Cigdem Göle Posted January 10, 2009 Author Share Posted January 10, 2009 and who cares what the Red Cross has to say, they're not a political organization, they help clean up the mess.... Right. Those who call it a "mess" as long as they are someone else's dead and wounded children do not care. Others certainly do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 What I have argued is that the way that Israel is trying to do this will make them even more unsafe. Their action is guaranteeing the creation of even more terrorists. I agree completely. Now to repeat my question, what choice do they have? There is no solution to the problem over there. I recently read an article in the NY Times about the creationists in America, who are just as persistent and undeterred against science and courtroom judgments as any armed terrorists. What the writer said about the creation/evolution conflict can be applied equally well to the Arab/Israeli conflict: "We're not going to fix this." Until they withdraw from land they have taken illegally and begin political negotiations with their enemies, they will not enjoy peace in Israel. I thought that they did withdraw from Gaza. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Drago Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 NOTHING -- not even national survival -- justifies the murder of innocents. Or anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 NOTHING -- not even national survival -- justifies the murder of innocents.Or anyone else. In a world run by other than reptilian-brained human beings organized into nation states, that could be true. But nations will defend themselves, and there will always be what the U.S. military likes to call "collateral damage." Were the people lobbing rockets into Israel worried about "innocents"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Drago Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Do two wrongs make a right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Do two wrongs make a right? No. And to repeat myself, there is no solution to the problem over there. If there were, you would think that they would have come up with it by now, all these years since 1948, or actually since about 1500 B.C. or whenever Abraham was wandering around over there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 who cares what the Red Cross has to say Eureka! the answer was right there in the article posted above (#46) "The Israeli military must have been aware of the situation but did not assist the wounded," the international Red Cross said. "Neither did they make it possible for us or the Palestine Red Crescent to assist the wounded."The ICRC normally conducts confidential negotiations with warring parties, and the statement was a rare public criticism of one party to a conflict over a specific incident. Like I said who cares what the Red Cross (international or not) has to say? They're not funding or supporting either the belligerents.... so, make ready their funds, equipment and personnel. Most, I suspect, comes from the good old USofA... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 and who cares what the Red Cross has to say, they're not a political organization, they help clean up the mess.... Right. Those who call it a "mess" as long as they are someone else's dead and wounded children do not care. Others certainly do. indignation, righteous or otherwise will not stem the flow of violence. Nor will the IRC... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 and who cares what the Red Cross has to say, they're not a political organization, they help clean up the mess.... Right. Those who call it a "mess" as long as they are someone else's dead and wounded children do not care. Others certainly do. indignation, righteous or otherwise will not stem the flow of violence. Nor will the IRC... Neither will apathy, crying "there is no solution," or shouting "GO ISRAEL! GO!!" (sis-boom-bah!) The reason what the Red Cross has to say on the subject is important is BECAUSE they're not "a political organization" -- they have no stake in the SIDES you mentioned earlier...... If they're being blocked from providing humanitarian relief, and criticize the party doing the blocking, their voice carries much authority.......at least to ordinary human beings.......since it's a humanitarian and moral issue rather than a political or military or ideological or religious one. Did anybody read Cynthia McKinney's report from the scene, attempting to deliver humanaterian aid? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13916 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 (edited) and who cares what the Red Cross has to say, they're not a political organization, they help clean up the mess.... Right. Those who call it a "mess" as long as they are someone else's dead and wounded children do not care. Others certainly do. indignation, righteous or otherwise will not stem the flow of violence. Nor will the IRC... Neither will apathy, crying "there is no solution," or shouting "GO ISRAEL! GO!!" (sis-boom-bah!) The reason what the Red Cross has to say on the subject is important is BECAUSE they're not "a political organization" -- they have no stake in the SIDES you mentioned earlier...... If they're being blocked from providing humanitarian relief, and criticize the party doing the blocking, their voice carries much authority.......at least to ordinary human beings.......since it's a humanitarian and moral issue rather than a political or military or ideological or religious one. No solution? Another handwringer comment! IRCs' authority extends to the 'closet' port of entry to the conflict, from then on their admittance to the theater is up to the belligerents.... If the IRC wants to work in GAZA, that's Hamas responsibility, it's their territory. Don't expect Israelii operations to halt because of casualties (of any sort).... What do you think this is, soft ball? Edited January 10, 2009 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 (edited) ...Did anybody read Cynthia McKinney's report from the scene, attempting to deliver humanaterian aid? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13916 Hi Bill.... Good article -- I think Cynthia McKinney can do nothing less than she's doing. I respect her decision to do what she thinks is right. At this particular time, I believe she's wrong. David Edited January 10, 2009 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigdem Göle Posted January 10, 2009 Author Share Posted January 10, 2009 I have no love for the Israeli government. I believe it is ruthless, that it deliberately bombed the USS Liberty, and that it may have played a role in 9/11 and God only knows what else. (I also have no love for the American government, and have never believed that might makes right.) That said, I'm still wondering what Israel was supposed to do in the case of rocket attacks from Gaza. The argument that those attacks were really nothing sounds like nonsense to me. "Oh, it's just those Hamas boys having some fun again." How would you like to have a "nothing" rocket coming your way while you're mowing the lawn or eating dinner? I believe that one of the first responsibilities of a government is to protect its people from attack. During a period of seven years, fatal attacks from Gaza to Israel is 20, whereas Israel killed 310 civilians in a day. This clearly shows the misuse of the concept "self-defence". And the most concrete outcome of such wrong actions would be more violence. Due to huge death toll and international communities' –especially UN's- failure to act, people get furious and the ones who lose their relatives, homes or both, become suitable candidates for global jihadists. This sure is in favor of radical movements like Hamas. Bearing in mind that extremist movements arose from difficult circumstances and an unbalanced treatment towards people who are already aggrieved of terrible living conditions, military operations is not the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 Another example of Americans crushing the weak. - BK Cynthia McKinny: Today I participated in ANSWER's march and rally, "Let Gaza Live" in Washington, D.C. Attendance was excellent despite the weather. Among the many friends in attendance, I met a young man and his daughter who had come all the way from Greensboro, North Carolina to participate. The crowd was one of the most diverse that I have ever seen. I think our message is reaching deep into our country's heartland. Here are my remarks: Cynthia McKinney "Let Gaza Live" Washington, D.C. January 10, 2009 We don't see the images. They are neatly censored from our view in this country. But everywhere else around the world the carnage that is Gaza is being seen and the people are revolted by what they see. They see dead babies, decapitated bodies, defenseless relief workers killed. Maimed men, makeshift morgues, mortified mothers. They see exploding white phosphorus shells, cluster bombs, depleted uranium munitions. They see what is reportedly the world's fourth most powerful military using all of its power against a defenseless people. In fact, they are witnesses to 15 days of war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. They see Hugo Chavez expel Venezuela's Israeli Ambassador and they see lawmakers in Ecuador condemn Israel's actions, calling for an investigation into Israel's crimes against humanity. And despite the obvious facts of an Israeli-sponsored terror campaign against Palestinians in Gaza, a piece of territory roughly twice the size of the District of Columbia, they see the U.S. Congress support a resolution totally supporting Israel, even though Israel is in violation of U.S. and international law. They see Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, swaggering in insult to black America by initially refusing to seat Roland Burris from Illinois in the Senate, yet that same Reid cowers before the pro-Israel lobby, and they wonder why. And sadly, they see the U.S. President-elect, who roared onto the scene like a lion, remain as quiet as a lamb in the face of the utter inhumanity of Israel's actions, and they wonder why. And then, they see us. Gathered here in front of the White House, reaffirming our own humanity, and that of millions of people around the world, including in Israel, who disagree with this death and destruction. The tears of the Palestinians roll down our cheeks, even as we bury our own victims of police murder. A new day is coming in U.S. politics. We will use the power of our vote to change U.S. policy. We will no longer check our values at the door and support politicians and political parties that fail to deliver. Not one more bomb to Israel. In defense of humanity, we will not give up and we will win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 (edited) If people are too dim to recognize a problem without hearing from Cynthia McKinney, then they're beyond hope anyway. Good point. And as John Simkin and others have pointed out, the only sure outcome from this genocide is a new generation of Palestinians committed to the destruction of Israel. Israel and its apologists claim that launching rockets into their territory is unacceptable. Cigdem posted that 20 Israeli deaths have resulted in the last ten years. I have read it is 17 deaths in the past seven. Either way, it's about 2.5 deaths per year. This is a miniscule price to pay for the misery heaped on these people (Israel's neighbours) over the last 100 years. Fairminded observers can see this because they are not blinded by the religious hatreds evident in the posts of Bill K and David H. As this piece from Diane Mason outlines, the Jewish population in Palestine at the time of the first settlements in the late 19th century was about 3.3%, according to the census of the Ottoman Empire. http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2008/12/what-if.html The Palestinians have witnessed the colonial powers bestow their land to a people whose brutality and bellicosity have become a unique trademark. They have become not only strangers in their own land, but prisoners in a modern day concentration camp. Of course, Israel has yet to abide by UNSC Res. 242 and 338. They never will, imo. Israel always claims their security is at stake but they are the regional superpower, with nuclear weapons to boot. One must ask, how much security does Israel require? How dare Israel demand that the Palestinians renounce terror (i.e. resistance) and pay homage to their brutal overlords. Any who refuse to pay homage, like the democratically elected Hamas, are immediately denounced as terrorists by Israel and its mainstream media partners. By this definition, I would be classified as a terrorist, too. Moreover, for the last two or three years Israel has been pushing the US to attack Iran, brainwashing the world into believing that Iran is a threat to global security. What is evident however, is that it is Israel who is the greatest threat to global peace. An attack on Iran would enflame the entire region instantly and almost certainly gain the attention of Russia and China. Thus it is Israel who are willing to risk a global conflagration in order to suit their own selfish ends, once again. A mature and peace loving Israel would recognise that they were fortunate indeed to be granted a new home in the land of their biblical ancestors. They would behave like responsible residents in the region and respect the rights of their less powerful neighbours. They are the newest kid on the block, after all. Instead, they use cluster bombs and phosphorous. They slaughter the children of their neighbours. Israel, in their present form, have forfeited their right to exist, imo. Edited January 11, 2009 by Mark Stapleton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 (edited) If people are too dim to recognize a problem without hearing from Cynthia McKinney, then they're beyond hope anyway. Wait a minute - Forget about the opinion of fairmined observers, of which you certainly cannot consider youself - but where did you get the evident "religious hatreds evident" in my posts? Please show me my hatred, and for which side do I hate? I've said that if Israel is such a powerful, militaristic, warmongering nation, why stick pins in it and shell them with rockets if you don't want to start a war. And I've also said that Israel would probably better be better civic administrators of Gaza than a terrorits organization like Hamas. Now where's the evident "religous hatred" or what have I said that has anything to do with religion, except when I brought the Irish into it? And then I post Cynthia McKinney's story, which exhibits a perspective that I don't necessarily agree with, but certainly stands to be heard. There was an article I tried to find again but couldn't that asked who represents the interest of Palestine and Gaza in the US Congress, and the answer was nobody. Well, Cynthia McKinney was that spokesperson and now she is just an ordinary citizen who is actually doing something she believes in. Bill Kelly Fairminded observers can see this because they are not blinded by the religious hatreds evident in the posts of Bill K Good point. And as John Simkin and others have pointed out, the only sure outcome from this genocide is a new generation of Palestinians committed to the destruction of Israel. Israel and its apologists claim that launching rockets into their territory is unacceptable. Cigdem posted that 20 Israeli deaths have resulted in the last ten years. I have read it is 17 deaths in the past seven. Either way, it's about 2.5 deaths per year. This is a miniscule price to pay for the misery heaped on these people (Israel's neighbours) over the last 100 years. and David H. As this piece from Diane Mason outlines, the Jewish population in Palestine at the time of the first settlements in the late 19th century was about 3.3%, according to the census of the Ottoman Empire. http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2008/12/what-if.html The Palestinians have witnessed the colonial powers bestow their land to a people whose brutality and bellicosity have become a unique trademark. They have become not only strangers in their own land, but prisoners in a modern day concentration camp. Of course, Israel has yet to abide by UNSC Res. 242 and 338. They never will, imo. Israel always claims their security is at stake but they are the regional superpower, with nuclear weapons to boot. One must ask, how much security does Israel require? How dare Israel demand that the Palestinians renounce terror (i.e. resistance) and pay homage to their brutal overlords. Any who refuse to pay homage, like the democratically elected Hamas, are immediately denounced as terrorists by Israel and its mainstream media partners. By this definition, I would be classified as a terrorist, too. Moreover, for the last two or three years Israel has been pushing the US to attack Iran, brainwashing the world into believing that Iran is a threat to global security. What is evident however, is that it is Israel who is the greatest threat to global peace. An attack on Iran would enflame the entire region instantly and almost certainly gain the attention of Russia and China. Thus it is Israel who are willing to risk a global conflagration in order to suit their own selfish ends, once again. A mature and peace loving Israel would recognise that they were fortunate indeed to be granted a new home in the land of their biblical ancestors. They would behave like responsible residents in the region and respect the rights of their less powerful neighbours. They are the newest kid on the block, after all. Instead, they use cluster bombs and phosphorous. They slaughter the children of their neighbours. Israel, in their present form, have forfeited their right to exist, imo. Edited January 11, 2009 by William Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now