Netanyahu sprak gisteren via CNN de wereld toe, dit daar de wereldopinie zich tegen Israël keert, na het bloedbad dat Israël afgelopen zondag aanrichtte in Shejaia een stadsdeel van Gaza (de stad).
Onder andere het volgende durfde deze oorlogsmisdadiger en Palestijnen slachter uit zijn strot te krijgen:
“They want to pile up as many civilian dead as they can. They use telegenically dead Palestinians for their cause. They want the more dead, the better”. Met andere woorden: Hamas stapelt fotogenieke Palestijnen burgerslachtoffers op, om daarmee propaganda te maken, hoe meer van die doden hoe beter…….
Erg origineel is deze uitspraak niet, zo reageerde Glenn Greenwald in een reactie op deze schofterige uitspraak in ‘The // Intercept’. Hij stelt dat op 16 november 1941, Goebbels in feite hetzelfde zei in ‘Das Reich’, dit n.a.v. de onrustgevoelens, die onder het Duitse volk opstaken, over de vervolging van de Joden:
The Jews gradually are having to depend more and more on themselves, and
have recently found a new trick. They knew the good-natured German
Michael in us, always ready to shed sentimental tears for the injustice
done to them. One suddenly has the impression that the Berlin
Jewish population consists only of little babies whose childish
helplessness might move us, or else fragile old ladies. The Jews send
out the pitiable. They may confuse some harmless souls for a while, but not us. We know exactly what the situation is.
Natuurlijk is Greenwald zich bewust van de grote kritiek die na deze vergelijking zou losbreken, deze te verwachten kritiek pareerde hij alvast op de volgende manier:
Rather than lard up the point with numerous defensive caveats about
what is and is not being said here (which, in any event, never impede willful media distorters in their tactics), I’ll simply note three brief points:
(1) To compare aspects of A and B is not to posit that A and B are
identical (e.g., to observe that Bermuda and Bosnia are both countries
beginning with the letter “B” is not to depict them as the same, just as
observing that both the U.S. in 2003 and Germany in 1938 launched
aggressive wars in direct violation of what were to become the Nuremberg Principles is not to equate the two countries).
(2) In general, the universality of war rhetoric is
a vital fact, necessary to evaluate the merit of contemporary claims
used to justify militarism (claims that a war amounts to mere
“humanitarian intervention”, for instance, have been invoked over and over to justify even the most blatant aggression).
Similarly, the notion that one is barred from ever citing certain
historical examples in order to draw lessons for contemporary conflicts
is as dangerous as it is anti-intellectual.
(3) Anglo-American law has long recognized that gross recklessness is a form of intent
(“Fraudulent intent is shown if a representation is made with reckless
indifference to its truth or falsity”). That’s why reckless behavior
even if unaccompanied by a desire to kill people – e.g., randomly shooting a gun into a crowd of people – has long been viewed as sufficient to establish criminal intent.
One can say many things about a military operation that results in more than 75 percent of the dead being civilians, many of them children, aimed at a population trapped in a tiny area with no escape.
The claim that there is no intent to kill civilians but rather an
intent to protect them is most assuredly not among them. Even stalwart
Israel supporter Thomas Friedman has previously acknowledged that Israeli assaults on Lebanon, and possibly in Gaza, are intended ”to inflict substantial property damage and collateral casualties” because “the only long-term source of deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians” (which, to the extent it exists, is the classic definition of “terrorism”). The
most generous claim one can make about what Israel is now doing in Gaza
is that it is driven by complete recklessness toward the civilian population it is massacring, a form of intent under centuries of well-settled western law.
* * * * *
American journalism is frequently criticized with great
justification, but there are a number of American journalists in Gaza,
along with non-western ones, in order to tell the world about what is
happening there. That reporting is incredibly brave and difficult, and those who are doing it merit the highest respect. Their work, along with the prevalence of social media and internet technology that allows Gazans themselves to document what is happening, has changed the way Israeli aggression is seen and understood this time around.
Credit to Jonathan Schwarz, now working with Matt Taibbi’s forthcoming First Look Media digital publication, for finding the 1941 article cited here.
Bron: The // Intercept van 21 juli jl.
Zie ook: ‘Netanyahu ‘begaan’ met lot Palestijnse burgers……… AUW!’
