Can Zionists Be Protected Noncombatants?

Far too much time is being wasted in arguments over the rocket attacks on Sderot and other Israeli cities.

The operative language in in the international treaties and conventions with a few rare exceptions uses the phrase protected noncombatants because civilians providing support to a military organization are in most cases legitimate targets. (Usually medical support is exempted, but I can think of cases where it would not be.)

Nuremberg Law already deals with the case of removal of a native population and replacement with civilian colonists (as happened in Palestine starting in 1947 and continues to this day).

As far as I know, no member of the resistance to such colonization was ever convicted of committing a crime of killing a civilian (or protected noncombatant). Yet members of the German military were brought to trial for treating the resistance as Israel has treated Gazans, were invariably convicted, and were sentenced to long years of incarceration or to execution.

The logic is obvious. If the colonists were protected noncombatants, a state could make its genocide irreversible simply by sending civilian colonists into ethnically cleansed regions.

Here is the real meaning of rejecting the legitimacy of shooting rockets at Zionist colonists or of otherwise killing them. Zionists are trying to work an assumption of the irreversibility of Zionist genocide into international discourse over Zionism and Palestine.

At this point after eight years in which Jewish Zionist Neocons have manipulated the US government into incinerating one Arab or Muslim population after another, no decent human being should accept the irreversibility of Zionist genocide in either stolen or occupied Palestine, and we should really be opening a discussion on how best to remove Zionist colonists from all of Palestine.

If you have been reading the Hebrew press or watching Hebrew news reports, you would be aware that Zionist colonists have been supporting the hi-tech pogrom of Gaza at approximately 90% levels.

The Zionist colonists have proven themselves to constitute not an innocent civilian population but in reality a rabid conglomeration of genocidaires. At this point we could reasonably open a discussion of obliterating them under the International Genocide Convention.

Extremist Zionist Max Boot came to Harvard to argue for the use of mercenaries against genocidaires. Mercenaries are one step away from vigilantes.

Zionists outside of stolen or occupied Palestine are guilty of "aiding and abetting" as well as conspiracy to commit genocide.

All Zionists are genocidaires, and by the Zionist argument for justifying both

• preventive war and also
• the use of a mercenary force against genocide,

they are outlaws in the original sense of the word.

By Zionist logic anyone should be free to kill a Zionist and is probably obligated to do so.

So let's stop arguing whether shooting rockets at Sderot is legal under International Law. I can construct lots of arguments why it would be legal, and in the context of more than a century of genocidal Zionist planning and actions against Palestinians, killing Zionists is certainly perfectly legitimate according to the precedent and history of struggle against state-sponsored violent or genocidal racism.

Zionists no longer wishing to be outlaws need only reject Zionism categorically.
Sphere: Related Content