|After the American Civil War, as African slaves in America were ‘freed’, they were left with little or no economic opportunities. Except killing. In the US Armed forces. As Buffalo soldiers. To kill ‘Red Indians’.|
Lessons from America for the Palestinian People
One of the most interesting topics in the area of school education is the role of the subject of history. From the point of view of our ruling parasites, history is a two-sided sword. On the one hand, it allows them to push their side of the story, on the other, if taken seriously as a science rather than propaganda, it provides its students with the tools to better understand the present and hopefully learn from the past. Nowhere does this become more obvious than in the case of the colonisation of the Americas.
Pocahonta's foolish mistake
I sometimes ask myself, how differently America's history would have turned out, if Pocahontas had not urged her father to spare the life of the English settlers. How much violence is an invaded society ethically justified to use in its defence? There can't be any doubt that what the European settlers did in North America was genocide, destroying the lifes and livelihoods of entire peoples, man, women and children alike. Could the Natives afford to distinguish between combatants and civilians? Where do you draw the line between combatants that can be killed in a legitimate act of self-defence, and civilians who need to be spared, when many of those 'civilians' are civilian one day, and soldier another, armed to the teeth and just as violent and hostile as the regular soldiers? What about the women and children who are equally armed and happy to shoot and kill the Natives' defence troops. Aren't even the unarmed women and children just as much of a threat as their armed husbands, fathers and brothers? The women keep producing new settlers and soldiers and the children will sooner or later become soldiers or settlers themselves, so aren't they just as much of a threat for the very survival of the Natives as a society and race?
Us or them?
As far as I am concerned, America's Natives would have been justified and well adviced to kill as many European invaders, men, women or children, armed or unarmed, as needed to make the others pack and leave. In cases where one society is under threat of being wiped out by an invading society, there cannot be any distinction between combatants and non-combatants, military or civilians. While the invaders have the choice between staying or returning to wherever they came from, the invaded can only choose between killing or being killed.
Some people might argue that there was the third option of Europeans and Natives living side by side in peace. Unfortunately in these kind of circumstances such peaceful option is neither practical nor appropriate. To start with, the Europeans felt so superior to the Natives that they were unwilling to enter any fair compromise, leave alone treat them as their equals. Centuries of broken contracts and promises provide an abundance of evidence for that. And why should the Natives be expected to make any concessions to the European invaders, apart from the conditions of their surrender and withdrawal? You wouldn't negotiate accommodation arrangements with armed bandits forcing their way into your home, would you? You would call in the police or kill them, if the first option is to no avail.
Lessons for Palestine
The situation of the Palestinians is not much different from that of the Native Americans. They are facing a similar genocidal invasion of millions of supremacist foreigners who are using terror, deception and military force to wipe Palestine off the map and create a race-pure Jews-only state, North American style reservations for the surviving Native Palestinians and all. As America's natives, Palestinians have to ask themselves, whether they want to survive as a society and if so, how much force they need to use to ensure they do. They have to ask themselves, if it is possible to live side by side in peace with their tormentors of 60 years, and if it is, whether it's desirable or necessary? Going by the lessons from America, the answer is obvious. Do I have to spell it out? As far as I am concerned, the Palestinians are more than justified to user WHATEVER force required to rectifiy the situation, that is make ALL invaders leave or die. The Zioscum has no more rights than a violent criminal being caught red handed.