SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: SiouxPal who wrote (53420)12/27/2005 10:33:55 PM
From: CalculatedRisk  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 361419
 
I believe People have a right to Exist. "...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Nations? Nah. They have no such "right" except as granted by the People.



To: SiouxPal who wrote (53420)12/27/2005 11:01:55 PM
From: Jamey  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 361419
 
Since I respect you and like you a lot I have one question to help me out.
Are you off of your medication again?
Yes or no please.
We'll start from there if that is okay with you.
Just one a word answer.

Santiago



To: SiouxPal who wrote (53420)12/28/2005 1:24:59 AM
From: James Calladine  Respond to of 361419
 
I don't think ANY nation has a particular "right" to exist.

The original British Colonies in North America--did they have a "right to exist" ? How would I know? What is a RIGHT TO EXIST? Granted by whom? To whom? Under what circumstances?

Does Iraq as it has existed have a RIGHT TO EXIST? It was established NOT by the residents, but by a foreign power. It is now being MIGHTILY interfered with by another foreign power, the result of which may be 3 countries. Will they have any more right to exist than the predecessor Nation--Iraq?

As far as I am concerned your question is impossible to answer--for any nation. One can say that the 13 colonies EXISTED because they had certain boundaries and names and nobody disputed those boundaries except THE ORIGINAL RESIDENTS--THE AMERICAN INDIANS. Did they have a right to exist? Who knows? You can say that they existed however, but maybe the boundaries were not as clear because of an entirely different way of viewing the world.

If you ask me the question: "Does Israel exist?" and of course
the answer is "yes". If the question is "Does Palestine exist?" the answer is yes, to some extent. But the Palestinians are suffering the same fate as the American Indians. They have been kicked out of their own territory and driven into ghettos and to existence behind 25 foot high walls.

How has this happened? With a great deal of financial aid from the United States of America and from Jewish communities worldwide.

Why has America supported the Israelis and not the Palestinians?

You tell me. Take as many words as you want.

Namaste!

Jim



To: SiouxPal who wrote (53420)12/28/2005 10:19:58 AM
From: redfish  Respond to of 361419
 
I don't think the question of whether Israel has a right to exist is terribly relevant given that it does exist, has existed for several decades and is unquestionably a sovereign nation.

The continued existence of a nation does not depend on any "right" but rather on its ability to defend itself.

Various native american nations were rolling right along until they encountered an enemy they could not defend against ... whether they had the "right" to continue as nations has no practical relevance.

Given that it possesses over 100 nuclear weapons and has an advanced military, there is no meaningful possibility that Israel will cease to exist as a nation. Even if Iran were to develop a nuclear weapon and deploy it against Israel, it is unlikely that Iran could destroy the latter and very likely that Israel could destroy the former. They would be in a situation somewhat similar to that of the U.S and the U.S.S.R. during the cold war.

I think that most criticism of Israel is directed not towards its right to exist, but towards:

(1) the situation of persons indigenous to the region who are not Israelis; and

(2) the relationship of the U.S. towards Israel

I think that both of those subjects can be rationally discussed without getting into the right of Israel to exist, which is a bit of a strawman argument.



To: SiouxPal who wrote (53420)12/28/2005 10:21:56 AM
From: James Calladine  Respond to of 361419
 
Telling It Like It Isn't
By Robert Fisk
The Los Angeles Times


Tuesday 27 December 2005

I first realized the enormous pressures on American journalists in the Middle East when I went some years ago to say goodbye to a colleague from the Boston Globe. I expressed my sorrow that he was leaving a region where he had obviously enjoyed reporting. I could save my sorrows for someone else, he said. One of the joys of leaving was that he would no longer have to alter the truth to suit his paper's more vociferous readers.

"I used to call the Israeli Likud Party 'right wing,' " he said. "But recently, my editors have been telling me not to use the phrase. A lot of our readers objected." And so now, I asked? "We just don't call it 'right wing' anymore."

Ouch. I knew at once that these "readers" were viewed at his newspaper as Israel's friends, but I also knew that the Likud under Benjamin Netanyahu was as right wing as it had ever been.

This is only the tip of the semantic iceberg that has crashed into American journalism in the Middle East. Illegal Jewish settlements for Jews and Jews only on Arab land are clearly "colonies," and we used to call them that. I cannot trace the moment when we started using the word "settlements." But I can remember the moment around two years ago when the word "settlements" was replaced by "Jewish neighborhoods" - or even, in some cases, "outposts."

Similarly, "occupied" Palestinian land was softened in many American media reports into "disputed" Palestinian land - just after then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, in 2001, instructed U.S. embassies in the Middle East to refer to the West Bank as "disputed" rather than "occupied" territory.

Then there is the "wall," the massive concrete obstruction whose purpose, according to the Israeli authorities, is to prevent Palestinian suicide bombers from killing innocent Israelis. In this, it seems to have had some success. But it does not follow the line of Israel's 1967 border and cuts deeply into Arab land. And all too often these days, journalists call it a "fence" rather than a "wall." Or a "security barrier," which is what Israel prefers them to say. For some of its length, we are told, it is not a wall at all - so we cannot call it a "wall," even though the vast snake of concrete and steel that runs east of Jerusalem is higher than the old Berlin Wall.

The semantic effect of this journalistic obfuscation is clear. If Palestinian land is not occupied but merely part of a legal dispute that might be resolved in law courts or discussions over tea, then a Palestinian child who throws a stone at an Israeli soldier in this territory is clearly acting insanely.

If a Jewish colony built illegally on Arab land is simply a nice friendly "neighborhood," then any Palestinian who attacks it must be carrying out a mindless terrorist act.

And surely there is no reason to protest a "fence" or a "security barrier" - words that conjure up the fence around a garden or the gate arm at the entrance to a private housing complex.

For Palestinians to object violently to any of these phenomena thus marks them as a generically vicious people. By our use of language, we condemn them.

We follow these unwritten rules elsewhere in the region. American journalists frequently used the words of U.S. officials in the early days of the Iraqi insurgency - referring to those who attacked American troops as "rebels" or "terrorists" or "remnants" of the former regime. The language of the second U.S. pro-consul in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, was taken up obediently - and grotesquely - by American journalists.

American television, meanwhile, continues to present war as a bloodless sandpit in which the horrors of conflict - the mutilated bodies of the victims of aerial bombing, torn apart in the desert by wild dogs - are kept off the screen. Editors in New York and London make sure that viewers' "sensitivities" don't suffer, that we don't indulge in the "pornography" of death (which is exactly what war is) or "dishonor" the dead whom we have just killed.

Our prudish video coverage makes war easier to support, and journalists long ago became complicit with governments in making conflict and death more acceptable to viewers. Television journalism has thus become a lethal adjunct to war.

Back in the old days, we used to believe - did we not? - that journalists should "tell it how it is." Read the great journalism of World War II and you'll see what I mean. The Ed Murrows and Richard Dimblebys, the Howard K. Smiths and Alan Moorheads didn't mince their words or change their descriptions or run mealy-mouthed from the truth because listeners or readers didn't want to know or preferred a different version.

So let's call a colony a colony, let's call occupation what it is, let's call a wall a wall. And maybe express the reality of war by showing that it represents not, primarily, victory or defeat, but the total failure of the human spirit.

-------

Robert Fisk is Middle East correspondent for the London Independent and the author, most recently, of The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East, published last month by Knopf.


truthout.org



To: SiouxPal who wrote (53420)12/28/2005 10:28:41 AM
From: James Calladine  Respond to of 361419
 
The Little Town of Bethlehem
by Phyllis Bennis; December 27, 2005

The little town of Bethlehem isn't just still, it's dying.


On the eve of Christmas the Palestinian city is walled off, hemmed in, and virtually empty of tourists or visitors. Manger Square is barren, the few sad-looking Christmas stalls unfinished, souvenir shops bare of customers. The ancient road linking Bethlehem to Jerusalem, which is only two or three miles away, is blocked by Israel's so-called Separation Wall, whose 24-foot high concrete slabs virtually encircle the city.

The once-cosmopolitan and relatively wealthy people of Bethlehem are now isolated, increasingly impoverished, and imprisoned within a land area of only a few square kilometers. Many are leaving.

Media excitement is focusing on political changes inside Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. Elections loom in both. In Israel, Ariel Sharon's abandonment of the right-wing Likud and his new "centrist" party caused shockwaves. The selection of a new trade union-based leader of the Labor Party raised hopes of potential changes. In the occupied territories, Hamas' decision to join the election process, challenges within the mainstream Fatah movement, and new independent slates of candidates, all raise interesting possibilities.

Some of these changes may bode well for some indeterminate time in the future. But for now, for ordinary Palestinians, life is getting harder.

Under the continuing Israeli occupation, Palestinians remain locked into tiny isolated cantons, unable to travel even between Palestinian cities because of Israeli checkpoints and closures.

Some towns, such as Qalquilya in the northern West Bank, are now completely cut off, physically surrounded by the Wall and dependent on the whim of Israeli soldiers who control the only two gates into the town.

Many Bethlehem residents have not been out of the Bethlehem-Beit Sahour-Beit Jala triangle for more than five years. Arab East Jerusalem, only a 10-minute drive away, remains out of reach. Israeli settlements are growing, in direct violation of international law and even of Israel's own commitments to the U.S.-sponsored "Road Map" that requires a complete freeze in settlement activity.

The Wall is growing larger and higher, grabbing more and more land on the Israeli side. It locks all of the West Bank's major aquifers onto the Israeli side, denying Palestinians access to their water sources. Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni recently admitted the route of the Wall will be "significant" in shaping Israel's future borders. The Associated Press reports that it will "incorporate the major Jewish settlements and is seen as a de facto border."

The Wall divides the contiguous, water-rich Israeli territory of the West Bank, from the disconnected, parched Palestinian cantons that lie within it. These small Palestinian areas are separated by a matrix of settlements and Israeli-controlled roads and highways. It is almost inevitable Israel and the U.S. will soon anoint those truncated, non-contiguous bantustans as a Palestinian "state," however far they may be from a viable two-state solution.

Already the Israeli military checkpoint that blocks the road into Bethlehem has been transformed from a ramshackle set of sheds and barbed wire fences connected by muddy paths into a huge new automated complex abutting the Wall. Known as "the terminal," it features electronically-controlled floor-to-ceiling turnstiles and machine-gun-toting Israeli soldiers on prison-style catwalks above the heads of would-be tourists. In the words of one Jerusalem taxi driver stalled at the Bethlehem roadblock, "this isn't a checkpoint, it's an international border."

There is an international campaign, known as "Open Bethlehem," trying to revive the city's collapsing tourism industry. Go to openbethlehem.org for full information

But it faces insurmountable odds.

Bethlehem tourists no longer arrive on the "holy land" tours that once involved two or three-day stays at the town's numerous hotels. Now the few tourists that arrive are most likely to come on three-hour Israeli tour packages, direct from West Jerusalem. The buses clear the terminal and drive straight to Manger Square. Tourists alight smack in front of the Church of the Nativity. They enter the Church, look around, return to the bus and leave. They don't patronize the shops for souvenirs, they don't have time for a meal, they don't stay overnight in the hotels. They may not even speak to a single Palestinian.

The Palestinian economy and Bethlehem's tourism industry earn nothing.

So far the lights are still lit this year in Manger Square, the carolers will probably come out for a while. Bethlehem's Peace Center features a display of creches from around the world. But Bethlehem is dying. Monuments and ancient shrines may live forever, but living cities don't always survive generations of foreign occupation.

___________________

Phyllis Bennis is a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and author of CHALLENGING EMPIRE: How People, Governments and the UN Defy U.S. Power. She just returned from the occupied Palestinian territories.

War Times/Tiempo de Guerras is a fiscally sponsored project of the Center for Third World Organizing. Donations to War Times are tax-deductible; you can donate on-line at war-times.org or send a check to War Times/Tiempo de Guerras, c/o P.O. Box 99096, Emeryville, CA 94662.

zmag.org