WHY TERRORISM WORKS-Alan Dershowitz

Share

 In the name of Allāh,

the Beneficent, the Merciful.

Peace and Blessings of Allāh on Mohammad.

DEDICATED TO

Allāh–the Glorious and the High,

Lord of the worlds

AND TO

Mohammad–who brought the world

to our feet and eternity to our arms.

*

Response to

WHY TERRORISM WORKS

(Lunacy in intellectual’s suiting)*

By

Alan M. Dershowitz

   2002, York University Press, New haven and London.

*

In his dedication of his book to the students he taught, Alan Dershowitz wrote: “…You are our future. Preserve it from our enemies.”

The question is who are the enemies?

*

The question that needs to be addressed is why or how did Palestinians become “terrorists”? Are they “terrorists” by choice or are they the product of the machinery that vilifies them? If they are the product of the machinery that vilifies them, how can vilifying them be justified –this would be like the creator of the bomb blaming the bomb for its destruction.

Injustice is the incubator of terrorism.

The charge against “Palestinian terrorism” –deplorable as it is– does not hold up under the weight of reason. If man would give to others the rights he exacts for himself billions will not be blown battling “terrorism.”

*

PREAMBLE

Those who entertain that power is king eternal must spade through the rubble of history, and dialogue with the Pharaoh’s, the Caesars, and the Chosroes.

   Those who deny to others the rights they exact for themselves are bequeathing a legacy of violence and misery to the future: when old powers shall die–as is inevitable–and new ones shall rise vengeance and recrimination will raise its hoary head and be the “new order” of the millennium. (One example: Armenia is occupying about twenty-percent of Azerbaijan; the time will come, and it will come, when Azerbaijan will assert its sovereignty over this land; which, no doubt, will result in carnage and homelessness; Armenia is in a position to effect “peace” with the Azerbaijani’s and vacate their land).

   And so the cycle will continue. Unless “time” should give birth to the wisdom of, give justice “even though it against your own selves or parents or near relatives–whether he be rich or poor”–(Qur’an 4:135).

   Emperors who are of the delusion that their empire is forever should speak to the not-so-distant emperor –Great Britain; or is it just “Britain” now: it was once said that the sun never sets on the British Empire; today, there are days and perhaps even weeks when the sun does not shine on the British Empire. What’s left of it anyway.

   The only Empire that is eternal is the Islamic Empire –Muslims may falter– which is due to their own neglect of the practice of Islam– but Islam, the system of Allāh, God, can never falter. However, this throne of excellence is ever available for Muslims to ascend.

   That Muslims “root cause” can be bombed into submission is probably the worst case of delusion of all times. So long as Paradise sits in the lap of justice, no dewdrop will be spared to extinguish the hell of injustice.

   Instead of it being a “blueprint” against terrorism and a “safeguard” to societies, Dershowitz’s proposal is a hideous schematic of truncated liberty and privacy, constant fear, obscene taxes, and perpetual conflict and terror to the Resurrection. Americans may as well live in a steel bubble.

   Rather than spend his few mortal days inventing instruments of bondage, misery and destruction, man should formulate ways to bring home his war machine and transform troops into farmers and ammunition breeders into food-producing and fuel-processing units. It is not how long one lives; it is not how well one lives; it is how beneficial one lives!

   Dershowitz’s elephantine lamentation over “Palestinian terrorism” is, in a nutshell, no more than this: had the Palestinians heritage not been “stolen,” there would be no “suicide bombers,” and no “Palestinian terrorism.”

   That truth and justice are without border: unless and until the masses become courageous to detonate this explosive truth and obliterate the wicked walls of partisanship, patriotism, and politics, truth and justice will remain subjugated under the jackboot of injustice.

*

Why Terrorism Works (hardcover)–page numbers in brackets indicate the page(s) from which the quotes are taken.

*

CONTENTS

1.   We can do more to reduce international terrorism

2.  Palestinian terrorism achieved more than their pleading at the United Nations; we must never try to understand or eliminate the root of terrorism

3.  State-sponsored or state-supported terrorism

4.  Terrorism’s effect on the public

5.  Golda Meir on the murders of Jewish athletes in Munich, Germany, in 1972

6.  Do Palestinians have a legitimate reason for their terrorism?

7.  Palestinian terrorists killing schoolchildren and Western diplomats; Yasser Arafat invited to speak at the U.N.

8.  Palestinian terrorism rewarded

9. Palestinian terrorism and benefits received

10. Thomas Friedman on Palestinian suicide bombings; President Clinton peace plan to Yasser Arafat

11. Palestinians, children and adults encouraged to kill Jews.

12. Thomas Friedman–Hindus kill Muslims with no outcry, when Israel kills less Muslims it inflames the entire Muslim world; Saddam Hussein snuffing out two generations of Iraqis

13. Why Palestinians did not seek statehood from Jordan?

14. Palestinians first strategy was terrorism; Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Friedman

14. Ku Klux Klan’s attacks on black children equated with Palestinian terrorist acts

15. Dershowitz’s preventive strategies against Palestinian liberation (more squandering of the ever-poor tax-payers money)

16. Comparing death penalty for murder to torturing suspects to prevent murder

17. President Bush policy to combat all forms of terrorism

18. Thomas Friedman on Ismail Haniya, a Hamas leader

19. Germans and Hitler–whoever gives support to evil are to also suffer when the leader is defeated, even though some among the sufferers were less culpable than others

20. Statistics at the time of the partition of Palestine –Jewish right to Palestine, Palestinians denied their right; Dershowitz’s proposal to help so-called Israel against Palestinian liberation (see if you or he would swallow this)      

21. More methods to prevent terrorists; massive restrictions on immigration and on visas, especially for people of Muslim and Arab backgrounds

22. Racial profiling. (more squandering of the poor people’s money).

23. Dershowitz’s pathetic attempt to justify the dismembering of Palestine

24. The leader of a Palestinian state compared to David Ben-Gurion

*

1. “I am convinced that we can do much more than we are doing to reduce the horrors –present and future– of international terrorism.” “Unless we remember and rectify our past attitudes, we will be condemned to reexperience events similar to those of September 11. (pp. 3, 13).

Response: Absolutely! And it is simple to “rectify our past attitudes” and reduce “international terrorism.” (With exception to groups that are clamoring for statehood in a country: and they should leave if they are not happy with the rulership), give to others the rights we exact for ourselves. In the case of the Palestinians, return to them their homes, lands, and country “stolen” from them and given to the Jews for statehood.

   Britain can give to the Jews England, Scotland, Ireland, or Wales for their homeland. Or American can give the Jews Texas or California –more of them live in America, anyway, than in Palestine. (Let’s see the Britishers and the Americans swallow this unpalatable bit of morsel their governments have been trying to force-feed the fearless and forbearing Palestinians for six torturous decades now).

2. Alan Dershowitz chronicles “Palestinian terrorism”–which was more effective than “twenty years of pleading at the United Nations,” in the words of one PLO official he quotes–and he notes that instead of being condemned, the PLO is rewarded by (some) countries, and granted “observer status” at the United Nations.  “We must take precisely the opposite approach to terrorism. We must commit ourselves never to try to understand or eliminate its alleged root causes, (the PLO “root causes” is no allegation), but rather to place it beyond the pale of dialogue and negotiation. …Instead, we will hunt you down and destroy your capacity to engage in terror.” (This must be a classical example of ‘brute force and sheer ignorance’: like trying to put out a fire by throwing retardant at the flames instead of at the fuel. Wonder if Dershowitz is just as zealous against Jewish terrorism in their drive to gobble up Palestine). (pp. 24-25).  

Response: Yet, as history shows, it is by this very “terrorism” Jews gained attention and statehood in Palestine.

   This is the same UN that “stole” more than half of Palestine and gave it to the Jews for statehood.  This is the “terrorism” that hoisted Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir from the pit of infamy into the pool of prominence –from “terrorist” to statesmen.

   Palestinians homes, lands, and country have been “stolen” from them, and for twenty years they have been crying to a world blind and deaf to their tears; what next? As Ismail Zayid rightly points out in his Palestine A Stolen Heritage:

“The Palestinians finding all their country under Israeli occupation and its entire people either expelled or under alien rule, lost faith in the world community and came to realise that, even in this era of so-called civilisation, International Law and U.N. Charter, might is right and what is lost by force can be regained only force. They intensified, therefore, their resistance by guerilla attacks against Israeli military personnel and objectives. The Israelis retaliated by ruthless bombardment using Phantom jets and napalm against the defenceless men, women and children in their refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. The Palestinian resistance was vilified by Zionist propaganda and their captured mem-bers were savagely tortured in Israeli hands. The International Red Cross has at no time been given full access to these prisoners. In desperation, some Palestinian groups resorted –in retaliation for this savage torture and the massacres committed in the refugee camps– to acts of violence against civilians including hijacking of aircraft which culminated in the Munich tragedy in which the role of the Israeli and German Governments was less than innocent. Unpardonable as these acts in themselves are, it behoves all to remember the state of desperation the Palestinians reached and what caused it.” (p. 18).  

   What would you do if you were in the Palestinians’ situation?  At the time of Partition of Palestine Jews were 34% of the population and owned less than 6% of the land. Yet the Plan allotted Jews 56% of the land including the valuable coastland, 42% for a Palestinian state and 1% as an international sector.

   What would you do should your Government forcibly squeezes you and family into forty-four percent of your house and put a homeless family of fewer members into the remaining fifty-six percent; and give this homeless people title of ownership to this fifty-six percent of your property? And whereas members of your family do not have the right to come and live in your house, members of the homeless people born anywhere in the world has the right to live in your house–whereas a Jew born anywhere in the world has automatic citizenship to Palestine, a Palestinian born in Jaffa, his own country, is a refugee. This is the reality and injustice Palestinians face.

No King or Queen, or Prince or pauper, or President or Prime Minister, or doctor or lawyer, or student or peasant would accept such an ignominious scheme and not challenge it in every way open to him and her. Yet Palestinians are forced to accept the fate that no one in the world would accept. 

-The U.N. had no right to Partition Palestine –The U.N. is not the Sovereign owner of Palestine

-Britain had no right to promise Jews a homeland in Palestine –let Britain give Jews England or Scotland or Ireland or Wales (or Tristan da Cunha).

-America had no right to bring “coercion and duress,” and “pressure’ on nations to effect partition of Palestine –let America give Jews New York, Texas or California.

-If France wants Jews to have a homeland let the French give Jews Paris or Marseilles or Nice.

-If Canada wants Jews to have a homeland let Canadians give Jews Ontario or Quebec or Alberta.

-If Germany wants to atone for the “Holocaust” let the Germans give Jews half of the Fatherland.

   Palestinians are not to suffer for Europe’s shame.

   Those who criticize and condemn the Palestinians must put their dignity where their mouths are: they must swallow this unpalatable bit of morsel the Palestinians are being force-fed for sixty-years now–they must give half of their property to the homeless and half of their country to the natives or ethnic sector for their State; they must suffer what the Palestinians have suffered and endure what the Palestinians are enduring and accept what the Palestinians are forced to accept.

Jews needing a home is no legitimacy to deprive the Palestinians of theirs.

   It is not terrorism for Palestinians to fight the Jewish occupier/usurper. It is heroism!

In the modern era no other people have been the victim of such long-suffering human savagery as the Palestinians.

   The “root causes” of the Palestinians struggle have never been addressed. In fact, the very people who are supposed to address these “root causes” are the ones who created these “root causes” –Britain, America, and the UN.

   In the context of “Palestinian terrorism,” simply return Palestine to Muslims, stop meddling in Muslim affairs, and stop trying to own or control Muslim resource(s) and it is doubtful there will be Muslim terrorism.

   PLO given “observer” status by the UN: After subjecting the Palestinians to the excruciating agony of dismemberment of their country, mass exodus, refugee-hood, thirty years of neglect, and forcing it to resort to drastic measures to gain attention to the gross outrage, injustice and indignity inflicted upon them (and which continues to this day), the UN granting “observer status” to the PLO is hardly any recompense (if it can be deemed as such).

(In this matter of Palestine there are writers –authors, magazines, and newspapers– who could not write truth/ justice even if truth/justice was strapped to their fingers; either because of anti-Arab/anti-Muslim/anti-Islam bigotry, partisanship, patriotism, or toeing the political line. Whereas such writers may be considered “sad” and even “pathetic” the great tragedy is of those writers who could not write this truth/justice because of having traded their dignity for benefit: in the words of one brilliant poet (quoting from memory) “The mouth is muzzled by the food it eats” (or, in this instance, the hands are crippled by the gifts they take.

   For those familiar with Scripture: “And thou shalt take no gift: for the gift blindeth the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous”–Exodus 23:8). And for “yo” judges and Rabbis and Reverends who aspire to having golf-time in Heaven instead of hard-time in Hell this is for you: “they shall judge the people with just judgment. Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the wise”–Deut. 16:18-19. Amen!).  

   If the Allies can have the authority to take the right to stampede Germany out of France; if America can have the authority to take the right to devastate Iraq not once but twice–over the fictional Iraq killing Kuwaiti babies and over Iraq’s phantom weapons of mass destruction; if Britain can have the authority to take the right to sail halfway round the globe to boot Argentina off the disputed Falklands Island; if America can take the right to bomb Benghazi, Libya, over yet-to-be-identified bogeymen sent to assassinate Ronald Reagan; then definitely Allāh, the Sovereign Supreme, has all authority to give Palestinians/Muslims the right to reclaim Palestine.  

Palestine is the moral, social, historical, and spiritual heritage of Palestinians and all Muslims. (See PALESTINE).

   Equally significant. Whereas Dershowitz laments the PLO (Yasser Arafat) being given “observer status” at the United Nations, Edward Said notes in his revealing and scholarly presentation The Question of Palestine:

“For years and years, (Menachem) Begin has been known as a terrorist, and has made no effort to hide the fact. His book The Revolt is to be found in any univer-sity or medium-sized public library as part of the stan-dard Middle East collection. In this book, Begin describes his terrorism––including the wholesale massacre of innocent women and children––in righteous (and chilling) profusion. He admits to being responsible for the April 1948 massacre of 250 women and children in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. Yet a few weeks after his election in May 1977 he emerged in the press with his terrorism forgotten, as a “statesman” with implied comparison to Charles De Gaulle. Here one cannot say that evidence of Begin’s terrorism has been suppressed. It was there, has always been there in front of anyone discussing modern Israel, and has regularly been cited (in distinctions made, for example, between Begin and say, David Ben Gurion or Golda Meir, who were supposed to be statesmanlike). Yet so strong is the consensus decreeing that Israel’s leaders are democratic, Western, incapable of evils normally associated with Arabs and Nazis (which, after all, Israel is supposed by its exist-ence to have negated), that even a morsel as normally indigestible as Begin has been transmuted into just another Israeli states-man (and given an honorary LLD by Northwestern University in 1978 and part of a Nobel Peace Prize to cap it all!). Precisely those liberals who discover causes and outrages everywhere simply have nothing to say about Begin, about torture in Israel, or about the literally unstoppable annexationist policies of the Israeli state.” (p. 44. Italics/emphasis/ “red” added)        

   Did Dershowitz expressed similar outage at Begin’s “terrorism” and his being rewarded with statesmanship and an “hono-rary LLD;” and was he equally gung-ho to “never to try to understand” and “hunt” down Begin and “destroy” his “capacity to engage in terror”?

   Clearly, to crucify one “terrorist” and coronate the other has to be the most classical example and demonstration of intellectual and “democratic” dishonesty and hypocrisy!

   Like those before him (and those after him) Menachem Begin had his brief moments of champagne and caviar on the red carpet.

   Time, which steals our minds and memories will soon seal soul’s mortal journey. Whether we call Him Ishwar, Eli, Yahweh, Allāh, Atnatu or Manitou, one by one the arrogant butchers of Palestine (and of the world) are returned to God to toast for their crimes. The magnificence of it is, in the Court of Allāh, God, there is no diplomatic immunity, no legal technicality, no hung-jury; no mistrial; no bribery; no one to “pressure” or bring “coercion and duress” on; and no godfather to shield behind his coat –in fact, the godfather would be hustling for a skirt for himself to hide behind– you did the crime, or was involved in it, you toast the time. And whether the time spent in Hell is 365 days or 365,000 years your buns are well crisped!

3. “When the terrorist organization is believed to be state sponsored or supported–as it often is–the deterrent threat can be directed against the state.” (Thus, those who view America’s acts as “state sponsored” terrorism have the right to direct “deterrent threat” against her?) (p. 30).

Response: Because we have faster jets and bigger bombs we can deny the suffering his rights and yet bomb him. What if “they” resort to soft targets –like snatching our tourists and making examples of them? Once again the peon pays the price for the crimes of the emperor; while the emperor sits in his well-fortified palace savoring fermented grapes and smacking fancy rolls.  

4. “The very brutality and desperation of the acts led many in the international community to believe that the terrorists represented “a cause that could no longer justifiably be denied.” (Absolutely true in the case of Palestinians. What justifiable “cause” did Jews have against Palestinians to commit terrorism against them to be awarded half of Palestine?) Because their grievances and causes were addressed in response to terrorism, other groups with perceived grievances saw the benefits of terrorism and were more likely to resort to it, rather than to opt for other less visible and hence less successful mechanisms of change.” (pp. 31-32).

Response: “Palestinian terrorism” cannot be heaped with those who “were more likely to resort to it, rather than to opt for other less visible and hence less successful mechanisms of change.” Unlike “other” “terrorists,” Palestinians homes, lands, and country were “stolen” from them. For sixty years now Palestinians are yet crying. (While this is not in support of international terrorism– it is not terrorism to fight in one’s own land against occupation/ usurpation), it is doubtful Palestinians would have received the attention they justly deserve.

5. Alan Dershowitz notes the words of the late Golda Meir, prime minister of the Jewish state, on the murders of Jewish athletes by PLO members, in Munich, Germany, in 1972: “‘I think that there is not one single terrorist held in prison anywhere in the world. Everyone else gives in. We’re the only ones who do not,’ she said in disgust.” (p. 45).  

Response: This is the same woman who said:

“There was no such thing as Palestinians.…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. They did not exist”1. (Typical Jewish arrogance).

   Palestinians heritage have been “stolen” from them, now their identity are being “stolen” (or at least denied).

   That Golda Meir should deny the existence of the Palestinians is hilarious. Considering not only that she is of Russian nationality but has no knowledge as to her ancestry: whether she was of Biblical extract and/or of which of the twelve lineage of Jacob/Israel she belonged or if she was of the lineage of the Khazar –an eighth century Turkish tribe that converted to Judaism–(See PALESTINE). (Let Golda Meir and all those who claim ownership to Palestine prove they are "Jews" -descendants of Jacob).

   As to “the murders of Jewish athletes by PLO members.” While those who commit crime(s) whether at home or abroad are to be accorded to the extent of the crime.

Lest we forget:

   -Golda Meir sons savagely massacred the sons and daughters of Palestine in Deir Yassin on April 9, 1948–“old men, women, children, newly-born,”2 so they could occupy and usurp their homes lands, and country, and Golda Meir wants the world to cry for her sons.    

   -Golda Meir sons cold-bloodedly murdered the children of Palestine at Kafr Qassim on October 29, 1956–“52 villagers, men, women and children, were shot individually at point blank range on returning at the end of the day to the village from their fields.” They were shot for violating a curfew of which they had no knowledge, and at the time of their murders “the murderous police officers fully knew this fact”3 (that the peasants were unaware of the curfew). As punishment for these 52 grisly murders the officers were fined “one piaster”(less than one cent) –and Golda Meir wants the world to cry for her sons.    

   -Golda Meir sons colluded with Britain and France in October 1956 to kill the sons of Egypt so that Britain could have control of Egypt’s Suez Canal4, and Golda Meir wants the world to cry for her sons.    

   -Golda Meir sons massacred innocent Arab sons and daughters in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria5, and Golda Meir wants the world to cry for her sons.    

   -Golda Meir sons committed the first act of airplane hijacking in the Middle East to take “hostages”6, and Golda Meir wants the world to cry for her sons.      

   -Golda Meir sons’ policy is to “provoke” and attack the sons and daughters of Palestine “en masse”7 –they occupy and usurp the homes lands country and country of the children of Palestine then when these hapless children retaliate, as any person would do, they slaughter them– and Golda Meir wants the world to cry for her sons.

-Golda Meir sons subject Arab sons to nauseating savagery –“These included regular exercises of humiliation, such as forcing Araboushim to urinate and excrete on one another and crawl on the ground while they call out “Long Live the State of Israel” or lick the earth; or on Holocaust day, to write numbers on their own hands “in memory of Jews in the extermination camps””8and Golda Meir wants the world to cry for her sons.

   -Golda Meir sons want to expel Arab sons from their own country when the world is not looking, and Golda Meir wants the world to cry for her sons:

(“Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories.”–Benjamin Netanyahu”9   (a former Jewish Prime Minister). (And Pharaoh played God; and Goliath believed he was invincible).

   -Golda Meir sons provoke Arab sons so that they can “attack and smash them,” and Golda Meir wants the world to cry for her sons: (“Our strategy was always to provoke the Arabs and get an appropriate response so we could attack and smash them.”–Israeli General, Moshe Dayan”10).  (And yet the Arabs are branded villains). 

   -Golda Meir sons want to put the sons of others “on trial” but that her sons must be above the law, and Golda Meir wants the world to cry for her sons.

(“Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial.”Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 25 March, 2001 quoted in BBC News Online.11 (Hitler and Germany should be so blessed. Lest we forget. Imagine the furor had such a declaration been made by a Muslim/Arab leader, say, Iran’s ‘Mr. Cool,’ Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for example, the sky would have already caved in from henny-penny’s and her dutiful cluckers boisterous squawking –one can yet hear the howls. But nary a squeal was heard about this Jewish arrogance).

It is doubtful that a just nation, moreover one that trumpets itself to be a “democracy,” would declare itself and its citizen guilty of a crime to be sacrosanct–to be immune from judiciary. Such a demand, doubtlessly, has to be the ultimate in arrogance. We shall see what the “democratic” international community will do –if they are a lion or just a mouse that roared– if so-called “Israelis” are charged with “war crimes.” We shall also wait for Mr. Dershowitz’s comment then too).

   -Golda Meir sons make mischief and provoke others to be brutal to the other so they could war, and Golda Meir wants the world to cry for her sons.

(Professor Noam Chomsky in his Pirates And Emperors, Old and New, International Terrorism in the Real World notes from “Lebanon-based correspondent Jim Muir:

““that the Israelis helped fuel and encourage the Christian-Druze conflict” in the Chouf region.”

   And that ““Local eyewitnesses reported that Israeli soldiers frequently shot into the Palestinian camps from nearby Christian areas in an effort to incite the Palestinians against the Christians,” and residents in the Christian villages reported that Israeli patrols forced Christians and Muslims at gunpoint to punch one another among other forms of “bizarre humiliation.” The techniques finally worked. Israel’s Christian allies attacked Muslims near Sidon in a manner guaranteed to elicit a response from considerable more powerful forces, initiating a bloody cycle of violence that ultimately led to the flight of tens of thousands of Christians, many to the Israeli-dominated regions in the south, while tens of thousands of Shi’ites were driven north by Peres’s Iron Fist operations.” (pp. 46-47).

   -Golda Meir sons “burn”* the sons of Palestine and Golda Meir wants the world to cry for her sons.

*(Though Jewish officials deny it (what else is new?), “Amnesty International” has “produced what it called “indisputable evidence”” that Jews used white phosphorous against the native Palestinians in its lopsided “war” of Jan; 2009. White phosphorous is a “chemical agent” that ““keeps burning till it is consumed–complete destruction of the tissues down to the bone.””12 In this matter of “burning”, Germans can be said to be more humane with Jews than Jews are/were with Palestinians in that at least Germans are said to have burned Jewish corpses after they were dead– compared to Jews burning Palestinians/Arabs while they are alive).

   -Golda Meir does not care for anybody’s sons but Golda Meir wants everybody to care for her sons.

   Golda Meir does not care for the sons of Palestine/Arabs because in the veins of the sons of Palestine/Arabs flow water; Golda Meir cares for her sons only because in the veins of her sons flow milk and honey.

   (In this matter) Golda Meir needs to develop dignity and maturity; and her sons need to take the high-road and leave Palestine.

(For a marathon-long list of atrocities committed by the sons of Golda Meir, and also what the government is not telling the people; government practice of “thought control;” as well as to know the truth about events rather than digesting the white-washed crud the media is feeding us, read Professor Noam Chomsky, Pirates And Emperors, Old and New, International Terrorism in the Real World).

As noted above, Arab prisoners are made, “on Holocaust day, to write numbers on their own hands “in memory of Jews in the extermination camps.””

When one is forced to believe and is subjected to Judiciary for denying a thing the truth of such a thing becomes highly suspect. If an event or doctrine is truth there is no necessity to legislate belief in it or to criminalize question or denial of it; proponents and opponents alike must pro-vide proofs of their claim and let the public judge who is truthful and who is liar. To institute a law against denial of a thing is an abomination and an insult to the intellectuals and to all members of society–it may be equated with tyranny; and may be an avenue to other such legislation(s). Laws do not prevent people from being violated: laws can only bring violators to justice; laws do not sanctify or justify a claim: truth does. Forcing people to not speak out only serves to silence voices: it does not change mentality. Such a law may bring more harm than benefit–it may attract more opposition to the “truth” it professes to protect. It is a monumental disgrace that “civilized” society would allow such a law to be instituted. Such a law is repugnant to reason. And is to be repealed. Forthwith!

   Be it history or theology Truth stands by itself; Falsehood needs to be propped up! 

   The despots must be having a “laugh-a-rama” at this “democratic” law: ‘and they call us tyrants.’

6. “Even decent people cannot ignore indecent events. It is only natural to talk about evil. What many in the international community did was to ascribe a positive moral content to the evils of Palestinian terrorism. The assumption seemed to be that any group of people willing to resort to such extreme measures must have a just and compelling cause. (p. 47).

Response: Palestinians were kicked out of their homes, lands, and country: what more “just and compelling cause” can there be? (Though this is not in support of “terrorism”).  Taking the homes, lands, and country of another and slaughtering them for sixty years must be the most “indecent events” and the worst of “evils.”

7.  Alan Dershowitz recounts “Palestinian terrorists” killing schoolchildren and “three Western diplomats,” PLO leader, Yasser Arafat, received “an invitation to speak at the U.N. General Assembly, where he was greeted like a hero and a statesman, not as a cold-blooded murderer with the blood of American diplomats, Israeli Olympians, and Jewish children on his hands.” (You must read Noam Chomsky, Pirates and Emperors, Old And New, International Terrorism in the Real World, it will turn your stomach into a crawling rebellion at the innocent Arab blood Jews have on their heads. Maybe you already know). (p. 49).  

Response: Jewish leaders have rivers of blood of Arab children, civilians, and of diplomats and aristocrats (noted in item # 14).  Jewish “terrorists,” such as Begin and Yithzak Shamir, also became statesmen, and each “greeted like a hero” on the international stage. (And fetted on honest citizens tax-dollars).  Perhaps it may be said that one man’s barber is another man’s butcher. Or vice versa.

8.  “More important than what any expert thinks, the Palestinians believe that their acceptance and legitimation by the international community would not have come about so quickly had they not resorted to terrorism and instead played by the rules. (Whose rules? Palestinians were skewered by these so-called rules). An organization committed to peace and a world that claimed to eschew terrorism were rewarding their terrorist acts. (This is the same organization and world that rewarded Jewish terrorism with more than half of Palestine).” (p. 49).

Response: This is the same UN that “stole” Arafat’s home, lands and country. This is the same UN that incubated “Palestinian terrorism.” It was this same “world” that “committed”“terrorist” act against Palestinians –forcibly taking their homes, lands, and country, and drove them into exodus and refugee-hood. ‘Lest we forget.’

   Would there have been a Jewish state without “terrorism?” Not according to Menachem Begin, a “terrorist” who later became a Prime Minister (of Occupied Palestine). Ismail Zayid has noted this master butcher boasting of his massacre of the village of Deir Yassin in his Palestine–A Stolen Heritage (pp. 11-12):

“On 9th April 1948, the Irgun Zwei Leumi led by Menachem Beigin (who later became a Prime Minister of Occupied Palestine)….attacked the small Arab village of Deir Yassin near Jerusalem. An account of this barbaric massacre was given by Jacques de Reynier, the Chief Delegate of the International Red Cross, who was able to reach the village and witness the aftermath of the massacre: “Three hundred persons” he said, “were massacred….without any military reason or provocation of any kind; old men, women, children, newly-born were savagely murdered with grenades and knives by Jewish troops of the Irgun, entirely under the control of their chiefs.

Dov Joseph, one time Governor of the Israeli sector of Jerusalem and later Minister of Justice, called the Deir Yassin massacre “deliberate and unprovoked attack.” Arnold Toynbee described it as comparable to crimes committed against the Jews by Nazis. But “Menachem Beigin said “The massacre was not only justified, but there would not have been a state of Israel without the victory at Deir Yassin. (Massacring defenseless old men, women, children and newly-born a “victory”?). Unashamed of their deed and unaffected by world condemnation, the Zionist forces, using loud-speakers, roamed the streets of the cities warning Arab inhabitants “The Jericho road is still open,” they told Jerusalem Arabs– “Fly from Jerusalem before you are killed, like those in Deir Yassin.” (Italics/emphasis/color added).

That Palestinians were terrorized into fleeing their homes, Britannica: “The Irgun stormed and captured the village of Deir Yasin and massacred much of the population, terrorizing the Arab villagers, who began a mass exodus from Palestine.” (15th Edn; Vol. 17, p. 960. Italics/emphasis added.      

 (Regarding this massacre at Deir Yassin, as noted above, Ismail Zayid here quotes from the 1951 publication of Menachem Beigin’s book The Revolt, Story of the Irgun: “Menachem Beigin said “The massacre was not only justified, but there would not have been a state of Israel without the victory at Deir Yassin.”

However, the “Revised Edition” titled The Revolt and published 1983 by W.H. Allen, London, does not have these words by Beigin: “The massacre was not only justified, but there would not have been a state of Israel without the victory at Deir Yassin.” Page 164 of this Revised Edition says in its footnote that this massacre at Deir Yassin was an “Arab…propaganda to smear the Irgun. …The “Dir Yassin Massacre” lie is still propagated by Jew-haters all over the world.”

But the Deir Yassin massacre could not be “a lie” when: (1) Beigin, the leader of the Irgun, himself is said to have declared that there was a massacre: “The massacre was not only justified, but there would not have been a state of Israel without the victory at Deir Yassin.”  (2) there was an eyewitness to the aftermath of this massacre: “An account of this barbaric massacre was given by Jacques de Reynier, the Chief Delegate of the International Red Cross, who was able to reach the village and witness the aftermath of the massacre.”  (3) There is a historical account of this massacre: Britannica, probably the world’s most recognized source of reference and accurate recorder of history states that there was a massacre: “The Irgun stormed and captured the village of Deir Yassin and massacred much of the population.” (4) Dov Joseph, a prominent Israeli, called the Deir Yassin massacre “deliberate and unprovoked attack.”  

Reflectively, when anyone denies the “holocaust” or speak against it they are hauled before the judge; labeled “Jew hater” and “anti-Semite.” But there was no outcry against the deniers of the Deir Yassin massacre: no one was hauled into court, or labeled “Arab hater” or “anti-Arab.”  Perhaps when discussion(s) about the Revisionist(s) of history are conducted, Beigin’s statement on this massacre at Deir Yassin should be on the agenda).

9. From page 57 to page 78 Alan Dershowitz details “Palestinian terrorism” and the benefits received from these acts. Then notes Arafat “walking away from the Camp David negotiations in 2000, when Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak’s government, with the support of the Clinton administration, had offered the Palestinian nearly (pay attention, “nearly”) everything they were seeking. Rather than trying to negotiate some additional concessions–or compromising their maximalist claims–the Palestinian reverted to the terrorist tactics that had brought them so far already.” (p. 78).

Response: Isn’t democracy “shock and awe”-spiring? Your homes, lands, and country were “stolen” from you and you have to “negotiate” to get back a part of it, and perhaps the worse part of it. This is nauseatingly shameless.  (And lest we forget, this is the same US "administration" -under Harry Truman- that stole Palestine through her diplomatic "thuggery" at the U.N. and gave it to Jews).

   Someone usurps your property and you must play poker with him to get lodging in it. Let’s see the proponents of such an intelligent scheme “negotiating” with a mugger for only a partial return of his wallet rather than the whole of it, and to have the wretched crook thrown in jail. And preferably with the key to his cell rocketed to mars.

   Your homes, lands and country have been “stolen” from you and in seeking their return you are charged as having “maximalist claims.” (More “dialectic acrobatics”).

   Let’s put this “nearly everything” hoopla that Arafat was getting from the Barak-Clinton bonanza under the searchlight of investigation.   Those who ape the propagandist that Jews are making great concessions to Arabs and slam Arafat for refusing the “peace” deal must read the fine print of these so-called grand deals.

   Regarding the Jewish withdrawal plan from the Occupied territories, Haroon Siddiqui points out: “The Palestinians in the West Bank will be clustered into enclaves, more or less cut off from each other and also the Arab world, except through a crossing into Jordan.”13 And columnist Richard Gwyn reveals: “What would be left for the Palestinians by all of this imposed disengagement would be an impoverished, ungovernable rump. In the phrase of the Washington-based Stratford Geopolitical Intelligence Report, it would mean “simply leav(ing) them to rot.”14

All this while the world that “stole” Palestine looks on in self-inflicted impotence sanctioning the horror of it all while the Frankenstein it created runs amok over his helpless and defenseless victims. Where are the vociferous demands for economic, military, and diplomatic barricades?

   The peace offer(s) to the Palestinians amount to nothing more that this: Someone takes over your house and says to you, ‘if you do not make trouble for me I will let you have the basement.’ Let’s see Alan Dershowitz, Ehud Barak, and Bill Clinton accept this obscenity for themselves and (and families).   (For a revealing look into the meaning of this “peace” read Professor Noam Chomsky Pirates And Emperors, Old and New–International Terrorism in the Real World).

10. On Palestinians “suicide bombings,” Alan Dershowitz notes, “New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman characterized it this way: “The world must understand that the Palestinians have not chosen suicide bombing out of ‘desperation/stemming from the Israeli occupation. That is a huge lie. Why? To begin with, a lot of other people in the world are desperate, yet they have not gone around strapping dynamite to themselves. (Some go around with spears and machetes and just because they do not like the other. Maybe these “lot of other people” do not care or are not brave enough to give their lives for their heritage as Palestinians/Muslims do). More important, President Clinton offered the Palestinians a peace plan that could have ended their ‘desperate’ occupation, and Yasir Arafat walked away.” (“could” have ended their occupation; not “would” have ended their occupation?) (pp. 79-80).

Response: These “lot of other people in the world” homes, lands, and coun-try were not “stolen” from them; nor are they subjected to the daily humiliation and indignities and periodic slaughter as Palestinians suffer.

   Clinton (America) “offered” the Palestinians their own home. Isn’t that a doozy? Clinton should give Jews Texas or California for their homeland–let’s see Americans swallow this unpalatable bit of morsel their government has been trying to force-feed the fearless and forbearing Palestinians for six torturous decades now. Long Live Free Palestine!

   (That the peace plan was a “maroon” is shown above).  The world (the part that sanctioned the stealing of half of Palestine) must understand that the occupied (unlike the soldier on the battlefield who is free) has the right to fight with whatever means available and in whatever manner it deems. Man has no right to edict judgment against him: this judgment is only for God. Palestinians cannot be compared with other peoples.

(It is crass intellectual, political, and rabbinical putrefaction that Hamas does not have the right to fight for what is his; but Jews have the right to kill for what is not theirs. Let’s see these “self-respecting”(?) intellectuals, politicians, and teachers of religion [and those who parrot them] accept this grotesque monstrosity for themselves that they are trying to foist onto the proud and intrepid Palestinians.  Twistedly, like Saddam Hussein being blamed for the deaths of Iraqi children from US/UN sanctions, Jewish killing of Palestinian civilians is blamed on Hamas. Why then isn’t Hamas rocketing Jews blamed on these Jews themselves for being occupiers/usurpers, and the deaths of their children blamed on these Jewish fathers and mothers for setting their children as objects against liberation?).

11. Alan Dershowitz notes that Palestinians, children and adults, are encouraged to kill Jews. (And Jews are actually killing Palestinians; and killing them “en masse”). (p. 81).

Response: And what are Jewish children and adults taught about Arabs? (It was written that Jews depict Arabs as tomatoes: to be squished).  Significantly, Jews are taught that they are “the most superior of all races”–which is the worst of all hatred; and a mentality that can and do lead to unspeakable horrors against others to satisfy this end; as is evident of the gross humiliation and degradation and periodic “en masse” slaughter of the Palestinians (and the Hamas/Palestinian holocaust of 2009 in Gaza, Palestine). The Jewish, “KHUZARI BOOK, which is approved by the office of educa-tion. In the introduction to the book Dr. Tzifroni writes:

“The nation of Israel is a chosen nation because of its race, its education and the climate of the land in which it was brought up. The race of the Israeli people is the most superior of all races.””15

(And Hitler was pilloried [still is] for his view that Germans is the master race. If supremacy is based on race, residency, and knowledge; then Palestinians/Arabs are the “most superior of all races”; having resided in Palestine for six thousand years, is the best nation, as Allāh says in His Qur’an, and has given Muslims knowledge that brought light to the world –at a time when Jews and everyone else were running around with flint tools and torches). 

   As to those who are proud of their so-called high-birth:

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground

“So God created male and female…and said

unto them, Be fruitful and multiply.”

(Genesis 2:7; 1:27-28).

“He (Allāh) began the creation of man from dust

Then He made his progeny of an extract,

of worthless water (i.e. semen and ovum)”

“O mankind, surely We have created

you from a male and a female

“Surely We have created man from a drop

of mingled sperm (sperm mixed with ovum

or through the act of sexual intercourse)

(Qur’an 32:7-8; 49:13; 76:2).

   How rightly then the Prophet Mohammad gave the celestially and profoundly perfect answer to this mis-shapen mentality (of high-birth) that is unworthy not only of the enlightened Twen-tieth century but unworthy of all centuries. Said the magnificent Messenger of Allāh that whoever prides himself on being of high-birth ‘tell him to bite on his father’s penis’16: (that is where he came from; that is the lowly beginning from where we all came). And the Prophet made it the point that when using this saying not to alter the word “penis” so as to make it a delicate expression; (the proud one must face the full impact of his vain pride; that his pride originated from or lies in his father’s “penis”).

   One is “superior” to the other only through his belief in God and doing good deeds.

(Reflectively, we are expected to take a stand against anti-Semitism. Yet when we expose Jewish atrocities we are invariably confronted with the hypocritical walls of “anti-Semitism” and “hatred” of Jews.

Truth is not anti-Semitism!

Truth is not hatred!

Truth is not anti-Jew!

Truth is not anti-Israel!

Truth is not anti-Zionism!

             Truth is truth!

-If “truth” is “anti-Semitism” and “hatred” then the “holocaust” memorials are to be obliterated for being “anti-Nazism” and “hatred” against Hitler and Germans.

-If “truth” is “anti-Semitism” and “hatred” then our yearly serving of The Ten Commandments and the occasional dose of the “holocaust” movies (as well as the “holocaust” sob stories saturating the newsprint) are to be fed to the cats as being “anti-Arabism” and “anti-Nazism,” and “hatred” against Egyptians and Germans, respectively.

-If “truth” is “anti-Semitism” and “hatred” against Jews then the Bible–The Old Testament and the New–and the Qur’an would need to be outlawed.

Those who make a charge of “anti-Semitism” must prove that they are descendants of Shem –one of the three sons of Noah– and also a descendant from one of the Twelve Tribes of Jacob/Israel.

Those who make a charge of “hatred against Jews” must define who or what a Jew is. [A Muslim is one who professes that There is no God but Allāh; Mohammad is the Messenger of Allāh].

A mentality that expects its virtue to be extolled and its vice suppressed is a mentality that needs to cultivate dignity and maturity).

12. Dershowitz notes Thomas Friedman asking: “Why is that when Hindus kill hundreds of Muslims it elicits an emotionally muted headline in the Arab media, but when Israel kills a dozen Muslims, in a war in which Muslims are also killing Jews, it in-flames the entire Muslim world? (Wonder if Friedman would be as upset over his brother being beaten by someone over a candy bar as he would over his brother being beaten by someone who takes over his house and is trying to get him to accept the loss of his house. Most decidedly not. What war? The occupier is armed to its head with sophisticated weaponry and its victims with dinosaur equipments: this is not war, this is a “turkey shoot”). …This is a serious issue. In recent weeks, whenever Arab Muslims told me of their pain at seeing Palestinians brutal-ized by Israelis on their TV screens every night, I asked back: Why are you so pained about Israelis brutalizing Palestinians, but don’t say a word about the brutality with which Saddam Hussein has snuffed out two generations of Iraqis using murder, fear and poison gas? I got no good answers.” (pp. 89-90).

Response: (Like a skilled propagandist). Friedman is trying to compare apple with orange. And anticipating a gulled world to swallow them whole. (Sadly, many in the world do swallow it). Unlike the Hindu-Muslim conflict and the Iraqis who are not under occupation, Palestinians suffer doubly: Palestinians are not only under occupation, and their homes, lands, and country are not only “stolen,” but they are being slaughtered because of it. No amount of lingual gymnastics can somersault this impregnable truth.

   Equally significant, Muslims are “pained” at the abomination against the Palestinians’ because Palestine is the moral, social, historical, and spiritual inheritance not only of Palestinians but of all Muslims. (See PALESTINE).

If there is any cause that is worthy of our stand it is the cause of the Palestinians. No other people in modern era has suffered such injustice and humiliation and indignity and savagery and for so long as the Palestinians have. Graduates and students, princes and peasants worldwide, rise up and march for the “Return of Palestine” to the Palestinians.

‘Forever Justice! Forever Palestine!’

Vive Palestine libre!

Azaad Philistine Zindabaad!

Long live free Palestine!

13. “The Palestinians made no realistic effort between 1948 and 1967 to achieve statehood from their Jordanian occupiers on the West Bank or the Egyptians in the Gaza Strip. It was only after Israel occupied these territories in June 1967–following its victory in a defensive war–that the Palestinians began to seek state-hood in earnest.” (For an insight into this 1967 so-called “defensive war” read Ismail Zayid Palestine, A Stolen Heritage, pp. 16-17). (p.90).

Response: It is Palestinians right to do whatever they want. And whenever they desire. That they choose not to seek statehood while ruled by Jordan and Egypt is of no consequence: all the lands in the Middle East are Muslims. Palestine is the moral, social, historical, and spiritual heritage of Palestinians and all Muslims. (See PALESTINE).

(Regarding the dubious Armenian ancestral lands in Turkey. There is a universe of material on this topic on the Internet. But it all comes down to the authenticity of this claim, be it scriptural, historical, or mere belief; or a combination. The counter to this Armenian claim is probably best noted in the following taken from the Internet: the Republic of Turkey–Ministry of Culture and Tourism pints out:

“Is Eastern Anatolia The Homeland Of Armenians?

ARMENIAN ISSUE
ALLEGATIONS-FACTS

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Is Eastern Anatolia The Homeland Of Armenians?

Even Armenian historians disagree on this question. Let us examine some of their contradictory theories while looking into Anatolian history.

1. The Biblical Noah Theory. According to this idea, the Armenians descended from Hayk, great-great grandson of the Biblical patriarch Noah. Since Noah's Arc is supposed to have come to rest on Mount Ararat, the advocates of this idea conclude that eastern Anatolia must have been the original Armenian home-land, adding that Hayk lived some four hundred years and expanded his dominion as far as Babylon. This claim is based entirely on fables, not on any scientific evidence, and is not worthy of further consideration. The historian Auguste Carriere summarily dismisses it stating that "it depends entirely on information provided by some Armenian historians, most of which was made up."

2. The Urartu Theory. Some Armenians claim that they were the people of Urartu, which existed in eastern Anatolia starting about 3000 B.C. until it was defeated and destroyed by the Medes, with its territory being contested for some time by Lydia and the Medes until it finally fell under the influence of the latter. This claim has no basis in fact. No form of the name Armenian is found in any inscription in Anatolia dating from that period, nor was there any similarity at all between the Armenian language and that of Urartu, the former being a member of the Satem group oflndo European languages, while the latter was similar to the Ural-Altaic languages. Nor were there any similarities between their cultures. The most recent archaeological finds in the area of Erzurum support these conclusions very clearly. There is, therefore, absolutely no evidence at all to support the claim that the people of Urartu were Armenian.

3. The Thracian-Phrygian Theory. The theory most favoured by Armenian historians claims that they descended from a Thracian-Phrygian group, that originated in the Balkan Peninsula and by the pressure oflllyrians migrated to eastern Anatolia in the sixth century B.C. This theory is based on the fact that the name Armenian was mentioned for the first time in the Behistan inscription of the Mede (Persian) Emperor Darius from the year 521 B.C., "I defeated the Armenians." If accepted, of course, this view effectively contradicts and disproves the Noah and Urartu theories.

       REFERENCE: (1) CARRIERE, Auguste, Moise de

       Khoren et la Genealogie Patriarcale, Paris, 1896.”

   See also, the site: Armenians homeland in Turkey, (Homeland) Tall Armenian Tale: The other side of the Falsified Genocide).

   Draw your own conclusion.    

On this topic, another matter worth mentioning was the charge of Armenian girls taken into slavery by Turkey. Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din notes in his Open Letters To The Bishops of Salisbury and London (1926):

“Let a Christian con­science slumber in face of the most inhuman and flagrant atrocities to which Muslim women and girls were subjected by the brutal Greek in Anatolia and Smyrna in I922; let the Church of Christ remain callous to the inhumanities of a Christian general in Amritsar (India) in 1919, but a Muslim conscience must condemn every kind of atrocity from whatever person and against whatsoever quarter it may come.

But many men of position have challenged Your Lord-ship to prove your allegation concerning the 30,000 Armenian girls in Turkish slavery. Among them Dr. Walter Walsh and Madam Adnan {Halide’ Edib Han-oum)a, and in this respect you have not, as yet, now acquitted yourself too well. You rely on the report of the League of Nations. But that hardly helps you. It speaks only of so many thousands of homeless Christians in the land of the Turksb. It is quite possible–a natural consequence of the war. It does not speak of harems and slavery. It may be that some of the Turks, out of their usual kindheartedness, gave shelter and a home to some of these homeless people, or took them into their service. That does not mean slavery. It is, however, an old habit of anti­-Turk propagandists to pervert facts and to misrepresent them. But you, My Lord, are not one of these; you must be above their level; your fault perhaps is that you rely on others and accept hearsay as proved fact.”(pp. 95-109). (Italics/Emphasis added).

           a Cf. Islamic Review, June 26, pp. 224, 225.

   b SIR,–In your issue of December 19 a report appears of the lecture given by Halide Edib Hanoum at a meeting of the Near and Middle East Association held in London on Thursday, December 17. This Turkish lady is reported to have said that there was “no truth at all in the story” regarding the 30,000 Christian girls who, according to the Bishop of London, had been forced into Moslem households. We may, of course, be very simple folk in Britain, but I venture to think that we are not quite simple enough to believe that the impartially com-piled documents issued by the League of Nations which give the facts should be ignored because one Turkish lady happens to say that there is “no truth at all” in the Bishop of London’s statement. In support of the Bishop of London’s statement I will quote from just two documents published by the League of Nations. Document A 35, 1921, IV. States:-

   ­Approximate number of Armenian orphans still in Turkish institutions and homes:–

                Unoccupied areas ..             ..               ..     60,750

                  Occupied areas    ..             ..               ..     12,600

                                                                                       73,350

   Document A 28, 1922, III states, referring to Miss Jeppe's Interim Report for January 26, 1922:­–

       Miss Jeppe then estimated there were from five to six thousand Armenian women and children in Moslem houses within the French zone of occupation, not including Nisibin, and she now believes (belief not fact) that there are still at least thirty thousand Armenian women and children in Moslem hands in the whole region accessible from Aleppo. This does not include the provinces of Diarbekir and Kharpout, into which there has been within the last year a very large influx of Christian deportees from Anatolia, and especially from the Black Sea littoral; nor yet Cilicia, where an unknown number of Armenian survivors from Hadjin, Cis, Zeitun, Marash, and Aintab are still to be found. (There is no mention of harem or slavery).         

Yours, etc.,

CHURCHMAN.

December 31.”    

(Brackets added).                      

*

14. “Far from being a last resort, the very first strategy the Palestinians employed was terrorism. They never tried civil disobedience or other nonviolent means of the kind used by Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. Friedman argues that such an approach would have worked.” (Why shouldn't Palestinians first strategy be "terrorism" to kick out those who slaughter their sons and daughters and steal their lands? and unlike Palestinians, Gandhi and King were not kicked out of their lands). (p. 90).

Response: That “the very first strategy the Palestinians employed was terrorism” is literary crud if not intellectual mendacity, dishonesty, or ignorance of facts. As Ismail Zayid points out:

“As in 1948, the (1967) war resulted in the displacement of more Palestinians. 350,000 people were forced out by terror, expelled, or left from fear. The Security Council and the General Assembly called on Israel on 14th June 1967 and 14th July 1967 to facilitate the return of these refugees. Israel pretended to comply, allowing 14,000 to return–while during the same period evicting 17,000 others–then would not accept any more.”a

   “The Palestinians, having waited for 20 years in their miserable refugee camps hoping to move world conscience and trusting in the U.N. to allow them to return to their homes and restore their legitimate rights in their homeland, found it all in vain. The U.N. passed resolutions but did not enforce them, when they conflicted with the wishes of Israel and her guardian the U.S. world public opinion was deaf to the Palestinian cries while it was all ears to Zionist propaganda and demands to im-port 3,000,000 Russian Jews.

   The Palestinians finding all their country under Israeli occupation and its entire people either expelled or under alien rule, lost faith in the world community and came to realise that, even in this era of so-called civilisation, International Law and U.N. Charter, might is right and what is lost by force can be regained only force.17

   Those who criticize and condemn the Palestinians must put their dignity where their mouths are: they must suffer what the Palestinians have suffered (and continue to suffer), endure what the Palestinians have endured (and continue to endure), and accept what the Palestinians are forced to accept.

   That “the very first strategy the Palestinians employed was terrorism” is, as shown, literary crud if not intellectual mendacity or ignorance of facts.  And, was Jewish “resort” to statehood done by “nonviolent means” and “civil disobedience”?

   From the onset, Jews schemed, bombed, and massacred their way to statehood. In fact, according to Menachem Begin (already noted) the Jewish state stands on the very foundation of “terrorism.” Complimentally:

   -Theodor Herzl wrote that Jews would have to “spirit the penniless” Arabs out of Palestine “while denying” them “employment in our own country.”18 (??? our “own” country? How did Palestine become your country? Arrogance at its peak).

   -Joseph Weitz wanted an Israel “without Arabs.19

   -Chaim Weizman “promised” that ““Palestine will be as Jewish as England is English.””20

   -Israel Zangwill envisioned “a land without people for a people without land”21–in other words a land without Arabs for Jews who had no land.

   -Theodor Herzl envisioned the Jewish state to stretch from Turkey to Egypt: ““The northern frontier is to be the mountains facing Cappadocia (in Turkey), the southern, the Suez.””22

   -bombing of the “King David Hotel in Jerusalem,” killing “91” and injuring “45 British and Arabs;” “assassination of Lord Moyne in Cairo in 1944;” “letter bombs to British cabinet ministers” in 1947; bombing of the “Semiramis Hotel in Jerusalem,” killing the “Viscount de Tapia and 19 other civilians;” 23 the assassination of Count Bernadotte and his French aide in Jerusalem in 1948. Plus the already noted Deir Yassin massacre of 250-300 “old men, women, children, and newly born.” 

   -Moshe Dayan, as Chief of Staff of the Jewish army is noted as stating in 1952: ““It lies upon the Israeli army to carry out the fight with the ultimate objective of erecting the Israeli em-pire.””24 (And this was only a meager four years after their occupation of Palestine).   And as Jewish general, Dayan boasted after their victory in the 1967 six-day war with Egypt and Syria: ““Our fathers had reached the frontiers which was recognised in the Partition Plan. Our generations reached the frontiers of 1949. Now the six-day generation have managed to reach Suez, Jordan and the Golan Heights. This is not the end. After the present ceasefire lines, there will be new ones. They will extend beyond Jordan–perhaps to Lebanon and perhaps to Central Syria as well.”25 (How is he so certain there will be new ceasefire lines? Seems like it is their plan to instigate wars and occupy more territory? Clearly, from their own declarations and actions  Jews had no intention of having only a homeland; their ideal was/is to occupy/usurp all of Palestine).

   -Benjamin Netanyahu: “Israel should have exploited the re-pression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories.”26 (No comment needed: no amount of words can out-gloss this starkly black portrait of hate).

   -Ariel Sharon: “Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial.”27 (Hitler and Germany should be so blessed. Lest we forget!).

   -Moshe Dayan: “Our strategy was always to provoke the Arabs and get an appropriate response so we could attack and smash them.” (And yet the Arabs are branded villains).

   These are some of the declarations of the people who project themselves to the world as “doves of peace and examples of injured innocence.”28 (Read Prof. Noam Chomsky, Pirates And Emperors, New And Old– International Terrorism in the Real World).

(Whether we call Him Ishwar, Eli, Yahweh, Allāh, Atnatu or Manitou, one by one the arrogant butchers of Palestine (and of the world) are returned to God to toast for their crimes. The magnificence of it is, in the Court of Allāh, God, there is no diplomatic immunity, no legal technicality, no hung-jury/no mistrial; no bribery; no one to “pressure” or bring “coercion and duress” on; and no godfather to shield behind his coat –in fact, the godfather would be hustling for a skirt for himself to hide behind– you did the crime, or was involved in it, you toast the time. And considering that one Divine day is equal to a thousand human years, even if the maximum time spent in Hell is twelve months, in Divine terms that would be 365,000 human years. You’re well crisped!)

   Read again the logics of Dershowitz and Friedman.

Palestinians homes, lands, and country are “stolen” from them and they have to throng to the streets clanging pots and pans begging for their return. It is sheer mendacity to villainize the hapless Palestinian victims and glorify the Jewish villains.

   Let’s see Dershowitz and Friedman sweating the Palestinians’ beat for the return of their belongings.

   Fighting the occupier/usurper is not terrorism: it is heroism!

If fighting the occupier and usurper was terrorism, Britain must be one of the biggest “terrorist” for sailing halfway round the globe to unseat Argentina from the Falklands Island; and the Allies of World War II must be the biggest “terrorist” in history for shoveling Germany out of France.

   Regarding Friedman’s “civil disobedience or other nonviolent means of the kind used by Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr.”

   Much hoopla is heaped on Gandhi’s non-violence. With no disrespect to Gandhi, India did not achieve independence because of “non-violence,” India achieved independence because Gandhi was dealing with a civilized nation, Britain. Dictators would make ‘stew’ of “non-violence.” V. M. Tarkunde points out in his book, Radical Humanism: “India’s national independence was the result, not so much of Gandhi’s civil disobedience, as of the economic and political changes which occurred in the world and in Great Britain itself during the anti-fascist World War. The ineffectiveness of civil disobedience against a ruthless and unprincipled authoritarian rule was demonstrated during the Emergency which was enforced in India in 1975 by Indira Gandhi.” (p. 33).

   The same goes for Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. With no disrespect to King, after fifty years and even in the bulwark of democracy (or as 9/11 has shown it’s just ‘bul’) King’s “dream” is yet a “dream.”  Non-violence will not avail against head-hunters. It will get smoked.

14. “The media reported the Ku Klux Klan’s attacks on black children far more negatively than they generally did with comparable Palestinian terrorist acts. No responsible journalists characterized hooded clansmen as freedom fighters, guerillas, or commandos.”(Another example of skilled propaganda or ludicrous cerebration in comparing apple to orange). (p. 96).

Response: These “responsible journalists know why they did not “characterized hooded clansmen as freedom fighters, guerillas, or commandos”: they would have looked like idiots. The KKK’s homes, lands, and country were not “stolen” from it. Neither was the KKK “provoked” by these “black children” and slaughtered “en masse.” Neither was the KKK fighting against occupation, as the Palestinians are. And in all three instances.  “No responsible journalists” would have even considered making such a ridiculously clumsy comparison between the KKK and the Palestinians.

15. Dershowitz’s notes “preventive strategies” against terrorism. “These includes planting spies in the terrorist groups (what if terrorists begin giving their members “truth” serum, etc; if uncovered they risk having their heads on pogo sticks), bribing or extorting members of the group to become double agents (what if non-colored Muslims resort to home soil terrorism?), “scamming” the terrorists into committing controlled crimes designed to catch them in the act, and intercepting their communications (what if they resort to codes. ‘Stricter the government wiser the population’). (p. 102).

Response: It would be a load of a lot easier and safer and economical to just give people the rights due to them. London has more public surveillance cameras than population. Imagine one (or more) of these employees “reverting” to Islam; keeps his “reverting” secret;” and decides to sabotage the monitoring unit. Worse, if he is working with outside units and synchronizes his “sabotage” to time with the outside units.

   The billions and even trillions needed over the expanse of time by world nations to implement, maintain, and enforce measures against the undying “terrorism” can easily be saved by being just and giving people the rights due to them.  This Solomon’s mine of savings could be used to enhance the lives of our own needy and the needy of the world –AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, Alzheimer and stroke, homelessness, starva-tion, unwed mothers and abandoned and orphaned children; medical and dental care– as well as take care of the looming doom “global warming.” We can live freer, safer, happier, less taxed, and have more cash in our wallets to spend on ourselves and love-ones.

   Interestingly, Dershowitz presents the case of the “ticking bomb” terrorist. He quotes Bentham:

“Suppose an occasion were to arise, in which a suspicion is entertained, as strong as that which would be received as a sufficient ground for arrest and commitment as for felony–a suspicion that at this very time a considerable number of individuals are actually suffering, by illegal violence (is there “legal” violence?) inflictions equal in intensity to those which if inflicted by the hand of justice, would universally be spoken of under the name of torture. For the purpose of rescuing from torture these hundred innocents, should any scruple be made of applying equal or superior torture, to extract the requisite information from the mouth of one criminal, who having it in his power to make known the place where at this time the enormity was practising or about to be practised, should refuse to do so? To say nothing of wisdom, could any pretence be made so much as to the praise of blind and vulgar humanity, by the man who to save one criminal, should determine to abandon 100 innocent persons to the same fate?” (pp. 142-143).

If it is acceptable to inflict torture to save others. Then consider the scenario in which a mass-murderer went to his execution refusing (even under torture) to give to the families of his victims the locations where he disposed of his “100” victims. The parents and families of these victims, desiring to give their beloved sons and daughters a decent burial, would have the right to torture the murderer’s lawyer –if they believe the lawyer was given this information by his murderous client, and believe that because of lawyer-client confidentiality and him wanting to not tarnish his reputation and lose business, would not want to divulge this information– to obtain the locations of his “100” victims.

   And if the murderer had gone to “confession” before his execution, the parents and families of these “100” victims would have the right to torture this priest –if they believe the priest was given this information by the murderer and that the priest would not want to divulge this information because of priest-sinner confidentiality– to obtain the locations of their beloved ones.

   The question that needs to be addressed is why is this man “terrorist” and holding “100” innocents? If he is “terrorist” because of your injustice and is holding “100” innocents of yours because you are responsible for killing “innocents” of his how can torturing him be justified? (Though this does not justify him killing innocents).

   If he is “terrorist” because of your injustice: so it is acceptable to kill the innocent children of his but when he tries to kill the innocent of yours in revenge you want to torture and/or kill him; let’s see the man (and woman) that would accept for himself and herself such a gruesome monstrosity.  

16. Dershowitz notes: “What moral principle could justify the death penalty for past individual murders and at the same time condemn nonlethal torture to prevent future mass murders?” Nonlethal torture is “sterilized needle being shoved under the fingernails.” (p. 148).

Response: And to know, we were horrified at bamboo slivers “shoved under the fingernails” of prisoners.  And if they should torture us as “suspected” spies?

   There is no comparison between these two pictures. In the first, killing was committed. Punishment for unjustly taking the life of another is forfeiting of your own life–(Gen. 9:6; Exod. 21:12).

   Is it possible to tell one’s tolerance to “nonlethal” torture to ensure it will not result in death?–the torturer will become a murderer and subject to forfeiting his life. If the person is a suspect an innocent would have been tortured (and killed)–this may give birth to another “terrorist,” in revenge. If one is a convicted terrorist there is no certainty he has information about future terrorism –he would be unjustly “tortured.”  If one is a convicted terrorist there is no certainty he has information about future terrorism –he would be unjustly “tortured.”

    If “torture” is justified to prevent future murders, then, if there is a clever lawyer who have murderers set free (some who may have committed “mass murders”) members of the victims (and society) would have the right to subject the lawyer to what is needed to obtain information on the guilty ones, and also that the lawyer does not defend “future” murderers; as well as to have this lawyer reveal how many murderers went free because of his defending them. (It is doubtful that victims and/or their families would care any about lawyer-client privilege; all they would care about is to get the criminals out of society. After all these criminals might be right now stalking them or their daughters or other members of their families. The victims and/or their families may even be ready to “shove” lethal non-sterilized needle or bamboo sliver under the fingernail of this lawyer in order to have him fess up).

   The question that needs to be answered is why did this man become a “terrorist”? Is he “terrorist” by choice or is he the product of the machinery that wants to torture him? If he is the product of the machinery that seeks to torture him how can torturing him be justified –this would be like the creator of Frankenstein blaming Frankenstein for what Frankenstein is.

   Injustice is the incubator of terrorism. It is not terrorism to fight the occupier, transgressor, and usurper. It is heroism! If man would extend to others the rights he exacts for himself billions will not be blown battling “terrorism.”

(A word on capital punishment. While it is understandable that individuals who are convicted on circumstantial evidence should not be executed; there is no justification for not executing those clearly guilty of pre-meditated murder; the murder of children, the elderly, and those engaged in law enforcement.

As for those who view capital punishment as barbaric. So, it is barbaric to take the life of people. But it is not barbarism to cut the necks of the dumb, innocent birds and animals to satisfy the mouth and belly.

Should the murderer(s) facing life imprisonment desire another spree at crime, he only needs to be a “good” inmate till he is paroled. Then, he can again kill, and murder, and rob and be on the lam till he is again caught. Taxpayers –which may include victims and their families– will end up being hosed a second round to ensure his proper defence. Then end up being further squeezed to finance his feed, house, and clothing and maybe even gym, television and library facilities –which some of the taxpayers cannot afford for themselves and children. In short, victims are penalized to defend and maintain their villains. What “moral principle” or what basic intelligence would succumb to this monumental idiocy?)

17. “President Bush has, in fact, declared that it is our policy to combat all forms of terrorism. At the United Nations on Novem-ber 10, 2001, he said: “We must unite in opposing all terrorists, not just some of them,” and went on to say, “any government that rejects this principle, trying to pick and choose its terrorist friends, will know the consequences.” A month later he said, “American power will be used against all terrorists of global reach.” (p. 168).    

Response: And who will determine who is “terrorist”?  On this matter of terrorism, the reader is strongly urged to read Professor Noam Chomsky, Pirates And Emperors, Old And New, International Terrorism in the Real World.   The Professor has given an insight into the usage of the term “terrorism”:

“The terms “terrorism“ and “retaliation” also have a special sense in U.S. Newspeak. “Terrorism refers to terrorist acts by various pirates, particularly Arabs. Terrorist acts by the emperor and his clients are termed “retaliation” or perhaps “legitimate pre-emptive strikes to avert terrorism” quite independently of the facts.” (p. 29).

   So long as there are those dedicated to living off the blood of others there will be “terrorism.”

18. Dershowitz notes Thomas Friedman: “As Ismail Haniya, a Hamas leader, said in the Washington Post, Palestinians have Israelis on the run now because they have found their weak spot. Jews, he said, “love life more than any other people, and they prefer not to die.” So suicide bombers are ideal for dealing with them. That is really sick. (It is no “sickness” to uproot the occupier/usurper: it is braveness)…The Palestinians are so blinded by their narcissistic rage that they have lost sight of the basic truth civilization is built on: the sacredness of every human life, starting with your own. (Palestinians do care about the “sacredness” of their lives this is why they give it for the “sacredness” of their liberty and land and for the liberty of their generations. It is “civilization” that is “narcissistic” –believing that might is right– and it is “civilization” that has “lost sight of the basic truth” –stealing the Palestinians lands, sending them into horrific refugee-hood and depriving them of the “sacredness” of their heritage and liberty. Let’s see you and Dershowitz accept this gruesome monstrosity for yourselves as was/is committed against the Palestinians). If America, the only reality check left, doesn’t use every ounce of energy to halt this madness and call it by its real name, then it will spread). (What utter twaddle! America is the “madness” that foisted this obscene “reality” onto the Palestinians: and the “real name” of this U.S./U.N. abomination against the Palestinian is ‘monumental and grotesque injustice’!) (pp. 170-171).

Response: In massacring Palestinians to occupy their lands and slaughtering them “en masse” to hold on to these lands did Jews consider the “sacredness” of the Palestinians lives?

   How does Friedman know that these Palestinian freedom-fighters are “suicide” bombers? Unlike soldiers on the field (and who are equipped with all armaments) the occupied has the right to fight with whatever means available and by whatever methods. Man has no right to edict judgment against them: this judgment is for Allāh, God.

19. “Since the German people were promised that they would benefit from a Nazi victory–that is the reason so many supported Hitler–it was just for them to suffer from a Nazi defeat, even though some among the sufferers were less culpable than others. That is part of what it means to be a nation or a people.” (p. 173).

Response:    (So, God forbid, if someone who has been wronged by the U.S. should ‘bushwhack’ you, according to your logic he would be justified because even though you might be “less culpable” than the government, “That is part of what it means to be a nation or a people.”(???)  Why then “bemoan” the Palestinian “suicide bombers”? From the Palestinians’ view, since almost all Jews in Palestine are there to support the occupation, then they, according to Dershowitz’s line of reasoning, are culpable and subject to collective suffering.

Since, even the “less culpable” should also suffer, then in view of the fact that Jews were/are guilty of displacing Palestinians and forcing them into refugee-hood, Arabs were/are justified in expelling Jews (some of whom may have secretly supported the occupation of Palestine) from their countries.

   Since, Hitler is said to have turned against Jews because German Jews were believed to be conspiring with Britain against him, then, according to Dershowitz’s logic, Hitler was justified in targeting all Jews, because “even though some among the sufferers were less culpable than others. That is part of what it means to be a nation or a people” (even though they may or may not have been “promised that they would benefit from a Nazi” defeat).

20. Bearing in mind that at the time of the partition of Palestine, Jews were only 34 percent of the population–a whopping percentage of which was illegal refugee Jews fleeing Europe–and owned less than six percent of land; yet the Partition plan allot-ted Jews 56 percent of land, including the valuable coast-land. And whereas Jews from anywhere in the world have the right to reside in Palestine, Palestinians do not have this right. Dershowitz writes: “In March 2002, as the cycle of Middle East violence escalated frighteningly and began to seem unstoppable, I proposed a way of revising Israel’s policy of demolishing homes that would be more effective in stopping the killing than what Israel was then doing. The idea was to apply the principle of collective account-ability using a targeted economic sanction that focused on indi-viduals who are at least somewhat complicit in terrorism and spared people who were innocent. …Israel’s first step in imple-menting this policy would be to completely stop all retaliation against terrorist attacks for five days. (The occupier has NO “right” to retaliate against his victim: he being the transgressor to begin with). It would then publicly declare precisely how it will respond in the event of another terrorist act, such as by des-troying empty houses in a particular village that has been used as a base for terrorists, and naming that village in advance. The next time terrorists attack, the villages residents would be given twenty-four hours to leave, and then Israeli troops would bull-doze the houses.” (pp. 176-177. Emphasis added). (Please read Dershowitz’s preposterous proposal again. You will be subjected to it).

Response: According to Dershowitz’s “principle of collective accountability,” Muslims would be justified in destroying the homes of citizens of those countries that were signatories to the partition of Palestine, as these countries were responsible for the destruction of Palestine.

   Secondly, depending on Hitler’s reason(s) for killing Jews, Nazi sympathizers could claim justification that at least part of the World Jewry was supporting their fellow Jews in Germany, and thus they were all deserving of the “principle of collective accountability” by sending them to concentration camps and gas chambers.

Now. In analogy to the partition plan of Palestine as noted at the beginning of this topic. Let us analyze Dershowitz’s proposal.

   Imagine yourself and family living in your house. Another man and his family of lesser members (lodging in your house), through cordial relations with the government, the government forcibly confines you and your family into 42 percent of your house, and gives this man ownership to 56 percent of your house, including your master-bedroom (coastland) of your house. And, whereas this man can bring his family from anywhere in the country to live in your house, you are not permitted to bring your family to live in your house. And this man expects for you to not make trouble for him.

   So you, justifiably, commit acts of vandalism against him, hoping he would vacate your house. That doesn’t unseat him. You knock a few of his teeth out. So the man brings a bazooka, and because your twelve-year-old son or daughter did not try to stop you from smacking him, means he/she supports you and is thus subjected to Dershowitz’s “principle of collective accountability”. So the occupier of your house, tells your son/daughter to vacate his/her room by high-noon tomorrow. Then he comes and blows the floor out. He puts the bazooka to your head and warns: ‘If you do not leave me in “peace” another room will go.’

   What a ghastly, horribly, sickening conception. Would you accept such a plan against yourself and family? Decidedly not. And no one else would. Let’s see Dershowitz (and those who support him) accepts this grotesque monstrosity for himself and family, that he proposed to further dehumanize and miserize the life of the beaten Palestinian man, woman, old and young, child, new-born, and unborn. While the world looks on in self-inflicted impotence sanctioning the horror of it all as the Frankenstein it created runs amok over his helpless victims.

   The Toronto Star, Saturday, September 13, 2008, p.AA2, carried the article by Oakland Ross, “Former Israeli soldier bears witness to ‘dirty’ occupation,” with the caption: “Breaking the Silence activist wants fellow citizens to see stark realities of day-today Palestinian life.” The article notes the founder of the “Breaking the Silence” website as stating, ““We have done some very, very dirty things,”” ““Here, you have absolute power in the hands of 19-year-old kids.”” ““Your whole grasp of reality gets distorted,” recalls one conscript. “After having such control of so many lives, you can do anything you want to them. You can steal from them, sleep in their house, steal their car. You really can do anything. Anything. Anything.”” (If this doesn’t turn your stomach into a crawling rebellion, it is doubtful that anything will).

   Imagine how deplorable and defenseless the conditions of the Palestinians must be to unsettle the stomachs of even their seasoned occupiers; and how courageous these conscripts must be to verbalize against it.  Imagine yourselves and family subjected to this gross obscenity and in your own house where anything can be done to you– “anything. Anything. Anything.” And you are helpless like an invalid or a trapped game to do nothing. Nothing, Nothing. And people wonder why Palestinians strap bombs to their bodies.

   The diabolical devise despicable devices to devastate and destroy desperate and defenseless denizens that are the products of the diabolical's own devious designs.

   As already noted, Palestine is the moral, social, historical, and spiritual heritage of the Palestinians (and all Muslims).

   If Jews do not wish to be objects against liberation they are free to leave; or end their occupation. Jews have a right to be there. Not the state.

   That truth and justice are without border: unless and until the masses become courageous to detonate this explosive truth and obliterate the wicked walls of partisanship, patriotism and poli-tics truth and justice will remain subjugated under the jackboot of injustice.

   Honorable Jews who are not able to effect an end to the occupation of Palestine must take the dignified road and leave (if they can). Honorable Jews outside of Palestine are to vociferate for an end to the occupation of Palestine.

   Swiftly the hours and briefly the years. Time, which steals our minds and memories will soon seal soul’s mortal journey. In the memorable and immortal words of Omar Khayyam:

“You know how little while we have to stay, And, once departed, may return no more.”29

If there is any cause that is worthy of our stand it is the cause of the Palestinians. No other people in modern era has suffered such injustice and humiliation and indignity and savagery and for so long as the Palestinians have. Graduates and students, princes and peasants worldwide, rise up and march for the “Return of Palestine” to the Palestinians. 

‘Forever Justice! Forever Palestine!’

Vive Palestine libre!

Azaad Philistine Zindabaad!

Ashat Philistine Hurra!

Long live free Palestine!

21. “One of the first responses might be to exercise far greater control over the movement of potentially dangerous people into, out of, and within our country. Already we are hearing calls for massive restrictions on immigration and on visas, especially for people of Muslim and Arab backgrounds.” (p. 196).

Response: So what would you do about your own citizens who “revert” to Islam; and if they decide to keep their reverting private/secret; and if they should decide to militate against injustice, and to claim their moral, social, historical, and spiritual inheritance of Palestine?

   Isn’t it wisdom and prudence then, and even expediency, to practice justice, rather than to perish billions of brain cells and spend countless hours dreaming up hare-brained schemes to perpetuate conflicts and devastations way into the far future? And when instead you could be lounging on the beach with your wife, savoring unadulterated coconut water, watching sea-gulls soaring in the far blue yonder and dreamily enjoying the soft swish of the ocean as it moves musically onto the shore.

22. “Another proposal for increasing airport security is racial profiling. (More squandering of the poor people’s money). … There is of course nothing wrong with profiling as such.” (He notes that profiling is effectively used in areas of “child molesters and serial murderers” and that it may be “relevant” “where the crime has a racial or religious component;” and he gave favorable arguments). “The same would be true of people of Islamic background. We know that all al-Qaeda members, and certainly all al-Qaeda suicide bombers are Muslims. (And how do you know this –couldn’t there have been a poor non-Muslim who traded his life for cash for the betterment of his family; or perhaps a suicidal individual with a big beef against the U.S.?) It is foolish, therefore, to misallocate our resources in the fight against suicide bombers by devoting equal attention to searching an eighty-year-old Christian woman from Maine (why?–she may have secretly “reverted” to Islam and is trying to fast-track her way to Jannah) and a twenty-two-year-old Muslim man from Saudi Arabia. It certainly does not follow from this that it would be permissible to arrest or detain or harass a twenty-two-year-old male just because he is a Muslim –even a Muslim from Saudi Arabia. The vast majority of Muslims from Saudi Arabia have nothing to do with terrorism, and it would be foolish to mis-allocate our resources by focusing on the many innocent Muslim from Saudi Arabia. More should be required before law enforcement authorities can arrest, detain, or even search a Muslim from Saudi Arabia.” (pp. 207, 208).

Response: The mega-bucks (from the pockets of taxpayers) required to fund all these failsafe (?) projects will drive the already maxed-out masses into the poorhouse. If they’re not already there.

If it is justified to profile Muslims as potential “terrorists”, then if a nation should choose it would be justified to profile Jews as potential enemies/mischief-makers to a state, as they are said to be “stiffnecked” and “rebellious,” and the majority are “faithless,” “treacherous,” and “transgressors,”–(Exodus 33:3; Deut. 9:7; 31:27; Isaiah 65:2; Qur’an 2:88; 2:100; 5:13; 5:81; 2:88; 7:167. Matt. 23:31-37. And who knows better than God!).

   According to the Bible, seems Jesus profiled Jews: scooping the blood of Abel and that from the daggers of the Jewish “fathers” and pouring it onto the heads of the children of his generation:

“Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.…Behold, your house is left desolate”–(Matt.23:31-38).

(Regarding profiling of Muslims. Occasionally, there is  report of Muslim[s] being removed from a flight because some paranoid passenger[s] considers these Muslims to be “suspicious” looking. [Wonder if these individuals would consider Timothy McVeigh and Baruch Goldstein “suspicious” looking. The so-called “no-fly” list must be the biggest flap in creation. Whether Abdullah is terrorist or suspected terrorist it would seem more beneficial to let him fly. With a mile-long tail on him]. So you frisked Abdullah to the bone. He is clean as a squeak. Yet he is denied flight. What is he going to do, blow up the plane with his ptui?  [Though this is not in support of terrorism]. Instead of looking at Muslims with “evil eyes” these individuals are to turn their rabid sights to their government [the U.S. government]. If the U.S. had not “stolen” Palestine from Muslims and given it to Jews –which is the nucleus of the Muslim-West divide– and tried to run Muslim countries and control their oil there would not be a 911).

23. Dershowitz notes “The offer of a Palestinian state in 1948 was made despite the fact that the Palestinian leadership supported Nazi Germany during World War II, and groups that support the losing side generally do not get rewarded with state-hood. (Isn’t this wonderful, Palestinians choice of support is dictated by others; and they have to be given a state in their own country by a foreigner. How about a band of baboons deciding if Dershowitz should practice law and if he should live in America. Palestinians, as any other countryman, can support whoever they like: Palestine is theirs).   Palestinians did, of course, complain about the refugees that had left their homes during the Arab-initiated war of 1948. (This war was initiated by those who “stole” Palestine and gave it to Jews. Arabs response was a natural act of retaliation to regain  what is theirs. Arab "refugees" did not leave, they fled from Jewsih terror). But there were millions of other refugees with equal or more pressing claims who did not resort to terrorism (it is not “terrorism” to liberate your country: it is heroism! What other refugees had their homes, lands and country stolen from them and given to another people?): For example following the end of World War II, approximately fifteen million ethnic Germans were forcibly expelled from their homes in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, and other Central Eastern European areas where their families had lived for cen-turies (Seems like a desperate albeit clumsy attempt to justify the unjustifiable theft of Palestine. These Germans were only residents/citizens in these other countries, they were not owners: their country was not “stolen” and given to another people as Palestine was stolen by the U.S./U.N. and given to the Jews)….The United States, Great Britain, and the international community in general approved these expulsions, as necessary to secure a more lasting peace.” (pp. 240-241, note 46. See also p. 255, note 8). (The “United States, Great Britain, and the international community in general” should approve the “expulsions” of Jews from Palestine “as necessary to secure a more lasting peace.” In fact the “United States, Great Britain, and the international community in general” should decide for one of them to give half of their country to the Jews “as necessary to secure a more lasting peace”).

Response: If this is an argument for Jewish statehood in Palestine, it is not only pitiful it is ludicrous. If ancestral history is the criteria for demanding statehood in the country of others why are the Gypsies still wandering Europe?

   If ancestral history is the criteria for demanding statehood in the country of others, the descendants of slaves brought to Britain, America and the West Indies would have the right to claim the lands of their forefathers in Africa (and if the descendants of these slaves in Britain and America have continuous residency, more than others, in parts of Britain and America, they would now have the right to claim these areas for their statehood); and the descendants of the pilgrims that came to America can, not only claim that land in America for their national home, but can return to Britain and claim the lands of their forefathers for a national home in Britain. And if in time, Muslims should constitute the oldest group –whether they are majority or not– in a city/state of America, they would have the right to claim this land as their ancestral homeland, and effect statehood.

Britain promised Jews a homeland in Palestine not to effect any “lasting peace” –it has brought strife and grief– but because of politics (as already noted). (Britain had the audacity to promise away Palestine as homeland to the Jews yet Britain fought the Irish tooth and nail for thirty grueling years rather than yield one farthing’s worth of soil to the Irish for their homeland).

   To emphasize: To state that this war was “initiated by Arab countries” would be like saying that World War II was “initiated” by the Allies. As already stated, it is crass intellectual, political, and rabbinical putrefaction that Hamas does not have the right to fight for what is his; but that Jews have the right to kill for what is not theirs.

   Let’s see these “self-respecting”(?) intellectuals and politicians and teachers of religion (and those who parrot them) accept this grotesque monstrosity for themselves that they are trying to foist onto the proud and intrepid Palestinians.

   That the “Allied powers decided to redraw the map of Europe” to “create ethnically homogenous states” is no justification for dividing Palestine. (p. 255, note 8). Let the “Allied powers” “redraw the map” of their own countries).

   That ‘God gave us this land’ as justification to dispossess Palestinians of their country. (See PALESTINE).

24. “A Palestinian state would not seek to maintain a monopoly over the means of violence. (So Dershowitz admits Jews committed violence in their drive to dispossess the Palestinians). No Palestinian leader would ever do what David Ben-Gurion did when he had the Israeli Defense Forces fire on a ship loaded with weapons destined for the Irgun, Menachem Begin’s paramilitary group.” (Paramilitary or terrorist group?) (p. 255, note 6).

Response: Was the ship hit? No Muslim leader has engaged his people in “terrorism” to steal the homes, lands, and country of another.

   Ben Gurion’s reason for firing on the ship was more cunning than concern (for the Arabs) –one who has mercilessly massacred a people in order to have their property can hardly be said to have pity on those people– and was two-fold: he alone wanted to have“monopoly over the means of violence” (he wanted no competition) and, with the Palestinians massacred at Deir Yassin and the thousands exodused into horrific refugee-hood, any further acts of terrorism against the remaining Palestinians would have had a negative impact on the world stage –the fire of sympathy the “holocaust” had elicited for Jews would have been hosed down to outrage against them. Especially from those nations on which “pressure” and “coercion and duress” were brought upon by America to effect this dastardly black deed against the Palestinians.

   Given the unscrupulous nature of politics, if some individual in the political machinery was to paint Jewish “terrorists” –such as the Irgun and Stern gang– in glossy colors it would not be unexpected, and even overlooked; but for scholarly academics and teachers of excellence to tinsel murderous thugs in fancy titles, it could be viewed as the blackest degree of intellectual dishonesty.

   Those who endeavor to speak or write must advocate truth and justice. Patriotism and friendship must not compromise truth and justice. Those who take up the pen must uphold the honor of writing. Whoever knowingly compromises truth and justice should crack his/her pen and throw it into the trash-box and go and sit in the park and feed the squirrels: he/she will have dignity in that.

   That truth and justice are without border: unless and until the masses become courageous to detonate this explosive truth and obliterate the wicked walls of partisanship, patriotism, and politics truth and justice will remain subjugated under the jackboot of injustice.

   As stated at the beginning. Dershowitz’s elephantine lamentation over “Palestinian terrorism” is, in a nutshell, no more than this: had the Palestinians heritage not been “stolen,” there would be no “suicide bombers,” and no “Palestinian terrorism.”

*

NOTES

*'Lunacy in intellectual’s suiting' is not part of the title of Dershowitz’s book; just an assessment of it.

1.   Cited in Ismail Zayid, Palestine A Stolen Heritage, outside back cover. Mrs. Golda Meir, quoted in the Sunday Times, 15.6.1969.

2. Ismail Zayid, Palestine A Stolen Heritage, p. 11.

3. Ibid; p. 15.

4. Ibid; p. 14.

5. Ibid; p. 18.

6. Noam Chomsky, Pirates And Emperors, Old And New, International Terrorism in the Real World, p. 66.

7. Edward Said, The Question Of Palestine, “…as General Gur put it in May 1978, official Israeli military policy has been to attack Arab civilians en masse,” p. 224.

8. Noam Chomsky, Pirates And Emperors, Old and New, International Terrorism in the Real World, p. 9.

9. Cited in The Islamic Post, International Edition, January 2007; in its article Zionism, The Media, and World Control (pp. A3, 7).

10. Ibid;

11. Ibid;

12. Toronto Star, Friday, January 23, 2009. Oakland Ross, Gaza teenager’s horrific burns blamed on phosphorous shells, pp. AA 1, 3.

13. Toronto Star, Thursday, March 30, 2006. p. A21.

14. Toronto Star, Friday, March 31, 2006. Art. In the desert, the name of peace is hitkansut, p. A17.

15. Published in “Haolam Haze”, an Israeli newspaper, (issue 1594) and quoted in “Israel Imperial News “, October 1968. Cited in Ismail Zayid, Palestine–A Stolen Heritage, p. 33.

The entire material states: “I am a pupil in a college in Be’er Sheva. I don’t want trouble. The director of the office of education will not like my letter; therefore I am not signing my full name.

The problem: KHUZARI BOOK, which is approved by the office of education. In the introduction to the book Dr. Tzifroni writes:

   “The nation of Israel is a chosen nation because of its race, its education and the climate of the land in which it was brought up. The race of the Israeli people is the most superior of all races”. I think that these sentences require no explanation.

            Mira, Be’er Sheva.”

16. From a Friday sermon. According to the Imam this saying is listed in Bokhari Adab al-mufraad.

17. Ismail Zayid, Palestine, A Stolen Heritage, pp. 17-18. a Cattan, Henry, Palestine, The Arabs & Israel, London, 1969, p. 114.

18. Edward W. Said, The Question Of Palestine, p. 13.

19. Ibid; p. 100.

20. Ismail Zayid, Palestine, A Stolen Heritage, p. 11.

21. Edward W. Said, The Question Of Palestine, p. 9.

22. Ismail Zayid, Palestine, A Stolen Heritage, p. 18.

23. From a letter to the Toronto Star, Friday, January 26, 2007.

24. Ibid; p.19. Italics/emphasis added.

25. Ibid; outside back-cover. Italics/emphasis added.

26.  Noted in The Islamic Post, International Edition, January 2007; in its article Zionism, The Media, and World Control. Bolderize added.

27. Ibid;25 March, 2001 quoted in BBC News Online.

28. Ismail Zayid, Palestine, A Stolen Heritage, p. 19.

29. Edward Fitzgerald, The Rubaiyat Of Omar Khayyam, verse III, p. 39. 

Share