40i And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’
NEW TESTIMONYMATTHEW 25: 40 https://bible.usccb.org/bible/matthew/25
READERS!
In contrary with commonly accepted views in the Western world
[although there IS a change of opinion nowadays], the Crusades in
the Middle Ages were not some heroic and noble religious cause
[although many participants probably really though they were],
but bloody warsof conquest for land, greed and wealth.
I hope in the future to write more about this!
But for now Readers, my Facebook comment on the page of
”Real Crusaders History”, because I strongly object the euphemistic
way they described the massacre of Ayyadieh on the orders of
the Norman English King [”Norman”, because he was the
great great grandson of William the Conqueror and as the second Plantagenet
king, he was still strongly ”French Norman” oriented] [1]
By blaming Richard’s adversary Sultan Saladin [who in reality defended the Holy Land, Palestine, against the Crusader invaders!] [2] for the Ayyadieh Massacre
”Real Crusaders History” is ”blaming the victim” here.
The organizer and commander king Richard is off the hook, and Sultan
Saladin, whose men were victims of the slaughter, gets the blame.
That is a travesty of the real history, so I commented that on their page:
And in my comment you canb see a glimpse of the way I see the Crusades:
Perhaps I write more about it.
But for now:
READ AND ENJOY
First [A], you readabout the slaughter of ASyyadieh
Then [B] you read the comment of Real Crusades History
And last, but not least [C] Astrid Essed’s Comment on
Why did Richard the Lionheart execute the Saracen garrison of Acre?
After the fall of Acre to the Christians, Richard the Lionheart dispatched envoys to Saladin, asking that the surrender terms of Acre be fulfilled. Saladin asked that he be allowed to deliver the payments and prisoners in installments. Richard agreed to this at once. Both sides agreed to a schedule of payments in which Saladin would deliver the ransom gradually, while both sides would exchange their prisoners. However, as each deadline came and went, a pattern began to emerge – Saladin refused to keep his end of the bargain. At each assigned date, Saladin offered excuses as to why he couldn’t deliver a payment, or release prisoners. Richard agreed to extend the deadlines, but it became clear that the Sultan was toying with the crusader king, and trying to undermine his authority. Above all, Saladin wanted to keep Richard bogged down in Acre, endlessly negotiating over these prisoners, while the Christian army disintegrated. Even Saladin’s own chroniclers admit this. Whereas Richard, famously, was obsessed with the well being of his own men, on this occasion, Saladin was perfectly content to gamble with the lives of his most valiant soldiers – the men who’d defended Acre. These men provided the Sultan with a means of stalling his enemy, and that mattered more to Saladin than obtaining their freedom.
Richard quickly recognized Saladin’s game. He knew that the Sultan was toying with him, and trying to both break the momentum of the crusade as well as make Richard appear ineffective. After one more broken deadline and litany of excuses from the Sultan’s envoys, Richard marched his prisoners out before Saladin’s encampment and executed them in full view of the Muslim army. In effect, Richard had called Saladin’s bluff, and the results would prove disastrous for the Sultan. Many emirs and leading men in the Muslim forces were enraged that Saladin had failed to ransom the brave defenders of Acre, and this would create loyalty problems for the Sultan that would persist throughout the crusade. In addition, Saladin would from then on find it very difficult to convince his men to garrison castles and cities, since they all now feared the fate of Acre’s garrison.
Ultimately, Richard had given Saladin ample opportunity to secure the lives of his men. This was far more than could be said of Saladin, who had ruthlessly executed Templars and Hospitallers taken prisoner after the battle of Hattin. By repeatedly reneging on the terms of the agreement, Saladin intentionally placed Richard in a very difficult situation. Richard had no ability to permanently house these prisoners, nor could he allow the Sultan’s flagrant violations of the terms to go unanswered. It was a hard, bloody decision made in the midst of a hard and bloody war, and ultimately, Saladin himself should be criticized for abandoning the courageous Acre garrison to such a cruel fate. Compared to Richard, who often risked his own life leading rescue missions when his own men were captured, we can only wonder at Saladin’s calloused and ungrateful attitude toward his bravest soldiers. Saladin tried to use the massacre as a propaganda win, executing many Christian prisoners of his own in dramatic public spectacles, but ultimately considerable numbers of his own followers continued to blame him for the needless deaths of their comrades. Saladin would never overcome this bitterness that now infected his ranks.
END
C
ASTRID ESSED’S COMMENT ON THE REACTION OF ”REAL CRUSADES
NO EXCUSE FOR THE MASSACRE AT AYYADIEH BY RICHARD COEUR DE LION NOT SALADIN IS TO BE BLAMED HERE, BUT THE ONE, WHO EXECUTED THE PRISONERS, RICHARD THE LION HEART THE CRUSADERS WERE INVADERS AND OCCUPIERS
What ”Real Crusaders History says, is unacceptable, since he excuses Richard the Lionheart for this barbaric deed and lays the blame on Saladin, who did not commit this! Admitting, that Medieval Warfare was a sordid affair, not only during the Crusades, but also in Europe [in a war between Lords or Kings, pillaging of villages and raping and killing innocent civilian villagers was standard], that is no excuse whatsoever for any crime of war, whether done by the Lords [or Kings] in Europe, in the Holy Land by the Crusaders or the Saracens. WRONG IS WRONG This to begin with: Then: It’s true that Saladin was responsible for the delay in the agreement between him and Richard about the exchange of the prisoners. It even may be said [there ”Real Crusaders History” ‘has a point] that Saladin brought thus the lives of the priosners in danger. BUT IT WAS RICHARD’S CHOICE TO MASSACRE THEM OR NOT AND THE BLAME FOR THIS IS SOLELY TO BE LAID IN RICHARD! And it was irresponsible too: Because as a retaliation [which I also condemn] Saladin killed the ”Christian” prisoners, which Richard could have expected. SALADIN’S BEHAVIOUR CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM, 1099 CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM, 1187 Of course Real Crusaders History is right, that Saladin could be cruel too. By executing the Christian prisoners after Richards’s massacre. By executing the Knights Templar after the Battle of Hattin. But let’s not forget the big difference at the conquest [reconquest] of Jerusalem When the”Christian” leaders [” because it is the opposite of real christian behaviour] conquered Jerusalem in 1099, the killed NEARLY ALL PEOPLE, MUSLIM, CHRISTIAN AND JEWS. When Saladin reconquered Jerusalem, he spared the whole population! WHO IS CIVILIZED HERE AND WHO THE BARBARIAN? THE CRUSADES WERE NOT A JUST FIGHT, BUT WARS OF CONQUEST AND CRUSADERS WERE INTRUDERS, AGGRESSORS AND OCCUPIERS! And let’s say this plain: The Crusaders had nothing to seek in the Holy Land, but for pilgrimage. Were they the inhabitants there? NO They came from England, France, the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, Italy, etc Far from the Holy Land. To say you have a mission to recover Jerusalem in the hands of Christianity is just nonsense, since not only they forgot, that Christendom originated in Palestine and was later spread to Europe, but also the fact, that Palestine belonged to the inhabitants, who lived THERE, Greek christians, Jews, who had remained there after the diaspora, Arabs, Turks, etc. The Holy Land was NOT the land of European knights, nobles and kings. They could come on a pilgrimage, but not established as rulers! True, the Muslims conquered the Holy Land at the cost of the Byzantine Empire and the only one, who had a certain claim, politically, was the Byzantine Emperor, who appealed to Europe [Pope Urbanus II] to help recover his lands [especially Anatolia] conquered by the Seljuq Turks. So helping him was legitimate, but although the Crusaders [First Crusade 1095-1099] promiised the Byzantine Emperor to recover his lands for him, BROKE THEIR PROMISE, HOLDING THE CONQUERED LANDS FOR THEMSELVES AND ESTABLISHED CRUSADER STATES! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HProiNnmGwI And this very behaviour towards the Byzantine Emeror revealed their true intentions: The conquest of land, riches and….women, HAHAHA When Richard fought in the Holy Land, once Saladin proposed that the christians could come to Jerusalem as pilgrims, but that was not enough for Richard. He wanted to CONQUER Jerusalem. And so he revealed his true intentions. Glory in warfare and lust for riches and power. And of course he had some religious motives, but that was also a pretext for going on warfare! So the battle AGAINST the Crusaders was righteous, sending them where the belonged: To England, France, the Holy Roman Empire and whatsoever JERUSALEM Besides that, Jerusalem is not only Holy for Christians, but also for Jews AND for Muslims, since they believe, that the Prophet Muhammed had made a nocturnal journey to Heaven, descending from Jerusalem
ASTRID ESSED’S VIEW ON THE CRUSADES/ASTRID ESSED VERSUS
”REAL CRUSADES HISTORY”/NO EXCUSE FOR RICHARD COEUR DE
LION’S MASSACRE AT AYYADIEH”
In contrary with commonly accepted views in the Western world
[although there IS a change of opinion nowadays], the Crusades in
the Middle Ages were not some heroic and noble religious cause
[although many participants probably really though they were],
but bloody warsof conquest for land, greed and wealth.
I hope in the future to write more about this!
But for now Readers, my Facebook comment on the page of
”Real Crusaders History”, because I strongly object the euphemistic
way they described the massacre of Ayyadieh on the orders of
the Norman English King [”Norman”, because he was the
great great grandson of William the Conqueror and as the second Plantagenet
king, he was still strongly ”French Norman” oriented] [1]
By blaming Richard’s adversary Sultan Saladin [who in reality defended the Holy Land, Palestine, against the Crusader invaders!] [2] for the Ayyadieh Massacre
”Real Crusaders History” is ”blaming the victim” here.
The organizer and commander king Richard is off the hook, and Sultan
Saladin, whose men were victims of the slaughter, gets the blame.
That is a travesty of the real history, so I commented that on their page:
And in my comment you canb see a glimpse of the way I see the Crusades:
Perhaps I write more about it.
But for now:
READ AND ENJOY
First [A], you readabout the slaughter of ASyyadieh
Then [B] you read the comment of Real Crusades History
And last, but not least [C] Astrid Essed’s Comment on
Why did Richard the Lionheart execute the Saracen garrison of Acre?
After the fall of Acre to the Christians, Richard the Lionheart dispatched envoys to Saladin, asking that the surrender terms of Acre be fulfilled. Saladin asked that he be allowed to deliver the payments and prisoners in installments. Richard agreed to this at once. Both sides agreed to a schedule of payments in which Saladin would deliver the ransom gradually, while both sides would exchange their prisoners. However, as each deadline came and went, a pattern began to emerge – Saladin refused to keep his end of the bargain. At each assigned date, Saladin offered excuses as to why he couldn’t deliver a payment, or release prisoners. Richard agreed to extend the deadlines, but it became clear that the Sultan was toying with the crusader king, and trying to undermine his authority. Above all, Saladin wanted to keep Richard bogged down in Acre, endlessly negotiating over these prisoners, while the Christian army disintegrated. Even Saladin’s own chroniclers admit this. Whereas Richard, famously, was obsessed with the well being of his own men, on this occasion, Saladin was perfectly content to gamble with the lives of his most valiant soldiers – the men who’d defended Acre. These men provided the Sultan with a means of stalling his enemy, and that mattered more to Saladin than obtaining their freedom.
Richard quickly recognized Saladin’s game. He knew that the Sultan was toying with him, and trying to both break the momentum of the crusade as well as make Richard appear ineffective. After one more broken deadline and litany of excuses from the Sultan’s envoys, Richard marched his prisoners out before Saladin’s encampment and executed them in full view of the Muslim army. In effect, Richard had called Saladin’s bluff, and the results would prove disastrous for the Sultan. Many emirs and leading men in the Muslim forces were enraged that Saladin had failed to ransom the brave defenders of Acre, and this would create loyalty problems for the Sultan that would persist throughout the crusade. In addition, Saladin would from then on find it very difficult to convince his men to garrison castles and cities, since they all now feared the fate of Acre’s garrison.
Ultimately, Richard had given Saladin ample opportunity to secure the lives of his men. This was far more than could be said of Saladin, who had ruthlessly executed Templars and Hospitallers taken prisoner after the battle of Hattin. By repeatedly reneging on the terms of the agreement, Saladin intentionally placed Richard in a very difficult situation. Richard had no ability to permanently house these prisoners, nor could he allow the Sultan’s flagrant violations of the terms to go unanswered. It was a hard, bloody decision made in the midst of a hard and bloody war, and ultimately, Saladin himself should be criticized for abandoning the courageous Acre garrison to such a cruel fate. Compared to Richard, who often risked his own life leading rescue missions when his own men were captured, we can only wonder at Saladin’s calloused and ungrateful attitude toward his bravest soldiers. Saladin tried to use the massacre as a propaganda win, executing many Christian prisoners of his own in dramatic public spectacles, but ultimately considerable numbers of his own followers continued to blame him for the needless deaths of their comrades. Saladin would never overcome this bitterness that now infected his ranks.
END
C
ASTRID ESSED’S COMMENT ON THE REACTION OF ”REAL CRUSADES
NO EXCUSE FOR THE MASSACRE AT AYYADIEH BY RICHARD COEUR DE LION NOT SALADIN IS TO BE BLAMED HERE, BUT THE ONE, WHO EXECUTED THE PRISONERS, RICHARD THE LION HEART THE CRUSADERS WERE INVADERS AND OCCUPIERS
What ”Real Crusaders History says, is unacceptable, since he excuses Richard the Lionheart for this barbaric deed and lays the blame on Saladin, who did not commit this! Admitting, that Medieval Warfare was a sordid affair, not only during the Crusades, but also in Europe [in a war between Lords or Kings, pillaging of villages and raping and killing innocent civilian villagers was standard], that is no excuse whatsoever for any crime of war, whether done by the Lords [or Kings] in Europe, in the Holy Land by the Crusaders or the Saracens. WRONG IS WRONG This to begin with: Then: It’s true that Saladin was responsible for the delay in the agreement between him and Richard about the exchange of the prisoners. It even may be said [there ”Real Crusaders History” ‘has a point] that Saladin brought thus the lives of the priosners in danger. BUT IT WAS RICHARD’S CHOICE TO MASSACRE THEM OR NOT AND THE BLAME FOR THIS IS SOLELY TO BE LAID IN RICHARD! And it was irresponsible too: Because as a retaliation [which I also condemn] Saladin killed the ”Christian” prisoners, which Richard could have expected. SALADIN’S BEHAVIOUR CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM, 1099 CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM, 1187 Of course Real Crusaders History is right, that Saladin could be cruel too. By executing the Christian prisoners after Richards’s massacre. By executing the Knights Templar after the Battle of Hattin. But let’s not forget the big difference at the conquest [reconquest] of Jerusalem When the”Christian” leaders [” because it is the opposite of real christian behaviour] conquered Jerusalem in 1099, the killed NEARLY ALL PEOPLE, MUSLIM, CHRISTIAN AND JEWS. When Saladin reconquered Jerusalem, he spared the whole population! WHO IS CIVILIZED HERE AND WHO THE BARBARIAN? THE CRUSADES WERE NOT A JUST FIGHT, BUT WARS OF CONQUEST AND CRUSADERS WERE INTRUDERS, AGGRESSORS AND OCCUPIERS! And let’s say this plain: The Crusaders had nothing to seek in the Holy Land, but for pilgrimage. Were they the inhabitants there? NO They came from England, France, the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, Italy, etc Far from the Holy Land. To say you have a mission to recover Jerusalem in the hands of Christianity is just nonsense, since not only they forgot, that Christendom originated in Palestine and was later spread to Europe, but also the fact, that Palestine belonged to the inhabitants, who lived THERE, Greek christians, Jews, who had remained there after the diaspora, Arabs, Turks, etc. The Holy Land was NOT the land of European knights, nobles and kings. They could come on a pilgrimage, but not established as rulers! True, the Muslims conquered the Holy Land at the cost of the Byzantine Empire and the only one, who had a certain claim, politically, was the Byzantine Emperor, who appealed to Europe [Pope Urbanus II] to help recover his lands [especially Anatolia] conquered by the Seljuq Turks. So helping him was legitimate, but although the Crusaders [First Crusade 1095-1099] promiised the Byzantine Emperor to recover his lands for him, BROKE THEIR PROMISE, HOLDING THE CONQUERED LANDS FOR THEMSELVES AND ESTABLISHED CRUSADER STATES! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HProiNnmGwI And this very behaviour towards the Byzantine Emeror revealed their true intentions: The conquest of land, riches and….women, HAHAHA When Richard fought in the Holy Land, once Saladin proposed that the christians could come to Jerusalem as pilgrims, but that was not enough for Richard. He wanted to CONQUER Jerusalem. And so he revealed his true intentions. Glory in warfare and lust for riches and power. And of course he had some religious motives, but that was also a pretext for going on warfare! So the battle AGAINST the Crusaders was righteous, sending them where the belonged: To England, France, the Holy Roman Empire and whatsoever JERUSALEM Besides that, Jerusalem is not only Holy for Christians, but also for Jews AND for Muslims, since they believe, that the Prophet Muhammed had made a nocturnal journey to Heaven, descending from Jerusalem
ASTRID ESSED’S VIEW ON THE CRUSADES/ASTRID ESSED VERSUS
”REAL CRUSADES HISTORY”/NO EXCUSE FOR RICHARD COEUR DE
LION’S MASSACRE AT AYYADIEH”
In contrary with commonly accepted views in the Western world
[although there IS a change of opinion nowadays], the Crusades in
the Middle Ages were not some heroic and noble religious cause
[although many participants probably really though they were],
but bloody warsof conquest for land, greed and wealth.
I hope in the future to write more about this!
But for now Readers, my Facebook comment on the page of
”Real Crusaders History”, because I strongly object the euphemistic
way they described the massacre of Ayyadieh on the orders of
the Norman English King [”Norman”, because he was the
great great grandson of William the Conqueror and as the second Plantagenet
king, he was still strongly ”French Norman” oriented] [1]
By blaming Richard’s adversary Sultan Saladin [who in reality defended the Holy Land, Palestine, against the Crusader invaders!] [2] for the Ayyadieh Massacre
”Real Crusaders History” is ”blaming the victim” here.
The organizer and commander king Richard is off the hook, and Sultan
Saladin, whose men were victims of the slaughter, gets the blame.
That is a travesty of the real history, so I commented that on their page:
And in my comment you can see a glimpse of the way I see the Crusades:
Perhaps I write more about it.
But for now:
READ AND ENJOY
First [A], you readabout the slaughter of ASyyadieh
Then [B] you read the comment of Real Crusades History
And last, but not least [C] Astrid Essed’s Comment on
Why did Richard the Lionheart execute the Saracen garrison of Acre?
After the fall of Acre to the Christians, Richard the Lionheart dispatched envoys to Saladin, asking that the surrender terms of Acre be fulfilled. Saladin asked that he be allowed to deliver the payments and prisoners in installments. Richard agreed to this at once. Both sides agreed to a schedule of payments in which Saladin would deliver the ransom gradually, while both sides would exchange their prisoners. However, as each deadline came and went, a pattern began to emerge – Saladin refused to keep his end of the bargain. At each assigned date, Saladin offered excuses as to why he couldn’t deliver a payment, or release prisoners. Richard agreed to extend the deadlines, but it became clear that the Sultan was toying with the crusader king, and trying to undermine his authority. Above all, Saladin wanted to keep Richard bogged down in Acre, endlessly negotiating over these prisoners, while the Christian army disintegrated. Even Saladin’s own chroniclers admit this. Whereas Richard, famously, was obsessed with the well being of his own men, on this occasion, Saladin was perfectly content to gamble with the lives of his most valiant soldiers – the men who’d defended Acre. These men provided the Sultan with a means of stalling his enemy, and that mattered more to Saladin than obtaining their freedom.
Richard quickly recognized Saladin’s game. He knew that the Sultan was toying with him, and trying to both break the momentum of the crusade as well as make Richard appear ineffective. After one more broken deadline and litany of excuses from the Sultan’s envoys, Richard marched his prisoners out before Saladin’s encampment and executed them in full view of the Muslim army. In effect, Richard had called Saladin’s bluff, and the results would prove disastrous for the Sultan. Many emirs and leading men in the Muslim forces were enraged that Saladin had failed to ransom the brave defenders of Acre, and this would create loyalty problems for the Sultan that would persist throughout the crusade. In addition, Saladin would from then on find it very difficult to convince his men to garrison castles and cities, since they all now feared the fate of Acre’s garrison.
Ultimately, Richard had given Saladin ample opportunity to secure the lives of his men. This was far more than could be said of Saladin, who had ruthlessly executed Templars and Hospitallers taken prisoner after the battle of Hattin. By repeatedly reneging on the terms of the agreement, Saladin intentionally placed Richard in a very difficult situation. Richard had no ability to permanently house these prisoners, nor could he allow the Sultan’s flagrant violations of the terms to go unanswered. It was a hard, bloody decision made in the midst of a hard and bloody war, and ultimately, Saladin himself should be criticized for abandoning the courageous Acre garrison to such a cruel fate. Compared to Richard, who often risked his own life leading rescue missions when his own men were captured, we can only wonder at Saladin’s calloused and ungrateful attitude toward his bravest soldiers. Saladin tried to use the massacre as a propaganda win, executing many Christian prisoners of his own in dramatic public spectacles, but ultimately considerable numbers of his own followers continued to blame him for the needless deaths of their comrades. Saladin would never overcome this bitterness that now infected his ranks.
END
C
ASTRID ESSED’S COMMENT ON THE REACTION OF ”REAL CRUSADES
NO EXCUSE FOR THE MASSACRE AT AYYADIEH BY RICHARD COEUR DE LION NOT SALADIN IS TO BE BLAMED HERE, BUT THE ONE, WHO EXECUTED THE PRISONERS, RICHARD THE LION HEART THE CRUSADERS WERE INVADERS AND OCCUPIERS
What ”Real Crusaders History says, is unacceptable, since he excuses Richard the Lionheart for this barbaric deed and lays the blame on Saladin, who did not commit this! Admitting, that Medieval Warfare was a sordid affair, not only during the Crusades, but also in Europe [in a war between Lords or Kings, pillaging of villages and raping and killing innocent civilian villagers was standard], that is no excuse whatsoever for any crime of war, whether done by the Lords [or Kings] in Europe, in the Holy Land by the Crusaders or the Saracens. WRONG IS WRONG This to begin with: Then: It’s true that Saladin was responsible for the delay in the agreement between him and Richard about the exchange of the prisoners. It even may be said [there ”Real Crusaders History” ‘has a point] that Saladin brought thus the lives of the priosners in danger. BUT IT WAS RICHARD’S CHOICE TO MASSACRE THEM OR NOT AND THE BLAME FOR THIS IS SOLELY TO BE LAID IN RICHARD! And it was irresponsible too: Because as a retaliation [which I also condemn] Saladin killed the ”Christian” prisoners, which Richard could have expected. SALADIN’S BEHAVIOUR CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM, 1099 CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM, 1187 Of course Real Crusaders History is right, that Saladin could be cruel too. By executing the Christian prisoners after Richards’s massacre. By executing the Knights Templar after the Battle of Hattin. But let’s not forget the big difference at the conquest [reconquest] of Jerusalem When the”Christian” leaders [” because it is the opposite of real christian behaviour] conquered Jerusalem in 1099, the killed NEARLY ALL PEOPLE, MUSLIM, CHRISTIAN AND JEWS. When Saladin reconquered Jerusalem, he spared the whole population! WHO IS CIVILIZED HERE AND WHO THE BARBARIAN? THE CRUSADES WERE NOT A JUST FIGHT, BUT WARS OF CONQUEST AND CRUSADERS WERE INTRUDERS, AGGRESSORS AND OCCUPIERS! And let’s say this plain: The Crusaders had nothing to seek in the Holy Land, but for pilgrimage. Were they the inhabitants there? NO They came from England, France, the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, Italy, etc Far from the Holy Land. To say you have a mission to recover Jerusalem in the hands of Christianity is just nonsense, since not only they forgot, that Christendom originated in Palestine and was later spread to Europe, but also the fact, that Palestine belonged to the inhabitants, who lived THERE, Greek christians, Jews, who had remained there after the diaspora, Arabs, Turks, etc. The Holy Land was NOT the land of European knights, nobles and kings. They could come on a pilgrimage, but not established as rulers! True, the Muslims conquered the Holy Land at the cost of the Byzantine Empire and the only one, who had a certain claim, politically, was the Byzantine Emperor, who appealed to Europe [Pope Urbanus II] to help recover his lands [especially Anatolia] conquered by the Seljuq Turks. So helping him was legitimate, but although the Crusaders [First Crusade 1095-1099] promiised the Byzantine Emperor to recover his lands for him, BROKE THEIR PROMISE, HOLDING THE CONQUERED LANDS FOR THEMSELVES AND ESTABLISHED CRUSADER STATES! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HProiNnmGwI And this very behaviour towards the Byzantine Emeror revealed their true intentions: The conquest of land, riches and….women, HAHAHA When Richard fought in the Holy Land, once Saladin proposed that the christians could come to Jerusalem as pilgrims, but that was not enough for Richard. He wanted to CONQUER Jerusalem. And so he revealed his true intentions. Glory in warfare and lust for riches and power. And of course he had some religious motives, but that was also a pretext for going on warfare! So the battle AGAINST the Crusaders was righteous, sending them where the belonged: To England, France, the Holy Roman Empire and whatsoever JERUSALEM Besides that, Jerusalem is not only Holy for Christians, but also for Jews AND for Muslims, since they believe, that the Prophet Muhammed had made a nocturnal journey to Heaven, descending from Jerusalem
Médecins Sans Frontières says at least 20 medical facilities across Gaza have been damaged, or forced partially or completely out of service, in the past week
AT THE CRADLE OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL STOOD ZIONISM, NEO COLONIALISM AND……..EUROPEAN ANTI SEMITISM
This is a Story about neo colonialism [thus mentioned by Astrid Essed since it
happened in the aftermath of 19th century Western colonialism] [1]
A Story about landtheft.
A Story about flagrant violation of the fundamental right of peoples to self determination.
Oddly enough, this Horror Story [as you will read…..] also has its Evil Roots in
another Horror, the centuries old European Antisemitism! [2]
BECAUSE:
The Jewish Austrian journalist Theodor Herzl, founder of the Zionist
Movement [the political movement with as aim the foundation of
a Jewish State in Palestine, then province of the Ottoman Empire] [3] came into action because of the antisemitic Dreyfus Affair [although some modern scholars
mention, that Herzl may have exaggerated the Dreyfuss influence on his
zionism. However that’s of no importance in this article] [4]
Read all about that Dreyfus Affair, note 5
More and more Herzl became convinced of the fact, that in Europe was no
future for the Jews, that anti semitism couldn’t be defeated and that
there was only one Answer to it:
The Foundation of a Jewish State [6]
And so his Magnum Opus [7], Der Judenstaat, was born…..[8]
And in Der Judenstaat he unfolded his ideas about the foundation of
a Jewish State in Palestine, then province of the Ottoman Empire [9]
The idea was, that Palestine was the 2000 years old Homeland of the Jews. [10]
RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION
It is hard to imagine for the contemporary 21th century democratic thinking human being:
The GOTSPE [to have the intention to found a State into the country of
someone else, based on a claim of 2000 years ago!
That’s no more or less then trampling on the original Arab Palestinian
people and their right to self determination!
In fact [I wrote it before] a form of neo colonialism , a decision about
the country of someone else and the founding in that country of someone’s else, of another State by force!
AND THAT FORCED FOUNDATION OF THE JEWISH STATE IN
PALESTINE WITHOUT CONSENT OF THE ORIGINAL PALESTINIAN
PEOPLE IS THE ROOT OF THE ISRAELI PALESTINIAN CONFLICT!
As long as this Historical Injustice is not corrected by building a Palestinian
State from the rubble of the Israeli Apartheids State [11] and the Occupied
Palestinian Territories, there is no end to the Conflict!
BUT:
The Reader must understand this well:
Considering the background of 19th Century Thinking, the idea of
founding a State in the land of another People was not strange or extreme, since
colonialism and ideas of white supremacy were considered as ”normal” [12]
ZIONISM, A FATAL MOVEMENT
Theodor Herzl, frontman and leader of the modern political zionism [13],
was a busy guy.
He organized the First Zionist Congress in Basel [14], that laid a solid foundation
for the Zionist Disaster [15]
This Congress was followed by a number of zionist Congresses until
now [for the Herzl period only the first until the six are relevant, since
Herzl died in 1904] [16]
He contacted the Powers That Be in those Times to further promote
the concept of a Jewish State [17]
Among else Herzl approached the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire [18]
However:
His attempts to buy land from the Ottoman Sultan in order to bring his
”Judenstaat” closer, failed. [19]
EVIL ZIONIST MYTH/”A LAND WITHOUT A PEOPLE FOR A PEOPLE
WITHOUT A LAND”
To legitimize their ”Jewish State” ideal tghe zionist Movement
claimed that Palestine was barely. uninhabited.
So it would not be that strange, that persecuted people, in this case
the Jews, would settle in a barely inhabited country to build up a life,
free from prosecution and fear.
And so the Myth was born:
”A LAND WITHOUT A PEOPLE FOR A PEOPLE WITHOUT A LAND” [20]
In reality Palestine was populated since time immemoral by mostly Arab Palestinians as
other people, mixed and living together, forming a flourishing, economical and
cultural society. [21]
The ”A Land without a people for a people without a land” Slogan was
meant to justify the foundation of a State in the country of another people!
Its also called ”Settler colonialism” [22]
THE BRITISH EMPIRE TO THE RESCUE!/THE BALFOUR DECLARATION
”His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
Reading this far it should come as no surprise to the Readers that the Zionist Movement for the realization of her [settler] colonial plans was helped by an
important and established Colonial Power in those Times, the British Empire.
Not only settler colonial zionist thinking fitted in British colonial logic [24], of course firstly the
British colonials had their own [geo] political reasons to support Zionism [25]
The Support Thing began with the socalled ”Balfour Declaration” from 1917
[during World War I], which was a Letter from Lord Arthur Balfour, British
foreign secretary, to Lord Rotschild, leader of the British Zionist Movement [26]
In that Letter Lord Balfour guaranteed Lord Balfour to promote ”the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” [27]
I quote the most important part of the Letter:
””His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object……” [28]
And thus the zionists had a powerful colonial Power on their side!
Of course this ”Balfour Letter” [Balfour Declaration indeed] was a
Monstrosity and fitted well enough in the Colonial Thinking:
Because without in the least considering the rights of the present
population [the Arab Palestines], then still ”belonging” to the Ottoman Empire, a Jewish National Home was created by Colonial Great Britian, for
Jewish people who came from Europe!
The Jewish writer Arthur Koestler wrote about the ”Balfour Declaration”
as follows:
””One Nation solemny promised to a second nation the country
of a third” [29]
I couldn’t have said it better!
THE BRITISH MANDATE FOR PALESTINE
The Palestine Tragedy began to unfold more and more……
After the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire, that bet on the wrong horse [30],
Palestine [that had been part of the Ottoman Empire] became British Mandatory Palestine [31]
YES:
Palestine fell into the hands of the Colonial Power, that made the
”Balfour Declaraion” deal with the zionists…….[32]
And that the British meant business, soon became clear……
For in the Preambule and article 2 of the Mandate Palestine document [under
the responsibility of the League of Nations, established in 1920] [33], was stated, that
the British Mandatary aws responsible for the establishment, in Palestine, for a
Jewish National Home.
I quote from article 2:
”The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.” [34]
So the Arab Palestinians were in big trouble from the beginning, since
with the rise of nationalist movements in the colonies or semi-colonies
[like mandate areas like Palestine and Syria, results
of that horror Sykes Picot Agreement] [35], for Palestine the cards had already been shuffled:
By the later independence of Palestine, unlike other madate areas like Syria,
Jordan and Iraq [36] , there would not be one independent Palestine, but already ”a Jewish National Home” was included! [37]
And all this without any approval of the original Palestinian people.
THIS WAS COLONIALISM AND SOWED THE SEEDS FOR TROUBLE IN
THE VERY FUTURE…….
JEWISH COLONIZATION
With the establishment of Palestine as ”British Mandatory Palestine” [38]
the way was prepared for the establishment of East and West European
Jews in Palestine.
With the financial means of the Jewish National Fund and wealthy zionist Jews in Europe and the United States land could be purchased from
Palestinian major landowners on behalf of Jewish settler/farmers.
Often those Palestinian landowners themselves didn’t live in Palestine,
but in Lebanon and Syria.[39]
The Palestinian tenants, who had worked on that -purchased- land
paid a high price, since this purchase often was accompanied with their
eviction. [40]
Furthermore there was a dramatic growth of the Jewish population in
Palestine!
UN organisation UNISPAL writes:
”The Jewish population in Palestine increased from 56,000 in 1918 to about 88,000 in 1922, when the total population was officially estimated at 750,000. By 1939, the Jewish population had increased to 445,000 out of a total population of about 1.5 million. This dramatic increase was primarily due to the large numbers of Jews fleeing the Nazi terror.
In percentage terms, the Jewish population rose from about 10 per cent in 1919 to 17 per cent in 1929 to nearly 30 per cent in 1939! [41]
PALESTINE
THE TWENTIES OF THE CENTURY
TO THE THIRTIES AND THE ARAB REVOLT IN PALESTINE!
I wrote it before:
Because of the Balfour Declaration and with the establishment of Palestine as ”British Mandatory Palestine” [42] the seeds for Trouble in
the very future were sown….”
It was inevitable that with the spectacular increasement of the Jewish
colonization in Palestine, all with the blessing of the British authorities [43],
tensions grew between the Jewish migrants, zionists or not [not all Jewish m,igrants were zionists] and the Arab Palestinian population grew.
The Jewish colonization, especially in the thirties continued
to increase dramatically[understandably!] by the danger Nazi Germany formed for the Jews! [44]
In 1936, the year of the uprising against the British Mandate authorities
and the zionist settlers [45], the Jewish population in Palestine consisted
of 384,078, 28,1 percent of the total population [46]
Given the fact of this dramatic immigration increasement, the problem
of the evicted Palestinian tenants and the British favouritism of
Jewish settlement [47], it is no wonder, that Palestinian Arabs stood up against the British Mandatory rulers ![48]
The uprising lasted from 1936 until 1939 and was violently suppressed by the
British Mandatory authorities, who used all sorts of harsh measures
like Martial Law and collective punishment. [49]
Thousands of Arab prisoners were held in administrative detentiion
in overcrowded prisons without proper sanitation. [50]
About the collective punishment:
The main form of collective punishment was destruction of property.
Sometimes even entire villages were reduced to rubble, as happened
to Mi’ar in october 1938!
More often houses were blown.
The biggest ”destruction action” happened in Jaffa on june 1936, making
6000 people homeless……[51]
‘Villages were also frequently punished by fines and confiscation of livestock. [52]
But leave it to British colonialism to make things even worse
and read more about the Al-Bassa massacre
and moreover the description of this warcrime by an eue
witness, a British officer of the Royal Ulster Rifles!
Read and be shocked! [53]
Thus were the ways of British colonialism when it came
to suppress an uprising………
But there is more:
Therefore the reader must keep in mind one of the
main causes of the Arab revolt:
The British favouritism of the zionist settlers! [54]
So of course the zionists were the ”natural” helpers
of the British in suppressing the uprising!
The Zionist Partners in Crime of the British was the Haganah,
a Jewish paramilitary organisation, that actively supported
the British troops.
Although the British administration did not officially recognise the Haganah, the British security forces cooperated with it by forming the Jewish settlement police, Jewish Supernumerary Police and Special Night Squad.
Especially the latter [Special Night Squad] were no more or
less then death sqauds, notorious for their cruelty. [55]
Apparently the British found those zionist gangs so useful, that
they maintained, financed and armed them from this point onward until the end of the Mandate….. [56]
”Useful tools to keep the Arabs down”, they must have thought.
WHAT A PITY [But not really/HAHAHA], that those ”trusted
Zionist friends” of the British would later turn against the very
British Mandatory authorities that had financed and armed them……..[57]
But of course, that is not my Fight.
MY Fight is to defend the Palestinian right of self determination
and show how that was destroyed……..
AFTER WORLD WAR II
THE END
Now we come to the End of our Story about Zionism.
For the attentive reader knows how the Story of the
Palestinian Arab Society and the legitimate right on selfdetermination
ended in a complete disaster, following the end of the British Mandate,
the Partition of Palestine [without any saying of the Arab Palestinian people,
who of course were against], ending in the
foundation of the ”State of Israel” and the Palestinian Nakba, resulting
in the ethnic cleansings of more than 750. 000 Palestinians! [58]
Destroying everything that once was in the Palestinian Society.
BY ZIONISM AND ZIONIST INTRUDERS, WITH THE BLESSING OF BRITISH
COLONIALISM!
READ ALL ABOUT THE NAKBA IN NOTE 59!
We know what happened after 1948!
Israeli terror, occupation, Apartheid and now in Gaza….GENOCIDE! [60]
I am fed up to write about this in detail again.
You only have to watch the news and visit some trustworthy sources….
And after all the intention of this article was to explain and
point out, how a destructive neo colonialistic theory, supported by
a Western country, eventually led to Israeli ethnic cleansings, occupation,
apartheid and thus destroying the Society of Palestine and the legitimate
Right to Selfdetermination!
BUT PALESTINE WILL RISE AGAIN!
”Spear shall be shaken, shield be splintered,
a sword-day, a red day, ere the sun rises!”
[61]
The Palestinian people, led by their resistance groups, will
fight the Israeli armies and win.
LONG LIVE THE LEGITIMATE FIGHT OF LIBERATION!! [62]
AGAINST: Vice-President Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak;
(2) Indicates the following provisional measures:
The State of Israel shall, in conformity with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and in view of the
worsening conditions of life faced by civilians in the Rafah Governorate:
(a) By thirteen votes to two
Immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah
Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that
could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
IN FAVOUR: President Salam; Judges Abraham, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa,
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor International Court of Justice/Application of the Convention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v Israel)/24 May 2024
Since Yahya Sinwar, his close aides and Hamas militants have never been
found in Gaza City and then not in Khan Yunis, the Israeli army is
considering expanding its ground operation into the southern Gaza city of
Rafah.
The army is doing so because it assumes that Sinwar and his aids
are hiding in the tunnels underneath this southern region of the Gaza Strip,
presumably holding on to the Israeli hostages who are still alive.
Most of the Gaza Strip residents, some 1.4 million people, are concentrated
in Rafah.
Tens of thousands are still fleeing into the city from Khan Yunis,
where the fighting continues. The thought that Israel will invade Rafah and
that fighting will take place between and near civilians terrifies the city's
residents and the internally displaced persons.
The terror they feel is
augmented by the conclusion that nobody can prevent Israel from carrying
out its intention – not even the ICJ ruling that orders Israel to take all
measures to avoid acts of genocide.
Military correspondents in Israel report and assume that the army intends to
order residents of Rafah to move to a safe area. Since the war started, the
army has been waving around this evacuation or
der as evidence that it is
acting in order to prevent any harm to ”uninvolved civilians”
This safe zone, however, which was bombarded and still is bombarded by
Israel, is gradually shrinking.
The only safe zone that truly remains, and
which the IDF is now designating for the masses of people in Rafah, is Al-
Mawasi – a southern Gaza coastal area of approximately 16 square
kilometers (about 6 square miles).
It’s still unclear by what verbal measures the IDF and its legal experts
intend to reconcile this squeezing of so many civilians with the orders
given by the ICJ.
PAGE 3
”The humanitarian zone designated by the army is around the size of Ben-
Gurion International Airport (about 6.3 square miles)” concluded Haaretz
journalists Yarden Michaeli and Avi Scharf in their report earlier this week.
The report, titled "Gazans Fled Their Homes.
They Have Nowhere to
Return to”, revealed the vast devastation across the Gaza Strip as captured
in Satellite images.
The comparison with Ben-Gurion International Airport invites one to imagine
a density beyond anything imaginable, but Israeli TV commentators don't go
much further beyond the deep insight that the ground invasion of Rafah will
indeed, ”won’t be that simple.”
Although it’s difficult, we must imagine what awaits the Palestinians in
Rafah if the army’;s plan is carried out.
We must do so not so much as of humanist and moral considerations, which after October 7 aren’t that relevant to the majority of the Israeli-Jewish public, but because of the military, humanitarian, and -eventually- legal and political entanglementsthat are surely expected if we go down that road. The compression
Even if ”only” about a million Palestinians will flee for the third and fourth
time into Al-Mawasi – an area which is already full of displaced Gazans –
the density will be about 62,500 people per square kilometer (about
157,000 people per square mile).
This will happen in an open area with no skyscrapers to house the
refugees, that has no running water, no privacy, no means of living, no
hospitals or medical clinics, no solar panels to charge phones, and all while
aid organizations will have to cross through or near battle zones in order to
distribute the small amounts of food that do enter the Gaza Strip.
It seems that the only position in which this narrow area could
accommodate everyone would be if they're all standing or kneeling.
Perhaps it’ll be necessary to form special committees that will determine
sleeping arrangements in shifts: a few thousand would lie down while the
rest continue to stand awake.
The buzzing of the drones above and below,
the cries of babies born during the war and whose mothers have no milk or
not enough of it – these will be the unnerving soundtrack.
From what we saw during the IDF’s ground raids and the battles in Gaza
City and Khan Yunis, it’s clear, that the ground operation in Rafah if it
PAGE 4
eventually unfolds, will last many weeks. Does Israel believe that the ICJ
will consider the compression of hundreds of thousands or a million
Palestinians on a small piece of land a proper ”measure”; that prevents
genocide?
About 270 thousand Palestinians lived in the Rafah district before the war.
The one-and-a-half million who are currently staying there suffer from
hunger and malnutrition; they suffer from thirst, cold, diseases and
spreading infections, from lice in their hair and skin rash; they suffer from
physical and mental exhaustion and a chronic lack of sleep.
They crowd in
schools, hospitals and mosques, in tent neighborhoods that have sprung up
in and around Rafah, and in apartments that house dozens of displaced
families.
Tens of thousands of them are wounded, including those whose limbs were
amputated due to the army's attacks or surgeries that followed. They all
have relatives and friends – children, babies and elderly parents – who
have been killed in the past four months.
The houses of most of them were destroyed or badly damaged. All their
possessions are lost.
Their money has run out due to the high and
exorbitant food prices.
Many escaped death only by chance, and witnessed
the dreadful sights of dead bodies. They don’;t mourn the dead yet because
the trauma continues.
Along with displays of support and solidarity, disputes
and fights also occur. Some lose their memory and sanity from all the
suffering.
As it has done in other areas in the strip, to maintain the element of
surprise, the IDF will issue a warning about two hours before a ground
invasion into Rafah. This will give the residents a time window of a few
hours that day to evacuate the city.
Imagine this convoy of refugees and the mass panic of people fleeing
toward Al-Mawasi in the west. Think of the elders, the sick, the disabled and
the wounded who will be ”lucky” to be transported in donkey carts or
makeshift wheelbarrows and in cars that run on cooking oil.
All the others – both sick and healthy – will have to leave on foot. They’;ll
probably have to leave behind the little that they’ve managed to collect and
take with them in previous displacements, like blankets and plastic sheets
for shelter, warm clothes, some food and basic items such as small
cookers.
This forced escape march will probably go through the ruins of some of the
buildings that Israel bombed not long ago, or the craters created on the
PAGE 5
road due to the attacks. The whole convoy will then stand still until a detour
is found. Someone is bound to trip; a cartwheel will get stuck in the mud.
And all of them – hungry and thirsty, frightened by the imminent attack or
the expected tank shelling – will continue going forward. Children will cry
and get lost. People will feel bad.
Medical teams will struggle to reach
whoever needs care.
Only 4 kilometers (about 2.4 miles) separate Rafah from Al-Mawasi, but it’;ll
require several hours to cross.
The people marching will be cut off from any
communication, if only because of the packed convoy and the
overcrowding. They’;ll fight over the area where they wish to set up a tent.
They’ll fight over who gets to be closest to a building or a water well.
They’;ll
faint due to thirst and hunger.
The following image will repeat itself several times over the next few days:
A march of starving and frightened Palestinians starts fleeing in panic each
time the IDF announces another area whose residents are supposed to
evacuate, while the tanks and infantry troops advance toward them.
The
shelling and ground troops will get closer to the hospitals that are still
functioning. Tanks will surround them, and all the patients and medical
teams will be required to evacuate to the crowded Al-Mawasi area.
The ground operation
It’;s hard to know how many of them will decide not to leave.
As we learned
from what happened in the northern Gaza districts and Khan Yunis, a
significant number of residents prefer to stay in an area that is destined for
a ground operation.
Among them will be tens of thousands of displaced,
sick and seriously wounded Gazans who are hospitalized, pregnant women
and others who will decide to stay in their own homes and the homes of
their relatives or in schools turned into shelters.
The little information they
will get from the concentration area of Al-Mawasi is enough to discourage
them from joining.
IDF soldiers and commanders, however, interpret the evacuation order
differently: anyone who remains in an area designated for ground invasion
isn’t considered an innocent civilian; they aren’;t considered ”uninvolved”
Anyone who stays in their homes and goes out to fetch water from a city
facility that is still operating or from some private well, medical teams called
to treat a patient, a pregnant woman walking to a nearby hospital to give
birth – all of them, as we saw during the war and in past military campaigns,
are criminalized in the eyes of the soldiers.
Shooting and killing them
follows the IDF’s rules of engagement.
PAGE 6
According to the army, such shootings are carried out in accordance with
international law because these individuals were warned that they must
leave.
Even when soldiers break into houses during the fighting, Gazans,
mainly men, are at risk of death from gunfire.
A soldier shooting someone
because they felt threatened or followed an order – it doesn’t matter. It
happened in Gaza City, and it might happen in Rafah.
Just as the aid teams aren’t authorized or are unable to reach the northern
Gaza Strip to distribute food, they won’t be able to distribute it in the fighting
areas in Rafah.
The little food that the residents managed to save will
gradually run out.
Those who remain in their homes will be forced to choose the lesser of two
evils: either they go out and risk Israeli fire or starve at home.
Most of them
already suffer from a severe lack of nutrients. In many families, adults are
giving up food so that their children can be fed. There’s a real danger that
many will starve to death while in their home as the fighting rages outside.
The bombings
Since the war started, the army bombarded residential buildings, open
areas and passenger cars in every location it had defined as ”safe” (that its
residents weren’;t required to leave). It doesn’t matter if the attacks target
Hamas facilities, the group’s officials or other members who were staying
with their families or have come out of hiding to visit them – civilians are
almost always killed.
The bombings didn’t stop in Rafah either. Overnight into Thursday, two
houses were bombed in the western Rafah neighborhood of Tel al-Sultan.
According to Palestinian sources, 14 people were killed, including five
children.
The sources also said that a mother and daughter were killed in an Israeli
attack on a house in northern Rafah on February 7 and that a journalist was
killed together with his mother and sister in western Rafah the day before.
Also on February 6, the sources added, six Palestinian police officers were
killed in an Israeli attack while they were securing an aid truck in eastern
Rafah.
These attacks indicate that the so-called collateral damage calculations
approved by IDF legal experts and the State Prosecutor’s Office are
extremely permissive. The number of uninvolved Palestinians that it is
”permitted”; to kill in return for hitting an army’s target is higher than in any
previous war.
PAGE 7
People in Rafah are afraid that the IDF will apply these permissive criteria
also in Al-Mawasi, and attack there as well if a target is in the area, among
the hundreds of thousands who take shelter. This is how an announced
safe haven will become a death trap for hundreds of thousands.
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Article from Amira Hass/”If the Israeli army invades Rafah, what will be of more than 1.5 million Palestinians, who take shelter there?
Half a dozen years ago I sat in the lobby lounge at the Algonquin Hotel in Manhattan talking at length with Richard Falk, the scholar, lawyer, U.N. rapporteur, and advocate of Palestinian rights. Inevitably, the conversation turned for a time to international law, a topic on which Falk has long been a recognized authority. Here is a little of what he said as we took our afternoon tea:
When international law is on the side of the geopolitical actors, then they are very serious about its relevance. When the American embassy was seized in Tehran after the Iranian Revolution, they talked about the flouting of international law as if that was the most sacred body of law that ever existed. International law is used very instrumentally. If you’re protecting private investment in Venezuela or Chile, then it’s barbaric not to uphold it. But if it’s blocking the pursuit of some kind of interventionist project, then it’s flaky or irrelevant to talk about it …
I thought about that exchange over the weekend, as I considered the International Court of Justice’s ruling last Friday that the apartheid state of Israel may be guilty of genocide against Gaza’s Palestinian population, as South Africa charges, and that the case Pretoria brought last month must proceed. Later Friday, the estimable Phyllis Bennis quoted Falk in a piece she wrote for In These Times. Falk called the decision the court’s “greatest moment,” and went on to explain, “It strengthens the claims of international law to be respected by all sovereign states—not just some.”
Consistency of thought: It does not get more admirable than this.
There are many, many ways to look upon the ICJ’s ruling, many things worth saying. The very first of these is that the significance of the ICJ’s interim finding lies beyond dispute. Will the barbarities of a nation self-evidently suffering a collective psychosis now stop? No. What Dick Falk said six years ago still holds: Israel has already made clear it will ignore The Hague’s judgment.
But what “the Jewish state” does this week or next is not for the moment our question. What are the enduring consequences of this ruling for the global order? How shall we situate the court’s judgment? Where does its importance lie? These are our questions. And Falk was right last Friday, too: The ICJ has begun the work—the long work—of restoring international law as a foundational feature of a world order worthy of the term.
Having made this point, I must immediately note the abject deflections we find in the reports of our corporate media—which, nearly to a one, urge their readers, listeners, and viewers to dismiss the ICJ’s interim finding as, borrowing from Falk, more or less flaky and irrelevant. In the second paragraph of its main story Friday, The New York Times, fairly bursting to get the point across, wrote, “The court did not rule on whether Israel was committing genocide, and it did not call on Israel to stop its campaign to crush Hamas…”
Three untruths here, straight off the top. One, the South Africans did not ask The Hague to issue a ruling on genocide one way or the other. In the cause of expedience, to stop the savagery as quickly as possible, it asked for what it got—a swift interim judgment so the court could order Israel to stop the violence and that the larger case on genocide could proceed.
Two, a mountain has been made of the fact that the ICJ did not, in so many words, call upon Israel to cease fire in Gaza. This is preposterously misleading. Peruse the six stipulations that comprise the ruling, the first of which reads, “Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent all acts within the scope of Genocide Convention, Article 2.” Here I defer to Raz Segal, an Israeli historian who professes at Stockton University in New Jersey. This is from a segment of Democracy Now!, distributed last Friday:
We’re already seeing headlines in The New York Times today which frame this as, “The court did not issue an order for a ceasefire”—which, in effect, it actually did, because if it ordered that Israel should cease from genocidal acts, and it ordered Israel should facilitate the entry of humanitarian aid, it actually said, “You have to cease fire because there is no [other] way of doing that.”
And three, what Israel is doing in Gaza—as any review of the daily death toll will make clear, any five minutes of video footage—can be characterized as “a military campaign to crush Hamas” only by those so abjectly committed to defending Israeli atrocities that all thought of honest reporting and writing is cast aside.
Almost all major media have followed The Times’s lead, per usual. Among the exceptions—and I confess my surprise here—is National Public Radio. It got the no-ceasefire bit wrong, but it otherwise published a quite good, balanced report from London that included worthy material from its South Africa correspondent (unless NPR took this off the wires):
Since former President Nelson Mandela’s administration, South Africa has long supported the Palestinian cause, saying it sees echoes of apartheid in the situation between the Israelis and Palestinians.
“We, as South Africans, will not be passive bystanders and watch the crimes that were visited upon us being perpetrated elsewhere,” [South African President Cyril] Ramaphosa said Friday. He noted the ICJ affirmed South Africa’s right to take Israel to court, “even though it is not a party to the conflict in Gaza.”
But exceptions prove rules, let us not forget. For the sheer nonsense of its reporting, I have to single out—the envelope, please—the reliably egregious MSNBC. You may want to take a moment to read this twice. In its Friday evening newscast, it had it that the ICJ ruling is nicely aligned with the Biden regime’s calls to minimize civilian casualties. Further, we need to know what The Hague’s finding is not and what it does not do: It is not any kind of indictment of the Biden regime’s policy, no, and it does not make Biden and the U.S. complicit in genocide.
It is and it does, in my view.
The running theme in American media is that The Hague’s judgment has changed nothing. Who can be surprised? Nothing ever changes when these media are telling us about the world. America is never wrong. America never makes a mistake. America is never on the wrong side. America is always good. America never loses.
Let us now consider what enormous changes occurred when Joan Donoghue, an American judge who currently presides at The Hague, read out the ruling.
■
As the Israeli military and propaganda machines reached full throttle late last autumn, a friend sent me a video link to a film called Defamation, made in 2009 by an Israeli documentarian named Yoav Shamir. It is a strangely lighthearted but thoroughly serious treatment of how Israel drills into its people, youth and adults alike, the thought that the world, all of it, rages with anti–Semitism, that they are destined to be hated, that they must remain a people apart. My friend urged me to watch it amid the circus-like charges of anti–Semitism everywhere just then overtaking America. I found the film sad—as I do the cynical manipulation of history and memory by people who seem to think nothing of pimping their own past and the suffering of the six million.
I watched Defamation again over the weekend. Here I transcribe a brief passage that features one Suzanne Prince and her husband, Harvey, who are active in the Los Angeles office of the American Defamation League. Shamir, who speaks from behind his camera, has asked them why the ADL makes incessant references to events that occurred many decades in the past:
S.P. To combat it [anti–Semitism] effectively you have to take responsibility for everything that happened in the past, then reach the present, and then go forward….
Y.S. Sometimes you need to give some slack to get what you want.
S.P. No, no, absolutely not…. I bring up everything from the past…. We need to play on that guilt.
Y.S. Maybe the guilt trip we are giving them doesn’t help. Maybe we should give them some slack.
H.P. Moderate.
S.P. The guilt of the father should not be visited upon the sons, true….
H.P. You cannot let it go down, but you can’t keep playing on it as heavily as some people do. You have to be moderate.
This dialogue is now 15 years in the past. Until last Friday I would have said it is likely we are in for at least another 15 years of this kind of thing. We may be: The Israelis have already begun to sound the anti–Semitism bell in response to the ICJ decision. Over the weekend they accused a dozen U.N. employees—of 13,000 in Gaza—of collaborating with Hamas on October 7. I will believe this when I see evidence of it—evidence other than what the Israelis claim is evidence. The Zionist propaganda machine is now exposed. There is no air left in the tires of the Suzanne and Harvey Princes among us. At long last, the disgraceful decades of guilt-tripping is up and one can say so publicly. The Holocaust card, to put the point another way, is at last played out.
Let us not miss the significance of this moment. As others have noted, 75 years of Israeli impunity will now draw to a close. Israel’s crimes can now be called Israel’s crimes. Contempt for the Zionist state can now be legitimately expressed. I describe as best I can a change of consciousness, or of the rules of discourse, or both. All the rubbish condemning criticism of Israel as anti–Semitic can now be discarded for what it is. The ICJ, in the six stipulations it imposes on Israel, requires Tel Aviv to report to the court in one month of its efforts to “prevent genocide.” This is subtle, and very astute. It imposes a higher authority on the Israelis. It tells them, “You are answerable now to something other than yourselves (and, of course, the United States). You are answerable to the community of nations.”
There are many things that are for the moment unclear. If Israel ignores the court, as seems likely, and the U.N. Security Council convenes in response, what will the
Biden regime do? Veto a disciplinary resolution? Abstain? To what extent will Israel be isolated? And to what extent the U.S. with it? What about the Europeans? Will they act with some measure of autonomy in response to The Hague’s judgment? Cut off arms sales, scholarly and cultural exchanges? There are too many such questions to list.
However such eventualities turn out, there are larger matters we must not miss. International law, as Richard Falk noted well, stands to count more now, even if the Israelis transgress it for the umpteenth time. Equally, or maybe this is a yet larger point, it is highly significant that it was South Africa that precipitated last week’s events. The South Africans have emerged over the past year or so, maybe a little more, as committed advocates of a new world order I will call post–Western. They have an enlarging identity as a non–Western power.
We must all stand with the Palestinians, yes, however each of us is able to make this manifest. But we cannot isolate the ICJ’s ruling as a remedy for one incidence of genocide or one case of the aggression of Western power against the non–West. What happened last Friday in The Hague is best understood as a step, a big one, to ending half a millennium of genocides and violence.
The non–West has spoken, it has raised its voice. And it will have ever more to say from here on out.
END OF THE ARTICLE
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Article from Patrick Lawrence/”Israel’s place in Global Public Space/The Zionist State, like the US, can’t survive in it”
AFP
Getty Images
Reuters
