Tag Archives: palestine

Actions speak louder than words

Education, , , , ,

I am sure we all agree that we value human life, we defend human life, for some even before this, life is fully formed, and yet: we destroy lives in all armed conflicts and continue doing so at an alarming pace. We tend to say “It is for the good of all”, or “It  is for the better.” We also say: “We need to fight the ENEMY to protect our values”, “We need to punish the “bad guys”, the evil, the other side, etc.” The list of reasons given is long. We also make a difference concerning the lives that are lost. Not every human life seems to deserve to receive the same respect. The value of human life has become  relative. Taking just one example (as you know, there are many): When studying the available sources concerning the casualties in the long-standing conflict in the middle east between Israel and the Palestinians, the ratio of people killed over the decades seems to be 5 to 100. For 5 Israeli killed, 100 Palestinians are killed. In the recent atrocious 2 years the difference  seems to be even  greater: 1 to 100. Who can call this a necessary, proportional response to the atrocities of  “the evil enemy”. Apparently, only in the last few days we can start to hear heads of state and governments of the west cautiously  reacting to the sheer abomination of what is going on.

And it could be so simple: Stop supporting those who act in an unacceptable way. Stop offering them financial, ideological and moral support. So simple, yet, the money continues flowing, the calls for peace are weak, and the fear to be labelled antisemitic looms large. It is is time to realise that this cannot continue any further.  No, do not even try to put the label antisemitic on this. It is not antisemitic to strongly criticise the Israeli powers that be, those who decide, those who send others out to kill, and those who let this happen. The attempt to silence critics and to protect one’s unjust and cruel decisions and actions has been overused. And too many people have fallen into that trap. I am not going into the details of what the different sides of this ongoing struggle have done or have not done: the list of wrong-doings is too long, the risk of leaving something out is too huge. 

One thing, the only reasonable and morally acceptable reaction, that the powers not involved directly in the conflicts can and should have in any violent conflict, is the the following: they can force the warring parties to stop the destruction and the killing, to sit down at the table to negotiate a non-violent solution that can be accepted by both sides. Offering continued material, financial, ideological and moral support for one or the other or for both sides just continues the destruction. But to stop the support until the parties are ready to sit down and seriously negotiate can save lives and end wars. This is what real sanctions could look like and should be used for. Only for this. Not an endless number of sanctions packages against on side of the conflict. The negotiations that follow should be taking place in the framework of an impartial, only accountable to facts, the truth and to justice. We do have institutions that are supposed to play this role, however they would need to revive their impartiality.

This approach would work wonders in most of the ongoing conflicts on this planet. Why do we not see it happening? Well, “Cui bono” is the eternal question and it will deliver valid  answers. As long as the support for the conflicting parties pays off in direct financial, geopolitical and/or ideological gains the powers that be are inclined to follow that route. 

What they say publicly sounds different, of course. There they talk of justice, of blame, talk of more or less democracy, talk of defending the free world, of duty to support the “good guys”…  And who the “good guys” are usually depends on which side you place yourself.

War is never the solution. Many before us have seen that, have said and have received The Nobel Peace Prize for it in the case of Bertha von Suttner. Never. The moral and ethical reasons for that are obvious. I will not  further elaborate on those here. But I want you to consider this: every injustice imposed on people, every killing and every destruction of livelihood generates the wish for justice and also for revenge when justice cannot be found. So unless you, the “good guys”, are prepared to kill and exterminate all the “bad guys”, and unless you want to prepare the grounds for endless, eternal retaliation, you will have to stop making war.

NB: You might attempt to kill every enemy – terrorist as they are often called – in sight, and accept the civilian casualties in the thousands in the process. Know that history has shown that final solutions do not work to bring peace and prosperity. It has never worked and it will never work. It just kills a lot of people and destroys a lot of what civilisation has built over centuries, even millennia. 

That is too high a price, I would say. Well, I hope.

Is war war or is war a promise of peace?

Education, , , , , , ,

Europe is already spending more money on arms and military (about 300 billion)* than Russia (about 110 billion)* and still we hear of the Russian threat to the European Union. We hear about Russia going to conquer Europe all the way to Portugal and kill everybody and do other abominable things to those who is doesn’t kill. And we hear about one village to the east which resists and fights for the freedom of us all.*

There are those who hail the freedom fighters to the east and support their struggle which maims and ends the lives of many, young, men, destroys endless swaths of vital infrastructure and thus lays the foundation for generations of resentment. A fact we tend to forget.

Those voices come from comfortable armchairs in places where the destruction and killing is only present through the media, and where, after having written another comment of encouragement to the fighters in the east, they leave the quiet house and garden, get into their quiet electrical car with a good climatic conscience and a “I stand with ….” on their minds and social media profiles, and drive off into the sunset for a margarita on the rocks or on the beach.

Out of whose scrap book did this vision escape and become reality? The ghosts of our great grandfathers and mothers? The trigger happy writers of crime and punishment books? The composers of tragedies? The self-righteous cliques of all colours? The producers and vendors of arms? I do not know, although the latter group is quite a promising candidate to invent and support scenarios which promote their sales.

Paired with a total absence of historical knowledge and understanding, of rational, logical and critical thought, it leads to an overwhelming number of war-mongering statements of European political leaders, lesser leaders and followers, void of sense and just good to stoke the fire.

“800 billion euros more over the next 4 years for a rearmament plan of Europe” (Van der Leyen, 5 March 2025)*

There used to be a peace movement, strong before the two world wars of the 20th century with Bertha von Sutter receiving the peace Nobel Prize in 1905; and strong again after the wars, in the 60s and 70s. Somehow something was lost on the way, how else can you explain that parts of the former peace movement are passionately speaking out for the war efforts to continue.

We can note a certain tendency to forget the fundamental fact: actions have consequences, and what happens at a given moment always has roots in the time and in the actions of various players leading up to the present moment. Acts happened and they had consequences and lead to other acts, which again have consequences. 

No, history did not start on 24 February 2022. If you want to understand what is going on you need to look at the actions and their consequences in the years or decades leading up to  that moment. No, history did not start on 7 October 2023. Before judging one or the other conflict party you must analyse what happened before, the actions and their consequences.

When I look at the publicised opinion, in the media, statements of politicians, of opinion leaders of all sorts I always hear the unsaid implication that before these two dates everything was just fine, hunky-dory, great, fantastic … and then some bad villains started the violence and now innocent us, we have to defend ourselves. 

If you challenge their narrative by asking questions, by pointing out that there were things that happened before and that these might perhaps have to be taken into account before passing judgement, you are quickly relegated to the camp of conspiracy theorist and populists. 

Of course I am not saying that this could serve as an excuse for anyone who committed  unlawful acts, took part in carrying out atrocities and ignored international and national law. However, it has to be applied to all the involved parties, not just to one side. No-one has the right to ignore the law, no-one is justified to kill and destroy. As I said in earlier posts, there is not just war, there has never been a just war. Attempts to solve problems through the use of ultimate violence is not a solution. It is not ethical and it is not sustainable; it is just the breeding ground for future violence and future wars. 

Certainly there is the right to self-defence. Especially on a personal individual level. But on a country level? How far can we extend this right when we know the cost at present and the cost we and the coming generations will have to pay in the future. 

1 https://eda.europa.eu/news-and-events/news/2024/12/04/eu-defence-spending-hits-new-records-in-2023-2024

2 https://www.statista.com/statistics/262742/countries-with-the-highest-military-spending/

3 I apologise to Asterix and Obelix for this misplaced analogy

4 https://www.euronews.com/tag/ursula-von-der-leyen

Is war war or is war a promise of peace? | Education 3Download