First off: Holy crap! That was a real interview! It wasn't full of softballs, nor was it full of gotchya bullshit questions. It was respectful, yet pressing. Gillerman got to speak and express his opinions, yet was not allowed to assert blatent falsehoods unchallenges. US media, please note. This is how you do an interview.
Now then, on to more important things. As Israel (aided and abetted by, among others, the U.S., Egypt, and Fatah) continues killing hundreds of Palestinians for no discernible reason, Israel has launched a full out international media blitz intent on avoiding a repeat of Lebanon, where they only killed 1,200 people and injured another 5000 (most of whom were civilians, even if you go by Israel's numbers) before international pressure forced them to back down.
So far, it seems that their main line of argumentation is that any other country faced with a similar situation would react the same way. Discounting that, as the Al-Jazeera reporter points out, there are few comparable situations, we in fact have several situations that occurred very recently with which to compare this with.
Case 1) India. In India, a terrorist group with ties to Pakistan recently launched terrorist attacks that resulted in the deaths of 170 people, and the injury of scores more. Moreover, they specifically targeted British and American tourists, a clear act of war. Despite this, neither India, the U.S., nor Great Britain have taken military action against Pakistan or Lashka-e-Toibar, and have in fact worked closely in order to acoid military escalation.
Case 2) U.S. military interventions. Currently, the U.S. is involved in military escapades in both Iraq and Afghanistan. In both situations, the U.S. has accused a neighboring country of cross-border interventions: in the case of Iraq, the U.S. accuses Iran of supporting and arming militants, and in Afghanistan, the U.S. has accused Pakistan of not doing enough to prevent Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants. The U.S. has taken no action against Iran. In Afghanistan, the U.S. has come under heavy pressure for violating Pakistani sovereignty and for causing excessive civilian casualties. Still, the level of U.S. bombing in Pakistan and the resulting number of civilian casualties, certainly does not amount to anything close to what Israel has done in 72 hours. And the threat posed by the targeted militants is certainly far greater.
It seems the far easier comparisons to make are of places like Bosnia/Kosovo, Sudan/Dafur, Turkey/PKK, etc. All of these are places where the territory in question is controlled by another, in which excessive force was used, and which were harshly condemned by the international community. (Note: I am not trying to claim that these are equivalent situations. Each has their own unique circumstances and histories and must be understood as such, but they no doubt make a better comparative case than "what if the US was being bombed by Canada" type arguments)
So, let's close with the second decent interview I have seen since this whole thing started. Here's Serge Brzezinski, schooling Joe Scarborough. Interviewees on American News TV: please note how Brzezinski keeps a calm cool demeanor and carefuly explains his position using factual, not bizarrely hypothetical, arguments.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
