Israel doesn't deserve unconditional loyalty

 Here's the beginning of the article:
«Last week, Israel's far-right foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman visited the UK. His visit was protested by progressive Zionists. Yet he responded with a remarkable declaration:

My expectation from all Jewish communities around the world is that they support any Israeli government. It doesn't matter if you have a left government or a right government.
Jews are to support the Israeli government: any government. Doesn't matter what it does, what policies it pursues.»
You may or may not agree, but it evokes a statement of mine: *All* in the I/J/Z-plex are responsible for the vicious Z-crimes (excepting those 100% in active opposition); any difference in degree descends in the order of perpetrators / accessories / apologists and even idle bystanders (see Silence is acquiescence[*].)

aletheia :

30 May 2012 1:31:06pm
"The Palestinian Arab homeland is called Jordan ..."

IF one were to claim that Jordan is the 'Palestinian homeland' THEN that would imply a) that the 'Palestinians' (= ELO/Os, erstwhile legal owner/occupiers) - resident in 'the mandate' were somehow immigrants AND b) could be advised: "Go home!" Problem with that is, a more recently arrived group should, by rights, vacate the land/property *they* improperly (and violently) dispossessed from said ELO/Os, as the first priority (on the (9th?) principle of neo-liberalism = sanctity of private property [actually 10.Legal security for property rights]). IF you don't agree THEN I'd like to suggest that introducing the 'Jordan = Palestinian homeland' is a non-sequitur/red-herring = furphy (aka irrelevant).


aletheia :

30 May 2012 2:31:51pm
Quote: "... a dark cess-pit of instability, unrest and rogue nations."

'I don't particularly like X; but some of my best friends are X-ian.'

Substitute what *you* (don't) like, for X.

Of course, certain Y-ians aren't to keen on A-ians, for the simple reason (according to Y-ians) that *their* country is only for *them* (see headline article for new laws emphasising this), and A-ians might 'pollute' the neighbourhood (see headline article for language describing this).

Only trouble is, that in a certain Y-case, *their* country is not exactly theirs OR can anyone show a record of the voluntary transactions entered into ('a fair exchange is no robbery') - by the former possessors = hapless ELO/Os, erstwhile legal owner/occupiers?

As for the tombowler quote: 'Pot, kettle;' also IF so THEN why would any sane (= non-cognitive-dissonanced person) ever want to move (recall overwhelmingly alien origins) there?


aletheia :

30 May 2012 4:03:12pm
"Israel is a free, democratic and wholly franchised society where all citizens have a vote."

Your opinion.

But IL squats on improperly-alienated land = no legal title.

And IL + hasbarah-ists refuse to admit it = 'loose with the truth.'


aletheia :

30 May 2012 4:22:19pm
"Jordan comprises 80% of historic Palestine. Look it up."

Totally irrelevant, and by your continued repetition, perhaps a deliberate attempt at derailing cogent discussion?

What *is* relevant is the fate of 'the mandate,' and the people who lived there - namely the hapless Palestinian ELO/Os, and their improper dispossession = ethnic cleansing by genocidal methods (Plan Dalet/Deir Yassin - and all vile successor operations, down to the current moment.) *That's* the original-IL-problem, and so far I see no remedies on offer, only eternal, *inane* obfuscation.


aletheia :

30 May 2012 6:23:53pm
Comparing the Nakba to the Holocaust is what's called a 'false dichotomy;' the two are *not* comparable = fallacy. Further, claiming the latter as excuse, justification - or any sort of relation to the former is both pathetic and psychopathic.

Before 1897 (say; 'pick a number' said Herzl), a few Js (single-digit %s, perhaps) lived amongst the great majority of Ps, basically (one supposes) at peace. But - here recall "... a dark cess-pit of instability, unrest and rogue nations," for some ('dark?') reason, Js began to immigrate - and some were able to *freely purchase* land/property. But the natives started to get restless; and the P-real-estate market pretty-well dried up for Js. In 1923, Jabotinsky (frustrated intending-buyer, perhaps) said: "Don't take offence, take a wall!" - and the guns started to come out (down the track, $US50mio for guns, thanks Golda) - and it was 'on.' Now *that* is the Nakba, and nothing much changed since; refer to the burglar/home-invasion analogy. End (= current) result: un-remedied crime-scene (no 'unilateral' pardons = no 'get out of jail free'). Outstanding tasks: a) Bring perpetrators to justice and b) recompense (revest+reparations) the victims. Could be an even longer wait; but where there's life, there's hope - for eventual peace, truth & justice.


aletheia :

30 May 2012 7:27:06pm
"Deserving" has the ring of 'entitled' to it.

"Deserving" may be one thing, 'earning' quite another.

I may feel deserving, but I know damn-well, that IF I want (better = would like) something THEN I have to stump up the readies - or 'flash the plastic' = same thing in the end = I pay my bills.

But the land/property IL squats on was neither gifted, nor willingly sold by the hapless ELO/Os - rather, they were driven off by violence, so perhaps it's them who *deserve* something, namely restitution and/or adequate = acceptable compensation (and are *entitled* to a big "Sorry!")

On the other hand crims deserve something else altogether.


aletheia :

30 May 2012 7:49:13pm
cosset v. (-t-) pamper. [dialect cosset = pet lamb, probably from Old English, = cottager] - WTF?

The rest is similarly non-sequitur/red-herring = furphy (aka irrelevant).

Thanks for excellently illustrating hasbarah obfuscation.

Perhaps we could now consider what, if anything, Israel deserves - by way of their "cataclysm of intervention and occupation;" no doubt that the violently dispossessed Nakba-victims (+ their heirs & successors) will be delighted to find the until-now hidden benefit they stand to enjoy - when?


aletheia :

31 May 2012 7:33:10am
"Israel is a free, democratic and..."

For a compound statement, each element must be true for the whole to be true, and here "free" and to a lesser extent "democratic" are 'contentious' = not acceptable as facts, hence 'opinion.'

IF 'Israel is a free...' THEN some are free-er than others; IL defines itself as the 'homeland for Js' and discriminates against Palestinian ELO/Os (violently, illegally, immorally dispossessed and/or illegally occupied) and now, as the headline article outlines, recent 'immigrants' - which is a bit rich, since the great majority of current IL-citizens are post-Herzl/Jabotinsky/Ben-Gurion immigrants or their descendents. In fact, IL is basically only open to a single class of immigrants (no prizes for guessing).

As for 'democratic,' no govt. has changed basic direction since the Nakba; the original crimes behind that are un-remedied & the victims still being oppressed, dispossessed and un-compensated; all parties offering 'more of the same' = un- & anti-democratic, since the voters have no effective choice. (This 'no-choice' situation is not unique to IL.)

Your responses (as Tombowler's + similar) leave the basic Q unaddressed; namely, that IL, based on un-remedied, *serious* crimes as it unarguably is, lacks a certain amount of legitimacy.


aletheia :

31 May 2012 8:22:35am
"The people of the West Bank were Jordanian citizens until 1988."

Does this indicate that all those people rushed out of Jordan and into the West Bank, did the earth itself move - OR, was the West Bank 'improperly alienated' by some inadmissible act (given UNSCR242 = "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war?")

That the West Bank was originally part of 'the mandate' that preceded UNGA181 (presumably those people were then mandate-Palestinians, *not* Jordanian), 'allocated' as part of the proposed Arab state - but is now territory regarded as 'illegally occupied' by IL following the (IL-instigated = aggressive) war of '67, raises queries as to your intent (repeat). Clarity requested.

And speaking of 'illegally,' your responses (as most similar others) leave a fundamental Q unaddressed; namely, that IL, based on un-remedied, *serious* crimes as it unarguably is (i.e. Deir Yassin + regular like-reprises, pretty-well right down to 'the current moment') - lacks a certain amount of legitimacy?


aletheia :

31 May 2012 8:43:07am
"It was Arab aggression that triggered Plan Dalet, not the other way around. But feel free to ignore this little detail."


I have listed previously [unleashed/4010336, 14May'12], quotes from Herzl Jabotinsky & Ben-Gurion, each *well* before UNGA181.

These statements *prove* prior intent to improperly *and violently* dispossess the hapless ELO/Os = erstwhile legal owner/occupiers, mostly Palestinians.


1897: "Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor [Palestinians] must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."

~1923: "No native population would stomach the intrusion of another nation into their territory. So the gloves have to be off. Unremitting force is viewed as the only answer

1936-39: “We must see the situation for what it is. ... But in the political field we are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending themselves. They are living in the country and own the land, ..."

Once the movement of immigrants prompted by Herzl et al. began, the natives became more and more nervous - *in response*. (BTW, the British didn't always favour the alien-invaders; they tried to prevent immigration - hence many illegal immigrants, pre-47.)

In other words, the immigrants *caused* the problem, provable, at the latest from Herzl-day-one.

Your turn; the opportunity to deny documented history.


What must Palestinians do to get your attention?

 Here's the beginning of the article:

«Dear Western leaders and the international media, what must a Palestinian do to get your attention?
I ask this question as I recall watching Gandhi with my parents when I was a teenager. With the confident zeal of an adolescent, I vividly recall telling my father (born in Palestine in 1945 and dispossessed of his land in 1967) that what the Palestinians needed to do to draw international attention to their plight was simply go on a mass hunger strike.
It seemed to me, at the time, that there was only one moral and inevitable response to non-violent resistance to injustice: action in defence of the hunger strikers.»

Comment: Misplaced optimism; for some strange reason, effectively the 'Western' world listens to Zionist-apologists' lies and ignores both Zionist-crimes and Palestinian suffering. Ignoring crimes, especially crimes underway, is itself criminal.


aletheia :

15 May 2012 7:10:35pm
Claim: "a people's ability to declare independence as a unilateral act..."

I'd be interested to see any justification in support of this 'principal' in the Palestinian Nakba frame.

Consider the burglar/home-invasion scenario:

A group of 'out of towners' move in to a block of flats, ejecting most hapless residents (erstwhile legal owner/occupiers = ELO/Os), killing more than just a few on the way, then declare themselves independent of the police, the law, all morality not to mention good sense - as a unilateral act.

Who would accept that, let alone believe that the burglar/home-invaders now had any rights? (i.e. such crims have *no* rights to occupy, certainly *no* rights to defend - improperly alienated = stolen land/property.)

The claim doesn't pass the 'giggle-test.'


Salaam Shalom Peace :

15 May 2012 6:20:32pm
So you think its all isreal's fault?

Nothing todo with decades of attempted genocides by the Arab nations and Palestinian terrorism and no blame lies at the hands of Yasser Arafat or Hamas or Islamic Jihad? Really?

You might want to check in with reality sometimes, dude.
    • aletheia :

      15 May 2012 9:01:08pm
      "You might want to check in with reality sometimes, dude."

      OK; lets consider: "Nothing todo with decades of attempted genocides by the Arab nations and Palestinian terrorism and no blame lies at the hands of Yasser Arafat or Hamas or Islamic Jihad? Really?"

      1. Item; Herzl(1897): "Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor [Palestinians] must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."

      2. Item; Jabotinsky(~1923): "No native population would stomach the intrusion of another nation into their territory. So the gloves have to be off. Unremitting force is viewed as the only answer to Arab objections to Zionist control of the territory."

      3. Item; Ben-Gurion(1936-39): "“We must see the situation for what it is. ... But in the political field we are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending themselves. They are living in the country and own the land, ..."

      Dude, one side are hapless ELO/Os = erstwhile legal owner/occupiers (right of self-defence), the other side aggressive, invading attackers. You may now try again to work out as to with whom the fault lies.

Sanon :

15 May 2012 2:51:00pm
Very good point, Eligius4917. A future generation one day will ask, why is this happening? Why is Israel allowed to get away with this? Justice, given enough time, will eventually prevail.
    • Salaam Shalom Peace :

      15 May 2012 6:09:55pm
      Why is Israel able to get away with *what* Sanon?


      Protecting its innocent civilians from attack by rockets and bombs and crazy Jihadists?

      Do you honestly think that justice and law is only on your side of this issue? Really?
        • aletheia :

          16 May 2012 8:55:19am
          Abandon hope - all ye who build their houses upon sand - err, I mean those who comment from a somewhat uninformed position. It's all too easy to blame Palestinians for shooting primitive rockets into Israel - BUT since Israel squats on improperly alienated Palestinian land/property, AND the world so far fails to remedy that original Z-crime THEN rockets = must do something - as an alternative to accepting violent theft of almost an entire country. Yesterday was Nakba day, only one day of 365¼ when hapless Palestinians mourn their dispossession; those who would say that Israel 'won' a civil war fail to appreciate that the Zionists were (still are) aggressive invaders - of the Nuremberg-class. Proof of this is not hard to find, see Plan Dalet and associated massacres like Deir Yassin, and so many other terrorist outrages like the King David Hotel bombing. It doesn't do to sweep this (criminal!) history under the carpet, then trying to claim 'holier than them.' Any un-remediated crime scene stands as a denial of justice - IF just peace ever wanted THEN recall (and implement) right of return/revest and/or pay fully acceptable reparations and recompense (RoR+RaR) + say a sincere "Sorry!"
Comment: Israel asserts a 'right to exist' - while squatting on improperly dispossessed land/property, then demands a 'right to defend' what does not belong to them, demands a) to be recognised and b) that the mostly Palestinian ELO/Os (and/or their heirs & successors) accept peace only on Z-terms, which implies surrender and loss of the Palestinian homelands. Who, in their right mind, would ever agree to that? Meanwhile, the Zs' mass-murdering for soil continues, why doesn't the UN/world stop it?