Moral Clarity part 15: Thinking about where you actually stand

I truly didn't want to continue making these posts, but it seems I can't help myself, the world being where it is, and the situation always developing, or rather deteriorating. We live in a world in which a lot is said publicly about everything, there are already too many words spewed liberally, imprecisely and often intentionally to obscure, confuse and sow distrust by muddying the waters. How is adding more words going to help? I ask myself. Maybe if those words are intended to remind us to take a step back to sort out the confusion. To think not of words but to focus on actions and their consequences to help us reflect on where we actually stand in a moral sense. For example, consider:     

If you were a Jew who supported Donald Trump, you stood with a President (and party) who presided over the worst massacre of Jews on American soil in its history (the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting).

Or how about, if you were a Jew who supported Netanyahu, you stood with a Prime Minister (and party) who presided over the worst massacre of Jews on Israeli soil in its history (October 7th).

One may wonder if these facts are connected.

Sometimes words do match actions, and we just haven't been paying enough attention. For instance, since 2005 when Israel abandoned Gaza, Hamas has continually and regularly attacked Israel with rockets. These were all unprovoked attacks. October 7th was only the culmination of an ongoing gradual process. You might argue that the Israeli blockade of Gaza was a kind of provocation because it made life 'unlivable' for Palestinians. The facts demonstrate otherwise. The blockade was ineffective in the only way it was meant to be effective, stopping Hamas from building its war machine and network of tunnels. While there was a blockade Hamas's leadership got rich on stolen public funds, and built a formidable infrastructure to wage war against Israel. Also, consider that there is at least one Gaza border that Israel had no control over, with Egypt. The life of Palestinians in Gaza was made 'unlivable' not by Israel, but by Hamas, because Hamas was devoted not to the wellbeing of Palestinians but to their stated mission and purpose, to destroy Israel and kill Israelis. 

And then there is the case of where the UN actually stands, despite its pronouncements. The UNRWA is either wittingly or unwittingly complicit in Hamas atrocities. Its schools, hospitals and shelters have been used by Hamas terrorists to attack Israel and shelter militants. It needs to be dismantled and the effort to support Palestinians as generational refugees needs to end. In an unprecedented way, no other agency is more responsible for turning the Palestinian people into international parasites, and for maintaining that status quo for generations. Their lot has never improved since 1948, only deteriorated.  

In a rare move, the UN Director General evoked a special article to demand an emergency vote in the Security Council and the General Assembly (GA) on an immediate 'humanitarian' ceasefire in Gaza. The US vetoed the resolution in the Security Council. But this will be the first time in history that the GA will vote in favour of one of its member states standing down from defending its sovereignty after being attacked by a non-state terrorist actor, essentially siding with terrorists.

Words matter. And actions matter more in the final analysis.