View Full Version : really bad news
alexbmn
07-17-2002, 09:09 PM
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=187932&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0
this article in Haeretz claims that Israel may be considering to relinquish Gaza ang Jericho back to Pa because "those areas have been relatively quiet" and its possible then that later they will relinquish military control of the West Bank so that the PA "will fight terror and suppress Hamas".Everybody here is knowledgeable enough to know that if the government is considering this then it has totally gone nuts.Did they suddenly forget that this was tried after Oslo. This article also includes a quote from Sharon who says" that the government is commited to easing conditions for the Pals." Easing conditions and fighting terror? Those two are mutually exclusive.And wasnt I right that the Pals will immediately "thank" Israel for reduction of curfew.
sharonbn
07-18-2002, 12:06 AM
I, of course, see this as good news.
I see this as a sign of the moderate approach of the governemnt to the Palestinian terror problem. I believe moderate approachis the right one - nourish the moderate faction of the Palestinians and they will take care of the extreme terror groups much better than IDF can.
Two noteworthy points
1. the proposal is part of a plan to stop the terror asttacks. Israel is using "the stick and the carrot" strategy - apealing to Palestinian civillian population while taking militery action against terrorist groups. imo, that is a good plan in the long range. meaning you can't expect immediate results. the plan can only be judged in retrospect.
2. The meeting where the plan was discussed was held prior to testerday's terror attack at Tel Aviv. After the attack, defense minister Ben Eliezer postponed the planned steps to ease conditions for the Palestinians.
Gilgamesh
07-18-2002, 03:53 PM
The last two terror attacks happened because Israel eased the restrications of movement and lifted the curfews, even for few hours.
The enemy uses every Israeli gesture and every self imposed restrication to kill more women and children whose only crime was to be born Jewish.
These Arabs fire morters from their hospitals and school yards, knowing we won't fire back efective fire. The Arabs use Ambulances as APCs, Jews won't fire upon Ambulances, so they use them to move fighters, bombs and ammo around. At the same time, we Jews, must use ARMORED AMBULANCES to evacuate safly our wounded. The Arabs love to fire up on our Ambulances.
BTW, There is a general warning in Israel, the Arabs stole ambulances, they plan to sneak suicide bombers to hospitals or use them as car bombs. Every Ambulace of ours must be doubled checked and cleared, before it enters a hospital or a bombing scane.
No other man, since the Israeli war of Independance has killed so many Jewish civilians, as Arafat and his PLO terror machine.
cerulean
07-21-2002, 08:27 AM
Shimon Peres is still advocating this idea, as of Sunday:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Israel-Palestinians.html
Now there will be more bombings, Israel will get pissed off, start going into the towns again, the rest of the world will condemn them, etc, etc.
Rafman
07-24-2002, 04:42 AM
Originally posted by Kahz
Now there will be more bombings, Israel will get pissed off, start going into the towns again, the rest of the world will condemn them, etc, etc.
agreed. that has been the trend lately.
Hopefully, somehow, things can change for the better.
Mediocrates
07-24-2002, 04:45 AM
Originally posted by Kahz
Now there will be more bombings, Israel will get pissed off, start going into the towns again, the rest of the world will condemn them, etc, etc.
Greetings fellow City-of-Oaks person!!
Originally posted by alexbmn
[url
this article in Haeretz claims that Israel may be considering to relinquish Gaza ang Jericho back to Pa because "those areas have been relatively quiet" and its possible then that later they will relinquish military control of the West Bank so that the PA "will fight terror and suppress Hamas".Everybody here is knowledgeable enough to know that if the government is considering this then it has totally gone nuts.Did they suddenly forget that this was tried after Oslo.
no, they didn't forget; i think you can at least sense that.
what i mean to say is, why do you take them at their word?
i suppose you also believe that they thought a 1ton bomb dropped on a housing comlpex in gaza at midnight would never harm an extraneous civilians, too?
you can't possibly believe all you hear at face value? if you do please allow somebody to apply you for state-assisted aid, friend.
[
QUOTE]Originally posted by sharonbn
[B] I believe moderate approachis the right one - nourish the moderate faction of the Palestinians and they will take care of the extreme terror groups much better than IDF can.
1. the proposal is part of a plan to stop the terror asttacks. Israel is using "the stick and the carrot" strategy - apealing to Palestinian civillian population while taking militery action against terrorist groups.
i believe that that is the ultimate way to defuse the situation, appealling to the moderate palestinians (& btw, are we the only 2 people who even believe there are moderate palestinians?) & working with them.
however...
...the moderates have been jerked around harder than a shaheed with 72 virgins. i would think they are a little numb by now.
who/what/& especially WHEN are they supposed to believe what they hear from the israeli government?
and when will they be made to feel like they are not so blithely being treated as collateral damage by the israelies & not real people? i'd say this is a rather complex undertaking by the israelis. and that's why i think it is just more 'lip service'.
& anyway, for the 'stick & the carrot' to work, you must put the carrot in the mouth, not thru the eye.
i really believe in the best of circumstances, if the palestinian people could see a way out of the situation that would bring them a legitimate hope & even help from the israelies that the majority would accept it & ultimately turn on the blind alley militants, whom can only offer them more misery. they'e not totally blind.
bottom line: i don't believe sharon & the guys want peace or are ready to pursue it. these are more cynical manipulations that raise & dash hopes, in hopes that no one will ever hope again.
Mediocrates
07-24-2002, 05:03 PM
bottom line: i don't believe sharon & the guys want peace or are ready to pursue it. these are more cynical manipulations that raise & dash hopes, in hopes that no one will ever hope again.
To what end? What purpose would that serve. Seriously, to what end? Do you seriously think they are deranged and the voters who put them there are too? What plausible long run outcome would be achieved, if what you say is true?
I don't think things can be explained away by madness or hatred or other slogans.
Originally posted by Gilgamesh
These Arabs fire morters from their hospitals and school yards, knowing we won't fire back efective fire. The Arabs use Ambulances as APCs, Jews won't fire upon Ambulances, so they use them to move fighters, bombs and ammo around. At the same time, we Jews, must use ARMORED AMBULANCES to evacuate safly our wounded. The Arabs love to fire up on our Ambulances.
BTW, There is a general warning in Israel, the Arabs stole ambulances, they plan to sneak suicide bombers to hospitals or use them as car bombs. Every Ambulace of ours must be doubled checked and cleared, before it enters a hospital or a bombing scane.
what part of israel are you from?
your comments are curious to me because i have heard some contrary things from our media here:
* settlers frequently fire/have fired on palestinians, even onto their schoolyards, etc....
* idf have shown a proclivity for firing on red cresent ambulences, it has been pretty well documented.
* the idf & security forces have not been loathe to check, recheck, check, & recheck again said ambulences, as well as hold them up for days.
so now it just sounds like the israelies might be given the same kind of special attention.
this would verify the saying that '" spreads".
Ruby, could you please provide the sources for these claims? I am not saying that you haven't seen this, it's just that it hasn't been in the "mainstream" news, AFAIK.
Originally posted by Mediocrates
[b]To what end? What purpose would that serve. Seriously, to what end? Do you seriously think they are deranged and the voters who put them there are too? What plausible long run outcome would be achieved, if what you say is true?
I don't think things can be explained away by madness or hatred or other slogans.
well, i wasn't sloganeering cos i have no idea what the slogans are on either side.
what i meant by that was it keeps the statis quo as they like it. you know, sharon is built for endurance not aesthetics. he does not want peace, where o where o where have you ever seen that he has legitimately pursued it to any logical end?
he is just as complicit in the 'madness' as hamas, if you can't see that i don't know how i could possibly help you.
i think the voters are scared, scared sheep, like everywhere else. like here.
and when you are scared you gravitate to any security you can find. and the bigger, the nastier, the more ruthless the guy is, the better. human nature, i can't blame them (i can only say how puny & pathetically retarded bush looks by comparison :D ).
you know, if you make it bad and keep it bad, eventually the people will dissipate. i think that is the logic. if the time was ripe for slaughter & he hadn't've missed that boat by 50+ years, he might've gone that route. madness has nothing to do with it. it is calculation.
people, even palestinians, do not stay refugees forever.
Originally posted by ruby
* idf have shown a proclivity for firing on red cresent ambulences, it has been pretty well documented.
* the idf & security forces have not been loathe to check, recheck, check, & recheck again said ambulences, as well as hold them up for days.
Palestinian have been secretly using the ambulance as a form of battletaxi to ferry the gunmen and ammunitions.
If they abuse the right that is given to their profession, then I dun think anyone can blame Israel for all the inconvenience cause to them.
L@mplighterM
07-24-2002, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by ruby
what part of israel are you from?
your comments are curious to me because i have heard some contrary things from our media here:
* settlers frequently fire/have fired on palestinians, even onto their schoolyards, etc....
* idf have shown a proclivity for firing on red cresent ambulences, it has been pretty well documented.
* the idf & security forces have not been loathe to check, recheck, check, & recheck again said ambulences, as well as hold them up for days.
so now it just sounds like the israelies might be given the same kind of special attention.
this would verify the saying that '" spreads".
I’m saying that it’s a lot of nonsense and if in fact you have evidence regarding these matters issues a complaint to the Israeli Government and I’m certain it’ll be investigated.
In plain words I believe the information in your post is Arab propaganda
Originally posted by elke
Ruby, could you please provide the sources for these claims? I am not saying that you haven't seen this, it's just that it hasn't been in the "mainstream" news, AFAIK.
ok, its getting too late now & i wanna get off now. please ,so here's one i dug up with ok sources, if you can prove UNWRA & Amnesty Intl are biased then do so, but they seem pretty jake:
The ICRC, the Palestinian Red Crescent Society and other medical personnel, human rights defenders and journalists have all been restricted from carrying out their duties. Some of these personnel have been fired upon and others have been arrested.
http://www.amnesty.org.nz/Publicdo.nsf/bf25ab0f47ba5dd785256499006b15a4/e0462bff2faef7c3cc256b960028 483f!OpenDocument
sources say that ambulences have been held up, fired on & med workers killed. i remember at least one middleaged man getting shot by idf while in the ambulence & dying, my general sources are cnn, msnbc, abc/nbc/cbs nightly news. hardly arab propaganda machines :rolleyes:
the lamplighter can rest assured that the intl red cross has issued a complaint on behalf of the red cresent ambulences & that the israelies have yet to prove themselves that the ambulences were being used to smuggle combatants & arms, altho i do not put it past the pal. fighters. it still is not proven tho, & you seem all excited about proving things tonight.
the settlers thing--you cannot be serious?
will someone from israel confirm this?
& while you're at it, confirm that youngsters in the idf have itchy trigger fingers & that journalists get shot at pretty regularly, too.
i saw at least 2 incidents on tv (see sources abv) with the eyewitness journalists reporting & the tape rolling on it.
one was outside the arafat compound where they told them to leave then shot thru the van window
& the other was of an idf walking towards & shooting point blank thru the windshield of a car that the journalist was in. the journalist was an honesttogod cnn reporter ( not like that other famous footage of the egyptian cameraman getting shot).
i need to go to bed now.
night!
Ruby, that looks like a Bangladeshi source! Hardly mainstream media. In fact, since I can't even find an "about us" section on that site, it's hard to tell what exactly it is.
omg! thanks elke!
i was so tired at that point i wasn't even seeing straight, sorry!
i just pulled it from a search, read the title,thought it was the Nation magazine(!), scanned the article & plopped it on--how'd i miss those graphics??!lol)
i will erase it & put up another one.
for the record, it is an accurate account anyhow. it matches up to the other reports at that time from those 2 sources (unwra & ai).
for the most part, i give no sources. this might bum some of you out.
a lot of what i say i have gleaned from mainstream american media outlets. i am no scholar on the subject. 911 was the impetus for me to try to understand the situation. i am just trying to make sense of all this mess without getting tangled up in either palestinian or israeli propaganda. if i say something critical of either side, the other side accuses me of being brainwashed. it's a no-win situation.
that said, if i seem biased against israel to some it is only b/c israel is being blindly supported in some instances by people here.
actually & personally, there are some (jewish)israeli citizens who are very dear to me & that i want the best for & wish them a peace-filled life. if you love any israelis or israel, you must be critical of her now.
i want what most non-israelis & non-palestinians want, peace & security for all. but you can't bury your head in the sand about offenses on either side in order to bring it about.
here's some more stuff :
Medical teams have also suffered serious harassment at the hands of IDF soldiers, and at times have come under IDF fire. On December 15, 2000, a Palestinian Red Cresent Society ambulance crew were on their way to a patient in the al-Zeitoun area of Hebron when their ambulance came under IDF fire, who shot out all of the tires of the ambulance. The soldiers then approached the ambulance and ordered the medical team to get out, telling them "shut up, don't say anything, or we will shoot you," and ordering them to lie on the ground. After carefully searching the ambulance and detaining the crew for between twenty and thirty minutes, the team was ordered to proceed without changing the tires on the ambulance.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/israel/hebron6-08.htm
note also: that human rights watch confirms palestinian violence toward settlers; i know this is so, also.
reading the section titled "educational impact" also jogged my memory about at least one other source:
you may discount the testimonies of the palestinians b/c you have been duped by propaganda before, but that doesn't mean you should go completely blind/deaf.
the following source is of the national public radio's interview of journalist chris hedges from the christian science monitor (on 'fresh air' w/ host terry gross) from oct 30, 2001.
download the audio & listen (@ about the 24 minute mark) to a firsthand account of less than honorable behavior by the idf:
http://freshair.npr.org/dayFA.cfm?todayDate=10%2F30%2F2001
criticism should lead to change & change to improvement.
but i am sure that there are those who would rather deny & justify away any ugliness...
OK, Ruby, you are fine. I for one, never saw you as rabidly "anti-Israel" or at all antisemitic.
The sources you cite are OK too, albeit sometimes one-sided. The best thing to do would be to try to find an explanation for why these things were done.
I agree with you that recommendations are made to correct the wrongdoing - that's the proper function of the Human Rights organizations and such. Offering solutions is not a function of such orgs, but that's where the rub is, unfortunately.
thank you, elke :)
i sometimes find it a little disturbing that some on board here are very intolerant of differing views, critical views, and are too eager to be on the defensive. they don't seem to want to share ideas, just vent their narrow views. i can't see the wisdom in that.
every criticism of israel is not an attack.
if i seem one-sided, again, it is because a lot of the time i think the board needs evening-out: the responses seem to be heavily one-sided. i try to state where i do agree with views, but point out where i differ.
i love my country; i am critical of my country because i love my country. no nation is perfect. but a nation can be improved thru criticism (unlike a person! & that is why i would like to see more discussion & less of a 'attack/counterattack' posture by some on this board).
re: finding an "explanation why things are done"--
that is why i am here. i want to hear the views here & am curious as to what you think, to hear all explanations of why these things are...etc
specifically w/ regards to the audio, all i can say is that an informal conclusion as to why those idf act that way might be that they are too young (i am totally assuming this point) & immature; that they may be too under-trained; they seem to be under-supervised (why would this behavior ever be tolerated?).
but there are other disturbing undercurrants that may be involved here. specifically, that this behavior may be racially motivated & possibly considered more acceptable than we know.
i would like to hear what active idf & reservists think about these matters but i would also like to hear what everyone else thinks, too.
what i don't want, is for people to ignore or blindly justify the things that they find unpleasent just because they may be done by israelis.
Yes, I think we are sometimes overly defensive. There is so much antisemitism around that sometimes it's difficult to tell what's what.
I am not military at all, but I do have relatives in the IDF, and I was a Volunteer for Israel at an IDF base in my younger days. This does not constitute expertise, but I don't think "racism" is an issue here, really. In fact, the most forceful and passionate argument against discrimination of Arabs I ever heard, was made by a gun-toting Israeli kibbutznik I met there. This was early '80s, well before Oslo.
The most likely explanation for any army excesses, IMHO, is the individual actions of the particular soldiers. It also seems to me that the human rights organizations have an unattainable standard of integrity for soldiers in combat, which is attested to by the fact that literally every country that has had a conflict of some sort, has been subject to criticism by these organizations. I am not saying that they shouldn't criticize - they should - but we all need to keep in mind that what they are talking about is an ideal , not a median standard of conduct.
i agree about the antisemitism. it confuses me also. i start to think that some people are a little too ... enthusiastic & too general when it comes to criticism. it is disturbing, esp'ly seeing the european reaction.
i think racism still may be a broad issue here, however, there is the same racism here where i live & breathe. but there is no military, either.
i hold israel up to a higher standard than the rest of the undemocratic nations, sorry. individual excesses must be punished & general corruption must be thwarted & corrected.
shooting ammo at rock throwing children is never acceptible by a supposedly 'moral' military. imo.
those human rights agencies are necessary to hold up ideals & point out actions/trends which are improper & inhumane.
i don't think they nitpick, in most cases, but are providing evidence of a pattern of bad behavior.
for example, looting is an understandable vice that might happen in the actions of the idf. but taunting or shooting at children is not so understood.
i know active idf personnel, also, & get his views/insight on the matter.
he's a fine example of a human being & soldier, btw ;)
Gilgamesh
07-27-2002, 11:10 AM
Shalom.
I am an IDF reservist and I can answer some of your questions.
My rank is a sergent in fiel Intelegance, I'm your everyday common reservist Israeli soldier.
Originally posted by ruby
I hold israel up to a higher standard than the rest of the undemocratic nations, sorry. individual excesses must be punished & general corruption must be thwarted & corrected.
shooting ammo at rock throwing children is never acceptible by a supposedly 'moral' military. imo.
Why is that? I fully understand why soldiers must obey the laws of war, but why do you dismiss the Arab terrorist from the moral behavior? I think its double standared, to demand an army not to needlessly harm civilains (which is OK with me) while not damanding thesame thing from the terrorist, or at least hold them accountable for commiting crimes against humanity. Soldiers musn't hurt civilians needlessly, but a terrorist can?
Every time a civilian gets killed, there is military investigation automailcly, and then a military trial. Its a common procedure. Problem is, that what ever the facts are, what ever the sentance is, the world media and many people around the world had already sentanced and presecute the whole Jewish people for such an event.
Many of the "rock throwing children" are nothing but a human shields for enemy riflemen. Often, these kids die from bullets that hit them from the back. But no media outlet cares really for the facts, as long as they have their headline: "Jews commit war crimes!" . That is bias and racism, in my opinion. What do you think?
Fire bombs and rocks do kill. However unefficant wepone a rock is. I wonder if you ever seen someone burnes a live as a result of a fire bomb, I also believe you never heard the screams of a man whose fase got smashed from a rock hurled at him. People get killed from rocks. Many times over, if the rock hits a moving cars windshield. Soldiers have the right for self defense, and a soldiers duty is to keep the mob away from main roads, as an Arab mob has killed Jews before.
On T.V you mostly see old footage where soldiers shoot rubber bullets which are non leathal. this is not to say these are harmless bullets. had the rubber bullets harmless, no one in the attacking mob whould notice, would they?
Lets hope that Israeli victory will come soon and put an end to the mutual bloodshed.
Thank you, Giglamesh, for the information :).
Really, I agree that Israel should not be held to a higher standard than her neighbors, because I think her neighbors should be held to the same high standards as Israel.
If the ultimate goal of the Human Rights organizations is to protect human rights, they should be fighting for them wherever such problems are present, not just in places where their goals are easier to achieve. Otherwise, it's not only unfair, but it also defeats the purpose of such organizations, to a large degree.
Sure, they don't have the clout with Hamas or Al Aksa Brigades, with Saudi Arabia or Iraq, that they have with Israel, but it shouldn't stop them from trying, should it? If all humans have rights, then all humans' rights should be protected by these organizations, otherwise they are nothing more than a weapon in the Palestinian propaganda machine.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gilgamesh
Shalom.
I am an IDF reservist and I can answer some of your questions.
My rank is a sergent in fiel Intelegance, I'm your everyday common reservist Israeli soldier.
shalom, gilgamesh. thanks for responding :)
i don't think we are much apart in our views. however, like i said there's some stuff i don't understand.
i do NOT dismiss arrab terrorism. is it because i am critical of israel or the idf that you come to that conclusion? that's not fair.
[B]I think its double standared, to demand an army not to needlessly harm civilains (which is OK with me) while not damanding thesame thing from the terrorist, or at least hold them accountable for commiting crimes against humanity
Soldiers musn't hurt civilians needlessly, but a terrorist can?
why do you think that is a double standard? it would only be a double standard if we were holding a soldier to a terrorist's standard of behavior.
police officers are not held to a criminal's standard of behavior, are they?
ok. put that aside. i know your job is dangerous. terrorism of the type you face is real & slippery.
but did you notice the examples i put forward? can you address them?
the kids in the audio piece were not a 'cover' for gunmen; they were being taunted & shot at on what the journalist said was a continual basis. who are these soldiers? where is their supervision? this cannot be acceptable behavior?
you can:1)discount the journalist.
but from what i understand the journal he reports for is reputible.
& maybe you can discount all journalists who say things that may be critical, i don't know...
or
you can: 2) ignore the fact that you may actually know of instances that have happened like this or the like.
do you? have you?
Problem is, that what ever the facts are, what ever the sentance is, the world media and many people around the world had already sentanced and presecute the whole Jewish people for such an event.
how do you know this? i can't say this is true in the US.
first of all most people don't care or pay attention to your situation. the initials "idf" means zero to them.
however, when pushed, most will choose to be on your side because of nothing deeper than noticing you look more like 'white americans' than the arabs.
i am critical, so am i persecuting "the whole Jewish people" by saying anything? that's also not fair.
But no media outlet cares really for the facts, as long as they have their headline: "Jews commit war crimes!" . That is bias and racism, in my opinion. What do you think?
i can't say what the headlines look like in anything other than english language --& american papers don't ever say "Jews commit war crimes!" that is overt racism & is not tolerated.
the papers , btw, are slightly more biased in favor of israel, b/c of our history w/ israel & because you are 'friendly with you & you are called a 'democracy".
i do think other countries may have undercurrants of antisemitism--the arab ones, etc, outright anti-jewish garbage, etc...
yes it's racism.
but what, then? bad things never happen by idf?
why were the journalists shot at? why were the ambulences shot at?
i don't expect you to be critical, i guess.
i think maybe you have no stomach for criticism. i can't totally blame you on that, i guess, also.
Fire bombs and rocks do kill. However unefficant wepone a rock is. I wonder if you ever seen someone burnes a live as a result of a fire bomb, I also believe you never heard the screams of a man whose fase got smashed from a rock hurled at him. People get killed from rocks. Many times over, if the rock hits a moving cars windshield. Soldiers have the right for self defense, and a soldiers duty is to keep the mob away from main roads, as an Arab mob has killed Jews before.
how often are fire bombs encountered?
i don't buy it that the rocks thrown by kids kill. a rock can kill you if it is thrown from high over you, as from an overpass, or if there is a lucky shot to the head, i suppose. but i've got to believe that the majority of rocks thrown by kids are not dangerous to idf soldiers, are rather a nuicance & are a visable sign of defiance, which makes the soldiers mad.
jewish mobs have also killed arabs before. the hebron "pogrom", just recently, for example. and there was not the kind of force or cavalier gunplay aimed at the jewish israelies who flouted & attacked the military/police--an outrage to the official (retired military) who called it a "pogrom" & said more force should have been used on the rioters.
On T.V you mostly see old footage where soldiers shoot rubber bullets which are non leathal. this is not to say these are harmless bullets. had the rubber bullets harmless, no one in the attacking mob whould notice, would they?
in all these cases, soldiers are essentially policing--keeping the peace.
so are you saying that any and all activity by gathered people is a threat? and it is all alike in your eyes because it can potentially develop into something more dangerous for you?
and then, at the slightest provocation, you are entitled to use the same kind of potentially lethal force on any and all alike?
something is wrong in that, to me.
might not you have alternative means to deal w/ differing situations that might not lead to civilian deaths?
Lets hope that Israeli victory will come soon and put an end to the mutual bloodshed.
i'll drink to that if it means an end to terrorism & mutual peace ;)
Originally posted by elke
Really, I agree that Israel should not be held to a higher standard than her neighbors, because I think her neighbors should be held to the same high standards as Israel.
if there are any principals, standards or ethics that israel wishes to retain, then she must not be lowered to her neihghbor's bar.
i the ultimate goal of the Human Rights organizations is to protect human rights, they should be fighting for them wherever such problems are present, not just in places where their goals are easier to achieve. Otherwise, it's not only unfair, but it also defeats the purpose of such organizations, to a large degree.
i believe they do. amnesty international is broken down by country/region, etc..
why do you think israel is the only one?
Sure, they don't have the clout with Hamas or Al Aksa Brigades,
i do not think they give criminal organizations the clout that nations/sates do.
i was under the impression they lobby & seek to change institutions, they can't negotiate or pressure a criminal organization.
....If all humans have rights, then all humans' rights should be protected by these organizations, otherwise they are nothing more than a weapon in the Palestinian propaganda machine.
they do monitor these other nations. it is wrong to jump to the conclusion that the legit human rights organizations are singling out israel. israel hasn't/isn't always as forthcoming with help to these organizations, but they are somewhat easier i would think to monitor than say, afghanistan, but that doesn't stop them from going there & gathering evidence.
btw, as far as standards go--i hold the US up to the highest standard.
why wouldn't i? the ideal & principles & ethics i hold dear ae what makes my country different than those other holes in the ground.
i definately wouldn't put our standards on par with al qaeda's & it is a major insult if we were to be compared to them in any manner whatsoever.
however, we do wrong, & we should be continually hauled on the carpet for those wrongs. continually; because there is always something that needs fixing.
It's a red-letter day, huh? ;)
I am sorry, I wasn't clear enough with what I meant: I think that there should be a universal standard, to which the Human Rights Organizations hold everyone. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense: what, if you live in Saudi Arabia you have less inherent human rights? How legitimate can such a stance be? These are either universal rights, to which all humans are entitled, or they are arbitrary at the whim of Amnesty International or what have you. If the Saudis won't even let them in to conduct an investigation, that should be shouted from the rooftops too!
As far as HRO's concentrating on Israel, as I said in another thread a while ago, it may not really be these organizations' fault: they do haul other countries to the carpet, but it just doesn't make it into the news. You actually have to go to these organizations' websites to find the information on Zimbabwe, Austria, Greece, etc.
The other thing is that IMO they need to also point out the human rights abuses by other forms of civil authority - such as PA, - as well. Again, if the ultimate goal is to uphold respect of human rights, PA etal have the authority and the power to abuse them. Therefore, they should be subject to the same standards as anyone else with such authority. If it's someone like Al Aksa Brigades, sure they won't listen - but that's not the point: the point is that human rights have been violated - ergo there should be at least a peep out of these organizations that profess to protect them.
you are right about israel being in the spotlight.
it is THE story.
it is the "eternal struggle" & it is staged in the "holy land " & all those other cliches.
but it is true.
christians are interested in it because its in the holy land & i think they could care less if the rest of the world is going to hell in a handbasket. they probably wouldn't blink if saudi arabia roasted people on a spit in the village square. (*disclaimer: not all christians & not a literal example :mad: :D ).
i thought the HROs had the same criteria for all abusers, only focusing on the official governments, as stated above, in order to put pressure on them to bring about changes.
if they have been lax about rapping the hands of the PA then that is a gross error, i agree.
but previous to the documents that were pproduced recently, where was there a distinct linkage of the PA to terrorism? i really do not know, that's why i ask.
b/w the israeli & PA governments, it just seems obvious that they would gravitate towards criticizing israel more--the governing actions of israel are what has caused the most incidences of human rights breeches. aside from the bombings that the terrorist organ.s do. and the skirmishes b/w the palestinians & settlers (& the settlers more often than not have been backed by the military, etc).
saudi arabia & other despotic holes just cruise along doing their dirt unmolested in part because real change is less likely to happen there than israel, maybe.
and nothing much that is 'new' happens there, unlike in israel/OT.
and probably the oil industry which funds our media doesn't really like those types of stories about our 'friends'.
you know, before 9-11, i don't remember even one news story that was really critical of israel.
i think AI came out recently (but belatedly) & indicted the PA & the terrorists who do the bombings, etc...hamas, jihad, al aqsa, etc...
but i am curious: why do you think they pick on israel?
I beg to differ: between Israel and PA, most violations are on PA side. From lynchings of the "collaborators", to cangaroo courts, to suicide murders, to corruption. PA's hands have been largely untouched by the whip for any of these failures.
Again, I don't think that the Human Rights Organizations should avoid reporting on human rights abuses by anyone who has the power to abuse human rights. My beef isn't with their reporting, but rather with what they do not report. Their standard must be high, and it must be applied equally to all powers that be. Otherwise, these groups' moral authority suffers much damage, in my eyes anyway.
I think that the reason they concentrate on Israel in the ME is that they know that it's the only country in the region that would listen to them. Remember, they also have to answer for their efficacy, so it stands to reason that they would concentrate on places that would actually respond to their reporting.
However, IMO this is not the right attitude to have for a human rights organization. If their basic philosophy is that all humans have certain rights, then it doesn't make sense to have different standards for different governments, be they "official" or "unofficial". If a group has the power to make a number of people's lives miserable, it stands to reason that it also has the power to prevent such misery. Therefore, it should be the job of Human Rights Organizations to point this out.
On a lighter note: I also think someone should do something about the Department of Motor Vehicles! A trip there is as bad as a trip to a dentist! :D
Originally posted by elke
I beg to differ: between Israel and PA, most violations are on PA side. From lynchings of the "collaborators", to cangaroo courts, to suicide murders, to corruption. PA's hands have been largely untouched by the whip for any of these failures.
i don't know if i can take my argument any further b/c i get the idea that you think israel is morally justified in all of its behavior/actions.
i don't feel that . i am looking to justify them , i have to admit, but i have not been able to reconcile myself to some things.
if you look at the charges of a HRO like AI, they will state a whole litany of hr abuses-- uses of collective punishment, torture, assassination, excessive force. they point out the scores of checkpoint deaths, deaths of children & other civilians; mass detainments; halting ambulences, sometimes for days, etc...
i don't know how the PAs actions, which are outrageous & also hr abuses, outweigh those that are considered abuses that have been administered by the israelis.
only if we include the terrorist organizations ,hamas to al aqsa,
do we approach even ground.
which, oddly, sounds like their reason for existance.
richcrassus
07-30-2002, 05:03 PM
Since i cant post a new thread im going to post this here like this.
Does Israel have chemical and/or biological weapons or only nuclear weapons?
If so, what kind of bio, chemi weapons?
If they dont, why dont they?
thanks.
The abuses I enumerated: the lynchings, pseudo courts, etc. are perpetrated by the PA, not Hamas or Al Aksa Brigades. Moreover, PA is still responsible for the actions of these groups - it's the purported authority over them. If PA can't control their populace with any sort of consistency, they have no business being the "Authority". But it goes even further: PA has been actively involved in encouraging these actions, through words and deeds.
I am not saying that what the human rights organizations report regarding Israel's human rights abuses is not true. I have no way of knowing that: my info sources are the same as yours, basically, and I do not believe that they are inherently biast so I take these reports at face value, as you do. I am certainly not saying that these actions - as reported - are moral. What I am saying is that this concentration on Israel to the exclusion of the PA, and others is not healthy, and is detrimental to the overall credibility of the human rights organizations.
Originally posted by elke
The abuses I enumerated: the lynchings, pseudo courts, etc. are perpetrated by the PA, not Hamas or Al Aksa Brigades. Moreover, PA is still responsible for the actions of these groups - it's the purported authority over them. If PA can't control their populace with any sort of consistency, they have no business being the "Authority". But it goes even further: PA has been actively involved in encouraging these actions, through words and deeds.
I am not saying that what the human rights organizations report regarding Israel's human rights abuses is not true. I have no way of knowing that: my info sources are the same as yours, basically, and I do not believe that they are inherently biast so I take these reports at face value, as you do. I am certainly not saying that these actions - as reported - are moral. What I am saying is that this concentration on Israel to the exclusion of the PA, and others is not healthy, and is detrimental to the overall credibility of the human rights organizations.
ok. i can't take my argument any further because...we agree ;)
Mediocrates
07-31-2002, 05:35 PM
But why the peculiar focus? Proximity? It can't be that. Omarska concentration camp was but a few hours from Rome. Culture? Doubt it. Sheer numbers of dead and injured? Nope. Duration? Lots of brush wars going on right now for far longer.
Any idea why out of all the ****holes in the world all the world's attention is focused there?
I won't suggest an answer and wait for someone else's.
All right, Mediocrates: I am going out on a limb here, but... ;)
I really think that among other things, it's the matter of efficacy: no one likes to beat their heads against a stone wall, no matter how good it feels to stop :D (sorry, just couldn't resist that one :-)) . With Israel, they feel that they will be able to actually accomplish something - it will follow at least some of the recommendations. It is also because it's open: the human rights organizations are able to go in and do what they have to do relatively unmolested.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.