|
When it comes to the bibleland nothing is spoken of as it is. Things are
what people say they are. The Israeli government terminology is used by even
Israel's enemies.
As Lewis Carroll pointed out, what we call a thing is not what a thing is.
The currently popular sticking point to negotiations are the settlements.
Why are they called settlements? That is what the Israeli government calls
them but they have been by other names in recent memory.
Back in the 1990s they were called defense outposts. Israeli government
officials declared they were for the military defense of Israel. Anyone with
even a smattering of military knowledge knows for a fact that one does not
put tens of thousands of civilians on the expected front lines of a war. Far
from aiding in defense it burdens the military to defend and evacuate
civilians when hostilities begin. This is exactly what happened on the Golan
Heights in 1973. The Golan Heights are also known as the Syrian Heights.
They are also known as occupied Syria captured after Israel attacked Syria
in 1967.
Why were they declared to have a military purpose? Because the 4th Geneva
Convention requires the administration of occupied territory be for the
benefit of the occupied people with one exception, that being for military
necessity. No matter how laughable or how patently absurd the claim the
civilians had a military purpose, the claim was invoking the only possible
reason to avoid admitting the settlements were and still are war crimes.
The fact that the military necessity exception was invoked is proof positive
that Israel recognizes the West Bank is occupied. The fact is the occupied
territories have never been administered to the benefit of the occupied
people. That fact is jewish actions have always been to make the penalty for
the absence of subservience to Jews intolerable. And not just subservient to
the jewish Israeli Defense Force but also the the criminal jewish squatters.
But then a terrible thing happen. Jordan and Israel signed a peace treaty
and there was no longer a need for a military presence in the West Bank.
This was a terrible because now the military outposts became criminal in the
same terms Israel has used to excuse their crimes.
In fact settling a civilian population in occupied territory was among the
list of crimes tried at Nuremberg. At Nuremberg the primary crime was
annexing territory occupied by military conquest. Once the annexation was
found criminal the settlements were found to be in occupied territory and
therefore also criminal.
What was Israel to do? It was simple really. They suddenly denied the
territories were occupied preferring to declare they were disputed.
Unfortunately for this disingenuous claim it requires two parties to make a
dispute. To claim the occupied territories are disputed is like claiming one
man can hold a debate to an empty auditorium.
The territories are occupied, period. There is nothing in dispute. In fact
even the toothless Supreme Court of Israel has declared the territories are
under belligerent occupation within the meaning of the Hague Convention on
Land Warfare. In fact it declared even after the "evacuation" of Gaza that
it was still under belligerent occupation. Israel cannot even get a
"dispute" going with its own Supreme Court.
Let us back up a bit here. By Nuremberg the primary crime was annexation.
Israel had not only occupied east Jerusalem but annexed it creating a war
crime. Subsequently Israel annexed land from the West Bank as part of
Jerusalem and thus part of Israel that had never been considered part of
Jerusalem. This compounded the war crime. These crimes were committed with
full knowledge they were war crimes.
Once there was peace with Jordan the settlements in the West Bank joined the
annexation and population transfers in East Jerusalem as war crimes without
the least possible grounds for disagreement. Also the settlements which were
called military outposts became criminal squattertowns. The settlers became
war criminals as did any member of the Israeli government who did anything
to support the squattertowns as did every government that permitted them to
continue to exist. In a just world a trip to the gallows would be in their
future as Nuremberg determined this to be a hanging offense.
Don't shoot the messenger. I never wrote a treaty in my life. Nor did I
force Israel to sign the Geneva Conventions which defined Israelis as
criminal squatters living in criminal squattertowns. If you do not like the
opinion of the Supreme Court of Israel work to get the treaties changed.
Don't whine at me for stating the obvious.
It might be suggested the civilians are not criminals until post WWII events
are examined. The German nationals who did settle in occupied Poland and
other areas such as the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia were rounded up and
force marched back to Germany. Whereas force marching the criminal squatters
back to Israel would be maybe fifteen miles at most the trip for some
Germans was hundreds of miles and deaths were common. Their appeals for
justice have been discredited because of their actions.
The squatters are criminals without grounds to plead for mercy. They may
plead ideological conviction but even following orders was not a defense.
And there is are tens of thousands who plead their case by saying they are
only doing it for financial reasons. Yes, the love of money and standard of
living is often used as justification by criminals. It is contemptible to
put one's own life above those of the helpless victims of the Jews.
By abandoning doublespeak we can talk about the criminal annexation of
Jerusalem and the criminal squattertowns in the West Bank and the criminal
Israeli government officials. Then without further explanation we can demand
the arrest of any and all criminals and their trial in the Hague. Perhaps
fortunately the Hague does not have the power to issue a death sentence.
The more vociferous can call for speedy trials and slow executions without
needing to explain their position. If the defendants believe their actions
are not criminal they can tell it to the judge. Unlike Palestinians they are
not guilty before they become suspects. They are guilty by the fact of the
place of residence. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
When we start to speak with the words which describe the facts instead of
Israeli doublespeak we can move on to related matters. Among them we have
the Palestinians in the West Bank living under a jewish military
dictatorship and the Israeli Prime Minister being the dictator in chief.
We can also start talking honestly about Israel's human rights record. Yes
the human rights record of many countries towards their own citizens is
abominable. And yes the world has not always spoken out about it. Neither
has the world spoken about about Israel's abominable treatment of its
non-Jewish citizens. The world has rightly spoken out and condemned Israel's
treatment of those who are not its citizens, those who are forced to live
under a military dictatorship, those who have no rights whatsoever, the
Palestinians of the West Bank who have lived under a jewish tyranny since
1967.
They are forced to live under a jewish dictatorship. They are deprived of
all human and civil rights. They are deprived of every right by the
occupying military. They have at best a privilege here and there granted by
their military governor.
And Israel constantly demands its oppressed victims give something to the
criminal occupying country in order for some mitigation of the magnitude of
the crimes committed against them. This is called extortion.
Is it reasonable to expect Palestinians to make concessions to Israel in
order to obtain their elementary human rights? Is it reasonable for Israel
to demand concessions in return for being less criminal?
And then there is a matter of justice. In this case justice is surprisingly
easy define. If follows from the simple principle of equity and equal
rights. The standard of justice due Palestinians is the same standard Jews
demand for themselves.
Do not Palestinians who fled Palestine for fear of the Zionists have the
same rights as Jews who fled the Nazis? Do not Palestinians have the same
right of return that Jews demand from Germany and Poland? Is not the same
financial compensation due the Palestinians that the Jews demand from
Germany and Poland?
Are Zionists to be granted superior rights? Superior justice? Are not
Palestinians worthy of the same justice?
More to the immediate issue, do not Palestinians have the same right to the
same form of independent, self-government as do Israelis? Do not
Palestinians have the same security needs as does Israel? The same need of
defensible borders? The same needs of a military capable of defending their
nation from foreign aggression including Israeli aggression?
All the answers are yes if Palestinians have the same right to justice as
Jews demand for themselves.
|