'Sir: I'm glad your Christmas Appeal will help needy people, but I'm troubled by your approach. The Palestinians in your article of 5 December are humanised individuals: the souk merchant, the grieving survivor, the odd-job man. Israel, on the other hand, is the "other", a capricious force that shells houses and terrorises children. Israeli opinions are only honoured when they criticise their government. Palestinians en masse are always "dispossessed" and "abandoned". Just in time for Christmas, we have a morality tale.
'But there are two sides to this issue, even one in which Palestinians are complicit in their travails. The Gaza pullout was a chance for autonomy and growth. Instead, the Palestinians chose martyrdom and elected Hamas. They selected extremist representatives and a violent platform, which inevitably invited retaliation.
'Please continue to help people who need it. But spare us the one-sided tale of good vs evil.'
- a splendid (as I hope regular commenter Fran will agree) letter from America in today's Indie. The one immediately before it isn't too bad either, says he modestly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I certainly do agree, Cyrus, although the letter above put its point across even more succinctly, I think!
Oh, and Cyrus you did notice my mea culpa for being hormonal the other day?
Fran, yes I did, and meant to respond to it - sorry it slipped my mind. No need to apologize and absolutely no hard feelings. I think we do have somewhat different perspectives on the issue in question, and that's fine. It's comments like the latest here...
http://christianaidwatch.blogspot.com/2005/06/hall-of-shame.html
...that really spoil my day!
Post a Comment