“I hit him in his fist with my nose.”

Just as the weakling twists his words to reverse the impression given as to whom was the victim and whom the perpetrator, so too has the Goldstone Report.

Feel free to use my observation in any future writings you do on this topic.

–
David Hayes
ARI contributor
Washington, DC

This post was mentioned on Twitter by aynrandadvocate: ARC: The U.N. and the Goldstone Report:
The Goldstone Report on the 2008/09 Gaza war brings to light genui.. http://bit.ly/3ZN8sw...

You wrote: “What events led up to the Gaza war? Perhaps it had something to do with the 10,000+ rockets and mortars fired into Israeli towns from Gaza during an eight-year period.”

Sir your presumption of legitimacy of the State of Israel’s wrongful and immoral occupation of Palestine indicates that you approve of groups of socialist thugs, criminals, murderers, robbers, terrorists committing military aggression against others to pillage and plunder the rightful property of those others. In the case of the Israelis, their motivation for wishing and acting to steal the rightfully owned property of the indigenous people of Palestine was based in religious superstitions of the vile and evil religion of Judaism. By supporting and approving of the immoral and wrongful theft of the property of the indigenous people of Palestine, you reveal yourself as a super-naturalist. Sir, belief in some existence or nature other than that which we can detect is an abrogation of reason and rationality. In short, Mr Journo, supporting Israel is to agree with the claims of religious fanatics and lunatics that their god, YHWH, exists. To do so is to reject Objectivism and embrace mysticism.

Mr Journo, your whiny complaint that the council members of the UNHRC are themselves immoral is a fallacious instance of an ad hominem argument. It also qualifies as an instance of a genetic fallacy. Your argument is thus invalid because the truthfulness of what someone says is not affected by their behavior or intrinsic attributes. If you were a proper Objectivist, you would not attempt to make such silly arguments.

The fact is that Objectivism holds that wars of military conquest are morally wrong no matter how much more technologically sophisticated are the aggressors.

Rand wrote “A crime is a violation of the right(s) of other men by force (or fraud). It is only the initiation of physical force against others—i.e., the recourse to violence—that can be classified as a crime in a free society (as distinguished from a civil wrong). Ideas, in a free society, are not a crime—and neither can they serve as the justification of a crime.” Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution

The Jewish socialist and religious thugs who waged a war of terrorism and ethnic cleansing to start their State were criminals because, the British, having liberated the indigenous people of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire 30 years earlier, had provided a free society to them. Thus they were free and the rightful owners of the properties of Palestine. Stealing the land for lunatic religious purposes constituted a violation of the rights of the indigenous people of Palestine. You cannot argue that the ideas of the Palestinians made them fodder for the criminals that aggressed against them, for to do so is to reject Objectivism.

Israel and its supporters are in the wrong, and the legitimate liberation movements of the Palestinians are correct to use military force against the State of Israel because it is not a properly moral construct. Israel has no right to the lands of Palestine. It has a right to exist as do all States in the form of an idea. The people who’s Machiavellian manipulations of the machinery of oppression afflicts the Palestinians are members of a criminal gang.

I am weary, so I shall spare you the recitation of the litany of Israeli crimes. You would ignore it anyway as you are irrational.

Your opinions, Mr Journo, are repugnant to Objectivism.

Sincerely, Robert Bumbalough