Showing posts with label Darfur. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Darfur. Show all posts

Thursday, April 15, 2010

BREAKING NEWS: Tens of thousands of people murdered, raped and displaced all over the world - overshadowed by new apartment building in Israel...

...Western governments, including Obama administration officials had no comment on the continuing violence in dozens of nations throughout the world but were quick to condemn the new building.

United States Vice President Joe Biden stated emphatically that the new building was "an impediment to world peace," adding later that "if only the Israelis would stop building schools, roads, farms and electric grids the smoke monster would be imprisoned forever on the Lost island and we would finally get an answer as to why Walt was so important to the Others. Also, settlements are an impediment to world peace, did I mention that yet?"

Experts calculated that in the time it took Biden to make that statement an additional 139 Darfurians had their houses burned down by pro-Sudanese government militias, 54 Congolese people starved to death due to war-induced famine and 11 Rwandans were killed in tribal warfare.

Obama administration officials would not comment on any of these ongoing international conflicts but indicated that they would be happily discuss the newest snow removal laws passed in Jerusalem.

Has there ever been a more ridiculous rift between two allies than the recent scuffle between the Obama administration and Netanyahu over the new housing project announcements in Jerusalem? In all sincerity, I'm serious - historically, have two friends fought SO PUBLICLY over something as absurd as a new housing unit that it becomes an international incident, discussed by pundits at every level of the political spectrum? Think of the town you live in...can you imagine if anytime you wanted to widen a road or build a new community center or pass a new littering ordinance, that the leaders of 95 different countries would weigh in and gave you their opinion on what they thought about it? It would be crazy!

Regular readers will recall that I'm a firm believer that until the Israelis have someone legitimate to actually sit down at a negotiating table with (that isn't plotting their destruction as soon as the class is dismissed for the day and the teacher's back is turned), that they shouldn't alter any of their settlement plans for anyone.

I also am in firm agreement with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Jerusalem (that's the Israeli CAPITAL for those keeping score at home) is NOT a settlement, is NOT negotiable and should NOT be treated in the same way as a random trailer park in the middle of a sea of Gaza or West Bank Arabs. And I've also made it very clear that even these "illegal outposts" are just used as scapegoats anyway by anti-Zionists and as excuses for why the Palestinians just can't resist the urge to shoot rockets at innocent men women and children in Sderot and Ashkelon.

But to even discuss this issue and the public spectacle Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have made of it in this context is lending too much credence to it. This isn't a core conflict issue at all. The Israelis haven't changed their housing policy in Jerusalem since the Johnson administration - including all through the Oslo Accord negotiations! Hillary's husband never had a problem with Jews living in Jerusalem...why does she?

By the way, here's another reminder that a few thousand people senselessly died today between Congo, Rwanda, Darfur, Sri Lanka, Somalia, Iran, Mexico and the Philippines due to starvation, drug wars, ethnic cleansings, communist insurgencies, Islamic fundamentalism, sectarian violence and other ills of society that all the wonderfully tolerant idealists were supposed to have solved back in the 20th century. Maybe it's time we started spending our time/resources fixing these problems instead of telling Jews where they are or aren't allowed to live? Oh wait, nevermind - none of those countries threaten to shut off our oil faucets if we don't do what they say.

Finally, doesn't anyone else see it as more than just a little racist that there is all this uproar when Jews want to build new houses or expand old ones in this part of the world? Can you imagine if you wanted to expand your attic in order to add another room to your house but were told you couldn't...not because of safety or occupancy issues but rather because you were Italian or Irish or Mexican or whatever and the United Nations had zoned your street as an "immigrant-free" zone? Ignore for a minute the Biblical or historical ties to the land that Jews claim...strip away for a minute the conflicts and the talking points and whatever side you're on.

You have a group of people who LEGALLY PAID for property but are being told "sorry, you can't live here because you don't celebrate Christmas or Ramadan" - I'm pretty sure that's the kind of completely institutionalized racism entire liberal civil rights movements have been based on. Think about it, would that attitude be acceptable in ANY other part of the world that isn't a complete fascist cesspool?

And yet, who are the ones screaming to keep the Jews out of Jerusalem (along with the West Bank and elsewhere)? You guessed it...

Discrimination against Jews: not just for southern country clubs anymore

People who call themselves "liberals" or progressives. Also known as the same people that demanded equal rights for Blacks in the 60' why the double standard when it comes to Jews living in their historical homeland?

As if that wasn't enough, anti-Semitic violence was up over 100% in 2009 - good thing we elected a hope and change president who was going to make us all much safer than his cowboy predecessor the through dialogue instead of action. And lest you think that this only about the president, here's some additional less-than-startling news from Rosner about the widening divide in Washington between Republicans and Democrats on the topic of Israel:
In a poll commissioned by the Arab American Institute last month, respondents were asked whether Obama should "steer a middle course" in the Middle East - code for not clearly supporting Israel. "There is a strong divide on this question," Zogby reported, "with 73 percent of Democrats agreeing that the President should steer a middle course while only 24 percent of Republicans hold the same opinion."
Can you honestly consider yourself "pro-Israel" and call for moral-equivalence between Hamas and Israel?

So fellow Jews, I ask again, is it time yet to start admitting what a terrible mistake approximately 77% of us made? Or are we going to keep pulling the wool over our own eyes and pretending we aren't completely burying ourselves like we always do? I mean hey, Ed Koch is willing to man up and admit it, can you?

Because admitting our problem is step 1 on the path to rectifying it.

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Does not compute

These attacks by Israeli military forces which endanger UN facilities acting as places of refuge are totally unacceptable and must not be repeated. Equally unacceptable are any actions by militants which endanger the Palestinian civilian population.
-Ban Ki-Moon, UN Secretary-General

The Bureau of the Committee demands that Israel end, immediately and unconditionally, its brutal military campaign against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip.
-The Bureau of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People

Look at the conditions in Gaza: more and more, it resembles a big concentration camp.
-Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Vatican's Council for Justice and Peace

The Holocaust, that is what is happening right now in Gaza
-Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez

This always surprised me. Why can't any American politician criticize Israel in any way for their behavior?
-Jon Stewart

Be prepared for a unique surprise, you will be either killed or kidnapped and will suffer mental illness from the horrors we will show you.
-Izzedin Al Qassam Brigades

5.4 million





Something doesn't quite add up here.

The first number, 5.4 million, was the number of people killed in the Democratic Republic of Congo since a 1998 civil war began. That war continues today despite numerous peace treaties.

The second number, 400,000, is the number of people killed in the Darfur region of the Sudan since a 2003 outbreak of violence between the government-backed Janjaweed militias and the secular "rebels" of the region. Approximately 100 additional people were killed there a few of weeks ago. Fighting continues in Darfur today.

The third number, 65,000, is the number of Sri Lankans killed since the late 1980s, most of which have been civilians. During the war in Gaza, the Sri Lankan government forces overran the last stronghold of the Tamil Tigers -- a group considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. government -- at the expense of dozens of civilians. Approximately 50,000 government troops are currently advancing through the jungle, taking aim at the rebels.

The fourth number, 3,400 is a conservative estimate of the number of Palestinians killed by the Jordanian government in the span of 11 days during the Black September Jordanian civil war of 1970. Palestinian estimates claimed more than 20,000 dead.

The final number, 900 is the number of Palestinians killed as of Jan. 13 in Israel's current war of self-defense against Hamas, the vast majority of which have been terrorists.

Yet it is Israel that is condemned by the U.N., the Vatican, and the rest of the world. It is Jews that are attacked all over Europe and Israeli sports stars that are demonized for the defensive actions of their homeland.

Why is this? How can this be? How can 900 dead Palestinians cause so much international commotion while more than five million dead Africans cause nothing? Where are these sweeping quotes from all over the world when every day more innocent people die in these conflicts than have died during the entire span of the Israeli operation against Hamas? Where are the protests? Where are the calls for action, the Holocaust imagery, the demands for immediate ceasefires? Where are the rushed Security Council meetings?

The numbers just do not add up.

Interestingly, the answer lies not in the hate-filled comments from buffoons like Hugo Chavez.

Or comedians/apologists like Jon Stewart.

Rather it is statements like Ban Ki-Moon's that provide a glimpse into how the U.N. and the rest of the "peace camp" view this conflict.

So you don't have to scroll up here is that quote again:

These attacks by Israeli military forces which endanger UN facilities acting as places of refuge are totally unacceptable and must not be repeated. Equally unacceptable are any actions by militants which endanger the Palestinian civilian population.

Let's break this down for a minute. At first glance this quote is standard, even-handed political double-talk. We condemn one side, but we condemn the other side also. Neither side is right; they're both wrong. When you're trying to be an umpire, you have to be impartial, right?

But that's not what's going on here.

The secretary-general is saying that Israel attacking places of refuge is unacceptable. Then he says Hamas using those same places of refuge is equally unacceptable. However, this is a huge logical fallacy! It's not equally bad because if Hamas did not use schools as bases to bomb Israelis in the first place, the IDF would not have to attack the school! If two people get into a fistfight they are not EQUALLY liable...whoever throws the first punch is responsible for everything that happens afterward because if that person had not initiated the action - the fight would never have occurred. In Ban Ki-Moon's version of reality, Hamas did not start this fight...both parties are equally liable for it. And to take that stance in a clear war of self-defense, where a UN member state is aiming to protect its citizens from a terrorist entity, shows that the Secretary General and by extension the entire UN are simply not an honest broker in this matter.

By claiming there is moral equivalency between both sides when one side clearly initiated the fighting, when that same side DELIBERATELY targets innocent civilians while the other side showed restraint for EIGHT YEARS and takes great pains to AVOID killing innocent civilians, the United Nations is actually saying is that Hamas is right and Israel is wrong. If Hamas has an equal right to put civilians in harm's way as Israel does to defend their civilians from being put in harms way...what he is actually saying is that Israel DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO DEFEND ITS OWN CIVILIANS FROM HAMAS ROCKETS. But it does have an obligation to protect Palestinian civilians from the actions of Hamas! Therefore there actually is no moral equivalency. Hamas is right and Israel is wrong.

And there it is. That's the difference between all those other conflicts and this one. This is why the UN has acted like it regretted passing the Partition Plan ever since 1947. Unlike the Congolese or Sri Lankan conflicts, there is no ambiguity here in the eyes of the UN. The Palestinians are right and the Israelis are wrong. Why else would the Palestinians be the only ethnic group on the planet to even have a "Bureau of the Committee on the Exercise" of their "Inalienable Rights" ?? In the eyes of the UN, the Palestinians are treated more unjustly than the Tamils of Sri Lanka and the secular Africans of Darfur and Congo. And we know the problem is the Jews because we do not have demands from the UN (or anyone else) that the Jordanians take responsibility for the Palestinians, despite the fact that Jordan killed significantly more Palestinians in the span of a few years than Israel ever has.

Using this warped logic, numbers like 5.4 million, 400,000, and 65,000 are somehow less than 900 and deserve less worldwide moral outrage. The numbers, in the end, DO add up.

But to any rational person...this line of thinking just does not compute.