Breaking The Last Taboo - Gaza And The Threat Of World War

[fanger]

"There is a taboo," said the visionary Edward Said, "on telling the truth about Palestine and the great destructive force behind Israel. Only when this truth is out can any of us be free."

For many people, the truth is out now. At last, they know. Those once intimidated into silence can't look away now. Staring at them from their TV, laptop, phone, is proof of the barbarism of the Israeli state and the great destructive force of its mentor and provider, the United States, the cowardice of European governments, and the collusion of others, such as Canada and Australian, in this epic crime.

The attack on Gaza was an attack on all of us. The siege of Gaza is a siege of all of us. The denial of justice to Palestinians is a symptom of much of humanity under siege and a warning that the threat of a new world war is growing by the day.

When Nelson Mandela called the struggle of Palestine "the greatest moral issue of our time", he spoke on behalf of true civilisation, not that which empires invent. In Latin America, the governments of Brazil, Chile, Venezuela, Bolivia, El Salvador, Peru and Ecuador have made their stand on Gaza. Each of these countries has known its own dark silence when immunity for mass murder was sponsored by the same godfather in Washington that answered the cries of children in Gaza with more ammunition to kill them.

Unlike Netanyahu and his killers, Washington's pet fascists in Latin America didn't concern themselves with moral window dressing. They simply murdered, and left the bodies on rubbish dumps. For Zionism, the goal is the same: to dispossess and ultimately destroy an entire human society: a truth that 225 Holocaust survivors and their descendants have compared with the genesis of genocide.

Nothing has changed since the Zionists' infamous "Plan D" in 1948 that ethnically cleansed an entire people. Recently, on the website of the Times of Israel were the words: "Genocide is Permissible". A deputy speaker of the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, Moshe Feiglin, demands a policy of mass expulsion into concentration camps. An MP, Ayelet Shaked, whose party is a member of the governing coalition, calls for the extermination of Palestinian mothers to prevent them giving birth to what she calls "little snakes".

Breaking The Last Taboo - Gaza and the Threat of World War Information Clearing House - ICH

Why must we live in this state of perpetual war?

 

[P F Tinmore]

"There is a taboo," said the visionary Edward Said, "on telling the truth about Palestine and the great destructive force behind Israel. Only when this truth is out can any of us be free."

For many people, the truth is out now. At last, they know. Those once intimidated into silence can't look away now. Staring at them from their TV, laptop, phone, is proof of the barbarism of the Israeli state and the great destructive force of its mentor and provider, the United States, the cowardice of European governments, and the collusion of others, such as Canada and Australian, in this epic crime.

The attack on Gaza was an attack on all of us. The siege of Gaza is a siege of all of us. The denial of justice to Palestinians is a symptom of much of humanity under siege and a warning that the threat of a new world war is growing by the day.

When Nelson Mandela called the struggle of Palestine "the greatest moral issue of our time", he spoke on behalf of true civilisation, not that which empires invent. In Latin America, the governments of Brazil, Chile, Venezuela, Bolivia, El Salvador, Peru and Ecuador have made their stand on Gaza. Each of these countries has known its own dark silence when immunity for mass murder was sponsored by the same godfather in Washington that answered the cries of children in Gaza with more ammunition to kill them.

Unlike Netanyahu and his killers, Washington's pet fascists in Latin America didn't concern themselves with moral window dressing. They simply murdered, and left the bodies on rubbish dumps. For Zionism, the goal is the same: to dispossess and ultimately destroy an entire human society: a truth that 225 Holocaust survivors and their descendants have compared with the genesis of genocide.

Nothing has changed since the Zionists' infamous "Plan D" in 1948 that ethnically cleansed an entire people. Recently, on the website of the Times of Israel were the words: "Genocide is Permissible". A deputy speaker of the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, Moshe Feiglin, demands a policy of mass expulsion into concentration camps. An MP, Ayelet Shaked, whose party is a member of the governing coalition, calls for the extermination of Palestinian mothers to prevent them giving birth to what she calls "little snakes".

Breaking The Last Taboo - Gaza and the Threat of World War Information Clearing House - ICH

Why must we live in this state of perpetual war?

 

[pbel]

"There is a taboo," said the visionary Edward Said, "on telling the truth about Palestine and the great destructive force behind Israel. Only when this truth is out can any of us be free."

For many people, the truth is out now. At last, they know. Those once intimidated into silence can't look away now. Staring at them from their TV, laptop, phone, is proof of the barbarism of the Israeli state and the great destructive force of its mentor and provider, the United States, the cowardice of European governments, and the collusion of others, such as Canada and Australian, in this epic crime.

The attack on Gaza was an attack on all of us. The siege of Gaza is a siege of all of us. The denial of justice to Palestinians is a symptom of much of humanity under siege and a warning that the threat of a new world war is growing by the day.

When Nelson Mandela called the struggle of Palestine "the greatest moral issue of our time", he spoke on behalf of true civilisation, not that which empires invent. In Latin America, the governments of Brazil, Chile, Venezuela, Bolivia, El Salvador, Peru and Ecuador have made their stand on Gaza. Each of these countries has known its own dark silence when immunity for mass murder was sponsored by the same godfather in Washington that answered the cries of children in Gaza with more ammunition to kill them.

Unlike Netanyahu and his killers, Washington's pet fascists in Latin America didn't concern themselves with moral window dressing. They simply murdered, and left the bodies on rubbish dumps. For Zionism, the goal is the same: to dispossess and ultimately destroy an entire human society: a truth that 225 Holocaust survivors and their descendants have compared with the genesis of genocide.

Nothing has changed since the Zionists' infamous "Plan D" in 1948 that ethnically cleansed an entire people. Recently, on the website of the Times of Israel were the words: "Genocide is Permissible". A deputy speaker of the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, Moshe Feiglin, demands a policy of mass expulsion into concentration camps. An MP, Ayelet Shaked, whose party is a member of the governing coalition, calls for the extermination of Palestinian mothers to prevent them giving birth to what she calls "little snakes".

Breaking The Last Taboo - Gaza and the Threat of World War Information Clearing House - ICH

Why must we live in this state of perpetual war?

This stain of Israeli genocide is worn by all Americans, that's why we are all targets of terrorism...Americans need to reign in these American politicians underwritten by AIPAC!

 

[Kondor3]

Plan D?

All this anti-Israeli sky-is-falling and steaming, smelly horseshit is downright comical when you get right down to it.

Sounds more like Plan 9 from Outer Space...

The only 'genocide' going on here is in the fevered brains of Palestinian militants who fantasize about drowning the Jews in the Mediterranean as they've publicly and repeatedly sworn to do.

 

[RoccoR]

pbel, et al,

The US needs to address the threat of the day, not the threat of dispute of half century ago.

[
This stain of Israeli genocide is worn by all Americans, that's why we are all targets of terrorism...Americans need to reign in these American politicians underwritten by AIPAC!

(COMMENT)

Todays threats are many; it is a very dangerous world out there. But among them them are the designated terrorist organizations. Allowed to run unrestrained and they evolve into organizations like ISIS (The Islamic State), a true --- present day --- threat to peace.

In the case of the Middle East, one such threat is HAMAS and its associate and affiliate activities. They need to be neutralized, along with those aspects that provide material support to them.

There is no Israeli activity that is involved in acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group (Article 6 / Rome Statutes); to include the Arab Palestinian. They are instead, involved in the detection, exploitation and neutralization of designated terrorist activities that pose a threat to Israeli sovereignty and the security of Israeli citizens.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

pbel, et al,

The US needs to address the threat of the day, not the threat of dispute of half century ago.

[
This stain of Israeli genocide is worn by all Americans, that's why we are all targets of terrorism...Americans need to reign in these American politicians underwritten by AIPAC!

(COMMENT)

Todays threats are many; it is a very dangerous world out there. But among them them are the designated terrorist organizations. Allowed to run unrestrained and they evolve into organizations like ISIS (The Islamic State), a true --- present day --- threat to peace.

In the case of the Middle East, one such threat is HAMAS and its associate and affiliate activities. They need to be neutralized, along with those aspects that provide material support to them.

There is no Israeli activity that is involved in acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group (Article 6 / Rome Statutes); to include the Arab Palestinian. They are instead, involved in the detection, exploitation and neutralization of designated terrorist activities that pose a threat to Israeli sovereignty and the security of Israeli citizens.

Most Respectfully,
R

"There is no Israeli activity that is involved in acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group "

Of course there is, the Israelis have been trying to eliminate the non-Jews in Palestine since the 1920s you twit.

 

[pbel]

pbel, et al,

The US needs to address the threat of the day, not the threat of dispute of half century ago.

[
This stain of Israeli genocide is worn by all Americans, that's why we are all targets of terrorism...Americans need to reign in these American politicians underwritten by AIPAC!

(COMMENT)

Todays threats are many; it is a very dangerous world out there. But among them them are the designated terrorist organizations. Allowed to run unrestrained and they evolve into organizations like ISIS (The Islamic State), a true --- present day --- threat to peace.

In the case of the Middle East, one such threat is HAMAS and its associate and affiliate activities. They need to be neutralized, along with those aspects that provide material support to them.

There is no Israeli activity that is involved in acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group (Article 6 / Rome Statutes); to include the Arab Palestinian. They are instead, involved in the detection, exploitation and neutralization of designated terrorist activities that pose a threat to Israeli sovereignty and the security of Israeli citizens.

Most Respectfully,
R

God save us from this drivel...Look at the last few years, we've created these enemies and continue to this day with Zionist inspired agendas who even laugh at our government and President calling for peace.

Sometimes Rocco, you sound like an Israeli Agent...

 

[RoccoR]

pbel, et al,

Talk about "drivel..."

God save us from this drivel...Look at the last few years, we've created these enemies and continue to this day with Zionist inspired agendas who even laugh at our government and President calling for peace.

Sometimes Rocco, you sound like an Israeli Agent...

(COMMENT)

I'm not a zionist, but I know a terrorist organization masquerading as a "Resistance Movement" when I see it. HAMAS is just one of them. A threat to peace and a threat to America and its interests.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[pbel]

pbel, et al,

Talk about "drivel..."

God save us from this drivel...Look at the last few years, we've created these enemies and continue to this day with Zionist inspired agendas who even laugh at our government and President calling for peace.

Sometimes Rocco, you sound like an Israeli Agent...

(COMMENT)

I'm not a zionist, but I know a terrorist organization masquerading as a "Resistance Movement" when I see it. HAMAS is just one of them. A threat to peace and a threat to America and its interests.

Most Respectfully,
R

ROLMAO!

 

[Indeependent]

Jews are a scary lot.
Just look at them sweeping across the Middle East beheading everyone who wears a different color shirt.
Oops! My mistake. That's the Muslims.
Jew haters just can't handle the truth.

 

[Daniyel]

Pbel, do you ever happened to think it is possible that maybe you're wrong?

 

[P F Tinmore]

pbel, et al,

Talk about "drivel..."

God save us from this drivel...Look at the last few years, we've created these enemies and continue to this day with Zionist inspired agendas who even laugh at our government and President calling for peace.

Sometimes Rocco, you sound like an Israeli Agent...

(COMMENT)

I'm not a zionist, but I know a terrorist organization masquerading as a "Resistance Movement" when I see it. HAMAS is just one of them. A threat to peace and a threat to America and its interests.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you still pimping that terrorist crap?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Do you deny it?

Are you still pimping that terrorist crap?

(COMMENT)

What is your basis for denying that HAMAS, and its associates and affiliated groups are not terrorist?

And please, use something current and relative to the 21st Century.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Do you deny it?

Are you still pimping that terrorist crap?

(COMMENT)

What is your basis for denying that HAMAS, and its associates and affiliated groups are not terrorist?

And please, use something current and relative to the 21st Century.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves against occupation and colonialism.

A blockade is a daily act of war. An act of war that continues despite that there is supposed to be a cease fire.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a belligerent occupation of the West Bank, and a lawful blockade of Gaza.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Do you deny it?

Are you still pimping that terrorist crap?

(COMMENT)

What is your basis for denying that HAMAS, and its associates and affiliated groups are not terrorist?

And please, use something current and relative to the 21st Century.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves against occupation and colonialism.

A blockade is a daily act of war. An act of war that continues despite that there is supposed to be a cease fire.

(COMMENT)

Under the Customary International Human Rights Law (IHL):

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949]
Article 68

• Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
  The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
• The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
• In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.

The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) is either at "WAR" or under "OCCUPATION." Which is it? If you claim "Occupation" then both acts of harm and serious and intentional offenses which cause death are punishable. Why --- because the involve the use of force to settle a dispute.

The HoAP has no special dispensation to cross a demarcation line and use tactics to intimidate the population and citizenry of Israel.

If you are going to declare "war" --- then do it. If you are going to play the role of a victim, then prepare for the consequence. Even the High Commissioner UNHCR, agrees (as pro-Palestinian as she is) that "In deed Israel does have the right to defend itself against the indiscriminate firing of rockets."

The blockade is merely an extension of that defense; as I outline specifically in previous postings.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a belligerent occupation of the West Bank, and a lawful blockade of Gaza.


(COMMENT)

Under the Customary International Human Rights Law (IHL):


The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) is either at "WAR" or under "OCCUPATION." Which is it? If you claim "Occupation" then both acts of harm and serious and intentional offenses which cause death are punishable. Why --- because the involve the use of force to settle a dispute.

I don't see a dispute.

Your Article 68 references enforcement of law (police not a military action) in a proper occupation. The laws of occupation have obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of those obligations and restrictions. Its actions can more accurately be defined as colonialism. Under that definition all of Israel's actions are illegal.

Under that definition the remainder of your post would not be applicable.

The HoAP has no special dispensation to cross a demarcation line and use tactics to intimidate the population and citizenry of Israel.

If you are going to declare "war" --- then do it. If you are going to play the role of a victim, then prepare for the consequence. Even the High Commissioner UNHCR, agrees (as pro-Palestinian as she is) that "In deed Israel does have the right to defend itself against the indiscriminate firing of rockets."

The blockade is merely an extension of that defense; as I outline specifically in previous postings.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are way off course. The General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 on Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples has no applicability here at all.

I don't see a dispute.

Your Article 68 references enforcement of law (police not a military action) in a proper occupation. The laws of occupation have obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of those obligations and restrictions. Its actions can more accurately be defined as colonialism. Under that definition all of Israel's actions are illegal.

Under that definition the remainder of your post would not be applicable.

(COMMENT)

The Settlements are covered under the Oslo Accords and subject to the dispute resolution process therein. The State of Palestine was established by the Palestine Liberation Organization and recognized as being within the boundaries of the territories occupied as of 1967. "The Security Council, the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights have also repeatedly reaffirmed the de jure applicability to the occupied Palestinian territories of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War." What more needs to be said?

Now there is an argument to be made in drawing a clear distinction between the case of “aggressive conquest” and territorial disputes that arise after a war of "self-defense." But neither outcome would amount to colonial assumptions.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are way off course. The General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 on Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples has no applicability here at all.

I don't see a dispute.

Your Article 68 references enforcement of law (police not a military action) in a proper occupation. The laws of occupation have obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of those obligations and restrictions. Its actions can more accurately be defined as colonialism. Under that definition all of Israel's actions are illegal.

Under that definition the remainder of your post would not be applicable.

(COMMENT)

The Settlements are covered under the Oslo Accords and subject to the dispute resolution process therein. The State of Palestine was established by the Palestine Liberation Organization and recognized as being within the boundaries of the territories occupied as of 1967. "The Security Council, the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights have also repeatedly reaffirmed the de jure applicability to the occupied Palestinian territories of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War." What more needs to be said?

This is all just recent politics that have no bearing on the roots of the problem.

Now there is an argument to be made in drawing a clear distinction between the case of “aggressive conquest” and territorial disputes that arise after a war of "self-defense." But neither outcome would amount to colonial assumptions.

Most Respectfully,
R

It was definitely an aggressive conquest. There is no question about it.

The concept that Israel "defended itself" from the native population on their own land is too friggin bizarre for me to entertain particularly since the native population were civilians without an army.

 

[MJB12741]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are way off course. The General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 on Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples has no applicability here at all.

I don't see a dispute.

Your Article 68 references enforcement of law (police not a military action) in a proper occupation. The laws of occupation have obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of those obligations and restrictions. Its actions can more accurately be defined as colonialism. Under that definition all of Israel's actions are illegal.

Under that definition the remainder of your post would not be applicable.

(COMMENT)

The Settlements are covered under the Oslo Accords and subject to the dispute resolution process therein. The State of Palestine was established by the Palestine Liberation Organization and recognized as being within the boundaries of the territories occupied as of 1967. "The Security Council, the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights have also repeatedly reaffirmed the de jure applicability to the occupied Palestinian territories of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War." What more needs to be said?

This is all just recent politics that have no bearing on the roots of the problem.

Now there is an argument to be made in drawing a clear distinction between the case of “aggressive conquest” and territorial disputes that arise after a war of "self-defense." But neither outcome would amount to colonial assumptions.

Most Respectfully,
R

It was definitely an aggressive conquest. There is no question about it.

The concept that Israel "defended itself" from the native population on their own land is too friggin bizarre for me to entertain particularly since the native population were civilians without an army.

"Native population"? That's the Isralie's.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is looking at the problem with blinders on and no sense of the timeline.

This is all just recent politics that have no bearing on the roots of the problem.


It was definitely an aggressive conquest. There is no question about it.

The concept that Israel "defended itself" from the native population on their own land is too friggin bizarre for me to entertain particularly since the native population were civilians without an army.

(COMMENT)

This is true. Israel was not defending itself from the Palestinians; they were not a party to the conflict in 1967. The were defending against a coordinated attack being set-up by the Syrians, Jordanians and Egyptians. This is reflected in the post-Conflict Agreements. Hostile Arab Palestinians were originally stateless irregular forces of an asymmetric nature using insurgent and terrorist tactics.

Now they are a state that supports terrorism.

Most Respectfully,
R