It's all in the Semantics
by Matt Giwer, © 2011 [Oct 7]
If it is called a humanitarian war instead of Kosovar Secession it is fine to
bomb Bosnia. If it is called a war of liberation instead of a war to restore
the Kuwaiti monarchy is it OK to bomb Iraq. If it is called a territorial
dispute instead of a criminal, dictatorial tyranny is it just swell to oppose
freedom from foreign oppression for the Palestinians.
It is all in the semantics.
If the Palestinians are called terrorists instead of freedom fighters
conducting a lawful resistance against a despotic, foreign military
occupation in accordance with international law then their lawful human right
to self-determination can be rejected. If their human rights can be rejected
then the Israeli dictatorship can be made the final authority on the
worthiness of Palestinians to have basic human rights even though deprivation
of them is a crime against humanity.
If Israel's criminal squatter-towns in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and
the Golan Heights are called settlements and the war criminals living in them
called settlers then one is not looking at the facts on the ground as they
are. For years Israel declares it squatter-towns have a lawful military
purpose under the Geneva convention because they are for the defense of
Israel against Jordan. For the record everyone who understood military
defense requirements snickered at people ignorant enough to believe the claim
they were lawful.
Giving them a different name after a peace treaty is signed with Jordan does
not make them other than the criminal violations of the 4th Geneva Convention
they always were. They have always been war crimes. The people who support
them, permit them to exist and who live in them for any reason are war
criminals needing a trip to the Hague or Nuremberg for the short rope
War crimes do not have a statute of limitations. These criminals can and must
be pursued for their crimes to their dying day. The world must show it does
not tolerate such crimes even if it means a repetition of Nuremberg.
Following orders is not an excuse. Wanting a better life is not an excuse.
Religious fervor is not an excuse. Being a Jew should increase the penalties
as Jews should know better.
It is also semantics in the distinctions which are not made.
If the distinction between a domestic tyranny and a foreign tyranny is never
made one does not have to address the fact that Israeli has operated a
foreign tyranny since 1967. Without the distinction one could pretend
Ghaddafi's tyranny was no different from what Israel is doing. Of course it
always sounds like a little boy whining, "But Billy's Mom lets him do it," no
matter how it is phrased.
Nor does it highlight the fact it is the only foreign tyranny in the Arab
world and the longest running foreign tyranny in all the world. If the
distinction were made then it would be clear Israel has never been
singled out for unjust criticism of it despotic tyranny over the
Palestinians. It is the only exogenous tyranny in the world.
If one mixes meanings such as equating the Palestinians with the Arab
countries which have attacked Israel one can talk as though the Palestinians
have attacked Israel. It is common for the defense of Israel's crimes Arab
countries which have attacked Israel and then switch to the generic term Arab
to describe Palestinians. Clever semantics there switching from using Arab as
an adjective to a noun to imply the Palestinians made war on Israel which
they never have.
Another semantic misuse of Arab is to make no distinction between Arab
culture and Arabs as a nationality. Egyptians have been Egyptians for six
thousand years. They happened to adopt Arab culture a bit over one thousand
years ago. So also the Palestinians have been in Palestine for at least 2500
years (Herodotus mentions them by name) while they adopted the culture about
the same time as Egypt. Arabs as a group are only those from Saudi Arabia. It
was a culture spread not only by the religion of Islam but one readily
adopted for its innate superiority at the time.
If one simply does not use well defined words like theft one can excuse the
theft of Palestinian lands under the absentee owner laws of 1949. Note this
is after independence in 1948. Conquest is only sovereignty. It is never
ownership. The two concepts are regularly deliberately confused by apologists
for jewish land theft in Palestine in the past and on-going land theft in the
West Bank and Jerusalem today.
The theft under color of law can appear reasonable unless one also says those
who tried to return to their property were murdered as infiltrators. This
even applied to the Palestinians forced into ghettos by the Jews. If they
were found outside their ghettos after curfew they were also murdered. This
makes it theft under color of law. Similar thefts were from Jews during WWII
for which Jews rightfully demand justice for themselves but not for the
victims of the Jews.
I have introduced the most powerful semantic confusion of all. I have used
Jews not Zionists and not Israelis and I have not used the unnecessary
qualifier of some. This is very politically incorrect. It is also accurate
I said forced into ghettos by Jews not Israelis and not Zionists and not by
some Jews. All the Zionists were Jews. The terms are interchangeable. All the
Israelis were not Jews so Israelis is not interchangeable. Should I not say
some Jews? The Jewish monologue on Israel never says only some Arabs want to
drown Jews in the sea. Semantics can be both corrected and misused in the
same manner to the same effect. Either the use of some is not necessary or it
is necessary in all cases. Selective use is sows advantageous semantic
confusion when political correctness governs the selectivity.
In fact when it comes to the despotic, military dictatorship over the
Palestinians it is also perfectly correct to describe it as as despotic,
jewish, military dictatorship. Israel insists it is a Jewish state so it is
only following Israel's insistence to use Jewish and Israeli interchangeably.
It is not an Israeli dictatorship as only Jewish Israelis support it. Because
of the non-Jewish minority Israel is less Jewish than the US is Christian.
Calling the dictatorship Jewish is what Israel wants it to be called.
Despite the running hypocrisy there are only a few fringe, jewish groups such
as Naturei Karta which truly oppose the actions of Jewish Israel. I know of
none that demand the Palestinian refugees receive the same justice regarding
the property stolen from them by jewish Israelis as Israel demands for Jews
from Germany, Poland, Hungary and a host of other countries involved in WWII.
Hypocrisy is seeing Jews position themselves as champions of minority rights
in countries where they are a minority making it a matter of self-interest.
As the majority in Israel they debate the best way to get rid of the
non-Jewish minorities. Everything but using cattle cars as a means of
expulsion has been openly discussed in the Israeli political arena. Perhaps
that is to be expected but it does not excuse the existence of jewish
advocacy groups for minority rights in every country but Israel where they
promote only the Jewish majority.
What country would defend the rights of Jews around the world and demand
respect for their customs, traditions and sacred places while building a
Museam of "Tolerance" on a confiscated Muslim graveyard?
That is a problem but the solution is also in the semantics. Pretend the
subject is not minorities in a country. Lets change the context for using
minority but only for propaganda benefit to Jewish Israel. Lets change from
minority in a country to minority in the world.
Jews are a minority in the world so its rampant Jim Crow laws and
discriminatory housing laws that are criminal in the US are just fine for
Israel. In fact because there is only one jewish nation in the world it is a
minority and therefore cannot be held to the standards of democracies. It
cannot be held to the standard that a democracy is a nation for all of its
people. Israel is for Jews making it not both Jewish and Democratic but a
jewish democracy a hypocritic imitation of the real thing. It is like
declaring the US is a White, Christian nation.
According to Jewish Israel it cannot be held to any higher standard than the
worst country in the world. If they can find a country which practices
slavery Israel can have slavery too. In fact white slavery is as common in
Israel as were Speakeasys in the US during prohibition.
And if the different semantics of minority can apply around the world then it
can apply throughout history. For example Americans cannot object to stealing
land from the Palestinians because of what was done to the Indians. Perhaps
this is more guilt trip than semantics but as what was done to the Indians is
today considered genocide this appears to be an admission that Jews are
committing genocide and apparently proud of it.
But the semantics considers acts in the past to prohibit present day
critcism. The genocide of the Palsetinians cannot be criticized by Americans
because it was done to the Indians. This is also a good riff to pocket for
the future so that when the Jews enslave the Palestinians they can say
America once had slavery so Americans cannot object.
It is acceptable in jewish political discourse in Israel to refer to
Palestinians as slaves using the bible euphemism "carriers of water and
hewers of wood."
This gets us back to the semantics of race. It is also acceptable in
political discourse to refer to the Arabs as a race and Jews as a race. The
majority of both are Caucasians and thus the same race. Again, were they
different races the crime against humanity of Apartheid would apply. So
anyone who disagrees is accusing jewish Israelis of Apartheid both in the
occupied territories and inside Israel itself. The meaning is governed by the
convention not by trivial differences. This is why Zionism is not racism;
Palestinians and Jews are the same race.
The origin of the Yahweh Cult