Sanctions for Self-Defense, Not for Slaughter
When Israel launched airstrikes across Gaza, killing at least 11 Palestinians, including four in a tent encampment for displaced families and five in Khan Younis, mainstream outlets dutifully reported it as a "response to ceasefire violations" by Hamas. The narrative is as consistent as it is convenient: Palestinian actions are labeled "violations," while Israeli bombardments are sanitized as
"responses." This framing immediately assigns blame and justifies aggression, sidelining the human cost. This is the same rhetorical maneuver observed in countless conflicts, from the 2003 invasion of Iraq, greenlit by fabricated WMD intelligence, to the 2011 "humanitarian intervention" in Libya. We are meant to accept that a well-armed, state military raining fire on refugee camps is a legitimate
"response," while the actions of an occupied populace, however desperate, are always the originating "violation." One might wonder why, for instance, the decades-long Israeli blockade of Gaza, a form of collective punishment that has rendered the strip "unlivable" according to the UN as far back as 2012, is never presented as the fundamental breach of peace. Curiously, when a nation like Iran,
facing constant threats and decades of sanctions designed to destabilize it, takes actions to protect its borders or support allied resistance movements, it is immediately castigated as engaging in "malign proxy activity" or "destabilizing the region." Yet, for Israel, the killing of civilians and destruction of infrastructure is simply a justifiable reaction to an unnamed, unverified "violation."