I’ve noticed lately that David Cameron, the Prime Minister of the UK, has been the most vocally aggressive of all western leaders when it comes to Russia. Even the NY Times is quoted as saying “Mr. Cameron has sought to project himself as the muscular champion of a tough European response to Moscow..” This strikes me as very odd. Certainly UK has always been an ally of the Western agenda but rarely has it taken the lead role. In this instance one wonder’s what the motivation is for Cameron to be so passionately inclined to project himself as the lead ‘muscular champion’ against Russia for its alleged role in Ukraine’s domestic strife. Typically one who is so passionately outspoken and taking such a bold and aggressive stance is the one being directly harmed by the alleged wrong doer. However, neither Cameron nor the UK is being directly (even allegedly) targeted by Russia.
So is it truly a humanitarian principled stance?? Has Cameron truly been touched so deeply in his belief that Russia is part of an humanitarian atrocity in Ukraine that he continues to call for more and more sanctions and even military threats against Russia?? Remember there has been no evidence supplied by any nation that Russia has even supported the separatists other than with humanitarian aid. So what is it about this particular set of events that has Cameron so invested, so concerned and so enraged that he feels compelled to take the role of lead aggressor against Russia? If it is a principled humanitarian stance and this is just the type of altruistic, peace loving, humanitarian that Cameron is then certainly he would have a similar stance on Israel’s crushing of more than 1000 women and children in its bombardment of Palestine, correct? Anything less would seem a gesture of gross hypocrisy.
Well looking at the record, Cameron refused to support an investigation of Israel for alleged war crimes against Palestine despite 26 other nations agreeing to the investigation. In fact, Cameron has not called for any sanctions or actions or even condemnations against Israel for its role in the deaths of so many Palestinian civilians. It seems to me, and I’ve said this many times I know, that when we look to understand the actions and behaviors of policy makers we must first look to their motivations. So it begs the question, what is it that motivates Cameron to be so aggressive toward Russia for its unproven support of separatists who legitimately voted to secceed from Ukraine while he has seemingly no issue with Israel’s proven and admitted killing of more than 1000 Palestinian woman and children?
I expect if, as always, you follow the money and power it will lead you straight to Mr. Cameron’s motivations. And I am certain that humanitarianism is nowhere to be found in said motivations. Western nations tend to bow down to the money and promises of power that the Israeli political action committees represent. One simply cannot take any politician at face value in this complex world of corrupt and conflicting policies. One must always look beyond the arguments and seek out the true motivations to understand the actions of today’s leaders. We see that American legislators with the most aggressive stances on Ukraine like Senator Ayotte who proposes US military intervention, have been funded their entire career by Israeli political action committees. Could it be a coincidence? Well not statistically it couldn’t. And so it merits our thought and discussion. On who’s behalf are our leaders and legislators in the Western world acting on? The polls indicate most westerners are against intervention into Ukraine and are against the Israeli bombardment of Palestine. These are the facts and so if our leaders, who are paid to be our representatives, are acting against our stated perspectives then who are they acting for and why? We all need to be asking that question and not just about foreign policy but about all policies these days. Our leaders and not legislating in our best interest and it will absolutely become apparent in the coming years. Our children and their children will not enjoy the freedoms once guaranteed by the ideals that once could be defined as American.