which is pretty much israel's attitude. this guy on al jazeera literally just says, well sure they're suffering, but so what? we've had to put up with bombs that haven't killed anyone in over 6 months, so they should've been starved and frozen and dehydrated to the point that they need medical attention that gaza doesn't have medical supplies for. hey arabs, suck on that!
here's the deal. i'm about 80% sure that israel is going to demand that hamas be removed (or step down) from power. that's probably the goal. hamas getting elected to power in the last elections was the spark for this latest round of battleship. remember the world's reaction? aid money dried up, and israel decided to not hand over tax and customs money that even rightfully belonged to palestine, on the grounds that there's no way the dirty arabs would actually spend it on government. even though that was hamas' strong suit and the reason palestinians picked them in the elections. so mahmoud abbas tried to negotiate a compromise. but hamas felt it had been screwed, and maybe it had, and it wanted what it had won in the election, even if the rest of the world had no intention of letting them have it. so hamas took gaza and fatah took the west bank and the bush administration tried, at least for the cameras, to look like it would reward the good dog. but if you lock someone in a closet and tell them they're not getting food or water or a light bulb until they decide to give the closet to someone else, that shit out of luck soul will start figuring out how to get out of the closet to teach you some fucking manners.
but israel is going to insist on the removal of hamas from power, and total control of palestine for a party that lost the last round of elections. all because the poor saps actually thought a democratic election would be respected. what were they thinking? that palestinian elections were for palestine's benefit? only tikkun thinks that. israel has reserved for itself the right (based on what, i don't know- certainly not international law), to decide that palestinians picked wrong, according to israel's interests. israel is not even going to pretend, in that white man's burden way, to be acting in palestinians' interests when it decides who their leaders will be. which i could respect, if israel didn't act like it has the right to decide who will eat and drink water and get heating fuel and medical supplies based on how they voted. because when you do things that cause deaths to civilian populations because of their political choices, there's a word for that.
this bears saying, maybe even on american television once in a while: there is a group of people in that region, maybe even more than one, that is on its knees at the edge of an existential cliff. but it's not the israelis. and i'd appreciate it if marty peretz could get that thru his george bush cocksucking head. i am actually finally old enough to say that i've seen this before, whether it was late 2000's intifada, or the 2006 war in lebanon. the aerial bombardment and ground troops thing doesn't work. neither, for that matter do katyushas or qassams. but i think (assume) both parties know that by now. i think they're doing this because deep down, the governments (internationally recognized and otherwise) of that region know what the long term solution is, but it involves decisions that can be called political suicide. in the case of yitzahk rabin, it was putting an "assassinate me" sign on his back. you think arafat and abbas didn't learn something from that? you really think anyone from any country is going to take that kind of risk now? then you deserve the stupidity of the talking heads.
No comments:
Post a Comment