[iDC] The Current War and The Will of the People
mturner at cc.umanitoba.ca
Sun Aug 6 21:43:23 EDT 2006
Monic Ross wrote:
> As far as i'm concerned every Labour mp in this country has breached
> the Human Rights of their constituents by not representing us and
> refusing to recognise that Hizbullah and Hamas members have both been
> democratically elected by their peoples to represent them, whether
> the west likes it or not. aka:
> The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of
> government- as in:
To begin with, politicians often do things contrary to their
constituents' desires. So, at what point does it become a matter of the
voter's human rights when politicians act contrary to the voter's will?
More to the point, however, is that Hezbollah's right to participate in
parliamentary democracy has not, I believe, been questioned, not even in
the U.S. A parallel British situation was having Sin Fein represented
in the Northern Ireland government while the IRA was setting off bombs
in public areas, killing anyone at random, and there were some very
bloody days. It was both a political party and a militia. You appear
to live in the UK. If, as I have, you've ever lived through an IRA
bombing campaign, it would be interesting to know how your views of
Hezbollah relate to the IRA and Sinn Fein.
In any event, even Israel has had to accept the right of the Lebanese
people to elect Hezbollah members to the Lebanese Parliament. The issue
is the mililtia, which has operated independently of the Lebanese army
and the Lebanese government. I say "has", because this could now
quickly change. We know that Lebanese regular army personnel have
already, in the current conflict, fought along side of Hezbollah.
Someone earlier argued that the current topic is
> a reaction against the way mainstream media and politicians deal with this conflict
But I regularly watch the BBC news, and BBC is not pro-Hezbollah but
consistently and sometimes sensationalistically biased against Israel.
So, if your point of view is not being served by your government it is
by the BBC. I recall one awful BBC piece from Gaza, where a
correspondent was standing outside an apartment block from which rockets
were being sent into Israel. Around her was a group of children and she
reported in an upbeat way, as though it were a fireworks display, how
the children had come to watch the rockets being fired into Israel. No
sooner had the rockets been blasted off then an Israeli shell hit the
building and some of the children were injured. Understandably she was
shocked, and it was terrible to see. But, inured to this, she didn't
miss a beat, and treated it as an Israeli act of terror. But for me it
was a graphic illustration of how this war is being waged. You shoot
from the midst of non-combatants and know full well that the people
around you are in danger if Israel retaliates. But then you are
nevertheless still a winner--in the other war, in the public relations
war. On the other side, does not Israel know children, civilians are at
risk? It's hard to believe they don't. This war is a moral quagmire.
I think it's fair to ask whether in fact there is a moral position. The
closest to a moral position that we can find is with such groups as
Human Rights Watch, which seek to exclude all non-combatants from the
effects of war. But for me that's not enough. For, who are these
warriors fighting our wars? They are themselves overwhelmingly children.
But pacifism has never had a place in the real world.
More information about the iDC