I read it in The Independent, Max.
What's terribly fascinating (in all sense of the word, terrible) is
the way those offering 'defenses' of both sides can manage to sound so
'reasonable' as they portray the necessity of violence. So, in our
paper on Saturday, we had Robert J Lieber (special to The Washington
Post) saying that 'Lasting peace will only be possible once
Palestinians accept that they cannot prevail ober Israel by use of
force,' & arguing that the land attack is 'necessary.' Daud Kuttab
(also special to The Washington Post) says that 'support for Islamist
movement was waning before Israel's heavy-handed action in Gaza.' both
took sides. The most interesting piece was by Gershom Gorenberg
(special to the Los Angeles Times), titled 'Shortsighted leaders have
released a flood of fury,' in which he blames the leaders of both
Hamas & Israel for their foolish belief that violence will win the
day, force the other side to do what they want. He also points out
that the 'victims' on both sides simply do not know (he says that
Israelis can see more of what is happening on the other side of the
world than what is happening in Gaza) how bad it is for their Others
(more so for the Israelis' sense of how it is in Gaza).
The bitter truth seems to be nothing will change, but many will have
died to achieve this terrible status quo.
Doug
On 3-Jan-09, at 5:02 PM, Max Richards wrote:
> WHY BOMBING ASHKELON IS THE MOST TRAGIC IRONY
>
> By Robert Fisk
Douglas Barbour
[log in to unmask]
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/
Latest books:
Continuations (with Sheila E Murphy)
http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=664
Wednesdays'
http://abovegroundpress.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-from-aboveground-press_10.html
Holy hath beris
As rede as any rose
|