I spoke to another person this weekend who was convinced that Israel is just using the rocket attacks perpetrated by Hamas is an “excuse” to further their “holocaust” and widen their “apartheid” against the Palestinian people.
Those two terms, by the way, are sort of mutually exclusive, but never you mind that.
Just so happens, he spends his winters in Apache Junction, Arizona. So I asked him to consider something.
I spoke to him on several points, and asked him to consider this not-too-far-out-there scenario (it has actually happened before):
Imagine, for a second, that you’re in Apache Junction one day, and rockets start falling out of the sky. All told, 400 rockets are fired off over the next couple of days, and just in the area around Apache Junction, you know of 3 children who were killed by a rocket while playing in a park, and two businessmen who died in their office, victims of a direct hit. All told, the death toll in Apache Junction, Phoenix, and surrounding areas approached the death toll of the Newtown shooting.
Now, consider that such attacks occur two to three times a year, and each time it happens, another 20 to 30 people are killed.
It is discovered that a Reconquista movement has strengthened itself, and has become emboldened by what it sees as the United State’s reluctance to engage in direct conflict after Iraq and Afghanistan, and has decided to “take back” the “occupied” territories that were captured from Mexico during the Mexican/American War. Part of its game plan is a terror campaign waged against the people of the American Southwest, and a large portion of this group’s ranks are filled with people who want to see very single American citizen killed.
|Hat Tip: Ace of Spades|
How long would you stand for such a thing before you demanded action?
His reply was a muddled, theoretical cop-out, as was expected, which supported taking violent action against the reconquistas, but still condemned the Israelis, focused on the following points:
- American “occupation” of formerly Mexican territory, and Israeli “occupation” of Palestinian territory (formerly Trans-Jordan) are entirely different:
- The Palestinians are acting in self-defense, whereas the Mexican movement would be the belligerent party;
My responses were as follows:
The American occupation of formerly Mexican territories, and the Israeli “occupation” of Palestinian territory are the same (they are territories invaded, captured, and kept by the victorious party at the cessation of hostilities), but are also different, for reason’s I’ll discuss below. However, the important thing to note here is that the ways in which they are different actually make the Israeli actions MORE justified than my Mexican scenario, not less. Consider that the Israelis are “occupying” Palestinian territory as a result of aggression waged against THEM in all cases (both wars in which Palestinian land was “occupied” were a result of Palestinian and Arab aggression against Israel, not the other way around), whereas the Mexican/American war was much more morally ambiguous, resulting in what was more of a penis-measurement contest than a true “you’re attacking me, and I’m defending myself” situation. Also, consider that Palestine was never a nation-state, whereas Mexico WAS, and you’ll further see how the Israeli defensive action, which he did not support, is actually MORE defensible than the defensive action discussed in my scenario, which he did support.
As for the Palestinians acting in “self defense,” I asked him to name one time – just one – where the Israelis were the initiators of violent action, and he could not. How one could be acting in “self-defense” by initiating violent action, when none is first threatened, is beyond me, but his reasoning failed on this count, also.
There is a phenomenon out there called “Israeli Derangement Syndrome” and it basically sums up the belief systems of people who cannot fathom that strong, powerful Israel is not the aggressor in this situation. They look at power structure, and always assume, based on their worldview, that the stronger of two belligerent parties must always be the initiator, and must always be in the wrong, because these people are largely cowards. They cannot imagine, themselves, a situation where they would initiate violence against someone stronger than they are, and so can only imagine a world where the stronger of two belligerents MUST be the initiator.
They refuse to accept the fact that weak, small, ineffectual Palestine is the aggressor in this situation, and that until they do, the Israeli conflict will continue forever. For as long as the aggressors – the Palestinians – have the widespread support of these people with IDS, they will continue to launch unprovoked attacks against Israel, with widespread support.