Why Would a Country Help Its Enemies?
Should Britain have sent food and fuel to Nazi Germany?
I’m old enough to have heard more than my share of towering bulldust, sanctimonious cant, and raging hypocrisy. But never so much as the avalanche of ignorant bile spewed by the ‘pro-Palestine’ mob.
From the ludicrously uninformed claim that Jews are ‘colonisers’ in their indigenous land, to the ridiculous ahistorical claim that ‘Palestinians’ are anything but Arab interlopers in the Jewish homeland, there seems to be nothing so obviously nonsensical that the keffiyeh mob won’t passionately believe.
But the festering, rotten, gargantuan cherry on the whole stinking cake of hypocrisy has to be the strident demands that Israel feed and supply the very enemy so fanatically dedicated to wiping the country (and Jews, globally) from the face of the Earth. Most recently, PM Anthony Albanese condemned Israel’s limitations on the supply of food and other aid to Gaza, labelling it “completely unacceptable”. “People are starving,” he said. “The idea that a democratic state withholds supply is an outrage.”
In case it escaped Albanese’s notice, Gaza attacked Israel without warning, massacring thousands of innocent civilians and taking many more hostage. Both were blatant war crimes (Hamas is, never forget, the elected government of Gaza).
Name one war in history – just one – where the attacked party was expected to supply food, fuel and energy to the enemy which attacked it.
In WWI, the Allies blockaded the Central Powers. Staples such as grain, potatoes, meat and dairy quickly became scarce. There were food riots in Germany, Austria, and Hungary. Germans were reduced to rations amounting to just 1,000 calories per day, below starvation level. In WWII, Germany likewise blockaded Britain. The US blockaded Japan.
In 1948, the Arab League imposed a boycott and blockade on the fledgling Israeli state. Egypt seized ships bound for Israel – including those carrying “foodstuffs and all other commodities”.
It’s called ‘war’.
Yet, Israel, alone of all nations in history, has actually supplied its enemies with what Israel’s enemies refuse to do for themselves.
Gaza is entirely dependent on free electricity from Israel. Because, in over two decades of Hamas rule, not one cent of the tens of billions of aid poured into Gaza went into building its own electricity infrastructure. Gaza not only refused to build its own water infrastructure, its rulers cut up their own water pipes to make rockets.
And any food aid that goes in, ends up right in Hamas’ hands. As drone footage has shown, Hamas fighters freely wander around UN compounds, seizing aid vehicles at gunpoint. Any Gazans who try to help themselves to the aid intended for them are beaten or shot at.
Israel feed and supply the very enemy so fanatically dedicated to wiping the country (and Jews, globally) from the face of the Earth
Earlier this year, Israel facilitated the entry of 25,000 aid trucks. That should have been enough for five to seven months – but Hamas stole it. Having pinched it, the elected rulers of Gaza then sell it back to Gazans, further financing Hamas’ war-making against Israel. ‘Aid’, then, is nothing more than supplying Hamas.
Something, apparently, our Foreign Minister is apparently only too keen to facilitate.
Foreign Minister Penny Wong joined 22 international counterparts to demand Israel allow the full resumption of aid in Gaza, warning that Palestinians there are starving, exhausted and being deprived of essential supplies.
Because Hamas stole it. Somehow, Wong can’t bring herself to acknowledge that basic fact.
 | A guest post by
|
This reads as an apology for statism, nationalism and militarism.
The State of Israel and Hamas gangsters both extract resources from their population by force to fund their military, that is forcefully conscripted. They then use their militaries to attack and kill the other, destroying life and property indiscriminately.
Being horrified at that and opposed to it is not anti-Jewish or anti-Palestinian - it is Libertarian.
To other readers who find this rant as offensively anti-libertarian as I do, here is how Grok describes it:
"From a libertarian perspective, the rant is anti-libertarian because it prioritizes ethno-nationalism, state sovereignty, and wartime collectivism over individual liberty, non-aggression, and non-interventionism. Its criticism of government leaders and progressive activism might superficially align with libertarian skepticism, but these are subsumed by a nationalist, pro-state agenda that libertarians would reject. The rant’s tone and arguments are more aligned with right-wing nationalism or hardline Zionism than the principled individualism of libertarianism."
I wholeheartedly agree with this analysis and depiction. This article does NOT represent Libertarian ideology and I personally feel it has no place on Liberty Itch.