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.