Wednesday, January 23, 2008

They Do Starve Children, Don't They?

The NYT takes the stance that although

The neglect and mistreatment of the 1.5 million Palestinians trapped in the
Gaza Strip is a disgrace, and a very dangerous one. They are pawns in the
struggle among Hamas, which controls Gaza and uses the territory to
bombard Israel daily
; its rivals in the Fatah movement that run the
Palestinian Authority and the West Bank; and Israel.

Oops editors! You mentioned Israel twice, presumably because NYT readers might have missed it the first time. Anyway, as I was saying, after the NYT staff gets past this necessary bit of humanitarian-sounding jive, they get to the meat:

Hamas has turned a deaf ear to the Gazans’ plight, refusing to negotiate peace
or accept Israel’s right to exist.

Oh, those nasty Hamas guys! They "refused" to negotiate peace? Or refused to accept the terms of humiliation, not terms of endearment, that were offered as "peace" - or shall we say, force-fed? And for those who are force-fed propaganda, Hamas actually is willing to accept Israel's right to exist - but not as Fatah-defined and Annapolis-defined "Jewish state", because that opens the way, in their understanding, for Israel to expel thousands of Palestinians from their now-free-to-be Jewish-only state, causing even more refugees, misery, etc. The line that Jews would not be welcome in a Palestinian state (Wow, and I'll bet they feel real bad about this possibility) has been more or less quashed by the brave Daniel Barenboim's acceptance of Palestinian citizenship - before a state even exists...

Arab states, who for years have pleaded the Palestinian case and have
thrown their support behind the Annapolis peace process, must use their
influence (and their oil profits) to pressure Hamas’s leaders to halt rocket
attacks, renounce terrorism and align with Fatah in pursuit of a peace deal.
Egypt, whose stature as a peacemaker has withered under President Hosni
Mubarak, should take immediate, robust steps to shut down the tunnels that allow
arms and money to flow to militants in Gaza.

So it's the Arabs again who have to bear the brunt of responsibility because, as we all know, Israelis are innocent occupiers, pure as the driven snow, and totally incapable of acting any way other than as militant, robotic occupiers, being pure as aforementioned, and therefore it's the Arabs who have to do the dirty work of taking "robust steps". And since when have Arabs been noted to take "robust steps" except in the path of securing some petty dictator his little immutable world? And who is Hosny Mubarak except a petty dictator who takes very, very robust steps - or should I say "stomps" - in the path of securing his little immutable world? Which world is located in Sharm el-Sheikh, far, far from the madding crowds of Cairo and those other dust-ridden dirty enclaves of seething humanity.

Don't the Israelis see that the Arabs are just like them? The sheikhs in their crystal-pure palaces in Dubai and Saudi Arabia like to look at those messy, uncouth crowds as much as Israelis in their European-style luxuries like to get down with Palestinians. But all that uppity-ness and wealth has a price, the price of disconnect.

And the fate of Gaza is the responsibility of that irresponsible, floating decimal point-dream Israel, and that means Gaza's people's fate should be on Israel's conscience.

They do have a conscience ... don't they?

No comments: