I recently read a post by Ibrahim Yusuf about
Bibi Netenyahu's speech highlighting the so called lack of preconditions set on the Palestinian state in order to begin the lie that is a peace process. I don't want to discuss the speech, I think our brother here did a very good job in highlighting the falsification of the entire notion of an unconditional negotiation for the settlement of the world’s most unjust conflict. You can say Darfur is worse (a topic that I will discuss in future blogs), or maybe the struggle of the Tamils, but there is one fundamental difference between the I/P conflict and all others. Simply put, Israel is the last remaining colony in the modern world, and it will remain so until Palestine is established. You can come up with all types of arguments to say this is false, the land was promised to the Jews in the Bible, Palestine never existed, and I’ve even heard the argument that the land was uninhabited prior to the establishment of Israel. But no right minded person can agree with any of these claims, after all until a few years ago Kosovo didn't exist, it was a region in a country, much the same way that Palestine was a region in two great empires (the Ottoman and British), no one claimed it didn’t exist then. The fact of the matter is Palestinians lived in Palestine for centuries, maybe it was inhabited by Jews 2000 years ago, but America was inhabited by Indians 200 years ago, what do you think the world would do if those few that are left began reproducing like bunnies, got the backing of China, put the white man into reserves, and claimed they have no rights to the land? Basing a claim on a 2000 year old book is illogical to say the least. You may believe it’s the word of God, but if so surely God would be just to all, not a select few, so again such an argument is rather fallible. a lot of arguments are being made on both sides of this conflict, one side tends to speak logic in the form of human rights and the right to self-determination, the other sticks to one particular argument, any statements against Israel are automatically anti-Semitic, very mature don't you think? But from all these points that are made I’ve rarely heard reference to the most blatantly obvious, the sheer double standard between the rights of both parties. How can you expect Palestine to recognize Israel when Palestine itself is a non-existent entity? The right of recognition is reserved for member nations of this world, the state of Alabama isn’t charged with recognizing Israel, and since Palestine is not a country but an occupied mass of little Islands surrounded by the state that is Israel, how can it be expected to recognize an independent nation? As for the other key claim, Palestinians must renounce violence, my Lord this is the mother of all double standards. Let’s just take a logical approach to this matter, using international law as the set standard. First of all attacks on settlements cannot be considered attacks on civilians according to Israeli laws, they are, according to the Israeli Government, legal occupations and the only way for them to be legal is for them to be military outposts, as is highlighted in
Geneva convention article 49. I am Muslim I cannot condone the murder of women, children or the infirmed, it is wrong no matter what the situation, but then again settlers should know they are revoking their right to call themselves civilians when they relocate to a 'legal' outpost. Before anyone says anything regarding this point of view, it is very similar to
this, only a great deal more logical considering violent protestors all over the world are fired on with fire hoses and tear gas, not bullets.
Secondly, the rate of civilian deaths is 1 Israeli to every 100 Palestinian during the most recent conflict, which side appears more violent when you look at it from this perspective, especially considering this is 10 times the
reprisal ratio ordered by Hitler in Italy (335 for 33 Nazi's killed). Renouncing violence is not something readily acceptable to any occupied populace. Imagine for a second you live in Manchester. The Irish get drunk and decide to have a little fun, they invade England, take over the northwest, force people to live in little enclaves of land and be wholly dependent on them for everything from medical supplies to food; refuse you the right to visit family members in London; constantly harass you, making you feel impotent amongst a variety of different humiliations that the independent press have made common knowledge for anyone willing to search for the truth instead of falling for peter Jennings hook line and sinker. Tell me, what would you do? Would renouncing violence be high on your list of priorities? Why aren't the Tamil Tigers forced to renounce violence by the international community in order to negotiate? Why is Israel subject to one set of rules that are completely contradictory to the laws of the world?
I don’t need to answer these questions because anyone with the slightest will to ask themselves such questions already knows the answers, but for those who don’t answer me these simple questions, who owns all the mainstream media outlets? What do almost all US presidents and the British Royal families have in common? And where does the British Royal families’ ancestry lead to? If you can answer these questions your almost enlightened.
Finally, the right to resist is a right possessed by any occupied or oppressed population, again according to the
Geneva Convention. To ask Palestinians to castrate themselves and forgo this right is the greatest possible insult to them, tantamount to advocating genocide as that is what will evidently happen if this right is given away, history has proven that. Granted this right to resist doesn’t extend to the murder of civilians, and for this I condemn Palestinian resistance movements, but it makes no sense to condemn one side and not the other. For example, collective punishment is a crime under international law, yet Gaza is the world’s largest open air prison and Bibi and his cronies can get away with it without so much as a whisper from the international community. The typical hasbara justification, the Gazans voted in terrorists and must therefore face the consequences of their actions. Any Zionist out there please tells me do you all believe the bull that comes out of your mouths? Again I repeat collective punishment is a crime under international law!!