Israel's Collective Punishment of Gaza
Some of her legalistic [???] mumbo-jumbo:
...Israel's "Operation Cast Lead" marks an escalation of Israel's two-year blockade of the Gaza Strip which has deprived 1.5 million Palestinians of necessary food, medicine, fuel and other necessities. [BS]
Israel is allegedly using white phosphorous gas, an illegal chemical weapon that burns to the bone. [nice word that,"allegedly"]
The targeting of civilians violates the Fourth Geneva Convention. Since the rockets fired from Gaza into Israel cannot distinguish between civilians and military targets, they are illegal. [Majorie, anything to say about Hamas? I checked for you ubut you can read the entire article and find out that Cohn doesn't. gee.]
...Israel's air and ground attack in Gaza violates Geneva in four ways...it constitutes collective punishment of the entire population in Gaza for the acts of a few militants. [the few???? the entire government is Hamas - elected by the people. is Cohn stupid?] it targets civilians [helloooo? Sderot? Ashkelon? Beer Sheva?] ...it is a disproportionate response to the rockets fired into Israel [we've been there]...an occupying power has an obligation to ensure food and medical supplies to the occupied population [hellooo, we've been gone three and a half years]
....Israel's leaders are bombing and attacking Gaza in order to gain an advantage in the upcoming Israeli elections in February. [that's sweet but wait:] Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni is locked in a tight race with Benyamin Netanyahu... [Majorie, where's Ehud Barak in this equation?]
I pity her students.
She's uninformed, ideological, political and a bit irrational.
Posts
4 comments:
correct me if I'm mistaken, but phosphorus is used in flares. Like signal flares, anti-missile flares, etc. It is NOT a chemical weapon.
Interesting that it's the totally irrational and mis-informed who get the most air-time and headlines! Hummm... wonder why that is... (it's rhetorical of course, but I'll entertain suggestions).
The "white phosphorus" argument is a moot point. Irrational can be defined as picking the narrowest of the issues and homing in on it as a illiterate means to justify wholesale killing and destruction on both sides. What has been achieved by Hamas or Isreal in this engagement? Has this deadly interaction made anyone happy and satisfied and safe? If you can answer yes to any of that then that is the true definition of irrational.
So, if I can claim to be happy that Israel has tried to destroy the capability of an irrational terror gang which has exclusively targeted civilians, that's proof I'm irrational? Or does your definition of a question prove you are?
Post a Comment