the right of resistance
In the words of the Borg from the popular TV series Star Trek, "resistance is futile". This mechanized life form utters these words just before it captures its enemy, informing them that they will be "assimilated into the collective", a larger operating body of unified mechanized culture. So what exactly is resistance? If its a step on the path towards freedom, it seems like a good choice for any member of the human race.
Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya, after asked to lead a unity government, responded to the press today in Gaza that the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves against Israeli violence. According to Israelis, and most Westerners, this is considered terrorism. According to Palestinians, this is considered self-defense, and what is done is often conducted within the parameters of their general cultural paradigm. According to international law, people have the right to defend themselves when violence is used against them, or when colonialized, in order to resist any form of occupation. Israelis are not partial to that particular article of international law, thus have attempted to sway the viewpoints of other governments towards inaccurate interpretations of terrorism.
If resistance is seen as terrorism, then "the right of resistance" would somehow defy universal law. Since it doesn't, and Palestinians are clearly a repressed, colonialized people, it appears as though the Palestinian Prime Minister is correct in his stance in supporting the use of force against the real terror. Bottom line, they don't need to act with resistance if there is no occupation. Unlike the Borg, the Israelis are not attemping to "assimilate" the Palestinians into their culture, as they are forcing them to live inside a partitioned area enclosed by a wall, where they are subjected to inhumane treatment and not even given a passport (thus not given citizenship in ANY country). Is resistance futile, or is freedom impossible against a mechanized race like the Borg or the Israeli Occupation Force?
Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya, after asked to lead a unity government, responded to the press today in Gaza that the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves against Israeli violence. According to Israelis, and most Westerners, this is considered terrorism. According to Palestinians, this is considered self-defense, and what is done is often conducted within the parameters of their general cultural paradigm. According to international law, people have the right to defend themselves when violence is used against them, or when colonialized, in order to resist any form of occupation. Israelis are not partial to that particular article of international law, thus have attempted to sway the viewpoints of other governments towards inaccurate interpretations of terrorism.
If resistance is seen as terrorism, then "the right of resistance" would somehow defy universal law. Since it doesn't, and Palestinians are clearly a repressed, colonialized people, it appears as though the Palestinian Prime Minister is correct in his stance in supporting the use of force against the real terror. Bottom line, they don't need to act with resistance if there is no occupation. Unlike the Borg, the Israelis are not attemping to "assimilate" the Palestinians into their culture, as they are forcing them to live inside a partitioned area enclosed by a wall, where they are subjected to inhumane treatment and not even given a passport (thus not given citizenship in ANY country). Is resistance futile, or is freedom impossible against a mechanized race like the Borg or the Israeli Occupation Force?
posted by :: Lisa :: at 11:10 AM
1 Comments:
food for thought... yes harsh indeed, but you can also laugh at it, presentation of such sensitive issues with a little HUMOR!!! geez, lighten up people!
Post a Comment
<< Home