Murray McCully on Gaza

Dear Murray McCully, 
You are an arse. Here is the statement you made:

“In our explanation of vote to the UN our Permanent Representative Hon Jim McLay will make clear our absolute commitment to Israel’s right to safety and security, and condemn the actions of Hamas extremists in recent weeks”

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8018501/NZ-to-vote-to-recognise-Palestinian-state


Thanks for propagating the Israeli/US lies. Thanks for making a commitment on behalf of NZ to support Israeli apartheid. Thanks for denouncing a democratically elected government, you know, one voted in by the people of Gaza. But most of all, thanks for the expression of your absolute commitment to the rights of Israel to defend itself by targeting and killing civilians including many many women and children. Thanks for that Murray. What a c**t. 

How about considering that it was Gaza who had a right to defend themselves from the Israeli attacks. How about acknowledging the war crimes committed by the Israeli government in targeting civilians and journalists with ‘surgical precision’ and using weapons banned under international law.  

Naming of the dead by Harry Fear –  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1o9Jv4Lg90

An article outlining why McCully is an arse for condemning Hamas’s right to defend Gaza:
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2012/11/27/brayer-the-absolute-right-of-palestinian-resistance/

Advertisements

9 comments

  1. Every Israeli rocket has attempted as best they are able to target Hamas terrorists; every Hamas rocket – and theirs was the first fired – has deliberately targeted Israeli civilians, and has deliberately been fired behind the shield of their own civilians so they can use a body count of their own in their politick. That's beyond cynical.Israel is surrounded by nations that want to wipe them from the map: they are entitled to defend themselves. There's a concept known as methodological individualism: every act is ultimately carried out by individuals. Those who want peace are rational people, because peace is the most reasonable outcome for civilised living: but on that count, how does a reasoned ethic negotiate with a parent who will honour murder their daughter with acid because she looked at a boy? How does a nation reason with a hatred so strong as Hamas has, that they would use the tactics explained at the start of this comment?When someone can reconcile those points for me, I'll start listening. Because, yes, Palestine deserves a nation-state, their people deserve peace: we all do. But those they elect must start thinking, rather than emoting with their rockets, because they won't have peace, until Israelis are given peace, and history has taught Israelis that in the margin for error there are sadly only the graves of Jews. And with a far right politician in Hungary standing up in the Hungarian parliament only this week, demanding a written register of Jews be made in that country, the Israelis are vindicated in the fears they have for their lives, always, because thanks to the new surveillance states born of Keynesian socialism, fascism marches again in the world.

    Like

  2. Hamas were democratically elected to govern Gaza, by the people. The people on the ground supported their efforts and the efforts of other Palestinian resistance groups to protect them from Israeli rocket fire. Despite the IDF’s assertions that Hamas were firing at civilians and they were not, is pure propaganda. The IDF were clearly targeting locations irrespective of whether or not there were civilians on site. This was indiscriminate killing which they coined collateral damage. It is rubbish that Hamas fired first. There were a series of events that led to the retaliation by Hamas. Israel broke the ceasefire. You are correct, Hamas and other resistance groups were also indiscriminate with their targeting (and I do not support that action), but there is also a significant power difference here – Israel has the Iron Dome as defence, so while resistance groups were ‘targeting’ civilians it was unlikely that their rockets would reach their targets.It is highly likely that resistance groups were aware of this. What rubbish that resistance fighters were hiding behind their civilians. If you only watched mainstream broadcasting then its your own fault for accepting what they said as truth. Israel had a plan to destroy the infrastructure in Gaza. Who does this affect? The civilians. They tried to destroy communications networks, who did that affect? Civilians. They fired near the hospitals and they fired at civilian homes, schools and Mosques, who did that affect? Civilians. "Israel is surrounded by nations that want to wipe them from the map: they are entitled to defend themselves" They are occupying Palestinian land. It is not defence. The finger is pointed at the Arab nations, yet up until the UN gave the Zionists Palestinian land, Jews and Arabs lived peacefully within the same region. In fact, when the Palestinians land was forcibly taken, they accepted the two state solution until the Zionists in Israel began ethnically cleansing Palestinian communities for re-settelment by Israeli’s. "how does a reasoned ethic negotiate with a parent who will honour murder their daughter with acid because she looked at a boy"This is racist. No comment. The Palestinians deserve Israel to stop firing on them. The majority of Palestinians have been forced from Palestine by Israel they are mostly refugees in foreign countries. Those who remain are confined to open air prisons and continual sanctions, and oppression from the Israeli government.You talk of history impliedly referring to the Jewish holocaust. But why should Palestinian’s pay the price of the holocaust? Why should they lose over half their land to pay for the actions of Nazi Germany? What gives the Israeli government the right to ethnically cleanse Palestinian communities? Why should Palestinians not be able to defend their homes, their property their resources? Why should they be forced into refugee camps and fenced into a small strip of land that is subject to an Israeli blockade that prevents the supply of adequate food and resources such as medical supplies?

    Like

  3. Explain how that was a racist comment?Islam is a belief-system that anyone race can (stupidly) sign up to. The most stupid people I can think of are European women who sign up to a slavery unto men via Islam. Just for the record, Carrie, you made that connection of race = belief, not me: and I don't like being called a racist.You have some valid points elsewhere in your comment.

    Like

  4. No, one more thing for the record: my belief system is individualistic: free the individual and you free everyone, every race and creed. If I deal with everyone on the basis that they are a unique individual, they are not pre-set in their race, gender or class, that is the only ethic that does finally grow a civilised humanity beyond the monstrosities of racism, sexism, et al

    Like

  5. Mark, I didn't call you a racist (well, I never meant to, but looks like it could be inferred that way), I said 'this is racist' referring to the comment. And you're right. On reflection its not racist, so I wholeheartedly apologise. But it is a 'prejudiced' comment because its the kind of comment used to justify Islamophobia and the negative perception created by (predominantly)the US and Israel against Muslims as being a 'less civilised' group in society.

    Like

  6. I am quite happy for it to be said of me I have a prejudice against Islam: hell yes. And Christianity. All belief systems that put responsibility for a life in an Other, thus take away individual responsibility for one's actions, that place mysticism over reason, will keep us bound in pointless conflict within slave-states. As Voltaire said, those who believe in absurdities, will always be capable of atrocities …Have a great weekend.

    Like

  7. I've read that post of yours. I'm for freedom of religion too and I also value its diversity. And again, I too have an issue with breaches of human rights caused by various practices of different social, cultural, religious groups. But I believe those practices are perpetrated by individuals in the name of such religions rather than practices empowered or implored by the religion. Interesting though your views of religion are one thing you and Marx have in common! :-)(I'm just teasing you!)

    Like

  8. Well Marx had to get 'something' right 🙂 Where the Soviets started going wrong was that they merely sought to replace the Church with the State: they're both a theocracy in the final analysis. Goodness, lots of work to do before weekend …

    Like

Comments are closed.