Western Hypocrisy
Israel must stop "killing babies and women in Gaza", French President Macron has told the BBC. He said there was "no justification" for the bombing, saying a ceasefire would "benefit Israel." While recognising Israel's right to protect itself, "we do urge them to stop this bombing" in Gaza, he said. When asked if he wanted other leaders - including in the US and the UK - to join his calls for a ceasefire, he replied: "I hope they will."
US secretary of state Antony Blinken told reporters: "Far too many Palestinians have been killed; far too many have suffered these past weeks."
Not a blogger I generally follow, but on this he is right - Mundabor:
"The evil men who staged the attack are now using their own children as human shield, hoping that their own little ones die to score propaganda points with the stupid, the overly emotional, and the logically challenged ...
"The building of one’s own command posts under hospitals and kindergartens, and of countless tunnel entries into civilian homes is, to my knowledge, a new level of evil in recent history. It is an open, shameless, in-your-face hostage taking, conducted with such brazenness that only the Palestinians, to whom the leftists have long given the title of Most Favourite Oppressed People®, can still get away with. They can get away with it, because the West is so stupid that it only sees the dead children, and does not see the evil of those who are the real responsible for the dead children."
Around 73 million induced abortions take place worldwide each year.
Take that in:
Around 73 million induced abortions take place worldwide each year.
30% of all pregnancies end in induced abortion.
Comprehensive abortion care is included in the list of "essential health care services" published by WHO in 2020. According to this organisation: abortion "is a simple health care intervention" that can be effectively managed by a wide range of health workers using medication or a surgical procedure.
Lack of access to safe, affordable, timely and respectful abortion care, and the stigma associated with abortion, "pose risks to women’s physical and mental well-being throughout the life-course."
The result:
https://thefederalist.com/2023/11/14/the-conversion-of-ayaan-hirsi-ali-to-christianity-is-a-dire-warning-to-the-west/
ReplyDeleteThis article goes some way, I think, to explaining the schizophrenia in the west about the Palestinian genocide on the one hand, and the massacre of its own children on the other. Once the underlying Christianity of the west was abandoned, the secular liberalism which was its by-product could not survive on its own. Thus, you have the rights of the Palestinians defended (quite rightly, I hasten to add) as an inherent good, but the supposed right of abortion equally defended and advanced as an actual "health care" issue. If you don't have a working theology by which to steer, something to differentiate between real and apparent rights, you get this kind of confusion. Indeed, this kind of hypocrisy.
Like this:
DeleteAs great as Western civilization is, it arose as a byproduct of the Christian faith, the sole object of which is communion with Almighty God by means of salvation through Jesus Christ. Things like freedom of speech, rule of law, and human rights are fruits of the Christian faith, but they are not what Christianity is about.
And this:
It turns out, the capital was gradually spent and never replenished. Liberalism always depended for its vitality on something it cannot itself supply: the Christian faith, active and alive among the people. As the French philosopher Rémi Brague wrote back in the 1990s, “Faith produces its effects only so long as it remains faith and not calculation. We owe European civilization to people who believed in Christ, not to people who believed in Christianity.”
I would agree that there is an inherent hypocrisy going on here. People are meant to be shocked and outraged by what has happened to so many Israeli children at the hands of Hamas, but supportive of what is happening at the local clinic.
ReplyDeleteMaybe People are less able to do this then we believe.
Maybe it's why so many don't seem to care about Jewish children?
Who says they don't care about Jewish children? Maybe they just don't think Jewish lives matter more than Arab lives.
DeleteStill points to Hamas. Perhaps if the didn't use Arab children as human shields.
DeleteHave you heard what these people are saying? They definitely don't feel that Jewish children have worth.
Your post gave the impression you are talking about people in general, not Hamas in particular.
DeleteThe West has long had a pick 'n' mix approach to morality. This child's life is wonderful and to be celebrated (cf. Royal babies), this child's life is inconvenient (most abortions), this child's life is a drain on the system (Indi Gregory et al.), these children are expendable for political reasons (grooming gang victims). I don't think that we, collectively, have the right to be outraged. Our ideology isn't that much different to the one playing out in Israel/Gaza, it's just more sanitised.
ReplyDelete@ Lain
DeleteThe Indi Gregory case was appalling - the hubris of the doctors and the heartlessness of the Courts. Truly shocking. Imagine being that child's parents. We are now "parented" by the State!
Yes, and it's not the first case sadly. There was another little boy some time ago, who I think was also offered the chance to receive treatment at the Vatican's children's hospital but the courts refused. The amount of state overreach into people's private family lives is worrying. It reminds me of the article Lord Sumption wrote during lockdown: when the state provides healthcare, the state thinks it owns your body.
DeleteIf the Lusitania were carrying munitions (and we still haven't gotten to the bottom of that one), would her sinking be OK?
DeleteI don’t know what the rules say, in either case, whether it’s a hospital or a passenger ship. That’s why I asked the question. What source are we looking for? I would guess it’s somewhere in the Geneva Conventions. Is that correct?
DeleteI believe that Aquinas thought that negative consequences (such as the killing of innocents) could be justified if the war was just and the intentions of the combatants also good: the pursuit of justice, for example, or self defence (although he did accept that offensive war could also be just). He also emphasised that violence should be the last resort. So the targeting of civilian sites in which terrorists are hiding is not necessarily immoral, on this view, if there is no other option and the intention is not specifically to target non-combatants. I suppose that the question would be is sinking this particular ship or bombing this particular site absolutely necessary at this particular time. In practice, it seems to come down to a lesser-evil justification, which is always going to be highly subjective.
DeletePS @Ray - in case you missed it, I posted some details of the academic you mentioned on the last thread.
@ Ray
DeleteIt's a "war crime" under International Humanitarian law to use hospitals as a military base or shelter amongst civilians - just as it is to indiscriminately bomb civilian targets.
@ Bell
That would depend on the "proportionality" of the benefit to the objectives of defeating the enemy. As stated in an earlier article here:
The criterion of discrimination in just-war theory prohibits direct and intentional attacks on non-combatants, although neither international law nor the just war tradition that has morally informed it, requires that a legitimate military target must be spared from attack simply because its destruction may unintentionally injure or kill non-combatants or damage civilian property and infrastructure. Nor does it proscribe an invasion to defeat the enemy.
International law and just war theory only insist that the anticipated collateral damage - the foreseen secondary effects - must be “proportionate” to the military advantage sought in attacking the legitimate military target. This sense of proportionality has to do almost entirely with the foreseen but unintended harm done to non-combatants and to non-combatant infrastructure.
@ Lain
Delete"In practice, it seems to come down to a lesser-evil justification, which is always going to be highly subjective."
Sort of, but not quite .... that's the defence given for Hiroshima and Nagasaki - i.e., "moral consequentialism". Overall, the indiscriminate killing of civilians, even though there no obvious military targets, was less evil because it resulted in less deaths, etc, etc.
The Catholic argument would be "double effect". The deaths are not indiscriminate or directly intended but a secondary effect of pursuing a legitimate military objective.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. By 'in practice', I was referring to the practice of war as conducted by secular states, not the practice of Catholic JWT. Secular 'new' just war theory builds on Aquinas et al., but effectively comes down to 'lesser-evil' arguments (which is really consequentialism in a tuxedo), which is inevitable when you remove the intrinsic value that human beings have as image bearers of God.
DeleteWhat's happening in Gaza differs from Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden etc., inasmuch as there's no deliberate targeting of civilians qua civilians so yes, the doctrine of double effect applies. But the DDE still requires proportionality and just intent: it's not permissible to blow up, say, a school to kill a terrorist hiding there if you can wait for him to go home, just because your intention wasn't to kill the civilians.
There's still a moral obligation to minimise civilian casualties, so there still has to be some subjective calculation going on: the cost of the innocents killed destroying a hospital might be justifiable if it destroys Hamas' HQ, but not of it only destroyed a couple of terrorists with a rocket launcher, for example.
You're assuming there IS no deliberate targetting of civilians. That's not an assumption I would make.
Delete@ Lain
DeleteYes, very good points.
In essence, there must be a very serious reason that the evil effect is tolerated. The good effect that is directly intended must be significantly more dire to attain than the bad effect that is accepted.
So, overall, the good effect (protecting Israel) must outweigh the bad effect (Palestinian civilians killed) in circumstances sufficiently grave (ongoing and repeated threats to Israeli lives) to justify causing the bad effect.
The war against Hamas is justified - but not every act undertaken during the conducting of the war. The burden is on Israel to be certain attacks on any hospital or civilian property takes this into account and are justified. However, such is the evil of Hamas, embedding themselves amongst civilians, it becomes inevitable that the innocent will die.
@Bell - yes, as the discussion is about proportionality and the application of JWT, I'm assuming that. If civilians are intentionally targeted qua civilians, then the DDE argument is irrelevant and it's simply a war crime (as Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Dresden etc.)
Delete@Jack - agreed, and I would argue that this is where things get subjective. There's no calculation that says x Israeli lives = y Palestinian children. I suppose that the best one can do is to make decisions knowing that they'll have to be accounted for in front of God one day. It's easy so discuss these things theoretically and parcel them out into different theological categories, but it must be horrendous to be the one making the decisions, with real innocent lives on the line on both sides. Lord, have mercy and grant us peace.
If Hamas is killing their own people to gain sympathy and support from the West what are the Israelis supposed to do? How did it escape Israeli intelligence that Hamas was hiding bombs and ammunition in hospitals? It is a terrible situation but I do not see that Israel has a choice but to wage and finish this war as soon as possible. What bothers me is that Israel should have had warning bells long before this situation....what went wrong? Cressida
ReplyDeleteCressida
Some claim Netanyahu, who is opposed to a 'two state' settlement' and wants to claim Gaza and the West Bank for Israel, ignored the intelligence and allowed the terrorist attacks of 7/11 to justify the war on Hamas. Others say, Israeli were caught off guard because of the increasing tensions on the occupied West Bank.
DeleteWho knows the truth of it?
@Jack, I unintentionally deleted my comment about the command centre and ammunition dump located underneath a hospital, and the rest of it. Is there any way you can retrieve it for me?
ReplyDeleteThanks
Ray
Sorry, Ray, there's no way to retrieve it. Once it's deleted, it's a gonna!
DeleteOK, @Jack. Thanks for trying, anyway!
Delete@Lain
ReplyDeleteThank you! You’re right, I hadn’t seen your reply, I’m sorry about that. I hadn’t looked at that thread again since this one opened. So Miss Sarah Fenton Hoyt published articles in three successive issues of an academic journal when she was just 27, but as far as can be ascertained from the internet, never again afterwards. And apparently she never married, although she lived to be 70. I wonder what Hercule Poirot would make of all that.
This looks to me like good news, as far as it’s safe to guess about what may or may not be going on behind the scenes. Which really isn’t very far, of course, but nevertheless …
ReplyDeleteIn the very first sentence, Reuters describes Ismail Haniyeh as “the head of Hamas”. I don’t know how accurate that is, though he’s certainly one of the top half-dozen or so in the organization. The really interesting thing about him, of course, is that curious detail in connection with his family life. He has three sisters living in Israel, one married and two widowed, who all hold Israeli citizenship and apparently lead normal, happy lives as Arab Israelis.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/irans-axis-resistance-against-israel-faces-trial-by-fire-2023-11-15/
It's more likely a face saving tactic on the part of Iran for not getting involved in a war they know they'd lose.
DeleteEven so, I still see it as good news. It's conducive to peace.
DeleteMaybe conducive to a temporary cessation of fighting until Iran and her allies feel able to take on Israel and her allies. I honestly don't believe Islamic states will ever accept a Jewish presence in Israel; the Sunni–Shia divide between Iran–Saudi Arabia, notwithstanding. Shia terrorists have an open-ended campaign against Israel and, by and large, pursue Iranian state sponsored objectives - like Hezbollah.
DeleteI’m an optimist by nature, Jack. I don’t think it’s impossible that one day Iran will discover that it is possible to live in peace with Israel, after all. Of course, I’m not talking about the ayatollahs’ regime. I’m talking about what comes next.
DeletePalestinians are much in the news these days for obvious reasons. I was recently reminded about the only leader of theirs that I've ever known much about, and that was the delightful Yasser Arafat. Most of us will remember him; he was a well known figure on the world stage, and I'm sure he enjoyed the limelight.
ReplyDeleteHe became a very wealthy man. Allegedly he had all Palestinian VAT tax receipts diverted to his private foreign bank accounts, building up a personal fortune of about $1.3 Billion. His private investment portfolio included a Coca Cola Bottling plant, A Tunisian Cell Phone Co, and various Venture Capital Funds in the USA and Cayman. The perfect capitalist, who just also happened to be the founding father of the SOCIALIST Fatah movement. Or as they say in Socialism "Do as I say, not as I do".
Sadly the Palestinian people never received any of the tax returns destined for their desperately needed infrastructure, health facilities, and social reform. The man was simply a bloody thief.
These days the leaders of Hamas, Fatah, or the PLO (if it's still operating) are no longer well known names or faces. They hide away behind schools and hospitals, probably stealing money as did Arafat; spending their spoils on weapons rather than food, utilities, or medical care. Arafat-ism is alive and well, and living in Gaza, where a healthy foreign bank account is probably as handy now as it was in Arafat's day.
Arafat ended his days in France in 2004, and I believe that the French government helped empty his Swiss bank accounts in exchange for his medical treatment. Presumably his thieving prevented the building of decent hospitals back at home, where they might have treated both him and many others. His body was later flown back to Ramallah where he was buried.
I don't know if he is still given sainthood status by the Palestinians, but if they really wish to honour an absolute scoundrel, I suppose it's their prerogative.
His wife, the fragrant Suha, also embezzled Millions, which were relieved of her after she quit The West Bank for a more luxurious life in Europe. She was well known for her extravagant shopping trips to London, Paris, and Rome, where she spent 'fortunes'. The last that was heard of her, she was broke, and living quietly in Malta (with her brother?).
The poor ordinary Palestinians deserved, and deserve, so much better.
I thought this was an interesting article by a Blogger... I feel sorry for them too and that none of the Arab
countries seem to want to help the Palestinians or give them refuge. I am not sure if they
ever did, What percentage of Palestinians are Christian?......Cressida
Blogger of the Year 2020.
DeleteNothing changes.
DeleteWhile their people languish in poverty and are treated as human shields, the leaders of Hamas live billionaire lifestyles.
The terror group’s three top leaders alone are worth a staggering total of $11 billion and enjoy a life of luxury in the sanctuary of the emirate of Qatar.
NYPost.
On Palestinian Christians, most sources estimate they make up around 1.5% - 2% of the population. The majority are Orthodox, then Catholic, then Anglican and assorted other denominations. A British Foreign Office report on religious persecution in Africa and the Middle East, commissioned in 2019, said 'The Arab-Israeli conflict has caused the majority of Palestinian Christians to leave their homeland. The population of Palestinian Christians has dropped from 15% to 2%.'
Very good piece of satire by the Israelis:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYUL1R4pupU
Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar׳s exclusive interview on BBC
I copy and paste a couple of the comments:
@yasminni485
1 day ago
You're telling me there's an Israeli baby torturing you by sleep deprivation? And he's occupying your house? So unfair.... so unfair.
@AddieP91
1 day ago (edited)
The actor and comedian who plays Sinwar said that they had to add the sound of the crying baby in editing after filming because he got too emotional... Thank you to everyone around the world with moral clarity who supports us, wherever you are and whatever your race, ethnicity and religion (or lack thereof) is. If there were more of you in the world, Hamas would have been powerless to harm Israelis and Palestinians.