The inability to discuss nuanced issues

Jamestown Massacre (1622): The Powhatan tribe attacked the Jamestown colony in Virginia, resulting in the deaths of approximately 347 English settlers.

Whitman Massacre (1847): Cayuse warriors killed 14 white settlers, including Marcus and Narcissa Whitman, at the Whitman Mission in what is now Washington State.

These are just two of the massacres Native Americans committed against European settlers in the US. We can also add the massacres rebelling slaves committed in Jamaica, Partisans on the Eastern Front, Boudica's massacre of Roman citizens, the lynching of the AVH officers during the 1956 revolution in Hungary, the murder of captured German POWs by Allied soldiers, and a ton of other instances where people, who we look at being the oppressed party, hence worthy of our sympathy, committed horrendous acts of violence against the so-called oppressors indiscriminately, killing old, young, men, women -even babies.   

Does this mean that Indians "had it coming", and the Europeans were right to force them in Reservations? Is it the Indian's fault that peace was not achieved for centuries between the natives and colonizers? Does this mean slavery was justified?

Serious questions.

In general, people realize that there are two distinct things at play here: one is the undoubtedly unjust treatment of a certain population (or populations -like the Native American tribes, slaves, occupied people), the second is the unjustifiable savagery certain members of these societies, groups in response to these atrocities.

What is the point of bringing this up?

Well, if you have not noticed, a certain terrorist organization has committed a horrific act of terror in Israel. And as expected, certain people are condemning Hamas by no uncertain terms (which is very much justified), and pointing only at the Palestinians as the sole source of this conflict, forgetting that Palestinians are essentially forced to live like animals (and die in quite large numbers which they also forget about), while the other side is very keen on whitewashing Hamas as a justified resistance against colonial oppression (and I have a strong feeling they mask their antisemitism with this narrative). Whatever happens in this particular conflict, the knee-jerk response is normally to justify the actions of one side by the savagery of the other, and painting them all evil (does not matter which side we are talking about), while ignoring the historical nuances and power differences present. 

And also forgetting that by explaining something does not mean you are justifying it. (I am referring to the obvious reason why Hamas is so successful in Gaza among the population.)

Sometimes I feel like people, who we call "intellectuals": thinkers, opinion makers, politicians -you know the "elite", who tell us what's what- are genuinely stupid. And if they are not stupid, they are disingenuous and think we are stupid. (And it seems like they may be right.) But this is what this whole blog is about.

So let's set down the basics.

1. Israel has been forcing Palestinians to live in unacceptable conditions both in Gaza and the West Bank. (While breaking many international laws, not to mention behaving quite amorally, for a country with the most moral army in the world.) In this conflict Israel is holding all the cards; talking about 'two equal sides' is a laughable piece of demagoguery. Also: Nakba. And no, Gaza is still under occupation. A blockade is effectively an occupation.

2. Hamas is a terrorist organization, which has no legitimacy whatsoever regardless of how Israel treats the Palestinians.

3. Hamas' actions do not justify (retroactively) the appalling treatment of Palestinians.

4. Israel's treatment of Palestinians does not justify the wanton murder of innocent people.

There. It isn't so hard, now, is it?

So what ties together Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the other repressive Arab states?

Well, it's their mutual dislike to Al Jazeera. Somehow Arab despots don't like independent journalism, and since Al Jazeera has angered them constantly, they put Qatar in a blockade -the whole "supporting terrorism" reason is a fig leaf. (And kind of a bold one coming from Saudi Arabia, but there you go. Hypocrisy knows no bounds.)

So what does the "only democracy in the Middle East" announce? Well, they are about to "remove it", of course.

It's always nice to see how democratic principles, such as freedom of speech matter to both repressive kingdoms and so-called democracies. The question remains, though. How democratic can you be when you are afraid of a news agency so much you violate press freedom? What does it say about you that you have something in common with a horrible repressive regime lead by fundamentalist nuts?  And most telling of all: why isn't the whole "Western World" up in arms about it?

So Trump said something remarkable: ‘states that sponsor terrorism risk falling victim to the evil they promote’


Interesting. When the shoe was on the other foot, things went a bit differently, even though in that case the above sentiment would have been a little bit more than justified. 


Some tact and empathy would have been useful, but then again: what can you expect of the Orange Baboon? In a way he is a great representation what the US foreign policy is about.