Saturday, January 3, 2009
Double Standards?
Looking at the Israeli offensive in Gaza, I was all but amazed at the worldwide response. Not that I support terrorism, but calling firing a few rockets and killing 4 Israelis terrorism, versus slaughtering 450 Palestinians, atleast a quarter civilians (UN figures), being justified makes no sense. When did lives of people from different countries start having different value? According to the current world view, it seems so. Only now in europe, protests have begun over these attacks. From what history tells us, such wars only postpone things, and it seems that the greater powers of this world have deemed that this is a feasible method to repeat since it does not cause much collateral damage. To those in the decision making positions, it may seem practical, but is deeply barbaric to subject the residents of these parts of the world to such constant torture and fear, many of whom have nothing to do with terrorism. After such acts, where many innocent people are slaughtered from afar, won't more people be pushed towards committing acts of terrorism? It seems like a vicious cycle, and someone will have to blink to save humanity, and considering the balance of power, it will have to be the ones with the larger guns.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
That is a very naive way of looking at things. Obviously the Europeans will protest --they always do unless they are directly involved. That makes them do business!
Now consider this argument which I like giving to everybody: There are two clans --Kabila A and Kabila B. One fine day a member of A commits a murder in B. Now B demands A to return that member so that he can be tried, convicted and sentenced. Let's suppose A refuses (and let's assume they do not have an extradition treaty between them). Now, B evaluates all options --is the crime big enough to launch an attack on A? That is solely for B to decide, may be B values the life of its people more than A. A on the other hand, knowing fully well that their member committed the crime decides not to hand over the person because she/he is more important to them than their entire population. QED 4 vs 450. It might be possible that B has no real interest in pursuing the offender but is merely doing so to set a standard or look good to its people.
Now, I do not support war or terrorism but I am simply commenting on why the war possibly started in the first place. It is a natural reaction in humans --unfortunate but natural. And you are right that indeed more people are likely to be pushed over to the wrong side but this is something you cannot help --if you make decisions on what's going to piss someone off then you are simply appeasing them.
And lastly you cannot force peace by pulling in guns --I think we have enough history to support that argument. The middle east crisis is not 10 years old --I like to view it as being going around since the middle ages, with substantial periods of peace in between.
For countering that, let me draw from Gandhi's methodology. He saw the futility in simply having a tit-for-tat exchange of violence, and proved that if one side persists, results can be achieved even without violence. Granted it looks like appeasement in the short run, but if it works for the long run, who cares?
On the middle east crisis part, doesn't history support my vicious cycle claim? Forces of many religions have been trading volleys for a quite a few centuries, and it's done nothing but caused bloodshed and death. I don't quite know how substantial the periods of peace have been, but they've never been more than a few decades at the most, to the best of my knowledge. The alternative of trying to blast the other side to smithereens has been tried to death by now, I'd believe giving peace a try wouldn't be that bad an idea.
Convincing other people that an inevitable freedom was the result of a few dharnas is politics not nationalism. I am pretty sure that once all the oil dries up, Western "interest" in the Middle East will die and Middle East holy warriors will claim final victory and be made national heroes.
The longest peace period in the Middle East has been 1500 years (Lebanon) and true someone started the whole thing but that's exactly my point --war is a natural by-product of life. All forms of life wage war --humans, chimps, dogs, birds, lions and I can go on. The most effective solution (per non Congress history books) is to eliminate your opposition or decimate it so that the problem is either permanently or temporarily solved (respectively).
Post a Comment