Re Parris of London TIMES on Suicide Bombers
wom...@sfo.com
The author Parris follows a path of serpentine subtlety in
reaching a conclusion which attempts to justify Israeli war crimes.
Herewith his key & concluding paragraph.
> The dispute is about the ownership of land, not about what
> behaviour is justified in protecting that ownership. On that we agree.
> The moral maze is a mirage. The turf war is real. It will be decided
> by force.
I reply that Matthew Parris --henceforth "MP"-- is using here a
linguistic trick typical of the Pharisees. To wit, when the Jews want
someone else's property they seize it by violence, chanting that "G_d told
us to take it." (The three works of the late Israel Shahak are
indispensable to help moderns take the spirit of the book of DEUTERONOMY
etc. with the approprate degree of seriousness.) According to evolved
Anglo-Roman standards of law, the crimes of robbery & murder here involved
require severe punishment after exposure by trial. Since the Graball (a
modified contraction of "Gross Cabal") has taken the precaution of
securing a monopoly of the imperial propaganda system, however, what is
properly called loot or booty is referred to by hireling accomplices of
the bandits as "disputed territory".
MP apparently wishes to harden the hearts of the 99+% normal --as
opposed to Chosen-- population of Earth against the outrage of the
high-tech Israeli slaughter of Palestinians underwritten through the
Graball's control of the entity officially styling itself as the
"Government of the United States". A dulling of the mind is required at
the same time, since otherwise the most elementary intelligence would
perceive that a dementality which routinely murders mothers, children,
physicians and ambulance drivers bodes ill for all those outside the
vicious circle and that sooner rather than later. The proverb from wartime
in Vietnam was "What goes around, comes around."
The self-interest of the human race as a whole obliges us to step
in while the malefactors are preoccupied with their genocide against
Iraqis and Palestinians in order to take them captive. The very reason, I
daresay, which moves MP to write his article rather than merely waiting in
grinning silence for the Israeli behemoth to finish its mass murder of the
Arabs = his perception that the _force_ of world public opinion is indeed
formidable. Hence by persiflage and pretended sympathy for the heroism of
the desperate & leaderless he attempts falsely to forstall our just
judgment.
Two place names burn like torches in the darkness of confusion
swirling around the strife in the Arabian lands: Nuremburg & Deir Yassin.
First the powers of the world with the greatest solemnity outlawed
aggressive war as henceforward the worst of all crimes known to our
species, then three years later the Zionist armed forces massacred the
peaceful & friendly villagers in order to terrorize the Arabs of Palestine
into fleeing their ancestral lands so as to make them available for Jewish
immigrants, mainly from Europe & America.
The name, therefore, of the largest illegal Jewish settlement is
easy to remember: Tel Aviv. Furthermore the first issue at hand = the
punishment of millions of murders --please see Justice Jackson's
statement-- rather than merely the return with damages of robbed real
estate. In this sense, the standard Jew-jingo claim that the Arabs want
"to drive the Jews into the sea" is too optimistic. We could, after all,
imagine driving the whole invader population down to the beach, whence
they would embark for their original homes. But so many of them are war
criminals whose escape from justice it would be felonious to abet. The
high number results from including Iraq in the calculation.
In this controversy the responsible reader must judge for herself
who has spoken truly about the facts of the case and the applicable law.
Character, intelligence, resolution and cooperation will be required
satisfactorily to sort out this immense transformation of our global
affairs. Rotsa ruck, too, of course.
Other remarks:
1. We note the sinister title, quite compatible with an Israeli military
source. > Death becomes them, despite what they do
2. The ripples of Cherie Blair's remarks petered out before reaching my
particular little corner of the Pacific Coast. Has there been U.K. comment
on the recent L.A.TIMES article by R.Perlmutter, professor of propaganda
at Louisiana State University, in which he delivered himself of the
opinion that it would just serve the nasty ol' gentiles right if the Jews
_did_ use their A-bombs to blow up the world?
3. > I suppose Samson was the original suicide bomber.
Although this is rather nice, it still does have an even more
sinister ring in its echo of the turncoat master journalist Seymour
Hersh's ~1986 book on Israeli nuclear policy entitled THE SAMPSON OPTION.
Cf. Perlmutter above.
4.
> Are Israeli civilians, then, by their very presence*, aggressors? The
> argument reduces to this question.
*Reaching for obscurity, MP here elides the crucial descriptive
phrase "on robbed Palestinian soil".
> There is therefore only one question left to resolve: who are the
> owners of the disputed territory? This is not really a moral question
> at all.
Mere chicanery. MP wishes his unwary reader to conclude that it is
merely an issue to be resolved by Israeli artillery. Boom boom, ho hum.
Whereas actually it is a legal issue of central importance to Earth as a
whole and the logical conclusion is clear, although the implementation of
the fair verdict presents a challenge, to say the least.
TJAM
"For Truth, Justice And the Milky Way"
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-V=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Times OnLine Opinion
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-334337,00.html
>
> Death becomes them, despite what they do
>
> Matthew Parris
> June 22, 2002
> We in the press may not be, as David Blunkett supposes, close to the
> edge of insanity, but we sometimes stray far from where our countrymen
[snip]
. .. ... .... ..... ...... ....... ........ ......... .......... . .. ... ....
The above as just submitted to the TIMES --HW
Werner Hetzner
wom...@sfo.com wrote:
> Comments by Hal Womack 3-dan of San Francisco on the article by Matthew Parris:
>
> The author Parris follows a path of serpentine subtlety in
> reaching a conclusion which attempts to justify Israeli war crimes.
> Herewith his key & concluding paragraph.
>
>
>>The dispute is about the ownership of land, not about what
>>behaviour is justified in protecting that ownership. On that we agree.
>>The moral maze is a mirage. The turf war is real. It will be decided
>>by force.
>>
>
> ...
>
>> There is therefore only one question left to resolve: who are the
>>owners of the disputed territory? This is not really a moral question
>>at all.
>>
>
> Mere chicanery. MP wishes his unwary reader to conclude that it is
> merely an issue to be resolved by Israeli artillery. Boom boom, ho hum.
> Whereas actually it is a legal issue of central importance to Earth as a
> whole and the logical conclusion is clear, although the implementation of
> the fair verdict presents a challenge, to say the least.
>
>
MP recognizes the law to be subjective. To the winner goes the law. Had
the Germans won, you'd have seen the Washington Trials instead of the
Nuernberg Trials. Likewise, if the Serbs had won, Clinton would be
sitting in the Hauge Court.
Israeli artillery my be insufficient to win. Palestinian determination
may be insufficient to win. But one will win and the other will lose.
The loser will have little say in writing the law of the land.
In the end it is a matter of interest not morality. Rent control laws
are a matter of interests of those who want to pay less over those who
wnat to get more. No matter how well it is dressed up in moral poetry,
those who get the cheap rents win. Those who'd like to pay more to live
in the apartment lose. So it is with all things.