just something to say

Posts Tagged ‘Palestine


leave a comment »


It’s an iron wall, a psychological wall. Hard to break through. The worst. Nevertheless, it doesn’t need anything more than what words can do to implement the power of those who found out the way to benefit of it.
First, terrorism. It should be the murderous and residual weapon of what’s supposed to be the weaker party. States with regular armies shouldn’t need to use terrorism. They do. Because it’s often cheaper and always misleading. Moreover, as they decide who is terrorist and who is not, they can use this mere noun as a powerful weapon, so that, by labelling the enemy in front of the world, they are able to cover all what they can’t reach with ordinary arms. It’s the strength of politics and deception.
What happens in Palestine without this word terrorism? What happens without the anti-semitism bullets, i.e. the Holocaust exploitation based on the blind sense of guilt of Europe, on the inner bad faith of the Zionists and on crass ignorance of a great part of the world?
And money…
And what happens – last but not least – without US money that was gained by blackmail thanks the Israel Lobby? In this latter respect, Israeli financing itself through the Lobby is the most profitable investment one can imagine. Pay one, gain hundreds.
Money, yes. That is not psychological. By the way, I would argue that there are also some people in the neighborhood, now and then, that sell their dignity and their brothers’ life for some loose change. But we can try not to unite people’s attitude with their leaders’ behaviour.

Heavy burden, then, upon Palestinian shoulders. I guess the last sixty years of Palestine history would have been otherwise very different. On the contrary, although Israelis have been experiencing a mere prevedibile reaction to any occupation, have benefited – since no one dares to expose their egregious crimes, thanks the omnipresent antisemyth-weapon – of the yearly award for the luckiest occupiers in the world.

Written by pipistro

September 17, 2013 at 4:48 pm

Got it?

leave a comment »

Written by pipistro

May 3, 2013 at 4:51 pm

Posted in Palestine

Tagged with

UNSC Resolution 242

leave a comment »

A norm must be interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of the language, unless the result would be absurd. Moreover, a norm must have a practical meaning, otherwise it would be void and useless. In this respect, it is obvious and necessary, firstly, to confer a meaning to the norm, even if its litteral content is ambiguous, instead of assessing that the norm has no meaning at all. Or, worse, conferring to it a meaning at will.
Insofar as UNSC Resolution 242 must have a meaning, otherwise being it absurd/useless, saying it requires an indeterminate withdrawal from (…) occupied territories would mean nothing, leaving undecided the rule dictated by the norm itself. And this is impossible.
A simple application of this principle is that Security Council Resolution 242 has a sole possible and almost litteral meaning. It requires Israel to withdraw from 100% of the territories occupied in the Six Day War. The goal of different interpretations whatsoever (as the one which claims that its extent is set on the necessity of subsequent direct negotiations between the parties) is aimed at devoiding the norm of any actual meaning. And that’s absurd and unlawful as well.
The try of depriving it of any meaning is unlawful and ineffective even if it’s endorsed by the very persons who, for opportunism, politics, or any other reason, purposedly gave it an ambiguous formulation.
In this respect, any interpretations aimed at sinking that norm, all the more if coming from Lord Caradon or others who purposedly have tried to take off any meaning from it, is ineffective and illegitimate, as the norm, once it has taken life, is in any case subordinated to the International Law, no more to political pressures, nor to the fancy of those who may have drafted it in bad faith and/or with reservations.
Moreover, insofar as the Resolution stated the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”, and the relevant territories were undoubtely the whole of West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza, Golan and Sinai, any different understanding would be illogical, before being unlawful.

Written by pipistro

December 22, 2012 at 10:37 pm

From octopus to cuttlefish

leave a comment »

Weakened by the vote of the General Assembly of the United Nations and the embarrassing ability of Palestinians of Gaza to stay alive in spite of the abysmal disparity of forces in the field, the drift pro-Israel limps. The Italian lobbyists fume in a desperate attempt to gain ground, now lost, that the history and the widespread move towards a fairer system refuse to grant, confining them to the edge of the ridiculous. While the state of Israel earns full widespread definition of rogue state, embraces and exposes his war policies and apartheid, the remnants of home israelism insist on spreading as they can – by the usual bad press and networks – a message now turned into lie in a desperate attempt to “facere de albo nigrum.” From octopus to cuttlefish, in fact.

Written by pipistro

December 1, 2012 at 7:49 pm


with one comment

Provocation, reaction, disproportionate retaliation. Warning, it’s the same old trap, and now the Israeli warmongers are moving in a hurry. On the one hand, the PA circulated a draft resolution at UN in order to upgrade Palestine status as observer state, on the other hand, Hamas is getting recognition from all around the Arab world. Israel is scared. The (fake) issue of Iran nukes is cooling down a bit. Obama won the election. The risk, now, is the renewed search for a solution of the conflict, just while Israel hawks were on the way to ethnic-cleanse, little by little, the whole of the occupied territories. [1][2]
Warning! There’s another cast lead crime in sight.

[1] “We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, ‘What is to be done with the Palestinian population?’ Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said ‘Drive them out!’” (Yitzhak Rabin, July 1948, in occasion of the conquest of Lydda and Ramla)

[2] “We’ll make a pastrami sandwich of them, … we’ll insert a strip of Jewish settlements in between the Palestinians, and then another strip of Jewish settlements right across the West Bank, so that in 25 years’ time, neither the United Nations nor the United States, nobody, will be able to tear it apart.” (Ariel Sharon, 1973, talking to W. Churchill III about Zionists’ aims)

Written by pipistro

November 10, 2012 at 7:23 pm


leave a comment »

Between 150 and 170 nations out of the 193 UN member states will vote in favor of the Palestinian status upgrade at the UN.
On the Jerusalem Post a sickening remark: “Such an upgrade could nevertheless be uncomfortable for Israel. Being registered as a state rather than an entity would mean the Palestinians could join bodies such as the International Criminal Court and file complaints against Israel for its continued occupation”.
Who says thugs and madmen don’t know to be as such?

Written by pipistro

October 19, 2012 at 9:39 pm

Dunno-state solution

leave a comment »

Most people think that the best scenario possibly rising from the Israel-Palestine conflict, would be the two-state solution. Agreed, if the future Palestinian State were a sovereign state and not a scheduled series of bantustans, without any freedom and autonomy.
In facts, the issue has been floating above Palestinian lives, and inside their minds, for over sixty years without coming to nothing.
The alleged viable two-state alternative, for Israel and US, contemplates a fake “Palestinian entity”, disconnected, entirely submitted to the needs of the nearest Jewish State. Without arms, nor army, without control over its (uncertain) boundaries and over water resources. A little bit more – or less – than what was designed as the “generous offer” of which they talked in Camp David, with lot of reserves, and maybe some more. And – of course – other contingent obstacles as they please.
That’s not viable, nor acceptable, it’s nothing. I wish I were wrong, but Israeli behaviour, the dishonest brokering of the US, the irresponsible lightness of Europe and the ineffectiveness of the UN – due to the power of veto – don’t make us think anything but that.
Useless, then, would be the resume of a neverending process, that, we can say, is fraudulently destined to implement a “no-state” solution.
Hence, the so called two-state solution seems unfortunately dead and gone. And this happens owing to the last two decades of savage increasing of the settlements, with the indiscrimate violations of International rules made by the occupier. Thus, we could say that the most desirable solution was killed, or brought to suicide by the State of Israel.
And on the one hand, it’s not important what the mainstream is willing to accept, in theory, if it’s not even thinkable. On the other hand, it’s arguable that the alternative one-state solution would be a walk in the park.
Rather, it’s a hard one-way path toward the sole solution that somehow, as of today, has been left alive.
And sure will take a long way. As a matter of fact, there is nothing but hope, that indicates it should be less painful than a slow and bloody not-so-cold war.
Maybe it will lead to the slow death of the Zionist project. Maybe. But I don’t think that the radical Zionist dreamers will have to blame anyone, more than themselves, or the irresponsible choice of their leaders. Moreover, I think the short sight of a lobbying activity without frontiers will require, if possible, even more time.

Written by pipistro

June 14, 2012 at 4:34 pm

European lightness and sense of guilt

leave a comment »

The EU attitude toward the Israel-Palestine issue suffers, from grassroots, for a fundamental misunderstanding. In fact, the sense of guilt of the Europeans for the horrors of Holocaust has finished to set the accent on improbable merits of the Jewish people, somehow, for having been deported and slaughtered, rather than base on the very crimes of the Nazis, and over that on the guilty conduct of the European nationals themselves.
It has been a sort of auto-absolution for having been mainly the by-standers – whether not partners in crime – in front of the Nazi sistematic annihilation of European Jews. Thereafter, it has been easier to forget their own guilt and somewhat erase their past injustice (by implementing racial laws, favouring the transfer of millions to their deadly destiny), attributing a sort of safe-conduct for any Israeli following misconduct.
Thus, the Europeans feel to justify themselves with the Jewry by putting the blame for the outcomes of Israeli greed in colonization of Palestinian soil on their very victims.

Moreover, since Israel was born in 1948, the world had got obviously an almost total lack of real information on the ground, whereas the conflict in the region went on hiding the substantial overpowering of the Palestinian and Arab militias by the Israeli military, while the ignorant peoples in Europe, would be deceived with the fancy fight of a fake David against an equally not existent Goliath. A fiction that keeps till now its remarkable power on the European popular knowledge of the issue.
So, as it were not enough the dishonest brokering of the US and the Israeli greed, a strange European mix of ignorance and guilt is, as of today, further motive for the implementation and conservation of Palestinian misery.

Then, without mentioning here, for now, US influence, we have the power of the media, inasmuch as propaganda in Europe is fit to overwhelm the lack of interest of her citizens for anything be far from their daily western life, unless it puts in jeopardy their welfare, even if only in pure theory. To prove it, just a look at the fallout of 911 is enough, whereas the so called islamic terrorism has hit Europe mainly as a sort of general paranoid, and past unease raised from their internal issues.

As a matter of fact, Palestinians suffer today also for European lightness, ignorance, and distorted feeling of guilt.

Written by pipistro

June 10, 2012 at 3:33 pm

Obama, the song remained the same

leave a comment »

I do not like to be the one who says, “I told you so”, but… on March 1, 2008, I happened to post, under the title, Obama, the song remains the same, that Barack (pronounced: barak) Hussein Obama, was an ironic triptych of names that seemed a path from the preordained failure of Camp David to the Twin Towers, rising from Iraqi former Rais. Nomen omen – I had added – let’s hope not.

But I had also recalled that, looking back to Obama’s comments in May 2007, Shmuel Rosner, Washington correspondent for Haaretz, had noted that the black candidate towards Israel was as strong as Clinton, supportive as Bush and friendly as Giuliani. Concluding that the chap was “pro-Israel. Period.”
In that occasion I underlined, to his credit, in line with the democratic soul which formally had supported him, that it was said (Bill Fletcher Jr. of TransAfrica Forum) that Obama had opposed the invasion of Iraq and had had the courage to say so. But unfortunately it had been apparent, during the course of the year – along the presentation of his presidential candidacy in February 2007 in the USA – that the aspiring-emperor of the West would keep an absolutely uncritical attitude with respect to Israel. Really, an unabashed silence was what Obama had kept, first, in regard to the disproportionate campaign of Lebanon, about the attacks against the infrastructure, the illegal use of cluster bombs and the lies that the Jewish State had offered to justify the destruction wrought on civilian population in that country.

Anyway, in August 2007, the path chosen by Obama to pave its possible access to the White House with the support of the American Jewish community, had been marked. He had quickly denied the careless words spoken previously about the suffering of Palestinians in the Middle East, and he had took distance by Brzezinski, sinful to the highest degree for having abstained from the chorus of criticism against Jimmy Carter on the occasion of the publication of his book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid”. So he had kept his way, floating towards Israeli consent, by declaring his trust in the advice of Dennis Ross – former architect of the dubious “peace efforts” by Clinton at Camp David – for the issues related to the Middle East.

How can we be surprised, so, if in sight of a possible second mandate, Obama is not willing to change a successful recipe? Indeed it seems doubtful that such a pattern is to be considered immutable through the time, but as of today I would not feel to make a bet on such a major change of attitude – and relevant interests – in US politics.
Sure, Israel has not even tried to counter the feeling of progressive distrust, or worse, about its politics, if not with the hasbara blackmailing through the media. But still a little more time is needed to increase the percentage of young Americans – be they Jewish or not, it does not matter at all – ready to reject the growing situation of apartheid in Israel-Palestine and the warmongering attitude assumed for the time being against Iran.
But you really think that the western youth of 2012 is willing to wage war to 70 million of educated young people, mostly because of the rhetoric of their leaders? So much for the record, I really don’t believe that. Notwithstanding their ancestors’ past.

Anyway, in 2008 we happened to smell some perfume of change. Maybe a more careful look at the facts, and the sudden turnspeak (“that’s not Orwell”, I quote, “Orwell would never use such a clunky phrase”) of the future surprising winner of the Nobel Prize for Peace, would have unveiled the pretty different reality of the events, or un-events, or turnabouts, that we were to look at.
But if we can’t have a better glimpse to the future, next time we know there will be a little more to do before creating the havoc that we are destined to face because of the rooted unwillingness towards a real change.

Written by pipistro

May 30, 2012 at 8:40 pm

Posted in Iran, Lobby, USA, War

Tagged with , ,

Dershowitz rebuked by Israeli right wing

leave a comment »

What they say in a nutshell: “Israel has consistently been met with a wall of hatred (…) and still Dershowitz refuses to budge from his two-state model” (Arutz Sheva).
I might say that my hearth doesn’t bleed for that, since I don’t bet a damn on the simulacre of a two-state solution sponsored by Dershowitz. Being a lawyer, he must be of course – so to say – a professional liar. And maybe he’s proud of that. As legal counselor he makes his job, and he’s capable of legitimately advocating any factual crap in order to defend his case, whatever. Maybe his goal is not only for Israeli benefit, but rather for feeding his own peculiar individualism. By the way, he has confirmed his unabashed arrogance, fighting against Norman Finkelstein, who was trying to get his tenure at DePaul. Really, Dershowitz can’t conceal the fact that his initiative was clearly a revenge for having being exposed by Finkelstein as a plagiarist.
So, I can’t imagine anything worse for any peace process than a lawyer, who demonstrated to be vindictive and arrogant, since he calls himself equitable and assumes a fake-humanitarian role. Too bad that in doing so, his counsel to the Palestinians was that of forgetting their rights (e.g. under UN Resolution 242), in favour of the Israeli needs and desires. See, for instance, the forum at the JFK School of Government, in 2006, where he debated with Noam Chomsky.
I mean, there’s no need for another “generous offer” and its equally generous apologists.

As for the article on Arutz Sheva, I would not archive the file under the usual garbage section. But it’s pretty hard not to.
After the customary attack against any critics of Israel, and quickly tracing back anti-zionism to anti-semitism and stuff, the compiler tries to tear in pieces one hundred years of history, presenting, to the casual readers, a Jewish State thoroughly immaculate in relation to the harsh history of the evicted Palestinians. So candid towards the grabbing of land and seizing of peoples. Whereas, omitting the aggression and massacre, the subsequent leaving is depicted as a honest withdraw. (“The failed Oslo talks, the Al Aqsa Intifada, the rise of Hamas, the Second Lebanon War; when will we finally realize that they do not want peace? (…) When will we learn that any land given to them will only be a launching pad for future attacks against us?”)
No way to make them understand that handing back stolen land to the owner is neither a concession, nor a gift.

Written by pipistro

May 27, 2012 at 4:49 pm

Posted in Israel, Palestine

Tagged with , ,

%d bloggers like this: