open Democracy News Analysis - Philosophy of intervention, - Comments

abdulksaida on "Philosophy of intervention"

abdulksaida — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 13:55:00 +0100

palestine is the first to be intervene

Cris

1- It is not a matter of palestine israel issue, as to speak about it, but really it is the core of intervention of the west in ME and the huge intervene to establish a state from nothing, they internvene and establish israel according to promise from Hertzel and help of UK, so that is the first and other intervention come as a result to try to solve this conflict which was first created by first intervention in the history of us .

2- Even if all palestinians die as from war and may be one day israel will kill all palestinians under many fake execuses, so in my opinion and most muslims, the palestinian issue will remain for ever, for all arabs and muslims, and they will be the one to negotiate or ask for it, u know why? It is written in Quran and it is explained about ISRA and MERAGe and that constitute much to muslims. Any how, the palestine issue is the core of all problems in the ME and solving it , means solving all problems in ME, if the west wants East to understand them, and belive their good intentions, let them correct first the intervence of west and in unlimited support to israel without trying to understand the human rights of arabs in palestines.

3- I dont know if this message will be posted, as i have difficulties in reaching the new version of OD, once i got the new one, other time the old, and now iam writing in the old messages.

Submitted on Sun, 2007-09-02 12:56
edit | reply | email this page quote

eric_5 on "Philosophy of intervention"

eric_5 — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:11:25 +0100

Chris,

How can you discuss intervention without considering Palestine? The US has pumped many billions into Israel. It has defied the world to defend Israel at the UN. It is currently leading the Quartet, with the able assistance of poodle Blair, to impose the colonizing agenda of Israel on the Palestinians.

chris9234 on "Philosophy of intervention"

chris9234 — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:26:11 +0100

Why must every question get bogged down in the Israeli/Palestinian or Iraqi conflict? The original question was a good one, and the initial few posts were encouraging, now of course Eric has once again taken us down the abyss of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and another potentially good conversation has been lost. Well done Eric.

eric_5 on "Philosophy of intervention"

eric_5 — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:09:44 +0100

Dear Richard,

I'm sure you've been accused of woolly-mindedness before. In the case of the Palestine conflict, I would say that it's due to culpable ignorance.

I didn't mention Tony Blair because he is a confused Christian gentleman of disastrously bad good intentions, to put the most positive spin on it. What is significant is that he is a creature of the United States and that he represents the twisted moral bias of the US/Israel in the Quartet programme to crush Palestinian resistance and open the way to the imposition of the racist agenda of the Jewish State.

You can find that five Israelis have been killed in Israel by Palestinians this year at http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp

Richard Lawson on "Philosophy of intervention"

Richard Lawson — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 11:09:42 +0100

eric_5 wrote:

The total number of Israelis, military and civilian, killed in Israel by Palestinians in the last three years is 2005: 25, 2006: 12: 2007: 5. For Israel, peace means being able to enjoy their ill-gotten gains without being bothered by these pesky Palestinians. ...the Quartet, dominated by America, with poodle Blair as its representative, is working to deliver final crushing blows to the Palestinian resistance. Do you disagree with that analysis?

I accept your figures, unless someone has better data. You may be accurately summarising the approach of some Israelis. There are other, more intelligent and humane, views held by other Israelis. I confess that I do not know what the aim of the Quartet is. It may be that they do not either. (The UK government has no idea what to put forward in international global warming negotiations). Like you, I have no faith whatsoever in Tony Bliar. However, if someone can develop clear ideas of what is needful, these ideas may find their way into the minds of the negotiators through democratic osmosis. If nobody has any idea of what needs to be done to create peace, the suffering will continue to escalate. IMHO. Richard

abdulksaida on "Philosophy of intervention"

abdulksaida — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 22:56:55 +0100

Dear Dr Richard 1- yes the world is interconnected and now we are living in a village, but sorry , i cant comprehend that till now no real intervention to solve the issue, as a simple peacfully solution could happen since long time, if only israel accept UN resolutions and apply them. I am sure then the west would not see suicide bombers as the west named them, and also no muslims will feel bad and injustice against the west, so the hypocracy and double standed of the concerned policy in the west let palestinians never trust the other party or even neutral one even if some have good intentions to solve the conflict. So if the west only let israel and intervene to let her apply UN resolutions and we are palestinians would be thankful and feel then justice . 2- I know of course that from the west their would be people whom they are sympathizing of our issue, as when seeing bodies of women and children and old men are torn apart and burried under their homes, and let me tell you as u know that we are the huge no to die and not israeli and i know the west media dont show normal people how much victoms are dying, still before 4 or 5 days 7 palestinians are shoot dead and 2 of them are very young , one age 11 years, and the other 15 years, so each day palestinaisn are killed in their own land by the occupier. yes wellcome to good emotion , but what that would do with the superpower whom think that by thier force they will let us surrend and will colonize us as mr eric said and he is totally correct . 3- Yes beleive me nobody would like to migrate from his own land, and my father migrates twice, once from jerasalem when jewish steal their lands and homes, and from hebron to outside into another arabic state, even muslim and arabic state, but as refugee and have no home, it is difficult for us before the other country to come to. The refugee will suffer more than the other people living in their countries, Now palestinaians are scattered all over the world and even though some are very rich and living a very high standard living in the other countries, but they are not happy emotionally and still feel they are refugee and like to return to their own home lands. We dont want to be refugee in any state even though palestinians when migrate to anyother country , they work hard and learn to compensate for their loss country palestine. 4- Yes in the ME we are afraid to have the 3rd world war starting from ME, ok, u have good intentions toward solving the issue, but it seems first all of the neutral people want to understand the human rights of jewish more than the palestinians, and they know from first who created the conflict , it is UK by their promise to give a homeland to jewish people and didnt implement just rules and dont care for palestinians homes and land, so how come now we will be given our rights after all the suffer and injustice, do u think now UK will admit its fault of creating this conflict. thanks

eric_5 on "Philosophy of intervention"

eric_5 — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 22:02:36 +0100

Richard,

The total number of Israelis, military and civilian, killed in Israel by Palestinians in the last three years is 2005: 25, 2006: 12: 2007: 5. For Israel, peace means being able to enjoy their ill-gotten gains without being bothered by these pesky Palestinians. They're not quite there, but the Quartet, dominated by America, with poodle Blair as its representative, is working to deliver final crushing blows to the Palestinian resistance. Do you disagree with that analysis?

Richard Lawson on "Philosophy of intervention"

Richard Lawson — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:43:15 +0100

Eric It is hard to see from your posts what it is exactly that you want to take place. On another thread you say only 5 Israelis have died this year, which suggests that that is not enough to bring about negotiations. To all suggestions leading to peace, you say that Americal or Israel will block them. Any suggestions regarding mutuality you block, saying that it is not mutual, it is down to Israel. Now you suggest that a nuclear incident is likely to influence this conflict. Are you for war? Surely not, because you know that Israel/America has the military dominance. What is your ideal outcome? Are you just deeply pessimistic, to the point of nihilism? (If so, I heard plenty of people saying the same of Northern Ireland, right up to the Good Friday agreement). I am genuinely curious. Richard

eric_5 on "Philosophy of intervention"

eric_5 — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:58:02 +0100

Richard,

I looked at Tony Klug's imaginative piece of fiction on the Fabian Society site. There is no difficulty at all about finding imaginary, theoretical or fictitious scenarios which lead to a resolution of the Israel/Palestine conflict. I don't wish to deny the value of such thought experiments. The article by Tony Klug throws many sidelights on the conflict and broadens the dialogue . However, in the real world, decisions are being taken by the US/Israel in the context of the Quartet Road Map. This aims at crushing Palestinian resistance and imposing Zionist colonization on Palestine. As neutral bystanders, with no influence on the outcome, we may as well be critical of the expansion of a racist Jewish State and sceptical about its ultimate success.

I would suggest that a nuclear incident is more likely to arise from, or influence, this conflict than any benign speculations on unrealistic outcomes by Tony Klug.

Richard Lawson on "Philosophy of intervention"

Richard Lawson — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:48:28 +0100

abdulksaida wrote:

If any one of posters who try to find a solution from far away and didnt suffer the aggression of occupation , for sure he or she will not provide a clear image and a good one.

Dear Abdul OK I take your point, and there are many in the UK, and some in my own party, who take the same view. I do not, for these reasons: First, everything is interconnected. The world in which we live is a system, made of interacting elements, with each individual element affecting the whole, and the whole affecting each element. We in Europe cannot stand back and watch Abdul and Rizzasrach in the the Middle East tear each other apart. Second, we suffer emotionally when we see your bodies torn apart. Yes, our suffering is superficial compared to you and Rizzasrach who are actually there, but nevertheless we suffer (most of us, anyway, maybe Courtney does not?). Thirdly, we all receive migrants from war-torn countries. This does not bother me particularly, but it does exercise some right-wing newspapers in the UK a great deal, and it could affect our own civil security in the long run. Fourthly, the natural course of things in the middle East is for escalation, so that lead to all-out war in the end. Isreal is nuclear armed, and we cannot assume that all-out nulcear war will not follow if even one nuclear weapon is fired off. Fourthly, objectivity is useful tool in solving conflicts. Salaam Richard

Richard Lawson on "Philosophy of intervention"

Richard Lawson — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:28:49 +0100

eric_5 wrote:

The Israel/Palestine conflict is misleadingly portayed as tit-for-tat killing and the solution as being the cessation of killing.

Eric, I agree that Israel has an expansionist policy, that it is repressive, that it defies international law and UN resolutions, and that it is in the lowest band of the Index of Human Richts. http://www.greenhealth.org.uk/IoGRank2004.htm , and that, thanks to the USA, it has military preponderance in the region, and is, like the UK, a state which entertains the notion that nuclear weapons help with security (they don't). Acknowledging these facts however does not stop me from recognising that like all conflicts, the Israel/Palestine conflict is a system, not a simple linear cause-and-effect affair, and that to deal with a system, both sides need to act. Take a glance at the Fabian Society link, http://www.opendemocracy.net/how_peace_is_possible which shows how things might work out. Richard

abdulksaida on "Philosophy of intervention"

abdulksaida — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:49:03 +0100

1- Iam totally with mr eric analysis and knowing the real situation and the real problem in occupied terrotieries.

2- solving the problem is with the hand of israel and not palestininas and that is the real truth.

3- If any one of posters who try to find a solution from far away and didnt suffer the aggression of occupation , for sure he or she will not provide a clear image and a good one. even the neutral ones, sometimes give the blame on palestinians which that is not correct. All cards are with the strong part and who occupied and steal other country by force and the other side cant defend only by rocks and other means which no body like to see. They unfortunately defend killing of palestinians as long as they are killed by miscles and rockets using a clean weapon which dont show blood as other old fashon weapons.

4- also mr englishman give execuses for the whole world as they want to solve the issue of jewish scattered all over the world and after Hitler killed them, so why they dont choose other country for them to settle in it instead of choosing palestine, it is not moral of the concerned in the west to choose another country, why it was not e.g in europe or america as they defend them more and hitler killed them and not us. No execuse to help jewish people by doing another hallucaust for palestinains, that is not the correct help and intervention.

eric_5 on "Philosophy of intervention"

eric_5 — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:52:40 +0100

Richard,

The Israel/Palestine conflict is misleadingly portayed as tit-for-tat killing and the solution as being the cessation of killing. The killing is only the tip of the iceberg, so to speak The actual situation is that of colonisation of Palestine by Israel, and Palestinian resistance. Whereas lethal violence is the major expression of this resistance, the colonisation is a massive repression of human rights and a systematic violation of international law and universal ethical standards, largely accomplished through overwhelming brutality , of which violent deaths are only a minor, if significant, expression.

In any case, the killings for 2007 to date, amount to 5 Israelis (civilians and security forces in Israel) and 189 Palestinians in Palestinian Territory, civilians and militants. (B'tselem statistics)

Richard Lawson on "Philosophy of intervention"

Richard Lawson — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 21:23:07 +0100

Eric

Great, we agree that the Jewish state exists, and that a Palestinian State should also exist.

<i>"as a nuclear armed state with the region's most powerful army, fully supported by the greatest military power in the entire history of the world, it's as secure as any country can be in a troubled world".</i>

Nicely put. though the idea of security through Nuclear deterrence is problematical, to say the least.

The two state solution has to be the one. I would favour the idea of cantonisation in certain areas. Jerusalem might be cantonised. Cantonisation blurs the absolutist, black and white tendencies of the Nation State.

The state problem is complicated by the notion that God promised the whole land, from Dan even unto Beer Sheba, to the Chosen People. It is impossible to reason with fundamentalists, but we can point to other parts of the Book which speak of treating people ethically.

Israel may have military dominance and a powerful ally, but radar is useless against the suicide bomber. Sniffer dogs are useful (the world needs an explosion in the number of explosive detecting sniffer dogs) but the only absolute protection against the suicide bomber is apartheid. The suicide bombers (and the rockets) deny Israelis any sense of security, just as the Israelis deny the Palestinians of any sense of being fairly treated. The principle of "an eye for an eye", doing its usual thing, leaving everybody blind.

But just as each act of violence creates reciprocal hatred, so also each act of confidence building can create trust. Working together on a commmon goal is also a way to overcome conflict. The Israelis and Palestinians have a common goal in building an environment capable of supporting their populations. Water management is key in the Middle East. As soon as a ceasefire makes it safe, the international community should be facilitating a massive programme of ecological renewal, beginning with water management.

IMHO

Richard

eric_5 on "Philosophy of intervention"

eric_5 — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:59:40 +0100

There is a Jewish State, a member of the United Nations, recognized by the majority of states in the world and, economically and politically, one of the most flourishing in the Middle East. It is true that, as for many states, there are serious security threats. However, as a nuclear armed state with the region's most powerful army, fully supported by the greatest military power in the entire history of the world, it's as secure as any country can be in a troubled world.

There is no reason at all, why there should not be a Palestinian state, except that Israel, with the full support of the United States, is in the process of dismembering the territory.

Philosophy of intervention,

englishman — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:50:56 +0100

There is a lot of discussion about the rights and wrongs of armed forces invading Iraq and Afghanistan. Whilst most people believe that the war in Iraq was a mistake, the reasons why people believe this is so vary hugely and many views will be coloured by hindsight. The war with the Taliban would gain more support, particularly as it was backed by the UN, although I suspect this view is not shared by so many on "the arab street". I would be interested to hear people's views about the rights and wrongs of a strategy of intervention in general. When can it be justified and when is it not justified, and how do these views stack up with what has happened in recent times? Was what was done in the former Yugoslavia justified, in terms of intervention, and what about what was not done in Rwanda? What should be done, if anything, about Darfur or Zimbabwe? Read the rest of this post...