Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumEU rejects Israeli request to blacklist Hezbollah as terrorist group
The European Union turned down a request Tuesday by Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman to blacklist Hezbollah as a terrorist group after last week’s deadly bombing in Bulgaria.
“There is no consensus for putting Hezbollah on the list of terrorist organizations,” said Cypriot Foreign Minister Erato Kozakou-Marcoullis, whose country currently holds the rotating EU presidency.
Israel blames Iran and the Lebanese group Hezbollah for Wednesday’s suicide attack at the Black Sea airport of Burgas in which five Israelis and their Bulgarian driver died.
But an EU decision would require the unanimous approval of all its 27 members.
more...
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/07/24/228177.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
kayecy
(1,417 posts)Notice who is saying this Shira......Cypriot Foreign Minister Erato Kozakou-Marcoullis, whose country currently holds the rotating EU presidency.
EU Presidency!....When do you think Israel will allow the Palestininas to even to have their own soverign government, never mind be president of an an International Organisation?
.
.
shira
(30,109 posts)And unlike Turkey, Israel has actually offered the Palestinians their own self-determination and state several times.
kayecy
(1,417 posts)Israel has actually offered the Palestinians their own self-determination and state several times.
Don't you mean Bantustans?.......What borders did Israel offer the Palestinians?
Did they offer full sovereignty or did they demand to retain Israeli posts along the Jordan, Israeli military overflights....de-militarization etc?
shira
(30,109 posts)Neither was Olmert's offer.
Seems you're against a Palestinian state too. They could have had it 12 years ago, but you're against...
kayecy
(1,417 posts)What borders did Israel offer the Palestinians?
Did they offer full sovereignty or did they demand to retain Israeli posts along the Jordan, Israeli military overflights....de-militarization etc?
The security posts were going to be temporary.
The Olmert offer included 100% land swap.
edit: Map is from The Missing Peace by Dennis Ross.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)That's the one area that Clinton could never get the two sides to agree on - even going block by block, as he describes in his autobiography (which deals with these negotiations quite tellingly).
Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians seem willing to make a Jerusalem compromise that would be acceptable to the other side.
kayecy
(1,417 posts)Did they offer full sovereignty?.......Israeli military overflights?....de-militarization ?.....including East Jerusalem?
I am not disparaging Israel's offer but it hardly compares with the Turkish situation where the Turks encouraged the people under their occupation (Turkish Cyriots) to go for UDI as the "Turkish Cypriot Republic of Northern Cyprus"
No qualifications.....No settlements......No overflights.....No demitarization.
Turkey would not have retained one sq km of Cyprus.....Compare that with any offer made by Israel.
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Wed Jul 25, 2012, 07:38 PM - Edit history (1)
Turkey didn't offer anything but running their own puppet government in north Cyprus that no other nation on the planet recognizes. And unlike Israel, Turks in the mainland don't have to worry about rockets and bombs from north Cyprus like the Israelis do.
Turkey occupies sovereign land they have zero claim to, unlike Israel.
Also, there is/was no sovereign where Israel's military is or isn't WRT the Palestinian territories.
Nevertheless, Israel offered the Palestinians their own self-determination; the genuine type. They rejected it out of hand w/o a counter-offer b/c the leadership still prefers war.
======
ETA:
As you should know, Cyprus doesn't have complete and exclusive sovereignty over their airspace.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)Let's look at the situation.
Maintaining an aggressive posture with Israel means...
1. The PA is never held responsible for not providing infrastructure, housing or jobs -- all problems in the WB are the fault of the "Zionist Entity"
2. Politically inconvenient people can be accused of being Israeli collaborators and effectively silenced (or disposed of)
3. Millions in AID
4. And endless stream of young coeds from Liberal Arts Colleges coming to "assist us with our struggle"
Making peace means...
1. The PA actually has to provide services like a real government
2. They can't blame the Zionist Entity for all their failures
3. They fall out of the AID $ / Coed spotlight -- who will go on to the next cool cause
4. They might actually get voted out of office
After thinking it over -- I'm going to take War with Israel for $400, Alex
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)"Turkey occupies sovereign land they have zero claim to, unlike Israel. "
Even if we take your statements regarding the Palestinian Territories, there's still the matter of the Golan Heights and Shebaa; these are the sovereign territory of Syria and Lebanon, respectively (or, they're both Syrian territory; depends on who you ask, but neither is Israeli territory)
"And unlike Israel, Turks in the mainland don't have to worry about rockets and bombs from north Cyprus like the Israelis do. "
...Actually...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan_Workers%27_Party
Granted, the PKK isn't exactly Hezbollah, but they're still there, and they're still active... And it's been accused that Israel has at least some part in funding the PKK (nominally against iraq, but I don't think terrorists are very careful about where they turn that funding towards...)
"They rejected it out of hand w/o a counter-offer b/c the leadership still prefers war. "
Are you sure they don't just hate you for your freedoms?
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)Certainly more contiguous than
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baarle-Hertog (a Belgium town located mostly in Holland)
or this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooch_Behar_district#Divisions (an Indian town located within the state of Bangladesh)
And - an un-blockadeable 60km border with a friendly neighbour state -- Jordan
kayecy
(1,417 posts)shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)the Turkish Cypriots endorsed and voted for Kofi Annan's peace plan for Cyprus in 2003, which called for the return of all property to Greeks that had been taken, and fair compensation where this was not tenable. The Greeks voted against.
The EU issued this statement after the ballot:-
shira
(30,109 posts)I'm sure that if Kofi Annan's 2003 peace plan was applied to Israel/Palestine, you'd laugh it off.
Israel gets whatever it wants and pays compensation. Conflict over.
The bullshit is all yours.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)what about you?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)...And nobody's seen Luxembourg since 1983. It's hard to get shit done.
hack89
(39,171 posts)
Mosby
(16,248 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 28, 2012, 07:31 PM - Edit history (1)
The 1982–1983 Tyre headquarters bombings.
The April 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing.
The 1983 barracks bombing that killed 241 US marines,
58 French paratroopers and 6 civilians at the US and French barracks in Beirut.
The Hijacking of TWA Flight 847 in 1985.
The Lebanon hostage crisis from 1982 to 1992, including the kidnapping and torture-murder of CIA Beirut station chief William Buckley.
The 1992 Israeli Embassy attack in Buenos Aires, killing 29, in Argentina.
The 1994 AMIA bombing of a Jewish cultural centre, killing 85, in Argentina.
The 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, which killed 19 Saudi citizens, and 1 American.
The 2000 cross-border kidnapping and murder of IDF soldiers Adi Avitan, Benyamin Avraham, and Omar Sawaidwere.
In 2002, Singapore accused Hizbullah of recruiting Singaporeans in a failed 1990s plot to attack US and Israeli ships in the Singapore Straits.
The 2005 assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri for which 4 Hizbullah members were indicted by the Hague.
The 2006 kidnapping and murder of IDF soldiers Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, which precipitated the 2006 Israel-Lebanon War.
Indiscriminately targeting Israeli civilians with rocket fire during the ensuing 34 day conflict.
The January 15, 2008, bombing of a U.S. Embassy vehicle in Beirut.
In 2009, a Hizbullah plot in Egypt was uncovered, where Egyptian authorities arrested 49 men for planning attacks against Israeli and Egyptian targets in the Sinai Peninsula.
A failed 2011 bombing in Istanbul targeting the Israeli consul, which left eight dead.
A spate of bombings targeting Israeli diplomats in India, Georgia, and Thailand in early 2012.
Edit to add link:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/158218#.UA9eSLRDyBV
shira
(30,109 posts)holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)To-MAY-to, To-MAH-to
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Apparently so long as one member of the EU says "nah, let's not," that's the way the whole EU goes.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Alamuti Lotus
(3,093 posts)Most of the events cited range between spurious speculation and nonsense anyway, but I'm just curious as to what your bathroom reading entails.
eyl
(2,499 posts)to have personally reported it, I don't think it counts as plagiarism. </nitpick>
(BTW, is there a way to get square brackets to show up in text here?)
Alamuti Lotus
(3,093 posts)I usually just use { or } in their place, but it's not the same..
plagiarism isn't quite the phrase I was looking for there; the main point was how can I start attacking the source if it's not cited? 
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Earlier this month, President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, visited Israel.
Just weeks after EU foreign ministers had castigated Israel for its policies in the West Bank, Mr Barroso said at the official dinner hosted by Israeli President Shimon Peres: “We are committed to continually strengthening the vital links between Europe and Israel — economic, social, cultural and scientific, and I reiterate the EU’s fundamental commitment to Israel’s security.”
Those sentiments were embodied in an EU move this week to upgrade its diplomatic and trade ties with Israel.
Part of its new European Neighbourhood Policy, the European Commission’s Action Plan looks to boost the “scope and intensity of political co-operation” between the EU and Israel, to reduce trade barriers, and to align economic legislation in specific areas.
It will also deepen “trade and economic relations, extending them to cover, inter alia, the service sector, particularly financial services, and provide the conditions for increasing investment and exports”.
Even if the Association Agreement — the first EU-Israel agreement, signed in 1995 — remains the framework for co-operation, the Action Plan is a declaration of mutual objectives and commitment to building foundations for enhanced EU-Israel relations.
http://www.thejc.com/news/israel-news/70500/eu-upgrades-trade-and-diplomatic-ties-israel
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And how would blacklisting Hezbollah as "a terrorist group" change anything with regards to that policy?
I'm not seeing what effects a blacklist would have. Do you honestly think there's any chance it could ever bring Hezbollah down in South Lebanon?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)The US, Canada, and Britain have designated them as such, but not the EU.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)the party proper is not.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)With respect to the military wing, like the UK did.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)would it be 'good enough' or would Israel be satisfied if the EU did that in your opinion?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)It's hard to tell from this article - is there a more detailed piece on the subject?
I think Israel would be quite pleased if the EU took that step.
shira
(30,109 posts)...but not so much Hezbollah.
Well actually, not so funny.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)There's no chance that doing that will ever result in Hezbollah being disowned by the Muslim population of Lebanon.
The fact that official designations of Sinn Fein as "terrorist" did nothing but increase Sinn Fein's support in Northern Ireland illustrates my point.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)By doing so, they would make it a criminal act to provide them with any financial support.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The bloody stalemate in The Six Counties simply continued, UNTIL it was ended through negotiations. Perpetuation of the stalemate is all that could come of the EU blacklisting Hezbollah. Such a step would also(at least in the short run)inevitably produce an increase in popular support for Hezbollah among Lebanese Shiites, because it would be taken as neo-imperialist European meddling.
And it's not as if Hezbollah would simply wither away without financial support. The popular base they have among South Lebanese Shiites(because they are seen as the only force that protected those people from violent attack by Phalangists AND the IDF)isn't going to go away. We don't even see any alternative groupings trying to emerge among that community.
My assumption is that the EU(and I'm not defending them here, simply trying to go with what I think is their rationale)probably thinks that by NOT labeling Hezbollah as officially "terrorist", they're keeping lines of communication open.
Since it isn't possible to defeat Hezbollah militarily(or defeat anybody else in any of these struggles, and it needs to be stated that Hezbollah's main rivals in Lebanon, the Phalangist party, also have elements that could be called "terrorist"-including the Lebanese Army on a bad day) what good would it do to totally anathemize it?
This can't be ended through one side or other winning on a battlefield. And nobody in Lebanon would back a new major Israeli offensive against Hezbollah(other than the Phalangists, and they're a shrinking, extreme-right-wing to fascist minority who are rapidly losing any real relevance in Lebanese politics).
You stop wars nowadays through negotiations...and those negotiations have to include all factions in the war or they end up being pointless. It simply doesn't work to try to forcibly change anybody's leadership in a situation that is seen as a liberation struggle. It didn't work in South Africa(the black majority there NEVER did what the U.S. and the Likud Party wanted and switched their allegiance from the democratic, inclusive ANC to the reactionary Zulu-supremacist Inkatha Freedom Party-and thank God it didn't, because an Inkatha-led South Africa would be just like Zimbabwe or Rwanda/Burundi). It didn't work in Northern Ireland(in fact, it only increased Catholic/nationalist support for Sinn Fein, while destroying Catholic/nationalist support for the "acceptable" Social Democratic and Labour Party(a party now in permanent and irreversible electoral decline). and it won't work here. You always HAVE to deal with the leaders the community chooses itself. No leadership-imposed-from-without can ever have legitimacy in any such situation. Reality proves this over and over again.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)UN Security Council Resolution 1701 called for them to disband as a militia.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)The full text of Security Council resolution 1701 (2006) reads as follows:
“The Security Council,
“Recalling all its previous resolutions on Lebanon, in particular resolutions 425 (1978), 426 (1978), 520 (1982), 1559 (2004), 1655 (2006) 1680 (2006) and 1697 (2006), as well as the statements of its President on the situation in Lebanon, in particular the statements of 18 June 2000 (S/PRST/2000/21), of 19 October 2004 (S/PRST/2004/36), of 4 May 2005 (S/PRST/2005/17), of 23 January 2006 (S/PRST/2006/3) and of 30 July 2006 (S/PRST/2006/35),
“Expressing its utmost concern at the continuing escalation of hostilities in Lebanon and in Israel since Hizbollah’s attack on Israel on 12 July 2006, which has already caused hundreds of deaths and injuries on both sides, extensive damage to civilian infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons,
“Emphasizing the need for an end of violence, but at the same time emphasizing the need to address urgently the causes that have given rise to the current crisis, including by the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers,
“Mindful of the sensitivity of the issue of prisoners and encouraging the efforts aimed at urgently settling the issue of the Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel,
“Welcoming the efforts of the Lebanese Prime Minister and the commitment of the Government of Lebanon, in its seven-point plan, to extend its authority over its territory, through its own legitimate armed forces, such that there will be no weapons without the consent of the Government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the Government of Lebanon, welcoming also its commitment to a United Nations force that is supplemented and enhanced in numbers, equipment, mandate and scope of operation, and bearing in mind its request in this plan for an immediate withdrawal of the Israeli forces from southern Lebanon,
“Determined to act for this withdrawal to happen at the earliest,
“Taking due note of the proposals made in the seven-point plan regarding the Shebaa farms area,
“Welcoming the unanimous decision by the Government of Lebanon on 7 August 2006 to deploy a Lebanese armed force of 15,000 troops in South Lebanon as the Israeli army withdraws behind the Blue Line and to request the assistance of additional forces from UNIFIL as needed, to facilitate the entry of the Lebanese armed forces into the region and to restate its intention to strengthen the Lebanese armed forces with material as needed to enable it to perform its duties,
“Aware of its responsibilities to help secure a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution to the conflict,
“Determining that the situation in Lebanon constitutes a threat to international peace and security,
“1. Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations;
“2. Upon full cessation of hostilities, calls upon the Government of Lebanon and UNIFIL as authorized by paragraph 11 to deploy their forces together throughout the South and calls upon the Government of Israel, as that deployment begins, to withdraw all of its forces from southern Lebanon in parallel;
“3. Emphasizes the importance of the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory in accordance with the provisions of resolution 1559 (2004) and resolution 1680 (2006), and of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full sovereignty, so that there will be no weapons without the consent of the Government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the Government of Lebanon;
“4. Reiterates its strong support for full respect for the Blue Line;
“5. Also reiterates its strong support, as recalled in all its previous relevant resolutions, for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized borders, as contemplated by the Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement of 23 March 1949;
“6. Calls on the international community to take immediate steps to extend its financial and humanitarian assistance to the Lebanese people, including through facilitating the safe return of displaced persons and, under the authority of the Government of Lebanon, reopening airports and harbours, consistent with paragraphs 14 and 15, and calls on it also to consider further assistance in the future to contribute to the reconstruction and development of Lebanon;
“7. Affirms that all parties are responsible for ensuring that no action is taken contrary to paragraph 1 that might adversely affect the search for a long-term solution, humanitarian access to civilian populations, including safe passage for humanitarian convoys, or the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons, and calls on all parties to comply with this responsibility and to cooperate with the Security Council;
“8. Calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution based on the following principles and elements:
-- full respect for the Blue Line by both parties;
-- security arrangements to prevent the resumption of hostilities, including the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11, deployed in this area;
-- full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of 27 July 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese State;
-- no foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of its Government;
-- no sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized by its Government;
-- provision to the United Nations of all remaining maps of land mines in Lebanon in Israel’s possession;
“9. Invites the Secretary-General to support efforts to secure as soon as possible agreements in principle from the Government of Lebanon and the Government of Israel to the principles and elements for a long-term solution as set forth in paragraph 8, and expresses its intention to be actively involved;
“10. Requests the Secretary-General to develop, in liaison with relevant international actors and the concerned parties, proposals to implement the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), including disarmament, and for delineation of the international borders of Lebanon, especially in those areas where the border is disputed or uncertain, including by dealing with the Shebaa farms area, and to present to the Security Council those proposals within thirty days;
“11. Decides, in order to supplement and enhance the force in numbers, equipment, mandate and scope of operations, to authorize an increase in the force strength of UNIFIL to a maximum of 15,000 troops, and that the force shall, in addition to carrying out its mandate under resolutions 425 and 426 (1978):
(a) Monitor the cessation of hostilities;
(b) Accompany and support the Lebanese armed forces as they deploy throughout the South, including along the Blue Line, as Israel withdraws its armed forces from Lebanon as provided in paragraph 2;
(c) Coordinate its activities related to paragraph 11 (b) with the Government of Lebanon and the Government of Israel;
(d) Extend its assistance to help ensure humanitarian access to civilian populations and the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons;
(e) Assist the Lebanese armed forces in taking steps towards the establishment of the area as referred to in paragraph 8;
(f) Assist the Government of Lebanon, at its request, to implement paragraph 14;
“12. Acting in support of a request from the Government of Lebanon to deploy an international force to assist it to exercise its authority throughout the territory, authorizes UNIFIL to take all necessary action in areas of deployment of its forces and as it deems within its capabilities, to ensure that its area of operations is not utilized for hostile activities of any kind, to resist attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties under the mandate of the Security Council, and to protect United Nations personnel, facilities, installations and equipment, ensure the security and freedom of movement of United Nations personnel, humanitarian workers and, without prejudice to the responsibility of the Government of Lebanon, to protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence;
“13. Requests the Secretary-General urgently to put in place measures to ensure UNIFIL is able to carry out the functions envisaged in this resolution, urges Member States to consider making appropriate contributions to UNIFIL and to respond positively to requests for assistance from the Force, and expresses its strong appreciation to those who have contributed to UNIFIL in the past;
“14. Calls upon the Government of Lebanon to secure its borders and other entry points to prevent the entry in Lebanon without its consent of arms or related materiel and requests UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11 to assist the Government of Lebanon at its request;
“15. Decides further that all States shall take the necessary measures to prevent, by their nationals or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft:
“(a) The sale or supply to any entity or individual in Lebanon of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, whether or not originating in their territories; and
“(b) The provision to any entity or individual in Lebanon of any technical training or assistance related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of the items listed in subparagraph (a) above;
except that these prohibitions shall not apply to arms, related material, training or assistance authorized by the Government of Lebanon or by UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11;
“16. Decides to extend the mandate of UNIFIL until 31 August 2007, and expresses its intention to consider in a later resolution further enhancements to the mandate and other steps to contribute to the implementation of a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution;
“17. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council within one week on the implementation of this resolution and subsequently on a regular basis;
“18. Stresses the importance of, and the need to achieve, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, based on all its relevant resolutions including its resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967, 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973 and 1515 (2003) of 18 November 2003;
“19. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.”
Background
The Security Council met this evening to consider the situation in the Middle East.
Statement by Secretary-General
KOFI ANNAN, United Nations Secretary-General, welcomed the resolution ahead of the Council’s adoption, sa
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8808.doc.htm
there is mention of 'forces not approved by the Lebanese government and foreign forces, as far as I know Hezbollah is at this time part of the Lebanese government, there for so is their militia and they are domestic to Lebanon not foreign
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Visiting UN chief Ban Ki-moon said on Friday he was "deeply concerned" about the military prowess of the Iranian-backed Hezbollah and urged Lebanon to reconvene talks on disarming the militant group.
"I am deeply concerned about the military capacity of Hezbollah and also concerned about the lack of progress in disarmament," the UN chief told a news conference after holding talks with Lebanese leaders.
"All arms outside state authority are not acceptable," he added.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=50006
Odd that you think you know more about the subject than the UN Secretary General.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Hezbollah's arsenal has been at the centre of the dialogue, stalled since 2010 because of bickering between rival parties.
The powerful Shiite group, which dominates the government and is blacklisted as a terrorist organisation by Washington, has steadfastly refused to abandon its weapons, arguing they are needed to defend Lebanon against Israel.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I know it's hard for people to actually read the entire article at the link without someone cutting and pasting it here.
Although the two of us are probably the only ones following this exchange.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)the Taif accords do not require Hezbollah to disband as a militia.
shira
(30,109 posts)....as it relates to Israelis; considering the Olympics slap in the face as well as the EU not decision not to recognize terror vs. Israelis.
The message sent to the PLO, Hamas, and Hezbollah is that they can keep on keeping on....
No shaming them.
No significant condemnations or commemorations.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And they've had tributes to the victims of Munich at other games, they even had one AT Munich. Those commemorations were already significant. It wasn't any more important to have one at this games than at any other games. The only way it would have been would have been if this Olympics were also being held in Germany. Great Britain bore no responsibility for the Munich murders, nor does the IOC-they were solely the responsibility of those scumbags in Black September and of the West German security agencies that failed to act on the hints they had of that a plot to attack the Israeli team was in the works).
By the way, no Olympic games has ever had a tribute to the Mexican students who were slaughtered by the Mexican government in the Zocalo at the time of the 1968 games in Mexico City. THOSE deaths were tied to that games and were just as much a terrorist act as the killings at Munich). Their deaths were just as unjustified as the deaths of the Israeli athletes. Have you ever demanded a moment of silence for THEM? They were just much innocent victims as the Israeli athletes and their lives were of equal human value.
shira
(30,109 posts)Why not include Munich since there were 2 other moments of silence at the opening ceremonies?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)(as I understand it...correct me if I'm wrong on that).
I don't know why the IOC made this particular decision, but it was kind of demagogic to demand that they have ANOTHER commemoration of the Munich victims.
Why weren't the previous commemorations enough? Didn't the universal outpouring of grief and outrage the world demonstrated at the time of the murders PROVE that the world already honored these people?
What bothers me about this is that this got turned into a "litmus test"...that the subtext was, essentially "do this or you're antisemites"...and I'm sorry, but I fail to see how taking a horrible loss and turning it into a political football really honors the victims of Munich at all.
shira
(30,109 posts)You do understand the need to acknowledge those victims publicly rather than just privately?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You can't seriously be arguing that the Olympics has never acknowledged the Israeli victims at Munich.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)It seems really weird to me.
Do you think they would do the same if the victims of the attack were from, say, France?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)That the request implied that the Games were in some way the cause of the deaths.
And they might believe that it would mar the "celebratory" aspects of the Olympic ceremonies.
That's my guess.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)that anniversary being 5 September 2012, in Munich.
It will be interesting to see whether the hasbarados can maintain their faux-outrage for long enough to pay any attention to it by the time it comes around.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Athletes were killed at the Olympics 40 years ago.
A minute of silence to remember them during the Opening Ceremonies was requested.
A pretty sizable number of people (not just "hasbarists"
think they should have granted the request.
For some reason a different group of people are trying to contort themselves in various shapes in order to defend the decision not to have the moment of silence (they already had one 40 years ago, there's a commemoration happening in Munich in two months, etc.).
Observing a minute of silence during the Opening Ceremonies for athletes who were killed at the Olympics 40 years ago ought to have been simply agreed to.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)They did indeed. Worth pointing out, as some posters in this thread still seem a bit confused about that.
There is indeed.
I suppose it all comes down to what is considered a reasonable standard of commemoration, and what is not. This year is the 45th anniversary of the bombing of the USS Liberty. Would they be entitled to a minute of silence during Congressional sittings, or should they get a minute's silence during the State of the Union speech, when the TV audiences are that much higher? After a certain point it stops being about the people involved and becomes purely political.
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 28, 2012, 09:26 PM - Edit history (1)
...WRT holding a public commemoration. And this seems to be the reason why:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/27/why-ioc-will-never-memorialize-72-munich-massacre/
Neo-Nazis at the helm of the IOC.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It doesn't reflect on the world as a whole, though.
Most people, from what I saw, were backing the request for a moment of silence.
(While I'd agree that Brundage and Samaranch were fascist scumbags, I'm not sure I'd totally trust everything in that link. It is, after all, from Fox News...and Fox has an agenda, at this point, to discredit the London Olympics because Mitt Romney wasn't able to make political capital by saying that he wasn't sure that this round of the Games would succeed-while falsely implying that the Games he ran in Salt Lake City in '02 were intrinsically superior for some reason-even though there is still controversy today about whether Salt Lake City got to be the host city through bribery. The Fox agenda here needs to be taken into consideration when judging the validity of this story).
Why do you NOT consider the '72 televised memorial NOT to have been a public commemoration? People saw it all over the world. How much more public could it have been?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)The IOC apparently "incited the PLO" by declining them the opportunity to send a delegation to the Olympics.
Ive linked to the video for the 1972 video previously, but here it is again:-
&
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)change the subject, always an outrage to be had.............
shira
(30,109 posts)Maybe not, but it's disturbing that the heads of the IOC have been Nazi supporters since Hitler's time. You'd think that at some point over the last 70 years, there'd be enough pressure mounted by anti-racists to rid the IOC of that excrement. The media has been silent about the Nazi connection throughout, failing to mention it.
That doesn't reflect well on the world, now does it?
We're talking fucking Nazis, Ken.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's disgusting that there are Nazi supporters in the IOC leadership, but they weren't chosen by popular vote. Therefore, it reflects horrifically on the IOC itself, but it's not as if the IOC has Nazi supporters in its ranks because the world WANTS them there. That's all I meant. You can't blame the world OUTSIDE the IOC for what the IOC itself gets up to.
There needs to be a massive housecleaning at the IOC. What this shouldn't lead to, however, is anything like abolishing the Olympics. The idea of the Olympics is still a noble and valid thing, and should be preserved.
Bradlad
(206 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 1, 2012, 08:40 PM - Edit history (2)
The Zocalo incident happened 10 days before the Olympics and were a response to a nationwide student movement that was not related to the Olympics. Students had gathered at the Square to hear what their next move in their ongoing opposition to the government would be.
The only time the word "Olympics" appears in the NPR report is when it says that the massacre occurred ten days before the Olympics started.
I have no problem commemorating the student's deaths which was a vile ugly tragedy perpetrated by the Mexican government but you must admit that eleven Israeli Olympic athletes killed by terrorists because they were Israelis and because killing them at the Olympics would automatically get worldwide TV coverage - is a completely different event as far as publicly remembering them at the Olympics is concerned.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's not as if they'd never been mentioned. They were commemorated at Munich itself...I remember seeing the memorial service for them during the games as a child.
BTW, have the survivors of the Munich victims been involved in the demands for the additional commemoration? I respect what they'd have to say...those who were pushing for the moment simply to make some sort of statement about the present I/P dispute, I have no respect for.
And the Mexico City killings were clearly designed to crush the student movement BEFORE the Olympics started...they were about letting the Mexican government present an acceptable mask of social quiescence to the world.
