Login to Change.org
Use Facebook to connect with friends and mobilize your social network.
Create an Account
Joshua Alzona
Toronto, Canada
Recent Activity
-
Joshua commented on the article |
Good point Michael Ross, the monarchies are not the most stable of nation-states, and yes they push the Palestinian agenda for their own selfish means. But that is only part of the problem: the Middle East is a haven for complications and there are plenty of power struggles, resources being the most potent of them all. You speak of oil but instability makes those regimes unsettled and even their oil market is not going to boom with such flames being lit. (Look at Iraq.) So in stark contrast it would seem that such an idea would be detrimental to their own cause since they want to benefit from said "oil riches".
Secondly, a swift resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will definitely make things more glaringly clear, no obtuseness or even askance to Zionism to use to foment the masses against Israel. The region may be still destabilised but at least there will be rights for those who have not had any. The notion that either Iran or Saudi Arabia would even want a more is not doing reality a great deal of justice here: neither state would have much to gain especially since you led us to the burning reason of oil; Israel doesn't have any and it's already in the hands of Saudi Arabia and Iran. The oil states did not benefit from the Iraq debacle with the exception of strategic reasons for Iran. What is also funny is that Saudi Arabia would be more willing to go to war with Iran rather than Israel; look at the power playing in Gaza, it was more or less Saudi-Israel against Syria-Iran.
"Peace" should not be the crux of the Israel-Palestine conflict but justice; you could have "peace" so long as there is detente but as long as one side feels cheated by someone else, then nothing will have been solved. This of course would lend a giant benefit to the U.S. if they chose another path instead of neocolonialism and satrap states like Iraq and Afghanistan. A good stepping stone to remove the image that the Middle East is not the U.S.'s chess board would be to budge on its stance with Israel and the occupied territories. Now that would be real change (pun intended). -
Joshua commented on the article |I love the explanation but does that really exculpate the crimes that are being committed in its name, namely "security" and "self-defense". I could go on forever but many countries feel a sense of unjustified persecution and criticism and attempt to point the blame somewhere else AND highlight crimes committed by the accuser and their allies or neighbours as well as their enemies. Even Americans get on the defensive when people question the policies that aggravate the world but is meant to make America or the world "safer". The Sudanese matter is patently false since al-Bashir is the only one being indictment for "crimes against humanity" and the ICC would not lift a finger against anyone else but African officials. Criticism is somewhat different when in academia as opposed to the UN and human rights groups: China gets their fair share, Iran gets a good portion, Russia gets their's, as well as Latin America. It seems that the focus is more or less on developing nations with a few exceptions. Having Israel lumped in with rogue nations should NOT be diverted, especially that no Israeli official is ever called to trial (or even American). What's so insulting is that many of Israel's supporters suggest that their's is a country like no other and yet cite the reasons you wrote about Charles: that to me does not sound like France. Make no mistake about it: this is a country that occupies land and prevents another people from having basic rights, sometimes even within their own country. That doesn't sound like Luxembourg either.
There are reasons for the criticisms and reasons why they get repeated; it's because the offenses continue to happen and with impugnity.
Last point: I would imagine that an Afrikaaner from South Africa still has resentment at the world community for "singling" out their country which was an industrial giant at its time. But those dastardly moralists had the nerve to point out South Africa's human rights violations and call for a boycott of them when so many atrocities were happening at the time in the whole world. Why South Africa? Why stop them? -
Joshua commented on the article |This definitely sounds enticing, especially the whole fame and fortune (haha), and these are topics that really should be written about, and the decline of the left camp in both Israeli and Palestinian voices particularly raises concern for myself. Unfortunately I doubt I would be less scathing as most who write on here.
I would LOVE to read more about the trials and tribulations of the Ethiopian Jews and the strong Russian non-Jewish community that sees itself forming a special bond with a state that considers itself a "Jewish state". Also a consensus of Palestinians in the West Bank and their opinions of having to come to terms with a land that might not see any withdrawal at all, and if they are willing to have settlers live in their neighbourhoods. -
Joshua commented on the article |There really is no counterpoint to this, or at least 10 to warrant a post about it. The logicality of the boycott campaign is based purely on the tools that helped bring down Apartheid. It really is more of an awareness campaign and information because the details of the conflict is still rather furtive and hidden from the mainstream (or contrived).
But this campaign IS have its effects. Re: an article by Shiver Hever.
http://www.alternativenews.org/content/view/1605/381/ -
Joshua signed the petition | -
Joshua commented on the article |Barghouti's release would be welcome news to both Hamas and Fateh. He is widely respected by both factions and he has not waivered in his advocacy for both sides to unify. Fateh has lost alot of credibility and I've read that many rank-and-file Fateh members are urging for Abbas to take a more resistant line with Israel and not be so easy-going at Israel's whim, more or less the line that Barghouti has been urging from prison.
Now there are reports that Israel has ixnayed on the truce deal, so it seems that this scenario is unlikely. But with Barghouti back in the Palestinian ranks, that can only mean good news for the Palestinians. (But that doesn't necessarily mean he will be successful. He just might have a better chance than Abbas or Haniyeh by themselves.) -
Joshua commented on the article |
It's encouraging. Aside from Kerry's reassurances that this means nothing, it does mean more than he would like to admit it [publicly].
-
Joshua signed the petition | -
Joshua commented on the article |It's ironic that Kadima is now looking very "left". "Peace" moving "farther away" really had nothing to do with this election; the illusion of "peace" with trumped up photo-ops may be on the shelf, and really, good riddance.
But that looks more ominous for the Palestinians. Not that they needed more to be pessimistic about.
Why do people insist on the Jordanian option? It failed decades ago, and had many incarnations (the Allon Plan, the Rogers Plan) and people still insist that it's the best option. Jordan DOESN'T want the West Bank. Period. -
Joshua commented on the article |"Gaza-infrastructure destroyed because Palestinian authority did not want the houses nor the buildings. Cut off their nose to spite the gift. Do you really think that "pressure" from the US is going to change the reality on the ground?"
You incorrectly attributed the destroyed Gaza structure to the PA when the settlers vacated back in '05. Not once did I say that the PA "did not want the houses nor the buildings." You have attempted to put words in my mouth, rather miserably too.As for "pressure", Israel can respond to anything they want. I just go by the past instances when Israel has withdrawn from territories and they did so back in '56 because the US told them to go back. That to me shows that Israel is still unwilling to be on the US blacklist and I believe EVERY nation does not want to be on the US badlist either, especially Israel which gets plenty of favours and aid with this relationship.
"Excuse me but only some one that does not live here would say such a silly statement. Threats will not move Israel if it thinks that acting accordingly is not in its interest to survive."
Because the track Israel has taken upon itself is so rosy and filled with petals and flowers. I may not live there but I attempt to get as much detail as I can about the improbability of Palestinian livelihood in the West Bank and Gaza and even the Palestinians of Israel. Granted it's not the same as living there but it's the best as one can do.
It's "survival" really is a matter of opinion. Many believe that the two-states is the only way for Zionism to survive. The longer this goes with no "pressure", the less likely Israel is going to do anything it sees that is not in its favour.
But please be lucid in what you really want: peace, justice or subjugation? Peace is not the same as justice and calm and quiet can be reached with subjugation and transfer. So what is it ultimately?
Impact
2 Actions
0 Recruits