SF Bay Area Indymedia indymedia
About Contact Subscribe Calendar Publish Print Donate

Palestine | International | Arts + Action

Spielberg on Munich: dehumanization of Palestinian civilians
by Ytzhak ( montfu65 [at] hotmail.com )
Wednesday Dec 28th, 2005 7:35 AM
...But this begs the question: why is Munich more famous than the savage bombardment of Palestinian refugee camps back in February prior to Munich? And why did the letter bombs to three Palestinian writers not get any world attention? Why did American liberals and PEN not notice it back then? ...The movie did not tell you that by the time the Israeli terrorists finished with their “mission,” some 100 Palestinians and Lebanese were murdered on that day in April 1973.


Spielberg on Munich: the humanization of Israeli killers, and the dehumanization of Palestinian civilians.

Angry Arab
posted by As'ad @ 2:32 PM l


Spielberg on Munich: the humanization of Israeli killers, and the dehumanization of Palestinian civilians. Or the Celebration of the Israeli Killing Machine. And who is retaliating against whom in the Arab-Israeli conflict? THIS is the question. It reminds me of a line that George Carlin—yes, that Carlin—used to use in his comedy routine and went roughly like this: “why do “we” call Israeli terrorists commandos, and we call Palestinian commandos terrorists?” That line never got a laugh the two times I saw him use it with a live audience.

The thrust of the Spielberg movie is simple, fanfare notwithstanding: Israeli killers are conscientious and humane people, while Palestinians are always--no matter what--killers. But a Spielberg movie about current affairs is like a Thomas Friedman’s column about…Emanuel Kant. What do you expect. But you know? Did you notice how one lone critical opinion of the movie by one Israeli diplomat, which only mildly criticized the movie, got so much press in the US? It was needed; and it even helped to promote the movie to give a “balanced” cast to the narrative, that it of course does not deserve.

This one critical opinion reminded me of O’Reilly; how he every night finds one email from somebody in Montana who tells him that he is too liberal. He needs that to maintain an image that does not exist, just as Spielberg needs to maintain an image that he does not deserve. This movie could easily have been a paid Israeli advertisement for its killing machine. In fact, it could be a recruitment movie for Israeli killing squads. I mean that. In fact, it is a celebretary movie of Israeli murder of Palestinians. Israel killing is always moral, and always careful, and always on target.

Today, yet another New York Times reviewer who also thinks that Spielberg was not sympathetic enough to the Israeli killers, even had the audacity to describe Israeli killings at the time as "targeted assassinations" when even Israel had not invented that propaganda term back then. He must have forgotten to remember. That's all.

Where do I begin.

I mean yes, I was quite angry watching it; and I got more angry as I watched the Berkeley liberal audience react sympathetically to the movie, rooting for the Israel head killer, as he went about his "civilized" killing. I watched the audience root for an Israeli killing team, and this WAS a true story, and Palestinian victims were real people, with real blood. The most emotional moment for Spielberg, and presumably for American audiences was when the head killer talked with his baby daughter in New York, that he missed very much. Oh, ya. That was the point at which you were expected to shed a tear or two; the music got particularly sentimental at that point. It had to be.

But where to begin; the movie was based on a book that took the Israeli account as it was delivered. But the book was honest and more accurate at least on one count: in the book by George Jonas titled Vengeance None. In the book but not in the movie, the killers, according to Jonas, had "absolutely no qualms about anything they did." How could Spielberg miss that. Well, he just managed. Hell, that was the whole movie, and the whole political project behind it. Of course, it was not easy for me to watch this movie, I mean not only at the political and intellectual levels, but also at the personal level. I can connect to the story, in its details and personalities. The first victim of the movie was Wa’il Zu`aytir, and I knew his niece; I went to school with Abu Hasan Salamah’s son--he was younger; and I knew the street and building where the three PLO leaders were massacred in Beirut. And let me tell you that NONE of the five people mentioned here had anything to do with Munich--but more on that later.

NONE.

But why should this movie, a Spielberg’s movie for potato’s sake, bother with facts, especially if they come in the way of a smooth pro-Israeli narrative? But this movie is intended for mass audiences who know nothing about the facts of the conflict. That is exactly why it will work, and why it will deliver the (propaganda) goods.

Let me start by saying this: this, Munich that is, was not as planned an operation as has often been maintained. This was not planned months in advance, as Abu Iyad maintained in his account with Eric Rouleau (translated into English as My Home, My Land by dear Linda Butler). Abu Iyad for years exaggerated the claims about the “carefully planned” operation, and PLO media at the time lied about how the PLO gunmen threw grenades into the helicopters, so as to make the last shootout more of a fight that it actually was. Angry Palestinians who were being hit by Israeli fighter jets in their refugee camps demanded heroes and heroism, and the PLO had to give them some, even if they were not legitimate heroes. The German troops were going to take them out, no matter what, and no matter how much they, the Germans in this case, endangered the lives of the hostages, and they presumably had Israeli consent.

The Arab League diplomat talked about this recently when he broke his silence in an interview on Ziyarah Khassah on Al-Jazeera. He should know: he was the negotiator with the the Palestinian team in Munich. Yes, I know. It can be argued that the Palestinian attackers risked the lives of the hostages by taking them hostages, even if they did not intend to kill them. That is true. This is like hijacking: the hijackers, any hijackers, are responsible, and should be held responsible for whatever endangerment to the lives and health of victims. That is true. But it is also true that the State of Israel has taken a nation as a hostage, and has been endangering the lives of Palestinians since the inception of the state of Israel. This is why it is all a question of who is retaliating against whom?

One of the many false premises of the movie is that Israel only went on a killing rampage—and only against Palestinian “killers”--after Munich. That Munich was a watershed. Watershed it was not, except in Israeli propaganda brochures. Israel has been going on killing rampages against Palestinians, civilians mostly, since before the creation of the state of Israel. And how could you even talk about Golda Meir and forget to mention her most memorable quote: that “there is no such thing as the Palestinian people.” Spielberg must have missed that, just as he needed to show her as grandma goodness who was pushed into vengeance by Palestinian cruelty. More humanization. That is why we had to see the head Israeli killer with his child: you need to see him as a human being. Do you know that not a single Palestinian in the movie appeared unarmed? They all were terrorists, and their murder had to be justified, and Spielberg did a great service for the state of Israel in that regard.
They should name some stolen Palestinian property in Israel in his honor, I argue. A street, a destroyed Arab village, or a stolen olive tree. Anything. He deserves it. And let us see what Israel was doing before Munich.

Before Munich, NOT AFTER—did you get that, Israel placed a bomb under the car seat of Palestinian writer/artist, Ghassan Kanafani and killed him and killed his niece (14). The niece was not plotting the Munich operation when she was murdered by the Israelis; nor was her uncle. That was BEFORE Munich. Kanafani was best friends with my uncle; they both used to write in Al-Hurriyyah magazine during their days at the Movement of Arab Nationalists.

Israel also—BEFORE Munich—sent a letter bomb to Bassam Abu Sharif (a writer and journalist with the PFLP), and left him with life-long scars and bodily damage, and they also sent a letter bomb to Anis Sayigh, a scholar and researcher, who was not a member of any group. But he was a really diligent researcher, and Israel did not appreciate it--I am assuming.

This is not easy for me; I have shaken the hands--or what was left of their hands--of both of those men, and Abu Sharif never had a military role—I say this although I never liked Abu Sharif or respected him (read my review of his memoir in Journal of Palestine Studies a few years ago). But those were innocent victims of Israeli killing. They never held guns those two, or those three, or four. This story is personal for me, of course. I see them as human beings, and not as armed and vengeful characters that they appear in Spielberg’s movie.

And typical of US movies where Arabs appear, Arabs when they speak Arabic never need subtitles. We need them when people speak in French and German, but Arabic is not important. It is not important to know what cheap natives say; we only need to know what expensive people say: Europeans and Israelis. And do you notice that Hollywood still portrays Israelis as Europeans: they still don’t want to accept that some half of all Israelis come from Asian and African countries. This makes it easier for the White Man to identify with them.

And there is this element that is never mentioned about Palestinian attacks: and this is true of the present and of the past. It is not that some Palestinian leaders recruit or compel Palestinians to attack Israelis. It is the other way round. Palestinians, regular rank-and-file and sometimes civilians, pressure Palestinian leaders and commanders to send them on military or suicidal missions against Israeli targets. Munich occurred exactly like that. Palestinians in the camps in Lebanon, those who were trained by Fath and by other groups, were lobbying for “action.” Why?, you may ask? Well, not only for the loss of Palestine but also because Israel was KILLING Palestinians.

In February of the same year PRIOR to Munich, Israeli jets bombed Palestinian refugee camps, and killed tens of innocent people. This is what is missing in the movie, among many other things. Most Palestinians who are killed by Israelis are unarmed and are killed not by assassins who are conscientious and sensitive—as they are outrageously portrayed in this movie—but by pilots who bomb refugee camps filled with unarmed civilians. Palestinians who are bombed from the air, long before Munich, are elderly and people and children in their beds. These are the victims that you will never see in a Spielberg movie.

So Israel was killing Palestinians, and this was the context of pre-Munich. So a small group decided to do something, but they were not sure what, and this was only 3 months before Munich. And one of the handful of people who knew about this, and this will never make it into the press was Abu Mazin--yes, that Abu Mazen the head of the puppet Palestinian Authority. But do you notice that US/Israel always forgive the past of those who submit to Israeli dictates? Look at how US and Israel forgave Anwar Sadat for his anti-Semitic Nazi past. Abu Mazin was the money guy, and he dispersed the funds for Abu Dawud, who engineered the operation. And the American public in US media and popular culture is so enamored with the Mossad, that the image of the Mossad does not match its actual reality.

The best evidence is this movie: look at this obsession with Abu Hasan Salamah as the “mastermind” of Munich when he had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with Munich. To be sure, Abu Hasan was a braggart, and had a big mouth, and would take credit for things he did not do, and would distance himself from failed “operations” that he planned, like the Sabena failed hijacking in 1972. That was Abu Hasan: he lived the life of a playboy, and enjoyed a unique indulgent pampering from Abu `Ammar who treated him like a son. Abu `Ammar would never say no to Abu Hasan, on anything. But Abu Hasan had nothing to do with Munich, and this ostensibly all-knowing Mossad, did not know it, and probably still does not know it.

Former CIA director, Stansfield Turner, once said that the Mossad is a mediocre organization, but that it is outstanding in PR--only in PR. Former CIA man in Beirut Robert Baer said this about the Mossad--I am translating this from an interview he gave to Al-Jazeera: “Let me tell you something, what people most err in in the Middle East, and I am responsible for my words to the end, is related to Israeli intelligence. To be sure, they can kill somebody in Paris or Rome or killing the wrong person in Finland or wherever else they did that in [he meant Norway]. To be sure they know Europe and Palestinians, and they know many things about Palestinians, but when it comes to the rest of the Middle East, I have not seen anything from their part that indicated their knowledge of those countries.” But this can never be maintained in a country that wants to exaggerate the prowess and knowledge of an intelligence agency not only to help feed the Israeli propaganda myth, but to also prepare the American public for more ruthless times and ways.

So a very small number of people knew about it, and of course Abu Iyad was one of them. And Abu Iyad is the most important person on the list, and yet his name was NOT on the list, just to show you about how much--or how little-- Israel knew. Abu Iyad spoke more than he needed not only because he wanted to send a message to the enemy, but also because the wars of factions and "Abu"s within Fath necessitated a game of one-up-manships, and of wild exaggerations at times. And while Black September was a paper name, and did not have a separate organizational existence or structure, several factions used the name for their own ends.
Nobody consulted with Abu Iyad about Abu Hasan’s use of the name for the Sabena’s failed hijacking mentioned above. Abu Dawud is a key person here. And while his name was mentioned in passing, it was added after the fact in Israeli propaganda accounts. Abu Dawud was arrested in France for another reason in 1977, and he was released because there were no German or Israeli warrants about his involvement in Munich.

That shows you.

Now, I will not give a blow-by-blow account of Munich. But I personally believe the account of Abu Dawud more than I believe Spielberg, i.e. Israeli propaganda claims, or even German police. (Abu Dawud's account is found in Abu Dawud, Filastin: Mina-l-Quds Ila-Muikh (Beirut: Dar An-Nahar, 1999)). German police lied quite a bit about the case; they leaked to the press fanciful accounts of Palestinian infiltration of the workforce at the Olympic city, when none of that actually took place. They were too embarrassed to tell the truth. Similarly, the Israelis wanted to back the German account, especially as the violence at Munich was a propaganda bonanza for the Israelis in the West, just as Munich—this is not known in the West—was a propaganda bonanza for Fath in the Middle East, as horrrific as the outcome was for all. And in that sense, the Germans, the Israelis, and Abu Iyad (and certainly Abu Hasan) lied about Munich, but not Abu Dawud, in my opinion.

Abu Dawud is one of those 2nd tier PLO leaders who did not get corrupted in the messy Lebanese scene, and who did now allow the Gulf money that corrupted many PLO leaders to affect him. This was a man who was in charge of Beirut during the Lebanese civil war, and yet his name does not appear in any chronicle of the war because he was too low key, and because he never bragged. (Hell, he never talked even when the brutal mukhabarat in Jordan held him from his feet for days, while torturing him. People who saw him in jail at the time did not recognize him. But you know this: your reliable "moderate" friends in Jordan are quite "good" in torture. They are probably the best; they are helping you in that regard as we speak.) Most Lebanese did not even know his name. But this also explains why he survived, unlike say Abu Hasan Salamah, who married a Lebanese former Miss Universe, who introduced him to Lebanese bourgeois society, and he could not get enough of that life. He developed a routine, and lived in a fancy apartment on Madame Curie Street in Beirut, and the routine he developed (going to the GYM at the same time every day), made him an easy target.

Abu Hasan could get all the money he wanted for his own group from `Arafat, and was doing a good job of maintaining not only good relations with the CIA but also with Lebanese right-wing groups. He became good friends with some right-wing militia leaders. Read the novel by Navid Ignatius, Agents of Innocence: it is about Abu Hasan, although the author does not admit it.

It is interesting that in the movie, the Israeli head killer (who was in the movie Troy), was cast to be most appealing to the audience: a good looking and charismatic figure. But say what you want about Abu Hasan (and many people in Palestinian struggle, like Abu Dawud, did not like him) but he was a good looking and charismatic figure in real life, but not the actor who played him in Spielberg’s movie. But Spielberg did not want the viewer to identify with any Palestinian in the movie: that was contrary to him and to his political goal. He just wanted to identify with the expensive human beings: the Israelis.

The Arabs are worse than they were in Renoir’s painting, the Mosque, as an unidentifiable blob. They were just armed, with no humanity. They were not supposed to evoke emotions, and you were not supposed to see them bleed, and if you did, you had to cheer for their killers. The only ones that you had to feel sorry for: were the Israelis who get killed, including the killers when they kill. The music that played when Israelis die, was different from the music that played when Palestinians died. And no speaking roles for Palestinians were necessary. Why bother. Give one a line, and you have done your "objective" duty.

And the list of prisoners that attackers submitted to German authorities did not have “200 Arab prisoners” on it, as the movie said. It had some 234 Arab and NON-Arab names on them, including Japanese and German prisoners, but that was not in the movie. And the statement that was issued by the attackers gave a name to the “operation”: Bir`im and Ikrit, names of two (predominantly Christian) villages in northern Palestine, the people of which were expelled by Israeli occupation forces in 1948 for “security reasons.”

In 1972, the people of those villages petitioned the courts to return to their villages, and the courts of course turned them down. But if you were to use the name of the “operation” you would have to tell the audience those burdensome details that would have distracted from the celebration of the Israeli killing machine. But this begs the question: why is Munich more famous than the savage bombardment of Palestinian refugee camps back in February prior to Munich? And why did the letter bombs to three Palestinian writers not get any world attention? Why did American liberals and PEN not notice it back then? Could you imagine what would happen if a Palestinian threw even a rose at an Israeli writer? Could you imagine what would happen among American leftists if a Palestinian were to say even a bad word to Amos Oz for example? That was the stature of Ghassan Kanafani among Palestinians and Arabs.

Now, I will not get into the military/intelligence background of the Israeli hostages as Abu Dawud does in his memoirs because the attackers did not know that information prior to the “operation.” Abu Dawud gives many details about the military backgrounds of some of the hostages, but I do not think that this is appropriate because even Abu Dawud did not know that before hand.

I will not get into what actually happened at the site at the airport when the hostages were being transferred by their captors not only because the captors were responsible by virtue of the hostage "operation", but you can raise questions regarding the actual responsibility of the killing of the hostages.

Abu Dawud cites Israeli newspapers from the 1990s in which writers raised questions about German responsibility, and on how the German government never published autopsy reports of the hostages, etc. The Israeli government also did not want to examine the bullets that killed the Israeli hostages. That would have settled the question, of course. Abu Dawud stressed that the attackers were under strict instructions to not shoot at the hostages, and you noticed in the scene, even in the movie, that when they were storming the compound, they clearly struggled with the door and avoided shooting, while that could have shortened the time of entry, and Abu Dawud says that they were under strict instructions to avoid using the grenades. And Abu Dawud raises the possibility that the helicopter may have exploded from a bullet that hit it gas tank, but I don’t know, and I have never relied on Spielberg, or on the silly book on which he based his account, for historical accuracy.

And another thing comes to mind: Palestinians also have managed to assassinate Israeli military and intelligence leaders but that never gets attention because the trend in US media and popular culture is that you should only show Palestinians when they are killing civilians. And it is not true that the Israeli response was confined to the assassination of the 11 Palestinians as was shown in the movie: Israel was also killing other Palestinians.

Israeli “response” or initiative we should call it, was more massive and brutal that the operation of the secret team. Three days after Munich, Israel ordered an air strike which required the use of some 75 Israeli aircrafts (the largest attack since 1967) and the attacks on Palestinian refugee camps in Syria and Lebanon resulted in the killing of more than 200 mostly civilians. And this is not because the Israelis knew that there was a camp north of Sidon that was used for training the Munich attackers. That camp was not even hit (another sign that Israelis had no information about the real culprits of Munich) and other camps with civilians were hit. And then while the assassinations were taking place, Israeli bombing of camps continued uninterruptedly. And the most glaring omission in the film, which shows you that the Israeli team was not only savage but also ignorant of their targets, was what happened on July 21st 1973, when `Ali Bushiki, a Moroccan waiter resting with his pregnant wife around a swimming pool in Norway, was murdered by that assassination team merely because `Ali resembled what the hit team thought Abu Hasan Salamah looked like. (The Norwegian police tracked and arrested the killers, but they were all released in a secret deal with the Israeli governement--is that not nice?) Should that not have made it to the movie? But that would have made them look more brutally clumsy than Spielberg wanted them to look like.

And even Wa’il Zu`yatir, the PLO representative in Rome. He knew nothing about Munich, and was an academic with close ties to socialist circles in Italy. Zu`ytir was shot 14 times. He never held a gun in his life. These Israeli team members were killers who really relished killing, and did not seem susceptible to moral second-thinking as was stressed over and over again in the movie. Zu`ytir was more interested in literature than he was in military affairs, on which he knew nothing. And PLO representative in France Mahmud Hamshari also had nothing to do with Munich; Israeli propaganda later had to contend with that, and claimed after killing him that the attackers passed through France on their way to Munich. In reality, the attackers never stepped on French soil when they went to Germany.

And the movie, it seems really enjoyed covering the 1973 massacre in Beirut. Spielberg I could tell really enjoyed learning and covering that massacre by Israeli terrorist squads. But who were the three PLO personalities killed in that "operation"? And who cares about the details? Kamal `Udwan was the Fath/PLO leader responsible for the West Bank and Gaza. He not only had no responsibilities in Europe, but he opposed “operations” in Europe, and even those by Black September. More than that, `Udwan was one of the most moderate Fath leaders having accepted the two-state solution back in 1970, before any of his colleques in Fath. Abu Yusuf An-Najjar was in charge of intelligence in Lebanon—Lebanon, not Europe. While `Udwan had no knowledge of Munich, Abu Yusuf may have heard about it but had no role whatever in it. The third person was a poet: and you know how much Israelis like to murder Palestinian poets, artists, and writers. Kamal Nasir was a poet, and was killed in his bed.

The movie did not tell you that by the time the Israeli terrorists finished with their “mission,” some 100 Palestinians and Lebanese were murdered on that day in April 1973. I also was amused--not really--how Spielberg portrayed the neighborhood where the PLO leaders AND others were killed: it had all the features of Orientalist imagination. It was traditional and the houses were old styles with arches, and the place was protected like a military base. In reality, the PLO leaders lived in a residential building in the most modern and upper class neighborhood of Verdun in Beirut. But why bother with that detail too. And the Fath representative in Cyprus also had nothing to do with Munich; he was the intelligence envoy of Abu Yusuf An-Najjar. And some people on the list of the Israeli murder team were not only not involved with Black September, but some were not even members of the Fath organization.

Basil Al-Kubaysi was a Palestinian scholar who had just completed his PhD in political science; I recently had dinner with Basil’s best friend in college in Candada. Kubaysi was in the PFLP and not in the Fath organization. The same for Muhammad Budia: he was with Wadi` Haddad, and not with Black September. But then again: I read that Spielberg offered the script to Dennis Ross and to Bill Clinton to verify the “accuracy” of Middle East political and historical references. The two are experts on the Middle East, in case you have not heard. More than that, the movie did not tell you that on September 16th, and 17th, Israel launched a savage invasion of South Lebanon, erasing the refugee camp of Nabatiyyah, and the Lebanese newspapers at the time (I even remember that as a 12 years old) had on the first page that famous picture of a smashed civilian car with seven Lebanese civilians smashed inside when an Israeli tank ran over the car near Jwayya in South Lebanon. That must have been too messy for Spielberg to cover. Why bother? And the car had stopped at the Israeli checkpoint that was set up at the entrance to the village. Were those civilians in the car also involved in Munich?

Later, as the movie ended, it was written on the screen that Abu Hasan Salamah was later “assassinated.” Spielberg forgot to add that he was “assassinated” by a massive car bomb in a crowded street in Beirut, which killed and injured tens of people—oh, and those people also were not involved with Munich.

The reviews of the movie in US media almost expressed frustration that Spielberg did not express enough sympathy for the Israeli killers. Only Michelle Goldberg of Salon to her credit (great review Michelle) pointed out that contrary to that lousy review by Leon Wieseltier in the New Republic “many of those [Israelis] in Munich are, if anything, slightly unbelievable in their constant self-interrogation and closely guarded humanism.” I was thinking after the movie that public ignorance of the Middle East greatly helps Israeli propaganda; this explains why Zionist organizations express contempt and wrath at Middle East expertise and specialty (as in MESA) because those who get to know and learn about the Middle East overwhelming find it difficult if not impossible to consume the unbelievable dosages of Israeli propaganda delivered via US media and popular and political cultures.


*Three of the Munich Palestinian attackers survived. One died from a heart attack; the remaining two are...somewhere in the Middle East.

http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2005/12/spielberg-on-munich-humanization-of.html

Comments  (Hide Comments)

by Leah
Wednesday Dec 28th, 2005 1:12 PM
Wow, great essay! Who is this Angry Arab and why haven't I heard of him before?
by awesome article
Wednesday Dec 28th, 2005 3:11 PM
Much appreciated.
by Check out this link
Wednesday Dec 28th, 2005 3:18 PM
http://www.exposingisraeliapartheid.com/
Exposing Israeli apartheid--also has multiple links to good sites at the bottom.
by Ever notice Yid's selective interpretation??
Wednesday Dec 28th, 2005 4:20 PM
Ever notice that when the anti-Muslim, anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab posts are up he doesn't say shit? Ever notice how many pro-Israel posts stay up (the ones that aren't flaming, trolling bullshit) he says nothing. Ever notice that many posts are hidden that are critical of Israeli policies but deemed either inflammatory or factually inaccurate? Ever notice how the rabid pro-israel trolls are selective in their "interpretations" of most things?????
Something to think about.
by RDC
Wednesday Dec 28th, 2005 6:07 PM
"Angry Arab"

Yeah. They're always pissed off about something.
by Paul
Thursday Dec 29th, 2005 1:54 AM
Thanks, very interesting.....
by Lee Kushner
( leegkushner [at] peoplepc.com ) Thursday Dec 29th, 2005 2:31 AM
If brevity is the soul of wit, then this long, typically "Palestinian," self-pitying, delusional and malicious diatribe is the essence of stupidity. If the writer of it were without his historical paranoia about the high-minded treatment of Palestinians by the Israeli government, he'd have absolutely no substance, whatsoever.

It's as simple as this: Most of your people are barbaric, thankless animals, who at this very moment are mounting vicious, genocidal and unprovoked attacks on mine, following the latest, misguided, Israeli territorial giveaway; your people burn and descecrate synagogues; you have no respect for anything human; your host countries allow you to live like the neglected pig scum that you are, despite the billions of oil dollars they hoard. You CHOSE to flee Palestine (BECOME REFUGEES) before its creation, into areas that you have never owned legitimately, because they have consistently been used as staging points for assaults against Israel, and were conquered in resulting battle. No less than five peace agreements were broken by your people; huge territorial concessions have been made and monetary reparations, and each of those two times, your bastard peoples have used that as a sign that the time is right to murder Jews. How you figure that you warrant anything except complete destruction, which, for my money, as far as militants like you, would be a GREAT IDEA, is beyond me.
by Abdul Rahman
( ornobrahman [at] gmail.com ) Thursday Dec 29th, 2005 3:07 AM
I just read the interview.... It is touching. It must have been difficult, but it is touching.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/features/lifestyle/sfl-spielbergx-latdec29,0,656949.story?coll=sfla-features-headlines
by Lidia
( lidiavolgina [at] yahoo.com ) Thursday Dec 29th, 2005 4:28 AM
"Probably, the anti-semite who crafted this "essay," with logic that uses Israeli, post-1972 war defense as rationalization for the bloody annihilation of Israeli athletes, was interned in some insane asylum." As'ad Abu-Khalil is a professor and he is not more anti-semite than me, an Israel Jew, but he is anti-Zionist and has all the right to be.

And he only poinetd to biased and untruthful Zionist propaganda view of the movie, put it in historical context.

Only Zionist could hate use words like Lee, every sane person knows, that Israel is a rightest, war-mongering, pro-corporate hellhole , and a colonial state to boot. So it could do "self -defence" not more that Hitler could against resisters, not more the USA could against Iraqi resistance. And as far as I know "liberals" do not read indimedia, they use NYT.
"Have you ever considered the weight of the reality of history and current events? Do you ever read a newspaper or the news, like the stuff that's been going on in Gaza?"

Yes, I do it, and exactly because of it I found As'ad site is much worth reading. And in Gaza there is a constant Israel killing, starving and so on of Palestinans.
by tim@n.j
Thursday Dec 29th, 2005 5:04 AM
Can't we all just get along?????
by Tom
Thursday Dec 29th, 2005 6:21 AM
I love it how you brand the Israelis "terrorists" yet refuse to do the same for the palistinean terrorists who murdered the Israeli athletes, in the first place. YOU YOURSELF are unbalanced as well, you act as if the ones who were responsible are completely inmnocent, calling them "attackers" and not bloodspilling terrorists, who murdered a bunch of innocent sports stars cold bloodedly in the first place.
by TW
Thursday Dec 29th, 2005 6:53 AM
Spielberg and Dershowitz remind me so much of each other. Both are brilliant in their particular craft, no doubt, both have descended to the lowermost muck-sucking depths of pro-Israel bigotry, and both have dragged their "art" down into those depths along with them. Spielberg now specializes in solidifying Orwellian myths about 20th century, while Dershowitz's game is to negate that history entirely.

Both of them are super gross habitual liars, as are their fawning zionist admirers, whose ulterior motives are no less obvious. Why do zios always imagine their ulterior motives are so impossible to discern?
by TW
Thursday Dec 29th, 2005 7:32 AM
You go ahead and dehumanize Arabs, Palestinians, Islam, etc. all you want. We're not listening.

The whole Munich legend is a really good example of America's induced historical stupidity. 33 years ago Israel lost a few athletes in an incident that has no direct connection to US foreign policy, and yet the incident has been burned into every American's brain as an icon of political villainy.

29 years ago, CIA-supported international terrorists Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada-Carriles killed Cuba's entire national fencing team along with 50-some other people by blowing up the plane they were on in mid-flight. Bosch escaped from a Venezuelan prison in 1986 and ran home to south Florida, where the Bush family gave him asylum and where he's been a guest of honor at cocktail parties ever since. Now the even crazier Posada-Carriles has come home to Miami and also appears to be settling in. So much for the "War on Terror." Oh, that's right, it's not "terror" when WE do it

Quite the contrast, isn't it? As a percentage of those who know about the 1972 Munich, how many Americans know anything about **America's** 1976 "Munich." Ten percent? Five?

Mind your own skeletons, American hypocrites. Quit letting pro-Israel bigots drag you around by your sentiments
by jimmy
Thursday Dec 29th, 2005 8:26 AM
You 'angry arabs' like to always point out things without context. Yes, Israelis have killed thousands of Palestinians. That statement by itself sounds horrible. But is that the whole story? Of course not. You guys like to forget that nobody feels sorry for the Palestinians because they unleash their terrorists and bring the repercussions upon themselves. For every action, there's a reaction. So as soon as you bloodthirsty religious fanatics stop killing people, then you can stop crying and begging for sympathy. And instead of blaming the people that kill your women and children on accident, start blaming your jihadis for killing women on children on purpose.
by Lidia
( lidiavolgina [at] yahoo.com ) Thursday Dec 29th, 2005 8:39 AM
Yes, and context is - Zionists ethinc cleansed and killed majority of Palestinans long before any "terrorism" of Palestinans. Zionists are doing the same now, this very moment. And please, stop nonsense about "nobody nobody feels sorry for the Palestinians" - not so many in USA, sure, because they are brainwashed, but majority in the world knows better.
by Lidia
( lidiavolgina [at] yahoo.com ) Thursday Dec 29th, 2005 8:44 AM
But you should have to add that killed Cuban athlets were JUNIORS! Posada killed essentially children! see for ex. http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2005/agosto/mar2/32virgen.html
by jimmy
Thursday Dec 29th, 2005 9:05 AM
"stop nonsense about "nobody nobody feels sorry for the Palestinians" - not so many in USA, sure, because they are brainwashed, but majority in the world knows better"

By saying that the Americans are brainwashed, you give the impression that you think the arabs are liberated, free thinkers. Therefore you lose all credibility. There's really no arguing with people who will simply say black is white or 1+1=3. And you are right, there is no shortage of people like yourself.
But if you re-read the article you can see a lot of the usual "nobody cares about us" and that is what my response was targeting.
by Gerry
Thursday Dec 29th, 2005 9:10 AM
If anyone is really interested in the truth. Just do some minimal research into the actual numbers of Palestinians and Israelis killed over the last 40 years by each side in this shameful conflict. 10 - 1? 100 - 1? Want to bet that it's more? The Israelis are the more brutal antagonists by far.

Palestinians are desperately trying to fight against an evil oppressor. Not the other way around.

If someone came into your neighborhood and forced you out of your house and off your land, would you consider them the good guys? It's too bad the "good guys" own and control the press. Manipulative criminals all. Speilberg is just another of their mouthpieces. I shan't view another one of his movies ever again.
by jimmy
Thursday Dec 29th, 2005 9:18 AM
Please explain how the numbers settle any sort of argument? Let's just say for argument's sake that the Israelis were completely innocent in all of this (I know you dont' agree with that, and actually I don't either, but I'm just making a point).
And the Palenstinians sent over a suicide bomber once a week and killed one Israeli soldier each time. Then in response, to each attack, Israel dropped a bomb on a Hamas gathering (again, for argument's sake, no civilian casualties on either side) and killed 10 hamas members.
After one year's time there would be approx. 52 dead Israelis and 520 dead Palestinians.
How does simply looking at the numbers tell us who's right and who's wrong? Bad argument.
by you got that right
Thursday Dec 29th, 2005 9:42 AM
Zionists seized Palestine. Palestinians resist.
by Robert
( manhattanworker [at] yahoo.com ) Thursday Dec 29th, 2005 10:30 AM
The articles author which syas that Spielbergs movie showed the Israeli killers as being all emotional about killing Palestinians, while they were not, is valid. I would not think these MOSSAD cared for a person thought to have carried out the attacks one bit. Spielberg is a movie producer and had to add some reticence to make more money of the movie. Also, Spielberg is a Jew - so it is not surprise he chose to show 'humanized' Israeli killers and 'dehumanized' Palestinian killers.

DONT FORGET ONE THING THOUGH.....

Whether you call them targeted assasinations or surgical strikes, the Israelis do not target mass numbers of civilians for murder. THE PALESTINIANS DO!

The big picture - THE PALESTINIANS STARTED IT. PERIOD.

I have not read any articles about an Israeli strapping explosives to himself and walking into a crowded palestinian area to kill as many people as possible. Maybe I am not rwading enough - but targeting collateral damage of humans is called TERRORISM. Don't forget it - and stop your whining.
by Guy
Thursday Dec 29th, 2005 10:31 AM
The numbers were what first got my attention as a youth here in the United States. I would see casualty lists so horribly imbalanced and try and reconcile that with the threat these stone-throwing children were cast as. Hostage taking, indiscriminate bombing, assassinations are all bad; but are not all on one side. And the closer one looks at the casting and portrayals, the more one realizes that facts don't jibe with propaganda.

It is true of both sides. Theocratic fundamentalism is the opportunist in this play; with de facto Israeli fundamentalism driving the artificial divide of semitic peoples (yes, the ethnic Palestinians are semitic peoples) on the one side and Arab Islamic nationalist fundamentalism using an uneducated people as a tool and an excuse. Look at who funds the madrasas in Pakistan.

Bottom line: Religion has no business in government. It clouds judgement and compromise when it should instead be in the business of hope and peace.

Eye for an eye is no way to live. It doesn't matter who struck first; its a subjective battle that will never be over as long as there is continuing argument over who gets to strike last.

UN peacekeepers, nuclear disarmament. Take it out of the hands of people who can't seem to solve their own differences.
by numbers
Thursday Dec 29th, 2005 11:28 AM
So you're wondering why so many more Palestinians are killed than Israelis? And you are thinking it proves that Israel is the aggressor? Not exactly, and here's the real reason why:
The total of Palestinian casualities includes suicide bombers, and Palestinians killed in "work accidents" (oops- the bomb went off before we made it through the checkpoint!) The numbers are further inflated by the deaths of "colaborators"- (ie anyone working towards a just and lasting peace with Israel) and honor killings (any murder in Gaza is just blamed on the Israelis) Todays suicide bombing killed 2 Palestinians, the bomber and an Israeli- see how that skewers the stats? You missfire your homemade rocket and kill 6 of your neighbors- see how that that skewers the stats, too? Just more lies, damn lies and statistics.
by Awaz
( siddiqui8323 [at] yahoo.com ) Thursday Dec 29th, 2005 12:07 PM
Jimmy-- you don't have a good argument, either.

Look at the reality and not some theory. More civilians have died by Israeli fire than the Palestinian fire; even after we discount the delibrate killings of known terrorists by the Israeli forces.

Some will argue that even I don't make a good argument, becuse Israelis don't target civilians but Palestinians do. However, I will say give some airplanes to Palestinians and they will be glad to trade air bombing to suicide bombing.

My point is there is no end to what both sides have done to each other.
by jimmy
Thursday Dec 29th, 2005 12:37 PM
Yeah, we could go on and on about this forever. My basic opinion is that the Muslim world has a *serious* problem with extremism and that is one of the major reasons the Israeli/Palestinian problem doesn't go away... it's not just about a tiny sliver of land and who did what, when.
Until the masses acknowledge that a large & active part of the Muslim world is backwards and clinging to the stone ages, then thing will remain status quo.
And to head off your knee-jerk reaction to my statement...
1) yes, of course, I acknowledge that not all Muslims are religious fanatics, in fact, I'm sure they are in the minority. But that minority is causing tremendous grief and the majority is unable or unwilling to squelch the minority.
2) yes, of course, I acknowledge that the Christian and Jewish worlds has there own brand of extremists. But in my opinion, they are either a smaller minority or a less dangerous minority at the present time.

You can come up with all the excuses you want, but the fact remains, who is targeting civilians for death on a daily basis en masse.
by Daisy
Thursday Dec 29th, 2005 12:43 PM
"Palestinians" don't exist!

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/palestine.htm
by TW
Thursday Dec 29th, 2005 12:49 PM
And when I see an apologist for the bigot-land called Israel waving around "Manhattan" as a point of pride, I know I'm dealing with one of the poxiest liars of all

"the Israelis do not target mass numbers of civilians for murder. THE PALESTINIANS STARTED IT. PERIOD."

Ever heard of Sabra & Shatila, liar? The Palestinans have NEVER targeted so many people with a single operation, they haven't even totalled that many through the whole second intifada. And that's just the most glaring example of why you're a liar. There's lots more here:

http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/index_en.asp

Bless you, Lidia! Bless all Israelis and Jews who have the soundness of heart to know what is right, despite the constant pressure to drink the zionist kool-aid
by B
( zerofi [at] teleport.com ) Thursday Dec 29th, 2005 1:20 PM
RE: the bigger picture

Israel targeted Palestinian & Bristish civilans in their "struggle" to create the state of Israel -- most famously in the case of the bombing of the Kind David Hotel.

The main point is that a valid case can be made for the notion that the Palestinians are just a much in "reaction / revenge" mode as are the Israelis. Missiles, letter bombs, backpacks, tanks... what's the difference?
by Pete
( plunderusa [at] hotmail.com ) Thursday Dec 29th, 2005 1:24 PM
To the point someone mentioned "Palestinians don't exist" I would argue that if enough people of any so called tribe identify themselves as a "people" , then they are that group. There is no such thing as an "American" other than all the people who happen to live here.
Look, I'm not some liberal bleeding heart either. But the fact remains, and I've been to Israel and Palestine, by the way, recently, there are legitimate greivances on both sides to consider.
Who are the Israel extremists who can load up a pickup truck on top of a hill in the West Bank and claim it as his new settlement? What kind of bullshit is that? Try parking your own car on someones lawn and say his lawn belongs to you. OK, all done, I look forward to hearing from you.
by lies
Thursday Dec 29th, 2005 1:37 PM
Re: Sabra and Shantila:


Not Israel's "fault"- clearly the fault of the phalangists, yet Israel took "responsibility", partially in response to the mass of Israeli protestors following the massacre. Thousands of Israelis took to the streets followingthe massacre- depending answers from their government.

(shall we contrast that with the Palestinians throwing candy and dancing in the streets following a sucessful suicide bombing?)

From Wikipedia:
On September 28, the Israeli Government resolved to establish a Commission of Inquiry, which was led by former Supreme Court Justice Kahan. The report included evidence from Israeli army personnel, as well as political figures and Phalangist officers. In the report, published in the spring of 1983, the Kahan Commission stated that there was no evidence that Israeli units took direct part in the massacre and that it was the "direct responsibility of Phalangists". However, the Commission recorded that Israeli military personnel were aware that a massacre was in progress without taking serious steps to stop it, and that reports of a massacre in progress were made to senior Israeli officers and even to an Israeli cabinet minister; it therefore regarded Israel as bearing part of the "indirect responsibility".

Israel still exists as a true democracy with checks and balance within its governement, judiciary and military.


by good question
Thursday Dec 29th, 2005 1:52 PM
Interesting question- "Who are the Palestinians"?

Legally, a Palestinian is anyone (or their descendents) who lived in Israel two years before statehood. They do not need to share a common nationality or history. Incidently, this is the only incidence in the world today of refugee status being inheritable.


According to official Ottoman Turk census figures of 1882, in the entire Land of Israel, there were only 141,000 Muslims, both Arab and non-Arab. This number was to skyrocket to 650,000 Arabs by 1922, a 450% increase in only 40 years. By 1938 that number would become over 1 million or an 800% increase in only 56 years. Population growth was especially high in areas where Jews lived. Where did they come from?

All the evidence points to the neighboring Arab states of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. In 1922 the British Governor of the Sinai noted that "illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria." In 1930, the British Mandate -sponsored Hope-Simpson Report noted that "unemployment lists are being swollen by immigrants from Trans-Jordania" and "illicit immigration through Syria and across the northern frontier of Palestine is material." The Arabs themselves bare witness to this trend. For example, the governor of the Syrian district of Hauran, Tewfik Bey el Hurani, admitted in 1934 that in a single period of only a few months over 30,000 Syrians from Hauran had moved to the Land of Israel. Even British Prime Minister Winston Churchill noted the Arab influx. Churchill, a veteran of the early years of the British mandate in the Land of Israel, noted in 1939 that "far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied."

Far from displacing the Arabs, as they claimed, the Jews were the very reason the Arabs chose to settle in the Land of Israel. Jobs provided by newly established Zionist industry and agriculture lured them there, just as Israeli construction and industry provides most Arabs in the Land of Israel with their main source of income today. Malcolm MacDonald, one of the principal authors of the British White Paper of 1939, which restricted Jewish immigration to the Land of Israel, admitted (conservatively) that were it not for a Jewish presence the Arab population would have been little more than half of what it actually was.

The reality is that the "Palestinians" are recent imports into the Holy Land- and if they had agreed to the Partition Plan when it was offered, they'd be celebrating 57 years of living side by side with Israel.
by America Pete
( plunderusa [at] hotmail.com ) Thursday Dec 29th, 2005 2:00 PM
I would like to hear from you if you are living in the West Bank, as I like to keep connections there on both sides, and I have Israeli connections already. I just want to be better informed about the situation than what CNN would give me.
Tell me how you would feel if a Palestinian State were actually created and then became a pawn of one of the large empires that either exist or that would exist in the future.
by good site-highlights pro-israel bias
Thursday Dec 29th, 2005 3:18 PM
http://www.ifamericansknew.org
by Iggs
( iggs293 [at] hotmail.com ) Thursday Dec 29th, 2005 3:30 PM
Linda,

Yes the world knows better! Only because the world hate Jews more than it loves Arabs. This is you who is brainwashed. How you are saying killings of Palestinians, when there were few thousands of Jews and a million of Arabs on this land. Why would all of a sudden three arab countries attack Israel, which didn't even have normal army (how damn brave). They got defeated and they will always lose. God is with us...
by shatila thing
Thursday Dec 29th, 2005 5:54 PM
It was Israel's plan from the beginning - here is a direct quote from David Shipler that as early as mid-June,

"Israeli officials were speaking privately of a plan, being considered by Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, to allow the Phalangists to go into west Beirut and the camps against the PLO. The calculation was that the Phalangists, with old scores to settle and detailed information on the Palestinian fighters, would be more ruthless than the Israelis and probably more effective."

New York Times, Sept. 19, 1982..

Proof Positive. There's a lot more for the asking - a lot - even admissions by Sharon.

by Oren
Thursday Dec 29th, 2005 7:36 PM
Excellent review by the Angry Arab! Too all of those claiming he is an anti-semite, I just finished reading one of his books, he was married to a Jew. There is a difference between being anti-Jew and anti-Zionist. I am Jewish, I embrace Judaism but I am ardently ANTI-ZIONIST. Why? Because Zionism is a racist idealogy the supports a homeland for Jewish people in a land where Palestinian already existed and then turns them into slaves of that state.
by and shatila didn't mean a lot
Thursday Dec 29th, 2005 7:42 PM
71.jpg9zmarm.jpg
71.jpg9zmarm.jpg

Thing is, S&S with the deaths of about 2000, did not include those bodies buried in the rubble of the Israeli bombings (see photo). This was a flat out war of aggression, but the only crime here was that the Israelis were caught because of the large volume of western journalists that just happened to be there at the time - fall of 1982.

Lebanon photo bombing by Israelis. They used vacuum bombs that penetrated massive apartment buildings in West Beirut sucking the air out of the whole apartment building, causing the whole building to collapse within itself.


by Liars and the Lies they Tell
Friday Dec 30th, 2005 9:19 AM
"Israel targeted Palestinian & Bristish civilans in their "struggle" to create the state of Israel -- most famously in the case of the bombing of the Kind David Hotel."

Israel didn't exist back then. neither did the "palestinians". The British miitary was targeted. The Brits were warned ahead of the bombing, but the British commander refused to "take orders from Jews".
The King David Hotel was British military headquarters.

There is absolutely no moral equivalent with the suicide bombings of Israeli school buses, restaurants, discoteques and universities.
by Ignorance for Israel
Friday Dec 30th, 2005 10:04 AM
You're right, the suicide bombings can't compete w/ the death and destruction of Israeli terror, as they have much more weaponry at their disposal.
by re: king david Hotel
Friday Dec 30th, 2005 10:11 AM
The King David Hotel was the site of the British military command and the British Criminal Investigation Division. The Irgun chose it as a target after British troops invaded the Jewish Agency June 29, 1946, and confiscated large quantities of documents. At about the same time, more than 2,500 Jews from all over Palestine were placed under arrest. The information about Jewish Agency operations, including intelligence activities in Arab countries, was taken to the King David Hotel.

A week later, news of a massacre of 40 Jews in a pogrom in Poland reminded the Jews of Palestine how Britain's restrictive immigration policy had condemned thousands to death.

Irgun leader Menachem Begin stressed his desire to avoid civilian casualties and said three telephone calls were placed, one to the hotel, another to the French Consulate, and a third to the Palestine Post, warning that explosives in the King David Hotel would soon be detonated.

On July 22, 1946, the calls were made. The call into the hotel was apparently received and ignored. Begin quotes one British official who supposedly refused to evacuate the building, saying: "We don't take orders from the Jews." As a result, when the bombs exploded, the casualty toll was high: a total of 91 killed and 45 injured. Among the casualties were 15 Jews. Few people in the hotel proper were injured by the blast.


This reminds me of the current situation in the Gaza buffer zone- Israel, in an effort to avoid civilian casualties, dropped thousands of leaflets on Gaza warning people to stay away from the buffer zone- before the bombing. They did this to save civilian lives!
Word on the street, BTW, is that the 3 Britons kidnapped from Gaza were going to be left in the buffer zones as sacrificial lambs by the sweet gentle Palestinians. You aren't going to be reading about that in the mainstream American media.
by the lovely humanistic Irgun-LEHI
Friday Dec 30th, 2005 11:15 AM
******This reminds me of the current situation in the Gaza buffer zone- Israel, in an effort to avoid civilian casualties, dropped thousands of leaflets on Gaza warning people to stay away from the buffer zone- before the bombing. They did this to save civilian lives!*****

Reminds me of the Irgun-LEHI Deir Yassin massacre. This fact was reported with much enthusiam in official statements of Irgun and LEHI by the terrorist commander Menachem Begin (later to receive the Nobel Peace Prize) who took pride in the operation where 250 innocent civilians were slaughtered, including more than 100 women and children.

by youare very confused about everything else
Friday Dec 30th, 2005 12:39 PM
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deir_yassin.html

According to Irgun leader Menachem Begin , the assault was carried out by 100 members of that organization. Begin stated that a small open truck fitted with a loudspeaker was driven to the entrance of the village before the attack and broadcast a warning to civilians to evacuate the area, which many did.3 Most writers say the warning was never issued because the truck with the loudspeaker rolled into a ditch before it could broadcast the warning.4 One of the fighters said, the ditch was filled in and the truck continued on to the village. "One of us called out on the loudspeaker in Arabic, telling the inhabitants to put down their weapons and flee. I don't know if they heard, and I know these appeals had no effect."5
Contrary to revisionist histories that the town was filled with peaceful innocents, residents and foreign troops opened fire on the attackers. One fighter described his experience:
My unit stormed and passed the first row of houses. I was among the first to enter the village. There were a few other guys with me, each encouraging the other to advance. At the top of the street I saw a man in khaki clothing running ahead. I thought he was one of ours. I ran after him and told him, "advance to that house." Suddenly he turned around, aimed his rifle and shot. He was an Iraqi soldier. I was hit in the foot.6
The battle was ferocious and took several hours. The Irgun suffered 41 casualties, including four dead.
Surprisingly, after the “massacre,” the Irgun escorted a representative of the Red Cross through the town and held a press conference. The New York Times' subsequent description of the battle was essentially the same as Begin's. The Times said more than 200 Arabs were killed, 40 captured and 70 women and children were released. No hint of a massacre appeared in the report. “Paradoxically, the Jews say about 250 out of 400 village inhabitants [were killed], while Arab survivors say only 110 of 1,000.”7 A study by Bir Zeit University, based on discussions with each family from the village, arrived at a figure of 107 Arab civilians dead and 12 wounded, in addition to 13 "fighters," evidence that the number of dead was smaller than claimed and that the village did have troops based there.8 Other Arab sources have subsequently suggested the number may have been even lower.9
In fact, the attackers left open an escape corridor from the village and more than 200 residents left unharmed.
by Israeli terror
Friday Dec 30th, 2005 4:43 PM
If only americans knew the truth that most of the rest of the world knows:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org
by Nadine
Monday Jan 2nd, 2006 6:28 PM
"Innocent Israelis are frequently the victims when suicide bombers strike."

And innocent Germans were frequently the victims when
Allied bombers struck the Third Reich. So what's your point?

At first I wasn't going to respond to such an inflammatory remark, but I thought I would use this opportunity to demonstrate an interesting tactic being employed by the Palestinian side. This tactic was first employed by Goebbels, the mastermind of propaganda in Hitler's Third Reich. Goebbels was a genius of persuasion in his massive indoctrination of the German masses against the Jews. He accomplished his goals to such an extent that the victims, the Jews, were popularly perceived to be the persecutors and enemies of the 'Aryan' race. In fact, he was able to obscure the truth to such an extent that the victims appear to be the aggressors and the aggressors appear to be the victims: "Their goal is to destroy and exterminate our people" Goebbels often said of the Jews, when in fact the reverse was occurring.
Now, it seems peculiar that the Palestinians would employ the same technique against the Israelis by comparing them to the Third Reich – imaging comparing Jews to their former persecutors! But in fact, this tactic is quite ingenious. It is a common propaganda technique that utilizes credible pseudo logical arguments that appeals to the masses sense of emotion rather than logic. Terms such as 'Nazi', 'Third Reich' and 'Apartheid' are inflammatory remarks distinctly recognizable in society that trigger sentiments of moral outrage and disgust. Now to use these terms against the Jews themselves and to succeed is the ultimate triumph in the use of propaganda. In fact, this is where Israel has been hit the hardest, Israel’s image has been tarnished in the newspapers and news channels across the world.
However, this also demonstrates how dangerous and perverse such misleading remarks can be, especially when they are devoid of intelligence, reason or logic. It was obvious that his statement was an attempt to retort to my argument in a passionate way that would capture the audience but without really saying that much at all.
by TW
Monday Jan 2nd, 2006 11:53 PM
"Do you really consider the murder of children waiting at a bus stop, or families out together having pizza to be the moral equivilent of the targetted assassination of a terrorist mastermind?"

Ain't it special how zios always zero in on the absolute most heinous examples of suicide attacks when they mention them at all? But then when they talk about their own violence, they forget all about comparable examples

like blowing away schoolgirls as they sit in classrooms

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=12205&Cr=palestin&Cr1=

Or firing on schools with tanks

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-09/07/content_1952778.htm

http://electronicintifada.net/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/10/2778

Or blowing the brains out of expectant fathers as they drive their wives to the hospital

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200501/s1281534.htm

Or emptying an M-16 into a kid that's already laying on the ground dying

http://www.counterpunch.org/barghouti10252004.html

"Israel proved to the world -- yet again -- that it is not only intransigent in its patent and consistent violation of international law, but also incapable of adhering to the most fundamental principles of moral behavior."

Lots more of the same here

http://concert4palestine.org/warcrimes/s.html

You have a hell of a nerve pointing at Palestinian manipulations of language, Nadine. Compared to the head-tweakers on your side, the Palestinians are rank amateurs. For that matter, so was Goebbels. In fact, your spiel about the Nazis attests to zionism's devious use of language, issues, and history. It's a standard trick among Israel apologists: when the criticisms are coming at you hard and heavy, just turn on the Nazi/Holocaust maudlin violin music. Works every time. well, 'til you wear it out that is.

Personally, I'm totally fed up with hearing about the Holocaust. It doesn't have anything to do with anything anymore -- other than zionists milking it to deflect criticism away from Israel. The "never again" message is valid, but zionists are total frauds when they claim that's why they bring it up. If they were serious about "never again," why did Israel help train death squads for fascist governments in Central America during the '80s? Death squads whose mission, BTW, was to slaughter mestizos and NATIVE AMERICANS by the hundreds of thousands. Ah yes, the Native American genocide, the TRUE #1 example of the genre, still unfolding today after five centuries! And Israel's helping to keep it going! Apparently when you liars say "never again," you only have Jews in mind.

Screaming "anti-Semite!" is of course another favorite manipulative escape hatch
by Except that TW creamed Michael
Tuesday Jan 3rd, 2006 10:23 AM
Except that TW creamed Michael, who couldn't go beyond tired right-wing rhetoric, refused to read links, and used condescension, threats and name calling without facts (except alleged ones) to make his flimsy cases.
by I posted those links
Tuesday Jan 3rd, 2006 10:31 AM
I am not TW, I posted several links that Micael refused to read. You see his nutty quotes about "liberalism is a disease". How could you defend this idiot???
by stroke of luck
Tuesday Jan 3rd, 2006 10:38 AM
1-1-06-sharon-expanding.jpg
1-1-06-sharon-expanding.jpg

by Nadine
Tuesday Jan 3rd, 2006 10:52 AM
To everyone who quotes from websites:

Instead of being google historians and relying on websites for historical and political information, why don't all of you read some legitimate books (books written by accredited established authors, non-Muslim/Jewish preferable). Better yet, try going to University to study history, if grades permit. Maybe then you'll actually have credible sources from which to quote.
by to Nadine--dont ass/u/me
Tuesday Jan 3rd, 2006 10:57 AM
Many of us have and even currently are students. Part of argumentation is providing sources, and the web is a rich resource--in fact, in some cases, whole or parts of books are posted on the web, in addition to media sources, articles which give citations, ect.
by Right--we come here becuase we can
Tuesday Jan 3rd, 2006 11:10 AM
And we seek an alternative/activist/progressive/radical focus that we don't get in the mainstream media which tends to be more right wing and pro-israel.
by media garb
Tuesday Jan 3rd, 2006 11:25 AM
Ah- but surely you realize that uncritical acceptance of ANY source is as dangerous as uncritically rejection of ANY source?
Thats why its important to read everything.

Information is best served buffet style- look at the spread and pick and chose what you want. But look at everything.
And in spite of what your cardiologist says, everything should be taken with a grain of salt.
by Bye Nadine--you are irrelevant
Tuesday Jan 3rd, 2006 11:34 AM
Agreed, information is best served "buffet style". That is why I read AP, Reuters news daily, SFGATE, SF Bay Guardian, US News and World Report (as terrible as it is) as well as several other sources 1-3 times per week. I come to Indybay for an alternative perspective to the typically right wing and pro-israel view that the mainstream takes--while I certainly don't agree w/ everything on Indybay, nor do I accept it as fact, uncritically---I appreciate that on this site, I mostly have a reprieve from the right wing sloaganeering and pro-israel propaganda that I see so much elsewhere. Granted, there are a few trolls that attempt to introduce this here--but only in the rarely read comments section here. So the buffet comes not at Indybay, as this is clearly an activist/progressive/radical site, but Indybay is a part of the buffet--get it???You will not turn Indybay into The buffet.
by TW
Tuesday Jan 3rd, 2006 10:23 PM
A really obvious zionist told me: "Its a barrel of laughs watching [Michael] reduce you to a quivering blob of jelly."

So here we have a zionist viscerally identifying with an ultra-right extremist who 1) agrees with Joseph McCarthy, 2) passes along classic fascist rants from spooks and US military brass as if these are persuasive, and 3) obviously longs to see a fascist purge "clean the scum" out of US society.

Gee, where do I get my hunch that zionists are really just Jewish fascists and their sympathizers? I wonder! There's obviously no evidence of this in sight anywhere...

How dare you assholes keep moaning and bawling about "Nazi this, Nazi that"?!! Don't you know you're just like them now?
by Hey, TW
Tuesday Jan 3rd, 2006 10:44 PM
Michaels waiting for you on a different thread.

And I'm all settled down with my extra large popcorn and a cold beer for an evenings entertainment.

I don't need to agree with him to enjoy the spectacle.

by by Judea Pearl, Father of Daniel Pearl
Thursday Jan 5th, 2006 8:48 AM

JUSTICE MUST BE DONE
By Judea Pearl, JUDEA PEARL is a professor at UCLA and president of the Daniel Pearl Foundation
http://www.danielpearl.org
January 1, 2006 latimes.com

Spielberg's 'Munich' falls victim to today's moral relativism, which ignores the absolute evil of killing innocents.

When Spielberg talks about his film "Munich," he uses words such as "violence," "empathy," "revenge" and "doubt." But one word is missing from his comments, and from the film itself: "Justice."

Nearly four years ago, when the world reacted with shock and indignation to the murder of our son, Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, my family and I had hoped the civilized nations would mobilize to protect themselves, not merely against the practice of targeting the innocent to transmit political messages but more pointedly against the ideologies that license such moral deformity.

Unfortunately, brutal and videotaped killings of innocents has since become part of the cultural scene of the 21st century, steadily instilling contempt toward the lives of others. More alarming, the very notion of terrorism as a universal moral taboo has been the subject of a relentless intellectual assault that relativizes and blurs it. The mantra "one man's 'terrorist' is another's 'freedom fighter' " subverts judgments of right and wrong.

Regrettably, Spielberg's "Munich" now adds a Hollywood-styled confusion to the moral relativism on terrorism. The story follows an Israeli agent — assigned to assassinate the Palestinians responsible for murdering 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich — who stops before completing his task as his moral doubts grow.

But shaping the story in this way blurs the distinction between the murder of innocents and bringing killers to justice.

Our son could have predicted the development of this moral confusion as early as October 2001, three months before his abduction in Pakistan. While interviewing the influential Qatari cleric Sheik Yusuf Qaradawi, then considered a moderate, Danny asked him about suicide bombings against Israeli civilians.

The learned sheik replied with a novel twist of logic. "Israeli society in general is armed," he said, implying that Israeli civilians — including women and children, doctors and journalists — are legitimate targets. Three months later, Danny would fall victim to the same brand of twisted logic.

After Danny's murder, the most common reaction we heard from Pakistanis was, "The murderers are unIslamic. However, thousands of Muslims are being killed in Afghanistan, Palestine and Iraq, so why all the fuss about one American journalist?" This misses the distinction between those who boast of killing innocents and those who labor to prevent civilian casualties — the litmus test separating terrorists from counterterrorists.

"Munich" falls into this same trap of moral relativism. It does not explicitly justify terrorism, but it leans in that direction by assigning a palatable yet unchallenged rationale to the Palestinian terrorists, and by having the Israeli hero suffer a crisis of conscience. The idea that taking an innocent life is wrong regardless of the rationale never enters the discussion.

Further missing from the script is the most important theme of all: justice.

When people ask me whether I seek revenge, I answer: The killers do not interest me. I would rather seek effective ways of lessening the hatred that took Danny's life. We should care less about fanatics on the run and more about the ideological fuel that sustains them, such as clerics like Qaradawi, and Al Jazeera, which amplifies their voices.

However, when asked whether I wish to see the mastermind of Danny's abduction, Ahmad Omar Saeed Sheikh, brought to justice, my answer is an unqualified yes.

I can imagine Danny's son Adam (whom Danny never lived to see) one day asking what happened to those who killed his father. I hope not to have to reply: "The hearing of his appeal has been postponed for the 32nd time," (which, to the shame of Pakistan's justice system, is the answer at the moment).

Bringing criminals to justice reaffirms the civilized world's commitment to live by principles and breeds secure and responsible citizens; failure to do so breeds morally confused criminals. "Munich" is about the complexity of bringing evildoers to justice in a world where those entrusted with the job often lack the will to do so. With that in mind, the film can still be enjoyed. But the message we should take away is that two of the terrorists are still at large and must be brought to justice.
by A little justice w/ Sharon
Thursday Jan 5th, 2006 8:55 AM
At least we got a little justice with that slob out of the picture.