Stationary terrorism

The Israeli military fired at the UN school in Jabaliya. The Israelis said they were fired upon from the area adjacent to the school. UNRWA spokesman Christopher Guinness said he was "99.99% sure" no shots were fired from the school.

The Israeli claim is at least plausible: Hamas terrorists are not just using their own women and children as human shields, they are not fighting any other way.

Another thing is Christopher Guinness. How could he be “99.99%” sure in a couple of hours that there was no shooting at the school? Poll the howling crowd? Yes, sure. And if he had asked the Germans in 1941 about the existence of concentration camps, then, of course, they would have told him that there were no concentration camps.

Imagine: terrorists seize a school in Beslan. Alpha begins an assault on the school. And then human rights defenders raise a cry: how is it possible, there are children there! With pain in their eyes, the terrorists tell CNN that they have run out of medicine for children and a humanitarian disaster has broken out at the school. What's the difference between Beslan and Hamas? Only the one that the nonhumans in Beslan took other people’s children hostage, and Hamas is holding its own hostage.

Hamas is a unique state entity – a regime of stationary terrorism.

Even the most overwhelmed state performs some complex functions: it takes care of its citizens, protects their lives. It’s not like a regime of stationary terrorism - the worse its citizens live, the better for the ruling armed elite.

Such regimes do not exist without external support: South Ossetia does not exist without Russia; Hamas - without Iran.

In such regimes, citizens have no work – and that’s great. Their only job should be to shoot Jews with Kassam guns or sit in the trenches and shoot machine guns at Georgians. Citizens have no money - and that’s good. The only money should be money from the type of activity that the regime controls. For example, the delivery of weapons and drugs through smuggling tunnels, for which they pay 10 thousand dollars for the right to dig. Hamas leaders.

The basis of this regime is shooting at neighbors, whom the stationary terrorists themselves invariably call “aggressors” or “occupiers.” If the neighbor does not resist, the shooting increases. If your neighbor fights back, that’s even better! Each victim will be called a civilian. This is fortunate for stationary terrorism when its citizens are killed.

If usually the state strives to reduce the level of uncontrolled violence, then in regimes of stationary terrorism this level, on the contrary, increases sharply. The armed detachments of “anti-genocide fighters” are in fact not so much fighting against a declared enemy (they often prefer to safely shell Sderot from afar from “Qassams” or Georgian villages from self-propelled guns), but rather humiliate, destroy and enslave their own citizens. Drunken shootings and armed racketeering are the norm for the authorities of such regimes.

Whose point of view are human rights defenders expressing when they demand a ceasefire in Gaza? Answer: these are the views of the international bureaucracy, which is not interested in a real resolution of the conflict. She is interested in maintaining the status quo, in which terrorists will continue to hold their own people hostage, and numerous Christopher Guinnesses will use international money to “help” the suffering people.

Recently, the concept of “protection of human rights” has increasingly become the opposite of the concept of “justice”. “Justice” is when the thief is in prison and the terrorist is killed. “Human rights” today are the protection of anyone who seeks protection, even if he himself is a thief, murderer or terrorist.

The concept of “human rights” was necessary to combat totalitarian regimes in which there was neither law nor justice. It seems that after the end of totalitarian regimes it has exhausted itself. For, no matter who the “human rights defenders” have recently defended—Hamas or the terrorists sitting in Guantanamo—they invariably choose to protect such scoundrels who don’t care about human rights themselves.