Arundhati Roy says–
“I love it when people accuse me of romanticising the Maoists. I believe in the romance of revolution.”
I never thought that someone could describe a revolution riding on bullets and bayonets as being romantic.
“Naxalism had to be an armed movement. It’s not that they (Naxals) took to violence all of a sudden. They debated long before resorting to this form of struggle,” Roy said while delivering her lecture on ‘The War on People’ organised by Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, here.
“Besides, the followers of Mao were always armed men. But look at them, they are only using bows and arrows while security forces of the government are using the most sophisticated weapons.”
Bows and arrows indeed. Toys.
If those who had legitimate grievances fought only for that cause, and took up arms to accomplish that, it would be a just war, especially after decades of indifference and persecution. But once Mao’s ideology is brought in and they band together to replace the government with one of the Maoist variety, one cannot feel any sympathy for such a movement, not if one considers the bloodbath the reds are responsible for over the last century, all in the name of the “common good.”
Israel. One cannot offer complete support to the country in the best of circumstances because it’s in the same league as the US, India and a few other western democracies—a country that is only (still) relatively free. Once the Islamic world, and Hamas, recognizes its existence, and the fact that a two-state solution is the only solution, there will be peace. Till then, its war. And there is no place for selective “humanitarianism” in such a war. Of course this is with reference to the flotilla raid and subsequent deaths. Two pro-Israel pieces. One, in the NYT, by the country’s ambassador to the US-
There is little doubt as to the real purpose of the Mavi Marmara’s voyage — not to deliver humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza, but to create a provocation that would put international pressure on Israel to drop the Gaza embargo, and thus allow the flow of seaborne military supplies to Hamas. Just as Hamas gunmen hide behind civilians in Gaza, so, too, do their sponsors cower behind shipments of seemingly innocent aid.
This is why the organizers of the flotilla repeatedly rejected Israeli offers to transfer its cargo to Gaza once it was inspected for military contraband. They also rebuffed an Israeli request to earmark some aid packages for Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier held hostage by Hamas for four years.
In the recent past, Israeli forces have diverted nine such flotillas, all without incident, and peacefully boarded five of the ships in this week’s convoy. Their cargoes, after proper inspection, were delivered to non-Hamas institutions in Gaza. Only the Marmara, a vessel too large to be neutralized by technical means such as fouling the propeller, violently resisted. It is no coincidence that the ship was dispatched by Insani Yardim Vakfi (also called the I.H.H.), a supposed charity that Israeli and other intelligence services have linked to Islamic extremists.
The other by Ed Cline–
The Mavi Marmara was a setup, designed to entrap Israel. Note that terrorists usually prefer to be referred to as “resistance” fighters, when in truth they are the aggressors. Oft times they are called “freedom fighters”; we should take that term literally, because it is freedom they are fighting.
Further, one must question the “humanitarian” compassion of the flotilla activists who were not terrorists. I have yet to hear of them organizing an underground railroad for Iranian dissenters. I don‘t recall them demonstrating in protest of the murder of Neda Soltani, the Iranian girl killed by a government sniper during the June demonstrations last year against the rigged reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Have they launched a raid on Cuban prisons to free political prisoners, or sent aid to Venezuelans suffering under Hugo Chavez’s impoverishing tyranny? No.
But when the regimes of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela employ force against their political opposition, either in the streets or in violent purges, the silence of these “humanitarians” is deafening. We never hear of them organizing a flotilla with the purpose of “embarrassing” a dictatorship and bringing world opprobrium to bear on it.
These humanitarians are very selective of which tyrannies they oppose. If it’s a moderately free country, which Israel is, and especially if it is productive despite its socialism, then they’re against it. Never mind that its committed enemies wish to destroy it and initiate a second holocaust. Never mind the many Israelis murdered by Hamas, Hezbollah, the PLO, and other “freedom fighters”; they were guilty by association and deserved to die. As for Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela — well, these are cultural matters beyond judgment and it would be arrogant to meddle in those countries’ affairs. Why, it would be the height of moral hegemony!
Shobhan Saxena of the TOI had this to say on the matter-
A new video released by the Israeli government shows one of the soldiers who took part in yesterday’s bloody attack on the Gaza Freedom flotilla. In this propoganda clip, the Israeli soldier justifies the attack, claiming they were attacked first by the people on the flotilla. “It was a lynch,” says the soldier. “Every guy that came down the ropes was taken aside, and everyone there had metal rods, knives, slingshots, glass bottles.” Since the Israelis can only be victims, and never aggressors, the soldier tries to justify the cold-blooded murder of 10 people armed with “rods, slingshots and bottles.”
Enough is enough. It’s time to declare Israel a terrorist state. That’s what it is. It reacts to slingshots with machine guns.
A terrorist state. I guess if the JuD flew a plane across the LoC on a “humanitarian mission” into Kashmir, he would expect the Indian army to look the other way. And if the plane was brought down, then that would be a “terrorist act,” and India a “terrorist state.”
One more thing. I don’t understand the bows and arrows vs. guns, and broken bottles vs. guns, argument. Guns can kill. So can arrows and bottles. A weapon is a weapon.