Suresh,
* Suresh Ramasubramanian ([email protected]) [090126 16:30]: > [email protected] [26/01/09 14:39 -0800]: > > Zionists have made any criticism of their actions > > "politically incorrect". Most people in the USA > > feel they have to whisper, for fear of being confused > > with a Nazi if they disapprove of the use of Israeli > > cluster bombs against civilians (actually the cluster > > bombs are from the USA... but that's another issue). > > Oh but you see, I'm from India and couldnt care less about either side in > teh conflict. And I tend to see where neither side is approaching this with > clean hands. There's plenty of reason to care about both sides, clean hand or not. Gross injustice like this destabilizes the world for everybody. There is a great deal of needless violence on every side, but just saying "everyone is to blame" seems to avoid the all the core issues. Contemplate the nature of Israel's latest massacre: According to Reuters there were: 13 Israelis killed, 508 wounded Of those killed: 3 were civilians 4 were from "friendly fire" 1300 Gazans killed, 5,300 wounded Of those killed: 900 were civilians 437 were children under 18 110 were women 132 were elderly men Of the 5,300 Gazans wounded: 1890 were children Also: 50,800 were left homeless 400,000 were left without running water 16,000 homes were damaged 4,100 homes were utterly destroyed Under international law, warring parties are obligated to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. Hamas certainly did commit war crimes by firing rockets at random into civilian areas within Israel. However, nothing they've *ever* done even remotely approaches the scale of the atrocity committed by Israel. On a practical level, Hamas cannot to much more than fire small non-guided rockets. They fight with the relatively ineffective weapons they have. On the other hand, Israel *does* have other options, but instead chose to use F-16 jets and helicopters (partially paid for with my US tax dollar) to target civilians. They used the same approach in Lebanon back in 2006. Exactly how did creating an oil slick 3/4 the size of the Valdez spill in the Mediterranean & then preventing an international cleanup crew from cleaning it up for over a month help make Israel more secure? How was this an attack on terrorism? The simple truth is, that it was group punishment pure and simple -- an illegal attack on the civilian population & infrastructure. Lawlessness like this effects all of us. > The Jewish settler movement certainly had more than a > few setbacks when the israelis themselves broke up > several of those settlements and in some cases forcibly > dragged the people out of there. Yes, a tiny number of settlers are removed every so often from one place, while even more are encouraged by subsidies to settle in another. A shell game. Settlements have been steadily rizing in the occupied territories for many years now. Look at the map: http://palestinethinktank.com/2006/05/10/the-shrinking-map-of-palestine/ > Israel today seems to be rather different from the menachem > begin / golda meir hardline days when they could afford to make > statements like that. Their rhetoric is more sophisticated now, but I think it's fair to judge them by their actions. Tell me what has changed? > The EU certainly condemned both of them - hamas for acting > like terrorists and the israelis for reacting to terrorism > by choking off an entire civilian population alongside the > terrorists and not letting aid in. So Israel, the illegal occupier is just "reacting", while Hamas is the initiator? Israel kills many more civilians in Palestine per year than Hamas, and yet Hamas is a terrorist organization while Israel is merely defending itself? Please. > You dont see the jewish defense league, anti defamation > league, shadowy rich jewish financiers etc doing a thing to > either muzzle the guy or prevent this from going out on > Reuters, eh? I've never called anybody "shadowy". The lobby owns the news, and has veto power over both the Republicans and Democrats. Ever so often, an article showing the humanitarian situation in Gaza is published, but the preponderance of the coverage in the USA favors Israel. As for the muzzling effect, you do know that Israel banned foreign journalists from entering Gaza, right? Israel was able to pull off a near-total news blackout, drop their white phosphorus, and get off with just a few irritated journalists writing an angry article or two. There were no real consequences for their cluster bombing of Lebanon in 2006 either. > You are - somehow - falling for that same myth .. that > israel is sacrosanct and immune to criticism because it > could be seen as a politically incorrect treatment of jews. > Or of muslims for that matter, for criticism directed at > Hamas. I'm having trouble understanding what you're trying to say in this last paragraph, but if it helps to clarify my viewpoint, I dislike terrorism, therefore I condemn the terrorist activities of Hamas. For the same reasons, I dislike Israel's brand of *state* terrorism even more: there are many more innocent victims. Further, as a US citizen, I'm footing part of the bill. The whole thing is appalling. From India, it's probably not so easy to judge the degree of media bias we have here. If you lived in the United States, I think it would be a lot more obvious. Sincerely, -Jon
