During World War II, London was hit by about 1,400 V-2 rockets, wreaking utter havoc on the population. Hitler's blitz on London also included bombing raids, causing massive damage and thousands of deaths. How did the British respond? They turned Dresden into an inferno, inflicting 30,000 civilian fatalities in 3 days.
In 1982, the Muslim Brotherhood revolted against Hafez Al-Assad's Alawite dynasty in Syria. In a few weeks, 25,000 lay dead in the city of Hama.
Since the Summer of 2005, over 4,000 Qassams have been fired from the Gaza Strip. There has been much public anger towards the perceived government inaction against those responsible. Limited airstrikes have been the extent of Israeli reprisal. Did I say "limited"? I am perhaps understating the case. Israel has made extraordinary efforts not to harm surrounding populations in these strikes--not the easiest thing when the mortar shells are launched from school playgrounds. Let nobody tell you that Israel is the among the worst human rights violators in the world or even aims to be. The British and the Syrians and many others should speak first.
2 comments:
To be fair, in total war (which is what WWII was), that kind of death and destruction is in fact inevitable. That's why the U.S. used nuclear weapons-estimates were that just as many people would have been killed in the event of a long, brutal invasion of Japan.
Is anyone with any evidence at all arguing that Israel "is among the worst human-right violators in the world"? Granted, I wouldn't be surprised. In my experience, in any debate about Israel, something like 90% of what is be said by every side will be absurd hyperbole. But putting things in perspective, Syria isn't exactly the worst either, at least not compared to the likes of, say, Cambodia in the 1970s.
I should say at least that Israel has made a series of serious strategic blunders over the years that in the long run were counterproductive to security (such as holding Gaza after '67 in the first place, and ). The problem now is that there really isn't anything at all they can do that will be effective. I imagine the main reason they are holding back to avoid a repeat of the Lebanon fiasco. I don't see that Israel really has any options.
(Also: "lack of government inaction" - that's a double negative. Shouldn't that be "lack of government action"?)
Israel is the only country on the UN Human Rights Council's permanent list of nations to be monitored. Sudan, North Korea, Zimbabwe -- none of these countries were deemed necessary.
Israel has made serious blunders in its handling of the territories post-'67. But handing it back was not an option then. The Arab League sent its "3 No's" down and declared all negotiations moot.
You are correct in critiquing my phrasing; it will be changed.
Post a Comment