Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Ha'aretz editorial (Thursday): Inciting against peace advocates

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-03 10:05 PM
Original message
Ha'aretz editorial (Thursday): Inciting against peace advocates
Edited on Wed Oct-22-03 10:07 PM by Jack Rabbit
From Ha'aretz (Jerusalem)
Dated Thursday October 23

Inciting against peace advocates

From the day it became known that contacts between leftists and Labor Party MKs with senior Palestinian personages had yielded a model for a permanent agreement, the members of that group became targets of unbridled criticism from the right. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon gave the signal for the attacks, charging them with working with the enemy to undermine the government on the evening the details were hammered out in the document dubbed the Geneva Understandings. At a Bat Yam municipal election rally, Sharon said "while we are here in a difficult campaign against the terrorism, there are those who are coordinating activity with the Palestinians behind the government's back."
Since the participants in the Geneva initiative began enlisting public support for the understandings, the criticism of the propriety of the move has turned from crude attacks to genuine incitement. Some MKs are promising to make it illegal for elements outside the government to conduct any political dialogue with the other side of the conflict.
Politicians from the right, who acquired a wealth of experience inciting against the Oslo accords, whose initiators they call "criminals," are now leading the new campaign.
Minister Benny Elon from the National Union called former minister Yossi Beilin "an enemy collaborator." MK Shaul Yahalom, a senior member of the National Religious Party, made public a letter he wrote to Attorney General Elyakim Rubinstein in which Yahalom says that by proposing to the Palestinians territory now under Israeli sovereignty, the Geneva team violated Article 97 of the penal code. He made sure to note that the law specifies the death sentence or life in prison for a conviction on that article on treason . . . .
The political debate in Israel is going to turn sharper again as it becomes evident that the rightist government headed by Ariel Sharon is not moving any closer to ending the conflict and is even contributing to its worsening.

Read more.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mitchtv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-03 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. what's next Isreal Patriot Act?
sounds like here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Classical_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. There is a law against incitement in Israel
It was created as a responce to Rabin's death. Why aren't the left using it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Resistance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. The left
are thought upon these days as "retards", "nitwits", "the new anti-semites", "foolish idealists", and of course, "terrorist supporters". Such creatures obviously are lacking in credibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 07:01 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
bluesoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 07:05 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Wow
Edited on Fri Oct-24-03 07:07 AM by bluesoul
More right-wing blather from Cox and forkum. Is this a referential site for you? One would wonder, cause this is right out of the FR type "anti-american" peace activists=traitor right wing textbook...

And the drawing is very revealing. You relate to such equations Peace activist=Osama lovers/supporters? Is there something more we should know? Like your political affiliation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drdon326 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. lol
great canard....

the oldest du profession:

if you dont like the message, blame the messenger.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sesquipedalian Donating Member (117 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. anyone who thinks the US or Israel fights to "defend itself"
Edited on Fri Oct-24-03 09:53 AM by Sesquipedalian
just really isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, I don't know how else to put that. I don't care who the messenger is, if that's what they are saying they are suffering from some serious delusions.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluesoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Not really
You didn't answer my question Drdon. Do you equate peace activists with Osama lovers/supporters as the cartoon/sketch clearly does or not?

If I followed your logic, one could then post links from KKK, Aryan Nations and say it doesn't matter who the messenger is... Nice try
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluesoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. One more thing Drdon
Edited on Fri Oct-24-03 09:59 AM by bluesoul
And if you haven't noticed by now, C&F is an evident right wing anti-Muslim anti-Palestinian site that shares more with their friends LGF, FR and their likes then progressive/liberal/leftwing sites.

Why would one continuously post articles, cartoons from such sites is a mistery to me...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drdon326 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Thanks
"Do you equate peace activists with Osama lovers/supporters as the cartoon/sketch clearly does or not? "

Ilove peace activists....but Ism and its parent International ANSWER are NOT PEACE ACTIVISTS.

The author is right...where are the signs that say:

"DOWN WITH IRANIAN THEOCRACY"

"STOP THE PALESTINIAN SLAUGHTER OF JEWISH CHILDREN ON BUSES"

"DICTATORS LIE, MILLIONS DIE."

Progressives I know detest terrorist fascism with their every breath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluesoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Hmm
You haven't seen and heard progressives/liberals/ condemning terrorist acts, theocracy an women's rights in Iran or their disgust with dictators? You must live in another world then I do ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drdon326 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Oh....when asked , they say they do...sure
Next time ANSWER has a march, see how many signs speak to this.

dont strain your eyesight when you look.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drdon326 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. Bluesoul.....
this ones for you.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/50/news-corn.php

The odd and troubling origins of today’s anti-war movement
by David Corn


perhaps you want to call David corn , author of the new book
"The Lies of George Bush" a right wing thug.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluesoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. Well
No Corn is certainly not a right wing thug, far from that. I did read the whole article and I can agree there are things that do bother me. Although I still feel there is a certain extent of generalization going on as far as ANSWER and its activists are concerned nonetheless..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sesquipedalian Donating Member (117 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. it's about fixing what's wrong with you
instead of looking around for other people to blame. If the US was bankrolling the Iranians it wouldn't be any different.

I don't even know what "DICTATORS LIE, MILLIONS DIE" is talking about. Do you even know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drdon326 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Wha??
are you in some dreamworld??

Saddam hussein killed hundred of thousands , perhaps millions of his
own people.And i think anyone would call him a dictator.

Whether you are for or against the war, there really is no denying that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sesquipedalian Donating Member (117 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. someone lives in "dreamworld" alright..
Saddam Hussein killed millions of people? Do you even care if what you say has any basis in reality whatsoever?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drdon326 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. This is too damn easy
http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/27_saddam.html

"Since then, Mr. Hussein's has been a tale of terror that scholars have compared to that of Stalin, whom the Iraqi leader is said to revere, even if his own brutalities have played out on a small scale. Stalin killed 20 million of his own people, historians have concluded. Even on a proportional basis, his crimes far surpass Mr. Hussein's, but figures of a million dead Iraqis, in war and through terror, may not be far from the mark, in a country of 22 million people."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluesoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. True
Edited on Fri Oct-24-03 10:55 AM by bluesoul
That's true, but there's one problem, most of those were killed while Saddam had full support from the US (remember Rummy greeting him in Iraq, I was in Iraq at the time!) So, yes he was a brutal dictator (just as his sons were) but the US didn't find his brutality troubling when they considered him an ally against the Iranians or when the Kurds were gassed with no opposition whatsoever, mere denial...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sesquipedalian Donating Member (117 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. right..
Edited on Fri Oct-24-03 10:56 AM by Sesquipedalian
maybe I killed a million people also, I don't think so but maybe.

That's a bunch of bullshit. Apparently they want to count people who died in the Iran/Iraq war and probably Desert Storm. Bush Sr. doesn't even get to kill them, Saddam Hussein killed them with the US military apparently :eyes:

Even if you buy into this blatantly dishonest way of racking up Saddam's death count I still doubt it would be a million people much less "millions".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluesoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Mabye these are counted in the estimate
The Iran-Iraq war lasted nearly eight years, from September of 1980 until August of 1988. It ended when Iran accepted United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 598, leading to a 20 August 1988 cease-fire.
Casualty figures are highly uncertain, though estimates suggest more than one and a half million war and war-related casualties -- perhaps as many as a million people died, many more were wounded, and millions were made refugees. Iraq's victory was not without cost. The Iraqis suffered an estimated 375,000 casualties, the equivalent of 5.6 million for a population the size of the United States. Another 60,000 were taken prisoner by the Iranians. Iran's losses may have included more than 1 million people killed or maimed. The war claimed at least 300,000 Iranian lives and injured more than 500,000, out of a total population which by the war's end was nearly 60 million. Without diminishing the horror of either war, Iranian losses in the eight-year Iran-Iraq war appear modest compared with those of the European contestants in the four years of World War I, shedding some light on the limits of the Iranian tolerance for martyrdom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sesquipedalian Donating Member (117 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. of course they do
Never mind that the US was an enthusiastic backer of the Iran/Iraq war no rhetorical device no matter how ridiculous is beneath using against the enemies of Israel and the US.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drdon326 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #22
25. So basically....
there is no proof that you would believe.

no problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sesquipedalian Donating Member (117 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. go back and read your "proof" again
it admits that it's using estimates of war dead and that alone would account for a damn nice chunck of a million.

Would you seriously add soldiers killed in Bush or Sharon's wars to their body count and say they "killed" them? Christ no, you wouldn't. You wouldn't because it's a retarted idea. I wouldn't do that and I don't like them any more than Saddam Hussein.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #4
23. That's not true, Doc
Edited on Fri Oct-24-03 11:17 AM by Jack Rabbit

The protests will most likely get plenty of media coverage, so it's important to keep in mind the following: Contrary to what they proclaim, most of the protesters are not against war. They are against America waging a war of self-defense. They are against Israel waging a war of self-defense. They are against free nations waging a war against the sworn enemies of freedom. But they are not against the war that is being waged on America by militant Islamic fundamentalists.

I am and most of those who will join me in San Francisco on Saturday are in favor of the US waging a war of self-defense when all other options have been exhausted. We just haven't seen that happen in a very long time. The war in Afghanistan didn't fit the criteria simply because the other options were not exhausted. While I believe it could have come down to war, no other attempts were seriously made. It was Bush's only plan.

We've been around and around about Iraq. Let me say it one more time: The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with self-defense. Even your pal Tom Friedman calls it a "war of choice", which in my view makes it odious. Let me again say about the invasion what I said a few weeks before the first missiles were fired:

This war is not about UN resolutions or weapons of mass destruction. It is colonial piracy. This war will not make Americans safer from any external threat. It will do little to protect people in the Middle East from any threat. It will not bring democracy to Iraq. It will not benefit the Iraqi people. The only people who will benefit will be Mr. Bush's cronies.

Unlike those who supported the coming war last winter, who should be embarrassed about buying into Bush's lies to justify the war, I don't think I have to change a word of what I said. It's still colonial piracy and it still is going to benefit Halliburton and Chevron but not the Iraqi people.

As for the subject of this forum, I know very well that there are some out there who don't believe Israel should exist. I'm not one of them. I believe Israel has the right to exist within her own borders, and that those borders were defined by the 1949 armistice.

Therefore, I protest Israel's policies in the region. Unlike the US in Iraq, Israel has some legitimate business with the occupation of the Palestinian Territories. However, like the war in Iraq, the occupation has also a sinister motive hidden behind those claims of security.

There are two wars being fought between the Levantine coast and the Jordan River: in one is a conventional conflict and in that one Israel is in the right; in the other is a colonial war and in that one the Palestinians are in the right. The Israelis have a right to security and to occupy Palestine with their military until such time as a peace agreement is reached with a Palestinian government; the Palestinians have a right to a sovereign state and don't need to ask General Sharon for permission about having one. Consequently, Israel is wrong to use the territories for any purpose other than her own security. That means building settlements is wrong, as maintaining the infrastructure and security forces to support them.

The settlements can never have any positive effect on Israel's security. They are, in fact, a detriment to that security. They were built in land inhabited by three and a half million Arabs who would rather die than be either first or second class citizens of Eretz Israel and who want to use their land for their own benefit. The settlements are a target for Palestinian nationalists who see them, rightly, as an affront to their right to control their use of their land. The settlements only commit the IDF to their defense, rather than the defense of the Israeli state.

When the occupation becomes about maintaining settlements even at the expense of Israel's overall security, it is not only time for friends of the Palestinian people to protest, it is time for friends of the Israeli people to protest as well. Regarding myself as a friend of both, you better believe I will be protesting General Sharon's boneheaded actions Saturday.

You will not see signs that say "DOWN WITH IRANIAN THEOCRACY" or "STOP THE PALESTINIAN SLAUGHTER OF JEWISH CHILDREN ON BUSES" or "DICTATORS LIE, MILLIONS DIE." What you will see is the vilification of America for civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan and a total evasion of the fact that those deaths are the fault of the fascists who initiated or threatened to initiate force against us (not to mention the violence they visited upon their own people).

For may part, I say UP WITH DEMOCRACY. As a matter of fact, I believe Iranian theorcracy is inconsistant with democratic principles. I support democratic movements in Iran. I will not support any PNAC designs to colonize Iran as has been done to Iraq. That, too, is inconsistent with democratic principle.

I am also in favor of international law and I believe that war crimes should be defined and prosecuted in international courts. I believe that targeting civilians in a conflict is a crime of war. That covers bombing a bus or a cafe; it covers wedding parties, too, and makes no distinction whether the bomb was strapped to the bomber or was dropped from a B-52. It also covers refugees in camps and dropping a one-ton missile into a residential neighborhood at midnight in order to assassinate a single terrorist leader; any fool knows that is going to kill more people than Sheikh Shehada, and it did.

Finally, dictatorship is certainly against democratic principles. When somebody loses an election and seizes power, either by force of arms or electoral fraud and judicial manipulation, then that person is no legitimate leader but a dictator. As you know, the American dictator has lied and while he's got a ways to go to reach his first million killed, he's working hard at it. On the other hand, Bush is principally a thief rather than a murderer. If he could have transferred Iraq's wealth from its rightful owners, the Iraqi people, to his cronies without killing anybody, he would have gladly done so. Nevertheless, he is a fascist and he is a criminal. He is the most dangerous man in the world. And I will be out Saturday to protest his illegal occupation of the White House, as well as his illegal occupation of Iraq.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sesquipedalian Donating Member (117 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. why do you think they have a "right" to occupy?
Where in the body of international law you claim to respect was that conferred on the Israeli's?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. Israel's right to occupy the Palestine . . .
. . . is based on the 1967 war. We may disagree, but I do reagrd the war as having been fought for Israel's survival as a nation. I had no problem at the time with Israel defending herself and nothing has been put forward since to convince me that I am wrong in that judgment.

The territory was taken in the conflict and occupied by Israel for the purpose of security. The idea, as enbodied in UN Resolution 242, is to exchanged the occupied territory for peace agreements. Resolution 242 also reiterates the post-World War II convention of the sanctity of national territory. Specifically, it emphasizes "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". That Israel was in a defensive posture in 1967 is irrelevant; that gives her no right to make a permanent claim on any of the territory taken.

Now, are there elements among the Palestinians who would push Israel into the sea? Yes. Let's not kid ourselves about that. Has any Palestinian authority been effective in preventing attacks on Israel by those elements? No. Does Israel have the right of self-defense? Yes. She may occupy the Palestine (which I regard as a de facto state) for the purpose of controlling those elements.

However, that does not give Israel the right to use the land to settle her own population in the territories. That, in fact, is a war crime. The settlements are in violation of both Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and of Article 8, paragraph 2(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute. Israel has no right to either establish or maintain them.

The presence of the settlements complicates the issue of Israeli/Palestinian relations. Their presence and the support the Israeli has given to encourage their growth comes very close to being, if it is not in fact, an annexation of foreign territory. They make it very difficult for Israel to eventually withdraw from Palestine. That is just wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sesquipedalian Donating Member (117 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #26
29. what does it matter what Palestinian want or don't want
The idea that they are a threat to Israel is hillarious. It requires far more mendacity than I can muster to try and accept that they are some sort of threat that is going to "push Israel into the sea" and require military occupation to prevent this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #29
36. What is hilarious?
Edited on Fri Oct-24-03 01:13 PM by Jack Rabbit
The idea that suicide bombings are going to destroy Israel is absurd. On that, we agree.

However, the idea that Israel should roll over and allow them is equally absurd. Real people are being killed in those bombings. Those people are noncombatants. The Israeli government, regardless of whatever else it may do or for which it may stand, has a responsibility to protect her citizens within her borders.

Likewise, a Palestinian government has a responsibility to prevent renegade factions operating within Palestine from usurping its authority to make war against Israel. I think we can agree that the PA has failed to do this, either by accident or design. Consequently, Israel has the right to take matters into her own hands.

Now, do I believe that General Sharon and his ministers have another agenda and are using the situation to advance it? Yes. Do I think that's just? No. Will I protest the cynical use of Israel's legitimate security concerns to advance an illegitimate colonial agenda? You bet. See you tomorrow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. On The Narrow Question Of International A.N.S.W.E.R., Old Friend
My sentiments lay alongside our good Doctor's, and whoever it is he has cited above.

That particular clique is no more interested in democracy than in peace: they style themselves as revolutionist on the "vanguard party" model, and will accordingly ally themselves with the likes of Butcher Slobo, on the ground he is "Socialist", or with even the reactionary theocrats of Al-Queda, on the ground these are 'Anti-Colonialist". Agitation for peace, to these Neo-Bolshevik sectarians, is merely a means to advance the victory of revolutionary war as they conceive it.

This is certainly not the view of the great mass of demonstrators, even at demonstrations that this clique organizes, for their numbers are vanishingly small, merely industrious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluesoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Anti war
That is also the thing that has troubled me for quite some time (even before the current Iraqi war all back to the middle of the 90's). Why did certain anti-war activists or media (such as Justin Raimondo of antiwar.com) defend Milosevic (one way or the other) of all people. I mean I could understand their stance regarding the bombing of Yugoslavia (where many civilian targets where hit and many civilians died) but it went well beyond that. Or people like the North Korean leader. There are some people I will never understand...:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. My answer (no pun intended) to that
I am not concerned for what ANSWER really stands. I am using them. They are providing me with an outlet for expressing my views on the current situation.

What ANSWER has done that can be appreciated even by those who disagree is to plan the protests and plan them well. I have attended several large demonstrations this winter that have passed without major incidnet.

I thought the cartoon and the sentiments in the accompanying narrative were odious. It was an attempt to place all who would protest the war into one neat little package and tar us as terrorist sympathizers. I resent that and I believe the overwhelming majority of those who will march tomorrow rightly do as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluesoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. RW BS
Fox and Corkum is hardly to be taken as credible. It's a clearly biased site where anything to do with the peace movement and progressive ideas is put into the same context. Right wing diatribe...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drdon326 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Whoa....
"I am not concerned for what ANSWER really stands. I am using them."

The better question is are they using you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drdon326 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. BTW....
I think you have a good point when you say:

"It was an attempt to place all who would protest the war into one neat little package and tar us as terrorist sympathizers. I resent that and I believe the overwhelming majority of those who will march tomorrow rightly do as well."


My thought is they were referring to the organizers of the event.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. Response to posts 34 and 35
When the news is reported Saturday night, if it is reported honestly, it will be that thousands protested the US occupation of Iraq. It will not be that thousands protested the US right to self-defense.

So, I am using ANSWER, as are most of those who will march; it is not the other way around.

No, I didn't think Cox and Forkum were merely objecting to the event organizers. I read their cartoon as a slander on all who participate in demonstations against Bush's colonialism and dissent from it in any way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. Well Said, Mr. Rabbit
The question of use turns both ways.

The sectarians do provide some organizing energy that otherwise might be absent, and for all the crowd that gathers, remain obscure and largely unsupported, whatever their little newspapers might proclaim for cossetting of the tiny band of the faithful.

If it was not clear, my objection is purely to this Neo-Bolshevik band, and not in any way to the great number of folks, like yourself, who turn out to these demonstrations. It is, indeed, a large portion of my point that these do not, by and large, agree with the views of these "organizers", although these can, in a propagandist's pinch, be used to slur the entire crowd. It would seem better if some other organizing body could be contrived to supplant them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. Thank you, Sir
Let's face it, You're either with us or against us is nonsense, no matter who says it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thebigidea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #30
40. I trust you have some links to show how ANSWER are allied w/ Al-Qaeda?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drdon326 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #23
28. As usual....
you have written an intelligent,heartfelt, and well thought
out post.

And I understand your sincerity.

My only problem is who runs these protests and they often are thinly
if not overtly anti-semitic diatribes .

If these are real progressives, please see if you see signs that say:

"DESTROY FASCISM"

"DOWN WITH IRANIAN THEOCRACY"

"STOP THE PALESTINIAN SLAUGHTER OF JEWISH CHILDREN ON BUSES"

"DICTATORS LIE, MILLIONS DIE."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-25-03 06:43 AM
Response to Reply #28
41. About those signs...
They aren't shown because they are almost universally agreed with. You see very few people anywhere who agree with suicide bombings. Almost no one believes in fascism or theocracy.

Signs are meant to be controversial. Those wouldn't be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC