The U.S. president, Barack Obama, speaking at the White House, says that Russia must bear the consequences of their acts. Sure, everyone must face the consequences of their actions. The U.S. including. When, by the way, the U.S. will account for the destruction of Iraq? The sr. José Manuel Mourao, the European Union, says in an interview with Folha de S. Paulo on July 17, that "Russia must decide whether to join the international community - respecting values and principles - or you want to isolate and follow a different course. "And what are the "values and principles" of the international community? I did not say and was not asked.
They say the U.S. and NATO that Russia encouraged the insurgency that resulted in the rise of Crimea and his request to return to Russian territory (which belonged until 1974), reintegration that Russia accepted promptly, formalizing it in his act of Parliament (something resembling the annexation of nearly half of Mexico by the U.S. ...). It is also said that Russia feeds insurgents in Donetsk remaining in combat troops from Kiev. A Malaysia Airlines plane was shot down in Ukrainian airspace when flying over the war-torn territory, likely the work of the rebels. Hence the international condemnation, hence the political and economic embargoes that accumulate against the Putin government. Thus Russia suffers the consequences of his actions.
It is known that Israel (protected politically and militarily by the U.S.) occupies territories in countries like Syria in defiance of resolutions of the Security Council and the UN General Assembly and decisions of the International Court of Justice.
Israel is systematically installing settlers in Arab territories. Israel, with its modern air force and its navy is killing civilians in Gaza, bombing densely populated residential neighborhoods, schools and hospitals. Bombed, even a beach where children amused. Can call this attack defense strategy? Israel, with its brave soldiers within powerful battle tanks, is invading Gaza to face (ie, murder) unarmed civilians.
In the last incursion by land (2009) Israel killed 1,300 Palestinians. For the current razzia Israel promises "close coordination between military units, including tanks, infantry, corps of engineers and intelligence, combined with air and naval support. Over 18,000 reservists were summoned, beyond the 48,000 already displaced, "according to the newspaper O Globo. Globo reporter, in this scenario the shares, refers to "one of the greatest military apparatuses in the world." All this for what? For face, 'armed' militants with assault rifles. Such attacks before the criminal inertia of the 'civilized world 'became systematic. years ago. on' conflict 'this month have killed more than 500 Palestinians, almost all civilians (75% according to the UN), many women and children, and one Israeli civilian dead. Thereupon can be called pure exercise of the right to 'self-defense'?
On one hand, a poor, whom the historical tragedy stole hope; the other, a nation rich and powerfully armed, even with nuclear weapons. The disproportion of forces does not cause horror. On the Palestinian side do not die neither Europeans nor Americans. No one with blue eyes. Die, only Arabs, poor Arabs, almost always badly dressed, and it does not account for the statistics of our cynical humanism.
Basically, it's terrible to say, there is a hint of racism.
Neither Obama nor Manuel Mourao tell us that Israel must accept the consequences of their acts, by which, incidentally, never responded. It was by pure humanism - the end of the war - that the U.S. unleashed two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians when they wanted to end the war was over? There was the U.S. that invaded Vietnam (defending herself from what?) And their populations massacred with indiscriminate shelling and discharges napalm? When you accept the consequences of his actions? Best wondering: when the cynical 'world order' will have moral conditions require that all criminals - statesmen and countries - take the consequences of their actions?
How the European Union is silent on the genocide of our days, it is concluded that genocide does not harm neither the 'values' nor the 'principles' of the 'international community', this abstract and cynical thing.
The Prime Minister of Israel is a happy man today; thanks to the radicalism of Hamas (and the indifference of, cowering Arab states) was given the fullest exercise their most primitive instincts.
This is not to defend Hamas, but to save the Palestinian people, before they stripped him of the land, then the possibility of organizing itself as a state. Now you remove the only asset they have left in life. In fact, the massacre of Palestinians began just before the founding of the State of Israel, when thousands were forced to leave their homes.
Today, Israel is a marginal state, it lives on the margins of international law, without regard to the resolutions of the UN General Assembly, on the margins of human rights declarations, alongside the principle of non-aggression, non-intervention, an enemy declared peace. This is militaristic state run by fanatics darkest right. In fact, were it not a paradox, what should be said is that the Jewish state has nothing to do with culture and the martyrdom of Jews in its history of millennia.
And that tells us the international 'public opinion'?
There is even an international public opinion is what is known in Brazil and around the world, internationalized published opinion, the product of an increasingly media (and dangerously), which overlooked the past, and so almost suicidal fuel what there are more reactionary that may exist on the face of the earth?
What to do? How to face the monstrous alliance of mainstream media with international financial capitalism, and this with the military-industrial complex that depends on the war - the destruction of the murders, the devastation of countries and the massacre of peoples and nations - to survive, take profits and food financial capitalism that feeds the press around the world?
There was a time when the world was indignant, was horrified. At that time, a philosopher than 90 years - an unarmed English, worried about life and morals, Sir Bertrand Russell - created a tribunal to try crimes of U.S. War against Vietnam. This Court had more strength than the Nuremberg therefore did not need the power of weapons to dictate sentences.
We must always look for reasons to keep feeding hope.