Hear Hear!
There are stirrings of a major institutional battle between the two branches, and the Congressional condemnation of Bush’s troop escalation is an opening shot in what might be a much broader political conflict. It remains to be seen whether Congress will reclaim its considerable Constitutional powers, particularly those it so foolishly ceded to the President under the Use of Force Authorization.
I also hope that the courts are emboldened to begin entertaining Habeas Corpus petitions for all people held unlawfully by the President. Whether the courts or Congress will have the temerity to the grave issues that face this nation’s foreign policy is anyone’s guess. I only hope that Congress will take a more active role in the nation’s affairs, and that it will do so responsibly and humanely.
While I was heartened to see that our government taking some feeble steps to monitor, for example, Israel’s illegal and unconscionable use of cluster munitions against the Lebanese, much more needs to be done. In addition to bringing substantial oversight upon American client states like Israel, our own military could go a long way towards restoring its strength, and changing its reputation, if we bring it back home and reserve it for those times when it is really needed in the interests of defense (i.e: not prosecuting foreign wars).
Further, I hope that all presidential candidates running for the office in ’08 are drubbed off in the primaries unless they (1) never voted for the Iraq war, or (2) publicly admit that their vote for the Iraq war was an error in judgment. I would prefer (1).
Posted by chatman at January 29, 2007 02:30 PM
Just a comment from a new guy. I have found that BINO thrives on controversy, and revels in conflict. Perhaps the best way of ending his “Reign of Error” would be to simply shun him.
Why not quit responding to his delibrately contrary views, and hopefully, he’ll just go away.
Posted by Mr. Ted at January 29, 2007 02:36 PM
Best column in a while. Bush and Cheney are the ultimate enemies of freedom and democracy. Their arrogance and disregard for the law is still astonishing after all these years. American history has never known such a criminal bunch.
Mr. Ted… it’s because people will always “bite” when something provocative is dangled in front of them. We never learn.
Posted by D. Canuck at January 29, 2007 02:50 PM
Mr. Ted,
A “new guy” who claims that ignoring me is the best path-forward for the “community” writes a post about me, for the sole purpose of asking people…not to post to me? Pot? Kettle? Hello?
Awesome.
I haven’t even read the damn article yet and already I’ve got some obviously dim-witted “new guy” writing love letters?
If you want to ensure I never leave, keep it up, Super Genius.
Posted by Bino at January 29, 2007 02:59 PM
From the Guardian:
“The director of public prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, put himself at odds with the home secretary and Downing Street last night by denying that Britain is caught up in a “war on terror” and calling for a “culture of legislative restraint” in passing laws to deal with terrorism.
Sir Ken warned of the pernicious risk that a “fear-driven and inappropriate” response to the threat could lead Britain to abandon respect for fair trials and the due process of law.”
for the balance of the article the following link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1997397,00.html
He’s the first person of some legal standing that has publically outlined concerns. The ‘terrorists’ have succeeded in causing the US government to effectively ‘trash’ their Constitution.
Posted by dikcoates at January 29, 2007 03:47 PM
That’s right, dikcoates. Move along, nothing to see here:
Posted by Bino at January 29, 2007 04:11 PM
Is Bino a jew?
A zionist?
A troll?
Or just a quasi-educated keyboard warrior?
One thing is for sure: Mr. Ted is right and this message board clown needs to be ignored. I never read his posts and neither should any other intelligent person.
Posted by hedagem at January 30, 2007 12:38 AM
By the way, notice that in his reply to Mr. Ted Bino writes “I haven’t even read the damn article yet…”. So he came to this site and scrolled down to read the message posts without even reading the article! Without realising it, the idiot revealed his true intentions: he is not here to read articles or to learn anything. He is a conflict seeker (just like the U.S. government) and he loves arguing for the sake of arguing just so that he can prove himself right in his own screwed-up mind. He only comes here to post messages and to engage in web battles. The guy is a TROLL.
For the love of all that is holy: PLEASE IGNORE HIM. Any person who responds or even reads his posts is an IDIOT. He is like an automated computer program that has been coded with an arsenal of childish insults at his disposal and regardless of what you say to him, he will never go away and will continue to engage in his endless and pointless web battles.
Posted by hedagem at January 30, 2007 12:49 AM
And you, Hegadem, practice your presumably sound advice by posting not one but two entreaties imploring the rest of us to ignore him while simultaneously attacking him as an idiot? Talk about practicing what you preach… you didn’t address the article either!
It’s not Bino, but people like you who will eventually get this blog shut down. You failed to speak to Eric’s incisive and interesting article, and proceeded to the comments to reopen your continuing catfight with Bino; how childish. What is wrong with all of you that you can’t either debate intelligently or ignore silently?
I liked you better when your sole contributions to the blog were oversimplified equations describing your peculiar view of world affairs.
Posted by chatman at January 30, 2007 01:51 AM
Hahahahaha!
Hedagem, you’re amazing! You should post more often so I can start all my mornings with a belly-laugh.
Yes, I typically come here and scroll down to the comments. That way I can see if there are new comments. When I did so last night, I saw there were two comments. I knew, therefore, that it was a new entry by Eric.
I typically C&P his articles – I like to enjoy them on the crapper. It was then that my eye was drawn to my name in the comments. Why is my name in the comments? I don’t even know WTF this article is about! But, as one would, I read the comment about me immediately. Naturally. How funny was it to read an entry by Mr. Ted which, for no reason, considering I haven’t uttered a word yet, asking ppl to ignore me! Of course I fired back.
And then you show up with the most laughable attitude ever. So yes, Hedagem, you rokit-scientist, you sure did nail me. Bwahahahaha! Way to go, little guy! You’re a real freedom fighting truth teller!
And FWIW, I had no real issue at all with Eric’s article. I’m a firm believer in checks and balances. Not a defender of theocratic, despotic regimes.
If any of High IQ posse (and you know who you are) wants to take their own advice and actually ignore me, that would be fine. Just fine. Until then, why not a few more posts about me for the sake of ignoring me?
Posted by Bino at January 30, 2007 08:22 AM
George Washington = George I
George H. Bush = George II
George W. Bush = GEORGE III
History repeats itself
Posted by theking01 at January 30, 2007 10:22 AM
Given that Eric wrote some pretty agreeable stuff this week, I imagine we’ll see more posts involving people condemning each other as being ideologues or worse. Sad that such circumstances arise whenever Eric (1) posts an article most people agree with, or (2) posts an article none of the bloggers here know much about.
Posted by chatman at January 30, 2007 10:27 AM
I have to disagree with Eric’s advice. The last thing I want to see are American politicians behaving like Romans. The Roman Senate forfeited its power to the imperial rule of the emperors. Madmen, like Caligula, ruled with the blessing of the Roman Senate.
I’d say US Congressmen have been behaving like Romans and that’s the problem.
Posted by Paul Whiteside at January 30, 2007 11:51 AM
Paul:
Eric said the Roman Republic, not the Empire; for the first 400 years of Rome’s history, the Senate was quite powerful, and was the supreme lawmaker for Rome. The Senate killed Caesar in an effort to retain their status as landed aristocrats, but also as means of preserving the respectability and power of the Senate itself. Too bad they moved right along to appointing Imperator after another in the ensuing conflict.
Posted by chatman at January 30, 2007 03:14 PM
Eric raised an interesting point above…
Will voters remember and punish those who voted for the war, i.e. Hillary Clinton? Why do those American voters keep voting for such incredible hypocrites?
Thankfully, we Canadians are above such hypocrisy…
The Conservatives; up until a few months ago their leader (Canada’s Prime Minister) ridiculed the notion climate change. In their heart-of-hearts they don’t give a shit about the environment.
The Liberals; after a decade in power left Canada one of the worst environmental records of any developed country during Stéphane Dion’s reign as the Environment Minister. Dion claims to be proud of his record (of embarrassing failure?!?!)
DCanuck
HIPPOcrite
Posted by D. Canuck at January 30, 2007 05:51 PM
Eric is waaay too optimistic about the prospects for Congress. Daily, Bush and his gang accumulate more and more power to ignore democratic processes so as to further capitalist interests. Here is an article from today’s Truth Out:
Bush Directive Increases Sway on Regulation
By Robert Pear, The New York Times, Tuesday 30 January 2007
Washington - President Bush has signed a directive that gives the White House much greater control over the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy.
In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president’s priorities.
This strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts. It suggests that the administration still has ways to exert its power after the takeover of Congress by the Democrats.
The White House said the executive order was not meant to rein in any one agency. But business executives and consumer advocates said the administration was particularly concerned about rules and guidance issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
In an interview on Monday, Jeffrey A. Rosen, general counsel at the White House Office of Management and Budget, said, “This is a classic good-government measure that will make federal agencies more open and accountable.” Business groups welcomed the executive order, saying it had the potential to reduce what they saw as the burden of federal regulations. This burden is of great concern to many groups, including small businesses, that have given strong political and financial backing to Mr. Bush.
Consumer, labor and environmental groups denounced the executive order, saying it gave too much control to the White House and would hinder agencies’ efforts to protect the public.
Typically, agencies issue regulations under authority granted to them in laws enacted by Congress. In many cases, the statute does not say precisely what agencies should do, giving them considerable latitude in interpreting the law and developing regulations.
The directive issued by Mr. Bush says that, in deciding whether to issue regulations, federal agencies must identify “the specific market failure” or problem that justifies government intervention.
Besides placing political appointees in charge of rule making, Mr. Bush said agencies must give the White House an opportunity to review “any significant guidance documents” before they are issued. The Office of Management and Budget already has an elaborate process for the review of proposed rules. But in recent years, many agencies have circumvented this process by issuing guidance documents, which explain how they will enforce federal laws and contractual requirements.
Peter L. Strauss, a professor at Columbia Law School, said the executive order “achieves a major increase in White House control over domestic government.” “Having lost control of Congress,” Mr. Strauss said, “the president is doing what he can to increase his control of the executive branch.”
Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said: “The executive order allows the political staff at the White House to dictate decisions on health and safety issues, even if the government’s own impartial experts disagree. This is a terrible way to govern, but great news for special interests.”
Business groups hailed the initiative… and so forth.
Me:
Hey folks, snap out of it. If Americans don’t vote for Hilary, in your simplistic two-right of centre system, who else will you vote for? Besides, it is time for a female president.
As for Canadians, we have more parties to vote for with genuine choice on the political spectrum. Nonetheless, Stéphane Dion is sincere about combating global warming whereas the current PM is a Bush-wannabe who is a johnny-come-lately to the environment because of the polls, not genuine caring. And most Canadians see through this.
Sorry about the long post - its the Chatman influence.
Posted by shazam at January 30, 2007 08:25 PM
Thanks for the clarification Chatman. 400 years for the Roman Republic. I wonder if the American Republic will last that long.
As for Canada and the environment, if Canadians actually cared about the environment they would have voted Green. Obviously it’s not much of a priority for Canadian voters.
Posted by Paul Whiteside at January 30, 2007 10:34 PM
Paul,
The reason Canadians did not vote Green was because the Greens are a one-platform party. Plus, the Liberals signed onto Kyoto and we were pretty much lulled into thinking the matter was in hand. Moreover, Canada produces 2% of the world’s GHGs so there is some reluctance to make major industrial and domestic adjustments for the sake of knocking that number back to 1.6% or whatever. Bear in mind the 2-year growth in China’s GHGs is equal to the entire Canadian output. Not to say more can be done. Canadians voted out the Liberals last election because of financial scandels in Quebec and a dithering leader. It was a protest vote and certainly did not represent turning our backs on the environment by seeming to embrace the Conservatives pro-business damn-everyone and everything- else values. Since the last election the environment has displaced health and education as public top-of-the-mind concerns. The new Liberal leader is a committed environmentalist and his leadership speech featured the environment.
The Liberals will be able to do more than the Greens because, I predict, they will be elected a minority government next election, and largely because of their genuine (as opposed to poll-driven) concern about the environment. They are certainly less beholden to the oil and gas interests as compared to the current Prime Minister who hales from Alberta.
Posted by shazam at January 31, 2007 08:21 AM
The Roman republic, like the American, was also an empire. Italy, Spain, Carthage, Greece, etc. were conquered before Augustus. And in both Rome and America, imperial wars and foreign conquests undermined (quasi-)democratic politics at home, encouraging caesarism, for instance.
I agree with Paul that there’s very little to choose between a dominant president or a dominant Senate. The Senate is no less under the influence of the Zionist lobby, and Senators are no less members of the plutocracy than the president.
But Eric is of course right that a reinvigorated Congress must not merely serve as a rubber stamp for the president. All those who love democracy should desire a pre-eminent legislative branch. But the American founders divided and weakened the legislature because they feared democracy at least as much as tyranny.
Posted by hyperbolus at January 31, 2007 08:46 PM
I’m sorry to hear what your political loyalty is Shazam. When intelligent Canadians will run back to the Liberals then there is no hope for Canadian democracy.
The Green Party does not have a one party platform. They have positions on all the issues. They do put emphasis on one issue - the environment - which has suddenly become the #1 issue. That for me is pretty good credentials compared to the Liberals who stand for NOTHING!
Take this idea that Canadians care about the environment with a pinch of salt. We’re talking about voters who have consistently made one thing clear: honesty in their politicians is of no priority(Chretien and MacKay will always be on the taxpayers payroll. Orchard will never take a penny from us). So to think Canadians can be honest with themselves is really a stretch. Canadians DO NOT care about the environment. They do care about APPEARING TO CARE about the environment. It’s fashionable.
Sorry about the capitals. Just expressing my frustration with Canadian democracy. Why couldn’t I have been born in neutral Switzerland?
Posted by Paul Whiteside at February 1, 2007 08:39 AM
The reason politics in America is so corrupted is because corporate interests dominate the interests of the people. Health care is a prime example: private insurers do not want a single-payer publicly-funded system, thank you very little. Bush and crew disallowed Medicade drug plan administrators seniors and the Veteran’s drug benefit plan from negotiating prices with drug companies and also disallowed them from keeping any FDA-approved drug off the formulary. Opening the Alaska wildlife reserve to oil and gas drilling is another example of the corporate agenda run amok, as are the military-industrial complex global strategic aggressions in the name of oil security, and so on. You each know the drill.
So I propose a solution:
Let the ablest people rise to the top, not just the rich. To get elected in the States under the current system requires access to a huge pool of fiscal resources, which makes politicians vulnerable and beholden to special interests. This can be addressed by meaningful restrictions on campaign funding. For example, the local, state, and federal governments, depending on the jurisdiction of the election, would provide $X per capita for an election. If the candidate garners less that 10% of the vote he/she would have to return that amount, pro rated to the percentage garnered, to the funder. This will keep out frivilous contenders. Plus contenders would need to have a deposit of, say, $10K, $50K, and $100K for municipal, state, or federal elections.
The idea here is for governments (in which all citizens are shareholders) to displace private source funding. Each candidate could accept funds (cash and in-kind) from the private sector up to a set per capita ceiling. This ceiling at the federal level would be geared to equal, say, for an average state with an average population, something like $500,000. Lastly, in no case could any one private donor donate or loan or provide by any means whatsoever cash or in-kind services that exceed 5% of the total eligible private funding.
It is time for America to take back their country. With meaningful reform to campaign funding, politicians will be more beholden to their human constituents.
Posted by ghawley at February 1, 2007 08:48 AM
We (citizens of Canada and the U.S.) may elect the people who form the government, but it is a mistake to think that we actually control government policy. Government policy has and always has been controlled by a few influential people, i.e. those at the top of the economic pile.
Any influence that the general mass of people have had in changing government policy at the expense of those in control has generally been bought with “blood in the streets”. In Canada and the United States, there is no and will be no “blood in the streets” over Middle East wars.
I’ve said it before on this blog, the Democrats taking control of the U.S. Congress will change nothing. As long as U.S. corporate interests see benefits in slaughtering people in the Middle East, the slaughter will continue.
Posted by Weary at February 1, 2007 11:34 AM
“TIME FOR CONGRESS TO ACT LIKE ROMANS”
It seems to me by the title of this week’s article that EM may very well be forwarding a veiled reference that its about time the daggers come out and send this tyrant into oblivion.
A good read on the state of affairs at:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=160594
Posted by oldfan at February 1, 2007 02:26 PM
Oldfan - I hadn’t twigged onto that - neat insight.
t r u t h o u t | 02.01
Gore Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020107A.shtml
Former vice president Al Gore has been nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his wide-reaching efforts to draw the world’s attention to the dangers of global warming, a Norwegian lawmaker said Thursday. “A prerequisite for winning the Nobel Peace Prize is making a difference, and Al Gore has made a difference,” Conservative member of Parliament Boerge Brende, a former minister of environment and then of trade, told the Associated Press.
Paul,
Not all Canadians care to the extent Dion or you or I do, granted. However, I hadn’t heard that the Swiss, reclused in their isolated mountain island and largely immune from the coming impacts of climate change, are on the forefront of the environmental movement. Canada has coast lines, and a lot of it low-lying, thawing permafrost, and drowning polar bears to help focus our minds.
I admit that while Canada is late to take the issue sufficiently seriously, we are now showing up en masse and for the most part want to play in earnest. The polls can’t be all smoke and mirrors.
I do vote green in municipal politics because they can make a tangible difference on such things as pesticide use, recycling, etc. and there is not much fiscal or other downside from a strong Green presence. Not to say they can’t do a bigger picture justice, but they are untried — maybe a larger face at the provincial government level might convince more people of their federal credentials. But they are against nuclear power and I am not. And, let’s not forget the number one job of the federal government is national unity and the Greens would be cub scout in a Lion’s den. And yes, national ecological survival is important but the game has gone beyond halting global warming and is in the “how best to adapt” territory. The Greens are the only ones with ideas or commitment.
Posted by shazam at February 1, 2007 03:25 PM
Last sentence should have (obviously I hope) read: “The Greens are NOT the only ones with…”
Posted by shazam at February 1, 2007 03:27 PM
Beware the Green Party. I remember reading in Harper’s Magazine not so long ago something about Pennsylvania’s Green Party being funded by the right wing. And I believe that Conservatives (or ex-Conservatives) were heavily involved in the founding of Canada’s Green Party, though things may have changed with the recent leadership change. In other words: unite the right, and divide the left.
Posted by hyperbolus at February 1, 2007 06:40 PM
My Swiss comment was untimely as it had nothing to do with the environmental issue. It’d just be nice to live in a country that didn’t attack Serbia, wasn’t occupying Afghanistan and hasn’t tried to destroy Palestinian democracy. Oh and of course a country that’s a puppet, 100% under the thumb of the USA.
Posted by Paul Whiteside at February 2, 2007 12:08 AM
So…
We (Canada) won’t give money to the democratically elected Hamas regime until they swear off terrorism. This bothers you. This, in your mind, means we are trying to “destroy Palestinian democracy”.
And we are dying in Afghanistan, at the behest of their democratically elected government (you’re keen on democracy, right?), with the popular support of the Afghan people, trying to build a stable country after 30-odd years of war, poverty and misery, and this is the “occupation” you rail against.
LOL. Got it.
Posted by Bino at February 2, 2007 10:18 AM
Bino:
Does the failure of Western governments to recognize the casual brutality of IDF, while proscribing the ‘terrorism’ of Hamas, to be troubling? I do. I’m not fond of Hamas, but I’m not fond of Israel either; the Israeli government and its actions are as much a source of that region’s problems as Hamas or Fatah, with their “terrorism.”
The IDF displays the a disregard for human life that is on par with any suicide bomber in a night club; in criminal terms, both are purposeful actors. Suicide bombers seek to kill civilians indiscriminately, and the Israelis choose specific people to kill, in a manner that violates due process. Both do so recklessly; one detonates a medium yield explosive in an area where he knows or hopes that people might be around (might even be purposeful), while IDF airpower purposely fires high-explosive weapons in a purposeful attempt to kill at least one person extrajudicially, but with the added reckless disregard for whomever else may be around (proven by the use of HE missiles).
The degree of obscenity in both Israeli and Palestinian fighting tactics is the same; each is a purposeful and reckless invitation to murder that is violative of due process to its victims. Further, the Israelis act with the knowledge that their acts will likely result in the deaths of some Palestinians who were not directly responsible for a given “terrorist” act, just as a Palestinian suicide bomber in a nightclub acts knowing that he will kill many who are not directly involved in the oppression of his or her people.
So, why do Western Governments objectively deny Hamas of funds because Hamas supports terrorism (arguably creating a self-fulfilling cycle), while not denying commensurate aid and relief to the Israelis for similar recklessness? Do you think our governments should view the situation with greater equanimity? I certainly do, but unfortunately, the best our government has been able to do is wonder whether the Israelis may have inappropriately used cluster munitions in civilian areas of Lebanon. One wonders if such egregious use of firepower, which has the same or greater consequences than any act of Palestinian terrorism, would prompt the moral and financial condemnation of the West. But I think we both know the answer.
So, why punish one while enabling the other?
Posted by chatman at February 2, 2007 11:16 AM
Chatman:
Just personal opinion, obviously, but I differentiate between those whose goal is to murder innocent civilians and those who murder the murderers, sometimes at the expense of innocent civilians. Hamas, per their charter, is sworn to the destruction of Israel. This isn’t some BS semantic game like “wiped off the map”. The violent elimination of the state of Israel is what they are, quite proudly, all about.
As you kind of noted (I take some issue with your, “might even be purposeful” line) the entire rationale of the suicide bomber is to kill innocents. Period. It isn’t a tragic miscalculation. It isn’t “collateral damage”. It is the point. There will be no investigations by the Palestinian government - hell, they sponsor this crap. There will certainly no omissions of guilt (instead there are proud claims of responsibility) or apologies to any victims. Just this week, a member of Al Aqsa Martyers Brigade (part of the “moderate” (haha!) Fatah party) blew up 3 civilians in an Israeli bakery. 2 Israelis and a Peruvian. On purpose. They snuffed out the lives of 3 innocent people whose great contribution to the “occupation” was toiling at a bakery. They weren’t aiming at the IDF.
Are the IDF purposefully targeting Palestinian toiling away? No. There is a huge difference in the way these two conduct themselves and that speaks loudly to me.
Do you think that Hamas would accept peace? I’ll take them at their word when they say that they won’t as long as Israel exists. Israel has no such policy. If they did, I’d detest them just as much as I do the terrorist Hamas thugs who blow up bakers in the name of Jihad.
Speaking of terrorist Hamas and Fatah thugs, you have noticed the escalation of infighting? Truces between these two “organizations” are now measured in minutes. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1170359766486&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Honestly, I was mostly just LOLing at the Paul for his whining about how Canada is “occupying” Afghanistan. That was just too much. I can see both sides of the Israel/Palestine equation. I really can. I can’t say the same for Paul’s views on Afghanistan.
Posted by Bino at February 2, 2007 04:02 PM
I saw some background footage of the family of the Palestinian youth who bombed that bakery in Eilat, Israel.
Mom was very proud of her son (I guess a Mom would be, no matter what) but she was proud of the death he brought to their enemies.
The bomber’s brother was also very happy that they “got into” Eilat where no bombs had previously been detonated.
Of bombings, you may ask many questions, just don’t ever ask “Why?” That is strictly verboten.
The Bombing Rule:
Don’t listen to bombers. Instead, bomb until they listen.
DCanuck
Posted by D. Canuck at February 2, 2007 04:55 PM
I would go further Chatman. I would put tough economic and miliatry sanctions on Israel until they abide by Resolution 242. Israel is fueling the resistance, essentially forcing Palestinians into acts of violence that the Israelis PR machine calls “terrorism”, which is a great strategy to keep the maleable West onside.
Bino, Let’s not forget the Zionist settler who opened fire in a mosque in Hebron and killed 29 Palestinians and wounded 110 others, many in a life-changing way. Nor the assassination of Rabin. Nor the assassination of Palestinian leaders. Neither Hamas nor the PLFP nor any other Palestinian resistance groups has been to audacious.
And let’s bear in mind that Israeli terror is expressed in many other ways too. The check points, barriers, travel restrictions, plowing under of land, confiscation of land and houses, the Wall, a hundred and one daily humiliations large and small. Want to know about Zionism? Ask a Palestinian. Or go to youtube and watch how the cowardly thugs beat up defenseless Palestinain kids.
Chatman, you want balance? Balance will only come when Israel gets a severe ass kicking because only then will it make concessions and act reasonably. Of course their sympathetic international media machines will play the beating up like a persecuted martyr but their underdog victim charade is actually funny (if it wasn’t so wicked). Israel will reap what it is sowing and I hope to live long enough to see it happen.
Posted by shazam at February 2, 2007 04:56 PM
Yet again Bino focuses on the rhetoric and ignores the reality. Hamas is sworn to the destruction of Israel. So what? The state of Israel exists, but the state of Palestine does not. There’s no moral equivalency because the Palestinians are by far the weaker, subjugated party.
As for Palestinian infighting: you don’t think maybe Israel has had something to do with this, as well as those western states withholding funds because Hamas was democratically elected?
Posted by hyperbolus at February 2, 2007 06:47 PM
Bino:
You need to explain your differentiation between suicide bombers and collateral damage, because, at least as far as North American legal systems and general moral thinking, the differences are minor. Given the asymmetry in firepower and military reach between the two sides, these minor differences are even more easily dismissed.
A suicide bomber is a purposeful actor who seeks to kill people; he has no idea whether those people have directly caused his perceived suffering, only that he wants to kill them because they are ‘collectively’ responsible. It is a microcosmal form of collective punishment; imposing disproportionate penalties against those who may or may not be party to offenses against you or your people. I will not argue that this is depraved thinking, and no person or society should entertain or promote such thinking. Hence, my intense dislike of Hamas.
But my intense dislike of Israel arises from the same problem. Israel ‘suspects’ (though does not ‘try’ or ‘prove beyond a reasonable doubt’ through ‘public trial by peers’) that someone is a murderer. Even if they give such a ‘murderer’ some pretense of process by convicting him of death in absentia, the IDF’s conduct is still condemnable. Among the infinity of means that the Israelis might use to impose a death sentence, they routinely choose the most reckless of options; high explosive weapons deployed from above. The IDF KNOWS that firing rockets into a city block in an effort to kill a ‘murderer’ has a substantially certain to kill bystanders. The Israelis may not PREFER to maximize casualties (bad PR for them), but their choice of means indicates that they don’t really care to prevent them.
So, a suicide bomber purposely attempts to maximize death, while the Israelis purposely kill people they have no right to kill while casually, even knowingly, endangering the lives of many others. Given the vastly superior firepower held by the IDF, don’t you find that Israel’s purposeful extrajudicial targeting of ‘murderers,’ with virtually no respect for those innocents that may be slain in attack, to be at least as dangerous, if not more, than the purposeful suicide bombings espoused by Hamas?
You speak of investigations as a prophylactic to Israel’s heavy-handed methods… I encourage you to study up on military law before you hail such measures as being true indicators of official repentance or accountability. Military tribunals are so deferent to the ‘particular circumstances’ of soldiery and politics that it is almost meaningless to imagine such justice might reduce collateral damage or the incidence of war crimes. Only recently has our own military law begun to catch up with the egregious atrocities committed by many of our soldiers in Iraq. In truth, 99% of the wrongdoers will never face court martial because of evidentiary or procedural problems. The fact that Hamas doesn’t ‘investigate’ the results of its bombers doesn’t cause me to lose sleep at night; more worrying to me is the fact that the IDF (and the U.S Air Force) could kill many times more than a suicide bomber could in a single attempted assassination, and the most the family of a collateral victim could expect is an ‘investigation.’
Posted by chatman at February 2, 2007 07:45 PM
I’ll pass on the Palestinian/Israeli debate. Sorry to have disturbed that hornets nest.
When it comes to international meetings all leaders shake Bush’s hand even if they don’t like him. That’s because he is the representative of the American people and we respect the USA. Upon being elected, Hamas became the representative of the Palestinian people. The West - led by Canada - showed what little respect we have for them.
It’s suggested we are supporting democracy. What kind of democracy? A secular western clone, imposed by armed force. we are not encouraging freedom of choice, we are trying to remake the Middle East in the West’s image. It will never work because the Islamic world is not the West. They have their own values and are not interested in our secular free for all. When given the freedom of choice, in Algeria or Palestine, Muslims have made it clear they want their religion to be a big part of their government. If there was a one man/one vote democracy in Lebanon the religious parties would rule now. Iranians chose a theocratic state when they won their freedom. Iraqis do not trust secular politicians, they only trust their religious leaders. So we force a system upon them which includes the West’s separation of government and religion.
Middle East democracy, if it is ever allowed out from under the West’s heel, will include a heavy Islamic influence. They are an ancient civilisation and a proud people, therefore they have no interest in a materialistic government with no spiritual element. Canada is very much part of the oppression of these people.
I do think people should have the freedom to choose their own path. That’s why I have always opposed everything the West has done in the Middle East.
Posted by Paul Whiteside at February 2, 2007 11:32 PM
Canada has clearly sided with Israel against the aspirations of the Palestinians and seen by all as being in the foreign policy pocket of the Americans. That does not bode well for Canada. Indeed, it is a stain on our character.
Paul, I agree with all you have to say in your latest post. I would ask you to think of this, though, especially in the context of Iran. The West (mainly the US and UK) have installed and keep in power puppet leaders in a number of mid-east countries, Iraq being the latest and the Shah Pavlevi being the most notorious. Or, in the case of France, have encumbered the Constitution with pro-western representation imbalances. My question to you (and others) is, to what extent are the Islamic political movements a reaction, a protest, against this as opposed to being a stop-time value. (Hamas was a special case in this regard as it was elected because of the Fattah material and political corruption, as well as posing a more forceful protest against the West’s policies in the area.)
For example, the Catholic Church was a big deal in Poland because it coalesced opposition to Communism. Has regard for it waned since the fall of communism? I posit that given enough time after true independence, the reaction element inherent in current political opposition coalesced around the Islamic theme will subside and gradually be replaced with more secularity and equality along the lines of Turkey or pre-sanctions Iraq. I sure hope so because if these countries exclude 50% of their talent (women) then they are doomed to remain backwaters. I grant you, the Islamic faith will continue to infuse itself and, in my view appropriately and wonderfully so. The empty materialism of the west, best personified by the American motto: “More is Better”, is disgusting and harmful to one and all. I am not an anti-materialist but I see the need to better share the planet, redistributing its wealth on a global scale, and also being mindful and protective of the wild species (both plants and animals).
Posted by shazam at February 3, 2007 09:03 AM
Sorry for the long post, but hey, this is four replies at once.
Dcanuck:
Yeah, it’s a shame. It’s child abuse, AFAIC. The indoctrination of children in to a death cult. Good times.
Shazam:
“I would go further Chatman. I would put tough economic and military sanctions on Israel until they abide by Resolution 242.”
Well then, you’ll have to levy such sanctions against the Palestinians as well, since the Hamas charter alone represents a material and continuing breach of the resolution:
From 242: “Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force”
“And let’s bear in mind that Israeli terror is expressed in many other ways too. The check points, barriers, travel restrictions, plowing under of land, confiscation of land and houses, the Wall, a hundred and one daily humiliations large and small. Want to know about Zionism? Ask a Palestinian. Or go to youtube and watch how the cowardly thugs beat up defenseless Palestinain kids.”
I agree with you. The Israelis have made life unbearable. They aren’t helping anything. I understand their rationale. I don’t agree with it, but I “get” why Israel does it. It is, IMO, the wrong form of pressure to apply, but I also understand their number one priority is making sure those – and I can’t say this enough – sworn to the destruction of their country, do not succeed in their desired martyrdom.
“Balance will only come when Israel gets a severe ass kicking because only then will it make concessions and act reasonably… Israel will reap what it is sowing and I hope to live long enough to see it happen.”
Paging Mr. Ahmadinejad!
Hyperbolis:
Let’s review every single line in your post:
“Yet again Bino focuses on the rhetoric and ignores the reality. Hamas is sworn to the destruction of Israel. So what?”
So when I site the biggest barrier to peace as being Hamas, the elected government of the Palestinian people, being sworn to the destruction of Israel, I’m somehow “focussing on rhetoric and ignoring reality”, but when you acknowledge my that point as being valid, it somehow invalidates my point? “So what”? Touché!
“The state of Israel exists, but the state of Palestine does not. There’s no moral equivalency because the Palestinians are by far the weaker, subjugated party.”
Sing a tune other than “Sworn to the annihilation of every man, woman and child in your country, la-di-da-di-da”, and we’re in business. What part of “not having a partner in the peace process” eludes you?
“As for Palestinian infighting: you don’t think maybe Israel has had something to do with this, as well as those western states withholding funds because Hamas was democratically elected?”
That’s right, hyperbolus. It is always the West’s fault. It has nothing to do with indoctrinating children in to their death cult. How dare we not fund their war against Israel? How dare I not appreciate my tax dollars going to a terrorist organization sworn to the destruction of a fellow UN member state!
Chatman:
“You need to explain your differentiation between suicide bombers and collateral damage, because, at least as far as North American legal systems and general moral thinking, the differences are minor. Given the asymmetry in firepower and military reach between the two sides, these minor differences are even more easily dismissed.”
I would never defend something like cluster bombs in civilian neighborhoods, for example. You don’t think I’m f*cking horrified when I learn an Israeli helicopter takes out some Hamas bomb maker and a family of 4 died in the process? There are Israeli actions that must be condemned. I can understand, however, that when your enemy is so devoid of morals they fire from among civilians, use hospitals and schools as bunkers/storage facilities, and raise their children to want nothing more than to give their lives to “the cause”, well, “collateral damage” is a part of the disgusting arithmetic.
Again, I honestly believe that the overwhelming majority of people of Israel and the Israeli government would want to live in peace, but I also honestly believe the same cannot be said for their “partner in peace” at this point.
“A suicide bomber…hence, my intense dislike of Hamas.”
I certainly understand and appreciate that rationale.
“But my intense dislike of Israel arises from the same problem…the Israelis may not PREFER to maximize casualties (bad PR for them), but their choice of means indicates that they don’t really care to prevent them.”
Understood.
“So, a suicide bomber purposely attempts to maximize death, while the Israelis purposely kill people they have no right to kill while casually, even knowingly, endangering the lives of many others. Given the vastly superior firepower held by the IDF, don’t you find that Israel’s purposeful extrajudicial targeting of ‘murderers,’ with virtually no respect for those innocents that may be slain in attack, to be at least as dangerous, if not more, than the purposeful suicide bombings espoused by Hamas?”
Equally, but not intentionally, and that is the most important thing to me. I get it – they could simply not take out the guy they know (wink-wink) is up to no good. Instead, they do. And far too often for my liking, bad things happen. Again, I have no issue with a bomb maker being turned in to goo. None. It’s the innocents that upset me.
“You speak of investigations as a prophylactic to Israel’s heavy-handed methods… I encourage you to study up on military law before you hail such measures as being true indicators of official repentance or accountability. Military tribunals are so deferent to the ‘particular circumstances’ of soldiery and politics that it is almost meaningless to imagine such justice might reduce collateral damage or the incidence of war crimes. Only recently has our own military law begun to catch up with the egregious atrocities committed by many of our soldiers in Iraq. In truth, 99% of the wrongdoers will never face court martial because of evidentiary or procedural problems. The fact that Hamas doesn’t ‘investigate’ the results of its bombers doesn’t cause me to lose sleep at night; more worrying to me is the fact that the IDF (and the U.S Air Force) could kill many times more than a suicide bomber could in a single attempted assassination, and the most the family of a collateral victim could expect is an ‘investigation.’”
Every military atrocity makes my stomach turn. When an Israeli soldier kills an innocent Palestinian civilian, it’s disgusting. We agree on that. But I’m guessing he doesn’t get a reward, like the family of the suicide bomber, cashing their $25,000 cheque for raising such a good, Jew killing boy. Now his younger brothers have a goal to shoot for. It’s a circle of death perpetuated by a group sworn to do nothing more than continue their circle of death.
Sorry for the lengthy post. Again, I mostly just wanted to LOL at Paul re: Canadian occupation of Afghanistan. I didn’t want to open this whole can of worms.
Posted by Bino at February 3, 2007 09:19 AM
Paul:
Paul,
If American elected a neo-Nazi sworn to the destruction of Israel, would the leaders of Israel reach out to shake his hand? You demand we respect Palestinian democracy, but you also act as though there are no repercussions for their choices. You can’t have it both ways. I respect that the Palestinians have elected Hamas to represent them. Electing a terrorist organization as your government has some implications. I’m sorry the options were a corrupt Fatah or their rival Hamas. They chose a representative sworn to the destruction of a sister democracy and UN Member State. Now I’m supposed to fund their holy war?
Posted by Bino at February 3, 2007 09:27 AM
Bino,
Please provide an official Hamas reference for me where I can read about Hamas’ proposed “violent elimination of the state of Isreal”. I would like to see if that is what is really written in their manifest or if that is what Western propaganda would have us believe.
I look forward to seeing where you have obtained this definitive information from.
Regards,
Posted by guesswho at February 3, 2007 01:15 PM
Akin to Alan Dershowitz, junior has learnt the art of Dershowitzing us all if Imay say so. And thats all folks!
Posted by oldfan at February 3, 2007 02:09 PM
Guesswho: A couple “highlights” from the Hamas charter, which is stil in effect, for your edification. Feel free to fire up your Google machine and check it out for yourself if you suspect this text was manipulated by the Zionist media:
“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”
“There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”
Enjoy: http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html
Oldfan: Why even bother? You added nothing but slander. I certainly hope “that is all” until you have something beyond ad hominem attacks to offer. Posts like your ruin this forum. Smiley face.
Posted by Bino at February 3, 2007 05:06 PM
Two of the key questions in all this is: How well can a corrupt systems function? And, at what point, does it cease to be amenable to peaceful change?
The corruption of the American system is evident in who the candidates are and who gets selected. Any country that puts forth a GWB as a candidate, let alone a serious candidate, let alone have him elected is very far down the corruption path.
Hopefully, there are some honest American politicians left who can muster the courage, suuport and resources to change the direction America is heading; and with America, unfortunately, the entire world.
Posted by Evan Palmer at February 3, 2007 05:35 PM
As if Bino you propound the Holy gospel around here.
No amount of rationality for that matter facts on the grounds will ever sway the likes of Dershowitz and his ilk which includes you.
Existing in your own alternative universe is a specialty of zionists.
E.Palmer:
It’s not that there are not good people in politics, but as you say the entire system is rampant with gross corruption which stifles and suffocates any decent candidate.
Those who do fall through the cracks and make it are either co-opted , murdered or maligned beyond recognition.
Posted by oldfan at February 3, 2007 06:02 PM
Guesswho:
Here are 150 examples of child abuse:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/PalestinianChildAbuse/?imgIndex=0&autoShow=4
That sort of death-fetishist brainwashing inevitably leads chaps like the first guy at this link below, which (shocker) happens to be a Hamas video:
http://www.pmw.org.il/tv-hamas.htm
This is a “partner in peace”? This is your “negotiating partner”?
Posted by Bino at February 3, 2007 06:06 PM
Beano, is your mind so distorted by Zionist ideology that you can’t distinguish between swearing to destroy and actually destroying? The state of Israel exists at the expense of the Palestinians (and at the expense of American taxpayers), and actively prevents the existence of a viable Palestinian state. The Israelis have killed (and wounded, and imprisoned, and tortured, and dispossessed, and impoverished, and harrassed) far more Palestinians (and Lebanese), and a far larger proportion of civilians, than they in turn have suffered. Who lives in the highly militarized cult/culture of death? Moses founded a cult of death (out of death-worshipping Egypt, appropriately), which has continued through the zealots and Masada into today’s state of Israel.
And speaking of Masada: Eric’s call for Congress to act like Romans in relation to the president is well-timed, as the Ides of March are not much more than a month away. But wouldn’t it be no less wonderful for Congress to act like Romans in relation to the Israelis?
Posted by hyperbolus at February 3, 2007 06:38 PM
Bino,
I want to see a Canadian government(and all of western society) that is fair and evenhanded. Hamas refuses to recognise the state of Israel. All Israeli politicians refuse to recognise an independent Palestinian state. Has Canada cut off all relations with Israel? No our leaders apply the inconsistency of hypocrites.
Regarding the claim that Israelis want peace, it is technically correct. The majority of Israelis express a desire for peace. The problem is that their terms for peace are impossible for Palestinians to accept. So the Israeli peace talk is a charade, like Canadians saying they want to combat global warming. Neither group is willing to make any sacrifice, which makes their stated goals disingenuous.
Given that Israel will not even allow Palestinians the entire West Bank, it only makes sense for them to support a group which is still fighting to recover all of Palestine. The Jews returned after 1700 years. Palestinians have only been dispossessed 60 years.
Posted by Paul Whiteside at February 3, 2007 11:56 PM
Fantastic question Shazam! It is impossible to answer with any certainty - time may tell. No doubt western democracy and our secular values have been tainted by our continuous oppression of the Middle East. Would you want to adopt the beliefs of your persecutor? Thus all who embrace western values are regarded with distrust, even considered Quislings.
Islam isn’t going away, however the day may eventually come when it is possible for Muslims to objectively consider the value of western political ideals. Hitler moustaches will come into fashion again some day too! of course we’ll never see any movement towards moderation until the neo-colonials get out of the region and leave those poor people alone.
Posted by Paul Whiteside at February 4, 2007 12:04 AM
Hyperbolus, let’s see if your logic holds up:
I hate my neighbour. I swear to Allah that I will not rest until I have eliminated him from my block. Every day, I’m on my roof with my old .22 waiting for that SOB. And every morning when he goes from his front door to his car, I fire away. I sometimes nick him, but I almost always miss. I’m a poor shot, and my .22 is old and has a bent barrel. Every night when he gets home - same routine. Now, if I could cap him in the head, then praise Allah I would, as it is my sworn duty (see my charter!). But seeing how I’ve not yet been successful, then surely I’m guilty of no crime.
Point being, your “intent” vs. “ability” argument holds no water, as far as I’m concerned.
Want to try it again? We can use “sworn to rape your sister” as the example, explain how I chase her every day, but she is so damn quick I never catch her - hence I’m innocent of any wrongdoing. Would you feel as though I’d not committed a heinous crime by chasing your sister every day with the intent of raping her?
On your next point, could one not argue that Jordan exists at the expense of the Palestinians?
http://www.conceptwizard.com/nutoo/nutshell3.html
Posted by Bino at February 4, 2007 11:16 AM
Bino:
Where your logic loses its sparkle is when we start looking at proportionality (a problem which, based on previous discussions, I am sure you realize). Let us imagine for a moment that this neighbor of whom you speak (call him neighbor Z) is being fired upon not with a .22, but with a pellet gun. Z understands that, notwithstanding the hostile neighbor’s (call him neighbor P) intent, the ability of P’s ability to do him substantial harm is quite remote. In tort terms, we call this assault, and in criminal terms, perhaps aggravated assault; neither offense carries penalties that lead to the death of the assaulter.
Now let us imagine that Z, who is a proponent of vigilantism, has access to a rocket launcher. Further, Z is not exactly certain from where P is mounting assault. Nonetheless, Z uses his rocket launcher to destroy the homes of P, X, and Y, because he is reasonably certain that the assault against him arises from that general direction. How would an independent tribunal rule on this case? Did Z act reasonably, given the scope of the threat? Remember that actions, in general, speak louder than words.
The issue is not whether Z has been wronged; he clearly has. The question is whether Z’s response was measured and appropriate, given the threat, and the means available to Z. I can’t think of a single criminal tribunal that would exonerate Z of his egregious retaliatory action on account of the relatively minor threat posed by P. In fact, even if Z responds by simply deploying his rocket launcher against P’s home, hence killing P and destroying his home, I imagine most courts would raise issues of proportionality; was the prevention narrowly drawn to extinguish the initial threat?
Of course, this hypothetical exists outside of the historical context of relations between P and Z (i.e, Z lives on land originally belonging to P, etc). Clearly the historical issues are very complex, and the Palestinians have a lot of legitimate grievances. That said, I don’t like Hamas any more than you do. But as important as it is to condemn Hamas, it is equally important to condemn the Israelis for their conduct, and to not accept their ‘self defense’ or ‘right to exist’ arguments as justifying their egregious and disproportionate acts of violence and aggression.
What the IDF does is not an ‘unavoidable consequence’ of Hamas’ philosophy. Hamas is, in many respects, a monster that has arisen from Israeli aggression. Israel must recognize its own historical legacy, so must the international community. In my view, the industrial West should represent the independent tribunal in these matters, and apply rational legal norms to the conflict. Regardless of which legal system you use, no coherent system of justice would justify what the Israelis do as a valid response to what the Palestinians do.
Guesswho:
There are several translated versions of the Hamas charter available on the web. And no, I don’t speak or read the original language; if you want to reduce the debate to ‘we can’t understand the nuance because we can’t read the language,’ then there is no point on continuing the debate at all. However, I submit that, if the translations are accurate, Hamas expressly and impliedly states their intent to destroy Israel. To quote the passages would make this post too long, but you can look at language in Article 7, Article 13, and elsewhere. Now, in fairness to Hamas, most of these sentiments are expressed under the notion that they have been attacked, and most of the Hamas charter is responsive to that attack. For example;
“[The Islamic Resistance Movement] takes care of human rights and is guided by Islamic tolerance when dealing with the followers of other religions. It does not antagonize anyone of them except if it is antagonized by it or stands in its way to hamper its moves and waste its efforts. Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace … Peace … would not be possible except under the wing of Islam.” (Art. 31, §1, 2)
Nonetheless, find the document in sum to be a scary charter. Again, I really don’t care if you think I’m a bigot or brainwashed for thinking so. As an artist, I find problematic any governing organization that seeks to severely limit artistic expression (Art. 19). As a person educated in the sciences and arts, I oppose any effort to expand religious education at the expense of valuable skills and concepts based learning (Art. 2, Art. 16).
But again, the document represents the will of a people who are called to arms against a mighty foe whose ideological underpinnings (The Protocols of Zion) are just as terrifying. In that sense, Israeli aggression has as much to do with the creation of this monster as Palestinian Sunni fundamentalists do. It’s a classical corruption of conservative religious principles as a means of establishing control. Hamas does it more overtly than, say, the U.S Government does, but they do nonetheless.
Posted by chatman at February 4, 2007 04:57 PM
Ah Bino, I’ve misjudged you. I see now that you really can put yourself in the position of the Palestinians. You really do see their point of view. You really are full of sympathy and compassion.
But wait: you forgot to mention a few other things, minor details really, about your hypothetical Palestinian. His house, in his family for generations, was demolished by the Israelis. He was given neither notice nor reason, and anyway checkpoints (at which he is typically held and harrassed for hours) prevented him from rescuing any items of value from his home. Or from rescuing his elderly mother, who was in the house during its demolition (the Israeli soldiers didn’t care to listen to the pleas of the relatives and neighbors present). The daughter of our typical Palestinian was killed by Israelis on her way home from school, caught up in a demonstration, and his son was shot by Israelis in the back, paralyzing him. The son perhaps could have recovered, but Israelis prevented ambulance service. And so on, including false imprisonment, torture, no work, etc. But hey! It’s no good reason for anger and hate against Israel. He’s caught up in a cult of death. He’s a Muslim.
Posted by hyperbolus at February 4, 2007 05:11 PM
Bino,
Thank you for the reference. Firstly, your first quote is not in the charter itself, but it’s preamble. Secondly, the second quote seems pretty accurate considering what has happened for the Palestinian since 1988 and Hamas was NOT in power. Thirdly, you can send me all the links you want of specific events and so forth. That does not take away from the fact that the Isreali’s are occupied Palestine, continue to occupy Palestine and continue to flout International laws regarding the treatment of occupied people. In addition, the extreme, unproportional measures taken has lead to most of what is happening in the occupied territories. Every society has its child abusers, murders and so forth. These people multiply in numbers when socioeconomic factors deteriorate and lawlessness reigns. You can thank your Zionist friends for that as THEY control the occupied territories - no the PA nor Hamas.
Oh yeah, one more thing Bino. It is difficult to take you seriously when you continue to paint the Zionists as the victim in this whole thing. Comparing them to the rape victim is ludicrous. If you really want to use such an offensive analogy, you can consider the Palestinians as already having been raped by the Zionists and now trying to kill the rapist but not having the means to do it. If the rape victim (P) has no way to inflict harms, only a few scratches they might be charge with minor assault but likely let go on a defending themselves stance. The rapist (Z) would be charged and convicted of the rape - but this has already been explained by Chatman.
As for Palestinian suicide bombers (which I do not agree with) getting 25k for their actions, my response to that is that the typical Israeli soldiers that kill innocent Palestinian children and adults (and the ratio is typically 10:1) likely gets paid more that than on a yearly basis. And the Israelis that kill a lot of innocent Palestinians (like the pilot that dropped the bomb on that residential neighborhood killing 9 (I believe) civilians) gets a promotion and even more money. Just because it comes in a paycheck does not mean it is any less dirty.
Chatman - granted we can not seem to find or read original documents and what the original charter says, I will not dispute wordage and nuances with the exception of the interposition of Jew and Zionist. As translated, there is an inconsistency which you have pointed out. Some places discuss killing the Jews, yet others talk about living in harmony with people from all religions with specific references to Jews. Does not make sense to me.
That said, it does read like an aggressive charter that would bring worry to Western nations/people. But, as you noted, it was drawn up in an environment not conducive to the niceties that exist in North America. In fact, it was drawn up during a disproportionate military onslaught supported by many Western governments. I doubt Hamas had hopes to “win the hearts and minds” of the West when they wrote it. It was likely written to win the hearts and minds of the dispossed, oppressed, and brutalized people it has come to represent.
I agree with you that, as written, it is not a productive document at this stage. But I have no doubt that it would be altered as has already been suggested by the Hamas Prime Minister, if the circumstances and conditions improved and there was a “partner for peace” on the other side of the border. That can not happen, because then the Zionist expansion would have to cease and desist, borders would have to be declared and Israel would not be able to completely control whatever they want. They would have to compensate all the dispossessed and share the land. I think we know what chance that has.
Regards,
Posted by guesswho at February 4, 2007 05:52 PM
Well, the Romans neither had FOX Network nor AIPAC and that makes a big difference nowadays. We are living in an age where democracy is subtly redefined to serve a minority.
Posted by tigristed at February 4, 2007 09:54 PM
Chatman:
Without a doubt, the most balanced and thoughtful post I’ve read here is ages. You gave me lots to consider. We may never see eye-to-eye on this, and that’s fine. Reasonable people should be able to disagree without resorting to smears. Cheers!
I will take issue with your dismissal, and the dismissal of others, of the ability to inflict damage by the “P” in my example. You prefer he was armed with a pellet gun. Guesswho reduces the damage to a few scratches. Tell that to the four dead Israelis killed by a suicide bomber last week. While I understand your argument relative to proportionality, really I do, I think it’s unfair to dismiss or reduce or trivialize such heinous acts of such barbarity.
Posted by Bino at February 5, 2007 09:11 AM
Rofl - yeah, who needs a balanced perspective anyway?
Imagine if this debate was going on during the Napoleonic era, the monarchists vs the middle classists… You guys would be firing grapeshot at each other for nothing!
Good thing none of us have any real power!
Tovy
Posted by Tovy at February 5, 2007 12:34 PM
It is quite interesting to see the narrative of the discussion switching to the actions of the oppressed and the rules with which they should conduct their resistance to the usurper. The foregone conclusion implicit in this discussion is the ligitimation of the colonial west’s bastard child in the heart of Middle East, and furthermore the arming of it with horrific weapons of mass destruction so that it can impose its will on all by shear intimidation. Any who wish to counter this intimidation for instance Iran are treated in the most hypocritical of ways. For now lets leave that discussion and its ramifications as it applies to all in the region for another time.
The role of the thief, imposter and usurper is glossed over and to polish its image it is conferred with the mantle of democracy whilst the reality points to it being the most racist and anti-democratic if one wishes to compare.
To top it all the actions of the ones violated most egregiously are being debated in hypothetical terms. They being the ones wronged have the universal right to resist in every manner possible to throw off the shackles of subjugation and oppression.
The powers that control the MSM in the west have pushed this type of discussion and perpetuated this lie to such degrees that it has become to be realized as the truth. The old axiom of repeat a lie often enough and it will become the truth over time is very apt here.
Soon one finds that all types of tertiary issues are being spun out for all to consume and along with it mass scales of intellectualizing ensues all for the sake of mudding the waters and core issue at the heart of this matter is relegated to the dust bin of time.
Posted by oldfan at February 5, 2007 12:43 PM
OT - Iran Introduces AIDS Cure?
http://www.farsnews.com/English/newstext.php?nn=8511140239
Posted by Bino at February 5, 2007 01:00 PM
USA + Britain + Israel = Axis of Evil
Posted by hedagem at February 5, 2007 02:35 PM
Bino’s problem is that he equates Zionism with Judaism. So to want to kill a racist torturing pig of a Zionist = kill a Jew (see an earlier post above). But, Bino dearest, dismantling the racist entity referred to Israel as is not the same thing as death to Jews (a people of a certain religious persuasion). Bino has yet to throw off the shackles of his familial brainwashing. If I have Bino figured right, in response to “Who are you?” he would answer “A Jew” followed by “A Man” (or vice -versa). He could not answer in honesty “A human being” because it would not be true to the extent he has disassociated the Palestinians from his collective unconscious and sided with their oppressors.
Folks, give up the dialogue with him – just consider all the unproductive space he takes. Which brings me to his second motive for being on this site, that to his credit I think is unconscious. In addition to defending the Zionist state (and diminishing the extent to which Israel is bringing the heat upon itself), Bino needs attention. If you give it to him, what do you think will happen?
Posted by shazam at February 5, 2007 03:47 PM
Shazam:
You are off to the races again I see. I found the dialogue interesting enough. If you are content to ignore Bino, fine. However, I really wish you would do so in silence, and not entreat the rest of us to join you. We know quite well where you stand, but your comments make me wonder, increasingly, whether you are amenable to reasoned discourse yourself, considering how easily you come unhinged.
Further, I wonder why would you make the assumption that, just because someone is a supporter of Israeli policy, that they are a Jew or a Zionist? Is every gay rights supporter gay? Is every supported of a woman’s right to choose a woman? Is every anti-abortion protester a man? Does every person opposed to racism and violence belong to an oppressed community?
Posted by chatman at February 5, 2007 03:56 PM
Actually, Shazam, I’ve never believed in religion, as I’ve stated here before on numerous occasions - that was back when Rampart was tarring me a “Christian fundy” and I wasn’t yet outed as a “Zionist” (haha). I believe religion exists, obviously, and I believe people should be free to worship whoever they want – even the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But I’ve never subscribed. I don’t believe any God. Never have, never will. I identify with no religious group. I am a human being first and foremost.
That you think I’m Jewish is classic though. And with posts like those from Hegadem (“Is he a Jew?”) it’s obviously pretty easy to see the overt racism that is rampant on this board. We saw it with Rampart before and we see it with others now. It’s sad. Sure, you’ll claim you love Jews, you just hate Zionists. Unfortunately, as you and others have repeatedly demonstrated, even an atheist pot smoker in Canada is tarred a Zionist (Or AD Junior) when they don’t believe exactly what you do. What a pathetic closed-minded hypocrite you are.
Regarding your belief that, “dismantling the racist entity referred to Israel as is not the same thing as death to Jews (a people of a certain religious persuasion)”, I have to loff and loff and loff. Yes, the good folks of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Al Aqusa Martyrs Brigades – sure, they’ve got no beef with the Joooos – just the Zionists. Right.
Re: Folks, give up the dialogue with him – just consider all the unproductive space he takes.
Be my guest. Why don’t you start by, oh I dunno, not posting about me with your laughable projections. You can start, say, right about now.
I’m not going anywhere, sunshine.
Posted by Bino at February 5, 2007 04:08 PM
Oldfan:
If you don’t want to raise the issue, then why preface your argument with it? Where are you going with this? Would you remove the Israelis from where they are now, or would you have the government removed and replaced with something more pluralistic? Is there a point at which a disenfranchisement occurred so long ago that it is no longer meaningful to debate the issue?
In my view, the question of the day is how Israel deals with the people under its charge, and not whether it should exist. The latter, for practical and historical purposes, is in the dustbin of history, and rightly so.
Presuming you espouse the mere abolition and reformation of the Israeli government, I would agree that it should change to accommodate ALL of the people within its occupied territories. That’s what equal protection under the laws is all about. I would agree that the peculiarly racist notion of a ‘Jewish state’ must end, and that the aggressive tendencies of the Israeli regime must be brought to heel. The global community must vocally and economically condemn the atrocities the IDF commits in Palestine.
Keeping that in mind, however, I cannot agree with the following;
“To top it all the actions of the ones violated most egregiously are being debated in hypothetical terms. They being the ones wronged have the universal right to resist in every manner possible to throw off the shackles of subjugation and oppression.”
An honest broker or tribunal must condemn any organization that recklessly or purposely endangers the lives of noncombatants. That applies to the IDF and Hamas; lex talionis will leave the world blind. If one justifiably condemns the horrors of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, one cannot morally excuse the horrors of suicide bomber phenomenon simply because of their “right to resist in every manner possible.” While the horrors of their methods may mirror the horrors they perceive, they are not morally justified in killing themselves to kill soft, civilian targets under the banner of ‘resistance.’ I would feel no more comfortable with my government supporting an organization that trains suicide bombers than I would if my government backed the political masters of the recklessly destructive IDF.
Posted by chatman at February 5, 2007 04:14 PM