Comments on: Letter from Ramallah http://www.robertsharp.co.uk/2006/01/30/letter-from-ramallah/ Everyone has a right to my opinions Sat, 22 Nov 2008 00:07:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Nosemonkey: the EU is mind-numbing - Voting TaKtiX http://www.robertsharp.co.uk/2006/01/30/letter-from-ramallah/#comment-13425 Nosemonkey: the EU is mind-numbing - Voting TaKtiX Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:09:53 +0000 http://www.robertsharp.co.uk/?p=131#comment-13425 [...] Enjoying blogging (when there’s time), and spending more time reading blogs than I do reading the paper and the magazines. Blog post like Justin’s here or the ongoing debate between DK and Robert Sharp / Intifada Kid here, here and here are excellent reasons to continue blogging (and promoting blogs in general). Just, well, busy. However, if anyone wants to know what I look like, I set up another blog last night, mostly for my friends to write, all about playing toy soldiers and silly games. They insisted we put up a picture. I’m the young looking one sat down. That’s mostly because compared to those old farts, I am young. Still, might as well use the domain name I’ve owned for 2 years, right? Technorati tags: europe, blogging [...] [...] Enjoying blogging (when there’s time), and spending more time reading blogs than I do reading the paper and the magazines. Blog post like Justin’s here or the ongoing debate between DK and Robert Sharp / Intifada Kid here, here and here are excellent reasons to continue blogging (and promoting blogs in general). Just, well, busy. However, if anyone wants to know what I look like, I set up another blog last night, mostly for my friends to write, all about playing toy soldiers and silly games. They insisted we put up a picture. I’m the young looking one sat down. That’s mostly because compared to those old farts, I am young. Still, might as well use the domain name I’ve owned for 2 years, right? Technorati tags: europe, blogging [...]

]]> By: Robert Sharp » Blog Archive » Moral Equivalence http://www.robertsharp.co.uk/2006/01/30/letter-from-ramallah/#comment-325 Robert Sharp » Blog Archive » Moral Equivalence Tue, 07 Mar 2006 12:17:49 +0000 http://www.robertsharp.co.uk/?p=131#comment-325 [...] The moral equivalence complaint is constantly used in political discourse, a smoke-screen to justify and excuse morally dubious action. An appeal to inhibit the ghettoisation of the West Bank is met with “what about the man on the Tel Aviv omnibus?” A fair point indeed, but in making it, the respondent has cunningly failed to answer the original point, and thus escapes from the discourse without condemning something that would not have looked out of place in occupied Poland, circa 1940. Likewise, legitimate questions about why, and when it was decided to go to war, are met by Tony Blair with the tired old cliché: “Would you rather have Saddam back?” Meeting questions with questions in this manner is to present a non-sequitur. By highlighting something morally worse, Tony manages to avoid answering the original question at all. [...] [...] The moral equivalence complaint is constantly used in political discourse, a smoke-screen to justify and excuse morally dubious action. An appeal to inhibit the ghettoisation of the West Bank is met with “what about the man on the Tel Aviv omnibus?” A fair point indeed, but in making it, the respondent has cunningly failed to answer the original point, and thus escapes from the discourse without condemning something that would not have looked out of place in occupied Poland, circa 1940. Likewise, legitimate questions about why, and when it was decided to go to war, are met by Tony Blair with the tired old cliché: “Would you rather have Saddam back?” Meeting questions with questions in this manner is to present a non-sequitur. By highlighting something morally worse, Tony manages to avoid answering the original question at all. [...]

]]> By: Clarice http://www.robertsharp.co.uk/2006/01/30/letter-from-ramallah/#comment-236 Clarice Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:13:57 +0000 http://www.robertsharp.co.uk/?p=131#comment-236 Yes. I can only think it might have something to do with the economic stranglehold the usa has upon the world, and upon the un. Before 911, I wrote to the foreign office regarding the Taliban, and the response I had was not what you'd call encouraging. There seems to be something in the corridors of power that twists the notion of right and wrong into something quite different and allows these injustices to continue. Yes. I can only think it might have something to do with the economic stranglehold the usa has upon the world, and upon the un. Before 911, I wrote to the foreign office regarding the Taliban, and the response I had was not what you’d call encouraging. There seems to be something in the corridors of power that twists the notion of right and wrong into something quite different and allows these injustices to continue.

]]> By: Intifada Kid http://www.robertsharp.co.uk/2006/01/30/letter-from-ramallah/#comment-234 Intifada Kid Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:41:09 +0000 http://www.robertsharp.co.uk/?p=131#comment-234 Clarice - you write: "I can’t understand how the international community has justified not policing Israel’s aggression towards the Palestinians." I agree entirely. Support for radicalism and political violence is a direct outgrowth of the international community's unwillingness to intervene in defence of Palestinian rights - or even enforce their own laws and agreements vis-a-vis Israel. (Eg. EU's trade agreement with Israel has a clause insisting that Israel respect human rights.) Those of us who advocate for peaceful resistance were very pleased when the International Court of Justice decided that the 80% of Israel's Wall that is located on occupied Palestinian land is illegal, and that the international community had a duty to support its removal. But that was on July 9, 2004. Over 18 months later, we haven't seen any sign of pressure on Israel to move its despicable Wall onto its own territory. That sends a message to Palestinians: forget international law, UN resolutions, legal struggle, no-one cares. Militants in our society of course exploit this by responding with violence, which always garners media attention. So to help peaceniks argue for peaceful protest, we need internationals to pressure their governments to in turn pressure Israel to tear down its Wall, end the construction of settlements (colonies) and return to negotiations with the PLO to bring about a final solution to the conflict. Boycotts, sanctions and other peaceful means of pressure serve this purpose, in my view. Incidentally, I have posted an updated comment on PLC elections over at Devil's Kitchen. Anyone interested can read it here: http://devilskitchen.blogspot.com/2006/01/palestinian-writes.html#c113865850524511974 Clarice - you write: “I can’t understand how the international community has justified not policing Israel’s aggression towards the Palestinians.”

I agree entirely. Support for radicalism and political violence is a direct outgrowth of the international community’s unwillingness to intervene in defence of Palestinian rights - or even enforce their own laws and agreements vis-a-vis Israel. (Eg. EU’s trade agreement with Israel has a clause insisting that Israel respect human rights.) Those of us who advocate for peaceful resistance were very pleased when the International Court of Justice decided that the 80% of Israel’s Wall that is located on occupied Palestinian land is illegal, and that the international community had a duty to support its removal. But that was on July 9, 2004. Over 18 months later, we haven’t seen any sign of pressure on Israel to move its despicable Wall onto its own territory. That sends a message to Palestinians: forget international law, UN resolutions, legal struggle, no-one cares. Militants in our society of course exploit this by responding with violence, which always garners media attention. So to help peaceniks argue for peaceful protest, we need internationals to pressure their governments to in turn pressure Israel to tear down its Wall, end the construction of settlements (colonies) and return to negotiations with the PLO to bring about a final solution to the conflict. Boycotts, sanctions and other peaceful means of pressure serve this purpose, in my view.

Incidentally, I have posted an updated comment on PLC elections over at Devil’s Kitchen. Anyone interested can read it here: http://devilskitchen.blogspot.com/2006/01/palestinian-writes.html#c113865850524511974

]]> By: Clarice http://www.robertsharp.co.uk/2006/01/30/letter-from-ramallah/#comment-231 Clarice Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:12:28 +0000 http://www.robertsharp.co.uk/?p=131#comment-231 I'm confused. The grounds for a two-state solution is surely not simply so that there can be peace and both sides can feel safe. Beyond this pragmatic position, there is also the question of international justice. I can't understand how the international community has justified not policing Israel's aggression towards the Palestinians. It's a stain on all our consciences. This may be a naiive position, but shouldn't there be economic sanctions and so forth? And wouldn't the Palestinians be assured of a fairer deal by this means, than by having to compromise with a bully? I’m confused. The grounds for a two-state solution is surely not simply so that there can be peace and both sides can feel safe. Beyond this pragmatic position, there is also the question of international justice.
I can’t understand how the international community has justified not policing Israel’s aggression towards the Palestinians. It’s a stain on all our consciences. This may be a naiive position, but shouldn’t there be economic sanctions and so forth? And wouldn’t the Palestinians be assured of a fairer deal by this means, than by having to compromise with a bully?

]]> By: Kathy http://www.robertsharp.co.uk/2006/01/30/letter-from-ramallah/#comment-230 Kathy Mon, 30 Jan 2006 13:19:07 +0000 http://www.robertsharp.co.uk/?p=131#comment-230 There is,I think, a great truth in the point about the electorate trusting their toughest leaders in conflict. If a tough line is taken when a country is under threat - Falklands 9/11 etc - it is almost a guarantee of that party to do well in following elections - bringing in Robert's point of the call of "we want peace" - what I think they mean is "we want to feel safe". Now, if this is true, you will get differing opinions - those who feel safe when all is peaceful (however that is achieved) - and those who only feel safe if they can feel they are being protected and then we are back to the nuclear question!! There is,I think, a great truth in the point about the electorate trusting their toughest leaders in conflict. If a tough line is taken when a country is under threat - Falklands 9/11 etc - it is almost a guarantee of that party to do well in following elections - bringing in Robert’s point of the call of “we want peace” - what I think they mean is “we want to feel safe”. Now, if this is true, you will get differing opinions - those who feel safe when all is peaceful (however that is achieved) - and those who only feel safe if they can feel they are being protected and then we are back to the nuclear question!!

]]>