Nobel peace laureate Elie Wiesel says Iraq war justified

[punkgrrrlie10]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=1503&e=14&u=/afp/20030406/ts_afp/iraq_war_canada_wiesel_030406202223

MONTREAL (AFP) - Nobel peace prize laureate Elie Wiesel said the war on Iraq (news - web sites) is justified and blamed unnamed European countries for failing to prevent it through pressuring President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).

"If some European countries put as much pressure on Saddam Hussein as on (US President George W.) Bush, there would have been no war," he told a press conference in Montreal.

"Saddam Hussein had to be disarmed (and) there were no other means," said the Nazi concentration camp survivor and author who was awarded the Nobel peace prize in 1986 for his message "of peace, atonement and human dignity."

The press conference was organized by the Quebec-Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Montreal Jewish community's official public action group on behalf of Israel.

The Romanian-born Wiesel, who became a US citizen in 1963, said he did "not justify" war and was "not comfortable" with it, but that he was not a pacifist and believed in the "right to interference".

He added: "You can accuse me of being naive, but I think in all conscience that this war was necessary."

Dismissing suggestions that he is a "hostage of the American right", Wiesel said: "I am not against paradoxes, I take them on, as someone who opposes war, who has seen war and who hates war."

The US-led war on Iraq, he said, "will change the world."

He said he was optimistic over prospects for peace between Israel and the Palestinians after the appointment of Mahmud Abbas, a moderate known as Abu Mazen, as Palestinian prime minister.

Stressing that Palestine Authority President Yasser Arafat (news - web sites) had been "a big disappointment" for the Israelis, Wiesel said he hoped a three-month moratorium on terrorist actions would be called "to give a chance" to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites).

"The problem is terrorism (but) it will be necessary one day to settle this tragedy" in the Middle East, he said.

[FartinMowler]

1986 for his message "of peace, atonement and human dignity."


Its 2003.

[CaptainBubba]

edit: Fartin, you're a genious. Everyone should have nothing but love for you.

On topic: He bought Bush's story. Thats unfortunate that someone so highly revered can be so easily fooled. :/

[Protoclown]

A friend of mine bought me "Night" but I haven't read it yet. :/

[El Blanco]

Its a really good read. Highly reccomended if you want to know what a madman left unchecked can do.

[Abcdxxxx]

I think anyone who has survived a genocidal campaign deserves some respect for their opinions. We certainly pay a lot of respect to people who have arrived at their opinions with a lot less experience.

I don't see anything pointing to him "buying" Bush's story. The worst thing on there is that he suggests the new Palestinian PM is a moderate. That makes me wonder if he knows who the guy even is.
Abu runs Arafat's Fatah party, and wrote a book about the "secret connection between Zionists and the Nazis". Hardly someone get excited about if you want peace.

[mburbank]

Oh, sure, NOW republicans think he sounds good, but back when he was practically begging rEagan niot to lay a wreath a Bittburgh he was just some traumatized Jew who couldn't let go o the past.

[Abcdxxxx]

yeah this totally smacks of bipartisanship . good work burbank.

[mburbank]

I'm not sure I take your meaning.

I agree, I think Weisel's opinion bears way more respect than Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfled, Chenney and Bush. I take him quite seriously and woould never imagine him a pawn of the Right under any circumstances. Quite the opposite. That being said, I don't think suffering conveys infallability and I reserve the right to disagree with him, particularly in what he thinks the outcome of the war will be. Time will certinly tell.

However, none of the aforementioned hawks all of whom were influential during the Reagan Administration which thoroughly dismissed Mr. Weisels impasioned and well reasoned plea that the President of the United States out not to lay a wreath in an S.S. cemetary.

I also miss the point of your reference to Abu, who I don't see mentioned (although perhaps I read too fast) anywhere else in this thread or reffered to at all.

[Abcdxxxx]

Burbank - I'd rather pay his opinions respect over say someone off NPR....or a sports athlete...or movie star. Even when the guy is dead wrong on some issues, his opinions should be treated with some respect or credibility because of his life experiences (and after all he's based much of his career around such experiences)... not some "ooooh he's siding with the right" cheapness...or an article coopting his stance for shock value.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=1503&e=14&u=/afp/20030406/ts_afp/iraq_war_canada_wiesel_030406202223

He said he was optimistic over prospects for peace between Israel and the Palestinians after the appointment of Mahmud Abbas, a moderate known as Abu Mazen, as Palestinian prime minister.


Now of course, there's no actual quote from him saying this here. I mean, golly gee whiz, I can't see why a Holocaust survivor wouldn't be optimistic by the appointment of a pogrom revitionist to the PA. That's progress!

[mburbank]

As I've stated before, I think if you removed the economy sized chip from your shoulder your back wouldn't hurt so much. I said none of the stuff you're griping about and as far as the relative merits of Weisels opinion, I have already agreed with you, though not with his conclusion.

I remain confused regarding your anger about the Abu reference (Which I did indeed miss). I have not read a text of the speech and have no opinion on this articles veracity 0ne way or the other, but here's my confusion;

At one moment you seem angry at me for assuming Weisel is a pawn of the right, which I don't and was in no way my point, nor can I see how my post could be interpretted that way. Again, my point is not Weisel being coopted, but the pontential that the right, who saw no reason to listen to him before, will coopt his legitimacy now.

In the next breath you seem angry at the author of the article for attributing to Wesiel a view you think unlikely, and transfer your anger to the person who posted it as if the reason she chose the article was becuase it implied Wesiel was 'opptomistic' about Abu.

I absolutely (and have before) acknowledge your superiority on the subject matter. I suggest, however, that you are overeager to take offense.

[Abcdxxxx]

Uh, no.... I was responding and clarifying my original statement because it seemed to confuse. It's not a matter of agreeing or not, as much as representing my own opinion...which is all it is. How did I display any anger towards the person who posted it?

I do think it's a manipulative article, and my response shadows that feeling. It does frighten me that the media are misrepresenting Abu as a moderate and when they suggest Weisel endorses him as such it only furthers the disinformation... then Israel will look bad when they start screaming about this guy everyone thinks is a moderate. This is how Arafat won a peace prize and shuffled billions of his peoples money into offshore banks. It wasn't even the point of the article, and yet it's incredibly telling and harmfull.

I questioned the article, not anyone who posted in this thread.... though I really doubt Weisel's coming to this with any real care for partisinship. You're certainly able to mock the right for embracing him when it's conveniant...but I doubt he really cares about such things.... and my snide remarks shouldn't hurt worse then anyone elses on here.

[mburbank]

Only two things have hurt me since I joined this Community. Ronnies appauling lack of compassion hiding like inapropriatte arousal beneath the robes of Christianity and Vinces brutal manhandling of the english language.

Actually the second one delights me.

In all seriousness, I think in light of what you posted I need to find the text of the speech so I can read what he said as opposed to some journalists interpretation. Should you find it first, please post the link. It's got to be out there somewhere.

[VinceZeb]

Arafat won a Nobel peace prize, so the award doesn't really hold much meaning to me on a personal level.

But I am quite intrigued that if you believe Bush and believe that what we are doing is right, then you are obviously an idiot who "bought into a story" and not a clear-thinking logical human being. I guess if everyone on the planet except 3 people believed what Bush is doing is right, those three people should be put in charge of the world, because the ones who believe Bush are morons.

I don't see the logic in that argument. And I bet a lot of Iraqi citizens who are becoming free from a tyrant don't see it either.

[mburbank]

I hope you're talking directly to Captain Bubba, Vince. 'Cause if you're not, you should close your chow hole.

[The_Rorschach]

Chalk the tally up to four people Vince. I don't think what he's doing is right either, I simply view it as an inevitable necessity to bring stability into the region.

[Zosimus]

The dear media.... how I love it when they take the one view they hold so close to their greedy hearts, and conviniently leave out the fact that 41 (none the less) Nobel Laureates spoke out against the war (without international back-up), way before Elie Wiesel stuck his weasel opinion in everyones face! >:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0128-01.ht

Please someone, correct me if I am wrong.

[Abcdxxxx]

Uh, I don't think Eli Weisel was holding a press conference to express his opinions on the war....when you win a peace prize people will just tend to ask you for an opinion on world events. He commented, and some NY Times writer published his comments. I think the Not in Our Name crew have gotten plenty of press, and it's pretty evident even if you limit your daily news intake to fox news, that there is opposition to the war.

[punkgrrrlie10]

The dear media.... how I love it when they take the one view they hold so close to their greedy hearts, and conviniently leave out the fact that 41 (none the less) Nobel Laureates spoke out against the war (without international back-up), way before Elie Wiesel stuck his weasel opinion in everyones face

The media didn't leave it out, I did. I dedicated this thread to the nobel laureate who was for it b/c I only wanted to put one article in one thread. I saw that the zillion laureates against a while back. Just trying to be nonpartisan about it here buddy.

[Jeanette X]

The dear media.... how I love it when they take the one view they hold so close to their greedy hearts, and conviniently leave out the fact that 41 (none the less) Nobel Laureates spoke out against the war (without international back-up), way before Elie Wiesel stuck his weasel opinion in everyones face

Shame on you for calling him a weasel! He was just speaking his mind.

[Sethomas]

I understand the logic of his opinion having weight in light of his experiences of oppression, but the man is now regarded foremost for his defense of zionism. Seeing him as a staunch defender of Israeli interests, I find it impossible to be surprised that he supports the war.

[Abcdxxxx]

...and why is that sethomas?

[Sethomas]

Because Israel seems to be totally in support of this war, based on notions of self-preservation?

[Abcdxxxx]

I think your comment was a lot more loaded then that... kinda sounds like you're verging on David Duke territory there kiddo... but okay....let's get this straight... Israel is in total support of the war? No, not really. The "Zionist message boards" are filled with confusion and debate... Pro-Israel supporters see this as a very gray area issue.... they're not all that eager to become a punching bag, or get sold out as the Middle Easts Chekoslovakia. In fact, it's looking like Blair's going to force Israel into more appeasement agreements to mend fences with the Arab world over the current Iraq actions. Once again, this concept that Zionism comes wrapped with some party line is false... and so in actuality, the Zionist opinions ofn the war are pretty diverse. You're generalizing... but I'm not shocked that I'm the only one posting to scold you for it.

[Zosimus]

The dear media.... how I love it when they take the one view they hold so close to their greedy hearts, and conviniently leave out the fact that 41 (none the less) Nobel Laureates spoke out against the war (without international back-up), way before Elie Wiesel stuck his weasel opinion in everyones face

Shame on you for calling him a weasel! He was just speaking his mind.

Sweetheart, I didn't call him a "weasel", I said "weasel opinion.." (there is a miniscuel difference you know!), and plus I belive in freedom of speech, not censorship. So... I have the very same right to say whatever the hell I want, and further more even take responsibility for it... OK with you?

[Abcdxxxx]

Zosimus - that "one view you hold so close to your greedy heart" is close minded and naive.

[Zosimus]

Zosimus - that "one view you hold so close to your greedy heart" is close minded and naive.

please, I am listening (reading) to what you are saying and I am rather unclear as to what you mean....explain yourself. I like to think that unless someone directly attacks my opinion (on any matter) that there still is space for dialogue and maybe even understanding. I don't understand what you mean. I am not close minded though I may at times be rather opiniated BUT, I try to leave the door open for discussion .... so please, go ahead.