The
construction of a port for Gaza with the ostensible aim of delivering
aid recalls the remark of John F Kennedy about the division of Berlin by
a fence and later a wall: that it was a hell of a lot better than a
war. That’s because everyone knows this port may be someday used to
depopulate Gaza without inconveniencing Israel and Egypt. As Andrew
Jackson told the Cherokee: exile is better for you than death. But, no
matter what happens, we will have your land.
Thus, a Leitmotiv:
Demanding
the protection of a civilian population under occupation according to
international law whilst providing the arms, funds, and political
support for starving and killing them.
Demanding
the replacement of a prime minister whilst knowing that any likely
replacement, and the majority of Israelis, endorse the same means and
ends for Gaza and the West Bank as he does.
Demanding
respect for the territorial integrity of a post-imperial state (Kuwait,
Ukraine, etc.) whilst colluding in the redrawing of the borders of
another (Serbia, Western Sahara, etc.) by force.
Demanding
the choice of war by a weaker power against a stronger one whilst
insisting that the war isn’t your own by proxy and, at the same time, is
backed by the majority of your own people (when it isn’t).
Demanding
that NATO put ‘boots on the ground’ in Ukraine whilst knowing that most
NATO members will never publicly agree to doing that, and knowing that
some already have done.
Demanding
a respect for the democratic process whilst provoking or defending
‘regime change’ (ie exile or death) of unpopular rulers.
And so on.
The
impartial observer is moved to ask, isn’t all this hypocrisy in the
nature of things? Well yes, it is. So too is what usually follows
dishonour, polite or otherwise. Disgrace.
Or worse, as JFK found out. Or, maybe not. Checking out before the bill came due, as someone once said, was a wise career move.