TR EMERITUS

I don’t often get many people writing on my blog. Most of the people who comment on what I write either comment on TREmeritus or the Facebook page of the Independent Singapore. However, in my piece “An Eye for an Eye Makes the Whole World Blind,” I received the following comment:

I suspect the Anonymous commentator was either an Israeli or someone, probably a Christian Zionist who took issue with the fact that I stated that Israel, as the greater power had the responsibility to end the cycle of unholy violence in the Holy Land.

As with a lot of emotional comments, I think the chap didn’t actually read my piece nor did he or she fully understand the meaning of bias nor did he or she want to get what I was saying. At no time did I try to excuse the October 7 attacks on Israel. I was quite clear that the actions went above any moral call of “resistance.” I was also quite clear that I accept that Israel has a right to defend itself and to go after the perpetrators.

What I do take issue with, is the response. Yes, killing 1,400 people is awful. However, responding by killing 9,061 people in response is not the answer either – unless you want to believe that the life of an Eastern European decent practicing the Jewish faith is worth far more than that of a Semite practicing the faith of Islam. Just as the actions of Hamas cannot be justified in the name of resistance, the bombardment of the Gaza strip cannot be justified in the name of “self-defense.”

Leaving aside the morality of trying to out kill each other, there’s also the practicality of things. If you look at the situation, it’s clear that the latest round of violence is going to continue and never stop. Israel will not be secure and the HR department will have a never-ending supply of recruits. The message that Hamas’s HR department is simple – “there’s no point making peace with the people who bombard you and starve you,” and when you make that the reality on the ground, a people with no hope will bite.

Arguing that “we gave them land in 1948 but they said no,” is not a viable excuse to take more of what little they already have. Sure, it might seem like a mistake on the part of the Palestinians not to have accepted the offer in 1948, however, let’s not forget that when the late Saudi King Abdullah proposed Israel withdraw to its 1967 borders in return for diplomatic recognition by all 22 members of the Arab League, the then Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert gave him the proverbial middle finger.

The pattern is clear, land for the Palestinians is getting scarcer and while everyone has argued that Israel has the right to defend itself, it needs to stop giving an incentive for people to attack it. Jewish settlement in what is nominally Palestinian land only encourages people to hate people of East European decent.

Israel is a miracle in so many ways. However, keeping the Palestinian population hemmed up is only creating a powder keg that will keep things uncertain and dangerous. Again, let’s look at the American response to September 11, 2001. America invaded Afghanistan and two-decade latter and 20 trillion dollars later, the Taliban are back in charge. They also invaded Iraq, which gave is ISIS, the people who would make Saddam look like a Teddy Bear.

So, if I am biased for saying that the response to October 7 is going to make the problem worse, what does that make the people who created a response that was worse than the original problem?

Tang Li

*Although I’ve been based mainly in Singapore for nearly two decades, I’ve had the privilege of being able to meet people who have crossed borders and cultures. I’ve befriended ministers and ambassadors and worked on projects involving a former head of state. Yet, at the same time, I’ve had the privilege of befriending migrant labourers and former convicts. All of them have a story to tell. All of them add to the fabric of life. I hope to express the stories that inspire us to create life as it should be.

12 Responses to “So what if I am biased”