Israel bows to pressure and agrees to ease Gaza blockade

[Jack Weber]

I was talking about several subsequent administrations, of various Western nations (including our own) who materially supported terrorism of both state and subnational varieties...who were far more destructive and murderous than Hamas. In fact, it's a grievously unfair insult to Hamas to even compare them.

If Iran is a Terror State for supporting Hezbollah and others, then we are worse.

We voted these people in.

My point was only that DogonPorch and a few others are openly supportive of terrorism...so we can't take their denunciations of terrorism seriously. They're not meant seriously. They're political propaganda, and pretty crude so far as that goes.

Those of us, and there are many, who denounce all terrorism...now at least that's a principled stance. You and me and others can argue about certain points, and frames of reference, and emphases on this or that; that's as it should be. But I know you don't think some terrorism is excellent and awesome, so long as talismanic words like "Cold War" are summoned blandly and out of context.

You're right..One form of terrorism is'nt better than the other ...

I guess I'm asking for some examples of what you're talking about...

[bloodyminded]

You're right..One form of terrorism is'nt better than the other ...

I guess I'm asking for some examples of what you're talking about...

There are many, but the most obvious and grievous is probably Indonesia under Suharto.

First, he killed between 500 000 and 1 000 000 "communists"; and I don't think we should take the Saddam-like tyrant at his word that they were all "communists", assuming in the first place that anyone who is a "communist" deserved to be murdered.

Then he invaded East Timor, using both the Indonesian military and mercenary militias. Ford gave the green light, in person, for the blatantly illegal and terribly murderous invasion. (We know this; the record is now declassified.)

Then there was 25 years of attempted genocide and unbelievable human rights abuses, from '75 until '99. The arms and munitions were supplied by the United States, Canada, Australia, the UK, and (I believe) France.

Our leaders were fully aware of exactly what was occurring; and fully aware of the illegality.

A third of the population of East Timor was killed by Indonesia over these 25 years.

That's genocide.

The slaughters continued up until 1999; the US ambassador bragged about interfering with the UN to halt any possibility of something being done about it. Wolfowitz praised Suharto to great levels, as "a moderate" (a "moderate" who is one of the biggest mass murderers of the late 20th century)--at the exact same time as he was condemning Saddam Hussein. Interesting, because the two men were very similar in murderous brutality.

When the threat of public attention became real in 1999--thanks to activists and a few rogue journalists, not the mainstream media, whose performance was shameful--Clinton told Suharto that the game was up.

And just like that, it was over. All the Western leaders had to do was to stop materially aiding Suharto to make him stop.

Clearly, this could have been done any time over 25 years.

Now, normally, both conservatives and moderates will utter "Cold War" to try to justify mass murder, genocide, and state terrorism.

Leaving aside that this is a fatuous non-answer: they are explicitly advocating terrorism. They are supporting and defending massive state terrorism, openly.

So they aren't opposed to terrorism, not even at genocidal levels.

They are opposed to the smaller, less severe terrorism of Official Enemies.

They're Commissars, in short.

[Jack Weber]

There are many, but the most obvious and grievous is probably Indonesia under Suharto.

First, he killed between 500 000 and 1 000 000 "communists"; and I don't think we should take the Saddam-like tyrant at his word that they were all "communists", assuming in the first place that anyone who is a "communist" deserved to be murdered.

Then he invaded East Timor, using both the Indonesian military and mercenary militias. Ford gave the green light, in person, for the blatantly illegal and terribly murderous invasion. (We know this; the record is now declassified.)

Then there was 25 years of attempted genocide and unbelievable human rights abuses, from '75 until '99. The arms and munitions were supplied by the United States, Canada, Australia, the UK, and (I believe) France.

Our leaders were fully aware of exactly what was occurring; and fully aware of the illegality.

A third of the population of East Timor was killed by Indonesia over these 25 years.

That's genocide.

The slaughters continued up until 1999; the US ambassador bragged about interfering with the UN to halt any possibility of something being done about it. Wolfowitz praised Suharto to great levels, as "a moderate" (a "moderate" who is one of the biggest mass murderers of the late 20th century)--at the exact same time as he was condemning Saddam Hussein. Interesting, because the two men were very similar in murderous brutality.

When the threat of public attention became real in 1999--thanks to activists and a few rogue journalists, not the mainstream media, whose performance was shameful--Clinton told Suharto that the game was up.

And just like that, it was over. All the Western leaders had to do was to stop materially aiding Suharto to make him stop.

Clearly, this could have been done any time over 25 years.

Now, normally, both conservatives and moderates will utter "Cold War" to try to justify mass murder, genocide, and state terrorism.

Leaving aside that this is a fatuous non-answer: they are explicitly advocating terrorism. They are supporting and defending massive state terrorism, openly.

So they aren't opposed to terrorism, not even at genocidal levels.

They are opposed to the smaller, less severe terrorism of Official Enemies.

They're Commissars, in short.

You mean this cast of cool cats?

http://friendlydictators.blogspot.com/

To be fair,some of the people these people opposed were indeed Communists...

[bloodyminded]

You mean this cast of cool cats?

http://friendlydictators.blogspot.com/

To be fair,some of the people these people opposed were indeed Communists...

Of course they were. But to use that as justification is unbelievably weak, and constitutes profound moral relativism.

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course they were. But to use that as justification is unbelievably weak, and constitutes profound moral relativism.

No it's not...justification is only needed by those who depend on morals to kill, but it's still killin'. Sheesh....

[Jack Weber]

Of course they were. But to use that as justification is unbelievably weak, and constitutes profound moral relativism.

I agree...Particularily in the cases of El Salvador under Maximilliano Hernandez...Or Nicaragua under Samoza...Or the Domincan Republic under Trujillo...Or Haiti under the Duvalliers...Stroessner in Paraguay etc...

But Fascists were/are easy to control...Give them some money,guns,and,free reign to torture and kill perceived Communist enemies and the powers that be will turn the other way..

[bloodyminded]

I agree...Particularily in the cases of El Salvador under Maximilliano Hernandez...Or Nicaragua under Samoza...Or the Domincan Republic under Trujillo...Or Haiti under the Duvalliers...Stroessner in Paraguay etc...

But Fascists were/are easy to control...Give them some money,guns,and,free reign to torture and kill perceived Communist enemies and the powers that be will turn the other way..

Just so. And it's not even about capital "E" evil, but rather the banality of institutionalized evil. Clinton, Chretien, Mulroney, Blair, Howard, Bush, Trudeau, et al are not evil men. On the contrary, they're basically like everybody else.

This is why some people have a hard time accepting that Western support for mass murder, terrorism, etc can't quite be true; that there must be some facts missing somewhere, or what have you, because "we" wouldn't behave this way.

But this is a misunderstanding of power, and a misunderstanding of countries, and of international relations. Good people frequently sign on for the most unbelievable atrocities. (I should think we could better understand our enemies, and maybe achieve superior results, if we didn't insist upon terming them "evil" for behaving exactly as we do.)

Anyway, it's certainly not only about Communist enemies, not at all. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, it was openly conceded that we couldn't blame the Soviets any more...even though much of the standard policies continued.

Even the Indonesian horrors we're talking about here continued until 1999...rather putting the lie to the "Cold War" justification.

[naomiglover]

I agree...Particularily in the cases of El Salvador under Maximilliano Hernandez...Or Nicaragua under Samoza...Or the Domincan Republic under Trujillo...Or Haiti under the Duvalliers...Stroessner in Paraguay etc...

But Fascists were/are easy to control...Give them some money,guns,and,free reign to torture and kill perceived Communist enemies and the powers that be will turn the other way..

Speaking of fascist governments:

The Israeli government is facing legal action for contempt over its refusal to implement a Supreme Court ruling that it end a policy of awarding preferential budgets to Jewish communities, including settlements, rather than much poorer Palestinian Arab towns and villages inside Israel.

It's usually them who have a contempt for both international and domestic law.

Similarly, in May, the court found that the government had continued construction on a road between the settlements of Eli and Hayovel despite a ruling that it must stop. In a harshly worded response, the judges said: “It is inconceivable that the state does not know what is unfolding right beneath its nose.”

How many more times does the Israeli government have to go against both international law and domestic law until you accept that you're giving your full support to a fascist government?

Last month the Supreme Court again castigated the government for ignoring an order from last year to demolish a sewage purification plant built in the West Bank settlement of Ofra on privately owned Palestinian land in violation of Israeli law.

You know what fascism is? Here, lets go through the characteristics of a fascist government:

• Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.
  check!
  
• They claim that culture is created by the collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus they reject individualism.
  check!
  
• Viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they see pluralism as a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety.
  check!
  
• They advocate the creation of a single-party state.
  check!
  
• Fascists reject and resist the autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups who are not considered part of the fascists' nation and who refuse to assimilate or are unable to be assimilated.
  check!
  
• They consider attempts to create such autonomy as an affront and a threat to the nation.
  check!
  
• Fascist governments forbid and suppress opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement.
  check!
  
• They identify violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality.
  check!
  

Other prominent cases in which officials are defying court rulings involve the refusal to demolish a synagogue built by settlers; the failure to build hundreds of classrooms for Palestinian children in East Jerusalem; and the continuing practice of “binding” foreign workers to a single employer.

Israel (and the Palestinians) are governed by mafia gangs. One of them is supported and kept in power by our governments in the West.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Israel (and the Palestinians) are governed by mafia gangs. One of them is supported and kept in power by our governments in the West.

No, Israel is a sovereign nation with a democratically elected government...just like Canada. Power is "kept" the same way it is in Canada, except that Israel has no armies killing the locals in Afghanistan.

[naomiglover]

No, Israel is a sovereign nation with a democratically elected government...just like Canada. Power is "kept" the same way it is in Canada, except that Israel has no armies killing the locals in Afghanistan.

There is at least one very big difference: Canada does not violate international and domestic laws.

[bush_cheney2004]

There is at least one very big difference: Canada does not violate international and domestic laws.

Nope...Canada has/does violate "international and domestic laws". Just ask Serbia or First Nations.

But that's OK...it is a sovereign state with interests to protect, just like Israel...just like Israel...just like Israel.

[ToadBrother]

There is at least one very big difference: Canada does not violate international and domestic laws.

Of course it does. We still refuse to sign on to the Indigenous rights that the UN keeps flapping in our face.

[naomiglover]

Nope...Canada has/does violate "international and domestic laws". Just ask Serbia or First Nations.

But that's OK...it is a sovereign state with interests to protect, just like Israel...just like Israel...just like Israel.

Show me where Canada violates international and domestic laws.

[ToadBrother]

Show me where Canada violates international and domestic laws.

Internationally, treaties on indigenous people.

At the national level, how else could you define the Tory government's attempt to hide Afghan prisoner documents from Parliament as a violation of a basic constitutional precept that dates back over three hundred years?

And we haven't even delved into the infamy Canada is gaining abroad through Canadian-based mining companies.

But then again, as I keep saying, international law isn't what you think it is. The only kind of international law that approaches that is the maritime law. Unless the Security Council decides to directly confront Israel, then your complaint is toothless, and pointless. That's just the way it is.

[bush_cheney2004]

....But then again, as I keep saying, international law isn't what you think it is. The only kind of international law that approaches that is the maritime law. Unless the Security Council decides to directly confront Israel, then your complaint is toothless, and pointless. That's just the way it is.

Correct...but it's purposeful to turn such a broad definition of "international law" around on Canada (or the USA), if only to substantiate Israel's sovereingty and right to protect it's own interests, particularly from existential threats.

Israel has no armies in Afghanistan.

[naomiglover]

Internationally, treaties on indigenous people.

At the national level, how else could you define the Tory government's attempt to hide Afghan prisoner documents from Parliament as a violation of a basic constitutional precept that dates back over three hundred years?

And we haven't even delved into the infamy Canada is gaining abroad through Canadian-based mining companies.

Is the Canadian government not responding to Canada's supreme court like Israel is not to its supreme court?

But then again, as I keep saying, international law isn't what you think it is. The only kind of international law that approaches that is the maritime law. Unless the Security Council decides to directly confront Israel, then your complaint is toothless, and pointless. That's just the way it is.

So are you saying what Hamas has done in the past (suicide attacks) and what it has done recently (rocket launches) cannot be said to be against international law?

By the way, the security council has confronted Israel about some of its many violation of international law. Even the International Criminal Court has said that Israel has violated international law.