He described some acts to have been war crimes because 'innocent' civilians seemed to be targeted for retaliation.
*****
Some points to ponder:
1. I understand the idea of retaliation (though isn't all war the threat of retaliation?), but the 'innocent' civilians part causes me trouble.
2. In this specific scenario, Israel feels victimized and Gaza feels victimized.
They go toe to toe trying to decide who's the biggest victim.
First of all, that's the best way to not get anything accomplished - competing to see who has more to complain about.
Second, I hold Israel to the same standard I hold the United States.
As the Kennedy's say, from those to whom much is given, much is expected.
The Israelis and citizens of the US are pretty lucky in terms of standard of living and education and available resources and a stable economy and a (roughly) democratic society based on the rule of law.
The Palistinians haven't had the same chances, and don't have the same resources.
If you believe in a dog eat dog world, then I guess you think that's okay - only the strong survive and its fine to kick 'em when they're down.
But, I don't see it that way. We should be bending over backwards to help these people feel good about themselves and respected and valued by all of us.
What do we lose?
And we gain so much?
3. I'd like to think about the nature of innocent civilians in a war zone, and trying to make rules in a war zone.
I think both concepts are strange.
What constitutes an innocent civilian?
I don't support the Iraq war, but its being fought in the name of my country.
Am I innocent?
I could have tried harder to get Bush out of office earlier, I could have marched in the street more, I could have supported peace groups in the area.
Am I innocent just because I don't have a weapon, and I've essentially 'paid' for my armed protectors with tax money?
And why should we ever consider war to have rules about 'right' and 'wrong'. That seems so odd. You can't sign an illegal contract and then complain to the authorities when the rules of the contract are not abided by.
It seems to me if you're having a war - both sides have to agree its a war and what the rules are. I don't see that happening in the current conflicts the US is participating in.
4. Another aspect I'd like to think more about is how terrorists use the threat of violence to get what they want.
Their plan only succeeds because we won't do what they so willingly do.
From their perspective, we aren't willing to die for our cause.
From our perspective, we aren't willing to indiscriminantly kill masses of people on the hope we catch one or two terrorists.
So, the terrorists count on that.
They know they're the biggest bullies on the block willing to use their muscle.
They're really just a bunch of loser thugs; just like street gangs who fight for turf over their drug territories, and mafia families who kill to defend their honor.
Crazy.
All we are saying is Give Peace a Chance.
No comments:
Post a Comment