| Monday, November 17, 2008 - 08:38 pm |
Yes, actually, I do. But then, the BBC is world renound for being less than biased in such things.
Your argument defers from the point entirely, valid as it may be in your eyes. I'm well aware of what the Palestinian militias do in terms of attack. But that is beside the point, given I'm talking about not just these vile murderers, but also innocent Palestinian civilians who are often deliberately punished for such attacks by decree of the Israeli government. What disgusts me is the indiscriminate retaliation against these civilians. The oppression of all Palestinians because of what a few have done. Not all of them are terrorists, but they are all made to suffer in the name of retaliation thinly veiled as "justice."
Yes, I have. And I still do. The country I live in has existed under the near-constant threat of IRA attack for the best part of the 20th century.
Bombs and guns, my friend. Israel and Palestine could learn a thing or two from such progress, if only one were willing to stop killing the other. But, alas, it seems both have a fondness for the race-hatred they hold for oneanother.
I refer you back to the IRA.
Even the Israeli soldiers admit to the indiscriminate killings.
They even target non-Palestinians. Note the account of indiscriminate shootings.
Note, "The flechettes are designed to kill and maim armed men on the ground. You only have to examine their effect on a tree - they can scythe clean through an inch-thick branch - to appreciate their deadliness. But late on Wednesday night - not for the first time in this 23-month conflict - they were used by Israel against Palestinian civilians to fatal and indiscriminate effect."
Killing UN observers.
The deliberate blockading of food aid to Palestinain civilians. In the eyes of International Law, this and other Israeli actions violate Articles 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 20, 21, 22, 25, 28 and 30 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at the very least.
And Israel seems to feel strongly enough about it to try and censor the BBC.
Need I go on?
Oh, but I am in the position to judge. I have looked at both sides of the argument, and I'm well aware of how complex the issue is. Israel has every right to defend it's borders. What it doesn't have the right to do - and what it has continually done since it's inception - is to encroach on the land of the Palestinian civilians, to steal what land was left to them after Israel's original borders were set out. Israel doesn't have the right to deny these people their human rights, regardless of what some of them may have done. No right to deny them food, water, electricity, security. Israel does all of these things. Israel's problems are caused, in part, by it's own refusal to remain inside the borders allotted to it when it was created. It's continued refusal to do anything that isn't entirely to it's own advantage. Israel will never have peace because it is entirely unwilling to compromise.
I seem to recall another nation which did very much the same once, with little regard for the wellbeing of some of the peoples it enveloped as a result.
Who mentioned just newspapers? I'm talking BBC reports, UN reports, Amnesty reports, EU reports. Information which has, in the past, given the story from many different viewpoints.
No, I do not base my thoughts upon the ramblings of one or two newspaper reporters. I base it on the reports of international governments, sound media sources, international human rights capmaigns, independant inquiries.
I wouldn't deny Israel the right to defend itself. Nor would I deny the Palestinians the right to do the same.
What gives Israel the right to deny even the innocent Palestinians their basic human dignities and rights, and then claim to be the sole victim in all of this?