I believe that the standards used to decide on "dreadful mistreatment" would be very different for the Tibetans - or anybody else - as compared to the Israelis. And the shock and outrage much less. As you said, the Jews put the concept of "justice" into your heart, so only they are supposed to fight terrorists in a sainted fashion.
Here's a good comment on Hamas and the Roadmap:
Peace Under Fire
by Elliot Chodoff
Hamas' not yet final rejection of a cease fire offer by the Palestinian Authority comes as no real surprise to terrorist watchers. Having built themselves up as the true revolutionaries in the Palestinian war against Zionism, gaining Palestinian popular support at the expense of the mainstream Fatah organization of Yasir Arafat, the Hamas leaders can't simply call it quits at the drop of a keffiyeh, even if they were so inclined. In any event, as religious leaders, they are a bit too honest to lie and say that they are willing to live in peace with Israel, when that is not at all what they have in mind. So they are leaving the public relations business to Abu Mazen & Co. who are much more willing to bend the truth out of shape in order to get the road map on track.
Under extreme pressure form the PA leadership, the Egyptians and the Europeans, the Hamas leaders are willing to discuss a "hudna" or short term cease fire, based on conditions that they know the Israeli government cannot accede to: terrorism halted only inside pre-1967 Israel, release of all terrorists held by Israel, an end to Israeli antiterrorist operations, IDF withdrawal from Palestinian population centers permanently guaranteed by the US and UN. In return Israel will get a number of months of relative quiet before the bombs start going off again. After that, Hamas plans to press its further demands, according to Abdel Aziz (Near Miss) Rantisi: removal of the last Jews from Palestinian lands (which happen to coincide with all of the State of Israel).
In light of all the terrorist activity, it interesting (but not at all surprising) that the NY Times maintains its usual superficial balance between the two sides and their policies ("Sharon Vows to 'Hound' Hamas, Which Rejects a Cease-Fire Bid," NY Times, June 17, 2003). Aside form simply reversing the chronology in their headline (the Hamas rejection preceded Sharon's speech), the Times reporters mange to create a sense of symmetry, potential violence and tranquility that borders on fantasy:"...with Hamas refusing to suspend its bombing campaign and with Israeli troops still operating in and around Palestinian cities, violence remains a constant threat, even though things have been quiet the last three days." The threat of violence, of course, is equally the result of Hamas threats of terrorist attacks and an IDF presence which is thwarting those very attacks. And despite it all, quiet reigns supreme (although the 58 terrorist attack warnings remain in force), having no relation to the IDF presence. The logical contradictions built into this one sentence are so extensive and complex that it we get tired just trying to think about them.
We are intrigued by the evolution of the peace recipe as it has been transformed over the years, from "Land for Peace," through "Peace With Honor," to the "Peace of the Brave" (in the "New Middle East"), to finally, "Peace With Terrorism." As long as there's "Peace," everything will just work itself out. Anybody want to buy a bridge?
chodoff.blogspot.com |
