BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II

Subject: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 02 - 11:30 AM

The nueva cancion group Sabia had a song title "Who Are the Terrorists"--anyone ever heard it?

It seems that the Israeli call for blood is driving Sharon and the military Zionists into the same terrible place they found themselves in in 1982, when Israeli Defense Forces invaded Lebanon, and remained as an occupying force for 18 years. Including the years of some of the worst violence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Israeli massacres at the Sabra and Shatilla (sp?) refugee camps. Sharon was Defense Minister at the time, as some may recall (and others will likely prefer to overlook or forget).

I am struck by two things today: limiting the number of terms leaders may serve is likely a very good thing in a democracy (ie if Israel and Palestine had someone besides Arafat and Sharon in power, they would likely be in vastly different circumstances right now). There is a profound need to get to a point where a younger leadership born after the 1940s wars and struggles for statehood, and not so stuck in the past, to emerge in the Middle East.

The other thing which strikes me is how raw and simplistic the right wing militarists in both the US and Israel are. There is much talk in the US mainstream media today of Bush losing "moral clarity" on the war on terrorism by his failure to declare Arafat a terrorist, and give our full support to Sharon's bloody vengeful military "retaliation" in the occupied territories.

What is needed here are leaders who aren't so reactionary, leaders who will allow time to pass after a major atrocity is committed, as was done in the wake of the Omagh bombing in Northern Ireland, the worst atrocity in the history of the Troubles.

And finally, I wish someone would listen to George Mitchell, and the Palestinian's negotiator, whose name escapes me right now, rather than the military hawks looking for bloody vengeance, which is what is driving this crisis to the final breaking point.

Just where do people think it will go, with Israel now holding two groups of Palestinians hostage? The democratically elected president of the Palestinian people in one location, and a group of Palestinian Authority police, militants, and civilians in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, being given sanctuary by the Catholic Church in the other?

The pictures in Ramallah are damning this occupation in ways no words will ever be able to do as powerfully, no matter how loudly the US and Israeli right wing militarists scream "Terrorist!" Those pictures speak for themselves. Scorched earth, dead bodies piling up and being buried in the car park to make room for more bodies, Israeli snipers murdering civilians on the streets. The US government might have the stomach to rally round this slaughter, but I have a lot more confidence in the American people to judge for themselves that this crisis, like the 9/11 attack, isn't about terrorism. It is about the brutality of our arrogant indifference to the rest of the world's suffering.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 02 - 01:10 PM

I finally was able to access the end of the Part I thread, where CarolC asked:

"Is Mitchell the one who was involved in the negotiations in N. Ireland? If so, I liked what he had to say about the middle east, too. I wish the Israelis and the Palestinians would invite him to help over there."

Yes, George Mitchell was the American negotiator in Northern Ireland. He also acted as an American negotiator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, just prior to Bush taking power. However, the Bush administration has attempted (until the past week) to distance itself from the Mitchell framework, because he was Clinton's negotiator. We're now seeing the results of their choice to send the Director of the CIA, George Tenet, and a low ranking military diplomat, Anthony Zinni, to negotiate a different framework on behalf of the US.

This morning, the Vatican has denounced the Israeli reoccupation of the West Bank, Egypt has just announced it is limiting all diplomatic contacts with Israel to furthering the Palestinian cause, the EU has called for a new set of international negotiators to include (in addition to the US) EU, Russian, UN, Israeli and Palestinian Authority representatives to get the parties to quickly move to a ceasefire and a withdrawal of Israeli troops from the West Bank. And some of the highest ranking foreign policy senators on both sides of the aisle are calling for increased involvement from the Bush administration. Shocking as it is, Senator Arlen Spector is now calling for the Bush administration to take decisive action regarding the Middle East crisis.

The situation just keeps getting darker and darker, and the US and Israel are becoming more and more isolated in the world community. It does make me ashamed to be an American.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Apr 02 - 01:57 PM

SharonA: In times like these it's always easy to pick at one thing or another. Keep in mind, that just as the US has policies and has to say certain things in order to get folks on board, the parties who are closer to the bullets also have constituiencies that need to be massaged. I wouldn't ge3t to bogged down with that process.

Keep in mind that Isreal has always had as it's number 1 goal, a decree of it's neighbors that it has a right to exist as a secure nation. The SAUDI PROPOSAL offers this and goes a step beyond in offering a means by which Isreal and all of its neigbors have "normalized" relations. Now, I for one, think this is a big step forward. Afterall, who is going to be caught with egg on their face if the Arab countries default? Not Isreal, for certain. It seems to me to put a lot of responsibility on Isreal's neigbors. Given the circumstances, Isreal has very little to loose. Sure, some will argue that this just gives the Palestinians an opportunity to reload, but in essence, all peace treaties have that inherent risk.

Any thinking person knows that eventually, unless this war spreads out of control into neigboring countries, that something similar to the Saudi (or Mitchell proposal, for that matter) is the only basic framework for coexistance. Both peoples need a secure place to call home.

I will continue to support the Oslo, Mitchell or Saudi plans, which all represent a first step toward the resolution of conflict, and hope and pray that the US, which is the last and only MAJOR WORLD POWER, will get behind one of these plans for resolution.

Peace

Bobert

p.s. Oh yeah, I will not respond to anyone on either side of the conflict with "yeah, but" rebuttals. This is unacceptable behavior on both sides.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Apr 02 - 02:17 PM

You know, you'd be much better able to get your case across, GUEST of 03-Apr-02 - 11:30 AM if there was some way of being sure you weren't the same as GUEST of 30-Mar-02 - 09:27 PM, for example. Or some of the others.

Not putting some kind of pseudonym with the GUEST just gets in the way. This isn't a time for playing silly games, and that does seem to me like a silly game.

One point of correction - the Sabra Shatilla massacres were actually carried out by Lebanese Christians, allied to Israel, not directly by Israeli soldies. That doesn't lessen Sharon's responsibility, since it seems clear that he had a good idea what was likely to happen, colluded in it, and obstructed any efforts to stop the massacre. But it's important to get the facts right.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST, passive observer
Date: 03 Apr 02 - 02:21 PM

That's nice of them to recognize Israel's right to exist at all (subject to conditions) and back off their promises of total annhilation. That's really nice.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: catspaw49
Date: 03 Apr 02 - 02:29 PM

Keep trying Bobertz......I know it's a hard sell, but it's about the only avenue open outside annilhilation. Both sides must get out of "strike back mode" and someone has to give a little first....It would be one helluva' asset if Dubya actually knew something. Makes me long for Nixon.......

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Apr 02 - 03:12 PM

Israelis are apparently putting numbers on the arms of their captured? And did anybody see that Nightline, I think it was, where they contrasted the frightened Israelis watching the British tanks roll through the streets a few decades ago with the frightened Palestinians watching the Israeli tanks roll through those same streets... talk about becoming what you despise! What was that quote about those who learn not from the past being doomed to repeat it? You'd-a thunk they'd have learned something...

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 02 - 03:17 PM

The Druze militia were operating under order's from Ariel Sharon, just as Afghan soldiers have been operating under US orders there. To suggest that Israel was not responsible for the Sabra and Shatilla massacres flies in the face of historic fact, which is agreed upon by the world community.

Israeli Defense Forces have gone so far beyond "defending their homeland" in the past 72 hours, their brutality has stunned the world community. They are not allowing Red Crescent and UN medical personnel to pick up and treat wounded civilians, they are firing upon international peace activists in the region acting as independent observers, they have prevented the Christian church leaders of Jerusalem from entering Bethlehem who are attempting to negotiate an end to the hostage situation in the Church of the Nativity, and on and on and on.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST,pete
Date: 03 Apr 02 - 04:10 PM

the Saudi Peace proposal requires the right of return for exiled Palestinians which would be the end of Israel. Maybe what will happen in the long run and there is already some talk about it, is that a wall will be built, the settlements closed and there will be 2 separate states. The extremist Palestinian factions Al Aqsa Hamas etc, would like to scuttle the Saudi Peace Plan anyway, which explains the increased wave of Suicide bombings. Suicide bombers that are considered 'martyrs' in the Arab world, and without a peep of condemnation. Im sure there would be huge outcry if the IDF were to lob a missile into a crowded restaurant.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 02 - 04:19 PM

Oh yeah--a "peace line" like in Northern Ireland? THAT really worked well.

All that happens when you build a wall between warring peoples is to drive a wedge further and deeper between one another. It lessens security for people on both sides of the wall.

Repatriation, return of east Jerusalem, it will all have to be right back on the negotiating table now, despite Israeli security fears about them.

These are just some of the long term consequences to the current chaos--once the rest of the world community steps into the security breach left by the current campaign by the right wing militarists in the Bush and Sharon camps, a lot of things the US wouldn't allow on the table in the past, is going to have to be discussed.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Apr 02 - 04:20 PM

GUEST of 03-Apr-02 - 04:10 PM, whom I take is the same as GUEST of 03-Apr-02 - 11:30 AM.

No, they weren't Druze who carried out the massacres at Sabra and Shatilla, they were Lebanese Christians. Under Israeli control in the sense that Israel could have stopped them. More spoecifically, Sharon could have stopped them and chose not to.

If you get the facts wrong you undermine your own argument, and make it easier for people to fudge the issue, and pretend that Sharon is not to be blamed for what happened. It's very easy to check these kind of things through the Internet.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 02 - 04:48 PM

I apologize for the mistake. It was the Phalangists militia, not Druze militia.

Here is an account of those events:

On September 1, as the last PLO guerrillas are shipping out of Beirut, President Reagan announces his "Reagan Plan" for solving the Arab-Israeli conflict. It calls for an immediate freeze on Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank and Gaza, advocates Palestinian self rule "in association with Jordan," and explicitly ruled out Israeli annexation of the Palestinian occupied territories. Reagan affirmed UN Resolution 242, emphasizing that it was his understanding that the resolution called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the territories (as well as the Sinai, which is as far as the Israelis had been willing to interpret the meaning of the resolution, a demand which Israel believes it has met with the Camp David Treaty).

The plan outraged President Asad because it failed to even mention Syria or its own Israeli occupied Golan Heights. The Israelis, obviously, were also outraged. A shocked Begin called it "the saddest day of my life." The plan was a bungled, half baked attempt to mollify the Arabs based on a State Department draft brief which had never been meant to go public.

The result, however, was that Israel simply deepened efforts to advance its cause in Lebanon, sometimes at American expense through secret negotiations with the Christian Gemayel government, and, by withholding from the US intelligence such as advance warnings of the plan to blow up the US Marine barracks on October 23, 1983.

On September 8, the Arabs issued the "Fez Plan," calling for complete Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, and a Palestinian state under the leadership of the PLO in exchange for which Arabs will recognize Israel's right to exist. (Khouri, p. 437)

On September 14, 1982, Lebanese President elect Bashir Gemayal is killed in a bomb explosion just one week before he is due to be sworn in. His brother, Amin, is elected president. The Israeli Defense Forces under the command of Ariel Sharon move into Beirut and occupies the city. On Thursday, September 16, 1982, Lebanese Christian Phalangist troops, with the IDF looking on from surrounding rooftops, enter the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatilla in Beirut and begin massacring the residents. The killing will continue until Saturday morning. At least 700 - 800 are killed, with some estimates ranging up to 2,000.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 02:45 AM

Click here for part one of this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 05:02 AM

Does anyone have any references that can either support or refute the things being asserted in this article?

Muslim and Christian Palestinians May Outnumber Jews by Year 2000

By Andrew I. Killgore

April/May 1995, Pages 12, 87

"The land without people—for the people without land." —Israel Zangwill, 1901

"But there are Arabs in Palestine. I did not know." —Max Nordau, 1897

"My step on the road to reality was not taken until 1904, when I appear to have become fully aware of the Arab peril."

—Israel Zangwill, 1904

"By establishing the State of Israel in the traditionally Arab land of Palestine and by forcibly displacing its original inhabitants, the Zionists did not provide their adherents with a peaceful refuge, but placed them astride a volcano." —Henry Cattan, 1976

"To the German Kaiser I shall say—let us go! We are aliens, they do not let us dissolve into the population, nor are we able to do so."

—Theodor Herzl's Diaries, about 1895

"We shall spirit the penniless population [Palestinians] across the border....the process of expropriation and removal of the poor shall be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."

—Theodor Herzl's Diaries , about 1896

When Theodor Herzl, the father of political Zionism and ultimately of the modern State of Israel, died in 1904 his dream of establishing in Palestine a state for Jews seemed dead. He had tried and failed to gain the support of a great power, without which he knew a future Israel could not be created. As a consequence, the seventh World Zionist Conference in 1903 had given up on Palestine and settled on Uganda in Africa as the site of a future Jewish State.

Herzl was despondent because he believed the world's Jews would never ingather in Uganda. He also was convinced, as the quotation from his diaries indicates, that Jews would never be allowed to "dissolve" into European society nor that they would be able to do so.

Austrian-born Herzl's conclusions were based on the old prejudices about Jews that permeated central Europe, and the poisonous anti-Jewish suspicion in "enlightened" France that attended the long-drawn-out trial for treason of Jewish Major Albert Dreyfus, which Herzl covered as a correspondent for his Vienna newspaper. Falsely accused, Dreyfus was finally cleared, but only after French society had been deeply divided over the matter.

Only 13 years after Herzl's death, however, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration, named for its minister of foreign affairs, promising to support a Jewish State in Palestine. Herzl had failed because the Zionist movement at the time could provide no quid pro quo for any great power. But in 1916, when the wording of the declaration was being negotiated with the British, the Zionists promised secretly to help bring America into World War I on the side of the Allies.

There is no evidence that Zionist adherents had all that much influence in the Washington of 1916, or that they played a role in President Woodrow Wilson's decision to enter the war in April 1917.

Grabbing at Any Straw

But, as Winston Churchill wrote later, Britain was very near defeat after the carnage of the July-November 1916 Battle of the Somme when the British and French armies tried and failed to drive the German army from France's Somme Valley. And thus, as Churchill put it, Britain had to grab at any straw that promised succor to the Allies. That straw was the still officially secret Zionist promise to help influence U.S. opinion to join the Allied side. As the Encyclopedia Britannica 15th edition has it, Britain "hoped" that that would be the result.

The Balfour Declaration was one thing. Getting the Jewish State established was another. Hitler's persecution of the Jews in the 1930s drove large numbers of Jews from Germany and elsewhere in Europe to the relative safety of Palestine. And the unprecedented horrors of the Jewish Holocaust in Europe during World War II prepared the world to accept the birth of a Jewish State on May 15, 1948. It also prepared the world to close its eyes to the grave injustice inflicted thereby on the Palestinians, the trauma from which continues to haunt the world to this day.

If establishing a Jewish State seemed improbable, maintaining it may be even harder. The problem is not threatening Arab armies, but simple demographics. For propaganda purposes, Zionism had maintained that Palestine was an empty land. But Herzl knew better. He would oust the Palestinians "discreetly," according to his diaries. To satisfy himself that the world's Jews would go to Palestine, he assumed that the world didn't want them elsewhere and that they, presumably due to some immutable difference from other people, would be unable to join the larger society.

For propaganda purposes, Zionism had maintained that Palestine was an empty land.

When the Balfour Declaration was issued in 1917, Jews comprised about 5 percent of Palestine's population. By 1948 they were almost one-third: 650,000 Jews to 1,350,000 Muslim and Christian Palestinians. In the United Nations partition of the country in 1947, Jews were allotted 53 percent of the territory while the two-thirds who were Palestinians received 47 percent.

In the 1948-1949 Arab-Israel war, 750,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes by force and terror. However, not all left Palestine completely. Some became refugees in the West Bank or Gaza. Theodor Herzl had written in his diaries, as quoted, that the Palestinians could be gotten rid of discreetly. But to achieve even this limited effect, instead of "circumspect" means the Zionists employed pure terror and violence, especially in the well-publicized April 9, 1948 massacre of 200 Palestinian villagers at Deir Yassin, down the hill from Jerusalem.

Sometime in the 1960s, Israel made its immigration and emigration figures high state secrets. There is nevertheless circumstantial evidence to go on and a formula for figuring actual emigration as worked out in April 1959 by the late Anton Nyerges, a Foreign Service political officer at the American Embassy in Tel Aviv: Any announced Israeli emigration figure must be doubled to achieve the actual number.

Nyerges wrote in an official report that 14,000 Yordim (a pejorative term in Hebrew for those who "go down," or emigrate, from Israel) had left Israel in 1958, according to announced government of Israel figures. He then made a persuasive case that unannounced emigrants such as students, tourists and businessmen who had no intention of returning to Israel would about equal the declared emigrants. Thus Nyerges concluded that the real number of Israeli emigrants in 1958 was 28,000.

In 1958, during my assignment as consul in Jerusalem, Americans and Canadians living in Israel totaled 2,000, according to Israeli statistics. Everyone assumed that Israelis living in the U.S. and Canada greatly exceeded that number, but nothing official was available.

In March 1977 the Wellington, New Zealand Evening Post carried an editorial page article claiming that 600,000 Israelis lived in the three North American cities of New York, Montreal and Los Angeles. No official authority was cited as the source. Anecdotal figures in the U.S. put 600,000 Israelis in New York alone, and one million living in the United States as a whole. The figure of 50,000 Israeli emigrants per year to the U.S. is frequently heard these days.

Israel currently claims population figures ranging from 5 million to 5.2 million. If 900,000 of these are Palestinians (a figure Dr. Israel Shahak, Holocaust survivor and retired Hebrew University professor of chemistry considers low), that leaves 4.1 to 4.3 million Jewish Israelis. But if that figure includes the conservative estimate of 600,000 Jewish Israelis who actually are not living either in Israel-proper or in the occupied West Bank and Gaza, the number of Jewish residents of Israel is 3.5 to 3.7 million.

The Palestinian population of Israel-proper and the West Bank and Gaza seems to be 3.3 million. This includes the 900,000 Palestinians who are citizens of Israel and 2.4 million Palestinians living under Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza. The latter figure comes from a recent Israeli "study" carried by Agence France Press and published in the Dec. 8, 1994 edition of The Washington Times.

Discovering that 2.4 million Palestinians were living in the West Bank and Gaza was said to have "dismayed" Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, who reportedly had accepted as correct a lower Israeli estimate of 1.9 million Palestinians. In the same AFP report, Palestinians were said to have complained that in the past Israel always undercounted Palestinians.

Whether the resident Jewish population of 3.5 to 3.7 million will outnumber the 3.3 Palestinians for much longer in the former Mandate of Palestine is doubtful. The evidence is against it.

The total fertility rate (TFR) in Israel is 2.9. TFR is the number of children an average woman will have in the course of her lifetime. The Palestinian TFR in the West Bank is 5.7, about twice that of Israel. The TFR in Gaza, where having lots of children constitutes in part a political statement, is 7.9, two and a half times greater than in Israel.

At current rates of increase, Palestinians in the old Mandate of Palestine (Gaza, the West Bank and Israel-proper) may surpass Jews as early as the year 2000. This date could be delayed only if more of the world's Jews immigrate to Israel, or if Israel were able to expel large numbers of Palestinians in a crisis situation, such as another Arab-Israeli war.

The prospect of large new Jewish immigration to Israel does not look promising. About 500,000 Soviet Jews have gone to Israel, according to Israeli claims, although many of them are not really Jewish. It is possible that more eventually will go, but some actually are returning to their former homes, according to reliable reports.

The other possible source of Jewish immigrants to Israel is the United States. In that case, however, the actual movement of people is largely the other way. For most people, America is simply a more desirable place to live than Israel. Theodor Herzl's pessimistic statement that Jews would not be allowed to dissolve into the general society, nor would they be able to do so anyway, has been overturned by history. He could not have imagined then the situation in America today, where the intermarriage rate of Jews outside their faith now surpasses 50 percent. With assimilation accelerating, chances of a large Jewish emigration from North America to Israel look paper-thin.

"Ethnic cleansing" of Palestinians from Israel and the occupied territories succeeded twice, both in times of war. In addition to the 750,000 Palestinians forced out in 1948-1949, another 200,000 were stampeded across the Jordan River into Jordan in the Israel-Arab war of 1967. These were mainly from the giant Palestinian refugee camps of Aqabat Jaber and Ein Sultan at Jericho, which were flattened by Israeli bulldozers as the frightened refugees were hauled by truck to the Jordan River and forced to cross it.

Subsequently, a third attempt at ethnic cleansing in time of war failed. The massacre by Lebanese Maronite militiamen of 1,500 to 2,000 Palestinians after Israeli forces surrounded the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Beirut during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 was designed to precipitate the flight of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians toward Syria, and ultimately into Jordan, which they might have destabilized. But the Palestinians in Beirut stayed put, and Palestinians everywhere assert that they will never flee anywhere again, no matter how great the provocation.

It is reasonable to assume that in peacetime the world would not tolerate an Israeli expulsion of large numbers of Palestinians. But if the Likud bloc succeeds to power in Israel and then can precipitate a big war involving Jordan and/or Lebanon, another attempt to "ethnically cleanse" Palestine is a worrisome possibility.

Barring that eventuality, Israel will continue to lose the war of demographics with the Palestinians.

Andrew I. Killgore is the publisher of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 05:09 AM

The article in my last post came from this site:

http://www.washingtonreport.org/backissues/0495/9504012.htm

This is what the organization responsible for that article has to say about itself:

The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs is a 140-page magazine published 10 times per year in Washington, DC, that focuses on news and analysis from and about the Middle East and U.S. policy in that region.

The Washington Report is published by the American Educational Trust (AET), a non-profit foundation incorporated in Washington, DC by retired U.S. foreign service officers to provide the American public with balanced and accurate information concerning U.S. relations with Middle Eastern states.

AET's Foreign Policy Committee has included former U.S. ambassadors, government officials, and members of Congress, including the late Democratic Senator J. William Fulbright, and Republican Senator Charles Percy, both former chairmen of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Members of AET's Board of Directors and advisory committees receive no fees for their services.

The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs does not take partisan domestic political positions. As a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, it endorses U.N. Security Council Resolution 242´s land-for-peace formula, supported by seven successive U.S. presidents.

In general, the Washington Report supports Middle East solutions which it judges to be consistent with the charter of the United Nations and traditional American support for human rights, self-determination, and fair play.

http://www.washington-report.org/html/about.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: Wolfgang
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 05:23 AM

The list of awards for Killgore from his bio:

Since he (Killgore) co-founded the American Educational Trust in 1982 its magazine, the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, has received an award from the national Association of Arab Americans (NAAA) in 1993. For his work as its publisher, Ambassador Killgore has received awards from the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) in 1992, from the Council for the National Interest (CNI) and Partners for Peace in 1993, from the United Muslims of America and the Islamic Association for Palestine in North America in 1994, and from the Jerusalem Fund for Education and Community Development and the Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine in 1995.

Looks a 'tiny' bit one-sided to me.

Another bit from Killgore himself also shows his basic position:

But it is not primarily personal disapointment in fellow Southerner Clinton that makes it impossible for me to vote for him this November. Rather it is that he has tied his fate to the uniquely corrupting Israel Lobby, which not only degrades politics in this country, but taints intellectual life and media integrity as well.

From that I expect that the informations his article are
(a) mostly correct when it comes to checkable figures or citations, but
(b) highly selected to serve a bias.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: SharonA
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 11:14 AM

RUMSFELD: IRAN, IRAQ, SYRIA FOMENT TERROR

From CNN April 3, 2002 Posted: 7:45 PM EST (0045 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Monday linked Iran, Iraq and Syria to the terror attacks on Israel, accusing the three nations of "inspiring and financing a culture of political murder and suicide bombing." At the Pentagon, Rumsfeld offered a searing indictment of Iran, Iraq and Syria as supporters of a terrorist "war on civilization."

Without venturing a judgment on Israel's method of retaliation, Rumsfeld suggested the United States would take stern measures under similar circumstances. "When the United States is hit by terrorist attacks, you have a choice: You can say, 'Gee, that's too bad,' or you can go try to find the terrorists and do something about it," Rumsfeld said.

Rumsfeld tore into Iran, Iraq and Syria for support they have given for years to groups whose assaults on Israel are now accelerating. "Murderers are not martyrs," Rumsfeld said. "Targeting civilians is immoral, whatever the excuse. Terrorists have declared war on civilization...."

The defense secretary said the point of his declaration was "to make it clear to sponsors and supporters of terrorists that being a friend to terrorists, and by implication an adversary of the United States, is not in their best interest."

Rumsfeld specifically accused Iran and Syria of funneling arms to Lebanon for use by terrorists and criticized Iraq for offering payments of up to $25,000 to families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

© 2002 Associated Press

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: SharonA
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 11:45 AM

The article I just posted was in response to Bobert's statement, "the parties who are closer to the bullets also have constituencies that need to be massaged" (referring to the Arab states I mentioned at the end of Part 1 of this thread – Syria and Iraq – whose governments' leaders and representatives attending an Arab summit conference sanctioned Palestinian attacks on Israelis, military and civilian, undercutting their supposed endorsement of the Saudi Arabian peace proposal).

Bobert, it sounds to me as those aren't "constituencies" being massaged with the pro-intifada rhetoric by those Syrian and Iraqi government officials; they're the Syrian and Iraqi governments themselves. As was said in the Washington Post article that you mentioned in Part 1, "Such rhetoric clashed with a strategy outlined by moderate Arab officials going into the summit: that the prospect of a settlement with the Arab world as a whole, offered directly to the Israeli public, might reinvigorate peace discussions and lead to a change in the get-tough policies followed by Sharon."

Unless the moderates of all the parties involved in negotiating a peace settlement – Palestine, Syria, Iraq. Iran, other Arab states, Israel and the US – can persuade the more extremist leaders of their governments to be more flexible, any hope for peace will be a vain hope. Right now, it seems as if Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah is the only top dog who doesn't want a dogfight.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: SharonA
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 11:50 AM

Oops: the second paragraph of my last post should have started: "Bobert, it sounds to me as if those aren't 'constituencies'..."

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 01:10 PM

Well, I have no idea why people would be condemning one side of the Arab Israeli conflict of being "one sided"!

If there are two sides (sic) to every story, why is one side being condemned for telling their side?

Doesn't make much sense does it? Although I heard CNN do the exact same thing on air yesterday, when talking to a member of the Indy Media Organization to get a "story" from inside Bethlehem, because their own correspondents are too chicken shit to go there.

The CNN commentator utterly dismissed all the information the Indy Media Organization gave as a first hand eye witness account as "one sided". She then thought better of her wildly injudicious remark (CNN wouldn't want to risk alienating a journalist CNN might be able to exploit for a "scoop" on NBC). She followed up with a spluttering "Of course, it is an important to tell that side of the story." Apparently, they didn't like hearing that the British had actually evacuated the internationals in harm's way in Bethlehem, and not the Americans. In fact, no American flags on the cars were to be seen. The only flags on cars I saw were Irish, actually.

CarolC, the journal and organization you cite is the same one I cited earlier. It is an Arab American organization with tremendous prestige in the international diplomatic community. The important point to remember is that the Bush administration is using Sharon and the IDF to neutralize the Palestinians with a new occupation of the West Bank, so that the US will be free to go after Sadam Hussein. In his speech this morning announcing he will send Powell "next week", Bush did not demand an IMMEDIATE cessation to the Israeli invasion and re-occupation of the West Bank (which has already been pointed out by an Israeli government spokes person).

Bush did not put any timeline whatsoever on the Israeli withdrawal at all, in fact. Which means there is no change in the policy as he defined it last weekend, when the US supported the UN resolution 1402 on the one hand, but then publicly stated that Israel was justified in it's military response on the West Bank because they were "defending their homeland" and "fighting terrorism".

Bush said he was calling for a halt to the Israeli settlements, but he said nothing about Israeli settlers being withdrawn from the West Bank--which has been one of the major blockades to peace put forward by the Israelis, who keep insisting there can be no repatriation of Palestinian refugees, or a halt or withdrawal of Israeli settlers on Palestinian lands.

Also, the entire world knows that the demands for Arafat to do anything at this point is useless. The current war on the Palestinians has now destroyed all the infrastructure built on the West Bank in the past decade as part of the Oslo peace process--exactly what Sharon and the right wing Zionists in Israel always intended to do. They are now referring to the Palestinian Authority (the legally armed Palestinian police force) as "gunmen" and "terrorists", and have arrested over 1500 people. They are now preparing to go into the refugee camps outside Jenin, Nablus, etc where there will be a bloodbath--a massacre.

The Israeli Defense Force, from all accounts I am hearing on the American media, are stepping up their operations, not scaling back one bit. Sharon has refused to let Zinni, the Europeans, and the UN in to Ramallah to meet with Arafat.

And that is just what Bush wants. Powell's mission, his "framework" hasn't been defined, because there isn't one. It is a ruse by the Bush administration to buy time for the IDF to invade, reoccupy, and clamp down on the West Bank, and take military control over West Bank and Gaza, up to the borders with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. It could also be setting the stage for another invasion of Lebanon and/or Syria (depending on how you read Bush's saber rattling).

Bush's claim that Arafat's current circumstance is of his own making will only inflame Arabs, and make the situation much, much worse. I don't know that the announcement that Powell will go to the Middle East, more or less when he gets around to it (the State Dept is now saying he will add on a stop or two to the region AFTER his European trip, is another slap in the face to the Arabs), will do to help the situation on the ground at all. And there is an excellent chance that it could exacerbate the situation even more.

Just after the Bush speech, the UN and European negotiators announced they were leaving the region, because the Israelis won't allow anyone to meet with ANY Palestinian negotiators, not just Arafat.

I predict the Israelis will now claim annexation of the West Bank as their own "military buffer zone" and refuse to leave, even after a ceasefire is declared. Their justification will be that there is no police infrastructure to rule on the West Bank (because they will have successfully destroyed it), and that they will not allow international peacekeepers into the area (just as they always have). The US will support them, and continue to extort the necessary Arab "allies" in the region to go along with it, just like they always do.

George W. Bush is as committed to a Palestinian state as Ariel Sharon. What we are witnessing right now, before our very eyes, is a total and complete military subjugation of the Palestinian people, a shattering of their aspirations and work for over a decade on the Oslo peace agreement, with the full support of the United States government. Nothing less.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 03:01 PM

"Targeting civilians is immoral, whatever the excuse" - if that's the official policy of the USA now, it's great news.

Because it wasn't throughout the Cold War, with H-bombs targetted directly at civilians across half the world. Or of course during World War II.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 03:09 PM

There is a profound difference between the official propaganda line, and reality on the ground.

The US continues to target civilians in every single military operation they undertake. They get themselves off the hook by saying they don't "intentionally" target civilians.

We just go ahead and kill them because they are in the way of our military targets.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: SharonA
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 03:11 PM

What Bush did call for, in his speech, to be done immediately: "The world expects an immediate cease-fire, immediate resumption of security cooperation with Israel against terrorism and an immediate order to crack down on terrorist networks. I expect better leadership, and I expect results....And so I've decided to send Secretary of State [Colin] Powell to the region next week, to seek broad international support for the vision I've outlayed today. As a step in this process, he will work to implement United Nations Resolution 1402 -- an immediate and meaningful cease-fire, an end to terror and violence and incitement; withdrawal of Israel troops from Palestinian cities, including Ramallah; implementation of the already-agreed-upon Tenet and Mitchell plans, which will lead to a political settlement." "

Transcript of speech: http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/04/04/bush.transcript/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 03:20 PM

I see that you are stressing the word immediate, SharonA, but I was just watching a high level security official with the Israeli government saying that with regard to a cease fire or cooperation with us, the Israelis have no intention of doing as Bush has requested immediately. The official said that they would do what Bush has asked when they are ready to do it, if at all. And since Powell isn't going until next week, I think he won't be able to make anything happen immediately, either.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 03:21 PM

I heard the speech, SharonA. It was a bullshit ploy to buy time for the Israeli's to complete the military reoccupation of the West Bank.

Again, you won't find a call from Bush for an IMMEDIATE end to the current IDF military operations and an IMMEDIATE withdrawal of IDF forces from the West Bank in the Bush transcript. Because his so called "action" on the crisis was to take no action at all. Sending Powell with no framework on how to implement UN Res 1402 is a guarantee he will fail to produce any meaningful resolution of the current crisis.

If Bush wanted an IMMEDIATE resolution of this crisis, he would have called for an IMMEDIATE end to Israeli military action and a withdrawal of IDF troops from the West Bank last Thursday.

The fact of the matter is, the US is giving both support and direction to Ariel Sharon through back channels, to set up a military occupation of the West Bank (and possibly Lebanon and Syria), to allow the US to use the IDF in the US' war on terrorism as a surrogate power.

Let us not forget, Israel is the 4th largest military power in the world. When you combine the 4th largest with the largest, with no resistance from #2 & #3, you can pretty much do whatever the fuck you want to anybody.

As we are seeing happen right now to the Palestinians.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: SharonA
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 04:12 PM

Don't get me wrong, guys; I wasn't defending Bush (perish the thought!). In fact, I kinda have to laugh at the petulance of his "I expect results" phrase. I just wanted to point out that he did call for something to be done immediately, but I agree with you that it was pretty lame of him to say that he was sending Powell out "next week" to "work" on an "immediate" cease-fire!

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: RichM
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 04:25 PM

There already is a process in place to settle ultimate differences: war... It's a traditional human way to end conflicts.

Sometimes it's the ONLY way.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 04:29 PM

Suicide bombers are damning proof of the futility of war.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: SharonA
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 04:35 PM

RichM says: "War... It's a traditional human way to end conflicts."

Well, yeah, but it's also a traditional human way to end humans.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: Troll
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 05:12 PM

Suicide bombers are not "damning proof of the futility of war".
They are simply a weapon of war. The Palestinians rulers use them cynically and well.
But they are only a weapon and should be looked on as such. The use of booby traps would be more effective in terms of loss of materiel and life, but not nearly so good a propaganda tool.
This has been a war of propaganda up to now but the IDF is changing all that. It will be interesting to see what the Muslim nations will do.
My guess is that they will do nothing material to aid the Palestinians.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 05:25 PM

One thing is for certain, the Arab allies will do nothing to risk the wrath of the US goverment, which includes doing nothing material to aid the Palestinians. As usual.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 05:32 PM

Yow, I missed a couple days of this...

Carol, thanks for that article at 04-Apr-02 - 05:02 AM. That's exactly the point I was trying to make in the first "WATT?" thread on Monday, but didn't make very clearly, apparently. (The comments that Big Mick called 'someone else's rhetoric' {Which it wasn't. It was my own.:)} and 'shit,' twice.) Without some serious, Nazi-style genocide, (as opposed to the much more respectable Miloševich-stlye genocide they're using now) a "Jewish State" of Israel will soon be about as "Jewish" as Apartheid-era South Africa was "White." And when the inevitable happens, and the "Jewish State" has an Arabic, non-Jewish majority, what then?

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 05:41 PM

Well, what then? So what if Israel ends up with an Arab majority? If it is still a democratic Jewish state constitutionally (like the Republic of Ireland is a Catholic state constitutionally), it shouldn't be a problem.

Unless you are suggesting that the Jewish Israelis are so bigoted they won't allow any more Arabs to become Israelis?

That certainly has never been my perception of the democratic ideals of the Israeli people, who seem much more broadminded than that, despite the current anti-Arab hysteria fomented by Sharon and the Likud party since the Zionists took control of the government again.

Let us not forget, the IDF is also firing tear gas at the Israeli peace activists right now, and jailing the refuseniks. There is a wholescale effort in Israel right now to demonize any Israeli citizens who stand with the Palestinians (as the peace activists are doing) or against the Israeli government (as the refuseniks are doing).

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 05:45 PM

So, GUEST, even if 75% of the Irish people converted to... Hinduism, it should still be called a "Catholic State?"

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 05:48 PM

If it is in their constitution, yes. That is what is meant by a constitutionally Catholic or a constitutionally Jewish state. It is enshrined in their constitution as their state religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 06:00 PM

It really doesn't matter what a Constitution says, anyway. (and they can be changed, by the way. Hopefully by the peaceful abolishment of Israel. :)) It WON'T be a real Jewish State, it will be a multi-ethnic, multi-religious state with an Arab majority and a shrinking Jewish minority. Again, think of South Africa.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 06:13 PM

To dismiss what the constitution of a democratic country says as not mattering would be ludicrous. Of course it matters, that is why it gets enshrined in the constitution to begin with!

As to your other argument, you seem to me to be making an argument for keeping Israel ethnically pure or something? I don't know how much more "a real Jewish state" can be that to create a state religion by constitutional mandate. There is no other way to create a Jewish state I am aware of.

Or are you suggesting that the only legitimate way to have a state religion is for there to be a majority of people in said state as the citizens of the state?

Or are you suggesting that Israel should only allow people of Jewish faith to be Israeli citizens?

What exactly are you getting at here?

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 06:18 PM

The following is from the State of Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics website:

Population Increase

1. At the end of 1997, Israel had a population of 5.9 million inhabitants, of whom 4.7 million (80%) were Jewish, 868,000 were Muslim (15%), 126,000 were Christian (2%), and 97,000 (nearly 2%) were Druze. Additionally, 108,000 inhabitants (about 2%) were defined by the Ministry of the Interior as of "religion unclassified."

2. When the State of Israel was established, in 1948, its population was slightly larger than 800,000. By the next year, the population crossed the one million mark. It took nine additional years to reach two million, twelve years to reach three million, another twelve years to reach four million, nine years to reach five million and about seven years to reach, in September 1998, six million.

3. In 1997, the population increased by 142,000 persons - 2.5%. The various population groups showed the following growth rates: Jews 1.9%, Muslims 3.5%, Christians 2.3% and Druze 2.5%.

4. In 1990 and 1991 - the peak years of mass immigration from the former Soviet Union - the Jewish population grew by 6.2% and 5.0%, respectively. Since 1992, the annual growth rate of the Jewish population has been between 1.9% to 2.4%.

5. Since the mid-1950s, the percent of Jews in the population has declined from 89% to 80% (in 1997).

6. According to an estimate by the Institute of Contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, there are 13 million Jews in the world. The proportion of Israeli Jews in world Jewry has been rising steadily - from 20% in 1970 to 25% in 1980, to 30% in 1990, and to about 36% today.

7. Israel has the highest rate of population increase in the West - about 3.0% in the period 1990-1996 and 2.5% in 1997. Most Western European countries and Japan have growth rates under 1.0%; several countries have negative growth (Portugal at -0.2%; Italy at -0.1%). Most Eastern European countries also exhibit negative population increase (e.g., Hungary at -0.3%). Rates of increase in the United States, Canada, and Australia slightly exceed 1.0%.

8. Population increase has two components: natural increase (births minus deaths) and migration balance (immigrants minus emigrants). Among the Jewish population of Israel, the fluctuations in immigration over the years have caused the weights of these components in the total increase to fluctuate as well. Since the establishment of the State, natural increase and the migration balance equally accounted for the growth of its Jewish population. In the mass-immigration period (1948–1951), the migration balance accounted for nearly 90% of the increase; in 1990-1991, it verged on 80%. As immigration slowed since 1992, the share of the migration balance in the total increase of the Jewish population diminished (40% in 1997).

9. The growth of the Muslim and Druze populations stems almost uniquely from natural increase.

10. In the 1970s and 1980s, the migration balance accounted for 10% of the increase of the Christian population (an increase of about 2,000 persons per year). In 1996 and 1997, the migration balance accounted for 25% of the increase (some 3,000 persons per year). As "religion unclassified" inhabitants have been separated from the Christian population since 1995 (see second note on Page 2), the early 1990s data are not comparable with those of subsequent years and, for this reason, are not shown here. The "religion-unclassified" group has grown rapidly (by about 28% per year), and 90% of its increase traces to the migration balance.

11. Israel has a higher rate of population increase than Western countries both because of a large influx of immigrants and because it has a high rate of natural increase, relative to these countries. The country has a large surplus of births over deaths (the rate of natural increase is 11 per thousand inhabitants) as against very small surpluses of births over deaths in most Western countries, especially in Europe - about 1 per thousand (e.g., in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, and France) or even surpluses of deaths over births (e.g., in Greece and Italy).

12. Israel's rate of natural increase is higher than that in Western countries because of a combination of a lower crude mortality rate (deaths per thousand inhabitants) and a higher crude birth rate (births per thousand inhabitants) than in the West - twice the crude birth rate observed in many countries (Neither the crude birth rate nor the crude mortality rate is a "net" indicator of the respective phenomena; each is affected by the relative size of age cohorts (and other factors) in the population).

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 06:35 PM

Apparently Israel has a long way to go before they are over-run by Muslims.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 08:20 PM

"What exactly are you getting at here?" ---GUEST

Well, I oppose the existence of a "Jewish State" in Israel. And, no, not because it's Jewish. I oppose other synthetic religiously-based states, such as Pakistan, too. I'd like to see it replaced with a proper, secular, multi-ethnic Palestine. I think I've already made this clear, though. Peaceful death to Israel, etc. :)

"Apparently Israel has a long way to go before they are over-run by Muslims."----GUEST

Well, even according to the conservative Israeli statistics above, non-Jewish citizens already make up 21% of the population, and have a much highter birthrate than the Jewish population does. And this doesn't even include the fast-growing Palestinian population of 3+ million. If it did,, Jews wouldn't have much of a majority, would they?

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 09:02 PM

Lepus Rex says:

"And this doesn't even include the fast-growing Palestinian population of 3+ million. If it did,, Jews wouldn't have much of a majority, would they?"

That is a gross oversimplification of how populations grow and decline.

Just because the Muslim population's birth rate in Israel is currently outpacing the Jewish population's doesn't mean they will soon outnumber the Jewish population. They have (no surprise here) no immigrant population coming into Israel, so their birth/death rates would have to both outpace the Jewish rates, but outpace the Jewish immigration rates too. Not likely that will happen any time soon, I don't think.

You know, I don't think the rest of the world is required to establish their states and run them according to your view of what is best for them. Pretty arrogant view, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 09:30 PM

My mistake. :) The Israeli govt. statistics didn't mention birthrate, but population growth in general. (cut/pasted from above)

"3. In 1997, the population increased by 142,000 persons - 2.5%. The various population groups showed the following growth rates: Jews 1.9%, Muslims 3.5%, Christians 2.3% and Druze 2.5%.

4. In 1990 and 1991 - the peak years of mass immigration from the former Soviet Union - the Jewish population grew by 6.2% and 5.0%, respectively. Since 1992, the annual growth rate of the Jewish population has been between 1.9% to 2.4%.

5. Since the mid-1950s, the percent of Jews in the population has declined from 89% to 80% (in 1997)."

And there's still the Palestinians, remember. So there. :)

"You know, I don't think the rest of the world is required to establish their states and run them according to your view of what is best for them. Pretty arrogant view, IMO."----GUEST

Did I say that they were? I'm here giving my OPINION, just like you. Since when is having an opinion 'arrogant?'

----Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 11:32 PM

I'd like to see what the population figures would be if they included the Palestinian areas (and the occupied areas if they've not already been included) as well as the Palestinians in the refugee camps.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 05 Apr 02 - 12:51 AM

Well, according to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, there are 3.8 million registered Palestinian refugees (defined as "persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict...UNRWA's definition of a refugee also covers the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948") living in Jordan, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic, the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

And according to the United Nations Population Information Network, the 1995 Palestinian population was "approximately 6.5 million Palestinians...in 16 countries of the Middle East and North Africa." (info from "DEMOGRAPHY OF THE PALESTINIAN POPULATION WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES,", by Arjun L. Adlakha, Kevin G. Kinsella and Marwan Khawaja)

Hope that helps... Tired. :)

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: Wolfgang
Date: 05 Apr 02 - 06:36 AM

The US continues to target civilians in every single military operation they undertake.

If you don't see any difference between someone targeting civilians (and accepting that among them may be e.g. soldiers on leave) and someone targeting military targets (and accepting that there will be civilian deads eventually), GUEST, you are partially blinding yourself to reality.

The difference between the two verbs 'to target' and 'to hit' is very very small for someone who has been hit or lost relations, but it is big for judging the action.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Apr 02 - 11:42 AM

No Wolfgang, I am not "blinding myself to reality." I don't agree with your mainstream views of what is reality to begin with.

I don't believe that state sponsored soldiers murdering civilians because the "terrorists" are indistinguishable from civilians, is any more morally defensible than suicide bombers murdering civilians.

I see the soldiers of the most powerful military forces in the world engaging in the kinds of murderous campaigns the IDF is engaging in, and the murderous campaigns of the US government in Iraq in the Gulf War and after, and in Afghanistan, as murderers, not heroes.

That is my view of reality. It is clearly different from yours and the Western mainstream. But it doesn't mean my view of reality is wrong, and the majoritarian view of reality is right. Some of us operate with a different moral code than the Western mainstream does.

I am not a pacifist. But I am also not a person who believes that might makes right. The most powerful military forces in the world attacking the weakest is morally indefensible, according to my morals and values.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Apr 02 - 12:18 PM

"If you don't see any difference between someone targeting civilians (and accepting that among them may be e.g. soldiers on leave) and someone targeting military targets (and accepting that there will be civilian dead..." Collateral damage as Timothy McVeigh argued, trying to put himself in the latter category.

It's a very slippery distinction. When you know that most of the people you kill are going to be civilians, arguments saying that this is an unwanted side-effect are hard to credit. And in practice the civilian deaths have always been used as a way of bringing pressure to bear on the enemy.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Apr 02 - 12:58 PM

Iraq approves new payscale for suicide bombers Last Updated Thu Apr 4 21:30:02 2002 NABLUS, WEST BANK - Iraq has upped the reward to the families of suicide bombers to $25,000(US) from $10,000, which may explain the dramatic increase in these attacks in Israel during the past month.

Relatives of suicide bombers now get $25,000, up from $10,000 An Associated Press report Thursday said Iraq approved the new pay scale for suicide bombers at a conference in Baghdad on March 12. The new pay scale calls for $10,000 to be given to families of gunmen and others who fights Israelis, while the relatives of suicide bombers will receive $25,000.

Since Iraq increased the reward money a month ago there have been 12 suicide-bomb attacks inside Israel, including one that killed 25 Israelis, most of them elderly Jews blown up as they attended a Passover dinner.

In the past 18 months of fighting in the Middle East, 55 Palestinians have killed themselves in suicide attacks on Israeli citizens.

In a speech at the White House Thursday, U.S. President George Bush called the suicide bombers "murderers." He said governments such as Iraq that reward relatives of suicide bombers "are guilty of soliciting murder of the worst kind."

The wire service report described the case of Jamal Nasser, a 23-year-old architecture student who killed herself when she tried to ram a bus carrying Israeli settlers.

The student's mother said she received a cheque for $10,000 from Iraq and a $5,000 cheque from Iran. She said she intends to use the reward money to buy an apartment.

Written by CBC News Online staff

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Apr 02 - 01:15 PM

And I ain't buyin' those stories Guest 12:58. Just more of the same old same old hysterical war propaganda that we've been seeing put through the news cycles for the last several days.

Muslim social service agencies with ties to organizations like Hamas are distributing these funds, and has been noted earlier, these funds are given to all victims of Israeli violence in the Palestinian territories, not just the families of suicide bombers.

Just as in the US, the families of those killed in the 9/11 attacks have received money from government and non-government social service agencies for their losses. It really is the same thing, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: SharonA
Date: 05 Apr 02 - 03:03 PM

GUEST who posted on 05-Apr-02 - 01:15 PM says: "These funds are given to all victims of Israeli violence in the Palestinian territories, not just the families of suicide bombers. Just as in the US, the families of those killed in the 9/11 attacks have received money from government and non-government social service agencies for their losses. It really is the same thing, IMO."

There is a difference: those killed in the 9/11 attacks are victims of violence. Some of the "victims of Israeli violence in the Palestinian territories" are victims of violence. But suicide bombers are not; they are perpetrators of violence. The objection to the funding of families of suicide bombers is that the money is an incentive to be violent, and a reward for terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Apr 02 - 03:19 PM

WHY IS MUDCAT A PIECE OF SHIT?

Because Max Spiegel provides space for motherfuckers to say to equate mass murdering terrorists with the victims of mass murdering terrorists.

When Mudcat was a folk site it was great. This thread is a perfect example of why I hope Mudcat fails and Max loses every penny he has.

Asta la vista Mudcat.

Subject: Lyr Add: GALAXY SONG (Eric Idle & John Du Prez)
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Apr 02 - 03:21 PM

THE COSMIC SONG

Whenever life gets you down, Mrs. Brown, And things seem hard or tough, And people are stupid, obnoxious or daft, And you feel that you've had quite enough,

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour. It's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned, 'Round the sun that is the source of all our power. Now the sun, and you and me, and all the stars that we can see, Are moving at a million miles a day, In the outer spiral arm, at fourteen thousand miles an hour, Of a galaxy we call the Milky Way.

Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars; It's a hundred thousand light-years side to side; It bulges in the middle sixteen thousand light-years thick, But out by us it's just three thousand light-years wide. We're thirty thousand light-years from Galactic Central Point, We go 'round every two hundred million years; And our galaxy itself is one of millions of billions In this amazing and expanding universe.

Our universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding, In all of the directions it can whiz; As fast as it can go, that's the speed of light, you know, Twelve million miles a minute and that's the fastest speed there is. So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure, How amazingly unlikely is your birth; And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space, 'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth!

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: SharonA
Date: 05 Apr 02 - 03:23 PM

At the end of the Part 1 thread of this discussion, GUEST who posted on 05-Apr-02 - 12:35 PM said: "The rest of the world is vacillating between appeals to Israel "not to employ excessive force" and appeals to the Palestinians "to stop the terror."

That wasn't my impression at all. I'm hearing the rest of the world making appeals to both sides to stop.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Apr 02 - 03:35 PM

"There is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of Western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the US. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defense of Western countries." - George Orwell (in 1945), quoted in a letter to The Spectator

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Apr 02 - 10:00 AM

The Jews are pillaging Palestine, and the world is looking away. A few feeble-minded declarations and toothless resolutions notwithstanding, no one with the capability to say or do anything of substance seems to care. The people in the streets are loudly voicing their concern, but the silence in the halls of power is deafening. With a few exceptions, the Muslim regimes and media are looking to the West for assistance, for recognition of the plight of Palestine. Many are wondering why it is that the civilized Western world, with its much-vaunted love of peace and justice, is looking the other way. Why is it that "the world's only superpower" seems powerless to act?

The problem is that these are all myths. The Western world loves neither peace nor justice, and it has a peculiar brand of civilization that has normalized its own crimes. For the West to condemn Israel the West must condemn itself, since Israel is the West, in somewhat concentrated form, but just as murderous, racist and virulent. Israel is too close to the standard Western colonial model of invasion, occupation and subjugation for the Western world to take any sort of action. Individuals may do otherwise, but political and economic powers are indifferent.

Americans claim to lead the world today; that they are the "world's only superpower." America has also been the staunchest supporter of Israel since its inception in the mid-20th century. A quick look at America's history explains its complicity. European settlers with a Biblical ideology, amazingly close to present-day Zionism, invaded the Americas and destroyed the indigenous civilizations that had prospered there for centuries or millennia. New Americans paid no attention to the rights of local people, who were wantonly slaughtered and driven from their lands, or who died en masse of the diseases brought from Europe to the Northern American continent by the Europeans.

But that is only one crime of the new Americans. Beside being built on the graves of millions of Native peoples in the eastern and central part of the continent, America was built on the backs of millions of Africans, kidnapped and worked to death in the new world to build and benefit the white man's paradise. This dual crime of genocide and enslavement was soon supplemented by a third, the systematic depopulation of what was once greater Mexico, the area now known as the southwestern United States, of its original inhabitants. The American colonial machine soon occupied all of what is now called the United States, and legalised and normalized the fruits of its crimes.

Similar crimes were also committed elsewhere. The Spanish and Portuguese laid waste Central and South America and parts of Africa, in the name of a racist brand of Christianity fueled by the Church and a Crusader mentality. The French, Dutch, Belgians and Italians in particular invaded and occupied large areas of Africa and Southeast Asia, initiating colonial wars that took the lives of millions, all in the name of modern Western civilization. The British colonized half the planet, perfecting the practice of indirect rule, which, in combination with the usual slaughter and pillage, proved a lasting method of global subjugation that in many ways survives today.

The formerly colonised regimes of the 'third world' are also largely silent about the crimes of the Jews in Palestine. This is because America and Europe have bribed and intimidated these regimes into silence. Economic sanctions, or their opposite in the form of subsidies, keep some of them from speaking, in a bizarre protection-racket funded by the IMF, the World Bank and other transnational economic organisations. The few states that speak out in favor of the Palestinian cause, such as South Africa and Lebanon, have been or will soon be attacked, either militarily or economically; others have been targeted in America's newest "war on terror."

The Western world is living on the profits of its crimes, which are laid bare for all to see today by the Jews and their atrocious brutality in Palestine. The tortures, executions, internments and terrorism being perpetrated by the Jews today are no more than what America, Britain, France and other Western powers have done in their own past. Now they are "civilized" (ie. sophisticated, suave, and expert at blurring and confusing long-agreed and long-accepted human and ethical consensuses), and engage in polite and subtle conversations about peace and justice, but none of this would be possible without the crimes upon which Western civilization has been built. Where is the court to prosecute the perpetrators and perpetuators of this sordid legacy? There is no such court, because the entire modern legal system was effectively set up by these same criminals, so the judges, juries and executioners are all criminals too,or at least benefit from those crimes.

One difference in the Jewish version of the Western colonial model is that its brutality is broadcast on television via various satellite networks. The US has tried hard to shut down these networks, but many still operate and even the Western media, hopelessly biased, are forced to show some of the reality to maintain their faltering 'objectivity'. But the blood and brutality on today's television screens are shadows of the centuries of atrocities committed by the Western powers in their own formative stages. Such images are not an aberration; they are the norm in a centuries-long colonial drive.

It is foolish to expect anything else from the so-called civilized world today, which is being forced to look into an ugly mirror of its own terror, to gaze hatefully upon itself, and upon what it has wrought on the world. Israel is a lesson in colonial desperation. The former colonial powers cannot be called upon for guidance until they are willing to face their own legacies. Until then they will act like America, walking out of international forums such as the United Nations conference on racism in South Africa, proving their arrogance to the world by not facing up to their actions, preferring to continue to live on the profits of their crimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: RichM
Date: 07 Apr 02 - 10:32 AM

If the Western world is responsible for all the political evils in the world, let's find some new role models.
Let me see...Any arab nation--what about Iraq?
Or what about the Far Eastern countries?
India? Pakistan? India? Pakistan? Indonesia? They certainly knew how to resolve the East Timor situation.
China? ---ignoring their handling of Tibet, of course.
Nigeria, Algeria, Sudan? Southeast Asia?

Oh, the alternatives are endless...as long as it's not any of those horrible western countries!

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: Big John
Date: 07 Apr 02 - 11:16 AM

"His blood be upon us and our children". This is a line in the Gospel allegedly used by the Jews demanding the crucifiction of Jesus. It has been used for 2000 years as justifcation for the persection of Jews culminating in the Holocost. The Jews learned from that experience that military might is the only road to survival. They are now totally surrounded by hostile "neighbours". I think the murder of 6 million of their people gives them reason to be paranoid about their continued survival.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Apr 02 - 12:05 PM

I agree they have reason to be paranoid, Big John. But what they don't have the right to do is to act out their fears by punishing their new neighbors with military repression, massacres, and state sponsored terrorist tactics like political assassinations, illegal round-ups and detentions, censoring the international media, etc etc.

The state of Israel has the same rights of security any sovereign nation has, but not more of a right to security than is allowed by international law.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Apr 02 - 01:05 PM

Now on the face of it GUEST 05-Apr-02 - 03:19 PM is probably not the same as GUEST 07-Apr-02 - 10:00 AM. But is GUEST 07-Apr-02 - 12:05 PM the same as GUEST 05-Apr-02 - 03:35 PM or GUEST 05-Apr-02 - 03:21 PM?

Or maybe it really is all the same GUEST who thinks that a bloody tragedy like this is a fine playpen in which to play silly games.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Apr 02 - 06:43 AM

Look into the USA Bashing thread and you will find a couple terrorists in the making.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Apr 02 - 08:51 AM

The US also compensates the families of it's soldiers killed in the line of duty.

I view US soldiers as perpetrators of violence too. After all, we pay our soldiers to go to foreign lands and kill innocent people as standard operating procedure. Yet few Americans question those incentives we give to our enlisted men to commit acts of violence. When we give a paycheck, subsidized housing, food, medical care, etc. to soldiers, that is quite the financial incentive for them to be violent, and reward them for terrorist acts against innocent civilians in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or anyway we decide we have a so-called "national interest".

Why the double standard? If you don't like what Palestinian terrorists are doing, why do you accept what the Israeli terrorists are doing as A Good Thing? Or US terrorists?

Because we can't scare you, you're stickin' with the empire 'til the day you die?

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 02 - 05:13 PM

Both the Israelis and the Palestinians have plenty of reasons to be paranoid, and to arm themselves.

The terrorists are: whoever goes onto someone else's ground with the intention of committing violence or fires across someone else's border or flies through someone's else's air and drops bombsd, and does violence upon the people there and destroys their property and lives.

The non-terrorist is: he who defends his own ground against the attacker (such as the Israeli policeman or soldier on the streets of Tel Aviv or the Palestinian fighter on the streets of Ramallah or Nablus).

So...the Palestinian bomber is a terrorist, the Israeli soldier in the streets of Nablus is a terrorist, the guy firing a rocket from Lebanon into Israel is a terrorist, the guy who bulldozes down a Palestinian house is a terrorist, and Arafat and Sharon are terrorists...to one extent or another.

People will argue that extent, depending on their pre-existing state of prejudice. If they are totally blinded by prejudice and fear, they will see terrorists only on one side of the issue.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Apr 02 - 02:29 AM

Judging from the commercials

They are you, and me, and anyone else who puffs a bowl of pot.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Apr 02 - 10:01 AM

by Daniel Gordis of Jerusalem

Tuesday was Yom Hashoah, Holocaust Remembrance Day, an agonizing day. In the afternoon, at work, we gathered in a circle while some colleagues quietly read the names of relatives who had been exterminated by the Nazis. Some had long lists; one even brought pictures. During the ceremony, word spread that a group of Israeli Defense Force soldiers — 13, it would turn out — had been killed in an ambush in Jenin. Another, in Nablus, fell to friendly fire.

It is hard to describe what 14 soldiers means in this small country. People make frantic calls to find out where their husbands and fathers are. Then the hourly news announces to the entire country the location and time of each funeral. At such moments it feels that living here makes one part of an extended family.

No one in that family wants this war. But very few people here think we can do without it. Israelis understand why we're fighting. We also know why our soldiers are dying. There are significant pockets of armed resistance in the Jenin camp, but there are also lots of civilians. So we can't just bomb from the skies. We send soldiers house to house, only to watch as Hamas fighters use those same civilians as shields. On Tuesday we paid a heavy price.

We had 14 funerals because we won't fight this war the way the Russians fought in Grozny or the way the United States fought in Afghanistan — from the safety of the skies. Hardly a building in Grozny was spared in the bombing; the Russians knew the price they'd pay if they tried to fight on the street. If Israel hit a hospital from the skies the way that the Americans did not too long ago in Afghanistan, just imagine the world's reaction.

Palestinians say we won't let their ambulances in Jenin. Yet two weeks ago Israeli soldiers stopped a Palestinian ambulance with a child in the back on a stretcher, and under him soldiers found an explosive belt. Palestinians say that we're not letting them clear their dead from the streets. The Israeli Army claims that's a lie, that the Palestinians are leaving the bodies there intentionally for good footage on CNN. Who's telling the truth? I don't know.

Last week, when the siege around the Church of the Nativity began, many Israelis understood why we couldn't just shoot our way in, but the frustration was palpable. If it had been Israelis in a church, or a synagogue, and Palestinians on the outside, how long would the siege have lasted? Everyone here knows the answer. When the Palestinians burned down the synagogue at Joseph's tomb in October 2000, the Vatican didn't speak up. When they later destroyed an ancient synagogue near Jericho, European liberals didn't lose sleep.

The siege outside the church began in foul weather. According to reports on Israeli radio, some soldiers stood for hours in the driving rain, making sure that none of the armed Palestinians inside would escape. All that afternoon, the residents of Bethlehem pointed at the rain and shouted: "Get out of here. We hate you. The world hates you. And look, even the heavens hate you."

Maybe the world does hate us for having the audacity to protect ourselves, for meaning it when we say "never again." Maybe the world is secretly delighted that no war can be made to look civilized, so the Europeans and the Palestinians can point their fingers at us and say, "See, they do it, too." Then maybe what they did won't seem so horrific, so unforgivable.

One thing important to Jews is remembering. We won't forget the 20th century and the world's complicity, and when we recall this week, in which we buried 14 of our sons, brothers, husbands and fathers who didn't have to die except for our decision to do this fighting the hard way, we'll remember the world's double standard.

On Tuesday night, my 12-year-old son, Avi, told me about a Yom Hashoah class discussion about whether the Holocaust could happen again — a session he said he found "stupid." Why? I asked. "Because we have a strong army," he answered, "America is our friend, and look out there now — we take care of ourselves."

The next morning I watched him head off on his bike to school, with pride, security and confidence. That's a lot more than Jewish kids in Europe had a few decades ago. It's a lot more than some Jewish kids have in Europe this week. It's why we need this country. And it's why we'll fight to keep it.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Apr 02 - 12:36 PM

Demonizing and dehumanizing the Palestinians won't bring back those who died at the hands of the Nazis.

However, demonizing and dehumanizing the Palestinians could very well earn Sharon and his government a place beside some of the other prominent historical mass murderers.

Listen to Yossi Beilin. He remembers a time when Israel was more willing to work with the Palestinians, and Israeli Jews could travel freely into Palestinian towns without fear for their safety. Sharon is betraying the Israelis Jews. And they will share the shame of his crimes against humanity when they are brought to light. Hell of a thing when you think about it, considering what the State of Israel was created for in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Apr 02 - 01:13 PM

And apparently the truth is already coming to light. Today the bodies of whole families of Palestinians; men, women, and children, have been uncovered in the ruins of their homes that were buldozed by the Israeli military.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Apr 02 - 02:06 PM

The most dangerous weapon you can have is a human being who is ready and willing to die. Bombs, guns, explosives, they can be obtained anywhere. But people who are willing to die aren't found quite so easily. They can be created slowly by a process of re-education. Or they can be created en masse by the kind of thing that has been happening in the occupied territories over the past two weeks.

The idea that somehow a massive assault on Palestinian ghettos is going to help stop suicide bombers is just a fantasy. It is creating more potential bombers all the time. All that is achieved by "destroying the terrorist infrastructure" is ensuring that there is no way that anyone on the Palestinian side can do anything to stop the suiciders, even if they want to.

The British thought in those terms when they introduced internment in Northern Ireland. All it did was to unleash a new young generation of bombers.

When Napoleon arranged for a political killing of an opponent a critic said "It's worse than a crime - it's a mistake." People who go on about what Israel is doing as wicked miss the point. "It's worse than a crime - it's a mistake." (And of course the same is true of the suicide bombings.)

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Apr 02 - 02:28 PM

Unless Sharon's real agenda is to ethnically cleanse all Palestinians from Israel. In which case, I suppose his methods could be very effective in stopping the suicide bombers. Because then there won't be an Palestinians left in Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Apr 02 - 02:40 PM

Of course, ethnically cleansing Palestinians would probably cause a whole lot of other problems with the other countries in the region. But hey, that's what nuclear weapons are for, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: Troll
Date: 13 Apr 02 - 03:20 PM

Ten Tips on How to Be an Arafat Apologist

FrontPageMagazine.com | April 11, 2002

WITH ALL OF THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that has now confirmed, beyond any reasonable doubt, Arafat's terrorist connections and duplicitous behavior vis-à-vis Israel, it has become impossible for Arafat's apologists to make any legitimate excuses for their hero. I know a number of academics and writers that have become extremely depressed because of this situation. Having based their entire lives and professional careers on blaming Israel for any and every sparrow that fell from the sky, they have now lost the will to live. I feel sorry for these pathetic people.

I have decided to come forward to help the individuals who want to continue championing Yasser Arafat but simply don't know how.

Seeing that I have dedicated most of my adult life to observing and dissecting the psychotic mindset that it takes to blame Israel for the conflict in Palestine, I know exactly what it takes to be an Arafat supporter. Even in these difficult times, I can teach an individual how to effectively defend Arafat and the Palestinian Authority –- even if the entire charade is filled with specious nonsense and lies.

I have created ten tips on how to be an Arafat apologist. They come with an easy to follow step-by-step guide. All you have to do is fertilize your personal dedication to anti-Semitism and then simply allow yourself to become as delusional as humanly possible.

The video infomercial for these tips should be coming out next month on television stations across the United States. Meanwhile, here is the basic outline for all those Jew-haters who have dedicated their lives to blaming Israel for every Arab terrorist act but thought that doing so was no longer possible:

Tip #1 – Imagine that the Palestinians are fighting for a homeland that was taken away from them by the evil Jews.

That's right. The foundation to becoming and remaining a faithful pro-Arafat enthusiast is to intoxicate yourself with the belief that the Palestinians actually once owned a homeland that was, in turn, stolen by the greedy and parasitic Jews.

While trying to convince yourself of this fantasy, ignore the historical fact that the Palestine Mandate was never a nation, let alone even a political entity of any kind. It was a "mandate" that was created by the British from the remnants of the Turkish Empire after World War I. 10% of it was given to the Jews and 90% was given to the Palestinian Arabs.

The key here is that you should never worry about where 90% of Palestine actually is. Just obsess with the miniscule tiny bit of land that the Israelis "occupy" now. It's not important that this land was never officially "owned" by anyone in the first place.

You should also never reflect on whether all of your rage and hatred on this issue is proportional to the fact that Israel consists of 1% of the land in the Middle East.

Just get really angry that Israel is on territory that you think should be given to the Palestinians. And because you think this, then it automatically makes it right and historically correct.

You should never wonder how your moral indignation on this issue fits with your complete indifference to the fact that Jordan occupies 80% of the land that made up the original Palestine Mandate. So if you really cared about the Palestinians, you would obviously be focusing your energy on protesting the crime being perpetrated by the Jordanians against the Palestinians. But the key here is that, well, deep down, you don't really care about the Palestinians -– and neither should you. You must never admit this, but the Palestinians are only there for you to cynically exploit as pawns in your contributory effort to finish off what Adolph Hitler started.

That's right. You know what I'm talking about. And even the Palestinians are in on this with you. I mean, think about it: if the Palestinians themselves really cared about getting a homeland, don't you think that they would be screaming about -- and fighting for -- the land that Jordan occupies? Don't you think it is somewhat curious that Jordan has never, even for a second, been the target of a Palestine liberation movement?

Don't you think it is a little bit curious that, in 1948, the Palestinian Arabs rejected an international resolution that would have established a Palestinian state, and instead focused all of their energies on destroying the new Jewish state?

You're starting to get the picture now, right?

So be a smart and clever Arafat apologist. The overall objective of your life should be facilitating the killing of Jews and destroying the state of Israel. The last thing you should be doing is worrying about the Palestinians. At the same time, however, in terms of what you actually say in public, you must always discuss the Middle East "problem" on the assumption that you are agonizing over the Palestinians' plight and how their entire "homeland" somehow lies in tiny little Israel.

It is also a very good idea that you always refer to the myth of how the Jews "stole" the Palestinian "homeland" in passing, because then it makes its reality appear to be a given. You can't believe how effective this ploy can be, especially in the midst of people who know nothing about Middle East history.

So believe in yourself and just do it!

Tip #2 – Never question the cause of Palestinian terror.

Every time that a Palestinian blows himself up along with innocent Jewish civilians, including babies in carriages, you should shake your head in despair and say things like, "That poor Palestinian. But he simply had no choice. The Israelis have pushed his people beyond their means."

You should always say things like this with a tone that implies that the "Israeli occupation" is the most oppressive reality in the world. Say things like, "The Israelis are doing to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to them." Follow this up with sentences like, "The Jews have obviously forced the Palestinians into terrorism."

When you mouth these slogans, make sure to have a serious and sincere look on your face, otherwise the asininity of what you are saying might become more easily discernable. Maintaining a sober facial expression can be made easier if you convince yourself that the wars of 1973 and 1967 are irrelevant to the subject at hand.

Before Israel was attacked in 1973, it occupied less of the land that is now in dispute, and before 1967, it occupied none of it. In other words, the Arab terror that was unleashed against Israel in 1967 had nothing to do with the Israeli "occupation" of the West Bank and Gaza Strip because the "occupation" did not exist.

From 1949-1967, Jordan had occupied the West Bank while Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip. But instead of the Arabs using terror against Egypt and Jordan to get them off of the Palestinians' "land,", an Arab war of terror against Israel was launched in 1967. Israel won that war and grabbed both the West Bank and Gaza Strip as a security measure.

So why is it, you think, that Jordan's annexation of the West Bank and Egypt's annexation of the Gaza Strip from 1949-67 didn't trigger any emotions in the Palestinians who lived in those territories? Why is it that not once, in all of those 18 years, was there even a sentence of indignation uttered by the Palestinians or by their "liberation" organization about the injustice done to the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza Strip? Why did other Arab states say nothing about it?

You know why. And this means that the terror against Israel has always been, and still is, caused by something other than Israelis being on any kind of "territory." I'll give you six hints about what the real cause is connected to:

Hint #1: Hitler formulated the Final Solution because of it.

Hint #2: it has something to do with why Israel cannot be found on a map in Palestinian geography classes. It's also connected to why Palestinian textbooks teach Palestinian children that Jews are evil thieves who have taken Arab land and who must therefore be killed. The textbooks also tell the kiddies that suicide bombing is what Allah loves most, since that noble and holy activity is the most effective way of murdering Jews and "liberating" Palestine.

Hint #3: it's why the Palestinian Authority has published the Arabic translation of Mein Kampf, and why that tract has reached number six on its best-seller list.

Hint #4: It is connected to why, in 1960, when the Israelis captured Adolph Eichmann, the government-run Saudi Arabian newspaper ran a story headlined: "Arrest Of Eichmann, Who Had The Honor Of Killing Six Million Jews."

Hint #5: it has something to do with the great honor and respect that is bestowed in the Middle East upon anyone who succeeds in killing Jews. For instance, if you blow yourself up along with some innocent Jewish mothers and babies, your picture will be plastered on posters throughout your hometown. Your family will acquire a revered place in society and will also receive $25,000 in American currency from Saddam Hussein. You, meanwhile, will get to fulfill all of your wildest and repressed sexual fantasies with 72 virgins in heaven.

Hint #6: the whole matter is related to why Hashemi Rafsanjani, the eminent representative of "Iranian moderation," has boasted that once the Muslim world gets a hold of nuclear weapons, which he assures will be very soon, the Jewish "question" will be solved forever.

Now that you know what the real cause of Palestinian terror is, make sure to always deny it. Instead, consistently maintain to others that it is the result of Israelis being on "Palestinian territory."

Tip #3 – Ignore the words of Palestinians.

When you make your arguments for the Palestinian right to a homeland, always make sure to emphasize that the Palestinians acknowledge the right of Israel to exist. To make sure this works effectively, never mention, or ever even think about, what the Palestinians actually say themselves.

For instance, never talk about the Palestinian Covenant of 1968, because it embodies the philosophical principles of the Palestinians themselves and says things that would shatter the foundation to all of your arguments. For instance, Article 19 affirms that, "The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of Israel is fundamentally null and void, whatever time has elapsed, because it is contrary to the wish of the people of Palestine and its natural right to its homeland."

Article 15 states that, "The liberation of Palestine, from the Arab viewpoint, is a national duty to repulse the Zionist, Imperialist invasion from the great Arab homeland and to purge the Zionist presence from Palestine."

Also ignore Articles 20 and 22, because they reject even the historical and religious ties of Jews to the Holy Land itself. And that is precisely why Palestinian children are yet to find the state of Israel on any maps in their geography classes.

You also shouldn't worry that Arafat has never repudiated the Articles in the Palestinian Covenant of 1968. This explains why, when speaking English to Western audiences, he always talks about how he acknowledges the right of Israel to exist. But when he speaks Arabic to Arab audiences, he does little else but boast about his successes in working toward the Palestinians' most ambitious goal: to destroy the state of Israel. One only has to briefly listen to the Arab media, mosque sermons, and classroom and cafe conversations to gauge that this disposition represents a wide consensus in Arab society in general and in Palestinian society in particular.

Thus, when you are trying to persuade someone about the good intentions of Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, and how they accept the existence of Israel, never mention what the Palestinians themselves talk about. You should most definitely stay away from the subject of the 1968 Palestinian Covenant, because this could cause you problems. If someone else brings it up, change topics immediately.

Tip #4 – Imagine that Palestinians were, and are better off without Israel and the Israeli "occupation."

You should be constantly angry about the suffering of Palestinians and be convinced that it is the fault of Israel. Palestinian suffering should always be equated with Israeli responsibility. These two notions must be inseparable in your mind.

Palestinian suffering is definitely not the fault of Arafat or of all the Arab states – even though they have done everything in their power to make sure that the Palestinians do not receive a homeland.

That's right. So try not to reflect too much on why the Palestinians of the West Bank are barred from becoming citizens in the Arab world. When the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian administration, for instance, the Palestinians there were denied Egyptian citizenship and thereby remained stateless. This is exactly why the Palestinians are known as "refugees."

The Arabs love their Palestinian brothers. It's just that, well, they love them from a distance.

In any case, you should try your hardest to convince yourself that the Palestinians' life under the Israeli "occupation" is the worst experience of any people under any regime in the history of the human race. The first step to believing this notion is to ignore the fact that Palestinians are much worse off in occupied Lebanon, where they are denied basic rights to employment, healthcare and government services –- unlike the Palestinians in Israel and in the "occupied" territories.

You should also avoid the subject of how Kuwait ethnically cleansed all Palestinians (about 300,000 of them) just a decade ago, and how Jordanians slaughtered thousands of them after the 1967 war.

Try to imagine that all of this isn't very relevant. And neither is the fact that the world community never said too much about these Arab atrocities. It's okay when Muslim Arabs practice genocide against Palestinians. It's only wrong when the Israelis oppress Palestinians in the effort to defend themselves from terror.

You also shouldn't stress yourself about the racism against Arabs that this whole double standard implies. Indeed, by holding Jews up to a higher moral accountability than Arabs, the view that lets Arabs off the hook for oppressing their own brethren implies a civilizational inferiority to them -- and a civilizational superiority to Jews. But don't think through this too much. You might get depressed after realizing that, deep down, just like a Leftist despises the "underclass" people for whom he purports to speak, so too you have smug contempt for the Arabs that you believe you represent in your self-alienated imagination.

The key, in general, is that you should just avoid the whole issue of how the Jews have treated the Palestinians much better than the Arabs have.

It is also a very good idea for you to ignore the fact that Israel has given birth to an Arab citizenry inside Israel of more than one million people. This way you won't have to wonder how it is that, as Israeli citizens, Arabs have more rights, privileges and opportunities than the citizens of any Arab state in the Middle East. Unlike their Arab brothers and sisters, Arab citizens in Israel vote in free elections and are themselves elected to the Israeli parliament. In other words, the only place where Arabs know democracy and a high standard of living is in a Jewish nation.

This is a hard pill to swallow for a person like you, who aspires to demonize Israel and to glorify the Arab world as the embodiment of true democracy and stupendous progress in world civilization.

So what you have to do is visualize images of how Israel is the most evil nation on the face of the earth and how Arabs and Palestinians have endured unspeakable suffering because of it.

Tip #5 – Imagine that Israel controls the "occupied" territories for some bizarre, vague and sinister reason.

That's right: imagine that Israel controls the "occupied" territories because Jews have nothing better to do than to inflict pain. They think it's in their interest to trigger terrorism against themselves, as well as to ignite the hatred of a large portion of the world's population.

With great moral indignation, you should say things like, "the Israelis need to get out of the occupied territories." Say this as if it is a really easy, simple and safe thing for the Israelis to do.

Never consider that the Israeli "occupation" of the territories in question might actually not be the greatest crime in world history. It might also not deserve immediate rectification. Sometimes land is confiscated when aggressive and terrorist states repeatedly attack their neighbors -- and lose.

But this should not be your concern.

What should be your concern is to say things that make Israel look as if it controls areas like the West Bank because Israelis need to fill the void of no longer being allowed to sacrifice and eat gentile babies in their religious rituals.

Tip #6 – Say that Arafat isn't a terrorist.

You should always say things like: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter." After that, say things like, "Arafat is a freedom-fighter."

You must always ignore that Arafat has provided sanctuary and support to Palestinian suicide bombers and terrorists of all stripes. Be very open-minded about how he has personally endorsed suicide bombings rhetorically and celebrated the cult of "martyrdom" and other forms of homicide.

And always make sure to announce things like, "Arafat has imprisoned militants." When you say this, don't worry that the Palestinian "jails" that Arafat places "militants" in are notorious for their bars in the front and revolving doors at the back. Just tell people that Arafat is really trying to get terrorism under control.

Don't lose any sleep over the fact that explosives of the specific type used by Palestinian suicide bombers have been found in Palestinian police stations all over the "occupied" territories. Also don't concern yourself with the fact that 500 Palestinians were just recently arrested in and around Arafat's compound and that dozens of them were on Israel's lists of most-wanted terrorists. Arafat was obviously still trying his best to track these people down. The reason he couldn't find them was that they were cleverly hiding in his office while he was desperately patrolling the West Bank looking for them.

And by all means, deny to others, as well as to yourself, that connections between the Palestinian Authority and international Islamic terror organizations, including al-Qaeda, have now been established beyond any reasonable doubt. If you accept this reality, then your whole belief system will come crashing down.

Just look really sure of yourself and say things like, "Arafat isn't a terrorist. He is a freedom fighter."

Tip #7 – Imagine that Arafat has the interests of his own people in mind.

This is the key to being an effective apologist for Arafat. You must always tell people that your hero truly cares about his own people –- even though the history of his every move negates the possibility of this being the case.

A person that truly wanted the best for the Palestinian people would have embraced an offer that accepted 95% of the Palestinians' negotiating demands and would have given the Palestinians their own sovereign state in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, more than 90 percent of the West Bank, and a capital in Jerusalem. That's what Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Arafat in 2000. But Arafat rejected the proposal, demanding, instead, the flooding of Israel with millions of Palestinians. He knew, as Israelis did, that such a development would destroy Israel as a Jewish state.

Arafat shrewdly understood that Israel could not, and would not, engage in self-destruction and this is how he succeeded in his main objective: to avoid the creation of a new Arab state and to annihilate the only Jewish one. That's what the "Palestinian uprising," after all, is really all about.

It is obvious, therefore, why Arafat has consistently stifled all Israeli efforts to improve the prosperity of the Palestinian people. He wants his people to bleed in misery and destitution. That way their suffering can be exploited in the Arabs' suicide wars against Israel.

Now the key for you, therefore, is to deny the obvious.

You know that the "Palestinian problem" is far more useful to Arafat than its solution will ever be. Arafat knows that peace with Jews is his own political suicide at best –- and his own death warrant at worst.

What you have to do is look people in the eyes as honestly as you can and say things like, "Arafat is really trying to help his people." Say this as if you yourself have been talking to Arafat and that he tells you things that he wouldn't confide in most people.

Tip #8 – Say that Arab terrorism has nothing to do with jealousy.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Apr 02 - 03:24 PM

All glibness aside, when the bodies start being counted, and the numbers of innocent Palestinian's who have been killed becomes known, I think it will become a lot more difficult to be a Sharon apologist.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Apr 02 - 04:10 PM

I repeat, anyone who thinks that one side is all right in the Middle East and the other is all wrong is blinded by prejudice. Both sides are deeply bigoted against each other, and both are committing terrorism against each other on a regular basis, but they only call it terrorism when the other guy does it. A victory they win is a "victory"...a victory the other guy wins is a "massacre". Look back to the wars in America between the USA and the Native people, and you will see these same habits of expression used...depending on whose prejudice is engaged in making the statement.

Be that as it may, I appreciate some of the points in the Daniel Gordis article...particularly regarding the hypocrisy of the West, which happily bombs the hell out of people from a safe distance...then criticizes other people for doing it at close range, which is far more dangerous to the attacker's fighting forces.

The fact is, all the parties who go out and commit violence do it in whatever way seems most effective (and politically feasible) to them in achieving their desired objective! They do not do it with humanitarian concerns in mind. If Israel thought that they could achieve their objectives through air bombing alone, I'm sure they would follow that method.

If the Palestinians thought they could achieve their objectives through conventional combat in the open, that's what they would do too. Likewise for the Arab states.

So it goes...each one does what he thinks will WORK, under the present circumstances. It's pragmatism, folks, pragmatism, although it's unrealistic pragmatism in my opinion, because it will not achieve the desired objective...not in either case. It will merely add more fuel to the fire. The USA is now beginning to get seriously worried about this particular fire, I believe...I wonder if they will find a way to put it out? Or has Pandora opened a box that cannot be shut this time?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: artbrooks
Date: 13 Apr 02 - 04:13 PM

CarolC, I'd like the cite for your statement about bodies and bulldozers, please. I cann't find that on CNN or other sources I trust.

My personal opinion of Mr. Sharon is that he and Mr. Begin are running a close race for the worse Israeli PM since 1948. That being said, and I think what's happening in the "refugee camps" right now is tragic, I don't see a decent solution. Arafat doesn't control the Palestinians, and there is nobody for the Israelis to talk to. If ANYBODY negotiates any kind of agreement with Arafat, one of the other factions will murder another dozen Israeli children with a "suicide bomb"...and maybe the bomber will be a Palestinian child...and that agreement will die. If the Israelis pull out of the supposedly Palestinian controlled territories the bombing will continue...it always has in the past. If the Israelis leave the West Bank and Gaza entirely, and accept the Saudi plan to withdraw to the 1967 "borders", then the Arab nations will shell across the border...they always have in the past. Most of northern Israel is within artillery range of the Golan Heights, and Tel Aviv is within artillery range of the 1967 border. Got a solution? I don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From:
Date: 13 Apr 02 - 04:35 PM

I am not an apologist for Arafat or his henchmen. I would love to see them removed from society..house imprisonment with no communication at all..And I do think that the suicide bombers forced a military response, but I don't know if that means bulldozing people alive in their homes....you can tell people to come out while you search their homes for weapons...and I read on a message from Christians in Palestine that children were screaming for water and being forced to drink sewage water...

I heard a Palestinian man on the radio say something I think was profound..he wasn't speaking for the whole lot of them..but he said he didn't care if he lived in Israel's land..he wanted his old home and orchards back. I think we are not realizing the attachment to the physical land that was taken, liberated, however you want to call it. It comes through loud and clear in everything you read. I think the desire for a state is secondary..I don't think I realized that until recently. I also read or heard somewhere, and maybe I bookmarked it, that 86% of the villages that were "liberated" were empty. That stunned me. It means at least some could return..maybe as serfs..who knows....I know all the arguments..but encouraging millions more people to activate their "right of return" or the similar phrase that is used..I forget what it is..to Israel, and at the same time denying it to Palestinians..is nuts...maybe they should be allowed ...some of them..to return on a migrant basis but not really live there..just to farm it...I don't know...I also wonder if the Gaza strip could be exchanged for land in the north and more of a north/south split could happen..with the Palestine land adjoining Syria rather than Israel..and Israel sharing borders with the more moderate countries of Egypt and Jordan, with an occupied area in Palestine..not occupied solely by Israeli troops. International. With Jerusalem heavily international..probably not a capitol of either country but a religious capitol for the world..with tons of tourist s bringing in money...geographers and economists...can better lines be drawn than have been suggested by all the powers?

mg

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Apr 02 - 04:44 PM

artbrooks, I heard it from people who were there when it happened. I think you'll be hearing a lot more from such people, and if Israel would allow independent observers in to very these things, we could say that the body counts have been conducted without bias. Of course, if they don't, then we'll know that they have something to hide. Especially if they go buring the bodies themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Apr 02 - 04:49 PM

"They always have in the past"

And in the past, Israel has always reneged on its agreements with the Palestinians. If they had been honoring their agreements, the suicide bombings would not have been happening.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Apr 02 - 05:04 PM

One reason why the allegations about houses being flattened with families inside them are being treated as credible is because that is exactly what happened in the first serious war crime alleged against Sharon, back in 1953 in the village of Qibya.

The strenuous efforts made by the attacking forces in Jenin to keep away any outside observers have also fed suspicions. And have made it a lot harder to disprove the suspicions, if they are ungrounded.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Apr 02 - 05:48 PM

From the Jewish Man's official dating manual:

Never dump a cute little shiksa. Otherwise, you run the risk of creating deep bitterness toward all Jewish people and the State of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Apr 02 - 05:56 PM

I assume that's a reference to me. Well, the truth of the matter is, he didn't dump me, and I am not bitter toward all Jewish people.

I am however, pretty upset with the current Israeli government. And I think that's a pretty appropriate thing for me to be. And you, too.

Anyway, the suggestion that if a person strongly disagrees with the current government of Israel, they are bitter toward Jewish people in general is not only specious, it's also insideous, and does not help the Jewish cause any more than it helps the Palestinian cause. If I pretended to agree when I don't, I would be coddling all Jewish people. I, personally, don't know any Jews who like being coddled.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Apr 02 - 01:18 PM

Mea culpa

Following the latest atrocity in Jerusalem, Secretary Powell pleaded with the Palestinians to issue some form of denunciation. Arafat complained that only the Palestinian side is ever required to denounce terror. Predictably, the Palestinian denunciation later mumbles that they, "deplore the murder of civilians on both sides."

Perhaps the Palestinians have a point, and so to set the record straight, I do hereby denounce the following in the name of the Jewish People:

1. All Jewish suicide bombers who have ever acted against Arabs.

2. All Arab buses blown up by Jews.

3. All Arab pizza parlors, malls, discotheques and restaurants destroyed by Jewish terrorists.

4. All airplanes hijacked by Jews since 1903.

5. All Ramadan feasts targeted by Jewish bombs.

6. All Arabs lynched in Israeli cities; all Arab Olympic athletes murdered by Jews; all Arab embassies bombed by Jews.

7. All mosques, cemeteries and religious schools fire bombed or desecrated by Jews in North Africa, France, Belgium, Germany, England or any other country.

8. The destruction of American military, governmental and civilian institutions in Kenya, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Yemen - along with the murder of U.S. Marines and diplomatic personnel.

9. All Jewish school books which claim that Arabs poison wells, use Christian blood to bake pita, control world finance, and murdered Jesus; or that Arab elders meet secretly to plot a world takeover.

10. And I am particularly ashamed at the way my fellow Jews attacked the World Trade Center, Pentagon and civilian aircraft on September 11, and danced in the streets to celebrate the act.

Prof. Stephen Berger

Tel Aviv Medical Center

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Apr 02 - 02:27 PM

Professor, he who has a powerful army and air force, and total military superiority on the battlefield needs no suicide bombers in order to massacre and terrorize his opponents, nor does he need to hijack airplanes. Instead, he sends his military jets and bombs the hell of someone.

The USA and its Allies lost more people (a handful) to "friendly fire" during the Gulf War than they did to Iraqui fire, while causing the immediate death of at least 200,000 Iraquis with consummate ease, plus the slow death of hundreds of thousands more in the years following. In such a situation, who needs to go after buses or Olympic athletes? Why send people to kill swat a few mosquitoes when you can safely and without personal loss obliterate the entire modern infrastructure of a country from 20,000 feet up?

If you chaps had no effective army or air force, if your people were economically devastated, and huddling powerlessly in refugee camps, then you too would do sneaky things like blowing up buses...I guarantee it. Your courageous fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1944 had to resort to sneak attacks on the Nazis, didn't they? They did not have the luxury of maneuvering in the open with panzer divisions and fleets of bombers. The Germans considered them to be "terrorists", of course...lawless people to be exterminated on sight. The powerful always call the powerless some nasty name like "terrorist".

It is your own unwillingness to admit to Israel's having greatly contributed to the Middle Eastern cycle of violence that you should be ashamed of. Both Israelis and Palestinians are to blame for that. The fact that they both point their fingers eternally at the other party, while excusing their own violent acts, is typical human hypocrisy, no worse in their case than in yours but equally comparable.

You shouldn't be arguing with Carol. You should be arguing with some militant Muslim fanatic whose mind is as closed as yours, and then see whose litany of past grievances is more horrendous and lasts longer. I predict that neither one of you would ever reach the end of it...nor would you reach any degree of understanding regarding the other's point of view or his humanity. And that is why you see fit to kill each other...by whatever means is in your grasp.

By the way, I think your media is biased...just a little. It tells you what it wants you to hear, and no more than that. It's just like that on the Palestinian side of the line too...

If you had been born a Palestinian, you would BE on the other side of that line.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST,Bakunin
Date: 30 Apr 02 - 02:36 PM

Well said Prof. Berger....

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST,Ard Mhacha
Date: 30 Apr 02 - 02:41 PM

Guest at the top of the thread, the Dublin-Monaghan bombings were the worst atrocities carried out in the troubles. On another thread you will read that the British are trying their best to supress all of the evidence of their role in the bombings . Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Apr 02 - 06:19 PM

The numbers speak for themselves. More than three Palestinians killed for every Israeli killed.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Apr 02 - 06:20 PM

I guess that means that a Palestinian is only one-third of a human being.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: Troll
Date: 01 May 02 - 12:53 AM

click here

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: Troll
Date: 01 May 02 - 12:56 AM

Lets try again.click here

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: CarolC
Date: 01 May 02 - 01:10 AM

That post (01-May-02 - 12:56 AM) looks like an attempt to build Israel up by tearing the Palestinians down.

But I know that if I post something giving a different side of the issue in that link to "level the playing field", I'm going to be accused of all kinds of nasty things. Because only people posting bad things about Palestinians and good things about Israel are allowed to post.

On the other hand, I could post something positive about an Israeli, and be accused of anti-semitism for that, too, as I was recently on another thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: Troll
Date: 01 May 02 - 01:17 AM

Some days ya just can't win.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: CarolC
Date: 01 May 02 - 01:25 AM

It's true. Some days you can't. But I think if you were acting as a spokesperson for my ethnic or religious group, I would probably want to tell you to stop. I think my people would consider what you're doing an embarassment, whether or not you were doing it on our behalf. But everybody's different.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: CarolC
Date: 01 May 02 - 01:52 AM

...forgot this part: But you're not Jewish, and neither am I. And although I think I would still find you an embarassment even if I was Jewish, I'm not, so I'm not really in a position to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: CarolC
Date: 01 May 02 - 03:29 AM

Ah, what the hell. I'm not going to let a little bit of emotional blackmail shut me up.

This is a small sampling of what I found when I did a Google search with the key words: "ratio" + "killed" + "Israel" + "Palestinian"

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

This, by the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem (a small excerpt from the article in contained in the above link).

The devastating human toll of such "retaliations" makes these imbalances all the more striking. According to the latest estimates from the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, 897 of the Palestinians killed from September 29, 2000 though March 30, 2002 have been civilians. Israeli security forces killed 823 of those 897 people, including 192 children. B'Tselem records that 253 Israeli civilians were killed by Palestinians in the same period, including 48 children. At least 16 of those 253 people were killed by Palestinian National Authority security forces or persons reportedly linked to them. B'Tselem notes that these figures include neither suicide bombers nor Palestinians who "died after medical treatment was delayed" by Israeli forces.

some more of the same or similar

And this one from Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel

(Please don't delete it Joe. It's just a list and not a whole article).

"Even if you are at war with a city… you must not destroy its trees." (Deut 20: 19-20)

Since September 28th, 2000 and as of April 18th, 2001:

Number of olive trees and fruit trees uprooted by the Israeli army: 25,000
Number of Palestinian homes destroyed by Israeli attacks: 559
Number of Palestinian homes damaged by shelling: 3,669
Number of homes demolished by bulldozers: 36
Acres of land bulldozed by the Israeli army: 5.500 (78% agricultural land)
Number of cases in which Palestinian ambulances were not allowed to go through a roadblock: 109
Percent of Palestinian Red Crescent ambulances hit by live ammunition: 68%
Number of Palestinian ambulance drivers killed: 3
Number of Palestinian doctors killed: 1
Number of Palestinian doctors and ambulance drivers injured: 160
Number of journalists either shot at or beaten up by Israeli soldiers or settlers: 44
Number of Palestinian schools shut down: 174
Percent of Palestinians killed who were not involved in demonstrations or clashes: 49%
Number of Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces: 445
Number of Palestinians murdered by Israeli settlers: 22
Number of children under the age of 18 killed: 138 (33% of total)
Percentage of Palestinians killed who were civilians: 89%
Number of Palestinians injured by Israeli security forces and settlers: 12,793
Number of injuries resulting in permanent disability: 1500
Number of children under 18 injured: 5000 (estimate)
Ratio of Palestinian civilians to members of the Palestinian security forces killed: 9:1
Number of Palestinians murdered by Israeli security forces after being captured, or simply shot at close range without any provocation whatsoever: 32
Number of Palestinians officially targeted for assassination by the Israeli Army: 15 (this is a war crime according to the Hague Convention of 1907)

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: CarolC
Date: 01 May 02 - 04:56 AM

I like the motto that the group, Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel uses...

Let us not be the ones to say, "We saw, and we kept silent".

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST
Date: 01 May 02 - 08:01 AM

IDF making an arrest

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST
Date: 01 May 02 - 09:06 AM

Thanks for that link, guest 8:01. I guess that pretty much explains why the Israelis refuse to cooperate with the UN delegation investigating the war crimes claims. There are likely more photos like this, damning the actions of the Israeli occupation force they don't want to see on American television.

It is, IMO, a human rights violation on the part of the mainstream media not to show these pictures, despite misgivings about sources and all that.

Of course, there wasn't all that much outrage when the little Palestinian boy crouching alongside a wall beside his father, was shot by the IDF in the early days of the intifada, either.

Palestinian lives don't seem to be worth as much as Israeli lives to the world at large, do they? It is just so terribly sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: Troll
Date: 01 May 02 - 09:53 PM

GUEST 8:01, the photo is a clumsy fake. If you will look at the soldiers in the three upper photos, and the people in the lower photos, you will see that they are not the eame people; different clothing and weapons. Nice try but no cigar.
GUEST9:06, there was an article in one of the news mags and also on line showing an after-the-fact mock-up of the positions of the child and his father, the IDF and whoever else was shooting. The fields of fire and the angles were wrong for the child to have been killed by the IDF. I also read -but can't recall where because it's been a while- that a ballistic test on the bullet that killed the child was from an AK47, a weapon that is not used by the IDF. Since I cannot provide documentation, I don't expect you to believe it but...
Carol, I meant that I can't win. I thought that you would be pleased to learn that there were not hundreds of Palestinian bodies lying in the rubble.
But apparently not.
Anyhow, here's more on the subject.
click here
Why would you consider me an embarassment, Carol? Because I refuse to see things YOUR way? You are right about one thing, I am not a Jew. Why don't you read a little history and find out what happened to those Gentiles in WWII who were married to Jews? If they come for my wife and son, they'll come for me too.
So I'll continue to be an "embarrasment" to those whose positions I disagree with by trying to point out the OTHER side.
BTW, I have no idea who you are accusing of "emotional blackmail". Far be it from me to try to shut you up. You have a perfect right to express your opinion in any way you see fit.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: CarolC
Date: 01 May 02 - 09:58 PM

If they came for your wife and son, they might come for my son as well. I think you're too free with your accusations of anti-semitism.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: CarolC
Date: 01 May 02 - 10:20 PM

It would please me if there were not hundreds of dead bodies under the rubble in Jenin.

However, that wouldn't erase the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands of Palestinian civilians who have been killed by the IDF in past years. During the peroid between September 28th, 2000 and April 18th, 2001, the percentage of Palestinians killed who were civilians was 89%. And it wouldn't change the fact that there have been more that three Palestinians killed for every Israeli killed.

Check out the numbers posted on the subject above. And I'll try to find some more for you if those aren't enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: Troll
Date: 01 May 02 - 10:44 PM

I wasn't accusing ANYONE of Anti-Semitism and I'll DEFY you to show me the sentence where I did.
As far as the numbers of this and the percentages of that are concerned, there is a war going on. Wars are not fair. There are no umpires standing by saying "OK. Now this side has to have 500 casulties to even things up."
Yes, the death ratio is 3 to 1. Do you know why? Because the Palestinians are fighting a modern army using hand weapons and their leaders encourage it. To my mind, this doesn't say a whole lot for the Palestinian leaders, who seem prepared to let their people live in camps and die for no gain rather than accept any compromise.
They were offered 70% of the country in 1937 and over 50% in 1948 and the Oslo agreement was axed and the Intifada began. But you know all this. Why do you think the Palestinian leaders have refused to accept any compromise?

troll

BTW If your sons father was Jewish and you are not, he is not considered Jewish. Only the child of a Jewish mother is considered Jewish. Unless, of course, he converts.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: CarolC
Date: 02 May 02 - 12:12 AM

I wasn't accusing ANYONE of Anti-Semitism and I'll DEFY you to show me the sentence where I did

It sure looks like that's what you were suggesting with this post...

You were already acting as a PR agent for the Palestinians when you started quoting some of the people you mentioned, Yossi Bielin in particular. In fact, I seem to recall a post wherein you said that you saw him on TV and that, "he's a cutie." Although, in all fairness, I know that you wouldn't support Arafat because of his good looks. It is also indicative of prior bias to note that the "extraordinary Israelis" that you are attracted to are all from one end of the political spectrum. You don't seem to have any affinity for those who think that Sharon hasn't gone far enough and that all the Arabs should be expelled from "the river to the sea." Most Israelis do not agree with that stance but neither are they in favor of appeasment. What a shame that you seem to feel that the ideas of ordinary Israelis are unworthy of your consideration: that only those ideas that parallel your own are valid. I'm quite sure that Bielin and Co. didn't have to do much shaping to solidify your stance.

Why do you think the Palestinian leaders have refused to accept any compromise?

Israel agreed to the Oslo agreement, and it was Israel who reneged on it. Why won't Israel live up to it's agreements?

We have a skeleton, we didn't complete the house. The Oslo agreement has had a rather short occasion to implement itself, and that was between 1993 and 1996. The Oslo agreement was stopped in 1996 when the government in Israel was changed and Mr. Netanyahu became the Prime Minister. I think that the foundations and the structure of Oslo are still the best ones available. And once we shall have an opportunity, we shall complete the building that may withstand the winds of the outside world, and the skepticism of the people.

--Shimon Peres

Shimon Peres

This site should help you understand why the "generous offer" by Barak was not so generous...

Barak's generous offer

And according to some of the people who were a part of the Camp David peace process, the failure of that process was not the fault of any one person or nation...

Camp David

And according to Yitzhak Rabin, Arafat and the PLO were willing to work with him in stopping terrorism. (This was during the time when the Palestinians still had hope because they thought the Oslo agreement would be implemented)...

"In the last two years, not one Israeli has been killed by PLO terrorism," Rabin said. The real threat, he said, does not come from Israel's old adversaries - he pointedly included Syrian President Hafez al-Assad in the faded threat category - but from "the ugly wave of" Iranian-supported Islamic fundamentalism.

Yitzhak Rabin

And this from the Washington Post...

Though Arafat in the weeks before the summit had been looking for the Israelis to carry out their interim agreements before taking up a permanent settlement, he had agreed to go to Camp David on several conditions. One was that he would not be blamed for the possible failure of what he believed was a premature summit. Malley and Agha say Clinton volunteered that the United States would remain neutral in the case of a failure.

Yet when the talks collapsed, Clinton put top priority on helping Barak, whose considerable concessions had undercut his political standing at home.

More on Camp David

BTW If your sons father was Jewish and you are not, he is not considered Jewish. Only the child of a Jewish mother is considered Jewish. Unless, of course, he converts.

My son's father isn't Jewish, but we're pretty sure he has some Jewish ancestry (my ex-husband's father's father). Did the Nazis abide by the mother rule when they were rounding up Jews? And how much Jewish ancestry was enough to get people killed? I'm not too worried about it, but the thought has crossed my mind more than once.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: Troll
Date: 02 May 02 - 12:55 AM

And you think that THATis an accusation of Anti-Semitism? Sheeesh!!
Welcome to the world of the True Believer.
You need to check the "Baraks Generous Offer" clicky. It simply goes to a map with no document.
The Camp David link seems to leave the "generous offer" idea up in the air. It would seem that there is plenty of blame to go around since no one trusted the other enough to look at things at face value. The finale seems to be that Barak didn't make an offer and Arafat turned it down and vice versa, and that Clinton didn't acquit himself too well either.
Harkening back to the statement that there will be no peace until the Palestinians love their children more that they hate the Jews, This is sick.
You ask,"Israel agreed to the Oslo agreement, and it was Israel who reneged on it. Why won't Israel live up to it's agreements?"
I don't know. Do you?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: CarolC
Date: 02 May 02 - 04:58 AM

This is what I found in your link. I'm not sure what it has to do with how the Palestinians feel about their children...

Apr. 30, 2002

Two Israeli Jews arrested for planning anti-Arab attack
By Etgar Lefkovits

Jerusalem police have arrested two Israeli Jews on suspicion that they were planning to attack Arabs in east Jerusalem.

The two suspects, who were apprehended late Sunday night, were remanded yesterday afternoon in the Jerusalem District Court during a closed door session.

The court accepted the position of the Shin Bet, Israel's security services, preventing the two suspects from meeting with a lawyer for the time being.

No further information may be published at present regarding the case, pending court order.

This looks more like Jews hating Arabs to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: CarolC
Date: 02 May 02 - 05:27 AM

And you think that THATis an accusation of Anti-Semitism? Sheeesh!!

Two or three other people seemed to think so too.

You need to check the "Baraks Generous Offer" clicky. It simply goes to a map with no document.

It goes to a map with some text. And what's contained in the text is consistent with what I've seen presented elsewhere. If I can find the other stuff I saw on it, I'll post it.

The Camp David link seems to leave the "generous offer" idea up in the air. It would seem that there is plenty of blame to go around since no one trusted the other enough to look at things at face value. The finale seems to be that Barak didn't make an offer and Arafat turned it down and vice versa, and that Clinton didn't acquit himself too well either.

And that was my point. No one person or nation was responsible for the failure of the Camp David accords. Not even Arafat. It was what an ex-marine aquaintance of mine would call a "cluster-f*ck".

You ask,"Israel agreed to the Oslo agreement, and it was Israel who reneged on it. Why won't Israel live up to it's agreements?" I don't know. Do you?

The Gush-Shalom site has some perspectives on this.

Here's one of them

And here's the Gush-Shalom site.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: CarolC
Date: 02 May 02 - 05:30 AM

I messed up the link. If you click the words Gush-Shalom separately from "and here's the", you'll get to the second link I was trying to post.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: CarolC
Date: 02 May 02 - 05:34 AM

Here's another perspective on your question from the Gush-Shalom site...

Sharon's the right man for the job

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: CarolC
Date: 02 May 02 - 05:44 AM

The contents of that last link are entirely consistent with what my ex-marine aquaintance told me about how the Israeli military operates. He worked with the Israeli military and police forces as a consultant during the Gulf War.

As I mentioned in another post somewhere, my aquaintance admired these methods (I believe he's the reincarnation of General Patton). But you should note that they do involve specifically targeting civilians, which is what all the hubub is all about with Janine and elsewhere anyway. Specifically targeting civilians is a war crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: CarolC
Date: 02 May 02 - 11:52 AM

Here's some more on Barak's generous offer and the Camp David and Taba talks...

The day Barak's bubble burst

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 02 May 02 - 12:27 PM

"Even if you are at war with a city… you must not destroy its trees." (Deut 20: 19-20)

This citation from the 'Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel' website makes me grin. That's a perfect example for selective citation. The context is this:

Deut 20: 13-18
20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
20:14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
20:15 Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.
20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:
20:18 That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God.

And then comes the advice not to cut down the trees that may be useful for the attacker by supplying food but only the others for the bulwarks.

If this citation is any indication for their care I wouldn't trust their numbers too much.

I'd love to find in this conflict a website as useful and unbiased as CAIN is for the Northern Ireland conflict. The above website is not even internally consistent.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 May 02 - 01:46 PM

This thread is way too long, and it's settled down into a style of discussion that doesn't do much good. I think that it might be better to follow the approach attempted in the PEACE in the Middle East thread.

So I feel uneasy at posting to this and refreshing it again in the process.

HOWEVER there was a post by Troll that I felt uneasy with, about the shooting of 12 year old Mohammed al-Durrah (he did have a name):

"There was an article in one of the news mags and also on line showing an after-the-fact mock-up of the positions of the child and his father, the IDF and whoever else was shooting. The fields of fire and the angles were wrong for the child to have been killed by the IDF. I also read - but can't recall where because it's been a while- that a ballistic test on the bullet that killed the child was from an AK47, a weapon that is not used by the IDF. Since I cannot provide documentation, I don't expect you to believe it but..."

It'd be great to believe that things that look liked atrocities were something else. But it needs more than rumours. After all, if you look around you can find websites and book that deny that the Holocaust took place. And saying there wasn't any moon landing.

Here is a report from the Guardian on the killing of little Mohammed in his father's arms. And from the same website, here is what Suzanne Goldenberg had to write about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: Troll
Date: 02 May 02 - 02:44 PM

Kevin, I Think that it was in Time magazine but I'm not sure. That is why I added the disclaimer. I hoped that someone else would remember the article too.
Looking at the pictures and at the drawing, I find it hard to understand how Mohammed could have been shot in the stomach, huddled against the wall as he was behind a concrete barrel that appears to be 2 1/2 to 3 feet in diameter. I'm sure that better minds than mine have studied this but it still puzzles me.
BTW, I couldn't remember Mohammad al-Durrahs' name. That's why I didn't give it.
"And you think that THAT is an accusation of Anti-Semitism? Sheeesh!!

Two or three other people seemed to think so too."
I'll have to take your word for it, Carol, I guess because they sure didn't post their sentiments on THIS thread.
The thread from Gush Shalom was most interesting but if Sharons vision IS of an Israel "from the river to the sea" then he's a piker. Menachem Begin envisioned it the same way only HIS river was the Euphrates rather than the Jordan. The part about them carrying signs of support through Palestinian neighborhoods with no signs of hostility was good. They obviously feel that, like them, the Palestinians want only peace and recognize them as allies.
Of course, they could be wrong. The Palestinians could see them as useful dupes, to be used and discarded when their effectiveness is gone.
Just a thought. Sometimes we see things as we wish they were instead of as they are. I hope that this is not the case here because I think the people of Gush Shalom are quite sincere in their belief that theirs is the way.
This article may shed some light on just why Sharon refused to accept the Un inspection team.
click here

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 May 02 - 03:46 PM

From the drawings I saw in the press it didn't seem in any way unlikely that the bullets that killed Mohammed and the ambulance driver trying to get to him and his wounded father could have come from Israeli soldiers.

I had a hunt around, looking for that Time article - I put Mohammed al-Durrah in a search engine together with Time Magazine, but it didn't cme up.(That doesn't mean I'm denying its existence or anything, for what it's worth.)

Still that combination came up with some interesting stuff, including this article by an American journalist called Eduardo Cohen.

Worth reading. Here is a quote: "Because of the major role that the United States plays in life and death issues in the Middle East, American editors and reporters have a special responsibility to constantly examine the fairness of their reporting and how critically they examine information they present to the American people. And they need to examine the possibility of their own racism and begin treating Palestinians and other Arabs as equal citizens whose lives carry just as much value as Jewish Israeli lives."

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 May 02 - 08:51 PM

Here's the Time Magazine archive search site - I put "Mohammed al-Durrah" in the archive search with as many different spellings as I could imagine, and nothing turned up.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: Troll
Date: 02 May 02 - 09:52 PM

Kevin, thanks for checking. I've tried to find the place, site or whatever where I saw that and I have had no luck either. I'll keep looking but it will probably be stale by the time I find it. I'll PM you when, and if, I do find it.
The article by Eduardo Cohen was interesting. Now if we could get a similar article from the Arab world detailing their excesses, we might be able to cut through the fog and make some progress.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: CarolC
Date: 03 May 02 - 12:10 AM

Wolfgang, if you are using one bible passage that they used, not even as evidence of anything, as an indication of whether or not their numbers are correct, I think it is you who is showning bias. Did you not even check to see where they got their numbers from?

And it would be nice if you used the same sort of critical eye when you read the propaganda coming out of the pro-Sharon camp. Their inconsistencies are just as glaring. More so, in my opinion.

You live in a country that has culpability for what happened to the Jews in WWII. How you choose to live with that culpability is up to you. However, I live in a country that has culpability for whatever happens to the Palestinians. I choose to make sure that I don't help my country in its gravest errors. If history shows that the things the people in any of the links I've provided is true, you will have to live with the fact that you didn't do anything at all to try to prevent or stop it. And you might even have to live with the possibility that you helped them do it with your silence and unwillingness to believe it could happen. Isn't that what the people in your country did when terrible things were happening to the Jews?

Cast your mind back just a little. How did the Nazis manage to get people to be willing to let those atrocities happen? The way they did it was to dehumanize and demonize the Jews. Take a look at the language people are using about the Palestinians. These kinds of things could just as easily have been said about Jews in Nazi Germany. Denying someone's humanity is the thing that makes it possible to kill and commit other terrible things without feeling guilt. And scapegoating and making the victims responsible for the crimes being committed against them is also a method used by the Nazis. I would suggest, as you read and listen and watch, that you be on the lookout for any words or practices that would serve the purpose of dehumanizing and demonizing the Palestinians. That should give you a better idea of what's going on.

This is the quote from that site that I prefer to focus on...

Let us not be the ones to say, "We saw and we did nothing"

Would that more people in your country had done the same during WWII.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 May 02 - 07:23 AM

it would be nice if you used the same sort of critical eye when you read the propaganda coming out of the pro-Sharon camp

Carol, click here and you'll see that the implication of your offensive statement is factually wrong.

I hate one-sided propaganda and I see too much of it cited or linked to in these threads. I have neither time nor (in some cases) the ability to check all of the background of the sources. So I have to rely on other means to make up my mind how much I trust a source.

(1) I look at how selective they are, (2) whether easily checkable details are correct and (3) whether their information is internally consistent. The site I have singled out for critique in my last post has failed on all three counts. The information is completely one-sided (that's a bias from me, I am more prone to trust sites that do not only paint black or paint white), an easily checkable statement of fact (the Bible citation) turns out to be a gross falsification, and their numbers lack internal consistency (easy to spot, I'll leave that as an exercise for the readers).

That's why I don't trust the rest of their information too much. I could be wrong, but they have failed to convince me by their way of presentation that I should take them serious.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: CarolC
Date: 03 May 02 - 07:43 AM

I stand corrected Wolfgang, and I apologise. Prior to seeing that post in your link, I have only seen posts from you that support one side of the issue, and that challenge only the other side.

I would suggest that you not dismiss the numbers in the Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel site too quickly, though. I have seen the same numbers in several different places. And the sources for the numbers are credible ones. They list the sources in the site.

I think the inclusion of that bible passage was really more for the poetic effect, in order to touch people's hearts, than it was to prove any sort of point.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 May 02 - 08:24 AM

I'd have thought that the purpose of the quote about the trees is a way of pointing out that, in this respect, the Israeli forces have done something that even Deuteronomy didn't advocate. I'd assume that anyone familiar with the history/mythology of the conquest of the Holy Land would have been aware of the genocide described in this part of Deuteronomy. I'd also assume that the website is directed primarily at people who could be expected to be familiar with such things.

The quote is surely an expression of a kind of bitter humour, rather than a distortion. It reminds readers of that aspect of history, but without pushing it to the centre of the stage. Using the full quote in that context would merely have been inviting people to argue about what happened thousands of years ago rather than what is happening today. (And it's having that effect here.)

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: CarolC
Date: 03 May 02 - 09:44 AM

Here are some sites that offer death statistics on both Israelis and Palestinians for different time periods and locations.

Death statistics 1

Death statistics 2

Death statistics 3

This is a piece on how the numbers get slanted in the US media Media watch

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST,Stats-R-Us
Date: 03 May 02 - 10:08 AM

This thread is way too long, and it's settled down into a style of discussion that doesn't do much good. I think that it might be better to follow the approach attempted in the PEACE in the Middle East thread.

So I feel uneasy at posting to this and refreshing it again in the process.

Since making that statement yesterday, McGrath of Harlow has refreshed this thread three more times.

Of course, he holds no candle to CarolC who is personally responsible for 32 of the 118 previous posts to this thread, including several sets of up to six multiple posts in a row.

Troll, CarolC's debating opponent clocks in at a much more modest 10 posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: CarolC
Date: 03 May 02 - 10:12 AM

YES!

thank you, thank you very much

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 May 02 - 12:00 PM

Look, people, before you wear yourselves out totally (not to mention wearing out the subject matter)...and before you ruin some formerly good friendships in the process...

Let me suggest to you that we could all unite on this terrorism issue by focusing on the worst terrorist of all...

My mother's miniature dachshund.

I quote from my own previous post on the "bigotry" thread:

"I try to love everyone, but my mother's dog makes it quite difficult. He is a seditious, treacherous, greedy, and arrogant little monster. He destroys property and steals food. He struts around like Mussolini. He sucks up to you when the food is in your hand, and then treats you with hostility and contempt the moment it's in his mouth. He pees on fur hats and other valuable personal items. He is vile, smelly, lascivious, and totally untrustworthy."

Further to this, my mother's dachshund is clearly neither a muslim nor a jew, but either an atheistic or an autotheistic gentile! "Autotheistic" meaning...he thinks he IS God.

This is a common threat that could serve to unite us all, so let's give it serious consideration.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: CarolC
Date: 03 May 02 - 12:19 PM

Never trust a dachshund.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: Troll
Date: 03 May 02 - 03:58 PM

AH HA!!!!Gottcha!
You are biased against animals with legs that are shorter than the "norm."
I notice that you said NOTHING about that most treacherous of "PETS", the Budgie.
NO!! You save your smug putdowns for the innocent Wiener Dog, the animated sausage that is the butt of so much so-called "humor".
Well, NOW the world knows you for what you really are; defamers of the oddly-shaped, the long, the lowly.
Anti-Dachshundists.
I sneer in your general direction.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 May 02 - 04:56 PM

LOL! A better response than I had anticipated, troll. There actually are 2 budgies here. Their primary sins are spilling seeds all over the place, and bombing indiscriminately whenever they are out of the cage, but they are still mere amateurs at spreading real terror.

My mother's dog Arnot (...pronounced Arr-no) is no amateur. He sneers in everyone's general direction, as he lifts his leg indiscreetly against another piece of furniture. (Arf! Arf!) (Shut up! You moronic little creature!) (Grrrrr... Arf! Arf!)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part II
From: GUEST,leveller
Date: 03 May 02 - 07:04 PM

BS: Who Are the Terrorists? Part 111"