Zionist Bloodbath and Irrationality

Lies are much more plausible, more appealing to reason, than reality, since the liar has the great advantage of knowing beforehand what the audience wishes or expects to hear.” Hannah Arendt[1]

by Jonas E. Alexis

Isabel Kershner of the New York Times is certainly an interesting journalist. She has recently complained that some Israeli farmers who lived in a rural community next to the border with Gaza and who left their homes due to the recent conflict still have not returned because the situation is still unstable. Then she said,

“The death last Friday of Daniel Tregerman, 4, was a seminal moment for some residents. Daniel was killed here when a mortar sent shrapnel flying into the living room of his family’s small stucco house.

“His family had ventured back during an earlier cease-fire that collapsed, after assurances from the military’s top brass that it was safe to return.

“Two more Israeli civilians were killed on Tuesday when mortars crashed into a nearby community, Nirim, half an hour before the new cease-fire took effect…”[2]

Why don’t people like Kershner come to their moral and political senses and address the bigger issues? Kershner even agrees that Israel does not want to face war crimes on Gaza.[3] More recently, she has declared,

“Israel laid claim on Sunday to nearly 1,000 acres of West Bank land in a Jewish settlement bloc near Bethlehem — a step that could herald significant Israeli construction in the area — defying Palestinian demands for a halt in settlement expansion.”

Furthermore, she conceives that at least 2,100 Palestinians have been killed due to the conflict, and you would at least think that she would move on to probe the deeper psychological questions:

Why were the Palestinians upset about Israel’s brutal colonization in the first place? Was it because they hated the Israelis so much that they wanted to literally destroy them?

Or was it because the Israeli regime, from its inception, desired to exterminate the remaining Palestinians in Gaza and elsewhere?

Kershner should be aware that at least 30,000 people “in Beit Hanoun [in Gaza] alone need rehousing.”[4]It has been reported that

“70% of homes were uninhabitable… In Shawkat, a neighborhood of Rafah city in the south which saw heavy fighting after an earlier ceasefire collapsed within hours, 300 out of 2,000 houses had been destroyed, along with the town hall… Previous estimates of 65,000 rendered homeless in Gaza now look conservative…

“More than 200,000 people remain in UN-run shelters, afraid or unable to return home, with many more staying with relatives. Food prices have risen sharply since the start of the war as fields are inaccessible or full of unexploded ordnance, and farms have been badly damaged.”[5]

Is Kershner willing to commit moral suicide in dismissing all that and frivolously marshaling the ridiculous and invariably Talmudic argument that the Israeli farmers are somehow more precious than those poor Gazans?

If she ends up committing moral suicide, she certainly would not be the only one. In response to my previous article, Michael Shrimpton makes the ridiculous statement that the condition in Gaza

“is a consequence of the entirely lawful blockade which is a perfectly proper and proportionate response to the mounting of terrorist attacks on Israel from the enclave. Stop the attacks and the blockade will be lifted.”

I really would like to know what kind of law Shrimpton is appealing to here. Did he invent those laws and try to force them upon us? Has he even read what Jewish judge Richard Goldstone said about Gaza a few years ago? Does he know how the Zionist mafia treated him? Is he seriously saying that the blockade is “lawful” under international law?

If so, then Shrimpton is a man who is willing to abandon all historical records and scholarship and even rational discourse and plunge into the Zionist abyss without knowing where it actually leads. Perhaps it is time to bring in Israeli scholar Yoram Dinstein.

Dinstein—former president of Tel Aviv University and former professor of international law at major universities, including the Max Planck Institute of International Law, New York University, University of Toronto, etc.—writes in his study The International Law of Belligerent Occupation that no country on earth would support the kind of “belligerent occupation” Israel is forcing upon the precious people in Gaza.

Moreover, this “belligerent occupation” is illegal under international law.[6] This idea has been advanced and articulated in one way or another by other Israeli historians and scholars such as Neve Gordon and others.[7]

I will not discuss the many historical inaccuracies Shrimpton has raised with respect to Nazi Germany and World War II, and obviously, this discussion is going nowhere because no amount of evidence will convince Shrimpton. I will mention just one.

Shrimpton declares that the Russians “were only doing to German women what their brutal menfolk had done to Russian women.”

Did Shrimpton really write this? If so, I think England deserves a better class of neocons and Zionists.[8]

Finally, if footnotes and citations are not essential in a column, why not even hyperlinks? If that still is too “dull,” I regret to say that I have no pleasure in reading subsequent columns.

And it seems to be either intellectual laziness or deliberate fabrications—or perhaps even both. The repeated statement that Assad actually used chemical weapons on his own people is a classic example.

Leaving Shrimpton’s historical inaccuracies aside, it is quite morally pathetic when people like Kershner do not want to look at the issue on a rational ground. According to their logic, Israel is always the victim and the Palestinians—most specifically Hamas—are always the aggressors and oppressors.

That argument has finally lost its political force in the eyes of much of the Western world, specifically when we compare it with Israel’s aggressive expansion.

Even the Jewish magazine Tikkun realized back in 2010 that Israel’s malicious actions in the Middle East are largely the cause of “anti-Semitism” worldwide.[9]

The Associated Press certainly did not help the regime when it has recently reported that it would take 20 years to rebuild Gaza. Moreover,

“The assessment by Shelter Cluster, chaired by the Norwegian Refugee Council with the participation of the U.N. refugee agency and the Red Cross, underscores the complexities involved in an overall reconstruction program for the Gaza Strip, which some Palestinian officials have estimated could cost in excess of $6 billion…

“In its report issued late Friday, Shelter Cluster said 17,000 Gaza housing units were destroyed or severely damaged during this summer’s war and 5,000 units still need work after damage sustained in the previous military campaigns. In addition, it says, Gaza has a housing deficit of 75,000 units.”

So, if the United States would stop supporting the Israeli regime for just two years, the Gaza Strip would meet the $6 billion challenge. Yet Evelyn Gordon of Commentary has declared that if Gaza is rebuilt, it would certainly be a huge waste.[10] The implication seems to be that even though Gaza is rebuilt, the Israeli regime will raze it to the ground again!

Yet instead of approaching this issue on a rational ground and emphasizing all the major twists and turns, Kershner accentuated on the Israeli families.

In other words, the implication seems to be that if 2,100 Palestinians happened to lose their lives in the conflict, it probably was their fault; Hamas brought this upon the Palestinians.

Should we really take people like Kershner seriously? Should we respect their ideology and suspend our moral reasoning just because they want to marshal their Zionist ethos? As Norman Finkelstein would have said, we should not respect comments like this anymore:

This is actually one of the heated issues that one of my historian friends and colleagues simply cannot answer. We usually spend many hours debating the Israel/Palestine conflict and he simply would not concede the point that Hamas’ reaction to Israel’s ideology is provoked. He keeps positing that Hamas is a terrorist organization and should be blamed for whatever happened to the Palestinians.

Since we were not making progress on this issue, I shifted the topic to Nazi Germany precisely because my friend has repeatedly said that it was Hitler’s intention to exterminate all the Jews of Europe, though he has absolutely no evidence to support this extraordinary claim and though I gave him numerous historical documentations to the contrary. I even bought him a historical book.

I proceeded to ask him, “You know there were many attempts to assassinate Hitler, right?” “Right,” he said. Since he agreed on that point, I moved on to say,

“Let us suppose that someone had succeeded. Would it have been a good thing or a bad thing?”

He realized very quickly that it was a trap and that saying yes to the question would obliterate his argument with respect to the Palestinians. If he did say yes, then I would have proceeded to say,

“So, according to your own logic, you would embrace the suicidal action of a psychopath if he intends to do some good in the end, right?”

If he did agree again, then the next step would be,

“Let us suppose that Hamas is as suicidal as the maniac with whom you have just agreed. If I follow what you are saying consistently, Hamas is right because Israel has slaughtered at least 700,000 thousand Palestinians from the very beginning.

“In other words, logically you agree with Hamas but politically and ideologically you take a different path. How can you maintain both positions while you claim to be a rational person?”

In any event, he responded by saying that assassinating Hitler would have been a bad thing.

Then the next question was, “All right. What you are telling me here is that it was a bad thing for the United States to attack Germany. Am I hearing you correctly?” With a low tone of voice, he responded by saying yes. Then I said with a smile,

“You are an anti-Semite! I challenge you to even write something close to that effect and you will find yourself in the middle of World War III with the powers that be.”

Having somewhat conceived that point, he went back to the issue of the Israel/Palestine conflict and said,

“You know, those people have to come to an agreement somehow. Those Palestinians make it so hard for the Israelis to come to a reasonable and lasting truce. The Palestinians have refused to sign up an agreement contract for far too long.”

I again started laughing because it is not every day you get to listen to an easily knocked-down argument. I then said,

“You know several politicians and Jewish writers and activists have labeled Gaza ‘an open-air prison,’ right? In fact, Ron Paul, whom you admire, declared that it is a ‘concentration camp.’[11]

“Again I am using your own premise here. When the Jews were in concentration camps in Nazi Germany, could they really make a deal with Hitler and say things like, ‘Let’s agree to make peace rather than war’?

“If the answer is no, do you really think that the Israeli regime wants to make a deal with the Gazans? Hasn’t the regime shed enough blood in the region, sending a clear message as to what they actually want? And if you doubt this, have you read what Israeli historians such as Benny Morris and others have said?”

All of a sudden, things got quiet and my dear friend left the room without saying a word. He seemed to have realized that he got jammed into a moral problem, which is irreducibly central to the Israel/Palestine conflict.

This is also one reason why the Israeli regime will never win the war morally because Zionism can only survive through irrationality, colonialism, genocide, and ultimately the death of the indefensible Goyim.

The regime will always be on the losing side, and it is just a matter of time before it will be exposed throughout the world. If you doubt this, listen to noted British journalist Robert Fisk with respect to the recent carnage in Gaza,

“Physically, the Israelis had won; all those broken lives and all those smashed buildings and all that destroyed infrastructure do not suggest that the Palestinians have ‘prevailed’ (to use a ‘Bushite’ word).

“But strategically, the Palestinians have won. They are still in Gaza, Hamas is still in Gaza, and the coalition government of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas appears still to be a reality.

“Many times has it been said that the founders of the Israeli state faced a problem: a land called Palestine. They dealt with that problem coldly, ruthlessly and efficiently. But now their problem is the Palestinians.

jewish-prime-minister-david-cameron1“Their land may have been taken for Israel, their surviving land may be eaten up by Israeli colonies, but the wretched Palestinians simply won’t go away. And killing them in large numbers – especially in front of the world’s television cameras – is getting to be a bit much, even for those who still shake in their boots at the mere whisper of the calumny ‘anti-Semitism.’

“Israeli spokesmen even ended up comparing their actions to bloody Second World War RAF air raids, hardly a propaganda strike in the 21st century.”[12]

In other words, every evil and Talmudic step that the regime takes will turn out to be bad for them (morally). Once again, think about how the regime was adamant about arming the Syrian rebels/jihadists.

Last fall, at least seven countries in the West, including the United States and Britain, tried to persuade Vladimir Putin to drop Assad and support the Syrian rebels. Jewish Prime Minister David Cameron, though he was frightened by the Syrian terrorists, was willing to help them.

“I am as worried as anyone else about elements of the Syrian opposition who are extremists, who support terrorism, who are a great danger to our world,” he said. But he moved on to add:

“My argument is that we shouldn’t accept that the only alternative to Assad is terrorism and violence. We should be on the side of Syrians who want a democratic and peaceful future for their country and one without the man who is currently using chemical weapons against them.”[13]

Who were those “Syrians who want a democratic and peaceful future”? Cameron could not tell us because it was a colossal lie.

We know for sure that Assad got re-elected by a landslide. And we know that Assad has been not only friendly to the Christian community in Syria but tried to protect them.

Moreover, the Christian community knew very well that if Assad is gone, life in Syria for would be a nightmare.[14] One dentist declared,

putin-obama-g8“If the regime goes, you can forget about Christians in Syria. Look what happened to the Christians of Iraq. They had to flee everywhere, while most of the churches were attacked and bombed.”[15]

The so-called Syrians that Cameron mentioned were none other than the Syrian terrorists themselves.[16] In response, Putin formulated a cogent argument which literally destroyed Cameron’s Zionist weltanschauung:

“You will not deny that one does not really need to support the people who not only kill their enemies but open up their bodies, and eat their intestines in front of the public and cameras.

“Are these the people you want to support? Is it them who you want to supply with weapons? Then this probably has little relation to humanitarian values that have been preached in Europe for hundreds of years.”[17]

Now people like Cameron and the Zionist mafia are slowly but surely learning that Dr. Frankenstein is alive and well in Syria and Iraq; they are catching up with what Putin said in 2013.

What Cameron and others have not had the courage to say is that Dr. Frankenstein, as Justin Raimondo and many others have meticulously documented and argued, was “made in Washington, Riyadh—and Tel Aviv.”

Things got so interesting that the Assad government came out with a declaration saying that they would ally with any state that is willing to fight ISIS! Russia indeed seized the moment and encouraged the West to ally with Assad. In short, Putin was a genius after all!

Now Cameron is telling us that ISIS is “a greater threat to our security than we have seen before”[18] or that Britain is facing the “greatest terrorist threat” in history.[19]

Cameron and members of his cabinet are so terrified that they think ISIS has the potential to attack the U.K.[20]

The Washington Post has recently declared that “at least 81 nationalities are fighting in Syria.”[21] Even the terrorist group mujahideen, or MEK, which the Zionist regime supported and trained under Bush and which was clearly considered a terrorist group until 2012,[22] is in Syria![23]

But once again the Goyim always end up paying the price. The regime supported ISIS in Syria, and ISIS ended up beheading American journalist James Foley.

What is even more interesting is that the United States is currently spending at least $7.5 million every day in Iraq:

Perhaps there is another reason as to why Cameron is now saying that ISIS is Britain’s greatest threat. He has probably witnessed that the vast majority of the British people have sided with the poor and indefensible of Gaza and have renounced the neocon version of politics.

The British newspaper The Guardian itself has reported that “British people are protesting about Gaza, not Iraq [meaning ISIS].”[24]

Cameron is hopelessly trying to regain political ground, and ISIS is certainly not good for the regime precisely because the regime created it. And after fighting the so-called “war on terror” for at least thirteen years, Cameron is now telling Britain that they are facing the greatest threat in history. The million-dollar questions are simply these:

Is Cameron that unintelligent? Does he mean to tell us that we need to continue to follow the so-called “war on terror” even though we are now facing “the greatest threat” in history? And does he want all of us to continue on the same path for thirteen more years? And if the dumb Goyim follows him, would not that mean that we will have more terrorist groups in the future? Finally, would not that mean that terrorist groups are heroes to the plot here? Who is actually winning the “war on terror”?

Certainly not the Goyim.

CITATIONS

[1] Quoted in Steven Salaita, Israel’s Dead Soul (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2011), 13.

[2] Isabel Kershner, “In Israel’s South, Families Worry About the Future of Settlements Near Gaza,” NY Times, August 27, 2014.

[3] Isabel Kershner, “Israel Braces for War Crimes Inquiries on Gaza,” NY Times, August 14, 2014; see also Julian Borger, “Hague court under western pressure not to open Gaza war crimes inquiry,” Guardian, August 18, 2014.

[4] Jason Burke, “Gaza Homes ‘Uninhabitable’ as Tens of Thousands Come Back to Rubble,” Guardian, August 11, 2014.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Yoram Dinstein, The International Law of Belligerent Occupation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).

[7] See also Zeev Sternhell, The Founding Myths of Israel (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998); Avi Shalim, Israel and Palestine (New York: Verso, 2009); Baylis Thomas, The Dark Side of Zionism: Israel’s Quest for Security through Dominance (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2009)

[8] I have just bought Shrimpton’s book and will plan to read it during the winter, since I already have a list of other books to read. I honestly was reluctant to do so because Shhrimpton does not seem to follow the scholarly world and does not seem to be interested in following the evidence wherever it may lead. We have already demonstrated how he was saying that Assad used chemical weapons when in fact it was the rebels who did so. What’s even worse, Shrimpton does not seem to make an apology for this at all.

[9] Tony Klug, “Are Israeli Policies Entrenching Anti-Semitism Worldwide?,” Tikkun, May/June 2010.

[10] Evelyn Gordon, “Why Billions to Rebuild Gaza Will go to Waste Yet Again,” Commentary, August 22, 2014.

[11]

[12] Robert Fisk, “Israel-Gaza conflict: No victory for Israel despite weeks of devastation,” The Independent, August 27, 2014.

[13] Stephen Castle, “Syria and Russia Warn West Against Aiding Rebels,” NY Times, June 17, 2014.

[14] See for example “Fearing Change, Many Christians in Syria Back Assad,” NY Times, September 27, 2011; Daniel Tovrov, “Syrian Christian Support for Assad Regime May Turn Out To Be a Losing Strategy,” International Business Times, June 16, 2012.

[15] See for example Alexandra Zavis, “Syria Christians Fear Life After Assad,” LA Times, March 7, 2012.

[16] Nick Ottens, “Britain’s Cameron Urges Support for Moderate Syrian Rebels,” Atlantic Sentinel, July 21, 2013.

[17] Quoted in Patrick Wintour, “Syria: Putin backs Assad and berates west over proposal to arm rebels,” Guardian, June 17, 2013.

[18] Quoted in Alan Cowell, “ISIS Fears Prompt Britain to Raise Terrorism Threat Level,” NY Times, August 29, 2014.

[19] Tom Whitehead, “Britain Facing ‘Greatest Terrorist Threat’ in History,” The Telegraph, August 29, 2014.

[20] Howard Koplowitz, “Will ISIS Attack The UK? Britain Raises Terror Threat Level To Severe; US ‘Unaware’ Of Specific Threat To America,” International Business Times, August 29, 2014.

[21] Ishaan Tharoor, “At Least 81 Nationalities Are Fighting in Syria,” Washington Post, August 29, 2014.

[22] For a recent development on this, see Ariane Tabatabai, “Beware of the MEK,” National Interest, August 22, 2014.

[23] Ishaan Tharoor, “At Least 81 Nationalities Are Fighting in Syria,” Washington Post, August 29, 2014

[24] Lindsey German, “Why British People Are Protesting About Gaza, Not Iraq,” Guardian, August 11, 2014; see also Nadia Khomani, “Thousands March Through London in Protest at Israeli Military Action in Gaza,” Guardian, August 10, 2014.

Jonas E. Alexis, Assistant Editor

Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book Zionism vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology is Undermining Western Culture. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.

• Read Jonas Alexis’s latest posts here >>>