Plunder Blog! The propaganda and the preparation of a full scale massacre.
The horror is full steam. Last generation tanks protected by last generation jets against rudmentary weapons... Kids are killed as a routine. Te moral degradation of considering such deaths "acceptable" is infecting the Israeli society and the Western world. But perhaps we have been infecte already since a long time.
Genocyde, this is what is happening. Terrible word to say but the only one that reflects the facts. The final solution of the kassam missles problem. Well prepared in advance.
I want to share with my readers, at least some of whom I hope share mi indignation, my outreage and my personal moral suffering , an article from another Israeli journalist in which the "ideological preparation" of the horror was denounced just before the beginning of the massacre. I wonder at how many corpses this will stop.... Human stupiditry and western aggressivity yesterday gained another point. Ethiopian puppet troops ae withdrowing from Somalia. The islamic Courts have never been so strong. We do not know the numbers of the victims.
Foreign Min. starts massive PR move to raise int'l support By Barak Ravid, Haaretz 28 12 2008 The Foreign Ministry yesterday began a broad range of public relations initiatives in order to boost international legitimacy for the Israel Air Force's operations in the Gaza Strip. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni called several of her counterparts around the world, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the foreign ministers of Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany, as well as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana. "Hamas made a mistake when it thought Israel was weak and would not respond to the Qassam rocket fire," Livni told her counterparts by phone. "Israel will do whatever it takes to protect its citizens and end the rocket fire." The White House yesterday responded to the events in Gaza, urging both sides not to harm citizens, yet refrained from calling on Israel to cease its strikes. However, it called on Hamas to stop firing Qassam rockets at Israel. Solana called for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza yesterday. "We are very worried about the situation and ask both sides to show maximum restraint," he said. Russia, too, issued a statement calling on both sides to hold their fire. Livni authorized Foreign Ministry officials to carry out an emergency contingency plan drawn up for a military operation in Gaza, and instructed officials to campaign aggressively abroad on behalf of Israel. Their key arguments will be that Hamas violated the cease-fire, leading to the recent events, and thus is responsible for the suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza. In addition, they will state that Israel has shown great restraint and sustained incessant attacks before deciding to respond. In addition, they will stress that Israel will work to avoid a humanitarian crisis or civilian casualties. The Foreign Ministry has enlisted spokesmen fluent in Arabic, Italian, Spanish and German to address foreign journalists in Israel. Today it will open an international communications center and organize tours for foreign media representatives and diplomats in Sderot and nearby communities, which have been indiscriminately targeted by Palestinian militants with Qassam rockets and mortar shells for years. Sderot was first hit by Qassam rockets, named after a Islamic militant killed in the 1930s, in 2002. Since then the rockets' range, accuracy and payloads have increased. Israeli civilians living near the Gaza Strip live in constant fear of injury or death from the rockets and mortar shells.
Keywords:
About Ugo
A widely published, and internationally known legal scholar, does interdisciplinary work with economics, anthropology and social studies. He is a frequent contributor to the Italian daily Newspaper Il manifesto where he writes on issues of globalization and...
Causes Ugo Mattei Supports
Peace, Liberation,Equality. I support the Italian Independent Newspaper Il Manifesto www.ilmanifesto.it...
I wanted to take the liberty
I wanted to take the liberty to raise a theme that developed out of an early post conversation - Ugo/Nader's idea of people's law/power as both a goal and program for progressive international lawyers. To put it vulgarly, the basic idea here is that communities create their own customs and legal traditions, and international law should be more receptive and accomodating to these local movements/beliefs/structures as they most accurately reflect those people. In essence, we are to adopt a liberal, tolerant posture to foreign practices abroad, while becoming more serious about our own governments following the will and benefit of its entire population, and allowing it to express itself.
I find a great deal of resonance with this idea, but I wanted to raise a few challenges that I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts.
First, the search for a more authentic voice to international law, that can escape its imperialist tendencies, in the more local traditions of communities can be good - but the plot could also, like a Victor Hugo novel, turn bad at any second. In other words, the local community may hold values that we find repugnant, or even dangerous, to use the words of modern international law: a crime against humanity. While I tend to agree that we should generally abstain from meddling in conflicts / different practices abroad, this issue is most pressing in our own domestic national spheres. Do we want Mississippi being able to resegregate education, enforcing prayer in schools or 'intelligent design' in the classroom? Obviously, I don't think this is Ugo's idea, but the principle of finding some emancipatory hope in the local seems inherently prone to disappointment, and may not also be a principle we want to follow from a strategic point of view.
Second, the emphasis on people's law does not necessarily tell us how we might go about enforcing this law, especially without turning this local law into some sort of hegemonic force. In the very act of codifying the law, we end up silencing political contestation, whether this is done in more local or larger contexts. Moreover, even if we are on the same page about our objectives, it is difficult to say whether the correct strategy for getting there necessarily involves the very people the law's are geared for. In other words, reform, in the West, may have to be carried out in large part by skilled, trained professionals who do not generally have much contact with the non-professional classes.
Third, to what extent does people's law actually advance a liberal argument about 'identity'? If true, this is somewhat ironic, as Plunder as a whole is a scathing indightment against liberalism. The idea here, though, is that Plunder's concept of people's power emphasizes that law should reflect that particular distinct identity of a specific group of people. In other words, the measure of law parrallels how successful the law accomodates this community's real identity (way of doing things, governance, religion, and so on). In this way, the community stands in as the Western individual, engaged in a struggle for independence through the assertion of one's own behaviour/identity. To what extent is the focus on people's law, then, a response to seeing international law through the lens of a vast pool of almost existential / identity crisis?
I've tried to push the reading here of people's law a little bit, but in the spirit of wanting to see how we would respond to these sort of attacks which I could see being raised.
John
Yes indeed, the propaganda
Yes indeed, the propaganda "is in full steam". But NOT, as all of the radical cadre's of Hama sympathizers continue to furiously bleat (like a flock of pathetically ignorant insipid sheep) the propaganda of ISRAEL. It is the incessant, pounding from the 24/7 Propaganda Machine of the ULTRA-left terrorist sympathizers that is churning out THE most distorted, disproportionate, stream of anti-Israel invective since the days of Josef Goebbels and his oh-so-effective Nazi Propaganda Machine!
Against this veritable tsunami of hate-filled Anti-Israel Politically Correct invective (that has always been the knee-jerk reaction to any attempt by Israel to defend the lives of its beleagered citizens), there are a smattering of lucid and rational voices- but most of those voices are being drowned out by the chorus of mindless screams being directed againt the Jewish State (sorry, "Criminal Zionist Entity") by those who would prefer to see every last Israeli man, woman and child slaughtered by car-bombs, rockets, and droves of fanatically insane homicide-bombers, rather than have the Jews defend themselves by force. But, unfortunately for them, the Israelis have decided not to shuffle meekly into the "ovens" once again. They've chosen not to keep on endlessly playing the age-old role of Victim, and have decided to defend their lives- even if that means outraging "internatinal opinion" in the process.
I have already posted two blogs (which are on my "author's page" for all to read should they so desire) wherein I've copied & pasted a number of eloquent and rational articles written by clear-minded people with a firm grasp of the Israel/Gaza mess- including one by an ARAB (which is perhaps the most eloquent article of them all). And I shall continue to post such articles in what is probably a vain attempt to counter the poisonous streams of hateful radical ULTRA Left-wing blather leveled against Israel by those who would probably even condemn its use of retaliatory force should they be attacked (as will surely happen one day) by chemical, biological, or nuclear "suicide"-bombers. For, have no doubt- Hamas and its ilk have always made their murderous intentions towards the Jews living in the "Criminal Zionist Entity" quite clear: total annihilation! But hey, you don't have to take my word for it- just ask one of them to lend you a copy of their CHARTER!!!
Now that my friends, would be a true example of words such as "massacre", "first-degree murder", and the ubiquitious "GENOCIDE" (words which are all used, on a daily basis, to describe Israel's killing of about 400 bloodthirsty militant Hamas terrorists and about 50 civilians out of a population of 1.5 million).
And the BLEAT goes on...
Here are just a few snippets of reason, which I'll provide you with as an "antidote" for all of the poisonous propaganda you're being spoon-fed by the media (and, of course, on every single one of these "Plunder Blogs!")...
"The arresting disparity between the Israeli attempt to wage a humanitarian war and the international perception of ravenous Zionist warmongers decimating innocent Arab women and children stands at the heart of this conflict, of the wider War on Terror, and of the perpetual struggle between Western values and the new Dark Ages offered by a crusading Islamic fundamentalism. Each European-brokered accommodation to terror has invited renewed aggression. After disengaging from Gaza in 2005, rocket attacks increased 500 percent. In every case, the ossifying nations of Old Europe brand the victims - because they possess greater wealth and military might - as indefensible aggressors who must wait supinely for the next terrorist attack.
To this end, in the midst of Israel's long-overdue bid to secure the lives of its citizens so long rained upon by rockets, Europe seeks to impose a ceasefire before Israel can drive a genocidal theocracy from power on its border - a movement feared and despised by neighboring Egypt and others in the region. Before the latest squeeze, Israelis believed they had until, at the latest, January 5th before the "international hourglass" ran out and they would have to go back to passively enduring qassam showers. The effort to end this war prematurely, and to secure the welfare of modernity's enemies, stems from the European governements' profound moral blindness.
Europe is not incorrect in stating the Israeli response is "disproportionate" to Hamas' instigations. A "proportionate" Israeli response would involve firing rockets targeted at innocent civilians, rather than military targets (which Hamas terrorists hedge about with Palestinian civilians). Although Hamas suicide bombings claimed the lives of at least 300 innocent Israelis - roughly the number of "policemen" Israel has killed thus far in its military campaign - the bloodthirsty Zionists never induced a wave of Jewish youngsters to strap on explosives and hug Palestinian children riding public transportation. This disproportionate warfare manifests itself in every aspect of the war:
Israel's response to Muslim terrorism is disproportionate and always will be. The asymmetry represents the gulf between civilization and barbarism."
As Israel fights a life and death battle with Hamas terrorists, the American Left is doing its part to come to the aid of Hamas. Spearheading this effort is The Nation magazine....Most outrageous is their lead article by Richard Falk, the UN’s “Special rapporteur for human rights in the Occupied Territories,” whom I and others have previously shown to be a conspiracy mongering flake. Ignoring the long standing terrorist war waged by Hamas, Falk proclaims Israel’s response to be a massive violation of international humanitarian law, accuses Israel of targeting all of Gaza’s inhabitants because of the actions of “a few militants,” of intentionally “targeting civilians,” and finally, of waging a “disproportionate military response.”
Falk acknowledges that the rocket attacks “are unlawful,” but his sole concern is with what he sees as Israel’s illegal response which he argues are “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity.” Evidently the rocket attacks are only unlawful, and cannot be construed as war crimes. Nor does he note the missiles provided to Hamas by their patron Iran. Instead, he is concerned with the “complicity” of those who help Israel violate international law by giving the Israelis planes and their own missiles and who support the “siege” of Gaza. Thus, he calls- with the magazine’s obvious approval-for international condemnation of Israel."
"The Israeli Left and its amen chorus in the international media have been repeating for so many years that the ultimate cause of Palestinian terrorism and Arab grievances is the "occupation" of "Palestinian lands" by Israel that few are capable any longer of thinking about that assertion critically. It is wrong. The main cause of anti-Israel terrorism today is the removal of Israeli occupation from Palestinian Arabs.
This is so obvious that it is a major intellectual challenge to explain why so few people understand it. Israel ended its occupation of the Gaza Strip in its entirety in 2004 and evicted all Jews who had been living there. The result was the massive ongoing rocket assaults launched from the Gaza Strip against Sderot, Ashkelon, and other towns in the south of Israel.
The Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon was unilaterally ended in the year 2000 by then-Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak. The direct result of that move was the launching of 4,000 Katyusha rockets from Lebanon against northern Israel in the summer of 2006 and several times that number now poised to strike Israel.
The worst waves of Palestinian suicide attacks were directly triggered by the early Oslo withdrawals - before which there were no suicide bombings...There are worse things in the world than occupation, and the experiences of the past few years have demonstrated how much worse are the consequences that follow the removal of Israeli occupation. The inevitable consequence of a complete withdrawal by Israel to its 1967 borders would be a replay of 1967, when the Arab world hoped to achieve the military annihilation of Israel inside its Green Line borders. This time, though, the Arabs would be using 21st century military technology...
The Arab world already controls territory nearly twice that of the United States (including Alaska), whereas all of Israel cannot be seen on most world maps. When Israel was occupying nothing outside of its pre-1967 borders, the Arab world refused to come to terms with its existence and is no more willing to do so today, even if Israel were to return to those same borders.
The Arab-Israeli conflict is not about Israel refusing to share land and resources with Palestinians but about the absolute refusal of the Arab world to acquiesce in the existence of any Jewish-majority political entity within any set of borders in the Middle East.
This misrepresentation of the conflict serves to prolong it, precisely because it misleads. The Arab world insists that Israel trade land for peace not because it is prepared to in turn offer Israel peace for the land it vacates, but because a smaller Israel will be that much easier to destroy. And even if Israel consisted of nothing more than downtown Tel Aviv, the Arab world would consider it to be an imperialist affront sitting on stolen Arab land - an illegal "settlement...
There is a Western obsession with the idea that all world problems can be resolved through talking. But how many international conflicts can be said to have been resolved strictly through talking? Especially in the Middle East, there can be no doubt that talking does not resolve hostilities. It makes them worse.
The Arab-Israeli war is not a marital spat where bringing together the parties to sit around a table and socialize reduces anger, misunderstanding and tension. The conflict is not about hurt feelings but about the refusal of the Arab world to come to terms with Israel's existence, period, in any set of borders and regardless of whether Jerusalem remains under Israeli control."
Israel's surgical strikes aim at reasonable goal Tuesday, December 30 2008 @ 11:34 CST
(The following appeared in the Dec. 30 editions of the Chicago Sun-Times. Mr. Huntley's e-mail is Shuntley.cst@gmail.com)
Contributed by: jdlchicago
Views: 53
BY STEVE HUNTLEY
The surprise Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip has killed scores of Hamas leaders, terrorists and allies, reduced their key installations to rubble and stunned the Islamist fanatics and their supporters with the magnitude, fury and success of the attack. While we hear complaints from the usual suspects about a "disproportionate" Israeli response to Hamas provocations, the real issue is whether in the end the offensive will have been strong and decisive enough to constitute a "terrible swift sword" cutting down Hamas' ability to wage terrorism.
Neither Israel nor the civilized world's struggle with Islamist terrorism can afford a repeat of what, in appearances at least, was the inconclusive outcome of the Second Lebanon War in 2006. Though Israel inflicted major damage and casualties on Hezbollah, the perception was that it failed to defeat its enemy. That enabled Hezbollah to claim a victory against the heralded Israeli military, spread its power in Lebanon and present itself as a symbol of terrorist prowess to the Arab street.
We could use a high-profile victory over terrorism right now. It was only a month ago that Islamist terrorists wreaked death and havoc in Mumbai. Headlines tell of a resurgent Taliban making gains in Afghanistan. And, unfortunately, disenchantment with the war in Iraq obscures the concrete victory achieved over al-Qaida. So the stakes are very high in Israel's offensive. Fortunately, there are reasons for optimism. . . .
First, it's clear Hamas caused the Gaza crisis. Though you'll read news stories using neutral terms in saying the informal cease-fire between Israel and Hamas "collapsed" or "expired," the simple truth is that Hamas announced --announced! -- last week it was ending the truce and stepped up rocket attacks on Israel.
I say "stepped up" the attacks because in truth, the terrorists never stopped targeting Israeli civilians. During the six months of this so-called cease-fire, 215 rockets were launched from Gaza into Israel. And a month ago, the Israelis discovered a tunnel from Gaza to Israel, dug no doubt with the intention of kidnapping an Israeli soldier or civilian.
Hamas, a rabid hater of Israel and Jews, was never committed to a meaningful break in violence, only to a tactical lull in hostilities to solidify its hold on Gaza while it rearmed. Among the Israeli objectives in the current offensive are 40 tunnels between Gaza and Egypt used to smuggle weapons and explosives.
Also working in Israel's favor is the small size of the Gaza Strip. It's only about 25 miles long and measures 7½ miles at its widest point. So Hamas doesn't have the option of retreating beyond the reach of Israeli arms as Hezbollah did in Lebanon. Egypt deployed troops to keep Palestinians from breaking into the Sinai Peninsula.
It's worth noting that Hamas doesn't have the unqualified support of Arab governments today, though that may change as anger builds in the Arab street. For one thing, the informal truce Hamas killed was brokered by Egypt.
In 2007, Hamas staged a coup to push the Palestinian Authority out of Gaza, and Arab states are unhappy that Hamas has resisted their efforts to reconcile the two groups claiming to represent Palestinian interests. And Hamas is funded and armed by Iran, stoking Arab fears about Persian ambitions for hegemony in the Middle East.
Another plus is that Israel planned well for this offensive. Civilian casualties are unavoidable when killers like Hamas hide amid the innocent -- a war crime -- but the Jewish state has taken pains to surgically target the terrorists. Its surprise attack caught them out in the open. While Israel has called up reservists in preparation for a possible ground assault into Gaza, it does not plan to reoccupy the strip and its population of 1.5 million Palestinians.
Also in Israel's favor is its goal: End the daily missile attacks on 250,000 of its citizens who live in the cross hairs of Islamist terrorists in Gaza. That's a clear, reasonable, attainable objective."
I wanted to follow up on the
I wanted to follow up on the idea of people's rule of law, with some further questions in a different stream of thought.
Ugo / Nader, and I think very rightly, point out that we live in an inescapably juristic-bound world - law always precedes us and is the necessary result and expression of political contestation. Thus, to assert law in the face of politics is merely to advance a different politics in that particular circumstance. In this sense, we can understand their argument that the 'rule of law is illegal' to be an attempt to reallign, or remind, lawyers of the principles/spirt of international law, to assert a new politics in international law. This new politics for Ugo/Nader, in addition to being informed by anthropological truth, is also shaped by historical legal studies, as demonstrated throughout their book, that look at the history of 'plunder', which they present as something bigger than colonialism, to embrace Western domestic struggles as well between classes, races, etcetera.
In confronting, or carrying out this new political understanding, Ugo/Nader, and again I think rightly, point to the possibility (and simple inevitability) that international law can serve as a powerful vehicle of political change, but that a precondition of any change in practice requires a shift in thinking. International legal history must expose its dark sides if it is to confront them effectively. This raises, in my mind, two further questions that I would be interested in people's opinions.
First, if we are to engage with the teaching of international law, we are faced with the question of how to tell this story. Do we use the language of internattional law, giving students the tools for argument and reference, and then proceed to break it down, or do we at some point have to develop a new vocabulary? And at what point of analysis does that vocabulary come into play? And where will we derive this vocabulary if not from the already existing concepts of international law?
Second, to what extent will the 'exposure' of the dark sides of law lead to a shift in thinking? To what extent do students and professors and practitioners of international law already know about the moral and practical deficiencies of international law, and simply don't care or cannot imagine a way out? To what extent does 'exposure' really change things? This line of questioning leads us, in short, to asking how will we transform the knowledge of 'plunder' (and the teaching/exposing of plunder) to actual movements/politial action? Are we set on teaching plunder to try and shift the baseline idea of what is acceptable truth/starting place in the posture and practice of international lawyers? Are we trying to move further than that, and if so, what exactly are we proposing to do about plunder beyond influencing the ideas of lawyers? Are we taking for granted too much, that people as it stands, actually do not care that plunder occurs when we get down to it, and could care less about a more 'just' world view (I personally dislike the word 'just/justice' as it suggests something absolute or ideal, which simply doesn't exist in my mind)? If so, how can we imagine shifting the sentiment/tastes of our profession? Can we do this through knowledge re the profession, or must it come through other channels, and if so, what sort of channels/strategies/locations?
I want to conclude by providing a couple tentative answers to these questions, though they are by no means that creative or exhaustive of course. We might think about how to get access to the decision-making/funding at institutions - both educational, commercial, and public. As legal academics we should think about this in the context of our classrooms and universities, to train new students and think about how to set up long-standing links to institutional bodies where they can go afterwards. So instead of being sent out on the job market to fend for themselves, we open a number of channels of opportunity. We might also think about how we could form an independent effective lobby in national politics. Perhaps the best way to achieve this is to build around creating policy think tanks that are picked up by government for advise and personnel. To what extent is this already happening? Does anyone have any stories to share of this being put into place?