What!? Since when was making what others see as a bad political decision reason for death, if that were the case then over 50% of our population should be killed for re-electing Bush. But the fact is that we support free elections, at least publicly as long as it serves our purpose, but if it doesn't then damnit "let's just get rid of them ragheads" (again their words not mine.) And I am in what is supposed to be a liberal state, California.
Now since my last post it has been brought to my attention that Hamas targeted only civilian organizations and therefore that is why we will not talk to them because they are nothing more than terrorist. Hearing this and not really knowing I researched it, I also researched a claim made by a co-worker that all attacks made by Israel have been in retaliation to terrorist attacks. Now when I heard both of these claims I was weary about the truth behind them, it simply did not seem possible so I have done the research and this is what I have found.
The question of Hamas attacking only civilian targets:
From the information that I have been able to gather this is true. Although it seems as if the organization originally targeted military facilities it seemed to quickly learn that civilian attacks were a stronger tactic and has since moved to almost entirely civilian attacks. Sources used:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1197051.stm
Timeline of Hamas attacks
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3256858.stm
Timeline of Hamas attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Quick_timeline
Timeline of Hamas attacks
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0999/9909108.html
Report on history of Hamas
As for the issue of whether all Israeli attacks are in retaliation:
It would seem that my coworker is right in a way, but not totally. Many of the attacks were what is known as "targeted killings". Attacks on people who the Israeli government feels pose a threat to their security and therefore feels it has the right to kill. These attacks many times in in the death or injury of innocent bystanders.
I was unable to find much on the attacks by Israel honestly, until I typed in "targeted killing" it seemed as if the media was extremely gun shy about saying anything bad about Israel. I could not understand this at first and then I found this video...http://www.axisoflogic.com/cgi-bin/exec/view.pl?archive=129&num=17293&printer=1
If you click on the link found on the page listed above it opens a windows media file of a CBS news broadcast that is very indepth into the actions of Israeli troops against Palestinians. Furthermore their are widespread accusations of torture by the Israeli government of innocent Palestinian civilians. My sources are:
http://www.axisoflogic.com/cgi-bin/exec/view.pl?archive=129&num=17293&printer=1
Video showing Israeli forces mistreating Palestinian civilians
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=7572
Link to article speaking of armed Israelies attacking unarmed Palestinians. Two paragraphs into the article.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-03-22-mideast-glance_x.htm
Speaks of targeted killings by Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeted_killing#In_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict
Speaks of targeted killings by Israel.
http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/Reports/English/2005/kiiling7.pdf#search=
Speaks of targeted killings by Israel.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3556809.stm
Speaks of Israeli torture of Palestinian civilians.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,193466,00.html
Speaks of Israeli torture of Palestinian civilians.
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_20545.shtml
Speaks of Israeli torture of Palestinian civilians.
Now with all of this disturbing information in mind I pose two questions.
First of all. How is it possible that we condemn Hamas as a terrorist group because of it's attacks on Israeli civilians and yet we do not consider Israel's military a terrorist group for their attacks on and torture of Palestinian civilians? Don't get me wrong, I in no way condone Hamas's attacks and contrarily I condemn them, but that does not make Israel's any more acceptable.
If you really think about it the definition of terrorism as stated in Webster's Dictionary is as follows:
The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
And further the definition of terror is:
1 : a state of intense fear2 a : one that inspires fear : Scourge b : a frightening aspect
Now using this definition it would seem to me that the U.S. Government, especially the Bush administration, has been using terrorism for the last 4 or 5 years. In order to get us to support the Iraqi war we were constantlyy told about the "danger" of WMD's and Hussein. In order to get us to look the other way as our civil rights were slowly infringed upon we were berated with rising terror alerts and constant threats of terrorist attacks, always with just enough detail to be scary, and not enough to do anything about. In order to get us to forget about the horrors of torture we were told that the information that they obtained could save lives, using every human's natural fear of death against us.
And the bombing of Iraq fits the last part of the definition, "4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands", almost perfectly.
The only difference is that we have the big military might and the economic strength to get people to listen to us. The label "terrorist" is given by the victor or the stronger force. During the revolutionary war I am sure that we were considered terrorist by England, but because we won we were Freedom Fighters. Were else have I heard that term? Oh yeah that's right. It's the term that we used to describe Al Queda and the Taliban when we were supplying them with money, weapons, and training to fight the Russians in Afghanistan before we no longer agreed with his message and then he became a terrorist. Once again I would like to say that I am not condoning terrorism in any way and I do condemn the actions of Hamas, Al Queda, Bin Laden, Israel, and even the U.S. when it comes to attacks against civilians or unnecessary attacks against military forces. I simply think that people who live in glass houses should be careful about throwing the first stone.
My second question is much more straight forward and simple. I have continually heard from Bush, Israel, and other world leaders that they will not talk with the Hamas led government in peace negotiations. Their reasoning being that they do not feel that Hamas will be willing to work towards peace and that it is simply going to ask for the imediate destruction of the Israeli State. I am curiouse though, so what? Let me ask you this, forgetting for a moment the previous acts of Hamas, what can it hurt to talk to them. They have come out and said that they would like to continue peace talks. They have said that the world should not be afraid. Would we prefer to end the talks and start the fighting again. The worst that can come from sitting down at the table with them is that they ask for something ridiculous and the peace talks end and the fighting begins. The other choice is ending the talks before finding out if maybe, just maybe, they are seriouse about working with world leaders to find peace and the fighting begins again anyway, just a lot sooner. Sounds to me like the first option is the best.
No comments:
Post a Comment