Global Intifada

The Supreme Court of Israel has recently upheld the government’s decision to reduce fuel and electricity to Gaza in order to combat its arch-nemesis, HAMAS. The Israeli government recently engaged in this tactic after HAMAS blew up the wall on the Egyptian border in order to avoid a full Israeli blockade that restricted even food and fuel into Gaza. The Supreme Court decision justified the new blockade on the grounds of national security defense stating that such actions tolerable as a Israel had been targeted by rocket attacks by HAMAS. The general vibe that one gets from the court is that it is okay to “fight fire with fire.” Of course, the problem with this reasoning is that the tactics used by HAMAS are classified as terrorist, while the actions of Israel are not even questioned in the media or by the government.
The mere fact that HAMAS and Israel are repeated offenders to Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention should raise some eyebrows:

Art. 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

The real issue isn’t whose committing which atrocities. Israel posits itself to be a modern democracy, a beacon of enlightenment in a hostile, anti-Western Middle East. It is clearly a contradiction of the Western values it so vehemently stands for to engage in such atrocities. HAMAS portrays itself as an Islamist organization. It is clearly a contradiction of the Islamic values it so vehemently stands for to engage in such atrocities since killing civilians is a violation of Islamic law. Both entities are violating their very philosophical foundations. The real issue is why there is such a glaring difference in treatment by the international community by two entities that, for all practical purposes, behave exactly the same.

Or is this one of those “you say tomato, I say tomatOE” sort of things?

Share This