Wow!
Ok so you guys think I'm insensitive, ok perhaps I have been. But what do you guys think about this one?
Published in Haaretz
Animal rights group awaits permission to enter Gaza to save strays
By The Associated Press
An Animal rights group is trying to rescue dogs and cats left behind by settlers being evacuated in the Gaza Strip.
Hakol Chai (Everything Lives) is awaiting permission to bring in a mobile veterinary clinic replete with cages, traps and trained staff.
"Cats and dogs left behind by departing settlers have no ability to survive under the extreme conditions that will exist during and after the disengagement," said Merav Barlev, the group's director. "Without our help, when all that remains is dust and ruins, those who escape the massive bulldozers will die of hunger, thirst, and injuries."
.......
Well, I hate to break it to you but even I have feelings, and I do think that human beings are living creatures to. Perhaps this money they plan on spending for the cats and dogs should go to the human victims from this episode. Ok, I said it! I refered to the settlers as victims. But I see them as victims of necessity in an episode without any clear guilty party. Is that possible?
Published in Haaretz
Animal rights group awaits permission to enter Gaza to save strays
By The Associated Press
An Animal rights group is trying to rescue dogs and cats left behind by settlers being evacuated in the Gaza Strip.
Hakol Chai (Everything Lives) is awaiting permission to bring in a mobile veterinary clinic replete with cages, traps and trained staff.
"Cats and dogs left behind by departing settlers have no ability to survive under the extreme conditions that will exist during and after the disengagement," said Merav Barlev, the group's director. "Without our help, when all that remains is dust and ruins, those who escape the massive bulldozers will die of hunger, thirst, and injuries."
.......
Well, I hate to break it to you but even I have feelings, and I do think that human beings are living creatures to. Perhaps this money they plan on spending for the cats and dogs should go to the human victims from this episode. Ok, I said it! I refered to the settlers as victims. But I see them as victims of necessity in an episode without any clear guilty party. Is that possible?
posted by Luke Skyhopper at 8:51 PM
13 Shpeils
<$BlogDateHeaderDate$>
IF and only if the settlers cleared out by the time and date they were given, they were granted money, benefits, and housing to help them start over. Those who refused to evaculate, surrendered all benefits.
At this second, I know I'm not thinking clearly. I'm quite upset from some reports I heard on the news... but I think Israel should bulldoze all the houses standing. Force them to rebuild, and not give them those homes of Israelis they "scared off."
<$BlogDateHeaderDate$>
The israeli government should SELL the houses to the palestinians. That way the elites could live in them and the shin bet could wiretap everything. - wishful thinking eh?
<$BlogDateHeaderDate$>
I'm with BEG. Knock them all down. Though i recall reading somewhere that was the plan...
<$BlogDateHeaderDate$>
I don't think you have to be Jewish to have an opinion on the situation. Whether Israel should have pulled out or not I think we can all agree that it is very sad that people were forced to leave the homes they lived in for 38 years. These children will never be able to show their children where they grew up, etc. They were not even given the option of living under palestinian control (as if that would have been safe/possible).
<$BlogDateHeaderDate$>
I'm a very funcuzed person regarding the matziv w/ Gush Katif (and also w/ most issues) so it's hard for me to argue either side. I started off pro disengagement, then I went over to the orange side, but pro the concept of disengagement and now I'm again funcuzed. I'd say I'm 70% anti right now. This issue in particular is so hard to see which side is (most) right.
But what I will comment on (sorry for going OT) is how sad/annoying it is how lots of money is given to not so important stuff like w/ charities (ex. all these animal stuff.), in gov't (ex. the space program (in the U.S.)), and like when I hear these stories about some old lady who in her will left her fortune of millions of dollars to her cats or something. Sure in a perfect world it would be nice for all these things to be allocated resources but in reality there is tons of much more important stuff going on. Ppl r starving. Ppl are blown up on the bus going to work. We should prioritize. Like doctors in a field hospital have to use triage to maximize survivors. As long as there are horrible stuff still happening I think it's wrong to waste lots of money on less important things like animal stuff. I mean I'm not against the idea of helping animals (the Torah does have the concept of Tzar Baal haChaim which might be part of the 7 Noachide Laws so it's not nothing) I wouldn't torture any animals. Even a bug I wouldn’t torture. (when ever I have to kill a bug I make sure to smoosh it enough so that it's not wriggling anymore. I have this vague recollection that it’s Tzar Baal haChaim if u don’t completely kill it and it can still suffer) But my point is that ppl r dying/suffering/impoverished. Animals are not at all on the same priority.
<$BlogDateHeaderDate$>
David--I agree with you. But tzaar ba'alei chaim isn't one of the seven mitzvot bnei Noach. And I never kill bugs unless they're threatening me (like they're right near my bed or in the shower or something).
Have a good day!
<$BlogDateHeaderDate$>
Haha, I am sane!
Okay, maybe it's part of that mitzvah...I don't know. :)
<$BlogDateHeaderDate$>
She lies! Sane she is not! Look at her friends! :-)
<$BlogDateHeaderDate$>
By all means, everyone affected by this major uprooting needs all the help they can get. But why should cats and dogs who are absolutely abandoned be left to presumably fend for themselves, starve, and die? Nobody's saying you have to be the one to prioritize their well-being and go in and save them. But it's truly a mitzvah for someone to go in and look after G-d's creatures once they've been left for dead.
There are many problems in this world. To say that "Why should we deal with animal issues when the human settlers need our help?" is like saying "Why should we feed starving children when we should be pouring all our money into AIDS research." Doing one doesn't mean ignoring the other. Compassion means compassion on many fronts, and by golly, for those helpless cats and dogs who were left behind, help from anyone kind enough to give it is a blessing.
<$BlogDateHeaderDate$>
Or how about when PETA went balistic because some Palestinians demonstrated how to strap a belt of explosives around yourself on a donkey. They sent a letter I think. But when a person. blows him or herself up killing other people too? Not a sound.
<$BlogDateHeaderDate$>
In response to David XIV...
I'm not saying that you need to put animals before humans or even in the same "category." But G-d's creatures certainly deserve some help and consideration, or else, as in this case, they may just be disregarded to suffer, starve, and die.
If you wait until "all the human problems are solved," then animal issues will never be tackled at all.
I posted an entry in my blog in response. I'd be happy to continue the conversation.
http://heebnvegan.blogspot.com/2005/08/is-helping-animals-in-gaza-misguided.html
<$BlogDateHeaderDate$>
HnV, just remember that "Please note that all opinions expressed only reflect the opinions of the blogger who posts it." :)
<$BlogDateHeaderDate$>
hey there Mr. "1 crazy person" :-)
just thought it'd be interesting to throw this in... we were talking about whether it's misguided to help other living creatures in times of need for humans... how about prioritizing inanimate objects, no matter what their important religious significance?
http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2005/09/chabad_rescue.html
Post a Comment
<< Home