At EI, Maureen Clare Murphy reviews Under the Cover of War: the Zionist Expulsion of the Palestinians, by Rosemarie Esber, and quotes the book:
"[T]he creation of the Palestinian Arab refugees began in the convergence of a chaotic civil conflict, British inaction to suppress the escalating violence, and the Jewish Agency’s seizure of the opportunity presented by the cover of war to effect long-held aims of political Zionism: the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine with a population practically devoid of non-Jews. This was done by employing systematic and violent intimidation to drive out the native Palestinian Arab population, which consisted largely of disempowered women, children, and elderly people incapable of resisting."
During this civil war period, Esber writes, "Zionist Jewish military organizations forced more than 400,000 Palestinian Arab inhabitants from their homes in about 225 villages, towns and cities in Palestine." That comprises approximately half of the total number of Palestinians made refugees during the creation of the State of Israel, as well as half of the depopulated Palestinian cities and villages, the latter largely destroyed as part of the systematic campaign to erase Palestinian society.
Israel’s official narrative has long held that the "refugee problem" was the result of a war sparked in the wake of Israel’s 14 May 1948 "declaration of independence" on the eve of the British withdrawal, and what Israel describes as an Arab invasion designed to extinguish the nascent state. The implication of this claim is that had the Arab states not invaded on 15 May, Palestinians might not have become refugees. But given the sheer scale of the expulsions prior to May 1948, the Arab intervention might more accurately be described as a long overdue and ineffectual attempt to halt a well-planned campaign of ethnic cleansing that had been proceeding unchecked for months.
Esber’s reliance on Palestinian testimony is a unique contribution to scholarship on the creation of the State of Israel and the refugee crisis, and the first chapter of the book provides an evaluation of existing scholarly accounts of 1948.
The emphasis is my bone to pick with Benny Morris, he rules out Palestinian oral history. Imagining pursuing that method with the pogroms or the rise of anti-Semitism.Thanks to Helen Schiff.
Benny Morris’s own work, based on written archives, is damning enough.
Its another exagerated headline, that sadly most people only read, and get their cues from.
They are asked by you to regard the post-WW2 Jewish refugee disaster (far worse than the current Palestinian) as inconsequential, undeserving of remedy.
The dispossession of Palestinians is “shit happens”, and that sadly continues in ways by Israeli actions, and by Arab and “solidarity” actions. To “shit happens”, you move on.
In any case, the ethnic cleansing occurred in the early 50′s series of laws that permanently firmed the prohibition of former residents to return to their residences, to argue their cases in court, and for the Israeli state to quickly expropriate “abandoned” property.
That was the critical “ethnic cleansing actions”, by the power of the pen, not of the sword.
And, you ignorantly minimize the similar intent of the Arab and Palestinian world over an extended period.
Civil War to you is presented as innocuous, demonizing only Jews.
Those 50′s laws can never be undone, they are out of the box already. They can be remedied in the forms of help to Palestine to be viable and healthy, and some right of return to those individuals (not their descendants) who can demonstrate land title, and be compensated for it, and allowed Israeli residence permits and/or citizenship.
But then they might confront the issue of “dual loyalty”.
What, no blank check reparations such as each generation of Germans since 1945 have been paying all these years?
My mother-in-law received her first check in 1996. I think its been $600/quarter.
In compensation for two years of slavery.
So wait a minute, Witty. Jews who, at best, are descendants of Jews who left over a millennium ago get their “right of return” but people who have been displaced for barely a couple of generations have no right to have their homeland restored to them?
And it’s mere coincidence that white Jews benefit from this arrangement you’re a proponent of, huh.
“In compensation for two years of slavery. “
Contrast that with the 2000 elections. Thousands of African Americans lost their right to vote because of Republican caging lists. The Black Caucus in the House of Representatives fought tooth and nail to get that acknowledged and investigated before the election result could be certified — but constitutionally, only Senators can call for that.
There are fifteen Jewish senators, and presently, only one African American senator — and in 2000 there were none.
And I haven’t even touched the whole African American slavery reparations issue — that’s something that’s happening today.
Justice only for white people, then, Witty?
Who knows what story you are playing out in your own mind, Chaos?
I’ll take your sterling, utter lack of a reply as a concession that my point was made.
Boy,
Your response sure looks impressive on the sidebar.
You remind me of my father, Witty. He gets all cutesy and evasive when I point out how racist he is, too.
An example of the respect you bear for his bringing you into the planet, and raising you, no doubt.
I’m not a blind follower like you, Witty. I do what’s right and I stand up to anybody who propagates injustice.
Including publicly calling your father a racist. I guess there are benefits to anonymity.
I’ve noticed that you’ve yet again fled from the whole point that you forward the racist notion that white Europeans have more claim on Palestine than Palestinians themselves do.
“But then they might confront the issue of “dual loyalty”. ”
It hasn;t been an issue in the US for Isrealis.
If the Nakba had happened to Jews, I doubt you would reduce it to “shit happens.”
And in what way was the postwar Jewish refugee disaster “far worse” than the refugee disaster created by the Nakba – except that in one case the victims were Jewish and in the other case they were only Arabs?
“They are asked by you to regard the post-WW2 Jewish refugee disaster (far worse than the current Palestinian) as inconsequential, undeserving of remedy.”
I don’t get it, Witty. How come you think that either one has to be a Holocaust denier, or one has to be a Nakba denier. This isn’t a zero sum game.
How was the post-WW2 Jewish refugee disaster different from the post-WW2 gentile refugee disaster? Wasn’t the answer to both European economic reconstruction?
Well there’s that too. I remember back on Huff Po mentioning to a bunch of Zionists who were questioning what right I had to speak to the Holocaust, and I pointed out that a number of my ancestors were victims as well. And their response was, “So what?”
This notion that Jewish suffering is somehow privileged above the suffering of other human beings is what is going to tear Zionism away from mainstream Judaism, ultimately.
“This isn’t a zero sum game. ”
Agreed. The significance of caring a great deal for one’s own community, and “only” a lot for the other.
Of course, you opened your insight with a curse, which conflicts with your insight (shoot first, inquire later).
So how come you refuse to acknowledge that the descendants of ethnically cleansed Palestinians have a right to return to their land? If this isn’t a zero-sum game, and if Israel is a democracy rather than a theocracy, why not?
The Nakba is “shit happens”? NO. Here you are being a monster.
Do you not understand that many Palestinians were killed, massacred, to accomplish the “intimidation” necessary to create an exodus? That refugees lost not only their homes and land, but often all of their possessions? That the Nakba launched them into a life of severe poverty and total insecurity?
I have tried to stop arguing with you, because it goes nowhere. But some things are simply not acceptable to say. Beyond insensitive.
And, all that is long past.
The important work in the present is to make a possible future.
No, actually, Witty, it’s ongoing. You conceded as much yourself, elsewhere.
link to mondoweiss.net
Richard, refugees continue to suffer because of their status and their inability to return (or in the case of Gaza refugees, inability to go anywhere). Israel continues to create more refugees through settlement expansion and unjust home demolition. The tragedy is ongoing, and very much in need of redress. You do not have the right to dismiss the claims of millions of Palestinians who say as much.
“Shit happens” is essentially a statement of dismissal. Dismissing severity, and responsibility. That’s why it is not an OK thing to say about other tragedies. And if that is not how you meant it… I know you can use language more precisely than that. Please try, especially when the subject is a people’s horrible tragedy.
“Shit happens” is a statement of attitude. When “shit happens” you dust yourself off, get up, get to living.
The history of the Palestinian refugees is more tragic. In their case, they were encouraged to remain as refugees, and in Lebanon for example, were prohibited from Lebanese citizenship, even three generations in.
Two generations of Palestinian children born in Lebanon are not permitted to be Lebanese citizens. The refugees themselves are more persecuted in Lebanon than Israeli Arabs. I don’t know the status of those Palestinians that were able to establish Lebanese citizenship, through other paths.
The nakba itself was 61 years ago.
The incremental dispossession in the West Bank is nowhere that scale, but is significant for other reasons. One, a raw wound. Two, nearing the isolation of East Jerusalem in particular, objectively limiting the prospect of Palestinian state viability.
Hence, the reason for Sharon, Olmert, Livni to depart from likud, recognizing that some sovereign Palestine is rational. And, then its up to US to make the argument that a healthy sovereign Palestine is a likely better neighbor than an unhealthy one, thereby reducing the appeal and relevance of fanaticism, whether angry nationalist or angry Islamicist.
They’re refugees because of Israel’s ethnic cleansing. They have a right under international law to return to Israel. Don’t blame Lebanon or the rest of the Middle East for not being willing to cover up the war crimes of Israel.
If sixty years is “too long” in your opinion then where they hell do you get off claiming that Jews from Europe and elsewhere have a “birthright” that is a thousand or so years old?
Keep digging that racist hole you’re in, Witty. Keep diggin.
More Isreli revisionism and propaganda from Richard.
He tells us that the dispossession of Palestinians is “shit happens”, when there are hunderds of quotes from Zionists going back to Hertzl, talking about the need to drive the Palestinians from their land.
This is not a case of “shit happens”, so much as “this shit was planned”.
The ethnic cleasing took place in 1948 Ricahrd, not the early 50′s and it was certainly carried out by the power of the sword. The Deir Yassin massacre was not a consequence of any pen.
What responsibility did those 400,000 Palestinian arabs (pushed off their land in the months before May, 1948) have for the post-WW2 Jewish refugee disaster? And what right did the subsequently formed Jewish state have to cement that ethnic cleansing & land theft by
legislation? In what way were the said Palestinian arabs not the victims of Jewish force
of arms, and don’t they remain so to this day? Was it they who shot all the buffalo, so to speak? As to demonization, if the shoe fits, wear it. Oral testimony (some of it
shown at the time by the defense to be obviously fabricated, e.g., by showing eyewitness to be here, rather than there at the time of the subject incident) were
certainly included at Nuremberg, so why not Palestinian oral history while those
eyewitnesses are still alive to tell it?
They had little responsibility for it (only slightly more than none). They did have some responsibility for the “mass movement” to prohibit Jewish immigration immediately prior, during and after WW2.
And, the definition of “shit happens” is that. Floods happen. Tornadoes happen.
There is no denying Palestinians’ experience. That deserves the light of day, and deserves apology and compensation.
A consequence of either/or approach currently is that either Palestinians are displaced or Jews are displaced. Right-wing Israeli idiots assert that all Israeli and even West Bank Palestinians should be moved to Jordan. Left-wing solidarity “idiots” assert that all Jews should be removed from the West Bank and/or Israel.
Both are undertaking an ethnic cleansing effort. Better that the dissenting community get to peace, accompanied by mutual acceptance of minorities within others’ host communities, and of states.
Even Phil’s “inquiry” (implied from his editorial selection and headlining) is an inquiry into whether to initiate war, on the basis of “its not fair”, rather than an inquiry into how to realize peace.
The Zionists are the ones that forced that false dichotomy you tout, Witty.
“If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel.” — David Ben-Gurion
You mean by desiring to reside in then Palestine?
You should read of the history Chaos, seriously. Invest some time into it.
Read the Laquere book that I recommended. “A History of Zionism”. You need to get informed.
Way to ad hominem, Witty. You don’t think I’ve read up on the topic? How about another intriguing quote from our friend Ben-Gurion:
“There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”
Or has he put it more succinctly at one point:
“We must expel Arabs and take their places.”
You need to do yourself a favor and read up on his diary.
No, I don’t think that you’ve read on it. Maybe you’ve read some Pappe or one of Segev’s selective discussions (rather than his broader).
And what was the context of that “quote”, Chaos?
Tell us the history, not just the Pavlovian stimuli.
Actually, Witty, I’d love to hear you put “We must expel Arabs and take their places” into what you think is the proper context. Enlighten us.
A consequence of either/or approach currently is that either Palestinians are displaced or Jews are displaced. Right-wing Israeli idiots assert that all Israeli and even West Bank Palestinians should be moved to Jordan. Left-wing solidarity “idiots” assert that all Jews should be removed from the West Bank and/or Israel.
This is incredibly ironic. Do you support the right to return? That is the approach that rejects “either/or ethnic cleansing”, and affirms that both peoples can-and have the right to-live in their declared homeland.
Or do you support the continued institutionalization of Palestinian ethnic cleansing?
I support the right for Palestinians to their day in court, and if individual former residents (and their spouses) can prove their prior permanent residence, then they should have the option to become Israeli citizens and reside in Israel. (Limited right of return).
I oppose the “right of return” for individual descendants, even direct lines, and definitely by vague “national” right.
That is a contreversial Zionist position. Don’t go buggy eyed on how “inhumane” that position is.
Witty’s opinion:
Jews -> unlimited right of return, no matter where they were born.
Palestinians -> limited right of return, provided it they were born there (oh my, sixty years ago…) and provided they can prove their innocence and pledge allegiance to the “Jewish state.”
Gee, yeah, that doesn’t smell like apartheid.
The state of war with Hamas existed because of Hamas shelling of Israeli civilians for 7 years.
The blockade is a response to that shelling.
There are options to remove the blockade that you neglect to pursue. That negligence is more than tragic. Get off your ass in other than just condemnation.
Israel’s treatment of the Gazans was not and never has been simply about rocket fire. It’s been too sadistic all along for that tired bit of apologetics to work–though of course Richard will refuse to notice.
link
The idea that Israeli violence and Israeli atrocities are only in response to Palestinian violence is an old claim that Richard is happy to continue spouting.
Human Rights Watch’s latest on the blockade–
link
I posted this earlier, but it’s hard to keep track of the different threads.
Anyway, they of course consider it to be collective punishment and illegal, but of course they don’t have the keen moral insight of our resident humanitarian Richard W–they don’t realize that because Israeli lives are worth many times more than those of Palestinians (who were killed in larger numbers during that period of rocket fire), Israel can do whatever it wants and it is all Hamas’s fault.
Correction Ricahrd.
The state of war with Hamas existed because Hamas won the election in 2006, which resulted in the 2006 raid on Gaza by Israel. Prior to that, Israel rained down more shells on Gaza between 2005 and 2006 than the total number of innefectual rockets fired by Hamas in 7.
The blockade is a response to Hamas’ election. Hamas shelling is in response to the 40 year Israeli occupation.
There are no options to remove the blockade other than to force Israel to lift it. Any that exist, only exist in your imaginary world, where Israel can do no wrong. Mitchell just came back from yet another trip to Israel empty handed, so the prescriptions you’ve advocated have been an abject failure.
Condemnation in crucial and fundamentally the only recourse, as well as severe measures that make it clear to the Israeli leadership that they must change. Your pathetic apologia, denial, obfuscation and propaganda is a waste of everyone’s time and energy.
Of course there are options to the blockade, which is a consented international body to govern the port.
In that case, Hamas does not control the port, as Gaza is not a state that subscribes to international law of the sea or port protocols.
But, a consented international body could, thereby allowing school supplies and other carelessly (or malevolently) restricted materials in.
Israel and the world NEEDS there to be restriction on military importation, which historically was prominent. Gazans need relatively free importation (free logistically, not monetarily) of civilian materials.
There is an intersection to those needs, if you are willing to consider Israel’s needs in your thinking and proposal. If your goal is to encourage resistance, more than Gazan’s civilian needs, then you will neglect to propose consented international management of the port.
It would be a tough bar to achieve Israeli confidence say from UN governance of the port, given the UN’s abysmal record in enforcing the resolutions compelling Hezbollah not to arm below the Litani, which is international law, having been ratified by the security council, not only the general assembly (House AND Senate).
Hamas are the elected government of Gaza and as such, have the legal authority to govern the port. It’s a shame you have such little regard for democracy Richard, but it is a paradox that you are insisting an international bosy should take over the powers entrusted to a legitimate government while supporting an illegitimate blockage that has no basis is international law.
If a consented international body does arrive, it should not only lok after the port, but oversea and adminster all the occupied territories as well.
The world does not NEED there to be restriction on military importation, unles fo course, you also advicate a military embargo on Israel, who are reeiving far more powerful weapons and have inflicted ten times as many civilian casualties as Hamas.
Gazans completely free importation of any materials they wish to source. Gaza does nto belong to Israel, or so we are told.
There is no needto consider Israel’s needs, becasue Israel’s needs are fulfilled with interest. Resistance is a universal human right, in fact, resiatance to occupation is legal under internatinal law.
Israeli confidence is of no consequence. Israel is the occupation power who is vilating intenraional law and the Genevan Conventions. The confidence of a rapist of a pedophiel is not considered in a court of law, and neither shoudl Israel’s.
It’s ironic and midn biogglingly hypocritical of you to accue the UN of failing to n enforce resolution compelling Hezbollah not to arm, when Israel are in violation of over 100 UN Resolutions and show nothing but contempt for the UN. BTW. There is no US Resolution calling for Hezbollah to disarm. If you were to read the resoolution carefully, you would note that it refers to militias, and seeing as Hebollah is a memeber of the Lebanese government, the Lebanese government does not regard it as a militia.
You see Richard, Israel isn’t the only party that can play hard and fast with loopholes in UN Resolutions.
Furthermorem the resolution to which oyu refer is not a Chapter 7 Resolution, therefore it is not international law. You should know that seeing as Israel flouts international law every day.
The US House and Senate are of no consequence to international law.
A consequence of either/or approach currently is that either Palestinians are displaced or Jews are displaced.
The reality, however, is that the Jews in 1945 had already been displaced. That shit had already rolled down the hill. So to assuage their suffering, they created more suffering. They shifted their suffering onto a people who had done nothing to create it.
Two wrongs don’t only not make a right, they double the amount of wrong in the world.
The Nakba didn’t just “happen”. It was committed by people who have continued to this day to deny their responsibility.
The reality of Jews in 1946 – 48 in Europe was of continuing pogroms.
That was the PRESENT then, and no other state accepted the refugees in anything but token numbers, except for the Zionist-facilitated mass emigration.
So many events occur via odd dominoes of one condition affecting another. All of nature is that.
The important question is present forward. What do you do now?
Is that what you are proposing? Improve the condition of the Palestinians, or some other more punitive definition of “progressive”?
One crime doesn’t justify another, Witty. That’s Liberalism 101.
I agree that two wrongs don’t make a right.
No you don’t. Otherwise you’d be condemning Israel for Operation Cast Lead. You don’t.
The reality of 1946-8 was refugee camps – DP camps. Remarkably similar to the condition of the Palestinians expelled from their homes by the founding of Israel.
And while it is true that many of the European refugees (not just Jews) suffered violence in the aftermath of the war, so the Palestinians too suffered violence from the Israelis when they attempted to return to their homes in the aftermath of the war.
The “present forward ” question is how to compensate them for the crime committed upon them, and this requires that the perpetrators of the crime first acknowledge their guilt and their debt. The failure of the peace process grows directly out of Israeli refusal to admit that they owe the Palestinians anything at all – in fact, they (and you) persist in the myth that the Palestinians were themselves to blame for their fate.
Your mother gets her reparation money because the Germans acknowledge their guilt and responsibility. The Palestinians continue to pay for Israeli crimes because Israel refuses. The road forward is through the past.
I criticize the extent and apparent carelessness of the specific military operation. I approve of a military response to Hamas’ terror.
So just how many children being slaughtered by the IDF in Gaza is too many, Witty? Just curious.
“. I approve of a military response to Hamas’ terror. ”
You also approve of a military response to Hamas peace. Israel broke the ceafire Witty and you know it.
Hamas initiated a state of war, following the end of the formal cease-fire.
If the basis of your assertion “Israel broke the cease-fire” is the November 4 skirmish inferring that the Israeli raid was knowingly innaccurately ascribed by them, then you don’t know that confidently.
Which you don’t know.
You consistently demonstrate that no matter what Palestinians do, you blame them for initiating hostilities while you always give Israel a free pass to “respond.”
You’re a demonstrable racist and hypocrite, Witty.
And you are confused about what I am actually saying, not bothering to inquire.
Please don’t say that you approve of shelling civilians in Sderot, Ashkelon and Beersheba.
I’m not confused by what you’re doing. You’re putting words in my mouth and trying to paint me as a “terrorist sympathizer” because your phony, weak arguments are falling apart.
I still find it astonishing that you bring up Sderot. As I keep pointing out, the worst violence suffered there was before Sderot existed — when Jewish immigrants waged an attack on the native civilian population, purged it, razed their homes and stole their land to make a Jewish exclusive settlement.
I don’t approve of the rocket fire but it’s not like it holds a candle to what Israel is responsible for. And you seem to approve of that wholeheartedly.
Wrong again Richard,
The state of war existed, due to the blockade, which is an act of war.
Israel broke the ceasfire before it formally ended. It chose the day of the US Presindetial election so that it received little coverage, thereby being able to claim the response from Hamas was an escalation.
We can be quite certain thatthe November 4 raid, which killed as many Palestinians as all the Palestinian rockets attacks killed, was a lie by the Israelis because their action was inconsistent with their stated objective.
Israel usually lie, which we do know.
Potsherd,
The reality for Jewish refugees in Europe was similar in many ways to Palestinians. They had multiple experiences in DP camps that were parallel to Sabra and Shatilla. (Sitting ducks for fascist marauders.)
They also though experienced harrassment (mass murder level of harrassment) frequently outside of the camps when “invited” to return to their former host homes.
My mother-in-laws’ experience is illustrative. In Hungary, in spite of there being only two doctors in a town of 15,000, the one Jewish doctor (her father) was prohibited from practicing medicine (I think it was 1938 when enacted) for money. He could still do it out of the goodness of his heart, or for barter (legally prohibited, but turned a blind eye).
When the nazis took over in 1944 from the allied (but “not genocidal”) Hungarians, they removed all Jews from their towns, and sent them either to death camps or slave labor camps. When they were rounded up, some hiding, it was her father’s own patients that turned them in (not out of fear, but enthusiastically, and also turned in families that had hid them), and taunted them as they were rounded up and sent off.
Upon return to the town after the war ended, they were similarly harrassed, beaten, under the watching eyes of the Russian occupation.
They chose to go to first to Budapest, where they could study and congregate. But, when it was obvious that they would still be harrassed and prohibited from professions, they arranged to go to Israel.
The appeal to conscience, “remember how you were treated” is a moving one, an effective one.
The appeal by browbeating is perceived as a repetitition of harrassment.
In us shadow supporters, those that did not experience the original harrassment, but only the subsequent brow-beating (or in my wife’s case second-hand accounts and first-hand witnessing of her parents’ traumas – like Norman F), we still experience a continuum.
I suggest that you appeal to conscience, rather than assault. I think you would be more effective at persuasion.
“I suggest that you appeal to conscience, rather than assault. I think you would be more effective at persuasion.”
As we have seen this week with Mitchell’s failed vicit to Israel, appealing to conscience has been a demonstrable failure.
Israel’s leadership has demonstrated nothing but contempt for international law and international opinion, and as the Goldstone report reveals, even greater contempt for human life. There clearly is not modicum of conscience left in the Israeli leadership.
Left-wing solidarity “idiots” assert that all Jews should be removed from the West Bank and/or Israel.
That’s not what leftwing “idiots” assert. Most of them advocate a single-state solution as a response to the current racist regime in Israel.
Claiming that any mainstream leftwinger has called for an expulsion of Jews from Israel comes very, very close to a blood libel.
Great out of context photo-correction Buster.
You’re really milking the whole “out of context” dodge for all it’s worth, huh? What’s the matter? All out of phony arguments?
The significance of posting lines out of context, is that they misrepresent, rather than argue.
If you post lines in context, AND disagree, you have the opportunity to trace your different perspective, more informed, or better judgement.
Out of context potshots are something different than argument.
No one’s buying that, Witty. It’s one of your stock responses when somebody puts up an argument you can’t assail.
It doesn’t matter what “people” buy. Its truth.
If you want to actually persuade intelligent people, you have to address the points, the perspectives that they raise.
Witty, if you’re disagreeing with me, then I’m not worried that I’m not persuading intelligent people.
If I wrote a 1,000-page book, and on page 574, and only in that page, I claimed “the Jews kill Christian children to use their blood to make matzah,” no one could accuse me of antisemitism: that would be quoting me out of context.
LOL! I think you nailed it on the head, Buster.
“Growing historical understanding”? Academic debate is fine, but not when it clouds an issue! No honest, reasonably intelligent or rational person should debate the fact that the state of Israel was founded mainly on the land of Palestinians, and that murder, theft and displacement have always been a part of the process. What’s to debate?
Why would anyone argue points with someone like Witty on issues relating to the IP situation? If Witty is a lone nut, then he is harmless. If Witty is a powerful person subverting US interests in favor of ethnic goals or a foreign state, or is guilty of war crimes, then he should be tried and dealt with as harshly as possible. It’s not that difficult.