Davis Sq vigil for Mideast ceasefire - Monday 8/7, 6 pm

[ron_newman]

Amnesty International is asking people all over the world to hold vigils this coming Monday, calling for a ceasefire in the Middle East. One of these will take place in Davis Square, starting at 6 pm this Monday.


Please join us in requesting a ceasefire.

In past weeks we have seen the catastrophic events of the conflict between Israel and Lebanon unfold and magnify into a devastating series of violent atrocities and war crimes. We hear of the hundreds of lives lost, the homes destroyed, the many thousands made homeless, families torn apart and livelihoods crushed. This evening, Amnesty International members around the world, our supporters, our friends and our fellow partner organizations all stand together in solidarity with those who have suffered in this conflict. We mourn deeply for the victims and our hearts reach out to their families to wish them strength in this time of chaos. Our thoughts also stay closely with those surviving the conflict in the face of extreme danger, to whom we wish courage and immediate safety. We call on Israel and Hizbullah to start respecting the lives and the human rights of innocent people. And we implore other governments around the world to intervene to help the people of Israel and Lebanon - and to join our call for an end to this senseless violence. Today we stand together with a simple message: For all our sakes, ceasefire.


(This is not a political event and definitely not an anti-Israel event. Please respect this if you attend.)

Comments

[two-stabs.livejournal.com]

I'm confused, how is coming together as a large group and calling for a regional sea change not political?

It's meta-political.

[an-art-worker.livejournal.com]

It's meta-political. It's like preventing nuclear proliferation: certain technologies, behaviors, responses are simply no longer acceptable or appropriate because of the larger consequences. Mediation, not bombs.

[ukelele.livejournal.com]

Maybe "nonpartisan" would be a better choice of words?

[ron_newman]

"apolitical" is Amnesty's term, not mine. (See my first link.) I think what they are trying to say is that they are not taking sides, they just want the fighting and killing to stop. Which is pretty much the way I feel, and that's why I posted the announcement here.

The Boston area has had many pro- and anti-Israel rallies in recent weeks. I have avoided attending any of them, because none of them really expresses the way I feel. This vigil is something I can support.

[gwodder.livejournal.com]

Look what you did, two_stabs! Imagine how much different this discussion would have been if you had simply written "FREE ENERGY DRINK".

[abce.livejournal.com]

This is absolutely a political event; if you actually believe that it isn't, you need to open your eyes and wake up. A cessation of hostilities benefits Hizb'allah, an avowed terrorist organization which has initiated hostilities and has declared that its ultimate goal is the elimination of the nation of Israel, and which has remained armed in Lebanon, placing Lebanon, UNIFIL, Syria, and Iran in violation of binding UN resolution 1559.

A ceasefire is not peace; it is calling for the surrender by Israel. If you want a vigil for peace, that's great, and I am happy to join you in prayers for that. But a ceasefire is not peace; it proves to Hizb'allah that as long as they continue to use human shields, the world will call out for Israel to allow their own civilians to be targeted, and their borders to be violated.

I hope for your sake that your vigil isn't hijacked by anti-Israeli forces; but they are the ones you have chosen to side with. Me? I stand for Israel, and the right of liberal democracies to defend themselves, their borders, and their civilians.

[an-art-worker.livejournal.com]

See- that's still locked into the old world view of knee jerk reaction and rhetoric. There is no way out that way (as shown by the last 40+ years). A ceasefire is *not* a surrender. That's just word play. As world citizens we can't afford that any longer, just like we can't afford armed responses with 1000+ people killed and a million people displaced.

[abce.livejournal.com]

But apparently, you can tolerate other people's children being hidden behind by terrorists, while they shoot at someone else's children?

We can't afford the "peace in our time" mentality; we couldn't afford it 70 years ago, and we can't afford it now. A ceasefire is not peace. In this case, it would happen to be surrender.

I didn't know Jeff Jacoby was on this board

[rollzroix.livejournal.com]

yeesh- the nerve of you people to pray for peace that isn't predicated on the total destruction of Lebanon!

Ceasefire and surrender are different words for a reason. Only a true extremist would say they are the same thing.

Re: I didn't know Jeff Jacoby was on this board

[abce.livejournal.com]

Ah, and out comes the name calling. Yes, it's easy to call someone an extremist when you disagree with them, without trying to understand them.

I pray for peace in the Middle East every single day. However, a ceasefire without the destruction or true demilitarization of Hizb'allah is a defeat for Israel, and is tantamount to a surrender. I, for one, support Israel in her struggle, and in her quest for peace.

All Hizb'allah needed to do was return Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, and not intentionally fire barrage rockets aimed at civilians. Seems not too hard to me. But, when you're a violent terrorist organization whose mission is the destruction of Israel, I guess that would be hard.

Am Yisrael Chai!

Re: I didn't know Jeff Jacoby was on this board

[rollzroix.livejournal.com]

"you can tolerate other people's children being hidden behind by terrorists"

This is a much nicer thing to say than calling someone an extremist.

You are trying to bait people into defending Hezbollah (who I don't support). You are using the tired old line of calling everyone who opposes Israel a "terrorist", when you know full well that no conventional army fielded by Lebanese muslims would stand a chance against Israel (thanks in no small part to the $108 billion and counting delivered to Israel courtesy of AIPAC and the U.S. taxpayers). Hezbollah fights the Israelis the only way they can. I would prefer if they would lay down their arms unconditionally and acknowledge Israel's right to exist in peace. We know they are "extremists" who believe that a unilateral "ceasefire=surrender", and that this will not happen until they are all dead. Israel can kill every Hezbollah fighter but can't do so without massive civilian casualties and general devastation. This breeds anger and hatred, and gives rise to the next generation of "terrorists". Iran orchestrated this kidnapping and Israel gave them exactly what they wanted. Keeping arab rage focused on Israel and the U.S. is what keeps the mullahs in power.

But you're right, I took your bait and starting the name calling. I apologize to this board for that. I don't apologize for contesting your basic premise, which is that there is no difference between "ceasefire" and "surrender".

I am done with this thread because I don't think it's the place for this discussion. That said, I apologize for the name-calling.

-Steve

Re: I didn't know Jeff Jacoby was on this board

[abce.livejournal.com]

Apology accepted.

I disagree with the points you attempt to make in your argument, and your logic flow, but since you do not wish to continue this discussion, I will not attempt to engage you; but I'd ask that anyone reading read your last post with a critical eye and note the failure of moral relativism.

If anyone would like to engage on the issues, I'm happy to continue.

Re: I didn't know Jeff Jacoby was on this board

[hauntmeister.livejournal.com]

If anyone would like to engage on the issues, I'm happy to continue.

I'm sure you're willing to keep the engagement going on forever, but the Davis Square community would not be the appropriate venue. I suggest one of the political groups.

Re: I didn't know Jeff Jacoby was on this board

[rxrfrx.livejournal.com]

Israel has, since the beginning of this particular conflict, demanded that it will only stop hitting Lebanon if Hezbollah is completely removed from any political influence in Lebanon. This is the third part of the demands you begin to allude to in your third paragraph.

Re: I didn't know Jeff Jacoby was on this board

[abce.livejournal.com]

I invite you to move this to my journal, as hauntmeister suggested.

But for everyone else, read that uncited statement, and then this one, from July 22nd:

"To the extent that it remains a political group, it will be acceptable to Israel," Israeli Ambassador Daniel Ayalon said. "A political group means a party that is engaged in the political system in Lebanon, but without terrorism capabilities and fighting capabilities. That will be acceptable to Israel."

Hmmm, now, unless you measure political influence as "has its own armed militia in violation of UN resolution 1559", this seems to contradict your assertion.

Re: I didn't know Jeff Jacoby was on this board

[rxrfrx.livejournal.com]

I was referring to an armed group having political influence (or not), and you're referring to the political entity having (or not having) arms. Same thing from two angles.

[abce.livejournal.com]

Oh, and it's 2 million displaced. Don't forget about the displaced Israelis.

[cleanup-davissq.livejournal.com]

"Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us."
~Golda Meir

[gwodder.livejournal.com]

So, the cessation of hostilities benefits Hezz-Blah in plenty of ways, but surely the benefit of ending the immediate hostility does not begin and end there.

In a much more general sense, those who benefit from a cease fire today are any who will be killed by bombs or guns tomorrow, whether they're Hiz-Blah, Israeli, Lebanon citizenry, Canadians, Americans, French or whatever. This, I think, is a much more causally basic stance and perspective. From this perspective, a cease-fire needn't be a political act but could in fact be undergone with the intention of "Preventing Children from Immediate Death, Dismemberment, Disfiguring Burns, A Lifetime of Emotional Ruin..." things like that.

However, if we place a political perspective in a position of higher importance than a perspective in which the lives of children take precedence, we will end up making statements like "Only those who have a political agenda will support a cease fire".

The perspective that states that a cease-fire benefits Hezbollah and is thus unacceptable also seems to assume, straight off the bat, that another war will break out eventually... and therefore, this war now must be allowed to progress as The War Which Will End All Wars. This is a particularly terrifying reasoning.

[abce.livejournal.com]

Ah, but the placing of certain lives as more important than other lives, or future lives, is in itself a political position. By your reasoning, a man with his gun to the head of a child should be permitted to commit any atrocity (except, perhaps, shooting other children, although in the case at hand, that is happening) or crime, because you have placed the life of the child as paramount to any other concern. That is a political stance.

Put another way: If a man steals from you, and, in the act of recovering your property, a third party comes in and says, "now, I'm not taking sides, but both of you stop it right now", and the property remains in the hands of the thief, the third party has effectively taken a side.

If you think that cease-fires lead to peace, you should count the number of cease-fires in the Middle East in the last 60 years, and the amount of fighting that has occurred after cease-fires, and reconsider your assumptions.

As for your assertion that permitting a war to continue is therefore an assumption that this will be the last great war either demonstrates your naivete, or your assumption of my naivete. I don't consider myself that naive. Israel has a lot more wars to fight, since she still has enemies calling for her destruction.

[ron_newman]

If the vigil is "hijacked by anti-Israel forces", I will leave it. I have nothing to do with organizing this event, and am merely passing it on because I read about it on another blog and it's local.

Since the vigil is sponsored by a neutral organization whose regional office is right here in Davis Square, I expect that the people who put it together will do their best to ensure that it remains on-message.

[abce.livejournal.com]

"US/Israel stop collective punishment of Lebanon"
"Stop the Supply of arms"

Nope, not political, or anti-Israel at all.