I don't have anything resembling a dog in this fight. I have several friends who are Jewish and I am particularly opposed to people who use non-combatants as living shields so my natural leanings are for Israel. However, I could also point out that of the Dozen or so peace treaties peace treaties brokered between the two forces, Israel has broken a few of them.
Anyhow, like I said this little rant isn't about the conflict. I was reading an interesting piece written by an English reporter who wrote very good article. He gave interesting information on both sides and actually did the best job I have seen so far of giving an impartial study of the current conflict and the history behind it. It wasn't until his concluding comments that what he said bothered me.
In his conclusion, he said, "Israel is entitled to all its freedoms and if ensuring their freedoms means that the freedoms of others is suppressed, then Israel is well within its rights to do so."
See the problem with this reasoning is that it presumes that one group of people's rights are more important than others. ow admittedly this isn't a new idea. One only has to look at America's treatment of Native Americans, Blacks and even Asian Americans during WWII to see prime examples of this attitude. The assumption is that the one group has some sort of moral or ethical high ground.
Of course, people will argue that Hamas is the most base of evil throwing unprovoked attacks and threatening their own people so isn't Israel justified in suppressing their opponents? On the surface it seems like a reasonable question.
The problem with assuming that one group's rights and freedoms are more important than another is that what happens when the tables are turned? If one group can justify injustice in the name of defense than another group can use the same reasoning.
In the end, if one group's freedoms and rights come at the expense of another's then both sides ultimately lose.
End of Rant
No comments:
Post a Comment