Hipokrizija Zahoda: Kršenje mednarodnega prava je dovoljeno ZDA in Izraelu, prepovedano pa ostalim, ki nimajo ameriškega blagoslova

Izrael lahko bombardira Iran ali ubija civiliste v Iranu kadar hoče. Izrael lahko ubija civiliste, matere in otroke, v okupirani Palestini, kadar hoče. Lahko gradi civilne naselbine v okupirani Palestini, čeprav je to v nasprotju s Tretjo ženevsko konvencijo. Izrael lahko počne, kar hoče. Ker ima ameriški blagoslov. Za vse, kar naredi. Tudi če vrže v zrak Teheran. In ZDA lahko počnejo, kar želijo. Kršijo mednarodno pravo, kadar želijo. V nasprotju z mednarodnim pravom so njihove čete prisotne v Siriji, bombardirajo sirska mesta in ubijajo sirske civiliste. Z izgovorom, da branijo kurdsko manjšino in preganjajo ostanke zločinske ISIS (ki so jo ZDA same ustvarile).

Ko ruske sile pridejo na ozemlje Ukrajine, da zaščitijo 12-milijonsko rusko manjšino, še posebej pred zločinskimi nacističnimi skupinami in nacističnimi (azovskimi) bataljoni, ki so del ukrajinskih vojaških sil, in ko ruske sile bombardirajo ukrajinska mesta in ko umirajo ukrajinski civilisti, je to zločin in kršenje mednarodnega prava. Kar seveda je, je eklatanten zločin in kršenje mednarodnega prava. Prav zaradi tega, da se to ne bi dogajalo, se je oblikovalo mednarodno pravo in ženevske konvencije.

Toda zakaj veljajo za ZDA in Izrael drugačni vatli kot za Rusijo ali katero drugo državo, ki nima ameriškega blagoslova? Zakaj je nekaj zločin in kršenje mednarodnega prava samo takrat, ko se tako odločijo v Washingtonu in zakaj ne tudi takrat, ko v Washingtonu rečejo, da ni? Zakaj lahko samo Washington, kot da je bog, odloča o tem, kaj je prav in kaj ne?

Spodaj je dober komentar te hipokrizije Zahoda s strani Roberta Wrighta, avtorja izvrstnih knjig, kot je “Moral Animal” itd.

This week—while Secretary of State Antony Blinken was visiting Jerusalem, as it happens—Israel launched a drone strike on a military facility in Iran.

At a press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the next day, Blinken referred to the attack as an act of war and a violation of international law. Just kidding! That’s what Blinken says when Russia violates international law by engaging in aggression against other countries. What Blinken actually said, standing next to Netanyahu, was that the two of them had “discussed deepening cooperation to confront and counter Iran’s destabilizing activities in the region and beyond.” 

We will leave it for others to argue about which countries have done the most to destabilize the Middle East; there are plenty of candidates for that honor, including the US and Israel. What is less debatable is that if you ask which countries have committed the most acts of transborder aggression that violate international law, Israel is way, way ahead of Iran.

Israel has conducted numerous operations that—like this one—were special ops attacks against Iran launched from within Iran (perhaps most memorably, using a remote controlled robotic machine-gun to kill an Iranian nuclear scientist in 2020 as he took a drive with his wife). And Israel has conducted countless strikes on Iranian or Iran-allied forces in Syria—which are also illegal, since they’re against the wishes of the Syrian government. 

These things don’t come in response to Iranian attacks on Israel, and Iran doesn’t respond to them by attacking Israel. They just happen and then happen again and then happen again.

But who are we to talk? America’s troops in Syria are also violating international law, since the Syrian government doesn’t want them there (not to mention that these troops facilitate the theft of Syria’s oil).

Of course, Israel and the US have their reasons. Israel doesn’t want Iran to build ballistic missiles (the reason for the latest strike), or to develop nuclear technology that might someday be used for a bomb, or to keep sending weapons to Hezbollah (hence some of the strikes in Syria). And the US says its troops are in Syria to help the Kurds and fight the remnants of ISIS.  

But countries that violate international law always say they have their reasons. Russia says it invaded Ukraine to protect ethnic Russians who felt imperiled or persecuted by the Ukrainian government (as no few in fact did). To say that you oppose violations of international law except when the violators can come up with a rationale is to say, in effect, that you don’t oppose violations of international law.

Israel’s attack on Iran was overshadowed in the media by turbulence in Israel’s more immediate neighborhood. After Israeli soldiers killed nine Palestinians in a West Bank raid targeting militants, a Palestinian retaliated by killing seven Israelis, and settlers across the West Bank retaliated by attacking Palestinians.

The construction of every Jewish settlement on the West Bank, by the way, is a violation of international law; the third Geneva Convention, which Israel signed, prohibits the transfer of civilian populations into territory acquired by force. The US has, with rare exception, not only turned a blind eye to this fact but used its UN Security Council veto to stifle official recognition of it. If, after the Ukraine War, Russian civilians migrate into Ukrainian territory still held by Russia, you may see US officials exhibit a newfound appreciation of the Third Geneva Convention. 

Some Americans have been surprised at how many nations haven’t rallied behind the West’s efforts in support of Ukraine. There are various reasons for this lackluster support, but one of them is surely that what Americans see as nobly upholding the “rules based order” many foreigners see as a hypocritical power play—as defending a system in which America makes the rules and then decides who gets to break them.

Vir: Robert Wright, Nonzero

En odgovor

  1. Temu se reče; “Rules based order”.

    Sicer nihče točno ne ve kaj to pomeni, ampak “rules” niso nujno mednarodno pravo.
    Mogoče pa “rules” pomenijo pravilo, kdaj upoštevamo mednarodno pravo. Če nam ustreza, potem jih, če ne, pa se upoštevajo neka druga pravila.

    Kako so že rekli Rimljani, ki so bili modri možje :
    Argument z gorjačo (Argumentum ad Baculum)

    Všeč mi je

%d bloggers like this: