"I want to ask: Who will arrest Sharon, the person directly responsible for the orders to kill Palestinians?"
The dividing line question that I posed earlier: If the suicide bombings and the acts of individual terror stopped, would the Israeli forces stand down?
But if the Israeli forces stood down, could the Palistinian side be trusted to do the same?
It's a tough issue. Anyone with an ounce of compassion feels pain for both the Palistinians and the Israelis. Not only over what they're doing to each other, but what they're doing to themselves.
No Jenin massacre - Human Rights Watch 03 May 2002
BRUSSELS: A human rights watchdog said today it had found no evidence to back charges that hundreds of Palestinians were massacred at the Jenin refugee camp, but said the Israeli army may have committed war crimes there. Human Rights Watch said in a report it had identified 52 Palestinians who were killed during eight days of fierce house-to-house fighting in the West Bank camp last month, of whom 22 were civilians.
"Many of the civilians were killed wilfully or unlawfully," it said. "Human Rights Watch also found that the IDF (Israeli Defence Forces) used Palestinian civilians as human shields and used indiscriminate and excessive force during the operation."
"Human Rights Watch did not find evidence to support claims that the IDF massacred hundreds of Palestinians in the camp."
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan announced on Wednesday he was disbanding a team set up to probe the clash at Jenin because of objections from Israel, which maintained the mission was prejudiced against it.
"With the situation in the...camp changing by the day, it will become more and more difficult to establish with any confidence or accuracy the recent events that took place there," Annan said in a letter to the UN Security Council.
Palestinians have accused the Israeli army of a massacre.
Israel denies the allegation. It says it was rooting out a "terrorist network" and that Palestinian gunmen were the main victims in the raid, part of a larger West Bank military operation which was triggered by a wave of suicide bombings.
Human Rights Watch's 48-page report was based on the findings of three investigators it sent to Jenin for a week.
The team gathered, corroborated and cross-checked accounts from victims and witnesses, but the Israeli army refused to provide it with information.
The group said US-supplied helicopters had fired anti-tank missiles and other ordnance into the camp, "in some cases making insufficient efforts to identify legitimate military targets and avoid hitting civilian houses".
"The abuses we documented in Jenin are extremely serious, and in some cases appear to be war crimes," it said.
"Criminal investigations are needed to ascertain individual responsibility for the most serious violations. Such investigations are first and foremost the duty of the Israeli government, but the international community needs to ensure that meaningful accountability occurs."
Human Rights Watch, which has reported on conflicts in Kosovo, Bosnia, Chechnya and further afield, said it was preparing a separate report on those responsible for the suicide bombings directed against Israeli civilians.
Notice it also says that they are looking into the suicide bombings as well. I am glad to see some balance as well. But it's funny how many or should I say few that took everyword from the P.A as gospel. I can't believe such fine upstanding people like the P.A would lie. I thought it was in the hundreds if not thousands ? And I'm sure the estimates of the Afghani civilians by others are accurate too, wink. As for the sad tragedy of the civilians that were killed it's sad no doubt. Sadly the Palestinain terrorists live amongst the people. Maybe if they had a new leader that was willing to accept things like the Oslo agreement this wouldn't have happened. It's sad either way no matter who is doing the dying. But hey let's use some of the blamers logic as they have in our own battle against terror. While I don't condone the attack in Jenin, one must understand the policies of Arafat that led to this. Man that was easy, thanks for all the examples of blaming the victim.
Well you have to hand it to those peace loving Palestinians , they sure know how to promote their cause, the minute Sharon is here to talk to Bush they kill another 15 innocent civilians mostly young people who were apperantly opressing the Palestinains by dancing and playing pool. 15 dead, 60 injured, all civilans. I'm sure there will be no outcry from the apologists and many so called peace groups, since it's a just cause to them, then it's o.k. I'm sure we'll get another sincere apology from Yassir Ararat and silence from the apologists of murder and terror.
RISHON LETZION, Israel -- A suicide attack shattered a pool hall in this Israeli city late Tuesday, killing more than 15 people and wounding at least 60, police said.
The explosion occurred at 11:03 p.m., as Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was meeting in Washington with President Bush.
A police spokesman told Israel TV at least 15 people were killed in the attack.
Since the current round of Israeli-Palestiniann violence erupted in September 2000, there have been nearly 60 suicide bombings. A suicide attack on March 27 that killed 28 people set off Israel's large-scale military operation in the West Bank two days later, aimed at uprooting what the Israelis called the ``terrorist infrastructure.''
On April 12, a bomber blew herself up at a bus stop in Jerusalem, killing six people. That attack came with Secretary of State Colin Powell in the region tying to arrange an end to the violence.
David Baker, an official at the prime minister's office, called Tuesday night's explosion ``another murderous attack against Israelis.''
``It is clear that the Palestinian Authority has not given up its terror actions and has not given up its murderous path,'' he said.
Meir Nitzan, the mayor of Rishon Letzion, said more than 60 people had been taken to hospitals.
Yeruham Mandola, a spokesman with the Israeli ambulance service Magen David Adom, said part of the three-story building had collapsed. ``Some of the wounded are trapped in the building,'' he said.
No, I'm not Israeli or even Jewish. I'm an American Gentile.
But in 1967, when my growing Vietnam-era radicalization was developing unevenly and had not yet infused my understanding of Middle Eastern affairs, I enthusiastically supported Israel in its Six Day War.
I'm profoundly embarrassed to say my reason for doing so was that I was very gullible, totally misinformed, and misled by blatant pro-Israeli propaganda of the time.
I was especially influenced by a patently glorifying account of the conflict, a paperback book entitled "Strike Zion!", which appeared in U.S. drugstores seemingly even before the war had officially ended. It extolled the Israeli military to high heaven, while portraying the defeated Arab armies as pathetic, sub-human, evil losers.
I fell for it hook, line and sinker.
This is extremely troubling to me now, as I eventually became acquainted with an alternative version of that war and the whole Israeli-Arab situation, becoming an avid supporter of an independent Palestinian homeland by the early '70s.
My ultimate devotion to the Palestinian cause became so strong that it, and an accompanying desire to see the abolition of apartheid in South Africa, assumed shape as my life's twin, great dreams.
While I never took any position regarding apartheid other than it was an abomination that had to go, being formerly, completely on the wrong side with respect to the Palestinians is deeply upsetting to me.
At a pivotal time in their struggle's history, I and many others like me, helped create a public opinion atmosphere that facilitated a brutal oppression and repression that's gone on for two generations, having acquired full war-crimes dimension in the past few weeks.
South Africa is free today. Would there be a sovereign Palestinian homeland by now if I/we had taken a different stance back then?
But we really couldn't have, not knowing any better. If you think U.S. official policy and the establishment media line are lopsidedly pro-Israeli in the current Intifada's context, you should have seen how things were in '67. The American people's conception of matters was fundamentally nothing more than an uncritical rerun of the film "Exodus," with Zionism's purpose distorted by a mutual memory of Sal Mineo dying in brave furtherance of his unequivocally noble cause. And pro-Israeli interests manipulated that glamourized misconception to the max. We were totally duped.
I'm consequently haunted not only by the staggering toll of unconscionable injustices, injuries and deaths that the Palestinians have endured ever since, but also by an unnerving realization that maybe -- just, maybe -- 9/11 would never have happened...if there had been a different vision of the region's true circumstance to engender an alternative, popular view which, if articulated collectively, might have shifted events by giving the Palestinians (and the whole Islamic world) effective, remedial options to escalating violence.
That's why it's so crucially important for everyone who presenly has access to the truth about what's actually happening, or has happened, in the Holy Land...to make their experiences and observations as broadly available as possible -- and to use such information as leverage for constructive change.
Get the word out!
Write letters to the editor, communicate with elected officials, pass resolutions within your respective organizations, demonstrate in the streets.
Whatever it takes, and please be aware that it'll take a great deal.
We have to bring the one country around that has the clout to tip things irrevocably in a free, unitary Palestinian homeland's inalterable favor, but doing so will entail essentially obviating a Big Lie that's been around for decades and which is still the chief factor determining a major part of our population's manipulated thinking.
Do it because it's right and necessary.
Do it for the sake of the courageous and inspiring people of Palestine.
Last and least, do it for me, so I won't have to feel dreadfully guilty for a past sin, and to make the second of my fondest dreams finally come true.
South Africa is free today. Would there be a sovereign Palestinian homeland by now if I/we had taken a different stance back then?
Yes it is and it didn't get accomplished through mass suicide bombings did it? And it NEVER will if they continue.
In fact with every suicide bombing I hope they get farther away from the state that they were already offered.
Meanwhile 15 more Isralies were murdered and as many as 60 injured promoting your oh so noble cause. The sin of the Isralies killed ? They were opressing the Palestinains by playing pool and listening to music. Guess they got what they deserved right Dennis. I believe you called them courageous and inspiring. Yes the've inspired me alright, to give more support to Israel.
Yasser Arafat was "offered" a Palestinian homeland at Oslo.
Fact:
Neither Israel nor the United States has ever given actual indication that either would accept a genuinely free, independent, unitary, fully sovereign state for the Palestinians, to be governed by their own electoral processes, and possessing its own military.
Nothing but varying bantustan-like proposals have emanated from Tel Aviv or Washington.
But that's patently unacceptable to a people who've struggled for essential freedom for decades.
The deceptions in this vein are very reminsicent of the Ramboullet process, which was an ultimatum to Yugoslavia before America's Kosovo intervention, so destructive of Serbian sovereignty that war became inevitable. Many believe the whole thing was a callous setup to provoke a conflict the U.S. wanted for its own ulterior motives.
If Israel had truly been sincere about granting the Palestinians the authentic nation that history plainly demands they finally receive, why did it increase the number of its settlements and access roads in the occupied territories by roughly one-third during the Oslo process?
The answer is obvious.
There was never any intention of permitting a true homeland, with Palestinian Authority control and Arafat leadership.
The plan, all along, was for a quasi-annexed "protectorate" with compliant puppets in charge, and the Jewish settler presence maintained and escalated.
Shortly after the Oslo breakdown, Ariel Sharon provoked the current Intifada by his calculated, incendiary "visit", along with 1,000 armed Israeli troops, to Al-Haram al-Sharif, in East Jerusalem.
All the subsequent blood is on Sharon's and his Zionist hardline cronies' hands, a fact which no amount of myth-based media spin can obscure.
The about-to-begin Rape of Gaza will be just the latest bloody, brutal episode in a historically unprecedented reign of state terrorism by Israel against the whole Palestinian people, who have suffered deaths, injuries and daily deprivations of dignity and liberty stupendously surpassing anything Israelis have themselves experienced in desperate, isolated retaliation.
It is Israel occupying Palestine, not vice versa.
It's thirty five years of having freedom dreams routinely, systematically crushed by a vastly superior, immorally unyielding, settlement-building bully with decidedly fascistic overtones...that's brought the Palestinian masses into an unequivocally just rebellion.
Bless them for their inspirational courage and resolve!
While reactionaries continue to wallow in a fetid ethical morass by sickly trying to obscure or justify the barbaric truths of that occupation via vilely equating all Palestinians and their righteous struggle with the last-resort tactics of a handful of the most extreme militants, people without malicious, manipulative intent plainly see the truth.
Many more of them than we've been led to believe live in Israel itself.
Yes, Virginia, not all Jews are Nazi-emulating Zionist thugs.
Until it's silenced by Sharon's censors, we can learn the truth about what Israel is actually doing by visiting the Israel Indy Media website.
Evidently they've been listening to Cynthia McKinney, the Congresswoman who implied that the war on terrorism is a front for oil exploration.
They probably do know. They also know that the suicide cult is pretty much unstoppable.
Boy, I'm glad I'm going on vacation. We're going as far up in the mountains as our little feet and backpacks can carry and sustain us.
This shit's crazy. I sometimes think the embrace of death and violence is perpetual. Sustained because neither side would know what to do if it wasn't there.
If suddenly the magic solution was found for peace. What would happen?
Palestine as a democratic, functioning entity? Could they build schools and infrastructure? What private institutions and business are going see opportunities in Palestine? What path would take them to a modern society?
If he were called on to do anything besides fight, GeneralArafat probably couldn't find his butt if it had a bell on it. Maybe he knows that and it scares him.
The British established Hong Kong right on a handful of harsh, remote islands, Many of the Chinese probably didn't care much for them. Didn't like their religion or their customs. The British were probably arrogant,too. But the Chinese knew opportunity when they saw it. They built business and made it work and became British subjects. I don't know who's been to Hong Kong, but it's one amazing city.
Sadly, I don't think any co-existance like that can happen in the Holy Land today. It's just become too easy for them to give into hatreds. That's what is sustaining them.
So those who see the Palestinain "struggle" as something fit for a story by Ernest Hemingway should be prepared for something not nearly as glorious when the whole messy business ends.
FACT: There is no such thing as a Palestinian citizen and there never has been. All "Palestinians" are Arabs who are descended from Arab people who moved to the area (NOT country) when the Jews began to make it productive in the 1880s.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir said "there was no such thing as Palestinians", former Prime Minister Begin said that Palestinians were "two-legged vermin"; Rafael Eitan said they were "drugged roaches in a bottle"; former Israeli Prime Minister Shamir said they were "grasshoppers".
Today, the myths that the Palestinians don't exist as a coherent people, that Palestine didn't exist as a coherent geographical entity, and that the land was empty, are still maintained in one form or another. This denial of the Palestinians is a wholesale dehumanisation of a people.
FACTS:
The Israeli scholar Y. Porath has written that:
"...at the end of the Ottoman period the concept of Filastin was already widespread among the educated Arab public, denoting either the whole of Palestine or the Jerusalem Sanjak alone" (Y. Porath, The Emergence of the Palestinian National Movement 1918-1929, Frank Cass, 1974).
Zionists who deny the existence of the Palestinians, or "Palestine", claim that when the Western Powers, after the First World War, laid down the modern frontiers of the Middle East they did so entirely arbitrarily. The facts show that, in establishing the boundaries of "mandated Palestine" where they did, the Western powers implicitly recognised the reality of Palestine as an area of special significance whose residents were a people distinuishable from their neighbors.
Equally revealing, Palestine was also recognised as a distinct area by tourists. Baedecker's famous guidebook, published in 1876, was entitled Palestine - Syria. Herzl himself, the founder of Zionism, in his correspondence with the Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid, referred to "Palestine" and neither seems to have been confused by the term.
The bounderies established for Palestine by the colonial powers enhanced the already existing unity of the area. Evidently the Palestinians and others did regard pre- British Mandate Palestine as a distinct area, as something much more than a part of Syria or the Arab world.
In short, the Palestinians recognised it as their homeland, and others recognised it to be so. It hardly needs stating that these facts alone would be enough on which to base the conclusion that Palestine's residents regarded themselves, and were regarded by others, as Palestinians.
In 1968, Jewish historian Maxime Rodinson wrote that
"the Arab population of Palestine was native in all the usual senses of the word" (Rodinson, M., Israel and the Arabs, Penguin, 1968, p. 216)...
CONCLUSION:
The most significant fact about the existence of the Palestinians has been not just their displacement as a result of the 1948 war, but their continual and systematic displacement. It is clear from this that the central issue in the Arab-Israeli conflict from an Israeli perspective is the existence of the Palestinians as a distinct social, political, and cultural entity. For this reason Israel has devoted enormous energy to expelling them from their homes, to stripping away their identity, and to denying their existence and importance for the resolution of the conflict.
- Arjan El Fassed, writing for The Electronic Intifada.
The origins of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, as published by Jews for Justice in the Middle East. (Check out, especially, the section on "The History of Terrorism in the Region".)
Following a massive Jewish rally in Tel Aviv calling for an end to the occupation -- together with reported dissent within Likud and the Israeli armed forces -- the impending attack on Gaza has apparently been scrapped.
Some generals are said to have feared heavy Israeli and Palestinian civilian casualties.
Fear of international diplomatic and public-opinion reaction is almost certainly the actual reason, however.
Having already been sullied with warranted war-crime accusations for its excesses in the West Bank, Israel could not have launched F-16, Apache gunship and massed tank attacks on densely-packed Gaza without the many worldwide journalists and other observers who've positioned themselves there seeing what would certainly have been a very definite, ensuing massacre.
Reality is finally sinking in, aided substantially by internal, Israeli and external, global protest.
But the chief truth is that, through their indomitable will, the Palestinians themselves are inching ever closer to their just and legitimate goal -- a homeland of their own.
Pitied be the "patriots" who will brook no criticism of a nation's policies and basic orientation when they go horribly wrong, clinging, instead, to glorious cliches and myths, foolishly exclaiming "We're Number One!" as they disparage other countries and foreigners -- not to mention domestic "traitors" -- who raise justified voices of objection to what that nation has objectively become...
---
"I am not the only one to believe that Bush and his cronies are taking advantage of a national catastrophe to promote a reckless agenda that encompasses terrotorial aggression, governmental secrecy, and control through fear under the banner of patriotism. But it appears increasingly difficult to identify exactly what it is that differentiates the United States from the fascistic and communist nations we have historically opposed. When we look in the mirror, we may find the enemy is us."
--Jim Fetzer, professor of philosophy at UMD, believes that this will go down as the most corrupt administration in the nation's history. He has never felt so apprehensive about the future of our country as he does today.
---
No doubt some here will heap scorn on professor Fetzer, rather than courageously and correctly admit that trying to selfishly control the whole world -- by forcefully imposing Wall Street "values" on humanity -- is abysmally wrong and the very antithesis of what we've all been taught America supposedly represents.
That being, the liberty of all to freely practice their beliefs and determine their own destiny.
I have to admit it's actually fun watching you post on the Israel & Palestinain conflict because it's humorous to watch you contradict yourself when it's a cause YOU champion. Then the gloves seem to be off. Now I do appreciate your stance on it. I disagree with 99% of it but I appreciate your stance.
Your efforts to play down the impact of Oslo are astounding. The fact remains is that they were offered a state. As much as you try to do their p.r for them and twist it they were offered a state and G.W is on record many times saying it. Now does this mean that it would be perfect or 100% likable to either side ? Hell no. That's why it's called negotiating. It doesn't mean that if everything isn't the way you want it then you walk. It's called compromise and Arafat did very little of it. He walked away from what could have been the beginning of liberation for his people.
But here's the thing, it was a start wasn't it ? and certainly would be a hell of alot better than what they have now wouldn't it.
For years the Palestinians, many today don't even want them to exist and yet the Isralies still bother to negotiate and even mention a Pal' state. Yet you still go to great lengths to portray them as noble.
We need to get away from classifying certain crimes as 'hate' crimes (referring to the title of this thread). It seems that just 'crime' should be enough, good laws should be sufficient. I understand the anger that can boil over but the phrase hate crime is way to PC for me. Also, give more power to a 'world' court or UN agency??? Keep the UN far far away from US citizens.
WOULD YOU BE A FREE MAN IN A UNITED STATES THAT WAS A CLIENT "PROTECTORATE" OF CANADA OR MEXICO?
The Oslo accords, which were signed in 1993, initiated incremental negotiations toward an eventual Palestinian state. But Oslo offered land in pieces, not land for peace as promised. The agreement envisioned a state composed of Gaza and the West Bank -- which are separated from each other by 25 miles.
The Palestinian territories would consist of an archipelago with no free internal passage, surrounded by a sea of Israeli settlements, bypass roads and military checkpoints. Oslo promised to halt new settlements but instead resulted in 50,000 new settlers and did not prevent the bulldozing of 1,000 more Palestinian homes. It pledged a sovereign Palestinian state but left all infrastructure -- electricity, telecommunications, gas and water -- in Israeli hands. Through Oslo, Palestinians demanded their home back, and Israel offered rooms for rent with police stationed in every hallway.
--Middle East Research and Information Project
"From the outset, the Madrid-Oslo process was designed and implemented by U.S.-Israeli power to impose a Bantustan-style settlement." -- Noam Chomsky, "Rogue States," Z Magazine
Shortly before joining the Ehud Barak government, historian Shlomo Ben-Ami, a dove in the U.S.-Israeli spectrum, wrote that "the Oslo agreements were founded on a neocolonialist basis." The intent was to impose on the Palestinians "almost total dependence on Israel" in a "colonial situation" that was to be "permanent." He soon became the architect of the latest Barak government proposals, virtually identical to Bill Clinton's final plan.
These proposals were highly praised in U.S. commentary; the Palestinians and Yasser Arafat were blamed for their failure and the subsequent violence.
That presentation "was a fraud perpetrated on Israeli ... and international ... public opinion," Kimmerling writes accurately. He continues that, a look at a map suffices to show that the Clinton-Barak plans "presented to the Palestinians impossible terms." Crucially, Israel retained "two settlement blocs that in effect cut the West Bank into pieces." The Palestinian enclaves also are effectively separated from the center of Palestinian life in Jerusalem; the Gaza Strip remains isolated, its population virtually imprisoned.
Israeli settlement in the territories doubled during the years of the "peace process," increasing under Barak, who bequeathed the new government of Ariel Sharon "a surprising legacy," the Israeli press reported as the transition took place early this year: "The highest number of housing starts in the territories" since the time when Sharon supervised settlements in 1992, before Oslo. The facts on the ground are the living reality for the desperate population.
The nature of permanent neo-colonial dependency was underscored by Israel's High Court of Justice in November 1999 when it rejected yet another Palestinian petition opposing further expansion of the [Jewish] city of Maale Adumim established to the east of Jerusalem, virtually partitioning the West Bank.
--Professor Chomsky, Los Angeles Times (8/13/2001)
Recent news: Likud party votes to NEVER permit a Palestinian homeland.
WOULD YOU BE A FREE MAN IN A UNITED STATES THAT WAS A CLIENT "PROTECTORATE" OF CANADA OR MEXICO?
No but I'd be alot better off than I was under NO state or country at all. Like I said Dennis, it was a start.
The Oslo accords, which were signed in 1993, initiated incremental negotiations toward an eventual Palestinian state. But Oslo offered land in pieces, not land for peace as promised. The agreement envisioned a state composed of Gaza and the West Bank -- which are separated from each other by 25 miles.
How much land do they have now ?
The Palestinian territories would consist of an archipelago with no free internal passage, surrounded by a sea of Israeli settlements, bypass roads and military checkpoints. Oslo promised to halt new settlements but instead resulted in 50,000 new settlers and did not prevent the bulldozing of 1,000 more Palestinian homes.
And the Palestinian authority didn't keep it's end of the bargain either.
It pledged a sovereign Palestinian state but left all infrastructure -- electricity, telecommunications, gas and water -- in Israeli hands.
Well that's probably a good idea to start out that way since they would be starting from scratch. It would be unfeasible to start with no infastructure and it would lead to certain failure of a country trying to get on it's feet.
Through Oslo, Palestinians demanded their home back, and Israel offered rooms for rent with police stationed in every hallway.
And they have what now ?...... Exactly, again it would have been an improvement.
I won't even comment on Chomsky, Dennis. That would be like someone trying to take Jerry Falwell seriously.
Sorry for the repetition but Oslo was a start. Was it everything the Palestinains wanted ? Heavens no, nor was it what the perfect solution for either side, but nonetheless it was a start. Arafat essentially burned the olive branch when he could have embraced it as a start and continued his cause through diplomatic means.
The Isralies at least made the effort and were rewarded by more suicide bombers. They did all this even though many on hte other side has and continues to claim that they don't even want Israel to exist. So even after the terrorism and claims of not wanting to see Israel exist, they still offered a state or at least a beginning to solve the massive problems that plague the area. And they got more of the same from Afafat and co.
I think Rick is right, and I have heard others say it as well. I don't think Arafat wants peace, I think it's his only way of holding power. He's been a terrorist for decades and seems to know no other way. He is a detriment to his people and has the blood of many on his hands.
The Palestinians weren't offered a unitary and independent, sovereign "state" at Oslo, nor have they ever been.
What they got was a combination of a charade, an insult, and a provocation.
Which any self-respecting freedom-lover would have rejected, without foolish illusions about "negotiating" that deliberate fraud into something viable and real at some future date.
Accepting what was "presented" would have been roughly tantamount to our Thirteen Colonies knuckling under to an illusory scam by England that would have retained British economic, infrastructural and military control over a bogus "United States" gerrybuilt on the ruins of the Sons of Liberty's dreams and ideals.
A genuinely free Palestinian homeland is just a matter of time...and it'll be well worth holding out for, versus the bogus bantustans that Israeli leaders have thus far outrageously, shamefully envisioned.
Needless to say, many Palestinians would like to live inside Israel’s pre-1948 borders, and exercise a right of return in order to do so. But don’t expect those who demand the right for Jews to plant stakes anywhere we choose to offer the same right to Arabs. Many of these are among the voices that insist Jordan is “the Palestinian state,” and thus, Palestinians should be perfectly happy living there. Since Palestinians are Semites, one could properly call such an attitude “anti- Semitic” -- seeing as how it limits the rights of Semitic peoples to live wherever they wish -- but given the transmogrification of the term “anti-Semitism” into something that can only apply to Jew-hatred, such a usage would seem bizarre to many.
The rhetorical shenanigans even extend to the world of statistics. Witness the full-page advertisement in the New York Times placed by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which ran the same day as the Barak op-ed. Therein, these supposed spokespersons for American Judaism stated their unyielding support for Israel, and claimed that the 450 Israeli deaths caused by terrorism since the beginning of the second intifada, were equal to 21,000 deaths in the U.S. from terrorism, as a comparable percentage of each nation’s overall population. Playing upon fears and outrage over the attacks of 9/11, the intent was quite transparent: get U.S. readers to envision 9/11 all over again, only with seven times more casualties!
Of course, if one were at all concerned with honesty, one might point out that the numbers of Palestinian non- combatant (that is to say civilian) deaths, at the hands of Israel in that same time period, is much higher, and indeed would be “equal to” far more than 21,000 in the U.S., as a comparable share of respective populations. To be honest to a fault would be to note that the 900 or so Palestinians slaughtered with Israeli support in the Sabra and Shatilla camps during the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, would be equal to over 40,000 Americans. Even more, the 17,500 Arabs killed overall by Israel during that invasion would be roughly equivalent to over 800,000 Americans today: the size of many large cities.
In a world where words still had meaning, such things might even be considered "terrorism."
--Tim Wise, A Jewish activist, writing for AlterNet
Accepting what was "presented" would have been roughly tantamount to our Thirteen Colonies knuckling under to an illusory scam by England that would have retained British economic, infrastructural and military control over a bogus "United States" gerrybuilt on the ruins of the Sons of Liberty's dreams and ideals.
The difference in that battle was we didn't target innocent civilians. Comparing the two is absurd.
Let’s make darn sure Americans aren’t bamboozled by this PR and hope to heaven that our leaders aren’t taken in. President Bush’s recent coziness at his Crawford ranch with the ruler of the vile Saudi regime, Crown Prince Abdullah, wasn’t terribly reassuring.
To make it easy for Foxnews.com readers, and President Bush if he’s among you, below are the facts that demonstrate such ghastly hypocrisy. Judge for yourselves.
Sunday’s New York Times article from Cairo headlines the spin: "Leaders of Three Arab Nations Affirm Support of Peace Plan." Written by Neil MacFarquhar, it leads with more Arab spin: "The leaders of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria emerged from a meeting late tonight to reaffirm their commitment to a peace initiative ..."
Now let’s see what our three "peacemakers" are printing in their media and saying through their officials. Let’s start with the most important of the peacemakers, Hosni Mubarak, president of Egypt. Half of all Arabs are Egyptian, as was Sept. 11 lead terrorist Mohammad Atta.
Shortly before the peacemakers met in Cairo, an article was published in the Egyptian government newspaper Al-Akhbar regretting that Hitler did not wipe out all Jews. The article was called, "If Only You Had Done It, Brother."
Written by Fatma Abdallah Mahmoud, it tells how Jews, not just Israelis, mind you, but Jews, "are accursed in heaven and on earth. They are accursed from the day the human race was created and from the day their mothers bore them. They are accursed also because they murdered the Prophets ...These accursed ones are a catastrophe for the human race. They are the virus of the generation, doomed to a life of humiliation and wretchedness until Judgment Day. They are also accursed because they repeatedly tried to murder the Prophet Muhammad ... Allah cursed them."
For slow readers, it reiterates the point: "Thus, the Jews are accursed — the Jews of our time, those who preceded them and those who will come after them, if any Jews come after them."
And then it comes to the punch line:
With regard to the fraud of the Holocaust ... Many French studies have proven that this is no more than a fabrication, a lie, and a fraud!! ... [Hitler] is completely innocent of the charge of frying them in the hell of his false Holocaust!!
Again, that was printed in the Egyptian government’s own newspaper.
Now let’s move to the second most important country, Saudi Arabia. The Prince’s government-controlled daily Al-Jazirah recently featured an article by Dr. Khalil Ibrahim Al-Sa'adat that celebrated the perpetuator of the Passover massacre, the barbarous act that prompted the Israeli retaliation.
"May Allah have mercy upon" this mass murderer, "the quiet hero who infiltrated so elegantly and spoke so gaily. You defended your religion, your homeland, and your people. You attached no importance to [any] Arab summit; you did not wait for international agreements."
Rather, the murderer acted "courageously, full of willingness to [wage] Jihad, and with faith filling your heart, you executed your assignment and sacrificed your pure soul for your religion and your homeland."
So while the Prince spins "peace" with Israel, his Saudi government newspaper spins distrust and hatred: "The Zionists do not honor treaties, promises, and agreements, and understand only the language of resistance and Jihad ... May Allah have mercy on you, oh beloved of the Arab nation."
Again, there’s a nice religious flavor to the close: "You entered silently, with the faith and confidence with which Allah inspired you ... Allah decreed for you a martyr's death. What heroism, courage, and strength — almost unmatched on the face of the earth!"
The third of our "peacemakers" hails from Syria. The tyrant Bashar Assad had his foreign minister, Farouq Al-Shar, justify the terrorist war against Israel by redefining terrorism so as to excuse the killing of innocent children, mothers, and elderly.
"When your lands are occupied by foreign forces," he writes, "you have no alternative but to liberate your homeland. Your means are, first and foremost, to launch a war against the enemy occupying your land, or fight against the colonialism in every way possible ..."
The foreign minister continues, "If [you] insist that there is no difference between the legitimate right of the peoples to struggle against foreign terrorism and killing innocent civilians in distant places, and if [you] insist that there is no difference between terrorists and those defending their land and trying to liberate it – then there is no difference between the victims of terrorism and the terrorists themselves."
All these excerpts are found on the invaluable Web site www.memri.org from the original documents themselves. Those documents tell more of the truth than the esteemed New York Times' "spun" articles, like the aforementioned ones filed from Cairo. Let’s be sure we, at least, are not as bamboozled as our leaders now seem to be.
Kenneth Adelman is a frequent guest commentator on Fox News, was assistant to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld from 1975 to 1977 and, under President Ronald Reagan, U.N. ambassador and arms-control director. Mr. Adelman is now co-host of TechCentralStation.com.
All of which conveniently overlooks that growing Israeli/Jewish sentiment opposes the occupation and favors a Palestinian homeland.
Additionally, stubborn rigidity by Sharon and especially Netanyahu simply fuels hardline feeling within Arab ranks.
Nevertheless, we seem to have reached a point of hopeless impasse where nothing but going fishing is going to do any good.
That and a joke:
A young woman was pulled over for speeding. As the motorcyle officer walked to her car window, flipping open his ticket book, she said, "I bet you are going to sell me a ticket to the Patrolmen's Ball."
He replied, "Highway patrolmen don't have balls."
There was a moment of silence while she smiled, and he realized what he'd said.
He then closed his book, got back on his motorcycle, and rode off.
A Jewish boy comes home and says. "Mom, I got a part in the school play." great the Mom says. What part did you get? "I play the part of a Jewish husband." the mother looks at the child and says oh, too bad, I was hoping you'd get a speaking part.
TEL AVIV -- My parents instilled in me the notion that I must do everything for the state. In Israel, serving in the army is a central expression of that ethos. When I was a high school student, it was not only obvious to me that I would go to the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), but it was also vital that I become a paratrooper and serve in a special unit. It was also clear to me that my service to the state and my patriotism would require that I participate in an officer's course and serve an extra year.
Now that I have done several tours of duty in the West Bank as a reserve officer, this axiom that the army and the state are one and the same, and my belief that the army serves the vital security interests of the state have been eroded. There was no single development that made me an objector; rather it was a succession of small incidents. It became increasingly clear to me that the little orders that I was issued, and then the orders I gave my soldiers to carry out, had precious little to do with protecting the state. They had everything to do with protecting a group of zealots and their settlements, and maintaining a Kafkaesque system that spelled misery for ordinary Palestinians.
After two years of deliberation and many sleepless nights, I came to the inescapable conclusion that Zionism is not what the zealots have made it. Zionism is not about occupation and territories; it is about obtaining a secure and internationally recognized home for the Jewish people. While some in Israel view refusal as betrayal, I refuse to betray the basic values and goals of Zionism. The continuing occupation imperils the future of the Jewish state. We must choose between land and legitimacy and between occupation and democracy.
I have paid a tremendous social price for my act of refusal. Gone, as a result, are some long-standing friendships. I have also lost out on the camaraderie and friendships I so enjoyed in my unit. Reserve duty is an integral part of the lives of patriotic Israelis. No less painful has been losing the privilege of commanding my soldiers, whom I deeply care about. In a month, they will be doing another tour of duty in Gaza without me, and as a responsible officer I fear for their safety.
As an officer in the IDF, I was taught Clausewitz's maxim that war is politics by another means. I know that many people are, at present, more willing than ever to serve in the territories. The heinous Passover massacre and the unrelenting wave of terror ensured that. But what after Operation Defensive Wall? Though the Passover massacre has been avenged, and public anger has been channeled, the roadblocks that humiliate, the closures that starve, the travel restrictions that place a chokehold over a regular existence will stay. They are the motivation for terror.
If Ariel Sharon truly desired to end terror, the military imperative would be to withdraw from the territories and guard a fortified Israeli border.
Perhaps I would serve in the occupied territories if I believed that the Israeli government was sincerely committed to a withdrawal from the territories. There is, however, no reason whatever to believe that this is the case. Only recently, Ariel Sharon notified his cabinet that he refuses to discuss the settlements until 2003, at the very least. Until then my service will continue to be used to protect the interests of a minority of extremists, fanatics who threaten the interest of the majority of Israelis and deprive millions of Palestinians of their basic human rights. As a patriot who is concerned about Israel's longer-term security, I refuse to fight this war -- the war for the settlements -- a war of choice that has weakened Israel.
Make no mistake, however, my refusal to take part in this war of choice does not rule me out from any war that threatens Israel. I'll be the first to be there when my country needs me.
-- Washington Post (The writer, David Zonsheine, software engineer, has served as a second lieutenant in the Paratroopers Brigade in the Israeli Defense Force.)
The incident depicted in this infamous photo, and last Sunday's Likud vote to never allow a Palestinian state, will be recorded in history as the keys to Israel's ultimate failure to prevent Palestinian victory.
I'm a little late on this but, this discussion of A-bomb attacks as an act of terrorism has me intrigued.
The cataclysmic acts of war that were the bombings of Heroshima and Nagasaki changed the world forever. I would not even attempt to evaluate their legitimacy as a target or their value as a tool of war beyondsaying they changed the world forever.
Maybe I prefer not to because I don't want to think that the United States is capable of doing something out of evil intent. Questions swirl around this issue, and they should. In the absense of clean, definitive answers we personally decide in our own what kind of world has been left in the aftermath.
The Japanese fought a war with the United States, but today I don't think the collective Japanese mentaility feels hatred for the United States. There is strong and continuing evidence to the contrary.
Despite the war and the A-bomb attacks, Japan is a valuable ally. That must mean something. I don't think it's out of fear. Moreover, both countries seem to have put the acts of WWII in some type of perspective and moved on from there.
Will the Israelis and Palistinians ever come to a point where they see events of today in the same light? -- I can't imagine it, but I might be wrong.
Had the Japanese or any other nation had that technology they certainly would have used it. They tried sending large explosives on high altitude hot air ballon bombs to explode in U.S cities. Very few worked, distance and the lack of technology is the only thing that saved us from having alot of civilian casualties. They most certainly would have used them as well. Germany was extremly close.
Now does that make it right ? Millions upon millions of civilians died in that war. All of them a tragedy. Time and time again I have heard the statement of how Japan was ready to surrender. And yet they will offer no real proof. I am a bit of a history buff and spent some time in Japan. I can tell you first hand wether it be our text books or old Japanese soilders. They were NOWHERE near surrender. First of all militarily they had stockpiled a large amount of weaponry, they knew what and who was coming and were ready for it. The other islands were a mere delaying action and they knew it.
The biggest factor of course was the civilians and soilders. Much like the extremists today they saw there lives as a secondary to their cause, their emporer in this case. They stuck by their boshito (sp) code in where they were bound by honor to never surrender to someone that they saw as inferior or subhuman. They swore and would have fought viciously with men women and anyone who could have done any type of damage to American troops. I have seen some of the old training videos what the civilians went through and were ready for.
When we landed on Okinawa the fighting was even more fierce than anything we had experienced on Iwo Jima, Saipan, Tinain, the Mariana's, the Philipenes, Chinese Burma etc. Because Okinawa was the first Island they considered original home territiory, womwen threw themselves and thier babies off the cliffs lest be captured by us. We didn't have to take many Japanese prisioners because as usual they fought to the last when all hope was lost or killed themselves rather than be dishonored. And also much like the Palestinians, felt we degraded the land by even walking on it.
Even with their defeat emeinant they never surrendered. They certainly wouldn't have. The only way they were going to surrender period was by taking the home island. The fighting for the home island would have been 10 times as fierce as anything the Americans had ever seen. Conservative estimates placed U.S casualties at over 1 million and the Japanese casualties from 2-3 million people. And at least 1 and a half years more fighting. We would have prevailed eventually but at great cost to both sides. More so than ever lost their lives at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Was it justified ? Time will tell. It's easy in highinsight to say no unless you were one of those troops from either side.
as Rick pointed out so well is that the Japanese learned to adapt as well. Today we are considered allies and even though there are usual tensions between different cultures it's pretty amazing to see how far we've come collectivley. as Rick pondered I wonder if that will ever happen with the Isralies and Palestinains ? Let's hope so.
On a side note somewhat I feel that we were justified in doing what we did. in highinsight it would be easy for me to say otherwise but with what we were facing at the time I think it was. But that weapon would have been used by someone at some point and frankly i think that the "bomb" has also averted many many wars. We'll never know for sure but I do think that it has prevented conflict as well.
"I want to ask: Who will arrest Sharon, the person directly responsible for the orders to kill Palestinians?"
The dividing line question that I posed earlier:
If the suicide bombings and the acts of individual terror stopped, would the Israeli forces stand down?
But if the Israeli forces stood down, could the Palistinian side be trusted to do the same?
Eeee Gads I hope not, that would be.......GASP....
capatalistic ! Yikes.....
I know I'd want to get paid.
I'm nobody's Blue-light Special.
Great Posts Rick.
Good to see actual debate and questioning being posted as opposed to preaching.
It's a tough issue. Anyone with an ounce of compassion feels pain for both the Palistinians and the Israelis. Not only over what they're doing to each other, but what they're doing to themselves.
It's seems like there's no going back from here.
No Jenin massacre - Human Rights Watch
03 May 2002
BRUSSELS: A human rights watchdog said today it had found no evidence to back charges that hundreds of Palestinians were massacred at the Jenin refugee camp, but said the Israeli army may have committed war crimes there.
Human Rights Watch said in a report it had identified 52 Palestinians who were killed during eight days of fierce house-to-house fighting in the West Bank camp last month, of whom 22 were civilians.
"Many of the civilians were killed wilfully or unlawfully," it said. "Human Rights Watch also found that the IDF (Israeli Defence Forces) used Palestinian civilians as human shields and used indiscriminate and excessive force during the operation."
"Human Rights Watch did not find evidence to support claims that the IDF massacred hundreds of Palestinians in the camp."
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan announced on Wednesday he was disbanding a team set up to probe the clash at Jenin because of objections from Israel, which maintained the mission was prejudiced against it.
"With the situation in the...camp changing by the day, it will become more and more difficult to establish with any confidence or accuracy the recent events that took place there," Annan said in a letter to the UN Security Council.
Palestinians have accused the Israeli army of a massacre.
Israel denies the allegation. It says it was rooting out a "terrorist network" and that Palestinian gunmen were the main victims in the raid, part of a larger West Bank military operation which was triggered by a wave of suicide bombings.
Human Rights Watch's 48-page report was based on the findings of three investigators it sent to Jenin for a week.
The team gathered, corroborated and cross-checked accounts from victims and witnesses, but the Israeli army refused to provide it with information.
The group said US-supplied helicopters had fired anti-tank missiles and other ordnance into the camp, "in some cases making insufficient efforts to identify legitimate military targets and avoid hitting civilian houses".
"The abuses we documented in Jenin are extremely serious, and in some cases appear to be war crimes," it said.
"Criminal investigations are needed to ascertain individual responsibility for the most serious violations. Such investigations are first and foremost the duty of the Israeli government, but the international community needs to ensure that meaningful accountability occurs."
Human Rights Watch, which has reported on conflicts in Kosovo, Bosnia, Chechnya and further afield, said it was preparing a separate report on those responsible for the suicide bombings directed against Israeli civilians.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/inl/index/0,1008,1188839a12,FF.html
Notice it also says that they are looking into the suicide bombings as well. I am glad to see some balance as well. But it's funny how many or should I say few that took everyword from the P.A as gospel. I can't believe such fine upstanding people like the P.A would lie. I thought it was in the hundreds if not thousands ?
And I'm sure the estimates of the Afghani civilians by others are accurate too, wink.
As for the sad tragedy of the civilians that were killed it's sad no doubt. Sadly the Palestinain terrorists live amongst the people. Maybe if they had a new leader that was willing to accept things like the Oslo agreement this wouldn't have happened. It's sad either way no matter who is doing the dying. But hey let's use some of the blamers logic as they have in our own battle against terror. While I don't condone the attack in Jenin, one must understand the policies of Arafat that led to this. Man that was easy, thanks for all the examples of blaming the victim.
Well you have to hand it to those peace loving Palestinians , they sure know how to promote their cause, the minute Sharon is here to talk to Bush they kill another 15 innocent civilians mostly young people who were apperantly opressing the Palestinains by dancing and playing pool. 15 dead, 60 injured, all civilans. I'm sure there will be no outcry from the apologists and many so called peace groups, since it's a just cause to them, then it's o.k. I'm sure we'll get another sincere apology from Yassir Ararat and silence from the apologists of murder and terror.
RISHON LETZION, Israel -- A suicide attack shattered a pool hall in this Israeli city late Tuesday, killing more than 15 people and wounding at least 60, police said.
The explosion occurred at 11:03 p.m., as Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was meeting in Washington with President Bush.
A police spokesman told Israel TV at least 15 people were killed in the attack.
Since the current round of Israeli-Palestiniann violence erupted in September 2000, there have been nearly 60 suicide bombings. A suicide attack on March 27 that killed 28 people set off Israel's large-scale military operation in the West Bank two days later, aimed at uprooting what the Israelis called the ``terrorist infrastructure.''
On April 12, a bomber blew herself up at a bus stop in Jerusalem, killing six people. That attack came with Secretary of State Colin Powell in the region tying to arrange an end to the violence.
David Baker, an official at the prime minister's office, called Tuesday night's explosion ``another murderous attack against Israelis.''
``It is clear that the Palestinian Authority has not given up its terror actions and has not given up its murderous path,'' he said.
Meir Nitzan, the mayor of Rishon Letzion, said more than 60 people had been taken to hospitals.
Yeruham Mandola, a spokesman with the Israeli ambulance service Magen David Adom, said part of the three-story building had collapsed. ``Some of the wounded are trapped in the building,'' he said.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/2819684.html
These bombers are a suicide cult. They're unstoppable. I don't know how they can be linked to a social/political cause anymore.
I HELPED PERSECUTE THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE
No, I'm not Israeli or even Jewish. I'm an American Gentile.
But in 1967, when my growing Vietnam-era radicalization was developing unevenly and had not yet infused my understanding of Middle Eastern affairs, I enthusiastically supported Israel in its Six Day War.
I'm profoundly embarrassed to say my reason for doing so was that I was very gullible, totally misinformed, and misled by blatant pro-Israeli propaganda of the time.
I was especially influenced by a patently glorifying account of the conflict, a paperback book entitled "Strike Zion!", which appeared in U.S. drugstores seemingly even before the war had officially ended. It extolled the Israeli military to high heaven, while portraying the defeated Arab armies as pathetic, sub-human, evil losers.
I fell for it hook, line and sinker.
This is extremely troubling to me now, as I eventually became acquainted with an alternative version of that war and the whole Israeli-Arab situation, becoming an avid supporter of an independent Palestinian homeland by the early '70s.
My ultimate devotion to the Palestinian cause became so strong that it, and an accompanying desire to see the abolition of apartheid in South Africa, assumed shape as my life's twin, great dreams.
While I never took any position regarding apartheid other than it was an abomination that had to go, being formerly, completely on the wrong side with respect to the Palestinians is deeply upsetting to me.
At a pivotal time in their struggle's history, I and many others like me, helped create a public opinion atmosphere that facilitated a brutal oppression and repression that's gone on for two generations, having acquired full war-crimes dimension in the past few weeks.
South Africa is free today. Would there be a sovereign Palestinian homeland by now if I/we had taken a different stance back then?
(continued)
But we really couldn't have, not knowing any better. If you think U.S. official policy and the establishment media line are lopsidedly pro-Israeli in the current Intifada's context, you should have seen how things were in '67. The American people's conception of matters was fundamentally nothing more than an uncritical rerun of the film "Exodus," with Zionism's purpose distorted by a mutual memory of Sal Mineo dying in brave furtherance of his unequivocally noble cause. And pro-Israeli interests manipulated that glamourized misconception to the max. We were totally duped.
I'm consequently haunted not only by the staggering toll of unconscionable injustices, injuries and deaths that the Palestinians have endured ever since, but also by an unnerving realization that maybe -- just, maybe -- 9/11 would never have happened...if there had been a different vision of the region's true circumstance to engender an alternative, popular view which, if articulated collectively, might have shifted events by giving the Palestinians (and the whole Islamic world) effective, remedial options to escalating violence.
That's why it's so crucially important for everyone who presenly has access to the truth about what's actually happening, or has happened, in the Holy Land...to make their experiences and observations as broadly available as possible -- and to use such information as leverage for constructive change.
Get the word out!
Write letters to the editor, communicate with elected officials, pass resolutions within your respective organizations, demonstrate in the streets.
Whatever it takes, and please be aware that it'll take a great deal.
We have to bring the one country around that has the clout to tip things irrevocably in a free, unitary Palestinian homeland's inalterable favor, but doing so will entail essentially obviating a Big Lie that's been around for decades and which is still the chief factor determining a major part of our population's manipulated thinking.
Do it because it's right and necessary.
Do it for the sake of the courageous and inspiring people of Palestine.
Last and least, do it for me, so I won't have to feel dreadfully guilty for a past sin, and to make the second of my fondest dreams finally come true.
Yes it is and it didn't get accomplished through mass suicide bombings did it? And it NEVER will if they continue.
In fact with every suicide bombing I hope they get farther away from the state that they were already offered.
Meanwhile 15 more Isralies were murdered and as many as 60 injured promoting your oh so noble cause. The sin of the Isralies killed ? They were opressing the Palestinains by playing pool and listening to music. Guess they got what they deserved right Dennis. I believe you called them courageous and inspiring. Yes the've inspired me alright, to give more support to Israel.
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/
An alternative information source, for those wishing to put the issue into proper perspective...
http://www.electronicintifada.com/diaries/index.html
Here's another...
Claim:
Yasser Arafat was "offered" a Palestinian homeland at Oslo.
Fact:
Neither Israel nor the United States has ever given actual indication that either would accept a genuinely free, independent, unitary, fully sovereign state for the Palestinians, to be governed by their own electoral processes, and possessing its own military.
Nothing but varying bantustan-like proposals have emanated from Tel Aviv or Washington.
But that's patently unacceptable to a people who've struggled for essential freedom for decades.
The deceptions in this vein are very reminsicent of the Ramboullet process, which was an ultimatum to Yugoslavia before America's Kosovo intervention, so destructive of Serbian sovereignty that war became inevitable. Many believe the whole thing was a callous setup to provoke a conflict the U.S. wanted for its own ulterior motives.
If Israel had truly been sincere about granting the Palestinians the authentic nation that history plainly demands they finally receive, why did it increase the number of its settlements and access roads in the occupied territories by roughly one-third during the Oslo process?
The answer is obvious.
There was never any intention of permitting a true homeland, with Palestinian Authority
control and Arafat leadership.
The plan, all along, was for a quasi-annexed "protectorate" with compliant puppets in charge, and the Jewish settler presence maintained and escalated.
Shortly after the Oslo breakdown, Ariel Sharon provoked the current Intifada by his calculated, incendiary "visit", along with 1,000 armed Israeli troops, to Al-Haram al-Sharif, in East Jerusalem.
All the subsequent blood is on Sharon's and his
Zionist hardline cronies' hands, a fact which no amount of myth-based media spin can obscure.
http://www.indymedia.org.il/imc/israel/webcast/index.php3?language=en
The about-to-begin Rape of Gaza will be just the latest bloody, brutal episode in a historically unprecedented reign of state terrorism by Israel against the whole Palestinian people, who have suffered deaths, injuries and daily deprivations of dignity and liberty stupendously surpassing anything Israelis have themselves experienced in desperate, isolated retaliation.
It is Israel occupying Palestine, not vice versa.
It's thirty five years of having freedom dreams routinely, systematically crushed by a vastly superior, immorally unyielding, settlement-building bully with decidedly fascistic overtones...that's brought the Palestinian masses into an unequivocally just rebellion.
Bless them for their inspirational courage and resolve!
While reactionaries continue to wallow in a fetid ethical morass by sickly trying to obscure or justify the barbaric truths of that occupation via vilely equating all Palestinians and their righteous struggle with the last-resort tactics of a handful of the most extreme militants, people without malicious, manipulative intent plainly see the truth.
Many more of them than we've been led to believe live in Israel itself.
Yes, Virginia, not all Jews are Nazi-emulating Zionist thugs.
Until it's silenced by Sharon's censors, we can learn the truth about what Israel is actually doing by visiting the Israel Indy Media website.
This Indymedia outfit implies that Israel knows about the attacks.
Evidently they've been listening to Cynthia McKinney, the Congresswoman who implied that the war on terrorism is a front for oil exploration.
They probably do know. They also know that the suicide cult is pretty much unstoppable.
Boy, I'm glad I'm going on vacation. We're going as far up in the mountains as our little feet and backpacks can carry and sustain us.
This shit's crazy. I sometimes think the embrace of death and violence is perpetual. Sustained because neither side would know what to do if it wasn't there.
If suddenly the magic solution was found for peace. What would happen?
Palestine as a democratic, functioning entity? Could they build schools and infrastructure? What private institutions and business are going see opportunities in Palestine? What path would take them to a modern society?
If he were called on to do anything besides fight, GeneralArafat probably couldn't find his butt if it had a bell on it. Maybe he knows that and it scares him.
The British established Hong Kong right on a handful of harsh, remote islands, Many of the Chinese probably didn't care much for them. Didn't like their religion or their customs. The British were probably arrogant,too. But the Chinese knew opportunity when they saw it. They built business and made it work and became British subjects. I don't know who's been to Hong Kong, but it's one amazing city.
Sadly, I don't think any co-existance like that can happen in the Holy Land today. It's just become too easy for them to give into hatreds. That's what is sustaining them.
So those who see the Palestinain "struggle" as something fit for a story by Ernest Hemingway should be prepared for something not nearly as glorious when the whole messy business ends.
FACT: There is no such thing as a Palestinian citizen and there never has been. All "Palestinians" are Arabs who are descended from Arab people who moved to the area (NOT country) when the Jews began to make it productive in the 1880s.
Arafat is an EGYPTIAN.
EXPOSING THE "THERE IS NO PALESTINE" MYTH
Former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir said "there was no such thing as Palestinians", former Prime Minister Begin said that Palestinians were "two-legged vermin"; Rafael Eitan said they were "drugged roaches in a bottle"; former Israeli Prime Minister Shamir said they were "grasshoppers".
Today, the myths that the Palestinians don't exist as a coherent people, that Palestine didn't exist as a coherent geographical entity, and that the land was empty, are still maintained in one form or another. This denial of the Palestinians is a wholesale dehumanisation of a people.
FACTS:
The Israeli scholar Y. Porath has written that:
"...at the end of the Ottoman period the concept of Filastin was already widespread among the educated Arab public, denoting either the whole of Palestine or the Jerusalem Sanjak alone" (Y. Porath, The Emergence of the Palestinian National Movement 1918-1929, Frank Cass, 1974).
Zionists who deny the existence of the Palestinians, or "Palestine", claim that when the Western Powers, after the First World War, laid down the modern frontiers of the Middle East they did so entirely arbitrarily. The facts show that, in establishing the boundaries of "mandated Palestine" where they did, the Western powers implicitly recognised the reality of Palestine as an area of special significance whose residents were a people distinuishable from their neighbors.
Equally revealing, Palestine was also recognised as a distinct area by tourists. Baedecker's famous guidebook, published in 1876, was entitled Palestine - Syria. Herzl himself, the founder of Zionism, in his correspondence with the Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid, referred to "Palestine" and neither seems to have been confused by the term.
The bounderies established for Palestine by the colonial powers enhanced the already existing unity of the area. Evidently the Palestinians and others did regard pre- British Mandate Palestine as a distinct area, as something much more than a part of Syria or the Arab world.
In short, the Palestinians recognised it as their homeland, and others recognised it to be so. It hardly needs stating that these facts alone would be enough on which to base the conclusion that Palestine's residents regarded themselves, and were regarded by others, as Palestinians.
In 1968, Jewish historian Maxime Rodinson wrote that
"the Arab population of Palestine was native in all the usual senses of the word" (Rodinson, M., Israel and the Arabs, Penguin, 1968, p. 216)...
CONCLUSION:
The most significant fact about the existence of the Palestinians has been not just their displacement as a result of the 1948 war, but their continual and systematic displacement. It is clear from this that the central issue in the Arab-Israeli conflict from an Israeli perspective is the existence of the Palestinians as a distinct social, political, and cultural entity. For this reason Israel has devoted enormous energy to expelling them from their homes, to stripping away their identity, and to denying their existence and importance for the resolution of the conflict.
- Arjan El Fassed, writing for The Electronic Intifada.
http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html
The origins of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, as published by Jews for Justice in the Middle East. (Check out, especially, the section on "The History of Terrorism in the Region".)
Following a massive Jewish rally in Tel Aviv calling for an end to the occupation -- together with reported dissent within Likud and the Israeli armed forces -- the impending attack on Gaza has apparently been scrapped.
Some generals are said to have feared heavy Israeli and Palestinian civilian casualties.
Fear of international diplomatic and public-opinion reaction is almost certainly the actual reason, however.
Having already been sullied with warranted war-crime accusations for its excesses in the West Bank, Israel could not have launched F-16, Apache gunship and massed tank attacks on densely-packed Gaza without the many worldwide journalists and other observers who've positioned themselves there seeing what would certainly have been a very definite, ensuing massacre.
Reality is finally sinking in, aided substantially by internal, Israeli and external, global protest.
But the chief truth is that, through their indomitable will, the Palestinians themselves are inching ever closer to their just and legitimate goal -- a homeland of their own.
Pitied be the "patriots" who will brook no criticism of a nation's policies and basic orientation when they go horribly wrong, clinging, instead, to glorious cliches and myths, foolishly exclaiming "We're Number One!" as they disparage other countries and foreigners -- not to mention domestic "traitors" -- who raise justified voices of objection to what that nation has objectively become...
---
"I am not the only one to believe that Bush and his cronies are taking advantage of a national catastrophe to promote a reckless agenda that encompasses terrotorial aggression, governmental secrecy, and control through fear under the banner of patriotism. But it appears increasingly difficult to identify exactly what it is that differentiates the United States from the fascistic and communist nations we have historically opposed. When we look in the mirror, we may find the enemy is us."
--Jim Fetzer, professor of philosophy at UMD, believes that this will go down as the most corrupt administration in the nation's history. He has never felt so apprehensive about the future of our country as he does today.
---
No doubt some here will heap scorn on professor Fetzer, rather than courageously and correctly admit that trying to selfishly control the whole world -- by forcefully imposing Wall Street "values" on humanity -- is abysmally wrong and the very antithesis of what
we've all been taught America supposedly represents.
That being, the liberty of all to freely practice their beliefs and determine their own destiny.
Rahkonen, I see that you are still living in la-la land.
Bill Fold,
Some excellent posts on Israel !
Dennis,
I have to admit it's actually fun watching you post on the Israel & Palestinain conflict because it's humorous to watch you contradict yourself when it's a cause YOU champion. Then the gloves seem to be off. Now I do appreciate your stance on it. I disagree with 99% of it but I appreciate your stance.
Your efforts to play down the impact of Oslo are astounding. The fact remains is that they were offered a state. As much as you try to do their p.r for them and twist it they were offered a state and G.W is on record many times saying it. Now does this mean that it would be perfect or 100% likable to either side ? Hell no.
That's why it's called negotiating. It doesn't mean that if everything isn't the way you want it then you walk. It's called compromise and Arafat did very little of it. He walked away from what could have been the beginning of liberation for his people.
But here's the thing, it was a start wasn't it ? and certainly would be a hell of alot better than what they have now wouldn't it.
For years the Palestinians, many today don't even want them to exist and yet the Isralies still bother to negotiate and even mention a Pal' state. Yet you still go to great lengths to portray them as noble.
We need to get away from classifying certain crimes as 'hate' crimes (referring to the title of this thread). It seems that just 'crime' should be enough, good laws should be sufficient. I understand the anger that can boil over but the phrase hate crime is way to PC for me.
Also, give more power to a 'world' court or UN agency??? Keep the UN far far away from US citizens.
I agree, Apple.
The reason for the crime is irrelevant. One could argue that all crime is a hate crime. It's just stupid.
Very true Apple on both points.
BTW welcome to this thread.
WOULD YOU BE A FREE MAN IN A UNITED STATES THAT WAS A CLIENT "PROTECTORATE" OF CANADA OR MEXICO?
The Palestinian territories would consist of an archipelago with no free internal passage, surrounded by a sea of Israeli settlements, bypass roads and military checkpoints. Oslo promised to halt new settlements but instead resulted in 50,000 new settlers and did not prevent the bulldozing of 1,000 more Palestinian homes. It pledged a sovereign Palestinian state but left all infrastructure -- electricity, telecommunications, gas and water -- in Israeli hands. Through Oslo, Palestinians demanded their home back, and Israel offered rooms for rent with police stationed in every hallway.
--Middle East Research and Information Project
"From the outset, the Madrid-Oslo process was designed and implemented by U.S.-Israeli power to impose a Bantustan-style settlement." -- Noam Chomsky, "Rogue States," Z Magazine
Shortly before joining the Ehud Barak government, historian Shlomo Ben-Ami, a dove in the U.S.-Israeli spectrum, wrote that "the Oslo agreements were founded on a neocolonialist basis." The intent was to impose on the Palestinians "almost total dependence on Israel" in a "colonial situation" that was to be "permanent." He soon became the architect of the latest Barak government proposals, virtually identical to Bill Clinton's final plan.
These proposals were highly praised in U.S. commentary; the Palestinians and Yasser Arafat were blamed for their failure and the subsequent violence.
That presentation "was a fraud perpetrated on Israeli ... and international ... public opinion," Kimmerling writes accurately. He continues that, a look at a map suffices to show that the Clinton-Barak plans "presented to the Palestinians impossible terms." Crucially, Israel retained "two settlement blocs that in effect cut the West Bank into pieces." The Palestinian enclaves also are effectively separated from the center of Palestinian life in Jerusalem; the Gaza Strip remains isolated, its population virtually imprisoned.
Israeli settlement in the territories doubled during the years of the "peace process," increasing under Barak, who bequeathed the new government of Ariel Sharon "a surprising legacy," the Israeli press reported as the transition took place early this year: "The highest number of housing starts in the territories" since the time when Sharon supervised settlements in 1992, before Oslo. The facts on the ground are the living reality for the desperate population.
The nature of permanent neo-colonial dependency was underscored by Israel's High Court of Justice in November 1999 when it rejected yet another Palestinian petition opposing further expansion of the [Jewish] city of Maale Adumim established to the east of Jerusalem, virtually partitioning the West Bank.
--Professor Chomsky, Los Angeles Times (8/13/2001)
Recent news: Likud party votes to NEVER permit a Palestinian homeland.
Dennis,
No but I'd be alot better off than I was under NO state or country at all. Like I said Dennis, it was a start.
How much land do they have now ?
And the Palestinian authority didn't keep it's end of the bargain either.
Well that's probably a good idea to start out that way since they would be starting from scratch. It would be unfeasible to start with no infastructure and it would lead to certain failure of a country trying to get on it's feet.
And they have what now ?...... Exactly, again it would have been an improvement.
I won't even comment on Chomsky, Dennis. That would be like someone trying to take Jerry Falwell seriously.
Sorry for the repetition but Oslo was a start. Was it everything the Palestinains wanted ? Heavens no, nor was it what the perfect solution for either side, but nonetheless it was a start. Arafat essentially burned the olive branch when he could have embraced it as a start and continued his cause through diplomatic means.
The Isralies at least made the effort and were rewarded by more suicide bombers. They did all this even though many on hte other side has and continues to claim that they don't even want Israel to exist. So even after the terrorism and claims of not wanting to see Israel exist, they still offered a state or at least a beginning to solve the massive problems that plague the area. And they got more of the same from Afafat and co.
I think Rick is right, and I have heard others say it as well. I don't think Arafat wants peace, I think it's his only way of holding power. He's been a terrorist for decades and seems to know no other way. He is a detriment to his people and has the blood of many on his hands.
The Palestinians weren't offered a unitary and independent, sovereign "state" at Oslo, nor have they ever been.
What they got was a combination of a charade, an insult, and a provocation.
Which any self-respecting freedom-lover would have
rejected, without foolish illusions about "negotiating" that deliberate fraud into something viable and real at some future date.
Accepting what was "presented" would have been roughly tantamount to our Thirteen Colonies knuckling under to an illusory scam by England that would have retained British economic, infrastructural and military control over a bogus "United States" gerrybuilt on the ruins of the Sons of Liberty's dreams and ideals.
A genuinely free Palestinian homeland is just a matter of time...and it'll be well worth holding out for, versus the bogus bantustans that Israeli leaders have thus far outrageously, shamefully envisioned.
The rhetorical shenanigans even extend to the world of statistics. Witness the full-page advertisement in the New York Times placed by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which ran the same day as the Barak op-ed. Therein, these supposed spokespersons for American Judaism stated their unyielding support for Israel, and claimed that the 450 Israeli deaths caused by terrorism since the beginning of the second intifada, were equal to 21,000 deaths in the U.S. from terrorism, as a comparable percentage of each nation’s overall population. Playing upon fears and outrage over the attacks of 9/11, the intent was quite transparent: get U.S. readers to envision 9/11 all over again, only with seven times more casualties!
Of course, if one were at all concerned with honesty, one might point out that the numbers of Palestinian non- combatant (that is to say civilian) deaths, at the hands of Israel in that same time period, is much higher, and indeed would be “equal to” far more than 21,000 in the U.S., as a comparable share of respective populations. To be honest to a fault would be to note that the 900 or so Palestinians slaughtered with Israeli support in the Sabra and Shatilla camps during the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, would be equal to over 40,000 Americans. Even more, the 17,500 Arabs killed overall by Israel during that invasion would be roughly equivalent to over 800,000 Americans today: the size of many large cities.
In a world where words still had meaning, such things might even be considered "terrorism."
--Tim Wise, A Jewish activist, writing for AlterNet
You know Dennis, if you look hard enough I'm sure you'll find a Jew that thought Hitler was right.
http://www.nimn.org/
Here's a good website providing a pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist, Jewish perspective...
The difference in that battle was we didn't target innocent civilians.
Comparing the two is absurd.
That may well have been the last war in which we didn't.
Because, from the "redskins" on up to all the assorted "gooks" through the decades and centuries, we've taken a pretty grisly, consistent toll.
Great, now you're goona bring up the "Gooks".
I tell you what, I'm damn glad we bombed Hiroshima & Nagasaki.
If we hadn't, I probably would have never known my Grandfather.
Bingo Dennis,
So you denounce those actions ie; Hiroshima etc.
Well to quote you we felt at the time that for our survival, we had to use ......"whatever means nessecary"
Let’s make darn sure Americans aren’t bamboozled by this PR and hope to heaven that our leaders aren’t taken in. President Bush’s recent coziness at his Crawford ranch with the ruler of the vile Saudi regime, Crown Prince Abdullah, wasn’t terribly reassuring.
To make it easy for Foxnews.com readers, and President Bush if he’s among you, below are the facts that demonstrate such ghastly hypocrisy. Judge for yourselves.
Sunday’s New York Times article from Cairo headlines the spin: "Leaders of Three Arab Nations Affirm Support of Peace Plan." Written by Neil MacFarquhar, it leads with more Arab spin: "The leaders of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria emerged from a meeting late tonight to reaffirm their commitment to a peace initiative ..."
Now let’s see what our three "peacemakers" are printing in their media and saying through their officials. Let’s start with the most important of the peacemakers, Hosni Mubarak, president of Egypt. Half of all Arabs are Egyptian, as was Sept. 11 lead terrorist Mohammad Atta.
Shortly before the peacemakers met in Cairo, an article was published in the Egyptian government newspaper Al-Akhbar regretting that Hitler did not wipe out all Jews. The article was called, "If Only You Had Done It, Brother."
Written by Fatma Abdallah Mahmoud, it tells how Jews, not just Israelis, mind you, but Jews, "are accursed in heaven and on earth. They are accursed from the day the human race was created and from the day their mothers bore them. They are accursed also because they murdered the Prophets ...These accursed ones are a catastrophe for the human race. They are the virus of the generation, doomed to a life of humiliation and wretchedness until Judgment Day. They are also accursed because they repeatedly tried to murder the Prophet Muhammad ... Allah cursed them."
For slow readers, it reiterates the point: "Thus, the Jews are accursed — the Jews of our time, those who preceded them and those who will come after them, if any Jews come after them."
And then it comes to the punch line:
With regard to the fraud of the Holocaust ... Many French studies have proven that this is no more than a fabrication, a lie, and a fraud!! ... [Hitler] is completely innocent of the charge of frying them in the hell of his false Holocaust!!
Again, that was printed in the Egyptian government’s own newspaper.
Now let’s move to the second most important country, Saudi Arabia. The Prince’s government-controlled daily Al-Jazirah recently featured an article by Dr. Khalil Ibrahim Al-Sa'adat that celebrated the perpetuator of the Passover massacre, the barbarous act that prompted the Israeli retaliation.
"May Allah have mercy upon" this mass murderer, "the quiet hero who infiltrated so elegantly and spoke so gaily. You defended your religion, your homeland, and your people. You attached no importance to [any] Arab summit; you did not wait for international agreements."
Rather, the murderer acted "courageously, full of willingness to [wage] Jihad, and with faith filling your heart, you executed your assignment and sacrificed your pure soul for your religion and your homeland."
So while the Prince spins "peace" with Israel, his Saudi government newspaper spins distrust and hatred: "The Zionists do not honor treaties, promises, and agreements, and understand only the language of resistance and Jihad ... May Allah have mercy on you, oh beloved of the Arab nation."
Again, there’s a nice religious flavor to the close: "You entered silently, with the faith and confidence with which Allah inspired you ... Allah decreed for you a martyr's death. What heroism, courage, and strength — almost unmatched on the face of the earth!"
The third of our "peacemakers" hails from Syria. The tyrant Bashar Assad had his foreign minister, Farouq Al-Shar, justify the terrorist war against Israel by redefining terrorism so as to excuse the killing of innocent children, mothers, and elderly.
"When your lands are occupied by foreign forces," he writes, "you have no alternative but to liberate your homeland. Your means are, first and foremost, to launch a war against the enemy occupying your land, or fight against the colonialism in every way possible ..."
The foreign minister continues, "If [you] insist that there is no difference between the legitimate right of the peoples to struggle against foreign terrorism and killing innocent civilians in distant places, and if [you] insist that there is no difference between terrorists and those defending their land and trying to liberate it – then there is no difference between the victims of terrorism and the terrorists themselves."
All these excerpts are found on the invaluable Web site www.memri.org from the original documents themselves. Those documents tell more of the truth than the esteemed New York Times' "spun" articles, like the aforementioned ones filed from Cairo. Let’s be sure we, at least, are not as bamboozled as our leaders now seem to be.
Kenneth Adelman is a frequent guest commentator on Fox News, was assistant to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld from 1975 to 1977 and, under President Ronald Reagan, U.N. ambassador and arms-control director. Mr. Adelman is now co-host of TechCentralStation.com.
Respond to the Writer
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52791,00.html
All of which conveniently overlooks that growing Israeli/Jewish sentiment opposes the occupation and favors a Palestinian homeland.
Additionally, stubborn rigidity by Sharon and especially Netanyahu simply fuels hardline feeling within Arab ranks.
Nevertheless, we seem to have reached a point of hopeless impasse where nothing but going fishing is going to do any good.
That and a joke:
A young woman was pulled over for speeding. As the motorcyle officer walked to her car window, flipping open his ticket book, she said, "I bet you are going to sell me a ticket to the Patrolmen's Ball."
He replied, "Highway patrolmen don't have balls."
There was a moment of silence while she smiled, and he realized what he'd said.
He then closed his book, got back on his motorcycle, and rode off.
Have a good night.
LOL Dennis,
I have one for you as well.
A Jewish boy comes home and says. "Mom, I got a part in the school play." great the Mom says. What part did you get? "I play the part of a Jewish husband." the mother looks at the child and says oh, too bad, I was hoping you'd get a speaking part.
LOL to both of you gentlemen.
Luv2Fly 5/15/02 3:24pm
Great post Luv2Fly. How does one negotiate/deal with someone with such a mentality?
WHY I REFUSE TO FIGHT FOR SHARON'S SETTLEMENTS
TEL AVIV -- My parents instilled in me the notion that I must do everything for the state. In Israel, serving in the army is a central expression of that ethos. When I was a high school student, it was not only obvious to me that I would go to the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), but it was also vital that I become a paratrooper and serve in a special unit. It was also clear to me that my service to the state and my patriotism would require that I participate in an officer's course and serve an extra year.
Now that I have done several tours of duty in the West Bank as a reserve officer, this axiom that the army and the state are one and the same, and my belief that the army serves the vital security interests of the state have been eroded. There was no single development that made me an objector; rather it was a succession of small incidents. It became increasingly clear to me that the little orders that I was issued, and then the orders I gave my soldiers to carry out, had precious little to do with protecting the state. They had everything to do with protecting a group of zealots and their settlements, and maintaining a Kafkaesque system that spelled misery for ordinary Palestinians.
After two years of deliberation and many sleepless nights, I came to the inescapable conclusion that Zionism is not what the zealots have made it. Zionism is not about occupation and territories; it is about obtaining a secure and internationally recognized home for the Jewish people. While some in Israel view refusal as betrayal, I refuse to betray the basic values and goals of Zionism. The continuing occupation imperils the future of the Jewish state. We must choose between land and legitimacy and between occupation and democracy.
I have paid a tremendous social price for my act of refusal. Gone, as a result, are some long-standing friendships. I have also lost out on the camaraderie and friendships I so enjoyed in my unit. Reserve duty is an integral part of the lives of patriotic Israelis. No less painful has been losing the privilege of commanding my soldiers, whom I deeply care about. In a month, they will be doing another tour of duty in Gaza without me, and as a responsible officer I fear for their safety.
As an officer in the IDF, I was taught Clausewitz's maxim that war is politics by another means. I know that many people are, at present, more willing than ever to serve in the territories. The heinous Passover massacre and the unrelenting wave of terror ensured that. But what after Operation Defensive Wall? Though the Passover massacre has been avenged, and public anger has been channeled, the roadblocks that humiliate, the closures that starve, the travel restrictions that place a chokehold over a regular existence will stay. They are the motivation for terror.
(conclusion)
If Ariel Sharon truly desired to end terror, the military imperative would be to withdraw from the territories and guard a fortified Israeli border.
Perhaps I would serve in the occupied territories if I believed that the Israeli government was sincerely committed to a withdrawal from the territories. There is, however, no reason whatever to believe that this is the case. Only recently, Ariel Sharon notified his cabinet that he refuses to discuss the settlements until 2003, at the very least. Until then my service will continue to be used to protect the interests of a minority of extremists, fanatics who threaten the interest of the majority of Israelis and deprive millions of Palestinians of their basic human rights. As a patriot who is concerned about Israel's longer-term security, I refuse to fight this war -- the war for the settlements -- a war of choice that has weakened Israel.
Make no mistake, however, my refusal to take part in this war of choice does not rule me out from any war that threatens Israel. I'll be the first to be there when my country needs me.
-- Washington Post (The writer, David Zonsheine, software engineer, has served as a second lieutenant in the Paratroopers Brigade in the Israeli Defense Force.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1690000/images/_1691972_cower150.jpg
The incident depicted in this infamous photo, and last Sunday's Likud vote to never allow a Palestinian state, will be recorded in history as the keys to Israel's ultimate failure to prevent
Palestinian victory.
Yeah, they're good at spoon feeding propoganda which you so willfully ingest.
Where's the pictures of the dead Jews that were blown up by suicide bombers?
In one post you condemn the terrorists, in the next your defending them saying they have no other alternative. Do you work for Arafat?
No.
I do menial labor for a Chinese guy.
I'm the world's first Caucasian coolie.
http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=259
Everything you always needed to know about Oslo
but were never told...
I'm a little late on this but, this discussion of A-bomb attacks as an act of terrorism has me intrigued.
The cataclysmic acts of war that were the bombings of Heroshima and Nagasaki changed the world forever. I would not even attempt to evaluate their legitimacy as a target or their value as a tool of war beyondsaying they changed the world forever.
Maybe I prefer not to because I don't want to think that the United States is capable of doing something out of evil intent. Questions swirl around this issue, and they should. In the absense of clean, definitive answers we personally decide in our own what kind of world has been left in the aftermath.
The Japanese fought a war with the United States, but today I don't think the collective Japanese mentaility feels hatred for the United States. There is strong and continuing evidence to the contrary.
Despite the war and the A-bomb attacks, Japan is a valuable ally. That must mean something. I don't think it's out of fear. Moreover, both countries seem to have put the acts of WWII in some type of perspective and moved on from there.
Will the Israelis and Palistinians ever come to a point where they see events of today in the same light? -- I can't imagine it, but I might be wrong.
Good point Rick and a good question. Let's hope so.
Had the Japanese or any other nation had that technology they certainly would have used it. They tried sending large explosives on high altitude hot air ballon bombs to explode in U.S cities. Very few worked, distance and the lack of technology is the only thing that saved us from having alot of civilian casualties. They most certainly would have used them as well. Germany was extremly close.
Now does that make it right ? Millions upon millions of civilians died in that war. All of them a tragedy. Time and time again I have heard the statement of how Japan was ready to surrender. And yet they will offer no real proof. I am a bit of a history buff and spent some time in Japan. I can tell you first hand wether it be our text books or old Japanese soilders. They were NOWHERE near surrender. First of all militarily they had stockpiled a large amount of weaponry, they knew what and who was coming and were ready for it. The other islands were a mere delaying action and they knew it.
The biggest factor of course was the civilians and soilders. Much like the extremists today they saw there lives as a secondary to their cause, their emporer in this case. They stuck by their boshito (sp) code in where they were bound by honor to never surrender to someone that they saw as inferior or subhuman. They swore and would have fought viciously with men women and anyone who could have done any type of damage to American troops. I have seen some of the old training videos what the civilians went through and were ready for.
When we landed on Okinawa the fighting was even more fierce than anything we had experienced on Iwo Jima, Saipan, Tinain, the Mariana's, the Philipenes, Chinese Burma etc. Because Okinawa was the first Island they considered original home territiory, womwen threw themselves and thier babies off the cliffs lest be captured by us. We didn't have to take many Japanese prisioners because as usual they fought to the last when all hope was lost or killed themselves rather than be dishonored. And also much like the Palestinians, felt we degraded the land by even walking on it.
Even with their defeat emeinant they never surrendered. They certainly wouldn't have.
The only way they were going to surrender period was by taking the home island.
The fighting for the home island would have been 10 times as fierce as anything the Americans had ever seen. Conservative estimates placed U.S casualties at over 1 million and the Japanese casualties from 2-3 million people. And at least 1 and a half years more fighting. We would have prevailed eventually but at great cost to both sides. More so than ever lost their lives at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Was it justified ? Time will tell. It's easy in highinsight to say no unless you were one of those troops from either side.
as Rick pointed out so well is that the Japanese learned to adapt as well. Today we are considered allies and even though there are usual tensions between different cultures it's pretty amazing to see how far we've come collectivley. as Rick pondered I wonder if that will ever happen with the Isralies and Palestinains ? Let's hope so.
On a side note somewhat I feel that we were justified in doing what we did. in highinsight it would be easy for me to say otherwise but with what we were facing at the time I think it was. But that weapon would have been used by someone at some point and frankly i think that the "bomb" has also averted many many wars. We'll never know for sure but I do think that it has prevented conflict as well.
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/issues/focusonhistory/quotesquestioningdroppingthebomb.html
Quotes questioning whether the A-bomb should have been used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki...