Skip to content or view screen version

EU condemnation of Gaza & Realpolitik

Daniel | 04.01.2009 01:16 | Analysis | Palestine

The EU today called the Israeli invasion of Gaza as a 'defensive, not offensive action'. President Sarkozy of France, someone most people here would see as a right-winger, immediately took the opposite stance and called for an immediate ceasefire. So why the split?

The EU presidency rotates between member nations and is currently in the hands of the Czech president Václav Klaus. Václav Klaus is quite a character. He is not the first extreme right-wing leader elected by former Soviet bloc countries but he is about the most extreme and controversial. It was reported on Radio Four today that he has portraits of Margaret Thatcher throughout his offices. To put that in context it was also reported today that Gordon Brown has commisioned the first portrait of a former British primeminister to hang in Downing Street, one of Thatcher, in the office that Brown uses that he has renamed 'The Thatcher Room'. However Klaus differentiates himself from Thatcherlite-Brown by condemning climate-change as a capital-C Communist plot against Capitalism launched by Communist members of the US Congress, that well known Communist front-organistation. Al Gore, the fellow traveller. In short Klaus is a quasi-fascist nutter and today he spoke for the whole of Europe on Israeli aggression. UK-IP supporters must feel as confused tonight as BNP supporters in a conflict between the Jewish state and innocent Muslims.

It should go without saying here that this slaughter will only lead to more slaughter. In geopolitical terms, ie terms which do not recognise the suffering of individuals, who is the most likely victim of this 'incursion'? Well, not the individual politicians such as Ehud Olmert whose domestic popularity will soar in the short-term. Not Hamas, as whoever in Hamas survives this politically-motivated attack will rise in stature. I predict it is the Egyptian dictatorship which is most at risk, perhaps followed by the democrats in Turkey, the two local arab policemen who are employed by the US, and they are at risk the same way the Shah of Iran fell.

If you agree with my assertion I feel this is a fundamental criticism of representative democracy. Olmert is acting in his own and his parties own short-term interests. If Israel was a dictatorship then the dictator would never risk overthowing their only close allies for short-term political appeal. I don't want to expand on that just now as it is a bit self-indulgent to be so philosphical while people are dying, but I think the final victories will be with the street, the participative democrats aka anarchists - or the dictators. How many British Labour voters are happy to have voted for a party of Thatcherites?

Daniel

Comments

Hide the following 8 comments

questions

04.01.2009 02:39

Its interesting you mention the religion aspects Jewish vs Muslim

Each set of people believe in their own God and each believe that the other is deluded and irrational. They all believe that their God will protect them and that their way it right. They believe that their God will defend their people. Yet, they both use weapons to defend themselves. Why do the leaders on both sides have bodyguards if they put so much faith in their own God to ensure that their destiny is fullfilled?

You got to ask yourself, do they really believe what they say, when you can clearly see their actions go contrary to this? There is only two explanations: Either they are lying about what they believe or they are irrational.

So the question is, how can anyone support liars or irrational people in their causes?


jonny


Turning water into tanks

04.01.2009 08:21

No one is supporting the leadership of or a particular political faction of either country, The Palestinian people however who (especially in Gaza which is the worlds most densely populated area) have seen the world turn a blind eye to 60 years of suffering, oppression, murder, and theft, should have our unconditional support. We are the real international community and we should be the ones who defend the right to justice and the Palestinians right to live without fear. Demonstrations throughout the world cannot and must not cease until Israel allows full autonomy to the Palestinian people.

Col Jesus Christ


When Jonny comes marching home again, hurrah, hurrah

04.01.2009 09:48

"So the question is, how can anyone support liars or irrational people in their causes? "

Why is the PopeMobile bulletproofed? Because people shoot at him. Is he irrational for bullet-proofing?

There are a million and a half civilians being bombed in Gaza today. Not all of them are irrational by your standards, and yet you choose to focus on your own interpretation of their supposed flaws as if that was justification for their murder.

I think you should ask yourself who pays for the F-16's that slaughter innocents? Not the Israelis, they get them for free. F-16 is a US aircraft designation not an Israeli name. Parts of it are made in the UK and UK trade with Israel pays for other munnitions in this slow-genocide. Would you be so ambivalent if Israel was being bombed by F-16's supplied to Gaza? So in my opinion we - you and me - are directly if partially culpable for every child killed in Gaza by weaponary we have helped supply. The real question is whether you or me are going to do something about that.

Daniel


all the way home

04.01.2009 11:43

> Why is the PopeMobile bulletproofed? Because people shoot at him. Is he irrational for bullet-proofing?
The pope's God is all powerful and all knowing. If his God want's the pope's destiny to be fullfilled when his God will keep him out of harms way. If the pope really believed what he said he believed, he would not put his trust in bulletproof glass, he would put it in God.

His actions of needing bulletproof glass and bodyguards just shows that either he doesn't believe his God will protect him or that he does, but is being irrational.

The same goes for the Jews and the Muslims. They need to look at their leaders and ask: do they really believe in God like they say they do?

jonny


or...

04.01.2009 19:09

'His actions of needing bulletproof glass and bodyguards just shows that either he doesn't believe his God will protect him or that he does, but is being irrational.'

Or that his god is protecting him by providing him with the means to make bulletproof glass and with people to jump in the way of any other bullets. I thought christianity was all about god helping those who help themselves, it doesn't really show they don't believe in god if he tries to protect himself, it's like:

'A man who has been notified that his house is going to be flooded and he needs to get out of the house. He says no I don't have to, God is going to take care of me. Then the flood starts to rise and a sheriff comes along and tells him to get out. The man says no, God is going to save me. So, the floods continue to rise, and he climbs on top of the house. A boat comes along and he's told to climb into the boat. He says, no, no , God is going to save me. Finally, a helicopter comes along and they lower the net to rescue him. The man says, no, no, God is going to save me! Well, the man drowns and goes to heaven. When he gets to heaven he says to God, "why didn't you save me?" God says, "I sent the sheriff, I sent a boat, I sent a helicopter, what more did you want me to do?"

Not that I'm saying there is a god actually protecting the Pope by supplying him with bulletproof glass and all that, I'm just saying that it's stupid for you to suggest they don't believe in god just because of it, they clearly do, and that's the problem.

Ae


Lesser evils

04.01.2009 22:31

You can be a decent person and still hold spiritual beliefs. Many people do hold spiritual beliefs and most of them are decent people. The problem comes when you believe your own beliefs justify you inflicting suffering and death on others who don't hold your opinions, and that is true for political beliefs too. The main problem with organised religion is the organisation because a minority of people are dangerous all the time and a majority of people are dangerous some of the time.

Daniel


irrational

06.01.2009 01:13

Thanks for the replies. Yes, I hadn't thought of those issues.
I suppose my point is about the leaders being of rational mind.... and therefore irrational actions.

The dictionary defines faith as belief without evidence. It also defined stupidity as unreasoned thinking.
Is belief a form of unreasoned thinking? For without evidence, you have nothing to base your thinking on.

I understand that religious believers can of course be decent people. But are they rational?
If they are basing their life's decisions on unreasoned thinking then is it not of concern that such leaders are in charge of life/death decisions?

Leaders on both sides of the Gaza conflict have 'god on their side'. By definition they must immediately believe that the other side is completely deluded and incorrect. But to what extent?
An atheist can live with other people's delusions because he will recognise them as just that - delusions.
A believer will want to stop the 'deluded' because they are going against god's word / or they are putting themselves in harms way by offending god. Such basic levels of belief can and do filter down into irrational actions.

jonny


Hell on Earth

06.01.2009 20:35

Jonny, I fully agree with what you've said, I just don't think a Gaza thread was the best place to say it. I feel the worst thing about organised religion is the organisation. I feel we all hold some irrational views whether we realise it or not, even the most rational athiest scientist from the past seems irrational now - Isaac Newton spent more time on alchemy than astronomy for example. It is best to keep spiritual beliefs to ourselves, and it doesn't hurt to quiet our opinions about others irrational/spiritual views when the bullets are flying. If you were in Gaza tonight you may also find yourself saying a prayer, 'just in case'.

Daniel