I'm going to take time to quibble with the suggestion that NPR's coverage is biased. I listen to Morning Edition and ATC much of the time, especially in the last few weeks and I think their coverage has actually been rather balanced. News reports, for one thing, are usually very diligent in noting how many reported dead have been amongst Israelis and Lebanese. This idea that there's been a bias towards the Lebanese just doesn't bear up, especially when you review the last 10 days worth of coverage. I think we have some selective hearing going on here.
And then start going back over previous shows. I think you'll find that there's been very pointed coverage on BOTH sides. If there's more focus on the suffering of the Lebanese that's because the humanitarian crisis is far greater in Lebanon. I mean, there are not 600,000 Israelis fleeing the country right now, nor has anyone cut off aid to people in Israel unlike what the IDF has done to Southern Lebanon because they're trying to root out Hezbollah factions there.
I'm gonna venture a guess and say that you're not replying to me in any sort of way re: your NPR comments. I never said they were biased and I wouldn't say it as I don't make it a habit of listening to NPR to begin with. However, if you really want a left-leaning bias on the radio dial, you gotta hear this "Democracy Now!" feed I peeped over my local college station yesterday (91.2 WVKR Vassar College Radio). Again, I'm making an assumption here when I say it's some kind of a national feed since it sounded just a tad too professional for what I normally hear on that station - particularly during the summer months.
I wonder where that photo was released in the first place? It needs to be put into context (like that pic of Israeli kids writing "messages" on missiles) before comments like this:
That picture of the two juxtaposed flags speaks volumes.
I wonder where that photo was released in the first place? It needs to be put into context (like that pic of Israeli kids writing "messages" on missiles) before comments like this:
That picture of the two juxtaposed flags speaks volumes.
I wonder where that photo was released in the first place? It needs to be put into context (like that pic of Israeli kids writing "messages" on missiles) before comments like this:
That picture of the two juxtaposed flags speaks volumes.
Right?
So put it into context for me.
Do we really need to play these games? Plain and simple the UN has practically no force or authority wherever they go. If we combined both Lebanon & the UN's forces we might have something tough enough to run the kitchen at a Burger King.
Bottom line the IDF and Hezbollahs military are the only forces in the area at this time that are worth a fuck. If any of these outside voices really want to do something they are going to have to find a plan C
Do we really need to play these games? Plain and simple the UN has practically no force or authority wherever they go.
Which is my whole point exactly. That picture just accentuates the impotency of the U.N. and it's ability to keep any kind of "peace", even with Hezbollah right under their nose.
How could it be when almost a fifth of it's population that are Arabs are not allowed in public offices and have been treated as fifth[/b] class citizens for decades, etc?
its the people on both sides advocating their enemies annihilation that are prolonging this fight.
I gave it to some real Black jews that reside in New York...expect a visit very soon, my man.
440 St. John's place Brooklyn NY
Oh so you're not going to come yourself? I didn't think so. By the way, I'll be in Atlanta area in about 6 weeks. I'll let you know where so you can come see me.
This is the part where I call you a PUSSY again, pussy.
I wonder where that photo was released in the first place? It needs to be put into context (like that pic of Israeli kids writing "messages" on missiles) before comments like this:
That picture of the two juxtaposed flags speaks volumes.
Right?
No ur right. I didn't mean to say that pic was from that bombing or anything.
But on the other hand, there is now this.
Hezbollah was using UN post as 'shield' Canadian wrote of militia's presence, 'necessity' of bombing Joel Kom, with files from Steven Edwards, CanWest News Service, The Ottawa Citizen Published: Thursday, July 27, 2006
Just got back from a three day break. Lots of new schitt in this thread. No doubt AreFumble came back at me with more ad hominems. I haven't had the chance to read any of the new posts yet, though....
I've been thinking a lot about "white political agency" though...I think I remember this term from some half-baked sociology class in college...did someone mention it in this thread? can't remember....anyway white people have power, right? but only in Israel...or something...right?...I think that's what the guy said when he handed me the flier on campus or something...it's like "bro!" I'm just trying to get this whole "white agency" thing straight in my head, but all I see are these images clouding my MIND, man!
check it out:
Israel's defense minister (born in Morrocco)
former Chief of staff (born in Iran)
old Israeli Labor party head (born in Iraq)
...And then there's these "white" guys that run Arab countries:
Lebanese prime minister...
former Syrian dictator...
just wondering...what is "white" anyway though, huh, guys? it's just, like, a "state of mind," bro! whoahhhhh...DUUUUDE....this is some strong shit!
The whole idea of imposing good ol' White American racism to a reigon halfway around the world with troubles that predate the inception of the US by 1,200 years is absurd and should be treated as such.
This is not a white person issue
The Jewish/ Arab thing is purely semite on semite animosity. for those that have been to Israel, Palestine, Egypt etc. its clear that the racial identities are quite different. On my trip out there I saw many people that "looked" Arab, Eithiopian and so on. AreDoubles argument about some sort of white/ Arab institutionalized racism shows just how wrong his ideas on this, and most likely any other thoughts on mid-east politics are.
The whole idea of imposing good ol' White American racism to a reigon halfway around the world with troubles that predate the inception of the US by 1,200 years is absurd and should be treated as such.
This is not a white person issue
The Jewish/ Arab thing is purely semite on semite animosity. for those that have been to Israel, Palestine, Egypt etc. its clear that the racial identities are quite different. On my trip out there I saw many people that "looked" Arab, Eithiopian and so on. AreDoubles argument about some sort of white/ Arab institutionalized racism shows just how wrong his ideas on this, and most likely any other thoughts on mid-east politics are.
That, plus he ignores facts, puts forward others out of context and regurgitates the same cliches Adbusters has rendered itself unreadable with...
Has anyone actually defined what a 'proportionate' response to an organisation that is ideologically commited to your destruction would be yet? im interested
Do we really need to play these games? Plain and simple the UN has practically no force or authority wherever they go.
Which is my whole point exactly. That picture just accentuates the impotency of the U.N. and it's ability to keep any kind of "peace", even with Hezbollah right under their nose.
They would not be regarded as peacekeepers if they were armed to their teeth. The UN officials that were stationed where the bomb hit were all unarmed.
I would still like to know where that pic is from, who published it and where can I find the article that accompanied it.
They would not be regarded as peacekeepers if they were armed to their teeth. The UN officials that were stationed where the bomb hit were all unarmed.
And? My point is, what's the use of the U.N. if they're completely ineffective at what they're supposed to be there for? And to that end, how do they have any credibility to call for a cessation of fighting only to go back to where we were for the past 6+ months with the U.N. "monitoring" the missile-lobbing Hezbollah?
So you're suggesting that Israel bombing Lebanese infrastructure into pieces and driving 600000 people out of their homes and instigating a huge humanitarian crisis is "necessary" in order to end the crisis in the region?
So you're suggesting that Israel bombing Lebanese infrastructure into pieces and driving 600000 people out of their homes and instigating a huge humanitarian crisis is "necessary" in order to end the crisis in the region?
I am not suggesting that at all so please stop inferring that I am. I am simply stating the obvious... that the United Nations have proven themselves time and time again to be completely worthless[/b] in this equation despite the contention among some that they are the only answer. And as such, they cannot be taken seriously when it comes to any cease fire they propose as it would inevitably result in a return to more missles launched into Israel on a daily basis. We've been down this road before. We can sit here and argue about Israel and Hezbollah all day. The United Nation's track record with regards to their mission in Lebanon however is indefensible as far as I can see. But if you can defend it, I'd love to hear you.
What's next is yesterday's formal announcement that Israeli forces will continue to target anyone living in southern Lebanon. So, an official scorched earth policy that makes absolutely no distinction between combattants and civilians, which is exactly what they've been denying for the last two weeks.
So you're suggesting that Israel bombing Lebanese infrastructure into pieces and driving 600000 people out of their homes and instigating a huge humanitarian crisis is "necessary" in order to end the crisis in the region?
I am not suggesting that at all so please stop inferring that I am. I am simply stating the obvious... that the United Nations have proven themselves time and time again to be completely worthless[/b] in this equation despite the contention among some that they are the only answer. And as such, they cannot be taken seriously when it comes to any cease fire they propose as it would inevitably result in a return to more missles launched into Israel on a daily basis. We've been down this road before. We can sit here and argue about Israel and Hezbollah all day. The United Nation's track record with regards to their mission in Lebanon however is indefensible as far as I can see. But if you can defend it, I'd love to hear you.
The UN has been ineffective but you could say that's largely due to the utter contempt shown them by the major players, namely the USA and Israel who undermine the UN at every opportunity. Unless the US invests authority in the UN then Israel won't either and when you only work with one of the protagonists in a conflict then resolution is never possible.
The UN has been ineffective but you could say that's largely due to the utter contempt shown them by the major players, namely the USA and Israel
Yes, of course. If only the United States and Israel would respect the U.N. then they'd be able to do their job in Lebanon effectively.
who undermine the UN at every opportunity. Unless the US invests authority in the UN then Israel won't either and when you only work with one of the protagonists in a conflict then resolution is never possible.
So how exactly does the US/Israel undermine the U.N. and how does that directly contribute to their total ineffectiveness in southern Lebanon? And when you say "when you only work with one of the protagonists in a conflict then resolution is never possible" are you suggesting that the one cooperating protagonist in this case is Hezbollah?! Though that would make sense, as the U.N. seems to turn a blind eye to whatever Hezbollah does in the region. That's certainly cooperation for you.
What's next is yesterday's formal announcement that Israeli forces will continue to target anyone living in southern Lebanon. So, an official scorched earth policy that makes absolutely no distinction between combattants and civilians, which is exactly what they've been denying for the last two weeks.
Israel announced yesterday that they have no plans to expand the conflict. Furthermore, a scorched earth policy implies that Israel is not aiming its bombs. The side who is not aiming projectile explosives would be Hezbollah, whose unguided missiles have driven a million Israelis into bunkers in northern Israel. Finally, while it is a tragedy that people have been displaced, that civilians have died, I ask what you expect an army to do against a foe that uses civilians as shields. Do you propose that Israel simply not respond because there is a chance they could hit civilians? So if an adversary attacks another nation, but hides its missiles in apartment buildings, fires artillery from UNIFIL positions, wears no uniforms, takes refuge in private homes, the attacked nation is not permitted to counterstrike?
Also, there is clearly a place to bemoan the methods and means of warfare. It is, as they, hell. But I don't despise hezbollah only because they target civilians and lob unguided missiles into Israeli territory. It is also because of the aims of their violence. Just as the terrorists like Zarqawi were despicable for their means, it was also their goal to abort efforts to create an Iraqi democracy, that demands the condemnation of the civilized world. Hezbollah is seeking, by its own admission, to destroy Israel. Israel is not seeking to annex southern Lebanon, but simply to destroy or demoralize those who seek to destroy it. Hezbollah, Iran and Syria will win their big war when Israel is decimated. Israel wins everyday it survives--particularly now after the withdraws from the occupied territory.
The UN has been ineffective but you could say that's largely due to the utter contempt shown them by the major players, namely the USA and Israel
Yes, of course. If only the United States and Israel would respect the U.N. then they'd be able to do their job in Lebanon effectively.
who undermine the UN at every opportunity. Unless the US invests authority in the UN then Israel won't either and when you only work with one of the protagonists in a conflict then resolution is never possible.
So how exactly does the US/Israel undermine the U.N. and how does that directly contribute to their total ineffectiveness in southern Lebanon? And when you say "when you only work with one of the protagonists in a conflict then resolution is never possible" are you suggesting that the one cooperating protagonist in this case is Hezbollah?! Though that would make sense, as the U.N. seems to turn a blind eye to whatever Hezbollah does in the region.
No, not simply respect, actively support its resolutions and play a part in enforcing them. The US's recent history with the UN is not encouaging. Think back even to the UN resolutions about going to war in Iraq and how the US chose to ignore them, the naked hostility of Ambassador Bolton towards the organisation, the demands of the US to have exceptional and unique powers to veto UN resolutions in the face of democratic votes, the fact that the US don't contribute peacekeeping troops to UN missions - all in all, it adds up to disregard for the only mandated global organisation dedicated to maintaining world peace. When the US, the most powerful member of a 191 state coalition effectively tears up the UN constitution and says it will not be bound by its own rules, why should any other member play ball?
The UN never turned a blind eye to Hezbollah, which is clearly deemed by them to be a terrorist organisation and not a nation state on whom they can bring pressure to bear. So, no economic or trade sanctions available to them, only the moral weight of the world as represented by the UN member states. Minus the support of Israel and the US, of course, which pretty much negates any chance of the UN making progress.
What's next is yesterday's formal announcement that Israeli forces will continue to target anyone living in southern Lebanon. So, an official scorched earth policy that makes absolutely no distinction between combattants and civilians, which is exactly what they've been denying for the last two weeks.
Israel announced yesterday that they have no plans to expand the conflict. Furthermore, a scorched earth policy implies that Israel is not aiming its bombs. The side who is not aiming projectile explosives would be Hezbollah, whose unguided missiles have driven a million Israelis into bunkers in northern Israel. Finally, while it is a tragedy that people have been displaced, that civilians have died, I ask what you expect an army to do against a foe that uses civilians as shields. Do you propose that Israel simply not respond because there is a chance they could hit civilians? So if an adversary attacks another nation, but hides its missiles in apartment buildings, fires artillery from UNIFIL positions, wears no uniforms, takes refuge in private homes, the attacked nation is not permitted to counterstrike?
Also, there is clearly a place to bemoan the methods and means of warfare. It is, as they, hell. But I don't despise hezbollah only because they target civilians and lob unguided missiles into Israeli territory. It is also because of the aims of their violence. Just as the terrorists like Zarqawi were despicable for their means, it was also their goal to abort efforts to create an Iraqi democracy, that demands the condemnation of the civilized world. Hezbollah is seeking, by its own admission, to destroy Israel. Israel is not seeking to annex southern Lebanon, but simply to destroy or demoralize those who seek to destroy it. Hezbollah, Iran and Syria will win their big war when Israel is decimated. Israel wins everyday it survives--particularly now after the withdraws from the occupied territory.
Vitamin, always cogently argued but with a spin that I find rather disingenuous. When you say Israel have no plans to expand and I say scorched earth, we are dealing with semantics. The inescapable reality is the almost total destruction of southern Lebanon with an eye to destroying any infrastructure that may help Hezbollah irrespective of the scale of collateral damage as we might agree to call it.
And as for human shields, what should Israel do? Get a sense of proportion. It is not the moral imperative to obliterate all who stand in your way in order to reach your target. Hezbollah's actions are indefensible. Unfortunately, so are Israel's.
No, not simply respect, actively support its resolutions and play a part in enforcing them.
Enforce how? The US has certainly supported U.N. resolutions that have not only called for Hezbollah to disband and disarm, but also for Israel to withdraw it's troops from Lebanon (1559) so I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to.
The US's recent history with the UN is not encouaging. Think back even to the UN resolutions about going to war in Iraq and how the US chose to ignore them, the naked hostility of Ambassador Bolton towards the organisation, the demands of the US to have exceptional and unique powers to veto UN resolutions in the face of democratic votes, the fact that the US don't contribute peacekeeping troops to UN missions
Again, the US participates in U.N. missions all the time, but I think we can both agree here that in this instance, the presence of troops from the US in Lebanon would not sit well with either the Lebanese or those in the US who remember what happened to us the last time we were there.
- all in all, it adds up to disregard for the only mandated global organisation dedicated to maintaining world peace . When the US, the most powerful member of a 191 state coalition effectively tears up the UN constitution and says it will not be bound by its own rules, why should any other member play ball?
"Dedicated to maintaining world peace"?! Wow. Exactly when and where have they ever succeeded in doing that? Lebanon? Darfur? Sudan? Rwanda? Bosnia? All triumphs in global peacekeeping efforts no doubt. But of course all blame for any failure / incompetence on behalf of the United Nations lay squarely at the feet of the US. I suppose Oil-For-Food was all our fault as well.
The UN never turned a blind eye to Hezbollah
They certainly never did anything to stop them from moving 13,000+ missiles across Lebanon from Syria and then lobbing them over the border into Israel either.
which is clearly deemed by them to be a terrorist organisation and not a nation state on whom they can bring pressure to bear.
EDIT: (Please show me ONE instance in any U.N. resolution where the security council collectively refers to Hezbollah as a "terrorist" organization.)
Does Hezbollah not legitimately hold power in the Lebanese government, voted in by the Lebanese people? The screws have in fact been turned on the equally impotent "good" government of Lebanon many times in order to pressure Hezbollah but sadly they've proven to be either too shook or simply unwilling to follow through. Perhaps understandably so. At this point, outside military force must be used to remove Hezbollah. Period. I mean as far as I can tell, they have no intention of altering their charter any time soon to include a "live and let live" byline with Israel.
So, no economic or trade sanctions available to them, only the moral weight of the world as represented by the UN member states. Minus the support of Israel and the US, of course, which pretty much negates any chance of the UN making progress.
Sorry, but you will not convince me in a million years that any further support of the U.N. by Israel (whom Hezbollah clearly wishes to see wiped off the map) and/or the US would translate into any kind of real progress towards peace. For one thing, Hezbollah's goal (again, by their own admission) is to see the complete elimination of Israel no if, ands or maybes, so how pray tell, do you "play ball" with that?
No one (including the U.N., the Lebanese government or anyone now conveniently protesting Israel's "disproportionate" use of force) gave a shit, marched for "peace" or made a sound during the last year when Hezbollah was raining rockets into Israel. Please to convince me how any of these people are truly interested in peace.
Alright, 1st I'll start off with this sidenote about Afghanistan
Furthermore, what sold the American Public at large on bombing Afghanistan was "they bombed the World Trade Centers"-- no matter how inaccurate that statement. The same people who were so passionately declaring that no person, no matter what his or her grievance with a government, has the right to kill innocent civilians were chalking thousands dead up to "collateral damage." You know, people just like you.
1) The U.S. didn't carpet bomb Afghanistan as you claim. Demographically speaking, there's not a lot of population centers in Afgahnistan to carpet bomb, nor large concentration of Taliban or Al Qaeda forces for that matter. I think the area that received the largest amounts of U.S. bombing was the mountainous area that Al Qaeda was holed up in at the end of the war. I don't think there were many civilians up there to begin with.
2) The claim that thousands of Afghan civilians were killed by American bombing also doesn't appear to be true. During the war the Taliban government made the claim that U.S. bombing was killing thousands of civilians. For example, in the first three weeks of the war the Taliban government claimed that 1,500 civilians had been killed. I've read a couple of news reports done in 2002 while the war was still going on and right afterwards, one by the Associated Press, and another by the New York Times, that estimated civilian casualties were probably only in the mid-100s, approx.500-600.
2nd, this was part of your argument about who historically has a right to the land.
Don't forget to complete the sentence " . . .at the expense of people who lived there for centuries."
...
First of all, Palestinians have significant historical caseS for the elimination of Israel in its current form, not the least of which is Israel's self referential incoherence. For the leaders of a nation to say things like "Palestinians don't exist" and that it's "A Land Without a People For a People Without A Land" while defending itself almost exclusively in mythical terms--and halfassedly, at that-- is nauseating. It's a lot like colonists, Bible in hand, saying Khoison people don't have a history. If either of the two countries exists only epiphenomenally, it's Israel.
Here's the history that I've dug up.
1) Jews settled in Israel in 1300 B.C.
2) The Romans destroyed the second Jewish temple and put down a Jewish revolt in 70 A.D. Thousands of Jews got killed and others turned into slaves. Lots of people talk about the Jewish exile after this, but there were still plenty of Jews that stayed there. For example there was another Jewish revolt in 132 A.D., and by 212 A.D. when Rome gave citizenship to Jews, Jewish life was centered in the galilee. It was also during thistime that the name Palestine first apperaed when Emperor Hadrian renamed the province Syria Palestine.
3) Arabic didn't become the dominant language of the area until the 7th Century during the Muslim invasions out of Arabia.
4) By the 9th Century Jews had resettled in Jerusalem and Tiberias. By the 11th Century they were back in Rafah, Gaza, Ashkelon, Jaff and other areas. By the early 19th Century there were more than 10,000 Jews in what would become Israel.
5) The idea of a distinct Palestinian-Arab identity and nationalism didn't start until after WWI. In fact, Arab delegates to the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, testimony to the 1937 Peel Commission and at other times said that Palestinian was part of Syria. For example, Ahmed Shuqeiri, who would later become the chairman of the PLO, told the U.N.that Palestine was part of southern Syria.
6) Before 1948 and the creation of Israel, both Jews and Arabs were migrating to the area. The British tried to limit Jewish immigration in deference to the Arabs, while Arabs had no restrictions on migration. From WWI to WWI 470,000 Jews and 588,000 Arabs migrated to the Palestinian mandate.
7) Right before the 1948 war and the creation of Israel, Jews owned 463,000 acres of land. 387,000 of which was bought from Arabs, 73% of which were large landowners, mostly absent landlords that lived in Cairo, Damascus, Beirut, etc.
8) When the U.N. came up with its partition plan it was going to create a Jewish state with 538,000 Jews and 397,000 Arabs, and an Arab state with 804,000 Arabs and 10,000 Jews.
The point of all this is: 1) there was a long and continuous presence of Jews in Israel before Arabs ever became a majority in the area, 2) A lot of Jews that became Israelis and Arabs that became Palestinians in 1948 migrated to that area after WWI in modern times, they hadn't been there for "1000s of years."
Just to make sure that we're on the same page as to what we're talking about, I've never claimed that there weren't Jews in the area for aeons. That was neither my argument nor the crux thereof. My statement is that the people who have complete social agency in the area are not the group of people who have a geographic claim to the land dating back centuries. In other words, white Europeans. I'm well aware that there have been Arab Jews in the area for centuries.
The claim that the "people now known as Palestinians" didn't live in occupied territory until 1948 (if that's what you're stating) is innaccurate. Again, my fiancee's fam's history dates back there before 1948, certainly.
Also, the figures regarding Afghanistan seem a bit dubious to me, because I seem to recall respected human rights orgs citing the deathtoll as being in the thousands a couple/few months into the conflict.
I'm going to respond to Vitamin, I believe it was, in a minute. At work. Peace.
3,500 Civilians Killed in Afghanistan by U.S. Bombs
Durham, NH - More than 3,500 civilians have been killed in Afghanistan by U.S. bombs, according to a study to be released December 10 by Marc W. Herold, Professor of Economics, International Relations, and Women's Studies at the University of New Hampshire. Professor Herold will announce his findings on Monday, December 10 in a discussion with award-winning journalist, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! in Exile's War and Peace Report (http://www.democracynow.org).
Professor Herold has been gathering data on civilian casualties since October 7 by culling information from news agencies, major newspapers, and first-hand accounts. "I decided to do the study because I suspected that the modern weaponry was not what it was advertised to be. I was concerned that there would be significant civilian casualties caused by the bombing, and I was able to find some mention of casualties in the foreign press but almost nothing in the U.S. press," said Herold. Herold's data will be available at http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mwherold/.
For each day since October 7, when the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan began, he lists the number of casualties, location, type of weapon used, and source(s) of information. Following are several examples from his daily calculations: On October 11, two U.S. jets bombed the mountain village of Karam, comprised of 60 mud houses, during dinner and evening prayer time, killing 100-160 people. Sources: DAWN, (English language Pakistani daily newspaper), the Guardian of London, the Independent, International Herald Tribune, the Scotsman, the Observer, and the BBC News. On October 13, in the early morning, an F-18 dropped 2,000 lb. JDAM bombs on the Qila Meer Abas neighborhood, 2 kms. South of the Kabul airport, killing four people. Sources: Afghan Islamic Press, Los Angeles Times, Frontier Post, Pakistan Observer, the Guardian of London, and the BBC News. On October 31, in a pre-dawn raid, an F-18 dropped a 2,000 lb. JDAM bomb on a Red Crescent clinic, killing 15 - 25 people. Sources: DAWN, the Times of London, the Independent, the Guardian, Reuters, Associated Press, and Agence France Presse. Professor Herold has sought whenever possible to cross-corroborate accounts of civilian casualties. He relied upon Indian newspapers, especially The Times of India; three Pakistani daily newspapers; the Singapore News; British, Canadian, and Australian newspapers; Afghan Islamic Press; Agence France Press; Pakistan News Service; Reuters; BBC News Online; Al Jazeera; and a variety of other reputable sources, including the United Nations and other relief agencies.
The Pentagon has repeatedly denied reports of civilian casualties in Afghanistan, and most U.S. media outlets have qualified their reports of casualties with the statement "could not be independently confirmed." But Professor Herold has been able to confirm the number of casualties, and has found that the number is climbing toward 4,000. "People have to know that there is a human cost to war, and that this is a war with thousands of casualties," said Herold. "These were poor people to begin with, and, on top of that, they had absolutely nothing to do with the events of September 11."
My statement is that the people who have complete social agency in the area are not the group of people who have a geographic claim to the land dating back centuries. In other words, white Europeans. I'm well aware that there have been Arab Jews in the area for centuries.
This statement is either ignorant or willfully deceptive. These "white Europeans" as you refer to them are neither wholly "white" (whatever the hell that means) and certainly not "European". Rather they are products of the diaspora(s) to which Motown refers in his earlier post. They have as much of a geographic claim to the land in question as anyone does. Their time in exile, during which they were persecuted by ignorant Jew-hating people such as yourself, and forced to interbreed with the local populations for their survival (thus increasing their so-called "white" and "European" physical features) does nothing to diminish their claim to land that was historically theirs. As a personal example of the effects that the diaspora has on muddling the idea of a Jew's ethnic identity, my father's family traces the bulk of its post-diaspora heritage to the Middle East and we bear distinctive Sephardic features. However, before immigrating to the US and Israel, the family spent some time in Russia and accquired a European last name. This is a very common situation and demonstrates the hollowness of your argument: to categorize a diasporic people by the last place that they laid their heads before reclaiming their homeland is to ignore the history of how they got to Europe and where they came from. Moreover, the manner in which the Jews were treated throughout the countries in Europe in which we took refuge proves once again that they were not truly Europeans and were certainly not treated as "white" (again, what a hollow, loaded term to throw around, its very use is an attempt to set up a dichotomy in which "white Jews" are the oppressor) insofar as at the convenience of every society in which they took refuge, the Jews were persectuted whenever a scapegoat was needed (pogroms, holocaust, dreyfus affair, vichy government, inqusition, blah blah blah) and served as precisely the sort of "other" that is the opposite in your silly "white"/"non-white" dichotomy of what a "white" person is. The only difference between a "white Jew" and an "Arab Jew" is the divergence of the twisted path down which the diaspora took them. We all come from the same place and that place is Israel. The history of the area now comprising Israel as the home of the Jews has a history that far, FAR predates of any concept of Palestine as a distinct state. Please provide evidence to the contrary.
Comments
I'm gonna venture a guess and say that you're not replying to me in any sort of way re: your NPR comments.
I never said they were biased and I wouldn't say it as I don't make it a habit of listening to NPR to begin with.
However, if you really want a left-leaning bias on the radio dial, you gotta hear this "Democracy Now!" feed I peeped over my local college station yesterday (91.2 WVKR Vassar College Radio).
Again, I'm making an assumption here when I say it's some kind of a national feed since it sounded just a tad too professional for what I normally hear on that station - particularly during the summer months.
I wonder where that photo was released in the first place? It needs to be put into context (like that pic of Israeli kids writing "messages" on missiles) before comments like this:
Right?
So put it into context for me.
Do we really need to play these games? Plain and simple the UN has practically no force or authority wherever they go. If we combined both Lebanon & the UN's forces we might have something tough enough to run the kitchen at a Burger King.
Bottom line the IDF and Hezbollahs military are the only forces in the area at this time that are worth a fuck. If any of these outside voices really want to do something they are going to have to find a plan C
Which is my whole point exactly.
That picture just accentuates the impotency of the U.N. and it's ability to keep any kind of "peace", even with Hezbollah right under their nose.
Oh so you're not going to come yourself? I didn't think so. By the way, I'll be in Atlanta area in about 6 weeks. I'll let you know where so you can come see me.
This is the part where I call you a PUSSY again, pussy.
No ur right. I didn't mean to say that pic was from that bombing or anything.
But on the other hand, there is now this.
Hezbollah was using UN post as 'shield'
Canadian wrote of militia's presence, 'necessity' of bombing
Joel Kom, with files from Steven Edwards, CanWest News Service, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Thursday, July 27, 2006
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=37278180-a261-421d-84a9-7f94d5fc6d50
Mind you, it still don't make shit right.
I've been thinking a lot about "white political agency" though...I think I remember this term from some half-baked sociology class in college...did someone mention it in this thread? can't remember....anyway white people have power, right? but only in Israel...or something...right?...I think that's what the guy said when he handed me the flier on campus or something...it's like "bro!" I'm just trying to get this whole "white agency" thing straight in my head, but all I see are these images clouding my MIND, man!
check it out:
Israel's defense minister (born in Morrocco)
former Chief of staff (born in Iran)
old Israeli Labor party head (born in Iraq)
...And then there's these "white" guys that run Arab countries:
Lebanese prime minister...
former Syrian dictator...
just wondering...what is "white" anyway though, huh, guys? it's just, like, a "state of mind," bro! whoahhhhh...DUUUUDE....this is some strong shit!
let's go to a rally....!
The whole idea of imposing good ol' White American racism to a reigon halfway around the world with troubles that predate the inception of the US by 1,200 years is absurd and should be treated as such.
This is not a white person issue
The Jewish/ Arab thing is purely semite on semite animosity. for those that have been to Israel, Palestine, Egypt etc. its clear that the racial identities are quite different. On my trip out there I saw many people that "looked" Arab, Eithiopian and so on. AreDoubles argument about some sort of white/ Arab institutionalized racism shows just how wrong his ideas on this, and most likely any other thoughts on mid-east politics are.
That, plus he ignores facts, puts forward others out of context and regurgitates the same cliches Adbusters has rendered itself unreadable with...
They would not be regarded as peacekeepers if they were armed to their teeth. The UN officials that were stationed where the bomb hit were all unarmed.
I would still like to know where that pic is from, who published it and where can I find the article that accompanied it.
And? My point is, what's the use of the U.N. if they're completely ineffective at what they're supposed to be there for?
And to that end, how do they have any credibility to call for a cessation of fighting only to go back to where we were for the past 6+ months with the U.N. "monitoring" the missile-lobbing Hezbollah?
I am not suggesting that at all so please stop inferring that I am.
I am simply stating the obvious... that the United Nations have proven themselves time and time again to be completely worthless[/b] in this equation despite the contention among some that they are the only answer.
And as such, they cannot be taken seriously when it comes to any cease fire they propose as it would inevitably result in a return to more missles launched into Israel on a daily basis.
We've been down this road before.
We can sit here and argue about Israel and Hezbollah all day.
The United Nation's track record with regards to their mission in Lebanon however is indefensible as far as I can see.
But if you can defend it, I'd love to hear you.
The UN has been ineffective but you could say that's largely due to the utter contempt shown them by the major players, namely the USA and Israel who undermine the UN at every opportunity. Unless the US invests authority in the UN then Israel won't either and when you only work with one of the protagonists in a conflict then resolution is never possible.
Yes, of course. If only the United States and Israel would respect the U.N. then they'd be able to do their job in Lebanon effectively.
So how exactly does the US/Israel undermine the U.N. and how does that directly contribute to their total ineffectiveness in southern Lebanon?
And when you say "when you only work with one of the protagonists in a conflict then resolution is never possible" are you suggesting that the one cooperating protagonist in this case is Hezbollah?!
Though that would make sense, as the U.N. seems to turn a blind eye to whatever Hezbollah does in the region.
That's certainly cooperation for you.
Israel announced yesterday that they have no plans to expand the conflict. Furthermore, a scorched earth policy implies that Israel is not aiming its bombs. The side who is not aiming projectile explosives would be Hezbollah, whose unguided missiles have driven a million Israelis into bunkers in northern Israel. Finally, while it is a tragedy that people have been displaced, that civilians have died, I ask what you expect an army to do against a foe that uses civilians as shields. Do you propose that Israel simply not respond because there is a chance they could hit civilians? So if an adversary attacks another nation, but hides its missiles in apartment buildings, fires artillery from UNIFIL positions, wears no uniforms, takes refuge in private homes, the attacked nation is not permitted to counterstrike?
Also, there is clearly a place to bemoan the methods and means of warfare. It is, as they, hell. But I don't despise hezbollah only because they target civilians and lob unguided missiles into Israeli territory. It is also because of the aims of their violence. Just as the terrorists like Zarqawi were despicable for their means, it was also their goal to abort efforts to create an Iraqi democracy, that demands the condemnation of the civilized world. Hezbollah is seeking, by its own admission, to destroy Israel. Israel is not seeking to annex southern Lebanon, but simply to destroy or demoralize those who seek to destroy it. Hezbollah, Iran and Syria will win their big war when Israel is decimated. Israel wins everyday it survives--particularly now after the withdraws from the occupied territory.
No, not simply respect, actively support its resolutions and play a part in enforcing them. The US's recent history with the UN is not encouaging. Think back even to the UN resolutions about going to war in Iraq and how the US chose to ignore them, the naked hostility of Ambassador Bolton towards the organisation, the demands of the US to have exceptional and unique powers to veto UN resolutions in the face of democratic votes, the fact that the US don't contribute peacekeeping troops to UN missions - all in all, it adds up to disregard for the only mandated global organisation dedicated to maintaining world peace. When the US, the most powerful member of a 191 state coalition effectively tears up the UN constitution and says it will not be bound by its own rules, why should any other member play ball?
The UN never turned a blind eye to Hezbollah, which is clearly deemed by them to be a terrorist organisation and not a nation state on whom they can bring pressure to bear. So, no economic or trade sanctions available to them, only the moral weight of the world as represented by the UN member states. Minus the support of Israel and the US, of course, which pretty much negates any chance of the UN making progress.
Vitamin, always cogently argued but with a spin that I find rather disingenuous. When you say Israel have no plans to expand and I say scorched earth, we are dealing with semantics. The inescapable reality is the almost total destruction of southern Lebanon with an eye to destroying any infrastructure that may help Hezbollah irrespective of the scale of collateral damage as we might agree to call it.
And as for human shields, what should Israel do? Get a sense of proportion. It is not the moral imperative to obliterate all who stand in your way in order to reach your target. Hezbollah's actions are indefensible. Unfortunately, so are Israel's.
Enforce how?
The US has certainly supported U.N. resolutions that have not only called for Hezbollah to disband and disarm, but also for Israel to withdraw it's troops from Lebanon (1559) so I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to.
Again, the US participates in U.N. missions all the time, but I think we can both agree here that in this instance, the presence of troops from the US in Lebanon would not sit well with either the Lebanese or those in the US who remember what happened to us the last time we were there.
"Dedicated to maintaining world peace"?! Wow.
Exactly when and where have they ever succeeded in doing that?
Lebanon? Darfur? Sudan? Rwanda? Bosnia? All triumphs in global peacekeeping efforts no doubt.
But of course all blame for any failure / incompetence on behalf of the United Nations lay squarely at the feet of the US.
I suppose Oil-For-Food was all our fault as well.
They certainly never did anything to stop them from moving 13,000+ missiles across Lebanon from Syria and then lobbing them over the border into Israel either.
EDIT:
(Please show me ONE instance in any U.N. resolution where the security council collectively refers to Hezbollah as a "terrorist" organization.)
Does Hezbollah not legitimately hold power in the Lebanese government, voted in by the Lebanese people?
The screws have in fact been turned on the equally impotent "good" government of Lebanon many times in order to pressure Hezbollah but sadly they've proven to be either too shook or simply unwilling to follow through.
Perhaps understandably so.
At this point, outside military force must be used to remove Hezbollah. Period.
I mean as far as I can tell, they have no intention of altering their charter any time soon to include a "live and let live" byline with Israel.
Sorry, but you will not convince me in a million years that any further support of the U.N. by Israel (whom Hezbollah clearly wishes to see wiped off the map) and/or the US would translate into any kind of real progress towards peace.
For one thing, Hezbollah's goal (again, by their own admission) is to see the complete elimination of Israel no if, ands or maybes, so how pray tell, do you "play ball" with that?
No one (including the U.N., the Lebanese government or anyone now conveniently protesting Israel's "disproportionate" use of force) gave a shit, marched for "peace" or made a sound during the last year when Hezbollah was raining rockets into Israel.
Please to convince me how any of these people are truly interested in peace.
1) The U.S. didn't carpet bomb Afghanistan as you claim. Demographically speaking, there's not a lot of population centers in Afgahnistan to carpet bomb, nor large concentration of Taliban or Al Qaeda forces for that matter. I think the area that received the largest amounts of U.S. bombing was the mountainous area that Al Qaeda was holed up in at the end of the war. I don't think there were many civilians up there to begin with.
2) The claim that thousands of Afghan civilians were killed by American bombing also doesn't appear to be true. During the war the Taliban government made the claim that U.S. bombing was killing thousands of civilians. For example, in the first three weeks of the war the Taliban government claimed that 1,500 civilians had been killed. I've read a couple of news reports done in 2002 while the war was still going on and right afterwards, one by the Associated Press, and another by the New York Times, that estimated civilian casualties were probably only in the mid-100s, approx.500-600.
2nd, this was part of your argument about who historically has a right to the land.
Here's the history that I've dug up.
1) Jews settled in Israel in 1300 B.C.
2) The Romans destroyed the second Jewish temple and put down a Jewish revolt in 70 A.D. Thousands of Jews got killed and others turned into slaves. Lots of people talk about the Jewish exile after this, but there were still plenty of Jews that stayed there. For example there was another Jewish revolt in 132 A.D., and by 212 A.D. when Rome gave citizenship to Jews, Jewish life was centered in the galilee. It was also during thistime that the name Palestine first apperaed when Emperor Hadrian renamed the province Syria Palestine.
3) Arabic didn't become the dominant language of the area until the 7th Century during the Muslim invasions out of Arabia.
4) By the 9th Century Jews had resettled in Jerusalem and Tiberias. By the 11th Century they were back in Rafah, Gaza, Ashkelon, Jaff and other areas. By the early 19th Century there were more than 10,000 Jews in what would become Israel.
5) The idea of a distinct Palestinian-Arab identity and nationalism didn't start until after WWI. In fact, Arab delegates to the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, testimony to the 1937 Peel Commission and at other times said that Palestinian was part of Syria. For example, Ahmed Shuqeiri, who would later become the chairman of the PLO, told the U.N.that Palestine was part of southern Syria.
6) Before 1948 and the creation of Israel, both Jews and Arabs were migrating to the area. The British tried to limit Jewish immigration in deference to the Arabs, while Arabs had no restrictions on migration. From WWI to WWI 470,000 Jews and 588,000 Arabs migrated to the Palestinian mandate.
7) Right before the 1948 war and the creation of Israel, Jews owned 463,000 acres of land. 387,000 of which was bought from Arabs, 73% of which were large landowners, mostly absent landlords that lived in Cairo, Damascus, Beirut, etc.
8) When the U.N. came up with its partition plan it was going to create a Jewish state with 538,000 Jews and 397,000 Arabs, and an Arab state with 804,000 Arabs and 10,000 Jews.
The point of all this is: 1) there was a long and continuous presence of Jews in Israel before Arabs ever became a majority in the area, 2) A lot of Jews that became Israelis and Arabs that became Palestinians in 1948 migrated to that area after WWI in modern times, they hadn't been there for "1000s of years."
Just to make sure that we're on the same page as to what we're talking about, I've never claimed that there weren't Jews in the area for aeons. That was neither my argument nor the crux thereof. My statement is that the people who have complete social agency in the area are not the group of people who have a geographic claim to the land dating back centuries. In other words, white Europeans. I'm well aware that there have been Arab Jews in the area for centuries.
The claim that the "people now known as Palestinians" didn't live in occupied territory until 1948 (if that's what you're stating) is innaccurate. Again, my fiancee's fam's history dates back there before 1948, certainly.
Also, the figures regarding Afghanistan seem a bit dubious to me, because I seem to recall respected human rights orgs citing the deathtoll as being in the thousands a couple/few months into the conflict.
I'm going to respond to Vitamin, I believe it was, in a minute. At work. Peace.
- Are
Durham, NH - More than 3,500 civilians have been killed in Afghanistan by U.S. bombs, according to a study to be released December 10 by Marc W. Herold, Professor of Economics, International Relations, and Women's Studies at the University of New Hampshire. Professor Herold will announce his findings on Monday, December 10 in a discussion with award-winning journalist, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! in Exile's War and Peace Report (http://www.democracynow.org).
Professor Herold has been gathering data on civilian casualties since October 7 by culling information from news agencies, major newspapers, and first-hand accounts. "I decided to do the study because I suspected that the modern weaponry was not what it was advertised to be. I was concerned that there would be significant civilian casualties caused by the bombing, and I was able to find some mention of casualties in the foreign press but almost nothing in the U.S. press," said Herold. Herold's data will be available at http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mwherold/.
For each day since October 7, when the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan began, he lists the number of casualties, location, type of weapon used, and source(s) of information. Following are several examples from his daily calculations:
On October 11, two U.S. jets bombed the mountain village of Karam, comprised of 60 mud houses, during dinner and evening prayer time, killing 100-160 people. Sources: DAWN, (English language Pakistani daily newspaper), the Guardian of London, the Independent, International Herald Tribune, the Scotsman, the Observer, and the BBC News.
On October 13, in the early morning, an F-18 dropped 2,000 lb. JDAM bombs on the Qila Meer Abas neighborhood, 2 kms. South of the Kabul airport, killing four people. Sources: Afghan Islamic Press, Los Angeles Times, Frontier Post, Pakistan Observer, the Guardian of London, and the BBC News.
On October 31, in a pre-dawn raid, an F-18 dropped a 2,000 lb. JDAM bomb on a Red Crescent clinic, killing 15 - 25 people. Sources: DAWN, the Times of London, the Independent, the Guardian, Reuters, Associated Press, and Agence France Presse.
Professor Herold has sought whenever possible to cross-corroborate accounts of civilian casualties. He relied upon Indian newspapers, especially The Times of India; three Pakistani daily newspapers; the Singapore News; British, Canadian, and Australian newspapers; Afghan Islamic Press; Agence France Press; Pakistan News Service; Reuters; BBC News Online; Al Jazeera; and a variety of other reputable sources, including the United Nations and other relief agencies.
The Pentagon has repeatedly denied reports of civilian casualties in Afghanistan, and most U.S. media outlets have qualified their reports of casualties with the statement "could not be independently confirmed." But Professor Herold has been able to confirm the number of casualties, and has found that the number is climbing toward 4,000. "People have to know that there is a human cost to war, and that this is a war with thousands of casualties," said Herold. "These were poor people to begin with, and, on top of that, they had absolutely nothing to do with the events of September 11."
This statement is either ignorant or willfully deceptive. These "white Europeans" as you refer to them are neither wholly "white" (whatever the hell that means) and certainly not "European". Rather they are products of the diaspora(s) to which Motown refers in his earlier post. They have as much of a geographic claim to the land in question as anyone does. Their time in exile, during which they were persecuted by ignorant Jew-hating people such as yourself, and forced to interbreed with the local populations for their survival (thus increasing their so-called "white" and "European" physical features) does nothing to diminish their claim to land that was historically theirs. As a personal example of the effects that the diaspora has on muddling the idea of a Jew's ethnic identity, my father's family traces the bulk of its post-diaspora heritage to the Middle East and we bear distinctive Sephardic features. However, before immigrating to the US and Israel, the family spent some time in Russia and accquired a European last name. This is a very common situation and demonstrates the hollowness of your argument: to categorize a diasporic people by the last place that they laid their heads before reclaiming their homeland is to ignore the history of how they got to Europe and where they came from. Moreover, the manner in which the Jews were treated throughout the countries in Europe in which we took refuge proves once again that they were not truly Europeans and were certainly not treated as "white" (again, what a hollow, loaded term to throw around, its very use is an attempt to set up a dichotomy in which "white Jews" are the oppressor) insofar as at the convenience of every society in which they took refuge, the Jews were persectuted whenever a scapegoat was needed (pogroms, holocaust, dreyfus affair, vichy government, inqusition, blah blah blah) and served as precisely the sort of "other" that is the opposite in your silly "white"/"non-white" dichotomy of what a "white" person is. The only difference between a "white Jew" and an "Arab Jew" is the divergence of the twisted path down which the diaspora took them. We all come from the same place and that place is Israel. The history of the area now comprising Israel as the home of the Jews has a history that far, FAR predates of any concept of Palestine as a distinct state. Please provide evidence to the contrary.