| Author | Post |
|---|
Froggy
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 11th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 342 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 29th, 2009 12:58 am |
|
Suspiciously absent from American media, apparently the prosititute press only highlights the wrongdoings of Arabs. People actually believe there is freedom the press here, but they are wrong. While the TV media is busy censoring out atrocities and the horrific pictures of war from Afghanistan, Iraq etc., the publics exposure to the reality/futility of endless conflict is limited to Hollywood movies.
UN says Israel should face war-crimes trial over Gaza
By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem
Wednesday, 16 September 2009
"A UN fact-finding mission led by the Jewish South African former Supreme Court Judge Richard Goldstone said Israel should face prosecution by the International Criminal Court, unless it opened fully independent investigations of what the report said were repeated violations of international law, "possible war crimes and crimes against humanity" during the operation. "
"Amid a detailed examination of most of the major incidents of the war - albeit an examinations carried out five months after the incidents took place - it says that:
* The first bombing attack on Day One of the operation when children were going home from school "appears to have been calculated to cause the greatest disruption and widespread panic".
* The deaths of 22 members of the Samouni family sheltering in a warehouse were among ones "owing to Israeli fire intentionally directed at them", in clear breach of the Geneva Convention.
* The firing of white phosphorus shells at the UN Relief and Works Agency compound was "compounded by reckless regard of the consequences", and the use of high explosive artillery at the al-Quds hospitals were violations of Articles 18 and 19 of the Geneva Convention. It says that warnings issued by Israel to the civilian population "cannot be considered as sufficiently effective" under the Convention.
* On the attack in the vicinity of the al-Fakhoura school, where at least 35 Palestinians were killed, Israeli forces launched an attack where a "reasonable commander" would have considered military advantage was outweighed by the risk to civilian life. The civilians had their right to life violated as under Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). And while some of the 99 policemen killed in incidents surveyed by the team may have been members of armed groups, others who were not also had their right to life violated.
* The inquiry team also says that a number of Palestinians were used as human shields - itself a violation of the ICCPR - including Majdi Abed Rabbo, whose complaints about being so used were first aired in The Independent. The report asserts that the use of human shields constitutes a "war crime under the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/un-says-israel-should-face-warcrimes-trial-over-gaza-1787972.html
|
shadowwalker
Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 29th, 2009 02:14 am |
|
You make it sound like there is a ‘right’ side to the argument. Both sides are ‘wrong’, and neither side wants ‘peace’. You can pray for the day when there is no Judaism and Islam, and as peaceful a world as that will create; they will still be killing each other over there. North and South Korea will come together as a unified country long before we ever see peace in the Middle East.
|
TR1985
Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 29th, 2009 03:48 am |
|
shadowwalker wrote: You make it sound like there is a ‘right’ side to the argument. Both sides are ‘wrong’, and neither side wants ‘peace’. You can pray for the day when there is no Judaism and Islam, and as peaceful a world as that will create; they will still be killing each other over there. North and South Korea will come together as a unified country long before we ever see peace in the Middle East.
You are a wise man.
|
Low n Slow
Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 29th, 2009 05:06 pm |
|
shadowwalker wrote: You make it sound like there is a ‘right’ side to the argument. Both sides are ‘wrong’, and neither side wants ‘peace’. You can pray for the day when there is no Judaism and Islam, and as peaceful a world as that will create; they will still be killing each other over there. North and South Korea will come together as a unified country long before we ever see peace in the Middle East.
I don’t believe he’s trying to make it sound like there is a ‘right’ side to the argument.
While I agree that both sides are wrong and neither side is working very hard for peace, he makes a valid point; our media continually paints a false picture of the conflict, always portraying the Arabs as the sole aggressor and the Israelis as the sole victims.
|
Froggy
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 11th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 342 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 29th, 2009 09:13 pm |
|
Netanyahu is no honest peace broker. Israel was the aggressor and broke the Geneva Conventions.
Like Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, he should be tried and convicted.
![[peace-victory]](/forums/themes/default/doublepeace.gif)
...................................................................
Last edited on Tue Sep 29th, 2009 09:14 pm by Froggy
|
TD
S. Moderator
|
Posted: Mon Oct 5th, 2009 08:14 pm |
|
Bush was a nut and a warmonger. However, nearly everyone agreed that we should attack the terrorists and those who aided them.
Israel is a pain, and they make it hard to support them, but when rockets are fired repeatedly into civilian areas, I can't fault them for whatever their response is. They don't seem to have the same problems with the west bank that they do with the gaza strip - the difference being Hamas. The people of gaza elected Hamas, so I don't feel sorry for them in the least.
I know it's popular on the left to support the Arabs over the Jews, but I honestly don't give a crap about either one.
|
BushFramedRogerRabbit
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 6th, 2009 07:27 pm |
|
Well now lets see.
The Palestinians have had their human rights abused countless times, their homes knocked to the ground in the thousands, unchecked violent/extremist settlers placed into their midst (living on top of their knocked-down homes no less) Water supplies diverted to said settlements. Said settlements getting extra protection from the IDF, and exclusive roads criss-crossing the west bank, further dividing the land that they used to own anyway.
Violent uprisings have been triggered for less weighty reasons. The American revolution, for example!
But no, of course, the Palestinians are supposed to be superhuman! People who, even faced with such an appalling situation, nonetheless select nice, peaceful, negotiating political parties into government, parties that play by the international rules that have been ignored by their oppressors so many times.
And of course, the act of not electing a nice peaceful government that is to our personal liking is enough justification to allow their oppressors to continue with said abuses!
As liberals who are suppoed to care about human rights.... perhaps the "f*** them both" standpoint needs to be reassessed.
Last edited on Tue Oct 6th, 2009 07:30 pm by BushFramedRogerRabbit
|
TR1985
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 6th, 2009 07:49 pm |
|
Israel isn't our country. We aren't going to solve their problems. If they want to fight, it is foolish for us to get involved. Niether party there is interested in peace, so why do we need to go there and meddle in it? Taking either side is foolish.
|
BushFramedRogerRabbit
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 6th, 2009 08:16 pm |
|
Israel isn't our country. We aren't going to solve their problems. If they want to fight, it is foolish for us to get involved. Niether party there is interested in peace, so why do we need to go there and meddle in it? Taking either side is foolish.
Now run the clocks back to 1776, and put yourselves in the position of France.
"The American Colonies aren't ours. We aren't going to solve their problems. If they want to fight, it is foolish for us to get involved. Niether party there is interested in peace, so why do we need to go there and meddle in it? Taking either side is foolish!"
Nevertheless, complete withdrawal from Middle Eastern affairs, although not the perfect option, is an improvement on the current situation - I agree.
Just as soon as you take back all those high-tech weapons you gave Israel. Then you'd truly be withdrawn from the equation.
|
TR1985
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 6th, 2009 08:20 pm |
|
BushFramedRogerRabbit wrote: Israel isn't our country. We aren't going to solve their problems. If they want to fight, it is foolish for us to get involved. Niether party there is interested in peace, so why do we need to go there and meddle in it? Taking either side is foolish.
Now run the clocks back to 1776, and put yourselves in the position of France.
"The American Colonies aren't ours. We aren't going to solve their problems. If they want to fight, it is foolish for us to get involved. Niether party there is interested in peace, so why do we need to go there and meddle in it? Taking either side is foolish!"
Nevertheless, complete withdrawal from Middle Eastern affairs, although not the perfect option, is an improvement on the current situation - I agree.
Just as soon as you take back all those high-tech weapons you gave Israel. Then you'd truly be withdrawn from the equation.
France wanted to open up trade and to take revenge for the seven years. It was very much a case of opportunism.
As for what we give Israel, you are correct, I don't really approve of it. They can buy what they want.
|
BushFramedRogerRabbit
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 6th, 2009 08:25 pm |
|
France wanted to open up trade and to take revenge for the seven years. It was very much a case of opportunism.
Irrelevant to the point. Do you think France's intervention was morally justifiable?
On that topic - do you think strategy & self-interest alone should guide your nations' foreign policy? Because that is the line of thinking that deposes Mossadeghs and creates Israels.
|
TR1985
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 6th, 2009 08:30 pm |
|
BushFramedRogerRabbit wrote: France wanted to open up trade and to take revenge for the seven years. It was very much a case of opportunism.
Irrelevant to the point. Do you think France's intervention was morally justifiable?
Yes, however, that isn't why France intervened.
On that topic - do you think strategy & self-interest alone should guide your nations' foreign policy? Because that is the line of thinking that deposes Mossadeghs and creates Israels.
No, but basing our foreign policy and national self interest would be a nice change. I seem to remember Iraq being about spreading freedom and democracy, and look at how that turned out. Similarly we have thousands of soldiers in South Korea providing their protection, and what do we get out of it? A trade deficit so we can buy their Hyundais and they don't buy our cars?
America isn't in a position right now to be making decisions based off idealism. If we were in a stronger position, it would be different, we are not. We may not like it, but what can we do?
|
BushFramedRogerRabbit
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 6th, 2009 08:54 pm |
|
No, but basing our foreign policy and national self interest would be a nice change.
I do understand where you're coming from. I struggle to comprehend how the US' relationship with Israel benefits the US in any way at all.
Irrelevant to the point. Do you think France's intervention was morally justifiable?
Yes, however
That's all I need.
You say France's intervention was morally justifiable....
Now, all the British were doing were taxing the Colonists. Taxing them. And refusing them representation in parliament.
The only other thing you could accuse Britain of is picking a fight with France in the 7-year-war, and using colonists to fight in said war.
I'm not excusing the injustices of the Empire - I'm merely noting that the grievances faced by the American Colonists were not even close to the ones currently faced by Palestinians.
And yet, they are enough to warrant a violent uprising, and intervention from a foreign power?
If those who support the U.S revolution want to be morally consistent, surely the Palestinians, who face far greater breaches of human rights, should be supported as well?
(And that support needn't come in the form of foolhardy regime changes like Iraq. There are many ways to apply pressure)
|
TR1985
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 6th, 2009 09:00 pm |
|
BushFramedRogerRabbit wrote: No, but basing our foreign policy and national self interest would be a nice change.
I do understand where you're coming from. I struggle to comprehend how the US' relationship with Israel benefits the US in any way at all.
Irrelevant to the point. Do you think France's intervention was morally justifiable?
Yes, however
That's all I need.
You say France's intervention was morally justifiable....
Now, all the British were doing were taxing the Colonists. Taxing them. And refusing them representation in parliament.
The only other thing you could accuse Britain of is picking a fight with France in the 7-year-war, and using colonists to fight in said war.
I'm not excusing the injustices of the Empire - I'm merely noting that the grievances faced by the American Colonists were not even close to the ones currently faced by Palestinians.
And yet, they are enough to warrant a violent uprising, and intervention from a foreign power?
If those who support the U.S revolution want to be morally consistent, surely the Palestinians, who face far greater breaches of human rights, should be supported as well?
(And that support needn't come in the form of foolhardy regime changes like Iraq. There are many ways to apply pressure)
There's nothing moral to be gained from backing either side. Both of them dug themselves into this hole, perhaps one deserves blame more so than the other, however, I"m not really interested in finding out who that is, and I'm rather tired of Israel/Palestine and its prominence in our politics.
You are correct, I really don't support our current relationship with Israel, that does not mean I support a hostile relationship either.
America has been sucked into that backwater, and its time we extricate ourselves . . . I hear the Chinese want to try their hand at it, let them.
|
BushFramedRogerRabbit
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 6th, 2009 09:11 pm |
|
There's nothing moral to be gained from backing either side.
And therefore, there was nothing moral to be gained by backing the American Colonists against the British?
|
TR1985
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 6th, 2009 09:15 pm |
|
BushFramedRogerRabbit wrote: There's nothing moral to be gained from backing either side.
And therefore, there was nothing moral to be gained by backing the American Colonists against the British?
France didn't do it for moral reasons. . . and really, the Israel Palestine situation is not the same, as its two people fighting over the same land, not an independence/separatist movement.
What moral gain will we get from backing Palestine?
I concede backing Israel is neither moral, nor strategic, so back no one. It isn't an improvement to switch sides in our meddling.
|
BushFramedRogerRabbit
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 6th, 2009 09:24 pm |
|
and really, the Israel Palestine situation is not the same, as its two people fighting over the same land, not an independence/separatist movement.
On the contrary, the fight hasn't been about land since the 1972 war. Now it is simply a struggle of a people who have been denied their human rights for over thirty years.
I direct you to my original post:
The Palestinians have had their human rights abused countless times, their homes knocked to the ground in the thousands, unchecked violent/extremist settlers placed into their midst (living on top of their knocked-down homes no less) Water supplies diverted to said settlements. Said settlements getting extra protection from the IDF, and exclusive roads criss-crossing the west bank, further dividing the land that they used to own anyway.
What moral gain will we get from backing Palestine?
The moral gain of aiding a people struggling for their natural human rights.
And you still haven't answered the question - if backing the Palestinians (who are far more abused than the American Colonists were) is immoral, then was France's backing of the colonists' violent revolution also immoral? (Regardless of why they actually intervened)
You've acknowledged that Israel does fuc*ed-up things, which is the starting point. What you now have to get over is the fact that the Palestinians' similarly-fuc*ed up acts would not be occurring if they were given their rights & freedoms.
As the American revolutionaries were.
Last edited on Tue Oct 6th, 2009 09:29 pm by BushFramedRogerRabbit
|
TR1985
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 6th, 2009 09:28 pm |
|
I'm still not convinced. We don't need to be involved either way and what those two people decide to do and how they decide to live with each other is their business. America will not gain by backing either. And if we decided that its our goal to lift the oppressed of the world, why draw the line at morally ambiguous Israel as opposed to Tibet?
|
TR1985
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 6th, 2009 09:31 pm |
|
BushFramedRogerRabbit wrote:
And you still haven't answered the question - if backing the Palestinians (who are far more abused than the American Colonists were) is immoral, then was France's backing of the colonists' violent revolution also immoral? (Regardless of why they actually intervened)
Backing the Palestinians would be ambiguous, you want me to take sides in that, it isn't clear cut, and really is not central, and as far as the world goes, there are far more egregious examples with much less ambiguity.
As for backing the American Revolution, yes, but that isn't why France did it.
|
BushFramedRogerRabbit
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 6th, 2009 09:32 pm |
|
America will not gain by backing either.
So strategic gain is the only deciding factor? I thought we were discussing morals. Why is it not moral to support the Palestinians?
And if we decided that its our goal to lift the oppressed of the world, why draw the line at morally ambiguous Israel as opposed to Tibet?
Quite simply because Tibet is too difficult a task. The means you would have to employ would not justify the ends.
In Israel's case, you can do a good deed merely by turning off the tap (and maybe putting some sanctions/a blockade in place)
I never said your goal is to lift ALL the oppressed of the world. Just the ones within easy reach.
|
Current time is 03:45 am | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ...   |
|
