top
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: Palestine | Anti-War
Why is Palestine Not One of the Headline Stories on the Homepage of Indymedia?
by Could it be?
Sunday Nov 17th, 2002 10:04 PM
The main issue of today and everyday until it is resolved in a just manner, is the Palestine-Israel conflict, yet why does not Indymedia see fit to keep it on the homepage as a highlighted story? Could it be than there is a Zionist agenda at Indymedia?
Most of the people who flock to Indymedia want to express their alternative views, their outrage at fat, pig capitalists, the abuse of the environment, the poor homeless, the proposed war on Iraq, and so on.

Yet, the biggest story of all, the Palestine -Israel conflict gets relegated to the "latest news" and gets bumped off after a few hours, until some other pro-justice for Palestinians activists gets the urge to publish a story. If they are too critical of Israel, the story gets lost fast and buried deep down, almost impossible to retrieve.

Could it be that closet Zionists are "guarding the gate"? Could it be that many who are so-called peace activists have a blind spot when it comes to racist, apartheid Israel, whose aggression and oppression of the Palestinian people, is at the epicenter of world unrest, pitting the Western world unnecessarily against the Eastern world? All for a Jewish supremacist state?

The Israeli Occupation is the longest military occupation in modern history, and the only remaining colonialist.

Israel constantly tries to pass itself off as a democracy so that US citizens won't rise up in protest over the billions of dollars lavished on Israel in these tight times in particular, but it's obvious that it is a racist, apartheid theocracy.

Zionist racist Jews simply cannot get past themselves when it comes to equal rights, liberty and justice for all in Palestine-Israel. They are so stuck on their notion of a Jewish supremacist state, it's unbelievable. They will come up with any argument no matter how foolish, ridiculous and obviously racist it sounds, and think that it's OK, because they think that Jew's must have the "security " of their own ethno-centric Jewish state, even if it's against all American ideals of freedom, liberty and justice for all regardless of religion, race or sex. And at the same time, with a straight face, they still try to pretend that Israel is a democracy just like the US. Just how stupid do they think we are?

It's time to stop holding Zionists' hands simply because they went through the Holocaust and have been persecuted. Two wrongs don't make a right, and on top of that many peoples have been persecuted throughout time and it's time to stop it NOW in Palestine-Israel.

Palestine is STILL the issue, and don't let anyone try to tell you it's not.

If Palestine-Israel was transformed into a true democracy much how South Africa was transformed into a true democracy, the so-called war on terrorism would be unnecessary, and so would spin-off wars like the bogus proposed war on Iraq. It all stems from the Palestine-Israel conflict, of that I have NO DOUBT.

We need to face the blatant racism and unjust oppression that Israel is perpetrating against the Palestinians and stop it. The US must stop all aid to Israel, even boycott and place sanctions on Israel until it cooperates with transforming into a true, secular democracy with the right of return of all 5 million Palestinian refugees to their ancestral homeland, as is their right according to UN Resolutions, interenational law and world opinion.

Pandora's Box has been opened, and the unjust war against the Palestinians by racist, anti-democratic, apartheid Israel is not going to go back into the box. We must deal with it finally in a humane manner consistent with our American values.
by a
Sunday Nov 17th, 2002 11:45 PM
The Palestine conflict is important, but is it really the most fundamental conflict going on? What about struggles against capitalist globalization and the WTO, IMF, and World Bank? These attack capitalism directly. And while the upcoming war on Iraq is related to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict it is directly caused by it. War in Iraq is about control of oil and the start of the US taking over the whole world. Next to this, the conflict in Palestine pales in comparison.
by Mahtin
Monday Nov 18th, 2002 1:19 AM
What kind of crap is that? Of course Indymedia covers Palestine. The SF site tends to mostly deal with things that happen locally. If there is a local demo about the Palestinians and someone went to it and wrote a report on what happened and took some pictures and posted them, then you'll hear about it here. If not, then coverage doesn't happen. I myself posted a bunch of stuff about a friend who was detained by the IOF earlier this year.

Also, for more Indymedia coverage...
Go back to the front SF page. Scroll down on the left. Click on "imc network." Look under "Asia." See? Israel and Palestine. If there aren't any recent posts from the non-zionists, you can rest assured that it's because they are either out there in the streets, recovering from doing political work, or suffering from repression such as spam attacks. What are you doing to help them?

As for your claim that the conflict is the main issue of the day, get your head out of your ass and look around you. Do you see homeless people walking around in clothes that have holes in them? Just yesterday I saw a guy's buttocks through his pants, on a street in San Francisco. It's really cold out tonight. I wonder if he's literally freezing his ass off. What if he is on General Assistance and due to the passage of proposition N his benefits are reduced to $59 per month? Will he prioritize buying new pants at the thrift store over eating? More and more kids from poor neighborhoods are diagnosed with asthma every day, because of the phenomenon called "environmental racism."

Is either of those issues less important than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

I wouldn't be broke financially if we lived under this inequality that capitalism, patriarchy, and the state perpetuate. The conflicts in the "Middle East" over water, oil, and land wouldn't exist if we didn't live in a constant state of competition with the "other." Identity politics make us look at how things in the world are in relation to us and our "group," whether we are progressive Jews, Palestinians, queers, or women (my guess is that the author of the above post is a progressive Jew or a person of Middle Eastern- likely Palestinian- origin). Take a look at the big picture. The Israeli occupation is a symptom of much broader problems. I hope you can find the energy to stick around for a long time and work with us on the other problems, too.
by Luz
Monday Nov 18th, 2002 8:52 AM
Wow, I was going to respond to this narcissistic, "ours is the most important " divisive drivel, but Mahtin, you nailed it ! I think I'll go out and pass out some of my warm clothes.
by Could it be? (author of the article)
Monday Nov 18th, 2002 9:27 AM
Well, I happen to be a white Christian American (now don't be accusing me of being a white supremacist, which I think is just as bad as a Jewish supremacist!)

And I still maintain that Palestine is THE issue!

Hey, Mahtin, go ahead and give some clothes to those homeless people you see. But what about the Palestinians who are living on under $2 a day, lacking food and water? What can we do about them? It's because of our tax dollars that Israel is getting away with oppressing the Palestinians in their Jewish supremacist apartheid, racist state, which IS causing and acerbating ALL the unrest in the world, and the OIL thing is secondary and works in COLLUSION with the Zionist, Jewish supremacist agenda. You better believe it.

And the US must stop being complicit in aiding the racist, apartheid, Jewish supremacist Zionist Israel or else we are going to get hit again, just like we did on 9/11. Still think the Palestinian issue pales in comparison to anything? Why don't you get YOUR head out of YOUR asshole.
by gehrig
Monday Nov 18th, 2002 10:01 AM
"Could it be that closet Zionists are 'guarding the gate'? ... And I still maintain that Palestine is THE issue!... causing and [ex]acerbating ALL the unrest in the world ... Why don't you get YOUR head out of YOUR asshole."

There is no shortage of pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist rhetoric on this IMC or any other. If you want more, post more. That's what the IMC is all about. However, you'll find that not everyone will agree with your assessment. And that too is what the IMC is all about. What the IMC is _not_ all about is being a single-issue forum.

@%<
by pointer
Monday Nov 18th, 2002 10:06 AM
http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/
by Could it be?
Monday Nov 18th, 2002 11:59 AM
The disease is RACISM, which is what Zionism is, which is what Jewish supremacism is, which is why there is the war in Palestine-Israel as these Jewish supremacist REFUSE to coexist as equals with Palestians in their own ancestral homeland. And we Americans are all unwilling (mostly) accomplices to this racist country and its racist unjust war, which puts us in the position of getting hit again like on 9/11, which puts us in the position of fighting all of racist Israel's enemies in the Middle East like Iraq. Israel has these enemies in the Arab would because Israel stole their land, dispossessed its people, committing ethnic cleansing beginning on day one, never even thinking of coexisting with the indigenous people, alway wanting a racist, Jewish supremacist state on someone elses homeland. God would not approve. Don't forget the Ten Commandments, and what about Love thy neighbor as thyself. Racism never works! Jewish supremacism must be confronted for what it is: blantant racism commiting heinous crimes with our US tax dollars. Palestine is STILL the issue and must be addressed and put on Indymedia's homepage. I DARE Indymedia to put a story on the homepage on Palestine, and keep it there, with a link to http://www.divest-from-israel-campaign.org where people can find out what THEY can DO to help bring an end to racist Jewish supremacism in Israel, and transform it into a true, secular democracy with all the Palestinians, including all the refugees who have the right to return to their ancestral homeland according to UN Resolutions, international law and world opinion. Jews who are not Jewish supremacist Zionists can sign the petition renouncing their right to return until the Palestinian refugees are also allowed to exercise their right to return. I DARE YOU, INDYMEDIA, OR ARE YOU APOLOGISTS FOR JEWISH SUPREMACISTS?
by editor
Monday Nov 18th, 2002 12:21 PM
If we did that for everybody, the front page would stagnate and/or overflow. Don't be so selfish and self centered. You're not the only one around here with a pet peeve. Do you think Palestinians are the only people on earth who live under an iron heel or that they have more of a right to support than do, oh say, Kashmiris, Kurds, U'wa, Chechens, Burakumin, Rom or Ambazonians? If you do, you’re no less racist than the Zionists are.

There is an entire IMC site devoted to Palestine. It is *always* on the front page there. This place here is for the Bay Area, the people who live here and our concerns. When people here protest Zionist imperialism, SF-IMC covers it in depth. Most of the media around here do not. So really, you ought be thankful that we’re here, that we’re working so hard and spending so much of our time to provide, not only in depth coverage of local support for the Palestinian cause, but also a place for you to complain about how we’re not doing it exactly to your liking. You’re behaving like no less of a boor, freeloader and ingrate than do Sam B. Bush Admirer and mike.

It takes a lot of work to make this place happen. If you are not doing at least some of it, you have no right to complain. If you want the right to complain, earn it. Come to meetings, join the collective, do some of the work it takes to make this place happen, and become part of the decision making process.

In the meantime, don’t complain.
by Could it be?
Monday Nov 18th, 2002 2:35 PM
Even if you are the Editor that you claim yourself to be, you are obviously an apologist for the Zionists! My GOD, who else would lump all those groups like the Kurds in with the Paletinians?

DUH! In case you didn't notice, the US is lavishly funding Jewish supremacist Zionist Israel! This is exactly what differentiates the Palestinians from all those other groups you mentioned, or did you oh so conveniently forget?

Talk about SELFISH! The ultimate in selfishness is expressed in the Jewish supremacist Zionist racist, anti-democratic, aparthied, immoral country of Israel who refuses to share the land they immorally took over with the indigenous people, the Palestinian people!

As a result of this longest of unjust military occupations in modern history, the US, thanks to kowtowing to the Jewish supremacist Zionist lobby groups and their supporters, is getting sucked into their racist aggression against the Arab world!

If you think I am not going to complain about how Indymedia and obviously mainstream media always seem to protect the Zionist Jewish supremacists, you are mistaken. If you think it is selfish for me to point out that my government is allowing itself to be sucked into the racist Jewish supremacist agenda, then you are an apologist for the Zionists, since it is obvious that support for the racist Zionist agenda with apartheid Israel is causing the US to be hated in association for supporting apartheid, racist Israel. Palestine is still THE issue, therefore, Jewish supremacism Zionism is THE issue as well, and must be fully addressed with NO double standards. Don't try to dodge it!
by its a collective
Monday Nov 18th, 2002 2:52 PM
anyone posting here as editor is expressing their own opinions, its probably confusing because of the name. If you would like to contact the indymedia editorial collective as a whole email imc-sf-editorial [at] lists.indymedia.org
by well its because...
Monday Nov 18th, 2002 3:19 PM
why havnt we focused enough on Palestine...

why havn't we updated the center column much in the last two weeks...

why havnt we scheduled a next imc meeting....

there is no conspiracy, its because we are busy and a little burnt out

The center column (when it gets updated) comes mainly from local news in the right column. Our focus in the past on Palestine came from the many local protests on that issue. There havnt been as many local protsts recently so coverage has decreased...
by gehrig
Monday Nov 18th, 2002 3:28 PM
"you are obviously an apologist for the Zionists!"

Didn't we just go through this drill a month or so ago on imc-process? Here's the argument, rephrased the Burma-Shave way:

Zionists run
The IMC
'Cuz it ain't anti-Zionist
Enough for Me
Burma-Shave!

@%<
by Could it be?
Monday Nov 18th, 2002 3:43 PM
READ MY LIPS: INTEREST IN THE PALESTINE-ISRAEL ISSUE MUST NEVER BE ALLOWED "TO DECREASE" OR BE "FADED OUT" UNTIL THE INJUSTICES ARE ADDRESSED.

OF COURSE THE ZIONIST APOLOGISTS AT INDYMEDIA WOULD LOVE TO FADE IT OUT IF THEY COULD, JUST LIKE THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA AND POLITICIANS TRY TO DO.

TRUST ME ON THIS:
PALESTINE IS STILL THE ISSUE.

IT WON'T GO BACK INTO THE BOX. DEAL WITH IT UNTIL JUSTICE HAS PREVAILED. ZIONIST JEWIST SUPREMACISTS MUST BE CONFRONTED WITH THEIR BLATANT RACISM NOW!
by gehrig
Monday Nov 18th, 2002 4:20 PM
"READ MY LIPS: INTEREST IN THE PALESTINE-ISRAEL ISSUE MUST NEVER BE ALLOWED "TO DECREASE" OR BE "FADED OUT" UNTIL THE INJUSTICES ARE ADDRESSED."

Now read _my_ lips: if you want to increase coverage of the Palestine-Israel issue on the IMC network, the way to do it is to -- imagine that! -- post more about it yourself, not to toss accusations around about supposed Zi-i-i-ionist infiltration because the entire IMC network isn't leaping into the air at your command.

Or are you just trolling?

@%<
by Could it be?
Monday Nov 18th, 2002 5:39 PM
Hey, Sherlock, I KNOW that there is a site devoted entirely to Palestine in the Palestine IMC.

The point is this: real peace-activists who are really against racism must be constantly vigilante about ways to stop the worst racist war since Nazi Germany, what a complete irony, that is now happening in Israel-Palestine, and OUR American tax dollars are paying for it against our will (except for racist Zionist Jewish supremacist types and their dupes). THEREFORE, we need to confront the people and the politicians HERE in AMERICA in oh-so-liberal-and-progressive San Francisco to point this out to them so there is no other course but to stop supporting the archaic, inhuman, regressive, oppressive, last remaining colonialist, last remaining apartheid in the world : Israel! The needs of the Palestinian refugees must be addressed exactly as if they were equal human beings which they ARE (imagine THAT why don't you?) and they must have the right to return to their ancestral homeland Palstine-Israel, as is their right according to UN Resolutions, International Law and world opinion, and live as equals, co-existing in a democratic, secular country, like here in the US, and like in South Africa, where it remained ONE country, not a country for whites and a country for blacks, ONE country. Segregation is racist!

Here in America, WE CAN make a difference! How can the Palestinians who are virtually prisoners in their own towns do anything? They barely have a glass of water to drink sometimes! Most are living on $2 a day! They are starving! Communication lines have been cut!

And DUH! YOU don't think Palestine is STILL the issue!? This is what our tax dollars are funding!!

Again, I DARE Indymedia to keep a story up on the Indymedia homepage with links to allow people to easily sign petitions like the one for American Jews to renounce their right to renounce their right to return until the Palestinian refugees also get their right to return as according to UN Resolutions, etc. Here's the URL AGAIN:
http://www.divest-from-Israel-campaign.org. There are many ways for ALL Americans can make a difference, and Indymedia SF could be much more PROACTIVE. Could it be?
by yeah right
Monday Nov 18th, 2002 9:13 PM
Put your name on a list. That'll stop Israel. Sure. Right. Any day now.
by Could it be?
Monday Nov 18th, 2002 11:09 PM
And listed on the URL that I still DARE Indymedia SF to keep on its front homepage until justice is achieved with equal rights for Palestinians, including the right to return, are OTHER ways people can get involved and other information that people can pass on.
Boycotts are effective! According to SF Chronicle, "Israel is feeling the sting of the boycotts".
Letter writing campaigns. Keeping up on the latest atrocities out of Israel-Palestine by the Israelis (of course the mainstream news already covers anything militant that the Palestinians do) is useful as you can forward it to newsgroups and bug mainstream media with these pertinent updates. Keeping PALESTINE in the public's eyes is important lest we/they forget that everyday Israel is continuing with its ethnic cleansing and slow genocide and war crimes...EVERY DAY, but it goes largely unreported in the mainstream media. So we must be vigilant, Indymedia and people who believe in equal rights, liberty and freedom for ALL people regardless of religion, race or sex. Here is the URL *AGAIN*: http://www.divest-from-israel-campaign.org and also a good one: http://www.boycottisraeligoods.org. Check out http://www.netureikarta.org while you're at it. And don't forget http://www.cactus48.org. People of conscience do NOT want our US tax dollars funding a racist, apartheid country which is what Israel is!
by peat bog soldier
Monday Nov 18th, 2002 11:16 PM
It's a waste of time.

Let's hope it doesn't also turn out to b a ticket to a concentration camp when the clampdown comes.

Learn from history.

"First they came for" the people they knew where to find.
by Could it be?
Tuesday Nov 19th, 2002 11:08 AM
It's obvious! They use all kinds of "excuses" why they don't keep the Palestine issue on the homepage-- poor, over-worked righteous things...
Oh, and heavens forbid, the homepage get "stagnate" with a permanant story on the Indymedia homepage to spotlight the fight for justice for the Palestinians, where people can sign petitions that CAN make a difference (all of a sudden Indymedia is of the opinion that petitions are useless; obviously they pick and choose which petitions they deem useless! And on top of that, every little thing people do to protest Jewish supremism aka as Zionism in Palestine-Israel is good in my opinion; obviously, Indymedia SF has some Zionists apologists working as moderaters! Doesn't it figure! Zionist Jews are extraordinarily controlling and manipulative, always "defending" racist Israel, with lies and excuses.) And they are loathe to keep these websites in plain view I notice: http://www.cactus48.com, http://www.netureikarta.org, http://www.divest-from-Israel-campaign.org. They refuse to cooperate and therefore expose themselves as apologists for Zionist Jewish Supremacism in Israel and even trying for it here in the US it appears, as the Zionists already dominate the US foreign policy in the Middle East and that is a fact.
by Could it be?
Tuesday Nov 19th, 2002 11:33 AM
Hey, Peat Bog Soldier, your kind of thinking is for cowards, and people who try to intimidate others from standing up for what they believe in. You are also obviously a Zionist or an apologist for Zionists.

You all must be exposed for what you are: racist, lying pigs no better than any other kind of racist pig.
by .
Tuesday Nov 19th, 2002 1:59 PM
If I am a zionist, then could it be is obviously a jew hating nazi who will not be satisfied until all jews are exterminated.
by peat
Tuesday Nov 19th, 2002 2:05 PM
you succeed. Only an agent of the state, witting or otherwise, would advise people to do the one thing that is most likely to, not only cause us to fail, but also to endanger our very movement. Do you really think we are so pathetically deluded as to believe the people who run America and Israel care how many people object to their crimes? These people are totally amoral. They don’t give a damn about your petitions, except in so far as they want to know who their enemies are and where they can be found. Why are you trying to help find out who we are? Do they pay you? How much?
by action and words
Tuesday Nov 19th, 2002 2:47 PM
Peat, I'm sure you've signed petitions. But now you balk at signing the above petition. Why? Be honest with yourself? Are you a Jewish supremacist? Or do you believe even Palestinians should have the right to return to their ancestral homeland which is Palestine-Israel, as it their rights according to UN Resoltuions, International Law, and world opinion, AND do you believe they must have equal rights, regardless of religion or race or sex? If you don't agree with these issues, you ARE a Jewish supremacist and as such are no better than a racist white supremacist. Deal with it.
by gehrig
Tuesday Nov 19th, 2002 3:29 PM
This is great.

W. said "If you're not with us, you're against us."

Now we've got someone saying "Even if you _are_ with us,
if I personally decide you aren't with us _enough_ (by whatever standard I use at that particular moment), if you won't jump my hoops and sign my Great Loyalty Oath, then I'm going to wail -- no, WAIL -- that YOU'RE AGAINST US! THE IMC IS ALL A BUNCHA CLOSET ZIONISTS! YOU'RE A JEWISH SUPREMECIST! THERE ARE EVEN CLOSET ZIONISTS IN MY CLOSET! WHAAA-A-A-AH!"

Like I said, didn't we just go through this drill with Dan Elliott/Cui Bozo?

@%<
by Peat
Tuesday Nov 19th, 2002 3:39 PM
What makes you so sure? Have you been following me around? How long? Do you even know who I am? How? How do you do that? How do you know who I am? Tell me. I want to know. And if you dont know who I am, admit that you just lied to a whole lot of people about what you say you are sure of.

If you really knew about me you would know that I do in fact “agree with these issues,” as you put it. What I disagree with is the tactic you’re preaching. It serves our enemies, not our cause. You are trying to convince us to tell our enemies who we are and where we may be found. This is the road to surveillance, persecution, blacklisting, imprisonment and worse. It not only endangers us, it endangers our families. This is what you are telling us to do for our enemies.

What are you, their agent?
by JustAThought
Tuesday Nov 19th, 2002 5:23 PM
(Yeah, I'm doing it too). But for ALL the above ( & me too, I guess) instead of getting sucked into & wasting all this time on what is essentially a "chat room" maybe it would be better to be actually DOING SOMETHING ! (& does this really count?)
by Peat
Tuesday Nov 19th, 2002 5:51 PM
It's all about the space between humanity's ears.

Why are you here?
by I REpeat
Wednesday Nov 20th, 2002 2:40 PM
No, Peat, I am not an agent. But if you are a white, American, 2,3,or 4 generation, you DON'T have to be afraid to stand up and take a position and speak your mind! It's true, those of Arab Muslim backgrounds need to be careful these day, unfortunately due to the 9/11 event. Although it was mostly Saudis who commandeered those planes into the WTC, the reason it really happened is the US complete moral and financial support of racist, aparheid Israel, which is guilty of continual ethnic cleansing for a Jewish supremacist state, which is just as bad as white supremacism in So. Africa was!!!!!!!!
by free
Wednesday Nov 20th, 2002 2:50 PM
The US should untie the hands of Sharon. Roll the tanks and the planes.

Free Israel.
by Big Steve
Wednesday Nov 20th, 2002 3:18 PM
Kill them all, let Allah sort them out. Never forget, these same Palestinians danced in the streets at the news of 3000 murdered Americans. They are mad dogs who INTENTIONALLY try to kill as many civilians as possible. They steadfastly refuse any kind of reasonable deal with Israel, and their fondest wish is that every Jew was dead.
by ...
Wednesday Nov 20th, 2002 4:00 PM
Comments like the above can be made because the media trains all Americans to hate Arabs. This is done mostly for Israel's sake. Most people here have been duped, but a few see through propaganda.
by You are so right...
Wednesday Nov 20th, 2002 5:29 PM
If only IDF and his we-the-sheeple groupie had been at the protest against Barak and his racist government to hear a REAL IDF soldier who is NOW a Refusenik speak about all the LIES that his government feeds him and all the Israelis and obviously that is passed on over the the Americans to dupe them into supporting Israel's "racist, anti-democratic, apartheid regime" as in the words of yet another Refusenik soldier. In case anyone doesn't know, Refuseniks are Israelis soldiers who refuse the serve in the Occupied Territories once they discovered the TRUTH about Israel and its racist, ethnic cleansing practices. Israel is a terrorist country, and the US is aiding it. Get involved! Check out http://www.divest-from-Israel-campaign.org! And those who want to learn the truth, also check out "Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict" by Jews for Justice in the Middle East, at http://www.cactus48.com.
Our government and media doesn't make it easy to discover the truth, but it's really not that hard either if you are willing to do the research. And by the way, why not make some Arab friends and talk to them about it? Or are you just a flat out racist, Mr. IDF and groupie?????? I am a white Christian, and I have friends from all religions, races and sexes. We are all one. Don't you get it?
by .
Wednesday Nov 20th, 2002 7:00 PM
"The main issue of today and everyday until it is resolved in a just manner, is the Palestine-Israel conflict, yet why does not Indymedia see fit to keep it on the homepage as a highlighted story? Could it be than there is a Zionist agenda at Indymedia?"
Typical "activist" emotional blackmail- if you don't give in to their biased agenda you are a Zionist. How simpleminded.
I am more concerned about women being executed for being raped. I am more concerned about the fact that Africans are still being enslaved in certain parts of the world. The fact that these are both being carried out primarily by Muslims is the reason why it doesn't get top story atttention at IMC. The hysterical scream of "anti-muslim" and "anti-arab" that is able to silence any information of the horrors that people live among every day are part of the leftist legacy.
by matthew
Wednesday Nov 20th, 2002 7:36 PM
is that "fbi vs judi bari" going to stay a permanent fixture on the home page at sf indymedia? seems like that story's outlived its shelf life....
by Re:
Wednesday Nov 20th, 2002 7:52 PM
"How simpleminded.
I am more concerned about women being executed for being raped. I am more concerned about the fact that Africans are still being enslaved in certain parts of the world"

These issues are beig covered but getting news out of Africa is hard.

News on slavery in the Sudan is hard and even the organizations that have gone in to get interviews face alot of risk and havnt gotten much information.

But there are some good left wing sources on Africa:
http://www.africaaction.org/docs95/nig9511.htm
http://zimbabwe.indymedia.org/
http://nigeria.indymedia.org/
http://southafrica.indymedia.org

Indymedia news on the death sentence in Nigeria
http://nigeria.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=847&group=webcast
http://italy.indymedia.org/news/2002/10/89134.php
http://brisbane.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=2321&group=webcastNigeria:http://nigeria.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=508
http://nigeria.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=184
http://www.at.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=7730&group=webcast
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2002/06/12519.php
+ many more
by Peat
Wednesday Nov 20th, 2002 8:45 PM
>a white, American, 2,3,or 4 generation, you DON'T have to be afraid to stand up and take a position and speak your mind!


Tell that to Judi Bari.
by ?
Wednesday Nov 20th, 2002 8:49 PM
Most of the people who supported Judi Bari and worked on the trial are also strongly proPalestinian. Im pretty sure Judi was too and would be the first to tell anyone that the attacks against her were nothing compared to the thousands of worse attacks by the IDF in the West Bank and Gaza.

Who is this Peet guy?
by Alan Berg
Wednesday Nov 20th, 2002 8:51 PM
The nail that sticks up gets hammered down.
by Could it be?
Thursday Nov 21st, 2002 8:42 AM
You guys are just trying to intimidate white Christians from standing up against Jewish supremacism and apartheid in Israel.

It won't work! I'm sure you wish it would, BERG.

by gehrig
Thursday Nov 21st, 2002 9:25 AM
"You guys are just trying to intimidate white Christians from standing up against Jewish supremacism and apartheid in Israel."

There is no kind of reference to Christianity _or_ whiteness in "Alan Berg"'s response. Could you please tell us how you came to the conclusion that he's trying to intimidate, specifically, "white Christians"?

@%<
by Peat
Thursday Nov 21st, 2002 9:52 AM
What's the matter, don't you like Jews? If not, what's that make you?

Hint: It begins with an "A" and has a hyphen in it.

Do you even know who Alan Berg was? He was radio talk show host who was murdered by Nazis for doing exactly what we do here, only on the radio instead of the internet.

See:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/07/135768_comment.php#150023

--"I am more concerned about women being executed for being raped. I am more concerned about the fact that Africans are still being enslaved in certain parts of the world."

How is any of this relevant to the Palestine question? Trying to blame all muslims for these is one thing, but how does it justify Israel's treatment of Christian Palestinians?
by Could it be?
Thursday Nov 21st, 2002 12:52 PM
I've been debating this topic long enough to know that Zionists and their apologists, like you, Peat, often resort to intimidation as a tactic to try to silence people from speaking out against US support for racist, anti-democratic, apartheid Israel. I know Zionists try to intimidate every from white Christians (calling them "white supremacists"), or Arabs (calling them every name in the book, but mostly "terrorist") and Jews who speak out (calling them "self-hating Jews"). You Zionists have a name for everyone! Well, I have one for you: "Racist Hypocritic Liar!".
by gehrig
Thursday Nov 21st, 2002 2:33 PM
"that Zionists and their apologists, like you, Peat"

Yet all Peat has done is (a) suggested that there are other issues in the world as important as the Arab-Israeli conflict, and (b) that he doesn't want to leave his name where the wrong folks might one day find it.

Your attempt to dodge the question "white Christian" question has failed. You've tried to generalize about what "they" say about "everyone," yet you can't deny that you specifically addressed your message to "Berg." In fact, you capitalized his name just to underscore that fact.

Yet "Berg"'s post mentioned neither Christianity nor "whiteness." You brought the concept of the "white race" into the discussion. Why? You brought the concept of Christianity into the discussion. Why?

And why did you twice feel the need to specify "white Christian" rather than simply "Christian"?

@%<
by gehrig
Thursday Nov 21st, 2002 4:22 PM
Sorry, that won't work.

Tell us again -- why did you feel the need to specify "white Christian" not once but twice?

@%<
by Could it be?
Thursday Nov 21st, 2002 5:22 PM
Ms./Mr. gehrig, if you had bothered the read the post where I referred "white Christians", it was because I had mentioned being a white Christian myself, and I believe that white Christians are generally the LEAST picked upon group in general (unless they are white supremacists, in which case, they deserve the flak they get), and have the least to fear with regards to getting put in jail for saying things they believe in with regards to NO AID TO ISRAEL, etc., simply because I am the "wrong" color or religion. By the way, I did not write the foolish post that appears just above yours. You probably did. At any rate, I can understand why Muslim Arab Americans would be afraid to be very vocal about political juggernauts such as the Palestine-Israel conflict in this fascist climate that is a direct result of Zionist aggression in Israel and Zionist influence over our US foreign policy, but white Christian Americans and Jews with a conscience should be not be intimidated by Zionist types in any way, and SPEAK OUT against the double standards, without repercussions other than being subjected to childish name-calling. Racism is racism is racism. Apartheid and white supremacism in South Africa was wrong and immoral, and so is Apartheid and Jewish supremacism in Israel. I hope you can figure that out! If not, you are in denial!
by Tom
Thursday Nov 21st, 2002 5:53 PM
Is it true that all Israeli Jews are Zionists because they choose to live in the Zionist creation called Israel?

What exactly is a Zionist anyway?
by ......
Thursday Nov 21st, 2002 6:02 PM
"Is it true that all Israeli Jews are Zionists because they choose to live in the Zionist creation called Israel?
What exactly is a Zionist anyway?"

If they believe in and work towards a modern secular state, then no. A Zionist is someone who supports a racial state and racial - based policies in Israel.
by Tom
Thursday Nov 21st, 2002 6:08 PM
That's a very vague definition - completely subjective.

What constitutes "working towards"?

What constitutes "secular" state (are Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, etc. secular by comparison)?

If all of Israel is stolen land, then it stands to reason that a Zionist should be any immigrant (Israeli Jew) who lives on that land.
by ..................
Thursday Nov 21st, 2002 6:30 PM
"What constitutes "working towards"?"

An effort to promote or build.

"What constitutes "secular" state (are Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, etc. secular by comparison)?"

Why do you have to compare yourself with the some of the worst governments on the planet to justify yourself? Are you justified in anything merely because it is done elsewhere? This is a flimsy argument.

"If all of Israel is stolen land, then it stands to reason that a Zionist should be any immigrant (Israeli Jew) who lives on that land."

All of America, too, is stolen land. For that matter, Britain was stolen numerous times from previous occupants. This does not mean that it is pragmatic to attempt to return all of the land. Nor does it justify the invaders.

In my mind, if, tommorow, a secular state were established with full rights extended to all inhabitants within the entire state, including the OT, it would have no authority to expel any current residents whatsoever. Future immigration policies would be decided in the democratic manner, with input from all residents, and would not reflect the priorities of any particular ethnic group, but rather would reflect democratic principles. That is to stay, immigration could not be influenced, positively or negatively, by the criterion of ethnicity or religion. The Palestinian "Right of Return" in my mind, would have to be sacrificed, along with the Jewish one.
by Could it be?
Thursday Nov 21st, 2002 6:49 PM
Tom, here are some good websites for you to get a hold on what Zionism is all about:

http://www.jewsnotzionists.org
http://www.netureikarta.org
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com

And for the history of the "Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict" by the Jews for Justice in the Middle East, there's http://www.cactus48.com.

In a nutshell, I believe that most Zionists adhere to the belief that Jews need a Jews only homeland, and so after negotiating with the Brits during WWI, got some permission for making a home for Jews in Palestine, even though it was already a multi-cultural land, with mostly Muslims, but also some Jews and Christians. All along, if you take the time to read about Zionism, the idea is a Jewish supremacist state, marginalizing those of another religion. So as the UN recognized a while ago, Zionism is racism. Israel was unilaterally created by the UN, after the British couldn't handle the Israeli terrorism anymore (do a Google search on "bombing of the King David Hotel" which Menachem Begin master-minded, who later became a prime minister of Israel, killing 72 people including civilians, and injuring many more). Thus the UN gave away land that was not theirs to give away in the first place. On the day Israel was created immorally, Israeli terrorists massacred hundreds of Palestinians, and drove off about half the population in terror, about 750,000 Palestinians, demolishing many Palestinian villages completely. In the process, these terrorists tooks even MORE land than the UN gave them, in this so-called War of 1948. The 750,000 Palestinians were never allowed to return to their ancestral homeland, even though it is their right according to UN Resolutions, International Law and world opinion. THIS is at the heart of the conflict that is on-going today. Since Israel is a Jewish supremacist state, they are obsessed with their artificially created demographics of Jewish majority. Hence the obvious racism, and the on-going ethnic cleansing. Palestinians who are Jewish are given equal rights. But Palestinians who are Muslim or Christian are not. They are marginalized if living within Israel as citizens, as a small minority does, relegated to living in only a specified 8% of the land; 92% of the land is for Jews only, and it's been that way since 1948. It is built into Israeli law that it is a Jewish state and that cannot be challenged if you want to run for office, ie., you could not run if you wanted to make Israel a secular country, with completely equal rights for all, including the right of return of all Palestinians, even though it is their right as pointed out. Israel is a theocracy with an apartheid regime. Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories, which is comprised of the West Bank and Gaza, taken over in a pre-empted war by the Israelis in 1967, have had no citizenship, no rights, no state, can only vote for a "policeman" aka Arafat, not a real president, dealing with military rule which includes severe checkpoints, roadblocks, permits, restrictions and humiliations that no human anywhere else is having to endure more than the Palestinians in this day and age. Everyone who has seen South African apartheid close up says that Israeli apartheid is far worse. All enabled by our US tax dollars to the tune of $3 billion a year. And now the Israelis are in DC asking for $10 billion more. I hope you will take the time to learn the truth about the grave injustices our tax dollars are allowing to happen every day, and take action to stop it! There is a way out! Sanctions, boycotts, and no US aid to Israel, unless it transforms into a true secular democratic one-state solution with equal rights for all, including all 5.5 million Palestinian refugees. When apartheid ended in South Africa, it did not break into one state for whites and another for blacks. Neither should Palestine-Israel separate into one state for Jews, and one state for Palestinian Muslims and Christians. The Holy Land was always multicultural. It is racist apartheid to call for a 2 state soltuion. The UN really blundered in giving away land that wasn't theirs to give away, and not only that, but they did not oversee the transition to ensure it was peaceful and fair and truly democratic. It's time to confront and correct the injustices now!
by Tom
Thursday Nov 21st, 2002 7:01 PM
Again, vague definitions that can not be used. How are we able to determine who is and who is not a Zionist with your sloppy definition?

Why should Palestinians settle with Zionists who stole their land?

You want a secular state for Zionists and Palestinians to share?

Are Palestinians just supposed to let the Zionists live in their homes, on their fields, on their shores. Tell us where you expect the Palestinians to live?

Are you not aware of the importance of Jerusalem? Infidels like Jews must not tread upon sacred ground yet you want a democracy to decide this issue?

Are you suggesting Muslims should forego their religious claims to Jerusalem, the third holiest site on Earth?

What Palestinian group wants this proto-Zionist fantasy of a democratic Greater-Israel anyway?

But worst of all, you have to refute (my) the accepted definition of a Zionist.

You know why? Because you can't!
by Tom
Thursday Nov 21st, 2002 7:04 PM
Let me restate the definition which no one has been able to refute:

Zionists include (but not limited to) all Isreali Jews who immigrated (or decendened from immigrants) living in the Zionist creation of Isreal.

That's it. End of story.
by one of the editors
Thursday Nov 21st, 2002 9:00 PM
>Sorry, that won't work.

This refers to a post that was hidden because it was racist propaganda. It happened to be anti-Palestinian, but we don't allow anti-Jewish propaganda, either. We do allow, and in fact encourage, anti-Zionist propaganda. We do not allow anti-Semitic propaganda that pretends to be, and/or is couched in the terms of anti-Zionist propaganda. This tactic is as common and as despicable as the Zionist tactic of pretending to be anti-Semitic and signing their enemies’ names to it. It’s really, really hard to sort out who is saying what around here. If we occasionally make a mistake, please forgive us. We’re trying as best we can to keep this site free from racist propaganda of any kind. Unfortunately both sides in this conflict have produced propagandists adept at the use code words, pretense and impersonation. So please bear with us as we try to sort it out. And do sort on your own. Take anythinhg anybody says on the subject with a large grain of salt. War is the mother of lies. Never believe anything anybody says about their enemies.
by ...........
Thursday Nov 21st, 2002 9:24 PM
"Zionists include (but not limited to) all Isreali Jews who immigrated (or decendened from immigrants) living in the Zionist creation of Isreal."

Sorry, but that group is already described as the term "Israeli citizen".

Certainly, descendants of immigrants cannot be said to be Zionists. Zionism implies a certain set of beliefs; thus it cannot be applied geographically. There must be thoughts or deeds associated to distinguish it. Quit splitting hairs, anyway. Semantics is usually an attempt to avoid rational debate.
by Sloop, John B.
Thursday Nov 21st, 2002 9:24 PM
Well, you see, there's this folk song . . .

http://makeashorterlink.com/?J1D824482

http://www.musicnow.co.uk/plm/html/04lyrics.html
by Tom
Thursday Nov 21st, 2002 10:02 PM
Sorry, but "Israeli citizen" also applies to indigenous "Israeli " Arabs whether they be Muslim, Christian, or Jew.

The same can not be said about THE definition of Zionists - they are not indigenous.

"Zionism implies a certain set of beliefs"

Exactly! First and foremost of those beliefs is the necessity and justification for immigrant Jews to live in Palestine as a nation called "Israel."

If an Israeli Jew lives in Israel or the OT, then they do so by choice - unlike Palestinians who live in refugee camps by force.

The simple act of habitation continues the Zionist creation, hence THE definition of Zionist.

But your sloppy definition is "splitting hairs" with a completely subjective determination like "working towards" some etheral goal.

Should a donation to a Palestinian charity be good enough to make a Zionist a non-Zionist? I certainly hope it takes more than that, but then this becomes a matter of personal judgement - VERY SLOPPY.

The occupation of Palestine, however, is a concrete fact and not subject to political interpretation.

The very things you accuse me of are actually attributes of your own.
--"Speaking of double standards, why is it that 'Could it be?' is not as upset about what’s happening in Chechnya as he is about what’s happening in Palestine? What Israel has done to Palestine pales next to what Russia has done to Chechnya by every standard."

While I agree with most of what you have said in your post, I am not sure why you are suspicious of "Could it be." He says in a post above that white supremacists deserve the flak they get. And I take him at his word. I didn't see anything that would lead me to believe that he is racist.

Russia has committed serious crimes against Chechnyans. What they've done there is about on a par with what Israel did to Lebanon in 1982 in which they killed at least 20,000 and possibly as many as 30,000. But the main difference is that we are enabling Israel to commit their crimes. While it makes sense to condemn all crimes, stopping our participation in them would seem to be the logical place to start (if for no other reason than because that is where we would likely have the most influence). While I don't like Putin and what he is doing, at least I'm not paying for it like I am with Sharon and his ethnic cleansing.
by me
Friday Nov 22nd, 2002 1:32 AM
>If an Israeli Jew lives in Israel or the OT, then they do so by choice

(1.) A lot of them were born there.

(2.) So what? Except for prisoners, everyone everywhere lives where they do by choice.

(3.) They have a perfect right to live there. Their right is precisely and exactly the same right that entitles Palestinians to live there. People have a right to live where ever they can make themselves welcome. The problem is not that they are living there, but that they displaced others by force in order to be able to do so.



>The simple act of habitation continues the Zionist creation, hence THE definition of Zionist.

No, it most assuredly does not. Habitation by Jews occurred before Zionism. Habitation by Jews will occur after Zionism. Habitation is not the problem. Habitation at the expense of others is the problem.



>unlike Palestinians who live in refugee camps by force.

This is simply untrue. I personally have met quite a number of Palestinians who left and came here. The ones who stay in the camps stay by choice, and I don’t blame them one bit. I would do exactly the same thing. To leave would be, not only to admit defeat, but abet ethnic cleansing. If someone stole your families house, and them fenced you out, often within eye site, would you leave? Or would you stay and fight, or at least wait until the situation resolved and you could go back to your home? If you left, you would not only be validating the theft, you would be enabling it. Few Americans would stand for being driven from their family’s home without a fight. It is wholly unrealistic to expect it of Palestinians

* * *

>I am not sure why you are suspicious of "Could it be." He says in a post above that white supremacists deserve the flak they get. And I take him at his word. I didn't see anything that would lead me to believe that he is racist.

Me either. However, in his case, it is better to err on the side of caution. He is a self admitted white Christian. If history has taught us anything, it is that those who take white Christians at their word, do so at their own peril. Read their history. Or ask some of their victims.

Does this mean that all white Christians are thieving, murdering, racist rapists and liars, or even that “Could be?” is? Of course not. Many, perhaps the majority, of white Christians, are honest, decent folks who can be taken at their word, even by non Christians of Color. It really is possible to do so and not get burned. It is also possible to draw to an inside straight. But it’s not a good bet.

You’re right, though, about Americans being the ones who pay the butcher’s bill. It’s a stain on our honor. No wonder the world hates and fears us. I would, too. Americans had better clean up our act, and soon, or sooner or later, we’re going catch more hell, a lot more. 9/11 was only a taste.
by Tom
Friday Nov 22nd, 2002 10:19 AM
"No, it most assuredly does not. Habitation by Jews occurred before Zionism. Habitation by Jews will occur after Zionism. Habitation is not the problem. Habitation at the expense of others is the problem. "

Habitation IS the problem because it DOES come at the expense of others. Israeli Jews live in homes they stole, on land they stole, in a nation they stole.

I repeat, Zionists are immigrant "Israeli" Jews and their decendents who choose to live in Palestine
by CN
Friday Nov 22nd, 2002 10:23 AM
Found this on the web. My question is, when did Jews ever do anything similar to us? The answer--NEVER

Please pause a moment and reflect back, by taking the following Multiple Choice test:

1. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:

a. Olga Corbitt.

b. Sitting Bull.

c. Arnold Schwartzeneger.

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

2. In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by:

a. Lost Norwegians.

b. Elvis.

c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women.

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

3. During the 1980s a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:

a. John Dillinger.

b. The King of Sweden.

c. The Boy Scouts.

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

4. In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:

a. A pizza delivery boy.

b. Pee Wee Herman.

c. Geraldo Rivera.

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

5. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70-year old American passenger was murdered and thrown
overboard by:

a. The Smurfs.

b. Mickey Mouse.

c. The Little Mermaid.

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

6. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a U.S. Navy diver was murdered by:

a. Captain Kid.

b. Charles Lindberg.

c. Mother Teresa.

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

7. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:

a. Scooby Doo.

b. The Tooth Fairy.

c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid.

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

8. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:

a. Richard Simmons.

b. Grandma Moses.

c. Michael Jordan.

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

9. In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:

a. Mr. Rogers.

b. Hillary, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women problems.

c. The World Wrestling Federation.

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

10. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked and destroyed and thousands of people were killed by:

a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd.

b. The Supreme Court of Florida.

c. Mr. Bean.

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

11. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:

a. Enron.

b. The Lutheran Church.

c. The NFL.

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

12. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:

a. Bonny and Clyde.

b. Captain Kangaroo

c. Billy Graham.

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

Nope, no patterns anywhere to justify profiling! To nsure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people.They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, Secret Service agents who are
members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winning former Governors.
by Could it be?
Friday Nov 22nd, 2002 11:19 AM
Keep it simple, Stupid or Keep it simple and straightforward, whichever you prefer.

Racism is racism is racism.

White supremacism was wrong in apartheid South Africa and Jewish supremacism is wrong in Israel.

There is NO room for double standards!

Equal rights for all regardless of religion, race or sex, in Israel-Palestine! Including for all 5.5 million Palestinian refugees whose right it is to return according to UN Resolutions, International Law and world opinion.

Spread the word! http://www.cactus48.com, http://www.netureikarta.org, http://www.divest-from-israel-campaign.org, http://www.boycottisraeligoods.org.

Do YOUR part to correct the injustice! NO MORE AID TO APARTHEID ISRAEL!
by Tom
Friday Nov 22nd, 2002 11:26 AM
Why should Palestinians settle with Zionists who stole their land?

You want a secular state for Zionists and Palestinians to share?

Are Palestinians just supposed to let the Zionists live in their homes, on their fields, on their shores. Tell us where you expect the Palestinians to live?

Are you not aware of the importance of Jerusalem? Infidels like Jews must not tread upon sacred ground yet you want a democracy to decide this issue?

Are you suggesting Muslims should forego their religious claims to Jerusalem, the third holiest site on Earth?

What Palestinian group wants this proto-Zionist fantasy of a democratic Greater-Israel anyway?

But worst of all, you have to refute (my) the accepted definition of a Zionist.

You know why? Because you can't!
by gehrig
Friday Nov 22nd, 2002 11:39 AM
"But worst of all, you have to refute (my) the accepted definition of a Zionist. You know why? Because you can't!"

No, simply because nobody's bothered to listen to some anonymous poster's ad hoc definition of a word.

From Mirriam-Webster:

Main Entry: Zi*on*ism
Pronunciation: 'zI-&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1896
: an international movement orig. for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel
- Zi*on*ist /-nist/ adjective or noun
- Zi*on*is*tic /"zI-&-'nis-tik/ adjective

Hope this helps.

Now, for extra credit -- what percentage of Arab Americans think the two-state solution is a better solution than you do? Answer -- pretty much all of them, according to the Arab-American Institute/Peace Now/Zogby poll released yesterday.

"The communities were asked if they would support a peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians that included the establishment of an independent, secure Palestinian state alongside an independent, secure Israeli state, the evacuation of most settlements from the West Bank and Gaza, the establishment of a border roughly along the June 4, 1967 border, a Palestinian right of return only to inside a new Palestinian state, and establishing Jerusalem as the shared capital of both countries. Among Jewish Americans, 51.7% supported and 30.3% did not support such a plan, while 78.9% of Arab Americans supported and 10.9% did not support it. "

http://www.peacenow.org for details. Oh, that's right, Peace Now is Zi-i-i-i-ionist, so they fail your purity test.

What's it like to be more Arab than the Arabs, Tom? They voted against your position nearly eight to one.

@%<
by also
Friday Nov 22nd, 2002 11:41 AM
"On the question of a Palestinian state, 85 percent of American Jews participating in the survey said they supported the creation of such a state, and more than 95 percent of the American Arabs gave the same answer. "
by Tom
Friday Nov 22nd, 2002 11:43 AM
With the nearly universal condemnation of ZIONISTS you'd think that there must be some agreed upon definition of what a ZIONIST is.

So who are we really talking about when we use the word ZIONIST?

Seems to me like the word means many things to many people.

Who is a ZIONIST and who isn't?
by history
Friday Nov 22nd, 2002 11:56 AM
http://www.aish.com/literacy/jewishhistory/Crash_Course_in_Jewish_History_Part_63_-_Modern_Zionism.asp

The definition of the word wont really convince Palestinians since the Zionist movement became racist during the second aliya...

it didnt start out that bad, but as one would expect of any European movement to settle in a nonEuropean country, racist attitudes towrds nonEuropeans even created a hostile attitude to nonEuropean Jews in Palestine until after WWII
by Could it be?
Friday Nov 22nd, 2002 11:59 AM
Tom, don't you DARE delete this post, you Zionist you.

Keep It Simple Stupid!

Racism is racism is racism.

White supremacism was wrong in South Africa and Jewish supremacism which is what Zionism is, in Israel is WRONG!

Zionism is Jewish Supremacism in Israel?

Have you got that YET? Don't delete this either, like you did my previous post that said this same thing.
You are a lying hypocrite!
by Tom
Friday Nov 22nd, 2002 11:59 AM
If I call someone a ZIONIST, how do I know that I'm using the term correctly?

Who are we talking about when we use the word ZIONIST?

I know who I'm talking about, but who are you talking about?
by Could it be?
Friday Nov 22nd, 2002 12:06 PM
Tom is a Zionist! He keeps deleting my posts explaining how Zionism is Jewish supremacism in Palestine-Israel!

by Tom
Friday Nov 22nd, 2002 12:08 PM
As I've made plainly clear, I have THE definition of who is and who isn't a ZIONIST.

You have yet to offer a clear alternative definition for a ZIONIST other than someone who deletes your posts.

You are very childish in your accusations

You are also wrong
by Could it be?
Friday Nov 22nd, 2002 12:12 PM
He does't want to hear that Zionism is Jewish supremacism in Palestine-Israel!

He doesn't want to believe that Palestine-Israel could be a multi-cultural, secular, democracy!

He doesn't want to believe that Palestine was a multi-cultural country where Muslims, Christians and Jews lived in relative harmony for hundreds of years before Zionists came in with their racist vision of a Jewish supremacist state!

He is in denial about the immorality of Jewish supremacism in Israel which is just as bad as White supremacism in South Africa!
by Could it be?
Friday Nov 22nd, 2002 12:15 PM
Zionism is Jewish supremacism in Israel-Palestine!
by Tom
Friday Nov 22nd, 2002 12:20 PM
"Are you suggesting that the practitioners of one religion have greater rights than the practitioners of another? If so. you’re not just part of the problem, you *are* the problem."

Yes that's what I say and that's what most Palestinians say when it comes to Islamic Holy sites and the city of Jerusalem.

It might not be a Western attitude to favor Islam, but Palestine is not the West.

If Palestinians want Palestine to be an Islamic country then that is their right.

Also, I've made it plainly clear many times that ZIONISTS are immigrant Jews and their decendents but not indigenous Arab Jews.

Being labeled spy is just par for the course. My arguments are logical and precise and obviously not disinformation. I explain myself clearly and engage in discussions about my beliefs.

I believe that's more than enough "proof"
by Could it be?
Friday Nov 22nd, 2002 12:32 PM
Yes, I believe that the Zionists are the immigrant Jews mostly from Eastern Europe and their descendants who believe in Jewish supremacism in Palestine-Israel.

Again racism is racism is racism. Jewish supremacism in Israel-Palestine is just as immoral as white supremacism was in apartheid Israel.

Sorry about my ranting, but alot of people are in denial about this!

I believe we can all live together in relative peace, as equals, regardless of race, religion or sex in a secular democratic society. We do it here in the US, and now South Africa is on its way and we MUST find a way to make Israel also transform into Palestine-Israel, a completely secular democracy with equal rights for all regardless of religion, race or sex, including all 5.5 million Palestinian refugees as it is their right according to UN Resolutions, International Law and world opinion. It IS possible! Spread the word!
">If Palestinians want Palestine to be an Islamic country then that is their right.

No, it is not. For one thing not all Palestinians are Islamic. For another, no one has the right to enforce their religion, whatever it is, on another by force. If you disagree, you are enemy of peace and liberty."

You speak with a Western attitude - understandable.

Again, Palestine is not the West. If the majority of Palestinians decide Palestine should be an Islamic country, that is their choice.

Who are you to tell them that Palestine can not embody Muslim principles?

Probably some confused American that assumes every democracy must be secular and inclusive just like the US - a lie.
by Could it be?
Friday Nov 22nd, 2002 1:54 PM
Tom, Palestine has historically been a multi-cultural land for many peoples, including Muslim, Christians and Jews. That was until Zionist Jews from Eastern Europe came in with their Jewish supremacist regime.

Secularism is GOOD because it allows everyone the FREEDOM to pursue God and religion in their own way, or even not pursue God and religion, but follow the laws of the land designed for the well-being of all the people, regardless of their race, religion or sex.

This is a reasonable approach, without compromising anything really, for the good of all. PEACE ON EARTH AND GOOD WILL TO ALL MEN AND WOMEN AND CHILDREN.

by Tom
Friday Nov 22nd, 2002 2:04 PM
Yes, Palestine has been multicultural for ages, however the Islamic character was maintained.

The Holy sites remain to this day outside of Jewish control and the fight continues over al-Quds (Jerusalem).

You are asking the Palestinians to sacrifice a very deep and sustaining part of their culture to appease a Western sensibility.

Think about it.
by Could it be?
Friday Nov 22nd, 2002 5:03 PM
Sharing Jerusalem is the answer. Sharing everything is the answer. If Muslims, Jews and Christians lived in Palestine peacefully before the Jewish supremacism of Zionism, they can do so again. Secularism is respecting each other's religious freedom.

by Tom
Friday Nov 22nd, 2002 5:28 PM
You are avoiding history.

Before the Zionist immigration, Palestinian Muslims outnumbered Jews by more than 100 to 1. Palestinian Muslims easily maintained their religous auhtority over Holy Islamic sites.

That's not possible under a democratic "Greater Israel"

You can claim to be "for" Palestine and yet you are dead set against centuries of Palestinian culture.

Islam is integral to Palestine. No matter how hard the Zionists try, they can't blink their eyes and make it go away.
by ........
Friday Nov 22nd, 2002 6:28 PM
Tom, you can't have it both ways. You say that:

""Zionism implies a certain set of beliefs"
Exactly! First and foremost of those beliefs is the necessity and justification for immigrant Jews to live in Palestine as a nation called "Israel."If an Israeli Jew lives in Israel or the OT, then they do so by choice"

But then you say:

"Zionists include (but not limited to) all Isreali Jews who immigrated (or decendened from immigrants) living in the Zionist creation of Isreal."

Please explain, how the descendant of an immigrant has any choice about living in Israel. You're not making any sense whatsoever; your argument is a weak, feeble, and flimsy one which falls apart the moment the door is opened to have a look inside.

by Tom
Friday Nov 22nd, 2002 6:40 PM
"Please explain, how the descendant of an immigrant has any choice about living in Israel"

They choose to stay rather than leave. They could immigrate elsewhere, some place where they are welcome like the United States, but the choose not to.

Choosing to stay allows Israel to exist. Their complicity makes them ZIONISTS.
by Tom
Friday Nov 22nd, 2002 8:23 PM
"Theocracy is the the father of war."

That's your opinion.

It is the right of Palestinians to choose a government for themselves.

They do not have undo an Islamic society to appease you or your Western interests.
by ...........
Friday Nov 22nd, 2002 10:09 PM
"They choose to stay rather than leave. They could immigrate elsewhere, some place where they are welcome like the United States, but the choose not to."

Sorry, but you can't just immigrate to the US whenever you like, there are limits to US immigration and only so many people can get in. Try again.
by hmm
Friday Nov 22nd, 2002 10:43 PM
Most of the proIsrael and proPalestinian posts her agree on just about everything except a few facts. Its the same in Israel itself. Arafat and Sharon agree on alot more than one would think. But nobody trusts each other (Many Palestinians see Sharon as a war criminal who wants to force all Palestinians out and create an ethnically pure greater Israel while many Israelis see Arafat as an antSemite who wants to push the Jewish population into the sea).

The only real difference seems to be views on the right of return. And the end result wil probably be a right of return to a new Palestinian state with some of Southern Israel becoming part of the Palestinian state to keep Gaza and the West Bank united (and in exchange some settlements near Israel may become part of Israel).

I doubt too many Palestinians really picture a future with everyone in Israel leaving (almost all of the US population immigrated here in the last 200 years, but I know of few people who would know were to go back to).

I doubt too many Israelis picture a future with Israel or the West Bank and Gaza without Palestinians (and the percent of Israeli citizens who are Palestinian is increasing).

There is the risk of increased ethnic cleansing by Israel or a Palestinian victory with many Israelis forced to leave, but both situations are the worst possible outcome and are highly unlikely.

In the short term, the violence will increase and many innocent people will die but for the most part the cause will be mutual hatred and revenge rather than any real differences.
by Someone
Saturday Nov 23rd, 2002 12:01 AM
The majority of Jordan's populace is Palestinian.

However, it is ruled by Hashemites.

Jews are forbidden to be citizens of Jordan.

Stop Hashemite supremacy! Let's have a Democratic state of Jordan!

Down with King Hussein!

Let Jews become citizens of Jordan!

by Bob N.
Saturday Nov 23rd, 2002 12:26 AM
Gee, males aged 17-40. The fits the profile of the members of the Irgund and Stern gang who assassinated a British diplomat and a Swedish envoy from the UN. The same type placed milk canisters filled with bomb material in the basement of the King David Hotel and murdered 92 people. Similar gangs from 1938 to 1948 slaughtered hundreds of Arab Palestinians with bombs and ambushes with sten guns. Baruch Goldstein falls within that age range.

Do we see a pattern here? Violence was not invented by people who happened to be Muslims. Israelis have done their share of 'wet work'.

I think the guilt needs to be spread around more. There are a lot of folks out there who deserve it whou aren't getting their fair share.

Ní fhaigheann lámh iata ach dorn dúnta.
(Irish Proverb - A closed hand gets only a clenched fist.)
by Tom
Saturday Nov 23rd, 2002 1:21 PM
"Ergo, Tom is evil. Or else he the dupe of evil people. Either way, all righteous, decent people reject him, reject people like him, and reject the evil lies they spread."

What lies have I spread?

A difference of opinion is not a lie.

You disagree with me (and most Palestinians) about the role of Islam in the future government of Palestine.

Your use of logic suggests you believe most Palestinians are evil or else the dupes of evil people.

It is quite clear that your prejudice and Western upbringing do not allow you to conceive of a civil and democratic Islamic government.

Tell me, who is it that is sreading lies?
by Tom
Saturday Nov 23rd, 2002 1:37 PM
Of course other religions will be welcomed, but Islam will the state's official religion - much as it has been in Palestine since the beginnings of Islam.

This is what I mean when I refer to you Western attitudes and spreading lies.

by Someone
Saturday Nov 23rd, 2002 1:47 PM
Of course non-Moslems are welcome to Islamic rule. They're called Dhimmi. Non-Moslem monotheists (i.e. Christians and Jews) are welcome to live in Islamic nations as dhimmi, a second-class citizen with fewer rights.

Non-monotheists however can't even be Dhimmi. So if you're a Hindu, you'd better get out. Go back to the Hindu-Supremist state of India.

And Al-Quaeda recently made its demands of the United States known; A) End all aid to Israel. B) The entire U.S. must convert to Islam. So the American democracy ideal of freedom of religion ain't okay either.

But at least you can be dhimmi. Or at least, you used to be. There used to be a lot of Jewish Dhimmi in the Arab world before they expelled nearly all the Jews after 1948. These Jews found a home in the one country created to find a home for displaced Jews: Israel. Otherwise, the Arabs might have needed to Gas 'em, like the Germans did.

As a result of the Germans, much of Europe is JUDENREIN.... free of Jews. Thanks to the expellations, much of the Arab world is also JUDENREIN... free of Jews. Of course, Israel remains the exception... all those Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, refugees from the Arab nations, and others who have been forced out have made a home for themselves on their ancestral homelands.

But someday, thanks to Tom and his friends, we can make all the Middle East JUDENREIN... or at least make the non-Moslems a nice, discriminated class of Dhimmi that will be easier to control.

I mean, the nerve of these people to not want to be Dhimmi...
by history buff
Saturday Nov 23rd, 2002 3:51 PM
That was a recent event.
by True Blue
Saturday Nov 23rd, 2002 4:37 PM
I hope you will join our group Americans for Justice in Palestine-Israel, who will meet Tues., Nov. 26, at the Rockridge Library at 7pm. We will network, brainstorm, etc., for our goal: ending all US aid to Israel until Israel is transformed into a true secular democracy with equal rights for all regardless of religion, race or sex, including the right to return of all 5 million Palestinian refugees to their ancestral homeland of Palestine-Israel, which is their right according to UN Resolutions, International Law and world opinion. We will also watch a movie "Behind the Hatred: The Root of the Conflict", an excellent documentary by BBC, NYTimesTV and NBC. If you agree with our goal, you are welcome to join us.
by Native
Sunday Nov 24th, 2002 2:37 AM
Read the post below. Is this person a complete moron? "They could move to the US"... Duh, the US is a country of illegal settlers. As a native american I'm offened that you trample on my land with such alacrity.
SO tell me, what are you- self-richeous hypocrite, standing on my land, the land your ancestors stole while protesing other people who stole land far away. Do what you are demanding others do and give the land back and go away!


"Please explain, how the descendant of an immigrant has any choice about living in Israel"

They choose to stay rather than leave. They could immigrate elsewhere, some place where they are welcome like the United States, but the choose not to.

Choosing to stay allows Israel to exist. Their complicity makes them ZIONISTS.

by Someone
Sunday Nov 24th, 2002 5:01 AM
Native, I sympathize with your stature as a Native American.

You see, my people were forced off their land too.

My people are the Jews. Our land is Israel.

The Romans dispersed us 2,000 years ago. But we FINALLY came back home. We kept our identity together for all those years, and have come back to the land of our people's birth.

It's just ironic that we're being accused of stealing the land we were born on. But I suppose maybe you'll understand. Perhaps 1,500 years from now a tribe of Native Americans will reclaim a small part of the United States, and will get shit from the whole world for "stealing land."

Se la vie.
by just wondering
Sunday Nov 24th, 2002 5:54 AM
How can Palestine be "the land of (y)our people's birth"?

Wasn't Egypt the place where Jews were born, back before they first invaded Palestine and ethnically cleansed it of the Philistines, Caananites, etc. who had gotten there first?

And before Egypt, was it not Ur of the Chaldees, birthplace of Abraham, the very first Jew to be born anywhere?

by Do YOUR homework!
Sunday Nov 24th, 2002 9:00 AM
Fresca, at least you expose your complete ignorance about the Palestine-Israel conflict for all to see.

At least you are trying to be sincere, or so it seems.

Fresca, please do YOUR homework. Everything you wrote is so biased and misinformed and suggests that perhaps you may even be a racist, one of those Jewish supremacist types.

If you sincerely want to know the truth about Israel's immoral beginnings, I urge you to read "Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict" written by the Jews for Justice in the Middle East. You can find it at http://www.cactus48.com. It will blow your mind, and contradict everything you said, so don't say I didn't warn you. I know some of the Jews who wrote it ( I am Christian), and so I know it wasn't written by Arabs.

Also, I can highly recommend that you order the 3 part series "Behind the Hatred" about the Palestine-Israel conflict, which is amazingly unbiased, and it's a joint production by BBC, NY Times, and NBC. You will be shocked, I'm sure, when it talks about the Israeli terroriest who went around massacring entire Palestinian villages on the day that Israel was created in 1948, causing half the population to flee from their homeland in terror. Order it by calling the 1-800 number at http://www.discovery.com and asking for the series "Behind the Hatred".
It's not much money, like $35 or something.

Israel is the only remaining colonialist country and the military occupation is the longest in modern history. Israel is a "racist, anti-democratic, apartheid country" in the words of an Israeli Refusenik soldier, and it is unworthy of any US tax dollars!
by Didn't anyone tell you?
Sunday Nov 24th, 2002 9:16 AM
That the expiration date has passed?

Sorry, Jews left Palestine about 2000 YEARS ago, as did many old tribes before Jews.

If you believe in God, then you should try to remember The Ten Commandments, especially thou shalt not steal, kill, lie or covet thy neighbors assets.

Don't try to pretend that Zionism has ANYTHING to do with a belief in God! Zionism is a political belief, that raised its ugly racist head in the late 1880's. Unfortunately, many Jews now BUY INTO this political notion, but some do NOT. Check out http://www.jewsnotzionists.org, http://www.netureikarta.org and http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com.

By the way, the Israelis are now doing to the Palestinians, what our forefathers did to American Indians. Ethnic cleansing was wrong then, and it is wrong now. At least Native American Indians, those who survived, now have equal rights, and can buy land, and cannot be discriminated against. Unlike in Israel, Palestinians cannot vote, except for Arab Israelis inside Israel but who cannot run for office in Israel if they want to challenge the theocracy of a JEWISH state rather than a SECULAR state, which is a necessity for a true democracy, which Israel is NOT.

Palestinians are the indigenous people of Palestine-Israel, but are being oppressed and discriminated against under the Israeli military occupation. Check out http://www.cactus48.com if you want the truth. But can you handle the truth?
by Someone
Sunday Nov 24th, 2002 10:59 AM
Expiration date?

Sorry friend. God doesn't have an expiration date.

This is the most important prayer in Judaism:

Shima Yisrael, adonai elochanu, adonai echad.

Baruch sham kivod malchuto liolam vaed.

It translates to this in English:

"Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.

Blessed is God's glorious kingdom forever and ever."

Forever and Ever is longer than 2,000 years. Forever and Ever is just that.

Oh, and by the way, Israeli Arabs can run for office in Israel, and there are Arab members of the Knisset. You say they can't be elected if they don't support Israel as a Jewish state. Well, I'm not sure if anyone can be elected in the United States if they urge the end of the Republic and advocate having a King instead, but I could be wrong.

Furthermore, Jews can't run for office in any of the Arab nations. Not that that matters to you of course.

And to the previous poster, the Israelites hardly originated from Egypt. The very insinuation is quite insulting, considering the Egyptians held the Israelites as slaves. But if you go to an Archeology site in Israel and dig, you can find evidence that the Jews have been there for thousands of years. Even during the Diaspora, there were many Jews in Jerusalem. At some times, a majority. Ask the power that controlled Palestine before Britain.

No, not the Palestinians, you dummy. The Ottoman Empire. Remember them? Probably not.
by hmm
Sunday Nov 24th, 2002 11:42 AM
The Ottoman Empire ruled the Middle East for quite awhile but local cultures still existed since the Turks never made up any significant portion of the population (having only recently migrated from N China).

Palestinians didn’t really exist as "Palestinians" but neither did any other state/culture you try to think of today (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc.) since identity was defined for quite a bit smaller areas.

The issue is that people were living there who were made to leave in 49 and many people still remember their homes (which are not being lived in at all for the most part) and want to go home.

There was a Jewish population in Palestine before the Aliyahs but it was quite small by the late 1800s. And this population was hated by European Jews who (as with most Europeans at the time) didn’t see anyone who was nonEuropean as fully human. There was an attempt to bring in Jews from Yemen during the second Aliyah and it failed mainly because the European Jewish population couldn’t get along with them and saw them as driving down wages.

The Jewish population was treated pretty well (these were not democratic societies so that doesn’t say much) in the Middle East before the late 1800s. Anti-Semitism was rare and was mainly a European phenomenon. 1948 lead to a huge disturbance in the Middle East that lead to more local discrimination and many locals adopted European styles of anti-Semitism (note that most of the worst anti-Semitic texts are translations of European texts) There were a few conflicts in Palestine before the British mandate but most of these were land disputes surrounding the second Aliyah which had become more openly hostile to the local population (which by then was starting to define itself as Palestinian).

For the most part colonialism in Israel looked like European colonialism. It was funded by large European organizations etc.. One key difference was the desire to create Jewish only areas without even the use of the native population as workers (although the US and Australia sort of did the same thing with their native populations). The other key difference was that the native population hadn’t been an accepted part of the European population so when colonialism went out of style in the mid 1900s people had nowhere to move back to and saw Israel as a long-term home. But the difference between Israel and other forms of colonialism are not as large as one would think since the conflict in Zimbabwe is still around and the English farmers are still trying to stay.

The rest of the Middle East is also a mess but the focus has been on Israel. Why is this? It isn’t just US aid it’s also the style of the discrimination (minority against majority). When a majority population is discriminated against one expects that population to raise a lot more noise because it's larger. Israel is also seen as wealthier so that also plays into the conflict. Africa was outraged at the horrors of apartheid not just because it was unusually bad but also because the ruling class there was different and rich. Saudi Arabia may have worse inequality but its easier for the Saudis to pretend they can relate to the population whereas the Israelis seem like outsiders who have nothing in common and care nothing for the Palestinian interests.

In the short term the conflict in Palestine is gang war revenge against revenge situation.

In the longer term the conflict is due to a failure of Israel to treat Palestinians the same as the rest of the population. Are settlers born in the West Bank Israeli citizens? Why are Palestinians born there left in limbo? Any other country would have made the occupied lands parts of Israel or let them become independent states (China occupies Tibet and India Kashmir but they pretend to give the populations equal rights with the rest of the population). The situation in Israel proper is also problematic. Yes there are voting rights, but an Israeli Palestinian can't bring in relatives from the West Bank whereas a Jewish person in the US can move to Israel at any time.

Palestinians must also accept that the Jewish population has now lived there for several generations and isn’t going to leave. And the children of immigrants anywhere should be treated as having just a right to live somewhere as anyone else (at least I think most people who agree with this as a moral principle in the US so why not Palestine)
by Someone
Sunday Nov 24th, 2002 12:53 PM
Congratulations, hmmmm. You actually seem to know a few things, in contrast to most of the Anti-Zionists on here.

A few corrections though.

Current Jews ARE the majority population in Israel, and that includes the Palestinians in the disputed territories. So it is not a minority population controlling a majority population, like Apartheid.

However, Palestinian birthrates are increasing faster than Jewish birthrates, so there MAY BE such a discrepenacy, and that worries many, including me. But it is not presently the case.

It is furthermore interesting to point out the ludicrousness of the idea that Israel is ethnically cleansing a population that is growing, not shrinking. The idea that these people are growing more numerous while suffering genocide is pretty contradictory. Not that you said this; it's just another irritating slogan from the Anti-Zionist crowd.

Also, the early Zionists were for the most part Socialists. Being Socialists they often paid the native workers better wages, which is part of the reason for increased Arab immigration when the Zionists starting coming to Palestine. Part of the conflict stemmed from the Arab rulers who were distressed at seeing their workers laboring for Jews, and started to spread Anti-Semitism to regain control. We're still living with these consquences.

Also, Israel is not now and has never been a Jew-only state. Jews are the majority; Jews are protected and yes, it is not fully equal. Even the United States has not achieved full equality in 200 years; nor has Israel in 50. But it is much further along that path than its neighbors, who don't even make pretend to further equality.

This leads to another quandry; Palestinian rights in the Arab nations. About 800,000 Palestinians were refugees after the 1948 war. About the same number of Jews were also forced to flee their homes in the Arab nations out of Anti-Semitism and forced expulsions. Israel accepted these Jewish refugees. And except for Jordan, the Arab nations refused entry to all the Palestinian refugees, in spite of the fact that they had far more land, money and resources than little Israel. Heck, the Gaza Strip started as an internment camp for Palestinians... and it was run by Egyptians! Why did they never allow the entry of Palestinian refugees?

You can say it's because Palestinian refugees remembered their homes, but that's not it. Jews may remember their homes in Poland, France and other parts of Europe and Arabia that they were forced out of. Some demand compensation, but it's rare to find a Jew demanding his old home that his family lived in before his parents were sent to Auschwitz. As long as Palestinians are forbidden to immigrate to Arab nations, they can only remember their homes. And they get to serve the Arab nations as a constant threat against Israel; a pawn for them to use against the Jews.

You also ask why Israel isn't granting citizenship to Palestinians born in the disputed territories. Well, it's a question isn't it? Should you grant widescale citizenship to a group of people who seek your nation's destruction? Many Palestinians still believe in eradicating Israel. Many teach this to their children. How can you grant them citizenship if they have no loyalty to the country their becoming part of? No nation in history did such an act, and there's no reason for Israel to be the first.

The best solution is still the same as it was in 1948. A two state solution with definable boarders, an end to terrorism, and a Palestinian right of return to this new state of Palestine, but not to Israel. But this was offered by Barak just before the intifada; Arafat didn't even make a counter proposal. Destroying Israel may still be a wet dream for Arabs and a lot of users on Indymedia. But sorry, it ain't happening.

Om Yisreal Chai
by hmm
Sunday Nov 24th, 2002 1:12 PM
"Also, the early Zionists were for the most part Socialists. Being Socialists they often paid the native workers better wages, which is part of the reason for increased Arab immigration when the Zionists starting coming to Palestine. "

The first Aliya was prety capitalist with large plantations etc.. They did pay high wages and there was no Jewish/Palestinian conflicts to speak of.

The second Aliyah had more Socialists involved but they were not the main leaders of the WZO and there were some pretty nasty conflicts between the Labour Bund and the main Zionist organizations (The JCA and Rothschild backed settlements always being pretty capitalist in nature).

During the second Aliyah there was open discrimination against Palestinian labor and many of the settlements had policies of not hiring Palestinian labor (there were a few large cases of labor unrest with European workers demanding that the plantations not hire Palestinians since it reduced European workers wages).

Even the kibbutz system was originally developed (partially by the WZO) as a way for wealthier European labor to be able to sustain themselves when it was obvious that they couldn't compete with the cheaper Palestinian labour. Only later did the kibbutz system get sold back to immigrants as a Socialist utopian ideal.

There were many Socialists who were part of the WZO but many broke away from it when it became more nationalist. Einstein being one of the more famous people to later denounce the treatment of the Palestinians by the new Israeli state.
by hmm
Sunday Nov 24th, 2002 1:15 PM
"You also ask why Israel isn't granting citizenship to Palestinians born in the disputed territories. Well, it's a question isn't it? Should you grant widescale citizenship to a group of people who seek your nation's destruction? "

The same could be said of Tibet and China or Kashmir and India. The conflict in Kashmir is every bit as bloody as the conflict in Israel. But the Kashmiris DO have the right to vote in the Indian elections even though many of them want an end to Indian rule...
by hmm
Sunday Nov 24th, 2002 1:32 PM
Chechens are fighting against Moscow and have killed a huge number of Russian soldiers (many more than the Palestinians have killed in the Israeli occupation) YET while Russia is secretly engaging in ethnic cleansing worse than what Israel is doing in the West Bank and Gaza, Russia openly gives the Chechens the right to vote in the Russian elections...

Why?

Because unlike Israel, Russia claims Chechnya as part of Russia. Israel left the West Bank and Gaza in a legal limbo for years. I cant think of too many other cases where something that looked like a wartime occupation (without the area being annexed) has happened for this length of time.

Also in response to the birth rate issue…

Israel proper will have a majority Palestinian population in a few decades. It may seem worrying if the conflict is not solved but the Palestinian population is pretty secular for the most part and a more secular state could allow this to not be a problem. A two state solution is probably temporary since Palestinians also exist in Israel and most of the Palestinian economy used to be based on selling good to Israel or working in Israel. Most of the Jewish population is also pretty secular so short-term hatreds should be easy to overcome once the fighting stops. Unfortunately in the short-term the main socialist organizations in the West Bank and Gaza have been destroyed by Fatah and the Israeli assassinations so a truly secular Palestinian leadership may be difficult… and the Jewish population in Israel is also moving to the right… There is a real risk of ethnic cleansing in Israel and the West Bank if you listen to some of the rhetoric of the growing Israeli far right. As long as this doesn’t happen, given enough time Id like to hope that a multiethnic multireligious state will at some point emerge (even if in the short-term the best way to end the fighting is two states).
by hmm
Sunday Nov 24th, 2002 1:52 PM
"As long as Palestinians are forbidden to immigrate to Arab nations, they can only remember their homes. And they get to serve the Arab nations as a constant threat against Israel; a pawn for them to use against the Jews."

Well thats one reason Israelis aren't demanding to move back to Poland while Palestinians are demanding to move back to Israel. Being in a refuge camps for years is more than anyone can tollerate.

Also WWII destroyed Eastern Europe to the point where many houses in the cities were not left. Many Palestinian villages in Israel are nonoccupied and surrounded by fences so that makes it more tempting.

Neighboring countries should accept refugees and are using the Palestinians as pawns. But, Israel should allow people back too especially when Israel is openly asking for people to immigrate form Eastern Europe...

If Israel did accept Palestinians back and the conflict was solved, democracy in neighboring countires would be much easier since the conflict is being used to draw attention away from horrible leaders largely put in place by the British after WWI. But Its almost impossible for Americans to have any direct say on those problems since complaints by Americans would only be used by those leaders to show how the West is trying to undermine them in order to gain more ground (any prodemocracy group in the Arab world backed by Westerners could easily lose all support just for that reason). Since "the West" has some say in Israel and no say in the rest of the Middle East it is our responsiblity to openly protest Isreal. Its harder to say what the Left in the West can do about the rest of the Middle East (except maybe to reduce Saudi Arabia's power by encouraging the use of renewable energy?).
by ?
Sunday Nov 24th, 2002 2:28 PM
"JAMMU, India (Reuters) - At least 10 people died when suspected Islamic rebel gunmen attacked two Hindu temples in Indian Kashmir (news - web sites) on Sunday as rebels warned a new state government the long anti-Indian revolt was not dead."

The BJP is a racist Hindu nationalist party, yet they would never go as far to say that Kashmiris shouldnt get the right to vote since that would undermine Indian rule of Kashmir, so how does Israel get away with ruling over the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank while giving them no rights...

Havent more people died in Kashmir "terrorist" attacks and Indian military crackdowns than in Israel?
by .........
Sunday Nov 24th, 2002 3:11 PM
"However, Palestinian birthrates are increasing faster than Jewish birthrates, so there MAY BE such a discrepenacy, and that worries many, including me."

I don't see it should worry anyone who is not a racist.

"Also, Israel is not now and has never been a Jew-only state. Jews are the majority; Jews are protected and yes, it is not fully equal."

Somewhat of an understatement.

"This leads to another quandry; Palestinian rights in the Arab nations."

This is indeed deeply disturbing and should not be ignored. However, given that most of these governments are compliant dictatorships founded and maintained by Western interests, this is less an issue of some sort of subhumanity on the part of the Muslims than it is an issue of extreme external interference in their affairs. Alot of these issues you raise are similar; many of them are good points, but (1) two wrongs don't make a right and Israel's behaviour is not excused by the fact that "someone else has done it". (2) these arguments are often employed in an attempt to build an Untermenschen vision of the Muslims (and an Ubermenschen vision of the West).

" As long as Palestinians are forbidden to immigrate to Arab nations, they can only remember their homes. And they get to serve the Arab nations as a constant threat against Israel; a pawn for them to use against the Jews."

Indeed. All the more reason for Israel to embrace these people and give them what no neighbour will, and earn their respect in the process.

"You also ask why Israel isn't granting citizenship to Palestinians born in the disputed territories. Well, it's a question isn't it? Should you grant widescale citizenship to a group of people who seek your nation's destruction? Many Palestinians still believe in eradicating Israel. Many teach this to their children. How can you grant them citizenship if they have no loyalty to the country their becoming part of? No nation in history did such an act"

Absolutely false. I will not deny there are Palestinians who feel that way. What I do deny is the 'no nation in history' business. Totally false. There are, actually, very few nations in history which have not done so. Rome, most obviously, did it and excelled at doing it. America did it and does it to this day; native peoples have citizenship here. Both Scottish and Welsh inhabitants of the United Kingdom are citizens, despite a history of war with England. Canada is a very classic latter day example. When the French in Canada were conquered, they were granted citizenship and allowed to keep their religion and even their system of law; the Province of Quebec has its own legal code. There has been friction between Quebec and the rest of Canada, but on the whole the situation has been highly amicable - due to the fact that there was never any effort to seriously oppress these conquered peoples. All of these peoples who have citizenship were, or are, committed to the destruction of their parent country to some degree. So, your historical argument vis a vis assimilation falls flat on its face. In point of fact, Israel is a colonial anomaly in that, instead of attempting to assimilate the native populace, it has sought to replace it. The history of most other colonies is the exact opposite.

"The best solution is still the same as it was in 1948. A two state solution with definable boarders"

In 1948, Israel did not occupy the region of the Occupied Territories. This did not occur until 1967. Most 2 state proposals call for a separate 'homeland'
for Palestinians. This separate state is never really envisioned as fully independant, but as a 'transitional state' something no one has ever heard of before, and transitioning into what and for how long no one knows. Ah, I correct myself: it has been heard of before. The separate state 'homelands' in the old South African program of apartheid (translation: living apart). These, too, were said to be 'transitional'.
In any case, a separate state for anyone based on race is just that. Racism. It still serves the concept of a racially pure and ethnically cleansed Israel, which is evil.


by Tom
Sunday Nov 24th, 2002 3:41 PM
"In any case, a separate state for anyone based on race is just that. Racism. It still serves the concept of a racially pure and ethnically cleansed Israel, which is evil."

Acctually, this is not true, unless the single state you are talking about is Palestine and not a Greater Israel.

The more "liberal" Zionists pretend that a democratic union of peoples is someone the desire of the Palestinian people.

It most certainly IS NOT.

Palestininians want a Palestinian PALESTINE.

More importantly, (the majority of) Palestinians want a ISLAMIC Palestine.

The state of Palestine will NOT be a creation of Western liberal Zionists, US foreign policy, or any other entity than the Palestinian people.

The fact that this desire is routinely dismissed or ignored is very telling of the agenda of those who supposedely "Pro-Palestinian"

To us all a favor and actually acquaint yourself with the aspirations of the Palestinian people.
by ........
Sunday Nov 24th, 2002 3:50 PM
Indeed, this is the flavour du jour. But, these aspirations can be quickly changed and are likely the result of Palestinians not seeing a democratic state as a possiblity. If they did, I think you might see extremists pushed to where they belong in the political spectrum. It all comes down to what appeals most to the average man in the street. He wants security for his family and the chance for a future. Who, right now, offers this to him, credibly? Not Israel, not the West. That is why he bothers to listen to the extremist. Because he doesn't see Sharon offering him anything promising. This is what needs to be changed, and this is the most viable plan.
by ?
Sunday Nov 24th, 2002 3:52 PM
"More importantly, (the majority of) Palestinians want a ISLAMIC Palestine"

Thats a myth. Even Hamas gets most support because its militant rather than because its Islamic.
by Tom
Sunday Nov 24th, 2002 4:01 PM
Is as clearly stated in this official document, there is not now, nor has there ever been a call for a "Greater Israel" or integration with the Israeli Jews.


taken from the Palestinian Declaration of Independence
November 15th, 1988

"Whereas the Palestinian people reaffirms most definitively its inalienable rights in the land of its patrimony:

Now by virtue of natural, historical and legal rights, and the sacrifices of successive generations who gave of themselves in defense of the freedom and independence of their homeland;

In pursuance of Resolutions adopted by Arab Summit Conferences and relying on the authority bestowed by international legitimacy as embodied in the Resolutions of the United Nations Organization since 1947;

And in exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its rights to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory,

The Palestine National Council, in the name of God, and in the name of the Palestinian Arab people, hereby proclaims the establishment of the State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem (Al-Quds Ash-Sharif).

The State of Palestine is the state of Palestinians wherever they may be. The state is for them to enjoy in it their collective national and cultural identity, theirs to pursue in it a complete equality of rights. In it will be safeguarded their political and religious convictions and their human dignity by means of a parliamentary democratic system of governance, itself based on freedom of _expression and the freedom to form parties. The rights of minorities will duly be respected by the majority, as minorities must abide by decisions of the majority. Governance will be based on principles of social justice, equality and non-discrimination in public rights of men or women, on grounds of race, religion, color or sex, and the aegis of a constitution, which ensures the rule of law and an independent judiciary. Thus shall these principles allow no departure from Palestine's age-old spiritual and civilizational heritage of tolerance and religious coexistence.

The State of Palestine is an Arab state, an integral and indivisible part of the Arab nation, at one with that nation in heritage and civilization, with it also in its aspiration for liberation, progress, democracy and unity. The State of Palestine affirms its obligation to abide by the Charter of the League of Arab States, whereby the coordination of the Arab states with each other shall be strengthened. It calls upon Arab compatriots to consolidate and enhance the reality of state, to mobilize potential, and to intensify efforts whose goal is to end Israeli occupation.

The State of Palestine proclaims its commitment to the principles and purposes of the United Nations, and to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It proclaims its commitment as well to the principles and policies of the Non-Aligned Movement.

It further announces itself to be a peace-loving State, in adherence to the principles of peaceful co-existence. It will join with all states and peoples in order to assure a permanent peace based upon justice and the respect of rights so that humanity's potential for well-being may be assured, an earnest competition for excellence may be maintained, and in which confidence in the future will eliminate fear for those who are just and for whom justice is the only recourse.

In the context of its struggle for peace in the land of Love and Peace, the State of Palestine calls upon the United Nations to bear special responsibility for the Palestinian Arab people and its homeland. It calls upon all peace-and freedom-loving peoples and states to assist it in the attainment of its objectives, to provide it with security, to alleviate the tragedy of its people, and to help it terminate Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories.

The State of Palestine herewith declares that it believes in the settlement of regional and international disputes by peaceful means, in accordance with the U.N. Charter and resolutions. With prejudice to its natural right to defend its territorial integrity and independence, it therefore rejects the threat or use of force, violence and terrorism against its territorial integrity or political independence, as it also rejects their use against territorial integrity of other states."
by yep
Sunday Nov 24th, 2002 4:18 PM
its a document and it mentions Islam but I dont think that offers any proof that most Palestinians want a religious state. Since many Palestinian women Ive met and seen in pictures of Palestine dont wear head coverings Im guessing that there would be alot of opposition to Sharia.
by Tom
Sunday Nov 24th, 2002 6:19 PM
The proof is in the hearts and minds of the Palestinians. If there should ever be truly free elections, you will see the unmistakely will of the people.

Islam is a significant force in Palestinian culture and it will not be buried to ease the fears of Islamophobics.
by Someone
Sunday Nov 24th, 2002 8:01 PM
It seems I have many responses, so I will touch on a few.

First, I fail to agree that it is Israel's responsibility to house refugees that would not have been refugees had the Arab nations not attacked in 1948 and 1967. Many people here seem determined that the only nation to take in the refugees must be Israel, and dismiss the Arab nations, with far more geographical land and resources, from any responsibility whatsoever.

This is doubly ironic considering the Palestinians are fellow Arabs to the Arab nations. At least Jews have some loyalty to their own, whereas the Arabs seem willing to sacrifice the Palestinians as pawns, all the while bemoaning their fate on the refugee camps, a fate they could end any time if they would only let them in their countries.

True, these countries are dictatorships that use Israel as a distraction to their own people. It is for that reason that they will perpetuate the conflict. Why does Saddam Hussein grant so much money to the families of suicide bombers? As long as bombings and retalliations continue, Iraq will receive less attention.

Furthermore, though the Palestinians are an excuse, I believe that even were a peace treaty to be hammered out between Israel and the Palestinians, the Arab nations would continue their hostilities. Even Yassir Arafat knows this; he said that if he ever made peace with Israel, he'd be assassinated.

Concerning the demographics:

Many Jews wish to preserve Israel's uniqueness as a Jewish state. No doubt that infuriates most of the people on this board. (Islamic states are okay, a Jewish state is an apparent "no-no.") The arguments are that it's a type of Jewish racism or Jewish supremacy. Yet, a Jewish state is the best assurance that a haven will always exist for Jews, a haven that was non-existant in the early 1940's, with the result of six million Jews murdered in the Holocaust. Had there been Israel then, there would have been no Holocaust.

Instead, it seems desired that Jews become a minority in their own country; a widescale granting of citizenship to Palestinians would accomplish this, if not today, in the very near future. Israel is a democracy, much to the cries on the outside, and if the Palestinians were in the majority, and if they wished, they could vote out the Jewish character of Israel.

Why stop there? They could also vote the Jews out of Israel, vote for another Holocaust, or in short, treat the Jews exactly the same way the Arab nations treated the Jews after the formation of Israel, with the sole exception that there would be no Israel for them to flee to any longer. You may think I am exaggerating, but I have seen EXTREMELY LITTLE evidence to the contraire. I see plenty of people accusing Israel of worse crimes than the Nazis, I see people cursing Jews, Zionists, and claiming the Ashkenazi aren't really semites. But I see very few people trying to assure us that there is any desire for coexistance or compromise with the Jews. Even on these boards. Especially on these boards.

Take Tom for example. Tom posted elsewhere that there is a need to take Jerusalem away from the "Jewish infidels," and wants to see Palestine become the 43rd Islamic state in the world. (Remember, it's okay for there to be 43 Islamic states, but a single Jewish state is a no-no) Does he care that Jerusalem is more than the "Third holiest city in Islam" Does he care that its the holiest city of all in Judaism? Apparently not. I offered to swap him the holiest Jewish city for the holiest Islamic city. I.E. Jerusalem for Mecca. He never responded to this generous offer. I wonder why...
by hmm
Sunday Nov 24th, 2002 9:00 PM
" Yet, a Jewish state is the best assurance that a haven will always exist for Jews, a haven that was non-existant in the early 1940's, with the result of six million Jews murdered in the Holocaust. Had there been Israel then, there would have been no Holocaust."

I think Israel right now is the biggest danger wordwide for the Jewish people.

I grew up Jewish in the Midwest and the only anti-Semitism I saw was the weird reactions at school when I didn’t celebrate Christian holidays. Yes, there were weird KKK people around but for the most part anti-Semitism was on the decline. The left were the only people fighting the neonazis which is one of the main reasons I became a leftist.

Suddenly there is this Israeli conflict. Israel is seen as the oppressor and groups like the ADL try to equate being Jewish with supporting Israel (despite the fact that reformed Jews are not even accepted as real Jews inside Israel). Anti-Semitism is starting to reappear in some of its nastier forms and many of the most active people who had been fighting the neonazis are now stuck being attacked as anti-Semitic for supporting the Palestinians. The word is starting to lose its real meaning and the dangers from the religious right are now increasing no thanks to the conservative Jewish community who are taking them on as allies since Israel figures into their weird views of end times.

As for Israel itself, I wouldn’t call concentrating a large portion of the Jewish population in such a small space, pissing off the neighbors and trying to exist out of sheer force (rather than diplomacy) a great way to protect the Jewish people (the large Jewish communities in the US are far better protection). Most of the Eastern European Jewish population moving to Israel don’t even see it as an endpoint and hope that it will just be a stop on the way to the US.

Albert Einstein, Sidney Hook, Hannah Arendt, and Seymour Milman were among the signatories to this letter, which appeared in the Times on December 4, 1948.

Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our time is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" . . . a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy, and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist right-wing chauvinist organization in Palestine. The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who opposed fascism throughout the world, if currently informed as to Mr. Begin's political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents . . . A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin . . . this incident exemplified the character and actions of the Freedom Party. Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultra-nationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other fascist parties, they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine, bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike) and misrepresentation are means, and a "Leader State" is the goal. In the light of the foregoing consideration, it is imperative that the truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Begin's efforts, or even to expose to its own constituents the dangers to Israel of support to Begin. The undersigned therefore take the means publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party, and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism."
[pp. 352-353]
by Mommie Dearest
Sunday Nov 24th, 2002 9:21 PM
Someone isn't doing his homework...

What sort of punishment shalt you receive for your refusal to do your homework?

For your insistence on spreading your lies?

For your refusal to acknowledge the facts about how the UN gave away land that wasn't their land to give away in the first place to the racist Zionist Jews who on the very day that Israel was created in 1948 massacred hundreds, even thousands of Palestinians, completely demolishing entire villages, and causing half of the Palestinian population, around 750,000, to flee in terror from their own homeland? And how these are the first of the Palestinian refugees who were never allowed to return to their ancestral homeland although it is their right according to UN Resolutions, International Law and world opinion?

It's easy to find out the truth: just go to http://www.cactus48.com and read "The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict" written by the Jews for Justice in the Middle East. Or order the tape series from http://www.discovery.com where you can call their 800 number and ask for "Behind the Hatred", an excellent 3 part series about the root of the conflict, the mortal enemies (Sharon and Arafat) and the road to peace.

Face it, Someone, you are LYING and your punishment is this: stew in your own juices, because you are also committing a sin by lying. Didn't you know it's against the Ten Commandments: Thou shalt not commit false witness against thy neighbor. How do you sleep at night? Maybe you are a sociopath and so you really don't care that you are lying and perpetuating injustices and confusion that lead to war. SHAME ON YOU.

You are obviously a racist, bigot as well. A Jewish supremacist is every bit as vile as a white supremacist.

SHAME!
by curious
Sunday Nov 24th, 2002 9:41 PM
"Sun Nov 24, 7:28 PM ET
VIENNA (Reuters) - Austria's far right was in tatters on Monday after voters abandoned Joerg Haider's Freedom Party to hand a thumping election success to his ruling coalition partners led by Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel."

Well Haider's party has lost most of its power :)

Did Begin's political party really have the same name?

If only it had lost out to the more sane voices in Israel
by Someone
Sunday Nov 24th, 2002 10:48 PM
Well hmmmm I disagree with you. I don't see Israel as the worst thing for the Jews, but rather their salvation.

Is it the best solution? No. But you cannot ignore the Anti-Semitism of the world previous to that. What compensation would you suggest after the Holocaust? Nothing?

Yes, the Jews are surrounded by hostile neighbors. But.... so we've always been.

I also haven't had much experience with Anti-Semitism. Not until I came to San Francisco. Not until I've seen the blood libel resurrected by Palestinians and their activists. I feel sorry, I want a solution. But I am not sacrificing my life or my people's lives to do forge a solution with those who want me dead. I prefer that both sides will live.

Yes, Jews sometimes disagree about Israel. Some orthodox or reform have their ideas of criticism, others voice strong support. But we have THAT RIGHT! That is freedom of speech, of dialogue. The Talmud is written by Jews who didn't agree, so they wrote down the arguments and their commentary. Its part of the culture. But we all stand firmly against Anti-Semitism. And I am not seeing any efforts from the Anti-Israel people to fight Anti-Semitism, but rather to promote it.

I think your points merely emphasize that Anti-Semitism exists after Israel. And it existed before Israel. The only difference is that Jews can now defend themselves from it. And that difference is important.

Oh and please... don't make me post Einstein's pro-Zionist quotes. Yes, he made many of them, though you may not know of them. At least I read some of his original letters.

As for Mommy Dearest:

A person with as much bigotry, stupidity and idiocy as you is not worthy to be a mother. You can only birth hate.
As a destination from Europe he supported it and was part of the WZO but he turned very proPalestinian in his later years when he saw the direction the Palestinian government was heading.

Id like to see proBegin posts by Einstein, most of the Socialists in the WZO saw the destruction caused by the new Israeli state and became worried... It was my impression he was strongly against a state that had any religious or racial goals (ie he supported the immigration but would have been against your idea that Israel MUST have a majority Jewish population)

Of course opposition to how Israel was founded doesnt really have any effect on what should happen now. The US was founded on broken treaties (many only 100 years old) etc.. but its not like people here can leave either.

Ive been to most Palestinian events in the Bay Area and aside from the one poster you mentioned I havnt seen any antiSemetism in the proPalestinian movement. I've seen largely Jewish protests by the JVP and Tikkun and large Palestinian protests with a moderate religious overtone but never conflict between the two groups.

I saw more antiSemitism in the MidWest but it was very tied up in the Christian Right (and the Evangelical shows constantly on certain TV channels). I never felt it in school but the KKK still had power in the state where I lived and a local synagogue was firebombed by them so it WAS a problem.

AntiSemitism exists among some Palestinians but the active protest movement by Jewish groups opposed to the occupation has made people realize the difference between the policies of the Israeli governement and Jewish opinion in the US (and from the latest polls most Jewish Americans are very strong in their support for a 2 state solution). Sharon may say he is but his party is openly against a 2 state solution...

I think a 2 state solution has problems in the long-term since Israel will soon be majority nonJewish if the Palestinian poulation remains poorer (and as with most countries poverty results in higher birth rates) But a two state solution is really all anyone can hope for now. A multiethnic multireligious secular state will have to wait for the hatreds to die down...
by Einstein
Sunday Nov 24th, 2002 11:49 PM
Should we be unable to find a way to honest cooperation and honest pacts with the Arabs, then we have learned absolutely nothing during our 2,000 years of suffering and deserve all that will come to us.
Albert Einstein (German-born Am. physicist, 1879- 1955): letter to Chaim Weizmann, Nov. 25, 1929

I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state. Apart from practical consideration, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain - especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks, against which we have already had to fight strongly.
Albert Einstein (German-born Am. physicist, 1879-1955): "Our Debt to Zionism," speech before the National Labor Committee for Palestine,
New York,
Apr. 17, 1938 (repr. in Out of My Later Years [1950] ch.52)

No one has the moral right to call himself a Christian or a Jew if he is prepared to commit murder upon the instruction of a given authority, or if he permits himself to be used for the purpose of initiating or preparing such a crime in any way whatsoever.
Albert Einstein (German-born Am. physicist, 1879-1955): writing in 1928, per Banesh Hoffmann, Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel [1972]

The world is a dangerous place to live in not because of those who do evil but because of those who watch and let it happen.
Albert Einstein (German-born Am. physicist, 1879-1955): quoted in Time
magazine, "Terror and Pity", Sep. 2, 1996
by hmm
Sunday Nov 24th, 2002 11:59 PM
"The most important aspect of [Israel's] policy must be our ever-present, manifest desire to institute complete equality for the Arab citizens living in our midst. The attitude we adopt toward the Arab minority will provide the real test of our moral standards as a people" (pages 110-111).
http://www.flonnet.com/fl1912/19120720.htm
(book review of a book written off Einstein's FBI files recently made available through FOIA. )

Here is another great quote from that book:

"The philosophy behind communism has a lot of merit, being concerned with ending the exploitation of the common people and the sharing of goods and labour, according to the needs and abilities," he said in an interview. "Communism as a political theory is a tremendous experiment, but, unfortunately, in Russia, it is an experiment conducted in a poorly equipped laboratory" (page 150). He remained a committed socialist until he died in 1955.
http://www.flonnet.com/fl1912/19120720.htm
by Alfred Lilienthal
Monday Nov 25th, 2002 12:28 AM
The following is from Alfred Lilienthal's "The Zionist Connection"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I also personally endeavored to set the Times' record straight on one rather important matter--the exploitation of Dr. Albert Einstein by the Zionist movement. When the greatest scientist of our age died on April 18, 1956, at the age of seventy-six, the Times in the course of its eulogy referred to "Israel, whose establishment as a state he had championed." This "kidnapping" of Einstein for Israel was one of the most extraordinary coups ever perpetrated by any political group anywhere, but with the help of the omnipotent Times anything is possible. The great mathematician had vigorously opposed the creation of the State of Israel, but a myth to the contrary has been widely spawned by the media, and was repeated sixteen years later.

In late March 1972 the New York Times published a series of articles dealing with the life and thought of Albert Einstein as allegedly revealed in the collection of his manuscripts, letters, and other papers, which were to be published by his estate. The third of the series included on the front page a three-column photograph of Einstein with Israeli Premier David Ben-Gurion, and the caption read: "Einstein papers tell of scientist's efforts toward the creation of Israel." The article further referred "to his long efforts in behalf of the creation of a Jewish national state and of his sad refusal" to accept the Presidency upon the death of Chaim Weizmann.

Einstein, despite the Time's incessant recitals to the contrary, clearly opposed the creation of the State of Israel. A clear understanding of the position taken on Palestine by the great mathematician, himself a refugee from Nazi Germany, will not only set the record straight and correct journalistic inaccuracies, but is most relevant to the continuing quest for a just peace in the Middle East.

In his testimony in January 1946 before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, and in answer to the specific question whether refugee settlement in Palestine demanded a Jewish state, Einstein stated: "The State idea is not according to my heart. I cannot understand why it is needed. It is connected with narrow-mindedness and economic obstacles. I believe that it is bad. I have always been against it. He went further to deride the concept of a Jewish commonwealth as an "imitation of Europe, the end of which was brought about by nationalism."

Then, in 1952, in a message to a "Children to Palestine" dinner, Einstein spoke of the necessity of curbing "a kind of nationalism which has arisen in Israel if only to permit a friendly and fruitful co-existence with the Arabs." When this portion of the Einstein message was censored in the organization's press release so as to impart the impression of all-out support Israel, I went to Princeton to seek the Professor's views on the incident. Einstein then told me that he had never been a Zionist and had never favored the creation of the State of Israel.

It was then that he also told me of a significant conversation with Weizman. Einstein had asked him: "What of the Arabs if Palestine were given were given to the Jews?" And Weizman replied: "What Arabs? They are hardly of any consequence."

Einstein referred me to his book Out of My Later Years, published in 1950, in which he had expanded on his philosophy: "I should much rather see a reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together than the creation of a Jewish state. Apart from practical considerations, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain."45

In subsequent years he vigorously supported many Israeli cultural activities, in particular the Hebrew University and the Weizman Institute, to which he was deeply dedicated. According to biographer Dr. Philip Frank, the professor had a "good hearted weakness" and was hesitant to rebuke Zionists for their frequent manipulations of his views and unauthorized use of his name in order to enhance their prestige and fill their political Zionism helped confuse the American press.

In his modest manner, he publicly declined the Israeli Presidency, as Weizmann's successor, on the given grounds that he was not qualified in the area of human relationships. But, in fact, that acceptance of high office in nationalist Israel was hardly in keeping with the basic philosophy of this great humanist and universalist.

Attempts to tie the renowned scientist to political Zionism continued. First there were the welter of public tributes from Israeli and Zionist leaders, published at the time of his death. And two weeks later in a story prominently published by the Times, the Israeli Consul in New York claimed that Einstein had been preparing a laudatory speech for nationwide television in commemoration of the seventh anniversary of Israel. Not only was the evidence of Einstein's Zionist intent scarcely substantiated, but it was in direct conflict with the professor's last statement about the Israeli state, given in an interview with Dorothy Schiff, pro-Israel publisher of the New York Post. She quoted him as saying: "We had great hopes for Israel at first. We thought that it might be better than other nations, but it is no better."46

In the third of its articles on Einstein, the Times nevertheless repeated the myth of his support of the creation of Israel without indicating any new proof. Were the good professor alive today, there is every reason to believe that he would be in the forefront of those condemning the deprivation of the rights of the Palestinian Arabs. As far back as January 28, 1930, Einstein had warned in the Palestinian newspaper Falastin that "oppressive nationalism must be conquered" and that he could "see a future for Palestine only on the basis of peaceful cooperation between the two peoples who are at home in the country . . . come together they must in spite of all." And from the outset he had fully supported the idea of Dr. Judah Magnes, President of Hebrew University, of an Arab-Jewish binational state. In a letter to the Times with Rabbi Leo Baeck of Germany, he wrote: "Besides the fact that they [Magnes and his followers] speak for a much wider circle of inarticulate people, they speak in the name of principles which have been the most significant contribution of the Jewish people to humanity." Such statements are hardly consonant with the Times' allegation of the scientist's support of the creation of a Zionist state.

The Times revival of this Einstein mythology led me to call Op-Ed page editor Harrison E. Salisbury and suggest that it would be appropriate for him to run a piece presenting the true views of the learned scientist on this subject. Although every type of opinion has been presented on this important page. Salisbury refused to commission such an article, as is customarily done. He stated he would be happy to look at the finished product if it were written on speculation.

Even this I did, and here is his letter rejecting the article, the substance of which has been set forth in the above pages:

"I'm sorry to say that we decided against your article concerning Professor Einstein. As I told you when we discussed this matter on the telephone, I was dubious about the idea of elaborating on this particular aspect of Dr. Einstein's career, and I confess on reading the article my feeling was strengthened. You may feel that I overstate the case, but it would seem to the casual reader like myself that Dr. Einstein's views, as one might expect, underwent a series of changes over the years and the picture does not come out so strongly in your article as to compel its publication."

How possibly could any subsequent Einstein "change over the years" -- and his basic attitude toward political Zionism never altered on iota--affect what he did or did not do about the creation of Israel, an act which took place in 1948? The cultural Zionism in which Einstein believed was a far cry from Jewish nationalism embodied in the Zionist State of Israel, which he decried to his very death in 1956. [pp. 340-343]

by Uncle Tom Basher
Monday Nov 25th, 2002 1:17 AM
Why is Alfie's shrink not granted his own link on the Indymedia home page so we can understand this pathetic self-hating Unc Tom weenie?
by .........
Monday Nov 25th, 2002 1:19 AM
Ooooh, great analysis there Basher. I'm sure Einstein would be proud of all the thought you put into it.
by .........
Monday Nov 25th, 2002 1:20 AM
Ooooh, great analysis there Basher. I'm sure Einstein would be proud of all the thought you put into it.


(/sarcasm off)
by Someone
Monday Nov 25th, 2002 6:59 AM
Can't say I'm that surprised.

After all, I have seen Aryan nation websites which try to encourage anti-Semitism (and Anti-Zionism) by quoting all sorts of "Great and famous men."

Some of the ones they quote are actual anti-Semites (Henry Ford, Richard Wagner)

Others are people they deliberately misquote to make them sound Anti-Semitic, when the truth was the opposite (Mark Twain)

Others they fabricate the quotes completely (George Washington)

I took a search online and found a number of Christian Separtist websites (Hitler loving and Jew hating) that posted essays attacking Einstein and misconstruing him.

So it doesn't surprise me to see people here trying to claim Einstean was anti-Zionist when the truth was quite the opposite. Indeed, I'd be surprised if this people actually ever read Einstein. Most likely they got these quotes from any number of venomous anti-Israel websites.

I read Einstein's essays in the originals. So I know you're full of shit. He has quite a few great things to say about Zionism. I could type 'em out, but it's not really worth the trouble to show to neanderthals like you.

Actually, neanderthal is too kind a word.
by hmm
Monday Nov 25th, 2002 7:12 AM
"I read Einstein's essays in the originals. So I know you're full of shit. He has quite a few great things to say about Zionism. I could type 'em out, but it's not really worth the trouble to show to neanderthals like you. "

That’s because Einstein considered himself a Zionist for most of his life; I’m not sure if he would have still used the term after his disillusionment with Begin, but he was always proud of being Jewish.

But, he was opposed to the Israeli right and the idea that Israel HAD to have a majority Jewish population, so he probably would have supported the right of return. Of course you can find him saying good things about Zionism(mainly about helping get Jews out of Europe) when he was part of the WZO, but you cant find anything written by him that sounds rightwing since he was a Socialist...

I probably would support his definition of Zionism even though I think a one state solution is better than a two state solution in the long-run.

Not giving any quotes isn’t a good way to convince people.

I'll help you. Here is the usual quote proIsrael types give. It really depend on ones definition of Zionism so I wouldn’t really disagree with it:

“Zionism springs from an even deeper motive than Jewish suffering. It is rooted in a Jewish spiritual tradition whose maintenance and development are for Jews the basis of their continued existence as a community.”
-Einstein
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Quote/einsteinq.html

I'm sure he had other quotes so I would like to hear them from you especially if you think Einstein’s real views were those of a Neanderthal as you say above.

Of course right wing neo-Nazi types hate Einstein since he was Jewish, an antiracist and a Socialist. He also would have supported many of the goals of the intifada...

The only counterargument I can see you giving is that Einstein was naive or just a scientist and didn’t know that much about real politics...but he lived through Nazi Germany and was offered the Presidency so...Hopefully you don’t start accusing him of being a “self hating Jew” as the right always does with people like Chomsky; Einstein questioned Israel AND was proud of being Jewish.
by .........
Monday Nov 25th, 2002 9:36 AM
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

"Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds."

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding."

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

"Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -- how passionately I hate them!"

"He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."
by oneworld
Monday Nov 25th, 2002 11:50 AM
Noam Chomsky (like Albert Einstein) once considered himself a Zionist -- before 1948. He was for mutual co-existence at the time -- one state for both people. Nowadays he considers himself an anti-Zionist and says that he still believes in what he believed in 1948 -- i.e. mutual co-existence in one state for both people.

I heard him say this in one of his talks. I'll try to locate it...
by Non-mommie dearest
Monday Nov 25th, 2002 11:55 AM
I ain't your mother, thank God!

Someone, why don't you go spread your hateful lies and paranoia somewhere else?

You are obviously a hopeless racist, bigot.

We don't like your type around here.
by Tom
Monday Nov 25th, 2002 12:20 PM
As if I really needed to prove myself to the curious "Pro-Palestinian" supporters calling for a Greater Israel...


Israel fears Hamas wooing Egypt
By James Hider in Jerusalem, Israel
November 25, 2002

ISRAELI media said the army had seized documents showing the radical Islamic group Hamas is trying to woo Egypt and sideline Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority as the leading force in the territories, a day after revealing alleged PA plans to build a bomb factory.

Analysts said the revelation could reflect an alarming rise in support for the hardline group, which says the state of Israel should be abolished and replaced by an Islamic Palestinian state.

The raid on a Gaza preventive security base reportedly turned up documents suggesting that Hamas' talks in Cairo earlier this month, ostensibly to thrash out a deal with Arafat's Fatah to end attacks on civilians, were actually aimed at forging closer ties with Egypt, Israeli media said.

The captured documents showed that Hamas, which has spearheaded deadly attacks inside Israel, sought to use the Cairo talks to present itself as a viable alternative to the PA in the eyes of Egyptian officials.

"Hamas saw the talks as its opportunity to take a significant role in the Palestinian leadership", Israeli television quoted the document as saying.


...While Hamas may be labeld by some as extremist, Islam most certainly is not. Palestinians do wish to establish an Islamic state and neither you nor Israel can deny it.
by And Tom is Someone!
Monday Nov 25th, 2002 1:03 PM
Hey, you guys in Indymedia land! Dig this! I just uncovered "Someone"'s real identity! Why, it is the Islamic zealot Tom!!!!

See how Jewish supremacist Zionists like "Someone" and Islamic zealots like "Tom" are really two sides of the same coin, in this case literally! As is any racist , intolerant group, like Nazis, for instance.

Ha Ha Ha! I blew your cover, Somene aka Tom! HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

Trust me, everyone who bothers to read this, more Palestinians, of whom I know quite a few, favor the completely secular, democratic one-state solution with the return of all 5.5 million Palestinians to their ancestral homeland of Palestine-Israel, to live as equals and this is their right according to UN Resolutions, International Law and world opinion. IT'S THE RACIST ZIONIST JEWS WHO DON'T LIKE THE IDEA!

Ha ha ha! But get used to it, because it's here to stay and it's going to happen. And soon.

What's right is right! What's wrong is wrong! Racism is racism is racism.

P. S. I am a white Christian American who can think for myself, thank you very much. I encourage everyone else to do the same after doing their homework. http://www.cactus48.com

by Tom
Monday Nov 25th, 2002 1:16 PM
I no point did I say all Palestinians wish for an Islamic state, none-the-less, a majority do.

Bear in mind that there will never be complete agreement on the nature of the Palestinian government.

Should the economy be Communist, Socialist, or Capitalist?

Should the power be controled by a Theocracy, Sociocracy or Democracy?

Only one form of government can be adopted and that means there will be "winners" and "losers" among the advocates.
by Tom
Monday Nov 25th, 2002 1:19 PM
More lies, but not from me...

nessie can verify that "Tom" is not "someone" with a quick check of the IP addresses.
by ha ha
Monday Nov 25th, 2002 2:51 PM
Whether is is literally true or not is besides the fact!
You , Someone, and You, Tom, are two sides of a racist coin. HA HA HA!
by Reality
Monday Nov 25th, 2002 3:07 PM
Let's face it, "Tom". No one totally agrees on everything. Not even a married couple!
So don't try to make it seem as if Palestinians are the only ones on earth who can't agree on everything. All the Palestinians I know want equal rights in their own homeland, pure and simple! And that is their God-given right! No one should oppress anyone else!
by Tom
Monday Nov 25th, 2002 3:20 PM
Again with the Western bias...

An Islamic government is not inherently oppressive or racist. It smacks of prejudice to suggest that Muslims are incapable of governing justly.

As I said before, Palestine will be a democracy in which Islam is the official religion of the state. Other religions will be welcome just as they have always been welcome in Palestine since the birth of Islam.
by reality
Monday Nov 25th, 2002 3:31 PM
Palestine-Israel will be secular, whereby each citizen is free to worship as he or she pleases, whatever their choice it.

Turkey is a good example of a secular country that is mostly Muslim. But it is secular. So there!

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
by Someone
Monday Nov 25th, 2002 3:32 PM
Funny how the Christian supremacist is calling me a Jewish supremacist. But whatever. I've seen plenty of bigotry from the supporters of Palestinians.

It's really funny though that they think I'm Tom, since I disagree with so much he says. But I do agree with Tom on one thing: We are not the same person.

And I'm certainly not interested in the insult-slinging that is so typical amongst the morons here. Damn. Now you even got ME doing it.

by hello
Monday Nov 25th, 2002 3:52 PM
Someone is just SO determined to hold onto his racist point of view, that he'll even call a Christian who supports a secular democracy in Palestine-Israel a Christian suprmacist. What if I told you, Someone, that many Jews also want a secular democratic Palestine-Israel. Obviously they are not Zionists like YOU are! God, how can you even stand to be a Zionist Jew? It has such a negative, deservedly racist connotation. What if I told you, Someone, that even many Muslims would have happy to see a secular democracy in Palestine-Israel? Just because I am a Christian, does not mean that I think everyone should be a Christian. If God wanted just one color, he wouldn't have made the rainbow, or so many different kinds of flowers, or so many different kinds of people for that matter. People like me celebrate diversity and tolerance. You just stick out like a sore thumb in this kind of crowd, Someone, with your racist ideas. Maybe you'll get the picture someday. One can only hope.
by Tom
Monday Nov 25th, 2002 4:03 PM
Lecture by Imam Muhammad al-Asi
2 June 2002

He is the elected Imam of the Islamic Centre in Washington DC, Senior member of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought, Advisor to the Islamic Human Rights Commission, and he regularly writes for Crescent Newspaper.

"The issue of the Jews is quiet separate from that of the Zionists, if the Muslims are victorious over the Zionists, the latter will meet the same fate as the deposed shah. However the Muslims will do nothing to the Jews for they are a nation like other nations, they will carry on with their lives and they will not suffer dispossession."

"... but how do we liberate Palestine if we encounter a general Muslim psychology that is not prepared to identify an enemy and then to take corrective measures against that enemy which will mean warfare and combatant duties - how do you do something like that?"

"Let us take the Egyptian government and its sponsorship of the Palestinian Authority. Every time Mr. Arafat wanted to embark on a particular local policy in the West Bank or Gaza he would go to Cairo and consult the Egyptian president or the Egyptian government - they more or less micro-managed in Egypt on behalf of the United States and Israelis the Palestinian Authority. Where did that get them - virtually no where - actually it caused them to loose ground, they went from having a moral high ground to having now virtually no ground at all in this issue.

Now juxtapose that with the Islamic leadership in Iran and how its relationship with the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon which identified this area of a pronounced belligerency and warfare by the Israeli zionists against the people of southern Lebanon. How did it deal with this? Did the chairman of Hizbullah shuttle around the area and all around the world asking for understanding of the issue? No, what they did was they consolidated their rank and file, they identified and designated the enemy and then they countered enemy aggression with force. And what happened? For the first time since 1948 the Israeli offensive force was defeated and had to retreat humiliated from territories they wanted to hold on to."
by S
Monday Nov 25th, 2002 5:36 PM
... why isn't the killing of peasents by Maoists rebels a headline on IMC? They used these poor people as human shields.... where's the outrage? Last time I looked every lefty in the world goes ape shit when Israel does it.... Maybe they should just cover their ass by saying they are Maoists, seems to do the trick and allow people to committ atrocities with indifference shown by the "activist" community
by debate coach
Monday Nov 25th, 2002 5:49 PM
This is both an unsubstantiated allegation and an argumentum ad populum.
by where?
Monday Nov 25th, 2002 10:28 PM
"... why isn't the killing of peasents by Maoists rebels a headline on IMC?"

You mean in Nepal. I dont support a monarchy but I dont know much about the conflict. Maybe it could be a headline but I dont know too many other places where Maoists are fighting...
by Could it be?
Monday Nov 25th, 2002 11:00 PM
Why do people always seem to FORGET that the US pays for Israel??? We give more aid to Israel by far than any other country, even though Israel is a racist, anti-democratic, apartheid regime, guilty of ethnic cleansing and stealing land from the Palestinians. This is what is going on DAILY. This is what the mainstream media blocks out or obfuscates (great word, huh? It means try to hide, obscure, confuse, bewilder ON PURPOSE).

This is why Palestine is still THE issue and should ALWAYS be on the homepage of Indymedia and every newspaper around the world until this injustice is properly addressed!
by just a suggestion
Tuesday Nov 26th, 2002 12:02 AM
if you want Palestine to be on the front page, you should put it there.

The first thing you should do is either find or organize an event about Palestine. It could be a demo. It could be a teach-in. It could be a new publication. It could be a radio show. It could be whatever.

Then you should document it. Take pictures. Collect sound bites. Write a story. Then post it to the newswire. Then ask us to put a blurb in the center column about it.

In the meantime, quit whining. It's really obnoxious. We do not appreciate in the least being told what to do by people who are not willing to help us do it. We get enough of that from the right wing. Do you have any idea how much like them you sound?

We are not here to report the news for you. We are here to provide you with a way to report the news yourself. Don’t complain about the media. Be the media. Report the news yourself. And if you don't have any news to report, go out and make some.
by just a suggestion
Tuesday Nov 26th, 2002 12:45 AM
http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/11/1545379.php

by repost
Tuesday Nov 26th, 2002 9:43 AM
November 26, 2002

How an Atheist Helps Protect Islamists in Turkey

By IAN FISHER


BEYLIKDUZUR, Turkey — The atheist and the Islamist sat side by side, in matching polo shirts no less.

"From a theological point of view," the Islamist, Abdurrahman Dilipak, said with some mischief, "it is inevitable that I would have concerns about his life in eternity. But after all, there are seven rungs of hell, and I know he won't be on the lowest one."

The atheist, Sanar Yurdatapan, smiled: he has no plans to spend forever in any place that does not exist. "Hell?" he asked. "What hell?"

It is entertaining shtick, which the two men play with good humor despite the fact that they disagree with each other on the question of hell, and most everything else.

That disagreement is exactly the point — and the latest turn in a continuing campaign organized by the atheist, Mr. Yurdatapan, who is also a musician, writer, human rights activist and general gadfly, to encourage tolerance and free speech in Turkey, a place where both commodities can be scarce.

It is a campaign that has taken Mr. Yurdatapan, 62, to jail, to exile from Turkey and back, and, on a recent weekend, to a big book fair here signing copies of the book he wrote recently with Mr. Dilipak, a well-known Islamist author.

It is called "Red and Green," but also "Green and Red," for it has a different cover on either side of the book (thus the publicity stunt of matching shirts: Mr. Yurdatapan's is red for the political left; Mr. Dilipak's green for Islam).

Each man wrote half the book on his own, tackling some of the touchiest matters in Turkey and around the Muslim world: Is there a god? What is the role of women? Should parents indoctrinate their children?

"We wrote the book to give a concrete example, something stable, that opposites can put their ideas together without trying to kill each other or silence each other," Mr. Yurdatapan said.

"People who want to read me, especially young people, will have to read him, too, and have a chance to compare directly," he added. "Let them decide. But they also take the lesson that people who think in a totally different way must respect each other. We must always have a dialogue."

This intersection of the intellectual left and Islamic activism is not common. But it is acutely relevant in a Turkey that has just elected a party with Islamic roots and is set to test how its secular democracy accommodates such a government. The dialogue started half a dozen years ago, largely on Mr. Yurdatapan's initiative.

For decades Turkey has cracked down on many expressions of Islam, which is perceived as a threat to its secular state. It has also tolerated little dissent on political matters that anger activists like Mr. Yurdatapan, like the long war (now subsided) with Kurdish militants.

So both men have had their problems with the Turkish state, cause enough for an alliance cemented more recently by shared opposition to an American attack on Iraq. They adhere to the Voltairian maxim: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Mr. Yurdatapan is the son of a three-star general. He learned his American-accented English from G.I.'s who frequently visited the family. He also understood, in his blood, the paternalism of the Turkish military, which has paradoxically kept Turkey stable and, many critics say, also stifled its full development to democracy.

"Even as a child, I thought we were the best, but civilians — eh!" he said in mock disgust. "They were not serious."

As a young man, and despite the fact that he was not formally trained, he became a successful composer and orchestra leader. He wrote the song "Arkadas," recorded in 1975 and still heard today.

He also became politically active with the socialist Turkish Labor Party in the mid-1960's. With his wife, the singer Milike Demirag, he left Turkey in 1980 when the military staged a coup. He and his wife were later stripped of their citizenship, while they lived, with their two children, in Germany, near Cologne, and continued to be politically active against the war in the Kurdish southeast of Turkey.

An amnesty in 1991 allowed them to return. (They are now divorced.) Then in 1995, Mr. Yurdatapan's activism took the turn that came to define it: It began when Yasar Kemal, one of Turkey's most famous writers, was charged under anti- terrorism laws for writing an article against the war in Kurdish areas.

In protest, 1,080 well-known people signed their names in a book that republished Mr. Kemal's article and nine other banned articles. They then demanded that they all be prosecuted because it was also a crime to reprint banned articles.

Mr. Yurdatapan's orchestration of the book put the Turkish state in an awkward position, having to suspend sentences or change the laws to avoid arresting everyone.

In 1999, however, he received a two-month sentence, which he served alone in a cell meant for six people. "Very luxurious," he said offhandedly. "I knew they would make special treatment for me."

With little money and a tenuous legal status — his group, Initiative for Freedom of Expression, exists only on the law's margins — Mr. Yurdatapan keeps up his work: 4 books and over 40 pamphlets have been published.

In 2000, he took up the case of Islamic activists, including the nation's only Islamist prime minister, Necmettin Erbakan, who has been banned from political life since the army's ouster of his government in 1997 and whose party was victorious in the recent elections.

This summer, as part of its bid to join the European Union, Turkey passed several laws easing freedom of expression. Mr. Yurdatapan says the atmosphere is improving, though not enough for him to end his work.

As might be expected, he and Mr. Dilipak also differ on why the work is worthy.

"I believe I am doing something good as a Muslim, and he believes he is being a good person," Mr. Dilipak deadpanned. "We will meet each other in the next world."

Copyright The New York Times Company | Permissions | Privacy Policy
by bump
Tuesday Nov 26th, 2002 3:20 PM
this was a very lively posts that got removed somehow
by Tom
Tuesday Nov 26th, 2002 6:48 PM
Mind you, the support for Hamas represents only part of the Islamic movement in Palestine. There are many more Islamic Palestinians who are not involved with Hamas or support militant actions. Yet they too want a democratic Islamic Palestine.

You might not like my, but keep one thing in mind; I do not lie.


from the BBC, "Hamas rises from the PA's ashes"...

Show of force

Many Palestinians are convinced that the radical and seemingly intransigent group can no longer be tamed
by Yasser Arafat's security forces, or by declarations from his battered regime.

Shielded by the night, members of an active Hamas military cell show the BBC their home-made bombs
and grenades at a deserted building site in Gaza.

The gunmen hide their faces behind black masks. They are the new warriors of the Palestinian uprising.
Branded terrorists by Israel and the West, for Palestinians, they are a legitimate and potent fighting
force.

"We tried the political process and it failed," says the unit's commander. "Now armed resistance is the only
option."

But Hamas is not just a military organisation.

In the besieged refugee camps of Gaza, women bring their babies to clinics set up by Islamic charities.

Much of Hamas's power stems from this social system, which stands in stark contrast to the
inefficiency and corruption that plague government ministries.

There are also handouts.

Zayna Ahmed is one of many women who receive regular payments given to families that have lost
fathers.

"This is a good service for the children," she says. "We know how much we get at the end of the month. We
don't know of anything like this from the Palestinian Authority."

Young recruits

In kindergartens run by the Islamic charities every little seat is taken.

Here the teachers pass on a controversial vision of a Palestine that stretches from the Mediterranean Sea to
the Jordan River, a Palestine that denies Israel's right to exist.

"Who is trying to take away your land?" the teacher asks a class of four-year-olds crowded around low
round tables.

"The Jews," they shout. "Will you let them?" she asks. "No," they respond.

It is a position that seems to allow no compromise.

But does it really? Hamas political leader Abdel Aziz Rantissi explains.

"The main aim of the intifada (uprising) is the liberation of the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem, and
nothing more," he says. "We haven't the force to liberate all our land.

"It is forbidden in our religion to give up a part of our land, so we can't recognise Israel at all. But we can
accept a truce with them, and we can live side by side and refer all the issues to the coming generations."

In Israel that offer is drowned out by the wail of ambulance sirens.

Hamas is responsible for the vast majority of those killed in suicide attacks. Most Israelis believe the truce
proposal is a lie.

But one, at least, does not.

Middle East Professor Avraham Sela says the ceasefire offer shows Hamas is going through the
normal evolution of a radical movement.

"Hamas in this sense is not that much different from the PLO," he says.

"The PLO went through the same process of what we call pragmatisation since the 1970s.

"The fact that in Israel there are not many people who are willing to understand and accept that this is even a
possibility is really the tragedy about the whole Israeli policy with regards to this movement."

Israel particularly distrusts Hamas because of its extremist religious views.

It packages its message in images of holy war. Especially disturbing is its glorification of suicide
bombers as Islamic martyrs.

Flexible ideology

But there are those who believe that here too there is room for compromise, such as Ziad Abu Amr, a
Palestinian academic who has written a book about Palestinian Islamic groups.

"The movement has an ideology and doctrine which is very flexible," he says.

"For instance if Hamas needs to provide doctrinal cover to a truce, it can. The leaders of the movement
can find the appropriate religious decree to provide cover for any political decision."

What is undisputed is the growing strength of Hamas two years into the intifada.

It has become a force that cannot be ignored. Its rising popularity also suggests it cannot be suppressed.

That may make peace more difficult.

But without consent from Hamas, many Palestinians believe no lasting solution will be possible.
by just curious
Tuesday Nov 26th, 2002 10:46 PM
"SF-IMC exists primarily to cover local news if you want Palestine to be on the front page, you should put it there."

Except if that local news is the confession of a Sacramento-area cop-killer. I guess one dead local cop and one deraged anti-corporate IMC poster just doesn't merit front page news.

Bias anyone?
by just curious
Tuesday Nov 26th, 2002 11:15 PM
That's not what we're talking about -- Front Page not front right-side column
by Sheepdog
Tuesday Nov 26th, 2002 11:34 PM
nessi, don’t you know this individual is fastened down, typing to a headset,(audio only) in total darkness and suspended in tepid saline solution. Tubes that go in and out: wires that deliver pain or pleasure depending upon grammatical or spelling errors. Opps.
by just curious
Wednesday Nov 27th, 2002 2:06 AM
While this merits a Front Page slot with a picture of a student holding a "KILLER" sign, "UCB Students Protest Barak Speech", the murder of a Red Bluff cop by an IMC poster covered by the international media merits a token mention in the side column

Since, by your sarcastic reply, a headline in the far right column has the weigh the same as a paragraph w/ photo synopsis on the center spread, why not swap the position of the two stories nessie?

That's two as in the number after one and before three.
by just curious
Wednesday Nov 27th, 2002 2:57 AM
Portland IMC did the right thing and put the story on the front page.

The volunteers at SF-IMC sure know how to make a mole-hill into a mountain.

Grow up.
by Could it be?
Wednesday Nov 27th, 2002 9:36 AM
See how people get so sidetracked..... and forget that Palestine is STILL the issue!

Unless we want to deal with "endless war" on "terrorism" and to sit by and watch Israel's ongoing ethnic cleansing, and to wait for the next 9/11 blowback on our TVs or even be an unwittinging recipient of the bad karma coming back at us, we need to confront what our US tax dollars is enabling racist, anti-democratic, apartheid Israel to do!

We need to address the Jewish Supremacist attitudes RIGHT HERE IN THE US AND EVEN HERE IN INDYMEDIA! It must always be on the front page, the home page and in our faces til SOMETHING IS DONE TO CORRECT THE INJUSTICES. NOW!

We need to take bold actions, we need to educate people on the issues! http://www.cactus48.com and http://www.netureikarta.org are good places to start. Take a stand! Spread the Word! The truth will set us free!
by just curious
Wednesday Nov 27th, 2002 10:08 AM
So you are saying that Portland IMC and the main Indymedia websites are dolts for putting the story about "some guy got shot" ON THE FRONT PAGE with links to the story that APPEAR ON SF-IMC?

Seems like SF-IMC got caught with their pants down and the last thing they want to do is call attention to their shortcomings--why admit you made a mistake by not featuring this story when you can ridiucle the readers.

Do the right thing and put this story in the center column of the front page. Either that or direct your smug, contemptuous comments to the "idiots" at Portland IMC and IMC global who did feature the story.
by Could it be?
Wednesday Nov 27th, 2002 10:16 AM
Trust me. I am doing all you say and more.

Never underestimate the power of whining!
by just curious
Wednesday Nov 27th, 2002 10:24 AM
Now the story about "some guy getting shot" doesn't appear anywhere on the front page--not even on the side column.

Meanwhile Portland IMC and IMC global who did feature the story prominently on the front center column. Portland actually has two, count-em two, center column features regarding the story.

By pretending this story isn't important and doesn't have a connection to SF-IMC just makes this site look like they have something to hide.

Do the right thing and feature the story just like Portland IMC and IMC global.
by Could it be?
Wednesday Nov 27th, 2002 6:10 PM
Just curious, I'm curious as to why you don't whine somewhere else, like write your own article.

I wrote this article to whine about the Palestine issue and how it should always, always be on the homepage until it is addressed properly and fairly and honestly, with equal rights for all, regardless of religion, race or sex.

Please, whine somewhere else! I'm happy to see the anti-Barak story on the homepage! I guess I don't have to whine at the moment. Not on Indymedia anyway.

Yay for Indymedia!
by .......
Wednesday Nov 27th, 2002 7:31 PM
"Please, whine somewhere else!"

Spoken like a true psedo-liberal. Where is your love of diversity little activist? Really lefties wouldn't be happy if IMC lacked people from other political persuasions. Who are these dumb facists always claiming to be leftists, then always whinning when they here a voice of dissent?
by above the smoke
Wednesday Nov 27th, 2002 9:07 PM
tank_boy_11-25.jpgab2757.jpg
Thirteen Points on Resistance and Terror


Dr. Eyad El Sarraj


GAZA CITY (PC) - 1. Palestine is a question of brutal denial of all basic human rights including the right to life, to identity, to land and to freedom.

2. Palestinians have every right to defend their rights and resist the Israeli occupation and its terrorist military regimes.


3. Resistance in all forms against the armed colonial settlers and the army of occupation is a legitimate form of the struggle for freedom.

4. The just cause of the Palestinians does not justify killing Israeli children, women and civilians. Such acts against humanity equate the victim with aggressor, and undermine the Palestinians higher moral grounds.

5. Islam and all religions are all about protecting life. Human dignity is one and undivided. Killing one child on either side is equivalent to murder of all human beings.

6. Suicide bombing is an act of ultimate despair, a horrific reaction to a very inhuman living in a seriously damaged environment of hopelessness. Suicide bombing is the ultimate cry of help.

7. The last two years have only proved that Palestinian violence was used as a justification for further Israeli terror and destruction of life and house. Violence has terrorized both communities, deepened the hatred, and radicalized both nations in fear and paranoia. Violence has thrown the two societies into a vicious tribal revenge. People have thus become hostage to politicians and their terror and manipulations.

8. We believe that the best form of resistance is the none-violent form of struggle. Palestinian and Israeli masses should rise together against evil.

9. The ultimate political solution would have to be just, fair and implementable. In the core of any settlement lies the wise vision of peace. Only courageous leaders can fulfill the promise.

10. Israeli military occupation of Palestinian land is the root of all evil. The American unconditional support to Israel in violating UN Security Council resolutions and stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction is hypocritical, evil, and will continue to be a source of conflict with Arabs and Muslims.

11. The West should know that the Jewish problem is not yet solved, will not be solved until the Palestinian legitimate rights are restored and protected.

12. The war in Iraq will be seized by the racist military regime in Israel headed by the trio of Sharon, Netanyahu, and Mofaz as an opportunity to finish the 1948 war of independence, namely to steal more land by driving Palestinians out and force the rest into living in apartheid buntestans. This is not fiction. This is what the Israeli army chief of staff declared. He is the same man who said that Palestinians are a cancer which needs a more radical treatment than just chemotherapy of bombing!

13. Enlightened Jews, Palestinians and Friends of peace and justice every where should rise above the ocean of hatred and division and should be united in their struggle to achieve their noble goals.

Dr. El Sarraj is the head of Gaza Community Mental Health Program, and a regular contributor to the Palestine Chronicle


by Could it be?
Thursday Nov 28th, 2002 6:47 PM
Why not buy gifts made in Palestine for Christmas at http://www.paltime.com? I am eagerly awaiting my purchase of a mother of pearl cross pendant. As a Christian American, I do feel a certain connection to the Holy Land, and knowing that Jesus was born in Palestine has some significance. It is a shame, an outrage really, how Jewish Zionists are trying to claim all of Palestine-Israel for a Jewish supremacist state, in the process are destroying ancient Christian sites, as well as Muslim holy sites, and oppressing innocent Palestinian people just because they want a Jewish supremacist state! Actually, this bothers me quite a bit! I hope others feel the same way, and are doing everything they can to correct the injustices and are calling our governmental representatives to let them know we do NOT want even one more cent going to support racist, apartheid Israel!!!!!!!!!!!
by Bob N.
Sunday Dec 1st, 2002 10:37 AM
Sorry, missed your post and the meeting in Rockridge. Keep me posted.

Is crua a cheannaíonn an droim an bolg.
(Irish - The back must slave to feed the belly.)
by Radian
Sunday Dec 1st, 2002 11:33 AM
"Suicide bombing a cry for help..." In a country full of millitary targets, soldiers, power plants, fuel stores, I'll go blow my self up and take a bunch of civis, eating , partying, or on the bus with me because I or me collective society needs help...

My actions have nothing to do with a war or with headlines that may stir support for my political group overseas. I need help..

The saddest part is that some poor bastard somewhere that read that shit actually believes it.
by True Blue
Sunday Dec 1st, 2002 8:29 PM
You can e-mail me directly at : americansforjustice [at] earthlink.net and I will make sure you find out about the next meeting. Looking forward to meeting you!
by Bob N.
Monday Dec 2nd, 2002 11:20 PM
<<<< You can e-mail me directly at : americansforjustice [at] earthlink.net and I will make sure you find out about the next meeting. Looking forward to meeting you!
>>>>>>

I tried and my E-mail got rejected and sent back. Just post the date of an event or the address of a web site.


Is túisce a thiteann oíche Fómhair ná cloch í bpoll móna.
(Irish - An Autumn night falls faster than a rock in a boghole.)


by True Blue
Tuesday Dec 3rd, 2002 9:16 AM
Try again! I just did and it worked. Maybe try spell it out and not clicking on the link here.
Type out : americansforjustice [at] earthlink.net
Let me know if it works.
thanx
by Richard
Friday Jan 24th, 2003 11:58 AM
Why do you have to be a white american to stand up for your views?

I REPeat???

Are you perhaps bigotted yourself?

I will present to you another possibility. Despite the actions of George Bush America does not run the world.

You do not and cannot dictate to other countries and states your code of conduct, these countries need to resolve these issues with a level of independance. The UN has a difficult enough time trying to resolve these issues without a bunch of flat footed red neck Americans insisting on telling everyone how to run their lives.

Realise this, these countries are relying on American intervention to further publicise their conflicts and to invest their money into interfering in their own private wars. Let it go, in previous years American intervention has proven to be less than successful in other conflicts and has often further inflamed conflicts.

While I have nothing but sympathy for the troubles throughout the world neither side is innocent of the crimes committed.

Intervention will never successfully resolve these issues, they have spanned generations. As much chance of resolving the troubles in Northern Ireland, the rights of the Aborigines in Australia or even feeding the starving children of the world.
by DUH
Friday Jan 24th, 2003 6:34 PM
Because, dumbo, Arab Americans are being rounded up by the hundreds for no good reason! Don't you read the news????
White Americans are not targetted. Did you notice Jonah and Jerermy got off basically scott free for their rampage during the Rally on 1/18? If they were Arab Americans instead of Jewish Americans they'd be crucified! You are SO dense!
by Anima
Sunday Aug 21st, 2005 12:34 PM
I'd like to see the situation re; darfur and the Sudan on Indybay's radar! The attrocities commited there are being largely ignored. ISM, come to Darfur! We beg you. But I don't think it will ever happen. They like going to Israel/Palestine because its relatively safe- they can go to restaurants and movies and pretend they are doing the world a service. In Sudan, there is none of this- only real need. Palestine? israel is only a smokescreen to hide real attrocities of the world.
by anima smokescreen
Sunday Aug 21st, 2005 12:55 PM

clearly, anima is yet another smokescreen zionist sent to join the ranks of our local zionist nazis goose-stepping through the indybay threads.

a favorite trick of zionists is to try to lead the herd of propagandized american zombies for israel to dead ends.

one EFFECTIVE PSY-OP TECHNIQUE is to bring the discussion around to darfur and the sudan - you know: THE BAD BUY ARABS, THE ONES WITH THE FUNNY DRESSES THAT ZIONISTS JUST LOVE TO RIDICULE. THE TYPES OF PEOPLE THAT HOLLYWOOD JUST LUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUVVVVVVVVVVS TO RIDICULE.

The zio beany hats and their bizarre looking extremist settlers know they are on the hot seat so they JUUUUUUUST CRAVE DISTRACTION.

YAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNN!!!!!!





by um
Sunday Aug 21st, 2005 12:58 PM
"I'd like to see the situation re; darfur and the Sudan on Indybay's radar! The attrocities commited there are being largely ignored. ISM, come to Darfur!"

Then post some stories. Darfur seems to be used by right-wingers to demonize Arabs and the left with real actions being proposed to make life better for those subject to the genocide. A small ISM goup going to Darfur wouldnt rally help since the goal of ISM groups is to get media coverage and change public opinion and everyone knows that the situation in Darfur is horrible and you see almost nobody defending it. The question is, what can be done? If you are USING the suffering of the people of Darfur to advance an agenda that really has nothing to do with them (ie to get a few rhetorical shots in at the "Left" rather than out of any real care for the suffering) then shame on you.

What could be done to help Darfur? Military intervention by someone? Economic blockades? Humanitarian aid? The Live8 style of caring about a region without actually helping them (with all the talk about suffering in Africa was anything done to prevent the deaths due to starvation in Niger)?

One thing is for sure doing nothing doesnt help and using Darfur to demonize Arabs probably makes things worse (since it makes it harder for Western aid groups to get in since it makes it easier for the government to portray them as being antiArab).
by um
Sunday Aug 21st, 2005 1:18 PM
The Janjaweed (variously spelled Janjawid, Jingaweit, Jinjaweed, Janjawiid, Janjiwid, etc.) is an armed militia group in Darfur, western Sudan, comprising fighters of Muslim Arab background (mainly from the Baggara people). Since 2003 it has been one of the principal actors in the increasingly bloody Darfur conflict, which has pitted "Arabs" against the "black" African population (also Muslim) of the region, although it is very difficult to physically distinguish the two groups. One must be extremely careful in classifying the conflict in such simple terms. The name "Janjaweed" translates as "a man with a horse and a gun," although it is more usefully translated as "armed men on horseback."

The Janjaweed is the successor to an earlier Arab tribal militia, the Murahilin (literally "nomads"), which had existed for many years beforehand.

History

The Janjaweed was formed in response to attacks on government installations by the two rebel movements. Although both sides have been accused of serious human rights violations, the Janjaweed soon gained the upper hand through being better armed, more mobile and being supported by government forces. The Janjaweed has pursued a systematic policy of ethnic cleansing throughout Darfur, burning down non-Arab villages and driving out their inhabitants. By the summer of 2004 an estimated 10,000-30,000 people had been killed and another million, mostly non-Arabs, had been forced out of their homes.

The militia has pursued fleeing refugees into neighboring Chad, whose army has fought a number of actions against Janjaweed incursions. The Chadian President Idriss Déby has said that "since the start of this war, some 300 Chadian civilians have been killed and thousands of head of cattle stolen by armed men who crossed over from Darfur." [1]

Although the Arab-dominated Sudanese government has disclaimed any responsibility for the actions of the Janjaweed, numerous reports have identified collusion between Janjaweed fighters (who are said to have been armed by the government) and the state security forces. In particular, observers have noted that Janjaweed attacks on the ground have often been supported by air strikes from the Sudanese air force.

Idris Abu Moussa, a 26-year-old Sudanese farmer, states: "They came at 4 a.m. on horseback, on camels, in vehicles, with two helicopters overhead ..."they killed 50 people in my village. My father, grandmother, uncle and two brothers were all killed."..."They don't want any blacks left." - from the Darfur Genocide website

It has been suggested that the Sudanese government has been reluctant to rein in the militia, as it has been an effective opponent of the rebel Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) and the Sudanese Liberation Army (SLA). The government has strongly disputed these claims. On June 19, 2004 President Omar al-Bashir issued a decree ordering the disarmament of all militias in Darfur, and instructing government forces "to control and pursue all outlaw groups, including rebels and Janjaweed."

Musa Hilal, who heads Darfur's largest Arab tribe [2], is suspected by the US State Department of being a leader of the Arab Janjaweed BBC. The New Yorker quotes him: " I am a tribal leader. ... The government call to arms is carried out through the tribal leaders." He admits recruiting but denies being in the military chain of command, according to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janjaweed
by um
Sunday Aug 21st, 2005 1:25 PM
Just pointing out in the last post that the characterization of Darfur as an attack by an "Arab" group against a nonMuslim African group is very misleading and has probably made the conflict harder to resolve. Both groups are Muslims, both have equally dark skin and neither group has any real relationship to any groups in Iraq, Israel, Palestine, Afghanistan.....
The tendency for Darfur to be used by rightwingers to demonize Arabs without actually proposing anything to stop the genocide has beena major factor in making it hard to stop the genocide. With much of the Muslim world seeing any attempt by the West to go to war with Muslims as part of a plot to attack Islam under the guise of a war on terror, misrepresenting the conflict (with it rarely ever mentioned that most victims in Darfur are in fact Muslims) has added to the suffering. The genocide in Darfur isnt connected to the other major conflicts in the world and trying to link them has made it much more difficult for the genocide to be confronted.
by x
Sunday Aug 21st, 2005 1:53 PM
um knows a lot.

we the morons like to talk about Darfur to make um know even more.

I think not enough baby food is being produced at Fidel´s the last 50years: Count your losses there then.
You should rip the Che Chevara poster above your bed, it is crumpled.