Guardian editor defends Hamas’s right to kill Israelis, AGAIN.
Now, here is the relevant passage from Milne’s latest op-ed, published today (Gaza: this shameful injustice will only end if the cost of it rises, July 16th) at the Guardian:Andrew Bolt: ABC [TV Australia] still blind to the savagery of terrorist group Hamas
So the Palestinians of Gaza are an occupied people, like those in the West Bank, who have the right to resist, by force if they choose – though not deliberately to target civilians. But Israel does not have a right of self-defence over territories it illegally occupies – it has an obligation to withdraw.However, Milne is consistent in both op-eds with regard to one thing: Israel has no right to defend itself from Hamas terror.
While Milne’s justification for the intentional killing of Israelis is not surprising given his history of praising anti-imperialist “resistance movements” across the globe, the mere fact that his latest polemic is consistent with his broader political orientation certainly doesn’t make it any less morally repulsive.
In fact, Israel drops leaflets in targeted areas warning civilians to get out. At times it also gives a knock at the door — a rocket that just makes a loud noise as a warning before the real missiles come.Bloodguilt Over Jews Leads to Blood Libels Against Jews
But Hamas hides its missiles among civilians it conscripts as a human shield — and as propaganda props if they die.
Hamas’s Al Aqsa TV station on July 13 even broadcast a command to residents “to remain in their homes and disregard the demands to leave, however serious the threat may be”.
Then there’s the ABC’s naive belief that Israel is dealing with a rational enemy. Here’s Ferguson again, telling the Israeli spokesman, “you’re going to have to sit down with Hamas in order to secure that solution”.
In fact, Israel can’t talk peace with Hamas when it wants Jews dead and Israel destroyed.
The Hamas charter even declares the time of peace “will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them) ...”
Why does the ABC not recognise a true enemy not just of Jews but of the values of the West?
The Europeans, it seems, are becoming increasingly comfortable with old-fashioned Jew hatred in their midst, whether homegrown or imported.
There's a reason for that. In much of Europe, bloodguilt over the Holocaust still hangs over the heads of the population. According to a 2012 Anti-Defamation League survey of European countries, 45 percent of Austrians, 35 percent of French, 43 percent of Germans, 63 percent of Hungarians and 53 percent of Polish citizens felt that it was "probably true" that "Jews still talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust." Many of those who wish to move beyond the Holocaust, therefore, look for a rationale to relieve national guilt -- and what better way to relieve national guilt than to label the Jewish State an aggressor? After all, if the Jews have become the villains, then why spend too much time thinking about their victimization?
Of course, the labeling of Jews as bloodthirsty villains led to the Holocaust in the first place. Adolf Hitler saw the Jews as bloodsuckers driven by greed and dual loyalty. So did much of the rest of Europe. In the minds of those who murdered Jews en masse, Jews had it coming, because, in the words of Hitler: "The struggle for world domination will be fought entirely between us -- between Germans and Jews. All else is facade and illusion."
