If you want proof that to be a Holocaust psycho, you don't
need to be a survivor of the Holocaust or a child of one or even a second or
third generation descendant of one – there is that proof.
It came in an article that was written by Thane Rosenbaum
under the title: “Palestinians are rewarding terrorists. The U.S. should
stop enabling them,” and the subtitle: “We should make economic aid contingent
on an end to the bounty program.” It was published on April 28, 2017 in The
Washington Post.
You start reading the article because you want to know what
principle the writer is invoking to support the claim that citizens of a nation
under occupation must be punished by starvation if (1) they resist the
occupation, survive the ordeal; are caught and incarcerated. And (2) they
happen to be the relatives of those who are universally regarded as freedom
fighters.
But you become confused as to what Rosenbaum is trying to
communicate because he drowns you early on with numbers expressing what amounts
of money are paid for what reason, paid for how long and paid to whom. So you
wonder: Is this guy bothered because a principle has been violated? Or is he
bothered because the amounts paid are too high?
Whatever the answer, you give him the benefit of the doubt
and assume that he is bothered because of both. It could be that he is bothered
because a principle was violated, and he'll soon clarify that. And it could be
that he also feels the payments tend to encourage people to resist, thus the
higher the payment the higher the incentive to resist. You tie this last part
to his saying that the payments are a “bounty program,” and feel compelled to
comb through the article to see if there is evidence of that.
The closest thing you can find by which he may be trying to
explain those points of view is this passage: “The payments are [made]
according to Palestinian laws passed in 2004 and amended in 2013.” Well, what's
known about bounties is that the moment they are announced, they trigger a rush
to cash in on them. But Rosenbaum does not say that a rise in incidents of
resistance has occurred after those two dates. So we must accept that unlike
the mercenaries who fight for money, people do not resist an occupation for
financial rewards. They resist because life under occupation has become
intolerable for them and their families.
This leads to the maxim that occupation is the only reason
why resistance is mounted against it. Now that you have discovered this
principle, you want to know if Thane Rosenbaum is giving any reason at all for
saying that to resist an occupation by those who live under it, is an act
that's so abhorrent, those who attempt it must be punished by starvation. And
so should their relatives be.
You read the article more than once but fail to find what
you're looking for. What happens, however, is that you end up formulating the
notion that something odd is motivating this lad, Thane Rosenbaum. You get a
sense of the oddity from this condensed passage: “In conflict with the Oslo
Accords and professed aspiration for peace, the Palestinian Authority is
running a bounty system … Israeli settlements may be obstacle to peace but so
too is Palestinian incentives to commit violence”.
Well, well, well. This guy has just established two
horrifically contradictory principles in one breath. He equated the rights and
obligations of the Jewish predator with those of the Palestinian prey – which
is bad enough. He then let the predator off the hook, and denigrated the prey
calling him violent – which is horrific.
This guy, Rosenbaum, is a lawyer that took it upon himself
to tell the judges of the court of public opinion that: Yes, my client is
guilty of committing an act of war every minute that he is occupying the
defendant's home, but you cannot reprimand him for anything that he does.
Instead, you must concentrate on punishing the defendant that's fighting back
instead of welcoming my client with open arms. And this, my friend, makes you
wonder what kind of justice they teach in America 's law schools.