Arab Summit: Mass Murderers Shouldn't Be Celebrated.

(cross posted at kickin it with cg and motley moose)

The Arab League Summit planned for Qatar this weekend seems fated to go down in the history books, but for the worst possible reason. Qatar's emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, embraced Sudan's resident Omar al-Bashir as an honoured guest today as he arrived to attend the Summit in a brazen act of defiance against an international arrest warrant on charges of war crimes in Darfur.

On March 4, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a warrant for al-Bashir's arrest on for "directing attacks against an important part of the civilian population of Darfur, Sudan, murdering, exterminating, raping, torturing and forcibly transferring large numbers of civilians and pillaging their property."

Given a red-carpet welcome:

Wearing a traditional Sudanese robe and white turban, a smiling al-Bashir was greeted at the airport with an embrace and kiss by Qatar's emir. They later had coffee with the head of the Arab League, Amr Moussa.

It was a low-risk trip for al-Bashir with high symbolic value for his Arab backers, who argue that carrying out the ICC's arrest would further destabilize Sudan as the Darfur conflict between the Arab-led government and ethnic African rebels enters its seventh year.

Only Jordan and two other tiny Arab League members, the Comoros and Djibouti, are party to the ICC charter, but can take no action on Qatari soil. Arab foreign ministers have endorsed a draft resolution for the summit rejecting the ICC's arrest warrant.

ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo has said that al-Bashir should be arrested once he leaves Sudanese airspace, but it was unclear whether any military forces were monitoring his flight. The United States does not recognize the ICC's jurisdiction, citing fears that Americans would be unfairly prosecuted for political reasons. But President Barack Obama earlier this month denounced the "genocide" in Darfur.

The Sudanese government's battle against rebels in the western Darfur region has killed up to 300,000 people and driven 2.7 million from their homes since 2003, according to the United Nations.

Clearly, no Arab leader is keen to accept the precedent the ICC set when it issued its warrant.  But even a club of kings, strongmen and despots shames itself by breaking bread with a man accused of murder, transfer, torture and rape.

Al-Bashir has no business being in Qatar, especially considering that planned peace talks with Khalil Ibrahim, the head of Darfur's strongest rebel group, have fallen through. Ibrahim cancelled on Friday after al-Bashir expelled aid groups such as Oxfam, Save the Children, CARE and Médecins Sans Frontières that care for people in Darfur, where 4.7 million rely on aid for food, shelter, water and protection.

Expelling these aid groups marks a new low in the war al-Bashir's Arab-led regime in Khartoum has been waging against ethnic African insurgents since 2003. As many as 300,000 people have been killed and nearly 3 million have been driven from their homes.

These dismal developments should galvanize U.S. President Barack Obama to step up pressure on the Khartoum regime, even though George Bush's, Obama's predecessor refused to back the ICC.

Al-Bashir should be arrested when he ventured outside the Arab League zone. China, his powerful patron, should withdraw its support. The United Nations/African Union peacekeeping force in Sudan should be reinforced with troops and equipment, so that it can protect civilians. Sanctions should be tightened on al-Bashir and his cronies. Donors should carefully re-evaluate the $1 billion aid operation in Darfur, as relief agencies are expelled. The arms embargo on Sudan should be expanded. And the U.S. and its allies should impose a no-fly zone in Darfur, to prevent al-Bashir's air force from bombing civilians.

Al-Bashir said contemptuously that the ICC "can eat" its warrant. For Darfur's sake, he must be made to swallow those words.

Tags: arab summit, Darfur, ICC, khartoum, Michelle Obama, Omar al-Bashir, qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, sudan, war crimes (all tags)

Comments

71 Comments

let's hope al-bashir...

get his come uppance.

by canadian gal 2009-03-29 12:50PM | 0 recs
al-Bashir deserves a bullet

If not a few dozen...

by Reaper0Bot0 2009-03-29 02:07PM | 0 recs
Let's hope this racist mass murderer's

action catch up with him soon. He should be treated similarly as were likes of Milosevic.

by louisprandtl 2009-03-29 03:50PM | 0 recs
I agree

This man should be arrested along with a few more in that summit.

But...

You can't expect certain people to respect the rule of international law when others openly defy it.

And yes I'm talking about Israel who has recently been accused of war crimes in Gaza and has thumbed their collective noses at UN resolution after resolution.

Not trying to divert from the diary but we need to have the same rules for everybody and not make certain people the eternal bad guys.

If we are to criticize The Arabs at the summit, they in turn would probably ask why are we supporting Israel when they are accused of war crimes?

See how that works?

by yungblakman 2009-03-29 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree

what do you mean you're "not trying to divert from the diary," of course you are.

by Todd Beeton 2009-03-30 05:18PM | 0 recs
open question...

to the MYDD community and its moderators.

does every bloody diary that i write have to refight and bring back to I/P?  because truth be told - i am getting more than a little sick of trolls *hijacking EVERY diary of mine to use it as an opportunity to fight this over and over.

seriously - jerome?  todd?  community?  shall i stop blogging here in order to make this stop - is that what its going take?

by canadian gal 2009-03-29 04:55PM | 0 recs
some examples...

of course - above, and:

here

here

here

there are more of course...  but seriously if this isn't trolling - what is.

by canadian gal 2009-03-29 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: some examples...

I've read this diary word for word and I can't see anything in it related to IP.

Are you setting up a strawman argument? This comment and the one above is seemingly totally irrelevant to what transpired before.

Actually, until I read your comments, I thought that this was a very good diary concerned with a major human rights crime being perpetuated in Darfur.

Sorry you decided to hijack your own diary.

PS: The comment of mine you quoted was submitted in the context of other comments in a diary about the smuggling of arms to Gaza and Hamas, a distinctly IP topic. But I'm not know interested in discussing it.

by MainStreet 2009-03-29 06:42PM | 0 recs
Re: some examples...

Nope.  See the comment of yungblakman directly above.  CG didn't bring this up.  You can't hang it on her.

by Strummerson 2009-03-30 03:57AM | 0 recs
Re: some examples...

Sorry didn't read all the way through it.

Whatever, it is perhaps that the apparent fact that CG is so openly proIsrael in the worst way, that she has garnered a reputation for condoning Israel's human rights injustices toward the Palestinians by default. I just noticed that Human Rights Watch issued a report that accused Israel of war crimes in Gaza, and the British Guardian I believe just issued a report as well. I don't expect CG will diary those reports.

Most of CG's foreign policy diaries also look to be antiArab or antiIran. She also likes to accuse supporters of Palestinian freedom and self determination, trolls. And now she even has the gall to complain to the administration.

by MainStreet 2009-03-30 04:20AM | 0 recs
Re: some examples...

I think this is unnecessary and unproductive?

How many diaries have either of us written about human rights abuses in US supported and protected maquiladoras in Central America or our government's tolerance of what happens in China or Saudi Arabia?  Does that undermine us when we write about the Israeli occupation?  Some would argue yes and you and I would oppose this.

Here's the bottom line.  CG put the majority of the fault for the Gaza war on HAMAS.  You and I saw it differently.  BUT both you and her are adamant supporters of a viable two state solution to that conflict.  This should make her your ally.  

It's not helpful or reasonable to try to impugn her credibility on anything else she writes.  Do you honestly believe that this diary is trying in anyway to undermine the I/P peace process?

THAT, in my view, is simply not credible, either from this diary alone OR in the context of her other posts.

by Strummerson 2009-03-30 04:38AM | 0 recs
Re: some examples...

okay...

perhaps that the apparent fact that CG is so openly proIsrael in the worst way, that she has garnered a reputation for condoning Israel's human rights injustices toward the Palestinians by default.

since you have appointed yourself the spokesman on this "issue" here - i challenge you to look through all of my diaries and comments to prove any of your claims that i am either anti-arab or condone human rights violations. the task set forth shouldn't be hard since all of my history is a matter of public record.

i am confident that you will find no proof to back up your claims.  and sorry - because i support the state of israel does not mean that i condone human rights violations against palestinians by default and saying this is more than a stretch by any form of the imagination.  

maybe you and others should ask yourself, since you claim to be advocates for human rights, how you can condone the celebration of a person that murdered countless others in darfur because it happens to be in thousands of mile radius as israel.

in the meantime i will await your response and proof of your claims about me that justify you and other users being justified in bringing the subject of every diary back to i/p.

by canadian gal 2009-03-30 05:05AM | 0 recs
Dear CG

Please forgive me for overstepping here and appointing myself mediator.  As you know, I care deeply about the treatment of the I/P issue and I think the antagonism between you and MS gets in the way much too often.  I think it's clear from my posts that I see MS as more culpable.

But this is unfair:

maybe you and others should ask yourself, since you claim to be advocates for human rights, how you can condone the celebration of a person that murdered countless others in darfur because it happens to be in thousands of mile radius as israel.

Others may be doing this.  MS is not.  He recced this diary and supports intervention on Darfur.  To accuse him of being an apologist for Bashir is not gonna help anything.

Again, the bottom line is that you both fervently support a two state solution in I/P and both oppose human rights abuses.  While MS focuses more on Israel's culpability, he has also written in opposition to suicide bombings.  While you are more focused on HAMAS, it's hard to miss your sincere concern for the plight of Palestinians under the occupation.

Of course, this is your diary.  If yo want me to bud out, I'll respect that without taking even a smidgen of offense.  I'm past my blog time quota for the day now.  Dissertations don't write themselves you know!  I've got 16th century homilies to attend to, and thankfully some poetry.

by Strummerson 2009-03-30 05:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear CG

Oops.  Sorry MS.  I don't know if MS supports "intervention" per se, or what form.  But MS, like you, certainly believes that Darfur is a massive human rights catastrophe that requires attention.

My overall point here is not to merely paper over real differences of perspectives, but to suggest that those can be engaged more clearly and productively in the context of agreements on principles and significant particulars.

by Strummerson 2009-03-30 05:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear CG

please no your opinion does matter to me.  to be clear though, i am not accusing anyone of anything other than judging them by their actions - namely which is to hijack this and other diaries to bring it back to the I/P issue however off topic and irrelevant it is.

ms pretty well spelled out what is going on here which is that i have been labeled in a certain way here by certain anti-israel factions.  and i say anti-israel (not pro-palestinian or human rights activists) because their actions and words illustrate this.  there are several others here with whom i wouldn't lump in with them (anna shane for one). in some ways this labeling does not bother me since i am a proponent of balance and honesty and some semblance of reality is required for this complex issue.

what does bother me - truth be told - is twofold - one that another diary, of a very important issue has yet again been lost on the fact that personal attacks because i am a zionist.

secondly - that the mydd community is for the most part (obvious exceptions)- is letting this go unfettered.  seriously - i know this is the goal here for some - but i am pretty close to stop posting here  

by canadian gal 2009-03-30 05:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear CG

You have a penchant for calling anyone who supports Palestinian rights a troll.

That is enough for me. You would like to see diaries about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict wiped off of MyDD, an obvious implication of your "troll" charges toward me and Nyberg and possibly others.

I have nothing more to say. You are against diaries about human rights injustices when it implicates Israel as the perpetrator. Conversely, you are an avid opponent of Palestinian who fight against the siege, occupation, and colonization of their lands, about which never have never uttered a word.

by MainStreet 2009-03-30 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear CG

MS, I think this is your private delusion.

by Strummerson 2009-03-30 10:07AM | 0 recs
thanks.

for explaining what "i am and what i want" - now - i note that when i have given you the opportunity above to provide - you know - actual proof of your claims about me - you have declined to do so.

v. telling.

by canadian gal 2009-03-30 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: some examples...

noted.

by Todd Beeton 2009-03-30 05:15PM | 0 recs
Since we're building a record

let's not forget this instance of trollery.

by JJE 2009-03-30 07:33PM | 0 recs
Re: open question...

The idea is to avoid replying or answering to these comments. One don't have to answer every single troll in their diaries. I myself make the same mistake in my diaries..Stopping blogging would be enabling the trolls who do not want your POV to be blogged here.

by louisprandtl 2009-03-29 05:55PM | 0 recs
Being Progressive = Hating Israel at MYDD

Dear CG,
I totally agree.  I have basically stopped coming to MYDD, because I can't stand the assumption that Zionists are bad people and evil.  

Several diarists here clearly believe it is impossible to be part of this community unless you HATE Israel and/or think that HAMAS is ethical and noble.

Thank you for the diary, but I fear that it will change nothing.  At least, know that you're not along.

by borlov 2009-03-30 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Being Progressive = Hating Israel at MYDD

"I totally agree.  I have basically stopped coming to MYDD, because I can't stand the assumption that Zionists are bad people and evil.  

Several diarists here clearly believe it is impossible to be part of this community unless you HATE Israel and/or think that HAMAS is ethical and noble."

I have commented extensively on how I think the state of Isreal's actions towards Palestine are not only criminal but immoral. What I DO NOT suggest which you are filling people's mouths is that Hamas is somehow ethical and noble. I may have suggested that in a sense you can't blame Palestinians from choosing between a corrupt and incompetent party, or one that actually builds roads and schools (Hamas). But I digress.

What I do not appreciate is the assumption that those who have differing opinions on this to you "hate" Isreal or "Zionists" as you call them. Take your generalizations somewhere else please. There are like 2 or 3 trolls who just come to the I/P diaries to stir up trouble, and honestly I have not seen one of them yet. So I know its easy to label all people who beleive Isreal's actions in Gaza and Palestine are immoral and criminal as being anti-zionist or somehow a terroist sympathizers but that would mean you are doing the very same thing you are accusing others of.

by SocialDem 2009-03-30 08:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Being Progressive = Hating Israel at MYDD

CORRECTION: So I know its easy to label all (should read "several", not "all") people who beleive Isreal's actions in Gaza and Palestine are immoral and criminal as being anti-zionist or somehow a terroist sympathizers but that would mean you are doing the very same thing you are accusing others of.

by SocialDem 2009-03-30 08:31PM | 0 recs
Re: open question...

I hope not. I don't understand why MainStreet has not been banned.

Sudan is NOT ABOUT ISRAEL.

by redwagon 2009-03-30 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: open question...

I guess because I did not bring up the topic. CG, Strummerson, and others did.

by MainStreet 2009-03-30 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: open question...

I've already caught you in this lie once before.  yungblakman brought it up.  You "missed" his comment until I pointed it out and you admitted your "mistake."  Now you are repeating it.

No more benefit of the doubt.

by Strummerson 2009-03-30 02:23PM | 0 recs
Re: open question...

Frankly I'm a little suspicious here. Why would CG take one single comment, and then use it to turn this otherwise pertinent diary into an IP diary.

If you didn't notice, that is exactly what happened. And CG brought it on herself, calling several people trolls, appealing to the administration, presumably to get people who do IP canned. Methinks something smells bad in the land of....whatever the phrase is. And certainly you jumped in here as you usually do.

The object I suppose is banning. Well, I can only hope that the administration sees through this transparent effort and treats it accordingly.

by MainStreet 2009-03-31 04:16AM | 0 recs
Re: open question...

Presumably she did it because the exact same thing happens to every one of her diaries, usually with you as the instigator.

If she didn't have numerous prior examples to point to, I rather doubt the administration would have been interested.

by Steve M 2009-03-31 05:00PM | 0 recs
Oh, stop the fake outrage

You knew good and well when you posted this the subject of Israel would come up because its a valid point.

How can you expect the Arab summit to abide by these International rules if their main antagonist in the region openly disregards them?

They would appear weak and dictators can never do that.

by yungblakman 2009-03-29 05:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, stop the fake outrage

Main antagonist in the region?

Let's check the map, geography genius.  Sudan is in North Africa, on the OTHER side of Egypt from the Levant.  It borders freakin' Chad, for crying out loud.

The conflict in Darfur is about an ethnically Arab government backing local militias in murdering over 400,000 inhabitants of Darfur, most of who are ethnically sub-Saharan Africans.

Why not bring up the fact that we also aren't consistent on human rights when it comes to Saudi Arabia, or China, or countless other regimes?  Bringing up I/P here is plain trollish.  You know it.  I know it.  We all know it.   Now either address the diary or write your own on any subject you choose.
 

by Strummerson 2009-03-29 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, stop the fake outrage

First, you all here should learn the meaning of the word Troll, because I and the rest of the internet don't think it means what you all seem to think it means.

It doesn't mean "you have a different opinion, so you must be a TROLL!"

Trust me I can show you real trolling.

Second, as I've said the people at that summit were in the wrong.

If you were to ask them why they would so recklessly disregard International law what would you expect their response to be?

Do you really think they would not mention Israel especially since they were just informally accused of war crimes themselves?

I mean really what was supposed to happen in this diary?

We all condemn the evil Arabs for inviting a war criminal to their summit?

We wouldn't question why? What for?

No analysis? Just a statement and co-signatures?

Progressive? And why am I asking so many questions?

Will you answer them? Will that girl from Canada who's so easy to offend and acts like she's getting paid to blog here answer them?

Is she getting paid? If so, how can I be down?

by yungblakman 2009-03-29 05:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, stop the fake outrage

To "troll" I now officially add "lame."

"Girl" from Canada?

Getting paid?  You want to give some rationale for that accusation?

You want responses to your questions?  How about doing some responding yourself instead of turning this into an ad hominem crapfest.

Shame on you.

Go to bed.

by Strummerson 2009-03-29 06:01PM | 0 recs
You know whats funny?

Im being accused of being a troll but I haven't called anyone a name, uttered a bad word, or generally had a bad disposition.

All I did was dare to bring up Israel in a diary that warranted its mention.

If you bring up "Arab" you automatically get "Israel".

Its a sad state of affairs I know but I didn't create the situation.

All I did was bring it up on a board that I thought was about intelligent discussion.

What would have been the acceptable response to the diary?

Silliness aside, I really want to know.

by yungblakman 2009-03-29 06:08PM | 0 recs
You want to be serious but write

If you bring up "Arab" you automatically get "Israel".

You ought to do better...

by louisprandtl 2009-03-29 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: You know whats funny?

Nothing.  Nothing is funny here.  Not the topic of this diary.  Not your inappropriate reaction to it.

And calling an adult a "girl" is totally inappropriate, distinctly trollish.  How would you react, yungblakman, if someone called you "this boy?"

by Strummerson 2009-03-29 06:14PM | 0 recs
Her name is Canadian GAL

Gal as in slang for girl.

by yungblakman 2009-03-29 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Her name is Canadian GAL

No.  It's not.  

"Girl" specifically connotes a child and correlates to "Boy."  "Gal" correlates to "Guy."  

One is demeaning and dismissive when applied to an adult, one is not.

by Strummerson 2009-03-29 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: You know whats funny?

Come on. You know that this is a heated topic and you purposely injected it into a diary where it didn't belong. At least acknowledge doing what you did. And yes, that is a definition of a troll because look what's happened, total chaos.

by Todd Beeton 2009-03-30 05:24PM | 0 recs
You said it way better than I ever put it.

It's getting late on this Sunday night. Why is it so difficult to stick to the diary itself? If somebody wants to discuss I/P issues, please create your own diary and engage readers there.

by louisprandtl 2009-03-29 06:08PM | 0 recs
What would you expect the Arabs--

--at the summit to say?

What would be their justification for the invite?

Israel would not have been mentioned. You seriously believe that?

The I/P (nice abbreviation MyDD) situation poisons and clouds everything in the region.

by yungblakman 2009-03-29 06:13PM | 0 recs
Re: What would you expect the Arabs--

Region?

Get a map already.  Is Indonesia also in "the region" b/c it's a Muslim country?

I also suggest you look into the concept of Orientalism.

Now, anything to add on Darfur?  Or is this really just all about you?

by Strummerson 2009-03-29 06:16PM | 0 recs
Your taking region too literally my friend

Being a Muslim all my life I know of what I speak.

Pakistani, Bengali, Senegalese, American what ever - as long as Isreal is in the region of Muslims and considered an enemy there's always going to be a look over there at what they're doing factor to any action taken by these States.

The sad fact is they're partially right. It doesn't justify their actions but how can we (US) condemn their atrocities and turn a blind eye to Gaza?

by yungblakman 2009-03-29 06:24PM | 0 recs
So are you saying that you think

that every problem with Arabs have a Israeli reason..

  1. Darfur massacre of Black African Muslims by Sudanese Arabs is because of Israel.
  2. The gender apartheid of Saudi Arabia is because of Israel.
  3. The Berber rebellion in Morocco and Algeria is because of Israel
  4. The Sunni-Arab/Shia-Persian conflict is because of Israel.
  5. The marginalization and massacre of Kurdish population in Iraq, Iran and Turkey is because of Israel...

I could go on and on and on....

If you're serious about this discussion, bring some new things to the table...G'nite.

by louisprandtl 2009-03-29 06:20PM | 0 recs
Take number 4 as an example

What does Iran (Shiite) have in common with the other Sunni Muslim states?

Grievances with Israel.

It poisons everything there in that "Region" (I know I shouldn't call it that).

It's been used as a distraction for generations.

Come on you all have to know this stuff.

I mean, I'm just a young black boy according to Strummerson and I know this stuff.

by yungblakman 2009-03-29 06:34PM | 0 recs
Now that's seriously misleading...

1)Strummerson never called you that. He clearly pointed out why your statement about CG was deeply offensive.
2)Shia Persian-Sunni Arab conflict have nothing to do with Israel.

by louisprandtl 2009-03-29 06:49PM | 0 recs
I see...

gal = girl like man = boy.

MyDD has its own set of logic

BTW I love how I can write MyDD and get the spell check error.

It kinda fits this wacky place.

by yungblakman 2009-03-29 07:19PM | 0 recs
And you wanted to be taken seriously

and not considered a troll...Sorry my mistake once again.. G'nite.

by louisprandtl 2009-03-29 07:22PM | 0 recs
Re: I see...

No.

Gal does not equal girl and man does not equal boy.  You can't get away with re-writing my comment however the hell serves your purposes.  

Here's what I wrote, it will now appear within 4" of the original post on your screen:

How would you react, yungblakman, if someone called you "this boy?"

And then I clarified:

"Girl" specifically connotes a child and correlates to "Boy."  "Gal" correlates to "Guy."  

One is demeaning and dismissive when applied to an adult, one is not.

Yeah.  We're real wacky around here.

I'd also suggest that using the geographic term "region" as a substitute for Dar al Islam makes as much sense as putting Santiago, Chile and Wasilla, Alaska in the same "region" because Christianity is the dominant religion in both places.  Iranians aren't Arabs.  Morocco isn't in Central Asia.

These distinctions matter.

If you want to talk about the ways in which opinion reverberates in particular ways based on Muslim affiliation and solidarity, and the ways in which it differs, then fine.  

Jews can be anti-Semitic and Muslims can be orientalists.  It's not, however, helpful.

by Strummerson 2009-03-30 02:34AM | 0 recs
You know what, you all are right.

The Arabs shouldn't have done that. They're bad.

And that guy Bashir is a war criminal.

by yungblakman 2009-03-29 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: You know what, you all are right.

"The Arabs" didn't do it.  The delegates to the Arab League summit did.  The diary is pretty clear about that.  The question is what the US can and should do about the catastrophe in Darfur.

by Strummerson 2009-03-29 06:21PM | 0 recs
Oh and I forgot...

...to match the theme of the first few responses.

Al-Bashir should be shot, stabbed and strangled simultaneously.

by yungblakman 2009-03-29 06:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh and I forgot...

Given the number of innocents who've died under his watch I wouldn't shed a tear.

Never again means never again dammit!  We've ALL failed in Darfur.

by Reaper0Bot0 2009-03-29 06:49PM | 0 recs
Mass murderers are a majority

bloc within the Arab League, so I don't know why people are surprised.

Haffez al-Assad killed more Arabs than did Ariel Sharon and Menachem Begin combined, and lets not even get into what the Algerians have done.

I also don't recall Saddam getting the boot when he was gassing the Kurds.

by Geekesque 2009-03-30 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Mass murderers are a majority

It would be a good idea to post the stats on this. Not that I believe that bodycounts are important, but knowing those who are killers at heart might make an impression. Leaders who are willing to kill their own people aren't impressive by anyone's account.

Ariel Sharon killed about 20,000 southern Shiite Lebanese during the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, although he was indicted by the International Court at Hague on the basis of massacres which he facilitated by the Christian Falange in the Palestinian refugee camps, Shantilla and another one, 800 civilian deaths.

Do you have any bodybag figures on the others you mentioned?

by MainStreet 2009-03-30 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Mass murderers are a majority

I'm not disputing the carnage in Lebanon at all, though I think many were Palestinians and thus not Shia Lebanese.  But, by your own standards that you seem so challenged to keep yourself, you need to cite some source.

by Strummerson 2009-03-30 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Mass murderers are a majority

"Palestinians and...not Shia Lebanese?"

Does killing Palestinians, most living in refugee camps in Labanon created by the 1948 ethnic cleansing, as opposed to Shia Lebanese, make it different? The overwhelming majority were civilians including thousands of children, yes, just as in Gaza recently.

But afterall, they were just "Arabs."

And your sources on that one are?

by MainStreet 2009-03-30 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Mass murderers are a majority

Nope.  Doesn't make it better or worse.  Just pointing out that you are throwing around generalities that likely contain inaccuracies without providing a source.

I don't need to cite a source, as I am not dealing in figures.  You are.  The massacre of the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps by Christian Phalangists under the auspices of the occupying IDF is common knowledge.  Fatah was one of the IDF's prime targets in that war and Palestinian refugee camps were decimated.

Now you try to dodge my request that you cite a source in order to add credibility and specificity to a claim I explicitly state that I do not in general dispute by implying that I am racist?

I demonstrated against that war in Israel.  I worked to pressure subsequent Israeli governments to withdraw from southern Lebanon.

You've gone from willfully twisting my positions to accusing me of racism.

Here are a few questions:

Do you have any moral decency or intellectual integrity?

Do you care to add more filth by weaving me into a deranged Likud conspiracy fantasy?

Can you cite a source for your figures?

by Strummerson 2009-03-30 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Mass murderers are a majority

Here you go.  It's actually not very hard:

# Israeli Invasion

   * 3 Sept. 1982 Washington Post
          o Beirut newspaper An Nahar est. 17,825 k. during invasion
                + Outside Beirut
                      # Military personnel: 9,797 (PLO, Syria, etc.)
                      # Civilians: 2,513
                + Beirut area: 5,515 (mil. + civ.)
    * 14 October 1982 Christian Science Monitor
          o Beirut massacre: 2,000 k. acc2 Lebanese govt.
          o Throughout Lebanon
                + An Nahar: 48,028 casualties, incl. 17,825 k.
                + Palestine Red Crescent Society: 27,000 casualties (k+w)
    * 5 March 1991 AP
          o Israel: 657 k.
          o Syrians: 370
          o PLO: 1,000
          o Lebanese and Palestinians: 19,000+, mostly civilians
    * 14 Dec. 1985 Montreal Gazette: 650 Israelis k. (1981-84)
    * 24 Dec. 1989 Arizona Republic: 654 Israelis
    * Ploughshares 2000: 12,000 people, including 500 Israelis, killed during the 1978 and 1982 invasions of Lebanon

# Outsiders:

   * 237 (Info. Please 1991), 239 (Gilbert) or 241 (Our Times) USAns, and 58 French (Our Times) killed in Oct. 1983 bombings.
    * 9 March 1992 AP
          o 241 USAns + 58 French (1983); plus 75 k at US Embassy (1983+84)
    * US State Dept.
          o April 1983, U.S. Embassy, W. Beirut: 63 k
          o October 1983, US & Fr HQ: 298 k
          o September 1984, US Embassy annex, E. Beirut: 9 k
    * A total of 273 military USAns killed, 1982-84 according to House Res. 45,108th Conngress, 1st Session
    * 1,000 Syrians KIA, 1976 (Singer)

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3 .htm#Lebanon

The war and ensuing occupation were horrible enough.  But your figure of 20,000 Shia killed by Sharon is inaccurate.  Did you just make it up, throwing the detail of the Shia to make it seem credible?

If you are going to deal in casualty figures, which I think is indeed important, it's best to take the 30 seconds required to dig up some source.  Otherwise you discredit yourself, something you show a great talent for.  It's also disrespectful to the victims, who are not just your ideological playthings but flesh and blood people.

Finally, while Ariel Sharon was Israeli Minister of Defense at the time, and while many believe he manipulated Prime Minister Menahem Begin into the war, it's misleading to attribute all the casualties to him personally.  Sharon has plenty blood on his hands.  Exaggerating, approximating, or simply faking information undermines your credibility as an accuser and thus also the case against him.

In general, I take your lack of response, like EVERY time I catch you fudging, distorting, and lying as the answer to my questions.

No decency.

No integrity.

No sources.

by Strummerson 2009-03-30 07:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Mass murderers are a majority

20,000, 17,000, 27,000, does it really matter. I often rely on memory which may be faulty but which makes the point. This is a blog, not a history seminar.

And if one would ask just who turned this diary into an IP diary, I would have to admonish you and CG. But I wonder if that was your point, why both of you persisted in deviating attention from the important issue of Darfur into IP for the purpose of defaming diarists and commenters who blog here.

by MainStreet 2009-03-31 04:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Mass murderers are a majority

No decency.

No integrity.

No sources.

Just paranoid delusions, lies, and slanders.  And you claim to be devoted to human rights.  

Who do you work for?

As to all of your invocations of the administration, they are indeed paying attention to your shenanigans.  They're not going to let you shut other people down with such absurd tactics.

by Strummerson 2009-03-31 05:10AM | 0 recs
Considering Assad killed 20,000 in Hama

alone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massac re

it's hard to get an accurate account of his score.

by Geekesque 2009-03-30 03:08PM | 0 recs
Tell me that it hasn't come to this....

1. That to criticise a malevolent politician (who happens to be Muslim) is somehow a form of covert Zionism

2. That (as with Geekesque above) every politician that happens to be Muslim is an exemplar of all Muslims.

This is f**ked up, and risks polarising things into a pure armageddon of racial and religious hatred - which suits nobody but the extremists on either side.

by brit 2009-03-30 01:18PM | 0 recs
*sigh*

apparently it has.  

honestly - just to bring it back around to sudan - its times like these that make me want to weep for the the african people.  recently dvelez and i spoke about how on kos people stopped posting diaries on this topic for lack of interest.  lack of interest!

why talk about an african genocide when we can talk about zionism and its ills.

by canadian gal 2009-03-30 01:29PM | 0 recs
I suppose the problem is with the Arab league...

...connection. The politics of Sudan, like a lot of East Africa, are actually colonial as much a religious. I've Kikuyu relatives and they see Arabs and Muzungus (white ghosts) all as colonising interlopers.

But the Masai see Kikuyus the same way (they're a South African Bantu tribe) so I'm not sure what that proves.

To be fair, I think there's also an equally polarising problem, as Geekesque displays, of factoring every bad thing that happens in states with large Muslim populations as part of a global 'Islamic' threat: some coherent world menacing hegemony. I see this kind of rhetoric accelerating these days....

Though of course the two most populous Muslim nations are actually Indonesia and India, and one of the most powerful is Turkey.  And they don't fit into these apocalyptic generalities either.

by brit 2009-03-30 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: the problem is with the Arab league...

"of factoring every bad thing that happens in states with large Muslim populations as part of a global 'Islamic' threat: some coherent world menacing hegemony. I see this kind of rhetoric accelerating these days...."

Yes even on left wing sites. But it is bullshit perpetuated by people who seem to have some investment in making Islamic peoples look like terrorists. Truth is that Al Qaeda represents a tiny minority of Muslims, most derived from a clan in Saudi Arabia. They account for less 1% of all Muslims. Yet, we continue to hear the terrorist meme and how we must keep vigilant of Muslim terrorists. Bush used this nonsense to attack Iraq, but we can only hope that Obama does not fall for it, or try to use it to justify military actions.

by MainStreet 2009-03-30 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: the problem is with the Arab league...

Agreed.

by brit 2009-03-30 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: *sigh*

There are about 10 diaries focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict posted daily on Daily Kos. Do the research.

As I said above, you hijacked your own Darfur diary and turn it into an IP diary. If that was your purpose, it succeeded, especially your appeal to ban several people not even involved. We have heard this appeal before, and now you are saying the Daily Kos did so, so why not MyDD.

As you stated above, "sigh!"

by MainStreet 2009-03-31 04:39AM | 0 recs
Re: *sigh*

"recently dvelez and i spoke about how on kos people stopped posting diaries on this topic for lack of interest."

I searched Daily Kos for diaries about "Darfur" in the past year, and this is what came up.

Found 587 results

Almost an average of two diaries per day. People over there do seem interested in this human rights injustice.

by MainStreet 2009-03-31 03:42PM | 0 recs
Zionism

Brit,

Is your implication that Zionism is inherently bad, or just an observation about others' behavior?

by borlov 2009-03-30 01:44PM | 0 recs
Perhaps you misread me

I was observing the nature of the conversation (i.e the polarising lens that criticising Arab leaders means you're a covert Zionist) no more, no less.

As for my own opinions, I think Zionism has become  something very different from Herzl's original dream. I certainly don't support any ideal for a 'Greater Israel', and I think basing any modern state on a concept of ethnic or religious citizenship is problematic.

But I have good friends who would say they have Zionist sympathies - mainly for obvious and tragic historical reasons. I can't exactly share those feelings, because I would be excluded from most versions of Zionism, but I do sympathise with the need for a homeland - just as I do for Palestinians. And I certainly don't think of them as bad people, any more than I would of a Christian, Muslim or Sikh who has a different world view

by brit 2009-03-30 06:06PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads