Path: utzoo!mnetor!micomvax!ray From: ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Joe Clark's speech to the CIC Message-ID: <945@micomvax.UUCP> Date: 18 Mar 88 00:02:40 GMT References: <560@auvax.UUCP> <1988Mar15.024839.27444@lsuc.uucp> Reply-To: ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) Organization: Philips Electronics Ltd. (TDS - Montreal) St. Laurent P.Q., Canada Lines: 124 It seriously worries me getting into this controversy, particularly in this medium, because the subject is one of faith, nationalism and historical injustice - guaranteed to generate irrational, bigotted and hysterical outbursts (even if not from the people directly quoted here) which at best will assume any wrong justifies another, and at worst, that the end justifies any means. However, having said that, here we go.... >In article <560@auvax.UUCP>, louis@auvax.UUCP (Louis Schmittroth) writes: >> I wish to commend Joe Clark on showing the courage of his convictions >> in his speech to the Canada-Israel Committee. It is refreshing to see >> a politician who will say the same thing to both South Africa and >> Israel (Canadian branch) when he sees (and we all see) violations >> of human rights. To this, dave@lsuc.uucp (David Sherman), in article <1988Mar15.024839.27444@lsuc.uucp> replies: > >It would be refreshing to hear him say something about 100 >other countries whose violations of human rights are far more >severe. Agreed. Indeed it *was* refreshing to hear him say something about the Russians, when he did, and the South Africans, when he did that also. Yes, there are many, many other areas of civil rights oppression. How many of them should we cover before the Israel/Palestine situation becomes appropriate? > >No-one is suggesting the Palestinians aren't human. Israel's >policy has been one of restraint. Why do you think only 40 >Palestinians have been killed so far? In almost any other >country (and certainly any country in the Middle East), rioters >throwing rocks and threatening the lives of soldiers would suffer >far greater casualties. > The fact that others take more extreme actions does not justify one's own actions in another similar situation. >What happened in India, with Sikh riots in the Punjab? >Hundreds of dead in a matter of a few days? Thousands? Irrelevant, see above, the mistakes made in India having *nothing* to do with what is going on in the Gaza, and can be no justification for it. >Israel's mistake, if anything, is that by acting with restraint >they've allowed the riots and relatively minor causalties to >continue for weeks, which lets the problems "build up" through >the Western media. Hmmm. Exactly the thought processes of the Apartheid Gang - "It's the media's fault these oppressed people are reacting against their oppression, so blame the media, *ban* the media, then we will not have to be pressured by public opinion". Oh, by the way, how can one be killed in a "relatively minor" way, by a soldier acting with "restaint"? Occupation Soldiers Beating Up Kids are Occupation Soldiers Beating Up Kids, whether they are being photographed or whether they are doing it in a dark cellar. Whether we can hear their screams or whether we can not. Whether the soldiers' kids had themselves been beaten by *other* soldiers, or not. Armed Agressive Oppression is Armed Agressive Oppression, whether we are talking about Palestine, Afghanistan, Sharpville, Derry, Kent State, jew, gentile, white, black, catholic, protestant, islamic. > >Where were Joe Clark and Louis Schmittroth when Syria wiped >out the entire population of Hama (20,000 people) a few years >ago? > As I said above, Joe, whose party I *don't* support politically by the way, started on the Russians, then "picked-on" on the South Africans and has only now moved on to the Israelis. As the original poster put it "I wish to commend Joe Clark"! > What about the Iran-Iraq war, with its millions of >casualties? What about human rights abuses in 30 countries >in Africa, or throughout Eastern Europe? Central America? Kampuchea? >Afghanistan? Panama? Fiji? Can you say "double standard"? > Exactly! Fantastic, you agree with me, you have just classified the Israel situation with the above list of other situations which you imply are injustices. So, if that's what you believe, be consistent, and live with the consequencies of this classification. Can *you* say "double standard"? Your argument is that because we don't or can't take action on *all* injustice, then we should take action on *none*! Nonsense! Hurrah! We have started, and are continuing, to take a stand as a nation against human rights abuses throughout the world. That's Israel dealt with, now who shall we choose next? (:-) Israel was forced on the Middle East by the stupid Brits (I'm one of them) and we're all paying for that fact. I can't blame the Palestinians for wanting 'their' land back. I can't blame the Israelies for protecting what they now find themselves with. This doesn't justify oppressing the whole region to ensure their own "security". "Security" can be defined in any terms, didn't Hitler have something to say on that subject as a reason d'etre for some of his actions?? Would a visitor from another planet, witnessing *the actions of* the blackshirts in Germany in the 30's then the Israelis in the Gaza Strip or Jerusalem in the 80's justify one situation but not the other? [*note the emphasis*] No part of the history of the jews, or any other group of people, including the holocaust, gives them the right to act in the same abominable way that they have been acted against! Methinks I rant on a little too much..... As this started in can.politics, I leave it there. However if anyone feels they want to re-post it to some other wider group for hotter flaming, please feel free to do so, I feel pretty flameproof today. Ray Dunn. ..{philabs, mnetor, musocs}!micomvax!ray