A European green light to kill, destroy and pulverize Gaza/Haaretz

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

Some would like to believe that the conflict was started by Hamas and some rockets. It didn't.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.609866

EU member states and, obviously, the United States, gave Israel a green light to kill, destroy and pulverize. They placed the brunt of the blame on the people launching the rockets, the Palestinians. The rockets are disrupting the “order” and the “quiet,” endangering the security of Israel, which is so weak and vulnerable, always attacked for no reason whatsoever.

Basically, the United States and Europe are endorsing the status quo under which the Gaza Strip is severed from the West Bank. The Israeli siege of Gaza and the oppression of the Palestinian population in the West Bank are Israel’s quiet, order and security. Whoever dares to violate this must be punished. In their passionate declarations on Israel's right to defend itself, EU officials fail to mention the Palestinians’ right to security or protection from the Israeli army.

Europe and the United States didn’t give Israel the green light to escalate — to destroy, kill and inflict suffering on an unprecedented scale — at the outbreak of the current hostilities. They already gave it back in 2006, when they spearheaded the boycott of the Hamas government, elected in a democratic vote.

Even then they chose to collectively punish the entire occupied Palestinian population while ignoring the main reason this organization had won a majority: the pet Palestinian regime that Europe had fostered — the Palestinian Authority. This regime remains tarnished by two evils – corruption and the failure of its diplomatic tactics to achieve independence.

[Jefferson23]

1. Yes. K&R

[HERVEPA]

2. Those Hamas leaders are so cuddly and cute

Sure can't criticize them for helping their people get killed for no puprose.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Are the Israelis cuddly and cute when they kill Palestinians for no reason?

[HERVEPA]

4. Just once I'd like to hear some even-handed criticism for you.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. I criticize atrocities and war from any side.

Did you read the article?

I don't approve of what Hamas did with violence or is doing with violence but there are root causes that beget the violence that too many are too willing to overlook. The Israelis are killing civilians to justify their past actions and protect the status quo of their colonialism. They are punishing the people of Gaza for voting in a government the Israelis disapprove of.

[HERVEPA]

6. Just read your excerpt. I'm at work

That was what I was commenting on. I have seen little or no criticism from you on Hamas.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. I side with the victims. Whether Israeli or Palestinian.

I think Hamas came into being as a result of the PLO's inability to change the wretched situation the Gazans found themselves in. Just as the Irgun wielded similar power prior to the establishment of Israel and used similar methods. I do not agree with, or applaud, their tactics of violence. But, I think, on the scales, that Israel under Netanyahu is more criminal in what it's doing, not to mention downright stupid.

My position is about the same as my position was when Bush (and accomplices) attacked Iraq. I was no fan of Saddam Hussein but I didn't criticize him vociferously during the war. The problem as I saw it, and still do, was Bush and the American proclivity to resort to violence on a massive scale when unnecessary. (I should note that I'm a pacifist and against the use of violence on any scale).

As I said, I side with the victims of violence. In this case, Israel is far more violent and destructive than Hamas. To me, it's like comparing a mean piranha with a pissed off great white shark.

[U4ikLefty]

12. well stated

[Chathamization]

9. I always see you condemn slave owners but never see you condemn Nat Turner

And you always criticize apartheid, but never criticize terrorists in the ANC. Why the double standard?

[awoke_in_2003]

10. If someone invaded this country...

and subjected us to what the South Africans were subjected to, and we fought back, would we be terrorists?

on edit: It was the Reagan administration that called the member of ANC terrorists, so that should tell you something.

[Chathamization]

11. That's the point. Too many act as if there is an equivalency between oppressed and oppressor.

"You always talk about the bad things the oppressor does, but never talk about the bad things the oppressed do!" Rhetoric like this is often mocked, but it seems like in certain cases it's accepted. This doesn't mean we should condone whatever oppressed people do, but it's necessary to understand that they are working within a system of oppression (again, a point that most people seem to understand in general, but are blind to in some particular cases). King's writings in response to the Watts Riots is a good read.

[malaise]

7. K & R

for truth