| ... more
Last week, after the cold-blooded murder of three Jews, the Israel Defense Force (IDF) replaced checkpoints recently removed from the area as a goodwill gesture to the Arabs. Immediately afterwards, the George W. Bush administration, through U.S. security envoy Lt. Gen. William Ward, delivered a message to Israel asking it "to take steps to ease the daily plight of the 'Palestinian' [sic] people."
Now let's put this in its proper perspective. In Iraq, when U.S. soldiers are killed, the U.S. military usually begins an all-out attack on the enemy soldiers. And there is nothing wrong with that. They should defend themselves. But then the question becomes why is it wrong for Israel to protect its own citizens when innocent civilians are murdered in cold blood in their own country? Why doesn't the Bush administration demand that the Arabs "take steps to ease the daily plight of the Jewish people?"
(Just a note about this posting: At first I thought that using the word 'outrage' in the title of this entry was a bit too extreme. I have been known to be a bit outrageous at times. But then I took out the ol' thesaurus and looked up the word 'outrage'. I know now it's the correct word to use in this context. From Roget's New Millennium Thesaurus, First Edition: "abuse, affront, atrocity, barbarism, damage, desecration, enormity, evildoing, harm, hurt, indignity, inhumanity, injury, insult, mischief, misdoing, offense, profanation, rape, rapine, ravishing, ruin, shock, violation, violence, wrongdoing")