Link
Posted by realistic bird under Caricature, Politics Tags: Caricature, Israeli crimes, Israeli policies, land theft, palestine, Palestinian future, Palestinian rights, Politics, Zionism
by Umayyah Jiha
by Nahida Izzat, Palestinian think tank
Can anyone see some ethical flaws with that?
I have no authority to talk in the name of all Palestinians, but I have previously stated that I DO NOT wish the zionist murderers, those of whom were directly or indirectly involved in massacres, theft of land, subjugation and oppression, to remain in Palestine after its liberation from the occupier, except of course for the very few good people amongst them – as no soul should carry the liability of another.
I reiterate, I do not wish the invader, occupier and criminal racists to stay in Palestine, the land that they have incessantly raped, destroyed and disfigured, nor do I desire them to be my neighbours.
They have shown no respect, no appreciation, and no love to this land or to her people.
They do not deserve to live there.
Many of our supporters freak out upon hearing this declaration of mine, they think that I am becoming an uncaring person, or turning into a radical hardliner; and some curiously and attentively listen, then, timidly and modestly, try to understand.
I will try here to elucidate by asking some simple questions, as to why I think it is unreasonable to make the premises of a JUST SOLUTION dependent upon our acceptance –as Palestinians, of giving the right of permanent residency and equal rights of citizenship to all zionist Jewish occupiers in our stolen land of Palestine.
Here are my questions:
• Why do our supporters, progressives who advocate a one state solution, keep asking us – Palestinians – to share our land with those who acquired it by theft, military force and murder?
• Would you share your home with the armed robber who came to steal from you?
• Should a thief get to enjoy the same rights of ownership to materials and assets that he acquired by armed robbery, as the person who was robbed?
• Should a colonialist imperialist occupier regime, who keeps hold of countries by terrorizing the indigenous population and perpetrating endless scores of bloodshed, not be severely sanctioned as legislated wisely by International Law?
• Should the USA decide to move a few tens of millions of its citizens to Iraq or Afghanistan, confiscate Iraqi lands, give it to those colonizers, then demands that those citizens have equal rights with Iraqis or Afghanis; should we support the equal rights of those colonizers?
• Should the Algerians have waited for the French occupiers to be magnanimous enough to give them “equal rights”?
• Would Algeria be to the Algerians today, had they not fought for the liberation of their country against colonial France?
• Under International Law; is an occupying entity entitled to ANY rights whatsoever?
• Why defend the “right” of the barbaric occupier – who has been engaged in ethnic cleansing and genocide for over six decades, to stay in Palestine after its liberation, and this while keeping land and houses, villages, archaeological treasures, churches and mosques, libraries, they’ve forcibly stolen at gun point?
• Why imagine that it is unrealistic to return the stolen land and property to its legitimate owners while ignoring its mode of acquisition by zionists?
• Why instead of defending the right Palestinians to get ALL their country back; including: homes, orchards and land, supporters ask the victims to keep on giving, by the supposition that returning back stolen property creates “another injustice” to the OCCUPIER?
• Why are we – Palestinians – continuously pressed to accept this scurrilous logic, by our supporters?
• Are people so naïve that they don’t realize that doing so, invariably corresponds in fact to… a full support – quasi unconditional, of the zionist thieves and their ideological core which deems colonising Palestine as a “Divine and historical right” for the Jewish people ?
• What does the notion of Justice, social responsibility, fair dealing mean if we are to equate criminals with victims in terms of rights to ownership of stolen property?
My logic is simple:
Supporting “equal rights” in which the occupier gets the privilege of staying in the land they’ve looted and destroyed, while keeping hold of the estate of absentees, would mean a grave violation of the fundamentals of ethical foundations of human social interaction.
The message it gives: bullies, criminals, thieves are allowed to get away with MURDER. literally!
It is a carte blanche for bullies to do what they like, steal, kill, colonize, rape, oppress, torture…
Advocating “equal rights” between the criminal and victim, in which the criminal escapes punishment for his crimes, gets to keep stolen lands, while being rewarded by enjoying the fruits of his aggression in terms of total participation in decision and law making in the land he abused, is an assassination of the concept of justice, on which peaceful Civilization is built and needs to prosper.
Furthermore, I reiterate; any future decision on the status of ILLEGAL COLONIZERS in Palestine should be a PALESTINIAN DECISION; they, and ONLY they, can choose whether to allow their tormentors to stay or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment