Language of alliance or benefits
Reader comment on: Erdogan: "The Image of the Jews Is No Different from that of the Nazis"
Submitted by Yasmin, Feb 11, 2013 06:53
Recently I read the article, written by Soeren Kern, which points out the attempt to murder free speech in the borders of Denmark in particular and Europe in general. I believe that the article was covertly claiming Islam as one of the obstacles against the freedom of speech, and, although I am a Muslim Turkish woman, have thought that the point was quite reasonable and myself also felt worried about the situation, since I believe that freedom of speech is not a necessity: it is an obligation for human beings and should be like defined.
However, in my opinion, placing value to the freedom of speech on one side and on the other side limiting the freedom in the terminology of being an "ally" is confusing. Although I do not support Mr. Erdogan's every word or deed - and although I perceive his attitude too strong and direct in the matter by considering the customs of international relations - I still do think that he has the right to speak about the murders happening in Palestine. If being an "ally" makes us slient and blind to violence, then the language we speak is not the language of alliance anymore; it becomes the language of benefits.
Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. This site reserves the right to reject anything found to be objectionable.
Other reader comments on this item
|Muslim hypocrites [31 words]||Aussiegirl||Feb 11, 2013 21:08|
|Erdogan's anti-American and anti-Semitic statements from 1993 [9 words]||Herb Glatter||Feb 11, 2013 10:14|
|Not aimed at Muslims [42 words]||Ethan P.||Feb 11, 2013 09:27|
|Turkey [62 words]||Jenka||Feb 11, 2013 07:24|
|Other quotes [497 words]||Jude||Feb 11, 2013 07:21|
|⇒ Language of alliance or benefits [205 words]||Yasmin||Feb 11, 2013 06:53|
|The more Islamists seem to change, the more they are the same. [152 words]||Jayson Rex||Feb 11, 2013 05:46|
Comment on this item
by Alan M. Dershowitz
by Pierre Rehov
For terrorists, the death of innocent children is irrelevant. In a society that promotes martyrdom as the ultimate sign of success, the death of innocent children can sometimes even be seen as a public relations blessing.
In every action, intent is paramount. There should never be a moral equivalence painted between the deliberate killing of civilians, and a retaliation that tragically leads to casualties among civilians.
There is, however, one small difference: in the Middle East, reporters are threatened, except in Israel. Their choice becomes a simple one: promote the Palestinian point of view or stop working in the West Bank. Keep the eye of the camera dirty or lose your job. This show should not go on.
by Khaled Abu Toameh
Since 1948, the Arab countries and government have been paying mostly lip service to the Palestinians.
"They have money and oil, but don't care about the Palestinians, even though we are Arabs and Muslims like them. What a Saudi or Qatari sheikh spends in one night in London, Paris or Las Vegas could solve the problem of tens of thousands of Palestinians." — Palestinian human rights activist.
"Some Arabs were hoping that Israel would rid them of Hamas." — Ashraf Salameh, Gaza City.
"Some of the Arab regimes are interested in getting rid of the resistance in order to remove the burden of the Palestinian cause, which threatens the stability of their regimes." — Mustafa al-Sawwaf, Palestinian political analyst.
"Most Arabs are busy these days with bloody battles waged by their leaders, who are struggling to survive. These battles are raging in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya and the Palestinian Authority." — Mohammed al-Musafer, columnist.
"The Arab leaders don't know what they want from the Gaza Strip. They don't even know what they want from Israel." — Yusef Rizka, Hamas official.
by Soeren Kern
European elites, who take pride in viewing the EU as a "postmodern" superpower, have long argued that military hard-power is illegitimate in the 21st century. Unfortunately for Europe, Russia (along with China and Iran) has not embraced the EU's fantastical soft-power worldview, in which "climate change" is now said to pose the greatest threat to European security.
For its part, the European Commission, the EU's administrative branch, which never misses an opportunity to boycott institutions in Israel, has issued only a standard statement on the shooting down of MH17 in Ukraine, which reads: "The European Union will continue to follow this issue very closely."
The EU has made only half-hearted attempts to develop alternatives to its dependency on Russian oil and gas.
by Shoshana Bryen
Proportionality in international law is not about equality of death or civilian suffering, or even about [equality of] firepower. Proportionality weighs the necessity of a military action against suffering that the action might cause to enemy civilians in the vicinity.
"Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable does not constitute a war crime.... even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality)." — Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor, International Criminal Court.
"The greater the military advantage anticipated, the larger the amount of collateral damage -- often civilian casualties -- which will be "justified" and "necessary." — Dr. Françoise Hampton, University of Essex, UK.