The right side of justice, history, humanity

Editor -in -chief Alija Žerdin is a sir Ivan Lah In publication 31. Maja added a « reflection », which relativizes the editor’s position that humanity is an absolute criterion for judging who is on the « right side of history ». On the right side is one who acts humanly and spreading the boundaries of freedom and human rights, especially in relation to more endangered and helpless. In this regard, Netanyahu is not on the right side to refer to God’s election of his people. By the way: God helped the Israeli to beat Abimalek, and assured that « he would erase the memory of him », but it is not said that they have exterminated the Amalcans. Only Moses announced that « the Lord will fight them from generation to generation » (2 Mz 14-16). Otherwise, the extermination of people was usually God’s done after a great extermination with a universal dive. For example: « So when my angel will go before you and bring you to the Amorians, Hetejci, Perize, Canans, Hivejci and Jebusec, which I will exterminate » (2 MZ 23, 23). Six peoples. Netanyahu therefore acts in accordance with the Old Testament, which does not comply with the Hamurabi Code; With the melting principle, the « eye for the eye » limited the unbridled revenge and introduced proportionality.

The introductor writes that the winners of World War II were also overgrown against humanity. In many cases, they treated opponents, including captured and disarmed, and treated the civilian population inhumane. This assessment is disturbed by Mr. Ivan Lah. Nothing bad about allies! His « consideration » is bordering on the apology of their inhuman acts, saying that the writer of the editorial « does not » place the urgent dividing lines between revenge, riot and war « , that is, between different motives of inhuman actions. And, in the same spirit, it does not distinguish between commanded actions and arbitrary actions of military.

The Red Armedians had to walk and walk a long way from Stalingrad to Berlin, writes Mr. Lah. The triumphant and tired they relented their ghosts and raped the Germans. Some remote Siberians « not a domesticated notion of a captive. » Don’t they be resented? Certainly their victorious generals did not order this, they may even have punished them. The Red Army remains clean. After a double unsuccessful call, the Americans threw away « two strong bombs » to the Japanese capitulation, thereby saving « hundreds of thousands, perhaps even a million fallen and wounded Allied soldiers. » Mr Lah, this act is still controversial. Opponents refer to nuclear bombs at the time as unethical direct bombing of populated cities; the disproportionate strength of the weapons used as the capitulation would be achieved by using conventional weapons; excessive estimate of the number of potentially preserved lives of soldiers; showing political prestige before the Soviets. In our area, the argument already heard: with today’s criteria of ethics, it is not possible to evaluate the actions of people who have suffered during the war over the crimes of opponents. It borders on the apology of post -war assistance. The mention of these and the collaboration, however, means « separation of the people ». It is as if there is any « unity of the people » over humanity.

Instead of condemning the disproportionativeness of the Israeli response to Hamas’s terrorist act, Mr Lah advises « Muslims to replace some of his religious fanaticism » and to manage politics reasonably. He does not mention the fanaticism of the Israeli ruling click with the word. It does not mention how the Palestinians should replace the land and the estate stolen by the Israeli state with new settlements. And that the measure will be full: the « sublime of Muslim countries » in relation to Israel completely inappropriately compares with the « exaltation » of the European Union opposite Russia, without mentioning Putin’s authoritarian and aggressive renewal of the empire. The West sends to the east weapon in order to « the Slavs of military neutralize each other. » What this « neutralization » means is not clear. When they « neutralize themselves », so the thought of Mr. Lah goes, « the right, the record of history and humanity will align with the old Slavic audience the consent of the whole people », certainly not from the West « imported so -called democracy », in which, according to the ancient Greek model, « the wealthy elite government and slaves were robbed. » Atavistic advocacy of the old Slavic pedigree direct democracy against the representative democracy of « Germans ».

This « consideration » cannot really be contributed to the clear reflection of the horrors of contemporary history. The praiseworthy, however, is the desire of the Lord to « in favor of all humanity to resolve coexistence and disputes by agreement. » Let’s add: not by attacks on independent countries!