The Tacitus Principle: How Israel and its Apologists Defend the Indefensible

Tom Usher wrote or added | This is an excellent effort to lay out the current Palestinian/Israeli conflict.

"The evidence for the claim that the IHH was "involved in planning an Al-Qaeda attack againstLos Angeles [sic] International Airport in 1999" is that a French magistrate by the name of Bruguière "testified that IHH had played '[a]n important role'" in the plot.

"The "French intelligence report" supporting the remainder of the claim turns out to be a motion filed in a French court: "Requisitoire [sic] Definitifaux [sic] aux Fins de Non-Lieu. De Non-Lieu partiel. De Requalification [sic]. De Renvoi devant le Tribunal Correctionnel, de mantien [sic] sous Controle [sic] Judiciaiare [sic] et de maintien en Detention [sic]" (Final Motion Concerning Dismissal, Partial Dismissal, Reclassification, Remand to the Criminal Court, Continued Judicial Supervision, and Continued Detention). This is, it bears emphasising, the only source cited for these claims in the Danish think tank's report.

"In other words, apart from grossly falsifying a press report, the press release cites the website of a think tank connected to the Israeli intelligence community, which itself cites no sources except for a Danish think tank's report that bases the claims on an unsupported assertion by a French judge and moving papers filed in court, which the press release helpfully misrepresents as an "intelligence report". QED."
"the first question is: Is Israel under armed attack? The only thing that could potentially be considered an armed attack within the meaning of Art. 51 are the attacks with crude, homemade rockets emanating from Gaza, which have, between 2001 and 2008, altogether claimed fewer lives within Israel (16) than an average month's traffic fatalities (37 based on 2008 figures). Thus, for our purposes, Israel can be considered to be under armed attack, ineffectual as it is."

That's an honest answer; however, the first question actually is as follows: "Is Israel a legitimate state?"

The answer is that it is not. A legitimate state cannot come into being via lies, ethnic cleansing, terrorism, war crimes, and other illegalities; however, those are exactly the tactics the Zionist regime has employed. Facts on the ground, as they call them, do not thereby make a legally recognized state. What other people has grabbed such large chunks of land since the end of WWII via such means? Would Tibet and/or Kashmir even qualify at this level of evil? Huge areas of the world have been at least nominally returned from a state of overt colonialism. The fact that there are remaining disputes in no way relieves the Zionists of the burden of proof concerning their legal ownership of the lands they occupy or possess.

I also commented on this story here:

Tom Usher

@ Jennifer Sullivan,

Your heart is in the right place!

The Zionists want everyone else to agree with the proposition that anyone delivering anything to the Gazans is aiding and abetting the "enemy," whom the Zionists also want everyone else to consider terrorists.

What the Zionists want least of all is 1) for the world to look directly at the fact that those Zionists are on stolen land for the most part. Very few Zionists actually purchased land under circumstances you or I would call fair or honest and 2) that we all stop thinking of them as being as moral as, or more moral than, average non-Zionists.

Victimization is always to be stated in terms of a one-way street where only "Jews" are victimized and never the victimizers.

David Kopelman above is a prime example of a screeder of false-propaganda all bent upon taking the focus off where it belongs. Of course, he's completely wrong about all the other issues he's raised in terms of where people of good conscience stand. He also knows that settling the Palestinian issue at least as much as the South African issue has been settled (still needs work), all the other sore spots he mentioned will get plenty of attention. It takes time and perseverance to swing a generation and the mainstream.

He wants us distracted and in a state of self-doubt over the rightness of the cause of liberating Gaza, which doesn't mean that any of us want the Gazans turning into abusers of Jews afterwards just as we would have been outraged had the Zulus and others conducted a reign of terror after the sanctions regime had worked against those of the Afrikaners who were White supremacist (as the Zionists are Jewish supremacists and the Nazis were "Aryan" supremacists, etc., etc.).

I know I'm stating the obvious here, but it bears repeating until it has overwhelmed the Big Lie tactics of the Zionists. We need to up the use of the Big Truth, not cave into Kopelman's tactics that the Zionists are spreading behind the scenes and even in the open all via their networks funded by very deep, greedy pockets.

Peace to all.

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.