-----Original Message-----
From: MJ Walker <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Our Ever-Evolving Language
> But the word "damning" was
not by me
If you say so. OK then. It wasn't the centre of what concerned me. I am
though intrigued at the ire caused by Galloway who is squeaky clean in my
eyes when i compare him to the Lord Sedgefield and his pals
>, nor is usually, meant literally. I think grovelling to Saddam
like that - though I agree the invasion was & is wrong - pretty
contemptible.
Yes, though I doubt he saw it that way
For the rest of it, I can't argue with you.
It is an argument against all violence which is where I keep coming back to,
not because I am actually against the violence as such - but the difficulty
is that I cannot know what people think, cannot finally judge them, don't
know who actually deserves to receive the violence or if indeed they do
deserve it
There are people occupuying Palestinian land who are more or less innocent
and others in, for example, Brooklyn, who are guilty
But if I am going to try not to judge, especially from so far away, which of
the Israelis is guilty then I am not going to start on the Palestinians
If I am going to suspend judgement on each individual Israeli, then I must
do the same to the Palestinians
One who has lost everything, or thinks they have, to those who say it's ok
for them to take land that they say God gave them and who humilate and kill
those who oppose them - who say that they are allowed pillage because they
are jewish - might be forgiven for anti-Jewish sentiment
I get angry about it at second hand only, and that gives me the leisure to
agree with you that
>There *is* something illegitimate
about protesting against injustice with unjust means
It is, as you say, understandable
And I see the status quo as being pre 48 not pre 67, the Persian version
all best
L
|