In France under the reign of the monarchy, the States-General or Estates-General was an assembly of the different classes of French citizenry. They always included representatives of the First Estate(clergy), Second Estate (lay nobility) and Third Estate (commoners). There was however, that wretched but necessary evil, more powerful by inferrence and referred to as the Fourth Estate.
Wikipedia describes the Fourth Estate as "the media, both in its explicit capacity of advocacy and in its implicit ability to frame political issues". How apt the translation - the ability to frame political issues. More so today, the sphere of influence that the Fourth Estate wields continues to manifest in its various forms of distortions. An uneasy bedfellow for some, a faithful enemy for others. They wield in their hands, the quilt that defines the truth they want to potray.
Take for instance the recent UN censure of Israel over accidental spilling of innocent blood in Rafah. In a repeat of Ramallah, press misinformation intinially placed the number killed at 23. This was subsequently reduced to 8. What was not reported was that a local Palestinian newspaper called for "women, children, and the elderly" to stand in front of Israeli bulldozers and tanks, despite the dangerous fact that Rafah was had been the site for armed battles between the IDF and Palestinian militants. Imagine what Mahatma Gandhi would have achieved if his doctrine of "Satyagraha" or passive resistance called for the same. Would he have won the hearts of the masses or be branded a cowardly nationalist?
What triggered Rafah? Again, unreported by the western media, 13 young Israeli soldiers were attacked and killed in Rafah the previous week by Palestinians who then paraded the body parts of their victims through the streets of Gaza. Four days later, the IDF enegaged militants in Rafah, killing some 40 armed men. Houses known to have harbored these men were bulldozed, as part of Israel's existing deterrence plan.
The Israeli leadership hastened to declare the incident regretful (and to be sure, I thought it was regrettable), which is more than can be said for Arab outrage over the killing of Tali Hatuel and her four daughters...
Just as Chairman Arafat is able to sign the Oslo accord and thereafter citing, during an interview on Egyptian television, cite Hudaybiyah (which basically invoked the principle in Islam known as Takiya i.e. the right to fake peace when you are weak for the purposes of defeating your enemy when you are stronger), and not incite a editorial response; the truth is more than just the absence of lies, in many ways, it is also the absence of some truths.
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Thursday, May 13, 2004
Middle East loses its head over beheading
The spectacle of Nick Berg's beheading has seen airtime in some countries and for those with the stomach for gore, there's even the option of viewing the video via the web. For what it's worth, I could not bring myself to even consider any curiosity I may have in seeing how this monstrous act took place. Even the thought of it cringes my stomach to the core.
While Islamic law condones execution by beheading, I understand that Berg was heard screaming until he could scream no more, during the beheading. It wasn't the act of a executor... it was the crime of a very evil person. The same people who were protesting the presence of American forces in Iraq. The same people who lamented the cruelty of the Israeli "occupation" of Palestine. The same people who claimed to be champions of the true Islamic way. Yet, the same people who dealt Daniel Perl no mercy and who found reason to riddle a pregnant mother and her children with bullets of hatred.
In the same article, Jabar Khan, a Kabul shopkeeper, said: "This beheading is a good act because the Iraqis have been oppressed and whoever is oppressed should defend themselves. As a Muslim I support this act." The same people who cheered Saddam Hussein into the tunnel of shame against the US - the real Butcher of Baghdad and oppressor of his people.
Fears that a backlash on US troops and citizens because of the prison abuse scandal seem to have been realized with Berg's brutal killing. Yet taking the larger picture into consideration, this is merely the continuation of a terror-based strategy already entrenched in the minds of modern Islamic militants. A concession to such tactics will only bring the terrorists to the American door step, and Sept 11 proves that this is not unthinkable.
This is not an escalation of terror. This is not a new, more effective strategy. It only seems that way because in this day and age of connectivity and multimedia, brutality can be served and expedited at the click of a mouse. It also goes to show why one blameless Savior was needed to die a brutal death for our sinful ways...
While Islamic law condones execution by beheading, I understand that Berg was heard screaming until he could scream no more, during the beheading. It wasn't the act of a executor... it was the crime of a very evil person. The same people who were protesting the presence of American forces in Iraq. The same people who lamented the cruelty of the Israeli "occupation" of Palestine. The same people who claimed to be champions of the true Islamic way. Yet, the same people who dealt Daniel Perl no mercy and who found reason to riddle a pregnant mother and her children with bullets of hatred.
In the same article, Jabar Khan, a Kabul shopkeeper, said: "This beheading is a good act because the Iraqis have been oppressed and whoever is oppressed should defend themselves. As a Muslim I support this act." The same people who cheered Saddam Hussein into the tunnel of shame against the US - the real Butcher of Baghdad and oppressor of his people.
Fears that a backlash on US troops and citizens because of the prison abuse scandal seem to have been realized with Berg's brutal killing. Yet taking the larger picture into consideration, this is merely the continuation of a terror-based strategy already entrenched in the minds of modern Islamic militants. A concession to such tactics will only bring the terrorists to the American door step, and Sept 11 proves that this is not unthinkable.
This is not an escalation of terror. This is not a new, more effective strategy. It only seems that way because in this day and age of connectivity and multimedia, brutality can be served and expedited at the click of a mouse. It also goes to show why one blameless Savior was needed to die a brutal death for our sinful ways...
Monday, May 10, 2004
What would you do? (extracted from conceptwizard.com)
Here is a scenario that is not at all hypothetical –
A young woman, a mother of two young infants living in the Gaza Strip, arrives at the Israeli army checkpoint terminal. Each day this terminal crossing regulates the entry of 15-20,000 Palestinians into Israel. As this woman passes through the magnetic gate the alarm goes off. At this point the soldiers at the gate are instructed to do one of two things:
1) Not allow her to go through the gate, or
2) Take any precautionary measures necessary (including the use of firearms) in the event that they suspect this person is a suicide bomber.
In this scenario, the “person” is a woman. Women are treated differently (you can’t ask them to lift their shirts up). The woman at the magnetic gate starts crying – saying that she needs to get to the hospital urgently for treatment. She explains that the reason the metal detector in the gate sounded the alarm is because she has metal plates in her leg.
Now, here is the dilemma. There is a woman at the magnetic gate. She has triggered the alarm. We know that in past months there have been a number of suicide bombings carried out by women. So what would YOU do in this situation? What would YOU do if you were the one who has to take this decision? What action would you take?
Here are your options:
1) Send her away – and prevent her from receiving the treatment she claims she needs – and, by so doing, eliminate the possibility that she can activate the bomb in Israel. 2) Accept her explanation, and accept responsibility for letting her through the checkpoint despite the fact that she has triggered the alarm, and ask her to accompany you to a special room where a female officer can make sure that she isn’t carrying explosives (don’t forget that the metal detector went off as she passed through).
So what would you do if you were the person in charge of the checkpoint?
The scenario continues. The person in charge, under instructions to make life easier for the Palestinians needing to pass through the checkpoint, and especially faced by a woman who claims she needs urgent medical attention (a mother of two infants, don’t forget), decides to let her through and accompanies her to a room to be searched by a female officer. The woman falls over as she enters the room and, as people rush to help her up, the woman presses the button and activates the 5 kilos of explosives that she’d been carrying on her body. She blows herself up, murdering 4 Israelis and wounding a dozen others in the process.
Now, here is the REAL dilemma. What should the soldiers at that terminal crossing do tomorrow morning? Should they deny entry to the thousands of Palestinians seeking work in Israel in order to provide for their families? Based on their experience of the previous day, should they deny entry to Israel to any person claiming that s/he needs medical attention? These people, with their crutches, wheelchairs, pacemakers, etc., are the ones most likely to trigger the alarm on the metal detector.
Or – should they put this incident behind them, and carry on risking their lives just because the rest of the world (which isn’t present at this checkpoint) condemns them for not treating these people in a more humane way.
We would really like to hear your opinion on this matter. And please spare us the platitude that we shouldn’t be there in the first place. If we weren’t there, the suicide bombers would have absolutely free passage.
(wonder what you think?)
A young woman, a mother of two young infants living in the Gaza Strip, arrives at the Israeli army checkpoint terminal. Each day this terminal crossing regulates the entry of 15-20,000 Palestinians into Israel. As this woman passes through the magnetic gate the alarm goes off. At this point the soldiers at the gate are instructed to do one of two things:
1) Not allow her to go through the gate, or
2) Take any precautionary measures necessary (including the use of firearms) in the event that they suspect this person is a suicide bomber.
In this scenario, the “person” is a woman. Women are treated differently (you can’t ask them to lift their shirts up). The woman at the magnetic gate starts crying – saying that she needs to get to the hospital urgently for treatment. She explains that the reason the metal detector in the gate sounded the alarm is because she has metal plates in her leg.
Now, here is the dilemma. There is a woman at the magnetic gate. She has triggered the alarm. We know that in past months there have been a number of suicide bombings carried out by women. So what would YOU do in this situation? What would YOU do if you were the one who has to take this decision? What action would you take?
Here are your options:
1) Send her away – and prevent her from receiving the treatment she claims she needs – and, by so doing, eliminate the possibility that she can activate the bomb in Israel. 2) Accept her explanation, and accept responsibility for letting her through the checkpoint despite the fact that she has triggered the alarm, and ask her to accompany you to a special room where a female officer can make sure that she isn’t carrying explosives (don’t forget that the metal detector went off as she passed through).
So what would you do if you were the person in charge of the checkpoint?
The scenario continues. The person in charge, under instructions to make life easier for the Palestinians needing to pass through the checkpoint, and especially faced by a woman who claims she needs urgent medical attention (a mother of two infants, don’t forget), decides to let her through and accompanies her to a room to be searched by a female officer. The woman falls over as she enters the room and, as people rush to help her up, the woman presses the button and activates the 5 kilos of explosives that she’d been carrying on her body. She blows herself up, murdering 4 Israelis and wounding a dozen others in the process.
Now, here is the REAL dilemma. What should the soldiers at that terminal crossing do tomorrow morning? Should they deny entry to the thousands of Palestinians seeking work in Israel in order to provide for their families? Based on their experience of the previous day, should they deny entry to Israel to any person claiming that s/he needs medical attention? These people, with their crutches, wheelchairs, pacemakers, etc., are the ones most likely to trigger the alarm on the metal detector.
Or – should they put this incident behind them, and carry on risking their lives just because the rest of the world (which isn’t present at this checkpoint) condemns them for not treating these people in a more humane way.
We would really like to hear your opinion on this matter. And please spare us the platitude that we shouldn’t be there in the first place. If we weren’t there, the suicide bombers would have absolutely free passage.
(wonder what you think?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)