Palestinian kids from Gaza Strip watching the sky where deadly Israeli planes fly over them .If you look carefuly at their faces you see no fear, just interest for those "wonderful flying machines".
Kids are the same all over the world. Women and kids should negotiate peace treaties...
3 comments:
Hi Lou, thanks for visiting my blog and reading Prof Bilgrami's talk. I'm sorry you found this disgusting. I suppose it was his references to Israel and Zionism which annoyed you. I would be obliged if you expressed your own view, which I could then carry on my blog. Best, rama, in Calcutta, India.
Hullo again Lou! Yes, terrorism is simply terrorism, especially when the victims are innocent people. But - there is a quantum difference between state terror, and anything attempted by disgruntled groups. And to compound matters, states never pay attention to peaceful struggles, only to violent ones. The Peter Ustinov quote seemed to capture this pithily. When there is huge disparity, and huge apathy, as in India, violent actions, such as by the Maoist revolitionaries here ("naxalites") seems inevitable. Personally, I am not inclined to violence, nor do I support it. But looking at the real world, I don't see much prospects for peace. You're in a grumpy mood - do take the pill I've provided in my blog!
Hi Lou, thanks for your further comments. While I am not concerened about defending or justifying Prof Bilgrami, I still think you are being unfair when you impute the motive of destruction of Israel to him. Nor do I think he is a supporter of Bin Laden's project. His critique of the peace accord agreement was the Oslo one, not the final Barak-Arafat one - which broke down on the refugees issue, which is not a trivial issue. In any case, on hindsight one can see that even if Arafat made a deal with Barak - that was unsustainable on both sides. When Bilgrami uses the term "apartheid", what he means is creating separate little pockets, or "Bantustans". A two state solution on the basis of 1967 borders + East Jerusalem for Palestine would be basic requirements. But for the first time - perhaps from your blog - I heard the argument, of Olmert, that the 67 borders can't be defended by Israel! Again in your blog I read the Haaretz reporter taking issue with Prof. Israel Charny on defining genocidal massacres. "I told Charny that calling the massacre of 10,000 persons genocide cheapens the Holocaust." Will Israelis ever get out of the Holocaust complex? Defining something that happened 60+ years ago is more important for him than the real killing of many people today! Besides, many other peoples of the world have suffered far greater butchery than Holocaust Jews - as Charny points out. But that has not led them to manic actions destablising the rest of the world! When one has friends in Israel, and when the state of Israel's real conduct makes it an international pariah, one does not make the mistake of identifying the Israeli state with Israeli citizens, who will have their own views and also be critical of their state. Anyway, this argument will be endless and still be inconclusive. So let's just stop the argument, and hope that by some strange miracle, peace will come about, because the question is so badly knotted up that it defies any resolution, and everybody has come around to accepting that, and simply looking to hit the other side as hard as possible. And lest you think I am holier than thou, or that the Indian state has a fragrant ass - last year I was quoted by a newspaper saying "India is the motherland of apartheid". See:
http://zeus.zeit.de/text/2005/06/G_9fnter_Grass
Post a Comment