keskiviikkona, elokuuta 15, 2007

Suomi on islamilaisen hegemonian maa

Vasemmistonuorten Palestiina-delegaatio on palannut Suomeen. Matka ei sujunut aivan niin rauhallisesti kuin olisi toivonut. Jälkipyykkinä delegaation kaksi jäsentä (Dan Koivulaakso ja Laura Tuominen) ovat saaneet uuden ystävän blogistaniasta. Tundra Tabloid (myöhemmin KGS) on ottanut mielellään kantaa Koivulaakson ja Tuomisen kertomuksiin Israel/Palestiina -matkaltaan. Erityisen suivaantunut KGS on ollut heidän kriittisyydestään Israelin valtion suorittamaa apartheidia kohtaan. Kielumuuri, käsitteiden sekavuus sekä huomattavasti erilaiset lähtökohdat (näkökulmat) tekevät heidän kolmen välisen keskustelun hankalaksi. Loogiset virhepäätelmät eivät helpota asiaa yhtään.

Tundra tabloid seuraa Lähi-idän tapahtumia, ääri-islamilaisia ilmiöitä sekä suomalaista Islamin hegemoniaa. Näin blogin selvityksen mukaan. Blogin sisältö on helposti tulkittavissa vihan lietsonnaksi siitä näkökulmasta, että kyseisessä blogissa julkaistaan pelkästään negatiivisa asioita arabeista kuten eläinten kiduttamista ja pommi-iskuja, ja tätä kautta pyritään yleistämään nämä osaksi arabeja ja Islamin uskontoa. Blogi myös pyrkii korjaamaan vääriä väittämiä onnistuen siinä välillä. Esimerkiksi Ahmed Mahmoud Khatibin kohtalosta on näytillä videomateriaalia, joka osoittaa kohtuullisen uskottavasti, että häntä ei ammuttu sen takia, että häneltä jäi paperit kotiin vaan siksi, että hän varasti ampumpa-aseen, jota hän myös käytti tai näytti yrittävän käyttää. Kuvamateriaalissa on kuitenkin joitakin heikkouksia. Pääasia blogissa on kuitenkin muslimien vihaaminen. En esimerkiksi näe, miksi pitäisi olla huolissaan Brysselin sosialistipuolueen nimistä kaupungin hallituksessa. Tietenkin siksi, että monella heistä on arabimainen nimi!

Laura Tuomisen ja Dan Koivulaakson näkemykset Israelin poliittisista vangeista (käytän itse mieluummin termiä mielipidevanki), liikkumisen estämisestä "turvapisteiden" (check-points) avulla ja talojen tuhoamisista. Mielipidevankeina pidetään esimerkiksi sellaisia henkilöitä, jotka vangitaan (ja ehkäpä jopa tuomitaan) esimerkiksi aseistakieltäytymisen perusteella. Suomella ja Israelilla on tässä mielessä jotain yhteistäkin.

Liikkumisen estäminen ja "turvamuuri" on taas apartheidin muoto, jota KGS ei pysty hyväksymään millään muotoa. Terrorismin torjuntaan se on liian umpimähkäinen, ja toisaalta se kohdistuu selvästi palestiinalaisten "hallinoimille alueille". Israelilaisilla ei ole mitään ongelmia läpäistä näitä pisteitä toisin kuin palestiinalaisilla. Tämä ei tietenkään ole ihan sama kuin Etelä-Afrikan apartheid, jolloin valkoisille ja värillisille oli omat ravintolat, kulkuneuvot ja vessat. Apartheidin tunnusmerkistöä ei olekaan syytä lähteä hakemaan Etelä-Afrikasta siinä mielessä, että jos halutaan vertailla kahta erilaista politiikkaa toisiinsa, että jos toinen ei täytä kaikkia tunnusmerkkejä, niin niillä ei ole mitään yhteistä. Israelin ja Palestiinan alueella ei ole esimerkiksi rajattu kaikkea eri ryhmille. Voitaisiin jopa sanoa, että Israelin harjoittama apartheid-politiikka on paljon sivistyneempää kuin Etelä-Afrikan näkyvä ja hieman barbaarinenkin erottelu puhumattakaan parista muusta hallintojärjestelmästä, jotka yleensä jossain vaiheessa liittyvät keskusteluun.

Talojen tuhoaminen puskutraktoreilla on julmaa kun puhutaan sellaisista taloista, joissa asuu ihmisiä ennestään. Ajatukseen siitä, että suoritetaan kotietsintöjä tai ehkäisemällä terroristeja kaatamalla toisten asuntoja ei ole ihan tästä maailmasta. Se miten tähän on päädytty kertoo ehkä enemmän epätoivosta ja keinojen puutteesta kuin luovasta hallinnoidusta konfliktien ratkontakyvystä.

Se miksi vapaan palestiinan kannattajat helposti saavat paskaämpäreitä vertauskuvallisesti postiluukustaan sisään johtuu nähdäkseni siitä, että aktivistit "yksipuolisesti näkevät vain toisen osapuolen kärsimykset". Israel itsenäisenä valtiona ja yksittäiset pommi-iskujen tekijät ja varkaat eivät ole vertailukelpoisia yksilöitä. Israel itsenäisenä valtiona on viime kädessä itse vastuussa siitä, että sen hallinoimilla alueilla ei tapahdu ihmisoikeusloukkauksia. Tähän lasketaan myös oikeus koskemattomuuteen.

Poliisien tai sotilaiden kivittäminen on surullista. Itsensä räjäyttäminen vaatii kieltämättä munaa, mutta ei sekään ole mikään ratkaisu. Itsensä räjäyttäminen ostoskeskuksessa tai bussissa, vaikkakin kuinka poliittisesti motivoitunutta, tulkittaisiin Suomessa nykyisin mielenterveysongelmaksi. Tällaisten ongelmien ehkäisy tarvitsee hyvää sosiaalista turvaverkkoa, joka sisältää toimeentulon sekä konkreettiset mahdollisuudet osallistua yhteiskunnan toimintaan, että saada muunlaistakin apua kuin pelkkää rahaa. Tätä ongelmaa ei korjata pyssyjä esittelemällä tai ainakaan niillä osoittelemalla.

Palestiinalaisten rankaiseminen yleisesti yksittäisten ihmisten tekosista on hienommalta nimeltä kollektiivinen rangaistus. Kollektiivinen rangaistus on ihmisoikeusloukkaus ja sotarikos. Ironista kyllä, YK:n jäsenvaltioille tämä säädös on kelvannut, jotta mitään yksittäistä ryhmää ei voitaisi sortaa. Säädöksen tarpeellisuudesta antoi esimerkin kaksi aikaisemmin hajonnutta valtiollista järjestelmää. Ensimmäinen vuonna 1945 ja toinen 1990.

Lisää aiheesta
Vasemmistonuorten Palestiina-kampanja
Saila Ruuthin kertomus palattuaan Suomeen
KGS:n kertomus Koivulaakson ja Tuomisen hengenlahjoista
Laura Tuomisen reaktio KGS:n kommentteihin
Dan Koivulaakson reaktio KGS:n kommentteihin

15 kommenttia:

KGS kirjoitti...

Hi Jaakko,

I wish to correct your views concerning the TT, which is absolutely in NO WAY anti-Arab. It is however highly critical of political Islam/ Islamism, and the those who wish to promote that agenda.

Jaakko Vasankari: "että kyseisessä blogissa julkaistaan pelkästään negatiivisa asioita arabeista kuten eläinten kiduttamista ja pommi-iskuja, ja tätä kautta pyritään yleistämään nämä osaksi arabeja ja Islamin uskontoa"

The URL links below are only a sampling of the postings I have published at the Tundra Tabloids, that praises Arabs and/or Muslims who confront both Islamism and Islamist extremism. I find it difficult to believe that you looked thouroughly through the TT, because if you had, you would have also then noticed my appeal for the Arab/Muslim/Egyptian blogger, Abdel-Karim Nabil Suleiman's freedom, which is quite the opposite of how you depicted the TT. Walid Phares, Wafa Sultan as well many other modernist Arab and Muslim speakers are thought of "very highly" at the Tundra Tabloids, and are given due attention.

http://tundratabloid.blogspot.com/2007/06/serious-syrian-reformer.html

http://tundratabloid.blogspot.com/2007/05/tashbih-sayyed-1941-2007.html

http://tundratabloid.blogspot.com/2007/05/praising-life-let-it-be-habit-forming.html

http://tundratabloid.blogspot.com/2007/07/arab-americans-who-call-for-freedom-in.html

http://tundratabloid.blogspot.com/2007/07/former-jihadi-repents-and-enlightens.html

http://tundratabloid.blogspot.com/2007/05/former-terrorist-turned-modernist.html

http://tundratabloid.blogspot.com/2007/05/bangladeshi-warrior-woman-poet-receives.html

Jaakko Vasankari: "Pääasia blogissa on kuitenkin muslimien vihaaminen. En esimerkiksi näe, miksi pitäisi olla huolissaan Brysselin sosialistipuolueen nimistä kaupungin hallituksessa Tietenkin siksi, että monella heistä on arabimainen nimi!"

As the Tundra Tabloids clearly states in the foremost front section of the blog: "The Muslims we look to with hope are the "modernists", who truly believe in liberal democracy such that Islam should be a matter of personal faith, not politics. Those who refuse to condemn sharia (Islamic law) as being incompatible with modern day society, are the Muslims we take issue with."

That statement clearly shows that the TT has absolutely NO ISSUE with Muslims who wish to participate in a modern pluralistic liberal democracy, as modern equal citizens, not seeking to impose their own religious beliefs (sharia) on others. Your over simplification that reduces what I just wrote to "muslims in general" is most certainly not correct.


Jaakko Vasankari: "Tämä ei tietenkään ole ihan sama kuin Etelä-Afrikan apartheid, jolloin valkoisille ja värillisille oli omat ravintolat, kulkuneuvot ja vessat"

It's not even Apartheid at all, in any shape or form. Let's be realistic here, Israel had tried on a number of occasions to disinvest itself of the WB (Judea and Samaria) Arabs. It already gave back the entire area of Gaza, only to be met with Kassem rockets raining down on Sderot and other areas close to the Gaza border. I find it highly hypocritical of people talking about "apartheid", at the same time Palestinians are campaining for a Jew-free WB and Gaza, with the latter being already a reality. Jews are not allowed to buy property in Jordan, Saudi Arabia etc.etc.etc.

Destroying the homes of terrorists has been suspended for some time now, and a policy that I am not comfortable with either, but on the other side of the coin, the policy did in fact induce house members to turn in relatives to the IDF who were on their way to murder Jews. One can always manage to find shelter, the dead however, cannot be resuscitated from the bits and pieces left over from the suicide/homicide bombing.

That the PA is not responsible for the actions of its people within it's governence, while Israel is blamed for taking measures to ensure the safety of its own citizens, is a seriously misplaced notion. When the Palestinians put their collective will together, they are more than able to find "collaboraters", (and have them summarily murdered) but they can't find terrorists? Reminds me of the Egyptians, can't stop the tunnel workers (in Rafah), but they can sure find hapless Sudanese refugees in the middle of the desert who are trying to make it into Israel, and murder them before the eyes of the Israeli border guards who can't do a thing to help them.

Jaakko Vasankari: "Poliisien tai sotilaiden kivittäminen on surullista. Itsensä räjäyttäminen vaatii kieltämättä munaa, mutta ei sekään ole mikään ratkaisu. Itsensä räjäyttäminen ostoskeskuksessa tai bussissa, vaikkakin kuinka poliittisesti motivoitunutta, tulkittaisiin Suomessa nykyisin mielenterveysongelmaksi. "


What is really sad is the institutionalization of the death culture that permeates Palestinian society, where children are indoctrinated in becoming a martyr in jihad, instead of preparing them for an eventual peace with Israel. Mosques are full of vicious hate/death speeches against Jews, who are labeled dogs, apes and monkeys, along with certain key scriptures from the Koran that exhorts the "faithful" to kill Jews wherever they may be.

What is equally sad is the relgious indoctrination of potential suicide/homicide bombers, (many have heard the message drilled into their ears since their birth), who are assured that 72 virgins await them in paradise, ensuring that their family makes it heaven, as well as all the acholol they care to drink. That the Saidis and Saddam Hussein had given tens of thousands of dollars to the families of each homicide bomber, was an equal inducement to kill one's self for his/her Allah. Women were also afforded to the chance to erase their shame of fornication (when charged with such) by murdering Jews, which would also place them as equals with men, quite a high honor for a woman living in a highly misogynist society.

Sincerely,
KGS

Anonyymi kirjoitti...

Ääri-islamismi on ilmiö jota tuskin kukaan normaali suomalainen tukee tai kannattaa. Ääri-islamismiksi voidaan lukea ns. sharia-lain asettaminen suomalaisen lain yläpuolelle. Suomessakin on ensimmäisiä todisteita tästä (mm. tyttöjen ympärileikkaukset). Blogi ei ole vihaa lietsova tai anti-islamistinen, vaan raportoi selkeästi ääri-islamistisen hallinnon mielipuolisuuksista.

Omat tunteesi ja ennakkoluulosi ovat näemmä saaneet sinut kirjoittamaan, että blogi vihaa muslimeita. Etkö tajua, että jokaisessa sellaisessa "negatiivisessa" julkaisussa kyseisellä sivustolla, väkivallan kohteena on aina toinen muslimi. Jokainen postaus on AINA samaan aikaan sekä tuomitseva kannanotto ääri-islamilaisuuteen että sympatian ja tuen osoittamista väkivallan uhreille. Varmaan siitä samasta syystä, miksi vasemmisto Neuvostoliiton perinteitä mukaillen sympatiseeraa arabimaailmaa, myös sinä ärsyynnyt, kun tukemaasi ideologiaa arvostellaan. Olen varma että jos perehtyisit asiaan etkä seurailisi ansiokkaan Neuvostoliiton rintamalinjoja Lähi-idän kriisissä, sinäkin valitsisit mieluummin asuinpaikaksesi ennemmin liberaalin, suvaitsevan ja maallisen Israelin kuin propagandistisen, ahdasmielisen ja islamistisen Gazan.

Jaakko Vasankari kirjoitti...

Ensinnäkin joudun pahoittelemaan kahdesta syystä. Ensimmäiseksi sen takia, että arvioin Tundra tabloidsin ahdasmieliseksi arabi- tai muslimivastaiseksi julkaisuksi. Toisekseen joudun pahoittelemaan, että jälkimmäiselle kommentoijalle sitä, että se on enemmänkin sattumaa kuin ideologista perintöä, että mielipiteeni saattavat muistuttaa Neuvostoliiton suurvaltapolitiikan itsekkäitä vaatimuksia, mutta on totta, että mieluummin asuisin Jerusalemissa kuin Gazassa. Ja olisin siellä mieluummin juutalainen kuin arabi tai islamilainen.

Siinä taas olen eri mieltä KGS:n kanssa, että Israel on vastuussa armeijastaan, kun taas Palestiinalaisia en näe kollektiivisesti vastuussa terrorismista. Israelin armeija on hallinnollisesti selvästi yhteydessä poliittiseen järjestelmäään, sekä se on säädeltävissä jossain määrin poliittisesti. Itsenäisesti toimivien ihmisten toimista ei voida rankaista muita ihmisiä, sukulaisia tai vastaavia, vain sen takia, että heillä on yhteys johonkin rikolliseen. Se on väärin, ja se on ihmisoikeuksien vastaista. Tällä mielipiteellä ei ole mitään tekemistä sen kanssa, millä tavalla Neuvostoliitto suhtautui omana aikanaan eri Lähi-Idän valtioihin. Jälkiviisaasti tuomitsen molemmat tavat hyökätä Afganistaniin, joilla sinne on yritetty muodostaa oma nukkehallitus. Sekä Neuvostoliiton että Yhdysvaltain Afganistan-liittoutuma pärjää siellä huonosti, että näyttävät aiheuttavan enemmän kärsimystä ja kuolemaa kuin ilman, että he olisivat paikalla.

Apartheidistakin joudun olemaan eri mieltä. Apartheidin määritelmään kuuluu, että yksi etninen ryhmä suljetaan pois järjestelmästä, ja sitä verrataan rikoksiin ihmisyyttä vastaan. Siihen lasketaan mukaan myöskin kollektiiviset rangaistukset ja pakkosiirrot. Tietenkin KGS on oikeassa siinä, että ihmisen kuolema ja kodin menettäminen on eriarvoisia asioita. Mutta hän on väärässä siinä, että se tekisi kummastakaan oikeutettua. Tässä joudun vähän venyttämään logiikan rajoja, koska kukaan ei väitä, että ne olisivat vertailukelpoisia asioita suoraan, mutta sen puolesta kommentoidaan, että ihmisten pitäisi nähtävästi olla iloisia siitä, että menettivät vain kotinsa eikä henkeään.

Viimeiseksi jälkimmäiselle kommentoijalle, en tiennyt, että jokaisessa "negatiivisessa" julkaisussa uhrina on aina muslimi.

KGS kirjoitti...

Hi Jaakko,

First of all I would like to thank you (if I understood correctly) that you admitted that the Tundra Tabloids, is not an anti-Muslim/Arab blog.

While I have my personal opinions about Islam, I truly believe that people should be free to believe in what they will, as long as it's not to the detriment of society.

As Wafa Sultan once said, "you can believe in stones for all I care, as long as you don't pick them up and throw them at me".

I dare to differ with you concerning the "independence" of individual terror groups. Israel is responsibile for the misconduct and crimes committed by its citizenry, as the PA is responsible for its own. Please do read the Oslo agreements and the Road Map, which both sides had signed on to.

I would also like to restate that the policy of house destruction was rejected some time ago, and that I never thought the rewards of the policy were such that it warranted a continuence. It proved to be too counter productive.

On a side issue, getting rid of the Taliban was a good thing, that they were indeed part responsible for 9/11, due to their partnership with al-Qaida and Osama bin-Laden, was more than enough of a cassus belli for action to be taken against them.

Even the most ardent protestors against the Iraq war will at least give a liberal nod to the destruction of the Taliban. How else were the al-Qaida training bases to be dealt with,...through negotiations? Not likely.

I never said that detroying a house was not an injustice, but that the intentional murdering of civilians was the clear winner of the crimes against humanity charge.

As for the grossly wrong charge of apartheid, their is no exclusion of Israeli Arabs from the Israeli political system. Arabs have their own schools if they want them, being taught in their own language if they want, have all access to all universities etc. etc.etc...

The WB is a different story, and moves meant to ensure safety first to Israeli citizens cannot be apologized for, though the majority of Israelis are sorry that measures have to be in place to safeguard its society against the lind of mayhem that is a daily occurence in Baghdad.

While the security fence/barrier may be an unwanted fixture, it has indeed SAVED LIVES in both Israel and in the WB. That is a fact. You must ask yourself why was it that no fence was needed before the breakout of the first intifada?

Arabs came an went unchecked. But unfortunately along with Oslo, came also suicide/homicide terrorism, and that is what the scurity measures are all about.

Palestinian "leadership" saw an opportunity to rachet up the violence, wait for the counter measures, and then cry victim to Europe and anyone else who would listen in the US.

Arafat's arm shipment from Iran on board the KArina is what did him in, and he ended up in his Ramallah fortress till the end of his days.

Jaakko Vasankari kirjoitti...

Few points again from the author.

I'm glad to find out that you appreciated my effort to change the my personal defination of the TA to skeptic of islam from anti-arab/islam.

I'm also happy to see that we can find commond ground although are political views and the reasoning may differ.

I hardly think that Iraq had anything to do with Al-qaeda or Taliban. You might be intuitively referring to Afganistan, were Taliban had a stronghold before the intervention.

I didn't approve the war although something good came along with it. As more data is gathered from the war, I still think the invasion to Afganistan should've been avoided. I resent the means by which the occupation is going on.

What you said about Oslo-deal, The road map and PA being responsible for independent terrorist groups you're right. What I mean by saying that Israel is more responsible for the doings of it's army then PA is responsible for the doings of individual beings, is that it can be much more easily pointed out that the goverment of Israel has better means to weed out the unnecessary violence than that of an Palestinian authority.

What I mean by apartheid (I don't mean the South-African style) I mean checkpoints which hardens the lives of the palestinian people, demolishing of houses, not to mention other kinds of collective punishments like murdering or threatening people.

KGS kirjoitti...

Agreed, I believe some common ground can be found. When I reffered to Iraq, it was in the context concerning the Afghanistan war. Many of those from the Left who are against the Iraq war, do in fact agree with the premise of getting rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan. I however disagree with you concerning the aftermath of a post Taliban Afghanistan. Though the fight is far from over, the best thing that can be said, is that locals can have some measure of self rule, while Al-Qaida has been denied an easy base to work from.

There are no easy answers, but leaving an al-Qaida terror group in charge of a state is not one of them, especially in light of the damage they have caused not only to the US, but to the world at large. These murderous bastards do not answer to reason and logic in the classical sense, and have proven themselves to be more than willing to sacrifice untold millions to secure a future role for their brand of Islam.

When it comes to the PS and what it is able to do and not to do, you're only in part correct. Israel has on many occasions held off from taking any action against the terrorists in hopes that the PA would reign them in. What Israel could not tolerate was the "catch and release" or the "revolving door" policy that saw a countless number of terrorists with Israeli blood on their hands being let go, after promises to keep them jailed were broken.

Adding insult to injury has been the murdering of Arabs who have been doing the PA's job for them, that is collaborators who have given information on people planning intentional murder missions against Israeli civilians. Please keep in mind that the PA has the resources enough to investigate and track these people down, but not those planning crimes. When it comes to a show of will, the PA has shown itself more than able to "reach out and touch somebody".

Again, if it's house demolishing, you can't accuse Israel any longer since it has ceased the practice, (which was only done with the hope to save future lives) the roadblocks remain for sensible security reasons. What do you think would happen if Israel decided to no longer use them? What would happen IMHO, would be what we are seeing happening from Gaza, relentless attacks, it's that simple of an equation. At the height of the Oslo peace process, when more and more land was being handed over to Palestinian control, the onslaught of Palestinian terrorism was at its highest against Israel.

"Threatening people" does not constitute apartheid, not anywhere near it. What does constitute apartheid however, is the active policy of the PA/Hamas that demands the removal of any Jew living in their ancestrial homeland of Judea and Samaria. What is apartheid, is the Saudis religious/racial bigotry towards the world's other religions, that sees the confiscation of personal religious material when one enters the "Kingdom". Now that's real apartheid, very much like the one happening inside Jordan, were no Jew can buy land.

I have never been able to figure out the logic behind peoples' assertion that Israel practices the "collective" murdering of the Palestinians, while at the same time they rail against Israel's policy of "targeted killings" --against those they can pinpoint with a high degree of accuracy-- which proves that Israel isn't collectively murdering Palestinians. Which is it?

Jaakko Vasankari kirjoitti...

Last comment about "collective" murdering of the Palestinians, is the use of bombs which even though targeted to certain people usually comes of with large group of civils dead or injured, and this usually without even for certainty that the bomb caught the right guy. Killing people without trial could also be considered human rights violation.

I can very much agree you with that Hamas' rhetorics of the jews, doesn't warm my mind with joy. Although it's rude and out of proportion to use the nazi-card, I think it would be fair to say that talking about getting rid of people of a certain religion or race has a sad example in history of what happens when you start to singling people out.

About the Afganistan war, I can only see bad or less bad outcomes of the war. How should we view the war after it's over if it never will be over? Finnish people have taught and armed the local militia, and they use their training and equipment for slaughtering other people while finnish troops observe this. And I can't be very supportive for our troops being a part of coalition that is "concerned about collateral damage and try to avoid it", but at the same time seems to have trouble concerning when it would be appropriate to use airstrikes. And I can't see us being any better of the taliban, if our civilian body count excels the ones of Taliban. How could I? If we need some meter to define which one is bad and the lesser bad - body count would be the good one.

For this reason I don't see us as saviors or humble beings out there freeing women and building a stable societies where ever we go. But this does not seem that there couldn't come out something good somewhere sometime.

KGS kirjoitti...
Kirjoittaja on poistanut tämän kommentin.
KGS kirjoitti...

First of all Jaakko, I would like to thank you for the decent dialogue, we may be at loggerheads on some issues, but at least we both know that it can be discussed in a reasonable way.

Concerning "collective murder", the basis for the Geneva Conventions in regards to the use of military force, is the "just war doctrine". Being a well read person, I am sure that you have come across at one time or another. The determining factor whether or not a military target can be acted upon or not, is whether the risks outweigh the resulting casualties. Of course civilian casualties must be avoided at all times when at all possible, but that in itself does not determine whether a target is justified or not.

You are free to disagree on moral principles etc, that's your right. But you are appearing (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) to be a pacifist of sorts, that takes a maximalist POV concerning the endangerment of civilians, that that factor alone determines the merit of military strike. Nothing could be more further from the truth. While it is highly saddening when civilians become a part of the casualty figures after a strike on a military target, the fact that some civilians are killed does merit an automatic labeling of "war crime", until all the aspects of the operation have been determined.

Contrary to public belief, these military ops are carried out after much thoughtful introspection. I would say that given the political climate Israel must face in its dealings with the Palestinians, that decision/deliberating making process is even more thorough than elsewhere. What never gets reported, (to be fair, much is never leaked out) are the missions scrapped due to the high percentage of civilian casualties that would result if the military target was attacked as planned. Such accounts have been many, and speaks highly of the Israeli military in trying their best to reduce civilian casualties to the best of their ability, while ensuring the safety of their own people, something that they are sworn to uphold.

It is not a human rights violation to attack individuals that are planning the murder of your citizens, terrorists such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Tanzim Fighters and the Hezbollah make it very clear that Israel must be destroyed, and those operatives who seek to ensure that is the outcome, are 100% legal targets. That they travel in close company with relatives and hide amongst the civilian population etc., speaks more about their motives, than about the ensuing Israeli attack that seeks to target the terrorist operative. It's that black and white, something's in life just happens to be so.

It's not rude or either out of proportion to use the NAZI-card concerning the Hamas. I advise you to read their charter, and take a look at their hand salutes: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/18.htm I am sure that you'll agree with me that the discredited Russian forgery of "The Protocols of The Learned Elders of Zion" are anti-Semitic and very close to the heart of Nazi doctrine, though the work of the former Czarist Russia. Hamas is not only anti-Jew, but anti anything else that doesn't conform to its ideology based on the Muslim Brotherhood and Sayyid Qut'b dogma, that is as much of al-Qaida and the Taliban's thinking than anything else. The Nazis made deep inroads into the ME, and were and to some extent, still are highly thought of....as far as Europeans are concerned. For more look here: http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php

Singling out religious supremacists as an anti-democratic nightmare is the only logical thing to do, in very much the same way as the Allied forces singled out the NAZIS, and US singled out the KKK. You have to face facts, just because a group forms, and manages to create a constituency --due to its largesse in keeping the people dependent upon themselves, not the government-- does translate into automatic legitimacy. The platform of the party itself, defines the legitimacy, or it does not. The Hamas fails on all counts.

As for the record of the Coalition forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan, they have acted in a MORE HUMANE WAY that anything that was in place prior to their coming into the region. History proves that, state sanctioned murder (democide) is responsible for MORE DEATHS than any that have occurred during war, especially between a democratic and nondemocratic entity. Leaving the Taliban in place would have been a VERY immoral thing to do. But I would love to hear what should have been done to get unreasonable thugs to be....reasonable. If violence is never an option, what are we to do to sway those who care little for the rule of law?

At least you hold out some possibility of "some good" coming out of all of this, I guess considering your opinions, that's all I could hope for. For myself, I personally believe the sacrifices being made by the military personnel inside Iraq and Afghanistan as being noble, and something which had to be done, if we actually care for the future of the region. Best regards, KGS

Jaakko Vasankari kirjoitti...

Thank you again for posting. Few thoughts can be written about this again. Yes I'm a sort of pasifist, at least I tend to glorify unviolent activism. I usually also try to avoid seeing something good about killing people. I also believe that everyone should have a fair trial. This includes people plotting to kill other people. "If people could be judged by what they think, give me an electric chair right now."

About the Afganistan war, it is unfair to allege Taliban of more deaths than the invaders. Taliban would have to be responsible for the death of at least 3700 people. This number is the lowest estimate I know of the bombings. Compared to stoning people it can be somehow interpreted more humane way.

KGS kirjoitti...

Hi Jaakko,

If the hallmark of most --if not all-- tyrannical ruled states, has been the deaths of more people at the hand of the state, than in wars between states, than the situation in both Afghanistan and in Iraq would be much bleaker than it is presently.

If the unreasonable would answer/adhere to the same dictates of logic and reason as the reasonable, then there would not be a need for violence. Make no mistake, there is something called justifiable violence, and it is what turned the tide against the Axis powers during WWII.

There is actually something good about the killing of one's mortal enemy, since the opposite result would be the end of one's own life instead. I am for all common sense and reason, but pacifism is a luxury in this day and age, filled with a lot of thugs who would be most willing to use your pacifism against you.

Have you ever witnessed a video of someone actually being stoned? Its not a pretty sight, being led to a pit and buried up to your waist in a sack sown up over your face, and then listen as the cheering mob begin to taunt and throw rocks at your head.

Let's face it, their is no good way to die, other than in your own bed, with loved ones around you after you have lived a long full life. Don't make the mistake of morally equating a mission to end a tyranny, with a mob's fury in settling a score against a homosexual or a woamn who was in the company of a man not a relative.

Jaakko Vasankari kirjoitti...

I've seen video of someone actually being stoned. That's not a pretty sight.

As you've probably understood by know, I don't see the possible results to justify all means. Massacre is a massacre, even if it's done because of revenge or liberation. I do accept killing people as a self-defense, so I'm not as puritan pasifist as one could assume.

Comparing the allied forces of WWII to the alliance fighting in Afganistan isn't that good as a bet. Allied forces bombed Dublin and used nuclears weapons against Japan. Allied forces also used consentration camps. Once again, this is just a sad example of the bad fighting against each other as the other one being less bad or evil. I don't see how there just rose "justifiable violence, and it is what turned the tide against the Axis powers during WWII."

About the philosophical question of how you would prefer to die. That depends, when do I get bored here.

KGS kirjoitti...

In any western court of law, the intent of the accused dictates the severity of the charges leveled.

It's entirely immoral "not to make a distinction" between aggressor and victim, police and crook.

The "intent of the individual or the collective individual (the state)" is of utter importance, how else is one to define the degree of guilt if the intent is ...irrelevent?

Massacre: 1. "The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly"

Consecutive Turkish goverments in the early 1900's, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, the PLO in Lebanon, the Ruandan gov't, the Bosnian Serbs and others, embarked on a policy with sole intent to personally inflict a massacre/s of civilians.

There is absolutely no moral equivalence between the western allied armies advancing on Hitler's Germany (that unfortunately cost lives), and the NAZIS themselves, any more than there is between Palestinian/Hezbollah terrorists who seek to maximize the casualties against Israeli citizens --by including rat poison and nuts, bolts and nails in their munitions-- and Israeli surgical strikes that intend to solely target the guilty individual.

During a time of war, criminal cases are solved on the battlefield, --not in a court of law-- under the Geneva Conventions.

Oh by the way, you mentioned earlier that house demolitions by Israel were a violation of human rights, please refer me to the source where you drew that conclusion.

Jaakko Vasankari kirjoitti...

About the human rights violation, this just came in from the Amnesty International:

Housing crisis deepens for Palestinian villagers..

About intentions. You have to prove that there was an intention to put in action. It's not enough just to say, that somebody thought something bad about somebody. Otherwise I could start my pre-emptive strikes everywhere and anytime I like against whoever I like.

The intention being as severe as the action itself is also part of the legal system of Finland. But you have to be able to prove that without a doubt somebody was going to break a law.

Actually that theory is about to be tested in Finland, as the Smash-Asem-trials are about to begin. There were 136 people detained mostly because of the intent to break the law.

KGS kirjoitti...

Hi Jaakko,

Good of you to have brought that AI article up for discussion. For some time now, --let's say since the 67' war-- there has been a misunderstanding on who's in charge of the WB and Gaza, what's allowed under international law, and what is the exact definition of Israel's role as the high contracting power within the portions of the WB that it is still forced to administer.

Since the WB is still disputed territory, --land yet to be determined internationally how much belongs to whom-- and since Britain abdicated its role as the "high contracting power" in the United League of Nations' stead, Israel has been forced to assume that role, especially since the 67' war when it obtained even more land as the result of a victorious assault over the Arab aggression waged against it.

Since the land was obtained in a defensive effort, it is legally within Israel's right as the HCP, to be in these conquered territories. The irony here is that though E.J'lem and Hebron held a majority Jewish population before the war of independence, since that time the majority of the world deems it to be in violation of international agreements, of areas that were taken over by Arabs in 1948.

(How one can manage to disparage Israel for being in the WB while applauding Arabs to be in control of E.J'lem and Hebron that was taken from Jews in 48', ....is a question for the sages.)

As HCP, Israel is forced administer portions of the WB not yet under PA control, for various different reasons. As its administrator, it has signed agreements in conjunction with the PA, on what can and cannot be built, as well as water rights, where they can be drilled and who picks up the costs etc.etc.. The fact that buildings have been razed does not automatically imply guilt by default, that Israel is in violation of some international statute or law. There has to be some system of codes and planning before anyone can begin to build, that means for Jews as well.

The fact that a building was destroyed does not mean anything that it was destroyed due to some particular reason, to automatically assume the worst, is just pandering to overt propaganda by those who use these instances for political purposes.

p.s. Thanks for the good round of exchanges. I would like nothing more than to share a beer or two and díscuss more with you if the opportunity ever availed itself.

KGS