Archbishop Tutu, please be fair

[Behind the Aegis]

In view of his record as chairman of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Committee, Nobel Laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu's appointment as head of the UN fact-finding mission into the deaths of Palestinians at Beit Hanun is a logical choice, despite widely expressed opposition.

The manner in which he sometimes broke down and wept with the victims of apartheid atrocities during the hearings stamps him as a man of compassion.

Many fear that because of his publicly expressed anti-Israel views the archbishop's investigation will inevitably be biased. However, as a religious man of intellect and integrity he will, I hope, consider all relevant facts and circumstances even when they run counter to prior impressions about Israel.

Since the African National Congress and the Palestine Liberation Organization were one-time comrades in arms, his empathy with the PLO is understandable. Unfortunately, what many in South Africa do not realize is that there is no similarity between the ANC's struggle on the one hand, and the struggle of the PLO and Hamas on the other.

more...

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AlamoDemoc]

6. Palestinians in the occupied territories would disagree,,,n/t

[Jim Sagle]

17. If they would, they'd be lying too.

[Behind the Aegis]

4. What a load of crap.

The ANC and PLO/Hamas don't have all that much in common. As for your ignorant remark regarding Israel's desire to exterminate Palestinians is, by far, one of the more repulsive propaganda remarks I have seen in some while.

[Tom Joad]

2. I think he will be fair and look past Israel's support for the old apartheid

regime in South Africa.

[oberliner]

5. Tutu calls for international campaigners to treat Israel as they treated apartheid South Africa

From "Israel: Time to Divest" by Desmond Tutu
Pubished" January/Feburary 2003

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Israel/Israel_Time_To_Divest.html

Nobel laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu calls for international campaigners to treat Israel as they treated apartheid South Africa.

The end of apartheid stands as one of the crowning accomplishments of the past century, but we would not have succeeded without the help of international pressure - in particular the divestment movement of the 1980s. Over the past eight months a similar movement has taken shape, this time aiming at an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories captured during the 1967 military campaign.

[Tom Joad]

7. By the measures of many veterans of the South African liberation movement

the old South African system was a "sunday picnic" compared to the system imposed by the Israeli regime on Palestinians.

“Apartheid was characterized by killings, hangings, disappearances, arrests, exile, confiscations, inferior education and the creation of Bantustans. All this was a Sunday picnic compared to what is happening to the Palestinians”
South African trade unionist Willy Madisha

[bemildred]

8. This is drivel.

There are plenty of similarities, some better than others, and plenty of differences too. The primary question is "fair to whom?". The Palestinians have legitimate grievances, they must be addressed, else there will be no peace. If there is no peace, in the end, there will be no Israel. And it will not be for Israel to decide unilaterally what "fair" means. You could do far worse than to have Mr Tutu and Mr Carter arbitrate these matters, and if they are not supported in these efforts, however erroneous they might be now and then about the details, then most likely you will do worse.

[Behind the Aegis]

9. Could have done much better too.

They are both highly partisan. If the one investigating were Bolton, there would screams heard around the world.

[bemildred]

10. Yep, we would not want anyone to be "highly partisan" now, would we?

That sort of thing is a big flaw in ones character.
:rofl::rofl:

Bolton's problem, FWIW, is not that he is partisan, but rather that he is an undiplomatic diplomat, and a fool.

[Tom Joad]

11. Highly Partisan in some people's mind = support human rights.

And defending the ADL's avid support of Bolton, and its welcoming of A. Lieberman....

And the ISM is called reactionary???

I must have walked through the looking glass.

[bemildred]

12. There is nothing wrong with being partisan.

It is perfectly OK to take a side on an issue.
The question is: are you making sense?

[Behind the Aegis]

15. No, there is nothing wrong with being partisan.

However, it is a matter of whether the person can be fair and open-minded, especially one charged with the duty of investigating a possible crime. There is a reason that judges recuse themselves from some cases.

[bemildred]

16. It doesn't appear to me that either Carter or Tutu have the sort of

interest in this case that would require them to recuse themselves. It's a "fact-finding" mission, if I read it right, and hence their role would not be that of a judge, but more like that of a jury as a finder of legal fact; so in a sense they would be required to form opinions as to the facts of the case, or to manage such an effort. I would expect to the extent that "the facts" support your case, you would have nothing to fear from them. The fact that they are known at times to disagree with the positions taken by the Government of Israel is a good thing, fair-and-balanced wise. You may be sure that they do not agree with a good deal that Hamas or Hizbullah have to say, too.

[Behind the Aegis]

14. What an incredibly stupid and inaccurate post. n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

13. Try reading what I actually wrote.

I said nothing about it being a "big flaw in one's character." Somehow I doubt you'd be :rofl: if the 'highly partisan' person had made a statement already exonerating Israel was appointed to "investigate."

[Violet_Crumble]

18. Bolton's also renowned for his dishonesty, isn't he?

If Carter or Desmond Tutu had any of those other attributes under their belts, I'd be thinking they shouldn't be asked to take a role where honesty, integrity, diplomacy and intelligence are required...

[bemildred]

20. Well, he's not known for being "fair and balanced" I would say.

I consider that all politicians are somewhat dishonest, it's like a requirement for the job to be a good dissembler, and I would expect that both Carter and Tutu are pretty good at that sort of thing when required. On the other hand, both have a long history in evidence of not being in it for the loot, and for bringing a certain measure of integrity to their dealings. Whatever sympathies Mr Carter has, I would expect him to give a fair hearing to all points of view, not to try to shut anyone up, not to try to exclude anyone's just complaints from discussion. I don't know what else you can do in these sorts of situations.

[idontwantaname]

19. the shit you just dont get is...

this kind of behavior(firing artillery in a civilian populated area) isnt cool. in fact it should be referred to as a fuck up. a mistake. if i shoot a gun at a thief but miss and kill an innocent bystander my ass is going straight to jail. that shit dont change just because he did it first or because he was amongst civilians. i pulled the trigger. i killed the person. i deserve the punishment.

--------------------------------------------


"Perhaps he would consider the reaction of IDF soldiers to their unwelcome duties, as described in an "A gunner's nightmare" by Steve Linde (Post, November 8). Linde wrote: "Can you imagine how terrible the artillery troops who fired the shells at Beit Hanun yesterday must be feeling now? After serving in IDF Artillery, I can only say that this is every gunner's nightmare scenario: killing innocent men, women and children."

Linde points out that in response to Kassam rocket attacks gunners were ordered to "fire at the source" - which they did, firing a dozen or so shells. He adds that whereas the Kassams are intentionally fired at civilian targets, hoping for maximum casualties and damage, the troops who fired at Beit Hanun weren't aiming to hit civilians. They were targeting terrorists firing rockets. "

[idontwantaname]

21. bump ~~~> innocents have nothing to hide n/t.

[eyl]

22. Hmm, I see

so if an innocent man is charged with murder he really has nothing to worry about, and he should just shut up and go to trial?

[Violet_Crumble]

24. An innocent man does all he can to help clear his name...

An innocent man who stops cooperating with the investigation or tries to make things difficult so it can't be investigated properly is looking pretty suspicious as far as I'm concerned...

[eyl]

23. That's true in domestic law

if i shoot a gun at a thief but miss and kill an innocent bystander my ass is going straight to jail. that shit dont change just because he did it first or because he was amongst civilians.

but not under the laws of war.