First, we set up Operation Amalthea to send aid to the victims (regardless of whether it ever reached them or prevented their deaths. Good intentions are what count, apparently).
Then we rolled out the red carpet and welcomed the invader.
All this shortly after closing the curtain on “50 years of occupation” – our own occupation, in which, under different circumstances, we might have seen parallels with the invasion of Gaza. After all, all invasions yield the same results.
The Israeli invasion of Gaza, with over 40,000 dead – civilian populations amid the rubble of schools, hospitals and neighbourhoods – is now being characterised by many as genocide.
That’s why the International Court issued arrest warrants for Israel’s Prime Minister and former Defence Minister.
The warrants relate to war crimes, such as using starvation as a method of warfare, and crimes against humanity, including murder and persecution.
Yet here we are, welcoming Israel’s President, and we would likely welcome Netanyahu himself if he decided to come, ignoring the international warrant issued against him.
And then we’d weep about how the international community doesn’t see our own just cause, maintaining equidistance between invader and invaded, between occupier and occupied.
“The government has a responsibility to safeguard the Republic’s vital interests”, explains the deputy government spokesman, “and the President deemed it appropriate to respond to the Israeli President’s request for a meeting”.
Our vital interests, then. These might be Israeli investments in Cyprus, or perhaps the notion that we’re now part of a geopolitical alliance that holds the reins of the world.
Meetings with Biden, calls with Trump supporters, embraces with Meloni, greetings to Musk via Fidias, coffee with Erdogan… This is supposedly the right side of history. Realpolitik, even as genocide unfolds next door.
DISY made it clear in their response to AKEL: “They want us to sever all diplomatic relations with a powerful country in the region”.
So we choose the powerful. Only in such relationships, the weak usually play the role of butler.
They exist in the courtyard of the powerful to serve them. Unless they’re clever enough to cash in their services for their country’s vital interests.
But even then, do a country’s vital interests justify turning a blind eye to violations of international law? And when our own rights are violated again, what will we say?
That when others were being killed, we thought we were building bridges of peace in the region?