Our position however is that the Palestinians have a real grivevance: their homwland for over a thousand years was taken, without their consent
and mostly by force, during the creation of the state of Israel. And all subsequent crimes - on both sides - inevitably follow from this origional
injustice.
What happened was that the Zionist movement, from the begninning looked forward to a practically complete disposession of the indigenous Arab
population so that Israel could be a wholly Jewish state, or as much as possible.
The Arab community, as it became incresingly aware of the Zionist intentions, strenuously opposed further Jewish immigration and land buying because
it posed a real and imminent danger to the very exsistance of Arab society in Palestine. Because of this opposition, the entire Zionist project never
could have been realized without the military backing of the British.
Palestine has been Arabic since the seventh century AD.
In short, Zionism was based on a faulty, colonialist world veiw that the rights of the indigenous inhabitants didn't matter. The Arabs
opposition to Zionism wasn't based on Anti-Semitism but rather on a totally reasonable fear of the disposession of their people.
One further point; being jewish ourselves the position we present here is critical of Zionism but is in no way anti-semitic
www.cactus48.com...
The English involvement in India is down to the East India Company again brokering the deal between one and the other after colonial rule.
The borders that Europe drew up were poor at best, drawn along landmarks, not tribal regions. But, see, the strange thing is, instead of the
continent re-arranging itself, the fights simply continue without any progress being made.
Again you forget foriegn intrest,
The Zulu tribe is a nation formed when the tribes were scattered during slavery. Don't you think that the continent would have rearranged itself
already if it wasn't for the privitization;
Imperialism
Meaning the practice, the theory and the attitudes of a dominating metropolitan center that rules a distant territory.
Colonialism*
Which is almost always a consequence of imperialism, is the implanting of settlements on distant territory. As the historian Michael Doyle puts it;
Empire
Is a relationship, formal or informal, in which one state controls the effective political sovereignty of another political society. It can be
achieved by force, by political collaboration, economic, social or cultural dependence. Imperialism is simply the process or policy of establishing
or maintaining an empire
*South Africa. Zimbabwe.
Careful buddy, I really don't like what you're implying here. As a former "knight" I resent the remark
Yet I get tagged when I resent remarks on here as an Afro-Carribean.
We have tried for a LONG time to do the right thing in Africa. If a country doesn't respond that is NOT the fault of the US. We have Peace
Corp all over the world, we have Doctors without borders (loaded with US docs), we have MANY charities helping Africa, where do you get off saying
that we don't care about "Africans because of color"?
You need to look at the facts, there is a double tonged policy attached to the 3rd world. ''Certain'' nations give with one hand and take take
take with the other. I think that anyone who joins the army should take classes in;
Human rights abuses - Colonial history - along with Geopolitics. So they at least know what/who they're fighting for without being fed some blatant
misinterpretation.
Three charities are launching what they say is the world's largest campaign against the global arms trade.
They argue the trade is out of control and that Britain and America have, if anything, relaxed their controls since 11 September as they seek allies
in the war on terror. The charities' campaign for much stricter controls follows protests against Europe's largest arms fair, held in London's
Docklands last month.
The government says Britain has a good track record on arms sales and will introduce new legislation later this month to control technology transfers
and the activities of arms brokers.
THE ARMS TRADE
Key facts and figures from a business worth almost £19bn a year worldwide
In detail
Governments collectively spend more than £442bn ($700bn) on their armed forces every year and official annual arms sales are valued at up to £18.9bn
($30bn).
But Oxfam, Amnesty International and International Action Network on Small Arms (Iansa) claim the proliferation of arms is unacceptable and are
launching a hugely ambitious campaign, says BBC defence correspondent Paul Adams.
Stricter controls
At its heart is a call for a legally binding arms trade treaty within three years.
It is not a move to ban the trade, but to adopt far stricter controls, across regions and in local communities.
The charities claim that national arms export controls are riddled with loopholes.
They say: "The easy availability of arms increases the incidence of armed violence, acts as a trigger for conflicts, and prolongs wars once they
break out."
'Awash with guns'
Campaigner Richard Stanforth from Oxfam said: "From Birmingham to Bogota the global arms trade is out of control.
"There are more regulations on the music industry than on arms traders."
The village I grew up in Sudan is now completely awash with guns, even children as young as nine carry weapons in Torit.
James Omunson, Oxfam campaigner
Campaign supporter James Omunson said: "The village I grew up in Sudan is now completely awash with guns, even children as young as nine carry
weapons in Torit.
"I urge all governments to sign up to an Arms Trade Treaty to control weapons sales in Torit and Birmingham alike."
As part of the campaign, organisers aim to create a "Million Faces" petition.
Instead of signing a petition, organisers are urging supporters to email in a photo or self-portrait of themselves.
These will then be presented to governments in what is hoped will be a statement of mass public antipathy to the arms trade.
'Stifling development'
Government officials say they applaud the campaign's intentions, but argue it is only likely to succeed if all the major players including Britain,
the United States and Russia sign up.
On recent showing the Bush administration seems an unlikely supporter, says Paul Adams.
He says the world is awash with arms, with hundreds of millions of weapons scattered around the globe, killing, stifling development, and spreading
poverty and disease.
Despite UN programmes, regional codes of conduct and domestic legislation, far too many weapons end up in places where for reasons of embargos or
human rights they should not, he adds.
Major weapons manufacturers include US firms Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Raytheon, BAE Systems in the UK and French company Thales.
Seems they're getting tired trying to do their job while the nations where they hold their offices are playing a major part in corupting/colonising
and imperializing the countries they're trying to help.
Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe is in New York for the UN Millennium Summit. Last night, he stepped away from the formal festivities of the
largest gathering of world leaders in history and headed to Harlem. There at the Mount Olivet Baptist Church, he received thunderous applause from an
audience of more than 1,000 people.
In his speech, Mugabe discussed his controversial land reform plan that takes land away from descendants of British colonialists and gives it to
impoverished blacks. White farmers, less than a tenth of a percent of the population own a third of the land.
South African poet and former political prisoner Dennis Brutus was born in Zimbabwe. He talks about the current land crisis as well as the other
summit that is taking place in New York this week: the People's Summit in the streets.
Bad guy.... Lets bomb him... He can't do that... we're not rasict its only colonialism.... This isn't happening, you cant blame U.S!
Oh please.
The way things have turned out in Zimbabwe has been bad I can say that but isn't it obvious that you can't sit on someone elses land without
expecting a little bit of annoyance? Especially when you own a THIRD of the land leaving the inhabitants to suffer and its been passed down as it has
in other states in Africa from colonialism INTO colonialism.... Never guess who get the trade deals and is quick to help them out?
Anything that threatens contentment is undesirable to the political majority. It is a political disaster to be really honest about the deeper
social, economic and environmental problems that seriously threaten contentment, because people won't vote for the truth if it threatens their
contentment - they would rather live in a world of blissful ignorance. So we see an all too obvious process of social and political denial
and avoidance. This leads to widespread distrust, disillusionment and apathy. This is agonisingly obvious when we look at the state of national
politics in the UK, the USA and most 'western' nations, where the political majority is affluent and comfortable.
freespace.virgin.net...
Heres me being nice again (DE);
On quoting the above, at least there are those on here who read and discuss social and political issues, through that 'contentment', rather than
skim the title and not join in. I guess it shows some kind of,
''I want to know but remain impartial''
Rather than a totally stubborn,
''I don't want to know, let me not click that button''
Something I was getting at before DE savaged my post.
*If that won't get the mods off my back I don't know what will.
[edit on 16-2-2006 by Rebel_Lion]
