|
How do you feel about the killing of Ahmed Yassin(Hamas leader) (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Yoepus |
I'll agree with Digi here that this thread is simply losing its steam. We have basically all presented our points, and I can only see two options left if we continue with the same premise much longer, either a change of topic or a flame war.
Now having said that, with your above commets.
The UN does have power to act and take action beyond just stating its opinion on matters. For instance, if the UN had not abandoned its post in 1967, we would most likely not have a 'Palestinian' issue.
This is one example, such as Rwanada, where the UN chose not to take action. There are many examples however where the UN has taken aciton, including East Timor, Iraq (first gulf), the Balkans, etc. Iraq however is in my belief the only time the UN called upon Chapter 7, article 42 of the UN Charter (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm) . Or as I like to call it, the UN's decleration of war clause.
For more recent philosophizing on the UN and all its faults see here:
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=169559
You will also better understand the origin of my opinion on the UN from that thread. If you like do a search of UN on the polit forum - there have been many great threads debating its usefulness or lack of. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
I didn't bring up my education to brag, you were the one who accussed me of being "out of my league". Btw, I've also taken couple middle east history courses, but I'm sure you would also find fault with that too. Look if you don't believe in human rights, internation law, or the UN, fine just say so. You would be doing me a favor so i wouldn't waste my time trying to have a rational conversation about the subject. |
You're right, and it was wrong of me to resort to an ad hominem attack. It's just that, as a few of us have said, UN stuff has been debated in this forum at length already and this argument is kind of old news. When I said out of your league, I didn't mean to imply that you were ignorant about the issues in question, just that you're a little behind in terms of what goes on in this forum in particular (hey I only started posting here a few months ago but already I've seen a multitude of U.N.-related discussions).
Having said that, with all due respect for you in particular, I lost respect for most the academic world in this sense when I saw respected professors refusing to work with Israeli students, and saw the universities catering to that prejudice and refusing to do anything about it. It's unfortunate, but much of the "high-level" (i.e. professors and other Ph.Ds) academic world seems to think that because of their vast (but often short-sighted) education they have license to say and teach whatever they want as if they knew the absolute truth about everything. But politics isn't like math, there is no absolute wrong or right, and it's an insult to the intelligence of the rest of us that they think they're qualified to theorize about it. Without pointing any fingers, there's another on this forum who considers himself an expert because he wrote a paper on this, but his arguments are so totally illogical that I can't even begin to imagine how he got a passing grade.
Let's face it, most of these educators - and the educators' educators - have never been to the middle east, or really any conflicting area. They've never seen an Israeli bus full of unsuspecting people on their way to work blown up, and they've never been to Palestine and seen a tank roll in to destroy someone's home. Instead, they've lived their entire lives in their cushy 3-storey homes with their wives and kids, spending their days in the university library reading dusty old books and writing dissertations and books of their own. Sure they're "educated", but that kind of armchair politics has no usefulness in the real world, it has no connection to the reality of the situation. And that's not to say I don't respect those who decide they want to learn more about the world and take a class - good for you - but like any class and any learning experience, you have to take it all in with a grain of salt because often, the people teaching you don't know a thing about reality and are quite possibly very biased.
The U.N. is one more such example of this armchair politics. They're not academics or educators, but they sit in a meeting room making laws and charters and condemnations and think to themselves, well, we'll worry about how to practically implement these things later, but for now we're just going to feel good about ourselves that we've left the world with the promise of Human Rights. Hah.
This is the difference between bureaucratic politics, like the U.N. and our wonderful ( :rolleyes: ) Canadian government, and what I've now come to understand as realpolitik. The latter is based on centuries of tried and true tactics, including but not limited to Israel's original mass expulsion of the Arabs and Palestine's current "people's war" on Israel. The former is (or results in) just constant philosophizing and pandering. It's a security blanket - a jaded view of the world that's completely impractical but represents what people want the world to be like, as if they've somehow reached a perfect balance between the rights of the individual and the security of the State. And it all sounds great on paper, like communism, until you try to put it into practice, and that's when it all falls apart.
So if you're asking whether or not I "believe" in the UN and Human Rights and all that - yes, sure, I believe they exist. I do not believe in their usefulness however, since the UN has proven to be utterly incompetent and most countries are already violating the UN's version of Human Rights in one way or another. Of course I don't condone the murder of innocents, but when you start to get too philosophical about that, you lose touch with the reality of the situation. States like Israel need to do what is best for them as a State because their primary objective is survival - not to make the U.N. or Palestine happy.
Most of the world probably doesn't understand the meaning of this because they've never lived through a time when their state or country was even remotely concerned about its own survival - that's taken for granted - but for Israel, this time was very recent and the Israelis have not forgotten about it, they know it could come back at any moment. People who have been living in Israel for 50 or even 30 years now will clearly remember how the current "low-intensity conflict" was anything but low intensity, they know that their survival is not a sure thing (in fact, when you look at what they've come up against, it's a bit of a miracle that they've survived up to this point), and therefore, it's not very hard for them to turn a deaf ear to the incessant whining about human rights and the U.N. charter. That body is aloof from their problems, does not have any understanding of their history or their motivations, does not have any understanding of how either Israelis OR Palestinians think.
IMO - to put it simply - they've got no right to interfere, and that is precisely why they *don't* interfere beyond a few meaningless "condemnations".
Does that help you in understanding what I "believe" in, and how rationally you can carry on an argument with me? |
|
|
| igottaknow |
Diginut it wasn’t my intent to get into a flame war. I like you hold strong personal beliefs and I’m willing to fervently defend my convictions. I read what you said and for most part I agree. One thing I don’t agree upon is your belief that the college professors are bias against Israel. Unless a professor has tenure, they aren't going to be eager to get involved in volatile dispute that might get them in trouble or fired. You also seem to be going down the conspiracy path by implying the only reliable source of information is either from Israel and its loyal supporters. Maybe you’ve had a bad experience; professors are people and are not perfect. I had an excellent teacher for contemporary middle east history class who was from Turkey. One of the things he told the class the first day was that he didn’t believe in the usefulness of trying to assess blame in the conflict. He was right you could spend a life time justifing the means to an end or denouncing the deplorable behavior of either side, and never make any progress in solving the conflict. That’s why I feel its unproductive to get into either a legal battle about the minute details or emotionally worked up about the awfulness of the attacks.
Since I’m a new to the political/debate section I was unaware of previous debates about the UN and international law. Maybe these ideas keep being brought up because they are the best way to achieve peace and justice in the world. I’d be the first to acknowledge that the UN is far from perfect. It can only be as strong or impartial as its member nations want it to be. The real problem with the UN is that countries are unwilling relinquish some of their sovereign power for the good of the world. The US is a prime example of what happens when a nation ignores the pleas of international community and pursues it own selfish agenda. The international community has more than the right but an obligation to put an end to this conflict because it’s adversely affecting the world. The parties involved have proven that they are incapable of reaching a mutual agreement. The reason for the lack of success in brokering a settlement has more to do with the willful disrespect for human rights and the undignified treatment of people and their culture. The UN a representative of the international community is the only organization that has the legitimacy and trust create an environment where civil discussion and compromise can begin to take place. The reason why I asked if you believe in human rights and international law, because they are the essential foundation to world peace everywhere not just in Israel. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
igottaknow,
I agree with most the points in your last point, i.e. that placing blame will not solve this conflict.
But before I get to that, I will say I got my Bachelor's in political sciences, and I did not have one professor that took a pro-Israel stance, or was right-wing. I didn't know of any professor in my whole department that was! (Its the biggest department in the University too!) The closest people came were neutral, "blame both" approach, which I find as simply anti-Israel (it equates Israel to Palestine).
The Arab-Israeli conflict courses were taught by a pro-Arab (he was married to a Palestinian) tenured Professor.
Now back to the main point I disagree with...
However I fervently disagree with this statement:
| quote: |
The UN a representative of the international community is the only organization that has the legitimacy and trust create an environment where civil discussion and compromise can begin to take place. The reason why I asked if you believe in human rights and international law, because they are the essential foundation to world peace everywhere not just in Israel. |
The UN perhaps has 'legitimacy' with the international community (of course that has been debated a lot.. but lets assume it does in this instance) but has absolutely no credibiltiy with Israel. Therefore there is no way that the UN will be the one bring a foundation to peace in the middle east. It its not a neutral party, and Israel will simply never agree to it.
If you want a mediator, it must be one agreeable to both parties or else no one will heed its conclusion. Israel does not agree to UN mediation, plain and simple. The only party both parties have expressed willingness to agree with as a mediator has been the USA.
The fact that both parties chose the USA over the UN should demonstrate to you that the USA takes the 'neutral' position in this conflict, not the UN. In this sense, it is the USA that is the sole international 'organization' that can bring peace to the middle east. The USA is and will be the only one to bring a foundation to peace in the middle east.
You can not force a party to accept a mediator they do not agree with. And the UN has demonstrate many times throughout its history the abandonment of the prime virtues unalienable to a state in its bias against Israel's existance.
Also, international law is worthless in achieving 'world peace' unless: A) It is enforced by one entity with the ability to judge and provide consequences or B) It is a contract between nations where a violation of the contract will result in consequences as desired by either nation.
Since A) does not, or will not exist any time soon, I chose B). |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
Good post there, Yoepus.
You deserved some of this
 |
|
|
| Izzy |
lol
good long posts in here, i've been reading them all. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by TranceGiant
Good post there, Yoepus.
You deserved some of this
|
:eyes:
ohh that does look good... *drool*
I'm sure I will enjoy these;) |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
| From Russia with love :o |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Palestinian
You have to understand that Yoepus is a realist. He sees this world as one dictated by state sovereignty and state power. Realists view international institutions as a threat to state sovereignty. That includes the UN and International Law. |
oh oh i forgot to comment on this one... and while rereading this thread lemme correct the mistake.
The UN actually is prehaps the best internationall institution for the preservation of state sovereignty and state power!
Read the UN charter. It explicitly says no one can violate this soverignty. It grants states their very own rights to do and control what they want.
International law has no effect on state sovereignty as states selectively chose to agree with it or not. If you need proof, look at the ICC.
International law as dictated by the UN charter protects state sovereignty. Its this very provision that makes people who would want a stronger UN that can actually tell countries how to behave very conflicting. And one more reason the "leftists" or "idealists" want to change the UN.
Me, I've already given my opinion on it in previous threads. I believe the UN is good enough "as is". |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | | How do you feel about the killing of Ahmed Yassin, and the suicide-bombers? |
While I have no sympathy towards anyone who takes part in, plans or otherwise incites acts of terrorism (and that goes for both sides!) I dont think this will achieve much, other than the further radicalising of the Palestinian people. That, I would assume, is the last thing Israel wants?
Appart from the negative implications for the Peace Process, I do not think that targetted killings should be accpeted in the democratic civilised world. It goes against everything we stand for. If you feel comfortable sinking to the level of the very people you oppose, then fair enough. I would feel like a hypocrite if I supported this action, as I would be just as guilty as eroding our democratic values and beliefs as you accuse Islamic terrorists of... |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Appart from the negative implications for the Peace Process, I do not think that targetted killings should be accpeted in the democratic civilised world. It goes against everything we stand for. If you feel comfortable sinking to the level of the very people you oppose, then fair enough. I would feel like a hypocrite if I supported this action, as I would be just as guilty as eroding our democratic values and beliefs as you accuse Islamic terrorists of... |
Once again, as you seem to have not figured out, Israel isn't "sinking to the level" of Palestine by performing a precise assassination on a well-known terrorist leader. The attack:
(a) wasn't designed to intimidate,
(b) focused on a military target, and
(c) wasn't targeted at civilians and didn't kill innocent bystanders.
This bears no relation to the suicide bombings that Yassin orchestrated. And this constant equivocal language is starting to piss me off. |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
And this constant equivocal language is starting to piss me off. |
:haha: |
|
|
|
|
