Gaza conflict “entirely the fault of the Palestinian government”

Anonymous

Contrary to the claims of the Hamas-sympathizers, the conflict is entirely the fault of the Palestinian government. Israel is the only semifree nation in the region, the only nation that upholds the right to an objective trial, freedom of and from religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of trade. The Palestinian government ruled by Hamas recognizes none of these rights. In a military conflict a rights-respecting government has a moral obligation to defend itself, even if this requires mass killing of civilians in the enemy territory; those civilians suffer and die because of their government’s actions — Israel has a moral duty to defend its own civilians, not sacrifice them out of concern for the civilians in enemy territory. The Palestinians, who elected Hamas, and whose enthusiasm or passivity keeps them in power bear moral responsibility for their government’s actions, and for the all of the deaths, Israeli or Palestinians that ensue in subsequent conflicts.

Since its founding sixty years ago, Israel has had to fight five wars in self-defense against its theocratic and dictatorial neighbors trying to oust Israelis from land settled and developed by Israel. The claim that the land had been stolen from the Palestinians is a fraud: it is a perversion of logic for the Arab governments, which reject property rights to demand that Israel respect such rights; it is an evasion of reality to maintain that a “free Palestine,” i.e. a Palestine dominated by a religious political party that routinely murders critics, bans public prayer, plots terrorist attacks against Britain and the United States, hides behind children in military conflicts, broadcasts propaganda to children comparing Jews to “apes and pigs,” and whose charter calls for Israel to be eliminated and replaced with an Islamic state can lead to freedom for individual Palestinians. That Hamas was elected is in this context irrelevant: no government, elected or not, that violates the rights of its own civilians and pledges to destroy a free nation is legitimate; there is no right to violate rights.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the wider Arab-Israeli conflict are not fundamentally conflicts between two religious groups, Jewish and Islamic, or between two “ethnic” groups, Jewish and Arab; if such were the case, both sides would be worthy of condemnation. This conflict is at root a clash between the secular, rights-respecting society of Israel and the otherworldly, death-worship that characterizes the Arab states.

United World College Student Magazine –

10 thoughts on “Gaza conflict “entirely the fault of the Palestinian government”

  1. My eyes literally cannot cry anymore. My anger literally cannot be any greater. My fear cannot be any worse. My sorrow cannot be deeper and my hate cannot be stronger. Enough is enough and this cannot continue any longer. As millions sit down with their families and celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, in the country where he was born, thousands of innocent people are being slaughtered. 60 years of murder, tyranny, bloodshed and occupation is enough for the Palestinian people. But clearly it just isn’t enough for Israel.

    In the recent events in Gaza, over 1500 Palestinian people have been murdered. Not killed, not lost their lives, not perished; just murdered. This isn’t a tragedy, this is a cold, callous, brutal murder. There are those who call for this to end. I am one of them, but I do not join those who want the bombing to stop and for the situation to continue as normal. Because this is normality in Palestine. I wish that what was happening now was just an isolated incident and can simply be stopped with a few commands from an Israeli air base. But this is endemic of the actions of the state of Israel that has characterized it’s existence since 1948. This is a state which was born out of occupation, continues to be an occupation and every act it makes is an act of war, an act of aggression and ultimately an act of occupation.

    This is not a question of war and peace. Everybody wants peace. But peace for Israel will only be achieved once it has occupied every last centimeter of Palestinian land and demolished every last Palestinian home and murdered the last Palestinian person. But the real peace; the peace that the people of the world deserve will only be once every Palestinian refugee has returned home, every demolished home has been re-built and every Israeli settlement withdrawn. Only then can peace come about, where every Muslim, Jew, Christian, Atheist and everyone else can live in harmony without hatred and bloodshed.

    This madness must stop. And not just the madness that began recently, but the madness that has continually taken place for what is now more than 60 years. People of the world across faiths, across races and across regions must unite in condemning Israel. But do we merely condemn Israel for it’s latest atrocity? Or do we go further and condemn Israel for what it is? A terrorist occupation of a people’s land which is hell bent on destroying anything in it’s path to achieve it’s goal and achieve the goals of it’s masters in Washington. If I invade my neighbors house, kill all his family and declare his house as rightfully mine, can I be justified? Can I then claim that I have rights? Can I then complain when he tries to take his house back; or at the very least seek the slightest revenge against me? It’s not my house it’s his. And the land is not Israel’s – it’s Palestine’s. It belongs to all people. Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.

    So let’s get international unity. And let the actions of Israel expose itself. Let Israel speak for itself. Every bomb that drops on the people of Palestine is an expression of Israel. Every bullet that is fired from Israeli guns are descriptions of that state. And every Palestinian death is a cry of pain from this nation. But believe me, every stone that is thrown at every Israeli tank is a call for resistance.

    So now raise the slogan high. Not justice for Palestine. Not stop the bombs. But FREEDOM FOR PALESTINE. Freedom from Occupation. Brothers and sisters from all religions across the world unite together and for once and for all let Palestine be free. The people deserve it, the people need it. From the river to the sea…………..PALESTINE WILL BE FREE.

  2. There’s probably going to be no solution to this conflict until both sides give up their childish determination to claim the moral high ground over each other.

    It takes two to tango, bitches.

  3. “Contrary to the claims of the Hamas-sympathizers, the conflict is entirely the fault of the Palestinian government. ”
    this was the boarding gate of a truly biased uniformed and illogical article.
    Let me expand. You claim that the “conflict” is a direct result of the palestinian governments, and thus the peoples, fault. you may be talking about the recent conflict in Gaza but do you really think that was the start of the israel palestine question?

    Did the shepards and farmers (haha izzat and isshaqs ancestors) in 1940’s Palestine Invite the Zionists for a battle over thier land? or did i fall asleep in history class for that bit. If thats not the case how can you make this despicable argument.
    You talk about the secularity of the Israeli state, when the mandate and reason for the establishment was to create a homeland for the JEWS, not just some people, a particluar ethnic and religious group.
    i Could go on and on about the destructive nature of this poorly written article
    Adam
    P.S are you really in Oxford?

  4. Valentin showed me this article on facebook a few weeks ago. I’d like to show you the conversation I had with the author about it.

    Me:
    To properly respond to your article would take more space than I have. However, suffice to say that the notion you hold that Israel operates freedom of trade, press, trials, and religion is thoroughly incorrect, ignorant, and borderline delusional.
    However, the main point of your article is making is that a “semi-free” country has the right to do whatever it likes to a “non-free” country and its citizens if attacked by that non-free country.
    When Europe colonised Africa, North America, and South America, and Austrailia (colonised here means that people mass emigrate there, claim the land, established cities and countries, and then run the country), as the Jewsish People did to Palestine following the atrocities of WWII, they inevitably encountered resistance from the people settled there at the time – people living in (by your definition) “non free countries”. Would Europe then be justified in mass genocide of the native people in their colonised country in “self defence” to this resistance?

    The Author:
    The Europeans were not justified in committing genocide against the native people. They were, in many cases, justified in colonizing other lands and even in establishing their own legal systems, legal systems that generally did a better job of respecting rights than did the legal systems (such as they were) of the native people. (I add the qualifier “generally” because this was not always the case)
    The British (and later Americans) who settled North America were certainly justified in subordinating the land to the rule of law and they were justified in stripping the legal systems of, say, the Cherokees and the Apaches of any power.
    Conversely, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were not justified in their territorial expansion (or even in defending themselves against each other); the American South was not justified in seceding, etc.
    A semifree country does not have the right to do “whatever it likes” to a non-free country if attacked, but it does have the absolute right to do whatever it takes to end threats to its citizens, even if this means mass death in the enemy territories.

    Me:
    OK, now that I understand your argument fully I can identify it with similar arguments:
    The notion that a certain set of ideals and way of life is superior to others and therefore justifies exporting it to other lands using force is an ideal called imperialism.
    The notion that the lives of a certain group of people are more important than a group of other people – these groups broadly defined by nationalities, ethnicity, or religion – and a perceived threat to the elite group from the subordinate group justifies “mass death”, is an ideal called Nazism/Facism.

    Your argument is a subtle and sophisticated blend of these two ideals.

    There is plenty of literature out there that explains why these ideals are morally repugnant, so I need not explain it here, merely advise you to read them.

  5. As you can see from the conversation above, and the article itself, this guy is clearly an ignorant (or simply delusional/brainwashed) fascist whose arguments give way under the slightest bit of scrutiny.

    And Adam, in response to your question about whether this guy is in Oxford or not – thousands of upper class morons are able to buy their way into oxford. The leader of the BNP went to Cambridge and he’s an absolute scumbag of an idiot.

  6. I think Alex highlights a valid point.

    I was particularly shocked by the statement, “government has a moral obligation to defend itself, even if this requires mass killing of civilians”

    If the civilians targetted are a persecuted minority surely this statement is an attempt at justifying ethnic cleansing, another attribute which has distinguished itself amongst Nazi/Fascist systems in the past?

    I hope that this article is nothing more than the poorly organised and unplanned thoughts of a benighted writer. If not I find it very worrying that the most highly educated youths of the current world super power may decisively follow this vein of thought.

  7. I read this article two days ago, and I thought I was going to have to write an EE to respond to it. Thanks to most of you for doing it for me, and for doing a much better job than I could have done.

    However, I am still appalled at the statement, “those civilians suffer and die because of their government’s actions.” Even though human rights are not at the crux of the matter, I think it’s important to take a classical liberal stance against this kind of atrocity. And by atrocity I mean the argument (not only the mass murder going on). It’s interesting that Israel was firing at “strategic targets” at the beginning of the campaign, but this justification seemed to disappear later. Maybe, at the beginning, they were firing at strategic targets, and doing a relatively poor job (they did get a few, but at the expense of many more). However, the fact that over 1500 innocent Palestinians, around half of them children (I think), had to die because Israel “missed its strategic targets” makes you question whether or not this was the real reason for the attack.

    If Israel had instigated covert assassination attempts, this whole question would be different, as the death toll would have surely been less than 100, probably much less. There would have probably been a Palestinian counterattack, but how could Israel expect no counterattack in an all out war situation? Clearly, this war was not done to save Israeli lives, as all-out war, unless it completely destroys the other side, only precipatates more war.

    So, the fact that strategic targets were NOT the primary reason for the attack, plus Israel’s knowledge that, if the war would break out, there would be potential for many MORE Israeli lives to be lost, this cannot be the reason for why Israel underwent this operation.

    I don’t really know why this happened. Maybe it was to continue to assert its military clout in the Middle East, while taking down a few high-ranking Hamas leaders at the same time. Maybe it was a show of hatred towards the Palestinian people. It doesn’t really matter, though. The point is, it was NOT done to save Israeli lives.

    One side note: the author of the article says that the Palestinian people bear moral responsibility for their government’s actions. I think the author had better tread carefully here. After all, he’s American…

  8. “Government has a moral obligation to defend itself, even if this requires mass killing of civilians”

    This is diametrically opposed to UWC ideals, and I am shocked and saddened that anyone would dare to endorse it under such a picture.

    Get your head out of the books and think about the people. would you justify your own death, and your family’s because of governmental action? would you be ok with that? would you like to read a “scholarly” opinion about it? You may have learned a lot but you seem to know nothing.

  9. All I would like to add to the points already made against the article in question, is that Mr Laszlo has failed to cite his sources and has failed to provide any proof to his argument. Therefore, all that can be read from this article is a lonesome stranger’s opinion on an issue that has not been sufficiently researched.

    I believe that this is a complex issue, and for one to express that the Gaza conflict is “entirely the fault of the Palestinian government”, without the adequate knowledge or intellect that is needed to discuss this conflict, can and should be discarded as irrelevant.

Tell us what you think!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s