If your politics allows dead children, it is poison.
People I know are making this out to be much more complicated than it seems. Thank you for this clarity.
I'm really uncomfortable about the social need to profess singular sympathy and support for one side or the other in this conflict, when as a non-Jew and non-Arab, I don't really have a dog in the fight; except that I would very much like an outcome where the smallest possible number of humans are killed. I really don't like that my tax dollars are going directly into building/replacing weapons which are guaranteed to kill, specifically (due to Gaza demographics), thousands of children.
I absolutely agree Hamilton. And you did not write one word when Hamas killed children, only a post about why we shouldn't call it "terrorism." Even here you call it only "the Hamas attack." It doesn't even rate an adjective from you.
I don't think Israel should be killing Palestinian children. It would be great if I thought you believed the same about Israeli children. I'll miss your columns about organizing.
"Politics is how we care for one another" was how a teacher I had defined it. I wish more people could see it that way instead of a way of choosing sides.
“Children are dying."
Lull nodded. "That's a succinct summary of humankind, I'd say. Who needs tomes and volumes of history? Children are dying. The injustices of the world hide in those three words.”
And again how easy it is to now try and assign one side blame based on a starting point in history. Please can we get humanity to a point where we can resist the team mentality and stop senseless killing of children.
Many thanks Hamilton. Clear and brave as usual. Some comments are very stupid and provocative, don't waste your time mate. There is not way to justify the killing of so many innocent people, supported by bloody and coward polititians. Buaj, it is disgusting
Thank you, thank you, thank you. It's pretty simple, really.
Thank you for this.
I actually consider the non-children to have a lot of value, too. It's a bit sad one must resort to pointing at the children to get them to stop dropping bombs on everybody else.
Thank you for this piece. I am so depressed about this. Hugs to you, because I'm a hugger. <tears>
Thank you for articulating this. It’s critical.
War is the failure of politics. It is not its extension. It is always brutal, cruel, unjust and lethal to combatants and civilians. Every war entails atrocity, but some exercise of restraint is possible. It can never be enough. Humans ought to have made war obsolete, but they have not. As long as vicious tyranny exists among men, so will war. There is no sugarcoating any of it. I have no solution.
The reason that we have to support one side or another is due to the vast polarization within our respective countries. My position has been and always will be that both sides need to stop the violence and decide what to do, so that both sides can co-exist in peace. So that no more children get killed in the future and no more extremist groups can use it as a recruiting tool or a crutch. It's not complicated. It's not confusing. It's extraordinarily simple.
My comment was not for Mr. Nolan but for the few commentators referring to who was condemning who proportionally. Sorry for the confusion.
And if thousands and thousands of civilian peacekeepers are bombed the global backlash would be swift and the flagrant lies of the need to use such violence would be exposed for all.