The fate of Protasevich, Navalny and Leopoldo that neither the Palestinians nor the Colombians have

 

The fate of Protasevich, Navalny and Leopoldo that neither the Palestinians nor the Colombians have 

By Karen Méndez: Three events have shocked much of the world during this month of May, but only one achieved a firm and unanimous response from the European Union. Only one was described by them as an "international scandal": the alleged forced landing of a plane in Belarus. 

 Between May 10 and 21, the Israeli army killed some 248 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip in its fight against Palestinian militias, which after the launch of missiles killed about 12 Israelis. Of the total Palestinian fatalities, a quarter of them were children and minors.

 In addition to that, the Israeli Army bombed schools, hospitals, laboratories, sanitation structures and residential buildings and the international press. The attacks also took place against a territory that has been blocked by the State of Israel for 14 years and that even in the midst of a pandemic, has refused to vaccinate the Palestinians, violating their responsibilities as occupying power, and in turn hindering entry. of coronavirus vaccines purchased by the Palestinian authorities.

 In the midst of the violent escalation, the Israeli government argued that it was exercising its right to self-defense, but international organizations, activists, and different governments around the world denounced that it was not an isolated event because from time to time Israel makes a disproportionate use of force, it commits war crimes by attacking civilian targets and constantly violates the rights of the Palestinian people. 

As the humanitarian emergency worsened in Gaza, on the other side of the world, Colombians denounced that the state security forces were killing them. Human rights organizations in that country have recorded more than 40 murders by the Public Force since the protests began on May 28 and more than 400 disappeared. In addition, the installation of houses to dismember people and the existence of mass graves have been denounced.

 But neither what has happened in Colombia nor in the Gaza Strip has provoked a strong condemnation from the European Union that would make it possible to stop the massive violation of human rights in those two countries. 

 On the Palestinian case, the European Union Foreign Spokesperson, Peter Stano explained that "no one in the European Union put the option of sanctions on the table" against Israel because that is an instrument that is used "when all else fails." . That is why his bet was "to resolve the escalation of the war through diplomatic channels.

" But if it is a last resort that is used, why have unilateral coercive measures, called by them sanctions, been so easily imposed against countries such as Venezuela, Russia or Belarus? Have diplomatic channels been exhausted with those countries?

 Sanctions have been imposed against Venezuela for alleged human rights violations, not to mention Chavista citizens who have been murdered and even burned alive by opponents, and even for the holding of the 2018 presidential elections. In addition, serious threats were made of apply more measures if the Justice took action against former deputy Juan Guaidó, who proclaimed himself president in 2019 in a square in Caracas. The coercive measures have been maintained against the Bolivarian country despite the "devastating effects" it has caused on the population, as warned by the UN special rapporteur, Alena Douhan. 

Sanctions have been imposed on Russia for supporting the population of Eastern Ukraine, for recovering the territory of Crimea at the request of its citizens, for alleged interference in the United States elections, for unproven cyberattacks and for alleged poisoning, also not proven, of the opponent Alexey Navalni. 

 Against Belarus, harsh sanctions have also been imposed for the holding of the 2020 presidential elections, which the European bloc considered fraudulent, and recently for, allegedly, having forced the landing in Minsk of a plane that was traveling from Athens to the Lithuanian capital and that It had as a crew member Roman Protasevich, one of the promoters of the demonstrations who was unaware of Lukashenko's victory. 

 For the President of the Spanish Government, Pedro Sánchez, the landing of the plane in Belarus was an "unacceptable" event and for the European Union an "international scandal." Not even 48 hours passed, it was still unclear what had happened, when the European Council approved a battery of sanctions against the Belarusian government. In addition, they demanded the immediate release of Protasevich. 

 The revelation of the audio of the conversation between the plane's pilot and air traffic controllers mattered little that would show that the landing was agreed upon after the warning that came from Switzerland about a possible bomb that could detonate upon arrival in Vilna, the Lithuanian capital.

 Some may say that the landing of the plane was an outburst, that it was a maneuver to stop Protasevich, okay, everyone can have their opinion, but why didn't the European Union say the same when they put their lives at risk at the time? Bolivian President Evo Morales when several European countries prevented him from landing or flying over their territory due to an unfounded suspicion that Edward Snowden was traveling with him? Why don't they raise their voices with the same forcefulness when they massacre the Palestinian or Colombian people? Are some lives worth more than others? Why do they defend individuals such as Leopoldo López, Navalny and Potrasevich while keeping silent about the massacres in Colombia and the war crimes committed by Israel against the Palestinians? Who makes the decisions in the European Union ?, Why are they scandalized that in Venezuela, Russia or Belarus the Justice acts against those who have called to overthrow those governments if in their own countries they ma nThey even jailed singers simply for the content of some songs? Why hand out sanctions so lightly against some governments and be so cautious with others? Do they really defend human rights? Or do they use the discourse of human rights to apply measures that violate the UN Charter and thus suffocate governments that are uncomfortable for the interests of the United States? 

There are many questions and too many contradictions, too double standards.