Palestian school girl 'riddled with bullets' and 'noone is to blame'

Former Member

Both sides murder civilians.

But only one side is illegally occupying the other people's land and oppressing them.

So whichever way one wants to look at it, one side is definitely worse than the other.

Former Member

But when in history have decent people seriously accepted balance and neutrality as a proper response in moral conflicts or national conflicts that pit one very powerful party against a powerless party?

Consider this analogy: a group of well-meaning activists in late 1850s America hope to bring an end to the horrors of slavery without war. They propose that the two sides strive for reconciliation, that slaves sit down at the negotiating table with slave owners and attempt to work out their differences through negotiation. The activists believe that the institution of slavery is oppressive, a violation of human rights, and that it must end, but they also recognize the property rights of owners to their slaves, as well as the owners' right to their lives and their livelihoods _ their right to exist and not be murdered in a slave uprising. The activists propose a middle way between the two sides, recognizing that both are responsible for the conflict (slaves have shown a propensity to rebel, causing the slave owners to tighten their oppressive grip) but believing that both slaves and owners have a right to free, peaceful, and secure lives and that the only way to achieve this is to avoid blaming either side.

Do we think this is absurd? Imagine a similar scenario involving an attempt to mediate in a balanced, blame-free atmosphere between Catholic priests and the children they have sexually abused. The absurdity of neutrality is equally obvious in this situation. What is most absurd in these scenarios and what links them is the notion of treading a middle or supposedly neutral path between two sides when there exists a total imbalance of power.

op cit

Former Member

Indeed, I recall Mark Steel lampooning the 'honestly, they're as bad as each other' argument, if it can be called an argument.

Former Member

On the case on Imam, Blogger, Lawrence of Cybria, has writiten another sterling piece, in which he examines the way that language has been used to dehumanise Palestinians and lists some of the times when the IDF has been known to lie and cover up its killing of children.

Here's a titbit, which challenges the idea of some kind of symmetry between the sides, as commonly expressed on this board:

In the Gaza Strip, Israel is making war against an asymmetric enemy it can’t see – and won’t make peace with - by shooting devastating hi-tech weapons into the paths and alleyways of most crowded refugee camps on the face of the earth, knowing full well that a large proportion of its victims will invariably be civilians and especially children. (Half of the inhabitants of Gaza’s camps are under 16 years of age). And then it has to lie about why all those civilians are dead by making up demonizing stories about Arabs not loving their kids and using them as “human shields”, because then it’s the Arabs’ fault that the IDF has blown their heads off as they stand in their doorways [3], or make bread in their backyard [4], or sleep in their own beds [5], or dare to stray off their usual path to school and wander within range of an IDF guard post.

It's well written, well researched and well referenced - enjoy!

Former Member

Another worthwhile article on the killing if Imam and many other Palestinian children.

In the first year of the intifada, several human rights organizations, including the Boston-based Physicians for Human Rights, documented a pattern in which Israeli sharpshooters have targeted the eyes or knees of Palestinian children with a "clear intention to harm". Tel Aviv University Professor Tanya Reinhart writes, "A common practice is shooting a rubber-coated metal bullet straight in the eye -- a little game of well-trained soldiers, which requires maximum precision." (7) Those snipers, evidently, failed to see beyond their little, glittering target the face, the person, the human child, and they "took them out with professionalism". A New York Times journalist, who spent two weeks monitoring the "clashes between Palestinian children with stones and slingshots and the Israeli army with tanks and precision equipment at a flashpoint in Gaza, wrote, "Never during the time I spent at Karni did an Israeli soldier appear to be in mortal danger. Nor was either an Israeli soldier or settler even injured." In that period, at least 11 Palestinian [children] were killed during the day [time](8) by live ammunition.

The author, Omar Barghouti concludes:

When a nation tolerates, even encourages -- through failing to properly investigate killings or punish perpetrators -- the deliberate, cold-blooded murder of a defenseless child under the pretence of security, it does not only lose any claim to morality it may have ever had, but also kills any remaining argument for its worthiness to continue existing as a racist, colonial state that is essentially above the law. It is the responsibility of humanity at large, and the west in particular, to impose sanctions and boycotts on Israel similar to those struck against South Africa in the past in order to bring about its compliance with the precepts of international law and the ever-evolving universal moral principles.

which has to be better than sitting there, wringing your hands, and saying (effectively) "they're all to blame"

Former Member

And news is just filtering through that a 10 year old girl, Ranya Arram was shot dead on her way home school in Khan Younis, Gaza strip.

Still, a small consolation is that the Imam killing is being investigated, the commander has been arrested, and now the investigations process is being investigated.

Imam may not have died in vain