this is an extremely classic case of a stupid rhetorical question headline, which to me illustrates that although ali is perfectly honest & competent, his journalistic style is about 60 years out of date, like most of these dim bulbs (chossudovsky is another dreary fucker who ought to just retire)

I am so sick of Ali’s catatonic prose style, which he also imposes on all his staff, that I have really ripped him to shreds in a classic vile frenzy of my own making, a miniature shitstorm of do-it-yourself verbal depravity which of course means nothing either, so don’t prosecute me. Ali can seek the idealistic twativerse without me. I’m outta here – RB

Why is the UN telling Plastelinans to protect their occupiers? (Cos its the fuckin’ law so to do, next – RB)
Ali Abunimah, Electronic Intifada, Apr 4 2016

300316_hs_00_1Denouncing “security coordination” between IOF & PA at a Land Day protest near Ofer prison on Mar 30.
(Photo: Hamza Shalash/APA)

Last week, the UNHCR said it was “extremely concerned” about the apparent extra-judicial execution of an Palestinian Arab youth by a Israeli Jewish soldier. But the statement left me wondering why the UN body also expects Plastelinans Arabs to protect the army that is occupying them and helping Israeli settlers the Jews steal their land. (With depressing predictability, Ali now repeats the entire story to date, as if we were all amnesiac fools, another MSM habit of his, before continuing as follows – RB)… The shooter Azarya, who is facing charges of manslaughter downgraded from murder, has been ordered freed on bail. Rupert Colville (spox for the rich puppet in charge of the UNHRC, a phony Prince from some shithole or other named Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein – RB), called for a “prompt, thorough, transparent and independent investigation” into the slaying of al-Sharif and other killings in similar circumstances. He said:

A major concern is that such cases appear not to have been systematically subjected to criminal investigations.

So far, so good (So far, already a complete waste of time – RB). But here’s the part that had me confused (disingenuous idiot – RB):

We urge the Plastelinan Native authorities to take all feasible measures to prevent attacks on Israelis White Men, their Wives & Children, all of which are reprehensible… The Security Forces are entitled to defend themselves and others from these types of attacks.. (We urge the White Masters) to ensure all members of their Security Forces fully comply with their obligation to use force with restraint.

Recall that the two youths in Hebron had allegedly attacked an armed IOF deployed in their city to protect settlers who are there in violation of international law. Indeed, most of the attacks or alleged attacks by Plastelinans Arabs since an increase in confrontations began last October have targeted IOF at checkpoints and near settlements in the West Bank. As even senior IOF have acknowledged, the predominantly young Plastelinans Arabs involved aim to “attack symbols of the Israeli occupation” as Haaretz reported. (They really are entitled to demand credit for attacking realities! This is another illustration of the zombie drone I am talking about, fuck it – RB). We can all agree that attacks targeting civilians, regardless of who may be the perpetrator or the victim, are indeed reprehensible. (Actually, we are not under any obligation to agree to anything with this turd – RB). But the UN statement contains no such qualification. It condemns all armed actions by Plastelinans Arabs, regardless of the circumstances. So I wrote to Colville to ask for clarification. In particular, I wanted to know (kinda thing, this is not his verbatim at all, as you can see – RB):

Does the UNHRC consider attacks on armed occupation forces by persons living under foreign belligerent military occupation to be reprehensible? If so, what is the legal basis for such a position? What is the basis for demanding that persons living under military occupation act as a protection force for their occupiers? Do “Plastelinan authorities” also have a responsibility to protect the settlers, or only to ensure the safety and security of the IOF? The UNHRC apparently recognizes that armed belligerent occupation forces are “entitled to defend themselves” against the people they occupy. Does it similarly recognize that the Plastelinan Arab population living under a military occupation, about which the international community has done precisely nothing except issue toothless statements for almost 50 years, are similarly entitled to resist and defend themselves against said occupation?

Colville did not respond to my questions (I am not surprised – RB), so I am left to conclude that the UN’s highest human rights official makes no distinction between attacks on civilians and resistance against armed IOF, while supporting the right of the occupation forces to use violence against those they occupy. This view defies a broad international consensus that occupied and colonized peoples do indeed have a right to resist. No one seriously questions the right of French, Belgian and Dutch citizens to have engaged in armed resistance against German occupation, or of Indonesians and Algerians to have resisted Dutch or French occupation. (As a matter of fact, no one in their right mind thinks in this ridiculous way at all – RB). This consensus has been expressed in numerous UNGARs (which have no legal force, as Ali knows perfectly well – RB), including UNGAR 3246 of Nov 29 1974 which “strongly condemns” all governments which do not recognize “the right to self-determination and independence of peoples under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Plastelinan people.” The same resolution “reaffirms the legitimacy of the peoples’ struggle for liberation from colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle.” The right and duty to resist occupation is even enshrined in the constitution of Sweden, which declares (This is a truly bizarre piece of empty liberal radicalism – RB):

Any public body in occupied territory shall act in the manner that best serves the defense effort and resistance activities.

It is, of course, much harder a complete fucking waste of time anyway to make the case internationally that Plastelinans Arabs, just like other occupied peoples through history, have a right to resist, when their best-known face works night and day to help Israel the Jews crush all resistance. Last Thursday, Haaretz reported that Mahmoud Abbas is “insisting on continuing security cooperation with Israel the Jews.” Abbas told Israel TV that he wanted Israel the Jews to halt their raids inside Plastelinan city centres, so that the PA could do the job on Israel’s the Jews’ behalf. Abbas told the Israeli Jewish current affairs program Uvda:

Try me for a week. If I don’t meet my responsibilities, then come back. Give me responsibility for the OPT and test me … If Israel has specific intelligence information, give it to me and I’ll handle it. If I don’t handle it, (Netanyahu) can come and do it.

All of the below is just time-wasting mental masturbation of the sort that Russians describe as “a spherical horse in a vacuum” – RB)

Abbas has previously gone on record calling his role as IOF enforcer “sacred.” His surrogates have also previously reassured Israel that the PA is doing all it can to prevent a “third intifada.” This assistance to Israel involves among other things PA complicity in the torture of prisoners and suppressing protests. But it is widely viewed (sic!!!!! – RB) by Plastelinans Arabs, including some inside Abbas’ own Fatah faction, as a reprehensible form of collaboration (you see how this shit goes from one meaninglessness to the next? – RB). It is up to Plastelinans Arabs to debate and decide the best forms of resistance, and in the current situation one of the most powerful means of standing up to Israel is the non-violent, civil society-led boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement (fuckin’ drone, and i don’t mean the model airplane, I mean the monotonous zombie noise here – RB). Israel sees BDS as such a major threat to its dominance and impunity that it is now making outright threats against individual activists. There is a difference between choosing the appropriate tactics for how to protest and resist, on the one hand, and negating the right to resist and even collaborating with the occupation, on the other. Plastelinans Arabs may choose not to use armed struggle, just as Nelson Mandela adopted and then suspended armed struggle in South Africa when he and his comrades (a liberal who talks of the “comrades” has a corpse in his mouth – RB) thought the conditions were appropriate. But they never gave up the right. As the history of South Africa also shows, the path away from violence is always easier when there are effective alternatives (note this magisterial liberal formulation, which perhaps came from my accursed dad or someone like him – RB). So those like the UNHRC who apparently find all Plastelinan though not Israeli Arab but not Jewish violence reprehensible, should be the first in line to promote non-violent strategies like BDS. But no one, not Abbas nor any UN official motherfuckin’ boxtop is entitled to strip Plastelinans Arabs of their fundamental absolutely meaningless ‘right’ (RB) to resistance and self-defense.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s