Sunday, April 27, 2003

"The little guy with the moustache" (Bish could never remember his name).
The reactions around the world to Marwan Barghouti's court case stand out, in my eyes, as proof of the duplicity of those who claim to be in pursuit of justice, but in actual fact are only in pursuit of justice where it serves the side they favor.

How often did we hear that if Israel wished to combat terrorism it should do so by taking legal steps against the perpetrators?

Here we are doing just that with Marwan Barghouti. He's standing trial. He didn't fall victim to a targeted killing. He was arrested and indicted. He's getting his day in court. Happy now? This is what you said you wanted.

No! This is wrong! Israel has no legal right to try Barghouti!

Huh?

So that's it, isn't it? The cat is out of the bag. It's not about the means we use to combat terrorism after all, is it? It's about the fact that we should have the chutzpa to take steps to protect ourselves against terrorism at all.

Good Jews don't do things like that, as history will tell us.

So what now? Barghouti has been placed in solitary confinement. That's no way to treat a heroic freedom fighter, an important Palestinian leader, who shouldn't be standing trial in the first place. More cruelty, more injustice. Today's Yediot Aharonot (print version) has the reason. It seems Israeli security forces received information indicating that poor, wronged Barghouti, victim of an unjust and illegal trial, had been passing messages and instructions for fresh terrorist attacks to his operatives outside prison. The heroic struggle to kill innocent Israeli civilians must continue, unfettered by the illegitimate means used by those lawless rogues, the Israelis.

So what we have here is one set of standards where Israelis are concerned and quite another for Palestinians. Must be some sort of novel interpretation of affirmative action. One party is deemed free to murder and maim without distinction, once negotiation and dialogue fail to procure the desired results. A violent mode of action is perceived as being a moral and logical mean to reach the goal. The other party, however, is required to turn the other cheek at all costs, and in no way whatsoever attempt to react to any aggression however murderous. Any action, however nonviolent, aside complete capitulation to the other party's demands, is perceived as being amoral and unjustified.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home