The mere monitoring of bloody conflict assumes precedence over human suffering
I wonder if we are "normalising" war. It's not just that Israel has yet again got away with the killing of hundreds of children in Gaza.
And after its own foreign minister said that Israel's army had been allowed to "go wild" there, it seems to bear out my own contention that the Israeli "Defence Force" is as much a rabble as all the other armies in the region. But we seem to have lost the sense of immorality that should accompany conflict and violence. The BBC's refusal to handle an advertisement for Palestinian aid was highly instructive. It was the BBC's "impartiality" that might be called into question. In other words, the protection of an institution was more important than the lives of children. War was a spectator sport whose careful monitoring – rather like a football match, even though the Middle East is a bloody tragedy – assumed precedence over human suffering.
I'm not sure where all this started. No one doubts that the Second World War was a bloodbath of titanic proportions, but after that conflict we put in place all kinds of laws to protect human beings. The International Red Cross protocols, the United Nations – along with the all-powerful Security Council and the much ridiculed General Assembly – and the European Union were created to end large-scale conflict. And yes, I know there was Korea (under a UN flag!) and then there was Vietnam, but after the US withdrawal from Saigon, there was a sense that "we" didn't do wars any more. Foreigners could commit atrocities en masse – Cambodia comes to mind – but we superior Westerners were exempt. We didn't behave like that. Low-intensity warfare in Northern Ireland, perhaps. And the Israeli-Arab conflict would grind away. But there was a feeling that My Lai had been put behind us. Civilians were once again sacred in the West.
Keep Reading...
punditman says...
It's amazing what the politics of fear can do. For awhile after 9-11, people were afraid of terrorists popping out from under their beds and putting anthrax in their pajamas. White powder scares brought out SWAT teams in the most obscure locations. Some idiots even bought duct tape to protect their homes from chemical attack. Remember...WTF?
Now with this economic mess, people are turning inward again, afraid of losing their jobs, houses and savings, so they're hoarding lima beans and raising chickens on their balconys. Hmmm...perhaps this crisis is yet another way to keep people afraid and insular so that they won't band together for real change? In other words, it's an engineered crisis. 9-11 has lost its desired affect. WMDs was 99% poppycock. Punditman will have to think about that a little more.
Yet still, the war machine marches on, gobbling up precious resources while bringing death and destruction in its wake. Innocent people are being killed in our names. Does anyone care anymore? Robert Fisk does. Peacenik does. Punditman does.
I wonder if we are "normalising" war. It's not just that Israel has yet again got away with the killing of hundreds of children in Gaza.
And after its own foreign minister said that Israel's army had been allowed to "go wild" there, it seems to bear out my own contention that the Israeli "Defence Force" is as much a rabble as all the other armies in the region. But we seem to have lost the sense of immorality that should accompany conflict and violence. The BBC's refusal to handle an advertisement for Palestinian aid was highly instructive. It was the BBC's "impartiality" that might be called into question. In other words, the protection of an institution was more important than the lives of children. War was a spectator sport whose careful monitoring – rather like a football match, even though the Middle East is a bloody tragedy – assumed precedence over human suffering.
I'm not sure where all this started. No one doubts that the Second World War was a bloodbath of titanic proportions, but after that conflict we put in place all kinds of laws to protect human beings. The International Red Cross protocols, the United Nations – along with the all-powerful Security Council and the much ridiculed General Assembly – and the European Union were created to end large-scale conflict. And yes, I know there was Korea (under a UN flag!) and then there was Vietnam, but after the US withdrawal from Saigon, there was a sense that "we" didn't do wars any more. Foreigners could commit atrocities en masse – Cambodia comes to mind – but we superior Westerners were exempt. We didn't behave like that. Low-intensity warfare in Northern Ireland, perhaps. And the Israeli-Arab conflict would grind away. But there was a feeling that My Lai had been put behind us. Civilians were once again sacred in the West.
Keep Reading...
punditman says...
It's amazing what the politics of fear can do. For awhile after 9-11, people were afraid of terrorists popping out from under their beds and putting anthrax in their pajamas. White powder scares brought out SWAT teams in the most obscure locations. Some idiots even bought duct tape to protect their homes from chemical attack. Remember...WTF?
Now with this economic mess, people are turning inward again, afraid of losing their jobs, houses and savings, so they're hoarding lima beans and raising chickens on their balconys. Hmmm...perhaps this crisis is yet another way to keep people afraid and insular so that they won't band together for real change? In other words, it's an engineered crisis. 9-11 has lost its desired affect. WMDs was 99% poppycock. Punditman will have to think about that a little more.
Yet still, the war machine marches on, gobbling up precious resources while bringing death and destruction in its wake. Innocent people are being killed in our names. Does anyone care anymore? Robert Fisk does. Peacenik does. Punditman does.
