You are herecontent / The Right to Exist: Who Has It? Where Is It? Why?
The Right to Exist: Who Has It? Where Is It? Why?
"The Right To Exist: Who has it? Where is it? Why?"
By Gary Corseri
Does Israel have a “right to exist”? Do we?
It’s a shibboleth of the Zionist entity: “Israel has the right to exist!”
But what is this “Israel”? What is this “right to exist”?
Where is it written? Is it in Holy Scripture? “The Song of Songs”? “The Book of Job”? “Proverbs”? “Ecclesiastes”?
Is it written in stone on two tablets by the finger of God?
What does it mean when a people declare that they have the “right to exist” as they please because they are a “democracy,” but other people have no such right? I solemnly declare my elections legitimate—the will of my people--, but … it is obvious that you people over there
(in Gaza, in Turkey, in Iran, etc.) do not have the capacity to choose leaders who can represent your true interests!
What does that mean?
Israel refuses to negotiate with Hamas—will not recognize the political leadership that the Palestinians chose in internationally monitored elections—because, Israel declares, Hamas will not recognize Israel’s “right to exist.”
And why should Hamas recognize that “right”? What is always unspoken are the words, “the right to exist as we are now, as we have been, and
as we shall become.” Recognize me, and suffer all my faults! Recognize my right to exist as I am, have been and will be—and forfeit
your right to challenge me legally for illegal seizures of property, for expropriations and appropriations, for illegitimate detainments,
incarcerations, torture, homicides.
In effect, Israeli commandos unilaterally declared that Aid Activists on a flotilla in international waters had no “right to exist.”
When Ahmadinijead of Iran quoted the Ayatollah Khomeini that the Zionist entity would wither away and disappear from the page of
history, the entity and its media stooges in the U.S. and elsewhere accused Iran of threatening to “wipe Israel off the map of the earth.” Israel declared Iran an “existential threat” and threatened, in turn, to destroy the Iranians with the 200 nuclear weapons that they will neither confirm nor deny possessing (even though everyone knows they
have them!).
Orthodox Jews, including the ultra-conservative Hasidim, are among those most loudly proclaiming that the state of Israel has “no right
to exist.” Their viewpoint is hermeneutical: they believe that Israel will be established among the nations after the Mashiach (the Messiah) comes. They believe it is heretical for politicians to reverse the process. First the Mashiach, then the state. That’s the way they read the Hebrew.
Then, do Orthodox Jews have the “right to exist”? (At last report, Israel had not threatened them with its nuclear bombs).
“We the people” in the infant republic of the United States, did not think much about the existence of Native Americans, women or slaves. Some three score years after our founding, we did not think Mexico had a “right to exist” north of the Rio Grande. We did not think Hawaii had the right to exist as a sovereign nation. Nor, in spite of promises made at the time of the Spanish-American War, did we think the Philippines had the “right to exist” as anything other than a U.S. colony in Asia (we needed the coaling stations!).
Is it simply power that determines the “right to exist”?
During the Cold War, the US and its allies decided the Soviet Union had no right to exist. We were prepared to obliterate the world to prove our point—certain nutjobs among us were. One of our soldiers, a Lieutenant Calley, thought he was “just following orders” when he decided that hundreds of villagers in a hamlet called My Lai in Vietnam—unarmed men, women and children—had no “right to exist.” He “wasted” them.
Does the U.N. determine who has the “right to exist”? Does Tibet have that right? Does Palestine? Does Kurdistan?
Suppose the good people of Vermont decide that they are sick and tired of bank bail-outs, oligopolies, kakistocracies, phony American elections, our media of the absurd, oil-slick corporations with more legal rights than “persons,” and artery-clogging, greasy fast food? In a sterling, transparent, democratic election, the vast majority of the state elects leadership that claims its place among the nations of the world as “The Glorious, Independent, Technicolor, Outstanding Republic of Vermont” (which a media wag soon dubs the “GIT OUT of “R” Vermont republic). Does the Glorious, Independent, Technicolor, Outstanding Republic of Vermont have the right to exist?
The Zionist state demands the right to exist as a Zionist state—a non-signatory of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, bristling with nuclear weapons. Did Yahweh come out of the clouds and declare that this state alone can break all the rules of international decorum with
impunity, without censure?
When did Yahweh make that announcement? Was it on the Rachel Maddow show? Was it on Larry King?
If there is a "right to exist," is there not an equal right to resist--occupation, oppression, thievery, rape, duplicity?
Suppose we started from the other end? Suppose we assumed that no one had the “right to exist,” but that everyone—and every species—could
enjoy the “privilege” of existence? How would we order the world then?
The Zionist zealots ask, Why don’t the Palestinians produce a Gandhi, a Martin Luther King to lead them? But where is the Zealots’ Martin Buber--a Jew who exhorted the Jews, and all humankind, to live in harmony with others—with different species, too—with God, too—in an “I
and Thou” relationship?
The Zealots have raided the Kingdom of Heaven. Like Lucifer, the Angel of Light, they will be transmogrified by their pride and arrogance, and lust for power. And … they will fall, corrupted from within.
###
Gary Corseri has posted and published articles, fiction, poetry and dramas at After Downing Street, Dissident Voice, Common Dreams, CounterPunch, Dissident Voice, The New York Times, Village Voice and hundreds of other venues internationally. His books include the novels, A FINE EXCESS and HOLY GRAIL, HOLY GRAIL.
- Login to post comments
-
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
The following article, which is short, but important, by Ilan Pappe is relevant when considering the above article, as well as the rest of this post.
"The Deadly Closing of the Israeli Mind
The decline in Israel's reputation since the brutal attack on the Gaza flotilla is unlikely to influence the country's leaders"
by Ilan Pappe, PlanetaryMovement.org, Jun 7 2010
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19650
Now I'll make some comments on the article by Gary Corseri.
What it means is that they're lying and psychopathic, violent sociopaths. They lie about Israel being a democracy, for only Jews in Israel, or maybe (?) all Jews, regardless of where they reside, have the so-called right right to vote in Israeli elections; while the non-Jewish population of Israel is denied this right. Or that's what I've read plenty of times anyway in feature articles posted at www.globalresearch.ca.
To say that we have a democracy and others can't is to be psychopathic, or incredibly idiot.
And it's sociopathic, if we don't violently act against other people's democracies, but this clearly is not the case with Israel towards Palestinian democracy. So these Israelis are psychopathic; while this is only one of many examples of proof that these Israelis are psychopaths.
Ilan Pappe doesn't use the word "psychopath" in his above article, but it's nevertheless what he very much depicts of Israeli leadership and very many Jews in Israel. They're not real Jews, but they obviously are too psychotic to be able to realize this.
Very true, BUT Hamas hasn't said that they won't recognize Israel's right to exist. They've only said that they will not accept to do this until the recognition is reciprocated, which the psychopathic Israeli leadership and its demented supporters refuse to do. If Israel recognized and respected the Palestinians' right to exist in their country, then this would be reciprocated by the Palestinians, including the Hamas leadership.
THIS IS what Hamas has said a good number of times.
Not really. The IDF commandos might have literally spoken those words, but what Israel really did effectively do was to violently send the message that its leadership has no intention of allowing aide ships to reach Gaza; and, in doing this, Israel effectively tells the world that it will continue its criminal seige on and genocide against Gazans. It's all about stealing whatever the Israelis want of the Palestinians' lands and resources, which, strategically, requires diminishment of the Palestinian population there, but the intention is also to steal virtually all that still remains of Palestine.
SEE ILAN PAPPE's above article.
Israeli leadership doesn't care much about whether the Free Gaza Movement and associated activists and groups thereof exist or not; as long as they don't get in the way of the plans of the psychopathic Israeli leadership and their rich Zionist associates.
I use the word "psychopath" a lot, eh. Well, it's kind of a habit when I speak, write or think about psychopaths; of which Israeli leadership is only one example, unfortunately.
We know that at least nine of the Mavi Marmara activists were very quickly murdered. And the nine were all Turks.
Some people are saying that around 15 passengers, in total, were murdered and that it's mainly news media that have been reporting nine. Whatever the total is, were they are Turkish? If they were or nearly all of them were, then Turkish activists for Palestinian rights would certainly seem to be activists that Israel does want to eliminate; permanently.
Otherwise, none of the other passengers, of anywhere between 500 to 700 (the span of numbers I've read and heard for the passengers on the Mavi Marmara, alone), were killed and by far most of them have been deported. So Israel clearly isn't prepared to terminate the existence of these or most other pro-Palestinian activists who go and try to go in to Gaza. Israel will try to prevent them from reaching Gaza and has had "aide" from neighbouring countries or govts for this, but relatively very few activists have been physically harmed, so far.
We also don't read or hear of pro-Palestinian activists being attacked, physically, that is, elsewhere. And Israel does not go after Palestinians in other countries. It refuses right of return for them, but doesn't go after them to end their existence.
It's the Palestinians still in Palestine who are treated as a problem by the psychopathic Israeli leadership and its demented "Jewish" supporters. It's the existence of these Palestinians that the Israeli leadership and its supporters want to terminate, and the termination can be with them "simply" leaving their ancestral home of their own "free" will.
The Israeli leadership and its demented supporters would accept to let the Palestinians still in Palestine leave of their own "free" will and might give them an extra hand in order to get them out of their ancestral home as fast as possible; speeding up the "freely" chosen departure.
Maybe the extreme violence by the IDF commandos on the Mavi Marmara was only due to the HUNDREDS of activists on this large aide ship. I've read that the number of activists was anywhere between 500 or 550 and 700, and this is a number of activists that would cause extreme violence for Israeli reaction. I have read and heard that the other ships in the flotilla were either not violently attacked, or that the violence was much less severe. So there was definitely something that caused the extreme violence to the Mavi Marmara passengers.
I don't think it's because it originally sailed out of Turkey, after having changed the ship's flag to the one of the Comoros Islands around May 20th according to Craig Murray; while John Quigley (a new name for or to me) didn't specify a date for the flag change, but did also say that the ship was flying the Comoros flag. But if the extreme violence towards this ship's passengers was due to the ship having sailed from Turkey, then why weren't more passengers treated with extreme violence?
It's possible that only the identified Turkish passengers were attacked with the most extreme violence because Israel might have decided that they were the organizer's of the trip for this ship; I suppose. And maybe they were, for I don't know who the organizer's for the Mavi Marmara were.
But the fact that it had 500 to 700 activist passengers would surely cause the Israeli leadership to explode. The other ships in the flotilla might have had a lot of passengers, but surely nowhere as many as the Mavi Marmara, which, alone, probably had more passengers than the other ships in the flotilla combined; I am guessing.
That's a heck of a lot of activists and given Israel's conduct towards the Palestinians the Lebanese for a LONG time now, we could certainly expect that extreme reaction is what would come from Israel with this many activists heading to Gaza.
It's not the existence of pro-Palestinians activists that is the "problem" for Israel. It's their [presence] that's the "problem".
See the article by Ilan Pappe linked at the top of my first post!
That's well stated in terms of what the Iranian leadership had actually said, and what it did not say. However, Israel has, once anyway, admitted to being nuclear-armed and being prepared to use these arms.
I recall having heard an Israeli "leader" a few years ago state that Israel was nuclear-armed, but since I don't recall precisely which of them it was I am trying to find an article or video, at least one, that provides this information.
The following clip is poor, for it is cut short just as then PM Olmert is, as a best guess, saying that Israel, along with the US, France and Russia, is nuclear-armed. Knowing on what date he was speaking would help to try to find video clips of this that are not cut short.
"Olmert lets slips Israel has Nuclear weapons"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hcXJTD51ro
The following seems to indicate what the date or moment was and says that he did admit to Israel having nuclear weapons. What's quoted in the article also tells me that the above video is not really cut short; just that it appeared that way to me when viewing it some minutes ago.
Flashback: "Olmert Admits Israel has Nuclear Weapons"
by Ben Quinn, The Telegraph, Dec. 13, 2006
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/140130-Olmert-Admits-Israel-has-Nuclea...
He did not quite explicitly say that Israel has nuclear weapons, but it's not a bad guess that it's what he was saying; and it's the most accurate assessment of what he was saying, I believe. After all, France, the US and Russia are nuclear-armed, and they have not been agreement against Iran's nuclear energy program. Sometimes Russian leadership caves in, but it's gone back-and-forth regarding Iran's nuclear energy program.
If then PM Olmert only meant that "France, America, Russia and Israel" have a right to dictate to Iran, and to punish it if its leadership refuses to be compliant, then there's a bit of a problem with this, for Russia has often sided with Iran's right to nuclear power development; and the IAEA has repeatedly reported that there is no evidence for Iran having a nuclear weapons program.
The Times, UK, also has an article about what then PM Olmert said and the outrage or stir it caused in Israel.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article752059.ece
I'm not sure it was him I had heard in news media footage say that Israel has nuclear weapons. It wasn't in print. It was camera, televised footage.
While I agree with others who posted about former PM Olmert's words certainly seeming to be a definite inference that Israel is nuclear-armed, he strikes me as more softly spoken than the the Israeli "leader" I was first thinking to recall having heard and only forgetting which one it was. From what I recall the tone of whatever Israeli "leader" who was speaking was sharper, meaner, nastier, ..., and he clearly, but very briefly, said Israel was nuclear-armed and that Israel would be prepared to use these weapons against Iran.
The words clearly, explicitly said that Israel was nuclear-armed; but the part about being prepared to use these against Iran might not have been totally explicit. The latter part might have "only" been an unmistakably clear inferrence. The admittance that Israel was nuclear-armed, however, was clearly said with additional words that made it clear that the person speaking was using this as a threat against Iran.
Was it Olmert? Not based on the above articles and video. So was it Barak or Peres, or another Israeli "leader"? I think so. But it's very difficult to find articles and videos for this using Web searches. I surely once had bookmarks for this, but this or these probably got lost with bookmarks I deleted over the past year; or they're in a bookmarks file on my old Win 2000 disk that is not presently connected. And I'm not going to try to check that now.
Re. the question; if they don't make trouble for the psychopathic Israeli Zionists.
Re. the parenthesized part, Israel couldn't do that without admitting that it is nuclear-armed, which the article says that, to the author's knowledge, Israeli leaders haven't yet done this.
Re. the Orthodox Jews, the article is right, but omits that they also believe in the Torah's Ten Commandments; and I'm meaning to refer to the ones stating, "Thou shalt not murder" and "Thou shalt not steal". Of course referring to the commandment about there being only one God and that only He shall be worshipped is also fitting when considering the psychopathic and greedy Zionists, and their supporters. They clearly don't worship Him.
We frequently hear and read the first two commandments being used by the various religious Jews against Zionism today.
Amen!
And, given the strong similarity to British, American, ... imperialists, colonialists, ... with their extreme wickedness, genocidal ways, greed, ..., it seems fitting to include them in the above-quoted closing of the article.
I doubt any of them will ever get to step foot in Heaven though. So this is a little difference from the story of Lucifer. Of course they're also not angels, and I've never seen anything analogous to light coming from them; but there's still enough similarity between them and Lucifer, and they're not likely to ever step foot into Heaven. They will not be able to find the entrance and will be in either pitch darkness, or flames; whatever.
Figuratively speaking, anyway