Posts
since Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:04:17.
Dear Mr. Doyle:
I commend you for identifying and condemning Geoffrey Alderman's incitement to genocide and other crimes against humanity in the letter below, which the Jewish Chronicle will publish on October 5, 2007, but you miss the big picture when you state, "The firing of Kassams at innocent Israeli civilians is an atrocity but it does not justify by any measure of civilized values a call effectively to destroy Gaza."
On what reasonable basis can Israeli Zionists expect to live in peace and security in a stolen country, almost invariably on stolen property, and very often in stolen homes?
Only after the criminal Zionist population
On what reasonable basis can Israeli Zionists expect to live in peace and security in a stolen country, almost invariably on stolen property, and very often in stolen homes?
Only after the criminal Zionist population
- restores Palestinian residence rights,
- reconveys stolen properties to their rightful owners,
- pays complete compensation to the victims of Zionist genocidalism, and
- sends the chief Zionist genocidaires to the International Criminal Court at the Hague for trial
will innocent Zionist civilians have any reasonable expectation of establishing a genuine modus vivendi with the native Palestinian population on terms of mutual respect and equality.
Kassams are not the real issue. We need to open up a discussion of ethnic Ashkenazi fanaticism, extremism, and racism, which forms the core of Zionism, which has done so much murderous harm in the ME, and which threatens the democratic system both in the UK and in the USA.
Kassams are not the real issue. We need to open up a discussion of ethnic Ashkenazi fanaticism, extremism, and racism, which forms the core of Zionism, which has done so much murderous harm in the ME, and which threatens the democratic system both in the UK and in the USA.
Sincerely yours,
Joachim Martillo
Boston, MA
-----Original Message-----
From: CAABU <caabu@caabu.org>
To: thorsprovoni@aol.com
Sent: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 8:47 am
Subject: CAABU Letter in the Jewish Chronicle - 5 October 2007
Joachim Martillo
Boston, MA
-----Original Message-----
From: CAABU <caabu@caabu.org>
To: thorsprovoni@aol.com
Sent: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 8:47 am
Subject: CAABU Letter in the Jewish Chronicle - 5 October 2007
| Letter from CAABU Director, Chris Doyle, published in the Jewish Chronicle Published 3 October 2007 | ||||||
|
| |||||
7 comments:
I agree with the thrust of your comments.
As an ethnic Ashkenazi, I cannot agree with your reference to "ethnic Ashkenazi fanaticism, extremism, and racism, which forms the core of Zionism".
But, the political exposure of Zionism, as the crux of the Palestine problem, and the key to its solution, is correct.
Why do you think that Eastern European ethnic Ashkenazim are so much different from other Eastern European ethnic groups? I can indentify extremist organic and ethnic fundamentalist movements throughout Eastern Europe.
I would certainly identify the Polish Endeks as an expression of Polish fanaticism, extremism and racism.
Zionism, which makes it claims on the basis of an etymological relationship between Jew or (Yid in Yiddish) and Judea, is probably the most psychotic of such politics.
Because ethnic Ashkenazim tend to be certain of their own victim status, many (perhaps most) rarely repent their own mistreatment of other peoples.
The URL http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=484762&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true describes an example of ethnic Ashkenazi extremism, fanaticism and racism at the upper echelons of power at the Pentagon.
I am under no illusions about the issue of lack of equivalence and what is at the core of the problem. The Qassams are a symptom of the issue. However, that said, firing Qassams at innocent civilians is illegal, and cannot be justified. The Palestinians will gain nothing for this, it lets Israel off the hook, giving them the veneer of an excuse to further smash up the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
The key is that innocent civilians are just that, whether they are Israeli or Palestinian.
The issue of international law is far less clear than you believe. The operative international legal concept is protected non-combatants, and when a government and population is running an extremely dirty demographic war that does not respect international law, I am not sure that the concept of protected non-combatant is even valid.
When the Palestinian resistance shoots Qassams into Israel (Stolen Palestine), it is almost invariably in response to some military or irregular action by Israelis that resulted in civilian casualties.
In such a situation, jus in bello allows proportionate response, and Qassam launchings fall under this permission.
Many Israeli and non-Israeli commentators note that Israeli government makes incursions and abuses Palestinians specifically to provoke reactions that Israeli and Zionist apologists use for propaganda purposes.
No matter how much Palestinian supporters caution the Palestinian resistance not to respond, the IDF simply ratchets up level of oppression to the point where self-restraint become impossible.
Palestinian supporters should explain and attack such criminal IDF tactics and not the victims of Zionist crimes.
When I discuss the conflict over Palestine in Boston, I always make the analogy of Slavery and Zionism and of John Brown (a local hero, who -- one could argue -- hacked theoretically innocent slaver civilians to death) with the Palestinian resistance. This approach actually works very well especially when I make such arguments at churches with a history of support for Abolitionism.
We have particularly vicious Zionists in Boston (David Project, Stand With US, the Israel on Campus Coalition, the Krafts, Adelson, Martin Peretz, etc.). They never concede that Israel or Zionists do anything that might be legally or ethically questionable. (Just look at the ongoing issues with regard to Muhammad al-Durra in France.) In response, I am unwilling to concede that any acts of the Palestinian resistance might be problematic, and because the USA makes Zionist crimes possible, Americans have no right whatsoever to judge the Palestinian resistance.
In haste:
Well, we shall have to disagree somewhat.
A proportionate response never allows for the deliberate killing of innocent civilians. I can also not agree with it ethically either.
I think that Israel is able to trade off those things that Palestinians do that are regrettable whether it is corruption, torture or killing of innocent civilians. It taints their image, and the Israeli will benefit if it can drag the Palestinians into the gutter. I cannot think of anything gained for Palestinians by the shooting of the Qassams.
The Qassams issue is being used by the Israelis. They take tours to Sderot, It does create some sympathy. We should acknowledge this, take it head on, but point that occupation always leads to resistance, some of which is unacceptable. The root cause is the occupation. If you treat people like the Israelis have treated the Palestinians then of course a brutalised society will see such images as we saw during the Hamas-Fatah fighting.
I do not consider it defensive to mention the Qassams. I consider it evidence as to what happens after an occupation, and the reasons why occupation and this conflict need to end. If the Zionists do not admit that colonising another people's land is wrong, so be it - we can smash their arguments. Some of the Zionist lobby tactics in my view are frequently too aggressive, and put people off. nobody ever believes that one party is perfect and the other is not.
As to whether the US has a right to judge, I might agree with you, not least as they have adopted so many illegal Israeli strategies and tactics themselves. The US should clean up its own act before lecturing to others for sure.
Yes, I am sure Israel is trying to provoke. Precisely why the sensible Palestinian strategy is not to be provoked. Palestinians should use the advantages they have - international sympathy, the law, aid agencies, human rights groups, UN agencies etc. Israel would love to suck them into a more military conflict where the Palestinians have no chance, especially now that Israel surrounds Gaza and the West Bank cities rather than being inside them. Israel has tried to weaken the Palestinians through dividing them, isolating them from major world players, luring them into illicit actions, and corrupting them. (Permits for Ministers, roads and villages built for collaborators etc)
I am not saying it is easy, or that I do not understand why Palestinians feel like they do.
We probably shall have to disagree, but before abandoning this topic, I have to point out that popular ethics does accept proportionate response in the killing of civilians. The movie Failsafe in fact ends with the President of the USA ordering a nuclear attack on NY City as the only way to avoid escalation to WW3 by the Soviet Union after a rogue US general used nuclear weapons to attack Moscow.
Now you could argue that the USA made the attack itself, but that avoids the issue because one would presume that if the US government were willing to attack NY City, it would have permitted Moscow to attack NY City, but in the logic of the script the President was just trying to forestall demands for escalation by the USA after an attack on New York City. As I remember, Americans did not have any problem with this aspect of the story.
During WW2, when Germany put British POWs in irons, the British government put German POWs in irons.
The web page Proportion Distortion: Semantics and the War in Lebanon is worth reading.
I have read a lot of Walzer and taken one course from him. He basically argues that the IDF has the right to kill Arab civilians in a ratio of approximately 10:1 (from the class not the article) because of the Arab intent of genocide.
I have also attended numerous lectures by Dershowitz (I live in Boston). He takes the position that the IDF may kill as many Arab civilians as it can because Arabs do not have the same level of civilianility as Jews.
If you are unwilling to argue from general principles of ethics in bello or jus in bello, you could just make the argument from the Walzer, Dershowitz or Krauthammer position so that you can highlight their racism. (You could also challenge Walzer's basic assumptions. The assertion of tohar nesheq [purity of arms] on the part of the IDF or Zionist militias has always been a propaganda lie. The murder of Sheikh Yassin is a good example to disprove Zionist claims.)
In this way, as a matter of debate technique, you force to opposition to change their argument or show their true colors before you concede anything.
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated.