When two parties are at war, each views the other as the evil
aggressor that should lose the war, and views itself as the good party that
should win it.
But the official historical classification does not happen till
the end of the war when the story of the winner becomes the accepted version.
It remains in force till centuries later when impartial historians review the
evidence in hindsight and render a verdict that could go either way.
This causes the rise of a serious question that begs for an
answer. Given that far-reaching consequences may result from a low-intensity
war that goes on indefinitely, what happens when each of the two parties,
accuses the other of evil aggression, and calls on the world to lend it
support?
In fact, this is the current situation in Palestine where an
indigenous Palestinian population was stripped of authority over its own
territory by a group of armed European Jews who renamed the property, Israel.
Half a century later, the naturally peaceful Palestinians saw their third
generation — born and raised under occupation — mount a modest kind of
resistance, compared to the wars of liberation that erupted in Algeria,
sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia and Nazi-occupied France, for example.
And while the brutal occupation of Palestine by so-called Jews
(who are continually summoned and shipped to so-called Israel from around the
globe) goes on, young indigenous Palestinians continue to fight with bare
hands, slings, rocks and home-made kites against American-produced
machine-guns, armored vehicles, tanks, helicopter gun-ships, F-16
fighter-bombers, and now even stealth F-35 warplanes. And the world looks at
this heart-wrenching spectacle, and renders its verdict every day, refusing to
wait for future historians to come along and pass judgment.
This is what prompted the mob of pundits calling itself American
Jews, to come to the defense of those who call themselves Israeli Jews. The mob
is trying to convince the world that the Jews of Israel are good people
battling the bad kids of Palestine who grew up under occupation, refusing to
love being robbed of their patrimony, and rejecting the principle of being
deprived of the right to live freely in their own country.
You can see an example of this defense in the article that came
under the title: “The UN Gives Palestinian Terrorists a Free Pass,” written by
David May, and published on December 7, 2018 in National Review Online.
To justify the stealing of Arab Palestine by armed Jewish
terrorists that were kicked out of Europe because of bad behavior, the Jewish
leaders have been fashioning a story that becomes more untenable the more they
try to refine it. In essence, the story has it that the case was cut and dry in
1948 when the UN decided to give the Jews a small piece of Palestine. The fake
story goes on to insult the intelligence of the readers by saying that the Jews
accepted the deal, but that the Palestinians said no to partition; might as
well let the Jews take the whole thing. It goes on to pretend that upon this, the
Jews said thank you, and started to work on taking the whole thing as advised.
What follows is David May's manner of putting those thoughts in a
version that is subtler but not by much. He said this: “At the time, the Jewish
leadership, for the most part, supported the partition plan. The Palestinians,
on the other hand, roundly condemned and rejected the move.” Putting it this
way, David May hid the truth with his use of the words: “for the most part,”
without elaborating.
It is that the Jewish leadership was made of a terrorist
organization, the Haganah, that attacked, murdered and looted the Palestinians
using extremely savage methods. Its image worldwide was so bad, some members
wanted to take a pause, and work to embellish that image. What happened instead
was that a group broke off from it, and called themselves the Irgun. They
adopted terrorist activities that turned what used to be extreme savagery of
the Haganah into the supremely extreme savagery of the Irgun, if you can
imagine that.
As to the role that the Palestinians played, to say they “roundly
condemned and rejected the move,” gives the impression they were organized and
speaking with one voice. But the fact is that the Palestinians were still under
British occupation, having been snatched away from an Ottoman Empire that was suppressing
them.
In fact, the Palestinians didn't have a voice to speak with on any
subject at the time, or a single pistol to buttress it when the Jews were
speaking loudly and forcefully with cannons, hand grenades, armored vehicles
and tanks.
All that the Palestinians could do in the face of this unstoppable
calamity, was to flee, having no experience at the time of fighting tanks with
stones, or American made F-16s with home-made kites.
It took the Palestinians three generations under occupation to
develop these techniques … which is what the Jews call terrorism so as to hide
their own animal-like behavior.