Heartless in Gaza
Posted by Dave Bath on 2009-10-22
Israel wants to change the rules about war crimes (The Age, 2009-10-21), using the "must combat terrorism" furphy.
I hope someone goes through the watering down proposed by the Israeli warmongers, and looks at what would have happened if the British Mandate of Palestine had used the same lack of morality to control the Zionist terrorists who were busy blowing up stuff and people in a successful effort to create a state, a state established by terrorists (UN Security Council Resolution 57 of 18 September 1948), a nuclear renegade state that keeps IAEA inspectors away from the 200-odd nuclear warheads in it’s arsenal, an arsenal that makes Kim Jong Mentally-Ill look harmless.
No, Britain let all the terrorists off scot free, to be declared heroes by the terrorist-established state, and some to become Prime Ministers.
I’d imagine that if the British had used the methods Israel now wants legitimized, the state of Israel would never have existed… and the boats bringing the ethnic cleansers to Palestine after the second world war would have been blown out of the water.
But then, we only have to look at the genocide verses of Joshua and Exodus to see what the Zionist tradition considers absolutely fine – as long as it’s only done to us goyim.
After all, what did the Solicitor for the Commonwealth of Australia, seeking to justice tougher counter-terrorism measures, say in 2007 about the historical pretext used by Zionists to justify their land claims:
History provides numerous examples of situations where it has been necessary for a polity to defend itself against a body other than a sovereign state. One could start with the book of Joshua in the Bible. If the Canaanite cities had had a federation with section 51(vi) in it there is little doubt that it could have been invoked against the children of Israel, although at that stage one could hardly describe them as a sovereign state in the traditional sense. Their only territory was the territory they were about conquer.