"Because we are human beings who have been given,
extraordinarily, by this God we worship the gift of freedom. And God has such a
deep reverence for that gift, that God who— alone I usually say he has the
perfect right to be a totalitarian, had much rather see us go freely to hell
than compel us to go to heaven. God takes seriously the gift that God has given
us. And we make choices. And the God, who in an omnipotent God, in many ways
becomes impotent, because God has given us the gift to choose. And God hopes
that there will be those who agitate against slavery, that we will have people
who will fight against racism, injustice, oppression, wherever."
"Once a Zambian and a South African, it is said, were talking. The
Zambian then boasted about their Minister of Naval Affairs. The South
African asked, “But you have no navy, no access to the sea. How then
can you have a Minister of Naval Affairs?” The Zambian retorted,
“Well, in South Africa you have a Minister of Justice, don’t you?”"
"When will we learn that human beings are of infinite value because
they have been created in the image of God, and that it is a blasphemy
to treat them as if they were less than this and to do so ultimately
recoils on those who do this? In dehumanizing others, they are
themselves dehumanized. Perhaps oppression dehumanizes the oppressor
as much as, if not more than, the oppressed. They need each other to
become truly free, to become human. We can be human only in
fellowship, in community, in koinonia, in peace.
Let us work to be peacemakers, those given a wonderful share in Our Lord’s ministry of reconciliation. If we want peace, so we have been told, let us work for justice. Let us beat our swords into ploughshares.
God calls us to be fellow workers with Him, so that we can extend His Kingdom of Shalom, of justice, of goodness, of compassion, of caring, of sharing, of laughter, joy and reconciliation, so that the kingdoms of this world will become the Kingdom of our God and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever. Amen."
43 comments:
Marshal, you will not attack Or attempt to demonize people who have just passed away on my blog. Shame on you.
Some are attempting to demonize this great global hero by suggesting he supported liberation theology. Here, the definition of liberation theology...
"A movement in Christian theology, developed mainly by Latin American Roman Catholics, that emphasizes liberation from social, political, and economic oppression as an anticipation of ultimate salvation."
Oh. The horror.
And here is Jesus explaining his ministry...
"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
As if supporting a theology of liberation and freedom and grace is a bad thing. Those who are attempting to point to liberation theology to try to attack Tutu are only pointing to their own bad thinking and theology. They indict themselves with such attempts.
More on LT...
According to Gutierrez, who helped originate LT,
"It stressed both heightened awareness of the “sinful” socioeconomic structures that caused social inequities and active participation in changing those structures...
Liberation theologians believed that God speaks particularly through the poor and that the Bible can be understood only when seen from the perspective of the poor. They perceived... that the church in Latin America should be actively engaged in improving the lives of the poor.
In order to build this church, they established communidades de base, (“base communities”), which were local Christian groups, composed of 10 to 30 members each, that both studied the Bible and attempted to meet their parishioners’ immediate needs for food, water, sewage disposal, and electricity. A great number of base communities, led mostly by laypersons, sprang into being throughout Latin America..."
Maybe instead of reading what far right wing ignorant people say about liberation theology, you should read it from what the actual advocates are saying.
Marshal cited a far right conspiracy theorists who claims that the soviets "secretly invented" LT in the USSR.
Nutty conspiracy theories used to attack a great man don't help your case.
Marshal cited a right wing group that suggested that suggested that Tutu was anti-Semitic because he was opposed to the violence by Israel against the poor of Palestine.
Here is what Tutu said about Israel...
"Those scriptures speak about a God: a God of the Exodus, a God notoriously biased in favour of the weak, of the oppressed, of the suffering, of the orphan, of the widow, of the alien," he said.
"We are in a state of shock, exacerbated by what we subsequently heard from the victims and survivors of the Beit Hanoun massacre. For us, the entire situation is abominable," the joint statement by Desmond Tutu and Professor Chinkin said.
"We believe that ordinary Israeli citizens would not support this blockade, this siege if they knew what it meant for ordinary people like themselves. No, they would not support a policy which limits fuel supplies or automatically cuts off the electricity supply.
"They would not support a policy which jeopardizes the lives of ordinary men and women in hospital, that cuts off water and food from hospitals jeopardizing the lives of babies."
Again, Marshal, you should look to what the sources are actually saying instead of what far right ignorant people say... coming, as they do from their places of white privilege.
Of course, being opposed to oppression and violence against innocents is not anti-Semitism.
I'm not saying that Tutu or liberation theologians are perfect. Nor would they. I'm not saying they don't make mistakes. I'm saying that Tutu is a hero to world peace and the side of the poor and marginalized and oppressed and people like you have no room to cast stones.
Also, I'm not saying there's no room for criticism of liberation theology or Tutu. Just that now is not that time for that for a basically great man. Until you've done some portion of the work for God and the poor and oppressed that Tutu has, be respectful and be quiet if you can't say something kind.
Also, if you do want to try to bring up a critique of liberation theology at some point, then you need to do it from a place of solid research and reputable sources. Rightwing hate sites will not be posted here. There's there's room for intelligent critiques of things like liberation theology, but you'll need to begin with well researched scholarly deliberations, not junk news.
You are still welcome to engage in respectful adult conversation, citing well researched information on appropriate topics. But hateful and unsupported claims have no room here.
Marshal, when a great human being has passed away... Someone who dedicated and poured out his whole life in fighting for the oppressed against the oppressor,that is not time to try to demonize him. Especially by pointing to ridiculous far right sites Pointing to preposterous and slightly racist conspiracy theories.
Hell, Reagan was a seriously troubled leader, one who led us into war crimes and in support of terrorists, and even then I didn't criticize him on the day he died.
...and when I say Reagan was a troubled leader... I'm talking facts. He DID sell arms to terrorists and landed support to Osama bin Laden. He DID get the US convicted of war crimes. These aren't nothing and it's just factual.
The claim that Tutu was anti-Semitic is a false interpretation of Tutu's support for Palestinians who WERE being killed by Israel. The disdain for Liberation Theology is an uninformed opinion that does not say anything negative about Tutu.
Marshal cited yet another rightwing extremist group to attempt to demonize a great man.
"The Gatestone Institute has been frequently described as anti-Muslim, regularly publishes false reports to stoke anti-Muslim fears,[20][2] and has published false stories pertaining to Muslims and Islam. Gatestone frequently warns of a looming "jihadist takeover" and "Islamization" of Europe, leading to a "Great White Death"."
Again, if you want to make rational adult arguments, you have to begin with rational adult sources of information. Extremist propaganda will not be passed on here or in rational adult conversations.
As to the suggestion of hero worship, most liberals I know keep a healthy sense of skepticism about any leader. This is certainly true of me. I'm just noting that what we know of Tutu is that he is a great leader who poured out his life working for Justice for the poor and oppressed.
That you don't approve of his methods and views is not the same as him being anti-Semitic or in any sense corrupt. Indeed, that you can find right wing extremists who are eager to attempt to demonize him only further burnishes his reputation.
Marshal asked, in a now-deleted comment...
"Who describes Gatestone in that way, Dan? Defenders of the murderous islamists who demonize a nation falsely?"
1. People who have read Gatestone and observed that they're passing on false claims. The source I cited is Wikipedia but they're not alone. They're just citing what rational non partisan observers can see, that they pass on false stories and engage in an Anti-Muslim manner.
2. No one is defending murderous islamists. Tutu and others have noted the reality that Israel behaves in a way that kills and oppresses palestinians. Likewise, some Muslim extremists also behave in a bad way that kills innocents in Israel. No one rational is defending any of the murderous people. But what we are doing is noting that innocent muslims and palestinians are being killed by Israel. They're being oppressed And marginalized. That is an observable reality. You don't have to like that we're pointing it out but it is the reality.
What rational people do is condemn anyone, whether it's Muslim extremist or Israel, who kills innocent people.. Who oppresses innocent people. Are you not aware of the reality on the ground in Palestine?
What you need to do, Marshal, is post Desmond Tutu's words and talk about what he has actually said. Don't post some crazy right wing extremist group saying they really hate Tutu and making up ridiculous claims about him and expecting Anybody to take it seriously. Talk about what the actual people are actually saying and doing. Rational people don't care what extremist groups are saying.
Marshal, you're not gonna get anywhere with this. Find reputable sources or just admit you can't support your claims. Citing right wing groups partisan sources will get you no where. Citing conspiracy theory groups will get you no where.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mediabiasfactcheck.com/gatestone-institute/%3famp=1
As you can see on this link, even though you'll dismiss it as left wing, link, they point to the stories where there are false reports and conspiracy theories are promoted. This is not a reputable source.
I don't know how to say it any other way. This is not a reputable source. What you have to do is cite the words of the people you're questioning and show where they have said anything wrong. Telling me other people who hate them think they are wrong is meaningless. It harms your cause. It undermines your credibility.
What Tutu said about Israel and Apartheid., as reported in the Jerusalem Post...
"I have witnessed the systemic humiliation of Palestinian men, women and children by members of the Israeli security forces," he said in a statement.
"Their humiliation is familiar to all black South Africans who were corralled and harassed and insulted and assaulted by the security forces of the apartheid government."
Observers in South Africa are preparing to mark "Israeli Apartheid Week" on Monday. Tutu, meanwhile, has declared his support for the use of boycotts and economic sanctions as a means to compel Israel to alter its policies.
"In South Africa, we could not have achieved our democracy without the help of people around the world, who through the use of non-violent means, such as boycotts and divestment, encouraged their governments and other corporate actors to reverse decades-long support for the apartheid regime," he told News24.
"The same issues of inequality and injustice today motivate the divestment movement trying to end Israel's decades-long occupation of Palestinian territory and the unfair and prejudicial treatment of the Palestinian people by the Israeli."
Tutu, who you will remember lived through apartheid, was not saying that in every way Israel was like South Africa. He said it was similar to what was happening with apartheid and he wasn't wrong. There are plenty of reports about the oppression and humiliation of palestinian people. You just have to read beyond your right wing sources to be more fully informed.
And what did he do to fight the oppression was called for nonviolent economic sanctions. Oh, the horror.
But your rightwing sites and their "arguments" DO make the case of how great a worker for justice Desmond Tutu was. Now shut up. You are undone.
Christian peacemaker Art Gish famously told the story of an encounter he had in Israel once. There was a young palestinian teenage boy out for walk past a made up curfew. And an Israeli soldier stopped him and detaied him for the "crime" of being out past curfew. The boy assured the man that he was on his way home but the soldier was unmoved.
And it was a cold night and so he insisted that the boy take off his jacket while waiting in the cold for an undefined period of time that the soldier would detain him.
Gish walked up as an American citizen and peacemaker and said he would accompany the boy home to make sure he got there. The soldier still refused. And so then, Art Gish began disrobing..., taking off his coat, his shirt and began taking off his pants... And the soldier stopped him and said what are you doing?
Gish replied, well if the rule is that this Palestinian young man must stand here in the cold without clothes, then I will join him.
To those familiar with Jesus, we recognize this non violent act of active defiance from Jesus' own teachings about removing youremoving your cloak in the court.
It worked. It shamed this Israeli soldier and Gish and the young palestinian man were able to go home in peace. Thank God for Art Gish. Thank God for Desmond Tutu. And for all those who aren't willing to step up and work for peace, may they just get out of the way and shut up.
Interesting that it appears most, if not all, of Dershowitz's claims (where he calls for Tutu being judged by his words) are not supported with Tutu's actual words. He repeatedly lifts three or four words out of context and offers it as "proof" that Tutu is anti-Semitic.
This is grade school pedantry, Marshal. Cite reputable sources doing legitimate research using basic rational methods of citing the source, demonstrating the source, in context... etc. This is childish.
Call me when you have changed the world, Marshal, when you've won a Nobel Peace Prize. You and your sources are exposed as nothing and your attacks on a man much greater than you only show you for the child you are.
When Dershowitz (and his other sources he does reference who also are anti-Tutu) actually DO cite more than a few words from Tutu, it's a paragraph like this...
"You know as well as I do that, somehow, the Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the U.S.] and to criticize it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic, as if Palestinians were not Semitic."
And THAT quote from Tutu IS factually correct. Israel has long been on a pedestal in the US as a point of fact, thanks to conservative evangelicals, largely. Nothing anti-Semitic in noting that reality.
Again, IF you have some trouble with something that Tutu actually said IN CONTEXT, cite it. Don't be a child. Don't be a hater. Don't be an ally of the oppressors. Don't be a useful idiot.
Unless you cite Tutu's ACTUAL WORDS that you have a problem with - in context - you will not post on this thread. You've been exposed as a hater and a demonizer. A man to make the pharisees proud.
Marshal, you're frothing and hyper-emotional. Relax. You sound like you're ready to have a heart attack.
I'm quite sure you need to believe that, Nancy, but constantly deleting my comments you haven't the intelligence to rebut, nor the courage to try suggests it is you who again has your panties in a twist.
Sigh.
Look. I'll leave this to demonstrate the difference.
1. You call me a woman's name. Believing that to be an insult. In doing so, you irrationally insult (try to insult) women... as if being a woman is Less Than.
2. It's a clumsy juvenile attempt to attack on a post commemorating the death of a great international hero.
3. I'm deleting irrational, emotionally-fragile attacks on this great leader that are baseless and out of place in an adult conversation about a great world leader.
4. I'm deleting your comments when you cite far right and disreputable sources.
All of this is rational. I've said that if you want to have a respectful adult conversation, you need to cite reputable sources. This is rational.
I finally requested that IF you want to comment on something that Tutu has said that you disagree with, do so in a respectful manner and cite his words in context.
All of this without trying to insult, call you names and based upon a review of Tutu's words and actions.
If you wish to have adult conversations, you're going to have to behave.
Marshal, if you wish to speak on the topic of the post, cite Tutu's words and talk about his words, his ideas, the things he actually advocated for. Grow up.
But it's often the case that small-minded men will attack great people who work for peace and justice. Especially when it's black people doing great things and the small-minded person is a white man. Strange, sad, and true.
This, to my mind, explains Marshal and the other goons. And why final lines should be drawn (the Eichmanns of our time should not be allowed to participate and thereby experience a moment of legitimacy):
“Arendt was particularly interested to see a senior Nazi up close. She’d never seen such a high-ranking Nazi, one who had been responsible for so much evil. She wanted to try to understand that. Famously her reaction was to describe him in terms of ‘the banality of evil.’ This was in a commissioned article for a magazine, originally, but came to be the book Eichmann in Jerusalem.
Hill zooms in on that issue in chapter 15. First of all, Arendt is frequently misunderstood. Some people thought that by ‘banality,’ she meant that evil was commonplace—that we’re all capable of doing the kinds of things that Eichmann did. But she didn’t mean that. What she was referring to was the banality of his thought, an attitude to the world which didn’t allow him to make any kind of imaginative identification with other people’s experience. What he lacked was what she calls “an expansive imagination.”
In Arendt’s words,
Eichmann was perfectly intelligent, but in this respect he was stupid. It was this stupidity that was so outrageous. And that was what I actually meant by banality. There’s nothing deep about it—nothing demonic! There’s simply the reluctance ever to imagine what the other person is experiencing
She is saying that she wants to destroy the legend that evil is some kind of demonic force. This, and some other things she said in that book, resulted in a lot of criticism, particularly from some Jewish critics who felt she was wrong to talk about the complicity of the Jewish councils in overseeing the selection process for deportation. Some also criticised her ironic tone.“
https://fivebooks.com/best-books/the-best-philosophy-books-of-2021-nigel-warburton/
"God's dream is that you and I and all of us will realize that we are family, that we are made for togetherness, for goodness, and for compassion."
Desmond Tutu
"Forgiving and being reconciled to our enemies or our loved ones are not about pretending that things are other than they are. It is not about patting one another on the back and turning a blind eye to the wrong. True reconciliation exposes the awfulness, the abuse, the hurt, the truth. It could even sometimes make things worse. It is a risky undertaking but in the end it is worthwhile, because in the end only an honest confrontation with reality can bring real healing. Superficial reconciliation can bring only superficial healing."
Desmond Tutu
"We are made to exist in a delicate network of interdependence. We are sisters and brothers, whether we like it or not. To treat anyone as if they were less than human, less than a brother or a sister, no matter what they have done, is to contravene the very laws of our humanity. And those who shred the web of interconnectedness cannot escape the consequences of their actions."
DT
Archbishop Tutu on fighting evil:
In South Africa: “But what ultimately forced these leaders together around the negotiating table was the cocktail of persuasive, nonviolent tools that had been developed to isolate South Africa, economically, academically, culturally and psychologically.”
In Israel: “As the Presbyterian General Assembly gathers for its biennial meeting, I reach out in prayer and solidarity that the Assembly will make a strong witness for reconciliation, justice and peace. I am aware that the Assembly will consider eight overtures on the confounding and intractable conflict in Israel and Palestine, however I am especially urging the Assembly to adopt the overture naming Israel as an apartheid state through its domestic policies and maintenance of the occupation, and the overture calling for divestment of certain companies that contribute to the occupation of the Palestinian people. Both are worthy of adoption, by speaking truth in the first instance…
It's about naming an unjust system and refusing to participate in it. The stubbornness of Israel's leaders in wanting to hold onto and settling land that is not theirs can only lead to tragedy for both peoples. For the sake of them both as God's cherished, the strong witness of the two overtures is the only peaceful route left in the cause of justice and ultimate reconciliation…”
Marshal, if you wish to speak on the topic of the post, cite Tutu's words and talk about his words, his ideas, the things he actually advocated for.
I suspect that the problem you're having is that his actual words and actions, when you look at what he's actually said and done, are inspiring and noble words and actions fighting for justice and against oppression... it would just point to how petty his detractors are being... and how they are defending actual oppressors and standing on the wrong side of reason, morality and justice.
Marshal... "I bring reasoned comments...even those with insults are such.."
I don't know what trouble you're having in understanding. I'm giving you a chance to comment on Tutu. But first, you MUST
1. Quote his words,
2. Cite the source,
3. Cite the context, and
4. then respectfully offer a comment on those words.
If you want to comment here, you will have to behave like a rational adult. I suggest you'd be best off by quoting his words and learning his words and learning about what he actually said and did. These ignorant attacks are just an embarrassment for you.
Like this (as I've already demonstrated):
Dan: What Tutu said about Israel and Apartheid., as reported in the Jerusalem Post...
[I explained where the quotes were from and then I offered an extended excerpt of the source, in context]
The quote/excerpt:
"I have witnessed the systemic humiliation of Palestinian men, women and children by members of the Israeli security forces," he said in a statement.
"Their humiliation is familiar to all black South Africans who were corralled and harassed and insulted and assaulted by the security forces of the apartheid government."
Observers in South Africa are preparing to mark "Israeli Apartheid Week" on Monday. Tutu, meanwhile, has declared his support for the use of boycotts and economic sanctions as a means to compel Israel to alter its policies.
"In South Africa, we could not have achieved our democracy without the help of people around the world, who through the use of non-violent means, such as boycotts and divestment, encouraged their governments and other corporate actors to reverse decades-long support for the apartheid regime," he told News24.
"The same issues of inequality and injustice today motivate the divestment movement trying to end Israel's decades-long occupation of Palestinian territory and the unfair and prejudicial treatment of the Palestinian people by the Israeli."
====
WHAT SPECIFICALLY is wrong or mistaken in Tutu's words? He HAD seen Palestinians humiliated and mistreated by Israelis. Others have seen it and reported it. People I know personally and many others, including the Palestinians themselves. That's a factual statement.
And it IS a reasonable comparison to say that this mistreatment of the Palestinians is similar to what Tutu saw in S Africa. Do you have any personal, first hand information to counter what Tutu and others have seen with their own eyes?
And then he asked for NON-VIOLENT support from around the world for the Palestinians in the same way he did in S. Africa. What is wrong with that?
That SOME Palestinians ALSO misbehave as some Israelis do? What does that prove or how does that make him wrong?
Deal with his words. That you want to blindly side with Israel, however, no matter what they do, is not evidence that Tutu was "anti-semitic."
You see, the difference between you and people like Tutu and me is that you want to side with Israel no matter what - killing of children and innocent bystanders is justified no matter what because... Israel.
Tutu and other rational people will condemn Palestinian attacks AND Israel attacks, alike. And we will defend innocent Israelis and Palestinians, alike.
Deal with his words. You CAN'T just attack. Cite his words and show where he said something that was wrong, if you can't. Or just admit that you've been blinded by your partisan biases and prejudices and you were wrong to attack a man infinitely greater than you.
"WHAT SPECIFICALLY is wrong or mistaken in Tutu's words?"
Quite a bit, but I'll get to that in a moment.
"He HAD seen Palestinians humiliated and mistreated by Israelis. Others have seen it and reported it. People I know personally and many others, including the Palestinians themselves. That's a factual statement."
That's not a factual statement at all regardless of who "witnessed" what simply because they choose to characterize what they claim to have seen as "humiliation" or "mistreatment". That is to say, these people claim to have seen this "humiliation" or "mistreatment". Where's the "context" for any of that!!?? What provoked Israeli soldiers to confront the pallie? What was the pallie doing? What had been the situation in the hours or days preceding the confrontation? Had pallies just launched another couple dozen rockets, tunneled under and executed another suicide bombing? To simply say that some dude was mistreated is like saying Rodney King was mistreated without mentioning the high speed chase, his inebriation and his combative resisting of arrest upon being stopped. The state of mind of a typical Israeli soldier is heavily influenced by the constant attacks on the Israeli people by palestinians. It's crystal clear there are those, like you, Tutu, other leftist chuckleheads and of course, palestinians try to pretend there's some sort of moral equivalency between the two people, but honest observers easily know better.
"WHAT SPECIFICALLY is wrong or mistaken in Tutu's words?"
""I have witnessed the systemic humiliation of Palestinian men, women and children by members of the Israeli security forces," he said in a statement."
Again, what he claims to have witnessed...assuming he witnessed anything at all...doesn't mean it was at all an accurate and truthful account of what he witnessed. That's the first problem and I challenge you to prove he witnessed anything which can truthfully be regarded as mistreatment or "systemic humiliation". Keep in mind that legitimate treatment by law enforcement can be humiliating for whomever is being detained, questioned, etc. That alone doesn't suggest an intent to humiliate or mistreat, especially given the constant murder attempts by palestinians against the people of Israel.
What's more, who are these men, women and children Tutu allegedly witnessed suffering such great humiliation at the hands of Israeli security forces? Did he ever identify any of them? If not, then it's really easy to say mistreatment was witnessed.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, headed by Archbishop Tutu, also recommended reparations in the form of both payments to victims and policies to redress disadvantages to the most affected, dispossessed communities of South Africa. The government agreed, although to far less than deserved.
The biblical ground for reparations:
"The people of Israel had also done as Moses told them, for they had asked of the Egyptians jewelry of silver and of gold, and clothing; and the LORD had given the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they let them have what they asked. Thus they despoiled the Egyptians."
Exodus 12:35,36. Note the particularly apt choice of "despoil" - for spoil it was, gained from slave labor - for the Hebrew וַֽיְנַצְּל֖וּ.
And restitution:
"A man was there named Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was rich.... Zacchaeus stood there and said to the Lord, “Look, half of my possessions, Lord, I will give to the poor; and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will pay back four times as much.” Then Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he too is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek out and to save the lost.”
Luke 19:1-10
And full restoration, even though not responsible for the crime, still being accountable for reversing the harm:
"... a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, ‘Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.’"
Luke 10:25-37
Look, that wasn't so hard, was it, Marshal. I asked you to respond to Tutu's words and you did, even if they were only the ones I cited.
The problem is, you read his words and respond with nothing more than "Nyu uh. I don't think so..." as if your opinion settled things. Who are you to dispute this great man? What are YOUR credentials? What efforts have you put forth for human rights?
For instance, you say "nyu uh..."
"That's not a factual statement at all regardless of who "witnessed" what simply because they choose to characterize what they claim to have seen as "humiliation" or "mistreatment"."
You weren't there. You probably never have BEEN there. You have NOT witnessed oppression or humiliations that have taken place, in the way that Tutu or others have. Personal friends of mine. Human rights observers. ALL these respected people and groups are telling you what is happening on the ground and you respond with "No, it's not..." EVEN THOUGH you literally did not see anything to give you a rational basis for disputing it.
Your reasoning?
"Where's the "context" for any of that!!?? What provoked Israeli soldiers to confront the pallie? What was the pallie doing?"
In the case of Art Gish, the context was a teen-aged boy walking peacefully home and he happened to be out past a curfew. And the Israeli soldier not only wouldn't let him continue on home - even with an escort by an American peace observer. Instead, he tried to humiliate and discomfort (torture?) the boy by making him remove his coat and just stand there on a cold evening. The curfew wasn't for Israelis. It was only for Palestinians.
You're acting like the actions of a few Palestinians who've acted badly justifies detention and torture of innocent civilians! It doesn't.
What it comes down to (in all your repetitive nothing responses) is that you listen to far right sources, to Israeli-defending sources who all accuse the Palestinians of being the root of all the problems and you hold these biased opinions based NOT on any objective or personal experience or expert opinion, but only by what the oppressors and their defenders are saying.
But what about human rights watchdog organizations? What are these experts saying?
"Two Palestinians were killed yesterday in separate incidents both connected to the continued strict curfew in all the major Palestinian cities and the tight siege and closure around them.
Yesterday, Rami Al-Qattash, 20-years-old was shot and killed by Israeli soldiers during curfew hours in the Al-'Askar refugee camp in Nablus. As most Palestinians, Rami and his friends were tired and exhausted of being confined to their homes 24 hours a day and defied the curfew. Suddenly a tank entered the neighborhood and Israeli soldiers opened fire at the children and people in the streets. Rami was hit by two bullets in the neck and died later in hospital in Nablus. Three other Palestinians were also injured in the incident."
https://reliefweb.int/report/israel/israeli-imposed-curfew-and-closure-kill-palestinians-every-day
cont'd...
“"In a report released on Tuesday, the New York-based advocacy group [Human Rights Watch] became the first major international rights body to level such allegations. It said that after decades of warnings that an entrenched hold over Palestinian life could lead to apartheid, it had found that the “threshold” had been crossed.
This is the starkest finding Human Rights Watch has reached on Israeli conduct in the 30 years we’ve been documenting abuses on the ground there,” said Omar Shakir, the group’s Israel and Palestine director. Shakir said his organisation had never before directly accused Israeli officials of crimes against humanity."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/27/israel-committing-crime-apartheid-human-rights-watch
"Palestinians experience of systematic discrimination, dispossession and displacement are at the root of the ongoing violations we see today. In Gaza, Israel is collectively punishing 2 million Palestinians..."
https://www.amnesty.org/en/petition/end-the-violence-in-occupied-palestinian-territories/
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/report-israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/
And to be sure, Amnesty and other HR groups also condemn Palestinian terrorists when THEY engage in deadly violence against innocents. And that is the point and the difference.
When we are concerned about human rights matters, rational adults consider the expert opinion of human rights groups who are on the scene collecting information.
But conspiracy theorists and oppression defenders ONLY listen to the words of those who are oppressing and those defending oppressors.
You want to try to make a rational adult accusation against all of Palestine, then cite human rights groups, not partisan right-wingers. So, THAT would be your next task if you want to comment here. Cite human rights authorities.
HRW, Amnesty, the UN... all these (and other) experts are saying that there are real concerns about Israel's treatment of Palestinians (as well as the actions of Palestinian actors who engage in indiscriminate violence). WHAT HR watchdog is saying that Israel is blameless or that Tutu doesn't have any valid point?
We will see that this boils down to Nothing when you can offer no human rights experts.
More expert opinion to counter Marshal's big "nyu uh" ignorance...
"A 2009, legal study was commissioned and coordinated by the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) of South Africa on Israel's practices in the occupied Palestinian territories under international law. The report noted that one of the most 'notorious' aspects of the Apartheid policy was the 'racial enclave policy' manifested in the Black Homelands called bantustans, and added: "As the apartheid regime in South Africa, Israel justifies these measures under the pretext of 'security'. Contrary to such claims, they are in fact part of an overall regime aimed at preserving demographic superiority of one racial group over the other in certain areas"..."
Who is the HSRC?
"The Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) of South Africa is Africa's largest dedicated social science and humanities research agency and policy think tank. It primarily conducts large-scale, policy-relevant, social-scientific projects for public-sector users, for non governmental organisations and international development agencies in support of development nationally, in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and in Africa."
Continuing...
"...In 2020, the Israeli human rights organization Yesh Din after studying the issue found that the Israeli treatment of the Palestinian population of the West Bank meets the definition of the crime of apartheid under both Article 7 of the 2002 Rome Statute which established the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (ICSPCA) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, which entered into force in 1976."
This information was all from Wiki, but the data is reliable and I can cite other source, expert after expert, who is not disagreeing with Tutu.
So, we can listen to the UN, Amnesty International, HRW, Yesh Din, the HSRC and all these other studies, data and experts... and to Tutu himself, a giant of a human who dedicated his life fighting for justice and against oppression...
We can listen to expert opinion, informed as they are with data, first hand observation and decades of experience... Or we can listen to Marshal, who disagrees.
Just saw this today. Quite apt for the season and this conversation....
https://youtu.be/LusdSxgaIMY
I asked Marshal if he had any DATA-driven views from experts on the topic of Palestinian/Israeli conflict. He had nothing. Zero. Didn't even try. He kept repeating that he knew better than the experts, as they are biased as the far-right sources he cites.
Marshal said... "I have investigated all the "expert" organizations you cite as if they are completely and perfectly objective in their positions. They are every bit as biased, if not more so, against Israel as my sources are in favor of them."
Here's the difference and your final chance to respond in an adult manner:
The UN, Yesh Din, Amnesty International, HRW, etc, etc, etc... these are all expert groups whose mission is pro-justice/anti-oppression. They are not starting out with a bias against Israel in this case. Indeed, some of those involved are Jewish.
Further, they criticize Palestinian groups when they engage in violence against innocents. The point is that they are opposed to oppression and supportive of justice. That is their starting point. They aren't starting off as Pro-Palestine and then finding reasons out of thin air to denounce Israel.
They are HUMAN RIGHTS groups. Now, it may well be true that many human rights types of people do lean more progressive than more conservative... but why is that? Is it because a fundamental concern of more progressive minded people is justice and actively working against oppression and thus, those types of groups draw more progressive people? Probably, in part. Which is not to say that conservatives don't care about stopping oppression, just that they don't tend to start human rights type groups to take action.
[And maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there ARE conservative human rights groups... I just don't know who they are. Again, that's my question for you: Show me human rights experts who agree with your anti-Tutu hunches informed, so far as what you've presented thus far, only by far-right, pro-Israel groups.]
Another explanation is that people of all types - conservative, liberal and moderate - who are concerned about oppression and justice and human rights issues, just get involved where they can and they aren't opposed to oppression or want to work for human rights as a liberal cause... they just take up the work and conservatives are conspicuous in their absence. This would be closer to my case. I was an ultra-conservative who was tremendously interested in working for human rights and I found myself more and more surrounded by moderate and progressive types of people.
Regardless, the point is that I'm not asking for you to find far right and pro-Israel people who will support your far right position. I'm asking for expert opinion from Human Rights experts. If you can't produce that, you're done.
I'm just not interested in giving you a platform to promote far-right conspiracy theories and attacks on human rights heroes.
So, given that your task is simple - provide some expert opinion who supports your anti-Tutu biases - I'm guessing we're done here, because you're not likely to find actual human rights experts to back your biases and attacks.
Another reasonable question that all this raises is is it the case that liberals decide to go into various fields of expertise... Human rights, weather forecasting, epidemiology, history, politics, Journalism, etc... They go into these fields with the intention of passing on fake news to better promote liberal causes... And that this explains why experts are so commonly seem to be anti conservative, because it's a deliberate liberal effort. That's one option.
Another possibility, the more likely one and less conspiratorial, is That liberals value expert opinion and data when it comes to formulating policies and we formulate our policies to best align with the data and with expert opinion... and then it may appear (to some) that these policies are liberal, but they're not actually liberal, they're just the data driven policies.
That's how it seems from where I sit.
Vulgarism after vulgarism, attacks on women, the oppressed and actual heroes of justice and decency.
What has become of modern "conservatives" that they've embraced such deviant indecencies and corruption and emotional fragility?
Tutu is a bad guy and Trump is a moral hero in the minds of modern conservatives like Marshal. Nothing can show the moral and rational bankruptcy moreso than that.
What has become of modern "conservatives"? Nothing much has changed in the last 150 years. Except they do it in the open.
LBJ: "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
MLK: "... the segregation of the races was really a political stratagem employed by the emerging Bourbon [Southern elite] interests in the South to keep the southern masses divided and southern labor the cheapest in the land. You see, it was a simple thing to keep the poor white masses working for near-starvation wages in the years that followed the Civil War. Why, if the poor white plantation or mill worker became dissatisfied with his low wages, the plantation or mill owner would merely threaten to fire him and hire former Negro slaves and pay him even less. Thus, the southern wage level was kept almost unbearably low.
Toward the end of the Reconstruction era, something very significant happened. That is what was known as the Populist Movement. The leaders of this movement began awakening the poor white masses and the former Negro slaves to the fact that they were being fleeced by the emerging Bourbon interests. Not only that, but they began uniting the Negro and white masses into a voting bloc that threatened to drive the Bourbon interests from the command posts of political power in the South.
To meet this threat, the southern aristocracy began immediately to engineer this development of a segregated society. I want you to follow me through here because this is very important to see the roots of racism and the denial of the right to vote. Through their control of mass media, they revised the doctrine of white supremacy. They saturated the thinking of the poor white masses with it, thus clouding their minds to the real issue involved in the Populist Movement. They then directed the placement on the books of the South of laws that made it a crime for Negroes and whites to come together as equals at any level. And that did it. That crippled and eventually destroyed the Populist Movement of the nineteenth century.
If it may be said of the slavery era that the white man took the world and gave the Negro Jesus, then it may be said of the Reconstruction era that the southern aristocracy took the world and gave the poor white man Jim Crow. He gave him Jim Crow. And when his wrinkled stomach cried out for the food that his empty pockets could not provide, he ate Jim Crow, a psychological bird that told him that no matter how bad off he was, at least he was a white man, better than the black man. And he ate Jim Crow. And when his undernourished children cried out for the necessities that his low wages could not provide, he showed them the Jim Crow signs on the buses and in the stores, on the streets and in the public buildings. And his children, too, learned to feed upon Jim Crow, their last outpost of psychological oblivion."
If Marshal cannot childishly identify people that the Bible puts in the center as heroes, their lives don't matter to him.
- People of color
- Women
- Arabs
- LGBTQ+
Zacchaeus doesn't matter.
The Ethiopian eunuch doesn't matter.
The woman at the well, the Samaritan woman, the woman framed by the town's men... they don't matter.
Doubtless if Marshal were ever to get to Rome, Romans would disgust his repressed, stingy will to ignorance and desultory sado/masochism.
Post a Comment