August 9, 2006
Every day we hear political leaders (apparently terrified of being accused of antisemitism) trot out the same mantra "Israel has the right to defend itself" without imposing any limits or defining what this entity has the right to defend.
I have spent over half a century practising the law, not only in the international field at the highest level for years, but also, later on, criminal law under juridictions with very different judicial systems.
My experience leads me to question what a state - accepting for the sake of argument the thesis that this entity is indeed a state - has the right to defend.
In the past almost all those who now come out with this sentence made it clear, when it was in fashion, that they were horrified by the South African social system known as apartheid, under which the authorities enforced separation based on the colour of the skin of each citizen and on his or her ethnic origin.
I confirm that I shared this attitude and that I have always had a horror of any kind of discrimination based on race, ethnic origin or religion of individuals, and I admit no right for any state to impose laws in favour of this pratice. Our country has known this form of persecution when the Vichy government applied throughout the part of France which it controlled Nazi rules against those who were (according to the criteria of Theodor Herzl adopted by Hitler, and not Rabbinic criteria) Jews . With the return to sounder legislation in 1945, those who had taken part in the extermination of their fellow citizens on this ground became liable to punishment, going as far as the death penalty.
The proof of the crimes committed by the Zionists to establish their even more virulent form of apartheid than that are not lacking, and the repressive nature of their state is confirmed by the legislation promulgated by the Knesset, which is their parliament and by other regulations made by their government.
Starting with historical facts, we can take as an example the ethnic cleansing which started the Naqba (especially in 1947) when Zionist militias, which had previously tried to sabotage the war effort of the Allies, managed to empty a large part of Palestine of its native inhabitants. Among their methods were not only death threats but also terrible massacres of the inhabitants of whole villages, which were immediately flattened to remove them from the map.
In this sad time, we see the ravages which are going on not only in Palestine, but also in the Lebanon, for which the excuse is the capture of three of their occupation soldiers. The situation is clear, namely that for these brigands, the capture of their mercenaries justifies the thousands of prisoners and deaths of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians. These criminals (and I cannot hesitate to use this expression to describe the leaders who call themselves Israelis) make no distinction between genuine resistance fighters on the one hand and women and children, soem of whom might be members of their families, on the other. This rogue state also refuses to comply with a great number of Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.
This brings us to reflect on the history of the relations between the United Nations and this "state" of Israel which merits a small diversion. It is there that we find the root of the problem.
When, in 1947, the five permanent members of the Security Council, which at the time exercised complete control of the Organisation, decided (in direct contradiction with its Charter) to agree to discuss a plan to divide Palestine without any effective prior consultation with the native population. At the time, more than 90% of the land belonged to Arabs, some 7% to Zionist interests, and this explains the Zionist desire to carry out the ethnic cleansing. This division was in no way reflected in the plan published by the United Nations, which plan gave an enormous share of the land to the Zionists, proposed an international status for Jerusalem and suggested that the native inhabitants should be satisfied with what was left.
The interest which the five permanent members took in the question depended on their respective situations. China has its own problems and tokk no interest in a small country so far away - one has to remember that at the timle there were not the present day means of transport or of communications. The Soviets wished to get rid of a number of troublesome agitators and found this division could help them with this problem. The leaders of the two huge parties in the United States wanted to ensure thata they received the Jewish vote, in favour of the implantation of a Zionist state, and they wished it to be far away from their own land. The government of the United Kingdom believed strongly, as does Mr Blair in our time, that there exists a mythical Special Relationship, by which it recognised that it no longer had its Imperial power, and, in these conditions, it agreed to serve unfailingly the interests of the United States. France wished above all to keep the problems to the south of the frontiers of the Lebanon and Syria, of which it had obtained the control following the Sykes-Picot Pact and the division under this agreement of the Arab lands of the Ottoman Empire. It therefore accepted this deformation of the provisions of the United Nations Charter.
War ensued, because this artificial "state" wanted more, anf the original inhabitants wanted to keep their lands, and we all know the sad tale of the successive conquests by the invaders.
I have already mentioned the South African discriminatory laws, but those applied by the Zionists are much more complete.
First of all there are the laws of the Aliya, by which Zionist law makes a distinction between two categories of persons who have very different rights in the territories under the control of their armed forces. On the one hand, there are the Jews, according to the definition put forward by Herzl and adopted by Hitler, and their families - they have all the rights. On the other, there are the goyim who are tolerated, on condition of not interfering with the pleasures of the invaders.
To reinforce the laws of the Aliya , the Knesset has promulgated the laws known as those of absent proprietors, under which any land owner who has to leave his property can wish to come home only to find that his house has been confiscated and that it is now deemed to belong to a powerful Zionist organisation to be used to house a supposedly Jewish family. These same provisions apply to agricultural lands.
In addition there is the scandal of the villages in the Naqab. When the Zionists wish to take possession of houses and land in this region, occupied by Arabs officially "Israeli citizens", obviously of second class, they declare them to be "unauthorised villages", even when they have existed for centuries. They then proceed to the complete demolition of the houses and crops using bulldozers.
What is the justification for these actions by the Israelis ?
I can find no justification for defending these pratices and I challenge all politicianse to explain to me why I should condemn antisemitism directed against Jews, but not condemn antisemitism directed against Arabs. They should first realise that (by an enormous majority) most semites speak Arabic, and that the number who use the other semitic languages, such as Hebrew, Aramaic and Maltese are very much fewer in number. I condemn every form of racism and discrimination based of ethnic origins, and I refuse to keep quiet regarding Zionist crimes based on racist pratices - which are also explained by the guilty using unacceptable arguments according to which they are exempt from the limitations of international law.
Let us be honest and face up to the hypocrisy of politicians who reject justice, an essential prior condition to any form of peace, not only on the Near East but also in the whole world.
My conclusion is very simple, the Israelis have no right to defend their discriminatory "state", but they have the right to survive on condition of acting with justice towards all in habitants equally, which would meaan the end of their "Jewish state" to replace it by a democratic state.
There remains the responsability of all politicians to do what is necessary, and in the meantime, I beg them to stop saying thaat the Israelis have the right to do everything to "defend their state" in its present form.