I tend to agree. In any disagreement it isn' wise to lose sight of the fact any side could be wrong however unlikely it may seem.
In war, however, rhetoric will greatly help to win the day. Once a side has won it is free to make of history what it wants. This is a very poor incentive for civilized behaviour.
I bet you both would have said the same thing about George Washington.
Winners do right the history books, its as simple as that. America, Britain and Russia weren't exactly samaritans in WW2 and America sure as hell wasn't in Vietnam or either desert storm (or any other conflict, including overthrowing democracitally elected governments).
There you go Risus prooving your nothing but a bigot and a rascist exactly the dirt you fling at others to mask your own foul proclivities, and in your haste to heap **** on others you never stopped to consider that your heroic Israelis live in that part of the world. Yours is the mindset that neads resolution.
Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr and Nelson Mandela are people I admire and wish to emulate.
When people perpetuate the circle of violence, the situation won't be solved. One attacks the other and the other has to retaliate and around and around they go. It is stupid and wasteful.
...Quote has been trimmed
There sure is a lot of agreeing going on -- one might describe it as "absolute." The degree of mandated orthodoxy on the Israel question among America's political elites is so great that if one took the statements on Gaza from George Bush, Pelosi, Hoyer, Berman, Ros-Lehtinen, and randomly chosen Bill Kristol-acolytes and redacted their names, it would be impossible to know which statements came from whom. They're all identical: what Israel does is absolutely right. The U.S. must fully and unconditionally support Israel. Israel does not merit an iota of criticism for what it is doing. It bears none of the blame for this conflict. No questioning even of the wisdom of its decisions -- let alone the justifiability -- is uttered. No deviation from that script takes place.
By itself, the degree of full-fledged, absolute agreement -- down to the syllable -- among America's political leaders is striking, even when one acknowledges the constant convergence between the leadership of both parties. But it becomes even more striking in light of the bizarre fact that the consensus view -- that America must unquestioningly stand on Israel's side and support it, not just in this conflict but in all of Israel's various wars -- is a view which 7 out of 10 Americans reject. Conversely, the view which 70% of Americans embrace -- that the U.S. should be neutral and even-handed in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict generally -- is one that no mainstream politician...
Side note, not justifying Palestinian militant attacks by "But think of the desperation", or "they can die on their knees or on their feet" or "the rockets didn't kill anyone, isn't this disproportianate" would be a good start to emulating them.
If you notice all of them shared in common that they didn't use force to achieve their aims and found it counter productive.
They would rather one die (yes on their knees) rather than kill. And in doing so one would acheive their victory.
And Israel being a democracy, you know what? They would. But they don't want peace, or independance, or equal rights.
They want to kill and destroy. That isn't paraphrasing, that is literally their mission statement.
The earth_as_one mused, "How much clearer can it be that people with pro-Israel agendas control the US and the news and that we are being manipulated to support war crimes yet again????"
Unlike certain Central Europeans after WW2, we cannot plausibly use the excuse "We didn't know!"
Shame on us all!
And Hamas never kept rockets from being fired into Israel.
Hamas is itching for a fight, its starting a fight, its getting one and your problem seems to be that its losing.
If it doesn't want to be on the receiving end of Israeli firepower, maybe it shouldn't use violence to try and solve its problems.
Facilitating a turkey shoot
Dec 30, 2008
On Israel's 60th anniversary last April, Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised Canada's "unshakable" support for Israel.
At the time, this struck me as odd. It would be understandable for a prime minister to offer Canada's "unshakable" support for principles – democracy, the rule of law, human rights, etc. But for a country? A country is led by a government, and a government is always fallible. Why would Canada promise its unqualified support for any country?
Such unqualified support is particularly problematic when the country is locked in a bitter struggle with millions of people whose land it has held under military occupation for more than forty years.
The problematic nature of Harper's promise has taken on a new dimension with Israel's intense bombing of the Gaza Strip, which has left more than 300 Palestinians dead.
Even before the bombing began on Saturday, the 2-year-old Israeli blockade had largely sealed Gaza's borders, creating one of the world's worst humanitarian crises.
Early this month, UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk reported that Israel's siege of Gaza was allowing "only barely enough food and fuel to enter to stave off mass famine and disease." He described Israel's action as "collective punishment."
Falk, a Jewish-American law professor, called on the world community to take action to protect the 1.5 million people in Gaza, noting that "[s]ome governments of the world are complicit by continuing their support politically and economically for Israel's punitive approach."
Canada, with its "unshakable" support, seems to fit into this category. Indeed, last March Canada signed an agreement with Israel establishing co-operation in "border management and security."
On Saturday, Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon blamed the current violence squarely on militant Palestinian groups firing rockets into southern Israel. Cannon offered no criticism of Israel for dropping bombs on the densely populated Palestinian territory.
Ottawa's stance resembles that of the Bush administration, which has put all blame for the current bloodshed on Palestinians.
But, according to Falk, it was actually Israel that broke the truce between Israel and Hamas, the elected Palestinian government in Gaza. The truce had held for several months, Falk noted, until an Israeli incursion into Gaza last month killed several people. After that, Palestinian militants resumed their rocket attacks, which have killed two Israelis.
Ottawa and Washington have emphasized Israel's right to defend itself. Neither government has suggested any comparable right for the Palestinians – even though it is the Palestinians, not the Israelis, who are acutely vulnerable.
Israel has total air supremacy, and a large nuclear arsenal. The Palestinians are without any means of self-defence (beyond the crude rockets they fire into Israel).
This extreme military imbalance means that the current fighting is not really a military conflict (as it's often portrayed in the media), but rather a turkey shoot.
South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu expressed outrage at the lopsided nature of the fight: "In the context of total aerial supremacy, in which one side in a conflict deploys lethal aircraft against opponents with no means of defending themselves, the bombardment bears all the hallmarks of war crimes."
The Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel should also be condemned. They are violent acts against civilians, and Israel has a right to defend itself. But this isn't an open-ended right. It doesn't include the right to impose collective punishment or to bomb a defenceless population.
The Harper government, in providing "unshakable" support for well-armed Israel, is helping facilitate the turkey shoot...
TheStar.com | Opinion | Facilitating a turkey shoot
Well put. I'll add to it by saying that Hamas started this with the rocket attacks after the ceasefire was over. Also, whether we be Americans or Canadians, Hamas is our enemy as both of our governments have classified Hamas as a Terrorist organization.
Israel has every right to defend itself against terrorist activity which was started by a terrorist group.
Additionally, Ghandi and the others never advocated begging or dying on your knees. You obviously don't understand how non-violence works. You stand tall, look your adversary in the eye and refuse to submit to their injustice and oppression. You make your opponent see you as a fellow human being who can feel pain and suffer.
Nonviolence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view)
If a soldier is wise, they will lower their weapon and refuse to harm a non-violent protestor. If they don't consider the consequences of their violent actions carefully, they may harm or even kill a non-violent protestor. But that's when non-violent resistance becomes the most effective.
People who harm or kill unarmed non-violent people will be haunted by their conscience. You know in your heart that what you did was wrong. The guilt and shame follows you around your entire life like a weight on your neck. Over time, it eats at your very soul. People have been known to commit suicide just to escape the painful burden.
Would you advocate Israel nuking Gaza until all 1.5 million residents have been vaporized in response to militant rocket attacks which hadn't killed a single Israeli?
Quote has been trimmed
At least 4,897 Palestinians and 1,062 Israelis
have been killed since September 29, 2000.
American news reports repeatedly describe Israeli military attacks against the Palestinian population as “retaliation.” However, when one looks into the chronology of death in this conflict, the reality turns out to be quite different.
Source: B'Tselem, The Israeli Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories. (Visit their statistics page.) Their statistics cover through November 30, 2008.
Israelis and Palestinians Killed since 9/29/2000
Are you trying to tell me they face a mortal threat from Gazans?
Yes, moral people do that.
Others rejoice that their dehumanized opponent has been killed (see most palestinian militants). Firing rockets to coincide with school getting out is an example of that.
Non-violence does mean you will drop to your knees rather than fight. Even when Non-violent supporters of Ghandi were being assailed and beaten until they couldn't walk they didn't "rise up and fight" they just took it.
Firing rockets is not acceptable, once they fired the first rocket, anything that came back to them they earned. Don't start a fight if you don't want one.
Abbas and the west bank are faring far better than Gaza, the difference being co-operation rather than violence. You're disdain that the West Bank is so much better as somehow "collaborating" shows a lack of desire to see reality. The west bank is improving while gaza is detereorating.
You mean besides the citizens being hit by rocket fire, some of whom died.
That is the definition of a mortal threat you know.
I know I would expect, that if someone murdered me, a taxpaying Canadian citizen, in my own home or in a public place, I would expect the government to take action against it, even if that included lethal force.
Its called basic law and order.
You don't need to pose a mortal threat to an entire nation to have that nation use deadly force against you, you need to pose a mortal threat to at least 1 citizen.
Thats the way it works in every country on this planet.
And like every other country on this planet, if you are nearby someone on a killing spree, there is a good chance you will die in the crossfire. As happens in Canada and every other country which has undergone such an occurance.
I bet you both would have said the same thing about George Washington.