|
Lynn wamts somebody to do something. And yet, she is agonizing over the choice of what is to be done, for:
The acts of terrorism commited by the Palestinians are unconscionable no matter what the provocation, and the bigotry and hypocrisy from the entire Muslim world is so appallingly obvious it’s shocking that anyone could deny it. On the other hand, I have a hard time believing that Israel is completely innocent and without fault. Well, you needn't strain to believe it; it simply isn't true. Israel, and individual Israeli acting at their own discretions, have committed crimes and even atrocities. On the other hand, to demand that the side that we choose be a paragon is something that is actually believed only by six-year-olds, and used as a propaganda tactic by faux idealists (note that they never demand such behavior of their own side, only of their opponents'.) Would that we had the luxury of choosing a side that has never committed a crime! Of course, that would mean that we could do so simply, easily; the difficult moral choices could all be pushed off on other people, then, instead of our having to make them ourselves. But, in this case, it is simple, as evinced by Lynn's first sentence:
The acts of terrorism commited by the Palestinians are unconscionable no matter what the provocation, and the bigotry and hypocrisy from the entire Muslim world is so appallingly obvious it’s shocking that anyone could deny it. That is the criterion. The Treaty of Versailles was harsh and hypocritical, but that does not go a millimeter towards justifying Auschwitz and Belsen. Japan was treated roughly and in a racist fashion by Europeans and Americans, but that does not go a millimeter towards justifying the Rape of Nanking and the Bataan Death March. And Messiah has not yet come, and the fate of am Yisroel is in the hands of lesser men. But that does not go a millimeter towards justifying the conduct of Arafat, the "Palestinians", and Arab (or European) leaders. John "Akatsukami" Braue Wednesday, April 03, 2002 |
|