I thought we recently had an elections in this country?
Whenever an opposition back-bencher makes a comment, are the headlines always going to lead with "New Zealand responds..."?
Perhaps this is just to help Ms Clark's resume look more current?
Related Link: Scoop escalates New Zealand response
Will we never be rid of this loathsome creature?
ReplyDeleteNot if NZ's "reporters" have their way, t seems...
Indeed. It was an inappropriate heading for a Labour party press release.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the point would be more obvious to people if Keith Locke was declared the spokesperson for "New Zealand".
At lest Locke - and belatedly Clark - are condemning the aggressor Israeli govt for their mass murder. Unlike National and that nice McCully & John Key, who don't seem able to find their press releases at the moment.
ReplyDeleteHow can anyone support McCully's 'even-handed approach' of 'no blame', when only one party to the fight has nukes, jet fighters, attack helicopters, tanks, endless money from US taxpayers....?
The bloodbath will not be solved until the Zionist 'right to wipe out others so we are safe' attitude is tackled. A good start would be targetted sanctions, and banning NZ entry & citizenship to Israeli govt & military staff & politicians.
Then the David vs Goliath scrap may be evened, and the bloodletting eased.
The bloodbath will not be solved until the Zionist 'right to wipe out others so we are safe' attitude is tackled.
ReplyDeleteYou are getting close. The bloodbath will not be solved until Hamas recognise Israel's right to exist and make meaningful attempts to co-exist peacefully.
Palestinian militants are intent on destroying Israel. If they had as much firepower as Israel have, do you honestly think Israel would exist right now?
As tragic as the death toll is, the numbers would have been over 30,000 had the attacks been indiscriminate.
Helen a 'loathesome creature' - that's a tad harsh.... isn't it?
ReplyDeleteWhoops, scuse spelling of 'loathsome'. Grey's Anatomy music just came hither from region of Tv.. terribly distracted, must dash and see...
ReplyDeleteHi Joey. Politics is a tough business. It's a pity it has to concern matters of death and life.
ReplyDeleteEnough about that though - I've just re-read my comment about the "proportionate" response a couple of comments above.
It's true, but hit me over the head with a backyard mortar shell - the entire question of Israel and Palestine reduced to a comment along the lines of "well, things could be worse"...
...I haven't read anything so trite since Robert Fisk complained about getting a cup of decent tea during the last Palestinian flare up a few years ago. (True story)
I think I'll administer some tonic by going and reading a Kiwiblog thread.
"arsh" Joey?
ReplyDeleteHarsh, for the ex-communist 'peace activist' who abused returning troops, has never held a real job, who stole nearly a million from NZ taxpayers, who perverted the course of justice and trashed the conventions by which this country is governed, who attempted (somewhat successfully) to stifle free speech?
Harsh? Not half as harsh as 'she' deserves, were this not a civilised blog...
Hey KG, you left out her two biggest sins, and i am surprised a catholic didn't pick up on at least one of them.
ReplyDelete1, She wore trousers to meet the queen.
2. She has never had children.
As for the rest of your diatribe, for someone who claims to be a follower of the prince of peace, why did you need to use scare quotes around peace activist, and just what have you got against peace?
If you're talking about Vietnam, then i am also "guilty" of abusing returning toops.They were wrong then, and are still wrong now.
Conventions are just that. Conventions. They are not set in stone, nor are they passed in to law. If you don't like that, then agitate for a written constitution, or even better, join the rest of us who think NZ can stand on its own feet and work for a republic.
Sigh...so many loudmouthed idiots, so little time..
ReplyDelete1) You're "surprised a Catholic didn't pick up on at least two of them"?
Then be doubly surprised, moron--I'm not a Catholic. No way, not in any way, shape or form am I even religious. Yet.
I have never claimed to be a Catholic, pretended to be a Catholic or given anybody above the level of halfwit any reason to suppose I'm a Catholic.
2)"As for the rest of your diatribe, for someone who claims to be a follower of the prince of peace.."
I do? Show me where I did that.
I'll wait...
You see, that's what running of at the mouth does when you're all excited and proud of your nice shiny atheism. :-)
If I'm a follower of anything, it's the principle of "we get the peace we're prepared to fight for".
3) "She has never had children."
Hmm. That may matter to you but don't assume it also matters to me. Whether or not someone has ever had children is a matter of utter indifference to me.
Whether or not they've killed them before birth is a different thing, however.
4) I use scare quotes around the term "peace activist" because peace activists never have and never will bring peace. In Klark's case--along with most of her fellow useful idiots--the peace movement was a front for Marxism.
5)"If you're talking about Vietnam, then i am also "guilty" of abusing returning toops.They were wrong then, and are still wrong now."
The troops were not wrong then and subsequent events in that country proved the policy of the West to be correct--just ask the hundreds of thousands of refugees from communist brutality.
Furthermore, the troops were acting on the orders of the government of the day and acted in accordance with the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, so the personal abuse and denigration of returning soldiers was the act of cowards and moral pygmies.
Of which you are one.
"Conventions are just that. Conventions. They are not set in stone, nor are they passed in to law."
No--because it hasn't previously been necessary. Your foul socialist mates put paid to that. If we need a written constitution now, it's because slimy little socialists have demonstrated that they can't be trusted.
And I note you didn't address her theft, lies and forgery, but then I guess to one such as you those were mere trivialities, eh?
Zen,
ReplyDeleteI find the call for militant groups and Palestinian political groups to recognize Israel's "right to exist" an interesting one... and it's used often so I've got a few thoughts... would be interested to hear your response.
The idea of the recognition of a states existence seems like a very diplomatic pursuit and almost useless between anything other than entities at a state level. It seems to me that in order for the Palestinians (of any group) to recognise Israel's right to exist (as a viable state) would not the same courtesy need to be granted to the Palestinians? Israel has never formally recognized the right of the Palestinians to "exist" in diplomatic terms - hence the rise of groups like Hamas, yet it expects these groups that essentially do not exist on a state level and never have in the eyes of the state of Israel, to recognize its right to exist.
It seems to me to be a problematic term at best and a hypocritical ask at worst. It's asking Hamas to recognize it's right to exist yet it has never afforded that right to Hamas even though Hamas is the democractically elected representative governing body of the Palestinians.... as unwise as that choice may have been.
Both sides need to give recognition to the other in order for there to be any meaningful discussions at a state level.
Fritchie, I know you were'nt addressing me, but how is it possible for a state to give recognition to the elected representatives of Palestinians, when the charter of the organisation those representatives belong to explicitly states that there will be no peace with Israel, that their objective is the destruction of Jews and the Jewish state?
ReplyDeleteIt's an impossibility.
Hi Frank, I find the whole history somewhat confusing, and am not an expert in any way on this.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the Hamas charter seems to me to be very clear. The destruction of Israel.
Israel is motivated by preservation. I suspect it does not particularly desire a war against 1 billion surrounding Arabs and Persians.
If her enemies had equal military capability, there is no doubt in my mind Israel would not be here today.
I therefore do not accept this argument that Hamas does not need to amend it's charter because Israel is not recognising Palestine.
This isn't so much about who "recognises" who, it's more about the fact that one group is committed to the destruction of Israel - and that get's translated as "doesn't recognise their right to exist".
Some-one tried to explain it to me this way:
It's not that Arabs want to destroy Israel, it's just that Israel should never have existed in the first place, and therefore they just seek to revert to that situation"
That's laughable. Now that the baby is born, a post natal abortion is not really an option.
I would think that if the "two state solution" was adopted, and the West Bank declared a Palestinian state, then like Gaza, the act of firing rockets from one country to another is clearly an act of war, and the people of that country also become responsible for the actions of a few.
The Palestinian people would no longer have the semantics of international laws to rely upon as hundreds of missiles were regularly lobbed into Israel as part of the overall plan to instigate a war that leads to the obliteration of Israel.
The issues for Palestinians are obviously complex, and I have sympathy for the large number of peaceful people caught in the middle of this terrible war. But that sympathy does not mean I have to ignore the continued attacks on Israel nor agree that the Israeli should just "put up with it". (Not saying this is what you said, but the thrust of some arguments out there seem to amount to this).