But Israel is guilty of many crimes against the Palestinian people. If some disgruntled Palestinian fires a homemade rocket into a vacant Israeli field, Israel returns fire, sends in tanks and soldiers and then eliminates a few high raking political leaders. Is this a fair reaction? (…well, it probably is in at least one sense since an aggressive manoeuvre is an aggressive manoeuvre, we can’t expect Israel to shoot back with similar crappy and inaccurate weapons because that would be a war crime).
There is an inconsistency in the application of the rules of ethical international relations which allows Israel to bomb civilians, hold suspected terrorists in jail indefinitely and throw the whole country into disorder whenever she feels threatened. The pecking order seems to allow the US and her allies nearly complete freedom to dominate those unable to defend themselves. When two groups negotiate it is true that the stronger party is expected to have to make fewer concessions since negotiations are usually motivated by a desire to avoid war; so it only makes sense that the more likely victor is able to demand more. However, might does not make right. Just because Israel and her buddies can make invasive and restricting demands on Palestine does not mean that it is justified.
If we could actually understand their perspective, we would start treating Palestinians with more dignity and respect and at least allow them control over their domestic affairs. The bombing episodes in the ‘30s and ‘40s demonstrate that no group is inherently more ethical than the other (a period during which Israel engaged in terror tactics). Although Israel seems to have grown out of that phase faster, it was only able to do so with the support and acceptance of the rest of the world. If we really intend to establish a meaningful and lasting peace in the area we owe more support, understanding, sympathy to the Palestinians.
No comments:
Post a Comment