Is the EU willing to work for peace in Palestine?

http://www.theeuros.eu/Jorgen-Jensehaugen-The-EU-could,2028

Mahmoud Darwish in memoriam

Condolences to the Palestinian people for the loss of voice: the voice of the deprived, the voice of exile, the voice of reason and of memory. Darwish carried all those voices and many more … one of the greatest poets of his time, he embodied the Palestinian struggle in words that made tragedy comprehendable.

The Bonapartist Heritage and the Fallacy of Revolutionary War

When Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Europe it was because the ideals of Egalité, Fraternité and Liberté were to be spread across the continent. His egalitarian and liberational rhetoric was pure guise, of course, and he spread nothing of the sort. His genius was that he used the rhetoric of the revolution in the service of war, or rather empire. As Hannah Arendt has observed this became trendsetting. War had become old fashioned (l’ancient regime), whilst revolution was the new hype. War, however, has proved hard lived and never seems to be passé, despite enormous popular opposition. What in reality occurred was that war remodelled itself by taking on a revolutionary guise.
There is a red line from Napoleon to Bush, a bloodline so to speak. It is a long line that stretches via unlikely relatives such as Leo Trotsky (eternal revolution), and more recognizable ones such as the Vietnam War (anti-domino). When Bush launched his crusade (the not quite slip-of-the-tongue that he later claimed) against the dictatorships of the extended Middle East, he used the very same rhetorical guise that Napoleon used. His ideas of spreading democracy (at gunpoint), which was supposed to make the oppressed Iraqi’s throw flowers at the American tanks in pure euphoria, was so closely related to Napoleon’s revolutionary export that one cannot escape the irony. In both cases the result was all but what the rhetoric stated. Napoleon “liberated” the ancient states of Europe, but oppression, and not liberty was installed, hence the uprisings against him. Likewise, when Bush “liberated” the Iraqi people they rose up in what has become known as an insurgency. The fallacy of the duality of rhetorical revolution and factual war is that while war is dictate, revolution is choice. One from above and outside, the other from below and inside. Hence the duality is based on an assumption that one can combine opposites. Time and time again this assumption has proven to be a false one. The reoccurrence is therefore surprising in its stupidity. It would seem that Robert Fisk’s dry-witted observation that “the only thing we learn from history is that nobody bothers to learn from it” is an unfortunate truism.