Pro-Israel Propagandists Sell Genocide As "Self Defense"

Competition for most heinous messaging amongst pro-Israel propagandists is fierce. Bottom of the barrel—or the big wiener—is this bit of bigotry offered by the elderly, and decrepit, version of Elie Wiesel. That's the guy who actually survived Auschwitz and won a Nobel Prize for standing up against "violence, repression and racism"—unless of course those things are being perpetrated by Israel. Now, in service to Israeli war propaganda, Wiesel affirms his inner Goebbels with crap like "Moderate men and women of faith, whether that faith is in God or man, must shift their criticism from the Israeli soldiers—whose terrible choice is to fire and risk harming human shields, or hold their fire and risk the death of their loved ones – to the terrorists who have taken away all choice from the Palestinian children of Gaza." Moderate or reasonable people might ask if what Wiesel is alleging there is, at the least, a false choice scenario.
Over and over again the increasingly heinous and absurd defenders of Israel's latest round of mass murders against Palestinian civilians have said the same thing: "Israel has the right to defend itself."

That is the hollow mantra of the Israel apologists. Often they will throw in the emphatic, mystical-sounding word "inherent" to affirm the nature of this right, which implies that there is something about Israel, presumably the fact it is recognized as a nation, instead of just a wandering tribe, that gives it this essential characteristic of the right to self defense.

Never will you hear the Israel apologists say: "Palestinians have the right to defend themselves."

Many in the pro-Israel lobby, and the Israel defenders in America, likely agree with Golda Meir, former Prime Minister of Israel, who infamously said about the Palestinian people:
"It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. [The Palestinian people] did not exist."—Golda Meir, from a 1969 interview with the London Sunday Times
This is a much-quoted line, often just reduced to the last bit, or a paraphrase—"The Palestinian people don't exist", which you see plastered around the web a lot these days.

And you see it in the mouths of American politicians all too often. For example, here is Newt Gingrich, sucking up to the Jewish vote back in 2011, while running for President:
"Remember, there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, and who were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places."
Here is more on the "invented people" meme.

It is important that the Israel propagandists deny the right of the Palestinian people to call themselves a people, to claim a right to the land—stolen from them by Zionists—or to exist at all.

Because once you allow that the Palestinians do exist, and they do have a right to the land, it follows they must also have a right to defend themselves from Israeli acts of genocide. It follows that a poor, oppressed, people have the right and indeed the obligation to strike back at Israel's bloody crimes any way they can.

And if that's true—might that not lead to the dangerous reflection that not every claim of the necessity of terror is wrong? Indeed, how could the United States, a nation which has nuked entire cities, slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians, ever seriously claim otherwise?

Further, when George W. Bush ordered the United States to invade Iraq in 2003, one of the dumbest decisions ever made by any US president, that single act erased any moral standing the US had left in lecturing to other terror states and organizations about how to conduct themselves in war. Employing mass murder, kidnapping, torture, ethnic cleansing, and massive amounts of war profiteering by Bush's cronies, the United States in the Iraq War established itself as the premiere terror state in the world.

And it sent a message from America to its terror accomplices like Israel to go forth and mass murder all they like. Certainly the US will have no problem with it—how could they without seeming like awful hypocrites? Not surprisingly, this has been the question Netanyahu has been asking repeatedly, as he tells John Kerry and Barack Obama to stop pretending they are upset over a little genocidal aggression by Israel in Gaza.

This immoral license (granted by the US to its proxy, Israel) to practice eliminationism against the Palestinian people is why the claim that "Israel has the right to defend itself" sounds to many skeptics like just another meaningless, or utterly ironic, marketing slogan attempting to justify mass murder.

Strangely, you often see the slogan used by supposed liberal Democrats, explaining their pro-genocide votes in Congress (in league with their more comfortably Zionist Republican colleagues).

Often when Democrats, who supposedly are more nuanced in their views of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, use the slogan, it means something more like:
"Israel has the right to defend itself—BUT—it should not be killing so many women and babies—unless of course they blow up the bodies sufficiently well to obstruct their identification."
President Obama, who is the very epitome of the postmodern, newspeaking, prole herder, always includes the slogan "Israel has the right to defend itself" in some statement about how, even though he is bothered by the terrible slaughter of Palestinians, and he wishes Israel were neater in its genocide, it's all Hamas' fault.

Even Obama could not just sweep away the numerous, criminal attacks by Israel on UN-run schools and refugee centers. Finally, Obama, who likes to posture, in Europe anyway, as a more civilized leader than George W. Bush (like that's saying much), had to denounce Israel's continued murders of Palestinians as "disgraceful".

Not long after that, Israel announced it had won the war, and was sending most of its troops out of Gaza.

We are living in a world of blood and advertising. Morality has left the building. Mad men rule indeed.

Their madness will only get faster and fiercer unless we stop tolerating politicians who so abuse language as to make a joke of government accountability. Repeatedly calling genocide "self-defense" is not transparency or an attempt to clarify an incredibly dubious policy (of the United States providing massive support to Israel). It is complicity in crimes against humanity.

Comments