just something to say

Archive for November 2006


with one comment

«The Anti-Defamation League on Thursday blasted the United Nations Human Rights Council for appointing Desmond Tutu as head of its fact-finding mission to the northern Gaza Strip town of Beit Hanun. The mission is charged with investigating a botched Israel Defense Forces shelling in Beit Hanun which killed 19 Palestinian civilians. “The appointment of Desmond Tutu as head of the fact-finding mission to Beit Hanun is an extension of the anti-Israel kangaroo court tactics used by the UN Human Rights Council,” said ADL National Director Abraham Foxman […] Tutu, the former Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town, has spoken out against Israel in the past and publicly denounced the Beit Hanun operation. “It is an outrage that cries out to heaven and we must condemn it unequivocally as we do the atrocities committed by suicide bombers against Israeli civilians,” Tutu said…». (Ha’aretz) Maybe Mr Foxman liked better John Bolton for the Job. Unfortunately, one can`t choose his prosecutor, and everyone must rely on the second`s morality and skillfulness. Maybe Abraham Foxman could choose professor Dershowitz to write down another “Case for Israel” in order to justify Tzahal’s attacks and killings in Beit Hanoun, but I doubt he would find out any other comfortable Joan Peters’ quotes of Mark Twain that fit to the issue. Mr Foxman’s remarks about Tutu’s past speaking against Israel (and I quote, “It is an outrage that cries out to heaven…”) seem pretty ridiculous. By the way the man indeed – I mean Tutu – has to deal with an issue that really cries out to heaven, the alleged “mistakenly slaughtering” of some 20 civilians.

Written by pipistro

November 30, 2006 at 10:03 pm

Posted in Israel, Palestine

The others

with one comment

Who decides what a crime against humanity is? Human race as a whole is hit and crippled as a result of the killing of a man. Therefore the entire mankind has to blame itself for the death brought to a man by another man. Under this point of view, the killing of any man is a crime not only against that single one or his group – circumscribed and characterized for position, ethnic group, religion, or simply a bearer of the same contingent interests – but against the whole mankind as well. War is somewhat killing by following some rules that for so much time have constituted a self-absolution that the strongest group has given itself in order to commit a crime. It is not in the nature of man, it’s an invention, a device aimed at satisfying man’s instinct for embezzlement, that get him look for his presumed well-being, moreover not as an absolute but as a difference. War is considered like a viable option for the solution of reciprocal interests and/or for the maintenance of that difference. And thus we are mistaken by considering war as something different from a huge amount of crimes, for the sole fact we subordinated them to rules. It’s a fact that these so called rules have been always dictated by the strongest, the one and at the same time the first to violate them ignobly. And this fact would have made us think of the very absurdity of these rules. So we will get on talking about legal or illegal weapons, lawful or illicit behaviors, terrorists or armies, fair or bias, black or white, good or evil, acquitting ourselves and condemning the others. Until we realize that there ain’t no “others”.

Written by pipistro

November 6, 2006 at 5:57 pm

Posted in War

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: