skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Harakat Al Muqawama Al Islamiyya - HAMAS, has been under seige and attack by the Israelis. Scores of people have been killed, the latest count saying around 1300, with half of them being civilians - including hundereds of children and women. Even an U.N. centre was not spared in Gaza, with the Israeli spokesperson saying fire was returned from militants hiding in there.
A profound analysis would unravel things, which always have been made murkier by the media - by hiding them and clouding them with suppression and tampering with them.
Just because Israel has an army of its own, whatever acts of atrocities it commits become acts of 'protection' and 'courage'. Palestine does not have an army of its own - as West Bank is ruled by Fatah, and Gaza by Hamas - two opposing parties - and hence do not have the political will to come together and work on critical issues.
There have been reports that Israel was the provocateur in this case - just like it was in the war with Syria for Golan Heights. The six month truce between Hamas and Israel ended - and Israel got a legitimate right for attacking Palestinians.
But is it really having an impact on Hamas ? No. Here are the reasons. Hamas has got two leadership centres - one in Damascus, Syria and the other in Gaza. The external leadership - in Damascus, is the Majlis al-Shura, which is the consultative concil and oversees all major decisions and activities. The internal leadership oversees daily activities, day to day execution, disbursement of funds and other operational exercises.
Hence, despite the internal leadership being mauled, the external one is safe and sound, and will strike back.
Also, Hamas is not just a 'military organization', as branded by Western media. It has got 3 wings - Political, Military & Social. The social wing - also called Dawa - engages in community welfare, establishing schools, sports clubs, hospitals etc. Though the acts of the military wing of Hamas - Qassam Brigaes is despisable, Hamas banks on the ingrained thought of dispossesion in the Palestinian mentality. And as long as something is embedded in the psyche of the common people, its difficult to change or remove it by acts of suppression.
Hence, Hamas, more than being an organization, is an ideology. It offers a platform for the common people to fight for their just cause. A banana republic like Israel keeps on committing acts of violence against innocent Palestinians, and still the U.N. and saviour-of-all U.S. just sit ducks. U.S. does not condemn Israel because of two reasons - a very stron AIPAC Israeli lobby in the U.S., and Israel being of strategic importance in midst of the Arab world.
And the U.N. does not act because its also another Banana organization. The media always portrays Israelis as the sufferers, and the Palestinians as the perpetrators. And it's all a web of deceit.
Hamas, inspite of all that is going on, and inspite of all that may come, will continue to exist. May it win in it's agenda for a Palestinian sovereign state. Ahem !
'Oh, he is an avid animal lover. He has got 3 dogs, 2 cats and 2 squirrels'.
Or is it? Is he really an animal lover? At least it seems to the naive and gullible. In the human world, which gives you high prestige and adulation when you have more possessions, nothing is what it seems to be.
Humans tend to accumulate things. Carry them over all of their lives. Dragging them even to multiple lifetimes ! All he wants during the course of life is - possession. Possession of a car. Possession of a house. Possession of a mobile. And hence, possession of a pet. Yes. Pets for humans are nothing but possessions.
Pets indicate their high worth in the society. They are an indication of their money, of their fame, of their 'generosity'. People are proud of their pets, which again indicates that pets are nothing but booster shots - for the ego.
The more 'better bred' your dog is, the more command your respect among friends and the society. 'Look, he has got a Golden Retriever !' Pets never were an indication of the so-called-love towards animals.
Humans rearing animals in historic times was a different thing. They used them for helping them out in the farm, for milk, for traveling etc. And with prolonged contact, they became attached with them. But the primary purpose was - to use animals. Attachment with animals was a secondary product.
Organizations helping out animals with sheds, hospitals, free service etc are genuine. But those who say 'I own pets, because of my love towards animals', need to get a reality check done !
If they really loved them, they would leave them out in the open - nothing is better than that, feed them everyday, take care of their injuries and help them during distress. They would not confine them to their carpeted four walls.
Egoists - It's always about me, me and me. And my pets !
A very recent discussion with one of my teachers made me sit up and think about an option which has been doing rounds in the Indian media - should 'None of the above' be an option during elections ?
The media and lot of intellectuals argue that it should be, because the current lot of politicians are in no way deserving. They are a rotten lot. They are mean, bad, corrupt, immoral, inept, illiterate and what not. None of them are worthy of leading our people and nation from the front. And hence, to express this idea of dissent that the people are not happy with the politicians who are standing in an election, they choose the last option - None of the Above. And by doing this, they express to the Election Commission that they want better candidates.
There is an inherent fallacy in the argument, and exposes the hypocrisy of human nature in general. We often hear people saying that nobody is perfect. And a lot of times, human errors are ignored and made less severe, attributing it the fact that nobody is perfect. Then why wait for a perfect politician to arrive on the scene ? Or should it be The Politician ?
An example to simplify this. An ambulance driver is waiting for the next emergency call. He is stationed in a big metro city and its evening 7 P.M. - peak hour mess ! He gets a call and is asked to report to the accident site right in the middle of the city - which is around 10 km away from where he is currently. Now, he has got two options. First - he thinks that he has got to drive 10 km's, and that too in peak hour with roads all jammed and red lights. And decides against driving there. Second - he decides to go to the site, despite of all the traffic mess and the red lights. And plans out a strategy to reach earlier, by taking shortcuts, even if he can save 20 seconds per every alternate road, he would save around 2-3 minutes in total. And could be critical in such a case.
So, there we go. When we say that 'None of the above' should be an option, we are acting like the driver selecting the first option. We wait for the perfect politician to arrive, then to stand as a candidate and then vote for him. We want all the roads to be empty, all lights green. The second, we decide and work actively to study each of the candidates or parties meticulously, enlisting their agendas, goals, past records etc. Now, even if all of them are 'bad', having police cases against them, having been to jail, being illiterate - at least one of them is the best, relatively speaking.
The squint is the king amongst the blind. We have to select the best out of them. And then vote for the candidate / party. We have to start somewhere. So to refrain is to run away. To refrain is to be a coward. Changes take time. Evolution did not happen in a few years !
Or we go the way the media wants us to - wait for the perfect politician - and he never arrives - and we never vote!
