A tribunal, as defined by the meaning of the word, is a court with the authority to render decisions of justice. So among the other abuses perpetrated by the Russell Tribunal on Palestine is a debasement of the English language by the upcoming gathering this weekend of prejudiced fanatics and buffoons who comprise it.
After having already convicted the middle east's only democracy for crimes of which it is not guilty, this assembly of crackpots will, in New York this weekend, be re-empanelling virtually the same biased jury that participated in its Cape Town travesty last year that condemned Israel for practicing "apartheid." By its own distorted definition of apartheid, the Russell group demonstrated both its bigotry and stupidity in their findings.
They define apartheid as occurring under circumstances: "(i) that two distinct racial groups can be identified; (ii) that ‗inhuman acts‘ are committed against the subordinate group; and (iii) that such acts are committed systematically in the context of an institutionalised regime of domination by one group over the other."
Are the Russell group contending that black Ethiopian Jews are of the same distinct racial group as white European Ashkenazim Jews or of Semitic Middle Eastern Sephardi Jews?
Judaism is a religion. While black South Africans could not convert to becoming white Boers, Arabs can and sometimes do become Jews. There can only be two distinct racial groups in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict if one views, as the Russell group apparently does, "Jew" in the Hitlerian sense, where Jewish blood designates a racial category of its own. Were he capable, Hitler would be smiling up from Hell to see the useful idiots of the Russell group taking up his mantle of hate.
One of the aspects of an actual tribunal is that it has some measure of authority. The Russell Tribunal has none of any sort, lacking even the moral authority of a swarm of flies buzzing around a dung heap. Indeed, it's each other`s malignant excrement the Russell jury will be ingesting.
|The Russell Tribunal is a theatrical farce staged by buffoons|
Among those joining McKinney will be intellectual giants like defunked British band Pink Floyd's Rogers Waters, and the hysterical, geriatric author Alice Walker. Seemingly motivated in large measure by antipathy for her Jewish, Zionist husband who divorced her, in a statement since expunged from her blog, Walker described an encounter with a Palestinian woman:
I gave her [an old Palestinian woman] a gift I had brought and she thanked me. Looking into my eyes, she said "May God protect you from the Jews." When the young Palestinian interpreter told me what she'd said, I responded: "It's too late. I already married one." I said this because, like so many Jews in America, my former husband could not tolerate criticism of Israel's behavior toward the Palestinians.To compensate, there will be criticism of Israel aplenty for Walker this weekend. Another of her jury peers, Ronnie Kasrils, is a Jew who compared Israel to Nazis and once wrote, "I am convinced that in years to come humanity will look back to Soviet achievements as a source of profound inspiration." It's not surprising that someone so inspired would be part of the cult wanting to boycott and sanction Israel that even anti-Israel activist Norman Finkelstein identified as dishonest hypocrites who are really seeking the Jewish state's destruction.
Normally courts, even kangaroo courts, don't sell tickets. But the Russell Tribunal on Palestine is less a court than entertainment; a clown show charging admission to watch jesters who don't appreciate their own ridiculousness.
The late British essayist Christopher Hitchens posed some questions to activists like those peopling the Russell group's farce that are so determined to show solidarity with the Hamas-ruled Palestinians:
At a time of widespread democratic and pluralist revolution in the region, Hamas imposes its own version of theocracy on Gaza and seems otherwise aligned with the forces that stand athwart the hope of continued and deeper change. Who wants to volunteer time to make this outfit look more presentable? Half the published articles on Gaza contain a standard reference to its resemblance to a vast open-air prison (and when I last saw it under Israeli occupation, it certainly did deserve this metaphor). The problem is that, given its ideology and its allies, Hamas qualifies rather too well in the capacity of guard.
Only a few weeks ago, the Hamas regime in Gaza became the only governing authority in the world — by my count — to express outrage and sympathy at the death of Osama Bin Laden. As the wavelets lap in the Greek harbours, and the sunshine beats down, doesn’t any journalist want to know whether the “activists” have discussed this element in their partners’ world outlook? Does Alice Walker seriously have no comment?
Hamas is listed by various governments and international organizations as a terrorist group. I don’t mind conceding that that particular word has been used in arbitrary ways in the past. But what concerns me much more is the official programmatic adoption, by Hamas, of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This disgusting fabrication is a key foundational document of 20th-century racism and totalitarianism, indelibly linked to the Hitler regime in theory and practice. It seems extraordinary to me that any “activist” claiming allegiance to human rights could cooperate at any level with the propagation of such evil material. But I’ve have never seen any of them invited to comment on this matter, either.Undoubtedly, there are obvious matters upon which Alice Walker and her coterie of clowns will avoid comment, focusing instead on demonizing the only country in its region that respects individual liberties. But their avoidance of context and the complete truth only highlights how little worth can be attached to anything else they have to say.