US Ambassador John Bolton's "Moral Equivalence"

"I think it would be a mistake to ascribe moral equivalence to civilians who die as the direct result of malicious terrorist acts," Bolton says, while defending as "self-defense" Israel's military action, which has had "the tragic and unfortunate consequence of civilian deaths". Bolton's comments are inherently racist in that he claims that Lebanese civilian deaths are somehow OK and that they are merely the result of self-defense. Consider this. Israel's so called self-defense involves a wildly disproportionate destruction of Lebanese civilian infrastructure (phone networks, TV stations, hospitals, airport, water, electricity). How can such targeted destruction of civilians ever possibly be justified ? Is razing a country to the ground somehow acceptable in Bolton's twisted mind ? Civilian deaths can never be justified, no matter which side.

To make it more obvious how ludicrous Bolton's position is, lets make a simple analogy to recent events elsewhere. Indian intelligence officials have claimed that Britain has failed to act against a number of wealthy businessman who are channeling up to 8 million pounds to Kashmiri militant groups using bogus charities. So if you apply Israel's rules of the game, India is justified in bombing London and destroying London's civilian infrastructure. And by Bolton's "moral equivalence" idiocy, India can claim that civilian deaths in London would be not as valuable as civilian deaths in India and are merely the result of self-defense. Imagine the outrage if India were to bomb London. but somehow, Israel bombing the life out of Lebanon is morally OK.