And what was the memo to today's leaders? Something to this effect: "There is no equivalence between the Jewish state eliminating a terrorist threat and Hamas' barbaric attacks on innocent civilians. We stand with Israel." Chrystia Freeland in Canada said something like this, as did numerous other prominent politicians in western nations, despite the overwhelming evidence that Israel is committing genocide in Palestine.
"The" Jewish state. I'm trying to remember where I was reading a point made about how one should notice the definite article, that Israel means to make itself an exclusive haven, as though there's another state in the world that purports to be a receptacle for world Jewry. Of course, the exclusivity is part of the inherent problem that gives way to xenophobia and ethnocentrism. You can't get away from that. The exclusivity becomes part of the genocidal logic of the Zionist project.
The issue here is that people in the West (and probably other areas, too) cannot seem to wrap their minds around the fact that states can engage in terror as well. State terror is a thing. Anyone is capable of committing war crimes and the like, from the lowliest recruit to the top commander. As I understand it, even civilians can be found to have engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity and so forth. It has nothing to do with whether one's country holds elections; it has nothing to do with whether the person accused is themselves an elected official. None of that matters -- all that matters are the underlying facts.
I think Western leaders are waking up to the fact that their off-ramp from Netanyahu's genocidal actions was passed by some time ago. I'd say that off-ramp was South Africa bringing its case before the ICJ in January. After the ICJ made its preliminary ruling, the US and its allies should have made an about-face and really started putting reins on Netanyahu's actions and distancing themselves from him even as they did so. But they chose to close in even more tightly. Now they are all in danger of being snared.
So they will say whatever they think will get them off the hook. They will try to wheedle, cajole, threaten, hoodwink, extort, coerce, armtwist, any and all maneuvers to extricate Netanyahu and Gallant from their impending danger, because the actions may well indeed spread and become uncontainable.
And what was the memo to today's leaders? Something to this effect: "There is no equivalence between the Jewish state eliminating a terrorist threat and Hamas' barbaric attacks on innocent civilians. We stand with Israel." Chrystia Freeland in Canada said something like this, as did numerous other prominent politicians in western nations, despite the overwhelming evidence that Israel is committing genocide in Palestine.
"The" Jewish state. I'm trying to remember where I was reading a point made about how one should notice the definite article, that Israel means to make itself an exclusive haven, as though there's another state in the world that purports to be a receptacle for world Jewry. Of course, the exclusivity is part of the inherent problem that gives way to xenophobia and ethnocentrism. You can't get away from that. The exclusivity becomes part of the genocidal logic of the Zionist project.
The issue here is that people in the West (and probably other areas, too) cannot seem to wrap their minds around the fact that states can engage in terror as well. State terror is a thing. Anyone is capable of committing war crimes and the like, from the lowliest recruit to the top commander. As I understand it, even civilians can be found to have engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity and so forth. It has nothing to do with whether one's country holds elections; it has nothing to do with whether the person accused is themselves an elected official. None of that matters -- all that matters are the underlying facts.
I think Western leaders are waking up to the fact that their off-ramp from Netanyahu's genocidal actions was passed by some time ago. I'd say that off-ramp was South Africa bringing its case before the ICJ in January. After the ICJ made its preliminary ruling, the US and its allies should have made an about-face and really started putting reins on Netanyahu's actions and distancing themselves from him even as they did so. But they chose to close in even more tightly. Now they are all in danger of being snared.
So they will say whatever they think will get them off the hook. They will try to wheedle, cajole, threaten, hoodwink, extort, coerce, armtwist, any and all maneuvers to extricate Netanyahu and Gallant from their impending danger, because the actions may well indeed spread and become uncontainable.