>
To listen and watch without hearing or seeing and deepens with each grave our collective shame.
from relevant articles about the war in Gaza.
Jennifer Loewenstein – If Hamas didn’t exist (zmag)
There was a time when Fatah and the PFLP held the day; when few Palestinians wanted anything to do with Islamist policies and politics. Such politics have nothing to do with primitive rockets being fired over the border, or smuggling tunnels and black-market weapons; just as Arafat’s Fatah had little to do with stones and suicide bombings. The associations are coincidental; the creations of a given political environment. They are the result of something entirely different than what the lying politicians and their analysts are telling you.
Rashid Khalidi – What You Don’t Know About Gaza (New York Times)
Nearly everything you’ve been led to believe about Gaza is wrong. Below are a few essential points that seem to be missing from the conversation, much of which has taken place in the press, about Israel’s attack on the Gaza Strip.
Elaine C. Hagopian – Why Hamas is not the issue – History matters (counterpunch.org)
The picture changes when history matters. Treating Israeli war crimes as historically detached events, unrelated to its Zionist ideology and militaristic strategy to control all of Palestine, becomes more transparent each day.
Glenn Greenwald – Both parties cheerlead still more loudly for Israel’s war (salon.com)
At exactly the time that worldwide horror over this war is at its peak, the Democratic-led Congress steps up to announce to the world: “this is our war, too; we support whatever Israel does absolutely and without reservations.” We thus make Israel’s wars our wars; its enemies our enemies; its intractable disputes our disputes; and the hostility and anger it generates our own. And we embolden Israel to continue further.
Thalif Deen – Aid Groups Dispute Israeli Claims in Gaza (antiwar.com)
As the Israelis try to justify the massive loss of civilian life in Gaza, their arguments and counter-charges continue to be shot down either by the United Nations or by international human rights organizations.
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, adopted on November 10, 1975 by a vote of 72 to 35 (with 32 abstentions), “determine[d] that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination”.
>you might find these links of interest:
http://www.kunstler.com/Grunt_hate_mail.html
http://321energy.com/editorials/moriarty/moriarty010709.html
http://www.dennishollingsworth.us/archives/001972.html#more
Rational arguments are handily constructed from irrational subjective positions.
>Thanks for the interesting links!
Holy cow, if those people get so upset by reading the “I am ashamed” editorial I wonder what they’d say about my blog, had they known about it…
Jacques, which country do you live in? Just curious.
>los angeles
>an interesting paper on the definition of Genocide by
Chandran Kukathas:
http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwphl/ethics/africa_conference/papers/Kukathas.pdf
The problem, however, is that the word ‘intention’ is also capable of broad and narrow definition. One might, particularly in war, intend (inasmuch as one foresees the consequences of one’s actions) the destruction of a group, but for reasons that have to do with the exigencies of war rather than any wish to destroy the group as such. Groups might suffer as collateral damage, though destroying the group was never a part of the motive behind the exercise that led to its destruction. A broad definition of ‘intention’ would uncouple it from ‘motive’. The problem here is that a great many acts might then be deemed genocidal, particularly during war.
A narrow definition of ‘intention’ that tied it more tightly to ‘motive’, however, runs the risk of providing cover for those accused of ‘genocide’ by allowing them to shelter behind the claim that the destruction of the group was not their intention but merely an unfortunate consequence of the pursuit of other, legitimate, aims. This matter is further complicated by the fact that in many circumstances, and notably in war, people act from mixed or multiple motives. Even if the destruction of a group might be the result of actions motivated by hatred of the national, religious, or racial body in question, so be the case that the group is destroyed to serve other ends, such as national security. Must the word genocide be confined to acts whose motives are ‘pure’, or does the existence of any kind of group hatred condemn, as genocidal, acts perpetrated primarily for other reasons?
sort of ironic
>one more:
war and natural gas: the Israeli invasion and Gaza’s offshore gas fields
http://www.endgame.org.uk/2009/01/11/war-and-natural-gas-the-israeli-invasion-and-gazas-offshore-gas-fields/
>Thanks again for the interesting links! Keep them coming if you find relevant stuff. I especially found the “definition of genocide”-article interesting…
And hey, I really like your art! “Yoko” and “Jinn” are my favourites so far.