Amnesty International Nails the Problem

But of course they nail it on the wrong side.

Q. What is required of Israel to stop it from being an occupying force under Amnesty’s definition?

A. That there will be another sovereign power and that the border crossings to Gaza not be under Israeli control. That’s the meaning of occupation, there’s no other sovereign power there, there’s no control over the border crossings for free movement of people and goods and that’s why Gaza is under occupation. -The Volokh Conspiracy

Okay, for those of you out there that don’t get it, the logic is simple. First, nations have these things called borders. There’s an imaginary line drawn across a piece of land; on one side, is one nation. On the other, is another. Yes, it’s really that simple. Second, nations have a right to defend those borders. As in using guns to keep people from crossing them in either direction. You see, sometimes you don’t want a criminal to escape, because you want to catch them and throw them in jail. And sometimes, when you’re at war with a nation who you share a border with, you don’t want weapons crossing the border from your side to their side.

Combine these two facts and something becomes readily apparent: Amnesty International isn’t calling for an end to an “occupation,” they’re simply calling for an end to the State of Israel. You see, if the only way Israel can stop “occupying” the Gaza Strip is to stop controlling its own border with that same piece of land, then the only way Israel can stop “occupying” the Gaza Strip is to stop being a nation altogether. So Amnesty International has just declared that the only way for Israel to get into its good graces is to simply stop existing.

But why the illegal aliens above? Because there is a pattern here that I think people need to see. There are only two nations on the face of the Earth that are not allowed to defend their borders; Israel and America. You see, when Mexico defends their border, it’s the right of a sovereign nation to do so. When France defends their borders, or Jordan, or Saudi Arabia, or anyone else, it’s just an expression of their rights as nations. But when Israel defends their borders, it’s “occupation.” And when the US defends its southern border, it’s a “crime against humanity.”

When you say a nation should not defend its borders, you are simply saying it should not be a nation. You can put it in all the fancy legal language you want to, you can put it in “humanitarian” terms, or whatever, but no matter what the words are, that’s what you’re saying.

Comments are closed.