It is good to know that not all Jews support the positions nearly uniformly taken by the Israel right or wrong crowd. Aaside from the nimn.org another good site that deviates from the neocon-conservative Jewish consensus in tikkun.org. *************** CHICAGO, March 27, 2004—The assassination of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin by the Israeli government is a crime against the Palestinians and the Israelis. The Israeli government has dragged many of its citizens unwillingly into a war to defend illegal settlements whose strategy includes unlawful extra-judicial executions. Ariel Sharon, and the criminals with whom this offense was planned and carried out, need to face the judgment of international courts. Such violence has a political strategy behind it that started long ago. For decades, Israel has attempted to weaken and divide Palestinian national movement. When Sharon was defense minister, Israel attacked the PLO in Lebanon, murdering tens of thousands of Palestinians and Lebanese civilians. Israel's strategy was to destroy the only legitimate representative of the Palestinian people so that it could claim that it had no one with whom to negotiate. Still the PLO retained its influence among Palestinians; Israeli generals then aided Hamas in order to undermine this popularity. When the Intifada erupted in response to Israel's construction of illegal settlements on Palestinian land during the Oslo peace process, Israel attacked the institutions of the Palestinian Authority. This occurred though the PA had recognized Israel in the Oslo agreement and Palestinian security forces worked closely with the Israeli army to defend the settlements from attack. In the spring of 2002, Israel destroyed much of the physical infrastructure of the PA, ensuring that it could not satisfy the material needs of its people. This devastation meant that more Palestinians turned to Hamas for social services. Palestinian support for Hamas grew. This popularity made Sheikh Yassin, Hamas' founder, an extremely influential leader; as the spiritual leader of Hamas, he was able to instill discipline within its growing ranks. Other Palestinian leaders were able to persuade him to call for cease-fires, which this discipline was able to obtain. Israel’s leaders hope that in Yassin’s absence, the Palestinians will no longer be able to count on Hamas to observe a ceasefire. Time after time, the Israeli military has provoked Hamas by assassinating its leadership; Hamas was forced to end its cease-fires, at least two of which had lasted for 8 weeks. During one action (July 22, 2002), Israel murdered 14 women and children sleeping in a Gaza building to prevent a cease-fire, brokered by the European Union, from being announced and taking effect. As Israel has assassinated Palestinian leaders these past three years, their groups have splintered into decentralized factions led by militant leaders who lack political experience and diplomatic skills. A new leadership may arise that is less amenable to ceasefires. Sharon has now handed the most militant sectors of Hamas absolute veto power over the diplomatic process. Israelis can anticipate constant attacks without any hope for a negotiated settlement to the conflict. With Israelis under attack, Sharon will have an excuse to carry forth his brutal military operations within the Occupied Territories, where he plans to kill, imprison, and expel as many Palestinians as possible. The Yassin assassination it is not Sharon’s first war crime. He commanded Israeli Unit 101, which massacred 150 inhabitants of Qibya, a Palestinian village, in 1953. His complicity in the massacres of 2000 Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon caused the Israeli Supreme Court to rule that he should never again be allowed to serve as Israel’s Minister of Defense. Not In My Name condemns this assassination as a war crime. We know that the result will be a river of blood, even greater inter-communal hatred, and even less chance for peace. We believe that the Palestinians and Israeli deserve a chance to live in peace. Not In My Name (NIMN) is a predominantly Jewish group that was founded in November 2000 to organize Jewish opposition to the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. We support any process that creates the conditions that can lead to a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. We have categorically and consistently condemned all attacks on innocent civilians, be they Israeli or Palestinian. Such crimes are both immoral and obstacles to peace. We are committed to idea that that the future of both people is inexorably linked. However, we have no illusions as to the imbalance in the relation of forces and the overwhelming suffering of the entire Palestinian population. Israel is the occupying military power and the Palestinians are the ones who are being oppressed by a brutal military power within their own historic homeland. Because we recognize that none of this would be possible without the military aid presented to the Israeli government by the U.S., we call for an immediate suspension of this aid until the Occupation ends. It should come as no surprise if there are people who, in their frustration, haste, and outrage, identify each and every Jew with the policies and crimes of the Israeli government. But let it be known: These do not represent the values of every Jew in the world, or of every Jew in Israel, or of every Jew in Chicago. And they are certainly not the values of the Jews in Not In My Name. from nimn.org
I can't believe the amount of extremes you guys are going to prove that this great young lady actually did wrong. WOW. she was protesting the house from being torn down because it was the house of a doctors who took care of most patients in the city. NO she didnt throw herself in front of the bulldozer, no idiot would do that. You have to be pretty stonehearted to belive that. She was just an AMERICAN child that wanted the right thing to be done, and ISRAEL F'ed up. Nothing doing. They ran over her, and then backed up to finish the job. THen no ambulance or medecs helped her either. Wow hospitality my ass. Isn't there some sort of humanity they couldve shown. the girl freaking marked herself with orange to show that she was a peaceful protester. NO GUNs, just a megaphone. Yep she was a threat to ISRAEL
Yes but if you read the fine print...he was saying that it isn't "peaceful"...not peacful See the difference: "peaceful" vs. peaceful The quotation marks really do make a difference.
Technically, the majority of the people of "Palestine" are of a distinct culture, just not "Palestinian". Palestine was culturally part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, who's King was Prince Faysal as depicted in the film "Laurence of Arabia" which is one of the 5 or 10 greatest movies of all time. The state was carved out because these peoples alligned themselves with the British in WWI against the Ottoman Empire. Of course, this brings up an important point: After the creation of an Israeli state, and well after the period in which both sides were guilty of acts of terrorism, the first true military state-to-state conflict was started by the Jordanians, the United Arab Republic (Egypt), and Syria. This war was started less than 24 hours after the formal creation of the state, simply because the rulers of these 3 countries didn't like the Jewish state, and thought they could wipe them out easily. Ultimately, one has to lay much of the blame for the state of the Palestinians at the feet of these three. While the Jordanians, and (at least officially) the Egyptians have grown up, one only has to look at the recent Arab League meeting, where Saudi Arabia wanted to renew the offer to ensure Israel's security in exchange for a Palestinian State, which was struck down violently by the Syrians.
In other words, they are Arabs who speak Arabic, practice Islam and already have a homeland......Jordan. So why is it that they keep demanding that a "Palestinian" state be carved out of tiny Israel? Why not give them some land in Jordan?
We live in a land where the majority speak English, are Protestant, and are of Eropean decent. There is already a homeland for people like that, England. Why don't we go back and turn our country over to the American Indians, and Mexico? Your logic doesn't work.
But you didn't answer my question- why is it that tiny Israel is always called upon by the "international community" to give up its land when it is only eight miles wide in some places? The reason you won't answer that question because it is simple- this has nothing to do with a "Palestinian" state. It has been a dodge for simply wiping out Israel. Gobbling up land chunks at a time to give to people who don't belong there will do it eventually.
Israel is not called on to give up it's land. It's called upon to follow the fourth geneva convention in regard to occupied territories. It's called up to halt the apartheid like reign it enforces. If you feel your question hasn't been answered it's because the question is grounded in faulty logic. I don't believe the international community would stand for Israel to be gobbled up. It actually does have to do with a Palestinian State. The international community was able to cite both sides with wrong doing when the Jenin 'massacre' was investigated. The problem is that both sides are run by leaders who aren't willing to do what it will take to bring about a mostly peaceful co-existance at the moment.
If they are going to create a "Palestinian" state out of the "occupied" territories seized by much Israeli sacrifice in a war forced on them by their Arab neighbors, that is asking them to trade that land for "peace." The international community hates Israel. Franchise2001 had a great post about the amount of hatred for Israel in the world.
The wars were going on before Israel was formed. Prior to 1948 Zionists already occupied villages outside of the what would be the Israeli boundry. IT wasn't like they kept within the agreed upon borders were all of a sudden attacked. But there is some truth to what you say. There are some who hate the idea of Israel. There are some Israelis including some in government that hate the idea of having any Palestinian homeland, or Palestinians in Israel. I don't hate the idea of Israel at all, and think they should be defended against terrorism. But I do hate their bigoted policies, and apartheid like form of rule.
FB, Dont sweat it or waste your time. You present the facts, prove it right, prove him wrong, and then dare him to answer a question, and he nitpicks on a small spelling error. Thats Bamaslammer for you. With all things going against him, he will be hell bent with one stupid theory that just because its the only jewish thing in the middle east Israel should remain all powerful. And because they are all Muslims the Arab countries should give land up. WHY? Land was never taken from them why should they give up their land to help situate people that were kicked out of their own country. WHO GIVES A CRAP IF THEY DONT HAVE A CULTURE. They lived there its theirs. They dont have to be a culture to be a country. Name a specific INDIAN Culture, I dare you. Its a mixture of what used to be tons of em and still is. Come on BAMA, With your way of thinking India shouldnt be a country either, well then neither should America, because AMERICAN isnt really a culture. There is no religion that defines them, or culture now is there. Your argument is pathetic and has no base...
Generally, I think if you look at the 1948 map from the U.N. mandate, it's pretty unworkable, even for two groups that get allong well. It kind of looks like some of the redistricting plans around here... I think that one of the biggest problems that gets overlooked is the ineptitude of British colonial rule. They pretty much screwed this up like they screwed up India, and quite a bit of Africa. The British originally promised a whole bunch more land including most of Jordan, but they ignored this when it was politically expedient. Also, keep in mind that some of what was going on in the shuffling of lands involved the fact that there was a huge void left by the implosion of the Ottoman Empire. Also, the terrorism and violence between the Jews and the Arabs was definately 50/50 in the pre-mandate period. To single out either side is simply making the facts fit your story.
I think that "bigoted" policy and "apartheid" type rule comes from the fact "Palestinians" like to explode themselves amongst Israeli citizens. It would be foolhardy to not crack down on the entire population when you never know who will be the next coward with a bomb strapped to his chest.
Some of it does, but the worst of it doesn't. What I'm talking about specifically is the fact that Palestinians aren't allowed to drill new wells for water. They are charged a higher price for water they do use, and receive a far smaller water allottment. A Palestinian farmer must irrigate, bathe, drink, and cook, with the amount of water an Israeli settler is allowed to use just for drinking each year. That has zero to do with terrorism. Giving people water, and allowing them to dig new wells or at least dig deeper into old wells in no way makes terrorism a worse threat. The fact that these lawas are based solely on nationality is why I say they are bigoted. It's apartheid like because they are foreced to live in semi autonomous area, but any Palestinian business that could compete economically with an Israeli is oredered to be destroyed by military ordinance. In that fashion Israel is worse than Apartheid. Again having a viable economy certainly isn't a boon to terrorism, and might actually help decrease it.
It is also interesting to point out that until the British pulled out, the Arabs and Jews got along admirably together. I assume this was because neither group had power to abuse against the other. The problem is that when one or the other did take control, hard-liners inevitibly start advocating the prejudiced doctrine we see today from both sides.
