Israeli state terrorism against the Palestinian people evokes bitter ironies
It was the finest and most dignified event in Jewish history when, in April and May of 1943, the beleaguered inmates of the Warsaw Ghetto rose up against their fascist occupiers. A song by the partisans spoke of the brave Jewish prisoner’s dilemma: “they could die on their knees or fight and live forever.”
Indeed, they chose to rise up and live forever as legends rather than die of hunger and disease on their knees. The Nazi state’s industrialized mass murder of 6 million Jews was undeniably the most hideous and reprehensible crime ever committed in the history of humanity. The state-led ethnic cleansing campaign compelled the global community after 1945 to enshrine many international laws, ostensibly to restrict states from committing such crimes again. Human rights such as freedom of movement, self-determination and conventions prohibiting genocide and collective punishment were all enshrined to protect stigmatized groups from state persecution.
Another product of WWII was the bankrupting of the British Empire, which increasingly sought to rid itself of its colonies—of which Palestine was one. In light of Britain’s aspiration to decolonize and return Palestine to its indigenous inhabitants, the Zionist movement (which was a movement set up by a small group of secular Jewish businessmen in collusion with the anti-Semitic British statesman Lord Balfour) began a systematic campaign of terrorism against the people of Palestine and their British mandate authority, blowing up the King David Hotel, killing 91 people.
The Holocaust had created a large number of Jewish refugees, many of whom came to live in countries like Australia, Canada and the US, whilst many stayed in Europe and lived out peaceful lives. Others conversely chose to buy into the mythology of Zionism and went to Palestine to assist in the expulsion of the indigenous majority. The Zionist terror campaign culminated in the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948, an event best chronicled by the Jewish-Israeli dissident scholar Ilan Pappe, whose book is aptly entitled The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.
In 1967, the American government egged on the Israelis, arming them with guns and bombs, to illegally and violently seize the few scraps of Palestine that had been sanctioned by the UN for the indigenous majority to inhabit. Since 1967, the politics of the region has been characterized by Israel and their imperialist masters in Washington, ceremonially producing bogus “peace plans” such as the Oslo Agreement, which effectively served as smoke screens to divert attention from the perpetual and illegal ethnic cleansing of the indigenous majority which is ongoing.
Even former US president Jimmy Carter now describes Israel as an “Apartheid State,” comparable to the US-backed South African apartheid regime during which Nelson Mandela, now venerated, was described by western governments as a “terrorist.”
These important historical nuances, adumbrated above, must be fathomed if as students, we are to unmask the pro-Zionist depiction of this recent wave of the tragedy that has, as usual, been tendentiously represented by the western media.
The western media more generally plays an equally instrumental role in portraying the west as “pro-democracy,” a notion laughable to most Arabs and Muslims, who live under puppet presidents and corrupt kings throughout the Middle East from the Atlantic to the Gulf. Such tyrannical, kleptocratic regimes could not sustain their autocracy for 24 hours were it not for the support—both financially and militarily—they receive from western governments such as Canada, the US and Britain.
Indeed, the only democratically elected government in the region, Hamas, upon being elected in 2006, were informed that all humanitarian funding by western governments like Canada was to cease because the Palestinian people had voted for a government which Harper, Bush, and the rest of this crazed Neo-Con gang didn’t like.
Even more hypocritical has been the west’s fifty year-long, undivided support for the country that has violated more UN conventions than every other country in the world put together—namely, Israel.
We often hear of vacuous threats by non-nuclear powers to “wipe Israel off the map,” while our media and governments – without a hint of irony – mask the truism that the Zionist state of Israel has already wiped Palestine off the map and, moreover, illegally possesses hundreds of nuclear weapons with which it could wipe any of its neighbouring countries off the map within seconds. Such cant and hypocrisy is allowed to occur primarily due to the strategic location of the Zionist state, which serves the west’s imperial project of fragmenting coveted polities in the region.
Washington has armed Israel with US made guns, bombs, planes, helicopters and chemical weapons, all funded by the US taxpayer. In return, they act as a kind of henchman for Washington’s imperial project.
The elected government of the Palestinian people, Hamas, are signatories to the Arab Peace Plan, which they signed 7 years ago, in which they unambiguously recognize the right for Israel to exist. This fact is constantly and consciously omitted by pro-Zionist mouthpieces such as the CBC, BBC and CNN, who seek to condition concerned opinion into viewing the Palestinians as the terrorists and the Israelis as the freedom fighters, employing the same methodology used when apartheid South Africa was the west’s ally and needed normalizing via disinformation campaigns.
In this latest wave of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, it is adduced by our media that Hamas broke the ceasefire. This is a categorical lie; it was in fact Israel, on November 5th 2008, who entered the Gaza ghetto and massacred 6 members of Hamas. In reply to this Zionist atrocity, the half-starved captives of the Gaza ghetto (just like the residents of the Warsaw Ghetto) realized that their occupier was murderous, racist and unwilling to resolve issues passively and thus retaliated. The resistance was effectively starved and provoked into adopting non-passive means of resistance by Israeli policies, which had rendered the besieged residents of the Gaza ghetto bereft of any dignity or human rights.
The hand-made, pathetically inaccurate rockets fired by the resistance, were the regrettable product of Israel breaching of the truce, which Hamas had abided by despite unconscionable suffering, mass hunger and poor health amongst its electorate. The Zionist colonizer did not choose to abide by its theological obligation to take merely an eye for an eye. They instead have so far- with the use of illegal chemical weapons- massacred men, women and children to the tune of almost 600 people. Indeed, the death toll so far in this conflagration has been roughly 4 Israeli pairs of eyes for 600 Palestinian pairs of eyes.
Mahatma Ghandi famously opined that “an eye for an eye would leave the whole world blind.” Will it take 6 million Arabs and Muslims to be killed by western state-terrorism until the people in countries such as US, Canada and Britain wake up to the crimes our governments are in active connivance with?
Is there a difference between the Nazi crimes in the Warsaw Ghetto and the Israeli government’s illegal herding of 1.5 million people (whose race and religion is unfavourable to them) into a brick walled, barb-wired ghetto with sealed off entrances and exits, in which the huddled masses are denied food, medicine and electricity?
Is there a reason why progressive anti-Zionist Jews such as Noam Chomsky and Ilan Pappe are not interviewed on our media stations, yet war criminals and apologists for these crimes are?
Do western governments really believe that by supporting Israeli crimes and supporting repressive autocracies throughout the Arab and Muslim world, the repressed citizens of these polities will find us more likeable?
Is there a difference between state-terrorism and private terrorism?
Is there a moral difference between a suicide bomber and a stealth bomber?
If we really purport to live in a democracy that boasts a free media, then it is vital that such questions enter public discourse before any more western pogroms are allowed to occur under our noses.
I find your criticism of neoconservatism amusing, because you actually have more in common with neoconservatives than you might think. Neoconservatives have a way of reducing complex situations into black and white, or right and wrong. If I didn’t know any better, I’d almost say you were a neo-con, but from the far left. Hows that for irony?Here’s a tip: Read something other than Micheal Moore and Noam Chompsky before trying to come across as informed. This is quite possibly the worst article I’ve ever read.
“This is quite possibly the worst article I’ve ever read.”
This quote from the commentator above speaks of the radical extremism of its author, whose name I do not see attached his or her comment. Why not? Where’s the accountability?
Blakeney’s critic does not offer a single fact to support his or her diatribe but resorts exclusively to name calling. Where are zones of gray for the parents of the hundreds of innocent Palestinian child killed by the lethal technology of the military-industrial complex. Where are the zones of gray when it comes to bombing a UN station, a school, a University. War crimes that violate the Nuremberg Principles are being committed here.
Michael Moore? I don’t see him getting as specific as does Josh Blakeney about the genocidal crimes against humanity being perpetrated right now in Gaza?
Blakeney asks, “Is there a difference between the Nazi crimes in the Warsaw Ghetto and the Israeli government’s illegal herding of 1.5 million people (whose race and religion is unfavourable to them) into a brick walled, barb-wired ghetto with sealed off entrances and exits, in which the huddled masses are denied food, medicine and electricity?” My answer is yes, there is a difference. But if present trends continue, that difference is narrowing. Moreover it is important to take note of where we have been in history and where we seem to be headed as humanity if collectively we cannot move towards middle ground in this terrible debacle.
I disagree with Blakeney that it is “the West” that is hammering the Palestinian citizens of Gaza. In my view it is the radical extremists in Israel and North America, including our own Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who are betraying the decent, law-abiding citizens in “the West.” Indeed, hundreds of millions of us in “the West” are fed up with the ruthless thuggery and outlandish lying of those discredited right-wing militants who claim to be acting on our behalf.
Basta!
Anthony J. Hall
Globalization Studies
University of Lethbridge
“This quote from the commentator above speaks of the radical extremism of its author, whose name I do not see attached his or her comment. Why not? Where’s the accountability?”
My name is Jonathan Wensveen, and I stand by my comment that Joshua Blakeney’s article is quite possibly the worst I’ve ever read.
“Blakeney’s critic does not offer a single fact to support his or her diatribe.”
Neoconservatives have a way of reducing complex situations into black and white, or right and wrong. For example, George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld see a global War against Terror as a battle between good and evil.
My point is that Mr. Blakeney is similar to a neoconservative, in that he has reduced the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a black and white, or right and wrong issue. Essentially, Mr. Blakeney and Mr. Rumsfeld are the same person, but from opposite sides of the political spectrum. Both adamantly believe in their views, and are equally unwilling to recognize that the other side may have different, but valid opinions. For example, Mr. Blakeney claims that Hamas is the only “democratically elected government in the region,” while Mr. Rumsfeld would argue that Hamas is the only democratically elected terrorist organization in the region. At the end of the day, the issue itself becomes irrelevant because of the vehement hatred that each express towards one another, which then takes precedence over the suffering of innocent people.
This is why Mr. Blakeney’s article is terrible, and comes across as little more than a fanatical diatribe that offers no solution, expressing only contempt for the world in which he lives. In fact, I recommend that Mr. Blakeney read some Osama bin Laden, or Dr. Aymen al Zawahiri. They share many of his views, and write in a disturbingly similar fashion. I would also advise Mr. Blakeney to run for office. If he has such little faith in Western democracy, why not get involved and reform the system. You could be the start of something big son!
“Where are zones of gray for the parents of the hundreds of innocent Palestinian child killed by the lethal technology of the military-industrial complex. Where are the zones of gray when it comes to bombing a UN station, a school, a University. War crimes that violate the Nuremberg Principles are being committed here.”
I completely agree that it is unfair, and unjust that “zones of grey” are non-existent for those people directly involved in the conflict. But I also believe that it is our moral responsibility to overcome black and white politics, take advantage of our unique position as a people free from suffering and war, and examine the “zones of grey,” so that we help those stuck in a world of black and white find a solution to a conflict that has taken innocent life on both sides for decades.
“In my view it is the radical extremists in Israel and North America, including our own Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who are betraying the decent, law-abiding citizens in “the West.” Indeed, hundreds of millions of us in “the West” are fed up with the ruthless thuggery and outlandish lying of those discredited right-wing militants who claim to be acting on our behalf.”
Stephen Harper may not be acting on your behalf, but he is acting on my behalf, because I voted for him. Isn’t democracy wonderful!
I appreciate the clarifications and elaborations Jon V.W.. It is good to see you take a public stand and I congratulate you for it. Obviously I disagree but I’m glad to live in a society democratic enough that we by and large disagree with words rather than weapons. Yes democracy is wonderful. We need far more of it.
Would you have voted for a third-party candidate if you had been in the US last election? How did you see the middle ground, the third way? How do you see the road to peace and prosperity for the many, including in the Middle East?
You have alot to offer, Jon V.W. and I wish you well in your higher education.
AJH
Indeed Neo-Conservatives have a tendency to construct irrational dichotomies between “good” and “evil” and (racially as well as metaphorically) “white” and “black”. I believe they do this to prevent people from questioning the only dichotomy that counts; “True” or “False”. I don’t believe that it is possible to reduce an argument into a “gray” truth or a “gray” false. The fact that Donald Rumsfeld might wish to attach the epithet “Terrorist” to Hamas doesn’t detract from the truth that they are the elected government of the people of Palestine. Our media refers to Hamas repeatedly as “terrorists” or “militants” rather than “the government of the Palestinian people”. Why can’t the Republican Party be described as a “terrorists” but the democratically elected government of another country can be? Other simple true or false questions: Did the US build up the obscurantist savages who you are so well read on (Osama bin Laden and al Zawahiri) or didn’t they? Did the US and Israeli government build up Hamas to fragment the support for the secular party, Fatah, led by Arafat, or didn’t they? Did the US government build up the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in order to weaken Arab Nationalism, personified by the Egyptian president Jamel Abdel Nasser, or didn’t they? Did the tyrant Saddam Hussein commit most of his atrocities whilst being armed with gas and guns by the US, or didn’t he? Was Adolf Hitler financially supported by US corporations because he oppressed anti-capitalist forces, or wasn’t he? These questions don’t require a gray response and it would obfuscate the truth to do so. They are all simple yes or no answers. I feel that my article was regrettably necessary. I could have mentioned many bad things about Hamas and even some good things about the Israeli citizens who I consider victims too. But those points of view are already emblazoned in our national media and so I feel that my article, in a small university news paper – which will be only read by a couple of thousand people – is a small contribution to having a balanced picture of the conflagration. Did you find anything I said to be false? Would most of the world agree with me or CBC? If the UN, Jimmy Carter and many righteous human rights lawyers would agree with me, as I surmise, then does that make them all “fanatical” and comparable to Osama bin Laden, and al Zawahiri?
Joshua Blakeney (author of the above article)
In my view, American politics already functions according to the middle ground. The American system is set up in a way that allows for ambition to counter ambition, just as Madision had intended. Political power in the United States is distributed according to those who are most willing to compromise. The Republican party, for example, is essentially composed of 5 parties: Neoconservatives, Paleoconservatives, Traditionalists, The Religious Right, and Libertarians. For the Republican party to win elections, it requires that all 5 find a common ground. In other words, it requires that they counteract the ambitions of one with the ambitions of another and come to a consensus on an overall vision. That was not the case in this election, as Senator Mccain failed to rally the religious right behind his cause.
At the end of the day, there are only two sides to the political spectrum, and everyone falls into one, more than the other. The office of President in the American system should represent the center, as he is everyone’s President. I think Obama’s “team of rivals” displays an attempt at achieving the middle ground, however we’ll have to wait and see before commending him for it. Remember, President George W. Bush had a team of rivals (Colin Powell/Condi Rice Vs. Dick Cheney/Rumsfeld) which lead to infighting and bitter tensions within his administration paralysing its ability to uphold some of the most basic of American virtues.
As far as the Middle-East is concerned, I think there are essentially two arguments: 1. disengage entirely because the West’s involvement in the region only makes things worse, or 2. engage, because to whom much has been given, much is required. If we choose the former, we had better be ready to stomach a lot more ethnic cleasing and genocide. Remember, peace in Europe was the result of hundreds of years of endless wars, ethnic cleasings, and witch hunts, ect. Canada and the United States were also subject to many wars and have an incredibly violent history.
If we choose the latter, people will die, but perhaps for a noble cause and for a brighter future. I think it would be naive to expect that peace in the Middle-East can be achieved without war, but I also think the West is in a unique position–one that history has never seen before–to help those who have yet to find peace. There will be death, and suffering, and no civilized person can ignore how terrible and unjust it is. Those who believe that President Bush and Stephen Harper are apathetic to human life, are the true cynics.
But it is important to remember human beings have an irrational component to their makeup that impels them towards War. Religious passions, political ambitions, and historical greivances have a way of bringing out this irrational component, and when mixed with a heavily armed, poverty stricken society, it usually leads to war (a black and white world).
The West should continue to pressure Isreal for a ceasefire, and provide humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people. Hopefully a two state solution can be found with the help of western leaders, but I believe Isreal does have a right to exist, and that Hammas must be willing to take half the cake. The important thing is that we try to help, because we can. It may not bring peace over night, but it is siginificantly better than doing nothing.
Jon.
The US system was devised to preserve an oligarchic society, so that those who have money could influence policy and so that the majority who work and produce everything, and provide all of the services, could continue to be exploited at the oligarchy’s behest. The US is basically a one-party state with two competing factions within it, each of which serves subsections of the oligarchy. The religious-right, for example, is a racket which spreads superstition and badgers hapless citizens into paying them a tithe with which they then give a portion to the Republican faction of the one-party state, in order to maintain political support for their lucrative activities. The same goes for the Israel lobby which is why the US government vetoes any attempt by the international community to restrict Israeli genocide. There is no Palestinian lobby, Native American Lobby, Homeless Persons Lobby with any clout and so these sections of society are essentially disenfranchised. Have you ever travelled in the US? Have you seen the poverty? Have you met elderly people who cannot afford medicine? Young alienated youth who cannot afford education? What about the privatized prisons? They are all the product of a political system which exists only for the wealthy minority. Why is the life-expectancy longer in Cuba than in the US? Why are you more likely to survive breast-cancer in Cuba than in the US? Why is the infant mortality rate lower in Cuba than in the US? The answer is because in Cuba people elect representatives from their workplaces into the General Assembly, bypassing any class-interests. Cuba is also arguably a one party state and not totally perfect, but the difference is that enfranchisement is not premised on the amount of dollars in your bank account as in the case of the US. If you read any African indigenous philosophers who after decolonization travelled to the US and travelled to Cuba and the Soviet Union, they invariably returned with a strong distain for divisive multiparty politics and free-market capitalism due to its innate undemocratic nature in relation to the economy.
As for the Middle East, I noticed you missed the most important factor which is the aspirations of Arab people themselves. Most Muslims and Arabs believe that the US and Britain are rogue states and that the leaders of these countries should be put on trial in The Hague for war crimes. Nobody gave the US or Britain any moral authority to impose their will on the region. They did so because they wanted to loot the countries. Think how much oil the US will get if the puppet regime in Bagdad acts as obediently as Saudi Arabia has in future decades? I am with Ron Paul on this issue (but not economics as Libertarianism would equate to a corporate tyranny), that America should stop supporting dictators whilst pretending they stand for democracy. What do you think about Ron Paul?
The Middle East is where philosophy, logic, astronomy, and much of our contemporary western civilization stemmed from. The idea that the US government, personified by the likes of George Bush I and II, John McCain, the Clintons and all the other rancid plutocrats, are the only ones who can solve the problems in the Middle East is frankly racist and highly offensive.
Nearly all the problems in the Middle East exist exactly because the US and its potentate regimes in the region profit from the perpetuation of those problems.
My solution: The Arab League should be empowered to solve Arab problems, the African Union should be empowered to solve African problems, if something happens in Kosovo it is up to the EU to solve the problem not Washington, if something happens in Venezuela it is up to Latin America to solve, not Washington. That is where I stand. Unilateralism doesn’t work and it cannot be morally justified.
The fact is that North American interpretations of Politics (via Political Science tutelage) serve an important role in legitimizing the US system which isn’t even remotely democratic, whilst downplaying indigenous politics and philosophy over white “civilized” interpretations of how to run a society and the result is that the squalid terrorists and oligarchs who run the US imperial machine can get away with what they do as it becomes normalized. If you were a professor saying what you are saying then you would get funding and lucrative scholarships etc. If you were a professor saying what I am saying then you would be far more likely to never find a tenure track job. That is because the oligarchy only funds professors, journalists and politicians who legitimize and apologize for their exploitative activities.
It is axiomatic that you found my article and our brief debate so repugnant because it made you question the biased political interpretations which you have been nurtured under. Apart from the platitudes “black” and “white”, and the rather curious apology for the US system, you still have provided no tangible critique of my article. I will ask one more time, what is incorrect? Would most of the world echo what I wrote or would they echo the corporate media’s version of events? Would Israel be able to carry out it’s atrocities without the support from Washington? Has Palestine been wiped off the map or hasn’t it? Does Israel posses hundreds of illegal nuclear weapons or doesn’t it? You should critique my article rather than always linking it to so called US politics.
“The US system was devised to preserve an oligarchic society, so that those who have money could influence policy and so that the majority who work and produce everything, and provide all of the services, could continue to be exploited at the oligarchy’s behest.”
I suppose that’s why Americans just elected an African American President, because they’re ignorant and the entire system is an oligarchy composed of Bushs and Clintons. Have you even read the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Federalist Papers? I’m assuming no. Please read those historic documents, and provide credible information to support your argument.
“Most Muslims and Arabs believe that the US and Britain are rogue states and that the leaders of these countries should be put on trial in The Hague for war crimes”
Have you talked to most Muslims and Arabs? I know for a fact that Osama bin Laden agrees with your statement. I’m fairly sure most moderate Muslims don’t.
“Think how much oil the US will get if the puppet regime in Bagdad acts as obediently as Saudi Arabia has in future decades?”
This is quite possibly the most naive, and ill-informed argument ever made surrounding the invasion of Iraq. Prior to the invasion, Iraq had been selling oil to the U.S. cheaper than any at other time in the previous decade. Read “The Mess They Made” by Gwynne Dyer. He tackles the naivety of this argument with vigour.
“There is no Palestinian lobby”
There actually is a Palestinian lobby, and they are beginning to make considerable inroads into Washington. Here’s a link for your convenience:
https://www.indymedia.ie/article/60102
“Have you ever travelled in the US? Have you seen the poverty? Have you met elderly people who cannot afford medicine?”
I have never compared the United States to the Garden of Eden, and don’t assume that because I disagree with you in some areas, that I am unwilling to agree with you in others. I have travelled in the United States, and witnessed poverty. Although I could travel to downtown Calgary and see the same thing. Poverty is everywhere, and I agree that it is terrible. I also share some of your critiques regarding unregulated capitalism…who could ignore the incompetence of Wall Street amidst of the current financial crisis?
“Nobody gave the US or Britain any moral authority to impose their will on the region. They did so because they wanted to loot the countries.”
This argument is weak at best, simply because it goes both ways. Nobody gave Saddam Hussein or the Taliban any moral authority to impose their will on the region either. They did so because they’re ruthless (willing to gas their own people, or shoot kids for flying kites), and in a region where the law of the jungle still takes precedence over the rule of law, ruthlessness prevails.
“Think how much oil the US will get if the puppet regime in Bagdad acts as obediently as Saudi Arabia has in future decades?”
There is a difference between the “puppet regime in Bagdad” and the House of Saud. While the former is a democracy, the latter is a monarchy. Indeed, Iraq will become a U.S. ally in the region, but an ally in which women are no longer stoned to death for leaving their houses unaccompanied by a man. The United States is often hypocritical in its policies towards the Middle-East, but humans are hypocritical, because no human is perfect. And at the end of the day, realism trumps idealism in international politics, simply because there does not exist an overarching consensus among states on issues such as human rights, nuclear proliferation, and terrorism ect. Again, to reduce the complexity of the international order to black and white, or right and wrong issues, is naïve, and is by far your weakest feature as a writer.
“Unilateralism doesn’t work and it cannot be morally justified.”
Unilateralism can work, as it did in Kosovo, which many European countries, as well as the United States justified morally. It wasn’t sanctioned by the U.N., and therefore, it broke international law, but we did it anyways, for the better. You don’t believe in the responsibility to protect? The reason why the genocide in Darfur has been allowed to continue is actually because an unwillingness to intervene unilaterally: China vetoes every U.N resolution that comes across the U.N. Security Council’s desk. If you don’t believe me, look into it.
“If you were a professor saying what you are saying then you would get funding and lucrative scholarships etc. If you were a professor saying what I am saying then you would be far more likely to never find a tenure track job.”
You could never become a professor because you can’t write a PHD based on information you get off of youtube and conspiracy theory websites. It’s the difference between valid information and garbage, and to suggest that garbage has a proper place in political debate is to ignore reality and how the world actually works. You can’t make the world more peaceful by visualizing peace. Leaders are required to make real decisions that affect real people, and it is impossible to please everyone. I hope you get a chance to work in government someday, and are forced to make real decisions, rather than bitching about the world’s problems while sipping latte after latte behind your ultra liberal safety net. Like I said before: If you don’t like it, get involved. Stop talking the talk, and start walking the walk. Maybe, just maybe, you’ll then realize the validity in saying “Easier said than done.”
I am with Ron Paul on this issue (but not economics as Libertarianism would equate to a corporate tyranny), that America should stop supporting dictators whilst pretending they stand for democracy. What do you think about Ron Paul?
I think Ron Paul means well. But I also think he’s is incredibly naïve when it comes to assessing national security, or when it comes to making real decisions. I would also like America to stop supporting tyrany’s…but if they did, what would happen? lets think…would the people in these tyranies rise up unarmed against repressive leaders? if they did, how many would you let die before intervening? or do they remain oppressed, and do we ignore it because we wouldnt want to disrupt the status quo? What is more moral? I guess one option is to overthrow tyranny, but Bush tried that, and you didn’t like it. So where do you stand? Don’t support tyranny, but don’t overthrow it. Maybe just don’t talk to them?…like Bush did with Iran, or North Korea?
“The Middle East is where philosophy, logic, astronomy, and much of our contemporary western civilization stemmed from. The idea that the US government, personified by the likes of George Bush I and II, John McCain, the Clintons and all the other rancid plutocrats, are the only ones who can solve the problems in the Middle East is frankly racist and highly offensive.”
You’re showing quite a bit of integrity, calling me a racist because I disagree with you. If that’s not reactionary, I don’t what is.
You’re right the Middle East has contributed significantly to western civilization, but to a significant extent, it has fallen astray from the intellectual path it was once on. Intellectualism became replaced by religious fanaticism, and I do understand that a lot of that fanaticism stems from Western policies in the past. The idea that the US government is the only one who can solve the problems of the Middle East is not my idea, nor do I agree with it. I do however; believe that the West can have a positive role in helping those in the Middle-East solve its many problems. Or else we can disengage, and continue to let Shiites kill Sunnis, or dictators to continue to control the region? What is your alternative?
“My solution: The Arab League should be empowered to solve Arab problems, the African Union should be empowered to solve African problems, if something happens in Kosovo it is up to the EU to solve the problem not Washington, if something happens in Venezuela it is up to Latin America to solve, not Washington. That is where I stand.”
It sounds like a nice idea, but how would it work? Did the EU really have the resources i.e. hard power necessary to pull off Kosovo by itself? Have you even considered that the Europeans might reach out to Washington, as they did in Kosovo? Or that the Arab League might garner support from Washington on certain issues? Your view of international relations is so incredibly naïve. I suggest you read The Peloponnesian War by Thucydides for starters (don’t worry, he’s not American in case you didn’t know), then perhaps some Morgenthau before trying to convey your expertise on how international relations work. For example, when Washington is responsible for 96% of bombing runs in Kosovo, because the Europeans don’t have the hard power required to engage on a scale of that size, don’t you think Washington will have a considerable amount of influence in how its resources are used? Its reality. Deal with it. If anything, your solution seems like a step backwards from an increasingly globalized world. Wouldn’t drawing set lines between who can intervene where increasingly divide the international system? What if there happens to be a crisis in Africa and Canadian aid workers are killed? Does Canada not have a right to protect its people? Or will we just rely on the African Union to take care of our citizens? Wake up dude. You think like a child.
What a debate! Mainly because it was an ass kicking of monumental proportions of a radical liberal nanny who wrote an ill conceived self righteous shit rag article, by a well educated moderate and realist. Bravo!
This is the Zionist terrorism
There is no state called Israel. State of thieves called Israel a basis of the displacement and killing of Innocent nation of thieves basis bloodshed and war And the arrest of people for tens of years to prevent him THE RIGHT TO LIFE. basis steal the land of the Palestinian people And then steal the land of the Arab-Muslim the entire .State of the thieves do not know the law ….. Does not recognize the law of the United Nations, a state that considers itself above the law . the law is the siege of Gaza And the bloodshed and destruction of houses and killing innocent people and occupying the country .This is the Zionist Terrorism State of ISRAEL
Hey Arab:
Are you even in university? Because there is no way you made it out of high-school with writing like that. I sure hope you are taking a writing class, because no one will pay attention to the hate you are spewing if you cant even form a sentence properly.
Trash.
Leave your response!
Polls
Upcoming Events
No events to show
CKXU 88.3 FM
Blogroll
Recent Comments
Most Commented
Flickr Photos
Arthemia theme by Michael Hutagalung | Customization by Chris Morris