Children and cease-fires:
John R. Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the UN, calls the notion of a cease-fire "simplistic" (The New York Times, July 20, p.11). Bush says a cease-fire must be "real" and not just something "that will make us all feel better" (CNN, July 27). Condi Rice says that before there can be a cease-fire, "there have to be certain conditions." Nicholas Burns, third-ranking official in the State Department: "We want to avoid a situation where we essentially put a Band-Aid on something" (The New York Times, July 31, p.1). In spite of civilian casualties, Bush continues to resist a cease-fire while claiming that "they
have a different tool to use than we do. ... They kill innocent lives to achieve objectives" (CNN, July 28). In blocking a cease-fire we are using the same terrorist "tool." Remember: "There are more children that have been killed than combatants" (CNN's Jim Clancy, Aug. 8).
Translate the formal statements on all sides into plain English. Hezbollah and Hamas: "We have good reasons for killing children and unarmed civilians." Israel and the United States: "We have better reasons for killing children and the unarmed, and we can kill more of 'em." Bush and Rice: "We see no 'real' reason not to kill children and the unarmed, unless we get what we want." Bolton: "It's 'simplistic' not to kill children and the unarmed." Hezbollah, Hamas, Israel, and the United States: "If they kill children, we gotta too."
Theirs is the banter of sociopaths. Dressing it up in diplomatic jargon makes it no less insane. No less cruel. Since July 24, the day we rejected an immediate cease-fire, civilian deaths have more than doubled. That cease-fire not "real"? It would have been real enough for them.
As of this writing, the killing continues.
<snip>
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oi...