patronising them, and criticising them, and preaching to them that they should drop their anger and do nothing instead - all in the name of some one-eyed interpretation of Eddie Vedder's statement at the top of the page.
Flame away.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"dictate the terms of the discussion" Wait a minute, who told whom they shouldn't post here? Not I.
"reeks of pettiness" Yup. all over the muther fucking place.
"I didn't see any evidence of any hatred." Look again, mate.
"completely failed to appreciate or consider the basic truths of what was actually happening" I've heard that several times. Simply not true. Those kinds of responses just didn't happen where and in such a way that some wanted them to happen.
"annoyance and frustration" True, on all sides.
"Many people chose to address the real issues" ...ummm, except being anti-war. Gotta do the old facepalm on that one.
"drop their anger and do nothing instead" Another completely unfounded statement. I can't speak for others but you know that is not true of me at least. I've explained that in detail.
"one-eyed interpretation". Now look, the last time I was a cyclops for Halloween was before you were born, young man! :-))
Sure, because the people addressing the actual issues and the facts, and offering concrete, constructive ways to protest, were 'pro-war', right?
And just why do you suppose he felt the need to modify and soften his angry comments at MK? It wouldn't have anything at all to do with the fear of being branded an anti-Semite would it? It wouldn't have anything to do with not wanting to get dragged into the dirt of Israel's propaganda war, would it?
Hey, you all have a great time working this out. It's hard to keep up with the young Intellectuals, although I will say, those who think they have all the answers are usually the ones with the most to learn. I appreciate that you want to make a difference but please keep in mind that we all care in our own way or wouldn't bother with any of this and that none of needs further abuse. Thanks.
Now, as for what he did say, I don't know of anyone who has claimed the MK speech was not about Gaza. The disagreement has always been whether the speech was about Gaza exclusively, and whether or not it was a condemnation of Israel. There are countless reasons he could have decided to clarify his words, not the least of which was the clear projection placed on them by partisans on both sides of the Gaza conflict.
You can call that thinking delusional, or you can call it one-eyed. You cannot call it both without being guilty of hypocrisy.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
As for his second statement, and people taking a one-eyed view of it, I stand by what I said. No hypocrisy is involved. Certain people here kept repeating the mantra that Ed was indulging in some sort of hippy flower power peace and love mantra. He wasn't. He was pointing out that the fans of this band come from every corner of the planet and that we are capable of putting our heads together and doing something about the injustice in the World - specifically the injustice that inspired his angry comments in MK. In the closing part of his comment at the top of this page he says "I know that we can’t let the sadness turn into apathy." This does not mean that we should sit in front of our keyboards typing "LOVE, LOVE, LOVE" and hoping that will somehow solve any of the Worlds problems. He wasn't saying that we should all start reading the words of Mother Theresa, discover our own inner peace, and then disconnect from the World. You can be a spiritual person, but that doesn't mean that you have to be a selfish asshole.
Therefore, when people begin looking for concrete, viable ways to express their opposition to injustice, and of ways to protest the mass-murder of innocent civilians, they shouldn't have to put up with being patronized and condescended to by a few individuals who think that their apathy and ignorance of World affairs is something to be applauded and imitated. Quite frankly, it disgusts me that some people want to preach about 'love', and 'understanding', and 'Just let it go!!', whilst babies are being blown to pieces with their tax dollars.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
http://electronicintifada.net/content/family-one-thousandth-victim-israels-genocidal-slaughter-gaza/13648
To the family of the one thousandth victim of Israel’s genocidal slaughter in Gaza
Ilan Pappe
The Electronic Intifada
27 July 2014
I do not know yet who your loved one was. She might have been a baby a few months old, or a young boy, a grandfather or one of your children or parents. I heard about your loved one’s death from Chico Menashe, a political commentator on Reshet Bet, Israel’s main radio station.
He explained that the killing of your loved one, as well as turning Gaza neighborhoods to rubble and driving 150,000 people from their homes, is part of a well-calculated Israeli strategy: this carnage will destroy the impulse of Palestinians in Gaza to resist Israeli policies.
I heard this while reading in the 25 July edition of the supposedly respectable Haaretz the words of the not so respectable historian Benny Morris that even this is not enough.
He calls the genocidal policies so far “refisut” — feebleness of mind and spirit. He demands far more massive destruction in the future with the knowledge that this is how you behave if you want to defend your “villa in the jungle,” as former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak described Israel.
Inhuman wilderness
Yes, I am afraid to say the Israeli media and academia are fully behind the massacre apart from few, hardly audible voices in this inhuman wilderness. I am not writing this to tell you that I am ashamed — I long ago dissociated myself from this state ideology and do all I can as an individual to confront and defeat it. Probably it has not been enough; we are all inhibited by moments of cowardice, egotism and maybe a natural impulse to take care of our family and loved ones.
And yet I feel the urge today to make a pledge to you, which none of the Germans my father knew during the time of the Nazi regime was willing to make to him when the thugs committed genocide against his family. This is not much of a pledge at your moment of grief, but it is the best I can offer and saying nothing is not an option. And doing nothing is even less than an option.
This is 2014 — the destruction of Gaza is well documented. This is not 1948 when Palestinians had to struggle hard to tell their story of horror; so many of the crimes Zionist committed then where hidden and never came to light, even until today. So my first and simple pledge is to record, inform and insist on the truth.
My old university, University of Haifa, has recruited its students to disseminate Israel’s lies all over the world using the Internet, but this is 2014 and propaganda of this kind will not hold water.
Pledge to boycott
But surely this is not enough. I pledge to continue the effort to boycott a state that commits such crimes. Only when the Union of European Football Associations throws Israel out, when the academic community refuses to have any institutional ties with Israel, when airlines hesitate to fly there, and when every outfit that may lose money because of an ethical stance in the short-term understands that in the long run it will gain both morally and financially — only then we will begin to honor your loss.
The boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement has had many achievements and continues its tireless work. The obstacles still include the false allegation of anti-Semitism and the cynicism of politicians. This is how an honorable initiative by British architects to force their colleagues in Israel to take a moral stance rather than be accomplices in the criminal colonization of the land was blocked at the last moment.
Similar initiatives were sabotaged elsewhere by spineless politicians in Europe and the United States. But my pledge is to be part of the effort to overcome these hurdles. The memory of your loved one will be the driving force, together with the vivid memory of the suffering of the Palestinians in 1948 and ever since.
......
Defeated
For their sake, mine and yours, I wish we can also dream of the day after — when Zionism will be defeated as the ideology that governs our lives between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean sea and we all have the normal life we crave for and deserve.
So I pledge today not to be distracted even by friends and Palestinian leaders who still foolishly pin their hopes on the long-gone “two-state solution.” If one has the impulse to be involved in bringing regime change in Palestine, the only reason to do this is for a struggle for equal human and civil rights and full restitution for all those who are and were victimized by Zionism, inside and outside the beloved land of Palestine.
May whoever is your loved one rest in peace knowing that their death was not in vain — not because it will be avenged and revenged. We do not need more bloodshed. I still believe there is a way of bringing evil systems to an end with the power of humanity and morality.
Justice also means bringing the murderers who killed your loved one and so many others to court, and we must pursue bringing Israel’s war criminals to trial in international tribunals.
It is a far longer way and, at times, even I feel the impulse to be part of a force that uses hard power to end the inhumanity. But I pledge myself to work for justice, full justice, restorative justice.
This is what I can pledge — to work to prevent the next stage in the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.
http://www.bdsmovement.net/stoparmingisrael