166524 + 14 Israel (and Jews) Against the World ------------- 166977 Fisk --------- another Fisk: 166574 on the Arab summit ---------------- 166956 + 4 I'm Tired Of Financing Racist State Of Israel ------------------ 165888 America's War Inc: Weapons and Wars 'R' US ------------- 165882 Israeli troops attack foreign journalists ------------- 165825 Not in our name -- Pilger.com ---- --------------- 165812 UNTIL WHEN WILL THE PALESTINIANS PAY FOR ARAFAT'S STRATEGIC MISTAKE? by By Muna Hamzeh --------------------- 165536 The Road to War in the Mideast ---------------- 166488 Call To Action: Come To Palestine 166524 + 14 Israel (and Jews) Against the World by William Randolph Royere III 10:44pm Sat Apr 6 '02 (Modified on 4:12pm Sun Apr 7 '02) william@royere.net One cannot be a Leftist and also anti-Israel, and anti-Jew? This, at least, is what many IndyMedia readers reiterate, whenever confronted with a preponderance of pro-Palestinian, anti-Jew media snippets. Many IndyMedia readers express concern over what they perceive as radical, anti-Jewish (not anti-Semitic, for Arabs are Semites) sentiments on the newswire. It must be the evil Nazis, these readers exclaim, for the Left is not now and cannot be anti-Jew. Leftists (and socialists, in particular) are simply too enlightened for that. However, this is false, as will more fully appear below. Shulamit Aloni, Moshe Zimmerman, and Yeshayahu Leibowitz (and even Yigal Tumarkin) all expressed (in unequivocal terms, although, each in their unique way) that Zionism is Nazism's Jewish cousin, and that Israel's fascist activities undermine any claim it has (or ever could have) to high, moral ground. Leibowitz, for example ...argued fiercely for the separation of religion from the state. He insisted that the state was not an ideal with an intrinsic significance, but was there to serve its citizens...Although he had been active in various political groups, he disapproved of the system of party rule and the numerous political parties, including the religious parties. He labored publicly against government corruption and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Following the Six Day War, he objected staunchly to retaining any Arab territory, arguing that occupation morally destroys the conqueror. Zimmerman, furthermore, likened Hebron orthodox Jew children to Hitler Youth and characterized the Israeli army as having few dissimmilarities with the SS. Tumarkin went as far as to say that he well understood how the Jews could invite the "Holocaust," and actions like it. But perhaps more persausive, even, is that the principal architect of the "New World Order" notion (Bailey, the bookend to Blavatsky), and one of the UN's most vocal supporters, was decidedly anti-Jewish and anti-Israel. Few "conspiracy theory" radicals (right or left) know next to nothing about Bailey, nor how influential her movement was in the UN"s development (Lucis Trust is a bona fide NGO today, for example, and many NGOs are packed with her followers). Bailey - from whom the elder Bush's speechwriters borrowed both the phrases "One thousand points of light" and "a New World Order", detested the very idea of Israel's establishment. She wrote: Today the Jewish people are engineering trouble.... They are claiming a land to which they have no possible right...it was greed and not any love of Palestine behind it. Bailey further asserted that the Americans and British lowered the prestige of the United Nations by supporting such a crime, and "made its position both negative and negligible to the world" and further, that "the Zionist Dictators...were attempting to be to the Jewish people what Stalin and his group, and Hitler and his gang, have been to their people...They worked through the same methods." Such sentiments and their underlying themes - which run high throughout many groups that today service, support, and drive the UN - are common, and have been for centuries. (Everyone now knows that the Balfour Declaration was a mistake, a terible diplomatic calculation at best, and a crime at worst. Syria alone houses 460,000 displaced natives of the region, forced out by these Jews). As for the Jew claiming any "right" to such lands, that claim is patently false. Consider this brief history of Palestine: 600,000 - 10,000 BC - Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, and Chalcolithic period. Human remains (Lake of Tabariyya) weren't, in all liklihood, Jews. 5,000 onward - The Early Bronze Age saw the Canaanites. Solomon fixed them, the state was divided (Israel/Judah), and the Assyrians wiped out Israel conquest of the kingdom of Israel. 586 BC - The Babylonians took it and destroyed the temple. 539 BC - The Persians sacked Babylonia, deported natives of Palestine back home. 333 BC - Alexander took Persia; Palestine now owned by the Greeks. 323 BC - Alexander dies, Ptolemies of Egypt and Seleucids of Syria take Palestine. 165 BC - Maccabees revolt and try to make a state. 63 BC - The Romans take it. 70 AD - Titus (nearly) finally settles the matter. 132 AD - Radical Jews revolt. Hadrian does settle the matter. 330-638 AD - The Byzantines take it. 638 AD - Omar ibn al-Khattaab takes it. 661-750 AD - Umayyad chaliphs from Damascus control and construct the Dome of the Rock 750-1258 - From Baghdad, the'Abbasid caliphs control it. 969 AD - The Fatimids (Egypt) own it. 1071 AD - Saljuqs (Isfahan) take it. 1099 AD - The Crusaders have a little fun, though, short-lived. 1187 AD - Salah al-Diin al-Ayyoubi (Kurdistan) tosses the Crusaders. Egypt controls. 1260 AD - The Mamluks take it, toss the Mongols. 1291 AD - The last crusader strongholds (Akka and Qisariya) fall. 1516-1917 AD - The Ottomans take it. 1832-1840 AD - Moh'd Ali Pasha (Egypt) takes it. Ottomans later return. 1850s - Here comes Zionism. Where, in the above scenario, does history bear witness to a Jew's right to Palestine or "Israel?" By rights, the Arabs should have it (and did, periodically, for more than 85% of its recorded historical existence). Only religious nuts - both Christian and Jew - argue otherwise, offering as their "evidence" a book which is historically suspect, and (extremely) badly translated. For example, Christian nuts run around alleging that this or that heathen serves "Lucifer" when, in fact, the word and name "Lucifer" never appeared in either Aramaic or Greek. (Lucifer was not an angel, either. It was a mistake of translation for the phrase "The Son of the Morning" or "Bringer of Light," which, forever, has been Venus. The planet Venus - and not any fallen angel - was and remains Lucifer, for she is the brightest planet in our immediate heavens. "Lucifer" is a Roman word and thus, could not have appeared in the original writings). The Holy Bible, in short, is every bit as unreliable as the Vedas. But even if it weren't, the body of international law that developed over the ages (compounded by the successive conquests of a region that, even at its start, the Jews stole with the Canaanite raid) precludes any Jew claim to Palestine [just as Germans and French would balk at Italians demanding everything south of the Rhine on behalf of their Roman ancestors, a more recent development, even]. As it currently stands, a good portion of the civilized world is on hold [and fretting] over this "Jewish problem" still, and for no good reason. If that were the whole of it, if the Jews simply lived there (in peace with their Arab neighbors, as they had done when Rothschild financed the first agrarian collectives there), everything would be fine. However, that is not the case. Instead, starting in 1882 - driven from Europe because the Europeans couldn't stand them - these Jews began flooding Palestine, as the first wave of Zionists (25,000 of them) entered Palestine as illegal aliens (much as Mestizos do today in the United States). This swarm continued - above objections of legitimate governments, and still, with Arabs willing to compromise to accomodate this silent, unarmed invasion - until the Brits brought the Balfour Declaration. And from then until today, after sufficiently building their numbers and military might, these Jews progressively arrived at (and perfected) genocide against the local, indigenous population. As Baily once remarked, we should blame the Third Reich because, had Hitler not introduced the program so quickly and forthrightly, dilpomats would never have bitten on the idea to begin with. Either way, however, armchair leftists (anarchists, or whatever they wish to call themselves) should recognize that the Left (historically and today) has no special love for Jews, anymore than any other group (excluding the Jews) does/do. The Jewish problem has always been a vexing one. Perhaps only gypsies face anything even remotely similar. What other race can lay claim to being universally despised throughout history? There are reasons for these sentiments, even amongst the purportedly "enlightened and progressive" peoples in history. If you want to see how deep those sentiments go, read Hannah Neuman's analysis of Bailey's view at some point. So, don't be surprised if you now see these sentiments coming out; current events are merely bringing to fore the seething, underlying distaste for Jews, Israel, Zionism, and the whole sordid affair. In truth, we should disarm the region, install a UN peacekeeping force, and be done with it. And the sooner we do that, the better. Otherwise, twenty years hence, when the Israelis have even more accurate and powerful WMD, it will be more difficult. Don't think for a second that Sharon, for example, wouldn't nuke at least one or more EU strongholds if the EU made a forceful partition move. Or, perhaps an alernate scenario is that the US will go to war [over Jews] with Europe again. That's just what we need - Europeans killing one another over false Jew claims to a land that rightfully belongs (if to anyone) the Arabs. Ashcroft's people (and Bush's people) would do it, too. They're rabid Christian fundementalists (or at least, play that part well for their Jew financiers, lackeys, mentors, and controllers). Israel has no legitmate right to existence and no one, no matter what they write, and no matter how persausively, can change that fact. But that's not even the issue; even if we overlook that fact (which we have done for over 50 years), the human rights violations the Israelis now perpetrate are untenable, unsupportable, and deplorable. The longer we allow this to continue, the more diplomatic power we lose. =========== good postin (english) by piet 11:28pm Sat Apr 6 '02 sweet dreams are made of this who am I to disagree evrybody is looking for something coming through the speakers of the easy everything internetcafe (300 seater) just as I am visiting royere.net with the one and only page called Looking for something? and only one loopy link. I suggest you amend that paucity of followups and precedents to posts such as this. . .. with .. . maybe .. . lessee. .. . ahrrm . . .. . hang on howbout a stark contrast with your hyperactivity: http://www.robotwisdom.com/jaj/church.html Joycean history of Judeo-Christianity (400 quotes so far) ============= Issue (english) by Mark Bialkowski 11:56pm Sat Apr 6 '02 mbialkowski@rogers.coMAPSBLOCK There are enough anti-Zionist and Palestinian-sympathetic Jews to indicate that the problem is exclusionary Zionism, not a "Jewish problem". One cannot tar all Jews with the brush of Zionism, just as one cannot call all Muslims fundamentalists, or all Christians puritans. Exclusionary, essentially racist ideologies leading to battles over land and resources is the core problem in the Middle East; specifically, Zionism that requires a "pure" Jewish state. Religious extremism often leads to prejudice and exclusionary ideals; yet, most religions essentially call for tolerance and peace between peoples, even those of different beliefs. Yhe conflicts between people of different religions comes from pride and fear, not some religious exhortation to destroy the Other (well, aside from Scientology, but at the moment it's less a religion than a cultic business...) If you want an example of this, read the core "divinely inspired" texts of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Pentateuch, Four Gospels, Qu'ran), and compare them to the purely "human" texts, advice, and sayings (Talmud - advice and commentary; the non-Gospels books; Hadith of Muhammad, as opposed to the Qu'ran from Allah(swt)). Before someone points out the obvious... at some level, all of these texts were written by humans like you and me. Note the quotes, and just take note of the differences in tone toward members of other religions between the core books, and non-core texts. platdragon.cjb.net ========== What is an "anti-Jew" William Randolph Royere (english) by S13 12:25am Sun Apr 7 '02 What is a Jew? A race, a religion, a nationality? What are you, William Randolph Royere III? A White, a Caucasian, a European, do tell. Do you have a "right" to any land? Upon what is that "right" based? What do you think a leftist is? =========== Zionists (Not Jews) (english) by William Randolph Royere III 12:27am Sun Apr 7 '02 william@royere.net On this point, I must disagree. Jews and Zionists and Zionists and Jews. For my money, they're all in the same basket. American Jews, especially, try to distance themselves from Zionists, but their machinations are, though duly noted, false. It's out of fear more often than morality that they now oppose Zionism (and with good reason; if things continue as they are, merely twenty years or less will pass before they reap a backlash, although, it will be a "kinder, gentler" backlash). The "State of Israel" is a mindset, and a spiritual construct, and not a geographical place. It is the sum conscious recognition (of all Jews) of their separateness, of their racial relationship to one another (aside from converts), their solidarity against all others, and their genetic human network. This is what non-Jews fail to comprehend, chiefly because these non-Jews have never had to maintain such a "place" in their hearts or minds. Most have countries, countrymen, home, state, and so forth. Zionism is but the most aggressive, outward face of a larger and more passive (but still bitter and dogged) evolutionary strategy of the Jewish peoples as a whole. But as Europeans more openly and avidly discard (or otherwise, do away with) Christianity, the Jews and their spiritual state (which currently hangs its shingle in Palestine) will become less important. For example, we don't need Israel as a strategic spot anymore. We can, if we so wish, occupy all mid-east nations that have large oil deposits. We don't, for we've learned, through long historical study and experience, that occupation is too costly. Thus, we tend to topple uncooperative governments (e.g., Iraq, 1963, 1968) and install folks we can work with well (like Saddam and the Baath party, whom we installed). Hence, we control the region from afar at relatively little expense. But if we achieve cold fusion, we could conceivably abandon the entire region, full stop. One day soon, we'll get there. But non-Jews make a cardinal mistake in not understanding the nature of Zionism and its relationship to Jews. All Zionists are Jews and, whilst all Jews don't claim to be Zionists (especially secular Jews), ingrained in their minds are the tenets thereof, and they always will be. As for what the religious books say, no matter: only fools actually abide by the tenets thereof. These are political devices (as in European rulers adopting Christianity for expediency). You can pray if you like, to a rock, a tree, a cross, a crucifix, or to heaven's blue sky, and still - none of the aforementioned will cause, say, a child to drop out of the sky. For this, man seeks woman and male seeks female, and even the lowest creatures know this to be true. Only old men near death, the afflicted, the wretched, or fools earnestly find themselves prostrate, praying for one or another thing that they themselves can take or make without spooks from the stratosphere assisting. ============ An history lesson-litte more (english) by te 12:32am Sun Apr 7 '02 The author claims that "Many IndyMedia readers express concern over what they perceive as radical, anti-Jewish (not anti-Semitic, for Arabs are Semites) sentiments on the newswire. It must be the evil Nazis, these readers exclaim, for the Left is not now and cannot be anti-Jew. Leftists (and socialists, in particular) are simply too enlightened for that. However, this is false, as will more fully appear below." However, his promise that evidence of bona-fide anti-Jewish sentiment on the part of "the Left" (a term used most often by persons aptly described as 'Right' since self-described 'Leftists' are too aware of sectarian issues to describe themselves so monolithically) will be provided in the body of his piece falls flat. There is no such evidence. Rather, the piece is an extended history lesson. It consists of a number of things, including links to the words or quotes of anti-Zionist Jewish Israelis, which does in no way validate his initial claim. Following, the piece includes extended looks at these anti-Zionist individuals, quoting them at length about their comparison between Nazi Germany policy and martialism and that of Zionism. Again, the initial claim of Royere III falls flat; he is merely conflating Judaism and Zionism. What follows is a very bare-bones timeline that merely examines the imperial holders of the Levant, and does not take into account events elsewhere in the world. There is also an odd tangent discussing the origins of the Lucifer legend, a hypothetical comparison to the Roman Empire (and fanciful Italian claims to Gaul), and finally a short condemnation of the implementation of Zionism early in the 20th Century. The second-to-last paragraph, then, leaps back to the author's original assertion claiming that "the Left" is anti-Jew (as opposed to anti-Zionist). His support for this claim? He merely states that "the Jewish problem" is vexing, notes the historical hatred of Jews ("universally despised") though neglects to mention that this has mainly been a condition in Christian societies following 70 AD (not "throughout history"), and finally, cites an examination of anti-semitism on the part of one Alice Bailey, a new age pundit, who is mentioned early in the article but is noticeably unintroduced. I suppose the connection (specious) that the author attempts to make is that since a New Age author was anti-Semitic, therefore "the Left" is. This is equivalent to claiming that since Ayn Rand, a New Age pundit of a different stripe, can be condemned as a social Darwinist, everybody on "the Right" must be as well, which is a ridiculous claim as well. The author concludes with his opinion on what should be done with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Tellingly though, like with the allusion to a "problem" earlier, he condemns the Religious Right for their support of Israeli state terror, due to "their Jew financiers, lackeys, mentors, and controllers". This too, is not only a bigotted view, but an incorrect one as well, as a simple examination of American Protestant theology will indicate that the Religious Right's support of Zionism is inherently linked to American millenarianism and its take on the Book of Revelation, which is arguable as anti-Semitic (and pro-"Zionist" for true believers) as anything out there. In sum, this piece did in no way succeed in proving that "the Left", or more importantly, Indymedia activists, are "anti-Jew" as opposed to "anti-Zionist". His claim that the blatantly anti-semitic (Jewish) posts (such as the Nazi Germany textbook pictures, "Zionnazi" SHOUTING, etc.) are not the work of bonafide Nazi-style ideologues or those looking to defame the Indymedia network as Nazi-esque completely fails as well. The hate posts, coming both from those hating Jews and those hating Muslims are the work of cultural ideologues, which no self-respecting "Leftist" would accept as anything other than anti-human garbage. Or, the hate posts, coming as they do whenever (lately) a major IDF offensive is underway, are the work of those manipulating the open publishing model in an effort to discredit Indymedia. I believe this article here is an example of the former, but could have all of the effect of the latter if its comparatively sophisticated tone (but not analysis) is not challenged. Post script-More on the author William Randolph Royere III is available at http://www.google.com/search?q=%22William+ Randolph+Royere+III%22&hl=en&start=0&sa=N The author is either a dot-com capitalist or White Power advocate. Perhaps here is an indication of whence such attacks on the newswire may be coming from. ======== S-13's Question (english) by William Randolph Royere III 12:38am Sun Apr 7 '02 william@royere.net 1. Jews collectively form a race (notwithstanding the provisions for converts). Jewish scholars - for whatever reason - were well aware, early on, that something, though they may not have been certain what - made the matrilineal descendancy paramount. Today, we know this because of mtDNA studies. The mother determines the line or clan (whilst nuclear DNA determines near everything else). A Jew is a member of the Jewish race (unless a convert). Thousands of studies now confirm this, and the Jews themselves (whenever expedient) demonstrate this (whether they use Y tracking, mtDNA, or whatever). 2. A "William Randolph Royere III" is a European proper; a being every bit as European as hot cross buns and the croissant. 3. Per the US Constitution, I have certain rights. One is property or the pursuit thereof. 4. A leftist is a leftist is a leftist (although, to be fair, modern leftists are a little shaky; at least historical ones had a better education). But nevertheless, a leftist is one whom adheres to traditional or progressive leftist tenets. Whatever else he/she may be, that is a requisite. TE's Observation (english) by William Randolph Royere III 12:50am Sun Apr 7 '02 william@royere.net TE wrote: "The author is either a dot-com capitalist or White Power advocate." One cannot be both? Just as one cannot be a Leftist and anti-Jew? Heh. (That's the first smile I've drawn tonight). But even if I were both, that cannot change the facts. Jews collectively comprise a demonstrably distinct (and historically and scientifically identifiable) race, not a religion, as some Ethiopians are now delighted to discover. Zionism is merely the ugliest face of their group evolutionary strategy. Genetics, as it happens, has pulled back the curtain on many things, including the divisions between various strains of "Jewish" DNA, an argument that rages amongst Jew genetic and anthropological sets to this day - even though genetics has already exposed the important truths. =========== Attention readers (english) by te 12:57am Sun Apr 7 '02 As I noted, this piece is good evidence of where racist attacks on the newswire may be coming from, in what appears to be an attempt to co-opt the Indymedia forum by "Thrid-Positionist" fascists like Royere here. Funny, though, is his self-professed anti-Semitism and anti-Leftism...yet another indication that his original article is bunk. One wonders why people like this like to troll online at sites that are completely antithetical to the hatred that they spew. ========= TE and Third Positionists (english) by William Randolph Royere III 1:11am Sun Apr 7 '02 william@royere.net TE - you've been reading Bill White (http://www.overthrow.com) too much, or maybe slumpeoplesproject. In either case, I'm no Third Positionist, but I stand by what I wrote: the Jews have no legitimate claim to "Israel," and, if the Israelis killed Palestinians more judiciously and sparingly, Americans wouldn't give a damn (any more than they genuinely gave a damn about Albanians that we massacred on Halliburton's behalf, or Afghani childen on UnoCal's behalf - the first time around). Radical leftists spout a lot of nonsense about exploitation with a molotov cocktail in one hand and a Coke or Starbucks coffee in the other. It is by such murder that we keep prices to a minimum, yes? Most Americans have been drinking blood of others for decades, (and for that, they should be thankful; others could have been drinking ours). But anyone that has fanciful notions about the Jews having a legitimate claim to Palestine is confused. =============== an answer to your original question (english) by S13 3:03am Sun Apr 7 '02 "1. Jews collectively form a race (notwithstanding the provisions for converts). Jewish scholars - for whatever reason - were well aware, early on, that something, though they may not have been certain what - made the matrilineal descendancy paramount. Today, we know this because of mtDNA studies. The mother determines the line or clan (whilst nuclear DNA determines near everything else). A Jew is a member of the Jewish race (unless a convert). Thousands of studies now confirm this, and the Jews themselves (whenever expedient) demonstrate this (whether they use Y tracking, mtDNA, or whatever)". According to your definition of Jews as a race, being anti-Jew is a racist position.According to Cambridge Dictionary racism is: "the belief that people's qualities are influenced by their race and that the members of other races are not as good as the members of your own, which results in the other races being treated unfairly". This is in direct conflict with any definition of social justice that could be described as leftist. "2. A "William Randolph Royere III" is a European proper; a being every bit as European as hot cross buns and the croissant" If you are a racial European (as opposed to a Jew) by your own logic, you should be held responsible for for all the crimes commited by fellow members of your race throughout history. Pehaps you believe in "Manifest Destiny". "3. Per the US Constitution, I have certain rights. One is property or the pursuit thereof". Remember, the Constitution was written by people who were run out of Europe or who moved to escape persecution. A contemporary interpretation of the US Constitution has no provision for a European racial claim to land. "4. A leftist is a leftist is a leftist (although, to be fair, modern leftists are a little shaky; at least historical ones had a better education). But nevertheless, a leftist is one whom adheres to traditional or progressive leftist tenets. Whatever else he/she may be, that is a requisite". The progressive tradition holds justice for the individual as a core principle and this is inherently incompatible with racism. S-13's Answers (english) ============= by William Randolph Royere III 3:22am Sun Apr 7 '02 william@royere.net S13 (who is earnest enough) wrote: "According to your definition of Jews as a race, being anti-Jew is a racist position.According to Cambridge Dictionary racism is: "the belief that people's qualities are influenced by their race and that the members of other races are not as good as the members of your own, which results in the other races being treated unfairly". This is in direct conflict with any definition of social justice that could be described as leftist." That's a good, popularized definition. Perhaps another would be simply this: "The viewpoint espoused by one species or race toward another, which, in their view, is an alien organism". In so far as there exist seven major DNA strains that together constitute Europeans (traceable to seven women and ten men), these together (and those who fall along those genetic lines) form one genetic organism, in so far as it is demonstrably identifable (by DNA alone, to a 100% degree of accuracy) from other widely similar but specifically different genetic strains. In other words, the evils of "racism" that most left-wingers decry are, in fact, not evil at all, but merely natural, evolutionary responses to both real and perceived biological threats. S13 also wrote: "If you are a racial European (as opposed to a Jew) by your own logic, you should be held responsible for for all the crimes commited by fellow members of your race throughout history. Pehaps you believe in 'Manifest Destiny'." I believe that those most suited to rule the world will. If you're not amongst that party, gain entrance to it, don't cry about it. It's patently obvious that they who are most suited to rule do [rule]. And at this moment, the European nations (although Jew contributions cannot be discounted) do rule the Earth, and presumably will, for thousands of years to come. So, in essence, I suppose I *do* believe in Manifest Destiny. As far as "crimes" my race committed, the spoils to the winner. The French suffered at Crecy (1346) because they lacked adequate knowledge of logbows. They learned better. S13 also wrote: "Remember, the Constitution was written by people who were run out of Europe or who moved to escape persecution. A contemporary interpretation of the US Constitution has no provision for a European racial claim to land." I own it because I bought it. I keep it because I pay taxes (and, because we here have razor wire, vicious dogs, and guns). So long as I stay within the parameters of legal rights, my land and my home remain my own. That is right enough, under the system we have. Finally, S13 wrote: "The progressive tradition holds justice for the individual as a core principle and this is inherently incompatible with racism." Which is why the core of progressive tradition, notwithstanding its good intentions, is unrealistic. In this world, there must always be rulers and the ruled. These generally fall along racial lines and have - since written history first emerged. Equality doesn't exist in nature and never will. ========== Hey Bill (english) by Mike 5:24am Sun Apr 7 '02 stepbystepfarm@shaysnet.com You claim to be a "European proper". What is THAT supposed to mean? Your examples of "hot cross buns" and "croissants" is particularly interesting because..... Which Eurpoean peoples (ie: of those currently in Europe) do you imagine were there 3000 years ago? Maybe the Basques, maybe the Sami, but certainly neither the people associated with either hot cross buns or croissants (still somewhere in Asia or maybe around the Black Sea. RACE? No, the Jews aren't a "race" but they are a "tribe" (the religion is simply their tribal religion, many tribal peoples have one). Likewise some tribes are nomadic (like the Roma) but most are "territorial". Some, like the Jews, have probably "always" been both (ie: some settled on the home territory, some settled dispersed, and some nomadic). My "always" here means "last 4000 years" because archeological evidence gets harder and harder to read as you go earlier. But their "home" territory" was multiethnic even back then, one hilltop, defendable spring, etc. held by one tribe, the next by another, etc. Mostly other "Northwest Semitic" peoples but presumably some non Semites mixed in too (references to uncircumsized peoples, all Semites and all Hamites circumsize). ============== Mike's 3000-year old Europeans (english) by William Randolph Royere III 7:05am Sun Apr 7 '02 william@royere.net Mike - Nice try, but no cigar. Try 45,000 years ago. Read it for yourself: http://www.oxfordancestors.com/daughters.html Meanwhile, the Jews *are* a race. Any population that can be differentiated from another (and positively identified) via DNA is a race (wacko anthro-apologists aside, such as those who still hold the "Out of Africa" notion dear, although it's been permanently disproven by mtDNA studies in Australia). The "Europeans" I'm talking about are related to one of the seven women listed on the aforementioned link (an offshoot of the Oxford Institute of Molecular Medicine). Anyone related to those seven women is a "European". Anyone who is not related to one of those seven women, isn't [a European]. Today, we determine that from a simple cotton swab but someday, in the not-too-distant future, we'll be able to determine that in public, automatically, and relatively inexpensively. (Gattica, in other words). Non-Europeans could once change their names to suitably sounding European names and escape detection. They could even choose not to circumsize their peoples (or, more often, advocate circumcision on medical ground in host populations, thus making it difficult to ascertain who's who). Not any more. The ground on which radical multiculturalists base their argument that "there is no such thing as race" is evaporating rapidly. Genetics will soon lay down in stone - forever - the truth regarding race. You'll have to come with a better argument than that, I'm afraid. "Oxford Ancestors" on "Race" and DNA (english) by Daughter of Tara 4:12pm Sun Apr 7 '02 The white supremacist Royere is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. Even the source he cites (about the "Seven [European] Daughters of Eve") denies a genetic basis for "race". From the Oxford Ancestors FAQ: Q: Can a DNA test show race, ethnic background or ancestry? A: No. There is no genetic basis for race or ethnicity and the MatriLine service analyses DNA sequences that pre-date our notions of ethnicity and race. MatriLine shows you only where your ancestral mother lived, but her descendants will have representatives from many different nationalities and races, so discovering who she is does not show your ethnic background. www.oxfordancestors.com/faq.html#general ------------------------------- Robert Fisk: This will be the week when we see who runs the US-Israeli alliance (english) by Robert Fisk 11:52pm Sun Apr 7 '02 'Since US soldiers are blindfolding and gagging Muslim prisoners, why should Mr Sharon worry?' 08 April 2002 So what's the surprise? Suddenly Israel doesn't want to take our advice. Ex-general Ariel Sharon prefers to go on wrecking the Palestinian Authority, tearing up the Oslo agreement in the name of his Holy War on terror. Why should he worry about the scandalous number of civilian casualties among the Palestinians? After all, didn't America wreak its own revenge - killing thousands of innocent civilians in one of the poorest countries on Earth - after the crimes against humanity of 11 September? I must admit, though, to a grim satisfaction when I heard President George Bush's puzzled, uncomprehending response to Mr Sharon's refusal to withdraw his army from the West Bank. The Israeli Prime Minister is, after all, the man who sent his army into Lebanon in 1982 to "root out Palestinian terror'' - note the identical rhetoric, as well as the same cast of characters - and whose "elite'' Israeli forces killed up to 17,500 people, almost all civilians. Mr Sharon is the man who then sent Israel's vicious Phalangist allies into the Beirut refugee camps of Sabra and Chatila, after which they massacred 1,700 Palestinian civilians. For this he was held "personally responsible'' by Israel's own commission of inquiry. Evidence now emerging in Beirut suggests that most of the slaughtered refugees were actually killed in the two weeks following the original massacre - after the survivors had been handed back to the Phalange by Israel's own soldiers. So why should Mr Sharon stop now? If Mr Bush wants to rein in his reckless ally, why doesn't he ask Mr Sharon a few questions? Why doesn't he ask what has happened to the more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners who have disappeared into Israel's hands over the past two weeks? What happened, for example, to the five men, blindfolded and trussed up like chickens whom I discovered in the Jewish settlement of Psagot? What happened to the masses of young men I saw being taken in a bus with its windows wired over, a bus that made its way around Jerusalem and headed west on the Tel Aviv highway. How many of these young men are now being tortured either in interrogation centres or in the Russian Compound, the main torture compound in West Jerusalem? But since Mr Bush's soldiers are experts in blindfolding and gagging Muslim prisoners - and putting them in front of drumhead military courts - why should Mr Sharon worry? For month after month, as Mr Sharon tore up the Oslo agreement, put the building of Jewish colonies on Arab land into overdrive and sent out his death squads to murder Palestinians, the Bush administration - fearful of offending the Israelis - allowed him to do what he wanted. In response to the wicked Palestinian suicide bombings, Bush expressed outrage. In response to Israel's aggression, he called for restraint - and then did nothing. Again, what's the surprise? For months the American media has refused to tell its viewers and readers what is going on in the occupied territories. Its newspapers have indulged the insanity of writers who have been encouraging Mr Sharon into ever-more-savage acts. What are we supposed to make - for example, of a recent article in The New York Times by William Safire, referring - as usual - to Jewish civilians murdered by Palestinians but to Arab civilians "caught in the crossfire'', "crossfire" being the nearest many journalists will dare to go in saying that the culprits were Israeli. Safire plays the old game of talking about the occupied territories as "disputed'' rather than occupied, a grotesque distortion of the truth upon which the State Department insisted in a policy paper sent out by the Secretary of State, Colin Powell. But Safire adds a new threat to journalists who might wish to tell the truth: "These are disputed territories'' he writes, "to call them 'occupied' reveals a prejudice against Israel's right to what were supposed to be 'secure and defensible' borders.'' You can see the way the argument is going. If we have a 'prejudice' against Israel's rights, it's only a short step to call us anti-Semitic. But what is one to make of this nonsense? Am I supposed to pretend that the soldiers who blocked my car and pointed their guns at me in the West Bank last week were Swiss? Am I to believe that the rabble of soldiers shouting at Palestinian women desperate to leave Ramallah were Burmese? Safire regularly takes phone calls from Mr Sharon (and then insists on telling us of Mr Sharon's latest fantasies), but my old chum Tom Friedman in his ever-more-Messianic column in The New York Times, has almost gone one better. "Israel needs to deliver a military blow that clearly shows terror will not pay,'' he announced last week. What, in God's name, is an American journalist doing when he urges Mr Sharon to go to war? Friedman was with me in the Sabra and Chatila camps. Has he forgotten what we saw? Last week, however, Friedman was also amiably advising the Palestinians to turn to non-violent resistance à la Gandhi. For Friedman, "a non-violent Palestinian movement appealing to the conscience of the Israeli silent majority would have delivered a Palestinian state 30 years ago...'' Needless to say, when Westerners, including two Britons, protested peacefully in Bethlehem - and were wounded by an Israeli soldier who shot at them, Friedman was silent. The reason why the Palestinians turned to suicide bombing, according to Friedman, was not despair over the occupation - occupation which, of course, Safire tells us we mustn't refer to - but because "the Palestinians are so blinded by narcissistic rage'' that they have lost sight of the sacredness of human life. And so it goes on. Having bestialised the Palestinians over so many years, why should we be surprised when a society eventually produces the very monsters we always claim to see in them? Even Mr Bush's speech last week in which he dispatched Mr Powell on his "urgent'' mission of peace - allowing him a lazy seven days to reach Israel, reserved its venom for the Palestinians. And yet, after all that, he fails to see why Mr Sharon might choose to keep his army in the field. So this week will be a crucial one in the American-Israeli relationship, a real test of the Bush presidency. We shall find out who - the US or Israel - runs America's policy in the Middle East. It would be nice to think that it was the former. But I'm not sure. ------------------------------- I'm Tired Of Financing Racist State Of Israel (english) by McMurphy 9:56pm Sun Apr 7 '02 (Modified on 12:14am Mon Apr 8 '02) Here's an interesting quote from a December 17, 1982 interview of Ariel Sharon I've seen making the rounds on Indymedia: "Call Israel any name you like, call it a Judeo-Nazi state as Leibowitz does. Better a live Judeo-Nazi than a dead saint... ....I don't care if I am like Ghadafi. I am not after the admiration of the gentiles. I don't need their love. I don't need to be loved by Jews like you either. I have to live, and I intend to insure that my children will live as well. With or without the blessing of the Pope and the religous leaders from the New York Times." Interesting. Sharon and his racist ilk in Israel don't need anybody's love. They sure do need the largesse of the U.S. taxpayer to finance their military rampages against Arabs and to build their yuppie resort communities after they tear down Arab olive groves. I'm tired of seeing my tax dollars support this apartheid-like entity we call Israel and the kinds of racist twits who directly benefit from our largesse, like Sharon. Yeah, they may not need our love but Israelis couldn't do without our tax dollars. I would like to see how long they could hold on without being subsidized by US tax dollars. ============= Actually, they'd fair pretty well without us (english) by Arby 10:37pm Sun Apr 7 '02 They could make quite a bit of money selling the technology that we gave them to the Chinese. In fact, they do do this, they sold the Lavi program to the Chinese and then the fucked us again by canceling the program after the sale was final. I'll bet they could pick up a bundle helping China with nukes or building knockoffs of the Apache. Israel's a fucking leech. They money you hear about is mostly in the form of high tech military hardware, not cash. The cash they do get they just spend on more tanks. Here's the econimic breakdown according to the CIA: Israel Economy Economy - overview: Israel has a technologically advanced market economy with substantial government participation. It depends on imports of crude oil, grains, raw materials, and military equipment. Despite limited natural resources, Israel has intensively developed its agricultural and industrial sectors over the past 20 years. Israel is largely self-sufficient in food production except for grains. Cuts diamonds, high-technology equipment, and agricultural products (fruits and vegetables) are the leading exports. Israel usually posts sizable current account deficits, which are covered by large transfer payments from abroad and by foreign loans. Roughly half of the government's external debt is owed to the US, which is its major source of economic and military aid. The influx of Jewish immigrants from the former USSR topped 750,000 during the period 1989-99, bringing the population of Israel from the former Soviet Union to 1 million, one-sixth of the total population, and adding scientific and professional expertise of substantial value for the economy's future. The influx, coupled with the opening of new markets at the end of the Cold War, energized Israel's economy, which grew rapidly in the early 1990s. But growth began moderating in 1996 when the government imposed tighter fiscal and monetary policies and the immigration bonus petered out. Growth was a strong 5.9% in 2000. But the outbreak of Palestinian unrest in late September and the collapse of the BARAK Government - coupled with a cooling off in the high-technology and tourist sectors - undercut the boom and foreshadows a slowdown to 2%-3% in 2001. GDP: purchasing power parity - $110.2 billion (2000 est.) GDP - real growth rate: 5.9% (2000 est.) GDP - per capita: purchasing power parity - $18,900 (2000 est.) GDP - composition by sector: agriculture: 4% industry: 37% services: 59% (1999 est.) Population below poverty line: NA% Household income or consumption by percentage share: lowest 10%: 2.8% highest 10%: 26.9% (1992) Inflation rate (consumer prices): 0.1% (2000 est.) Labor force: 2.4 million (2000 est.) Labor force - by occupation: public services 31.2%, manufacturing 20.2%, finance and business 13.1%, commerce 12.8%, construction 7.5%, personal and other services 6.4%, transport, storage, and communications 6.2%, agriculture, forestry, and fishing 2.6% (1996) Unemployment rate: 9% (2000 est.) Budget: revenues: $40 billion expenditures: $42.4 billion, including capital expenditures of $NA (2000 est.) Industries: high-technology projects (including aviation, communications, computer-aided design and manufactures, medical electronics), wood and paper products, potash and phosphates, food, beverages, and tobacco, caustic soda, cement, diamond cutting Industrial production growth rate: 7% (2000) Electricity - production: 35.437 billion kWh (1999) Electricity - production by source: fossil fuel: 99.89% hydro: 0.11% nuclear: 0% other: 0% (1999) Electricity - consumption: 31.899 billion kWh (1999) Electricity - exports: 1.061 billion kWh (1999) Electricity - imports: 4 million kWh (1999) Agriculture - products: citrus, vegetables, cotton; beef, poultry, dairy products Exports: $31.5 billion (f.o.b., 2000) Exports - commodities: machinery and equipment, software, cut diamonds, agricultural products, chemicals, textiles and apparel Exports - partners: US 36%, UK 6%, Benelux 5%, Hong Kong 4%, Netherlands 4% (1999) Imports: $35.1 billion (f.o.b., 2000) Imports - commodities: raw materials, military equipment, investment goods, rough diamonds, fuels, consumer goods Imports - partners: US 20%, Benelux 11%, Germany 8%, UK 8%, Switzerland 6%, Italy 5% (1999) Debt - external: $38 billion (2000 est.) Economic aid - recipient: $1.1 billion from the US (1999) Currency: new Israeli shekel (ILS) Currency code: ILS Exchange rates: new Israeli shekels per US dollar - 4.0810 (December 2000), 4.0773 (2000), 4.1397 (1999), 3.8001 (1998), 3.4494 (1997), 3.1917 (1996) Fiscal year: calendar year ----------------- sorry if the formattings a little whacked =========== Palestinians to Blame (english) by greg 11:00pm Sun Apr 7 '02 Unfortunately, Indymedia has shown no independance from the standard anti-Israel bias demonstrated by the vast majority of media outlets in the World. Indymedia should give Israel a voice because seemingly no one else in today's World will! In this light, I will rise to the defence of the noble and valiant nation of Israel, may she always be a light unto the nations and to those who are capable of an unbiased and neutral evaluation of the World's politics. The Palestinians were offered a very good deal on a State living side by side in Peace and security with Israel by the former Israeli government of Ehud Barak and by Clinton as part of Oslo and Camp David 2 years ago. Arafat rejected this offer out of hand without even presenting a counter offer. Arafat in stead decided to return to his policy of terrorism in order to wipe out Israel and commit genocide on the Israeli people. Arafat released convicted Hamas and ISlamic Jihad terrorists from jail at the start of the Intifada and has done everything within his power to incite and encourage a continuing campaign of terrorist suicide bombings against Israeli civilians. Arafat has refused to meet the minimum requirements of the Tenet and Mitchell plans which call for him to publicly condemn Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians in Arabic and to tell all of the Palestinian suicide squads to halt their activities. In stead, Arafat has endeavoured to import prohibited armaments from Iran and has deliberately given the green light to Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists. Arafat's own Fatah movement including his Al Aksa birages, Tanzim Milita, Force 17 and Palestinian Authority forces have all been engaged in terrorist assaults and suicide bombing/shooting attacks against Israeli civilians. There is documentary evidence linking Arafat to specific suicide bombings committed by Al Aksa brigades. Arafat's controlled media incessantly spew out anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish bigotry and hatred calling for the butchering of ISraeli men, women and children. Arafat has imported Hezbolla terrorists from Lebanon as well as foreing Al Quaeda master terrorists and instructors. In short Arafat is directly responsible for the deliberate collapse in the peace process and for every death and casualty on both sides since the commencement of his Intifada almost 2 years ago. If the Palestinians had had responsible leadership 2 years ago then 2 states ie Israel and Palestine would be exisiting next to each other in complete harmony today and there would be no Middle East war to speak of. Unfortunately Arafat's goal and that of the vast majority of Palestinians has been to wipe Israel of the map rather than to live harmoniously next to her. It is this Arab belligerency and xenophobia which is the root cause of the Arab Israeli conflict and which predates even the formation of the State of Israel. In stead of roundly condemning Arab aggression, terrorism and desires to annihiliate Israel and Jews, the World community rewards such behaviour and therefore perpetuates the continuing conflict. 10 days ago, Israel had just faced a spate of 11 suicide bombings in 6 days culminating in the Passover Massace in which 27 Israelis were blown up for doing nothing more sinister than practising the age old religious festival of Passover. This is infact, the same fesitival that Jesus was celebrating on his Last Supper.In total 140 Israeli civilians had been deliberately butched and perhaps another 1000 injured last month by Palestinian terrorists. The current round of Israeli incursions into Palestinian controlled areas MUST BE VIEWED IN THIS LIGHT. Israel IS NOT DELIBERATELY TARGETING ANY PALESTINIAN NON-COMBATANTS. ISRAEL IS ONLY TARGETING PALESTINIAN TERRORISTS AND THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE. ALTHOUGH THERE HAS BEEN SOME PALESTINIAN COLLATERAL DAMAGE, THIS HAS BEEN KEPT TO THE MINIMUM AND THERE HAVE BEEN NO DELIBERATE PALESTINIAN NON COMBATANT CASUALTIES. Israel has had no choice but to act to stop the intolerable spate of Palestinian suicide bombings and has maintained purity of arms in all of its completely justified actions against Palestinian terrorists. Any other nation would have acted as Israel has done. In fact most other nations would probably have acted with far more military vehemence. There is no distinction between Israel's fight against terror and that of the US's fight against Al Quaeda terrorists. Israel can not be expected to halt its actions against Palestinian terrorists until such time as the Palestinian leadership calls for a halt in suicide bombings in ARABIC rather than just mouthing scripted platitudes to gullible western audiences. I might suggest that readers of Indymedia apply some level of skepticism to the reems of ridiculous Palestinian propaganda that is filling every media outlet in the World. It may be convenient to view ISrael as some "goliath" confronting a Palestinian stone throwing "David" but as with the bibical story the truth is that it is David who is Israeli and Goliath who is a Philistine (or Palestinian with Arab backing). The Arabs are all united in their desire to destroy ISrael. The Saudis, Iraqis, Lebanese and Iranians all sponsor terrorism against Israeli civilians.The Arabs have got the Europeans in their pocket due to their control over the OPEC oil cartel. The Europeans vie for lucrative Arab contracts. Also there are far more moslems living in Europe than Jews. The Arab nations can count on the 100 plus Islamic countries to vote in unison in the UN. Although the Israelis may have high tech weaponry, the Palestinians have their own smart bombs. However, whereas Israelis high tech smart bombs only target Palestinian combatants, Palestinian smart bombs or suicide bombers deliberately home in on the largest groups of unsuspecting Israeli civilians in order to cause maximum carnage. Some say that the Palestinians are so "frustrated" and "angry" that they have no choice but to butcher Israeli civilians. This is ridiculous. For the Israelis are just as angry at the suicide bombings but they DO NOT DELIBERATELY TARGET PALESTINIAN civilians. It is not a case for tit for tat behaviour. It is not the equivalent of Northern Island in which both the IRA and the Protestants BOTH TARGETED CIVILIANS. For in the Middle East ONLY the Palestinians target civilians whilst the Israelis only target Palestinian terrorists. The Palestinians DO HAVE ONE OBVIOUS CHOICE and that is NON-VIOLENCE! All they need do is stop deliberately killing Israeli civilians and return in good faith to the negotiating table. ========== george bush (english) by none 12:01am Mon Apr 8 '02 if george bush was heald captive by afghan terrorist and he told the army to stop fighting, would they? how do you expect this of arafat? ========= are you serious? (english) by gregory 12:15am Mon Apr 8 '02 are you serious? 1200people were killed by the israel state in the last 19months-are they all terrorists?-what a peace of cheap propaganda-3million people terrorised by an aggresive state confined by a brutal curfew and you dare to denounce indymedia as biased?-israel attacks the press in such a blatant way that has outraged even the CNN and you dare to blame the press coverage?-are you so blind or just a puppet of the war-criminal Saron? ------------------------------ 165888 America's War Inc: Weapons and Wars 'R' US (english) by John Stanton and Wayne Msdsen 5:04pm Fri Apr 5 '02 (Modified on 9:03pm Fri Apr 5 '02) whoops@boxfrog.com America is a Military Society. Also talks about Palestine and Israel and all the wars, weapons since 1961 when Dwight Eisenhower said, You'd Better be Careful About US Military Society. America's War Incorporated: Weapons and Wars 'R' US By John Stanton and Wayne Madsen Online Journal Contributing Writers April 1, 2002—Critics of the US war machine frequently cite U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower's seminal speech in which he uncannily predicted the threat the "US military industrial complex" would pose to America and the world. In 1961, Eisenhower, a retired U.S. Army general who led the allied invasion of Germany in WWII, uttered these prescient words, " . . . In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together . . ." If only the citizenry had listened. Eisenhower's feared military industrial complex has been swept aside by the U.S. War Corporation. It took just 42 years for the War Corporation to eliminate the dividing line between the U.S. military and U.S. industry and eradicate the troublesome provisions of Posse Comitatus—an 1878 law that forbids military involvement in most domestic affairs, including law enforcement. The War Corporation has its tentacles in every element of the American political, military, economic and cultural milieu, and it affects the lives of every citizen in every country on the planet. It operates in the heavens, has claimed the Earth's moon and, perhaps, through the U.S. Air Force's Planetary Defense operation, has some Strangelovian designs for Mars. The United States of America has been at war with the world since Eisenhower made his remarks 42 years ago. From 1961 to 2002, the War Corporation has fueled the fires of death and destruction in every corner of the globe in order to make the world safe-for-profit, using the clever ruses of freedom and democracy. The evidence is astounding and sickening: the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the bombing of Libya, the indiscriminant offshore shelling of Lebanon by U.S. battleships, the invasion of Grenada, the invasion of Panama, the Persian Gulf War, daily bombings of Iraq in the "no fly zone," ill-conceived military interventions into Somalia and Haiti, cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan and innocents in Sudan, U.S. state-sponsored assassinations in Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Congo, Rwanda, Brazil, Colombia, a likely resumption of nuclear testing, and, finally, the War in Afghanistan and the War on Terrorism. To make some interventions more palatable to the public, the Pentagon devised Orwellian-sounding code names to convey "good intentions"—Operations Provide Comfort (Kurdistan), Noble Eagle (the War on Terrorism), Enduring Freedom (War in Afghanistan), Restore Hope (Somalia), Just Cause (Panama), Uphold Democracy (Haiti), Guardian Retrieval (Zaire), Shepherd Venture (Guinea-Bissau), Noble Response (Kenya), and one that could have only been devised by a military Freemason with entirely too much time on his hands, Noble Obelisk (Sierra Leone). How many wars will a society tolerate until it says no more? Arms for All Consider the despicable global arms trade in which the U.S. dominates. The U.S. will sell weapons, gear and training to all comers with cash or a country with exploitable geography and resources. The U.S. War Corporation counts as its clients Chad, with an annual per capita income of $230, and Kenya, whose law enforcement is skilled at "common methods of torture . . . including hanging persons upside down for long periods, genital mutilation, electric shocks, and deprivation of air by submersion of the head in water," according to the Council for a Livable World (CLW). Despite all this, the American citizenry refuses to heed Eisenhower's warning and has taken its liberty "for granted," placing its trust in U.S. officials who see "evil" and threats in every corner. For this ignorance-of-the-damned, the American people have now brought upon themselves the militarization of American society that Eisenhower so feared, and that Herbert Marcuse so eloquently described in One Dimensional Man. The American people are routinely psyop'ed by the War Corporation into an "us-versus-them" mentality; we're right, your wrong—no argument allowed. Is it any surprise that a less enlightened retired U.S. Army general, Colin Powell, recently admitted that the War on Terrorism will never end "in our lifetime"? Today, sadly, the U.S. War Corporation has taken almost complete control of America and has marshaled its entire war machinery against approximately 33 foreign terrorist groups, numbering perhaps 5,000 to 8,000 individuals who are mostly impoverished and oppressed by ruthless regimes who retaliate with the armaments, strategies and tactics purchased from the U.S. War Corporation. GlobalIssues.org reports that close to $1 trillion dollars is spent on worldwide military expenditures and the international weapons trade. They rightly point out that globalization has caused weapons makers to take a globalization and porous border approach to selling weapons. In the words of one U.S. "defense" contractor, "We have no allegiance, this is a business and we sell to whatever country can afford them." The CLW's research indicates that U.S. military spending comprises over half (53 percent) of total discretionary spending ($755 billion), an increase from 48 percent in fiscal year 2001. The proposed military budget of $396.1 billion is 15 percent higher than the average Cold War budget, even in today's dollars. CLW reports that from 1946 to 1989 the U.S. budget authority for defense was an average of $343 billion a year (fiscal year 2003 dollars). In terms of outlays, according to the Senate Budget Committee minority staff, the proposed spending in fiscal year 2003 exceeds the Cold War average by $44 billion. How much money is enough? Forget the Poor Just a fraction of what is spent on defense might—probably would—eliminate many of the conditions that breed terrorists in today's world. Oscar Arias Sanchez, the 1987 Nobel Peace Prize winner and former President of Costa Rica declared, "The world's priorities are wrong. With just a small amount of what the world spends on defense, we could address poverty, inequality, illiteracy, disease, environmental degradation, and drought." In 2002, the War Corporation's "center-of-gravity or nexus of operations," as it is known in war-speak, is in the Washington, D.C., metro region and includes the U.S. presidency and U.S. Congress, uniformed and non-uniformed war contractors (to include the four military branches, weapons manufacturers and mercenaries), war intelligence agencies, various war departments operating under Zemyatinesqe names like the Department of Defense, Department of State, Department of Justice, and President of the United States. Even toy companies and bubble gum trading card companies are in on the war gig. And why not? It is the number one business in America. For just $45 American children can have their very own "Tora Bora Ted, Swift Freedom Delta Force Night OPS" action figure to replace GI Joe. Operation Enduring Freedom bubble gum cards are also on the streets. No, not even children are spared the insanity of the War Corporation's propaganda. A major U.S. War Corporation bureau of information—NBC News—is owned by major weapons contractor General Electric, which runs advertisements extolling the virtues of its global reach. According to globalissues.org, America's leading weapons maker, Lockheed Martin, ran an advertisement claiming "the perception of peace means less jobs for Americans." But the Turks build F16s, not Americans. Another Lockheed Martin propaganda piece claimed the F-22 was an antiwar plane. Many advertisements run on all the major networks emphasized that a better fighter plane would ensure loved ones can come back home. The U.S. Congress buys these claims, in the fishing metaphor, hook-line- and sinker. Between 1990 and 2002, opensecrets.org reports that the U.S. War Corporation weapons makers contributed more than $67 million to the U.S. Congress to protect their global interests. In one of the more crass instances of U.S. "defense" contractor lobbying, the weapons contractors defeated a U.S. congressional resolution recognizing Turkey's culpability in the Armenian genocide in 1919. The reason? Turkey threatened to cancel U.S. military contracts. The War Corporation influences politics and economics in every state of the American Union and as far away as provinces in China, on the sparsely populated Cook Islands in the South Pacific, and in more familiar places like Nicaragua, where it recently fixed the outcome of a national election, and Colombia, where the U.S. War Corporation helped assassinate a Catholic bishop opposed to the U.S. puppet regime there. Profiting From Middle East Bloodshed Perhaps nowhere is the War Corporation's influence seen more vividly than in the current turmoil in the Middle East. The U.S. Department of State is completely militarized under the regime of Colin Powell—who helped whitewash the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam, his deputy Richard Armitage—a former U.S. Special Forces and CIA dirty tricks operator in Southeast Asia, and Middle East Special Envoy retired US Marine Corps General and American proconsul Anthony Zinni. These so-called "diplomats" are the major U.S. players ostensibly responsible for bringing "peace" to the region. But as Robin Wright, a respected Middle East expert, pointed out in her column in the Los Angeles Times on March 31, 2002, even Kuwait has had enough of U.S. duplicity in the region. "11 years after Kuwait was freed, about 4,000 demonstrators rallied at Flag Square in Kuwait City to denounce Israel and the United States. With the speaker of the Kuwaiti parliament and other top ministers present, the crowd shouted, "No god but Allah! America enemy of Allah!" and "Muslims, Muslims unite! Death to Israel, death to America!" the Reuters news agency reported. In a reflection of shifting sentiments over the last 18 months, since the latest Palestinian Intifada began, the crowd also roared, "America and Zionism are against the Muslim nation!" Rallying on behalf of the Palestinians and against the United States is particularly ironic because the Palestinians sided with Iraq, not the Kuwaiti monarchy, during the 1991 Persian Gulf War." But that's of little consequence to the U.S. War Corporation. Most Middle East analysts, from ex-Reagan administration department heads to former President Jimmy Carter—experts who have traditionally remained committed to even-handedness in their commentaries—are blaming the Bush administration, and primarily the State Department, for allowing events to explode out of control in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There should be little wonder why the U.S. chose passive disengagement over active engagement. After all, as Israel commits more occupying troops to the West Bank and Gaza, they will require more U.S. weaponry—tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery, and consultants from the likes of MPRI and Dyncorp. And who will profit from prolonging bloodshed in the Middle East? The U.S. War Corporation and its surrogates. In the fiscal year 2002 budget, Israel was allotted $2.04 billion in U.S. military aid. Under a memorandum of understanding signed between the U.S. and Israel on January 19, 2001, just a day before Bush's appointment to the US presidency, U.S. military aid to Israel will likely grow to $2.4 billion by 2008. As Israel's right-wing militaristic government continues to flex its muscles, its Arab neighbors will increase their own military stockpiles. Three of them—Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia—are among the largest recipients of U.S. military weaponry. From 1999 to 2000, Egypt received $1.3 billion in U.S. military aid and Jordan got $123 million. While Saudi Arabia receives no outright U.S. military assistance, it has bought over $33.5 billion of the most sophisticated U.S. weapons systems (AWACS, F-15's and more) over the past 10 years. That's more than U.S. military assistance given to Israel and Egypt combined. Among the most vociferous propagandists of the Bush administration's ratcheting up of Middle East tensions, ludicrous military spending, and U.S. takeover of the Persian Gulf and Middle East are retired U.S. military generals whose telephone numbers cram every cable and non-cable network producers' Rolodex. The current crop of Pentagon generals and admirals unknowingly betray a long tradition of senior U.S. military officers refraining from political activity. Generals William Tecumseh Sherman and George Marshall refrained from voting, reflecting their desire for political neutrality among the officer corps. But that is of no consequence to the troupe of military officers who mock Dwight Eisenhower. Weapons Everyone, Weapons! According to a Congressional Research Service study, Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, poor countries bought 68 percent of U.S. weapons output. American weapons producers signed contracts for some $18.6 billion dollars in 2000, up from around $12.9 billion dollars the previous year. U.S. contracts accounted for 49.7 percent of global sales in 2000 and the U.S. controlled half of the developing world's arms market with $12.6 billion in sales. CLW commented that "this dominance of the global arms market is not something in which the American public or policy makers should applaud. The U.S. routinely sells weapons to undemocratic regimes and gross human rights abusers." That list of countries includes those that Americans believe are trustworthy allies. These include Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Kuwait, Turkmenistan and Turkey. Meanwhile, back in the United States, War Corporation member, Joint Strike Fighter winner and largest weapons producer—Lockheed Martin—is busy behind the scenes operating home mortgage tracking databases for the Department of Housing and Urban Development and providing state and local law enforcement and correctional facilities with an "Integrated Justice Information System," a platform which "integrates and modernize systems for law enforcement, courts, and corrections." Why do they need that business? The rationale behind the "commercial" ventures, and for those of every weapons contractor, is to make sure that enough profit is made courtesy of public largesse to keep weapons production lines open. While Lockheed Martin personnel are hailed as "heroes," few know that Lockheed's mixed history includes bribing Japanese government officials in 1976. That action led fellow War Corporation member, the U.S. Congress, to pass the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in 1977. And as of 2000, Lockheed Martin and the majority of U.S. weapons manufacturers refused to renounce production of landmines and their deployment along the Korean demilitarized zone and other killing fields in Africa and South Asia. Landmines On that cheery note, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines reports that the U.S. government admantly refuses to ban or place a moratorium on the production of antipersonnel mines. According to the United States Campaign to Ban Landmines, those devices kill 18,000 people a year, most of them civilians. The stockpile cap announced on January 17, 1997, does not preclude the production of new antipersonnel mines to replace those used in future combat operations. Former US Army Lt. Gen. Hal Moore, who was recently portrayed by Mel Gibson in the movie When We Were Soldiers, in a letter to President Bush, stated, "landmines pose a particularly grave threat to refugees and the internally displaced as they seek to return home and rebuild their lives." He and other retired military veterans urged Bush to sign the international Mine Ban Treaty in a March 12, 2002, letter. Yet, the U.S. War Corporation ignores their pleas. The U.S. is currently producing M87A1 Volcano mine canisters containing antivehicle mines at the Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant in Texarkana, Texas. This is a government-owned facility operated by War Corporate member Day and Zimmerman. Although the production of these mines is scheduled to end next November, the death and mayhem caused by these inhuman weapons have already been dealt. In the end, the worst hit are the young people of the world. Because many anti-personnel mines look like toys, children have been attracted to them, with many losing their arms, legs, and eyesight, if not their lives. But there can never be too many weapons. The problem of overproduction was solved by George Orwell's "Oceania" in 1984: "As for the problem of overproduction . . . it is solved by the device of continuous warfare, which is also useful in keying up public morale to the necessary pitch." Dwight Eisenhower, igonored by the U.S. War Corporation in his post-presidency, uttered words seemingly too lofty for the current generation of war mongers to understand: " . . . Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war—as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years—I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight." John Stanton is a Virginia-based writer on national security affairs and Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist who writes and comments frequently on civil liberties and human rights issues. www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/St... =========== an appropriate graphic... (english) by nobody 9:03pm Fri Apr 5 '02 follow this link for a cool graphic... http://www.subvertise.org/details.php?code=19 ???????????? ------------------------ Israeli troops attack foreign journalists (english) by Bill 4:49pm Fri Apr 5 '02 (Modified on 10:01pm Fri Apr 5 '02) It is obvious that the dirty Jew heebes are out of control the same as the insane gov't of the US. And then there is the traitoress gov't of Russia who has done nothing and even refused help to Yugoslavia. Any wonder why the US and Jew boy gov't feel superior? Israeli troops attack foreign journalists Julia Day Friday April 5, 2002 The Guardian Israeli troops have thrown stun grenades at a convoy of 25 foreign journalists and consficated some of their identity cards during a confrontation in the West Bank. The journalists, who were travelling in six armoured cars, were on their way to cover a US envoy's meeting with the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, this morning. The press pack spotted two Israeli jeeps and an unmarked vehicle blocking the access road to Mr Arafat's compound in Ramallah, according to a Reuters correspondent, who was travelling with the group. The soldiers inside the jeeps then threw stun grenades at the journalists. The grenades are used to disorient and frighten their targets by creating a loud noise and a giving off a bright flash. As the convoy turned back, some of the journalists left their vehicles and fled on foot but the Israeli border police gave chase and confiscated the identification cards of some of the journalists. A bullet hole was later discovered in the car used by the CNN crew. The Israeli army had no immediate comment on the incident. US envoy Anthony Zinni was to meet Mr Arafat as part of international efforts to broker a halt to the West Bank offensive launched by Israel following a series of Palestinian suicide bombings. Earlier this week journalists' groups condemned the Israeli authorities for failing to protect press freedom in Ramallah. Two organisations, the Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters Sans Frontieres, issued protests after two reporters were wounded and a BBC crew came under fire. But Israel has threatened legal action against CNN and NBC for ignoring military orders and broadcasting from the city. The Israeli authorities have also revoked the accreditation of two Abu Dhabi TV journalists as part of the country's crackdown on foreign coverage of its conflict with the Palestinians. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4388243,... ============== Trying to invalidate the truth? (english) by KO 5:17pm Fri Apr 5 '02 with your racist bullshit? ============== You should change your name to BO (english) by Bill 5:30pm Fri Apr 5 '02 The only good Jew is a dead Jew. People don't have to be taught to hate Jews it comes naturally. Everyone the world over hates Jews. The only reason there are any stinking Jews left on this earth is because they are a convenient tool for other gov't to use. ================= Contact me you poor little bigot (english) by A JEW 5:55pm Fri Apr 5 '02 factfinders@hotmail.com You are a typical racist Bill. It gives you a sick little thrill by posting your hate here on the IMC. Do you hang out in the park exposing yourself to children? You seem like the type. =============== In All Fairness (english) by milo 6:05pm Fri Apr 5 '02 You might think that a religious cult that claims that the ultimate creator specifically chose them and loves them above all others might attract some scorn. See the USA for a loose comparison. Keep in mind, judaism is a cult not a race. Nazi atrocities were real, but does anyone remember the book of Exodus? A good read for anyone interested by sociopathic behavior displayed by human characters and god characters alike. Do you think the biblical land of Canaan or Palestine was unoccupied before the first arrival of the jews? Acts of genocide were perpetrated by jews, at the command of their god, to " clear the land " for the people of isreal? And ask a jewish friend to explain passover to you, including the angel of death, blood on the doorway and the death of the first born of EVERYTHING. Does any of this sound reasonable to you? World culture has been held hostage by Judaism/Christianity/Islam for too long. Think of the whole libraries that have been destroyed worldwide at the whim of these faiths. Think of the lives lost. Do a little research. Hate isn't going to solve this problem, and neither is hate speech, but who are we really being sensitive to here. Many jews worked for civil rights and advanced the cause of workers the world over, and I salute their compassion and sacrifice. Some say their religion motivated these actions. I think it was their humanity in spite of their cult membership. Love ========= Wake up (english) by a human being 6:56pm Fri Apr 5 '02 "In All Fairness..." "Do a little research..." "who are we really being sensitive to here..." Hey milo Bill gives a textbook example of racism and you try to rationalize it. Your thought process is seriously flawed. Could it be that you are a spoiled suburban child of privilege who has never dealt with the reality you want to educate us on? You have a lot of growing up to do. ======== Please argue my points (english) by milo 9:41pm Fri Apr 5 '02 You don't know my age, my race or my sex. What should be up for discussion are the ideas I present. Please show me examples of flawed thinking. You make as strong a case for your point as Bill does. Knee jerk insults serve no purpose, yet I take no offense. If we can't rationalize our viewpoints, or try to understand the viewpoints of others, no good work is being done. ===== Who's The Fascists Now? (english) by senor 10:01pm Fri Apr 5 '02 --------------------------- 165825 Not in our name (english) by From the mirror: John Pilger 3:30pm Fri Apr 5 '02 (Modified on 4:29pm Fri Apr 5 '02) NOT IN OUR NAME How dare George Bush preach peace to Israel when he's meeting Blair to plan war on Iraq .. and the deaths of thousands more innocent people? By JOHN PILGER NOT IN OUR NAME How dare George Bush preach peace to Israel when he's meeting Blair to plan war on Iraq .. and the deaths of thousands more innocent people? By JOHN PILGER By JOHN PILGER PRESIDENT George W Bush yesterday called on Israel to withdraw from the Palestinian cities occupied by its forces during the last week. He excused Israel's violence, but lectured the Palestinians and the rest of the Middle East on the need for restraint and a lasting peace. "The storms of violence cannot go on," said Bush. "Enough is enough." What he neglected to say was that he needs a lull in the present crisis to lay his own war plans; that while he talks of peace in the Middle East, he is secretly planning a massive attack on Iraq. This historic display of hypocrisy by Bush will be on show at his ranch in Texas today, with Tony Blair, his collaborator, in admiring attendance. Yes, enough is enough. It is time Tony Blair came clean with the British people on his part in the coming violence against a nation of innocent people. AS THE crisis in Israeli-occupied Palestine deepens, Tony Blair will meet George W Bush today to plan an attack on another country, Iraq. Their decision may condemn to death more than 10,000 civilians. That is the "medium case scenario" drawn up by the Pentagon. If the Americans implement their current strategy of "total war" and target Iraq's electricity and water, the consequences will be even more horrific. There is no mandate in any United Nations resolution for this invasion. It will be as lawless as Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland, which triggered the Second World War. Indeed, it may well trigger a Third World War, drawing in nations of the region and beyond. As Blair arrives at Bush's Texas ranch the question begs: Why does he condemn Iraq, but is silent on Israel's current bloody and illegal rampage through Palestine? Why has he not demanded that the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon comply with UN Security Council resolutions, to which Britain is a signatory, and withdraw from the Occupied Territories? Why has Blair said nothing as Sharon has sent tanks and gunships and snipers against civilians - a government targeting innocent people, like the deaf old lady shot by an Israeli sniper as she tried to get to hospital? Why has Blair not called at least for military sanctions against Israel, which has 200 nuclear weapons targeted at Arab capitals? Blair's culpable silence is imposed by the most dangerous American administration for a generation. The Bush administration is determined to attack Iraq and take over a country that is the world's second largest source of oil. The aim is to get rid of America's and Britain's old friend, Saddam Hussein, whom they no longer control, and to install another compliant thug in Baghdad. THAT is why Bush now tells Israel to withdraw from the Palestinian cities it recently occupied while continuing to replenish the Israeli war machine. The Americans want a rampant Israel guarding their flank as they attack Iraq and expand their control across the Middle East, whose oil is now more critical than ever to US military and economic dominance. For almost two months, Downing Street, through the discredited system of unattributable briefings that are secret to the public, have spun two deceptions. The first is that the Prime Minister will play a vital role at today's meeting with Bush on his Texas ranch in "counselling caution." The second is that Blair has a "dossier of detailed evidence" that "proves" that Saddam Hussein has "a nuclear capability" and is "investigating a way to launch unsophisticated nuclear bombs" and is also building chemical and biological weapons. The fiction of Blair as a steadying hand on his Texas buddy is to be read in Blair's unrelenting bellicose statements, and his attempts, against the wishes of his senior military advisers, to send thousands of British troops into the quagmire of Afghanistan, where his "cautionary influence" on Bush saw as many as 5,000 civilians bombed to death while the Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders got away. While remaining silent on Israel, Blair is alone in Europe in his promotion of an attack on Iraq, a nation of 22 million people with whom the British have no quarrel. Mysteriously, the "dossier of proof" of the dangers posed by the Iraqi regime has now been "shelved." This is because no such proof exists and because, suddenly, more than 130 Labour Members of Parliament are in revolt, including Cabinet and former Cabinet members. It must be dawning on many of them that so much of this government's "spin" during the "war on terrorism" has been a farrago of lies and half-truths provided by an American intelligence apparatus seeking to cover its failure to provide warning of the attacks of September 11. Lie Number One is the justification for an attack on Iraq - the threat of its "weapons of mass destruction." Few countries have had 93 per cent of their major weapons capability destroyed. This was reported by Rolf Ekeus, the chairman of the United Nations body authorised to inspect and destroy Iraq's arsenal following the Gulf War in 1991. UN inspectors certified that 817 out of the 819 Iraqi long-range missiles were destroyed. In 1999, a special panel of the Security Council recorded that Iraq's main biological weapons facilities (supplied originally by the US and Britain) "have been destroyed and rendered harmless." As for Saddam Hussein's "nuclear threat," the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iraq's nuclear weapons programme had been eliminated "efficiently and effectively". The IAEA inspectors still travel to Iraq and in January reported full Iraqi compliance. Blair and Bush never mention this when they demand that "the weapons inspectors are allowed back". Nor do they remind us that the UN inspectors were never expelled by the Iraqis, but withdrawn only after it was revealed they had been infiltrated by US intelligence. Lie Number Two is the connection between Iraq and the perpetrators of September 11. There was the rumour that Mohammed Atta, one of the September 11 hijackers, had met an Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech Republic last year. The Czech police say he was not

even in the country last year. On February 5, a New York Times investigation concluded: "The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is convinced that Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaeda or related terrorist groups." Lie Number Three is that Saddam Hussein, not the US and Britain, "is blocking humanitarian supplies from reaching the people of Iraq." (Foreign Office minister Peter Hain). The opposite is true. The United States, with British compliance, is currently blocking a record $5billion worth of humanitarian supplies from the people of Iraq. These are shipments already approved by the UN Office of Iraq, which is authorised by the Security Council. They include life-saving drugs, painkillers, vaccines, cancer diagnostic equipment. This wanton denial is rarely reported in Britain. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, mostly children, have died as a consequence of an American and British riven embargo on Iraq that resembles a medieval siege. The embargo allows Iraq less than £100 with which to feed and care for one person for a whole year. This a major factor, says the United Nations' Children's Fund, in the death of more than 600,000 infants. I have seen the appalling state of the children of Iraq. I have sat next to an Iraqi doctor in a modern hospital while she has turned away parents with children suffering from cancers that are part of what they call a "Hiroshima epidemic" - caused, according to several studies, by the depleted uranium that was used by the US and Britain in the Gulf War and is now carried in the dust of the desert. Not only is Iraq denied equipment to clean up its contaminated battlefields, but also cancer drugs and hospital equipment. I showed a list of barred drugs given to me by Iraqi doctors to Professor Karol Sikora, who as chief of the cancer programme of the World Health Organisation, wrote in the British Medical Journal: "Requested radiotherapy equipment, chemotherapy drugs and analgesics are consistently blocked by United States and British advisers (to the UN Sanctions Committee). There seems to be a rather ludicrous notion that such agents could be converted into chemical and other weapons." He told me: "Nearly all these drugs are available in every British hospital. It seems crazy they couldn't have morphine. When I was in Iraq, in one hospital they had a little bottle of aspirin pills to go around 200 patients in pain." No one doubts that if the murderous Saddam Hussein saw advantage in deliberately denying his people humanitarian supplies, he would do so; but the UN, from the Secretary General himself, has said that, while the regime could do more, it has not withheld supplies. Denis Halliday, the assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, resigned in protest at the embargo which he described as "genocidal". Halliday was responsible for the UN's humanitarian programme in Iraq. His successor, Hans Von Sponeck, also resigned in disgust. Last November, they wrote: "The death of 5-6,000 children a month is mostly due to contaminated water, lack of medicines and malnutrition. The US and UK governments' delayed clearance of equipment and materials is responsible for this tragedy, not Baghdad." Those who speak these facts are abused by Blair ministers as apologists for Saddam Hussein - so embroiled is the government with the Bush administration's exploitation of America's own tragedy on September 11. This has prevented public discussion of the crime of an embargo that has hurt only the most vulnerable Iraqis and which is to be compounded by the crime of attacking the stricken nation. Unknown to most of the British public, RAF and American aircraft have been bombing Iraq, week after week, for more than two years. The cost to the British taxpayer is £800million a year. The Wall Street Journal reported that the US and Britain faced a "dilemma" because "few targets remain". "We're down to the last outhouse," said a Pentagon official. IN any attack on Iraq, Saddam Hussein's escape route is virtually assured - just as Osama bin Laden's was. The US and Britain have no wish to free the Iraqi people from a tyranny the CIA once described as its "greatest triumph". The last thing they want is a separate Kurdish state and another allied to the Shi'ite majority in neighbouring Iran. They want another Saddam Hussein: one who will do as he is told. On March 13, the Foreign Office entertained Brigadier-General Najib Salihi, a former commander of Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard and chief of the dreaded military intelligence who took part in the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Now funded by the CIA, the general "denies any war crimes". Not that he would ever face arrest in the West. At the Foreign Office, he is known as a "rapidly rising star". He is their man, and Washington's man. The British soldiers who take part in an invasion have every right to know the dirty secrets that will underpin their action, and extend the suffering of a people held hostage to a dictatorship and to international power games over which they have no control. Two weeks ago, the Americans made clear they were prepared to use "low yield" nuclear weapons, a threat echoed here by Defence Secretary Geoffrey Hoon. When will Europe stand up? If the leaders of the European Union fall silent, too, in the face of such danger, what is Europe for? In this country, there is an honourable rallying cry: Not In Our Name. Bush and Blair must be restrained from killing large numbers of innocents in our name - a view, according to the polls, shared by a majority of the British people. An arms and military equipment embargo must be enforced throughout the region, from Saddam Hussein's Iraq to Ariel Sharon's Israel. Above all, the siege of both the Iraqi and Palestinian peoples must end now. ============= Perhaps the United States should wait (english) by Ken 3:41pm Fri Apr 5 '02 Yes. Perhaps we should wait until Iraq perfects its weapons of mass destruction, so they can detonate a bio/nuke/chem weapon in the center of a United States or UK major city killing about 1 million innocents. THEN, we should consider attacking Iraq. Not before. That is what this author advocates. See anything hypocritical about Bush's policy to attack Saddam Hussein? Not me! The Iraqi people will be freakin' dancing in the streets when their country is free from his tyrannical rule, which enslaves millions in abject poverty while he pursues military might and builds lavish homes and monuments in honor of himself. Period. ========= Why take the chance? (english) by The Walrus 3:50pm Fri Apr 5 '02 Why take the chance that your wierd neighbor might actually pass the background check and purchase a firearm. Why not just go next door and take him out now? ======== Bravo JOHN PILGER (english) by Flux 3:58pm Fri Apr 5 '02 bpoiulin@yahoo.com Bravo! I wish more understood this threat. This is well put together, Bravo. As for the first comment above; What are you willing to sacrifice, that is not your own? As it may never be, anyways! ================ Beyond the Ken (english) by Michael 3:59pm Fri Apr 5 '02 Yes Ken - the Iraqis are very thankful to the USA and Uk fo destroying their infrastructure and health service and for the deaths of 600,000 children.They look forward to more depleted uranium causing an epidemic of childhood cancers. And if you don't think it does cause cancer let them store it in your house! Who supplied Saddam Hussein originally ? Maybe if the USA and UK thought beyond thier financial self interest whenever they supply 'friendly' dictators with arms and chemical supplies etc we could have more peace and democracy in the world. =============== To Ken of the Know Nothing Party... (english) by DL 4:00pm Fri Apr 5 '02 "people will be dancing in the streets, when the country is free from his tyrannical rule, which enslaves milllions in abject poverty, while he pursues military might & builds lavish homes & monuments for himself..." The above perfectly desribes the illegal rule of America by the Bush/Cheney oil gang!!! ============== What are we fightng for? (english) by jane 4:03pm Fri Apr 5 '02 When the nuclear bombs start exploding, do you "Ken", really believe it's going to make any difference where you are? There are hundreds of thousands of nuclear warheads all over the world, with lots of enraged, irrational people like yourself out there ready to use them. Nuclear war is madness-we will ALL be killed. Americans are just as susceptible as Iraqis to radiation, and it travels on the winds and in the dust. Are we humans capable of making reasoned decisions, or all we destined to perish by our own stupidity and greed? =========== Americans hate socialists (english) by outside the whale 4:17pm Fri Apr 5 '02 Its quite possible that the Israeli agression against the Palestinian people is meant to provoke Saddam. What do the Arab leaders look like when they sit back and watch their own (defenseless) people be attacked. The reason the U.S. hates Saddam so much is because he is a SOCIALIST. Its kinda like Castro, he gets in office and does things like gives EVERYBODY healthcare, he improves education spending. The U.S. hates when someone else treats people better than they do. ========== lap dogs (english) by dogsbody 4:30pm Fri Apr 5 '02 Britain is smaller than the US but the population seems as easily engineered into obedience. Perhaps something can be done to change this and educate the broad British public about the facts: Britain has become a lapdog territory of the US. Tony is indeed the junior senator from Great Britain. The ties that bind are blood ties. Did you know that some of the blue blood money ties between English and Colonial families that have existed since before the the war of 1776 still exist? The American Revolution was not much of a revolution, not really; it was more accurately a popular insurrection fomented by an inchoate commercial class who took advantage of and manipulated a popular spirit of discontent widely felt and expressed by the underclass, as defined the ordinary colonial citizen whether small holder, shopkeeper, drudge, indentured servant or freedman. The financial holding o this old money is so diversified as to be almost, but not quite untraceable --. for any who care to trace it. It is the truth behind the lie -- the perennial right wingnut gibberish about British Jewish bankers and the Federal money system. There are old and still existent ties between the two countries but they sure as hell for the most part are not Jewish, although, you might find a fortune or two with Quaker roots. This is how far back go the corporate ties that bind England and the US. The Bush family operate a few of these old money and status connections, albeit thin ones. No matter how thin, they deserve to be considered in a calculus of interstate policy as it stands. This is mechanism which has kept England out of the trash can, since from the end of W.W.I and of course from W.W.II -- these US Britain familial-financial connections, in addition to the huge real estate in Crown lands held by Canada and elsewhere in the name of the Queen, holdings harvested by these old families and their spin off crossover corporations. Tony is merely the most recent and visible minion to pander for the Throne. The Brits and the people of the US need to get together to finally win the Revolution once and for all. Impound the poodle yes. Then retire the Royal family and all its ilk. They can keep their titles. Simply put the old ones out to comfortable pasture, perhaps even let them charge a shilling for the public eye, then let them labor with the rest of us. --------=====-------- 2 more little comments at 165457 =========== fake bunch of two faced back stabbers (english) by TR4 8:26pm Sat Apr 6 '02 Telling the jews to stop and warning the PLO all the while like the hypocrites Powell Cheney and Bush are throwing a War in Afganistan ect and a coming war against Iraq, shows their hypocrisy and lies. What a fake bunch of two faced back stabbers. ========= addendum (english) by re: 3:18am Sun Apr 7 '02 first, it should be "telling 'isreal' to stop", not 'jews', if one cares for the truth. secondly, a medium casualty number of 10,000? Is that like the 4,000 in afghanistan? riiiight. try about one hundred thousand. (actually, the initial post-gulfwar tally came closer to 225,000, with an estimated %80 of the dead being civilian casualties.) --------------- 166574 Robert Fisk: View from Beirut (english) by Robert Fisk 1:07am Sun Apr 7 '02 (Modified on 1:28am Sun Apr 7 '02) First, the Arab League summit here in Beirut was chaos. Then it was the nearest to Arab unity that the Middle East has seen since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. The chaos, of course, was predictable. View From Beirut by Robert Fisk Beirut First, the Arab League summit here in Beirut was chaos. Then it was the nearest to Arab unity that the Middle East has seen since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. The chaos, of course, was predictable. After Ariel Sharon decided that Yasir Arafat could not leave his headquarters in Ramallah, President Mubarak of Egypt pulled out. Then King Abdullah of Jordan decided to stay at home. For a summit whose central theme--Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah's "peace" plan--had gained American support, it was intriguing that Washington's two principal Arab allies, Egypt and Jordan, stayed away. George W. Bush, after all, had told the Arabs to "seize the moment." And when Arafat was supposed to address the delegates of twenty-two Arab nations by video link, the Lebanese pulled the plug. They were frightened, so they said, that Israel might tamper with the line and pop Ariel Sharon's face onto the screen. "This isn't your summit," Palestinian "foreign minister" Farouk Kaddoumi roared at President Emile Lahoud of Lebanon. But by the second day, the Saudi plan was on the table. It was a cocktail of promises and hopes, mixed with the usual threat that this was the last chance for peace. Given the incendiary war 100 miles to the south between Palestinians and Israelis, the Saudis might be right. Recognition of Israel was offered in return for a total withdrawal of Israeli forces to the 1967 borders and a Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem. President Bashar Assad of Syria--who did show up at the summit--got the Saudis to include the occupied Syrian Golan Heights in the withdrawal demand. There was talk of the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees; the Saudis also judiciously referred to "compensation" (which many Israelis believe should be the resolution to this problem) and made a few remarks of support for the intifada to keep the Palestinians happy. Of course, it wasn't difficult to knock the whole structure down. After a few wise words about Israel's "interest" in the plan, Sharon told us that a right of return of refugees and a return to 1967 borders meant "the destruction of the state of Israel." The Saudi plan, however, was not directed toward Israel. It was aimed at the Americans. It was an attempt to offer the United States a new initiative in which the Bush Administration could engage. Some hope. The Americans had already asked Sharon to allow Arafat to go to Beirut. Sharon declined. The US-backed UN Security Council resolution demanding an end to the Israeli reoccupation of Ramallah met a similar fate. It was ignored. The Arabs were surprised, as usual. But why the surprise? Sharon's rejection of US appeals was inevitable after the so-called "unprecedented criticism" of Israel by Secretary of State Colin Powell a little earlier. The US media might have thought it unprecedented, but it was nothing of the kind. Powell did not criticize the Israeli military invasion of West Bank cities because it involved an abuse of human rights: the killings, the destruction of houses, the mass arrests without due process. Powell suggested that the operations might be militarily ineffective. Thus the timidity, as well as the indolence, of the Bush Administration has given Sharon carte blanche. So has the wave of atrocious suicide bombings perpetrated against Israeli civilians by Palestinians. There was precious little comment about this extraordinary phenomenon--a method of assault that can now surely be called unprecedented--at the Arab summit. The delegates who did talk privately about the tactic suggested that the human bomb was the only viable Palestinian weapon against an army possessing battle tanks and F-16s. They asked why Israel should demand the arrest of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Brigade members after already destroying the prisons and police stations that would be needed after the arrests were made. Good point. But the Americans missed other clues to Saudi thinking: Crown Prince Abdullah's ostentatious embrace of Saddam Hussein's representative--who wore a Saudi robe for the occasion--was a clear sign that the Saudis have not dropped their objections to a US strike on Iraq. In the aftermath of the summit, even the Kuwaitis responded to Iraq's promise not to reinvade by ordering their state-controlled newspapers to muzzle criticism of Iraq. But was anyone listening? The Americans, it seemed, had lost interest. It was certainly noticeable that while the UN and the EU were represented at the Beirut summit, the Americans were not. And so the rot sets in. When, immediately after the summit, thousands of Israeli troops poured into Palestinian cities in their supposed war against "world terror," who remembered what the Saudis offered? True, they were trying to clean their slate after fifteen out of the nineteen September 11 hijackers (not to mention Osama bin Laden) turned out to be Saudis. But it remains a fact that in late March the most conservative Arab nation--which helped create the Taliban, no less--offered a recognition deal to Israel and brought the Arab states with it. It wasn't exactly an offer rejected. Just an offer ignored. And so we continue to walk down the path of war. ============ IDF wins the Nobel!!!! (english) by Palestinian Aushwitz Inmates 1:28am Sun Apr 7 '02 The latest news is that the IDF has won the Nobel Nazi Prize for its brutality and genocidal talent. Please send your congratulatory messages to Adolf Sharon, the Israeli government and Shaul "SS" Morefarts head of the Israel Kosher Butchers' Brigade. ------------------ 165812 UNTIL WHEN WILL THE PALESTINIANS PAY FOR ARAFAT'S STRATEGIC MISTAKE? (english) by By Muna Hamzeh 3:13pm Fri Apr 5 '02 How Palestinians are paying for Arafat's negotiating mistakes UNTIL WHEN WILL THE PALESTINIANS PAY FOR ARAFAT'S STRATEGIC MISTAKE? By Muna Hamzeh* [2 April 2002] I find such great solace in my daily phone calls to my friends Hourieh and Nizar in Dheisheh. They worry about what my phone bill may look like at the end of the month, and assure me that they will call me when the Israelis invade the refugee camp. I don't dare tell them the truth. I don't dare say that I am afraid the hour is coming when even my phone contact with them won't be possible. That even that connection will be gone. I don't dare tell them I worry that each time I talk to them may be the last time; that next time I call, they may not be alive. I call Hourieh several times a day. And each day, I know what time she woke up, how she's feeling, what she's cooking - when she's not too nervous to do so - and how her children Kholoud, Sanabel and Alaa' are spending their time. "There was a suicide bombing in Haifa jut now," Sanabel, 8, told me when I called yesterday. I ask her what she's doing. "I'm playing cards on the computer. There is no school today and there will be no school tomorrow." I don't tell her that there won't be school for a long time. There is no need for her to know. I hang up the phone, pour more coffee and chain smoke. I am only physically here in Texas. But my heart, soul and mind are in Dheisheh even when I fall asleep. I pick up the phone and call Nizar. I can always tell if he's depressed, or simply just holding on. I tell him things like "May God protect you and keep you safe." And in my heart, I wish that God would protect every living soul in Palestine. When I called this evening, Nizar told me that eighteen Israeli Merkava tanks are now stationed in the small town of Doha across the street from the camp. "The Apache helicopters have been flying overhead all night. The hour of their invasion of the camp is near," he says in a strained voice. The refugee camp is now waiting its turn. The expectation is that the war crimes taking place in Ramallah will now start taking place in Bethlehem, and the rest of the West Bank. Israeli tanks have also already rolled into Tulkarem and Qalqilya. And just as they did in Ramallah, they will cut off the phone lines, electricity and water, set shops on fire, and use their megaphones to ask men between the ages of 14-40 to gather in one of the two schools or the stone query at the edge of the camp. But unlike the re-occupation of Dheisheh more than two weeks ago, no one is certain what the fate of the men will be this time. In Ramallah, no male who was rounded-up has returned home. The men are either being executed or taken away. Al-Jazeera.net reports that the Israelis have a total list of 40,000 Palestinian policemen that they want to either kill or arrest. Friends who have relatives in Ramallah say that nephew and nieces can see dead bodies on the streets. But no one can approach them. Welcome to Nazi Germany. It is now Palestine's turn. With Ramallah being totally isolated from the rest of the world and declared a closed military zone, no one knows the extent of the war crimes that the Israelis may have committed. The press has been kicked out, and foreign delegations are either being deported or fired at. This morning in occupied East Jerusalem, the Israelis entered all the Arab-owned hotels, rounded up all the foreign nationals staying there and deported them to their respective countries. Also in Beit Jala this morning, Israeli troops opened fire at a peaceful demonstration held by foreign nationals who came to show their solidarity. Five foreign nationals were injured, with two being reported in critical condition. But the foreign nationals are defiant and insist on spending another night in Dheisheh. I call my friend Rula just now and she tells me that the residents of Ramallah are spotting dead bodies near cars, next to trees, in doorways and entrances to buildings. Doctors warn of spreading disease. "There are too many dead bodies and too much blood everywhere," one doctor states to al-Jazeera. Israel, it appears, has set the stage that would allow it to commit war crimes away from the eyes of the world. "When they lift the ban on Ramallah, the expectations are that the number of those who've been killed will be in the hundreds," Hourieh tells me. As I write, Israeli troops remain in Qalandyia, Jalazone and Amari refugee camps in Ramallah. Yet there is a blackout on news from the refugee camps. No one, including the press, is able to enter the camps. A friend who was able to place a call to Amari Refugee Camp could only say that the number of those arrested is "enormous". And even from within the refugee camp, no one is able to provide accurate reports because the camp is under curfew and has no contact with the outside world. And now Dheisheh waits its turn to fall victim to Israeli butchery, expected to start in the next few hours. The Israelis have already announced that once they enter the camp, they plan to dynamite the family home of Ayat al-Akhras, the 18-year-old suicide bomber who blew herself up, killing two Israelis, and wounding 20 others, in West Jerusalem on March 29. Today's suicide bomber in Jerusalem was also from Dheisheh. The camp is bracing itself for the worst. Scores of people just completed a week-long course in first-aid. They know that they will only have one another to rely on. They've setup make-shift clinics in various homes. Several days ago, the Bethlehem area ran out of cooking gas balloons, kerosene and gasoline. There is no poultry and the shops only have remnants of foodstuffs on their shelves. It seems that the intent is to force people to starve as this new war against the Palestinians continue. "Do you know what a penny is?" asked my friend Um Ra'ed when I called her yesterday morning. "I don't have a single penny in the house. The whole world has abandoned us. No one gives a damn about what happens to us. Allah is all we have left." Meanwhile, a smiling Arafat in his "besieged" Ramallah office greets me whenever I switch the TV channels in search of news. One moment he is greeting a group of Western nationals who came to show solidarity. Next moment, he is saying, in his incoherent English, how he wishes he could become a "martyr". A third moment, he is telling us, in his incoherent Arabic, "we will not surrender." The mainstream US media, which is intentionally imposing a wide-scale censorship about the war crimes being committed in the Palestinian Territories, is inundating its viewers with the latest updates, and only that, of Arafat's "besieged" situation. We are told he is "isolated" in three rooms, that there is no electricity and no water, and that the Red Cross has managed to bring him and those "besieged" with him food. Lost in all this publicity, is the Palestinian public and the hell it has been living through at the hands of Israeli troops. I don't know about anyone else who remembers the invasion of Lebanon in 1982, but I, for one, can't help getting this eerie sense of déjà vu. The same man who survived the blitz of Beirut, and then escaped unscathed, leaving the refugees of Sabra and Shatila to pay the deadly price for his strategic mistakes, is now the same man being "besieged" in Ramallah. This time too, he will come out of it unscathed, and the Palestinian people will once more pay the price for all the historic compromises he agreed to in his disastrous "peace" agreements with the Israelis. How quickly people forget that the first Palestinian Intifada was achieving considerable gains on the ground, and in world public opinion, until Arafat and his leadership stepped in and agreed to such horrendous compromises that led to Oslo. Between 1994 and today, even a toddler in the West Bank and Gaza has been able to see that Oslo, on the ground, has meant nothing more than settlement expansion, by-pass road, land confiscations, house demolitions and the carving of the West Bank into bantustans, among so many other things. That same toddler then witnessed how the leadership of the Palestinian Authority built affluent mansions, skimmed millions of dollars allocated for building the future Palestinian state, and ran the show like mobsters, heading the biggest and most profitable businesses and institutions in the country. Meanwhile, the refugee camps continued to suffer from poor living conditions. Not once in the ten years I lived in Dheisheh did the Palestinian Authority contribute funds to add medical equipment to Dheisheh's clinic, or construct a playground for the children, or allocate scholarship funds for students, and so on. All what the Palestinian Authority's fat cats did was to watch their personal fortunes pile in foreign bank accounts. Indeed, this time the price will not only be greater than the price paid in Sabra and Shatilla, but will include mass transfer in addition to the death of innocent civilians. During a phone conversation with Israeli-Arab Knesset Member, Ahmed Tiebi, the Palestinian leader told Tiebi he is concerned about Israel's intent to expel hundreds of Palestinian civilians it has rounded up in the past days, to Jordan and Egypt. And suddenly, Egypt and Jordan issue statements saying they will take measures to ensure that no Palestinians are expelled inside their borders. Then Jordan denies rumors that it plans to expel the Israeli ambassador. The rumor in Dheisheh today, which also seems to have been the rumor when Israeli troops re-occupied the camp a few weeks ago, is that the Israelis plan to gather the wives and children of the men it intends to expel and transport them in trucks to the Allenby Bridge in Jericho. "Now our biggest fear is another 1948 and another 1967," Hourieh tells me. The plans for the transfer of the Palestinian population, or parts of it, is nothing new. There have been all sorts of reports on the matter, and even Israeli opinion polls on the matter. The refugees in the camps seem to be the most likely target of such a plan. And for those who doubt this notion, consider this: The issue of the right of return is the one issue that Israel isn't willing to consider. UN Resolution 194 isn't even brought up in most of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, and Palestinian officials have long hinted at the impossibility of allowing the refugees to return to their homeland. At best, a few hundred thousand will be allowed to return to the Palestinian Territories. At worst, countries like Jordan have long expressed a willingness to accept monetary compensation for "absorbing" Palestinian refugees. There have also been all sorts of reports in the past about a secret plan to re-locate the refugees in both Arab and western countries. It would be foolish not to believe that the elimination, once and for all, of the refugee and right of return issue, is the biggest next step on the agenda. The time to implement it has never seemed more ripe. My friend Rula tells me that the Jordanians have cut off phone contacts with the West Bank. Palestinians in Jordan with cell phones are calling local TV stations in the West Bank and asking them to broadcast the names and phone numbers of their loved ones, with the message "please call this person and make sure he is alright. Send us word about his well being." The Jordanians are also storming shops whose owners play nationalist songs and shutting the shops down. And only a few hours ago, the Jordanian police stormed a Palestinian refugee camp in the city of Irbid following anti-occupation demonstrations. What a shame that Palestinian men, both young and old, have to die in cold blood, with a bullet to their heads. What a shame that they have to die this way in the absence of Arab inaction. What a shame they have to die this way while the Palestinian leadership still lacks a clear strategic plan. A "besieged" Arafat is still calling for the implementation of the Mitchell and Tenet plans. His people are being butchered and terrorized, and he cannot muster the courage to call Oslo a thing of the past, and call for the formation of a national unity government that will focus on, and only on, bringing this horrendous occupation to an end. No one in the Palestinian leadership, it seems, has learned from the mistakes of Lebanon. And the war crimes taking place in Palestine at this very moment are a continuation of the price the Palestinians have had to pay for Arafat's previous strategic mistakes. If the Palestinian leader was right about anything, it was when he said that one day a Palestinian child will raise the Palestinian flag over Jerusalem. But that child will not be Arafat's child, or the child of any leader in the Palestinian Authority, but the child of all those who were killed in the struggle for the liberation of Palestine. And when that flag flutters, just wait and see how it is going to flutter with grace and dignity. * _________________________________ Muna Hamzeh is the author of "Refugees in Our Own Land: Chronicles From a Palestinian Refugee Camp in Bethlehem". --------------------------------- 165536 The Road to War in the Mideast by Jeff Jacoby 9:49am Fri Apr 5 '02 You cannot make sense of the Israeli-Palestinian war without first making sense of 1993. That year found Israel in reasonably good shape. Its economy was the most powerful in the Middle East. Its military power was respected and feared. Its enemies in the Arab and Muslim world, which for so long had dreamed of wiping Israel off the map, were at last coming to accept that the Jewish state was here to stay. To be sure, Yasser Arafat and his Palestine Liberation Organization still plotted to ''liberate'' Israel from the Jews, but they were in exile in Tunisia and their political and moral capital were close to nil. Things were not perfect, of course. The Palestinian intifadah of the late 1980s had petered out, but violence still flared in the West Bank and Gaza, where Israel's military presence - the result of the Arab's 1967 war of aggression - was resented. In Israel proper, Arab terrorism sometimes sent innocent civilians to terrible deaths. Israelis longed for a more normal existence, one that didn't involve such a heavy burden of military service or the onus of ruling another people. If these conditions weren't ideal, they were stable. Israel could have continued to shun the PLO as long as its charter called for Israel's extermination. It could have maintained indefinitely its tough policy of retaliating fiercely when attacked. But Israel chose a different course. In 1993, following secret negotiations in Oslo, it embarked on a ''peace process'' designed to elevate Arafat and the PLO to heights of power, wealth, and respect they had never before known. In exchange for Arafat's promise of peace - ''the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence,'' he pledged in writing - Israel agreed to forget the PLO's long history of mass murder and to treat it as the legitimate representative of the Palestinians. The deal was sealed at the White House on Sept. 13, 1993, when Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin gave Arafat his hand and affirmed his new status as Israel's partner in peace. What followed was unprecedented in the history of statecraft. Arafat and thousands of PLO killers, now reconstituted as the ''Palestinian Authority,'' entered Gaza and the West Bank in triumph. In short order, Israel transferred virtually every Arab city and town in the territories to Arafat's control. It allowed the Palestinian Authority to assume full administrative power over the Palestinian people. It not only agreed to the creation of an armed Palestinian Authority militia, it supplied the authority with weapons. It began paying Arafat a multimillion-dollar monthly allowance and lobbied internationally for additional financial support. It permitted the Palestinian Authority to build an airport, operate radio and television networks, and deal with other countries as a sovereign power. This was appeasement on a scale far beyond Neville Chamberlain's infamous land-for-peace agreement in Munich. For when it became clear that Hitler's intentions were not peaceful, Britain abandoned appeasement and went to war. But even after Israel saw that Arafat's hostility was undimmed, it went on making one concession after another. Literally from the day the Oslo accord was signed, Arafat made it plain that his lifelong goal - Israel's liquidation - was unchanged. He reaffirmed the PLO's ''Plan of Phases,'' its 1974 program of eliminating Israel by stages. He repeatedly called for jihad and extolled Palestinian terrorists as ''martyrs'' and heroes. The starting point of the Oslo peace process, the foundation on which everything else had been conditioned, was the Palestinians' unequivocal renunciation of terror and violence. But instead of ending, the terror and violence accelerated. The Israeli death toll soared. Arab snipers and bombers, many from Arafat's own wing of the PLO, murdered Jews at a faster pace than ever before. And each new atrocity was hailed by the Palestinian media, which poured out a flood of anti-Semitic venom and bloodlust. Yet the Israeli government never called a halt. Time and again, it responded to Israeli deaths by proclaiming its faith in the ''peace process'' and giving more territory to Arafat. Desperate for peace, the Israelis kept overlooking Palestinian violations and upping the price they were willing to pay for a final settlement. With every new concession, the Palestinians grew more certain that the Israelis were on the run - and that hitting them even harder would bring even greater returns. When Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Arafat nearly everything he had demanded, including a state with Jerusalem as its capital, Arafat's reply was to unleash a second intifadah, more furious and lethal than the first. Israel is at war today because it refused to believe that dictators bent on conquest can never be appeased, only defeated. It craved peace at any price, craved it so madly that it was willing to overlook even the murder of its sons and daughters. In so doing, it emboldened the murderers - and achieved not peace but its opposite. ============== Let me help you with your "facts" (english) by Mohsen Ahmed 10:02am Fri Apr 5 '02 "When Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Arafat nearly everything he had demanded, including a state with Jerusalem as its capital, Arafat's reply was to unleash a second intifadah, more furious and lethal than the first." Allow me to quote Tanya Reinhart from Yediot Ahronot, Israel's largest paper. In an article entitled "The Camp David Fraud", she brings light to the alleged "generous offer" made by Barak. A. The Palestinians were offered 50% of the West Bank in separated cantons (roads connecting the cantons which are presently controlled by Israel would remain under Israeli control - i.e. no freedom of movement without Israeli permission). Palestine would end up entirely encircled by Israeli land. B. 10% was to be annexed (settlements erected since '67), i.e. agricultural land strategically placed at the top of hills, giving the Israelis a higher position from which to attack, as they have been doing since the latest intifada began. C. 40% was to be left under debate. D. Barak refused to dismantle settlements already in place nor would he agree to stop settling the land (that's where the 40% "under debate" comes into play). E. The now close to 4 million refugees would not be allowed to return (expelled in '48), nor would they receive any compensation from Israel. F. Israel was not going to relinquish control over East Jerusalem (occupied in '67). "...result of the Arabs' 1967 war of aggression" It is well recognized that, in 1967, Israel attacked Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. Hence Security Council Resolution 242 calling for Israel's withdrawal from occupied land. Allow me to quote Menachem Begin, former Israeli prime minister and Zionist champion: "In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." ========== you've got to kidding!!! (english) by zoe 10:13am Fri Apr 5 '02 I'd rub your poor stupid deluded little head right now if I could. Where did you find this fairytale - is this the one your Mother reads to you when she puts you to bed my little halfwit? To make it simple for you. This is how it translates: You take over most of my house - about 75% of it. Hold a gun to my head while I eat dirt and piss in a cup, hope that my kids don't die of disease or your violence - and then - I should be happy that you have given us permission to move around what's left of the land you stole???? You are an idiot, you don't have a clue, you have been brainwashed. WAKE UP regards, zoe ======= Let me ask you Moshen (english) by Rick 10:18am Fri Apr 5 '02 If you lived in a neighborhood, and all around you were people that had stated many times that they were going to "erase" you from the planet, would you sit back and wait for them to do that? ========= MORE ZIONIST NAZI BILE (english) by ILICH 10:19am Fri Apr 5 '02 address: ENGLAND Jeff Jacoby, you are completely clueless. Your "analysis" of the aftermath of the Oslo peace accord is so completely inaccurate it's completely devoid any facts and totally laughable. FACT: When Yasser Arafat and Yitzak Rabin signed the Oslo peace accord, Arafat wasn't murdered by his own people for making peace with the opposite side but Rabin was, yes you so conveniently forgot to mention that.... YITZAK RABIN WAS MURDERED BY HIS OWN PEOPLE FOR TRYING TO MAKE PEACE WITH THE PALESTINIANS. This is the fundamental reason why the Oslo peace accord went off the rails. Blood thirsty homocidal zionazi butchers like netenyatu and current zionazi-fuehrer Adolf Satan didn't want peace, they wanted genocide. As soon as the zionazi butchers had got rid of Rabin, they set about systematically violating all the concessions they had agreed to with Oslo, starting with the expansion of their lebensraum settlements in the illegally occupied territories. The rest is history, Adolf Satan, after years in enforced political exile for his masterminding of the WORLDS WORST EVER TERRORIST ATROCITY-THE SLAUGHTER OF 5,000 INNOCENT PALESTINIAN REFUGEES AT THE SABRA & CHATILA CAMPS IN 1982 came to power and set about implementing his final solutiuon for the zionazi fourth reich-the complete extermination of the entire Palestinian race. Typically Jacobi, you also make the pathetic and totally false anti-semite accusations that are getting really old. If this is the best you and your zionazi supporting ilk can do, then it just proves that your arguments are a complete joke. Yasser Arafat and his people are not anti semites. Supporters of the Palestinian cause are not anti semites, religion doesn't come into it. Adolf Satan and his cronies are the real anti-semites. The Palestinians they are slaughtering are Semites too, but of course you don't know that because like all zionazi supporters, you have no idea what you're talking about. The rapidly growing world wide sympathy for the Palestinians is based purely on humanitarian grounds, and here in Europe, many Jewish people are on the side of the Palestinians and eternally ashamed by the WAR CRIMINALS IN TEL AVIV. ======== poor porr Jeff (english) by zoe 10:23am Fri Apr 5 '02 Jeff, you poor deluded little boy, too bad your mother couldn't tell the difference between her father and her lover. Maybe you wouldn't be posting the ramblings of a retarded little in-bred half-wit. Regards Zoe ========== Jacoby is a reich-winger (english) by 99 10:24am Fri Apr 5 '02 88 ========== zoe (english) by hhh 10:30am Fri Apr 5 '02 How long have been working as a professional Propagandist for Fatah? Long live, Israel with or without an adjacent Arab state. I'm a pro-zionist that wants Sharon to pull and for Arafat to unilaterally declare a Palestinian State and for Sharon to recognize it. Then, when the Arabs begin their assault on Israel again, the leftist enablers won't be able to cry "international law" when Israel destroys the attacking State. ======== Domination (english) by Casey 10:31am Fri Apr 5 '02 No matter what form of government we have, it is important to focus on who is in control of the leadership and what is happening. If dominators control a communist government, it will support a war of all against all. If dominators control a fascist government, it will support a war of all against all. If dominators control a democracy, then the balance of freedom and equality will always be determined according to the priorities of domination and war. www.youngrebels.com =========== giggling Zoe (english) by zoe 10:53am Fri Apr 5 '02 All in good fun buddy, we enjoy taking out some repressed anger on people who are clearly asking for it by posting such stupidity. It's good for a laugh, please tell me more about poor Isreal so I can laugh some more. Zoe ======== Hey Zoe (english) by Rick 11:01am Fri Apr 5 '02 Where exactly did you learn so well how to insult and call names? Was it in Kindergarten, or the First Grade? Really, you would call people names, insult them, and make assumptions about them, just because they disagree with your idea of how the world should work? Makes me wonder who is the child here? ========== hey Rick (english) by Zoe 1:02pm Fri Apr 5 '02 If we were discussing something intelligent then I confess, my remarks would appear infantile as you maintain. I think it is perfectly clear however, that we are in fact dealing with ranting zealots (Jeff and a few others on this site anyway). I can go through his ignorant ramblings and address point by point precisely how they are flawed, but what’s the point? I get a small degree of satisfaction from hurling insult at him instead. He is not worth much more than that. Cheers ========= How do you know Zoe (english) by Rick 3:22pm Fri Apr 5 '02 Sounds kind or arrogant Zoe, to say that you know what Jeff wrote is flawed. Just because you do not disagree with it does not make it flawed. Just what would you consider intelligent? Maybe something that you consider worthwhile, someone else may consider to be unintelligent. You get a small degree of satisfaction from hurling insults? Hell of a way to get cheap thrills, at someone else's expense, but then again, like I said, I am not sure who is grown up on the IMC. ----------------------------------166488 Call To Action: Come To Palestine (english) by various 9:09pm Sat Apr 6 '02 (Modified on 11:47pm Sat Apr 6 '02) April 6, 2002: The situation is desperate, Internationals are urgently needed for witnessing, reporting and providing humanitarian aid. With no international intervention is sight, and reporters denied, access the role of the International community is of the utmost urgency. ATTENTION: New American delegation getting organized April 6, 2002: The situation is desperate, Internationals are urgently needed for witnessing, reporting and providing humanitarian aid. With no international intervention is sight, and reporters denied, access the role of the International community is of the utmost urgency. This is what human solidarity is about. To go to Palestine, contact: International Solidarity Movement (ISM) www.palsolidarity.org Thom Saffold in the U.S. tsaffold@provide.net George Rishmawi in Palestine pcr@p-ol.com +972-2-277-2018 Huwaida Arraf huwaida@palsolidarity.org +972-52-642-709 Neta Golan neta@palsolidarity.org +972-52-481-261 More info: palsolidarity@yahoogroups.com For pictures, articles, or if you live in the Colorado area, see: Colorado Campaign for Middle East Peace/ISM www.ccmep.org The International Solidarity Movement is a growing movement of Palestinian and international activists working to raise awareness of the Palestinian struggle for freedom and an end to Israeli occupation. We utilize non-violent, direct-action methods of resistance to confront and challenge the illegal Israeli occupation forces and policies. We recognize the Palestinian right to resist Israeli violence and occupation via armed struggle, yet we believe that nonviolence can be a powerful weapon in fighting oppression and we are committed to the principles of nonviolent resistance. 1.We support the Palestinian right to resist the occupation. 2.We call for an immediate end to the occupation and immediate compliance and implementation of all UN resolutions including the right to return of Palestinian refugees and a Palestinian capital in Jerusalem. 3.We call for immediate international intervention to protect the Palestinian people and ensure Israel's compliance with international law. More info Article about 'internationals' in Palestine from CounterPunch.org: America's Bravest by Gabriel Ash April 3, 2002 Not every day you'll catch me declaring my profound agreement with the interloper in the White House. So take note. In his State of the Union, George Bush urged Americans to volunteer, to help build an America that "serves goals greater than the self." He said "America needs citizens to extend the compassion of our country to every part of the world." I couldn't agree more. It is therefore absolutely essential to publicize the work of American men and women who are doing just that. This is the third day of Sharon's new military campaign against Palestinian civilians. With 20,000 reservists called, it promises to be a long and bloody one. Tanks wreak destruction in Ramallah, Hebron, and other Palestinian towns. Israeli Defense Force (IDF) soldiers vandalize homes, wantonly destroying furniture and precious food. Journalists and TV offices are top targets. The IDF shoots at ambulances, arrests medical personnel, and storm hospitals. Yesterday they destroyed offices and equipment belonging to two human rights organizations, LAW and Al-Haq. Five Palestinian policemen in IDF custody were apparently executed in cold blood. There are reports of more mass executions in Ramallah today. Sharon calls it a war against "the infrastructure of terror." But the only infrastructure that matters is the determination of Palestinians to shake off the occupation or take Israel to Hell with them. Sharon's war is a war against the Palestinian population, and against humanity. Amidst this ugly orgy, dozens of Americans join hundreds of Europeans in an international effort to protect the life of Palestinians and bear witness to what the American media doesn't ask and doesn't tell. The internationals, as they call themselves, have been coming to Palestine for some time now, for periods between a few days to a few months. They do not have any official status, but are self-organized in a number of groups, such as the "Colorado Campaign for Middle East Peace," "Direct Action for Free Palestine," "International Solidarity Movement," and others. Most of the time, the internationals help Palestinians mount peaceful, non-violent resistance. The foreigners' presence enable Palestinians to demonstrate against the occupation without being shot at with live bullets. Other protest actions include the dismantling of roadblocks, which allow families short breathers to drive in and out of their villages for essential restocking or to sell produce. Palestinians cannot do such things on their own without risking their life. Returning activists describe these actions as very effective. Beyond the immediate relief, international presence brings a message of solidarity and humanity to a population that is rapidly losing faith in the world. Since yesterday, the role of international presence changed dramatically. Caught together with the Palestinians in the military assault, American and European activists find themselves at the forefront of the war. They accompany medical personnel, serving as "human shields" in the hope of deterring the IDF from the usual lax shooting policy. And they use their cellphones to broadcast direct evidence of what the IDF would rather you did not know. Nancy Stohlman is in refugee camp Aida, which, she reports, is shelled by tanks. How shelling a densely populated urban environment helps the IDF preventing suicide bombs is beyond my reasoning powers. Together with her hosts, she is waiting for the tanks and the soldiers to move in. In the camp, almost everything adds to the tension of waiting. Nancy describes how "a deaf boy found her staring at a wall of martyr posters, and for 25 minutes, using gestures, described the manner of each of their deaths." Her journals can be read at . Jordan Flaherty is in the refugee camp Al-Azzeh, in Bethlehem, together with twenty-three other internationals. They have spread out in the camp, accommodated by local families, in an attempt to provide residents with some protection. Some have also been riding with ambulances. Jordan reported that, in order to get to his present location, he had to cross a street running under fire from an IDF sniper ensconced in the overlooking settlement. Needless to say, Jordan is completely unarmed. The camp is shelled occasionally by the tanks, and an incursion is expected within a day. Those who needed to escape escaped; the rest are waiting. This is Jordan's second time in Palestine. Although the tension is higher, he stresses that the international presence in Palestine is not going to shrink. A big recruitment, planned for later this year under the name "freedom summer," will hopefully bring thousands of internationals to Palestine. He urges more people to join because "this is really making a difference." For information, visit: Brooklynite Adam Shapiro negotiated with the IDF for three long hours the passage of ambulances to Arafat's compound, and ended up trapped inside. The first ambulance was stopped on the way out and both the doctors and wounded were arrested. Seeing that, Adam remained inside, tending to wounds with inadequate medical supplies, and keeping in touch with the outside world with a dying cellphone. In the morning he was invited to share breakfast with the blockaded Arafat. Adam left the compound today, but other internationals came in, braving the IDF, and intend to stay. The internationals shatter the lie of the manufactured consensus that the war in the Middle East is between Jews and Arabs. It isn't. It is a war between racism and justice. That is why the American media routinely ignores their efforts. Only the photo-op with Arafat forced the news editors to break their gag rule. The IDF is alarmed by the presence of internationals. Frenchmen Jose Bove, McDonald's eminence grise, is also in Palestine. He was arrested two days ago together with nine other internationals and three Palestinians and taken to the settlement of Bet-El. The IDF declared martial law in Ramallah and is trying to evacuate the internationals and the media. Nobody knows what the IDF is capable of doing once the eyes of the world are covered. Shapiro, Stohlman, Flaherty, and the hundreds of peace activists currently staying in Palestine cannot stop Sharon. They can only slow him down in the hope that the world, that means us, stops him in time. Will we? Says Irish Caoimhe Butterly, who is also in Arafat's compound: "I urge all Irish citizens, government officials and diplomats to show courage in standing up against the brutal aggression used by the Israeli military against the Palestinian people and the war policies of the Israeli government. "The Palestinian people desperately need our help and protection - I have witnessed the execution-style killings and the house to house searches and destruction the military has carried out in refugee camps and in cities. "Only international action and the voices of people working for peace and justice can overcome these criminal Israeli actions." Count the U.S. president out. George Bush used his rambling press announcement to express cautious endorsement of the Butcher of Beirut. Bush barely managed to mention the Palestinians. Thanks to the good services of Cheney and Rumsfeld, he had earlier this year swallowed the bait of Sharon's contrived equation between fundamentalist terrorism and the Palestinian struggle against the long Israeli occupation. Sharon's hook is now stuck deep in the throat of American foreign policy. But other Americans do listen to their inner call of duty. They are participating in a true international "army of compassion," enduring the occupation together with Palestinians. They may not enjoy the cachet of sophisticated war toys, fawning media accolades, and "black hawk down" style adulation, but they are the real elite troops. With their ordinary heroism, they are America's finest and bravest. Gabriel Ash writes for YellowTimes. He encourages your comments: gash@YellowTimes.org =============== Missed the holocaust? Kill jews through CCMEP (english) by Natural Sexbomb 9:23pm Sat Apr 6 '02 Missed the chance to kill jews in the holocaust? Your grandpa's stories of rounding up jews sound like so much fun? Now you have your chance - just joint CCMEP, and help arabs kill jews!! Yep, that's right!! You to can participate in the slaughter of jews. So to partake in your own little jews hatred, come to palestine today!! And remember, leave your morals at the door! ============ Your comment doesn't make any sense . . . (english) by Leila 9:57pm Sat Apr 6 '02 . . . as is typical of most Zionist or pro-Zionist "thinkers". The International Solidarity movement draws its membership from across the globe and spanning many different faiths. Adam Shapiro, one of those mentioned in this article, is himself Jewish. His reasons for being in the movement, along with the rest of those there, are that peace can only be achieved with justice for the Palestinian people. The continuation of Israel's illegal occupation and the carrying out of war crimes against the Palestinian people are morally and legally unacceptable. Sharon's policies are also endangering Israelis whose security situation is being made worse as anger and resentment, desperation and frustration, grow day by day, death by death on both sides, leading to greater extremism, more violence, etc, etc, etc. Try to understand that Israel is a rogue state right now in the eyes of the international community. It has been for the last 35 years, if not since its creation out of what should have been Palestine in 1949. Where you get the idea that Israel has some kind of moral high ground here or that people who criticize Israel's illegal activities are somehow "anti-semitic" is baffling to me. Are you living on the planet earth or were you raised in some kind of fantasy land where you are a perpetual victim of oppression inspite of the fact Israel has the fourth strongest army in the world, controls the lives of 3 million Palestinians directly and dispossesed another 4-5 million who live as refugees in extreme poverty? Are you forgetting also that Israel has about 200 nuclear weapons for which it refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? And that the US won't let any Arab state have nuclear weapons. Iraq is getting its ass whooped for not letting the US see IF it has weapons of that nature while Israel struts around the region waging war and destruction in the name of Jews everywhere. If I were Jewish, I would probably be doing what a lot of Jews of moral conscience and good sense, like Adam Shapiro, are doing this very second: I would condemn the occupation and Sharon's policies and disassociate myself from his actions so that people don't think that Jews everywhere think that brutalizing millions of innocent civilians and using blanket generalizations and stereotypes to demonize an entire population (i.e. scapegoating) are good politics, good diplomacy or good living on this the planet that in the end, we all have to share together whether you, or others like you, like it or not. Shalom, Salaam, Peace. ABOUT THE SOFT AND THE DELICATE (english) by Amos Oz 10:20pm Sat Apr 6 '02 ================== ABOUT THE SOFT AND THE DELICATE By Amos Oz [ Interview with Ariel Sharon published in the Israeli daily Davar Dec. 17, 1982 ] "You can call me anything you like. Call me a monster or a murderer. Just note that I don't hate Arabs. On the contrary. Personally, I am much more at east with them, and especially with the Bedouin, than with Jews. Those Arabs we haven't yet spoilt are proud people, they are irrational, cruel and generous. It's the Yids that are all twisted. In order to straighten them out you have to first bend them sharply the other way. That, in brief, is my whole ideology. "Call Israel by any name you like, call it a Judeo-Nazi state as does Leibowitz. Why not? Better a live Judeo-Nazi than a dead saint. I don't care whether I am like Ghadafi. I am not after the admiration of the gentiles. I don't need their love. I don't need to be loved by Jews like you either. I have to live, and I intend to ensure that my children will live as well. With or without the blessing of the Pope and the other religious leaders from the New York Times. I will destroy anyone who will raise a hand against my children, I will destroy him and his children, with or without our famous purity of arms. I don't care if he is Christian, Muslim, Jewish or pagan. History teaches us that he who won't kill will be killed by others. That is an iron law. "Even if you'll prove to me by mathematical means that the present war in Lebanon is a dirty immoral war, I don't care. Moreover, even if you will prove to me that we have not achieved and will not achieve any of our aims in Lebanon, that we will neither create a friendly regime in Lebanon nor destroy the Syrians or even the PLO, even then I don't care. It was still worth it. Even if Galilee is shelled again by Katyushas in a year's time, I don't really care. We shall start another war, kill and destroy more and more, until they will have had enough. And do you know why it is all worth it? Because it seems that this war has made us more unpopular among the so-called civilised world. "We'll hear no more of that nonsense about the unique Jewish morality, the moral lessons of the holocaust or about the Jews who were supposed to have emerged from the gas chambers pure and virtuous. No more of that. The destruction of Eyn Hilwe (and it's a pity we did not wipe out that hornet's nest completely!), the healthy bombardment of Beirut and that tiny massacre (can you call 500 Arabs a massacre?) in their camps which we should have committed with our own delicate hands rather than let the Phalangists do it, all these good deeds finally killed the bullshit talk about a unique people and of being a light upon the nations. No more uniqueness and no more sweetness and light. Good riddance." "I personally don't want to be any better than Khomeini or Brezhnev or Ghadafi or Assad or Mrs. Thatcher, or even Harry Truman who killed half a million Japanese with two fine bombs. I only want to be smarter than they are, quicker and more efficient, not better or more beautiful than they are. Tell me, do the baddies of this world have a bad time? If anyone tries to touch them, the evil men cut his hands and legs off. They hunt and catch whatever they feel like eating. They don't suffer from indigestion and are not punished by Heaven. I want Israel to join that club. Maybe the world will then at last begin to fear me instead of feeling sorry for me. Maybe they will start to tremble, to fear my madness instead of admiring my nobility. Thank god for that. Let them tremble, let them call us a mad state. Let them understand that we are a wild country, dangerous to our surroundings, not normal, that we might go crazy if one of our children is murdered - just one! That we might go wild and burn all the oil fields in the Middle East! If anything would happen to your child, god forbid, you would talk like I do. Let them be aware in Washington, Moscow, Damascus and China that if one of our ambassadors is shot, or even a consul or the most junior embassy official, we might start World War Three just like that !" ......We are talking while sitting on the balcony of the pretty country house belonging to C. which is situated in a prosperous Moshav. To the west we see a burning sunset and there is a scent of fruit trees in the air. We are being served iced coffee in tall glasses. C. is about fifty years old. He is a man well known for his (military) actions. He is a strong, heavy figure wearing shorts but no shirt. His body is tanned a metallic bronze shade, the colour of a blond man living in the sun. He puts his hairy legs on the table and his hands on the chair. There is a scar on his neck. His eyes wander over his plantations. He spells out his ideology in a voice made hoarse by too much smoking: "Let me tell me [sic] what is the most important thing, the sweetest fruit of the war in Lebanon: It is that now they don't just hate Israel. Thanks to us, they now also hate all those Feinschmecker Jews in Paris, London, New York, Frankfurt and Montreal, in all their holes. At last they hate all these nice Yids, who say they are different from us, that they are not Israeli thugs, that they are different Jews, clean and decent. Just like the assimilated Jew in Vienna and Berlin begged the anti-Semite not to confuse him with the screaming, stinking Ostjude, who had smuggled himself into that cultural environment out of the dirty ghettos of Ukraine and Poland. It won't help them, those clean Yids, just as it did not help them in Vienna and Berlin. Let them shout that they condemn Israel, that they are all right, that they did not want and don't want to hurt a fly, that they always prefer being slaughtered to fighting, that they have taken it upon themselves to teach the gentiles how to be good Christians by always turning the other cheek. It won't do them any good. Now they are getting it there because of us, and I am telling you, it is a pleasure to watch. "They are the same Yids who persuaded the gentiles to capitulate to the bastards in Vietnam, to give it in to Khomeini, to Brezhnev, to feel sorry for Sheikh Yamani because of his tough childhood, to make love not war. Or rather, to do neither, and instead write a thesis on love and war. We are through with all that. The Yid has been rejected, not only did he crucify Jesus, but he also crucified Arafat in Sabra and Shatila. They are being identified with us and that's a good thing! Their cemeteries are being desecrated, their synagogues are set on fire, all their old nicknames are being revived, they are being expelled from the best clubs, people shoot into their ethnic restaurants murdering small children, forcing them to remove any sign showing them to be Jews, forcing them to move and change their profession. "Soon their palaces will be smeared with the slogan: Yids, go to Palestine! And you know what? They will go to Palestine because they will have no other choice! All this is a bonus we received from the Lebanese war. Tell me, wasn't it worth it? "Soon we will hit on good times. The Jews will start arriving, the Israelis will stop emigrating and those who already emigrated will return. Those who had chosen assimilation will finally understand that it won't help them to try and be the conscience of the world. The 'conscience of the world' will have to understand through its arse what it could not get into its head. The gentiles have always felt sick of the Yids and their conscience, and now the Yids will have only one option: to come home, all of them, fast, to install thick steel doors, to build a strong fence, to have submachine guns positioned at every corner of their fence here and to fight like devils against anyone who dares to make a sound in this region. And if anyone even raises his hand against us we'll take away half his land and burn the other half, including the oil. We might use nuclear arms. We'll go on until he no longer feels like it... "...You probably want to know whether I am not afraid of the masses of Yids coming here to escape anti-semitism smearing us with their olive oil until we go all soft like them. Listen, history is funny in that way, there is a dialectic here, irony. Who was it who expanded the state of Israel almost up the boundaries of the kingdom of King David? Who expanded the state until it covered the area from Mount Hermon to Raz Muhammad? Levi Eshkol. Of all people, it was that follower of Gordon, that softie, that old woman. Who, on the other hand, is about to push us back into the walls of the ghetto? Who gave up all of Sinai in order to retain a civilised image? Beitar's governor in Poland, that proud man Menahem Begin. So you can never tell. I only know one thing for sure: as long as you are fighting for your life all is permitted, even to drive out all the Arabs from the West Bank, everything. "Leibowitz is right, we are Judeo-Nazis, and why not? Listen, a people that gave itself up to be slaughtered, a people that let soap to be made of its children and lamp shades from the skin of its women is a worse criminal than its murderers. Worse than the Nazis...If your nice civilised parents had come here in time instead of writing books about the love for humanity and singing Hear O Israel on the way to the gas chambers, now don't be shocked, if they instead had killed six million Arabs here or even one million, what would have happened? Sure, two or three nasty pages would have been written in the history books, we would have been called all sorts of names, but we could be here today as a people of 25 million! "Even today I am willing to volunteer to do the dirty work for Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us, to pull the rug from underneath the feet of the Diaspora Jews, so that they will be forced to run to us crying. Even if it means blowing up one or two synagogues here and there, I don't care. And I don't mind if after the job is done you put me in front of a Nuremberg Trial and then jail me for life. Hang me if you want, as a war criminal. Then you can spruce up your Jewish conscience and enter the respectable club of civilised nations, nations that are large and healthy. What you lot don't understand is that the dirty work of Zionism is not finished yet, far from it. True, it could have been finished in 1948, but you interfered, you stopped it. And all this because of the Jewishness in your souls, because of your Diaspora mentality. For the Jews don't grasp things quickly. If you open your eyes and look around the world you will see that darkness is falling again. And we know what happens to a Jew who stays out in the dark. So I am glad that this small war in Lebanon frightened the Yids. Let them be afraid, let them suffer. They should hurry home before it gets really dark. So I am an anti-Semite ? Fine. So don't quote me, quote Lilienblum instead [an early Russian Zionist - ed.]. There is no need to quote an anti-Semite. Quote Lilienblum, and he is definitely not an anti-Semite, there is even a street in Tel Aviv named after him. (C. quotes from a small notebook that was lying on his table when I arrived:) 'Is all that is happening not a clear sign that our forefathers and ourselves...wanted and still want to be disgraced? That we enjoy living like gypsies.' That's Lilienblum. Not me. Believe me. I went through the Zionist literature, I can prove what I say. "And you can write that I am disgrace to humanity, I don't mind, on the contrary. Let's make a deal: I will do all I can to expel the Arabs from here, I will do all I can to increase anti-semitism, and you will write poems and essays about the misery of the Arabs and be prepared to absorb the Yids I will force to flee to this country and teach them to be a light unto the gentiles. How about it ?" It was there that I stopped C.'s monologue for a moment and expressed the thought passing through my mind, perhaps more for myself than for my host. Was it possible that Hitler had not only hurt the Jews but also poisoned their minds? Had that poison sunk in and was still active? But not even that idea could cause C. to protest or raise his voice. After all, he said to have never shouted under stress, even during the famous operations his name is associated with..." ===================== just to make a fat item even fatter (english) by piet 11:40pm Sat Apr 6 '02 3 of 23 page downs on a page via robotwisdom.com Return to the Neoeugenics Home Page The Phenomenon of the Jews: Seven Keys to the Enduring Wealth of a People by Steven Silbiger, 2000 The best part of this book is its summation of Jewish influence, especially in the United States. It shows clearly how Jews, who constitute only 2% of the population, dominate most of the important institutions: academics, politics, the media, the professions, and particularist organizations that influence our culture. Forty-five percent of the Jews live in the United States, 35% in Israel. And the incredible influence of this small group of people has resulted in a vast transfer of wealth from the United States to Israel, due mainly to the political power of the Jewish lobby. And behind this incredible power lies two important facts: Jews have an inordinate amount of wealth (due largely to their high intelligence) and they are extremely cohesive or ethnocentric (that is they belong first to the nation of Jews). The book tries to describe what a Jew is, but fails to really define it aside from tribalism. The author claims Jews are not a race, but recent genetic studies, coming out of Israel no less, have clearly shown that they have maintained their racial purity while living amongst Gentiles for thousands of years. In all fairness, the author may not have known this data before this book was published, but there was ample data on the differences between Jews and Gentiles published in other academic journals to make Judaism a genetic subset that can clearly be defined as a racial group. The book then tries to show what makes Jews so powerful and successful: intelligence, ethnocentrism, professionals & entrepreneurs, verbal skill, selectively extravagant but prudently frugal, individuality & creativity, and drive. He argues that any group can adopt this program and become just like the Jews. So the book is an excellent source of data on Jews, but then turns into just another seven-step program for becoming like the Jews. On this point the book fails miserably because it is based on a false premise -- radical environmentalism or cultural determinism, a theory without foundation or any academic adherents outside of a few Marxist cultural anthropologists who have turned their backs on scientific methodologies for a purely political agenda. He states in the first two pages of the book that the Jews are no different than anyone else with regards to intelligence (and ethnocentrism implied). But simply stating this does not make it so. After The Bell Curve controversy broke in 1994, in 1995 a renewed interest in intelligence produced a massive amount of new data that verified that intelligence is 60-80% inherited, and has been accepted in a special report by the American Psychological Association entitled "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns." Furthermore, studies have shown that not only are Ashkenazi Jews highly intelligent, they are asymmetrically intelligent. That is, they have an astounding average verbal IQ of 127 resulting from 2,000 years of emphasizing verbal scholarship -- a type of eugenics' program. And, research has shown that Jews are genetically more ethnocentric than Gentiles. But the real question is not if the book is based on a false premise as it most surely is. But why do most Jews abide by this deception? Surely they must know, as a highly educated people, that genetic intelligence is the primary requirement for success. Frankly, this has always been a puzzle to me. Not that some people can accept cultural determinism. But how can a group of people adhere to this dogma so tenaciously? I can think of only two reasons. First, because of their eugenic selection for a type of mind that is heavily influenced by the ability to take any position in a philosophical argument, a skill needed to rise to the top in Talmudic studies, they are prone to a genetic propensity towards self-deception. Self-deception is an important component of evolutionary strategies. It is easier to be deceptive if you can bring yourself to believe your own deceptions. That is, just like a politician, they are more convincing to the electorate if they can bring themselves to believe that they are seeking public office for the public good, rather than as a form of social display for self-promotion. Second, Jews may actually know that they are wealthier and have more power because they are genetically more intelligent on average, but they lie about it as a means to protect themselves from what they fear is a hostile gentile world that remains particularistic. That is, they fear the other and they must therefore try and deceive others into believing that humans are really all the same, only our cultures differ. This has been a recurring theme in the academic wars over intelligence, sociobiology, eugenics, behavior genetics, evolutionary theories, the nature/nurture debate, etc. On one side are primarily pure scientists who pursue facts as they find them, and on the other side are politically motivated Marxists who are highly overrepresented by Jews. Jews, because of their fears of being singled out for resentment because of their power and success, have adopted a campaign to deceive and hold back from the public the work by academics on the importance of genetic intelligence on social outcomes. That is, Jews collectively and knowingly try to manipulate scientific discourse in an attempt to deny the salience of human genetics. It has been a losing battle, but this book so poignantly illustrates this ongoing attempt to undue scientific advancements in human behavior. Following are the first few pages of this book that so clearly implicates Jewish attempts at manipulating Gentile opinions by promoting a simplistic seven-step self-help program to wealth, fame and political & cultural domination: ============= site maker mission (english) by piet 11:47pm Sat Apr 6 '02 Humans are very much like our primate ancestors. Unfortunately, with our larger intelligent brains, we have acquired the ability to foresee our deaths as soon as we are able to understand life, at a very young age. With this horror, we have instead of facing life with knowledge that we have a brief time to live -- a time to be made the most of -- we have turned back to our primitive instincts and succumbed to religion, false beliefs, and submission to dominance by others. The answer to this dilemma during most of this century, has been to try to change human culture, assuming it is infinitely malleable, leading to the agony of communism and the short comings of egalitarian democracies. And in the rest of the world, despotism reigns under numerous doctrines, with little hope for the people subjected to the state's propaganda. This web page is dedicated to putting forth the view that to change the human condition we must change the innate nature of humans, that is, we must encourage the breeding of people with a higher intellect, people better able to understand what motivates them and who can eventually revolt against the subjugation by the state or the controlling elite. It is my contention that this can be done by focusing on innate human traits we want to promote through a better understanding of behavior genetics. But to promote eugenics as a secular religion, it becomes necessary to begin with a political agenda to bring it about. Much of what I advocate, in keeping with the understanding that evolution occurs at the genetic, individual and group levels, has to do with advancing both individual eugenics and group eugenics. That is, it appears that eugenics can only be advanced in a world where nations are free to advance their own interests without interference. Anyone who is familiar with the United Nations, NATO, the European Economic Union, and the New World Order knows that we are on the brink of giving up national sovereignty for a world totalitarianism, where a central committee will dictate to the masses how to think and behave. We see this happening now in Yugoslavia, where NATO is being used to violently smash a sovereign state into obeying new international rules. I advocate only two viable options for eugenics: a return to nationalism, where competing nations will experiment with various social and scientific agendas to raise their peoples to higher levels of intelligence, followed by other traits the population desires to promote; and/or, to increase group solidarity and practice eugenics without borders. The second one has been practiced by Jews for thousands of years, but it can be a dangerous road to follow for it invariably leads to group conflict in the nations where they dominate. Much of my writing has to do therefore not just with the technology of eugenics, but with human nature and how we react as competing groups. Some have asked why I do not consider libertarianism in my scope of possible means for raising humans to higher levels. I do not discount it out right, especially since I personally have a very strong libertarian affinity. However, it appears that libertarianism is not attractive to most people except a few intellectuals, and I therefore prefer to focus on political systems that I feel have a potential for success. I hope libertarianism all the best, but I just do not see it as intricately bound to human nature as is the cohesiveness we find in national ethnic identity. Eugenics is here to stay, and the only question now is how severely will political forces try to stamp it out and what group or nation will be the victor in the end. But a more highly evolved human will be the result and this process will continue unabated into the future. Nietzsche's supermen are right around the corner waiting for their creator to begin the task. We are their creator, they are our children. Finally, you may ask why so many of my articles are intertwined with the Jewish approach to eugenics and why I use them over and over again to make numerous points about human behavior AND about the need for nationalism. First, Jews are one of the few identifiable groups (actually, the the Ashkenazi Jews specifically) who have practiced eugenics with tenacious success that has raised their intelligence to a remarkably high level, along with increasing group cohesiveness leading to extreme ethnocentrism or xenophobia. Several issues arise from this achievement. First, because of the form of their genetic selection process, they have primarily developed their verbal skills, making them uniquely adept at manipulation, deception, propaganda, academics, the media, etc. This would not normally be a problem, except that they have managed with this verbal skill to control politics and national policy, while those with other skills have built the technological foundations of great nations in Europe and America. That is, the Jewish contribution may not have been very great or even negative, as their accumulation of far greater wealth than any other ethnic group has to do with their abilities in manipulation of other people through the power of words rather than through constructing or building industry. Skilled craftsmen and technicians are as important as lawyers, politicians, academics or journalists; but the rewards have gone to the elite who have the power of the word over the skill of the craftsmen. Second, Jews have been at the forefront of promoting multiculturalism, diversity, globalism, etc., while trying to block nationalism, while at the same time embracing Zionism. This faction of Jews, leftover from the days of Communism have maintained their presence in academics, the media and politics and are the primary stumbling block to other ethnic groups trying to form their own cohesive nationhood based on their genetic similarity, just like the Jews have done in Israel. My objection to Jewish influence in America therefore is strictly political and aimed at the Jewish left, not the empirical Jewish right, and their are many of them who reject multiculturalism and genetic assimilation of incompatible peoples. These Jews I embrace, the few that there are on the side of eugenics and human advancement. And from the East, I also see an emerging nationalism. It may be that the eugenic program I envision will take place in countries like Japan, Korea, China, Singapore, India, etc. They may be able to overcome the individualism and lack of solidarity found in the Christian West. Christianity may only be the expression of a people who are creative and intelligent, but lack Nietzsche's concept of "the will to power" necessary to turn against destructive sentimentality found in the West. We have much to learn about what is genetic, and what is cultural. But if Christian morality is made up of a genetic weakness then a new species of human will have to come from the East, or from a hybridization of East and West. This issue will be taken up in detail as we learn more about what contributes to each civilizations inability to apply eugenics effectively. But competition between groups for intellectual superiority will be the driving force of eugenics -- and nationalism is the formula for this friendly competition. May the most determined, and empirically driven race win. The Eugenic Web Site was developed solely by Matt Nuenke, as a private project. Any material on this site can be used for the dissemination of these ideas and a eugenic's program without my permission.