Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Park Life

U.N. racism conference blighted by fear of Israel?

Recommended Posts

In all his quotes he sounds to me like someone who refuses to believe what Western governments tell him to be true, rather than someone insisting that it categorically didn't occur.

 

When I googled the quote there were hundreds of sources for it. Unfortunately, though I wanted to see how it was reported on both sides, I could only access the UK, US sources. Sites like radioIslam.org are censored at work.

 

 

"They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets,"

 

"If someone were to deny the existence of God... or prophets and religion, they would not bother him.

 

"However, if someone were to deny the myth of the Jews' massacre, all the Zionist mouthpieces and the governments subservient to the Zionists tear their larynxes and scream against the person as much as they can," he said.

 

Don't think you can get much more clear than that.

 

Although like I said he was most bullish straight after election, since then he has slowly (and cleverly) back tracked from outright denial, to "raising doubts" (which is effectively the same thing to his target audience but doesn't draw the massive international condemnation).

 

He comes at it from the wrong angle like. Rather than pushing to get religious defamation outlawed he should be trying to get holocaust denial similarly legalised.

 

 

The thing is the "religious defamation" he's on about is a ) utterly political [he's talking Islam the political force, nothing to do with Islam the practising religion] and b ) pretty much smack against freedom of speech (that's a bad road to go down IMO).

 

 

In fact I do wonder if he wasn't largely after causing as big a stir in his speech as possible on another (if related) issue, to maybe get as much "religious defamation" worded into their draft as possible again.

Edited by Fop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In all his quotes he sounds to me like someone who refuses to believe what Western governments tell him to be true, rather than someone insisting that it categorically didn't occur.

 

When I googled the quote there were hundreds of sources for it. Unfortunately, though I wanted to see how it was reported on both sides, I could only access the UK, US sources. Sites like radioIslam.org are censored at work.

 

 

"They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets,"

 

"If someone were to deny the existence of God... or prophets and religion, they would not bother him.

 

"However, if someone were to deny the myth of the Jews' massacre, all the Zionist mouthpieces and the governments subservient to the Zionists tear their larynxes and scream against the person as much as they can," he said.

 

Don't think you can get much more clear than that.

 

Although like I said he was most bullish straight after election, since then he has slowly (and cleverly) back tracked from outright denial, to "raising doubts" (which is effectively the same thing to his target audience but doesn't draw the massive international condemnation).

 

He comes at it from the wrong angle like. Rather than pushing to get religious defamation outlawed he should be trying to get holocaust denial similarly legalised.

 

 

The thing is the "religious defamation" he's on about is a ) utterly political [he's talking Islam the political force, nothing to do with Islam the practising religion] and b ) pretty much smack against freedom of speech (that's a bad road to go down IMO).

 

 

In fact I do wonder if he wasn't largely after causing as big a stir in his speech as possible on another (if related) issue, to maybe get as much "religious defamation" worded into their draft as possible again.

 

I feel dirty but I agree with Fop.

 

Which do you think is more important to him HF, legalizing the right to deny the holocaust (and tbf I'm not even sure how that applies in the UK) or banging people up for not believing in Allah?

 

Basically, you've shown the man is a fruit cake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In all his quotes he sounds to me like someone who refuses to believe what Western governments tell him to be true, rather than someone insisting that it categorically didn't occur.

 

When I googled the quote there were hundreds of sources for it. Unfortunately, though I wanted to see how it was reported on both sides, I could only access the UK, US sources. Sites like radioIslam.org are censored at work.

 

 

"They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets,"

 

"If someone were to deny the existence of God... or prophets and religion, they would not bother him.

 

"However, if someone were to deny the myth of the Jews' massacre, all the Zionist mouthpieces and the governments subservient to the Zionists tear their larynxes and scream against the person as much as they can," he said.

 

Don't think you can get much more clear than that.

 

Although like I said he was most bullish straight after election, since then he has slowly (and cleverly) back tracked from outright denial, to "raising doubts" (which is effectively the same thing to his target audience but doesn't draw the massive international condemnation).

 

He comes at it from the wrong angle like. Rather than pushing to get religious defamation outlawed he should be trying to get holocaust denial similarly legalised.

 

 

The thing is the "religious defamation" he's on about is a ) utterly political [he's talking Islam the political force, nothing to do with Islam the practising religion] and b ) pretty much smack against freedom of speech (that's a bad road to go down IMO).

 

 

In fact I do wonder if he wasn't largely after causing as big a stir in his speech as possible on another (if related) issue, to maybe get as much "religious defamation" worded into their draft as possible again.

 

I feel dirty but I agree with Fop.

 

Which do you think is more important to him HF, legalizing the right to deny the holocaust (and tbf I'm not even sure how that applies in the UK) or banging people up for not believing in Allah?

 

Basically, you've shown the man is a fruit cake.

 

It's legal in the UK. Illegal in 13 european countries.

 

I agree too.

 

It's not like he's the only fruitcake running a country though. The bloke in charge of the launch codes for the last 8 years believed literally that a bloke called Noah collected 2 of every animal on a boat. And those animal repopulated the whole planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Bush's religious views were all to do with politics too fwiw.

 

I read quite an extensive article on him in the Times which suggested his belief in 'the Rapture' was genuine and not at all unusual for people (including educated people) from that part of the States. You could be right though of course. Thank fuck he's gone in any case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest alex
I think Bush's religious views were all to do with politics too fwiw.

 

I read quite an extensive article on him in the Times which suggested his belief in 'the Rapture' was genuine and not at all unusual for people (including educated people) from that part of the States. You could be right though of course. Thank fuck he's gone in any case.

In either case he made a public issue of his views for political gain imo. And, more pertinently perhaps, in either case he's an absolutely 24ct froot loop.

Not convinced he was running the show mind, but that's another matter altogether :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iran: Ahmadinejad welcomed home

_45684140_ahmandinejad226.jpg

Some countries boycotted the conference because of Mr Ahmadinejad

 

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has returned home to what has officially been described as a sensational welcome.

 

This follows his controversial speech at a UN anti-racism conference.

 

European delegates walked out when he described Israel as a racist state. France called his address a "hate speech", while the US called it "vile".

 

Some countries had boycotted the conference because the Iranian president was appearing.

 

But Iranian state media described Mr Ahmadinejad as the superstar of the conference.

 

 

Paul Reynolds

Paul Reynolds

World affairs correspondent, BBC News website

 

The one issue that never seems to go away when conferences of this kind are held is the Israeli-Palestinian one.

 

A document has been already been agreed among those governments attending and you have to read it quite closely to detect the tremors remaining from the earthquakes in discussions that went before.

 

But enough contentious issues remain and the result is a boycott by the US, Israel, Germany, Italy, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

 

Fault lines split UN summit

 

According to Iran's official news agency, a crowd gathered at Tehran airport from the early hours, reports the BBC's John Leyne in Tehran.

 

When Mr Ahmadinejad emerged they created what the agency called a "very sensational scene" to welcome him home.

 

One pro-government paper said the president had shot the last bullet into the brain of the West.

 

Government opponents have chosen, or been prevented, from making any open criticism, our correspondent adds, although some papers hinted at their scepticism by describing his speech as "controversial".

 

Mr Ahmadinejad spoke on Monday at the start of the five-day UN conference in Geneva.

 

Jewish migrants, he said, had been sent from Europe and the US after World War II "in order to establish a totally racist government in the occupied Palestine".

 

 

RACISM CONFERENCE

 

UN conference on racism - draft outcome [90.6 KB]

Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader

Download the reader here

 

In quotes: Ahmadinejad's speech

In quotes: World reaction to speech

 

He continued: "And in fact, in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine."

 

His comments prompted a walk-out by delegates from at least 30 countries, and a raft of condemnation from Western officials.

 

Diplomats who remained, however, applauded as Mr Ahmadinejad continued his address.

 

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon expressed dismay at both the boycotts and the speech, saying Mr Ahmadinejad had used it "to accuse, divide and even incite".

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8009554.stm

 

Played well to the home crowd anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bagels running England are putting the finishing touches to the next terror alert about now. :D

 

Nice post from Fish earlier....I too am pretty much wound out regarding all the self-serving - short term bullshit from politicians in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The bagels running England are putting the finishing touches to the next terror alert about now. :D

 

Nice post from Fish earlier....I too am pretty much wound out regarding all the self-serving - short term bullshit from politicians in general.

 

Thing is a lot could have been different if they'd not rigged the Iranian elections.

 

A moderate Government there wouldn't exactly have been a panacea, but it would at least have probably avoided throwing hand-grenades into whatever they deemed the could stir up to further a self interested Islamofascist agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The bagels running England are putting the finishing touches to the next terror alert about now. :D

 

Nice post from Fish earlier....I too am pretty much wound out regarding all the self-serving - short term bullshit from politicians in general.

 

Thing is a lot could have been different if they'd not rigged the Iranian elections.

 

A moderate Government there wouldn't exactly have been a panacea, but it would at least have probably avoided throwing hand-grenades into whatever they deemed the could stir up to further a self interested Islamofascist agenda.

 

They used to have a moderate Govt can you remember what happened to it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The bagels running England are putting the finishing touches to the next terror alert about now. :D

 

Nice post from Fish earlier....I too am pretty much wound out regarding all the self-serving - short term bullshit from politicians in general.

 

Thing is a lot could have been different if they'd not rigged the Iranian elections.

 

A moderate Government there wouldn't exactly have been a panacea, but it would at least have probably avoided throwing hand-grenades into whatever they deemed the could stir up to further a self interested Islamofascist agenda.

 

They used to have a moderate Govt can you remember what happened to it?

 

They banned all the moderate members (and just people they didn't like) from standing leaving only hard-line and tow-the-line candidates as people that could be voted for and not surprisingly they won. :razz:

 

"Democracy" in Iran is interesting to say the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The bagels running England are putting the finishing touches to the next terror alert about now. :D

 

Nice post from Fish earlier....I too am pretty much wound out regarding all the self-serving - short term bullshit from politicians in general.

 

Thing is a lot could have been different if they'd not rigged the Iranian elections.

 

A moderate Government there wouldn't exactly have been a panacea, but it would at least have probably avoided throwing hand-grenades into whatever they deemed the could stir up to further a self interested Islamofascist agenda.

 

They used to have a moderate Govt can you remember what happened to it?

 

They banned all the moderate members (and just people they didn't like) from standing leaving only hard-line and tow-the-line candidates as people that could be voted for and not surprisingly they won. :razz:

 

"Democracy" in Iran is interesting to say the least.

 

I was thinking more about the one the Americans overthrew. Jog your mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The bagels running England are putting the finishing touches to the next terror alert about now. :D

 

Nice post from Fish earlier....I too am pretty much wound out regarding all the self-serving - short term bullshit from politicians in general.

 

Thing is a lot could have been different if they'd not rigged the Iranian elections.

 

A moderate Government there wouldn't exactly have been a panacea, but it would at least have probably avoided throwing hand-grenades into whatever they deemed the could stir up to further a self interested Islamofascist agenda.

 

They used to have a moderate Govt can you remember what happened to it?

 

They banned all the moderate members (and just people they didn't like) from standing leaving only hard-line and tow-the-line candidates as people that could be voted for and not surprisingly they won. :razz:

 

"Democracy" in Iran is interesting to say the least.

 

I was thinking more about the one the Americans overthrew. Jog your mind?

 

Aye, but the last one (2000?) was very open and diplomatic (as least compared to this one), if they'd won again things could be very different now.

 

Ironically I suspect that despite all the state control and state fed information in Iran, that Iran would be quite "moderate" if the people actually got their will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The bagels running England are putting the finishing touches to the next terror alert about now. :D

 

Nice post from Fish earlier....I too am pretty much wound out regarding all the self-serving - short term bullshit from politicians in general.

 

Thing is a lot could have been different if they'd not rigged the Iranian elections.

 

A moderate Government there wouldn't exactly have been a panacea, but it would at least have probably avoided throwing hand-grenades into whatever they deemed the could stir up to further a self interested Islamofascist agenda.

 

They used to have a moderate Govt can you remember what happened to it?

 

They banned all the moderate members (and just people they didn't like) from standing leaving only hard-line and tow-the-line candidates as people that could be voted for and not surprisingly they won. :razz:

 

"Democracy" in Iran is interesting to say the least.

 

I was thinking more about the one the Americans overthrew. Jog your mind?

 

Aye, but the last one (2000?) was very open and diplomatic (as least compared to this one), if they'd won again things could be very different now.

 

Ironically I suspect that despite all the state control and state fed information in Iran, that Iran would be quite "moderate" if the people actually got their will.

 

 

Well the last time the people got their will, we and the Americans soon put a stop to it.

 

 

"Meanwhile, Mossadeq's growing popularity and power led to political chaos and eventual United States intervention. Mossadeq had come to office on the strength of support from the National Front and other parties in the Majlis and as a result of his great popularity. His popularity, growing power, and intransigence on the oil issue were creating friction between the prime minister and the shah. In the summer of 1952, the shah refused the prime minister's demand for the power to appoint the minister of war (and, by implication, to control the armed forces). Mossadeq resigned, three days of pro-Mossadeq rioting followed, and the shah was forced to reappoint Mossadeq to head the government."

 

 

Reap what you sow etc...

 

I simply point blank refuse to entertain the idea that the West has any interest in democracy anywhere unless it is totally bent over to our needs.

 

If a war comes and people get nuked you can trace it back to our sheer cuntishness around the world over the last 50 years.

 

Fuck them all!

Edited by Park Life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The bagels running England are putting the finishing touches to the next terror alert about now. :D

 

Nice post from Fish earlier....I too am pretty much wound out regarding all the self-serving - short term bullshit from politicians in general.

 

Thing is a lot could have been different if they'd not rigged the Iranian elections.

 

A moderate Government there wouldn't exactly have been a panacea, but it would at least have probably avoided throwing hand-grenades into whatever they deemed the could stir up to further a self interested Islamofascist agenda.

 

They used to have a moderate Govt can you remember what happened to it?

 

They banned all the moderate members (and just people they didn't like) from standing leaving only hard-line and tow-the-line candidates as people that could be voted for and not surprisingly they won. :razz:

 

"Democracy" in Iran is interesting to say the least.

 

I was thinking more about the one the Americans overthrew. Jog your mind?

 

Aye, but the last one (2000?) was very open and diplomatic (as least compared to this one), if they'd won again things could be very different now.

 

Ironically I suspect that despite all the state control and state fed information in Iran, that Iran would be quite "moderate" if the people actually got their will.

 

 

Well the last time the people got their will, we and the Americans soon put a stop to it.

 

 

"Meanwhile, Mossadeq's growing popularity and power led to political chaos and eventual United States intervention. Mossadeq had come to office on the strength of support from the National Front and other parties in the Majlis and as a result of his great popularity. His popularity, growing power, and intransigence on the oil issue were creating friction between the prime minister and the shah. In the summer of 1952, the shah refused the prime minister's demand for the power to appoint the minister of war (and, by implication, to control the armed forces). Mossadeq resigned, three days of pro-Mossadeq rioting followed, and the shah was forced to reappoint Mossadeq to head the government."

 

 

Reap what you sow etc...

 

I simply point blank refuse to entertain the idea that the West has any interest in democracy anywhere unless it is totally bent over to our needs.

 

If a war comes and people get nuked you can trace it back to our sheer cuntishness around the world over the last 50 years.

 

Fuck them all!

 

 

Aye, but that's why the area has basically had nothing but war for the last oooo.... 6000 years. :razz:

 

 

Got to stop the cycle sometime, or it just goes on and on repeating forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Britain announced last night that it is to review all its military exports to Israel in the light of the recent offensive in the Gaza Strip which killed around 1,400 Palestinians.

 

In a written statement to MPs, the foreign secretary, David Miliband, announced that all current and future licences permitting the export of military equipment would be reviewed in the light of the three-week Operation Cast Lead.

 

Miliband said Britain provided less than 1% of Israel's military imports. But he acknowledged that some components supplied by Britain were "almost certainly" used by Israel in its military offensive. These were:

 

• Israeli reconnaissance satellites, for which Britain supplies minor components, which could have been used to provide information to the Israeli army. Miliband said: "We assess that these might have been used to prepare the operation but would not have played a significant part in the operation itself."

 

• F16 aircraft were "widely used" to deliver precision-guided bombs, and incorporate British components. Britain has banned the export of F16 components directly to Israel since 2002. But British F16 components are exported to the US "where Israel was the ultimate end user".

 

• Apache attack helicopters, which incorporate British components, exported to the US for use on helicopters "ultimately destined for Israel".

 

• Saar-class corvette naval vessels, which incorporate a British 76mm gun, and took part in operations from waters off Gaza.

 

• Armoured personnel carriers, which included conversions of British-supplied Centurion tanks, and were used as mobile headquarters. The Centurions were sold to Israel in the late 1950s.

 

 

 

It's probably a very insignificant amount, but a move in the right direction. Well done us. :D

Edited by Park Life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an announcement of inaction then? If the review leads to anything I'll give them kudos.

 

Naomi Klein has written very strongly in favour of BDS, an all out global trade boycott of israel, which I'd never heard of but has been a campaign running for years...

 

It's time. Long past time. The best strategy to end the increasingly bloody occupation is for Israel to become the target of the kind of global movement that put an end to apartheid in South Africa.

 

In July 2005 a huge coalition of Palestinian groups laid out plans to do just that. They called on "people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era." The campaign Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions—BDS for short—was born.

 

Every day that Israel pounds Gaza brings more converts to the BDS cause, and talk of cease-fires is doing little to slow the momentum. Support is even emerging among Israeli Jews. In the midst of the assault roughly 500 Israelis, dozens of them well-known artists and scholars, sent a letter to foreign ambassadors stationed in Israel. It calls for "the adoption of immediate restrictive measures and sanctions" and draws a clear parallel with the antiapartheid struggle. "The boycott on South Africa was effective, but Israel is handled with kid gloves.… This international backing must stop."

 

Yet even in the face of these clear calls, many of us still can't go there. The reasons are complex, emotional and understandable. And they simply aren't good enough. Economic sanctions are the most effective tools in the nonviolent arsenal. Surrendering them verges on active complicity. Here are the top four objections to the BDS strategy, followed by counterarguments.

 

1. Punitive measures will alienate rather than persuade Israelis. The world has tried what used to be called "constructive engagement." It has failed utterly. Since 2006 Israel has been steadily escalating its criminality: expanding settlements, launching an outrageous war against Lebanon and imposing collective punishment on Gaza through the brutal blockade. Despite this escalation, Israel has not faced punitive measures—quite the opposite. The weapons and $3 billion in annual aid that the US sends to Israel is only the beginning. Throughout this key period, Israel has enjoyed a dramatic improvement in its diplomatic, cultural and trade relations with a variety of other allies. For instance, in 2007 Israel became the first non–Latin American country to sign a free-trade deal with Mercosur. In the first nine months of 2008, Israeli exports to Canada went up 45 percent. A new trade deal with the European Union is set to double Israel's exports of processed food. And on December 8, European ministers "upgraded" the EU-Israel Association Agreement, a reward long sought by Jerusalem.*

 

It is in this context that Israeli leaders started their latest war: confident they would face no meaningful costs. It is remarkable that over seven days of wartime trading, the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange's flagship index actually went up 10.7 percent. When carrots don't work, sticks are needed.

 

2. Israel is not South Africa. Of course it isn't. The relevance of the South African model is that it proves that BDS tactics can be effective when weaker measures (protests, petitions, back-room lobbying) have failed. And there are indeed deeply distressing echoes of South African apartheid in the occupied territories: the color-coded IDs and travel permits, the bulldozed homes and forced displacement, the settler-only roads. Ronnie Kasrils, a prominent South African politician, said that the architecture of segregation that he saw in the West Bank and Gaza was "infinitely worse than apartheid." That was in 2007, before Israel began its full-scale war against the open-air prison that is Gaza.

 

3. Why single out Israel when the United States, Britain and other Western countries do the same things in Iraq and Afghanistan? Boycott is not a dogma; it is a tactic. The reason the BDS strategy should be tried against Israel is practical: in a country so small and trade-dependent, it could actually work.

 

4. Boycotts sever communication; we need more dialogue, not less. This one I'll answer with a personal story. For eight years, my books have been published in Israel by a commercial house called Babel. But when I published The Shock Doctrine, I wanted to respect the boycott. On the advice of BDS activists, including the wonderful writer John Berger, I contacted a small publisher called Andalus. Andalus is an activist press, deeply involved in the anti-occupation movement and the only Israeli publisher devoted exclusively to translating Arabic writing into Hebrew. We drafted a contract that guarantees that all proceeds go to Andalus's work, and none to me. In other words, I am boycotting the Israeli economy but not Israelis.

 

Coming up with our modest publishing plan required dozens of phone calls, e-mails and instant messages, stretching from Tel Aviv to Ramallah to Paris to Toronto to Gaza City. My point is this: as soon as you start implementing a boycott strategy, dialogue increases dramatically. And why wouldn't it? Building a movement requires endless communicating, as many in the antiapartheid struggle well recall. The argument that supporting boycotts will cut us off from one another is particularly specious given the array of cheap information technologies at our fingertips. We are drowning in ways to rant at one another across national boundaries. No boycott can stop us.

 

Just about now, many a proud Zionist is gearing up for major point-scoring: don't I know that many of those very high-tech toys come from Israeli research parks, world leaders in infotech? True enough, but not all of them. Several days into Israel's Gaza assault, Richard Ramsey, the managing director of a British telecom specializing in voice-over-internet services, sent an email to the Israeli tech firm MobileMax. "As a result of the Israeli government action in the last few days we will no longer be in a position to consider doing business with yourself or any other Israeli company."

 

Ramsey says that his decision wasn't political; he just didn't want to lose customers. "We can't afford to lose any of our clients," he explains, "so it was purely commercially defensive."

 

It was this kind of cold business calculation that led many companies to pull out of South Africa two decades ago. And it's precisely the kind of calculation that is our most realistic hope of bringing justice, so long denied, to Palestine.

 

*On January 14, in response to Israel's aggression in Gaza, the EU called off its plans to upgrade the EU-Israel Association Agreement, a sign of growing understanding that political sanctions can be brought to bear to bring an end to the war.

 

http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2009/01...divest-sanction

 

 

Read a letter exchange between Robert Pollin, co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, and Naomi on the question of one-sided boycotts.

 

Robert Pollin:

I strongly oppose Naomi Klein’s proposal to begin boycotts and divestment initiatives against Israel, similar to the approach used against South Africa in the apartheid era [“Lookout,” Jan. 26]. Klein anticipates four objections to her proposal and offers responses. But her list ignores the most important and obvious objection: it is entirely one-sided both in blaming Israel for the horrible cycle of violence in the region and in meting out punishment.

 

I agree entirely that the Israeli occupation is brutal. But Hamas is also brutal. To date, the only thing preventing Hamas from being less lethal than Israel in the damage it inflicts is its limited resources. Hamas is deliberately firing rockets into Israel with the aim of killing and terrorizing civilians. Should Iran, for example, succeed in supplying Hamas with more effective weapons, Hamas will become more successful in killing and terrorizing Israeli citizens. Rockets are beginning to land only twenty miles south of Tel Aviv.

 

The toll on Palestinian civilians of the current Israeli attack on Gaza is horrible. But let’s also recognize that Hamas is deliberately using civilians as human shields. The bomb that hit the home of Hamas leader Nazar Rayyan in Jabaliya tragically killed his wives and children as well as himself. Why was Rayyan exposing his family to such danger?

 

I agree with Klein that economic levers probably have the best chance of dramatically shifting the status quo (even while, given the history and emotions involved, economic initiatives could never offer a sufficient solution on their own). But instead of a one-sided boycott to punish Israel, why not pursue a positive agenda of economic development that would benefit both sides? Consider, for example, a development aid package on the order of $10 bil-lion, spread over two to four years, with funds supplied on an equitable basis from the United States, the European Union and the Arab oil-exporting countries. This amount would be enough to: (1) undertake a massive infrastructure investment and job creation program in Gaza and the West Bank to help create an economically viable Palestinian state; and (2) comfortably resettle the roughly half-million Israelis now living in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem and turn over these communities and homes to Palestinians. This second initiative would entail a large-scale home-building, community infrastructure and job-creation program in Israel, perhaps concentrated in the less well-developed northern and southern regions.

 

The amount of money I’m suggesting seems large, of course. But $10 billion is only about 7 percent of what the United States spent in Iraq in 2007 and 5 percent of Saudi Arabia’s $194 billion in oil revenues in 2008. In short, the amount is modest in comparison with the opportunities it will create to contribute to an equitable and lasting peace in the region.

 

- Robert Pollin, co-director, Political Economy Research Institute University of Massachusetts

 

Naomi Klein Replies:

Robert Pollin believes that the biggest problem with the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) strategy is that it targets only one side in the conflict. For Pollin, this is a conflict between equally guilty parties deserving of equal punishment. It is not. Israel is the party that displaced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in 1948, annexed more of their land in 1967 and continues to occupy the land today. Occupiers and occupied people do not share the same responsibilities, which is why the duties and responsibilities of an occupying power are laid out in the Geneva Conventions—laws Israel violates with impunity.

 

Even if I were to accept Pollin’s argument that any sanction should punish both sides equally, we face a rather large problem. How does Professor Pollin propose that we punish Gazans more than they are being punished already? In case he has failed to notice, there is already a fierce campaign of boycotts and sanctions under way, and it is completely one-sided. I am referring, of course, to Israel’s brutal eighteen-month siege of Gaza, launched to teach Gazans a lesson for voting for Hamas in US-backed elections. As a direct result of this siege, Gazans have been deprived of lifesaving medicines, cooking fuel and paper—not to mention food. This is far more than a mere boycott; it’s “collective punishment,” as described by Richard Falk, United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. By contrast, the kind of legal boycott being called for by the BDS campaign would deprive Tel Aviv of some international concerts and, if it really got going, would cost Israel some foreign investment. It would not starve and sicken an entire people. In this context of actual one-sided punishment inflicted on Palestinians, sanctioned by the so-called civilized world, to complain of one-sided boycotts against Israel is, frankly, obscene.

 

As for the proposed $10 billion for a redevelopment/relocation fund, there is no doubt that if a just peace agreement is ever to be reached, a generous peace dividend will be required to make it work. But before we start handing out rewards for a nonexistent peace, Israel first has to decide that endless war is too costly. And that’s what the BDS strategy is for: to help Israel come to that eminently reasonable conclusion.

 

- Naomi Klein

 

http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2009/01...-sided-boycotts

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Dive...t_and_Sanctions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well done us. :D

 

...and also, shame on us....

 

The British government is being accused of hindering attempts by human rights lawyers to access to the war-ravaged Gaza Strip to document Israel’s war crimes by refusing to provide the needed entry letters.

 

"All the letter states is that the Foreign Office has advised you not to enter Gaza and you have not accepted its advice," lawyer Stephen Kamlish QC, who was recently refused a letter to enter Gaza, told The Guardian on Tuesday, April 21.

 

"But you have to have one to get across the border."

 

Egyptian authorities insist that foreigners seeking to enter Gaza through its Rafah border crossing must submit a letter from their government acknowledging and authorizing their visits.

 

Kamlish is one of several British lawyers the government refused to issue them such letters.

 

One lawyer, Kate Maynard, was even advised by the Foreign Office that her efforts should rather be focused on "humanitarian" work.

 

"I recommend that Ms Maynard get in touch with the UN…to enquire how she might best be able to assist the international humanitarian effort," Bill Rammell, a Foreign Office minister, told MP Diane Abbott who wrote to the Foreign Office on her behalf.

 

Some lawyers trying to build a war crimes case against Israel over its recent three-week Gaza onslaught have had to turn back after waiting for days at Rafah crossing without the necessary letters.

 

Few, including Kamlish, were able to cross into Gaza with foreign officials, French in his case.

 

Others had to rely on sources in Gaza or Israel to provide sponsorship letters.

 

More than 1,300 Palestinians, mostly civilians, were killed and 5,450 wounded in 22 days of attacks Israel unleashed on December 27.

 

The offensive wrecked havoc on the infrastructure of the densely-populated, besieged coastal enclave, leaving tens of thousands of homes and other buildings in ruins.

 

Determined

 

British lawyers are astonished by their government's stance.

 

"No other European country has adopted this stance," Daniel Machover, senior lawyer at London firm Hickman & Rose, told The Guardian.

 

"That is what is so incredible about this."

 

Machover, who is working on cases of war crimes in Gaza, said the Foreign Office's "consistent" refusal to aid war crimes probes seemed more of a deliberate act.

 

"This seems like a determined effort not to enable important witnesses to get into the Gaza Strip."

 

Rashad Yaqoob, a lawyer for the Human Rights Legal Aid Trust, believes London's stance goes beyond issuing letters to rights investigators.

 

"We are just not getting any response from the Foreign Office since the events in Gaza," said Yaqoob, whose group is funding the work of rights lawyers in Gaza.

 

Yaqoob believes the government is acting on the defensive regarding Gaza.

 

In March, it emerged that Israeli combat and target drones which bombed Gaza for three weeks had been fitted with British-made engines.

 

Lawyers representing more than 30 Palestinian families accused Foreign Secretary David Miliband, along with the ministers of defense and business, of breaching the international law by failing to respond to Israel's assault in Gaza.

 

"In my opinion the Foreign Office is now under pressure from the judicial review," Yaqoob contends.

 

"I don't see them as being too comfortable in facilitating lawyers going across where we could be collecting evidence that could be used against them."

 

http://www.palestinechronicle.com/news.php...8bbac1d8aacb87e

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Even if I were to accept Pollin’s argument that any sanction should punish both sides equally, we face a rather large problem. How does Professor Pollin propose that we punish Gazans more than they are being punished already? In case he has failed to notice, there is already a fierce campaign of boycotts and sanctions under way, and it is completely one-sided. I am referring, of course, to Israel’s brutal eighteen-month siege of Gaza, launched to teach Gazans a lesson for voting for Hamas in US-backed elections. As a direct result of this siege, Gazans have been deprived of lifesaving medicines, cooking fuel and paper—not to mention food. This is far more than a mere boycott; it’s “collective punishment,” as described by Richard Falk, United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories."

 

NK.

 

 

I think I love her. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well done us. :D

 

...and also, shame on us....

 

The British government is being accused of hindering attempts by human rights lawyers to access to the war-ravaged Gaza Strip to document Israel’s war crimes by refusing to provide the needed entry letters.

 

"All the letter states is that the Foreign Office has advised you not to enter Gaza and you have not accepted its advice," lawyer Stephen Kamlish QC, who was recently refused a letter to enter Gaza, told The Guardian on Tuesday, April 21.

 

"But you have to have one to get across the border."

 

Egyptian authorities insist that foreigners seeking to enter Gaza through its Rafah border crossing must submit a letter from their government acknowledging and authorizing their visits.

 

Kamlish is one of several British lawyers the government refused to issue them such letters.

 

One lawyer, Kate Maynard, was even advised by the Foreign Office that her efforts should rather be focused on "humanitarian" work.

 

"I recommend that Ms Maynard get in touch with the UN…to enquire how she might best be able to assist the international humanitarian effort," Bill Rammell, a Foreign Office minister, told MP Diane Abbott who wrote to the Foreign Office on her behalf.

 

Some lawyers trying to build a war crimes case against Israel over its recent three-week Gaza onslaught have had to turn back after waiting for days at Rafah crossing without the necessary letters.

 

Few, including Kamlish, were able to cross into Gaza with foreign officials, French in his case.

 

Others had to rely on sources in Gaza or Israel to provide sponsorship letters.

 

More than 1,300 Palestinians, mostly civilians, were killed and 5,450 wounded in 22 days of attacks Israel unleashed on December 27.

 

The offensive wrecked havoc on the infrastructure of the densely-populated, besieged coastal enclave, leaving tens of thousands of homes and other buildings in ruins.

 

Determined

 

British lawyers are astonished by their government's stance.

 

"No other European country has adopted this stance," Daniel Machover, senior lawyer at London firm Hickman & Rose, told The Guardian.

 

"That is what is so incredible about this."

 

Machover, who is working on cases of war crimes in Gaza, said the Foreign Office's "consistent" refusal to aid war crimes probes seemed more of a deliberate act.

 

"This seems like a determined effort not to enable important witnesses to get into the Gaza Strip."

 

Rashad Yaqoob, a lawyer for the Human Rights Legal Aid Trust, believes London's stance goes beyond issuing letters to rights investigators.

 

"We are just not getting any response from the Foreign Office since the events in Gaza," said Yaqoob, whose group is funding the work of rights lawyers in Gaza.

 

Yaqoob believes the government is acting on the defensive regarding Gaza.

 

In March, it emerged that Israeli combat and target drones which bombed Gaza for three weeks had been fitted with British-made engines.

 

Lawyers representing more than 30 Palestinian families accused Foreign Secretary David Miliband, along with the ministers of defense and business, of breaching the international law by failing to respond to Israel's assault in Gaza.

 

"In my opinion the Foreign Office is now under pressure from the judicial review," Yaqoob contends.

 

"I don't see them as being too comfortable in facilitating lawyers going across where we could be collecting evidence that could be used against them."

 

http://www.palestinechronicle.com/news.php...8bbac1d8aacb87e

 

 

Absolute fucking disgrace. :razz:

 

I was aware of this from the ex-Mrs P (Barrister).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Armoured personnel carriers, which included conversions of British-supplied Centurion tanks, and were used as mobile headquarters. The Centurions were sold to Israel in the late 1950s.

 

 

I think that one is a bit harsh, though, it's amazing they're still running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Armenians remember 1915 killings

_45699409_armeniagenocideafp3226b.jpg

The march ended in the centre of the city at a monument to the victims

 

Thousands of people have taken part in a procession in Armenia to commemorate the mass killings of ethnic Armenians by Ottoman Turks during World War I.

 

Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian reiterated that Turkey did not have to recognise the killings as genocide in order for the states to normalise ties.

 

Earlier this week, Armenia and Turkey said they had agreed on a roadmap towards normalising relations.

 

US President Barack Obama is to make a statement on the mass killings later.

 

However, analysts say he is unlikely to use the word "genocide" so as not to derail the agreement, which came just weeks after Mr Obama urged Turkey to come to terms with the past and resolve the issue.

 

In 2008, he said the "Armenian genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence".

 

 

Crimes against humanity don't expire in the memory of nations

Serzh Sarkisian

Armenian president

 

Q&A: Armenian genocide dispute

Turkey's Armenian dilemma

Press welcomes 'roadmap'

Cold War haunts Armenian border

_45300006_004775214-1.jpg

Hundreds of thousands of Armenians died in 1915, when they were deported en masse from eastern Anatolia to the Syrian desert and elsewhere. They were killed by Ottoman troops or died from starvation or disease.

 

Armenians have campaigned for the killings to be recognised internationally as genocide - and some countries have done so.

 

Turkey admits that many Armenians were killed but it denies any genocide, saying the deaths were part of the widespread fighting that took place in World War I.

 

'Recognition'

 

Huge crowds marched through the Armenian capital, Yerevan, on Friday to mark the 94th anniversary of the Ottoman-era killings.

 

Men stand besides the skulls and corpses of Armenian victims of the Turkish deportation circa 1915

Hundreds of thousands of Armenians died while being forced out of Anatolia

 

Many carried torches and candles, while others carried banners blaming Turkey for spilling the "blood of millions". Several Turkish flags were burned.

 

The procession ended in the centre of the city at a monument for the victims.

 

"Crimes against humanity don't expire in the memory of nations," President Sarkisian said in a statement.

 

"International recognition and condemnation of the Armenian genocide... is a matter of restoring historic justice."

 

But the president also reached out to Ankara, saying recognition of the "genocide" was not a precondition for building bilateral relations.

 

On Wednesday, the countries agreed to "develop good neighbourly relations in mutual respect and progress peace, security and stability in the entire region".

 

But their joint statement did not say how the neighbours would resolve their dispute over the killings, nor whether they had reached agreement on opening their joint border, which has been closed since 1993.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8017316.stm

 

 

Always worth remembering that genocide (1.5 million in this case) isn't just a "Western" thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

Recent tweets

Toontastic Facebook

Donate to Toontastic

Keeping the lights on since... well ages ago
TT-Staff


×