Skip to content or view screen version

Pro-Palestinian 'peace' organizations who want destruction

Judy | 08.04.2003 03:29

True peace organizations recognize that protecting known terrorists who intentionally kill innocent people and brag about it should not be called 'peace organizations.'

"Peace activists" in the Middle East: out of their depth?
By Judy Lash Balint April 6, 2003

It's amazing that those who call for a Palestinian state fail to recognize the fact that 75% of the historic Palestinian territory became TransJordan, now the country of Jordan. Modern-day Israel is under 18% of the "Palestinian territory" as it has been for hundreds of years. Jordan is the Palestinian state. Should the West Bank and Gaza strip become a state, it would be a second, not first, Palestinian state.

The Palestinian state is Jordan. It exists already.

But on to the subject at hand:

The news that a senior Islamic Jihad terrorist, Shadi Sukiya, was captured by an elite anti-terror unit of the Israel Defense Forces while hiding out in the Jenin offices of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) did not make a ripple in the flood of coverage from the Iraqi front last week.

Just eleven days earlier, the ISM did make world headlines when Rachel Corrie, a 23-year-old ISM member, was run over by an Israeli bulldozer in Rafah and died of her injuries.

Maybe the fact that a "peace" organization was found defending terrorists twice in a two-week period will factor into the inquiry called by several Washington state congressional representatives into the circumstances of Rachel Corrie's death. But don't be surprised if the revelation that two Kalashnikovs and a handgun were found along with a terrorist in the Jenin ISM office will hardly feature in the search for the truth about Rachel Corrie.

Only one thing is certain about the circumstances surrounding the death of International Solidarity Movement (ISM) protestor Rachel Corrie: she died in Rafiah, on the southern edge of the Gaza Strip.

But is Israel responsible for her death, or do the doctors at the Arab hospital where she was taken still alive after the accident bear any responsibility? What about the ISM that organizes protests in a closed military zone and harbors known terrorists in their field offices? How she died, exactly where she passed her last moments and who should take the blame for Rachel Corrie's death are questions that demand answers.

The congressional inquiry called for by Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) will have to sort it all out, but the inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimonies raise doubts about the simplistic conclusions already being drawn.

By all accounts, Rachel Corrie was one of a group of protestors attempting to disrupt the work of two IDF bulldozers leveling ground to detonate explosives in an area rife with terrorist activity. The bulldozers moved to a different area to avoid the protestors, and Corrie became separated from the group. Some of the agitators stood with a banner, while Corrie picked up a bullhorn and yelled fruitlessly at the driver encased in the small cabin of the 'dozer. This went on for several hours on the afternoon of March 16. It's the kind of activity favored by the young pro-Palestinian types who make up the ISM.

There wasn't enough action for Corrie. According to a fellow Evergreen State College student, Joseph Smith, 21, who was at the site, Corrie dropped her bullhorn and sat down in front of one of the bulldozers. She fully expected that the driver would stop just in front of her. "We were horribly surprised," Smith told me by phone from Rafiah the day after the incident. "They had been careful not to hurt us. They'd always stopped before," he said.

As the 'dozer plowed forward heaping up a pile of dirt and sand, Corrie scrambled up the pile to sit on the top, screaming slogans at the driver. Smith says she lost her footing as the bulldozer made the earth move beneath her feet. "She got pulled down," he says. "The driver lost sight of her and continued forward. Then, without lifting the blade he reversed and Rachel was underneath the mid-section of the 'dozer - she wasn't run over by the tread."

Capt. Jacob Dallal of the IDF spokesperson's office confirms what Smith says about the driver: he lost sight of Rachel. Inside the cab some 8 feet off the ground, visibility is very restricted. The protestors should have known that and kept within the driver's line of sight to avoid getting hurt, Dallal asserts.

The strange thing about this part of the story is the discrepancy over the photos given to the press and posted on several pro-Arab websites.

As Smith describes to me his version of events, I ask about the series of photos printed in an Arab newspaper I picked up that morning in Jerusalem's Old City. "They aren't of the actual incident," he states firmly. "We'd been there for three hours already, we were tired-we already had a lot of pictures."

Yet these are the pictures used on the ISM website to document the before and after of Rachel's interaction with the bulldozer. The same pictures are featured as a photo-essay on Electronic Intifada, where they're even attributed to Joseph Smith.

There are several shots of the back of a woman with a blond ponytail facing a bulldozer. She's standing in an open field, wearing an orange fluorescent jacket, holding a megaphone.

Even Michael Shaik, the ISM media coordinator, won't confirm that these are pictures of Corrie taken the day she died. "I'm fairly sure" they're of the incident, he tells me by phone from his Bethlehem office. In the same conversation, Shaik asks me not to contact Joe, Greg or Tom, the Rafiah ISM eyewitnesses again directly: "They're still in trauma..."

The pictures should have raised all kinds of questions to photo editors, but all the major newspapers and wire services chose to run the photos regardless. If there are pictures of Rachel before and after, why didn't the same photographer consider it important to document the act of the bulldozer running her down?

Where is the mound of earth Rachel clambered up and was buried in? The woman shown lying bleeding from her nose and mouth is lying on a flat piece of ground, and she's not covered in sand.

So Corrie was either knocked down by the 'dozer, or fell in front of it. ISMers assume that she was intentionally run over, but there's no proof that was the driver's intent.

The real issue is was Rachel alive when she was taken by Palestinian Red Crescent ambulance to Martyr Mohammed Yousef An Najar Hospital? In other words, where did she die? Were adequate efforts made to save her in the hospital?

Again, there are conflicting stories. Joseph Smith tells me in a telephone interview the day after the tragedy, "She died in the hospital or on the way to the hospital." CNN also reported that Rachel died there. ("Israeli bulldozer runs over 23-year-old woman." CNN, Monday, March 17, 2003)

In his account posted on Arabia.com, ISMer Tom Dale has a slightly different story. On March 17 he writes: "I ran for an ambulance, she was gasping and her face was covered in blood from a gash cutting her face from lip to cheek. She was showing signs of brain hemorrhaging. She died in the ambulance a few minutes later of massive internal injuries."

But Dr. Ali Mussa, director of Martyr Mohammed Yousef An Najar Hospital where Corrie was taken isn't so clear. On the day of the event, Dr. Mussa tells AP Gaza reporter Ibrahim Barzak that Rachel died in the hospital. ("American Killed in Gaza" AP, March 16, 2003)

One week later, in a telephone interview with me, Dr. Mussa states definitively that Rachel died at the scene, "in the soil," as he puts it. "The main cause of death was suffocation," Mussa asserts. There were no signs of life, no heartbeat or pulse when she arrived at the hospital, he says. Mussa states that Rachel's ribs were fractured, a fact determined by X-rays. (Is it normal procedure to X-ray a dead body?)

Doesn't quite jive with the photo essay on the pages of the Electronic Intifada website for March 16, 2003.

A caption under one photo of doctors leaning over a female patient reads: "Rachel arrived in the Emergency Room at 5:05 p.m and doctors scrambled to save her. By 5:20 p.m, she was gone. Ha'aretz newspaper reported that Dr. Ali Mussa, a doctor at Al Najar, stated that the cause of death was "skull and chest fractures." Dr. Mussa told me he was one of the treating physicians - yet he alone maintains that Rachel was dead before she was put into the ambulance. To further complicate matters, on that same website, a report from the Palestine Monitor is cited. Here, the writer says that Rachel fractured "both her arms, legs and skull. She was transferred to hospital, where she later died."

Just who is Dr. Ali Mussa? Clearly a man in favor with the Palestine Authority hierarchy. Dr. Mussa's views are aired on the official website of the PA's Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation: (January 27, 2003)

There, Dr. Mussa accuses Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's "terrorist government" of "deliberately killing Palestinian children in Rafiah."

A few days after the incident, ISM Media Coordinator Michael Shaik tells me by phone from Rafah that three ISMers, Tom, Alice and Greg were in the ambulance with Rachel. "She died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital," says Michael. But Greg Schnabel, 28, who is quoted in numerous wire service and newspaper stories, never says he witnessed the death of his comrade in the ambulance. In his account published a few days later on the ISM website, he carefully states that she died twenty minutes after arriving at the hospital.

What happened to Rachel's body after her death? Depends who you ask. Dr. Mussa says it was kept for 24 hours at the hospital before a Red Crescent ambulance transported it "to the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv," via the border where an Israeli ambulance took over. Michael Shaik says "we lost track of it (her body) after she died." Three ISMers tried to escort the body, but only one was permitted on the ambulance on the Israeli side. According to his account, the ambulance drove straight to the Israeli Forensic Institute at Abu Kabir, where an autopsy was performed. "The Israelis are trying to say she died from a blow to the head by a rock," Shaik recounts.

Speaking about the autopsy, one of Rachel's ISM trainers, Iowa native LeAnne Clausen, a fieldworker for the Christian Peacemaker Team based in Beit Sahour, tells me: "The general sentiment within ISM is that the Israelis are trying to suggest perhaps Rachel was on drugs."

In reality, IDF spokesperson Dallal says that initial Israeli investigation results indicate that the cause of death was most likely a blow to the head and chest by a blunt object - possibly a chunk of cement dug up by the bulldozer.

In keeping with ISM sympathies, Rachel received a shahid (martyr) procession in Rafah, the day after her death. But here again, there's confusion between reality and photo opp. Some accounts noted that her coffin draped in an American flag was paraded through the streets. Yet a picture on the site of her college town's peace movement, the Olympia Movement for Justice and Peace shows Arab women holding a coffin covered by a Palestinian flag with the caption: Palestinian funeral for Rachel.

Confusion and obfuscation seem to be a trademark of the ISM. Last May, a number of ISMers raced past Israeli soldiers into the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, where dozens of Palestinian terrorists had holed up to evade capture by the IDF outside. After an agreement was reached, the ISM members refused to leave the church, holding up the solution. Then they charged that they were mistreated by clergy, who claimed the ISMers desecrated the church by smoking and drinking alcohol.

Another revealing ISM action took place shortly before the Bethlehem incident, when a number of protestors managed to make their way past IDF barricades into Yasser Arafat's Ramallah compound to "protect" the terrorist leader.

Last week's Rafiah activity falls into the same category of ISM defense of Arab terrorists. IDF efforts in Rafiah are concentrated on preventing the flow of arms and explosives over the border from Egypt into the terrorist's dens that riddle the area. Less than a week after Rachel died defending terrorists, Israeli tanks moved into Rafiah, surrounded several houses, and arrested two Hamas members. IDF spokesperson, Dallal calls Rafiah "the most dangerous area in the West Bank and Gaza, and decries the "provocative protests" of ISM. "There's nothing wrong with civil disobedience, but these people crossed the line of what was safe for everyone," Dallal says.

So, while the memorial services laud and remember Rachel Corrie as a "peace activist" "murdered by Israeli occupation forces," the truth lies elsewhere.

An Israeli bulldozer injured Corrie as she tried to prevent it doing its job of protecting Israeli civilians, but she was alive when she was taken to An Najar Hospital, according to at least three eyewitnesses. Only Dr. Mussa, a man intent on accusing Israel of child killing, claims otherwise. None of Rachel's comrades have stated they were with her in the hospital when she died.

The Corrie episode in Rafah may end up being ranked with the "murder" of 12-year-old Muhammad al-Dura by Israeli forces in a firefight at nearby Netzarim in September 2000. Months after the event, the official IDF inquiry and a German TV report revealed that there was little doubt that al-Dura was hit by Palestinian fire. An independent French journalist, Gerard Huber, claims that the entire incident was fabricated for press consumption. (Contre-expertise d'une mise en scene, Editions Raphael, Paris).

And all the while, the ISM continues to encourage misguided young people like Rachel Corrie from around the world to spend time in the Middle East providing cover for terrorists.

The world needs to undertand that Israel is not trying to fight Palestinians who want "liberation." Israel is fighting organizations who refuse to stop attacking Israel regardless of what Israel does. Never forget Arafat's history of 35 years of trying to destroy Israel and failing. Do not ignore that Hamas terrorists, the most popular in Palestine, seek to "liberate" every ounce of land and kill every Jew they can. In the 1990's, Israel funded Arafat and the P.A. after they promised to defeat terrorists. Arafat and the P.A. responded with more terrorism, "intifadas," and the continuing of his dream of making Israel disappear. Arafat is old and weak now and can't accomplish his goal by normal means, so he lies to the world media while doing nothing to prevent terrorist attacks against Israel. Israel gave Palestinians every chance imaginable in the 1990's to show they seek peace, and Palestinians responded with terrorism, and equal amounts of anti-Israel and anti-Jew rhetoric. Palestinians have a history of terrorism. THey terrorized Jordan for years until in the early 1970's King Hussein, in "Black September," attacked Palestinians, and instead of showing restraint like Israel does, Jordan killed about 4,000 Palestinians in a month. JOrdan never had a problem with Palestinian terrorists again. Perhaps Israel should have taken that route, too, but they didn't, gave Palestinians constant chances throughout the 1990's, and the result of that is a terrorist intifada against Israel in the 2000's. So now Israel has clamped down again and is battling those who do not seek "liberation" but those who seek to kill every Israeli Jew they can kill.

Arabs controlled the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights from 1948 to 1967. Did they form a Palestinian state? No, they just attacked Israel. After Israel took control of some of the land in 1967, did Palestinians, the losers, agree to stop attacking Israel and be nice about things? No, the PLO, led by Arafat, called for Israel's destruction, and in the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's and part of the 1990's did nothing but pull off the most sick terrorist attacks imaginable.

And, the ISM wants to protect those terrorists?

Bring on the inquiry.

Judy
- Homepage: http://web.israelinsider.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=ViewsPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Article%5El2164&enZone=Views&enVersion=0&

Comments

Hide the following 12 comments

Judy, are you a troll?

08.04.2003 07:00

The state of israel never existed. The land where Israel is now is Palestine territory. The division of Palestine from the UK created a lot of problems.
For the rest of your article I may say that is just utterly crap. Read history a little bit.
Zionists used terroristic tactics against anybody and not just on Palestinian land but around the world. Italy is the classic example of how the Mossad and CIA use bombs to kill. The so-called suicide-bombers, they use this tactic of terror because they live in terror. Seeing their family killed (IDF killed innocent people for error, this convinient story is just crap), bulldozing their houses and so on.
Don't insult your intelligence, if you have one.

machno


More Zionazi propaganda

08.04.2003 07:15

It's a compliment to Indymedia that these people seem to think that it is important to get "their version" of the story onto the newswire. not content with controlling a fair bit of the corporate media and having jewish pressure groups
maintain massive pressure on the bbc, they continue to bombard the various IMC's with EXTREME RIGHT WING ZIONIST PROPAGANDA:all under the control resident news Zionews editor DAN,wish someone would knock his house down with a bull dozer

Punch


Who we stand for

08.04.2003 08:08

The two comments above said it clearly already: the original posting is mixing up, confusing and deliberately trying to use Rachel's murder for the standard rethoric of apologising for Israel's brutal acts in the Westbank and Gaza. The truth is out there clearly for everyone to read and hear if they are interested. The electronic intifada, which the author mention, is a good place to start.

In Judy's language Rachel and ISM in general are ofcourse defending terrorists. Because, unlike Judy states, ISM and many other civil missions here are not a peace organization as such; they are protecting Palestinians from the brutalities that come with Israeli occupation. Their idea is, and I strongly agree with them, that there will be no peace as long as there is occupation. And as long as there is occupation the 2-3 million Palestinian people living here are subject to a constant threat of death and uprooting. This is not rethoric, this is reality; whether you think it's justified or not.

The IOF is not destroying the houses in Rafah to stop 'terrorism'. They are very clear about what they are doing: they are creating a 100m 'security zone' around the Gaza/Egyptian border. I know that saying this is not going to change Judy and others like her, but sometimes I would wish she and them would just come to Rafah or any other place around here and meet the people whose houses we are talking about. They are families with small children, they are old men, they are pharmacists. Yes, there are people who fight back. But what would you do against tanks and bulldozers that have been sent to destroy you and your livelihood for fifty years, all in the name of a peace that does not come.

To present a Palestine as 'already existing somewhere else' denies Palestinians from the Westbank and Gaza (and Israel proper for that matter...) their personal lives and histories. It is using names, boundaries and borders drawn up (either randomly or violently) by those in power to gain control over those who actually live this reality. The people who live in the Westbank and Gaza live THERE, not in Jordan, Syria or anywhere else. This is where they grew up, where they are and where they want to stay. How can you deny them this right? People do not belong to a place because of the name the map gives it, they belong there because they have a history and their lives there. As long as people continue to think in nation-states, borders and security around here there will never be an answer to the Palestinian/Israeli problems. You have to deal with what's here, and that is people not fictional characters to be used at random in your ideological speeches.

Maria V.


Old and new Zionist lies

08.04.2003 08:08

Judy's starts of with the old "Jordan is Palestine" lie, intended to justify and deflect the fact of Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1947-48 and post 67 occupation. I suppose the mendacity of this argument ought to be addressed, despite the fact I hardly care about the silly legal semantics of pro-Israelis its a nice way to expose the base dishonesty of these people. 3 million people are living under an occupation that denies them all civil rights, legal status, where the occupation forces kill them and destroy their property with impunity. Israel can either make them Israeli nationals with equal rights, or allow them their own state, who cares if "Palestine is Jordan"? As if that excuses Israel's brutal race war on Palestinians!

Considering Judy kicks of with a lie its hard to trust the rest of her IDF propaganda.

The Covenant Mandate Provision (1919) giving Britain League of Nations sanction to control areas of the middle east seized from the Ottomans was composed of TransJordan, Palestine and Iraq. Because it suited them administratively the British had one office whose authority stretched over both Palestine and TransJordan. The French Mandate was also incorporated what were to become different nations such as Syria and Lebanon. The French and British only controlled the areas they did because they had taken it from the Ottomans who had sided with Germany in W.W.I. In other words the fact the British Mandate included both TransJordan and Palestine is of no consequence, it certainly doesn't imply Jordan is Palestine, and the British never acted in a way implied they thought so.

The British and French areas of control where originally set out in the ( http://www.mideastweb.org/mesykespicot.htm) Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916. Later in 1919 the League of Nations sanctioned British and French mandates. In 1922 Churchill signed The White (Command) Paper of 1922 creating the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and seeding it from any area in which the Balfour declaration effected ( http://www.mideastweb.org/1922WP.htm). Thus after 1922 TransJordan and Palestine were separated as emerging entities. This is why in 1948 Jordan already had a proper British trained army, while the Palestinians only had local militia groups. The White Command Paper of 1922 was written Before the 1922 British Mandate for Palestine was composed and sanctioned by the League of Nations, thus Jordan was never recognised as part of Palestine.

When the British proposed the Peel patrician plans (1937) to resolve the growing conflict between Zionists and Palestinians, the British did not propose that Jordan was a Palestinian state and that Palestinians should be transferred to Jordan to allow the establishment of a Zionist state in all Palestine. The British attempted to divide up the area between the River Jordan and the Med between Palestinians and Zionists. To say the Balfour declaration declared Jordan a "Palestinian state" is A BARE FACED LIE!!!!

The link below takes you to the Peel commission's maps, they clearly show TransJordan was not conceived of as a Palestinian state
 http://www.mideastweb.org/peelmaps.htm

Calgacus


Mix and Mash

08.04.2003 08:51

I have to agree as many people would I think that the presentation of the pictures of Rachel C was misleading.

When I first saw the two pictures I immediatly thought they were a before and after series of shots of the tragic events. But after about 10 seconds it looked pretty obvious to me that they were two different pictures. While I saw no claim to say they were a series, that was the impression made.

And while some newspaper photo eds perhaps should have excercised more care, it really is a side issue. Rachel is still dead after being run over by a bulldozer while trying to stop it destroying homes. Everything else is secondary.

The article posting above is mostly about Rachel C. The rest of it spins facts with conjecture.

All of the deaths and murders that are occuring out there fill me with sadness. A "running sore" - yes indeed. Killing innocent civillians is sickening whether it comes from the barrel of a soldier or from a bombing. All conflict and war is sickening.

A path to peace must be found.

post should be called photo controversy


Wow

08.04.2003 12:21

Wow, this is depressing. Arabs can constantly call for Israel's destruction, decade after decade, and act on it, and you all still blame Israel.

There is no evidence to suggest that Israel ending "the occupation" would end violence against Israel. Hamas themselves make no such claim, so why you would make that claim on their behalf I have no idea.

On an aside, the anti-"zionist" ranting is amusing. Laughable, actually.

Sad


Ringo

08.04.2003 12:22

The UN has always singled out Israel out, while ignoring much larger, broader crimes committed by other countries. Note the following:

As Morris Abram, the late chairman of United Nations Watch, once observed, the UN has held only two special emergency sessions since 1982. No session was ever convened to condemn China's occupation of Tibet, Syria's occupation of Lebanon, the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, or the slaughters in Rwanda, the disappearances in Zaire, or any other global horror. Only Israel was so targeted - twice.

At the UN's urging, only one member state has ever been brought before the Geneva Convention. Not Cambodia for its genocide, Russia for its brutal repression of Chechnya or Sudan for its atrocities. Again, it was Israel.

The UN General Assembly, driven by a coalition of Arab, Muslim and other dictatorships, has passed more resolutions condemning Israel than any other nation on Earth. But it has never censured Israel's assailants for their three wars of aggression in 1948, 1967 and 1973.

The UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) passes at least five resolutions a year condemning Israel (last year it was seven) and spends about 30% of its time solely on the Jewish state. In contrast, as Beichman notes, each of the following countries or regions has been the subject of one resolution - Iraq, Iran, Russia/Chechnya, Afghanistan, Burundi, Congo, Cuba, Myanmar, Sierra Leone, Southeast Europe and Sudan. Manuel Prutschi of the Canadian Jewish Congress notes this double standard is compounded by the fact the UNCHR devotes one agenda item to focusing solely on Israel. All other nations are lumped together under a separate item.

Despite this, Israel, the only Mideast democracy, is not allowed to join the UNCHR, or the Security Council, while many of the world's worst dictatorships - Syria, Libya, Sudan, Saudi Arabia - can and do. As David Goldberg of the Canada-Israel Committee explains, membership on major UN bodies is conditional upon belonging to one of the UN's five regional groups. Israel is the only UN member excluded from this system because it has been prevented from joining its regional group - Asia - by an ongoing Arab boycott. Thus, it cannot even get a delegate appointed to the 53-nation UNCHR to defend itself from unfair attacks. Due to efforts by the U.S. and, to its credit, Canada, Israel now has partial membership in the "Western European and Others Group."

Israel, Beichman notes, is the only country to which the UNCHR assigns a special "rapporteur" to investigate human rights "violations." In other nations, rapporteurs investigate "situations." The reports by Israel's rapporteur are always one-sided because his mandate prohibits investigating Palestinian actions in addition to Israel's, even if they occur in the same area. The Israeli rapporteur's mandate is the only one not periodically reviewed by the UNCHR.

Each year on Nov. 29, the UN holds a United Nations Day of International Solidarity with the Palestinian People. The day is always a vicious diatribe against Israel. There is no UN Day of International Solidarity With the Victims of Palestinian Terrorism. No other "people" on Earth, no matter how brutally oppressed, receive a similar day of UN solidarity.

While the anti-Semitic ravings aimed at Jews at the infamous UN conference ostensibly against racism held in Durban, South Africa in 2001 are well-known, Israel is also the only UN state to have been subjected to two blood libels. In 1991, the Syrian delegate to the UNCHR accused Israel of murdering Christian children to use their blood to make matzo, an ancient anti-Semitic canard. In 1997, the Palestinian delegate accused Israel of injecting 300 Palestinian children with HIV-infected blood. Neither of these lies was immediately denounced by the UN. From 1975-91, in what even UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has called a "low point" in its history, a General Assembly resolution equating Zionism with racism stayed on the books until it was finally repealed due to a campaign by the U.S. By contrast, in 1997, the mere mention of an allegedly blasphemous reference to Islam by a UN expert from an academic source, was instantly rebuffed by the UNCHR and deleted from the record.

No fair-minded person argues Israel should be above scrutiny by the UN. No fair-minded person dismisses the suffering of the Palestinians in the Disputed Territories and the human rights abuses committed by Israel, albeit in the context of responding to the constant threat of terrorism.

But to pretend, as the UN does, year after year, that Israel is the world's worst human rights violator, or even remotely close to holding that title, is not only sheer nonsense, it is a suggestion fueled by anti-Semitism. The liberal media around the world has taken up the task of demonizing almost every aspect of Israel's existence, while apoligizing for past wars and current terrorism made against it. Hamas terrorists have made it clear that they'll keep on attacking Israel regardless of whether Israel leaves the West bank and Gaza Strip or not. They say this and they act on it. Yet, the left repeats over and over in newspapers around the world that terrorism against Israel would cease if only Israel would leave the "occupied" territories. Of course, this doesn't explain why Israel was a constant victim of terrorism before they "occupied" any territories, nor why their leader, Yasser Arafat, spent 30 years waging terrorist attacks on Israel, and this doens't explain why since Palestinians began their most recent terrorist intifada, every time Israel has withdrawn from "Palestinian land," terrorist attacks taking place inside Israel's proper borders increased.

Israel decided to believe that Arafat, after decades of trying to kill Israeli Jews, no longer wanted to attack. So, they armed the Palestinian Authority and Arafat in the 1990's, and gave him year after year after year to arrest terrorists and establish a responsible leadership. It didn't happen. Now, Arafat is almost irrevelant, and Israel is battling terrorists who dream of making Israel disappear. Someone must stop those attackers, and since Arafat refused to, and now can't, Israel has to.

Dingo


Dingo's BS

08.04.2003 20:30

Dingo posts more lies in claiming the wars of 1948, 1967 and 1973 were "wars of aggression". The Zionist militias started expelling Palestinians in 1947, in 1948, just after Israel was established and the British officially left the Arab states intervened in order to stem the flow of Palestinian refugees and massacres such as Deir Yassin. The foundation of Israel was an act of colonial aggression and was impossible without committing crimes against humanity; ethnic cleansing.

In 1967 Israel launched what it claimed to be a "pre-emptive attack" on Egypt, destroying its airforce on the ground. Having started a war of aggression Pearl Harbour style, Israel gained air superiority and could freely napalm Syrian and Jordanian tanks in the coverless desert. Syria and Jordan were bound by treaties to react to an attack on Egypt.

In 1973 Egypt did indeed aggressively attack Israel, in order to regain Sinai and force Israel to the negotiation table. 1973 is the only case of a clearly aggressive attack on by an Arab state on Israel, however it was also a natural result of Israel's 67 attack and conquest.

Dingo omits to mention Israel's attack in Egypt in 1956, along with France and Britain, Israel's aim was to gain territory but the USA forced Israel, Britain and France to withdraw. Israel created the myth of a defensive war in 1967 in order to obscure a land grab. Dingo also omits Israel's invasion of the Lebanon.

The reason Dingo prefers to carp about the UN by comparing it to other nations is because it tries to deflect from Israel's crimes. Zionists in their paraniod antisemitic conspiracy theories only succeed in fooling themselves ... lets face it they need too! Dingo uses unsuitable parallels such as Chechnya, which unlike the occupied territories or Lebanon to Israel, is an internationally recognised part of Russia. Nor is Cambodia's genocide comparable as it was again an internal affair (however the UN and US did condemn the Vietnamese invasion and deposing of Pol Pot, as an infringement of sovereignty). The Sudan is again a case of internal oppression and not of occupation.

Israel is subject to UN criticism is because after a war of aggression, for 37 years it has refused to treat Palestinians in accordance with the Geneva convention for the conduct of an occupation of non-sovereign territory, Israel plays semantic games to do this by self defining the territories as "disputed" rather than "occupied". Clearly the native population does not desire Israeli rule, and Israel should respect their democratic right and GET THE FUCK OUT.

How any nation that defines its self by ethnic group, constitutionally discriminates against its non-Jewish "citizens" and forces 3 million people to live in legal limbo for 37 years can claim to be a "democracy" I don't know ... not unless you think Apartheid South Africa was the "only democracy" in southern Africa!

Calgacus


nice call......

09.04.2003 01:47

o.k. post , well at least in the right direction.

rachel stupid corrie do it again. the more of these "peace" protesters who define their middle class western "peace" and like true neo nazi jew haters defend it with their lives the better. RIP ISM.

Get a life ... oh sorry you just lost it!

have a nice war still...

Freedom for iraq from saddam and his scumbags!

julie


Hatred hatred hatred

09.04.2003 08:54

.... is the only thing that keeps your zionazi philosophy intact.

Your [julie] remarks illustrate the depth of smug and hysterical delusion that has polluted the debate within the international & jewish communities.

I fail to see how demonising and abusing the dead (and lets face it, you have offered no insight or compassion towards the deaths of any non-jewish people) can help strenghen your hand.

Perhaps that is not your intention.

Perhaps your stupidity and cruelty extends beyound your head and heart, and have covered your eyes too.

You can not see that, despite your overwhelming military advantage and your overwhelming ownership of propagander tools, your overwhelming racism will leave you vunerable to the overwhelming desire to obliterate the state of israel and the fanatical nazi idiology that spawned it.

I'm afraid, for you and yours, that a significant number of people have woken up and are now busily exploring the history of your country[sic] and its origins - and on finding the disgusting and undeniable truth, some of these people will be instramental in bring justice to bare ... in the raw if necessary.

This will occur depite all the terror you fling in their direction. History shows that every tyrant falls, and the pain is greater for all the delusion that hid the truth from their eyes.

Good luck in the new world order.

Its a fight to death - no illusions.

jackslucid
mail e-mail: jackslucid@hotmail.com


Re:

09.04.2003 11:28

Regardless of the past, right now anyone who knows the events of the 1990's and the horrible palestinian leadership and terror organizations knows that Israel today must respond to the palestinians idiotic and self-destructive intifada by hunting down the terrorists until those who genuinely want a peaceful two-state solution remain.

The Palestinians are led by horrible, crazed leaders who are impossible to deal with. The big picture is that no new Palestinian state should be created if crazed terrorists who still dream of destroying Israel will be running it.

Steven


Yup

10.04.2003 04:44

The #1 root of the problem is that Palestinian leaders and main organizations still dream of destroying Israel. Everyone knows they still want this. But Arafat is old and washed up and knows he can't do it the conventional way, that he has to get a state first and build up a proper military and destroy Israel that way. Whereas Hamas and Islamic Jihad and other sickos still just want to kill every Israeli Jew, right now, this minute, no matter what.

That problem is what has kept the occupation going all this time.

You don't unoccupy people who are still trying to kill you. You smack them around until they agree to cut it out.

The occupation occured in 1967. Israel later gave back the Sinai, which was FAR over 50% of the land they won in the 1967 war. In the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's and early 1990's, the leaders of the Palestinians - the PLO - were still a terrorist organization who refused to agree to stop attacking Israel. So, the occupation continued all that time. FINALLY, in the 1990's, the PLO was disolved and replaced by the PA (though it was still shithead Arafat at the top), and he agreed to be peaceful. So, Israel gave him money and armed tens of thousands of his troops to act as policemen to arrest other terrorists, leading to a palestinian state being formed. Well, Arafat didn't arrest any damn terrorists, and the Palestinians gave Israeli terrorist intifadas instead of peace.

Israel has ever right in the world to continue to control land that contains people who refuse to stop attacking them.

Individual bad things the Israeli government may do are NOT the big picture. They are sidenotes. THe big picture is that the leaders of the palestinians have always been extremist assholes, and that is what has made things worse for non-extremist palestinians. When your leaders and main organizations won't stop attacking a stronger neighbor state, you're going to have a rough time.

Schmendrick