British and EU representatives are siding with the oppressor.

I learned the word “condemn” at an early age. It was used constantly on Irish news bulletins in the 1980s.

In theory, “condemn” is a verb that may be applied to any act that triggers feelings of strong disapproval. In practice, it is used more to oppose violence by the oppressed than the oppression which causes that violence.

The partition of both Ireland and Palestine was ushered in by Britain.

As well as carving up both countries, Britain pursued similar policies in both situations.

People of one ethnicity and religion were encouraged to discriminate – systematically – against people of another. In both cases, the discrimination took place in a context of settler-colonialism.

With that history having consequences that endures to this day, Britain ought to be condemned routinely by everyone who opposes injustice.

If the media actually did their job and exposed Britain’s crimes, then comments made over the past few days by James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, would have zero credibility.

According to Cleverly, Britain “unequivocally condemns the horrific attacks by Hamas on Israeli civilians.” Britain, he added, “will always support Israel’s right to defend itself.”

The “attacks” to which he alluded were actually a response to the brutal subjugation of the Palestinian people. Britain set that subjugation in motion as far back as 1917, when Arthur James Balfour, one of Cleverly’s predecessors as foreign secretary, signed his infamous declaration supporting the Zionist movement and its colonization project.

Right to defend?

All talk about Israel’s “right to defend itself” is utter bollocks – if I may use a term with which Cleverly is undoubtedly familiar.

Israel – which has subjected Gaza to a total blockade since 2007 and bombarded its people with frightening regularity – does not have the right to defend itself. The truth is that Palestinains have a right – recognized by the United Nations General Assembly – to defend themselves against Israel’s military occupation and all its attendant aggression.

Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, tried to sound even angrier than Cleverly. She fulminated against “the attack carried out by Hamas terrorists,” labeling it “terrorism in its most despicable form.”

Needless to say, von der Leyen had nothing to say about how the European Union mollycoddles Israel – actively seeking closer relations with that state, even as its government assumes an overtly fascist character. Von der Leyen herself has implicitly endorsed the ethnic cleansing on which Israel was founded in 1948 by praising the Zionist dream of making “the desert bloom.”

With that record, it is not surprising that von der Leyen is selective in her outrage.

Ariel Kallner, a member of the Knesset (Israel’s parliament), reacted to the Hamas-led operation by calling for a new Nakba.

The Nakba – Arabic for catastrophe – involved the expulsion of approximately 800,000 Palestinians from their homes. Kallner advocated a “Nakba that will overshadow the Nakba of ‘48,” contending “there is no other way.”

Kallner chairs a committee in the Knesset handling Israel’s relations with the EU. Yet his call did not elicit any comment from von der Leyen or other senior players in the Brussels bureaucracy.

Von der Leyen’s reticence is consistent. If she gave her blessing to the first Nakba, then why would she have any qualms about a new one?

read more: https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/david-cronin/condemning-palestinians-contemptible

archive: https://archive.ph/O9zPI

  • loathsome dongeater@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    Now, I think the biggest problem with the white liberal in America, and perhaps the liberal around the world, is that his primary task is to stop confrontation, stop conflicts, not to redress grievances, but to stop confrontation. And this is very clear, it must become very, very clear in all our minds. Because once we see what the primary task of the liberal is, then we can see the necessity of not wasting time with him. His primary role is to stop confrontation. Because the liberal assumes a priori that a confrontation is not going to solve the problem. This, of course, is an incorrect assumption. We know that.

    We need not waste time showing that this assumption of the liberals is clearly ridiculous. I think that history has shown that confrontation in many cases has resolved quite a number of problems — look at the Russian revolution, the Cuban revolution, the Chinese revolution. In many cases, stopping confrontation really means prolonging suffering.

    The liberal is so preoccupied with stopping confrontation that he usually finds himself defending and calling for law and order, the law and order of the oppressor. Confrontation would disrupt the smooth functioning of the society and so the politics of the liberal leads him into a position where he finds himself politically aligned with the oppressor rather than with the oppressed.

    The reason the liberal seeks to stop confrontation — and this is the second pitfall of liberalism — is that his role, regardless of what he says, is really to maintain the status quo, rather than to change it. He enjoys economic stability from the status quo and if he fights for change he is risking his economic stability. What the liberal is really saying is that he hopes to bring about justice and economic stability for everyone through reform, that somehow the society will be able to keep expanding without redistributing the wealth.

    • Critical_Insight
      1·
      1 year ago

      The discussion is wether Israeli - Palestine conflict is a complex issue or not an so far you have not in any way demonstrated that it’s not.

        • Critical_Insight
          1·
          1 year ago

          No we didn’t. You have not made one attempt at convincing me otherwise. You’re just rambling about unrelated stuff while arguing against imaginary positions I don’t hold. You’re not even trying to change my mind. You’re not even sticking to the subject of the discussion.

          • loathsome dongeater@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            I can’t change your mind if you are being idiotic and disingenuous. If you can’t fix your shitter, does that make it a complicated problem? A plumber can fix it as easily you clogged it up. It is not a complicated problem just because you don’t have the personal means to solve a problem. Then you go on making idealistic disentanglements between Israel, IDF, Palestine and Hamas and take up a very convenient position where you are for the “Israeli and Palestinian people”, declare the problem complex and unsolveable then shit hand over hand concern trolling over people fighting for their freedom.

            • Critical_Insight
              1·
              1 year ago

              I’ve never claimed the issue in unsolvable. That’s just yet another false accusation you’ve made up.

              Fixing a toilet is a complex issue to someone who has no knowledge about the subject but it’s not complex to someone who has. There exists specific steps to troubleshoot and fix the issue. Israeli - Palestine conflict on the other hand is a complex issue even to the people who are well educated on the subject as you have here demonstrated by failing to offer anything resembling a solution despite your claims that it’s cut and dry. If it’s not complex, then give me the solution, shouldn’t be difficult, right? I can explain you how to fix a toilet - you can’t tell me how to fix the conflict in middle east. That’s the difference between an easy and complex issue.

              Hamas just stormed a music festifal and murdered 250 unarmed civilians. Is that what you want done to the rest of the Israeli population too? Is that how you want to solve the issue?