Wednesday, June 18, 2003

Twisting the Truth. Why am I not suprised?  From the NY Times: Drafts of the report have been circulating for months, but a heavy round of rewriting and cutting by White House officials in late April raised protest among E.P.A. officials working on the report. An April 29 memorandum circulated among staff members said that after the changes by White House officials, the section on climate "no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change." Weapons of mass destruction, tax cuts, and now the environment.  The truth, according to the current administration, is something that is to be bent to suit policy, to suit whim.  They are determined to create the world they believe exists. 11:11:35 PM    comment []

Point of View. I read Israeli news when I can.  Haaretz is a near-daily stop for me.  I know that it's considered to be a left-wing paper...but those kinds of redefinitions are a classic form of misdirection.  I don't believe that Haaretz is left-wing.  I think it's quite centrist in its approach.  Why?  It advocates a two-state solution.  It believes that negotiation is the right tact.  It acknowledges that you cannot negotiate with an entity while you actively attack and assasinate its members. Amira Hass' article hits the nail on the head.  I've been reading Israeli coverage for years, and there's a theme that runs through all of it.  Every Israeli death is caused by "terrorists".  Every death caused by the IDF is "accidental".  It is quite stark.  Is there any form of physical or violent resistance that is permissible by the Palestinians?  After all, the Israelis keep them cooped up like animals, preventing freedom of movement, halting their economy, and more recently, not even bothering to apologize when they kill 3 year old little girls. The reality is that both sides have lost any sense of human life.  There are civilian deaths on both sides.  Israelis are engaged in legitimate military operations against terrorists, but those Palestinians who choose to fight by directly engaging the military occupation are not terrorists.  Infiltrating a settlement and killing civilians is terror.  Infiltrating a military base and killing a soldier armed resistance.  Israel does not seem capable of discerning the difference. I think the reason for this is the pervasiveness of IDF service.  Because Israel has a draft, Israeli families feel the loss of each soldier very directly -- they have their own sons and daughters.  They do not view these family members as part of a professional combat force, with the risks and responsibilities that entails.  They view the IDF soldiers as civilians in military clothing.  In many senses of the word, this is true.  They are young Israelis, forced into service by their government, just trying to get through the situation alive. There must be some legitimate outlet for Palestinian hopes and dreams.  When all the military power is on one side, and that side's conservative wing wants to set up an apartheid state, I believe there are moral grounds for resistance.  Three young men slipping into a military base to their almost certain deaths is not terrorism.  It's the price Israel pays to appease their conservatives. 4:48:20 PM    comment []