Palestinians and Self Defense

The LAW according to Tayab Ali

Gaza is occupied…

Israel is the occupying force…

The occupation is likely to be unlawful due the purpose and time it has been in place… 

Hamas is a proscribed terrorist group- not a State but a non-State actor…

Israel has been in an ‘aggressive state’ over Gaza for decades as an occupier…

The occupied have the right to resist and repel occupation in international law (Geneva Convention additional protocol) as they are in a defensive position…

Palestinians have the right to self defence - which must comply with international law…

Israel does not as an occupier have the right to self defence under article 51 of the UN Charter as it is already in a position of occupation and attacking a non international armed group from within the occupied territory and not a State…

The statements made by Netanyahu and others is evidence of an intention to commit Genocide. 

Article 25 of the Rome Statue makes aiding, abetting or in any other supporting (including encouraging) international crimes a criminal offence in itself.

Documents written by International Lawyers

*****

These points make it clear there is no legal justification for Israel's latest scorched earth genocidal attack on Gaza.

Even if Hamas illegally attacked Israel on October 7, that still does not justify it.

Also the clock did not start on October 7, but no later than the Nabka of 1948, when Israel ethnically cleansed 750,000 Palestinians from the land they were stealing.

Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby

It's preposterous to believe Jack Ruby murdered Oswald because Jack Ruby "loved his country."

It was obviously a "hit" (and Ruby was a nightclub owning protege of mobster Meyer Lansky, so he knew something about hits) in the grandest of mob traditions, to keep Oswald from talking.

Talking about what?  That is the only question.

It appears that not long after his final move to Dallas to work at the School Book Depository, Oswald was talking to Jack Ruby about making a hit on Governor Connally.  The Dallas Police knew about this because conveniently they had an informant right there as it was happening.

This is completely consistent with my theory that Oswald was both a CIA asset and FBI informant.  The assassination of Kennedy involved many kinds of actors (former CIA--Dulles himself, CIA, FBI, Mafia) and they were all spying on one another throughout this process.  Each organization didn't want to be the one left holding the bag.

Oswald was doing a sting on Ruby (trying to get Ruby to pay for a hit)  and others connected with Dallas Police were spying on Oswald and Ruby.  Ruby himself was an FBI informant as well (from a longstanding alliance between FBI and the Mafia).

Or at least that's what Oswald may have thought he was doing.  In reality, Oswald was being moved into position as Patsy for the JFK assassination.  And Ruby had said enough already to have sufficient motivation to be sure that Oswald never went to trial, a key part of the whole operation.  The top dogs like Dulles and LBJ needed someone with the means and strong motive to kill the patsy before he could do much talking.

I believe Ruby was very deep in the conspiracy himself, acting as Lansky's man in Dallas.  He had already gotten one or more talented shooters from his mentor Lansky in Miami for JFK, but needed another to handle Connally.  In the end, Connally was not shot (though, contra the single bullet theory, it's possible someone tried...perhaps from the book depository...I'm not thinking Oswald who failed the paraffin test, couldn't have been going down the central stairwell without having been seen, etc).

BTW, at this time a primary organized crime syndicate in the USA was the National Crime Syndicate, which included Jews like Lansky and Ruby as well as Italian Catholics.  Lansky was dubbed 'The Accountant' for his skill in making the most profit from casinos.

LBJ and Zionism

 Lyndon Baines Johnson was a friend of Jews.  This was clear during World War II, when Johnson personally helped Jews escape from Europe.  As a congressman, he enabled the immigration of Eric Leinsdorf, who became the Music Director of the Los Angeles Philharmonic.

There was much good in this, and LBJ's anti-racism led to his work in getting the Civil Rights Act of 1965 passed.

But LBJ was also a notorious womanizer, and one of his most famous girlfriends was Alice Glass, who became the wife of the publisher of the Austin-American Statesman, who was a big backer of Johnson.

Johnson had a falling out with Alice after he started sending troops to Vietnam.  But before long, another girlfriend became much more important in his life.  She was Mathilde Krim, an ardent Zionist who had assisted emigration of Jews to Israel from Europe, then briefly lived in Israel herself before marrying the president of United Artists and moving to Los Angeles.

The Krims and especially Mathilde became a private counselor to Johnson on Israeli affairs, and stayed at the White House during much of the 1967 war.

The Scofield Bible

Christian Zionism relies on a translation of the bible by Cyrus Ingerson Scofield, a follower of Dispensationalism, known as the Scofield Bible.

It included a number of new elements emphasizing The End Times, The Rapture, and The State of Israel.  These were inventions of Scofield not actually found in the original Bible.

Scofield went on tours funded by wealthy European Zionists, making his Bible popular among white Evangelicals.

Holocaust Survivors on Zionism

[Copied from Professor Kallas on X]

Rudolf Vrba was a heroic antifascist Jew.

He was a survivor of  Majdanek and Auschwitz. He escaped from Auschwitz in 1944 in order to warn the Jews of Hungary about the Nazi extermination programme. Here is part of his testimony about Zionism.

1 “The Zionist movement of Europe played a very important role in the mass extermination of Jews. Indeed, I believe that without the cooperation of Zionists it would have been a much more difficult task….

The Zionists said that we are not Czechoslovaks or we are not Germans, we are not French, we are Jews and we must, as Jews, go back to our country, to Israel or to Palestine and found our state …

Then came the Nuremberg Law, which was a law, issued by a nominally civilized state [Nazi Germany], which said that Jews do not belong to Europe, but to Palestine. …

So, on one platform, Nazism and Zionism had something in common: they both preached that Jews don’t belong to Europe but to Palestine. ...

And naturally, the Germans said: ‘You see the Jews may not trust us but they will trust you’, to the Zionists, ‘because they have seen that they have always told them actually the truth: that you belong to Palestine, that you are a foreign element here.’ …

And so the Jewish councils were preferably selected from well-known Zionists. And, because the well-known Zionists became respectable, many Jews who were respectable anyway became Zionists. So they formed Jewish councils from a Zionist core, fortified by respectable members of society: top lawyers, top business people, top economists and that was the Jewish councils. ...

They were promised by the Germans or by the local fascist government to be protected from any discrimination because they are needed for administering of the Jewish affairs. …

So you had here already a Zionist clique enforced by money of big Jewish businessmen who would be prepared to go along with the discrimination against the masses of the Jewish population which were neither rich nor Zionist, and in other words did not belong to the clique. …

So I didn’t trust them in spite of the fact that the Nazis gave them the right after the Nuremberg Laws. I considered them plain fascists and I considered them from the very start as despicable creatures who deal with the fascists and take profit out of it in order to be exempted from discrimination conducted against the others. …

So I didn’t trust the Nazis any more or any less than the Jewish Zionist councils. Indeed, I realised that the Zionists and the Nazis are approximately identical enemies of mine who have got both one thing in common, to get me out from home with 25 kilos to an unknown place and to leave my mother completely defenceless at home. …

The young people, the core of resistance, is always 16 to 30. Every soldier knows that they are the best material for fighting. … I was flabbergasted by the fact that the Zionists who pretended to be the protectors of the Jews, the first thing which they agreed to was to let go away a potential core of resistance who could in the last resort protect the families with force if necessary. …

2 I am a Jew. In spite of that – indeed because of that – I accuse certain Jewish leaders of one of the most ghastly deeds of the war.

This small group of quislings knew what was happening to their brethren in Hitler’s gas chambers and bought their own lives with the price of silence. Among them was Dr. [Rudolf] Kastner, leader of the council which spoke for all Jews in Hungary…

While I was prisoner number 44070 at Auschwitz – the number is still on my arm – I compiled careful statistics of the exterminations … I took these terrible statistics with me when I escaped in 1944 and I was able to give Hungarian Zionist leaders three weeks notice that Eichmann planned to send a million of their Jews to his gas chambers. … Kastner went to Eichmann and told him, ‘I know of your plans; spare some Jews of my choice and I shall keep quiet.’

Eichmann not only agreed, but dressed Kastner up in S.S. uniform and took him to Belsen to trace some of his friends. Nor did the sordid bargaining end there.

Kastner paid Eichmann several thousand dollars. With this little fortune, Eichmann was able to buy his way to freedom when Germany collapsed, to set himself up in the Argentine…

3 Why did Doctor Kastner betray his people when he could have saved many of them by warning them, by giving them a chance to fight, a chance to stage the second ‘Warsaw [uprising]’ which Eichmann feared? …

Could it be, therefore that the defeatist mood of Doctor Kastner was reinforced by the memory of words used by Doctor Chaim Weizmann, first President of Israel, when he addressed a Zionist convention in London in 1937? He said:

I told the British Royal Commission that the hopes of Europe’s six million Jews were centred on emigration. I was asked: ‘Can you bring six million Jews to Palestine?’ I replied: ‘No.’ The old ones will pass. They will bear their fate or they will not. They are dust, economic and moral dust in a cruel world … only a branch will survive … They had to accept it. … If they feel and suffer, they will find the way – Beacharit Hayamim [‘When the Messiah comes, all the dead will be revived’] – in the fullness of time … I pray that we may preserve our national unity, for it is all we have.

‘Only a branch will survive …’. Did Kastner, like Hitler, believe in a master race, a Jewish nation created of Top People for Top People by Top People? Was that the way in which he interpreted Doctor Chaim Weizmann's somber oration and was he right in so doing? If so, who was going to select the branch? Who was going to say which grains would form the heap of moral and economic dust, destined to await the coming of the Messiah? …

My family, presumably, formed the dust which was to be swept into the ovens by the Nazis who used Jewish leaders as their brooms …”

Read his book "I escaped from Auschwitz " to find out more. 

Another heroic antifascist Jew was Marek Edelman, the last surviving leader of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.

Here what he said about Zionism:

“During the war it never even entered any of our minds that the Zionists were deliberately remaining passive in regard to the physical destruction of the Jews in order to additionally justify the founding of the State of Israel… But today, even acknowledged historians speak out loud about the way that some of the Zionists living in Palestine exploited the Holocaust politically! … The first Israeli Prime Minister Ben Gurion believed that the worse it is for the Jews in Europe, the better for Israel. He put that into practice… Ben Gurion washed his hands of the Diaspora… As early as a Mapai party conference in December 1942, he said that the tragedy of the European Jews did not ‘directly concern’ them. Those were the words of a leader who was willing to sacrifice the lives of millions of Jews to the idea of a Jewish state. I’m not saying he could have saved thousands of people, but he could have fought for those thousands of people. He did not do so. I don’t know whether this was deliberate.”

Last but not least, Primo Levi was an author and an Auschwitz survivor. He wrote: 

"As for Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin ‘Fascist’ is a definition I can accept. I think even Begin would not deny it. He was a student of Jabotinsky, who represented the right wing of Zionism, who called himself a Fascist and was one of Mussolini’s interlocutors. Yes, Begin was his pupil. That is Begin’s history…. The Holocaust is Begin’s favourite defence. And I deny any validity to that defence."

We can go on and on.

What's important now is to expose the fascist Zionists who dare to use the memory of the victims of the Holocaust to justify the ongoing Holocaust of Palestinians while historically themselves were either collaborators with the German Nazis or in the best case, indifferent to fight against them unlike so many Jewish antifascist partisans who fought against the Genocidal Nazi Empire alongside other antifascist partisans. 

Debunking the Beheaded Babies story

https://x.com/propandco/status/1725228347574145285?s=20

The heart of the debunking is that IDF would not share photographic evidence, claiming disrespect for the dead.  Then 2 days after the original claim, an Israeli official (reported in CNN) could not confirm that babies were beheaded.  The White House confirmed that Biden had not seen or independently confirmed beheaded babies.  And Haaretz only reported one baby dead, circumstances unknown.  Also, the damage at the Kibbutz, including blown up concrete buildings, is far more than Hamas could have accomplished, it was almost certainly blown up by IDF to prevent Hamas from taking hostages.

Still, once reported, the story keep being reported, despite denials and lacking evidence in the public domain.

Similar situation wrt the hospitals that supposedly housed Hamas command centers.  The few photos we've seen of this are laughable compared to the virtual reality diagrams and simulations Israel developed.  They look more like the weapons and communication devices of the hospital security staff.

Some interesting revisionism

Self-described (converted that way from hard knocks)  anti-Zionist cautions that we must be conscious not only of motivations but effects.

It's a very intelligent and well informed essay, worth reading and re-reading perhaps despite it's clear Revisionist POV (socialist idealist).  The author suggests some harmony with Marxism-Leninism but perhaps only a re-imagined M-L.

The title suggests the essay (written in 1977) was written by Moishe Postone under a pseudonym and published in Germany.  I'm not sure if this is correct, it is not listed in Wikipedia as one of Postone's works.  However Postone does look like an interesing "post M-L" theorist I think I'd like to check out some more, possibly in the same nature as the essay above: it's so full of facts and ideas despite my feeling that the author is still fundamentally wrong somehow.

Here's where I think the error is:  I think it's ludicrous to believe we can analyze effects, except perhaps in a millenial perspective.  Even 2000 years later, it's all about ideals, perceptions, and preconceptions.  Were the Jews losers for having lost their (and others') homeland under Roman (and earlier) empires and facing frequent pograms?  Or were they winners from having settled and grown into nearly every country in the world, often occupying the upper levels of respect and remuneration in many if not most places as well?  (I say winners, and that Jews were critical to the success of USA and Europe. Since 1948, and due to Zionist myopia, the Jewish mind power that used to drive Western innovation has faded, as has the West itself--and this is not entirely coincidence.)

I would not myself want to be involved in the hijackings that Palestinian groups carried out in the 1970's, understandable though they might be.  Retrospectively it's hard to say they made any difference at all.  Israel was going to do what they did, and nobody was going to stop them.

Were the Hamas attacks of October 7 of the same overtly terrorist nature?  Absolutely not.  They hardly seem aimed toward civilian terror outside Israel, or atrocities and massacres at all (and such allegations have not been well established in my view).  By all sources at least 300 IDF forces were killed.  My sources further say the attack was aimed at several bases around the Gaza perimeter, and the key goal of Hamas was to capture hostages to be used in prisoner exchange (while this is a war crime, it is not genocide, and it does merely reflect the greater detentions of Israel).  Israel has a well known policy not to allow hostages to be taken, even at some cost in civilian casualties.  And indeed it seems like much if not most  of the civilian deaths were from friendly fire, though I am also discontent at how poorly this has been established (though claimed as fact by many people on my twitter).  But the reverse has not been established either, despite the much greater ability of Israel to do so.  It looks likely to be a cover up, suggesting my sources have the story basically correct.  Here's one recent thread.

So of course I do not denounce the Hamas attacks.  And I don't know where this will all lead, but it remains my belief that the Zionist Entity is a temporary phenomenon.  In the millennial perpsective then, 1000 years from now, all Palestinian attacks and even terror may appear not only justified but successful.  So I don't judge them either.

My likely more passive strategies hardly matter.  Palestinians would best be making their own choices, not necessarily the Hamas leadership and auxilliaries, but how can this be imagined when they are not even permitted to make their own choices if those choices are opposed to the existence of Israel, as all sane minded people should be?  "Democracy" is not only trivially necessary it is trivially impossible.  Hence there is little democracy in the oldest democratic republics of the world.  What the West and Israel clearly want is a captured client-democratic process such as the one that originally existed in the Palestinian Authority.  Not actual sovereignty for the Palestinians.

It does seem to me that Palestinians do have a strong will to fight Zionism and reclaim their state.  It has reached the point where it seems many would rather die than be displaced further, resulting in some of the civilian casualties.  That is understandable.  Others may simply be unable to move as 'requested' by Israel.

What Jews would Palestinians "allow" to remain in the reclaimed Palestine?  The essay author says some say '20 and others say '48. But any plausible settlement would allow all Jews currently in Israel/Palestine to remain in a restored pre-48 Palestine, and I believe the 2017 Hamas Charter says as much.  The goal is a state without any discrimination.  And as is often claimed, many Jews may leave under the threat of losing their discriminatory advantages of a state that persecutes, steals from, and murders other ethnicities, but perhaps not as many as Zionists would imagine.  People often change their stripes when material circumstances dictate, which is why material circumstances should be organized without discrimination in the first place.

Another difficulty arrises from the return of Palestinian properties.  Generally in cases of theft, material changes or "improvements" don't count, it all has to be given to the rightful owners.  It is hard to imagine all this happening, but it's far from impossible.

Update: The essay now does appear to be written by Postone.  He was educated in none other than Frankfurt, where the essay was published.  Though he seems to find more (but still limited) value in Marxism-Leninism than other Frankfurt School Marxists, so he's a kind of post-Frankfurt along with post-M-L.  He taught at University of Chicago, which refused him tenure in Sociology but finally accepted him in History.  Ironic that first 4 letters in his surname are post.