LogoPhere Home
LogoPhere Blog - WordPress version

Quote of the Week

We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore 
the consequences of ignoring reality.
                                                               -- Ayn Rand

August 03, 2014

When is advocating genocide permissible?  
Only when you're a psychopath preaching to psychopaths.


On August 01 the Israeli Zionist rag, Times of Israel, published an op-ed written by a pestilential American Jew named Yochanan Gordon  justifying the genocide of Palestinians, and within 24 hours this creep's name and violent ideas swept around the world.  The Israeli spin-meisters must have pooped themselves.  For three weeks they have been working double-overtime to punk the world into believing that Israeli Jews are peace-loving people who just want to be left alone, and suddenly the world is shown the truth of the matter by the ToI publishing not just the "G"-word but an entire op-ed arguing that genocide is "permissible" when Jews do it to others.  Not even the hate-filled spewings of Knesset member Ayrley Shaked or popular Israeli academic Mordechai Kedar -- who proposed killing all Palestinian mothers and raping Palestinians' sisters and mothers, respectively -- went so far as to use the "G"-word, even though that is obviously what they were talking about. 

Almost certainly GoI leaned on ToI to remove Gordon's hate-rant, and the op-ed disappeared very quickly -- but not before a number of people preserved it for e-posterity.  The version I have comes from VOXIt is reproduced verbatim below on the left, with my point-by-point rejoinders on the right.

You might be asking yourself, as I asked myself, who is this genocidal creep, Yochanan Gordon?  Where do these imposters of intellectualism come from?  Well, according to what I have been able to find out, this guy comes from somewhere in New York where he is some sort of sales manager, possibly for his father's third rate Zionist paper.  Source  


 Yochanan Gordon

Judging by the numbers of casualties on both sides in this almost one-month old war one would be led to the conclusion that Israel has resorted to disproportionate means in fighting a far less- capable enemy. That is as far as what meets the eye.

Denis O'Brien
  What does it mean: "That is as far as what meets the eye."?  Why don't you just talk plain and say "That is the indisputable, bloody truth."
But, it's now obvious that the US and the UN are completely out of touch with the nature of this foe and are therefore not qualified to dictate or enforce the rules of this war - because when it comes to terror there is much more than meets the eye  
  As a beneficiary of what violent, terrorist Jews like Begin, Ben-Gurion, Mier, Irgun, Haganah &c. stole from the Palestinians, you modern day Zionists are certainly in a very good position to judge the objectives of terrorists.  But it is not judging the nature of the Palestinians that has caused problems for the US and UN for 65 years, and the Palestinians are the "foe" of no one other than the Israelis.  What has caused problems for US/UN is repeatedly misjudging the bloody, violent nature of Zionism and the Israeli Jews, who are turning out to be the foes of every other nation on earth. 
I wasn't aware of this, but it seems that the nature of warfare has undergone a major shift over the years. Where wars were usually waged to defeat the opposing side, today it seems - and judging by the number of foul calls it would indicate - that today's wars are fought to a draw. I mean, whoever heard of a timeout in war? An NBA Basketball game allows six timeouts for each team during the course of a game, but last I checked this is a war!   
  What do you know about the nature of warfare?  You couldn't fill a midget's thimble with everything you know about warfare.  The fact that wars end in a draw does not mean that both sides did not intend to defeat the other side.  Wars end in draws today in order to avoid escalation into global disasters that would end with nuclear exchanges. 
We are at war with an enemy whose charter calls for the annihilation of our people. Nothing, then, can be considered disproportionate when we are fighting for our very right to live.  

Nobody's charter is calling for the annihilation of your people -- this is where your lying starts BIG TIME. 

Hamas' position is that the Jews have stolen the land that Israel is built on and until the Palestinians reclaim all of that land, they will not give up.  If today's Jews can't live in peace with Palestinians in Palestine the way many Jews them did for over a thousand years prior to the invasion by European Jews, then they can take the Helen Thomas' option and "Go the hell back to wherever they came from."  -- essentially Russia.  

I believe this is Hamas' position, and it says nothing about annihilating anyone.  It is the Zionist Jews who have been trying to annihilate the Palestinians since the 1930's.  It was Jews who started this fight, and the Palestinians who refuse to give in. 

But there is a very important admission in what you say: this is a war.  Hamas and GoI are at war -- with each other.  And the reason that point, obvious as it is, is important is because there is a difference between kidnapping someone and taking an enemy soldier prisoner. 

Lt. Hadar Goldin, by your own admission, was fighting a war.  Consequently, if Hamas did, in fact, capture him, they were taking a prisoner of war, which is acceptable under all international standards of conduct of war.  So why does GoI, Obama, Kerry, and the world's press, which is largely controlled by Jews sympathetic to Israel, keep referring to this as a kidnapping?

Why doesn't the press tell the world about the hundreds of Palestinians GoI has captured and locked up in the past 6 weeks?  Were they kidnapped, too?  Under what reasoning or theory of law does GoI have the right to capture Palestinians in a war but the Palestinians are guilty of kidnapping when they take Israeli prisoners?  I hope for Lt. Goldin's sake that Hamas does not treat him as badly as GoI and the US treat their prisoners.

The sad reality is that Israel gets it, but its hands are being tied by world leaders who over the past six years have insisted they are such good friends with the Jewish state, that they know more regarding its interests than even they do. But there's going to have to come a time where Israel feels threatened enough where it has no other choice but to defy international warnings - because this is life or death.  
  You say: " they are such good friends with the Jewish state, that they know more regarding its interests than even they do."  Perhaps this gibberish makes some sort of sense in whatever loony-land you come from, but it makes no sense in English, which, as an American, you should be able to write.  And so your gibberish pretty clearly indicates that you are not a professional writer and probably not educated beyond high school.  Gawker says you are a "sales manager," which raises the question: Why should the world be concerned about a racist, American sales manager ejaculating this sort of hate-speech?  

As to the substance of your assertion, you seem to think that Israel's interests are the only interests all countries in the world are obligated to respect.  You assume that any action that the US or any other country takes that is not in accord with Israel's interests is both wrong and wrong-headed.  You seem to feel that because AIPAC pays US politicians so much to promote Israel's agenda, that the only US policies that are legitimate are those that favor GoI.  My response to that is: GFYS.
Most of the reports coming from Gazan officials and leaders since the start of this operation have been either largely exaggerated or patently false. The truth is, it's not their fault, falsehood and deceit is part of the very fabric of who they are and that will never change. Still however, despite their propensity to lie, when your enemy tells you that they are bent on your destruction you believe them.   

Do you know how to use a semi-colon, dude?  As far as racist rants go, yours is one of the clearest, unapologetic examples I've even seen.  You must be an embarrassment to your own father -- I notice he removed your rant from his online newspaper. 

But it's kind of funny, too, for your phrase "the very fabric of who [sic] they are" raises an interesting point -- the "fabric" of the Palestinians is the very same fabric of the Jews.  Both you Jews and your Palestinian foes are Semites -- genetically, biblically, and etymologically.  Arabs, some Persians, Assyrians, Druze, Sunni, Shia, Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardic Jews, Mizrahi Jews -- are all Semites and are all cut from the same bolt of fabric.  

In Biblical terms Semite means peoples who are descended from Shem, the eldest son of Noah, who, according to many rabbis, was able to cleverly avoid bris by being born pre-circumcised.  Cool, if you can pull it off, no pun intended. 

Etymologically speaking, Semites are peoples who speak a Semitic language, of which Hebrew and Arabic are the best known current examples.  And genetically speaking, DNA analyses have shown that you are all so closely related biologically, you are the same people at the molecular level.  

And so my point is that by going all wobbly and racist on us about the Palestinians' "very fabric" being comprised of dishonesty, to the extent what you say is true, you are cluing us in to the fact that the weft and warp of your own Jewish fabric is racism and dishonesty.  For instance, Ben-Gurion's lying to the entire world that Dimona was a textile factory and that Israel was not developing a nuke, seems to me to be the pinnacle of Semitic lying.  No Palestinian has ever spun a lie of that magnitude, you sanctimonious prick.

You are also unwittingly making the political point that all of the violence the world is watching in Palestine (and the whole Middle East) is really just the most recent example of bloody internecine fighting that has been going on between Semitic tribes for 5000 years, and will continue for another 5000 years unless the goyim superpowers step in and put an end to it with force.

Similarly, when Khaled Meshal declares that no physical damage to Gaza will dampen their morale or weaken their resolve - they have to be believed. Our sage Gedalia [sic] the son of Achikam [sic] was given intelligence that Yishmael Ben Nesanyah was plotting to kill him. However, in his piety or rather naiveté Gedalia dismissed the report as a random act of gossip and paid no attention to it. To this day, the day following Rosh Hashana is commemorated as a fast day in the memory of Gedalia who was killed in cold blood on the second day of Rosh Hashana during the meal. They say the definition of insanity is repeating the same mistakes over and over. History is there to teach us lessons and the lesson here is that when your enemy swears to destroy you - you take him seriously.  

So, let's just sort out this biblical blathering, my genocidal Jewish demagogue.  After asserting that the Palestinians are genetic liars, you are now arguing that Israelis should take them at their word --  this sort irrational, self-contradictory argument is the basis of the justifications of violent racists all around the world.  Please Google: KKK. 

But this is the really scary part of your dangerous, disingenuous rant:  you go retro to about 600 BC in order to justify your calls for genocide.  This is the same Sherman and Peabody way-back tactic that all racist Jews rely on to justify stealing Palestine.  And so your calumnious rant against your brother-Semites, the Palestinians, for being deceitful is now revealed as a reflection of your own soul. 

For you deceive your readers by failing to inform them that Ishmael -- Gedaliah's despicable, devious killer -- was himself a Jew and a member of the house of the Kingdom of Judah.  I suspect you deleted this vital fact from your misspelled mini-history because that fact suggests that Ishmael's bloodthirsty spirit was reincarnated multiple times in the modern era as Bibi, Begin, Ben-Gurion, Sharon, and other bloodthirsty and devious Israeli leaders of the 20th and 21st centuries.  

Hamas has stated forthrightly that it idealizes death as much as Israel celebrates life. What other way then is there to deal with an enemy of this nature other than obliterate them completely?  

I beg your pardon, my disingenuous friend, but you would be hard pressed to find any member of Hamas claiming that "Israel celebrates life."  Whom, precisely, do you mean by "Hamas?"  

The Palestinians' point is that their land and their culture are so important to them that they are willing to die rather than give into the Jews who have stolen their land and have been trying to destroy their culture for 65 years.  In that sense, I take the Palestinians' attitude to be roughly equivalent to millions of Americans who marched off to fight the Nazis and Japs in 1941 -- the Americans' willingness to die for their families and homes in 1941was no more acute and no more praiseworthy than the Palestinians' willingness to die today.  Given the historical context of what Hamas is fighting for, I don't have a problem with their position, and I don't think any American should. 

News anchors such as those from CNN, BBC and Al-Jazeera have not missed an opportunity to point out the majority of innocent civilians who have lost their lives as a result of this war. But anyone who lives with rocket launchers installed or terror tunnels burrowed in or around the vicinity of their home cannot be considered an innocent civilian. If you'll counter, that Hamas has been seen abusing civilians who have attempted to leave their homes in response to Israeli warnings to leave - well then, your beginning to come to terms with the nature of this enemy which should automatically cause the rules of standard warfare to be suspended.  

I couldn't help but notice your primary point in this passage.  And the reason I couldn't help but notice was because your atrocious grammar made me blow breakfast.  Rarely have I seen such an abysmal piece of English -- even on the Internet. 

" . . . well then, your beginning to come to terms with the nature of this enemy which should automatically cause the rules of standard warfare to be suspended."

Assuming you made it through 9th grade, you really need to go back for a refresher course on contractions and restrictive/non-restrictive clauses.  

As for the substance of your paragraph, it, is just as sickening as the grammar.  You have obviously not kept up with the Israeli war crimes during this latest Zionist fuster cluck.  For instance, you have missed the part where IDF dropped leaflets telling people in N. Gaza to flee and then attacked the very places the people fled to.  You missed the footage of the bombed out hospitals and refugee centers. Below you cherry-pick a quote from Ban ki-Moon, but you neglected to quote him calling for an immediate end to the Israeli war crimes.  You missed the four Palestinian children getting blasted to smithereens while playing on a pier in S. Gaza.  The videos of that area are clear -- it is a sandy beach, there are no rockets, no rocket launchers, no threats to any Israeli or any Israeli interest.

You state:  

"If you'll counter, that Hamas has been seen abusing civilians who have attempted to leave their homes in response to Israeli warnings to leave . . ."

Again, you display all of the grammatical competence of the proverbial infinite monkeys on the provberbial infinite typewriters long before they got to Shakespeare.  Your lack of  intelligence, your lack of knowledge of the facts in Gaza, and your lack of understanding of the history of Gaza are matched only by your lack of grammatical skills.  

And I note your sloppy subterfuge.  You are not actually asserting that Hamas has been seen abusing civilians, presumably because you know that is a lie.  What you are saying is hard to interpret because of the lousy punctuation, but it appears to be a conditional statement about what you think your reader is saying in response to CNN, BBC, &c.

This is a cheap, dishonest polemic device for trying to insert a false fact into a conversation without being called a liar.  Doesn't work.  The whole world will see you as a liar.

Everyone agrees that Israel has the right to defend itself as well as the right to exercise that right. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has declared it, Obama and Kerry have clearly stated that no one could be expected to sit idle as thousands of rockets rain down on the heads of its citizens, placing them in clear and present danger. It seems then that the only point of contention is regarding the measure of punishment meted out in this situation.  

Please -- explain this sentence:

"Everyone agrees that Israel has the right to defend itself as well as the right to exercise that right."

Are you daft?  That is like saying that the 1st Amendment guarantees Americans the right of free speech as well as the right to talk.  WTF are you blathering about????

But as to the substance of your assertion, yes, you are correct that all of the Israeli politicians and the Israel-first American politicians are rolling out the argument that Israel has the right to defend itself.  

But you are again being disingenuous when put into their mouths the false fact that thousands of rockets are raining down on the heads of Israeli citizens.  I cannot find any such quote and, again, I suspect you are lying.  

Besides, the Hamas rockets are hitting -- mostly -- dirt.  In contrast to 1500 Palestinians killed by thousands and thousands of Israeli rockets and mortars and artillery since this war began, as of today only about 3 Israeli civilians have been killed and at least one of those was an Arab.  So the image you are trying to push of rockets raining down on the heads of Israelis is just plain bullshit.

And here is the problem: It is not Israelis that are being butchered by Palestinians; it is the exact opposite.  Forget for the moment the tens of thousands of Palestinians killed by Jewish terrorism during the Nakba and the hundreds of thousands displaced, if we consider the period just since Sep29.2000, the Jews have killed almost 8 times as many Palestinians as the Palestinians have killed Jews. Source. 

And so, to apply your logic to the actual facts, we should ask who is it that has a right to defend themselves???  The people whose land has been stolen and occupied, and who are being butchered by the occupiers, or the people who invaded from Europe, stole the land through terrorist tactics, and then developed nuclear arms by lying the the US, the UN, and the entire world.  Who is it that is deserving of self-defense. 

And then you admit the criminality of Israel's actions by freely admitting that what GoI is doing is punishing the Palestinians.  There is no theory, percept, or rule of law that permits any country or people to punish any other country or people for any reason.  Only an international court of law has that right in a civilized world. 

I will conclude with a question for all the humanitarians out there. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clearly stated at the outset of this incursion that his objective is to restore a sustainable quiet for the citizens of Israel. We have already established that it is the responsibility of every government to ensure the safety and security of its people. If political leaders and military experts determine that the only way to achieve its goal of sustaining quiet is through genocide is it then permissible to achieve those responsible goals?  

Your question "for all the humanitarians out there" seals the deal on what a prick  you are and presents a bloody "solution" that is predicated on the judgments of the same criminals who are stealing the land of the people that you advocate should be killed.  Your query is precisely the same as asking whether it was permissible for the Nazis to solve the Jewish problem by genocide once the Nazi leaders determined that genocide was the only solution.  Your mental processes are as twisted as theirs. 

Allow me to re-phrase your query, partly to clean up the busted grammar/punctuation and partly to reflect the reality of Israel and Palestine.  

I would put your question this way:

Given Israel's goal of running all of the Palestinians out of Gaza and the West Bank so that Jews can occupy the entire region from the Dead Sea to the Mediterranean, if the Zionist Jews and their military experts determine that genocide is the only way to achieve that goal, then is genocide a permissible means for doing so?

My answer to such a proper paraphrasing of  your loaded question would be this:

If Israel continues in its current genocidal program, then Israel should face the most extreme economic sanctions possible and its leaders should be arrested and should be tried before the International Criminal Court.  And if that does not have the desired effect, then the superpowers should combine forces to protect the Palestinians, and enforce the boundaries of the 1947 UN Resolution, and remove all nuclear arms from the region, by force if necessary. 

But as to your basic query Is genocide "permissible?"  Only a psychopath would even ask such a question, IMO.












Copyright, Denis O'Brien, 2005-2016 ~ ~ All rights reserved.