The USA emerges as heroes who changed the course of WW2, consolidating its reputation as liberators and guardians of democracy and human freedom, at least at that time.
In fact, the Japanese shot themselves in the foot with the attack on Pearl Harbor, forcing a continental country into the war that unbalanced the German and Japanese chances. This is proof that unquestionable trust, support and faith in leaders is not necessarily a good path. The Japanese people paid dearly for their ideology with the deaths of thousands, both on the battlefield and off. Bent on their pride, and reformed from their mistakes, through commitment, determination and strength, they rebuilt their nation with the support of their former enemies (Marshall Plan) and today they are their allies.
Their previous leaders were wrong and led the people to disaster.
How far is it worth following someone simply because you are not prepared to have your own opinion regardless of what the majority opinion is?
The Americans were also able to master the nuclear weapon first, as Europe was destroyed by the destruction of mutual conflict and economically fragile.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki definitively end the world conflict of WW2, in the face of an accounting whose balance would be even worse without a drastic measure, as it would cost even more lives than those lost.
WW2 was a war that lasted 6 years and killed around 60 million people.
This aura of liberators sustained the American model of life sold to the whole world through Hollywood, its film industry that exceeded global quality at the time, but this same aura hid its stains soaked in blood due to the internal conflicts of the Civil War and others that supported the same basis as Hitler's principles — racial discrimination —, exchanging Jews for blacks, Chinese, etc.
Discrimination always finds a reason, even if it is irrelevant, to "murder" everyone who is not close to the image of their executioners.
USA and Germany, two countries facing the same problems with completely different endings.
Overloaded by propaganda, we hardly think about it.
Discrimination is just an escape valve for the egocentric cruelty of the human soul that needs a justification to expose itself to its murderous instincts.
The racial discrimination promoted by Hitler in Germany was drastic, but other countries are not far behind like the USA itself, as well as England, India, Russia, China, etc.
Perhaps there is some country free from blame.
If such a country exists, it is probably not inhabited by humans or simply there has not been the opportunity.
And when I see what human beings are capable of doing, I feel scared for my own human image and it gives me chills when people without information start to erect the barricades of differences.
The humanitarian meaning is very relative and depends on each culture and the predominant state of mind at that time of life of that people.
How many times do we use the "humanitarian sense" on both sides, putting good as a facade for the evil that we wish to consolidate?
So we are led to consider...
According to Hitler, how many Jews was needed to be eliminated to compensate for the social damage caused by them?
According to him, everyone!
How many more Palestinians will need to die to compensate for the Jews who died in the fateful Hamas attack on Israel?
According to press figures, the Hamas attack caused approximately 1,000 deaths and 200 kidnappings.
According to the same press, the number of Muslims killed by the Israeli reaction now exceeds 30,000 people.
Would a Jew be worth 30 Muslims?
According to Netanyahu, perhaps more if the Israeli attacks continue in the same way as they have done until now, because it will be difficult for Israel to eliminate all the "seeds" of the enemy interspersed not only among the Palestinian people of Gaza and surrounding areas, but also covered by other nations dissatisfied with the Israeli people.
Is the right to life of the one human being greater than the other?
Including psychopaths?
What about the death penalty, what does it look like in this context?
Many will answer yes!
Some are ideologically based, and others are based on the individual's ability to accumulate economic resources.
Unfortunately, that's what we are, at least for the most part, for now and for a long time!!!
Netanyahu's strategy reminds me of a family man, whose family was murdered by his neighbor who disappeared, hiding in the neighborhood. Would the father of the family have the right to destroy the neighborhood to eliminate the murderer?
What if the neighborhood does have a habit of covering up murderers?
On the other hand, knowing that the father of the family could not eliminate the neighborhood, wouldn't this murderer continue to take advantage of hiding there, serving as an example and encouragement to others?
To what extent did the people of Gaza collude with Hamas and to what extent were they victims?
If Netanyahu's attitude is disproportionate, on the other hand it also discourages future terrorist strategies that follow the same model of hiding under the cloak of anonymity of the people who welcome him, encouraging the people under such circumstances to collaborate less, and to submit reacting with the prudence that seeks to avoid its own death on one side or the other.
The striking fact is that there is no side free from blame and that an extreme reaction leads to another that is equally or more extreme.
Another striking fact about our personality is that a serious error on one side has the ability to make us blind to the mistakes of the opposite side.
It is necessary to remember that the trigger for the conflict began with a cowardly attack by Hamas on Israeli civilians.
The right to self-defense is a basic right, but its limits become blurred when the enemy mixes with the people and the people with the enemy.
Although each side has its reasons in conflicts that have been going on for decades, deciding who is most to blame when the error of one side leads to errors on the other side is a pure waste of time because there is no way to count the events and obtain a net result.
The only plausible solution would be to eliminate the complaints on both sides and start again, but what would guarantee that there would not be a recurrence on either side?
As long as sincere and reciprocal goodwill does not prevail, the reason of the strongest will always prevail without a peaceful solution.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário