Palestine, Bosnia, Tibet, Darfur, Sri Lanka, Kurdistan, Punjab, Kashmir etc.. are all ethnic conflicts which IMO deserve equal weight. Except for Tibetans, atrocities are committed on both sides with one side claiming moral superiority and the other side being evil and the ones who started it all. Each side is typically driven by a fanatical adherence to an ideology (race, religious, political, language, etc..). Interestingly the victims of one particular dispute often remain silent when their kin are the oppressors of another dispute (ie. because of Islam, Palestinians are hush over atrocities committed by the Sudanese regime). In many ways all of these conflicts are even reflected in the secular peaceful non-violent nations such as Canada with Quebec nationalism among francophones. What is common is a dispute over land with ethnic groups who claim ownership based on an alleged historical inheritance. What is left at the doorstep in all cases is reason and the idea of peaceful co-existence. I live in a comfortable dwelling in the US with a full time job and a decent salary to raise my family. If some group uproots me and claims that all that I have belongs to them because of a historical claim, I would likely be pushed to irrational rage and leave reason at the doorstep. That's right a rational freethinker like me could possibly be pushed into the wrong state of mind in such similar ethnic conflicts.

Thus, I arrive at 3 conclusions:

1. Human beings are hardwired for xenophobic tendencies towards non-kin (like tribes of warring chimpanzees) and there are really no "good guys" and "bad guys"

2. That taking sides with the victimized group is usually contradictory if their extremist kin are themselves oppressors in different circumstances

3. Because of conclusion 1, that ultimately an external "benevolent" power in the long run cannot stop deep seated hatred among Lilliputians and Brobdingnagians

Thus, based on this, the United States should completely extricate itself from the Middle East and tell the Israeli lobby groups to go fuck themselves. Let the Arabs and Israelis, Jews and Muslims settle their own disputes by the sword if that is what they choose.

Thomathy,

I was referring to the angst between English and French speaking Canadians. Many French Canadians have long sought for Quebec sovereinty. The Party Quebecois' platform has been for the separation from Canada. And despite Canada officially being a multicultural bilingual nation, to this day many francophones desire their own separate nation. Historically many peaceful negotiations and compromises have been made between the federal government and Quebec. This is an ethnic dispute over land that is in many ways no different than Northern Ireland, Palestine, Sri Lanka, etc.. However, barring a few isolate instances of violence (ie. the FLQ and the 1970 October Crisis) this dispute has been peaceful. And because of long standing dialogue, English and French speaking Canadians co-exist without the intervention of some external power. What is interesting is that native Indians who wish to separate from Quebec are not given any sort of referendum towards self-determination by the francophone majority. Oh the hypocrisy!!!

Uh. As Thom pointed out, Quebec seperation isn't an issue related to either ethnicity or land inheritance. It's an identity issue.

It's also been more or less settled (if in a bizarre fashion; whatever works, I guess).

On the other had, native americans do have many ethnicity and land inheritance friction with the rest of the country, and it is not a 'peaceful' or 'non-violent' sort of friction in any sense (don't take my word for it - check the prison population in Canada). Natives still insist on special priveleges as 'compensation' for percieved centuries old grievances, still insist that it is 'their land', here in the west they insist that they should be able to have their own laws on their reserves (I understand things are beginning to improve in the maritimes?) and they still cry and moan about their 'vanishing culture', as though it had been a static, harmonious and utopian existence in Canada until The Dread White Man (TM) came. For fuck sakes, most of the tribe factions still insist on carrying their old labels ('Blackfoot', 'Crete', etc) even though they are so far removed from the original bodies generationally that they serve as little more than further incentives for conflict.

- population in Canada. Well as we all know, stats don't always paint the true picture. The Canadian Justice System vs. Aboriginal People - topic:Be it resolved that the Canadian justice system be significantly changed. The Canadian justice system has failed the Canadian people.It has failed the aboriginal people of that Nation on a massive scale.The flawed justice has been insensitive and inaccessible,and has arrested and imprisoned aboriginal people in grossly disproportionate numbers.Aboriginal people who are arrested are more likely to be denied bail,spend less time with  lawyers,and if convicted,are more likely to be incarcerated.It is not merely that the justice system has failed aboriginal people;justice has also been denied to them.For more than a century the rights of aboriginal people have been ignored.Their complaints about police brutality have been left unanswered by the police department's internal investigation.There are many example's that are troubling,and clearly shows the manner in which the Canadian justice system is failing aboriginal people.While the aboriginal people comprise 11.8 percent of Manitoba's population,they represent 50% of the province's prison population.Canada treatment of it's first citizens have been an international disgrace.Unless Canada takes every needed step to redress this problem,this lingering injustice will continue to bring tragedy and suffering to aboriginal people,and to blacken Canada's name throughout the World. Here is a good web site; www.mta.ca/about_canada/native/#GOVERNMENT

To get back on topic and not I find Obama's silence disturbing. I do recall Obama in Turkey speaking out against the PKK [Another ethinic conflict. Kurd vs Arab], but I don't see much talking against Israel.

It's no secret the America and much of the world is pro-Israel, and I think that refusing to give Israel a free pass when it comes to them committing astrocities against the Palestinians [a good portion of the causilites in the previous conflict were civilian] would be a decent start to the peace process.

I noticed that the Palestinian civilian causilties rarely get as much media attention as the Israeli ones. I mean shouldn't we be outraged that BOTH sides are taking civilian causilties? Why just one side?

As to Carter, it is my understand that he wrote a book about the Middle East peace process and don't really know why he didn't enact the policies when he was president, then again I don't really know a lot about his Presidency.

You've pretty much got it right. I wouldn't take issue with what you said.

I would contribute that rather than realizing that the responsibility for change comes from within, dishonest leaders of countries, and their ignorant population groups seek a foriegn scapegoat and focus on them as the true cause of
what in reality are their own internal problems. This is an expansion of the theme of xenophobia beyond the borders of one's own country or "group".

No I'm not, care to enlighten?

Humanity's curse is the placebo of a label combind with it's deadly ego.

This is bizzar! Sometimes the sig is there and sometimes it isnt. I SWEAR I AM NOT SMOKING ANYTHING!  I am too dippy in any case to add to my own insanity.

WTF?

I have a question that is rarely expressed or ever answered among those who are atheist and sympathetic towards Palestinians.

Isn't it contradictory to be both pro-Palestinian and anti-Islamism?

Let's face it. Hamas has no love for blasphemous atheists (probably would put us to death under Sharia law) and they support Omar Al-Bashir who has committed far greater atrocities in Darfur than Israel ever has or will. And I say this as someone who does not have any sympathy for Israel.

Are you supporting liberal, freethinking, secular, tolerant Palestinians? They don't really exist in large numbers do they. I find it very hard to understand why there should be support for one side or the other.

Israelis have an expansionist ideology based on a combination of religious fanaticism of orthodox Judaism, racial superiority and secondary gain from perpetual victimhood (ie. till the end of time, everyone must feel sorry and guilty over the Holocaust).

Palestinians IMO are far, far worse. They too have expansionist ideals which over the years has become increasingly intertwined with violent, extremist totalitarian ideology of Islamism. And they too cry out for everyone to feel sorrow and pity for their plights. Yet they happily relish over the thoughts of killing infidels, stoning women adulterers, beheading blasphemers, praising suicide bombers, etc..

I will never, NEVER side with either Israel or Palestinians. I couldn't care less if one sides atrocities get more media attention over the other. Both sides are the architects of their misery and they get what they deserve. And I'm not holding my breath for that fictional day when rational freethinking and tolerant Arabs and Israelis will rule the Middle East.

If in the end Hanan Ashrawi became the leader of all the secular Palestinians, those movements you mentioned would be the ones governing Palestinians today. This is far from the case. My secular Arab friend wholly acknowledge that overall, the Palestinians have turned towards radical Islam as their answer. As I said before, it is incredibly difficult for atheists to justify their Palestinian support if they are anti-Islamic fundamentalism.

If you speak out for the Palestinian people who happened to be born in a war zone, then the same applies to Israelis, Bosnians, Tutsis, Kurds, Tibetans, Darfurians, etc... Collectively, killing is killing. Why defend the Palestinian born and lives in a war zone if that same individual loves the fact that young muslim girls who were raped are stoned to death?

I'm sorry, but how exactly is that a good thing? The PFLP is a terrorist organization.They had hijackings and suicide bombings even before Hamas existed. They reject the two state solution and want Israel in the river.

Of course it does.

Kevin's estimate of 70% of support for Hamas is wrong. It's was 45% support and Fatah recieved 42%.

Even so, is speaking out against he atrocites the LTTE commited agains the Sinhalese, pro-Buddisht?

Is speaking out against the astrocities commited by the Sri Lankan government against the Tamils pro-Hindu?

You are using some flawed logic

take this for example

P1 The Nazi part was founded on German nationalism

P2 Bob is a German nationalist

C Bob is a Nazi.

As you can see that is fallacious.

I would remind you that the Nazis received public support when they came into office. And the flawed German democracy of the 1930s was likely similar to Gazan democracy. Do you square with defending the the Allies killing of those Germans in WWII knowing that many of them did not vote for and in no way supported the Nazis?

I am not equating Hamas society to Nazi Germany by the way (although that would be an interesting debate). People must deal with the fate dealt by the politicians they elected. And I'm not defending the deaths of Gazans here. That 30% minority who rejected Hamas are likely not folks who embrace Sam Harris. Until reason prevails among the Palestinian masses their misery will be neverending.

I agree that there was no need to bombard Gazans and send an invasion force. And I completely concur that there is no need for suicide bombing to achieve Palestinian statehood. Why should the United States need to encourage them to start making better choices. Why does it have to be an outside power to dictate these matters? Similarly, I quite agree with Obama not interfering in Iranian politics at this time? Those folks have brains no different than ours. It is up to them to listen to reason and end their suffering.

No disagreement here. The Palestinians have been downtrodden as a consequence of racist and expansionist politics of their Israeli counterparts. Their plight is no different than the dehumanization of Tibetans under Chinese rule. Yet scores of Tibetans are not blowing themselves up in crowded settings because of mandates from the Buddhist faith. The Indians were under British rule (and Islamic rule before them) for a few hundred years. In the end, it was through the secular non-violent revolution of Gandhi that forced the British to leave. However, the Palestinians choose the way of Islamic fundamentalism. They choose the way of pain in response to their pain. And only they can end their pain.

Beg to differ but the first suicide attack can be traced back to 1881 with the assisination of Czar Alexander II of Russia when the Pole Ignacy Hryniewiecki exploded a bomb killing himself and the Czar. The first modern suicide bombing was in 1980 when 13-year old Hossein Fahmideh detonated himself as he ran up to an Iraqi tank at a key point in a battle of the Iran-Iraq War. In regards to India if you are referring to the assassination of Rajeev Gandhi, I believe that was committed by a Hindu tamil tiger terrorist.

I am not debating who has the legitimate historical claims of Tibet. The fact is that despite Chinese brutality, there have been no Tibetan retaliation via suicide bombings.

Indeed I did read Parenti's article and found it very insightful. And I'll ask this in all seriousness, have you read the Lord of the Rings? I'm sure you have and although the films were great, they do not truly capture Tolkien's message. Now I ask you to bear with me in regards to this analogy and the relevance to the Tibetans and Chinese.

Middle Earth was largely ruled by Monarchs (elves, humans) governing an ignorant peasantry (hobbits, dwarves, orcs, ents, etc..). They were all expected to worship the Valar and of course Eru or Illuvatar (God). The kings (often warring each other) were given power through divine providence. Middle Earth was a theocracy not unlike the Buddhist Tibetan society described by Parenti. This was the very society that appealed to Tolkien.

Tolkien hated the society of Sauron which symbolized the modernization and mechanization of civilization. It was the anti-thesis of the ignorant blissful theocratic monarchy of medieval England. Sauron symbolized technology. And in this regard, Sauron was not too dissimilar to the Chinese communists whom as Parenti pointed assisted in industrializing Tibet. Yet the Chinese were brutal and barbaric in the slaughter of scores of Tibetans to achieve their aims. With all his cruelty, even if Sauron granted me a modern home with a big screen TV and an automatic garage over a smelly hobbit hole, I would not choose his side. I'd rather be an atheist living in Gondor with hopes that King Aragorn will realize that the Valar and Eru do not really exist and allow Middle Earth to evolve into a secular democracy. That's what should have happened in Tibet.

Thanks for allowing me to make my point through an excellent work of fantasy.