|
CyberGnu
|
 |
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
Ranskaldan:
My view of the conflict is based on a simple premise. I hate aggression. Whether it is a schoolyard bully, a violent criminal or a greedy nation, I think it should be fought with all means possible. For the world to become a civilized place, we must make sure that aggression does not pay. In the last 50 years, the western world has come a long way. Direkt intervention in Quwait and Kosovo, threats of intervention in East Timor, these are all good steps on the road to a better world. Unfortunately is the moral higher ground undermined by the continued support of Israels aggression vs. the palestinian people.
A second part of this is perhaps more elusive, and to avoid muddling the issue, I will restrict the argument to nations with a draft/conscription. I know many of you don't agree, perhaps don't fully understand what I mean, but I just don't see how we can divide a people into civilians and military, and then declare that the people we designated military should give their lives to spare another nations civilians. Particularly when the other nation just invaded yours.
To concretizie, why should a farm bred 19 year old boy from Iowa be expected to give his life so that a japanese civilian be spared? His only qualification was being born with a Y-chromosome and 19 years before the nation of Japan decided to attack the US.
Furthermore, why would we expect civilians in an occupied nation to give their lives so that civilians in the occupying nation will live? If the atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought Japans capitulation closer by only one single day, that saved hundreds, perhaps thousands of chinese lives in occupied manchura. Should we have declared that these chinese should have died quietly, because bombing Hiroshima would have killed Japanese civilians instead?
I don't think so. I think the responsibility for all life, civilians and military alike, rests on the leaders of the aggressive nation. Thus, when an Israeli civilian is killed due to resistance to the occupation, his blood is on the hands of Sharon.
Other issues that have popped up: I fully support the idea of a jewish state. I don't understand why it had to be formed at the expense of the palestinians, however. I advocate Arizona or New Mexico.
I don't accept media with a stake in the conflict as a reliable source. This includes israeli media, jewish think-tanks, arab media etc. All I'm asking for is one single reliable source. NYT, WP, LAT, BBC, CNN, any of them would do.
And finally: I don't hate jews. I do hate aggression. As long as Israel maintains the occupation of palestine, I will support the resistance with all my heart. If Israel ends the occupation today and settles the ROR, I would support Israels right to exist in peace and harmony. But not until that that happens.
|
17-07-2002 21:25
that's exactly how i would describe you
|