Jane Fonda Protests Israeli Occupation

Who really cares anything what spews from Jane Fonda's mouth? In case anyone is wondering why such negativity, just do a search on "Hanoi Jane". Whether it is fact or fiction is really immaterial. What should be considered is the fact that she is only an actress. This does not give her more insight into politics. One may argue that with the exception that actors/actresses have more time on their hands to waste, that they may be less informed about politics due to their intelligence level. The fact is that whatever an actor / actress believes in is just as important as what I beleieve in. Yet for some reason I do not have a medium as powerful as the newspapers following my every quote or move. No wonder justice is blind.

With Americans like Jane Fonda, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, wacko hollywood weirdoes and politicians like anti-American Senator Murry we would never have to leave the shores of this country to fight our enemies.

Once again Hanoi Jane opens her stupid uninformed mouth. We shouldn't allow her back into the country. Whoppi do do, she stood outside in the rain for ten minutes, as apposed to our fighting men spending months and months out in the weather. When she's ready to lay her ass on the line for anything let me know. Ignorance is bliss and so she must be the happiest woman on earth

Regardless of how well informed Fondas opinion is, her voice is loud because shes famous.
What we need now is someone equally well known to explain in small words why the Israelis own Israel.

at least she didn't napalm and kill millions of Vietnamese, like the U.S. did.

translation: fuck you.

A FRIEND OF MINE an exradical who became a conservative and Deputy Sheriff of a Vermont town has a bumper sticker on his pickup truck that reads "Hanoi Jane Not Welcome Here." I admit to always having felt uncomfortable reading it, since it seemed to me to be an unnecessary reminder of the terrible, polarized atmosphere surrounding the war in Vietnam. It was a time when ultraconservative supporters of the war showed their anger by what I thought was an unjustified demand that she be tried for "treason," because of what she had said in her trip to North Vietnam in the 1970s. After all, Americans had a constitutional right to oppose what some thought was a wrong and immoral war, and it might have been poor tact to make those points in the country our troops were fighting, but it was no different than if she had made those arguments here.

Now, decades after Jane Fonda’s trip, Henry Mark Holzer and Erika Holzer, both of them writers as well as lawyers, have published a book that seeks to make the case that in fact, Jane Fonda engaged in acts that make her guilty of the actual legal grounds for treason, which as laid out in the Constitution, defines the act as "levying War against them, or, in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." To be found guilty, a person had to have two witnesses to the overt act they committed, or have made a full confession in an open court.

In their book, Aid and Comfort:’ Jane Fonda in North Vietnam (Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland and Company, 2002. 206 pp. $39.95), Henry Holzer makes it clear in his introduction that when he began his book, he too had no opinion about whether Jane Fonda had committed treason when she traveled to Hanoi in July of 1972. He decided to take a closer look at the actual text of her propaganda broadcasts made in Hanoi, what she said and did during her visit there, and what effect it had on those GI’s who were being held as POW’s. His conclusion was simply that there was "enough evidence to submit to a jury, that the jury could have convicted her, and that a conviction probably would have been upheld on appeal." Of course, not only did that not take place, but Jane Fonda went on to resume an illustrious career in Hollywood, has received numerous awards, and has become, as Holzer writes, "an American icon."

The Holzers’ book, then, is written as an attempt to pursue justice. For this reader, the first part of the book is the most compelling, and indeed, a harrowing read. What the Holzers reveal is the full story of the torture, degradation and violations of common humanity inflicted upon American POWs by the North Vietnamese Communists. Of course, reports of this have been made by some of those who suffered directly. But with the attention of Americans and the media at the time, and long after, on the horrors of the war, somehow or other, the story of what happened to American prisoners of Hanoi got lost. The Holzers shed more light on this, and bring to the story the sordid role played by Fonda in responsibility for the misery they suffered.

As the Holzers show, by the time Fonda left for Hanoi, she was already immersed in the radicalized New Left culture of the late 1960s, and had already issued statements accusing American soldiers of acting as virtual "war criminals," for engaging in acts of torture, rape and murder of innocent Vietnamese. But when she tied up with Tom Hayden, who had moved his activism in the direction of creating his own new antiVietnam war organization, she came full circle into the role that was awaiting herchief propagandist in the United States for the North Vietnamese regime.

Her activities took place in the context of the completely vicious and inhumane treatment of American prisoners of wartreatment that violated every main tenet of the Geneva Convention, and which was on the level of the treatment given to concentration camp prisoners by the Nazis and by the Japanese treatment of POW’s during World War II. It was, one prisoner quoted in the book writes, "a nightmare of hellish proportions that transformed civilized human beings into primal animals struggling to cling to some fleeting sense of what it means to be alive." So brutal was the treatment that it will come as a shock to those former protestors of the War who spent so much time blasting their fellow Americans for inhumane behavior. After reading the horrendous details of their brutal treatment—worse than most of us can begin to imaginewe learn that it was this group of men who became "Jane Fonda’s captive audience for her performance in wartime North Vietnam."

What the Holzers do is to acquaint us for the first time to the full story of what Fonda said in her many radio broadcasts. These programs, in which Fonda obviously read aloud scripts often prepared for her by the North Vietnamese, accused the United States of purposefully bombing nonmilitary targets, of using illegal chemical weapons, of forcing the troops to act as war criminals, and of fighting against the side of the people of Vietnam. The US goal, she had said, was to make Vietnam "into a neocolony of the United States." Repeating virtually every propaganda claim of the North Vietnamese Communists, Fonda sought to encourage mutiny and desertion by the troops, whom she told them, were only justifying the murder that they were "being paid to commit." If they knew the truthwhich she was giving themthey "wouldn’t fight…wouldn’t kill."

In addition, Fonda attended forced and staged meetings with American POWs, who refused to cooperate or talk with her, and who went out of their way to ignore the pleas of their captors to acquiesce in the propaganda. Nevertheless, Fonda immediately went on the air and lied about her meetings, presenting phony stories about how well the captured troops were being treated at the infamous "Hanoi Hilton" POW camp. "They are all in good health," she said in yet another broadcast; "We had a very long…very open and casual talk. We exchanged ideas freely," and these men told her about their "sense of disgust of the war." None of what she said, of course, had an ounce of truth to it. As the Holzers put it: "These lies were simply more canned North Vietnamese propaganda, broadcast in furtherance of Fonda’s intent to damage the United States and help the North Vietnamese."

The second part of the book attempts to lay out carefully the case for a wouldbe prosecution, and to levy the indictment that never, but they argue should have, taken place. First, they argue that her activities clearly fit the bill of giving distinct "aid and comfort" to America’s enemies. It demoralized many of the soldiers, made things worse for the POWs, humanized the enemy to Americans at home, and gave the Hanoi regime confidence that it should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses, because propaganda such as that by Fonda would eventually allow them to gain the upper hand. We read the words of analyses by propaganda experts of her words, which makes it clear, as one former Brigadier General wrote, the intent of which was "to demoralize and discourage, stir dissent, and stimulate desertion."

Next, the Holzers lay out the legal record pertaining to those who in past cases were found guilty of having committed treason according to the legal, Constitutional prerequisite. They do this by a sustained and reasonable discussion of major cases that came before the Supreme Court of the United States, and after due deliberation, the court established propositions that had to stand for an individual to be found guilty of treason. They include treasonable intent and an overt act of betrayal; intent that can be proved circumstantially, and an overt act which must be witnessed or proved by two witnesses to have provided actual aid and comfort to an enemy, and which must be decided by a jury trial. They continue with a discussion of key World War II treason cases, including Chandler v. United States; Gillars v. United States; (the "Axis Sally" case) Best v. United States; Burgman v. United States and D’Aquino v. United States, (the famous "Tokyo Rose" case.) and finally, Kawakita v. United States. In all of these cases, in which the defendants were found guilty, they argue that the law of treason was legally settled, and clarity as to what treason is has been fully established. What remains is simply who has committed a crime, and whether a jury finds that an American had the intent of betrayal and had committed an overt act that offered the enemy aid and comfort. They then attempt to show how Fonda’s broadcasts and activities fall into precisely the realm of treason as has been previously legally defined.

A problem, however, exists in their discussion of some of the World War II cases. Stephen Schwartz has argued, for example, that the conviction of D’Aquino was really a case of "irresponsible journalism" and that she was in reality "a victim of an outrageous injustice." In her case, her broadcasts were not propaganda; others who broadcast with her were never prosecuted; many women aside from her made similar broadcasts and in fact she had already been exonerated before returning to the US by a full Army investigation, sustained by the Department of Justice. Nevetheless, D’Aquino was indicted and convicted on one count, and careful scrutiny indicates that the indictment was hardly fair. Eventually, D’Aquino was fully and unconditionally pardoned by President Gerald Ford in 1977, and her citizenship was restored. Similarly, the constitutional historian Stanley I. Kutler analyzes D’Aquino’s case, and reaches the conclusion that she was a "relatively insignificant individual who classically confronted political justice" and whose broadcasts had a "legendary mystique that heightened her importance far beyond the innocuous substance of her activities." Her indictment was more the result of a campaign by unscrupulous journalists and timid bureaucrats who used her "to symbolize the stringent, politically expedient meaning of loyalty." Here, both the conservative journalist Schwartz and the left-liberal historian Kutler reach similar conclusions about the viability of "Tokyo Rose’s" conviction.

This, of course, does not mean that Fonda was not guilty of treason. It does, however, indicate how sometimes indictments and even convictions can be issued which upon examination, prove themselves unwarranted. In a way, the possible innocence of D’Aquino only makes it clear how much closer to the prerequisites of treason the words and activities of Jane Fonda were. What Fonda did, in fact, far exceeds the actual conduct and activities of some of those who were convicted and imprisoned for their treasonous activity in World War II. The section of their book on Fonda and the law of treason lay out, as a good prosecutor would, the actual grounds on which an indictment could have been handed down. They are, in fact, substantial. In her case, unlike that of D’Aquino, Fonda admitted that she had made the broadcasts, and one did not even have to find two witnesses to the broadcastsalthough, since the GI’s were forced to hear them, many could be found. And as the Holzers argue, the testimony in court of those expert witnesses on how the type of psychological warfare she engaged in could be seen as giving "aid and comfort" would have undoubtedly had a "profound impact on a Fonda jury."


The question, then, is why no such trial was ever held. The Holzers have a simple answer. The US Government, worrying that an indictment and trial of Fonda could backfire given the strong anti-war protest and movement that had emerged at home, capitulated and backed away from any prosecution. Even the anti-Communists in charge of the House Internal Security Committee were so scared of taking on Fonda that they refused to subpoena her to testify despite demands from many in Congress that they do so. The Committee did raise issues pertaining to her trip, but the Justice Department refused to pursue the matter, issuing instead what the authors call a "glaringly deficient Memorandum of Law," that served as a legal excuse to avoid doing anything. The Department’s representative for Internal Security, they show, offered what they call "an embarrassingly lame" attempt to stress concern for protection of Fonda’s civil liberties! The result was that Justice came forth with the recommendation "that Fonda not be prosecuted for treason," and the chief law enforcement officer of the US- the Attorney General- agreed. This was, they argue, a clear "political decision." The very fame that made her propaganda effective now worked to protect her at home, where she had become a major celebrity and star. If prosecuted, Fonda, with the aid of a mass movement and a sharp left-wing lawyer, would, the Department feared, "make a monkey out of us."

And so the Holzers close with the legal indictment they argue could have been made, and never was. They are not naïve, and they realize that such an indictment will never be made. But reading it is a shock and an eye-opener. In their conclusion, the Holzers argue that as ill-advised as the US role in Vietnam might have been, that should have no bearing on evaluation of what Jane Fonda did there. One could, if one wanted, oppose the war politically. Thousands did. What Jane Fonda did, however, was something else. It was, the Holzers attempt to prove, actual treason. Some will not agree, but few who read this book will come out of the experience sympathetic to her actions. What she did was sordid, vile, unpatriotic and unconscionable, and as the Holzers write, "beneath contempt." She could have been indicted, and a jury of Fonda’s peers would have had the opportunity to judge her actions. Now, we have only the Holzer’s book, which those who know that morality and decency have no statute of limitations have an obligation to read. They know that Fonda will never be indicted. But they are right that there is another kind of indictmenta moral oneand those who care about morality must never remain silent.

With Jane Fonda still a celebrity and an icon, and as she goes on interviews and makes it clear that she has no intention of apologizing for what she did in Hanoi back in 1972aside from vague statements that she is sorry she hurt the feelings of some troopsit is more important than ever to treat Fonda with the contempt that she deserves. In their closing sentence, Henry and Erika Holzer write: "When we pass this moral judgment on Jane Fonda, we recognize that moral values are a transcendent, indispensable, concern to civilized peopleand in possessing, defending and living by those values, we rise above those who betray them." Amen.

Pay taxes.

Hey idiot. You should be placed in a mental institution. Jane Fonda nor you know anything about sacrifice, or the fact that many have died in the name of freedom so scums like you can exist and spew your rhetoric.

Ms. Jane Fonda is and always was a heroic American. She braves much inclemency
from people who don't value courage.

-- Marek

"His conclusion was simply that there was 'enough evidence to submit to a jury, that the jury could have convicted her, and that a conviction probably would have been upheld on appeal.'"

There's also enough evidence to try and put our f--ing pResident in jail for life - he's got lot of blood on his hands already, the blood of Americans as well as Afgans.

Here we go again, blaming eachother. Defaming people's opinion. We all have a right to one good or bad. I for one pray that Allah grants us peace and love. As a human being I feel extremely distressed by all the violence, especially from the heavy handed Iraeli forces. One day hopefully thing will turn for the better, one day. I am sure God will ensure that justice prevails.

You lost sports fan. Big time. Vietnam won. Period. Simple as that.

Get over it. Come back as a tourist, and not an occupier, and enjoy our beautiful beaches.

PS: Fuck the MIA's.

"Hey idiot. You should be placed in a mental institution."

With you? No thanks!

First Sean Penn claims he was mis-quoted in Iraq, which came as no surprise. Now Hanoi Jane and her Vagina Monologues are at it again and John Walker, the "American Taliban" is serving his 20 years.

It's time for the Amercian government to make a decision in the Fonda case. I certainly don't speak for all Viet Nam vets, but I personally crossed Hanoi Jane from my Christmas card list years ago.

Jimmy Carter is trying to sincerely broker a peace agreement in the Middle East. As Penn and Fonda make President Carter's job more difficult, we should remember President Bush's statement "you are either with the terrorists or with us."

Only Congress can declare war and Congress never issued a formal declaration of war against North Vietnam. The 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which is now recognized as a false pretext, gave the president some war powers, but it was not a declaration of war. Thus, all of us who proudly protested the war against Vietnam could not possibly be accused of treason. This was widely discussed and widely known at the time as the declaration of war by the US against Japan in December 1941 was within memory of most people, having occurred only 23 years earlier.

To hear anyone today defend the genocide of 3 million Vietnamese people, 1 million Cambodians and millions of other Southeast Asians, the use of some 7 million tons of bombs against Vietnam, the use of napalm, white phosphorous, and tiger cages, and massacres of entire villages of people of all ages and the destruction of their homes and fields, the use of Agent Orange which to this day causes serious birth defects and still births, all in the name of allegedly fighting communism but in reality fighting another blood for oil war (there is oil off the coast of Vietnam and Vietnam, like Korea in a similar earlier genocidal war of 1950-53, were both understood to be gateways to China, the far bigger resource prize), is to hear the rantings of criminally insane, mentally backward idiots.

A good reference website for the US War against the VIetnamese people, which actually lasted 1945-1975, but officially was 1964-1975, can be found at:
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/WS_entry.html

I think we should all remember exactly how long ago the US war against the Vietnamese people was. The veterans of that war are now ages 45 to 56. If you are under a man under age 47, you have never been subject to the draft. It was the draft that was the primary reason for the anti-war protests, and when the draft ended in 1973, most of the anti-war protests ended. Liberation of Vietnam was achieved by the Vietnamese people on April 30, 1975. If you are under age 37, you probably have very little if any memory of that war.

Thus, the venom spewed forth by the Neanderthal warmonger is as remote as the endless whining on the part of the Southern racists who regret the loss of the slaveholding confederacy to the Union Army way back in 1865. The clock of history cannot be turned back. While the victory of the workingclass in Korea was only 50/50, as epitomized by the division of Korea at the end of the war, in Vietnam, the victory was 100%. The attempts at restoring capitalism today are a farce as history can only repeat itself as a farce.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for we shall inherit the earth, if we act fast enough so that there is an earth to save.

Jane Fonda, in the past, has not been critical of Israel at all. This is certainly good news that she is showing sympathy to the Palestinians, albeit 54 years late.

"we should remember President Bush's statement "you are either with the terrorists or with us."

Just in case we weren't sure how much of a moron he really is.

Sir, when we isolate ourselves from the world in that way, we're all enemies and war is endless. Killing terrorists won't be much different than the idiotic 'drug war' - nothing will really change except some people will get a lot richer (off of you and me) and some people will die and lots of guns will get moved around.

Tell me, sir, have we found bin Laden? Have we even found the terrorist on our own soil, the anthrax killer? Have we reprimanded anyone in power for the lack of ANY defense whatsoever on 9/11, even with at least a full hour between the first attack and the last? Did we ever find out what happened to all that money that got made on the stock market on 9/11? And why didn't any of Bush's enron buddies, like Ken Lay, ever pay up for what they did?

Don't be fooled by the moron.

They own the place because they're backed up by the US. No other reason. The fact that some jews used to live there 2000 years ago and left the place is irrelevant. Gypsies left Northern India around 2000 years ago and nobody's talking about taking a piece of India to make a land for them. Well, India is a nuclear power and before that it was British territory. The palestinian were and are screwed.
P.

Jane must be bored, its been a long time. I thought she was dead.

I think everyone in their monologues in missing the point: the occupation!

Ms Fonda appears to command much news coverage with only a ten minute visit in the rain.
Is she the beginning of action by actors to attract news coverage of events in Isrtael?
Will the Hollywood people have more of an impact on endiing hostilities than the politicians?

In Sci Am they were talking about how meteors hitting the atmosphere could be mistaken for nukes and might trigger a first strike. There was one during the recent India Pakistan thing and luckily they identified it, but the article expressed the possibility that they might not, in the future.

It's a scary scenario.

Somewhere close to 1,000,000 Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians were killed as a result of the U.S. war against Indochina. It ranks as one of the greatest crimes against humanity in the modern era. The Vietnamese were fighting for their independence from the Japanese, French, and finally, the Americans. Go back and read the "Pentagon Papers," the history of the Gulf of Tonkin fraud, the U.S.-backed assasination of Diem, the illegal secret bombing of Cambodia, etc. to learn the shameless history of U.S. involvment in the area. Those who protested the war - Jane Fonda included - were heroes.
Good for Jane Fonda - more Americans should be protesting against the illegal Israeli occupation that we are paying for with our tax dollars.

>read the "Pentagon Papers"

Good idea. Also read:

The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade
by Alfred W. McCoy

Fire in the Lake: The Vietnamese and the Americans in Vietnam
by Frances Fitzgerald

Edward Lansdale: The Unquiet American
by Cecil B. Curry

Victory At Any Cost: The Genius of Viet Nam's Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap
by Cecil B. Curry

Then you will begin to understand what happened in Viet Nam. There's a lot more to it, of course, but that's the basics. Understand that much, and the rest will fall into place as you encounter it, one piece after another.

If you're too lazy to read, rent a couple movies. I recommend *Platoon*, *Iron Triangle*, and *Air America*.

I sure hope more fearless celebrities like Fonda will finally bring more attention to what's really happening in Israel: the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinians and denial of their human / civil rights!

Vanessa Redgrave was ahead of her time, and paid a HEAVY price for it, but the time is now ripe to come forth without too much backlash I hope-- and at least now if the Zionists have a hissyfit then it's starting to really look obvious that they are trying to cover things up, and everyone is so tired of hearing about the Holocaust and the world "anti-semitic". It's really overdone, to the point where it's so besides the point of what is happening NOW: that ethnic cleansing can NEVER be justified and that includes RIGHT NOW in Palestine-Israel what is happening to the Palestinians, and all because of OUR US tax dollars!!!! Down with Zionism NOW!!!!!!

The Israelis own Israel because the UN, not the US alone backs them, and won the land in war. Not unfairly. War is war, people win and lose. Some are very sore losers.

The Palastinians are very bitter about losing their home to the Jews. The Arab nations around Israel were very bitter as well. When the Alliance won WWII and gave some of the land they won to Israel, the Arab states tried to take it back. They lost, not through the UN's action, but through the power of the Israeli military. They had a 100 to 1 kill ratio. Israel won a bunch of land, and turned around and gave all of it back, save a bit of strategic land near their border. They are not greedy. They want a home, and they are not leaving. You may not be aware, but Israel did not fire the first shot in the Palestinian confrontation. If the Palestines were smart, they would have lived alongside the Jews, but instead many have pledged to not stop until they have destroyed the Israelis.

The real enemy is anyone who wants to destroy anyone else. At times there are enemies in our (US) government, just like every other. But we don't go around killing people because of there heritage. Saddam wants long range ballistic missiles to destory Israel. He already has massacred thousands upon thousands of his own people. He is reckless and ruthless. We cannot let nuclear weapons fall into the hands of irresponsible thugs. We cannot stand by and condone Palesinian murder of innocent Jews.

No matter what you think of the US or what I'm saying, no one else in the world helps anyone else except the US and the UN.

Let's get this straight.
The Palestinians have been the aggressors and committing terror against the world for the past 35 years. Witness Achille Lauro, the TWA hi-jackings in 1967, the Munich Olympics in 1973 and the murders of over 200 American marines in Beirut just to name a few. The Palestinian refugee camps have been perpetuated by UNRWA and the rest of the Arab states - the only real contributor to Palestinian welfare and economy has been Israel which has provided infrastructure, social services and work for 100's of thousands of Palestinians since 1967.
Israel belongs to the Jews because it says so in the Bible - there has a been a continuous Jewish presence in Israel for over 2000 years. It is a homeland to Jews anywhere and especially after the Holocoust it is specious to question to rights of Jews to their own country.

Nyguen,Are you here in America? Could it be that our military won your way over here?There were no real winners in the Vietnam War. So you say fuck the Mia. You are not worth one name on the wall or one MIA. Enjoy your own beaches. Most Americans have no desire to tour your beaches.Go back to your nail salon.

Lots of Jews!	But only a few Arabs!
MYTH “The Jews have no claim to the land they call Israel.” FACT: "By the early 19th century-years before the birth of the modern Zionist movement, more than 10,000 Jews lived throughout what is today Israel. The 78 years of nation-building, beginning in 1870, culminated in the reestablishment of the Jewish State." - Jewish Virtual Library	MYTH “Palestine was always an Arab country.” FACT "When Jews began to immigrate to Palestine in large numbers in 1882, fewer than 250,000 Arabs lived there, and the majority of them had arrived in recent decades" -Jewish Virtual Library

"One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail." -- Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, Feb. 27, 1994

Tell that to a Native American.

Even the most cursory perusal of American history more than adequately demonstrates that "killing people because of there (sic) heritage" is what made America's very existence possible. America was not earned fair and square. It wasn't earned at all. It was looted from freshly dead corpses. You know it, I know it, and the world knows it. Lying and trying to pretend it is otherwise, does nothing but make you look foolish.


> When the Alliance won WWII and gave some of the land they won to Israel,

That’s not what happened. The land was won by Arab and British troops fighting side by side in the *First* World War. It was given away by the UN, not the “Alliance”. They had apparently taken to heart the entire chapter in *The Prince* which Machiavelli devotes to listing the many and various advantages to giving away the property of others, as opposed to giving away one’s own.


>Israel won a bunch of land, and turned around and gave all of it back, save a bit of strategic land near their border.

Israel stole a bunch of land, much of it from freshly dead corpses, kept the best part and threw the rest away.


>They are not greedy.

Tell that to a Palestinian family whose house that they stole and now live in.



>They want a home,

Everyone wants a home. That in no way justifies stealing the home of another, throwing them out in the street, killing them if they resist and then moving into the house and living there.


>and they are not leaving.

That remains to be seen. Personally, I have no problem with them staying, even in the disputed settlements of the West Bank and Gaza. What I object to is that they do so by force, lording it over others, stealing their property, murdering them when they resist, and even when they do not resist.

It is their behavior, not their presence, which is so loathsome. If the settlers are willing to live in peace, and treat their neighbors as equals, I see no reason that Jews should not be allowed to live in Palestinian territory, and vice versa. Maybe they could look on it as a sort of mutual hostage taking. The exchanging of hostages is a very old custom in that part of the world. It has a history of helping keep peace.

Even better, would be if they simply learned to share and cooperate. It would be good for all of them. By combining their forces and pooling their resources, rather than fighting each other, the people of an Israeli-Palestinian alliance would all live safer and more prosperous lives. But this can only be done by equals. Sharing and cooperation cannot take place by way of coercion.


>You may not be aware, but Israel did not fire the first shot in the Palestinian confrontation.

OK, I’ll bite. When, pray tell, was the first shot fired, then, and by whom? Be specific.


>no one else in the world helps anyone else except the US and the UN.

You apparently don't follow current events very closely, do you? You really should catch up on your reading. Start with Africa. Read up on ECOMOG's intervention in Liberia, France's role in the Ivory Coast or the six separate nations that jumped into the fray to help various friends in the Congo.

“No one else”!?! Give me a break. What do you think, that America is unique? It’s a country. It has an empire. It, itself, is an empire. And that’s how it acts. Nothing new is happening here. It’s an old, old story. Bush is going to Iraq for the same reason that Rameses went to Kadesh, money. Some things change. Some don’t. This hasn’t. War is a business. It is never undertaken unless the prize is perceived to be, not just with in reach, but worth the expense and the risk.



>Saddam wants long range ballistic missiles to destory Israel.

Israel already has the capability to destroy Iraq many times over.


>He already has massacred thousands upon thousands of his own people.

As would our own government massacre us if we rose in arms against it, as would any government massacre any of its own people who rose in arms against it. This is the nature of governments, all governments, not just Saddam’s. Iraq’s four nearest neighbors, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Iran have all massacred thousands of their own people, and recently, too. Iraq is no different, except that it is rich, vulnerable and currently in the Empire’s cross hairs


>We cannot let nuclear weapons fall into the hands of irresponsible thugs.

We already have. They are headquartered in Washington.


>We cannot stand by and condone Palesinian murder of innocent Jews.

No we cannot. But neither can we stand and condone Israeli murder of innocent Palestinians.


>At times there are enemies in our (US) government, just like every other.

You got that right. As Joseph Heller pointed out years ago, anybody who is trying to get you killed is your enemy, even if he’s your commanding officer. The War Party’s strategy is to trade human blood for natural resources and tactically advantageous positions for some of its flunkies. Since there is no defense against determined terrorists, and since even the government agrees that invading Iraq will certainly spark more terrorism, the blood that is about to be trade for the oil of Iraq and the safety of Israel could easily turn out to be not just the blood of the troops in the field, but your own, and that of your family. Is that a good trade, do you think? I don’t think so.

Eat the future----I favor the concept --called love -------------------------------NAZI------SOONER , HARDER

If Nazism was wrong (which it was), then Zionism is wrong.

Have you ever noticed how EASY it is to morph the Nazi symbol into the Star of David? It's actually pretty eerie!

It has the same amount of straight lines, only the Nazi version is open and the Star of David is closed (which actually describes metaphorically the Jewish tendency to be exclusive and think of themselves as the Chosen People.)

From a previous poster. Supposedly Jane said words to this effect below

accused the United States of purposefully bombing nonmilitary targets, of using illegal chemical weapons, of forcing the troops to act as war criminals, and of fighting against the side of the people of Vietnam. The US goal, she had said, was to make Vietnam "into a neocolony of the United States." Repeating virtually every propaganda claim of the North Vietnamese Communists, Fonda sought to encourage mutiny and desertion by the troops, whom she told them, were only justifying the murder that they were "being paid to commit." If they knew the truthwhich she was giving themthey "wouldn’t fight…wouldn’t kill."

-------

Name a word of the above that is not true. All of it was also said in the USA at the time, July 1972. I was saying some of those things. I campaigned for McGovern. Since when is the truth a treasonable offense?

Jane shouldn't have danced and cavorted around the antiaircraft guns, though. That was dumb.

But her courage then and now is very praiseworthy.

The Vietnamese communists were almost as ruthless as the Americans, the Phoenix Program, etc.. But then the Russians were the main source of North Vietnamese weapons, so what do you expect? No middle ground was allowed. Elections in South Vietnam were a sham. Death squads and torture were the norm.

*Phoenix Program in Vietnam. U.S. terrorism, torture, and death squads on an industrial scale. Tens of thousands murdered. Hundreds of thousands tortured.
http://corporatism.tripod.com/phoenix.htm and
http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/y/phoenix.htm

Jane, since you've been gone
I shut my eyes and I fantasize that you're here with me
Will you ever return
I won't be satisfied till you're be my side
Don't wait any longer, come back

(Why don't you come back, please hurry)
(Why don't you come back, please hurry)
Come back and stay for good this time
(Did you write the book of love)
Come back and stay for good this time
(Ego, envy, lust)

When you said goodbye
I was trying to hide what I felt inside until it passed me by
You said you'd return
You said that you'd be mine till the end of time
Well don't wait any longer, why don't you come back

(Why don't you come back, please hurry)
(Why don't you come back, please hurry)
Come back and stay for good this time
(Did you write the book of love)
Come back and stay for good this time


Oh, since you've been gone
Opened my eyes and I realized what we had together
Will you ever return or have you changed my mind
If you wanna stay mine just love me forever, love me forever

(Why don't you come back, please hurry) please, why
(Why don't you come back, please hurry)
(Why don't you come back, please hurry)
(Why don't you come back, please hurry)

Just come back and stay for good this time
(Did you write the book of love)
Come back and stay for good this time
(Ego, envy, lust)
Come back and stay for good this time
(Did you write the book of love)
Come back and stay for good this time
(Ego, envy, lust) don't ever leave

(Did you write the book of love)
Mmm mmm mmm (ego, envy, lust)
Ooh ooh ooh (did you write the book of love)
Well it... at... everything we had together
(Ego, envy, lust) I don't wanna lose it
Don't wanna lose it, all the time we had
(Did you write the book of love)
The times that we had (ego, envy, lust)

These are but a few Jews who contributed to medicine and science. Those who despise Israel might be willing to give up their immunity to polio, their country's victory over the Axis in WW II, their immunities to other diseases--except that they would no longer be alive...Say! There's an idea!



Albert Einstein -- The most famous and influential scientist of all time
Richard Feynman -- 'The greatest scientific mind since World War II '
Gregory Pincus -- developed the first practical oral contraceptive pill
Niels Bohr -- Nobel prize-winning Physicist: atomic structure
Hans Krebs -- 1953 Nobel Prize for the insight into the fundamental metabolic pathways ('Krebs bicycle')
Carl Sagan -- astronomer and popular science author; made book and TV series 'Cosmos'
Jonas Salk -- Developed the first polio vaccine.
J. Robert Oppenheimer -- Nuclear physicist, head of the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos
Edward Teller -- Physicist, 'father of the hydrogen bomb'
Wolfgang Pauli -- discoverer of the Exclusion Principle and the neutrino
Rita Levi-Montalcini -- winner of the Nobel Prize for her work on Nerve Growth factor (with Stanley Cohen)
Emile Durkheim -- founder of modern sociology
Georges Charpak -- won the Nobel Prize in Physics 1992 for his particle detector
Hans Bethe -- Nobel Prize in Physics in 1967
Leo Szilard -- Physicist, proved the possiblily of a nuclear chain reaction in 1933.
George WALD -- Nobel Price in Medicine for work contributing to our understanding of vision.
Albert Sabin -- Developed the improved live polio vaccine

These are but a few Jews who contributed to medicine and science. Those who despise Israel might be willing to give up their immunity to polio, their country's victory over the Axis in WW II, their immunities to other diseases--except that they would no longer be alive...Say! There's an idea!



Albert Einstein -- The most famous and influential scientist of all time
Richard Feynman -- 'The greatest scientific mind since World War II '
Gregory Pincus -- developed the first practical oral contraceptive pill
Niels Bohr -- Nobel prize-winning Physicist: atomic structure
Hans Krebs -- 1953 Nobel Prize for the insight into the fundamental metabolic pathways ('Krebs bicycle')
Carl Sagan -- astronomer and popular science author; made book and TV series 'Cosmos'
Jonas Salk -- Developed the first polio vaccine.
J. Robert Oppenheimer -- Nuclear physicist, head of the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos
Edward Teller -- Physicist, 'father of the hydrogen bomb'
Wolfgang Pauli -- discoverer of the Exclusion Principle and the neutrino
Rita Levi-Montalcini -- winner of the Nobel Prize for her work on Nerve Growth factor (with Stanley Cohen)
Emile Durkheim -- founder of modern sociology
Georges Charpak -- won the Nobel Prize in Physics 1992 for his particle detector
Hans Bethe -- Nobel Prize in Physics in 1967
Leo Szilard -- Physicist, proved the possiblily of a nuclear chain reaction in 1933.
George WALD -- Nobel Price in Medicine for work contributing to our understanding of vision.
Albert Sabin -- Developed the improved live polio vaccine

These are but a few Jews who contributed to medicine and science. Those who despise Israel might be willing to give up their immunity to polio, their country's victory over the Axis in WW II, their immunities to other diseases--except that they would no longer be alive...Say! There's an idea!



Albert Einstein -- The most famous and influential scientist of all time
Richard Feynman -- 'The greatest scientific mind since World War II '
Gregory Pincus -- developed the first practical oral contraceptive pill
Niels Bohr -- Nobel prize-winning Physicist: atomic structure
Hans Krebs -- 1953 Nobel Prize for the insight into the fundamental metabolic pathways ('Krebs bicycle')
Carl Sagan -- astronomer and popular science author; made book and TV series 'Cosmos'
Jonas Salk -- Developed the first polio vaccine.
J. Robert Oppenheimer -- Nuclear physicist, head of the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos
Edward Teller -- Physicist, 'father of the hydrogen bomb'
Wolfgang Pauli -- discoverer of the Exclusion Principle and the neutrino
Rita Levi-Montalcini -- winner of the Nobel Prize for her work on Nerve Growth factor (with Stanley Cohen)
Emile Durkheim -- founder of modern sociology
Georges Charpak -- won the Nobel Prize in Physics 1992 for his particle detector
Hans Bethe -- Nobel Prize in Physics in 1967
Leo Szilard -- Physicist, proved the possiblily of a nuclear chain reaction in 1933.
George WALD -- Nobel Price in Medicine for work contributing to our understanding of vision.
Albert Sabin -- Developed the improved live polio vaccine

"Despising Israel" and "despising Jews" are not the same thing, and perhaps even Dreyfus would have agreed had he lived to see the horrors of zionism. as for giving up vaccinations, etc., many Palestinians already do that involuntarily, another sign of how Jews' great contributions to history are undermined by Israel's great assaults upon it.

The first one he lists is Einstein - one of the biggest critics of Zionism known.

"Nationalism is an infantile sickness. It is the measles of the human race."
-- Albert Einstein

"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."

http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/writings/other/einstein.htm

How is comrade tratior jane these days? Hope she goes to far this time and gets her butt in a treason charge by the government and hung 'till dead. Her daddy must be turning over in his grave!

The "Jews" were given Isryal for a homeland by the U.N. in 1948 (or so).

Anti-American actress Jane Fonda visited Israel last week, the guest of a left-wing "peace" group called Women in Black. In Jewish World Review, Nadia Matar, who heads a right-wing group called Women in Green, describes a hilarious encounter with "Hanoi Jane" at a Jerusalem restaurant:

Fonda's fancy minibus arrives and out jumps her PR flack. She proceeds to rudely bark instructions at the journalists.

"Listen fellows, Jane Fonda is just arriving from Jordan where she got a royal treatment. You are allowed to film her but don't you dare ask her any questions. She should not feel your presence. Everybody should stay quiet and distanced and respect her privacy. And I repeat--don't talk to her, don't ask her any questions!"

But the Women in Green heckled Fonda: "Hanoi Jane! Hanoi Jane! You are an American traitor! How many Americans were killed because of you? You are an American traitor and you came to Israel as a guest of Peace Now, Israeli traitors. You constantly identify with the enemies of the Western world. Once it was in Vietnam where you identified with those who murder Americans and now you came to identify with those Arabs who murder Jews. Go home! Shame on you! Shame!"

Since Fonda wasn't answering questions, the journalists interviewed the Women in Green instead. " Part of the interview is eventually broadcast worldwide. After its airing, our group was bombarded with hundreds of e-mails from people thanking us for what we did. Among them, are folks who had loved ones killed in Vietnam and who still do not forgive Fonda."

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1202/jane_jeru.html

Jane: If I were to say to you
"Can you keep a secret?"
Would you know just what to do
Or where to keep it?
Then I say"I love you"
And foul the situation
"Hey girl I thought we were
The right combination."

Who broke my heart?
You did, you did
Bow to the target,
Blame Cupid, Cupid
You think you're smart
Stupid, Stupid.

Chorus:

Shoot that poison arrow to my heart
Shoot that poison arrow
Shoot that poison arrow to my heart
Shoot that poison arrow

No rhythm in cymbals
No tempo in drums
Love on arrival
She comes when she comes
Right on the target
But wide of the mark
What I thought was fire
Was only the spark
The sweetest melody
Is an unheard refrain
So lower your sights,
Yeah but raise your aim
Raise your aim

Who broke my heart?
You did, you did
Bow to the target
Blame Cupid, Cupid
You think you're smart
Stupid, Stupid

(chorus)

I thought you loved me but it seems you don't care
I care enough to know I can never love you

Who broke my heart
You did, You did
Bow to the target
Blame Cupid
You think you're smart
That's stupid
Right from the start
When you knew we would part

(chorus to end)

I think the vietnamese were killing American occupiers.The Americans were killing innocent civilians at Mylai. That included children.

The "mike" above is not me. It is Imposter mike. Imposter mike can fly a kite.

JANE FONDA IS AN INSPIRATION, PRIMARILY BECAUSE SHE DOES NOT TAKE SIDES.

Actress Jane Fonda accompanied Israeli troops to Beirut, witnessed the indiscriminate shelling of the western part of the city and later expressed her support for Israel, as did many of Israel's American supporters.
-Donald Neff
5. Fisk, Pity the Nation, p. 395. Also see Chomsky, The Fateful Triangle, pp. 267-68.

http://www.ummah.net/unity/sabra/background/responsiblity.html

If a celebrity says something, it has to be true!

I've read quite a lot about Jane Fonda, including the "Hanoi Jane" articles. I don't know what her exact beliefs are, but it appears that she is against killing people. That seems to be a crime in many people's eyes. It isn't in mine.

So for that reason, I say, whatever she can do or say to prevent more killing is fine with me. I honestly don't believe she can do this, as "public opinion" doesn't seem to count in our "democratic" societies anymore. But I don't believe she needs to be villified.

FACTS:

"Palestinians" were Muslims, Christians AND Jews.

"Palestinians" were not just arabs.

80% of the land became Jordan. Which banned jews.

The "Palestinian" Jews formed Israel, and called themselves Israelis.

The "all or nothing" mentality of the current "Palestinians" is why they have nothing. THeir decades of terrorism, they decades of insisting that israel must be destroyed, Arafat's horrible "leadership" and other "ALL OR NOTHING" things are why palestinians don't have their own state.

Arabs controlled the west bank, gaza and east jerusalem from 1948 to 1967, and they CHOSE not to form a state, instead CHOOSING to just hit israel with constant terrorism.

Israel won that land in war in 1967, and might have given some of it to the palestinians for a palestinian state, but from 1967 to the 1990's their charter called for israel's destruction.

Furthermore, it's important to note that the PLO, Palestinian "Liberation" organization, formed in 1964, when tehre was nothing to "liberate" other than Israel. PONDER THIS FACT. PLO formed in 1964 at a time when arabs had FULL CONTROL of the west bank, gaza strip and east jerusalem. Yet they were led by a "LIBERATION" organization. THeir goal was to kill offf the jews and get rid of israel. Removing israel was their PUBLIC GOAL until all the way up to the early 1990's. ANd you wonder why Israel's occupation has lasted all this time?

These are all factual statements. Twist away, but if you intentionally avoid the facts it's your own fault.

that reminds me of another time when they were given the land of the canaaites by God. History does repeat itself.

Arab aka palestinian occupation of Israel