Only someone that's truly dumb––such as the leaders of the
most backward of terror groups––would say they commit the terror they do
because it pleases them, or because they feel they are better than those on
whom they inflict their terror.
Everyone else uses the one excuse that's universally
accepted for inflicting pain on someone else: the claim of self-defense against
the evil deeds of others. This claim also extends to cover protecting those who
cannot defend themselves against the attacks of a third party.
To illustrate all that, think of someone punching a neighbor
in the face, and the latter complaining to the police. The puncher will not
argue that he did what he did because it pleases him. He'll say he was
defending himself against the neighbor's aggression, or that he was defending a
child against the neighbor … whether or not the neighbor was threatening him or
threatening the child.
In fact, something to this effect was the excuse once used
by the Nazis, the Fascists, the Pol-Potists, the Rhodesians, the apartheid
South Africans and now the Zionist Jews who live in Israel or elsewhere. They all said
then, and the Jews continue to say that they are defending their people against
attacks unleashed by others.
They all lost that argument eventually, including the Jews
who were proven to be the aggressors in every case. In fact, they were not
protecting themselves or someone else, but were killing and robbing peaceful
neighbors, many of whom had not the means to defend themselves, let alone
attack an Israel
that's armed to the teeth.
When the Palestinians that lived under the heinous crime of
occupation for several generations took their case to the United Nations where
such matters are resolved, they met not with reasoned arguments as to why they
must remain under Israeli domination, but collided against the inexplicable
American veto that continues to keep them from enjoying the freedom everyone
else in the world takes for granted.
The Palestinians studied America 's behavior and learned the
horrible reality that the Federal and State governments of the Republic are a
world apart from the populations they govern. Worse, the Palestinians
discovered that the politicians take their instructions, not from the American
people, but from the Jewish lobby.
And so, the Palestinians did the logical thing of taking
their case to the American people, asking them to vote with their
pocketbook––as is the custom in healthy democracies––thus decide for themselves
what must be done. The Palestinians did not ask for a resolution of the
occupation of Palestine ; they only asked the
people of America to
pronounce themselves on the matter of Palestinian slave labor being used to
make product sold in America ,
thus produce profit for the Jews who own the businesses.
So, guess what happened, my friend. The Zionist Jews,
working hand in hand with the Jewish lobby in America, did what others before
them––namely the Nazis, the Fascists, the Pol-Potists, the Rhodesians and the
apartheid South Africans––did. They commanded the State governments of the American Republic
Having lost the argument that such a move is meant to
protect the Israeli people against the non-existent aggression of their
enemies, the Jews came up with the notion that the move will protect the
American taxpayers from their own decisions. Translation: The Jews know what's
good for the American people more than the Americans know what's good for them.
You can read all about that in the article which came under
the title: “The warped bias of anti-Israel boycotts” and the subtitle: “Why
anti-boycott, divestment and sanctions laws are moral and constitutional.” It
was written by Paul Miller and published on October 26, 2017 in the Washington
Times.
Here is a compilation of the pertinent passages in that
piece: “The states are saying, we don't have to subsidize your discrimination
with taxpayer money. For a government entity, tolerating BDS is no different
than tolerating racism, sexism or homophobia. The only thing the anti-BDS
legislation does is protect the taxpayer from becoming complicit in hate speech
and anti-Semitism”.
The problem with this argument is that “racism, sexism and
homophobia,” were never opposed on the grounds that tolerating them amounts to
being subsidized with taxpayer money ... because it is not. Instead, they were
and are opposed on constitutional grounds because all those living in America are
deemed equal and enjoy equal protection regardless of their race, gender or
sexual orientation.
However, this protection does not extend to foreigners
(Israelis) living in foreign countries (Israel
and occupied Palestine ).
Thus, if an American politician decides, for whatever reason, that it suits him
or her to stand with one side (Israel) or the other side (Palestine) in this
foreign dispute, all they are allowed to do is spend their own time convincing
the population to see things the way they do.
What a politician cannot do is use official time to work for
a foreign entity that's embroiled in a dispute with another foreign entity. To
do so is a dereliction of duty. To go further than that and use the instruments
of government to force the American people to live according to the dictates of
a foreign entity is a criminal offense that can rise to the level of treason.
Let these politicians resign their posts and campaign
against BDS if they feel so strongly about it. Or let them spend time in jail
to knock some sense into their heads.