It is high time that the world clarified the distinction between statements that appear as a premeditated oxymoron and distorted historical facts, on the one hand, and an ideology concept that has become a taboo, on the other.

Palestine, as you should know, existed as a land well before the 20th century’s criminal adventures.

The World commenced its recent history with WWII and the subsequent establishment of the UN and its various agencies, along with the development of global and international bodies, rules, charters, laws, regulations, and covenants.  

Then, UNGA Resolution No. 181 was enacted: the partition of Palestine, to create a "state" named “Israel” which, by human, ethical, and historical law is illegal, because it was based on usurping land belonging to an indigenous people, the Palestinians. Illegally seized lands were allocated to Jews gathered from around the world, for reasons unrelated to any rightful claim, even preceding the 1917 Balfour letter to the Zionist Congress. This allocation occurred before the crimes perpetrated by Europeans against the Jews in Europe during WWII. So, the plan existed, irrespective of the abominable horrors during the war. 

Furthermore, the Gaza Strip was originally placed under Egyptian protectorate. Then, during the early Nakba years, the Israelis usurped swathes of areas along its Eastern border, and, illegally again, while waging the 1967 June war, it occupied the second part of Palestine (that part of the partition, which was supposed to be designated to the Arab state in Palestine). It started building settlements called in Western international jargon, kibbutzim, with a military nature and function, established throughout various areas, including Palestinian land in the surrounding regions and the very adjacent vicinity, such as in Gaza.

The October 7 Operation Al-Aqsa Flood in 2023 by the Palestinian Resistance was hence carried out as an act of Resistance on the historical Palestinian land. 

The Israeli claim, supported by Western rhetoric of “Freedom, Democracy, Rule of Law, Human Rights," that this war was justified by "self-defense" appears to be an oxymoron. It’s worth noting that an oxymoron involves contradictory terms appearing in conjunction, illustrating life's inherent conflicts and incongruities.

We kindly call on academics and writers of all venues to correct this mistaken concept and give us a single word that can describe this utter felony.

“The occupation entity asserts its right to defend the land under occupation”…you keep on saying it as if it is a fact or a right.  

Kindly, or else, explain under what moral code you justify that. 

What is the legal standing of an occupying entity's right to "self-defense" in comparison to the right of the indigenous population to defend themselves?

In this context, we ask: where is the RIGHT to resist occupation? The RIGHT to defend oneself from GENOCIDE and ETHNIC CLEANSING?

In your law, the Palestinians should have the right to fight the occupation. In your law - the law of the jungle - there are no red lines, no limits to crime, no accountability… a total rejection of the principles of international law. You make up the rules as you go along, as you commit crimes.

Related News

Why the Israelis cannot win in Gaza or Yemen

Trump 2.0: One hundred days of institutionalizing injustice

Under what moral or ethical grounds can you possibly affirm that the oppressor has the right to "self-defense"? Therefore, could anyone steal other people’s land, usurp their homes, plunder the national resources, and murder with impunity, for decades, but still enjoy the right to "self-defense"?

… And should the oppressed quietly accept and endure oppression, cruelty, ethnic cleansing, and degradation, passively and without resistance?!

And, should they object or resist, are they immediately classified as "terrorists"?!

Please, kindly REDEFINE self-defense:

In blatant hypocrisy, Palestinians are the only people on Earth asked to guarantee the safety of their occupiers. “Israel” is the only entity on the planet that demands "defense" from those it victimizes.

Based on these “standards”, we, therefore, have the following “historic facts”: In the broader historical context, conflicts over land between Native American tribes and European settlers, including military figures like Custer, were complex. But whose land was it originally, Geronimo’s or General Custer’s? Then, Truman bombed Hiro Hito and eradicated the Marshall Islands atomically under the pretext of "self-defense", Churchill fought Gandhi, Johnson fought Ho Chi Minh, and De Klerk fought Mandela under the guise of "self-defense", and the list is exhaustive. This indeed revives the memory of the famous, now Dodo, Domino theory, for when you do not make criminals accountable for their crimes, then they will soon, and inevitably, come after your children, wherever they are, for more of the same.  A certified fact as Angela Davis once said, “If they come for me in the morning, they will come for you at night."

Indeed, an oxymoron: “anti-Semitism”.

As for the morons… we do not need further explanation!  (Moron = a person of low intelligence / foolish/stupid/idiot/imbecile).

The other oxymoron, which needs redefining, that taboo ideology concept, is the so-called, ever-growing, falsely labeled “anti-Semitism”!

In short, we have a land historically known and certified as Palestine where, for thousands of years, people mainly of the three celestial religions have lived as Palestinians and who, with their neighboring fellow Arabs, are mainly Semites. Then comes the now century-old Zionist project, the people who have no relation whatsoever with the Semites, to invade, usurp, occupy the Palestinian land, and establish “Israel”. These Zio-colonial forces, by way of faked reasoning, can now, through legal actions, condemn, try, and convict anyone who dares criticize the Zionist entity.

To make it short, they have laws that condemn, prosecute, jail, etc… the Semites who dare criticize the (mainly) “non-Semites” under the title of “anti-Semitism”. The latter term has “conveniently” been “developed”, in the legal framework of the freedom of thought, speech, and creed regimes, to equal anti-Zionism, then anti-"Israel", only to finally land where it was first aimed at, namely anti-Jew.

Our stance can best be expressed, again, by Angela Davis' words, “I am no longer accepting the things I cannot change, I am changing the things I cannot accept."

Dear academics, would you kindly find a special word for yet another oxymoron?

Finally, a call to the International Court of Conscience (in the making… someday), please do pay attention to the morons who never stop developing the evil concepts that serve their evil projects.