/israel/webcast/display.php3?  article_id=14982 Terrorism Vs. Occupation by Ran Ha-Cohen 9:02pm Sun Feb 17 '02 Readers very often accuse me of not writing about Palestinian terrorism against Israel. A typical reader writes: "if Israeli gunmen were going in Palestinian pizza places, weddings, buses, discos, shoe stores and deliberately massacring Palestinian civilians, Ran HaCohen would go on a tirade against Israel. Yet he remains silent on Arab terrorism against Israeli civilians." I would like to relate to this accusation. print article February 15, 2002 Terrorism Vs. Occupation Readers very often accuse me of not writing about Palestinian terrorism against Israel. A typical reader writes: "if Israeli gunmen were going in Palestinian pizza places, weddings, buses, discos, shoe stores and deliberately massacring Palestinian civilians, Ran HaCohen would go on a tirade against Israel. Yet he remains silent on Arab terrorism against Israeli civilians." I would like to relate to this accusation. But before doing that, let me pay a small tribute to a brave Israeli soldier who refuses to serve in the occupied territories any longer. The Tel-Aviv weekly Ha'Ir last week printed forty short evidences of such refusers; here is one of them. Not the most shocking one. The harder stuff sometimes makes it to the news. But it illustrates some of the daily, banal routines of occupation, countless similar scenes that take place every day, every night, in endless variations. And they all count as "no news". A SOLDIER'S STORY "Jabaliya (a refugee camp near Gaza). Terrible heat. It's after midnight, we are on our way to arrest "wanted people" – small criminals and tax-evaders whom the Shin Bet wants to blackmail. We surround the area and storm into the house. The officer quickly climbs the wall and I, his signalman, close behind him. We break into the "house": a single small room, blankets on the floor, four kids aged two to six or seven. They and the parents – a young woman and a not so young man – all wake up in panic, weeping and yelling. They are hysteric, and we, very young soldiers, too. We shout at them to shut up and at the man to dress up, and "search" the home. There is nothing to find, nothing to look for. Handcuffs, and out to the lorry. Several arrested Palestinians have been gathered there, and someone from the Civil Administration is ‘taking care' of them: slaps in the face, kicking. I want to say something, but off we go to the Shin Bet camp. The man we have arrested is smashed at the lorry's floor, weeping, sobbing in fear, with a broken voice, ‘I beg you, I beg you...'" (written by Sergeant (res.) Yotam Cohen) ALTRUISM AND DISTRACTION Now back to why I don't write on terrorism. Surprisingly, this accusation comes mostly from American readers. At first I thought I should be grateful for this rare token of altruism: Are people living in the US actually more concerned about my well-being than I am?! But as all too often the complaints ended with such cordial blessing as "you racist anti-Semite", I gathered that pure altruism might not be the true motivation. So why do people want me to talk about terrorism? Surely not because they know too little about it. As a mourning Palestinian mother said last week, international press would pay more attention to a Jewish settler's dog injured in a terrorist attack than to her dead child. Terrorism is the most popular term in Middle East media coverage, and still people want me to talk about it too. So why? I believe it is because those people do not want me to talk about another term: occupation. Note how seldom this term is used when the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is dealt with. In fact, when you hear someone say "terrorism" over and over again, you can be certain he won't use the term "occupation". TERRORISM VS. OCCUPATION Terrorism and Occupation may look like twin brothers. Both are illegitimate: occupation is acknowledged by international law, but for a limited time, not for 35 years; resistance to occupation (which is what Palestinian terrorism is about) is legitimate too, but not when innocent people are targeted. Both are murderous: innocent Israelis fall victim to terrorism, innocent Palestinians fall victim to occupation. Terrorism is pervasive: it threatens all Israelis; Occupation is even more pervasive: all Palestinians are under occupation, and as we have seen above, while terrorism can get Israelis in pizza places or discos, occupation visits Palestinians in bed, either by a missile or because some Shin Bet agent wants to blackmail them into collaboration. Needless to say, the number of Palestinian victims of the occupation overwhelmingly exceeds the number of Israeli victims of terrorism – if you like, one more reason to talk about occupation more than terrorism. Israel, especially since September 11th but even long before, has been trying to convince the world that the Palestinian Authority, not just individual Palestinians, is engaged in terrorism. True or not, the uncontroversial reality is that the State of Israel, not individual Israelis, is running the occupation. Israel sometimes claims that the occupation has been forced upon it against its will. It is one of the most ridiculous claims I have ever heard, but this is actually what Ehud Barak's celebrated "analytical mind" was trying to sell us: that because he had supposedly made some "generous offers" to the Palestinians, and because they had supposedly rejected these offers, Israel could not stop the occupation. Sounds ridiculous? Ask some Israel fans and you'll see how seriously they take this joke. WHY OCCUPATION? The simple fact is that Israel is occupying the territories because it wants to occupy them. It does not withdraw from them, because it wants to take the land for settlements, for water and for regional strategic considerations. It does not annex them, because it does not want to give citizenship to three million Palestinians. Occupation is the only way to satisfy both aims. It may be direct occupation, it may be an indirect one: in fact, Israel is generously offering the Palestinians both options. Israel's present message to Arafat is expressed clearly and shamelessly: either you comply with the occupation, or we replace you with some other "leaders" who will. Shimon Peres prefers the former option, Sharon prefers the latter. They both support the occupation, they have both done more than any other Israeli politician for the sake of the Israeli settlements, they differ in tactics but share the same cause. ENLIGHTENED OCCUPATION Centuries of colonialism have proved that "an enlightened occupation" is a contradiction is terms. Occupation cannot be tolerable and therefore cannot be tolerated. Expecting a people to live without political rights is both unreasonable and immoral. The occupied Palestinians, in order to get rid of the occupation, use violence – verbal violence, physical violence, violence against soldiers and settlers and deplorable violence against innocent people. Thus, the occupation becomes ever more violent and the deprivation of political rights is inevitably followed by violations of human rights. You cannot oppress one people for the sake of another without resorting to atrocities. It starts with exploiting one's weakness (a sick elderly mother, a sick child) to blackmail one into collaboration, it goes all the way through torture, siege, starving and killing and it ends in letting a pregnant woman die with her infant at a checkpoint. As Friedrich Schiller said, this is the curse of the evil deed: it inevitably gives birth to ever more evil. Indeed, Palestinian terrorism has increased step by step with occupation; the cruelest stage of occupation, with the whole world singing the praises of Oslo while the settlements were expanding rapidly and the cantonisation of the territories by checkpoints and highways was advancing in an unprecedented high pace, gave birth to the appalling phenomenon of Palestinians whose despair had overwhelmed them to the point of being ready to die in order to kill their oppressors. Just like the 200,000 settlers, just like the hundreds of checkpoints, the suicide bombers haven't always been there: they emerged in a specific historical context. HOW TO STOP TERRORISM So why don't I talk of terrorism? Because Palestinian Terrorism is not the Occupation's twin brother, but rather its murderous offspring. Like father, like son. Terrorism is horrible; but occupation is too, and the former is the result of the latter. To stop the circle of violence, to stop terrorism, the occupation must stop first. Since a one-state solution seems unlikely under the present circumstances, Israel must end the occupation by withdrawing all its forces, dismantling all its settlements and letting the Palestinians establish a true independent state in the entire territories occupied in 1967. This is the only way to uproot terrorism, not bulldozing the Gaza strip or aiming a cannon at imprisoned Arafat's head. Talking of terrorism has become a way to keep silent about occupation. This is what some readers want me to do: to stop talking about occupation and to talk about terrorism instead. Sorry, guys: talking about Palestinian terrorism will not save anyone's life. It's talking about occupation that will hopefully bring both occupation and terrorism – in this order – to an end. add your comments Source file Ran the self hating Jew by Joe 9:50pm Sun Feb 17 '02 print comment Ran, you still didn't answer the question. Why doesn't it bother you, when Palestinians deliberately slaughter Jewish teenagers in buses, shopping centers, disco's and pizzerias. You keep avoiding that question. The reality is, when Arabs kill and butcher civilians, that doesn't bother you. Have you ever spoken out for the gassed Kurds, Berbers and Black Christians of Sudan. No, because your a Jewish Arabist. Your not the first self hating Jew. Israel does not target Palestinian Youth centers, they target the Palestinian terrorists who are behind the Palestinians who slaughter Jewish teenagers. What does Israel do, when Palestinian terrorists slaughter Jewish teenagers in a Bar Mitzvah, they warn the PLO where they will bomb and bomb empty PLO police buildings. What do you think America, England, China and Russia would do, if Palestinian terrorists deliberately butchered there civilians. I can guarantee you, they wont be bombing empty PLO buildings. I will remind you of history, when the Palestinians tried this same tactic of terror against King Hussein in 1970. Hussein used all out force to stop Palestinian terror. When you say occupation, your have no sense of history. There was no peace from 48 to 67. Israel dealt with just as much terrorism then as they do now. Most importantely, There was never in history any state called Palestine governed by Palestinians. Then you say, you want to remove the Jews from Judea and Samaria. Do you also ant to remove the 1.1 million Palestinians in Israel who have no alliance to Israel and whose alliance is to Arafat, Hamas, Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden. When one reads your articles, you want to remove all Jews from Judea and Samaria, but you want Israel to let in millions of violent Palestinians. Its obvious, you cant accept a Jewish state. The fact that Israel lets you print your venom against Israel, shows how democratic they are. In the Arab countries and Iran, any Muslim that says one word of criticism against any Arab dictator, or the Mullahs who run Iran, get shot in the head the next day.  ---------------  Ran the self hating Jew by Joe 9:50pm Sun Feb 17 '02 print comment Ran, you still didn't answer the question. Why doesn't it bother you, when Palestinians deliberately slaughter Jewish teenagers in buses, shopping centers, disco's and pizzerias. You keep avoiding that question. The reality is, when Arabs kill and butcher civilians, that doesn't bother you. Have you ever spoken out for the gassed Kurds, Berbers and Black Christians of Sudan. No, because your a Jewish Arabist. Your not the first self hating Jew. Israel does not target Palestinian Youth centers, they target the Palestinian terrorists who are behind the Palestinians who slaughter Jewish teenagers. What does Israel do, when Palestinian terrorists slaughter Jewish teenagers in a Bar Mitzvah, they warn the PLO where they will bomb and bomb empty PLO police buildings. What do you think America, England, China and Russia would do, if Palestinian terrorists deliberately butchered there civilians. I can guarantee you, they wont be bombing empty PLO buildings. I will remind you of history, when the Palestinians tried this same tactic of terror against King Hussein in 1970. Hussein used all out force to stop Palestinian terror. When you say occupation, your have no sense of history. There was no peace from 48 to 67. Israel dealt with just as much terrorism then as they do now. Most importantely, There was never in history any state called Palestine governed by Palestinians. Then you say, you want to remove the Jews from Judea and Samaria. Do you also ant to remove the 1.1 million Palestinians in Israel who have no alliance to Israel and whose alliance is to Arafat, Hamas, Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden. When one reads your articles, you want to remove all Jews from Judea and Samaria, but you want Israel to let in millions of violent Palestinians. Its obvious, you cant accept a Jewish state. The fact that Israel lets you print your venom against Israel, shows how democratic they are. In the Arab countries and Iran, any Muslim that says one word of criticism against any Arab dictator, or the Mullahs who run Iran, get shot in the head the next day.  ---------------  Ran by Edmund 10:12pm Sun Feb 17 '02 print comment Ran, the problem with your statement. Barak tried to do what you said. He offered the Palestinians a state, even though they never controlled the land. The reason why Camp David and Taba failed, was not because of borders, was because the Palestinians want to flood Israel with millions of Palestinians, so Israel is destroyed. I think Barak said it best 2 months ago. The Palestinians dont want a state besides us, they want a state instead of us. If Uri Averny became Prime Minister of Israel and did exactly what you said. He left the West Bank and Gaza. He left the Arab sections of East Jerusalem. He gave up the Temple Mount and even told the Arabs, they could destroy all remains of Solomons temple, the way the Arabs destroyed the World Trade Center. The point is, Palestinian terrorists would still continue to slaughter Jewish civilians eating Pizza. The Palestinians want 2 states. They want Israel to become Arafatstan. I think what people in Israel have learned, is how important it is, to have a Jewish majority. Faisal Husseini right before he died, said Oslo was a Trogan horse and that Israel wouldn't exist in 20 years and he said, there would be a Palestinian state the Jordan to the Mediterranean'. Arafat's speech in Sweden in 1996. Arafat’s speech in front of 40 Arab diplomats in the Grand Hotel in Stockholm, Sweden, on January 30, 1996. Was titled "The Impending Collapse of Israel". "We will take over everything including all of Jerusalem," he declared repeatedly. Arafat's plan has two main components aimed to cause the Jews to abandon Israel. "Within five years we will have six to seven million Arabs living on the West Bank and in Jerusalem. All Palestinian Arabs will be welcomed back by us." Arafat explained that this will be the beginning of a pressure campaign resulting within a few years in Israel's ultimate destruction. "You understand that we plan to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian State. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion; Jews will not want to live among us Arabs!" ---------Rabbi by Rabbi Cohen 10:22pm Sun Feb 17 '02 print comment Ran, in your response to David Horowitz. You said Israel wanted to exterminate the Palestinians. Please show me one Israeli leader who said this. On the other hand, after the Palestinian disco massacre of Jewish teenagers last June, a top Hamas leader told Al Jazzera, there goal was to kill a million Jewish civilians. Sheikh Muhammed Siyam, a Hamas military leader said this. "I've been told to restrict or restrain what I say. I hope no one is recording me or taking any pictures, as none are allowed, because I'm going to speak the truth to you," Siyam reportedly said at the conference. "It's simple. Finish off the Israelis. Kill them all! Exterminate them! No peace ever! Do not bother to talk politics."  news/nationworld/  world/la-120601holy.story PA television has regularly delivered as well incendiary Friday sermons by religious leaders. One day after the Ramallah lynching of two Israelis, Ahmad Abu Halabiya, a member of the PA-appointed Fatwa Council, called on listeners to find and butcher Jews “no matter where they are, in any country. Fight them, wherever you are. Wherever you meet them, kill them.” One week after the Dolphinarium bombing on June 1, 2001 in Tel Aviv in which 21 people, mainly young girls, were killed, PA television carried the sermon of Sheik Ibrahim Al-Madhi. He said: “Blessings to whoever waged Jihad for the sake of Allah; blessings to whoever raided for the sake of Allah; blessings to whoever put a belt of explosives on his body or on his sons’ and plunged into the midst of the Jews, crying ‘Allahu Akbar...’ ” In July, a Friday sermon on PA TV exhorted Palestinians to train their children in the “love of Jihad for the sake of Allah and the love of fighting for the sake of Allah.” Sheik Ibrahim Al-Madhi told his audience that “local” Jews not from other countries, and Christians, could live as “Dhimmis” among the Muslims – as unequal, subordinate peoples. In August on PA television, Sheik Isma’il Aal Ghadwan admonished listeners to seek martyrdom, holding up as a model those who offered their own mutilated bodies as tokens of sacrifice. He said: The sacrifice of convoys of martyrs [will continue] until Allah grants us victory very soon. The willingness for sacrifice and for death we see amongst those who were cast by Allah into a war with the Jews, should not come at all as a surprise... One Palestinian broadcast that made news in 2001 on American television was that containing, in the words of NBC correspondent Martin Fletcher, a “commercial” for child martyrdom. In vivid re-enactments, Palestinian boys and girls were shown to put down their “toys” and pick up rocks and follow the path of martyrs. In the video, paradise awaiting after death is depicted as an inviting, green, sunlit meadow where friends meet and play.  ---------------  1967 by Bobby 10:24pm Sun Feb 17 '02 print comment Since the Palestinians tactics against Israel, is to target and massacre as many Israeli civilians as possible and since 85 percent of the Palestinians support this. I have now come to the conclusion, that Israel should target all Palestinian civilians. If the Palestinians tactic is to butcher Israeli teenagers in buses, shopping malls, disco's, pizza places and schools. Then all Palestinian civilians should be targeted by Israel. Ofcourse, Ran would go nuts, if Israel did this. Ran likes it better, when only Jews are exterminated by Palestinian terrorists. ---------- Daniel Johnson by Dan 10:26pm Sun Feb 17 '02 print comment The "cycle" in practice works like this: Palestinian terrorists conduct random, murderous attacks targeting high-density civilian populations -- public buses, shopping malls, shopping districts, disco's, sbarro's pizzeria's, Bar Mitzvah's, shoe stores and schools. The Israeli military pursues strikes against military or terrorist targets in response, attempting to disable terrorist networks that Arafat won't stop himself, since he is no different from them. In the one case, Palestinian terrorists set out to murder as many Israeli civilians as possible. Israel responds to these terrorists acts, by targeting Palestinian terrorists who sponsor these murderous acts against Israeli civilians. The Palestinians then hide these terrorists in civilian areas, wanting Israel to fire back, so civilians are killed, so this looks good on TV. And, as President Bush said on Friday, any doubt that remained that the Palestinian Authority is facilitating terror at the highest levels was removed by he recent interception of the boatload of weapons and explosives bound for the Gaza Strip. The attempt to draw a moral equivalence between the Palestinians' deliberate attempts to kill innocents and inspire terror and Israel's military responses to these attacks is not far different from describing the U.S. airstrikes on Afghanistan as "perpetuating the cycle of violence between al Qaeda and the United States." That cycle, of course, was started by the murder of 3,000 at the World Trade Center on September 11. But as I pointed out then, there is no equivalence between terrorist attacks designed to maximize the deaths of innocents and military strikes designed to limit the ability of terrorists to carry out future strikes. The poverty of such comparisons was made painfully clear last week by a statement from Ahmed Abdel Rahman, secretary of the Palestinian cabinet, who blamed a recent Israeli raid on a Palestinian bomb factory in Nablus for the current spate of attacks. If one side is making the bombs ( destined to be strapped to suicidal terrorists to massacre Israeli civilians) and the other side conducting raids to prevent their manufacture, there is little room to question who is in the right. Is it any wonder, why Palestinians find moral equivalence, between Palestinian terrorists who blow up Sbarros pizzeria's and discos filled with teenagers and Israeli commandos, who preemptively kill terrorist ringleaders, before they send their suicide bombers into Israel on a mission to kill Jewish civilians. ------------ Jose by Jose 10:29pm Sun Feb 17 '02 print comment Ran, do you also want the 1.1 million Palestinians to leave Israel. Or do you just want to juderein Jews from Judea and Samaria. --------------- Facts by Dovid 10:30pm Sun Feb 17 '02 print comment Occupation of what. Pals never had a Country. Never Existed. The Palestinians never controlled any land before 1993.  ---------------  Hacohen by Bo 10:42pm Sun Feb 17 '02 print comment Mr Hacohen you say, Talking of terrorism has become a way to keep silent about occupation. This is what some readers want me to do: to stop talking about. Ran, you are the biggest liar. The writers on here are right, if an Israeli went into a Palestinian pizzeria and disco and started killing Palestinian civilians, you would go on a tirage against Israel. When Palestinians murder Israeli children, this doesn't bother you. Ran, why are you against this Afghan war. Its well know, you think its best to appease this Arab terrorist Bin Laden, who the Palestinians were cheering, when he massacred thousands of Americans on Sep 11th. Ran, i will also ask you, one of the readers said, you want Israel to let in millions of Palestinians. Is this true? Do you also want Israel to become another Islamic terrorist state.  ---------------  Anti War and Ran by Yossi 10:43pm Sun Feb 17 '02 print comment Every Ran HaCohen's "Letter From Israel" on opens with his map of Israel. On his map all Israel is divided on two areas: "Areas occupied by Israel, May 1948" and "Areas occupied by Israel, June 1967". Jews like HaCohen don't accept Israels existence.  ---------------  Ran Hacohen was a communist in Holland. by Joli 10:52pm Sun Feb 17 '02 print comment Hacohen says in his article, it goes all the way through torture, siege, starving and killing and it ends in letting a pregnant woman die with her infant at a checkpoint. How many pregnant woman have died with her infant at a checkpoint. There was 1 story like this. The reason why Israel prevented her from going threw, was because of the massive amounts of terrorism Israel has to deal with. You go crazy over one person not getting threw, but your silent on the hundreds of Jewish civilians who have been butchered by Palestinian terrorists. Israel does not target Palestinian civilians. Israel since day one of the terrorist war the Palestinians started last year, have tried to get a ceasefire. The Palestinians wont agree to one. All Israel asks for, is that the Palestinians observe 7 days of quiet. The Palestinians cant even go 7 minutes without killing Jewish teenagers. On this current war the Palestinians started. Please dont compare, Palestinians firing at Israel and Israel defending themselves by firing back, to Palestinians kidnapping, Stabbing, then mutiliating Israeli boys. Israel does not blow up buses and Pizza Places to slaughter civilians. Israel does place bombs in Market places and disco's, hoping to kill as many innocent people out there. Its a shame, that people like, dont realize the Palestinians intentions. Why do the Palestinians tell there children, that if the become suicide bombers or kill Jews, they will go to heaven and be with 70 virgins. Can you imagine such lies and pervertion. Tell me another religion that says such lies. Can you imagine Rev Billy Graham saying such lies. I dont think so. No Palestinian children would be killed or injured, if the Palestinians stop using there children as human shields for terrorist Palestinian gunman. The PLO has Pal Children throw rocks and fire bombs infront on Palestinian gunman firing at Israelis. The PLO is encouraging children to participate in clashes, by offering their families $300 per injury and $2,000 for anyone killed. How tragic, that Palestinians send their children to be killed or injured and then cynically use this against Israel in the court of world opinion. I think you as an Arab supporter, should be horrified, that Arabs sacrifice children for Media Propaganda. But i heard this is part of Islam to sacrifice children. add your comments Husseini in cahoots with Hitler by Omar 10:53pm Sun Feb 17 '02 print comment I think you should learn how the Palestinians were genocidal partners of Hitler. Dieter Visllzni, who was Eichmann's assistant, said at the Nuremberg Trials, Hajj Amin Al Husseini the Palestinian leader of WW2, had a part in the decision to liquidate the Jews of Europe." The Mufti had repeatedly suggested to Hitler, Himmler and Eichman, that the extermination of European Jewry was the best way to help the Arabs. Vislizni said, according to the 5 May 1946 written deposition of engineer André Steiner from Bratislava, submitted to the Nuremberg Tribunal after having been read and confirmed by Vislizni himself: "The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and advisor of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan. He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. Vislizni's July 26 1946 Nuremberg testimony says, accompanied by Eichmann, Husseini had visited the gas chambers of Auschwitz." Vislizni's said, Husseini made very clear, all the Jews must be exterminated. On March 1 1944, Husseini said in a broadcast from Berlin: "Arabs Rise as one and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. Husseini also set up a Bosnian SS Army in Yugoslavia, whose goal was to kill as many Serbs and Jews as Possible. His Muslim SS Legions participated in massacring tens of thousands of Serbs, Jews and Gypsies. add your comments Lebanese by Nader Sloan 12:01am Mon Feb 18 '02 print comment The Truth by Nader Sloan. A Lebanese. Feb 7, 2001 “The West Bank is occupied Palestinian land.” This phase is repeated, as a given, by all the governments of the world and by the entire news media, etc., etc. This idea that the West Bank is occupied Palestinian land has been accepted by almost everyone. Yet, it is, in fact, the greatest lie ever perpetrated on the whole of humanity. If you think this is an outlandish statement please read on and decide for yourself. Palestinians claim that Palestine is their land, and that Jerusalem is their capital, and that Israel is occupying their land. To resist occupation they have the right to send suicide bombers into crowded bus stations, pizza parlors, etc., and kill innocent men, women, and children. And all Arab and Muslim countries support them in their claims and actions against Israel. Because of this occupation of Palestinian land by Israel, because of this crime committed against their Palestinian brothers, all Arabs hate Israel and want to destroy it. To anyone who is familiar with the facts, and has an objective eye, all this must be fascinating. Because never before has a complete lie, on such a large scale, been so successful. First, if Arab animosity toward Israel is based on their love and support for their Palestinian brothers, and in wanting their Palestinian brothers to have their own state, where was that love and support before the Jewish state existed? Where were they when the Kingdom of Jordan and Egypt ruled Palestine? Why were they not accusing Jordan and Egypt of occupying Palestinian land? Why did not the Arab world and the United Nations call on Jordan to stop occupying Palestinian land? Second, where were the Palestinians themselves, with all their grievances and claims, when Jordan occupied the whole West Bank, including Jerusalem? Did you know that? Did you know that for 19 years, Jordan controlled and ruled the whole West Bank, including Jerusalem? Egypt controlled Gaza. Why didn’t they clamor for a Palestinian state then? All this time, did we hear a word about Palestine being occupied by the Kingdom of Jordan and Egypt? Did we hear anything about a Palestinian state? Or about Jerusalem being the capital of Palestine? No, we did not. Why not? Because their never existed a Palestinian state. And in the entire history of nations, Jerusalem was never the capital of any country other than that of ancient Israel and modern Israel. So how can there be a claim on Jerusalem as the capital of a state that never existed? One of the problems here is that so few people know the history of the world. Hence, lies and more lies, repeated often enough, are assumed to be facts. I have heard many scholars, including an Arab journalist, question the very notion of a Palestinian people. What, they ask, makes a people? Well, there are four elements that define a people: language, religion, culture, and cuisine. For example, the Chinese and Japanese are both Oriental. Still, they are two different peoples, because they each have a different language, a different religion, a different culture, and a different cuisine. The Palestinians speak the same language, follow the same religion, manifest the same culture, and eat the same cuisine as all the other Arabs. They are really Arabs who happen to live in a region called Palestine. Palestine is not, and never was, the name of a country, or the name of a people. There was never a country called Palestine governed by Palestinians. t is the name of a region – just like Siberia is a region, not a country. There is no Siberian country, nor is there a Siberian people. It is a region. Just like the Sahara is a region, not a country. There is no Saharan country, nor is there a Saharan people. The Arabs living in that region are Libyans, Moroccans, etc., etc. It is a region. Because Palestine is a region, not a country, England was able to carve out half of it and give it to the Arabs living on the other side of the Jordan River and call it the Kingdom of Jordan. Because Palestine is a region the United Nations was able to divide the rest of it between the Jews and the Arabs living there. Had the Arabs accepted the United Nations resolution there would have been a newly created Arab state called Palestine. Instead they rejected the United Nations compromise and went to war to destroy Israel. They lost the war. Hence, no Palestinian state. Here are some cold facts. King David built up Jerusalem and made it holy city it has become and King Solomon, David’s son, built the holy temple. There was only one break, when, 400 years after King David, the Babylonian invaders occupied the land for 70 years. Then, with the help of Cyrus the Great of Persia - yes, Persia - Israel came back to the land, rebuilt the temple, and ruled for another 600 years. Then the Romans came and ruled the land, then the Crusaders ruled the land, then the Ottoman Empire ruled the land, then the British Empire ruled the land, then Israel returned to its homeland and built a modern Jewish state. It was never - repeat, never - a Palestinian state. So what is all this talk about occupied Palestinian land? They certainly have a right to live there freely and happily. Nobody wants to move them away from their land. But from where comes the right for a Palestinian state? Is it because they live there? Imagine, if the Mexican-American community in California, whose numbers are greater than the number of Palestinians in the West Bank, decides tomorrow to claim that the United States is occupying their land, because they live there and they want their own Mexican state. Imagine, if when the U.S. government says, “No, you can live here but you cannot have sovereignty, you cannot have your own state,” they start sending suicide bombers, shooters, mortars, to massacre innocent civilians into the rest of the country, what do you think would happen? The Taliban and Bin Laden found out the answer. This is precisely why there was never any suggestion of a Palestinian state; not under the Romans, not under the Crusaders, not under the Turks, not under the English, and not under the Arab Kingdom of Jordan, not until after Israel was again established in its homeland. I believe it is the big lie of our generation and we are all buying into it. Whatever you believe, don’t you think these facts deserve to be raised when discussing Middle East policies?  ---------------  Vampire Killers by stderr 12:46am Mon Feb 18 '02 print comment I'm starting to like Majdur's term zionazi. Anyway, this essay is to the zionazi that so desperately tried to silence the original article. Vampire Killers – March 14, 2001 Folk stories about vampires provide readers with various remedies to the calamity of a ghoulish attack. A fistful of graveyard dirt is favored, garlic is beneficial, and the cross is most efficient. But these remedies don't always work. In Roman Polansky's hilarious horror comedy, The Fearless Vampire Killers, the hero tries to scare off a Jewish vampire by a sign of the cross. The Jew smiles at him with a kind understanding smile, straight from Fiddler on the Roof, and bares his fangs. The cross does not ward him off. Polansky's work comes to mind as I follow the new wave of Holocaust controversies. The "revisionist historians", who are considered by their adversaries to be "Holocaust deniers", are currently meeting in Beirut to compare their notes on Nazi genocide. The American Jewish establishment, including the Zionist Organization of America and the Anti-Defamation League, has demanded a ban on the conference. The ZOA is not against revisionism as such. This organization pioneered the art of denying history and published, at the expense of American taxpayer, a booklet called "Deir Yassin: History of a Lie". Deir Yassin was a peaceful village the Jewish terrorist groups Etzel and Lehi attacked on the 9th of April 1948, and massacred its men, women and children. I do not want to repeat the gory tale of sliced off ears, gutted bellies, raped women, torched men, bodies dumped in stone quarries or the triumphal parade of the murderers. Existentially, all massacres are similar, from Babi Yar to Chain Gang to Deir Yassin. ZOA revisionists have utilized all the methods of their adversaries, the "deniers": they discount the eye- witness accounts of the survivors, the Red Cross, the British police, Jewish scouts and other Jewish observers, who were present at the scene of massacre. They discount even Ben Gurion's apology, since after all, the commanders of these gangs became in their turn prime ministers of the Jewish state. For ZOA, only the testimony of the murderers has any validity. That is, if the murderers are Jews. If the Jews are the victims, these same American Zionist organizations spare no effort in challenging revisionism. This morally dubious position was no doubt of great comfort to those who gathered in Beirut. By their flawed logic, if the Israelis are telling a tall tale about what happened in 1948, perhaps the Jewish memories of the Holocaust are also flawed. It is misplaced energy. Sure, they scored a few hits, and the tales of soap manufactured from human fat or Wiesel’s fiery furnaces were laid to rest. But these Revisionists also question the actual number of Jewish victims. If only a thousand Jews or Gypsies were murdered by the Nazis, it was a thousand too many. It is hardly an important issue, as the very definition of victim is based on interpretation. A good example of "victim definition" was provided in last weekend's Haaretz. When the Gulf war ended in 1991, there was one reported Israeli victim of the war. Today, there are officially one hundred Israelis who are recognized as victims of the Gulf war, and their dependents receive a pension at Iraqi expense. Some of the victims died of stress, some could not remove their gas masks and suffocated. The Haaretz article asserted that many more claims were declined by the Israeli authorities. That is why Michael Elkins, the ex- BBC Jerusalem correspondent and an Israeli citizen is correct in arguing that the number of victims, whether there were six or three million dead is not an issue. The "revisionists" risked their lives and fortunes trying to undermine what they call "the Myth of the Holocaust". One can understand their interest. Nowadays, one may openly doubt the Immaculate Conception or (maybe) challenge the founding myths of Israel. Yet the cult of the Holocaust retains a unique, court-enforced prohibition against any investigation that might cast a doubt on its sacred dogma. Dogmas have a way of attracting critical minds. Still, behind this red muleta, the charging bull's horns meet thin air. The arguments on gas chambers and soap production could be very interesting, but they are quite irrelevant. Where then is the matador? A courageous step was taken by Dr Norman Finkelstein in his best-selling expose "The Holocaust Industry". There is, however, an important distinction between Dr Finkelstein and the "revisionist historians" gathered in Beirut. Dr Finkelstein, a son of holocaust survivors, stayed away from the possibly illegal statistical controversy and concentrated on the ideological construct of the Holocaust cult. A fat lot of good it did him. A Jewish organization called "Lawyers without Borders" has already sued him in France. These lawyers were at perfect peace, when the Israeli legal machine pronounced a six months probationary sentence on a Jewish murderer of a Gentile child. They did not move a finger when a 15- year-old girl Suad was placed in solitary confinement, refused legal aid and subjected to mental torture. They are visibly absent from Israeli military courts where a single Jewish officer can mete out long imprisonment sentence to a Gentile civilian based on undisclosed evidence. Apparently, these lawyers are aware of certain borders. Finkelstein set out to explore the secret of our discrete Jewish charm, a charm that opens American hearts and the coffers of Swiss bankers. His conclusion is that we do it by appealing to European and American guilt feelings. "The Holocaust cult[1] has proven to be an indispensable ideological weapon. Through its deployment, one of the world's most formidable military powers, with a horrendous human rights record, has cast itself as a victim state, and the most successful ethnic group in the US has acquired victim status". Finkelstein carries out a brilliant analysis of the Holocaust cult, and comes to a startling discovery: it is but a shabby construct of a few clichés stitched together by the sorrowful voice of Elie Wiesel in a limo. Finkelstein is not aware of the magnitude of his discovery, as he still believes that the Holocaust cult is a great concept, second only to the invention of the wheel. It solved the eternal problem of the rich and influential, warding off the envy and hate of the poor and exploited. It allowed Mark Rich and other swindlers to cheat and steal, it allowed the Israeli army to murder children and starve women with impunity. His opinion is shared by many Israelis. Ari Shavit, a well-known Haaretz writer, expressed it best in 1996, when the Israeli Army killed over a hundred civilian refugees in Kana, Lebanon: "We may murder with impunity, because the Holocaust museum is on our". Boaz Evron, Tom Segev and other Israeli writers have articulated the same notion. One can sum up the thesis of Dr Finkelstein as follows. The Jews succeeded to square the circle, and solved the problem that befuddled aristocracy and the run of the mill millionaires. Namely, they disarmed their opponents by appealing to their compassion and guilt feeling. I admire Dr Finkelstein for his continued belief in the good heart of his fellow Man. I trust he also believes in fairies. In my own estimate, compassion and guilt feelings can maybe get you a free bowl of soup. Not uncounted billions of dollars. Dr Finkelstein is not blind. He noticed that the Gypsies, another victim of the Nazis, received next to nothing from a "compassionate" Germany. The capacity of Americans to feel collective guilt towards their Vietnamese victims (5 million killed, one million widows, Coventry-style destruction laced with Agent Orange) was recently expressed by Defense Secretary William Cohen: "There is no place for apology (let alone compensation). A war is a war". Despite having all the facts at his disposal, Dr Finkelstein grasps his cross and tries to frighten the vampire away. What is the source of power that fuels the Holocaust Industry? This is no idle or theoretical question. The making of yet another Palestinian tragedy is now in high gear, with the slow strangulation of its cities. Every day, a tree is uprooted, a house is demolished, a child is murdered. In Jerusalem, the Jews celebrated Purim by a pogrom of Gentiles, and it made page six in the local papers. In Hebron, the Kahane boys celebrated Purim at the tomb of the mass murderer Goldstein. This is no time to pussyfoot. In The Sirens, Bloom expresses the feelings of his creator James Joyce towards the bloody concept of Irish liberation by farting at the epitaph of an Irish freedom fighter. My grandparents, my aunts and uncles died in the WWII. But I swear by their memory, if I thought that guilt feelings over the Holocaust cult caused the death of a single Palestinian child, I would turn the Holocaust memorial into a public urinaire. The shabbiness of the Holocaust cult and the ease of its victories in sucking billions is solid proof of the real power behind this industry. This power is obscure, unseen, ineffable, but quite real. It is not a power derived from the Holocaust, but rather, the Holocaust cult is a display of raw muscle by those who wield real power. That is why all efforts of the revisionists are doomed. The people, who promote the cult, could promote anything, as they dominate all public discourse. The Holocaust cult is just a small manifestation of their abilities. This power would just smile in the face of Dr Finkelstein's revelations. Note: 1. Dr Finkelstein distinguishes between "holocaust", the historical event, and the Holocaust, the ideological construct. I took the liberty to rename it "the Holocaust cult" in the interests of lucidity.  ---------------  Israel Shamir, another Ran Hacohen by Israel Hacohen 2:13am Mon Feb 18 '02 print comment I found out interesting infomation about Israel Shamir. Do you know that Israel Shamir tried to sell Nazi memorabilia items, that the Russians captured when they took over Berlin in 1945. Shamir got his hands of all of these Nazi items in 1998 and wanted to sell them to Holocaust Denier David Irving. Ironically, even the odious Irving, ultimately refused to deal with Shamir. You got to read this story.  98/09/ Shamir020998.html  ---------------  Shamir by Ehud 2:15am Mon Feb 18 '02 print comment One would ask Israel Shamir. Why doesn't it bother him, when Jewish teenagers are massacred by Palestinian terrorists in buses, shopping center disco's, pizzeria's, bar mitzvahs and schools. He mentioned Baruch Goldstein. That was only one person. There have been 15 Palestinian gunman in the last 6 months, who have went on shooting spree's in Israel trying to exterminate as many Jewish civilians as possible.  ---------------  ask me by 3:10am Mon Feb 18 '02 print comment and i'l tell you that the reason is that you have used up the world's sympathy. pretty big job, but you did it! all of you flaming racists, all you so-called 'defenders' all but wearing jackboots & holding crops like the SS commandos you emulate, all of you who have denied the humanity of your victims for 50 years, ALL OF YOU should call yourselves the Self Prophesizing Self-Important Jews-- --what you all are failing to grasp at this very critical moment in time is that your sickness is coming to light & more & more people around the globe are not only digusted by your actions, but, far, far, far worse-- they are shocked at the lies they have been fed in the most vile & manipulative way by you & they are angry at the way their goodwill has been used by you to perpetrate the most insidious, blasphemous & genocidal measuraes against the palestinians. i think you'd better wake uo NOW. i can tell you from personal anecdote that i am well versed in Holocaust history & WW2 (pre-& post). the amount of historical informtion i've read, seen, etc, has been wide & varied over a 20 year period. i in no way deny it. i will not even breach the subject as i've never seen credible evidence that it has not happened or that it happened to a lesser degree. BUT people like you, true racist-zionists,, have done much to undermine ANY claim on historical accuracy by YOUR lies & twistings & spinnings regarding Zionist atrocities against the arabs. no longer does the world afford you the title of 'victim' & cut you slack for your 'overreactions'. and let me tell you, but the blowback from HOW you have used your mantle of victimhood will be more & harsher than i think you want to realize; god forbid.  ---------------  Ran and facts by Meir 6:57am Mon Feb 18 '02 print comment Ran, since you wont criticize Arab terrorism against Israeli civilians. Will you criticize the Palestinians racist hatemongering media. Or when the Palestinians say the Holocaust was a Hoax, that to you is no big deal. Here are your friends. We are teaching the children that suicide bombs make Israeli people frightened and we are allowed to do it....We teach them, that after a person becomes a suicide bomber, he will be with 72 virgins in paradise. ” — Palestinian “Paradise Camp” counselor speaking to BBC interviewer, Quoted in BBC, July 20, 2001 “I promise that the number of shootings will increase to 500 to 1,000 shooting [incidents] per day....The Palestinians have trained themselves to attack the Israeli tanks and explode their bodies that will be loaded with a belt of explosives. — Deputy Commander of Force-17, Muhammad Dhamrah (a.k.a., Abu Awdh), Al-Hayat, August 17, 2001 “I do not think that a Muslim would let an Islamic homeland like Palestine, and Jerusalem, remain in the hands of the Zionists, who plunder it and damage its holy sites, without the owners of the land having the right to defend themselves. All I said, that the Palestinians has the right to become a human bomb and blow himself up inside the Zionists entity” Mufti of Jerusalem, Sheikh Sabri, Thanks to Hitler, blessed memory, who on behalf of the Palestinians, revenged in advance, against the most vile criminals on the face of the earth. Although we do have a complaint against him for his revenge on them was not enough.” April 18, 2001 Mufti of Jerusalem, Sheikh Sabri, September 16, 2001 “Hamas has tens of martyrs who are willing to carry out attacks against Israeli targets. An operation of such martyrs exceeds that of the Arab armies who fought the Hebrew state. The importance of the weapons of such martyrs is no less than the importance of nuclear weapons.” — Khaled Mash'al, head of the Hamas Politbureau Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (PA), June 24, 2001 “The suicide bombers of today are the noble successors of their noble predecessors...the Lebanese suicide bombers, who taught the U.S. Marines a tough lesson in [Lebanon]....These suicide bombers are the salt of the earth, the engines of history....They are the most honorable [people] among us.....” — Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (PA), June 24, 2001 “...Lies surfaced about Jews being murdered here and there, and the Holocaust. And, of course, they are all lies and unfounded claims. No Chelmno, no Dachau, no Auschwitz! [They] were disinfection sites... They began to publicize in their propaganda that they were persecuted, murdered and exterminated... Committees acted here and there to establish this entity [Israel-Ed.], this foreign entity, implanted as a cancer in our country, where our fathers lived, where we live, and where our children after us will live. They always portrayed themselves as victims, and they made a Center for Heroism and Holocaust. Whose heroism? Whose Holocaust? Heroism is our nation's, the holocaust was against our people... We were the victims, but we shall not remain victims forever...” [emphasis added] — Dr. Issam Sissalem, history lecturer, Islamic University Gaza, Palestinian Authority TV broadcast, November 29, 2000 “The issue of the holocaust rises again. It defies disappearing over its half-century because the Zionist propaganda has converted it into a means to produce political and economic benefit, besides exploiting it for the advancement of occupation and settlement...” “A recently published book by an American researcher, discusses the holocaust. Employing scientific and chemical evidence, it proves that the figure of six million Jews cremated in the Nazi Auschwitz camps is a lie for propaganda, as the most spacious of the vaults in the camp could not have held even one percent of that number.” — Hiri Manzour in the official Palestinian Authority daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, April 13, 2001 If and when Israel says 'enough,' namely, 'we will not discuss Jerusalem, we will not return refugees, we will not dismantle settlements, we will not withdraw to the borders,' in that case it is saying that we will return to violence. But this time it will be with 30,000 armed Palestinian soldiers and in a land with elements of freedom. I am the first to call for it. If we reach a dead end we will go back to our war and struggle like we did forty years ago." — Palestinian Authority Minister of Planning and International Cooperation Nabil Sha'ath, An interview with ANN television, London. October 7, 2000 "Violence is around the corner, and the Palestinians are willing to sacrifice even 5,000 casualties." — Palestinian Authority Justice Minister Freih Abu Middein, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, (PA) August 24, 2000 "The Palestinian people are in a state of emergency against the failure of the Camp David summit. If the situation explodes, the Palestinian people living in the areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority are ready for the next fierce battle against the Zionists. The next Intifada will be more violent than the first one especially since the Palestinian people now possess weapons allowing them to defend themselves in a confrontation with the Israeli army. — A "senior security figure" in the Palestinian Authority, Kul Al-Arab, July 14, 2000 “The issues of Jerusalem, the refugees and sovereignty are one and will be finalized on the ground and not in negotiations. At this point it is important to prepare Palestinian society for the challenge of the next step because we will inevitably find ourselves in a violent confrontation with Israel in order to create new facts on the ground. ... I believe that the situation in the future will be more violent than the Intifada.” — Abu-Ali Mustafa of the Palestinian Authority, July 23, 2000 “Our efforts to continue the Intifada and resistance will persist until we achieve our right of return, and our independence, with Jerusalem as the capital.” — Ahmad Sa'adat speaking at a press conference after becoming leader of the PFLP, Jerusalem Post, October 4, 2001 “Resistance is legitimate and those who give up their lives do not require permission from anyone....We must not stand in the way of the intifada and jihad [holy war]. Rather, we must stand at their side and encourage them.” — Mufti of Jerusalem, Sheikh Akrameh Sabri, Al-Hayat, December 7, 2001 “With God´s help, next time we will meet in Jerusalem, because we are fighting to bring victory to our prophets, every baby, every kid, every man, every woman and every old person and all the young people, we will all sacrifice ourselves for our holy places and we will strengthen our hold of them and we are willing to give 70 of our martyrs for every one of theirs in this campaign, because this is our holy land. We will continue to fight for this blessed land and I call on you to stand strong..” Yasser Arafat Nov 2000 “Have no mercy on the Jews, no matter where they are, in any country. Fight them, wherever you are. Wherever you meet them, kill them. Wherever you are, kill those Jews and those Americans who are like them and those who stand by them they are all in one trench, — Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya, Member of the Palestinian Authority appointed "Fatwa Council" and former acting Rector of the Islamic University in Gaza. Palestinian Authority television, October 2000 ,14 “It is not a mistake that the Koran warns us of the hatred of the Jews and put them at the top of the list of the enemies of Islam. Today the Jews recruit the world against the Muslims and use all kinds of weapons. They are plundering the dearest place to the Muslims, after Mecca and Medina and threaten the place the Muslims have faced at first when they prayed and the third holiest city after Mecca and Medina. They want to erect their temple on that place....The Muslims are ready to sacrifice their lives and blood to protect the Islamic nature of Jerusalem and El Aksa!” — Sheikh Hian Al-Adrisi, Excerpt of address in the al-Aksa mosque, September 29, 2000 “The Jews are Jews, whether Labour or Likud, the Jews are Jews. They do not have any moderates or any advocates of peace. They are all liars. They are the ones who must be butchered and killed. As Allah the Almighty said: 'Fight them'. Allah will torture them by your hands and will humiliate them and will help you to overcome them, and will relieve the minds of the believers. ... Our people must unite in one trench, and receive armaments from the Palestinian leadership to confront the Jews. ... Have no mercy on the Jews, no matter where they are, in any country. Fight them, wherever you are. Whenever you meet them, kill them. Wherever you are, kill those Jews and those Americans who are like them - and those who stand with them - they are all in one trench, against the Arabs and the Muslims - because they established Israel here, in the beating heart of the Arab world, in Palestine. They created it in order that it be the outpost of their civilisation - and the vanguard of their army, and to be the sword of the West and the Crusaders, hanging over the necks of the Muslim monotheists, the Muslims in this land. They wanted the Jews to be the spearhead for them...” — Dr Ahmad Abu-Halabia, a member of the "Fatwa Council" appointed by the Palestinian Authority and the former acting Rector of the Islamic University in Gaza, delivered in the Zayd bin Sultan Nahyan mosque in Gaza on October 13, 2000, the day after the lynching of the Israeli reservists in Ramallah, and carried live on Palestinian television “All weapons must be aimed at the Jews, at the enemies of Allah...whom the Koran describes as monkeys and pigs, worshippers of the calf and idol worshippers. Allah shall make the Moslem rule over the Jew, we will blow them up in Hadera, we will blow them up in Tel Aviv and in Netanya in the righteousness of Allah against this rif-raff.....We will enter Jerusalem as conquerors, and Jaffa as conquereors, and Haifa as conquerors and Ashekelon as conquerors...we bless all those who educate their children to jihad and to Martyrdom, blessing be he who shot a bullet into the head of a Jew.” — Sermon broadcast on Palestinian Authority television, August 3, 2001 "Israel carries out a clear policy of annihilating our people and destroying our national economy by smuggling spoiled foodstuff… not fit for human consumption, into PA territories…. Israel did not change its strategy, which aims to kill and destroy our people, rather it began counting on means other than bombs, missiles and planes. These measures are distributing and smuggling spoiled foodstuffs… into the PA territories." — Palestinian Authority Deputy Minister of Supplies, Abd Al-Hamid Al-Qudsi, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, August 22, 1998 “Our people have been subjected to the daily and extensive use of poisonous gas by the Israeli forces, which has led to an increase in cancer cases among women and children.” — Suha Arafat, wife of Yasser Arafat, November 11, 1999, during a Gaza appearance with First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton “[Israeli doctors] use Palestinian patients… for experimental medicines and training new doctors.” — Palestinian Authority Health Minister, Riyadh Al-Za'anoon, Al-Ayam, July 25, 1998 “Unless the Palestine problem is settled, we shall have difficulty in protecting and safeguarding the Jews in the Arab world.” — Syrian delegate, Faris el-Khouri, New York Times, February 19, 1947 “The Arab world is not in a compromising mood. It's likely, Mr. Horowitz, that your plan is rational and logical, but the fate of nations is not decided by rational logic. Nations never concede; they fight. You won't get anything by peaceful means or compromise. You can, perhaps, get something, but only by the force of your arms. We shall try to defeat you. I am not sure we'll succeed, but we'll try. We were able to drive out the Crusaders, but on the other hand we lost Spain and Persia. It may be that we shall lose Palestine. But it's too late to talk of peaceful solutions.” — Arab League Secretary Azzam Pasha, September 16, 1947 “[A]ll our efforts to find a peaceful solution to the Palestine problem have failed. The only way left for us is war. I will have the pleasure and honor to save Palestine.” — Transjordan's King Abdullah, April 26, 1948 “The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight.” — Jamal Husseini before the Security Council, April 16, 1948 “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.” — Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League, May 15, 1948 “I am not solely fighting against Israel itself. My task is to deliver the Arab world from destruction through Israel's intrigue, which has its roots abroad. Our hatred is very strong. There is no sense in talking about peace with Israel. There is not even the smallest place for negotiations.” — Egyptian President Nasser, October 14, 1956 “Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.” — Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad, May 20, 1967 “Arab policy at this stage has but two objectives. The first, the elimination of the traces of the 1967 aggression through an Israeli withdrawal from all the territories it occupied that year. The second objective is the elimination of the traces of the 1948 aggression, by the means of the elimination of the State of Israel itself. This is, however, as yet an abstract, undefined objective, and some of us have erred in commencing the latter step before the former.” — Mohammed Heikal, a Sadat confidant and editor of the semi-official Al-Ahram, February 25, 1971 “Saddam, you hero, attack Israel with chemical weapons.” — Palestinians marching in support of Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, (Associated Press, August 12, 1990 “I have always rejected normalizing relations with (Israeli) women....They always invite me to their functions and I categorically refuse because I hate Israel.” — Suha Arafat, wife of Yasser Arafat, Saudi Arabian women's magazine, Sayidaty, quoted by AP, May 3, 2001 “We will not give up a single grain of soil in Palestine, from Haifa, and Jaffa, and Acre, and Mulabbas [Petah Tikvah] and Salamah, and Majdal [Ashkelon], and all the land, and Gaza, and the West Bank....” — Dr Ahmad Abu-Halabia, a member of the "Fatwa Council" appointed by the Palestinian Authority and the former acting Rector of the Islamic University in Gaza, delivered in the Zayd bin Sultan Nahyan mosque in Gaza on October 13, 2000, the day after the lynching of the Israeli reservists in Ramallah, and carried live on Palestinian television “We will not arrest the sons of our people in order to appease Israel. Let our people rest assured that this won't happen.” — Chief of the P.A. Preventive Security in the West Bank, Jebril Rajoub, Islamic Association  for Palestine, June 9, 2001 “They [the Jews] try to kill the principle of religions with the same mentality that they betrayed Jesus Christ and the same way they tried to betray and kill the Prophet Mohammed.” — Syrian President Bashar Assad at May 5 welcoming ceremony for the Pope, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, May 6, 2001 add your comments -------------- 136575 Switzerland Indymedia SHUT OFF!!! (english) by Clara 2:18pm Sun Feb 17 '02 (Modified on 7:21pm Sun Feb 17 '02) All began with publishing of a cartoon by Latuff where a jewish kid in Warsaw ghetto says "i'm a palestinian". Fascist jewish AKDH association attacked indymedia switzerland saying it is an antisemit cartoon. is now shut off. For Linked articles: Latuff's cartoon and polemic (english):  ?article_id=10672&group=webcast The new antisemitism? (english):  imc/israel/webcast/14959.html Censorship (french):  ?article_id=10829&group=webcast add your own comments Relax (english) by Joe 2:33pm Sun Feb 17 '02 Relax, Switzerland will be ok, if Indymedia is not working. Your making it, like this is worse then Sep 11th. Maybe Switzerland now understands the danger of Islam o f f l i n e (english) by 2:43pm Sun Feb 17 '02 o f f l i n e vorübergehend geschlossen français ist vorüberghend geschlossen, um die diskussion über das geschehene (strafanzeige gegen indymedia) vom netz in die reale/non-virtuellewelt zu verlegen und zu einer abkühlung des klimas beizutragen. diese zeit soll dazu genutzt werden, um wieder eine gemeinsame grundlage zu erlangen, auf welcher (angst-) freie diskussionen möglich sind. in diesem sinne sollen und werden während der vorübergehenden schliessung diskussionen zum umgang untereinander/gemeinsamen grundlagen, antisemitismus, open-publishing und zensur stattfinden. indymedia war nie ein vollendetes projekt, aber es ist und bleibt ein prozess innerhalb der bewegung von seattle, davos und genua... aber die widersprüche innerhalb haben zur heutigen srafanzeige gegen angebliche 'redakteurInnen' und 'moderatorInnen' von indymedia geführt. darum sind alle dazu aufgerufen, sich an diskussionen zu beteiligen und solche zu initiieren, denn indymedia sind wir alle! eine stellungnahme und weiteres folgt in kürze, also schaut wieder vorbei. diskussionsveranstaltungen: >> vom vertrauen zur klage wie erreichen wir wieder freie diskussionen ohne angst vor drohungen (seien sie physischer oder juristischer art), weitergabe von namen an die behörden oder die öffentlichkeit, ... ? datum und ort noch unbekannt >> antisemitismus antisemitismus in der linken, antisemitismus im zusammenhang mit der palästina-solidarität datum und ort noch unbekannt >> open-content/-publishing und zensur freie meinungsäusserung im zeitalter des internets... 6. märz 2002 im egocity an der badenerstrasse 97 in zürich kontakt: ----------------- Not only is this article a significant reflection on US policy, it is just as significant that The Times is now publishing Pilger which would have been unthinkable a short time ago. The coalition backing the phony US "war on terror" is clearly on its last legs - if it still exists at all. THE COLDER WAR By John Pilger The Times (UK) February 16, 2002 news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid= 11574035&method=full LAST week, the US government announced that it was building the biggest-ever war machine. Military spending will rise to $379billion, of which $50billion will pay for its "war on terrorism". There will be special funding for new, refined weapons of mass slaughter and for "military operations" - invasions of other countries. Of all the extraordinary news since September 11, this is the most alarming. It is time to break our silence. That is to say, it is time for other governments to break their silence, especially the Blair government, whose complicity in the American rampage in Afghanistan has not denied its understanding of the Bush administration's true plans and ambitions. The recent statements of British Ministers about the "vindication" of the "outstanding success" in Afghanistan would be comical if the price of their "success" had not been paid with the lives of more than 5,000 innocent Afghani civilians and the failure to catch Osama bin Laden and anyone else of importance in the al-Qaeda network. The Pentagon's release of deliberately provocative pictures of prisoners at Camp X-Ray on Cuba was meant to conceal this failure from the American public, who are being conditioned, along with the rest of us, to accept a permanent war footing similar to the paranoia that sustained and prolonged the Cold War. The threat of "terrorism", some of it real, most of it invented, is the new Red Scare. The parallels are striking. IN AMERICA in the 1950s, the Red Scare was used to justify the growth of war industries, the suspension of democratic rights and the silencing of dissenters. That is happening now. Above all, the American industrial-complex has a new enemy with which to justify its gargantuan appetite for public resources - the new military budget is enough to end all primary causes of poverty in the world. Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, says he has told the Pentagon to "think the unthinkable". Vice President Dick Cheney, the voice of Bush, has said the US is considering military or other action against "40 to 50 countries" and warns that the new war may last 50 years or more. A Bush adviser, Richard Perle, explained. "(There will be) no stages," he said. "This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there ... If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy but just wage a total war, our children will sing great songs about us years from now." Their words evoke George Orwell's great prophetic work, Nineteen Eighty-Four. In the novel, three slogans dominate society: war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength. Today's slogan, war on terrorism, also reverses meaning. The war is terrorism. The next American attack is likely to be against Somalia, a deeply impoverished country in the Horn of Africa. Washington claims there are al-Qaeda terrorist cells there. This is almost certainly a fiction spread by Somalia's overbearing neighbour, Ethiopia, in order to ingratiate itself with Washington. Certainly, there are vast oil fields off the coast of Somalia. For the Americans, there is the added attraction of "settling a score". In 1993, in the last days of George Bush Senior's presidency, 18 American soldiers were killed in Somalia after the US Marines had invaded to "restore hope", as they put it. A current Hollywood movie, Black Hawk Down, glamorises and lies about this episode. It leaves out the fact that the invading Americans left behind between 7,000 and 10,000 Somalis killed. Like the victims of American bombing in Afghanistan, and Iraq, and Cambodia, and Vietnam and many other stricken countries, the Somalis are unpeople, whose deaths have no political and media value in the West. WHEN Bush Junior's heroic marines return in their Black Hawk gunships, loaded with technology, looking for "terrorists", their victims will once again be nameless. We can then expect the release of Black Hawk Down II. Breaking our silence means not allowing the history of our lifetimes to be written this way, with lies and the blood of innocent people. To understand the lie of what Blair/Straw/Hoon call the "outstanding success" in Afghanistan, read the work of the original author of "Total War", a man called Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was President Carter's National Security Adviser and is still a powerful force in Washington. Brzezinski not long ago revealed that on July 3, 1979, unknown to the American public and Congress, President Jimmy Carter secretly authorised $500million to create an international terrorist movement that would spread Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia and "destabilise" the Soviet Union. The CIA called this Operation Cyclone and in the following years poured $4billion into setting up Islamic training schools in Pakistan (Taliban means "student"). Young zealots were sent to the CIA's spy training camp in Virginia, where future members of al-Qaeda were taught "sabotage skills" - terrorism. Others were recruited at an Islamic school in Brooklyn, New York, within sight of the fated Twin Towers. In Pakistan, they were directed by British MI6 officers and trained by the SAS. The result, quipped Brzezinski, was "a few stirred up Muslims" - meaning the Taliban. At that time, the late 1970s, the American goal was to overthrow Afghanistan's first progressive, secular government, which had granted equal rights to women, established health care and literacy programmes and set out to break feudalism. When the Taliban seized power in 1996, they hanged the former president from a lamp-post in Kabul. His body was still a public spectacle when Clinton administration officials and oil company executives were entertaining Taliban leaders in Washington and Houston, Texas. The Wall Street Journal declared: "The Taliban are the players most capable of achieving peace. Moreover, they were crucial to secure the country as a prime trans-shipment route for the export of Central Asia's vast oil, gas and other natural resources." NO AMERICAN newspaper dares suggest that the prisoners in Camp X-Ray are the product of this policy, nor that it was one of the factors that led to the attacks of September 11. Nor do they ask: who were the real winners of September 11? The day the Wall Street stockmarket opened after the destruction of the Twin Towers, the few companies showing increased value were the giant military contractors Alliant Tech Systems, Northrop Gruman, Raytheon (a contributor to New Labour) and Lockheed Martin. As the US military's biggest supplier, Lockheed Martin's share value rose by a staggering 30 per cent. Within six weeks of September 11, the company (with its main plant in Texas, George Bush's home state) had secured the biggest military order in history: a $200billion contract to develop a new fighter aircraft. The greatest taboo of all, which Orwell would surely recognise, is the record of the United States as a terrorist state and haven for terrorists. This truth is virtually unknown by the American public and makes a mockery of Bush's (and Blair's) statements about "tracking down terrorists wherever they are". They don't have to look far. Florida, currently governed by the President's brother, Jeb Bush, has given refuge to terrorists who, like the September 11 gang, have hi-jacked aircraft and boats with guns and knives. Most have never had criminal charges brought against them. Why? All of them are anti-Castro Cubans. Former Guatemalan Defence Minister Gramajo Morales, who was accused of "devising and directing an indiscriminate campaign of terror against civilians", including the torture of an American nun and the massacre of eight people from one family, studied at Harvard University on a US government scholarship. During the 1980s, thousands of people were murdered by death squads connected to the army of El Salvador, whose former chief now lives comfortably in Florida. The former Haitian dictator, General Prosper Avril, liked to display the bloodied victims of his torture on television. When he was overthrown, he was flown to Florida by the US government, and granted political asylum. A leading member of the Chilean military during the reign of General Pinochet, whose special responsibility was executions and torture, lives in Miami. THE Iranian general who ran Iran's notorious prisons, is a wealthy exile in the US. One of Pol Pot's senior henchmen, who enticed Cambodian exiles back to their certain death, lives in Mount Vernon, New York. What all these people have in common, apart from their history of terrorism, is that they either worked directly for the US government or carried out the dirty work of US policies. The al-Qaeda training camps are kindergartens compared with the world's leading university of terrorism at Fort Benning in Georgia. Known until recently as the School of the Americas, its graduates include almost half the cabinet ministers of the genocidal regimes in Guatemala, two thirds of the El Salvadorean army officers who committed, according to the United Nations, the worst atrocities of that country's civil war, and the head of Pinochet's secret police, who ran Chile's concentration camps. There is terrible irony at work here. The humane response of people all over the world to the terrorism of September 11 has long been hijacked by those running a rapacious great power with a history of terrorism second to none. Global supremacy, not the defeat of terrorism, is the goal; only the politically blind believe otherwise. The "widening gap between the world's "haves" and "have nots"', says a remarkably candid document of the US Space Command, presents "new challenges" to the world's superpower and which can only be met by "Full Spectrum Dominance" - dominance of land, sea, air and space.  allnews/page.cfm?objectid= 11574035&method=full add your own comments Pilger (english) by Pat Kincaid 7:19am Sun Feb 17 '02 Pilger has been wrong about everything post-Sept. 11th. Why stop now? PK Because... (english) by Reciprocity Failure 7:36am Sun Feb 17 '02 Because, it makes people like you work extra hard to try to rationalize our country's bad conduct over the past fifty years. Seems like you need to try a little harder. Not "The Times" (english) by Ralph Nader 10:46am Sun Feb 17 '02 Um, "The Times (UK)" obviously did NOT publish this article. The Mirror did. The Times is a Rupert Murdoch owned so-called newspaper, and would never even consider such views. Rupert Murdoch is a fascist, plain and simple. Pilger hit the nail on the head (english) by Sean Lawless 11:01am Sun Feb 17 '02 "I'm happy, fealin' glad, I'got sunshine, in a bag, I'm useless, but not for long. The future, is comin' on, is comin' on" -The Guerrillas ------------------- Yes, there's a distinct 'Egyptian' radicalism feel about this attack, and Ayman Al-Zawahiri seems to be the obvious connection. I should have added that there's also an intense 'anti-Copt' tag on the 11 September attack, which is something Al-Zawahiri has/had a first hand experience in through the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. My conclusion is that the Kabalistic 'design' of the attack is intended to act as a cultural super-virus to damage the USA from within, so to speak. 11 September was previously a day of hope and joy for the Middle East i.e. signature of PLO/Israeli peace treaty; Coptic New Year; Rosh Hoshanah-Yom Kipur; Messianic hope etc... Now its an awful black day of infamy. It the same effect as having crashed a plane on the Vatican on the 25 December. This sort of intellectual-warfare was used with devastating effect throughout history. If you can't hurt the 'enemy' in open conflict, then you attack him from inside. If I'm right about this, then it may give us some way of perhaps anticipating other 'moves' by the perpetuators of this insane strategy. I'm really convinced that the 11 September attack has 'Kabala'/Scottish Rite written all over it. I'm also convinced it's Al Qaeda that is behind it. The question, therefore, is: who is behind Al Qaeda?... Well probably never know. Hi all, Last week I posted an article titled 'Satan's Calling Card': /read.php?f=1&i=75272&t=75272 In which I demonstrated curious links between the star Sirius, the Blazing (five pointed) Star, the various calendars, Kabala and the Tarot of Alistair Crowley, Satan and the Pentagram, Coptic/Egyptian Calendar etc.... and the date of 11 September? Well, check this really bizarre stuff I came across while researching the various symbolism of Sirius/Fivepointed star through the ages: ----------- "Aleister Crowley “received” Liber Al, or The Book of the Law, in Cairo, Egypt, in April of 1904. He claimed it was transmitted to him by a “preterhuman intelligence” named “Aiwaz” (also spelled Aiwass), the “minister of Ra-Hoor-Khuit,” which is to say, the Hawk-headed Egyptian God, Horus. It annonced a New Age for Mankind. The Aeon of Horus, however, was from the beginning intended as a short-lived, intermediary age, existing to set the stage for the coming Aeon, that of Maat, Truth. Another way of saying this would be to posit Horus as manifesting first in his satanic or destructive aspect—that of Force or Strength—in order to purge the Earth, before appearing in his divine and restorative guise, that of Silence and Healing. In the Book of Revelation it is written how “the devil,” after being trapped inside the Pit for one thousand years, will “be loosed for a little season, full of wrath for he knows his time is short.” Having been trapped inside the Earth-sphere since Moses offered him a deal He couldn’t refuse (making the Earth itself the bottomless pit), Yaldabaoth-Samael-Satan is finally to be released, in the Great Exorcism of the Aeon. The period in which Jehovah/Satan looses His hold upon humanity will of course be a rough one for all. Satan, being loosed in order to be done away with forever, does indeed know His time is short, and so gets busy swallowing up all the souls he can in the time allotted (attempting to fortify his metazon before it is destroyed utterly). Meanwhile Christ, who also shared time in “the Pit” (Sheol) with Jehovah, is to emerge hot on his heels, in order to deal with Satan (who is Himself!). Just so, the negative, destroying Age of Horus/Shiva will be immediately followed by the positive, restoring Age of Horus/Shiva. The manifestly satanic nature of the Aiwaz metazon relates to this understanding: That the process of unleashment/destruction of Satan is in fact His re-ascension and redemption as Morning Star, the brightest Angel and Light-Bringer, Lucifer. In this Hour Satan will submit to Christ and offer voluntary obedience, thus glorifying God as never before in all Creation. This is the prophecy, when darkness embraces the light, and Lucifer returns to the fold. For Jehovah of the Jews to be redeemed, then, He must first recognize Himself as Satan, a devil, and so realize (and admit) that He is not God, humbly taking His place in the ranks of the Angels. The Jewish metazon (Jehovah) is “destroyed” by the Aiwaz metazon (Satan), in order to be reborn, through the Gnostic metazon (Christ-Lucifer), as Horus, Abraxas, or better yet, Astarius, the Twin-God. Hence the Aiwaz metazon is geared above all to giving the devil his due." From: "Aiwass was revealed to Aleister Crowley as his Holy Guardian Angel. This automata of the subconscious is attributed to the Cabalistic number 666, a solar phallic symbol representing the Sun. Aiwass is also Shaitan, from which Satan emerged." From:  occultartgallery/Elda_Isela_Ford/  art_of_elda_isela_ford.htm "A possible example of just such a Sirian communication is LIBER AL, better known as "The Book of the Law". According to Crowley, Liber Al was a received text ,channeled through his first wife Rose(named Ouarda the Seeress by Crowley) while in Cairo, Egypt. The forebodding prophecy of the text was dictated in a rich timber by a higher intelligence which called itself AIWASS, an emissary of the Egyptian Neter, Horus. One passage in the book even asks "is a god to live in a dog?", a possible reference to the Dog Star, Sirius." From:  news/letter/nl07_00.html Check also this!!: Apparently it's all to do with the Pentagram Ritual of Magick and the Thelmic Calendar (?). Do you know of this bizarre stuff??... ---------- ---------The new anti-semitism? by Peter Beaumont12:15pm Sun Feb 17 '02 address: The Observer Some say that, beneath criticism of Ariel Sharon's policies, lurks a more sinister agenda print article On 5 December last year the Chief Rabbi of Brussels, Albert Gigi, was walking through Anderlecht when he was assaulted by a group of Arab-speaking youths. He was chased into a nearby metro station and he and his companion were abused as 'dirty Jews'. One of the assailants kicked the rabbi in the face, breaking his glasses. It was a nasty, sordid little attack, overt in its anti-Semitism. Happily rabbi Gigi was not seriously injured. There the matter might have rested, but for the significance that has recently been attached to the assault. For the attack on rabbi Gigi, if we are to believe proponents of the argument, is simply the latest and most significant example of Europe's fast growing and virulent new anti-Semitism. The new anti-Semitism - say those who argue most strongly for its existence - is not simply limited to attacks on individuals like rabbi Gigi, and to a spate of attacks on synagogues and Jewish schools and cemeteries. Instead, they say, it is a pernicious and widespread cancer infecting the media and political classes across Europe. In Britain the Telegraph 's proprietor, Conrad Black, and his journalist wife, Barbara Amiel, have been at the forefront of the finger-pointing. Black has accused sections of the British media of 'wittingly or not, stoking the inferno of anti-Semitism'. Amiel, for her part, has identified a newly confident anti-Semitism in 'London's political salon scene'. In Israel the right-wing Jerusalem Post (also owned by Mr Black) and the liberal, Anglophile Ha'aretz have devoted yards of space to defining the phenomenon. Israel's deputy foreign minister Michael Melchior has called in European ambassadors to complain about its rise. Here too it has been debated across the pages of our more literate press, a debate that has reached boiling point in Britain in recent weeks. The New Statesman - through an ill-advised cover illustration for an article detailing attempts at media bullying and manipulation by the government of Israel's hawkish prime minister, Ariel Sharon - was accused of anti-Semitism and forced to apologise for what it characterised as a 'kosher conspiracy'. Now in the current issue of the Spectator (owned by the ubiquitous Mr Black), Melanie Phillips describes the growing anti-Semitism of Christians in the Anglican Church which one Church source informs her reminds him of 'a throwback to the visceral anti-Judaism of the Middle Ages'. If all this is true then we live in dangerous times indeed. Our institutions are being gnawed at by a disease that George Orwell condemned as an 'unforgivable sin'. But the problem with all this talk of a 'new anti-Semitism' is that those who argue hardest for its inexorable rise are dangerously conflating two connected but critically separate phenomena. The monster that they have conjured from these parts is not only something that does not yet exist - and I say 'yet' with caution - but whose purported existence is being cynically manipulated by some in the Israeli government to try to silence debate about the policies of the Sharon government. So what are the facts about anti-Semitism in Europe? It is a fact, my Jewish friends tell me, that they feel more exposed to criticism and misunderstanding than at any time they can remember by those who sloppily confuse the fact of their Jewishness with the controversial policies being enacted by Sharon - something, they tell me, has reminded them how they are viewed as 'other'. It is a fact too that Jewish communities feel more in danger than ever before following the events of 11 September and the explicit anti-Semitic threat posed by of groups connected to al-Qaeda. But these are subjective rather than objective judgments. Objectively too it is undeniable that there has indeed been a rise in anti-Semitic attacks across Europe. But that fact, often cited in articles identifying the rise of the new anti-Semitism in Europe, hides a more complex picture. For far from proving the dangerous reach and scope of the 'new anti-Semitism' in Europe, it shows it instead confined largely, but not exclusively, to a single group. And to a group that itself feels equally persecuted in European life. As data collected by the Stephen Roth Institute at Tel Aviv University, and other research, makes clear, the rise in anti-Semitism in Europe coincided with the beginning of al-Aqsa intifada - and Israel's heavy-handed response - with most of these attacks limited to acts of vandalism on synagogues and cemeteries. As the institute also makes clear, the perpetrators of these attacks, like those who attacked rabbi Gigi, were largely disaffected Islamic youths, a group itself that is the victim of some of the worst race hate and discrimination in Europe. It would be wrong to be complacent about the increase in attacks. But the context is critical. For it is Israel's handling of the al-Aqsa intifada that has supplied the second strand in the equation for those, particularly in Israel, who argue that there is a virulent new strand of European anti-Semitism. What they are talking about is the criticism in the media and political classes of Europe of the policies of Sharon. Israel's brutal response to the often equally reprehensible anti-Israeli Palestinian violence of the intifada has produced one of the most vigorous media critiques of Israel's policies in the European media in a generation. The reply to this criticism, say those most vocal in reporting the existence of the new anti-Semitism, particularly in the Israeli press, is devastating in its simplicity: criticise Israel, and you are an anti-Semite just as surely as if you were throwing paint at a synagogue in Paris. It is at this point that the charges of the broad scope of the new anti-Semitism should be rejected for what they are: an attempt to deflect criticism from the actions of an Israeli government by declaring criticism of Israel out of bounds and invoking Europe's last great taboo - the fear of being declared an anti-Semite. For while the phenomenon of anti-Jewish sentiment and attacks in some quarters of the Islamic community in Europe is to be deplored, so too must be the effort to co-opt it as an alibi for Israel's behaviour and to use it to silence opposition to its policies. For it is significant that those European countries that have been most criticised in recent Israel press reports and commentaries as the prime focuses of the new anti-Semitism - France and Belgium - are also those that have criticised the policies and person of Ariel Sharon most forcefully, not least Belgium which had threatened to bring Sharon before a court on war crimes charges for his involvement in the Sabra and Chatila massacre. This is an issue that is not going to go away. The seeds of a mutual distrust have been sown between those who represent the government institutions of Israel and those, particularly, in liberal Europe's élites. The only proper response is one of rigorous honesty. The governments of Europe must attack real anti-Semitism wherever it is found. The Jewish community worldwide must be honest too about what is really being done in Israel, ostensibly in its name. For the rest of us who campaign and report and commentate and legislate on Israel and Palestine - we should not be cowed in our criticism of policies of which we disapprove by the threat of being accused by Sharon and his friends of being practitioners of the last taboo.  ---------------  Source file Please Buy Me the Ticket to Anywhere. by Boruh Cohen2:16am Mon Feb 18 '02 print comment The people working for Observer are guilty. They have on their hands the blood of innocent human families and individuals of Jewish origine who have been locked to murderous subtropical psychiatric state of Israel by false promises of the bloodthirsty part of Catholic,Protestant and Zionist crooks who wanted to acquire for nothing our appartments and houses in London and all over Europe. We are innocent. We trusted many years Observer and other British and world progressive press. We did not know that they are paid to hide the real picture of our Jewish- Christian Nazidom, I mean the state of Israel. We refuse to kill Palestinians, we do not feel anything towards "religious Jews", let them go to hell together with "religious" Zionists and Observer staff. Who can pay us our way back?..England and Church stink horribly, but we have been used to this smell. Helas, the smell of our Nazi-Zionism is much more horrible. We just cannot breath, so much it stinks. S.O.S. !!! We do not appeal to Synagogue and Church. We appeal to normal people. Give us money to pay our way out!  --------------------------- 14913 israel --- According public statement published on Internet by Swiss non-governmental organization Aktion Kinder des Holocaust, Warsaw Ghetto cartoon from Latuff's "We are all Palestinians" series "stands for the extermination of the Jewish people and the state of Israel". print article Is this cartoon by Latuff, published at indymedia-switzerland, anti-Semitic? An analysis. The cartoon evokes a clear association of a WWII ghetto in Poland. The figure shown is obviously based on the image from the infamous photograph of the little boy who is threatened by an SS-man armed with a gun. Hardly any other picture from any ghetto has the same symbolic and emotional impact. Further associations are stirred up. A Jewish community, living in Poland for centuries, is brutally violenced and detained to a Ghetto for one single reason: Because they are Jews. There is no political or strategic military goal behind this "ghettoization", only the thorough extermination of the Jewish population. The ghettos in Eastern Europe are part of the holocaust; they are the waiting room for the extermination camps. The caption in the bubble "I am Palestinian" picks up the figure of the devastated Jewish child and transforms it into a different one. Now the Palestinians are the ghetto-child whose fate is in the hands of oppressors who clearly intend his extinction. But the oppressors, too, are in the picture. Through the sentence "I am Palestinian" it is made clear that the ghetto wardens of today are not the Nazis anymore, but the Israelis. The picture conveys the clear association that the Jews themselves do nowexactly the same what the Nazis did to them in the Thirties and Forties of the last century. From a psychological point of view this means that the Jews suffer from an obsessive-compulsive urge to re-stage the ghetto trauma again and again to be able to face it at all and thus may have the trace of a chance to free themselves from it. For this purpose all means seem justifiable to the Jews = Israelis. The "Jews" are the "Germans" of the Middle East, the murderous invaders who attack as well - and foremost - children. Their only goal is the total extermination of the Palestinian people. Enough said about the heavy symbolism of the picture's antagonism between the "people", symbolized by a child, and the "black wall" (execution wall at Auschwitz?). It is part of the above explanation. Jews are reduced to a symbol here and the holocaust thus intrumentalized as a clever catchphrase to insinuate that the holocaust a) was not a singular experience and b) that the Israelis do exactly the same, i.e. follow a comprehensive genocidal agenda. Jews are "allotted" just victim-status, which they have to live by. If they don't, they are automatically labelled with the "global conspiracy" stereotype, which portrays them as aspiring tyrant rulers of the world. The emblematic set-up of the Israelis = Nazis symbol has become a much-used topos within the Arab world since the foundation of Israel 1948. It is published regularly in Arab newspapers, although in a much more direct way (Moshe Dayan meets Hitler and gets a compliment as his (Hitler's) "best disciple"). In the picture we are discussing here this is done much more subtly, but not any less anti-Semitic. The icon of the "global Jewish plotter" who poses as a victim, yet is a perpetrator, is a figure frequently used in the 19th and early 20th century. Depending on the point of view of the critic, Jews were either revolutionaries threatening law and order or cannibal exploitative abusers. Both of those images imply that "the Jews" are following an agenda of taking over global power. The relativation of the holocaust and the denial of its singularity is a further anti-Semitic symbol, which allows to intrumentalize the extremely emotional topic of the holocaust in a populist and polemic fashion for other purposes and which implies invariably elements of excuse for German society as well. The cartoon abuses, polemically, sensationally and luridly, the suffering of the Jewish people in the holocaust to cast the Jews as the evil incarnated in the Middle East. This is no cartoonist, legitimate larger-than-life illustration to make a point, this puts an end to any dialogue between Palestinians and Israelis. No communication is possible between the mutely murderous black wall and the helpless child. The only solution is a demolition of the wall and as the wall stands for Israel = Jewry, when all is said and done, the cartoon stands for the extermination of the Jewish people and the state of Israel. add your comments Source file Not words, deeds! by Rlb12:08am Sun Feb 17 '02 print comment It's easy to glue a sign on one's own front stating "I'm on the right side since I'm not a fascist", but very often people claiming to be anti-fascist use nazi methods. add your comments nazi methods? by crimplene12:16am Sun Feb 17 '02 print comment using the law against antisemitism is no "nazi method". for sure!  ---------------  Full of shit by .12:21am Sun Feb 17 '02 print comment Latuff drew a whole series of cartoons depicting tyrants and vistims... Nazis and Jews, KKK and Blacks, etc... It just happens that the Israelis who are making Palestinian lives so miserable are Jews. Nothing about antisemetism. In fact he only acknowledged that the Jews were victims at one time. add your comments FALSE! by rum1:38am Sun Feb 17 '02 print comment >There is no political or strategic military goal behind this "ghettoization", only the >thorough extermination of the Jewish population. There is always a political reason in genocideS and holocaustS which can be explained on many levels. Jewish were chosen by nazis because they were historically exploitable as scapegoats for the terrible economic situation. There is no trascendece in jewish extermination because there is no relation between god and history. The idea of god, of any god, is unuseful and dangerous to rationally explain history and has brought to the worst events of human history. Unluckly making genocides and holocausts is a possibility of human nature present in past and future history. This is why we have to fight Sharon as well as we fought (and fight) nazis. These days there's an evident plan, shared by many politicians and militars in the state of Israel, to kill all the palestinians. This is a plan of genocide similar to that carried out by the US against the american indians. The equation anti-semitism = anti-zionism = anti-Israel is totally false. There are atheist citizen of Israel as there are anti-nationalist zionists. There are racist zionist and non-racist zionist (even if a minority these days). Semitis do not exist and are an ideological invention of bilogical racists like Adolf Hitler. Israel is recognized by the international community as a laic state, not as a theocracy. >Jews are reduced to a symbol here and the holocaust thus intrumentalized as a clever >catchphrase to insinuate that the holocaust a) was not a singular experience and b) that the >Israelis do exactly the same, i.e. follow a comprehensive genocidal agenda. Every historic event is singular and every historic event isn't monopoly of anyone except of human race. Holocausts are no one's property! The Holocaust regards jewish as gipsy as homosexuals as communists and is an offence to humanity in its entirety. Singularity doesn' imply trascendece of any kind. Not Israelis, but israelian government and militar establishment are willing to do something very similar to the palestinians. >The relativation of the holocaust and the denial of its singularity is a further anti-Semitic >symbol, which allows to intrumentalize the extremely emotional topic of the holocaust in a >populist and polemic fashion for other purposes and which implies invariably elements of >excuse for German society as well. Each historical event is relative to others and, at the same time, is singular. This hasn't nothing to do with with populism or excuses for German society. You can't forbid historical analysys of any historical event!  ---------------  unglaublich by abisag 2:19am Sun Feb 17 '02 print comment jetzt springen die anti-Ds schon hier rum, um den leuten ihre "meinung" aufzudrücken....  ----------------Date: Saturday, September 15, 2001 9:15 PM Subject: ICT: Leading on energy and environment is proper for tribes Indian Country Today Editorial September 10, 2001 Leading on energy and environment is proper for tribes Throughout the Americas, tribal societies produced peoples and cultures of great restraint. The marshalling of natural resources ­ animal, plant or mineral ­ was most often carefully considered. Universally, within most Native traditions, the bounties of nature were appreciated as gifts of the Creator. Respect for all living things, as relatives of the human being, was inherent in cultural and spiritual approaches that continue to the present. From our ceremonies, from our languages, and from our histories we have known this to be a collective guiding maxim. This is not to romanticize either our ancestors or us. We know that survival has sometimes required difficult decisions. We also know that much has changed and that such deep and appreciative thinking is not nearly always at the forefront of tribal actions. We often espouse such claims, but if we are not ready to live our values, then what good are they? If the principles of our general philosophies do not guide our living practice in realistic yet ethical applications for our present-day societies, are we not just demeaning ourselves? And, are we not helping to cheat our children of a future which, in fact, belongs to them? As often reported in these pages, we are aware that issues of climate change and global warming, the poisoning of the air and water, the rapid and all-too-wanton depletion of basic resources, are gravely important. The majority of these environmental problems arise from humanity's need to produce energy ­ for cooking our meals, for heating our homes and businesses, for transportation, and for industrial production. That these are requirements of modern life is true enough. But we are surrounded by a North American society where the energy created ­ which in whatever form remains a gift of creation ­ is often wasted. The United States, with 4 percent of the world's population, consumes more than 25 percent of the world's resources. Yet, as a modern society ­ and this clearly includes our tribal nations ­ we know more everyday about how to improve by reducing this waste, how to produce energy in ways that are not as destructive to land, water and air as past practices. There are whole movements dedicated to finding and developing practical solutions, many which are increasingly available, even if the predominate leadership most often chooses to ignore them. But Native peoples should not, not if we would hold true to our most cherished values. There is more scientific consensus on the reality and growing problematic effects of global warming than on any other single environmental issue. The whole world is looking to confront this issue, including many good and wise people in America. We know that Earth's mean temperature climbed nearly a full degree in the past century, and that this is linked to the fact that energy demands from fossil fuels have increased carbon dioxide concentrations from 280 to 365 parts per million over the same period. We know that the decade of the '90s was the warmest ever on record, unleashing super-storms and fueling huge fires in patterns that are now all too predictable. We know both from scientists and from Inuit hunters that Arctic ice is melting at unprecedented rates. We know that impacts of severe weather now routinely stimulate preparations for "super-disasters" among relief agencies. We know there are solutions to these problems, but we also know that these must be fought for. In the creation of energy, in the building of homes and other necessary structures, in the protection of resources, American Indian tribal governments are properly challenged to lead the struggle for healthy solutions. There are ways to do this and just a few projects and tribes have stepped out ahead of the many more that have not. These are developing practical applications that are consistent with the values our ancestors understood and, indeed, succeeded against all odds in maintaining and passing on to the generations that gave us life. Excuses for lack of positive action are many. It is not our fault, some say. We are among the poorest, most marginal of peoples, so why should we be the ones to shoulder the responsibility? But these remain just that, excuses. American Indian tribes, who are certainly among the most impacted victims of radioactive waste, flooded homelands and pollution, cannot afford to merely follow those who do not see far enough to consider their future generations. Consider the Hopi and Navajo, who although sometimes in disagreement, have both developed active projects in solar power for their communities. Even in its current infancy stage, this is a hugely important effort, where the sun's energy can supplement power to homes while lessening demands on existing electricity generating plants. Some say such approaches are inadequate, but they can be effective in helping make families more energy independent while inducing policy makers to implement needed building and energy code changes. Consider the wind projects of several Plains tribes, organized under the auspices of the Intertribal Council on Energy Policy (Intertribal COUP). This visionary group is engaging in a project that can have practical and even profitable applications. North and South Dakota have been called the "Saudi Arabia of Wind" and for good reason. The U.S. Department of Energy notes that the wind resources of the Great Plains could supply the lower 48 states with 75 percent of their electricity demand. COUP staff estimate that just 12 Indian reservations in the Dakotas (most significantly Cheyenne River, Standing Rock, Pine Ridge and Rosebud) could generate in excess of 250 gigawatts of power. COUP's plan proposes to use this great wind power potential on reservation lands as economic development that promotes sound environmental policy. In contrast to nuclear power and the region's environmentally destructive huge hydropower dams, wind power is completely renewable and compatible with wildlife, cattle ranching and other beneficial land-use projects. Financial partners are needed in what would seem a natural investment for any of the big ten gaming tribes. Then there are the more than 100 tribes fighting to gain treaty-based rights to higher air and water quality standards. Following the commendable leadership of Isleta Pueblo and Montana's Salish and Kootenai, a number of tribes filed for TAS (Treatment as State) authority under amendments to the 1986 Clean Water Act, opening a way to apply higher water-quality levels on treaty lands. With U.S. Supreme Court decisions to back them up, this movement opened the door for more than 100 tribes throughout the country to press for higher air and water quality standards. Twenty-one have been granted TAS authorization, of which 18 have gained approval of higher standards of water quality. The list goes on, but it is not long enough. We say, again: to be at the forefront of clean energy standards and of the fight for a sustainable future is a good and proper place for American Indian tribes. This article can be found at  ------------------  source: leg:  magazine/JF02/blaming.html The Left could try a little harder, argues Todd Gitlin, to grasp the brutal, tolerant, myopic, generous, selfish, glorious powerhouse that is America... Blaming America First Why are some on the left, who rightly demand sympathy for victims around the world, so quick to dismiss American suffering? by Todd Gitlin January/February 2002 As shock and solidarity overflowed on September 11, it seemed for a moment that political differences had melted in the inferno of Lower Manhattan. Plain human sympathy abounded amid a common sense of grief and emergency. Soon enough, however, old reflexes and tones cropped up here and there on the left, both abroad and at home—smugness, acrimony, even schadenfreude, accompanied by the notion that the attacks were, well, not a just dessert, exactly, but…damnable yet understandable payback…rooted in America's own crimes of commission and omission…reaping what empire had sown. After all, was not America essentially the oil-greedy, Islam-disrespecting oppressor of Iraq, Sudan, Palestine? Were not the ghosts of the Shah's Iran, of Vietnam, and of the Cold War Afghan jihad rattling their bones? Intermittently grandiose talk from Washington about a righteous "crusade" against "evil" helped inflame the rhetoric of critics who feared—legitimately—that a deepening war in Afghanistan would pile human catastrophe upon human catastrophe. And soon, without pausing to consider why the vast majority of Americans might feel bellicose as well as sorrowful, some on the left were dismissing the idea that the United States had any legitimate recourse to the use of force in self-defense—or indeed any legitimate claim to the status of victim. I am not speaking of the ardent, and often expressed, hope that September 11's crimes against humanity might eventually elicit from America a greater respect for the whole of assaulted humanity. A reasoned, vigorous examination of U.S. policies, including collusion in the Israeli occupation, sanctions against Iraq, and support of corrupt regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, is badly needed. So is critical scrutiny of the administration's actions in Afghanistan and American unilateralism on many fronts. But in the wake of September 11 there erupted something more primal and reflexive than criticism: a kind of left-wing fundamentalism, a negative faith in America the ugly. In this cartoon view of the world, there is nothing worse than American power—not the woman-enslaving Taliban, not an unrepentant Al Qaeda committed to killing civilians as they please—and America is nothing but a self-seeking bully. It does not face genuine dilemmas. It never has legitimate reason to do what it does. When its rulers' views command popularity, this can only be because the entire population has been brainwashed, or rendered moronic, or shares in its leaders' monstrous values. Of the perils of American ignorance, of our fantasy life of pure and unappreciated goodness, much can be said. The failures of intelligence that made September 11 possible include not only security oversights, but a vast combination of stupefaction and arrogance—not least the all-or-nothing thinking that armed the Islamic jihad in Afghanistan in order to fight our own jihad against Soviet Communism—and a willful ignorance that not so long ago permitted half the citizens of a flabby, self-satisfied democracy to vote for a man unembarrassed by his lack of acquaintanceship with the world. But myopia in the name of the weak is no more defensible than myopia in the name of the strong. Like jingoists who consider any effort to understand terrorists immoral, on the grounds that to understand is to endorse, these hard-liners disdain complexity. They see no American motives except oil-soaked power lust, but look on the bright side of societies that cultivate fundamentalist ignorance. They point out that the actions of various mass murderers (the Khmer Rouge, bin Laden) must be "contextualized," yet refuse to consider any context or reason for the actions of Americans. If we are to understand Islamic fundamentalism, must we not also trouble ourselves to understand America, this freedom-loving, brutal, tolerant, shortsighted, selfish, generous, trigger-happy, dumb, glorious, fat-headed powerhouse? Not a bad place to start might be the patriotic fervor that arose after the attacks. What's offensive about affirming that you belong to a people, that your fate is bound up with theirs? Should it be surprising that suffering close-up is felt more urgently, more deeply, than suffering at a distance? After disaster comes a desire to reassemble the shards of a broken community, withstand the loss, strike back at the enemy. The attack stirs, in other words, patriotism—love of one's people, pride in their endurance, and a desire to keep them from being hurt anymore. And then, too, the wound is inverted, transformed into a badge of honor. It is translated into protest ("We didn't deserve this") and indignation ("They can't do this to us"). Pride can fuel the quest for justice, the rage for punishment, or the pleasures of smugness. The dangers are obvious. But it should not be hard to understand that the American flag sprouted in the days after September 11, for many of us, as a badge of belonging, not a call to shed innocent blood. This sequence is not a peculiarity of American arrogance, ignorance, and power. It is simply and ordinarily human. It operates as clearly, as humanly, among nonviolent Palestinians attacked by West Bank and Gaza settlers and their Israeli soldier-protectors as among Israelis suicide-bombed at a nightclub or a pizza joint. No government anywhere has the right to neglect the safety of its own citizens—not least against an enemy that swears it will strike again. Yet some who instantly, and rightly, understand that Palestinians may burn to avenge their compatriots killed by American weapons assume that Americans have only interests (at least the elites do) and gullibilities (which are the best the masses are capable of). In this purist insistence on reducing America and Americans to a wicked stereotype, we encounter a soft anti-Americanism that, whatever takes place in the world, wheels automatically to blame America first. This is not the hard anti-Americanism of bin Laden, the terrorist logic under which, because the United States maintains military bases in the land of the prophet, innocents must be slaughtered and their own temples crushed. Totalitarians like bin Laden treat issues as fodder for the apocalyptic imagination. They want power and call it God. Were Saddam Hussein or the Palestinians to win all their demands, bin Laden would move on, in his next video, to his next issue. Soft anti-Americans, by contrast, sincerely want U.S. policies to change—though by their lights, such turnabouts are well-nigh unimaginable—but they commit the grave moral error of viewing the mass murderer (if not the mass murder) as nothing more than an outgrowth of U.S. policy. They not only note but gloat that the United States built up Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan as a counterfoil to the Russians. In this thinking, Al Qaeda is an effect, not a cause; a symptom, not a disease. The initiative, the power to cause, is always American. But here moral reasoning runs off the rails. Who can hold a symptom accountable? To the left-wing fundamentalist, the only interesting or important brutality is at least indirectly the United States' doing. Thus, sanctions against Iraq are denounced, but the cynical mass murderer Saddam Hussein, who permits his people to die, remains an afterthought. Were America to vanish, so, presumably, would the miseries of Iraq and Egypt. In the United States, adherents of this kind of reflexive anti-Americanism are a minority (isolated, usually, on campuses and in coastal cities, in circles where reality checks are scarce), but they are vocal and quick to action. Observing flags flying everywhere, they feel embattled and draw on their embattlement for moral credit, thus roping themselves into tight little circles of the pure and the saved. The United States represents a frozen imperialism that values only unbridled power in the service of untrammeled capital. It is congenitally, genocidally, irremediably racist. Why complicate matters by facing up to America's self-contradictions, its on-again, off-again interest in extending rights, its clumsy egalitarianism coupled with ignorant arrogance? America is seen as all of a piece, and it is hated because it is hateful—period. One may quarrel with the means used to bring it low, but low is only what it deserves. So even as the smoke was still rising from the ground of Lower Manhattan, condemnations of mass murder made way in some quarters for a retreat to the old formula and the declaration that the "real question" was America's victims—as if there were not room in the heart for more than one set of victims. And the seductions of closure were irresistible even to those dedicated, in other circumstances, to intellectual glasnost. Noam Chomsky bent facts to claim that Bill Clinton's misguided attack on a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant in 1998 was worse by far than the massacres of September 11. Edward Said, the exiled Palestinian author and critic, wrote of "a superpower almost constantly at war, or in some sort of conflict, all over the Islamic domains." As if the United States always picked the fight; as if U.S. support of the Oslo peace process, whatever its limitations, could be simply brushed aside; as if defending Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo—however dreadful some of the consequences—were the equivalent of practicing gunboat diplomacy in Latin America or dropping megatons of bombs on Vietnam and Cambodia. From the Indian novelist Arundhati Roy, who has admirably criticized her country's policies on nuclear weapons and development, came the queenly declaration that "American people ought to know that it is not them but their government's policies that are so hated." (One reason why Americans were not exactly clear about the difference is that the murderers of September 11 did not trouble themselves with such nice distinctions.) When Roy described bin Laden as "the American president's dark doppelganger" and claimed that "the twins are blurring into one another and gradually becoming interchangeable," she was in the grip of a prejudice invulnerable to moral distinctions. Insofar as we who criticize U.S. policy seriously want Americans to wake up to the world—to overcome what essayist Anne Taylor Fleming has called our serial innocence, ever renewed, ever absurd—we must speak to, not at, Americans, in recognition of our common perplexity and vulnerability. We must abstain from the fairy-tale pleasures of oversimplification. We must propose what is practical—the stakes are too great for the luxury of any fundamentalism. We must not content ourselves with seeing what Washington says and rejecting that. We must forgo the luxury of assuming that we are not obligated to imagine ourselves in the seats of power. Generals, it's said, are always planning to fight the last war. But they're not alone in suffering from sentimentality, blindness, and mental laziness disguised as resolve. The one-eyed left helps no one when it mires itself in its own mirror-image myths. Breaking habits is desperately hard, but those who evade the difficulties in their purist positions and refuse to face all the mess and danger of reality only guarantee their bitter inconsequence. ----------------------- article_id=133626&group=webcast IMC SWITZERLAND UNDER FIRE (english) by Latuff (who is a cartoon artist) 5:36am Tue Feb 12 '02 (Modified on 8:55am Tue Feb 12 '02) Swiss non-governmental organization Aktion Kinder des Holocaust is threatening with legal charges two members from editorial staff of Independent Media Center of Switzerland, an alternative media group formed by volunteer activists, for publishing of material seems as anti-Semitic. 1st of 2 comments as of euro tuesday eve: Cheap excuse (english) by Remember Deir Yassim 8:28am Tue Feb 12 '02 Palestinians are semite. It does not seem that Latuff is anti-semitic. I don't think he was saying anything particularly bad about semitic people, rather some particular persons who may be semitic. The "anti-semitic" label is often used as a cheap all-encompassing and convenient "weapon" whenever some people want to prevent the rest of the world from addressing issues such as the Palestinian Holocaust. "Black" Jews are treated very shabbily in Israel. A totally shameful act recently was the refusal by a certain category of Jews preventing the body of a Jewish commando from being buried in their ground. He was "black". Is there any protection for these Jews from Jews who are "white"? How does "anti-semitic" apply in instances of gross prejudice by one semitic category ("white") against another? The same ploy was used in UK and France when some Jews were prosecuted (for grand scale financial and electoral fraud) it was called anti-semitic. I suppose when blacks or whites are prosecuted, they can also scream "anti-black" or "anti-white"? Meanwhile, while you ponder these, you could do something about this: Here is the online petition for the reservists who refuse to participate in the genocidal rampage of Adolf Sharon who is trying to outdo all his ZioNazi predecessors in exacerbating the Palestinian Holocaust. Show your support for the brave reservists by signing and telling all about it. ja ja ok i wird schon lesen aber zuerst les ich Aby Warburg und der Anti-Semitismus zu Ende (bissl fad bis jetzt), uber den Aby hab ich interessantes verlautbart aber auf meine Hollaendische u Englischen Seiten eher, mittlerweile tu mir auch ein Gefallen und schau mal her hier: zionazi? by lkjlkj 8:26am Wed Feb 13 '02 wird nun echt von den antisemiten, faschos und wirrköpfen übernommen - frau lese nur mal den letzten eintrag - zionazis - oh je! ----------- ----------- ----------- Israeli Officer: "We can't take it anymore" (english) by source: FAZ, 2/11/02 10:29am Tue Feb 12 '02 (Modified on 12:31pm Tue Feb 12 '02) Backlash against Sharon and his repressive policies. ISRAELI OFFICER: WE CAN'T TAKE IT ANY MORE IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES. Capt. Avi Kaplan from a modern Orthodox American family,in a background discussion to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of Feb. 11, said, of the 220 Israeli officers rebelling against Sharon's policy: "We had to go public, because many of us could not take it any more." He spoke about the military deployments, which "served" the interests of the settlers, and which humiliated the Arabs. Kaplan told FAZ that he does no longer wants "to humiliate old men in front of their grandsons, or help in demolishing houses, no matter whether there is a child in the house, or outside of it, or to provoke women to cry, or dominate people as {Herrenmensch} [overlords]." The army, which used to be the pride of the Israeli people, has become very tainted, said Kaplan, given the operations which the army got involved in. FAZ writes that many people, especially people from the elite, try to dodge the army. Avi says: "When I see, how Kalashnikovs and stones are being thrown against our strong army, then it may be that the life of Israelis living in the settlements may become perhaps uneasy, but Israel is definitely not threatened." This article is a sign of the increasing backlash against Sharon, who now has less than 50% support in Israel, according to International Herald Tribune columnist William Pfaff writing on Feb. 9. On Feb. 10 the Sunday New York Times carried two articles, covering a half page on the revolt of the Israeli reserve officers against being forced to serve in Occupied Palestine. The Times article noted that the Peace Now group itself had started from a statement by 348 reserve officers in 1978, and that reserve officers also were also responsible for triggering the movement to pull out of the Sinai. The Times references the Nuremberg precedent for war crimes, as well as to St. Augustine's principle of what is a just war, in defense of the Israeli reservists' action. ----------- --------------------------