Thursday, July 20, 2006

A Few Questions On The Evacuation

Before I begin I would like to say we shouldn't criticize the evacuation procedure too much - Canadians never had to deal with anything of such a magnitude before, and so quickly. I think they are doing the best they can under trying circumstances. I can proudly say our government was there for Canadians. We should all follow Sam Eid of Toronto's example - who volunteered to work as a baggage handler at the port because, as he said, "The Canadian government gave us an escort. It was my way of paying them back". Having said that, I have a few questions:

  1. Why did Israel blockade one ship carrying Canadians to Cyprus for more than 3 hours, before sending them to Turkey? Many people got sea-sick, deprived of medical attention and water, or got sunstroke. This is a ship carrying helpless civilians!
  2. Why is the "security window" provided to Canadian ships so narrow? And why should there be even a need for security windows? Noone should bomb ships carrying innocent civilians, period. You would think that for all the blind support our Prime Minister gave to Israel (even after our citizens were killed), the Israelis would be nice enough not to threaten our ships, no?
  3. Six ships carrying passengers were not able to fully load before they had to leave port. Why? I heard the captain of one ship refused to go to Beirut until the Israelis gave him a security guarantee, which took its time coming.
  4. France offered to help with the evacuation effort, Quebec Premier Jean Charest, who met with French President Jacques Chirac. Why? I mean, thanks France, but please make the offer to the leader of our nation, Mr Harper, will you? Charest is just the premier of a province, not a nation, get it?
  5. Why are some bloggers (especially Cons) questioning the Canadian-ness of some evacuees? They are Canadians. Period.
  6. Nine days ago some bloggers wrote they were glad the Israeli Prime Minister didn't pussyfoot around the Hezbollah attack, having the guts to say this was an act of war by Lebanon. Therefore it was Israel vs. Lebanon - a war where civilians could be killed. Now, as Israeli atrocities mount (considerable enough so that Louise Arbour could speculate them as war crimes) suddenly it's back to Israel vs. Hezbollah, or a democratic nation vs. a bunch of terrorists. What happened to Israel vs. Lebanon? 'Cos that would mean it will be democratic nation favouring one religion vs. democratic multicultural country. Oh...


1 comment:

The Bengali Fob said...

You ask too many questions Mezba. The Israelis and their big brother (Bush Administration) wouldn't like that.

Keep on asking!