In looking at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is necessary, in my view, to put a few points in perspective. On the one hand, I have never claimed that the Palestinian people didn't have some legitimate grievances. On the other hand, my basic premise is that Israel has a right to exist and defend herself. In my opinion, the side which resorts to terrorism and deliberately targets innocent civilians for murder loses any claim to righteousness (and no, in spite of the claims of radical propagandists like Norman Finklestein, I don't believe Israel forces deliberately target innocent Palestinian civilians). In that vein, a few questions are in order.
Which side.......
Which side has hijacked airplanes and murdered innocents?
Which side carried out the Avivim massacre in 1970, in which a school bus was attacked resulting in the deaths of 12 persons, 9 of whom were children?
Which side was involved in the 1972 arrack on Lod Airport in Israel, in which 24 were killed
Which side murdered innocent athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich because they represented a particular nation?
Which side carried out the 1974 Ma'alot massacre in 1974, in which 22 high school students were killed?
Which side hijacked the Achille Lauro cruise ship in the 1980s and murdered an elderly, crippled American Jew (Leon Klinghofer)in cold blood throwing him overboard in his wheelchair?
Which side carried out simultaneous massacres on December 27, 1985 at the Rome and Vienna airports massacring 18 innocent civilians who had nothing to do with the conflict?
Which side murdered an American serviceman on a hijacked plane and threw his body onto the tarmac at Beirut Airport?
Which side danced in the streets and passed out candies on 9-11?
Which side employs the use of suicide bombers to blow themselves up on buses, in pizza parlors and other public places killing innocents by the dozens in each event?
Which side teaches its children that to become a suicide bomber is the highest goal?
Which side launches rockets into villages in a deliberate attempt to kill civilians?
Which side deliberately targets civilians?
Which side deliberately situates its fighters in schools, hospitals and other populated civilian areas in order to place its own civilians in the middle of the fighting?
Which side?
Which side do you support?
14 comments:
?? You didn't even give me time to answer the question before you rattled off the next one.
Hardly fair...:)
You are a closet Jeopardy freak, aren't you?
Eagle Eye,
I am somewhat disorganized-I did some editing and temporarily put it back in draft status as you were commenting I guess.
I guess the answer to your question is The Romulans. For there are no people on Earth that would do such a thing right? And the Romulans are a people without honor.
I'm going to answer this Jesus style and use a parable. Please forgive the multiple levels of irony that I'm employing here.
In The Odyssey, Odysseus must bring his ship between Scylla and Charybdis, and he has to make the unfortunate choice of choosing to get closer to one or the other.
Scylla is a sea monster, and Charybdis is a whirlpool. Odysseus chooses to get closer to the monster, and she even manages to snatch away some of his men, devouring them in the process. His reasoning is that this way, he only loses a few of his men, whereas the whirlpool would have destroyed his entire ship.
Obviously, Scylla was the better choice; however, that doesn't make Scylla a good choice. It's just the lesser of two bad choices.
Sometimes, my students ask me why Odysseus just didn't find a way around the both of them. That's kinda what I have to wonder with the question that you're asking.
Lance,
If I understand your analogy, it seems that you are mirroring the moral equivalence that goes on in too many universities. Sometimes, we have to stop not seeing the forest for the trees and let our native common sense rule here.
Unlike your students, I have no problem choosing the right side. Had the Palestinians used non-violent methods to press their grievances, the would have had their state years ago. Instead they chose a different path-why?
Partially because they don't want a two state solution-they want it all.
Moral equivalence? I was likening Hamas to the whirlpool - far more dangerous and deadly. However, when I see what Israel is doing - attacks which result in far greater innocent deaths than what was perpetrated upon them - I cannot look at that and say that I'm on their side.
Perhaps I could if it seemed to be a solution to the problem, but it's not. This whole thing will go on and on.
I feel as though you just want a solution, and whether that solution actually works or not is besides the point.
Lance,
Well, I am a little old-fashioned. I want the good guys to win. I don't like seeing civilians killed either, but if Hamas and Hizbollah would stop fighting from schools, hospitals etc., civilian deaths would go down. If you want an analogy, what would the US do if Cuba were launching missiles into Miami?
And maybe this whole thing would not go on and on if international pressure didn't always force Israel to call cease fires before they finish the job-allowing H&H to claim victory.
Well, you got me on that one, Gary. I never want the good guys to win. I always root for the Wicked Witch of the West myself.
In all seriousness, this is why I just can't see eye-to-eye with you. You reduce everything down to near-cartoonish simplicity. I mean, I'm with you that Israel has a right to exist and protect itself. I'm with you that Hamas is an extremist organization that very likely cannot be bargained with. Still, that all doesn't add up to me supporting everything that Israel does.
And the Cuba thing - like most of your comparisons - doesn't work. It's only the same situation if you ignore all of the history that's involved - which I don't think you should do.
As for the UN, now that's a point that I haven't considered. Perhaps there's something to that.
Oh, and if Hamas and Hizbollah would stop fighting from schools, hospitals etc., civilian deaths would go down sounds like teenager logic to me - and trust me, I have to deal with that on a regular basis.
Somehow, I doubt that logic would work on you if a loved one of yours was in one of those hospitals.
Lance,
Yes, I do tend to be simplistic at times. The world of theories and moral equivalence that I find in the universities is lost on me. At some point, we have to get back to the real world.
What point did I make about the UN in this thread?
"Somehow, I doubt that logic would work on you if a loved one of yours was in one of those hospitals."
Yes, but where is the anger directed to H&H for putting families at risk by their tactics? The point is H&H want to maximize their civilian casulaties for the sake of world opinion. As for me, if someone came to my house to use it as a base for launching rockets, and thus draw fire, I think I would be inclined to kill them myself.
Yes, I do tend to be simplistic at times. The world of theories and moral equivalence that I find in the universities is lost on me. At some point, we have to get back to the real world.
Moral equivalence? Who's talking moral equivalence? Is this one of those neocon buzzwords? Are you watching too much Sean Hannity again? How can you read anything that I wrote and say that I'm creating a moral equivalence between Hamas and Israel?
I think that the problem is that with "conservatives" everything is black and white - no shades of grey whatsoever. To me, that's not the "real world" at all. It's a charicature of the real world.
What point did I make about the UN in this thread?
I was referring to what you wrote about "international pressure." My goof, but toe-may-toe/toe-mah-toe.
As for me, if someone came to my house to use it as a base for launching rockets, and thus draw fire, I think I would be inclined to kill them myself.
I'll file that under "easier said than done". C'mon - seriously? Do you really think it's just that simple?
I'm sorry, but the world that I live in is complicated. The one you describe exists only in comic books (and I should know).
"I'll file that under "easier said than done". C'mon - seriously? Do you really think it's just that simple?"
You are right. Not in Gaza, but in Orange County-you betcha.
So let's break it down, Lance. How does Israel deal with an entity like Hamas, that has a charter that says-no two state solution, no treaty, no negotiation (waste of time). The charter says all of "palestine" will be one big happy islamic state.
How does israel put an end to the rocket attacks-that continue as we speak (you thought there was a cease-fire?)
How is this country supposed to defend itself and survive. They don't have the support of Europe. They don't have the support of the UN. Their enemies only pretend to negotiate, but the eventual goal is no more israel-no more Jews.
So now, put yourself into Hillary Clinton's high-heels, what do you tell Israel they have to do?
And of course, if a suburban high school English teacher can't come up with a better solution, then there must not be one, right?
Well Lance, if you were to "graduate" to an esteemed university like Berkeley, surely you would be able to come up with a solution. All the professors I see these days seem to have the solution.
BTW-the solution I heard proposed last sat at UCI by a panel of Israel bashers was this- One multi-ethnic state with everybody learning to live in peace. There of course would be initial bumps along the way, but they would work it out.
(never mind the Hamas charter)
Post a Comment