Thursday, June 1, 2017

The Emails are IN! 4

Further to my posts on Fairfax journalist Tony Walker's excellent opinion piece on the 1967 Arab-Israeli war and the coming 50th anniversary of same...

You'll recall his anticipation of criticism on the letters page from the usual suspects, and the clueless/gutless SMH letters editor publishing two of these (Danny Samuels and Michael Jacku).

Both gentlemen, of course, despite their spin, obfuscation and denialism on the subject of Israel's 1967 military aggression, were models of decorum, as one would expect on the letters page of a newspaper.

Go to the online comments which followed Walker's piece, however, and you'll see the usual suspects in a more direct, less disciplined mode. One of these - Joel (Canberra, May 30) - went even further, however, tossing his mask aside, and exposing Zionism's true face:

"Ross - you misunderstand. It would not only have been normal, but expected, to wipe the Palestinians out not all that long ago. The fact Israel hasn't annihilated them shows how restrained they are. If the loser uses violence, the victor can use their overwhelming force to crush them until they accept defeat - up to and including complete displacement and relocation."

No carefully crafted spin, obfuscation or denialism here, just the ravening, genocidal, Zionist beast.

Now you know what the Palestinians in occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza have had to endure for the past 50 bloody years.


Grappler said...

"It would not only have been normal, but expected, to wipe the Palestinians out"

I am trying to think back - and my history is not as good as it should be - to when whole populations have been wiped out by an invading and conquering culture.

The Tasmanian Aboriginals come to mind but there is some dissent among historians on the relative effects of disease and aggression. In any case, despite the tragedy of their elimination, Europeans did not go to Tasmania with the explicit intent of eliminating the native population - that is not an excuse.

In Britain the invading Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, Normans all eventually interbred (whether forcibly initially, or not) with the local populations as DNA evidence shows, and became part of the society.

This kind of total genocide might have occurred more often in interactions between smaller tribal societies. Genghis Khan is on record as having wiped out whole nations. California, Hispaniola, perhaps.
But total and deliberate genocides are relatively rare.

A Light unto the Nations indeed!

MERC said...

A Blight unto the Nations.

Grappler said...

"If the loser uses violence, the victor can use their overwhelming force to crush them until they accept defeat - up to and including complete displacement and relocation."

No it cannot! Israel signed up to the United Nations and is bound by International Humanitarian Law:

* The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.

* Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.

* The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.

* The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.

* To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.

* The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.

* Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.

* Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.

* Collective punishment is prohibited.

* The taking of hostages is prohibited.

* Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.

* The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.

* The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.

* Cultural property must be respected.

* People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charged with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible).

* Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.

MERC said...

G, see my 10/10/12 post 'Truganini in Jerusalem'.

Grappler said...

Beautiful post from 10/10/12, MERC!

I have two comments.

Firstly, the population of Tasmanian Aboriginals according to Madley, ("From Terror to Genocide: Britain's Tasmanian Penal Colony and Australia's History Wars". Journal of British Studies, 47 (1), 2008, 77–106) was no more than 15000, so many times smaller than that of Palestinians from the time of the Zionist invasion.

Secondly, it was not only "bullets and bayonets" that killed off the Tasmanian aboriginals but also disease introduced by the British. On the other hand, one might see this as biological warfare if disease is introduced and the means of treatment, insofar as it existed at that time, is withheld.

Neither of these comments is meant to excuse what the British did. The key point is that we regard the Tasmanian Genocide as a tragedy and most of us accept shared guilt, while our society (ie official Australia) condones Israel's actions, and in the case of Joel appears to encourage worse.