Tag: Israeli Zionism

“ISRAELI MILITARY DELIBERATELY KILLED HOSTAGES ON 7th OCTOBER”

On By rebelbreezeIn Current Affairs Comment, Guerrilla Action, Indigenous or Original People, Israeli Zionism, Mass Media Criticism, Massacres, National Liberation, Palestine, Political AnalysisLeave a comment

Diarmuid Breatnach

(Reading time main text: 3 mins.)

Israeli journalists have been accusing the Israeli military command of re-activating their infamous “Hannibal Doctrine” to prevent Palestinians capturing Israelis “by any means necessary” – including killing the prisoners.

The Doctrine takes its name from a Carthaginian general and statesman famous in history for his early successes against the Roman Empire. In his declining days, unable to escape Romans coming to take him prisoner, Hannibal swallowed poison and took his own life.

After 2006, the Israeli armed forces were informed verbally that in the case of the Palestinian resistance capturing a member of their forces alive, they would kill him rather than be obliged to release Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the Israeli soldiers’ release.1

Photo of ruined building post-7th October in the kibbutz. Would raiders on an in-and-out mission taking captives have reason or time to cause this level of damage? Or is an Israel tank shell the more likely cause? (Photo sourced: Internet)

The military claimed to have abandoned the Hannibal Doctrine afterwards but within a couple of days of October 7th, people monitoring Israeli printed media and radio found references to an Israeli commander calling a strike on their own base and helicopters shooting cars heading to Gaza.

Some if not all of these would have likely contained Israeli prisoners taken by the Palestinian fighters and explains the torched wrecks containing incinerated bodies, the victims of Hellfire missiles from the helicopters – the kind of weapons not carried by the fighters.

There were also the statements of Israeli survivors in the kibbutz about an Israeli tank firing a shell into a house containing Palestinian fighters and their prisoners, in addition to a crossfire between the Israeli military and the Palestinian fighters in general.

Photo of interior of burned-out building post-7th October in the kibbutz. Would raiders on an in-and-out mission taking captives have reason or time to cause this level of damage? (Photo sourced: Internet)

Although these accounts were taken from Israeli sources, with quotations of named individuals and even audio record of a radio interview and shared on line, the western mass media chose to ignore them.

Now, the allegation that the “Hannibal Directive” was reactivated (if it was ever abandoned) is being widely discussed in Israeli media with calls for an investigation and for the military to come clean. They in turn have promised an investigation but only once this particular war is over.

But once again, the western mass media is not covering the discussion and continues to repeat the number of 1,200 Israelis killed by the Palestinian fighters on 7th October,2 which is clearly not the case. This is the ‘free press’ which we are told to value so much!

At some point in the future the facts will emerge and the western mass media will probably do a lot of reporting on the various admissions and theories, without once having the grace to even apologise for keeping all this from their readers for so long.

However, medical staff have been warned by Israeli authorities not to speak to journalists or to the United nations commission investigating the events of October 7th on Israeli-held territory.3

Meanwhile, relatives of the Israelis captured by the Palestinian fighters are demanding that the return of the prisoners be prioritised, even breaking into a Government meeting and shouting at Israeli government ministers,4 painting red the road outside Netanyahu’s home, etc etc.

Those in command at political and military level seem, by their actions rather than their words, ready to sacrifice the captives in order to wreak as heavy and long-lasting destruction and death as possible upon the Palestinian population of Gaza.

Photos of burned-out buildings post-7th October in the kibbutz. Would raiders on an in-and-out mission taking captives have reason or time to cause this level of damage? (Photo sourced: Internet)

Even medium-ranking military commanders (and some higher) are reported saying that Netanyahu’s purported twin strategic aims of wiping out Hamas and “freeing the hostages” are not doable and are even mutually exclusive.

This must have an impact on the morale of commanders and lower rank Israeli military who have also found the fighting much harder than they expected and were unable to occupy the whole of northern Gaza in the face of fierce united Palestinian resistance.

Indeed, the numbers of IOF dead announced by the Israeli military do not seem to match the losses of their armoured vehicles alone, given that the tanks have a crew of five and even a tank disabled by rocket and repairable later is likely to have a dead crew.

Their losses in battle commanders is also high; these have their command stations inside tanks.

The injuries of wounded Israeli soldiers are likely to be of a serious physical nature and to that one must add mental trauma. Indeed, for all their much-vaunted equipment and total control of the air, the military performance of the Israeli ground military is widely reckoned poorly.

The public jeers of the Palestinian resistance that the Israeli military is at its best when it comes to fighting civilians, women and children but that confronted with armed resistance, they are not much, seems more than just propaganda to boost the morale of the Palestinians.

End.

A graveyard of burned-out cars post-7th October 2024. Clearly the Palestinian raiders had no reason to be burning cars in a raid to get in to kill enemy soldiers and to take prisoners and then out again as quickly as possible, nor the type of weapons to be causing this kind of damage. Israeli helicopters do, however: US-supplied Hellfire missiles. (Photo sourced: Online)

FOOTNOTES

1Invoked in 2014 at least, leading to the death of a captured Israeli soldier https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2023/11/3/whats-the-hannibal-directive-a-former-israeli-soldier-tells-all

2https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/10/israel-revises-death-toll-from-october-7-hamas-attack-to-1200-people

3https://www.timesofisrael.com/government-forbids-doctors-from-speaking-to-un-group-investigating-oct-7-atrocities/

4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=956PmusMABk

SOURCES

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal_Directive

Israeli media discussion on whether their armed forces killed Israelis: https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2023-12-13/ty-article-opinion/.premium/if-israel-used-a-procedure-against-its-citizens-we-need-to-talk-about-it-now/0000018c-6383-de43-affd-f783212e0000

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-01-17/ty-article/.premium/unlawful-unethical-horrifying-idf-ethics-expert-on-controversial-hannibal-directive/0000018d-186c-dd75-addd-faedd2b80000

External media with Israeli testimonies on the Doctrine:

Electronic Intifada re the Doctrine: https://youtu.be/-yxEMYRoYBc

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2023/11/3/whats-the-hannibal-directive-a-former-israeli-soldier-tells-all

https://today.lorientlejour.com/article/1358197/a-dead-soldier-is-better-than-a-living-captive-israels-hannibal-directive.html

https://www.trtworld.com/middle-east/hannibal-directive-did-israel-kill-its-own-15574953

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/10/israel-revises-death-toll-from-october-7-hamas-attack-to-1200-people

Reiterating the incorrect numbers: https://www.csis.org/analysis/hamass-october-7-attack-visualizing-data

Israeli relatives of prisoners held by Palestinians demonstrate against Israeli Government and storm cabinet meeting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=956PmusMABk

Relatives https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/israel-s-netanyahu-rejects-any-palestinian-sovereignty-in-post-war-gaza-rebuffing-biden-1.6734919

Resistance Antidote to Despondency

On By rebelbreezeIn Current Affairs Comment, Guerrilla Action, Indigenous or Original People, Israeli Zionism, Mass Media Criticism, Middle East, National Liberation, Palestine, Political AnalysisLeave a comment

Clive Sulish

Amidst the horror of the daily zionist genocide of Palestinians, actively aided or condoned by the western states, it is easy to feel helpless (although there is always something we can do) and despondent. We offer this from the Electronic Intifada as an antidote.

YOU DIDN’T LISTEN THEN … AND YOU’RE NOT LISTENING NOW.

On By rebelbreezeIn Current Affairs Comment, Genocide, Human Rights, Indigenous or Original People, Internationalist Solidarity, Israeli Zionism, Massacres, Middle East, National Liberation, Palestine, Political Analysis, Popular ResistanceLeave a comment

Diarmuid Breatnach

(Reading time: 2 mins.)

Yes, you peace-loving liberals, we told you but you wouldn’t listen. Told you that Zionism means racism, colonial settler expansion and, ultimately, genocide. But you wouldn’t listen. And you’re not listening now.

There just had to be a way of resolving things so everyone got something and then there would be peace, you all said.

People like you think all that has to happen for peace is that both sides sit down and talk. But what if what one wants is irreconcilable with what the other wants? Well, then you say, they both have to give up something.

The problem with that is that it’s always the oppressed who have to give up the most – or even everything. However, that’s necessary, because that’s how we get peace, you say. But would you apply it to yourselves as easily?

If a thief got your wallets, would you suggest sitting down and talking it over with him or her? Maybe suggesting s/he only stole half the contents? Well, you might, I suppose. But what if they got your cars, your houses and emptied your bank accounts?

You’d very quickly resort to violence! Oh, not you personally, of course not! You’d get the police to use force for you and a judge to use force to put them in jail and prison officers to use force to keep them in jail for an allotted time, to try and ensure they didn’t steal from you again.

We told you that the only peace the Zionists could achieve would be the peace of the Palestinian cemetery; but as many graves as the Zionists dug for the Palestinians, more would rise up fighting and they would never give up their land or agree to be kept down.

Every time the Zionists carried out a massacre or another atrocity, we told you: the only solution to this conflict is a unitary democratic state of Palestine, “from the River to the Sea”. But you wouldn’t listen.

And even now, as you begin to talk about “peace again” “after Gaza”, it’s clear you haven’t learned. The massacre of 22,600, including over 9,000 children, the ruins of Gaza, refugee camps, hospitals, mosques, water and sewage treatment plants have taught you nothing.

Because here you are again, proposing something other than the rational solution, in this case re-marketing the two-state plan. All the imperialists agree and you’ll get Abbas and the corrupt Al Fatah to go along as before of course but the Palestinian people as a whole will never do so.

The irony is that by pushing your kind of ‘peace’ measure and avoiding real peace, you are effectively advocating the conditions for war without end – or wiping out/ expulsion of the Palestinians. Really, it would be better if you just shut up and stop trying to ‘help’.

Because the only ones you’re helping are the genocidal Zionists and their imperialist backers.

End.

IF WE WANT TO HELP THE PALESTINIANS

On By rebelbreezeIn Current Affairs Comment, Genocide, Guerrilla Action, Imperialism, Indigenous or Original People, Internationalist Solidarity, Israeli Zionism, Middle East, National Liberation, Palestine, Peace Process, Political Analysis, Popular Resistance, Zionism5 Comments

Diarmuid Breatnach

(Reading time: 4 mins.)

If we truly want to help the Palestinians, we need to stop calling for a “ceasefire” and also stop calling for implementation of the “two state” option.

A ceasefire is a temporary measure agreed between or imposed on all the belligerents in an armed conflict and indeed the Irish word for it, sos comhraic, conveys that perfectly: “a break/ rest during conflict”.

The Israeli attack on Gaza is nothing like an armed conflict between two sides that are in any kind of balance: the Palestinians have no air force, no navy and only a guerrilla resistance. And overwhelmingly, in their thousands, it is Palestinian civilians who are being targeted.

Drawing of Palestinian fighter by political cartoonist Carlos Latuff (Image sourced: Internet)

Nor is there any question about the justice of competing claims: the Palestinians are the indigenous people on the land for centuries1 whilst the Israeli state is a European colonial occupation of Palestinian land, practicing genocide upon the indigenous people and backed by imperialism.

If what we want is to save lives, in particular civilian lives, we want the Israeli State to stop bombing the Palestinians by bombs and missiles, right? So surely the most accurate and least mixed messages demand would be “Stop the bombing! Now!”?

No ambivalence there at all.

But if we only want a temporary ceasefire so some food and medicine can be delivered to people who will be killed in the following days, well then “Ceasefire now!” is the one for us.

Or if we think the two sides are evenly balanced militarily, or we’re confused about whose cause is just and don’t necessarily think the Palestinians have the right to wage armed struggle against an armed occupier, well then “Ceasefire now!” by all means.

And if we think the Palestinians don’t have the right to resist invasion and occupation, then we can demand the contradictory “permanent ceasefire now” which is a binding on both the occupied and the occupier.2

Dozens killed in 1st November Israeli air attack on Jabalia refugee camp in Gaza. (Photo sourced: Internet). The camp had been hit four times before this from October 9th and was hit again on six different occasions afterwards in November, then another 11 separate times in December so far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabalia_refugee_camp_airstrikes,_2023

So, as an endgame, what about the “two state option”? The rulers of most of the Middle Eastern Arab states support it, as do the leaders of the USA, China, UK and all the EU States.3 And so does the Al Fatah organisation, which runs the Palestinian Government.4

Well yes, but most Palestinians don’t! And at least a sizeable chunk of Israelis don’t either.5 It is the only “solution” being proposed by most commentators and is in complete contradiction to the only real solution, which is a unitary democratic state with right to return of Palestinian refugees.

“Well, that’s a non-starter!” we might be told. “The rulers of Israel will never agree to that. Nor will the rulers of the USA, UK and EU states.” The implication there is that they, rather than the Palestinians, are the ones who can set the red lines.

And if we outside Palestine promote this option, we are saying that colonial occupation and genocide is OK. Presumably the next step would be to condemn the “dissidents” who are “rejecting peace”, even though those “dissidents”, political and military, represent the majority view.

And we’d be saying that the Palestinians should be glad to accept less than 40% of their land, the worst of it with the least water and under Zionist guns forever.

It also happens to be unworkable, with the thousands of Zionist settlers who have “illegally” occupied the territory. But making much of that factor is a mistake since firstly it is not the point and secondly can give rise to pointless and unprincipled discussion about how to make it viable.6

But of course, this discussion is about slogans, which are important in pointing out direction. But they are also, as the Irish language origin of the word7 suggests, a call to action. And if we want to help Palestine, we must act – and continue in effective actions.

STOP THE BOMBING – NOW! END THE OCCUPATION – NOW!

FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA – PALESTINE WILL BE FREE!

End.

FOOTNOTES

1The Palestinian population before the founding of the Zionist state, even with Zionist-organised immigration, was less that 10% Jewish, with smaller percentages of Christian etc, the vast majority Muslim. They were mostly Arab with smaller groups of Berber.

2Although as we have seen, no power currently on Earth is capable – or in cases of capability, such as the EU and USA, willing – to force the Israeli Zionists to stick to any agreement.

3And Varadkar, the Prime Minister of the Irish state, has been flogging that hard of late: https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/very-clear-majority-but-not-unanimity-in-eu-for-gaza-ceasefire-varadkar-1565330.html

4The most popular resistance organisations in Palestine were the secular ones, Al Fatah first and PFLP second. Al Fatah jumped at the ‘two state’ proposal which gave them, through the Palestine National Authority, their own government to run, funded by the EU and USA with greater opportunities for corruption. Their corruption and collusion with Israel was so pronounced that in the 2006 elections, Hamas got most votes and seats, ruling Gaza as a result but not the West Bank, despite their majority. There have been no elections since but funds are still flowing in to the PNA and Al Fatah.

5Most Israelis perhaps for different reasons than those of the Palestinians who reject it.

6Hence complicit politicians raising the issue of the “illegal settlers” in the West Bank (as though the other settlers are entitled), both to look like they are doing something, at least but also fundamentally to seem to make the two-state proposal viable.https://www.irishnews.com/news/ireland/martin-urges-tough-sanctions-on-extremist-west-bank-settlers-if-violence-goes-on-HUHM4I33YNOV5DPGX3V6VJIDOU/ and https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/spotlight/arid-41294251.html

7The word “slogan” is derived from slua-ghairm in the Irish language, i.e “call to the multitude/ crowd/ troop”.

SOURCES

Two-State proposal from Ireland: https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/very-clear-majority-but-not-unanimity-in-eu-for-gaza-ceasefire-varadkar-1565330.html

https://www.irishnews.com/news/ireland/martin-urges-tough-sanctions-on-extremist-west-bank-settlers-if-violence-goes-on-HUHM4I33YNOV5DPGX3V6VJIDOU/

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/spotlight/arid-41294251.html

Two-State proposal from Palestinians & Israelis: https://news.gallup.com/poll/512828/palestinians-lack-faith-biden-two-state-solution.aspx

Israelis have grown more skeptical of a two-state solution

The Role of the Vichy Palestinian Authority

On By rebelbreezeIn Current Affairs Comment, Imperialism, Indigenous or Original People, Israeli Zionism, Middle East, National Liberation, Palestine, Political Analysis, Popular Resistance, US Imperialism1 Comment

Gearóid Ó Loingsigh

19 December 2023

The German Nazis invaded France during the Second World War, however, they did not occupy all of France, opting instead to leave a part of it in the hands of collaborationist government with its administrative centre in the city of Vichy.

This government, under the command of Marshall Petain, a French first world war hero, collaborated closely with the Nazis, repressing the French resistance and deporting Jews to the camps.

Marshal Philippe Pétain (left) with Adolf Hitler in Montoire-sur-le-Loir, France, October 1940. (Photo cred: Roger Viollet/Getty Images)

In addition, freeing up German troops to fight the war by taking over the daily work of occupation. Nowadays, the term Vichy is synonymous with “collaborator with an occupation”, betrayal and surrender.

Although the phrase originated in the context of the Nazi occupation of France, it can be applied to many conflicts following the second World War.

The Palestinian Authority government has a lot in common with Vichy. Following the Oslo Accords the PA took over the repression of the more coherent and revolutionary factions, just as Marshal Pétain had done in Vichy.

It also freed up Zionist troops and police forces from the daily work of occupation and collaborates closely with the fascist regime in Tel Aviv.

Antony Blinken, US Secretary of State and Mahmoud Abbas, head of the Palestinian Authority, on Blinken’s recent visit to ‘Israel’ during the Israeli genocidal bombing. (Photo sourced: Internet)

Over the years this government has bent the knee time and again to the Israelis, sometimes begging the Western powers to intervene on issues such as settlements in the West Bank. At no point has it led a struggle against the Zionists.

In fact, it presents itself as the reasonable representative with whom negotiations can happen and agreements reached.

Now Israel commits endless war crimes in Gaza and is carrying out a genocide in Gaza against the Palestinians.

It aims to wipe Palestinians off the map, expel them from Gaza and also the West Bank, take control over sacred sites, such as the Al Aqsa Mosque destroy it and build their own temple in its place.

And what does the Vichy regime do in the face of such crimes? Little. It sticks to begging the West to put an end to the barbarity, ignoring that these same powers have always supported Israel, politically, militarily and economically.

It does have other options, but they require them declaring war on the Zionist regime and calling on the Arab masses to unite. Such a revolutionary option fills them with fear and they prefer to continue to collaborate with the fascist regime of Tel Aviv.

It could also ask the reactionary Arab regimes for help. But it hasn’t placed the first demand on those governments. First it could demand the expulsion of the Israeli ambassadors and to break all diplomatic and commercial relations with the regime.

Arab states & ‘Israel’, Middle East (Image sourced: Internet)

But it hasn’t done so, nor will it. The Houthi rebels who have been fighting against one of the most reactionary Arab regimes for eight years, namely Saudi Arabia have done more in a few days to strike a blow against the economy of the Zionist regime.

In a short period, the Houthis have attacked at least 12 commercial ships in the Red Sea, according to Yankee military sources. Their attacks have reduced the flow of trade through the sea and Suez Canal.

Four of the five big shipping companies, Maersk, Hapag-Lloyd, CMA CGN Group & Evergreen have suspended shipments through the Red Sea(1) and the company OOCL announced that it would not accept shipments to or from Israel.

And the cost of transport had gone up from USD $1,975 to $2,300 within a few days.(2)

Meanwhile Vichy has done nothing. The Arab regimes have made no demands against Israel and the oil flows not only to Israel but also Great Britain and the USA. Without the Vichy regime, Israel would have had greater problems in the region.

Not only should the Zionist regime fall, but also the Arab regimes and the Vichy government of Palestine. They are all, in their own way, responsible for the genocide in ´Gaza.

Notes

(1) CNN (19/12/2023) Who are the Houtis and why are they attacking ships in the Red Sea? Christian Edwards. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/19/middleeast/red-sea-crisis-explainer-houthi-yemen-israel-intl/index.html

(2) Reuters (18/12/2023) Israel shipping costs rising as lines pull out and Red Sea attacks worsen. Jonathan Saul. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-shipping-costs-rising-lines-pull-out-red-sea-attacks-worsen-2023-12-18/

GENOCIDAL SLOGANS?

On By rebelbreezeIn Censorship & Witch-hunting, Cultural Comment, Current Affairs Comment, Genocide, Human Rights, Indigenous or Original People, Internationalist Solidarity, Middle East, National Liberation, Palestine, Political Analysis, Popular Resistance, ZionismLeave a comment

Diarmuid Breatnach

(Reading time: 3 mins.)

Recently then-Minister for Home Affairs of the UK Suella Braverman claimed the common Palestinian solidarity slogan, From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free! to be antisemitic, genocidal in effect and looked set to try to have it banned.

In some other western institutions, for example Columbia University USA, it HAS been banned and a Palestine solidarity student group has had its rights within the University revoked despite, reportedly, the opposition of the majority of students to that sanction.

Suella Braverman, MP, former UK Minister for Home Affairs. (Photo sourced: Internet)

How can a basic solidarity slogan be claimed to be genocidal?

Definition of a genocidal act: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group …1

Obviously there can be such a thing as a genocidal slogan and, in fact, there are many examples in history: “The only good Indian (sic) is a dead Indian”2; “Juden raus”3; “To Hell or to Connaught”4; “Nits make lice”5; “Kill the cockroaches”6; “There are no Kurds, only mountain Turks”.7

Anti-Jewish racist and genocidal slogan in German with the Nazi Swastika symbol on wall in Florence, Italy.

But really, “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free”? Genocidal? For the Palestinian people to be free and in control of their own land, there has to be genocide?

Would “Scotland Free from Dunnet Head to Tweed” be considered a genocidal slogan? Or for example slogans such as “Ireland free from Donegal to Cork” or “A 32-County socialist Republic” be thought genocidal?

“Oh, but the Palestinian one means Palestine for the Arabs only, no Jews!” Really? And you know this how? Before the British started driving Jews into Palestine the maximum size of the Jewish population there was 6% but there was no attempt by the mostly Arab people to drive them out.

Could the slogan not equally or even more likely be a call for a free, equal, democratic state across the whole of the original Palestine? Such as the stated objective of a number of Palestinian resistance organisations, the PFLP for example?

The nationalist slogans for Ireland and Scotland could be interpreted to mean clearing out all non-Scottish and non-Irish respectively but for the vast majority they not mean that nor are they generally thought to do so. So why suspect genocidal intention of the Palestinians?

The opposition to the slogan is not at all based on fear of genocide but in fact on support for it: the Zionist genocide against the Palestinians! It is based on denying the right to self-determination of the indigenous Palestinian people, of which a huge majority are Arab.

To deny the right of the Palestinians to self-determination is to support the right of the Zionists to colonise, a project entailing expulsion or massacre of the ethnically Arab Palestinian majority that existed in Palestine even up until 1948.

That Zionist project has continued with a constant ethnic cleansing pressure and genocidal attacks on the Palestinian people.

And the same people who oppose the slogan “From the River to the sea” etc support such slogans as “Israel has a right to self-defence” and “The Jewish people have a right to their own state”, which ARE racist and genocidal statements based on Zionist and European colonial ideology.

If Israel has a right to self-defence, what that means is that those who occupy a territory, steal the land and resources, colonise it and attack the indigenous people … have the right to defend themselves against the legitimate resistance of the people.

It gives the settlers the right to defend their occupation and repress the resistance, which naturally is given no rights at all. The robber has the right to the loot.

If the Jewish people have a right to their own state, where is that to be? Where will a land be found without people in it for them to take as their own?

And if such an empty land does not exist – which it does not – then what gives Jews or anyone else the right to occupy and settle a land, removing the rights of the indigenous people? An alleged promise by a being of religious belief? Or the backing of imperialist colonial powers?

The defence of the solidarity slogan’s content and the right to use it across the world are important democratic standards in the peoples’ struggles for justice and to express and build internationalist solidarity across the world.

The realisation of the slogan will be an important contribution to peace and justice in the world.

FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA, PALESTINE WILL BE FREE!

End.

FOOTNOTES

1Article II, UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

2Whether correctly attributed to General Phillip Sheridan of the US Army or not it was certainly a popular saying in the white US colonial wars against the Indigenous native people.

3Nazi slogan, literally “Jews out!”

4Attributed to Oliver Cromwell in his mid-17th Century genocidal and ethnic cleansing campaign against the Irish Catholics.

5Horrific slogan justifying the killing of children because they will grow up to be the hated/ feared people. This slogan or saying has probably been heard at one time or another in most parts of the world but certainly against Native Americans in the USA; among Nazis against Jews, Slavs and Gypsies; in Israel against Palestinians.

6One of the slogans of the Hutu against the Tutsi in the 1994 ethnic cleansing and massacres in Rwanda.

7Remark attributed to the Turkish nationalist Kemal Ataturk with regard to the very large ethnically distinct Kurdish people in Turkey.

SOURCES

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/10/16/suella-braverman-rows-anti-israel-chant/

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

The Martyrdom of Gaza: A Never Ending Saga

On By rebelbreezeIn Current Affairs Comment, Human Rights, Imperialism, Irish Left, Israeli Zionism, Massacres, Middle East, National Liberation, Palestine, Political Analysis, Popular Resistance, Trade unions, US ImperialismLeave a comment

Gearóid Ó Loingsigh

16 November 2023


Israel uses white phosphorus munitions in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead.

Norman Finkelstein published a book a number of years ago entitled Gaza: An Inquest Into Its Martyrdom.

In it he looked at various major episodes in the long bloody onslaught on the people of Gaza, amongst them Operation Cast Lead and also the attack on the boat Mavi Marmara and the Goldstone Report, amongst other issues.

He could have written it yesterday about the current genocidal plans of the Israeli state.

The Israel Defense Forces fired at least three white phosphorus shells above this UN-run school in Beit Lahiya on January 17, 2009, killing two and wounding 14. The school was housing about 1,600 displaced persons at the time. The IDF have used these munitions a number of times since. © 2009 Getty Images

The current Israeli offensive is just one more in a long line of massacres. This is not a review of Finkelstein’s book, though any book by him is worth reading and should be read. Rather I just want to use the book to show that what is happening now is not new, it is just more intense.

Israel has murdered before, it has lied, it has committed war crimes and it has always received the support of western states.

Above all we should be clear that we are where we are partly due to the Oslo Accord and also the role played by the Palestinian Authority and the PLO. They cannot wash their hands of the affair.

“One of the meanings of Oslo,” former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami observed, “was that the PLO was . . . Israel’s collaborator in the task of stifling the intifada and cutting short . . . an authentically democratic struggle for Palestinian independence.”

Rabin (left) and Arafat shake hands on the Oslo Accords under the management of then US President Clinton. (Photo sourced: Internet)

In particular, Israel contrived to reassign to Palestinian surrogates the sordid tasks of occupation. “The idea of Oslo,” former Israeli minister Natan Sharansky acknowledged, “was to find a strong dictator to . . . keep the Palestinians under control.”

“The Palestinians will be better at establishing internal security than we were,” Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin told skeptics in his ranks, “because they will not allow appeals to the Supreme Court and will prevent the Association for Civil Rights in Israel from criticizing the conditions there. . .

They will rule by their own methods, freeing, and this is most important, the Israeli soldiers from having to do what they will do.”(1)

In other words, Gaza has bled under the passive gaze of the bureaucrats of the Palestinian authorities and of course of the reactionary Arab regimes that have never lifted a finger to help their Palestinian brothers and sisters.

They have not even threatened to cut off the supply of oil to the West, something they could do right now, but won’t. It has also happened under the gaze of those on the Left who run around shouting Implement Oslo! Two State Solution!

They ignore the fact that Oslo represented an ideological, political and military defeat for the Palestinians. The PLO accepted its role as puppet, administrator of a small urban city-like council and as chief repressor of those who continued to fight for Palestinian freedom.

A look at the Oslo II Accord, signed in September 1995 and spelling out in detail the mutual rights and duties of the contracting parties to the 1993 agreement, suggests what loomed largest in the minds of Palestinian negotiators.

Whereas four full pages are devoted to “Passage of [Palestinian] VIPs” (the section is subdivided into “Category 1 VIPs,” “Category 2 VIPs,” “Category 3 VIPs,” and “Secondary VIPs”), less than one page—the very last—is devoted to “Release of Palestinian Prisoners and Detainees,” who numbered in the many thousands…

The barely disguised purpose of Oslo’s protracted interim period was not confidence building to facilitate an Israeli-Palestinian peace but collaboration building to facilitate a burden-free Israeli occupation.(2)

However, Israel is now militarily weak. Finkelstein points to a number of attacks where it has shown its weakness. Its predilection is for attacks on the civilian population that can’t fight back.

In 2006, it opted to bomb civilians in Lebanon rather than engage in a proper fight with Hezbollah “terrorizing Lebanese civilians appeared to be a low-cost method of “education.”(3)

In Gaza in Operation Cast Lead in 2008/9, it followed a similar path of aerial bombardments of civilians rather than land invasions, that would see its troops face the wrath of Hamas and other armed organisations. So first they relentlessly bombed Gaza before any troops went in.

When the troops went in, the civilian population was their preferred target then as it is now. The murder of civilians is not new. It is part of an Israeli strategy of claiming easy victories.

An Israelicombatant remembered a meeting with his brigade commander and others where the “rules of engagement” were “essentially” conveyed as, “if you see any signs of movement at all you shoot.”

Other soldiers recalled, “If the deputyBattalionCommander thought a house looked suspect, we’d blow it away. If the infantrymen didn’t like the looks of that house—we’d shoot” (unidentified soldier); “If you face an area that is hidden by a building—you take down the building.”

Questions such as ‘who lives in that building[?]’ are not asked” (soldier recalling hisBrigadeCommander’s order);

“As for rules of engagement, the army’s working assumption was that the whole area would be devoid of civilians … Anyone there, as far as the army was concerned, was to be killed” (unidentified soldier);

“We were told: ‘any sign of danger, open up with massive fire” (member of a reconnaissance company); “We shot at anything that moved” (Golani Brigade fighter); “Despite the fact that no one fired on us, the firing and demolitions continued incessantly” (gunner in a tank crew).

“Essentially, a person only need[ed] to be in a ‘problematic’ location,” a Haaretz reporter found, “in circumstances that can broadly be seen as suspicious, for him to be ‘incriminated’ and in effect sentenced to death.”(4)

In all around 1,400 Palestinians were murdered in Operation Cast Lead, with 80% of them being civilians including 350 children. Israeli casualties were risible in comparison, just 10 combatants were killed, four of whom were killed by friendly fire.(5)

Then as now, Israel wheeled out the old trope of “human shields”. Amnesty International found no evidence of that,(6) in fact, it found evidence of Israel using children as human shields.(7)

It also found that Israel used then, as it does now, white phosphorous against schools, hospitals and even the UNRWA.(8) Furthermore, 99% of the air attacks were accurate.(9) If they murdered civilians, it is because the civilians were the target.

Following the operation, the Goldstone Report was published. It surprised no-one when it found evidence of Israeli war crimes and to a lesser extent of Hamas. It is a salutary lesson for those who now place their confidence in the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Goldstone made various recommendations.

Individual states in the international community were exhorted to “start criminal investigations in national courts, using universal jurisdiction, where there is sufficient evidence of the commission of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

“Where so warranted following investigation, alleged perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted in accordance with internationally recognized standards of justice.”(10)

We know that nothing of the sort happened. In fact, the western governments paid little heed to the report. Goldstone was forced to recant on the conclusions to his report.

Netanyahu for his part announced that he wanted to amend the rules of war leading to Israeli historian Zeev Sternhell asking “What is it that Israel wants … Permission to fearlessly attack defenseless population centers with planes, tanks and artillery?”(11)

Exactly.

And here we are today, with Israel unilaterally amending the rules of war, with the green light from the EU and the USA, amongst others. They murder civilians and no one proposes doing anything.

In Operation Cast Lead, the harshest sentence emitted by an Israeli court was seven and a half months to a soldier who had stolen a credit card!(12) Minor financial crimes are of greater concern than war crimes or crimes against humanity.

After this genocide in Gaza, we can’t expect much from the ICC.

Throughout its history the ICC has opened just 31 cases, including one for genocide. All of them against African leaders. This does not mean that those leaders did not deserve to be judged for their crimes, but that the ICC is just the legal arm of imperialism.

It has never attempted to put on trial the powerful in the West and despite everything even less so Israel. This year it issued a communiqué announcing that it would issue an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin for war crimes and did so on its own initiative.(13)

In the case of Gaza, it will do nothing of the sort. Those who place their trust in the ICC or in the Palestinian Authority are fooling themselves. This situation is the result of turning a blind eye to Israel for many years whilst it commits all sorts of crimes.

It didn’t act before and it won’t do so now. Neither will the Arab regimes do much, unless their own populations force them. They fear the Palestinians and their own people as they know that the struggle against Zionism is also a struggle against them.

The more revolutionary Palestinian groups used to say that the path to Jerusalem went through Amman and Damascus. They were right, it does pass through those capital cities and also Beirut, Riyadh, Cairo and all the others and not through the ICC.

In fact, one day the judges and prosecutors of that body should be put on trial for their complicity in Israel’s war crimes and crimes against humanity through their inaction and omission.

It is beyond the scope of this article to deal with the role of Amnesty International in its own reports on Palestine.

They are what Finkelstein refers “as far from being the exception that proved the rule, Amnesty actually constituted a variant of the rule: instead of falling silent on Israeli crimes during Protective Edge, Amnesty whitewashed them.”(14)

I will leave it to the reader to look at the book for more information on that particular betrayal. Suffice to say, we can expect little from such organisations. At best they gather data we can sometimes use.

Notes

(1) Finkelstein, N. G. (2018) Gaza: An Inquest Into Its Martyrdom. California. California University Press. pp 6 & 7

(2) Ibíd.p.10

(3) Ibíd. p.26

(4) Ibíd.p.45

(5) Ibíd. p.70

(7) Ibíd. p.71

(8) Ibíd., p. 75

(9) Ibíd., p. 204

(10) Ibíd., p. 91 & 92

(11) Ibíd., p.93

(12) Ibíd., p.101.
 
(13) See https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-ukraine-icc-judges-issue-arrest-warrants-against-vladimir-vladimirovich-putin-and

(14) Finkelstein, N.G. (2018) Op. Cit. p.238
 

The International Criminal Court: The judicial branch of imperialism

On By rebelbreezeIn Current Affairs Comment, Genocide, Human Rights, Imperialism, Massacres, Political Analysis, UncategorizedLeave a comment

Gearóid Ó Loingsigh

27 November 2023 (Reading time: 5 mins.)


The international criminal court in The Hague.

In the context of the Zionist genocide in Gaza, a number of personalities and Palestinian solidarity organisations have asked that Netanyahu and others be put on trial by the International Criminal Court. 

This will not happen, that court has been described in vulgar but accurate terms as a stinker.  It is true, its putrid stench is nauseating and the history of international tribunals is full of hypocrisy, even when they judge people who should be tried and punished.

We all know of the Nuremberg Tribunal where the Nazis were put on trial.  A correct decision, but Harris the man responsible for the fire-bombing of Dresden that killed 30,000 civilians was not tried, nor were other Allied criminals. 

In Tokyo, the Indian judge, Radha Binod Pal argued that the USA should be tried for the atomic bombs used against purely civilian targets.  But they didn’t.  In more recent times we have seen international tribunals try one group of people but not another.

Radha Binod Pal, dissenting jurist at the Tokyo War Crime trials (Image sourced: Internet)

One of the first tribunals in recent times was the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.  That tribunal tried a significant number of war criminals, amongst them people as vile as Ratko Mladić, the butcher of Srebrenica, where they murdered more than 8,000 men and boys. 

In all, 111 people were tried, but there were those who they never ever considered putting on trial.  Following the war, two high-ranking British officials took advantage of their contacts in the Serbian government and in the name of the British Natwest Bank facilitated the privatisation of Serbian Telecom. 

It has been said that not only did that save Slobodan Milosevic but that he used those funds for his later war in Kosovo. 

The British officials who collaborated with someone who was nothing more than a war criminal were none other than Pauline Neville-Jones, Britain’s key diplomat in the Yugoslav crisis, seen by many as appeasing Milosevic and her boss the Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd.(1) 

Of course, no one ever proposed trying them for facilitating the war in Kosovo.

Perhaps a clearer example of not trying Europeans is the Special Court for Sierra Leone. 

That tribunal decided upon various despicable crimes such as murder, rape and sexual slavery.  It also decided upon another issue, particularly in the case of Charles Taylor, that of what are termed Blood Diamonds.  Though in reality it did no such thing. 

The tribunal rightly tried Taylor, but never looked at the role of the Belgians or the South Africans in the trade of Blood Diamonds.  Any black person would do, but no whites, no businesspeople from the sector. 

The company De Beers is a key player in the market, not only as far as production is concerned, but also in the sale of diamonds from other companies, controlling 80% of the market.  But in the Sierra Leone tribunal, they didn’t even think of looking at the role of companies such as those.

They also set up a tribunal for Iraq, though it was supposedly set up by the “new government”. They tried various high-ranking officials from the Saddam Hussein regime, amongst them his once upon a time minister of defence, due to his use of gas against the Kurdish people, known as Chemical Alí. 

The regime massacred thousands of Kurds, wiped off the face of the earth whole towns, displaced the Kurds and tried to repopulate those areas with Iraqis.  Something similar to what Israel does with the Palestinians. 

There can be no doubt about the regime’s responsibility for war crimes and also for the crime of genocide.  But who sold them the gas they used against the Kurds?

Up to 40 German and European companies were involved in supplying the raw materials and know how to Saddam.(2)  Yet this was not an issue for the West. 

A Dutch court eventually sentenced one person to 15 years in jail.(3)  However, Frans van Anrat was arrested and tried after the Saddam regime had been destroyed, not before.  No one sought to arrest him and imprison him when the regime was an ally of the West. 

In 2023, another Dutch court ordered a Dutch company to compensate five Iranians injured in those chemical attacks.(4)  But the use of chemical weapons is a war crime, so why were the directors of the company not charged? 

Previously, in 2013, a group of Iraqi Kurds tried to sue a French company that had supplied chemicals to Saddam.(5)  So far, they have made little progress on that matter. 

However, recently the French courts saw no problem in issuing arrest warrants for the Syrian president, Assad over the use of chemical weapons.(6)  US involvement in the supply of chemicals has not been subject to such judicial investigations, nor will it ever be.

The US, however, did not just supply chemicals, it actively participated in their use. 

According to Foreign Policy, a magazine that could hardly be described as progressive or opposed to US foreign policy in general, in the war with Iran, Iraq repeatedly used chemical agents, with the US providing satellite imagery to help Iraq target Iranian forces more successfully.(7)

So, evidence is not a key factor in deciding who gets tried by international tribunals and who doesn’t.  Political expediency is the key factor, trumping all others.  Justice is not what is sought, though it may be an unintended consequence in some cases. 

Justice would see all those involved being brought to trial.  But many of them pay the wages of the prosecutors and the judges and even pay for the logistics of these tribunals.

The ICC is no different.  Its wages are paid by the states who carry out the greatest human rights violations in the world.  The refusal to arrest Tony Blair or Netanyahu is not an oversight.  They will never bite their master’s hand. 

To date the ICC has dealt with 31 cases, including one for genocide.  All of these cases were against black African leaders, some of whom relied on western complicity in their crimes. Their western accomplices will never face charges. 

Judges and staff International Criminal Court (Photo sourced: Internet)

If western generals, politicians and companies don’t face charges when they are directly involved in war crimes and genocide, they are not going to face charges when they are murky figures in the shadows.

It is highly unlikely that Israel will be brought before the ICC, though sacrificing some lower ranking officers is not beyond the realm of possibility, though it is also highly unlikely. 

Placing our faith in an international court which has shown itself to be nothing more than the judicial branch of imperialism is a mistake.  In principle there is nothing wrong in taking a case, but believing you will get justice at the court is a criminal level of naivety and gullibility. 

It dismissed cases against US allies such as Colombia, but immediately opened a file on Venezuela after the deaths of some protestors.  When the Colombian police murdered over 80 protestors in 2021, the ICC looked on passively, just as it does now in the face of a Zionist campaign of genocide in Gaza. 

One day it is to be hoped that the prosecutors and judges of that court are put on trial for their own role in facilitating the repression and murder of people around the world.  But it won’t be the current western regimes that do that.

Notes

(1)  The Guardian (13/05/2010) Pauline Neville-Jones: diplomat who did business with Milosevic. Ian Traynor and Richard Norton Taylor https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/13/pauline-neville-jones-conservatives

(2)  GfvB (13/03/2008) German and European firms were involved. https://web.archive.org/web/20130806082700/http://www.gfbv.de/pressemit.php

(3)  BBC (23/12/2005) Saddam’s ‘Dutch Link’. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4358741.stm

(4)  AP (15/11/2023) Dutch court orders company to compensate 5 Iranian victims of mustard gas attacks in the 1980s. https://apnews.com/article/iraq-iran-mustard-gas-netherlands-court-compensation-aeaca7355d8a7417749d9216d9dae5ca

(5)  RFI (11/06/2013) Iraqi Kurds sue French companies for Halabja chemical attack. https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20130611-iraqi-kurds-sue-french-companies-halabja-chemical-attack

(6)  Reuters (15/11/2023) France issues arrest warrant for Syria’s President Assad – source https://www.reuters.com/world/france-issues-arrest-warrants-against-syrias-president-assad-source-2023-11-15/

(7)  Foreign Policy (26/08/2013) Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran. Shane Harris & Matthew M. Aid.  https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/

“We made Palestine bloom”

On By rebelbreezeIn Análises Político, Cartoon, Current Affairs Comment, Israeli Zionism, Middle East, Palestine, Political Analysis, Resistance ArtLeave a comment

Diarmuid Breatnach

A common Zionist fabrication is that Palestine was uncultivated until they arrived. Whatever cultivation their settlers added was more than compensated by the Palestinian cultivated lands settlers stole and the destruction they have visited upon the Palestinian people.

(Cartoon by D.Breatnach)

Should Israel be wiped off the face of the earth?

On By rebelbreezeIn Current Affairs Comment, Genocide, History, Human Rights, Imperialism, Israeli Zionism, Massacres, Middle East, National Liberation, Palestine, Political Analysis2 Comments

Gearóid Ó Loingsigh
(Reading time: 6 mins.)

28 October 2023


Changes in the Palestinian territories and Israel.

Occasionally in the “debates” on the Arab world and Palestine in particular statements are made that “they want to destroy Israel” as a criticism or “Israel has the right to exist” as if it were a human being. 

The Left abandoned any discussion on the issue following the Oslo Accord where the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) surrendered and agreed to govern some Bantustans(1) in the name of peace. 

The Palestinian “problem” was resolved through the half-measure of autonomy where the Palestinian Authority has less power than a small municipality anywhere in the world and the left replicated and took on as its own the right-liberal demand for Two States.

It is worth looking at the question of destroying Israel and its supposed right to exist.  We should be clear though that no state has a right to exist.  States exist because they exist, through force, popular support, or cunning and guile.  States come and go. 

In the 19th Century two states came into being, ten years apart, one being Italy through the struggles of Garibaldi and others and Germany, unified under Bismarck.  These two states underwent various important changes in their nature, borders and ideological discourse on unity.

In the case of Italy (1861), the Papal States were reduced in size and a significant part of what we now call Italy belonged to Austria.  It wasn’t until after the First World War that Italy came to have borders similar to what it now has and changed from a monarchy to a republic. 

In the case of Germany, its borders waxed and waned throughout the 19th Century until unification under Bismarck in 1871.  Later Hitler would expand them once again under the Third Reich or as it was officially called since 1871, the German Reich. 

Following the Second World War, nobody argued that the Nazi state had a right to exist.  It was partially dismantled.  Poland recovered a part of its land, the Sudetenland, once again, became part of Checoslovakia, Austria recovered its independence. 

The great racial nation of Germans was wiped off the face of the earth.  The Allies divided the rest into four parts, with three of them becoming the Federal Republic of Germany in 1949 and the other the German Democratic Republic, until 1991 when they were united. 

Other states such as the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires also disappeared after the First World War.

These were not the only states to undergo dramatic change.  There are more interesting examples from the anti-imperialist struggles.  The Vietnamese guerrillas wiped off the face of the earth the reactionary (North American) state of South Vietnam. 

The Algerian revolutionaries wiped off the face of the earth the French colonial department of Algeria and erected in its place the Republic of Algeria.

So, is the state of Israel immutable? Does it have a right to exist? Should that right be defended? It is easier to answer that question if we ask ourselves what defending that right means.

Israel’s existence is the theft of land, it is the Nakba, the displacement of 750,000 people in 1948.  It is the invasion of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967.  It is also the current genocide the modern-day Nazis are trying to carry out in Gaza.

Israeli destruction 31 October 2023 of Jabalia Refugee Camp, which was Gaza Strip’s largest of 8 camps. 150 were injured in this attack and 50 killed. (Photo cred: Anas al-Shareef/Reuters)

On that point, there are those who don’t propose to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, but rather to set up two states. 

Amongst those who sometimes wave that flag is the USA and others who are more serious about it, such as Al Fatah, the dominant faction in what was the PLO, European liberals and the press. 

There are also those who believe it is a pragmatic solution, but they are usually people who ignore the question of class as a factor in the Arab world.

Two states means acknowledging and accepting the invasion of 1948, the Nakba, the systematic theft, murder and torture.  It also means not accepting the right of return of those displaced in 1948 i.e. to accept and reward the mass violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people. 

It was worth recalling that the PLO and the various organisations that formed part of it were founded before the 1967 war, so propose two states is to propose the Zionist victory over the territory stolen in 1948. 

It is to accept that if you commit mass human rights violations and crimes against humanity, the solution is to commit even more, so that some liberal or former leftist can come along and say we have to accept some degree of crime and blood.

So, what is the solution?  It is not easy, though it is simple, at least conceptually.  It is the historic Palestinian demand of One State.  The Palestinians themselves proposed this from the word go, knowing that it brought up the problem of what to do with the Jews who had arrived. 

One of the old factions of the PLO stated:

However, the DFLP had come to a premature recognition that as well as the Palestinian national question there was also a “Jewish question” which inevitably has to be resolved if one aims to reach a democratic solution to the conflict, emphasising that the resolution of the Jewish question was conditional on freeing itself from the zionist project and the necessary coexistence with the Palestinian Arabs on an equal footing under the slogan of a “Popular Democratic State” which would be built on the ruins of the State of Israel; but, how would this aim be achieved in the light of the overwhelming superiority of Israel and its firm commitment to North American Imperialism?

The answer is to be found in the “prolonged people’s war throughout the all Palestinian and Arab territories”.(2)

Such voices were, back then and continue to be, a minority, but what they say is true.  Those millions of Arabs that have come out on to the streets to protest against the Zionist regime face various enemies, one of them being their own bourgeoisies, the Arab states that have betrayed the Palestinian people time and again. 

However, a Pan-Arabist revolution is a far way off but not impossible.  None of the Arab regimes are progressive and they exist because they repress their own people, their own working class.  But what would happen to the Jews who lived in the new state?

Well, many of them, Netanyahu style Nazis would flee to the USA alongside the Yanks that have arrived in recent decades, those from Western Europe, and the Ukrainians, amongst others.  Something similar happened with whites when the racist apartheid regime in Rhodesia was overthrown in 1979. 

The white population fell from 240,000 to 28,000 now.  In Algeria a million Pieds-Noirs fled.  Others, those that descend from families that have been in the region for centuries will stay, others will have to negotiate their future in the new state. 

But not an inch can be given on the right of return of ALL the Palestinians, not only to the country, but also to their farms, olive and lemon fields, their rural and urban houses in the whole country.

So, should Israel be wiped off the face of the earth?  Of course it should, and a new Palestinian secular democratic state should be built on the ruins of Zionism and Apartheid.  The Arab states and elites should also be wiped off the face of the earth. 

Later the war criminals and those responsible for crimes against humanity will have to be tried.  The Zionists rightly put the German Nazi Adolf Eichmann in the dock.  It was an act of justice. 

Now the Palestinians and the rest of us have to put Nethanyahu and the other criminals in the dock, perhaps with the same consequences. 

Though whether they spend the rest of their miserable lives in prison or they go to the gallows may be up for discussion, what is beyond debate is whether they should be tried for crimes against humanity.  They should be tried as such.

Long live Palestine Free and United!
 

Notes

(1)  The Bantustans were segregated zones set aside for blacks in South Africa under Apartheid.  They were supposedly independent from the regime but in reality had no autonomy. They were governed by black “leaders” that supported the regime, or at least were not very critical in the same way as the Palestinian Authority.

(2)  F. Suleiman, (n/d), La Izquierda Palestina Revolucionaria: Tres décadas de exp eriencia de lucha (1969-1999), FDLP http://www.fdlpalestina.org/index.htm

Return to top of page