National Post Ontario, Canada Published: Monday, March 03, 2008 On Friday, a 13-month-old Palestinian girl was killed by shrapnel in the Gaza town of Beit Hanoun. Hamas blamed Israel for the death. But according to locals, the deadly explosion occurred when a Palestinian rocket aimed at Israel went off course and blew up the victim's house. By the time the weekend was over, dozens more Palestinians would be killed -- as well as two Israeli soldiers -- as Israel waged an air and ground campaign against Palestinian rocket crews and their Hamas enablers. As in any war, it is the child casualties that attract the greatest sympathy and anguish. But Friday's 13-month-old victim carries special significance: Her death by the Palestinians' own rocket fire perfectly symbolizes the self-destructive pathology that has afflicted the Palestinians since the 1960s. Palestinian leaders would quite literally prefer to slaughter their own people than turn Gaza into a normal country that deals on civilized terms with its neighbours. On Saturday, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned Israel for "excessive and disproportionate" use of force. We reject that censure of Israeli actions, as should leaders of all civilized nations. No nation on Earth would sit back passively as a neighbouring territory bombarded its cities with rockets. It is true that the Palestinians have suffered the bulk of the casualties in the ensuing counterterrorism operations. But such arithmetic does not change the moral calculus: It is not Israel's fault that the Palestinians choose to keep reigniting a lopsided and unwinnable war. Moreover, so long as Palestinians maintain the inhumane and terroristic practise of launching their rockets from civilian areas, Israel is blameless -- under both the letter and spirit of international law -- for the fact that some civilians die alongside the jihadis who deploy among them. The situation of the Palestinians is a gruesome tragedy. But insofar as post-occupation Gaza is concerned, it is entirely self-inflicted. When Hamas, or whoever else takes over Gaza in coming years, decides to stop using the Palestinian people as one collective suicide bomber, they will find a willing peace partner in Israel. Until then, the Palestinian blood that flows won't stain Israeli hands. http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=348429
I should take the word of a hard core zionist daily that was owned by Conrad Black. Conrad Black was the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Hollinger International, a director of Telegraph Group Limited, London, U.K., and a director of the Jerusalem Post and The Spectator(London). He has been described as a fanatical zionist by Lord Gilmour: "Both he and his wife are almost fanatical, if under-informed, Zionists, whose credo is "My Israel right or wrong'', and who regard any criticism of that country as a demonstration of fierce anti-Israeli bias. A decade ago, Black, to the great detriment of Israel, bought The Jerusalem Post and turned what had been a fine liberal Zionist paper into what a distinguished member of the British Jewish community called 'one of the most rabid Jewish publications in the English language'." source: The Independent, 20 March 2001 Honest Reporting (the zionist media lobby created to prevent honest reporting) bestowed an award on him for publicly chastising one of his journalist who strayed from the Israeli line: "Rarely does a major newspaper publisher publicly censure one of his prized writers. But last week [Feb 24 2001], media mogul Conrad Black heavily criticized Taki Theodoracopulos, a columnist at Black's own British Spectator. Taki had condemned Israel for attacking "rock-throwing youth with armour-piercing missiles"... Black's strong words sent ripples of fear through the ranks of anti-Israel journalists throughout the world. Black sits astride one of the world's largest newspaper empires -- the Hollinger Group -- which includes The Spectator, Daily Telegraph of London, Chicago Sun-Times, Montreal Gazette, Jerusalem Post, and others. His newspaper holdings in Canada represent an estimated one-third of Canada's entire daily circulation."
I gather you have no disagreement with the points the article in this legitimate Canadian newspaper makes but you have no love lost for the newspaper's former owner. Fair enough, that's certainly a legitimate and respectable position.
He has been described as a fanatical zionist by Lord Gilmour: "Both he and his wife are almost fanatical, if under-informed, Zionists, whose credo is "My Israel right or wrong'', and who regard any criticism of that country as a demonstration of fierce anti-Israeli bias. A decade ago, Black, to the great detriment of Israel, bought The Jerusalem Post and turned what had been a fine liberal Zionist paper into what a distinguished member of the British Jewish community called 'one of the most rabid Jewish publications in the English language'." It is very revealing that a zionist like you would support another zionist con artist who owns part of your zionist newspaper and who is now locked in jail for his fraud. Oh Yeah, I should take that man's word and his zionist newspaper. Keep up the good work crocks.
Thank you for having enough intellectual honesty not to disagree with the article notwithstanding your intense dislike of the newspaper's former owner.
I find it amusing. The written word. Attack the author, the owner, affiliation, credentials, the motive, the money, who might be friends or married or related to anyone who might be remotely related to the written word, a photo, a prior photo, a govt, religion, anyones childhood possible abused to prejudice, inflame, c'mon must be some reason someone would write anything opposing the view point of the view point. There are those with no motive, but they lack experience, the education, the life experience to see the errs of their errors. We could attempt to influence the impartial but now they are accused of impartiality because through no fault of their own objectivity someone somewhere cannot have a motive and hopefully will see the light of motive.
When it is an op ed piece, and the arguments being made are not factual nor logically derived, then it actually is logical to question the motives of the person making an opinion based statement. "But Friday's 13-month-old victim carries special significance: Her death by the Palestinians' own rocket fire perfectly symbolizes the self-destructive pathology that has afflicted the Palestinians since the 1960s. Palestinian leaders would quite literally prefer to slaughter their own people than turn Gaza into a normal country that deals on civilized terms with its neighbours." This comment is so heavily laced with self righteous opinion, you would think it was written by Bill O'Reilly.... "But insofar as post-occupation Gaza is concerned, it is entirely self-inflicted." Entirely self-inflicted. Once again, another all or nothing statement from a purely black and white thinker. Israel is blameless, never does anything wrong...consequently they don't have to change, adjust, feel badly for anything they kill in the name of their own self righteousness. In other words, fanaticism...
"But Friday's 13-month-old victim carries special significance: Her death by the Palestinians' own rocket fire perfectly symbolizes the self-destructive pathology that has afflicted the Palestinians since the 1960s. Palestinian leaders would quite literally prefer to slaughter their own people than turn Gaza into a normal country that deals on civilized terms with its neighbours." This comment is so heavily laced with self righteous opinion, you would think it was written by Bill O'Reilly.... _________________________________ I don't find the comment self righteuous at all. The litigation national anthem states; If (fill in the blank) would save one life, prevent one death, we should do whatever is necessary to prevent this from occuring ever again, life is sacred.
"I don't find the comment self righteuous at all. The litigation national anthem states; If (fill in the blank) would save one life, prevent one death, we should do whatever is necessary to prevent this from occuring ever again, life is sacred." I am sure you don't... Self righteous people are like that... The Israeli position is hardly that life is sacred, nor is the Arab position. If it were, then there would be no killing from either side. What we see is self righteous killing on both sides...
Nope. There is no moral equivalence here. Israel withdrew from Gaza, Palestinians elected Hamas and started firing rockets into Israel on a daily basis. Israel targets militants and terrorists, militants and terrorists target hospitals and day cares, Israel negotiates peace with Abbas, Hamas escalates violence and hides among the civilian population, wael parades pictures of innocent victims (aka war porn), it's nothing more than good PR for both Wael and Hamas (or so they think). Read the article once again and slowly, it addresses all these points.