It is true that Israel has suffered from Hamas rocket attacks. Insofar as these attacks indiscriminately target civilian areas, Hamas would be guilty of war crimes under the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Yet, in the past eight years, Palestinian rockets fired from Gaza have killed around 20 people in southern Israel. Israel's response is neither necessary nor proportionate.
It is great
to know that Mr Paulin allows that Israel has suffered from Hamas rockets.
But this is where the free ride on Mr Paulin's generosity ends. Read
the next sentence:
Insofar as these attacks indiscriminately target civilian areas, Hamas would be guilty of war crimes under the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
What the heck does this legalese
mean in mean in plain language? "Insofar" means "To the
degree or extent that...". Meaning that for Mr Paulin the truth
of the matter is not established firmly enough to be absolutely certain.
I am not sure whether he said it as a barrister or as a philosopher.
"Would be" definitely means that Mr Paulin keeps its mind
open to the possibility of Hamas not being exculpated of this, purely
theoretical, accusation.
In short: at this stage of
his article Mr Paulin doesn't absolutely exclude the possibility that
Hamas could be possibly suspected of an alleged breach of military etiquette
that, taken under further consideration by Mr Paulin or person(s) he
entrusts with this mission of objectively and dispassionately taking
the whole subject into consideration, could possibly lead to recognition
of the necessity of ... under Geneva conventions of... I hope it's clear
to you now.
But wait, it become curiosier
and curiosier as we continue:
Yet, in the past eight years, Palestinian rockets fired from Gaza have killed around 20 people in southern Israel.
Aside of this "yet",
the sentence above could be taken at its face value - a dry recording
of a fact. So what is the role of that "yet"? Of all possible
uses, this one is, probably, the most fitting: "Used in negative
statement to describe a situation that has existed up to this point
or up to the present time".
If you still wonder about the
"yet", here comes a smasher that rounds up the built-up tension:
Israel's response is neither necessary nor proportionate.
That's it - simple and elegant.
The response wasn't necessary - after all, what is a measly 20 (twenty)
people killed between neighbors? Now, I am more than sure, it was not
the barrister's half but the philosopher's one talking...
Anyhow, here is the barrister
cum philosopher - I would spit on neither one:
Bleh...
P.S. The learned barrister/philosopher
forgot to compare that tiny number 20 with the number of people killed
in road accidents in Israel during the same period. I can help: it's
between 4,000 and 5,000.
Copyright 2009 by SnoopyTheGoon.
Posted at http://simplyjews.blogspot.
Russian version