Thursday, January 1, 2009

just in case you were wondering

Let's discuss this issue for a while, or at least attempt to stimulate a thorough discussion. Rocket attacks on civilians is wrong, no matter who they are. That's a basic human tenet, and one which should be respected by all. By All. No exceptions.

So when such attacks occur, is it fair for another country to retaliate? Let's go with rhetorics here, yes, it is fair and justified if and only if those who instigated such attacks are the ones being dealt with. Again, civilians and civilian installations are strictly off-limits. Furthermore, the issue of proportionality also has to be considered.

Now, let us consider the scenario where the country retaliating (let's name it Country A) strikes against a densely populated, civilian area, where the citizens themselves have lived in conditions worse than the world's most packed refugee camps. Let us call this country Country B. Not only that, but Country A has the resources to actually resolve standing issues between the two sides and has actually been largely responsible for the living conditions of these poorer people. Add to this the fact that the retaliating country has occupied the land they live on for over 60 years, and effectively and almost completely commited the world's least-rebuked form of genocide and ethnic cleansing, not even allowing for the right to return for villagers they ousted so they could build new villages and towns there.

It kind of paints a different picture, doesn't it? In fact, it seems almost logical and understandable that some form of organized uprising should take root in these conditions. Think about this additional scenario: Country B has been reduced to just two strips of land, whereas the land on which they originally resided has been taken over and controlled by Country A. And, hardly any organized international support (or, for that matter, diplomatic weight) exists for Country B, whilst Country A enjoys practically every kind of freedom amd support from the world's most powerful forces. It sounds almost as if this sort of thing could only be made up, but it's not.

I think by now you can guess what I'm talking about.

Again, let's just take the recent events into consideration (although to treat the issue more comprehensively and fairly, we'd have to dig up a lot more history). Rockets were fired into Country A, yes, and it would make sense for them to take down those who would harm their civilians.

But does it make sense to destroy:
- Civic centers?
- Aid channels (how else would food and medicine reach the victims in Country B? Divine provenance?)
- Houses?
- Friggin' UNIVERSITIES???

Seriously, you'd need the most plausible and acceptable, and absolutely infallible justifications to destroy institutions of learning, religious buildings, hell, any civilian buildings. Do the Geneva conventions mean nothing? You've got 1.5 million people packed into what amounts to one very, very small state, making civilian casualties all but inavoidable. In fact, 400 civilians were already killed by air raids.

DO NOT tell me that 99.99999% of them were all terrorists. Fucking do not tell me that.

No comments: