Keep On Dreaming

[JM]

On the Helen Thomas flap . . .

On Jun 9, 9:30 am, Fattush <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 8, 5:09 pm, Shmendrik <jpd...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Helen laughs, and then straightens her face to say, "Remember, these
> > Gentiles are occupied, and it's their club. This is not Poland, it's
> > not Abe's Deli in Bedford Stuyvesant, it's not Germany or east 91st
> > street in Brooklyn."
>
> Her remarks were pathetic for many reasons . . . one of which is that
> there were Jews in "Palestine" long before there were Arabs.

Of course! And this is right where the madness lies. This is one of
those facts they cannot acknowledge and still maintain the force of
their arguments. This is why their position is plain nuts, out of
touch with reality. But how could it be anti-Semitism if it were not
insane? And yes, one may easily arrive at the conclusion that it is
anti-Semitic to insist that Jews have no place, no traditional, ethnic
home in the region of "Palestine", so called.

Chief among the causes for this madness is the hostility that is borne
in so many of their hearts against the Judeo-Christian religious
tradition, and as they remain illiterate also to Roman and Byzantine
historical records, they are able to dismiss out of hand everything
written from a sacred source as mythology. And it's as if the Western
Wall of the Herodian Temple, and the Jews who have wept and prayed at
its foundations since the day of the fall of the rest of it were not
still standing there at all.

They must maintain for themselves a most remarkable case of insanity
in order to nurture the self-imposed ignorance of their position. But
these are just the most easily observable outward trappings of the
thing. There is a darker heart to this madness. But because it is a
madness that afflicts us all, an insanity by which most all men are
possessed, it utterly escapes our notice.

It goes right back to what Helen Thomas was ranting when she declared,
"Because it's theirs!" So, "possession is 9/10 of the law" by
anybody's book. But from that standpoint, will anyone on either side
of the Separation Barrier acknowledge that since Israel is in
possession of the West Bank, the "occupation" is therefore a myth and
a superstition, that the West Bank by law of possession is, as it was
historically, now and forever, Israel?

Some will, myself included! But by what logic? By logic of the
madness that defines possession and ownership! Never mind "nine/tenths
of the law." When I say something is "mine" and when you say
something's yours, you mean that absolutely and totally. When I've
made that last payment on my house, nobody is going to tell me that it
belongs to anybody but me. Absolute ownership is where I'm coming
from, right with Helen Thomas, by no other reasoning than, "because
it's theirs (mine)!"

So, are Helen and I right to be thinking like this? No. We are totally
insane to be thinking like this. I am not the absolute owner of my
bought and paid for house, because my ownership, my possession depends
entirely on what I'm doing in that house. If I have an opium den down
in the basement, by law, the government can come along to attach and
seize my house and take it entirely away from me without a dime of
compensation. My possession of this property depends ENTIRELY upon
what I'm doing with it.

Possession is NOT nine/tenths of the law, shoot! It's not even 9/1000
of it when you are out of sorts with the law, and the only time it is
9/10 of the law is when the law is in possession! And what exactly is
the "law" when it comes to affairs between nations? Why, it can amount
to but just one thing and that is whatever you say the law is; or i.e.
whatever your law says you must be and do and not do to remain in
possession of your nation, your property and liberty.

International law? That is a pipe dream. It is a hungry tiger with no
teeth. There is no such thing in the world as yet, thank the Supreme
Law-Maker of All. There is no international law. Darfur and Sudan are
here to prove that. Some will say the Israeli "occupation of the West
Bank" proves it. They are right. There is more force for an execution
and enforcement of international law in a set of fancy painted lead
toy soldiers than we have in the U.N. Forget the myth of
"international law".

There is only one law that rules over the secular affairs of men and
that is the law of the nation in which men find themselves. In 1947,
when the pipe-dreamers of international law had their vote in the
General Assembly, and by that thought they had granted possession to
the Jews of the British Mandate, a small sliver of land to be held
separate as partitioned off from the rest that been granted to the
Arabs for their "Palestine"--what happened? The Arabs stood up and
walked out, loudly declaring that they would recognize no such so-
called "international law", and this fully in confidence of the
thought that they had utterly nothing to fear of such 'law' from any
material, martial execution or military enforcement of it.

They were right. The only law in place to execute and enforce it was
the law that Jews made unto themselves, by establishment of the State
of Israel. Now there were laws on the books, on Israeli books to deal
with the depredations that already had long since begun from Arabs
within their own newly partitioned borders and from without. There was
ONLY the law of Israel to deal with trespass and murder and sabotage
and invasion, as this was the case in 1948, so it was in 1956, 1967
and 1973.

But law is no tiger at all unless it has some teeth for enforcement
and some heart of mercy, some balance of mind for the judgment of
Justice. What were the crimes to be judged, what was the juridical
relief to be granted? Israeli sons, daughters, mothers and fathers
were dead. Kibbutzim and Moshavim, villages and towns lay in ruins.
And by 1967, Israeli blood had been spread, as it was spilled all the
way from the sea to the river Jordan, and from the slopes of Mt.
Hermon all the way to the river of Egypt.

What now shall LAW determine as a just and merciful recompense, to
relieve the hearts of grieving widows, fathers and mothers, brothers,
sisters, sons and daughters? What can make their hearts stop bleeding
to feel that all those lives were not given in vain, or even make
their souls rejoice to see that by their Victory, not all was lost but
something regained? Something, if not in exchange for the life of a
loved one, then some poor recompense, some honorable thing in return,
if it should be nothing more than the sand into which that dying
soldier had bled, and the land the sand lay on.

Nothing less can be just. Nothing! Justice cannot exist except a mercy
of relief be given to the victim, and judgment of punishment for
violator, the invader, the killer who crawled over that border, over
the doorstep, curvy dagger in teeth. For him, the only thing just, the
only thing right, the only thing to teach him the meaning of 'just'
and 'right, is for him to see that border moved back far as the track
of Israeli blood leads, and posted with the sign that reads, "Never
Again."

Ownership is NOT absolute. And Helen Thomas? No, you are not right.
It is NOT theirs. Not anymore. The fields upon which they imagined
their genocidal iniquity have been seized to grant a mercy of relief
for those whose blood has paid for every square inch of it! And now,
whether Israel shall decide to occupy that land and run every Arab on
it off into the desert, just as they had the blood in their eyes to
intend for the children of Israel vis a vis the sea, OR if Israel
should determine to hold it, as is, against all hope and good sense
and the lessons of the past, in favor of the dream that Arabs will see
the error of their ways and ask for it back with a promise of
perpetual peace, then here Israel too has every blood-bought right to
just keep on dreaming.
--
JM (aka "Shmendrik")