2024-04-17 08:15:42
European leaders were quick to condemn Iran’s attack on Israel, but only one member, France, was directly involved in the downing of the missiles. According to G. Mažeikis, in the EU, which is full of different points of view, it is diplomacy that becomes the main engine.
“Diplomacy, in turn, means diversity and exclusion. For example, when it comes to the Palestinians, they are sharply distinguished from Hamas. It is not one and the same. Terrorist organizations, their war is separated from Palestinian life, which can be supported, people’s lives saved.
Iran is viewed in the same way, not only as a terrorist state, but also as its citizens. Iran is made up of many nations, many different people live in it, an opposition that the EU supports and would like to see democratic changes in Tehran. It is doubtful that EU parliamentarians or individual countries would agree to the fact that a dangerous operation was carried out against Iran,” the professor said in the “Gyvenu Europa” program of “Zinių radio” program.
According to G. Mažeikis, it is not easy for the Community to form a common position, but its different countries have the power to take actions incompatible with the EU.
“You have to remember that Iran is run by a group, with their Shiite followers and fanatics, who are in the millions who are very fanatical, who would like a bigger war, but Iran is not just this group. Thousands and thousands of opposition members are killed there every year. The regime is brutal. The EU is looking for other ways to solve problems when the state is being transformed from within, when the state itself is seeking some political results.
One way or another, the individual countries of the EU operate independently of the Community. Britain is not in the EU, but France is, and it can act independently of what the Community thinks and has proven this many times. Many countries can do the same, independently of the EU. It is a much more complicated issue when we are talking about the Community, because it still has to learn how to form its common policy and how to form its military forces,” the professor emphasized.
A number of members are strongly opposed to Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip. Perhaps Israel’s fiercest critic is Spain. However, the question arises whether such Community countries will separate the conflict between Iran and Israel from what Israel is doing in the Gaza Strip, and maybe they will adopt an attitude that is not beneficial to Israel?
According to the interviewee, the issue is extremely complex, and not being able to delve into it precisely can lead to even more problems.
“Jordan supported Israel, the United States. Jordan is an Islamic state. Until the 1990s, what we call Palestinians were called the Jordanians of this bank. They are deeply connected to Jordan. Jordan is one of those countries that would like to solve the Palestinian problem by peaceful means. Egypt would also like Jordan to solve this issue.
At that point, Iran would like to separate the terrorist Shiites and some Sunnis from Jordan and bring them into its fold. Here we see a conflict between two interested parties. Between Jordan, which defends Israel and is willing to negotiate, with millions of Palestinians living in the country, and Lebanon, which is heavily influenced by Iran, where there are pro-military, pro-Iranian organizations that would like to attack Israel.
At this point, Israel would like Iran to be punished on the one hand, and Jordan to be supported and opened up new opportunities on the other. The US also encourages this very selective approach.
But we see that when Israel attacks something, it is not always possible to separate the chaff from the wheat. Innocent people or those who do not want to cooperate with terrorist organizations are also killed in large numbers. This matter is not simple. The community also sometimes fails to distinguish between these things. Here’s the money that was meant for the Palestinians was used to arm Hamas. The issue is complicated, and when people do not delve into the above-mentioned issue, it can lead to a lot of bad mess,” noted G. Mažeikis.
The US has a clear position, and when we talk about the EU, there are many different countries, different points of view. However, the differences between the attitudes of the EU states could also become a tool for finding solutions in the Middle East.
“The EU understands diversity more, it understands that there are many different interests of people, democratic or non-democratic regimes in one territory. For us, this means that Lithuania has to show leadership when we talk about Belarus, so that it is not shaken only with the regime of (Alyaksandr) Lukashenka, bearing in mind that there are many different forces in Belarus, a strong democratic opposition.
We advocate diversity, we defend democracy in our region. How, for example, Jordan and Israel would like to defend democracy in their region, not to allow terrorist, authoritarian regimes to be confused with the nation. This is a question that needs to be able to distinguish. It is necessary that the finances allocated to Belarus be supervised by, say, Lithuania, which is likely to be better able to distinguish who is who in the environment of Belarus, in cooperation with the Belarusian opposition.
This is the kind of analogy where there is well-targeted support and aid, and not a crude one that divides everything into black and white and says that the Palestinians are terrorists and need to be bombed, which is complete nonsense,” – in the “Gyvenu” program of “Jiniai Radio” in Europe” said Vytautas Magnus University professor G. Mažeikis. According to him, it is better for politicians who do not understand exactly the situation in the Middle East to remain on the sidelines than to harm the democracies that are trying to be born in this land with their actions.
2024-04-17 08:15:42