Skip to comments.EU Ambassador insists 'violence never justified'
Posted on 02/06/2020 4:23:36 AM PST by Eleutheria5
EU Ambassador to Israel Emanuele Giaufret issued a meticulous statement following last night's ramming attack that wounded twelve Golani soldiers, and today's abortive Temple Mount shooting attack where a policeman was lightly wounded and the attacker was killed.
Giaufret tweeted: "Following with concern the rise of tensions and spike of violence. My thoughts are with the families of victims and I wish a speedy recovery to those who were injured. Violence is never justified."
Palestinian Media Watch Legal Strategies head IDF Lt. Col. (res.) Adv. Maurice Hirsch anwered the EU Ambassador, saying: "If violence is never justified, why does the EU in Israel help the PA fund it? Or is violence only justified when Palestinians attack Jews?"
Hirsch continued: "And that is without talking about the fact that the EU continues to give aid to the PA, turning a blind eye to the PA's Pay-for-Slay policy. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...
"If violence is never justified, why does the EU in Israel help the PA fund it? Or is violence only justified when Palestinians attack Jews?"
Since the EU flack equated the attacers with the vitims, the answer is obvious. Thanks Eleutheria5.
“lightly wounded” = interesting phrase.
Violence is warranted in self-protection and justice (and revenge if the courts can’t help).
I misread the phrase “meticulous statement” in the first sentence as “malicious steamer”.
Or was it a misreading?
Self-defense against an unjust aggressor is justified.
Arguably, even against a just agressor self-defense is justified. The ancient Israelites invaded Canaan and were told to leave nothing living. G-d told them to do this from on high. Were the ancient Canaanites to just lie down and bare their necks? No. They fought back ferociously.
Likewise, the American Indians—sorry. Native Americans—retaliated viciously for the US cavalry’s campaigns against them, and also massacred settlers who had done them no direct harm. There was justice to their violence, and it was in some degree self defense. But did that mean that the settlers and the cavalry had to just lie down and take it? Of course not.
In a bare-knuckled war, violence is justified on both sides. That doesn’t justify Nazis sending innocent non-combatants to the gas chambers, or wiping out whole villages to get rid of partisan fighters. But it does justify firing back when someone fires on them, regardless of who’s right and who’s wrong in the substance of the dispute.
Gooeyfart has been breathing in his own flatulence for too long. It’s effected his judgement.
Giaufret tweeted: “... Violence is never justified.”
Truth hurts, doesn’t it - you hypocrite!
The Quakers, when Pennsylvania joined with other colonies for mutual defense, would vote for “flour and other forms of powder” to pretend that they were not approving appropriations for gun powder. Pacifism is unworkable so long as men are violent somewhere, and therefore its proponents, to the extent that they take their belief seriesly but must deal with the violent reality of a violent world, have to resort to hypocrisy and pretense.
The Ambassador's "Union" supports the terrorists and their families financially. And they complain about the violence?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.