Advertisement
Over the past five days
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Subscribe to The Economist's free e-mail newsletters and alerts.
Subscribe to The Economist's latest article postings on Twitter
See a selection of The Economist's articles, events, topical videos and debates on Facebook.
Advertisement
And still no word from the UN Human Rights Council.
And why should there be? Syria and her Arab allies on the council rule the agenda, so this body consistently fails to delve into the dismal human rights conditions in the Middle East, unless... it's related to that one Middle Eastern democracy.
@ john bhatia
All this text, but not a single word on why you think Mr. Goldstone was incorrect. Perhaps you can do yourself and us a favor and log on to the Washington Post and post a comment that is more than empty slogans?
@ carefully chosen name
I think Tinelva was referring to other examples, such as the UK fighting in Afghanistan, thousands of miles away from its borders, in the name of their own "security". Israel's southern towns have been bombed on a regular basis for 8 years by Hamas militants using civilians as human shields. What's the UK's excuse again?
The examples you gave only strengthen Tinelva's point. The West doesn't think twice before intervening where it didn't fear for its interests. This applies to Israel. The West, however, would think a thousand times before it would dare intervene in China or Russia, or Iran, for that matter.
It is high time that Hamas's outrageous lacks of morals becomes THE topic for discussion.
But I suspect it won't happen soon. Because, like it or not, Tinelva was right.
@Jules de Weck
Unless you suggest a practical way which, if implemented by Israel, could put an end to 8 years of Hamas's shelling of southern Israeli towns, then your arguments are pointless.
"But the Israeli government preferred popular gloating to biblical restraint in its response"
I would like to see the Economist's homepage if it were arrogantly charged with intentional killing of civilian population as a matter of policy, being demonized and dragged through the dirtiest and most toxic of muds, for years, with its brand tarnished and basic morality questioned, after a faint "sorry, my bad" is released to the world by its head persecutor?
"Biblical restraint", they say. Or better yet, "Talk is cheap"?
Members of parliament interjected Assad's speech there with "spontaneous", "excited", "gushing" words of praise.
Praise the leader. For what? Unemployment? Corruption? Internet monitoring and blocking?
This badly orchestrated charade was oh-so embarrassing.
For decades Syria (not unlike its neighbors) deflected its people's discontent over its economical woes by pointing the finger at Israel.
It seems that people are starting to be fed up with this perpetual excuse and try to come up with a true solution to bad education and health systems, government corruption, dilapidated infrastructure and poor industrial output. And personal freedom.
Let's hope they won't be sidelined by radicals who will take advantage of the chaos to create Dictatorship v2.0 with just a different tribe enjoying the spoils of rule and quelling any attempts at a real change in the name of The Religion of Peace and... the good old story: leave freedoms and education and infrastructure to a later time, and remain united against the Zionist Entity.
@PanCanuck,
"Decades of British Rule helped set up the mass slaughter of Palestinians by their new Jewish neighbours in the so-called War of Independence"
-- Maybe Palestinians should have accepted the UN resolution for a two-state solution, the way the Jewish population did. But they did not, and opened a war. Not only did they open a war, they were joined by Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Jordan to "annihilate the Jews". Such peaceful native folks. You'd rather they won, no doubt. You'll never admit it, but it is the sad truth that Palestinians, as most Arabs, are victims of their own belligerence, honor games and notions of Muslim supremacism.
"Now while Palestinians continue to be oppressed killed at will by the Israelis, we call the Palestinians terrorists when they resist and fight back"
-- So you condone bus bombing and baby murdering if the goal is justified, in your opinion. How noble.
I would think that a Palestinian terrorist's barbaric act of slitting the throat of a 4-months old Jewish baby girl at her crib could constitute a taller hurdle to peace and a stronger catalyst of "distrust" between Israel and the Palestinians than West bank construction.
Or, for that matter, the massacring of the baby's father, mother, 11- and 4-year old brothers, all at the same time, brutally attacked when sleeping. I can only imagine the toddler's terror watching his parents struggling for their lives when he realized he's next in line.
Or, for that matter, the firing of tens of rockets from the Gaza Strip into Southern Israel, without even pretending not to target civilians.
Or the capture of a weapons-loaded ship en route to Gaza, vindicating Israeli monitoring of Gaza borders.
Unsurprisingly, the Economist remains silent on all of these events of the past couple of weeks. Apparently they do not undermine trust. How hypocritical, coming from a nation sending its army thousands of miles from its borders to militarily intervene in other nations in the name of its own "security".
To me, India was--and remains--a riddle.
I visited Himachal Pradesh, New Delhi and Jaipur several months ago. Granted, I wasn't expecting a Switzerland; I knew I was going to a developing country.
But I left with the surest feeling that the stories we're being fed by the media where India is an awakening giant vying to lead the world side by side with China, is not real. I mean, it is giant and it is developing fast. But personally, if I were Chinese I would not be too concerned.
"...the Wailing Wall on which the temple stood".
Oh, the ignorance.
"The regime tightens its belt and its fist"
Iran's fist has always been tight. The *only* reason why Tunisia's citizens have been able to pull off their street revolution is because the Tunisian army, while it did try and control the crowds, would not go about freely shooting citizens. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case for the poor Iranian protesters.
Mr. Ahmadinejad could curb his country's financial hemorrhaging by cutting back on the hundreds of millions of Dollars he's shoving into the hungry hands of warmongering Hamas and Hizbullah each year.
@David Lundqvist,
Yes, far left leaning. Granted, not quite so in economic contexts, but far more so in political contexts (such as this).
"In darker moments politicians from the ruling UMP party worry that next year’s presidential election could turn into a 2002 in reverse..."
Darker moments to whom? UMP politicians? Far-left leaning Economist writers?
@ Doug Pascover,
Druze and Arab Israelis have exactly the same voting rights and rights to property as Jewish Israelis.
If anything, Israel discriminates against secular Jewish Israelis (compared to Ultra-Orthodox Jews and Arab Israelis) who, at 18, don uniform and give away 3 years to the IDF. Ultra-orthodox Jews and Arabs are not required to do so, neither are they required to participate in civil service programs (they don't want to, either).
So, at 18, they are just about the luckiest of the Middle East populations, free to go about their own business.
@ Mary J:
So what?
There's an elephant in the comments section: Islam.
What a hypocritical approach by the Economist.
Never have I seen it going against the farce that the Arab control of the UN human rights forums is.
If Iran and Syria and the Arab league call the shots in and set the agenda for UN human rights policies because of their sheer number of votes and Western pacifism, don't pretend to be surprised to see the birth of a Chinese equivalent to the Nobel Peace Prize.
The Israeli army has been accepting openly gay soldiers, for all units, since the early 90's.
It has also been accepting women for combat units since the late 90's.
If it's working for a middle-eastern army, it could work for America too.
"...Avigdor Lieberman, the foreign minister who leads the far-right Yisrael Beitenu, oppose a new freeze, in truth they resist the idea of the two-state deal that may ensue."
What a sloppy/ unethical reporting.
Avigdor Lieberman is a staunch supporter of the two-state solution. The most frequent leftist criticism of Mr. Lieberman is his support for population-exchange between the subsequent two states.