pi pipistro
Recent Activity
From Oslo to Annapolis, a path without peace
According to Shlomo Ben-Ami’s confession (debating Norman Finkelstein on Democracy Now!) Israel got moving without delay against the spirit of Oslo - I’d say also the letter (e.g. art. I of the Declaration: “It is understood that the interim arrangements are an integral part of the whole peace process and that the negotiations on the permanent status will lead to the implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.” Art. IV: “The two sides view the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a single territorial unit, whose integrity will be preserved during the interim period.” Art. XXXI n. 7 of the Interim Agreement: “Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.”) What make us feel that the Annapolis show & Road Map enclosed (denied since its birth in 14 points by Israel), fifteen years after the Oslo Accords that were officially repudiated by Ariel Sharon and, practically, by everybody, should have a better chance? … Read More
March 31, 2008 |
Iranian Foreign Minister remarked that 50 years ago the nazionalization of Iranian oil was termed by the UN Security Council as a threat to international peace and stability. While some say that the Pentagon and/or IAF is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran’s military infrastructure we sit and wait. The world is being cast into a hell of a situation in the Middle East and it’s very clear who is the victim and who the executioner. We are the bystanders. The ones who are going to say 'they lied, we didn't know.' … Read More
March 27, 2008 |
pi pipistro commented on How to resolve the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis. on March 4, 2008, 9:52 AM
Maybe it's useless to debate on ancient myths but it's easy now to quote at least: - Ron Pundak of the Peres Center (%u201CFrom Oslo to Taba: What Went Wrong?%u201D - June 2001):
pi pipistro commented on John McCain: Why do the terrorists hate us? on January 22, 2008, 5:24 PM
I disagree. First, I think we ought to avoid abusing terms as terrorist. And we should erase that word from our speech as well, for it happens to be a keyword, a conventional definition solely referred to the enemy. We can talk of course of terrorism as a tool, a weapon, a deadly instrument that can be used (and it actually is) by a large amount of entities, such as states, people, armies, guerrillas and so on and so forth. Given such a premise, we can say that terrorist is someone who use ...the weapon of terrorism. To be clear, if I am a Commander, a General, a Chief of Staff or something, and I lead an attack against unarmed civilians, bomb a resort or use any device whose aim is terrorizing civilians, then I am a contingent terrorist, no matter what kind of entity I'm in. And if I plan and make conjectures about leading such kind of actions I'm a terrorist as well, no matter what the mainstream media would say. Either if tomorrow people would call me a hero, or - it happened - will make me a Prime Minister. Fighting terrorism, as much as fighting nuclear weapons or machine-guns is a nonsense. There is no countermeasure to it by the use of violence, on the contrary, violence feed it. And nonsense is talking of fundamentalism as it were the symptom of irrational hatred for US/western believes, ideals and way of life, thus leading the actions of those people whose weakness suggested the cheapest weapon to fight what they perceive - and mainly is - mere injustice perpetrated by arrogant, pushy military and economic power. Islamists or something, say, don't give a damn about our believes in as much as we do not send them bombs to emphasize that their land, nuclear facilities and oil fit better with our way of life.
pi pipistro commented on How to resolve the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis. on March 4, 2008, 10:22 AM
The framework should be a legal one under international law. It is wrong to put on the table the Israeli needs against the rights of the Palestinians (see UNSC 194, UNGA 242 and 338). As far as it's wrong or useless trying to keep alive and implement dreams. So we're talkin of 100% 1967 borders including East Jerusalem, water, air and sea under the rules of international law; minor adjustments, i.e. 1 to 1 and same value of the land; compensations about the right of return. Quickly. Otherwise we can sit and wait that time and demography do, sooner or later, their bloody job.