“We created the United Nations security council, so that, unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk, our resolutions would be more than wishes,” he said.
“All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment,” he continued. “Are security council resolutions to be honoured and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? [...] Right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime.”
So said George Bush. Of course, Brian Whitaker of the Guardian writes about a recent report issued by the PLO that shows the hypocrisy behind this statement.
The typical response of most Jews when they see this stuff is to shout “anti-semitism” or “self-hating Jew” or “Palestinian propaganda.” These ad hominem attacks absolve the person who invokes them from truly engaging in the material.
A more obective approach is to first make the definitions, then apply them. It’s easy to create ad hoc exceptions. Work a bit harder. First ask yourself: When is collective punishment of civilian populations permissable? When is it ok to kill civilians? What is terrorism? What is resistance? What is defensive action? What is offensive action? Write your answers down, so you can’t slip aside when the going gets tough. After you’ve finished making your definitions, apply them to your “favorite” conflict. The results of this little exercise might surprise you. For another eye-opening exercise, take a text from your favorite pundit on either side, and change around the sides. For example where it says Jews, put the word Palestinian, and vice versa. Then re-read the article, aloud. The impact of the words recast, can be shocking.
