What if?
I must confess that I do not care about the royal baby. I don't even care about Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman and I don't care who was guilty. But, I have a suggestion, given that Trayvon is the main news item in the US and the royal baby is the main item of news in England, why not name the baby "Trayvon." I can just imagine it now, "Prince Trayvon," "come here Trayvon," "don't do that Tryavon." It would be a suitable naming for an American raised to Sainthood or higher. And it would be so much more distinctive than "Prince Edward George David Arthur Alfred."
Why is it that in order to persuade the Palestinian leader to engage in peace negotiations Israel is expected to release prisoners who have been found guilty of terrorist murders. If this had been asked of the USA, Pres Obama would go on TV and say that "we can't intervene in the judicial process." These men have after all been found guilty of murder in a court of law. But, the same President can get on the telephone to his good friend PM Bibi Netanyahu and ask him nicely (or else) to release Palestinian prisoners who have committed the most atrocious murders, blowing up people in buses. Apparently 85 prisoners with "blood on their hands" who have spent at least 20 years in jail, for crimes committed before the Oslo Accords of 1993, are due to be released as a good-will gesture towards the PLO leadership. The fact that these are the men they regard as martyrs to their cause tells it all.
If Israel bombarded cities in Syria and killed thousands of civilians it would be classed a war crime and there would be threats against the lives of Israeli generals and political leaders, but other Arabs can do it with impunity. If Israel blew up the tunnels that allow Hamas to smuggle rockets into Gaza, as well as make a lot of money taxing the consumer goods that are smuggled thru them, it would be considered a crime against humanity, because it would cause an immediate humanitarian crisis in Gaza. But, when the Egyptian Army does it there is no protest. This is what is called "relative morality" or "double standards." But, what is good is that the Egyptian Army is doing it and Israel can't be blamed (or can they?).
Why is it that in order to persuade the Palestinian leader to engage in peace negotiations Israel is expected to release prisoners who have been found guilty of terrorist murders. If this had been asked of the USA, Pres Obama would go on TV and say that "we can't intervene in the judicial process." These men have after all been found guilty of murder in a court of law. But, the same President can get on the telephone to his good friend PM Bibi Netanyahu and ask him nicely (or else) to release Palestinian prisoners who have committed the most atrocious murders, blowing up people in buses. Apparently 85 prisoners with "blood on their hands" who have spent at least 20 years in jail, for crimes committed before the Oslo Accords of 1993, are due to be released as a good-will gesture towards the PLO leadership. The fact that these are the men they regard as martyrs to their cause tells it all.
If Israel bombarded cities in Syria and killed thousands of civilians it would be classed a war crime and there would be threats against the lives of Israeli generals and political leaders, but other Arabs can do it with impunity. If Israel blew up the tunnels that allow Hamas to smuggle rockets into Gaza, as well as make a lot of money taxing the consumer goods that are smuggled thru them, it would be considered a crime against humanity, because it would cause an immediate humanitarian crisis in Gaza. But, when the Egyptian Army does it there is no protest. This is what is called "relative morality" or "double standards." But, what is good is that the Egyptian Army is doing it and Israel can't be blamed (or can they?).
posted by Jack Cohen at 8:04 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home