Mazarin and the paradoxical Peloponnesian postmodern world
Be careful: if you are a Zionist and supporter of the Palestinian genocide, this text will certainly irritate you deeply.
In 1630, Jules Mazarin, born Giulio Raimondo Mazzarino, Mazarino, Mazarini, or Mazzarini and known was given the mission to participate in the “...peace negotiations with the Cardinal de Richelieu during the War of the Succession of Mantua, and prevented the armies of France and Spain confronted each other in Casale Monferrato. He was appointed, by the Holy See, deputy legate of Pope Urban VII in Avignon. He was, for some time, an extraordinary nuncio in Paris until Cardinal Richelieu summoned him to serve under King Louis XIII. Enjoying great prestige from Richelieu and Louis XIII, he gained French nationality in 1639 and was named cardinal in 1641, without ever being ordained a priest. He was named successor to Cardinal Richelieu after the latter's death and, following the death of Louis XIII in 1643, became prime minister by the regent of France, Anne of Austria."
In the small political practice manual he wrote, Cardinal Mazarin left us a pearl of political modernity that, with the exception of rejecting the use of violence, could be easily comparable to the advice Machiavelli gave to the prince:
“Pretend to be friends with everyone. Talk freely to everyone, even people you hate, as it is a good way to practice circumspection.
Whatever happens, hide your anger; a single attack of violence damages your reputation more than all your virtues are capable of enhancing it.
Privilege easy undertakings to be more easily obeyed. If you must choose between two types of action, always choose ease rather than greatness with all the inconveniences that accompany it.
Make sure that no one ever knows your true opinion on an issue, nor how informed you are about it, what you want, what you care about and what you fear. However, do not prevent your virtues from appearing.
Don't be irritated by the length of religious services, but don't imitate the devotees either. Even if it would suit you no more than an ounce of violence to achieve your ends, never resort to it.” (Breviário dos Políticos, Cardeal Mazarin, editora 34, São Paulo, 2000, p. 203/204)
Mazarin was more Machiavellian than Machiavelli himself, as he realized the negative effect that violence has on human affairs. In the short term, war appears capable of definitively deciding any dispute that cannot be resolved amicably.
This belief, as old as humanity itself, explains why the Athenians would have told the Melians when, during the Peloponnesian War, they refused to ally with Athens “The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must”. When finishing reading Thucydides' book about the long and bloody conflict between Athens and Sparta, it is impossible not to reflect on the transcribed sentence again to conclude that strength and weakness are temporary phenomena.
The Athenians quickly invaded and razed the island of Melos in 416 BC. The conflict ended with the execution of all adult Melian males. The surviving women and children were removed from the island and enslaved. But this victory was unable to prevent Athens' defeat 12 years later.
By invading and tearing apart Gaza, indiscriminately killing and maiming women and children, Israel chose to follow the course of action adopted by Athens at Melos. The adoption of similar solutions for different situations in very different historical contexts often produces undesirable diplomatic effects.
Israeli political and military leaders have forgotten that they can be held accountable under the Convention for the Prevention and Suppression of the Crime of Genocide and have not even taken the precautions recommended by Cardinal Mazarin. They openly said that they intended to reduce Gaza to rubble and that they wanted to indiscriminately exterminate Palestinians. Survivors would be removed to Sinai.
Recorded on video, the speeches that highlight the genocidal intentions of the Israeli government were used by South Africa in the case initiated before the International Court of Justice. The indiscriminate extermination of women and children is an undeniable fact and corroborates the thesis that like the Athenians, considering themselves strong and invincible, Israeli leaders believe that weak Palestinians must suffer.
The suffering illegally imposed on the inhabitants of Gaza was demonstrated unequivocally in The Hague by South African lawyers. When defending his country, Israel's lawyer limited himself to accusing the plaintiff of supporting terrorists. He did not even bother to refute the unequivocal evidence of Israeli leaders' genocidal intentions and subsequent indiscriminate extermination of women and children in Gaza.
Shortly after the case against Israel was presented at the International Court of Justice, the US and Britain bombed Yemen. The UN did not authorize this Anglo-American military aggression. Therefore, it can alsIsrael will likely be condemned based on the evidence that Israeli politicians and military officials themselves have provided.
The presentation of South Africa's case was brilliant and based solely on factual truth. Despite the Zionists' outcry, this time it will not be possible for Israel to escape a conviction by equating the solid accusation of genocide that will be tried with anti-Semitism. The prospect of an ally's immense diplomatic defeat perhaps explains the conduct of the US and England. The Israeli partners redoubled their commitment to violence using the Melian precedent in Yemen.
Is what was doubtful during the Peloponnesian War true today? It does not seem to me that the International Court of Justice can consider “The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must” as a legally relevant argument to prevent the application of what is stated in art. 1st, of the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:
Article I
The contracting parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under the law of the people, which they undertake to prevent and punish.
Israel is a signatory to this international convention. And it can be judged in The Hague based on it.o be considered illegal. It appears that the bombing of Yemen was carried out to divert the attention of the respectable public. However, this was not the subject of much reflection in the international press.
The genocide in Gaza and the recent bombing of Yemen suggest that Israeli, American and British political and military leaders no longer care about other people's opinions of them. The conclusion is inevitable that they consider themselves authorized to use violence in any situation. As if they were vigilantes, the rulers of Israel, the US and England reject the existence of an international order based on general and abstract norms that are valid because they are subscribed to by all countries. These norms cannot/should not be invoked against Israel before Courts competent to judge any nation rejecting absurd exceptions that reinforce racism, imperialism and/or enable genocide?
At this moment, only one thing distinguishes the governments of the three countries mentioned. Unlike their partners, only Israeli rulers refuse to accept Cardinal Mazarin's advice. They continue to say that Palestinians are animals that deserve to be exterminated and expelled from Gaza. Does Israel want to be defeated at the International Court of Justice to withdraw from the Convention for the Prevention and Suppression of the Crime of Genocide?