Abbas calls Israel 'the Zionist enemy'

[drdon326]

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/522852.html

Leading Palestinian chairmanship candidate Mahmoud Abbas on Tuesday called Israel the "Zionist enemy," a marked escalation in his campaign rhetoric.

Abbas spoke to thousands of supporters after seven Palestinians were killed by an Israeli tank shell earlier in the day in the northern Gaza town of Beit Lahiya.

"We came to you today, while we are praying for the souls of the martyrs who were killed today by the shells of the Zionist enemy in Beit Lahiya," Abbas said during a campaign stop in the town of Khan Yunis in southern Gaza.

snip

"They are freedom fighters ... and should live a dignified and safe life," said Abbas, whose call for an end to violence has been rejected by militants whose support he is courting in the election.

==================================================================
Calls israel that "ZIONIST ENEMY" and calls terrorists "FREEDOM-FIGHTERS"

HOLD ON...Let me guess....

damned stupid
misguided thing
not helpful

How about terror loving lying weasel?

[mdhunter]

1. Pulling a Bush and tacking to the right in the run up to the election?

Even in the absence of another major candidate, appearing more extreme might play well.

I'd also argue that, though he may stated elsewhere that Israel itself is the Zionist enemy, that isn't what he said yesterday. He said those that did the killing were the enemey - and that does not, by necessity, translate into the entire Israeli state or the entirety of people therein. And that's a big difference, one that we would all do well not to obscure.

Let me further offer that all who resist by force occupation are freedom fighters, and that terrorism is a tactic available for their, and any other's, use. So, the use of freedom fighter doesn't bother me - if it happens that the people to whom he is referring engaged in terrorism, something about which I have no information, then I would object to Abbas's leaving out the term terrorist as well, but not his calling them freedom fighters.

[drdon326]

3. Let me "offer"...

that calling terrorists who murder m,w and children "FREEDOM-FIGHTERS" is a LOAD OF BULLSHIT.



ED NOTE--attacking the post,not the poster.

[sabbat hunter]

13. freedom fighter vs terrorist

yes if you resist by force occupation you COULD be a freedom fighter. but if you use terrorist tactics then you are no longer a freedom fighter but a terrorist.

(terrorist tactics means you blow up civilians using suicide bombs etc)

terror is NOT an acceptable tactic

david

[mdhunter]

16. I don't think terrorism is an acceptable tactic either

That point notwithstanding, "freedom fighter" is, for me, a value neutral term. There can be evil ones along with good ones, the same as anything else. That's why Abbas's calling them freedom fighters doesn't bother me. The have no real organized military forces, and surely not everyone who fights for free Palestine supports the murder of innocents. For all I know, this incident today was sparked by a mortar aimed at an Israeli tank that happened to be too close to a bus, regretfully injuring 6. That seems to be the logic of the Israeli side, there was a mortar around, who knows what else, and we fired on it - we regret that any civilians died.

If that actually were the case, there is, no doubt, still a question of whether the military capacity of Israel is a legitimate target. Now, I support Palestinian statehood, and I would not be firing mortars at civilians or tanks, but, I can see the argument for the latter. Though we may do so reluctantly, for sure, I think resorting to the most optimistic, yet least common denominator "freedom fighter" is appropriate when describe anyone that fights against occupation. But, again, I do also think it is a lie of omission to neglect the label terrorist when, in fact, terrorist acts have occurred.

Perhaps the most interesting, and depressing, thing, is that it's difficult, but not impossible, to fault Abbas for not calling any of them terrorists, even when they are. He doesn't approve of all their tactics, I think, but he certainly approves of their aims - the possession of at least pre-1967 land. And leader, from the Middle East to here in the U.S. never seriously condemn atrocities done when those atrocities advance their goals. Slaps on the wrists abound, from sea to shining to sea, but morals and true embrace of peace are, lamentably, scarce.

[King Mongo]

54. Is "terrorism" self-defense?

Given that anyone who has nuclear bombs will use then to defend themselves, what is "terrorism"? Is "terrorism" self-defense as explained by the Jewish Virtual Library?

Jewish Defense Organizations
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deftoc.html

[QueerJustice]

25. so killing kids in a disco....

....is an acceptable method of a ``freedom fighter?

NOT

[el_gato]

2. you call terrorist anybody who doesn't support isreali expansion

so your use of terms is not really valid

[The Magistrate]

4. Nonesense, Mr. Gato

Mr. Abbas has indeed refered to people who deliberately plan and see to the execution of military actions with no other purpose than the killing of civilians in the terms the good Doctor suggests. Such persons are war criminals, and ought to be recognized as such, regardless of what side in this matter one supports. It hardly helps the cause of Arab Palestine for crimes of war to be committed in its name.

[el_gato]

11. what is nonsense, you did not even disagree with me

[Violet_Crumble]

30. Nothing nonsensical about it...

Especially the comment about the 'good' doctor labelling a terrorist anyone who supports the cause of the Palestinian people...

As for this: 'Mr. Abbas has indeed refered to people who deliberately plan and see to the execution of military actions with no other purpose than the killing of civilians in the terms the good Doctor suggests.' Abbas referred to the Al Aqsa Brigade. I asked this before, but is their sole purpose to carry out attacks on civilians in Israel? Is that the only form of resistance they carry out?

Violet...

[The Magistrate]

31. Such Actions, Ma'am

Have accounted for the bulk of their operations over the last several years.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. You said they have no other purpose...

Is that true or not?

Violet...

[Cassandra]

135. You're nit-picking.

[Violet_Crumble]

144. No I'm not...

..but thanks for playing! :)

Violet...

[The Magistrate]

5. Your Italicized Collection, Doctor

Gets a two out of three. "Misguided" would seem innapropriate, as it is clear enough Mr. Abbas knows what he is doing, and has concluded such statements will be of assistance to him politically in the short term among the people of Arab Palestine.

It remains to be seen what the fellow will actually do, of course: he may live up to his recent rhetoric, or rather down to it, or he may then tack in a more useful direction once the vote is under his belt. It is unlikely you will see anu candidate for leadership of the Palestine Authority campaigning in a manner you would find wholly acceptable, after all, at least not one with any chance of gaining a majority of the votes.

[drdon326]

6. You missed the big picture....

you may very well be correct....

It is unlikely you will see anu candidate for leadership of the Palestine Authority campaigning in a manner you would find wholly acceptable, after all, at least not one with any chance of gaining a majority of the votes.

And what does that say about the society he is pandering to??

A society that wants to hear him calling israel "that zionist enemy"
and calling its murderers "freedom fighters"?

[The Magistrate]

7. It Says To Me, Doctor

That that society is at war, and moved by the passions natural to such a state....

[drdon326]

8. Not to me....

perhaps a society that doesnt want peace.

[King Mongo]

66. allowed to have peace

perhaps a society is not allowed to have peace since it lives in the so-called holy land? Peace means division to some and division for some is unacceptable.

[The Magistrate]

69. As Your Grace Is Well Aware

When differences in human desire between societies and peoples are held to be absolutely irreconcilable, the matter has traditionally been arbitrated by force, and that group with the greatest might establishes whatever it feels to be right. It would be a shame if this matter persists to that final point, but there is no question which side can impose its will by might on the other, and whi h cannot. Therefire, it would seem to me that te party that has no hope of success through force would be well advised to seek the best deal it can get, and sooner rather than later. It is clear from the whole history of this matter that the longer doing so is postponed, the worse will be the best deal that that side can get.

[King Mongo]

73. Reservations in Greater Israel

Yes, this is why the Geneva Accords should be the focus, encouraging both sides to accept a rather logical and fair agreement between both sides. If the PA and the Likud government can agree on the Geneva Accords, then they can slowly convince others to support their views.

If, however, something along the lines of the Geneva accords is not persued, the greater power will be forced to racially cleanse the weaker power from the land that they want to have. It's really up to the UN if the racial of the future will or will not be tolerated. The PA simply doesn't have the ability to convince Palestinians to accept reservations inside of greater Israel.

[The Magistrate]

76. That, Your Grace, Is Something Neither Of Us Wishes To See

But we may well see it, if the losing side in this war does not see reason soon enough....

[King Mongo]

78. Yes, this is the future

Yes, I see this as the future. Isreal will remove the Palestinians from their homeland since Palestinians don't know how to remove the illegal settlements and thus see their removal as the only future possibility.

[JunkYardDogg]

9. At least Abba Dabba Do didn't call them "Evil Doers"

Abbas also has made some conciliatory statements regarding
the futility of the Palestinian terror tactics.
I would say that the "Zionist Enemy" statement is just political woofing to throw the masses a bone.
I think that this guy understands the situation-
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that their current infitada
is a disaster
And look back to what started it- Sharon visiting a religious
site.
I wonder what's going to happen when Bush walks on water?

[sabbat hunter]

15. a bit revisionist

the intifada (sp) started BEFORE sharon visited the temple mount. which by the way he asked for and received permission from Arafat to do so. (he didnt have to ask, it is his right and anybody elses to do so. he was being courteous)

granted having his bodyguards along inflamed matters, but it was not the cause.

the intifada started because arafat was a coward and didnt want to negotiate anymore. if arafat wasnt behind the intifada, it would have never started.


david

[Violet_Crumble]

32. Now, that was nonsense....

The Intifada did not start before Sharon carried out his visit to the Temple Mount. 28th Sept 2000 was the date of Sharon's visit to the temple mount and the Intifada started on the same date...

He did NOT recieve permission from Arafat to do so, and the idea that he even bothered asking is ludicrous...

Sharon generally goes everywhere with over 1,000 bodyguards??

Here's some relevant portions from the Mitchell Report. There's also a hell of a lot of factual material out there on the same subject. You really should try reading some of it as it's very interesting stuff...

About Sharon being granted permission by Arafat for his visit:

In late September 2000, Israeli, Palestinian, and other officials received reports that Member of the Knesset (now Prime Minister) Ariel Sharon was planning a visit to the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Palestinian and U.S. officials urged then Prime Minister Ehud Barak to prohibit the visit.3 Mr. Barak told us that he believed the visit was intended to be an internal political act directed against him by a political opponent, and he declined to prohibit it.

At a stretch it could be claimed that Barak gave permission, but even that wouldn't be correct unless someone could show that Sharon even bothered to ask Barak's permission. The closest it could come is that Barak didn't prohibit the visit...

And some stuff about claims that the PA deliberately planned the Intifada:

Accordingly, we have no basis on which to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the PA to initiate a campaign of violence at the first opportunity; or to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the GOI to respond with lethal force.

However, there is also no evidence on which to conclude that the PA made a consistent effort to contain the demonstrations and control the violence once it began; or that the GOI made a consistent effort to use non-lethal means to control demonstrations of unarmed Palestinians. Amid rising anger, fear, and mistrust, each side assumed the worst about the other and acted accordingly.

The Sharon visit did not cause the "Al-Aqsa Intifada." But it was poorly timed and the provocative effect should have been foreseen; indeed it was foreseen by those who urged that the visit be prohibited. More significant were the events that followed: the decision of the Israeli police on September 29 to use lethal means against the Palestinian demonstrators; and the subsequent failure, as noted above, of either party to exercise restraint.

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rpt/3060.htm

Violet...

[sabbat hunter]

39. timeline of violence

timeline from http://www.jewishlouisville.org/news/sharon.shtml

now whether this is considered a legit news source i dont know, but i will try to confirm it with a better one. but note the dates please.

September, 2000
* Netzarim Junction, Gaza - There is a sharp increase in violent attacks by Palestinians against Israeli security forces and civilians.

* During the early part of the week of September 25, the head of the Palestinian Preventive Security ServiceJibril Rajub was contacted to make arrangements for Sharon to visit the Temple Mount. Rajub said the visit "would pose no problem" as long as Sharon did not enter the mosques and under those circumstances "there was no reason for concern."

Wednesday, September 27, 2000
* Netzarim Junction, Gaza - An Israeli soldier was killed and two others wounded by a roadside bomb.

Thursday, September 28, 2000
* Temple Mount, Jerusalem - At 7:30 a.m., Israeli Knesset Member Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount with a six member Likud Knesset delegation. Responding to intelligence reports, the group was escorted by 1,000 police officers. Sharon did not enter the mosques.


do you think that arafat was not aware of his visit in advance.
yes i was wrong i saying he got arafats permission, but he got arafats tactcial approval when the PPSS head was made aware and said it would be no problem.

sharon was completely wrong in the size of his security force.

david

[Violet_Crumble]

41. Are you The Poster Formerly Known As...

...Hippiewannabe? It just dawned on me. If you are him, hi :hi:

On the start of the Intifada - I don't really rely on news sources for when it started. I go on what it says in the books I've been reading. Of course there was increasing violence (and not confined to just the Palestinians) leading up to the Intifada, but every reputable source I've read places it as starting on the 28th. Sharon's visit to the temple mount was definitely not the visit of an individual for personal purposes, but that of a politician trying to stir up trouble. Barak disregarded the effect it would have on the Palestinians and saw it as an attempt to stir up trouble for himself. So anyone who wants to try to say that Sharon's visit was a 'simple visit' is way off course...

Of course Arafat was aware of Sharon's intended visit in advance. He asked Barak to prohibit the visit. Marwan Barghouti was busting to make sure that Oslo was finally dead and buried for good by responding to provocation by someone else who wanted Oslo dead and buried with violence. It's exactly what Sharon wanted, and Barghouti played right into his hands with that one...

I haven't heard before of any Palestinian security head saying it'd be no problem for Sharon and his huge entourage to visit the Temple Mount. Doesn't mean I think it couldn't have happened, but I'd be the first to say that particular person would have to be close to earning the award for one of the stupidest people of all time...

Violet...

[sabbat hunter]

61. formerly known as

hippiewannabe thats me :P

hi hi hi back :)

problem with books is that they could be revisionist. i try to use both news sources from the time AND books.

also remember sharon was accompanied to the temple mount by members of the knesset including Arab-israelies.

sharon had a right to visit the temple mount, but he made a huge mistake in bringing such a large force of armed guards with him.

i believe the intifada started before sharons visit, but by bringing such a force with him, he exasperated the situation. plus i dont think arafat had any intention in stopping it early on while he still could have. probably was instigating/leading it from behind the scenes.


david

[Englander]

57. "Hello,& goodbye...."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x78353

If you're "sabbat hunter",then who is "hippiewannabe"??

[sabbat hunter]

62. i changed

my user name a couple months ago when we were allowed to do it.

so yes hippiewannabe=sabbat hunter= me :P


david

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[drdon326]

58. GOOD POST!!

Or is it a Prime example of Religious Intolerance espoused by a culture whose acculturation process and value system is a from birth
indoctrination of violence, hate, and killing of civilians.
Violence and Killing is the only thing Palestinians are taught, from birth, to do. There is no culture of social order and social, political, and economic improvement. Jordan won't let Palestinians in. Look what they did to Lebanon when they went there. Lebanon was the most advanced, non-oil dependant, Western Economic Based stable country in the Mid East, until the Palestinians decided to use it as a military base of war.


funny how its ok for you to call it a culture of murder and death...and no one says a thing.



Gee, cant imagine why Jordan wouldnt part of that fun.

[King Mongo]

70. GOOD POST!!

No, Palestians are not taught only violence and killing. some Israelis are improperly taught, however, that Palestinians are taught only violence and killing.

In my opinion, the best way for Palestinians to experience love is for the occupation to be replaced with independence.

[QueerJustice]

26. a simple visit to a religious site...

sparked a murderous barbaric killing spree?

[Violet_Crumble]

34. Read post #32

If anyone can twist what Sharon did into a 'simple visit' shows they either have no knowledge of the events or are in complete denial that Sharon would ever do something incredibly inflammatory because he's The Man'o'Peace!

Violet...

[QueerJustice]

42. I have a GREAT knowledge...

and disagree.....

....it was is and continues to be JUST an excuse....Arafats excuse....

[Violet_Crumble]

45. A GREAT knowledge of what exactly?

It doesn't appear to be of Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, nor of the causes of the Intifada. If there was GREAT knowledge involved, I'd be thinking it'd be pretty easy to impart the knowledge of how a politician who with his Likud minions and over 1,000 police carrying out a POLITICAL STUNT intended to try to harm Barak's image and also put an end to any hopes of reigniting Oslo can be seen as a 'simple visit'. So, with all this GREAT knowledge, why aren't you explaining all this? Or is a monotonous blaming of Arafat for everything pass as GREAT knowledge in some quarters?

Violet...

[Forkboy]

49. a great knowledge of thousands of attacks daily?

color me suspicious of those who proclaim a possession of great knowledge.

[bemildred]

10. Isn't this a no brainer?

Israel certainly is "zionist" I would think, and from the point
of view of the Palestinians, it is also the "enemy". Do you fight
with your friends and allies, or is there not supposed to be a war
on, or what?

[Annus Horribilis]

12. Ahhh, The "Moderate" Candidate

Right? Let's hope he's just doing this to get votes.

[drdon326]

14. So....we add to our list once again ....

abbas states that :


1.terrorists that kill innocents are NOT murderers

2.terrorists that kill innocents are NOT criminals

3.terrorists that kill innocents are "HONORABLE"

4.terrorists that kill innocents need to be protected so they can continue killing innocent people.

5.Israel is the "zionist enemy"

6.Terrorists that kill innocents are "freedom fighters"


Could "descendants of pigs and monkeys " be far behind?

OHHHH...THATS RIGHT...'Its just talk.'..'campaigning'...
'doent mean anything'....'wait to see what happens..'


NOT ME...NO WAY.
I'VE SEEN THIS MOVIE.

[ashiebr]

17. What's the issue?

Israel has just lobbed a tank shell against Palestinians. Of course they are "The enemy".

And of course Freedom Fighters occasionally use terrorist tactics. Modern terrorism was started by the Zionists who blew up the King David Hotel with a great loss of innocent civilian life.

Or were they just another bunch of dishonourable, criminal murderers. Were they offered up for trial by the Brits? Or were they protected so they could continue their killing?

[The Magistrate]

20. That Is A Nonsensical Statement, Sir

The King David Hotel was the headquarters of the occupying military administration; it was a perfectly legitimate target.

The idea that murder of civilians for political purposes is a "Zionist" invention is beyond nonsense; it is a pernicious lie....

[drdon326]

21. Oh....btw,ashiebr...

per·ni·cious adj. 1. a. Tending to cause death or serious injury; deadly: a pernicious virus. b. Causing great harm; destructive: pernicious rumors. 2. Archaic. Evil; wicked. –per·nicious·ly adv. –per·nicious·ness n.

[ashiebr]

22. I see.....

....so innocents killed in a terrorist action against an alleged military target are just unfortunate then, are they?

I find such an argument to be pernicious.

[The Magistrate]

28. You Are Not Really Very Good At This, Are You, Sir?

The laws of war require that the direct military advantage gained by an attack on a military target be sufficiently great as to outweigh harm done to non-combatants incidental to that attack. An attack on a military admionistrative headquarters brings great direct benefit; it would be foolish to argue otherwise.

You will have a damned hard time attempting to provide cases where attacks by the various Arab Palestinian militias have been aimed at military targets and, in their execution, have involved unavoidably civilian casualties. Where military personnel are assailed, the attacks are generall small scale and well aimed; attacks aimed at killing Israeli civilians, which are frequent, similarly accomplish their object. The difference is that the former are wholly legal, and the latter wholly criminal.

[ashiebr]

59. It is fortunate that I don't have to be......

....then isn't it.

Firstly, the Zionist were not "at war" with the Mandated power. It was a terrorist insurgency. Secondly, out of 91 people killed, only 28 were British. Is less than a third sufficient to outweigh harm done to non-combatants?

This was a brutal, criminal act of terrorism. Indeed the first modern act of terrorism. Even the Jewish National Council condemned the attack. The rest of the world has reaped what the Zionist terrorists sowed.

Unlike you, I seem to be able to spot terrorism on both sides.

[The Magistrate]

63. From My View, Sir, Yes It Is

Define, if you please, "terrorist insurgency", and how it differs from war against a colonial power in occupation.

At that time, the Zionists were in open rebellion against the English occupation of Plaestine, which they viewed as preventing the immigration of Jews to the place, a thing which they viewed as causing great suffering to their co-religionists, and which they viewed, too, as impeeding them in establishing the Jewish state they were dedicated to erecting in that land.

The destruction of the enemy's high command, and the killing of many senior directors of it, is the height of desireability in the military sphere, and damned near any degree of collateral destruction and death is worth achieving it. The customary standards of that time were awfully loose: a war had just been concluded in which bombing the residences of persons who worked in munitions plants had been universally considered a legitimate military operation, since it did operate directly to reduce the amount of weaponry available to the opposing armies, even though it also killed, and killed most horribly, a great number of people who did not even have the slightest direct thing to do with the production of weapons.

Your definition of "modern terrorism", too, would be interesting to learn. Perhaps the first attempt at serreptitiously using explosives to demolish a seat of government occured in the seventeenth century, when Guy Fawkes attempted the demolition of England's Parliament, for which some have later dubbed him the only man who ever entered that building with an honest and forthright intention. You would seem to be operating in ignorance, too, of the whole of latter nineteenth century European history, particularly eastern European history, studded with the campaign of the Narodniki in Russia, among other things, and the various Anarchist efforts, that persisted in Spain well into the twentieth century. In just the limited sphere of Palestine, since the Nebi Musa mobs of 1920 in Jerusalem, wholesale murder of Jews, in the hope of scaring the rest to depart, had been the leading technique of the Arab Nationalist leadership, and it would be odd if you sought to sweep this out of signifigance on the grounds of primitive character. The Arab Nationalists needed no instruction from anyone in the political uses of murder.

[King Mongo]

82. When is the practice of terror justified?

Do you really believe that the immigrants had a valid reason to terrorize the British? I simply don't see the desire of the immigrants to remove the native population as a valid justification to terrorize the British.

[The Magistrate]

85. What Is 'Terror', Your Grace?

Your Grace may see No. 47 here for my view of the terminology.

The Zionists had as much right to fight for achievement of their state as anyone else has. By both the law and the mores of that time it was a perfectly legitimate enterprise. That they proved to be better at achieving their aims than their opponents is insusceptible to moral characterization: the victor is no more wrong than right than is the vanquished, but simply the victor in a violent contest of incompatible wills.

[King Mongo]

86. Terrorism prior to statehood

An encyclopedia of mine published around 1946 claims that the Irgun was a terrorist organization. Even back then, terrorism was unacceptable. While Zionists had every right and justifation to share the land with Palestinians as defined in the Belfor declaration, there was no reason for them to use violence against the British.

[The Magistrate]

96. And So It Would, Your Grace

A "Britannica" from that year is one of my fondest possessions. Old encyclopedias are very valuable instruments of knowledge.

[King Mongo]

104. Really? What does it say?

Fascinating! What does your Britannica say about Irgun and Stern terrorism?

My Swiss Lexicon, published in 1947 (not 1946) by the Encyclios-Verlag AG., Zürich, talks about how the British yielded to the voice of the people, being 70% non-Jewish and thus limited immigration. the limited immigration resulted in Irgun and Stern terrorist organizations. It further mentions how illegal immigration further increased tensions. The Lexicon even mentions how the kin of Samaritans still lived in Nablus and describes the immigrant settlements as colonies with the only important coastal cities being Haifa, Gaza and Jaffa.

Sources backing up this information are listed as "Publications of the British Government", Churchhill Memorandum, Report of Peel Commission, Report of Partition Comm., "The Holy Land under the Mandate (Boston 1931)", etc.

Of course, I understand that Zionists attempted to change how we read our history and were quite successful in doing such.

[The Magistrate]

119. It Says A Number Of Things, Your Grace

It is, of course, still quite reliable on unchanging matters like topography and resources and the like. Its greatest value to me is the window it opens into the world-view of previous times, the past being, as has been well said, another country. An illustration of the distances to the moon and planets illustrated with rail-road tracks, and expressing the distance as the length of an express line journey, has for me a priceless quality as an aid to understanding how the past was experienced by those for whom it was now.

There is nothing exceptionable in what your "Swiss Lexicon" relates. The population figure is correct. Years of revolt by the Arab Palestinian populace, most importantly in the thirties before the outbreak of World War Two, had indeed convinced the English to severely restrict Jewish immigration, and this policy was continued after the war, when for a time England contemplated maintaining Palestine as a colonial territory, and felt that design required quiesence by the Arab Palestinian population. The violent Zionist off-shoots commonly known as the Stern Gang and the Irgun had roots in the turmoil of the latter thirties, operating first as vengeance killers against Arabs, but quickly switched to actions against English objectives. They recognized a sort of truce during the early years of World War Two, but in the final months of that war, when the defeat of Germany was assured, resumed their old activities.

[King Mongo]

127. Did the UN make a mistake?

Do you think that the United Nations made a mistake by ignoring the voice of the majority while awarding terrorists with statehood instead of fighting against terrorism?

As we know, Jewish terrorism continued even after statehood.

[The Magistrate]

129. Not In My View, Your Grace

The partition of Mandatory Palestine into Jewish and Arab zones, with a view towards creation of Jewish and Arab states in a loose federation, as envisioned in the actual partition plan, has always seemed to me an action rendered proper by necessity, given the whole of the circumstances at the time. My guide in such matters is, and always will be, expediency: the original sin in politics is to treat it as a morality play. That a place had to be found for the Jewish people was clear even by the beginning of the twentieth century; subsequent events rendered this a tremendously pressing problem. The embryonic organs of statehood had by them already been laid for several decades in Mandatory Palestine, and those who made up these organs, and many others besides, were prepared to fight any comers to work their will. This coincidence suggested a workable solution, and no other such was available. So the thing was done. As matters developed, the doing was accompanied by a war, and that war produced a situation different from that envisioned in the partition, that was rather more to the liking of the new state of Israel than to the other contestants in the conflict, but such are the fortunes of war. As Your Grace is surely aware, the possibilty a war might be lost is one very excellent reason for peoples and states to avoid recourse to it, even by going a long way out of their way to do so. Had Israel lost the war, and it was quite possible it might have, it would have been its people who paid the forfeit of it.

[King Mongo]

131. Being fair on both sides.

Well, since Arab states were unsuccessful in helping Palestinians, the Palestinian people are the ones who are paying the forfeit of it, being the victims of terrorism practiced by the state of Israel who is slowly racially cleansing them from their homeland.

It has been clear from the beginning that Palestinians should have their own State and that they should not be removed from it and as we know, Palestinians are prepared to fight for it.

If we are fair people who care for the people on both sides, then we will help Palestinians to not be racially cleansed from the holy land. Since Jews were given Statehood regardless of terrorist activities, should Palestinians be treated the same and treated the same? Requesting for Palestinians to not defend themselves is nothing other than the rejection of the existence of Israel since Jews were then in the same situation that Palestinians are in now.

[The Magistrate]

139. Your Grace Misunderstands Elements Of The Situation

In 1947, the Arab Palestinians had precisely the same chance at having a state as did the Jews in Palestine. The leaders of the Arab Palestinian people declined to avail themselves of this opportunity, in good part because to do would have required recognizing the existance of Jewish state, and chose rather to go double or nothing on the dice of war. As those dice fell, they got nothing. A lost stake is not returned, Your Grace.

[King Mongo]

140. all or nothing means racial cleansing

Both sides rejected the partition plan. If Israeli had accepted it, then they would not have expanded beyond it.

The reason why both sides rejected the partition plan is because the people who lived there were ignored. Today, we are beginning to understand the voice of the people and why it should be listened to.

This all or nothing logic has no meaning unless racial cleansing is practiced. In my opinion, racial cleansing is wrong. If one side wants to have all, then it must have the people too.

[The Magistrate]

142. The Expansion Beyond It, Your Grace

Occured in the course of the war. Had the Arab Nationalist leadership accepted the Partition, and established their own state without further hostile actions against the Jewish residents of Palestine, the political situation would have been tremendously altered, and Israeli expansion beyond the allotted "Jewish zone" been rendered virtually impossible. Israel would have had neither political nor material support, from any quarter, for such an effort, and such a canny fellow as Mr. Ben-Gurion would surely have recognized that reality, and acted on it, whatever might have been the desires of his heart.

Another point Your Grace would do well to understand is that there are always consequences for failure at war, and they are never good. Had the Israelis lost the military contest, there is no room whatever for doubt the Arab Nationalist contingents would have commenced a regime of massacre aimed at driving Jews from Palestine, and scant reason to suppose the armies of the Arab states, or any international action, would have checked them in the activity. The state of Arab Palestine would have commenced with the same great crime, at minimum, Your Grace charges the state of Israel with at its foundation. No one involved in the conflict at the time, or even aware of it in some reasonably informed degree, was not fully aware of these possibilities, both in the preliminaries to the war that followed the Partition, and during the war itself. It was only by their reaching for the expulsion of the Jews that the Arab Nationalist leadership of the people of Arab Palestine opened their people to the fate that befell them. It is unfortunate that people must pay the forfeit for the foolishness of their leaders, particularly so when, as in this case for the Arab Palestinians, there was no tincture of democracy in that leadership's establishment or rule, but it remains a fact the people will pay those forfeits in this unhappy world of ours here below.

On a larger note, Your Grace, it seems to me a futile endeavor, and a futile basis for argument, to maintain something done long ago ought to have paid attention to the sensibilities in place at our present day.

[King Mongo]

146. punishing the majority since one won't listen to them

Simply because one does not want to communicate, that does not mean that one should grab land. Sharon comes to my mind when I mention such.

It is important to recognize that Palestinians were excluded from talks regarding the partition plan.

Palestinians recommended a one-state solution, but they were ignored.

Is the fact that Palestinians were ignored an acceptable reason to grab their land?

I do not believe that Jews accepted the partition plan because they were attacking Palestinians prior to it. Given that they were attacking Palestinians, can the fact that Arab States came to help Palestinians be used as an excuse to grab land?

Why should Palestinians accept something that was created without their input? There was no logical reason for palestinians to accept it, nor was there any legal requirement for them to do so. Basically, Jewish immigrants used it as an excuse to racially cleanse Palestinians from as much land as possible.

[King Mongo]

147. in other words

In simple words,

If Muslims from Africa move to your location and the Muslim minority convinces the UN to recommend a two-state solution with you living in the future Muslim nation, it is understandable that you will resist becoming a part of the Muslim nation with the understanding that you will not be treated equally in the Muslim nation unless you convert to Islam. Thus, your desire to resist and not convert to Islam is justified and you should not be racially cleansed from the Musilm state after the resistance has been defeated.

[ashiebr]

87. This getting silly.....!

Firstly, by "English" I assume you mean "British". Secondly, there was no occupation by Britain. It was carrying out its international mandate. What the Zionists "viewed" is of little relevance to law. The Palestinian militants "view" the Zionists in pretty much the same way that you describe the "English". So effing what?

You mention that a war had just been concluded. Quite so. many of those young British conscripts had just been fighting the fascist enemy. But that is the basic difference. One was a war. The Zionist uprising was a terrorist insurgency.

And if you think the seventeenth century is "modern", then we clearly have no point of contact.

[The Magistrate]

95. Again, Sir, You Really Are Not Very Good At This

You seem to have one or two points of script, and simply pass them undigested like tomato seeds.

The international law you reference, of course, directed the establishment of a "jewish national home" in Palestine, which was roundly and violently rejected by Arab Nationalists. The United Nations directed eventually the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab zones: this was interbnational law, and roundly and violently rejected by the Arab nationalists, as well as most members of the Arab League. A number of places, in the Near East and in Africa, were ruled under League of Nations mandates, at least one of them being continued by the United Nations as Southwest Africa, and many of them saw popular uprisings against the foreign power granted control by such instruments.

But you still leave untouched the real questions. What is a "terrorist uprising" in your view? The term is one of political art, and in reality simply denotes violence of which the person using the term does not approve. But it would be interesting, possibly even amusing (which is, after all, a great deal), to have your view on the matter.

As to the larger questions of history and its division into eras, quite likely you do not have sufficient acquaintance with the scope of the subject appreciate it from a long view. Your comments on the matter would seem to indicate as much,

"History is just one damned thing after another."

[ashiebr]

102. Hmmmmm......so I only have one or two points......

...of script? And you post essentially the same header? I know that ad hominem attacks are forbidden on DU, otherwise, I might be forced to say that your pretentions outstrip your intellectual capability.

[The Magistrate]

122. That, My Dear

Is a thing you cannot say, but must rather prove....

"The bleatin' o' the kid incites the Tiger."

[Englander]

100. Guido Fawkes;A Man Ahead Of His Time....

Since Mr Fawkes was a religious fundie,and all...
And it is the 400th Anniversary this year..

Now,to be serious,what Guido tried to accomplish is what I think is meant by "modern terrorism",an act of political violence,that disregards the possibility,or certainty of civilian,or non-combatant deaths.
Other examples of political violence,in this case assassinations,are
those carried out by Irish Republicans,the Fenians in the 1880's,then the IRB in Ireland in the 1920's.See "Bloody Sunday",the killing of British,repeat,British, MI agents the Cairo Gang,and the retaliatory Croke Park massacre.

Another factor,I think is the concept of "Gentlemanly Rules",that some targets were off-limits.And with the dawning of the age of industrial warfare,of total war,of millions killed,so came "modern terrorism". Of which,the King David Hotel bomb is first,last & always the template,that which guides all others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents
Edited to include encyclopedia entry.

[The Magistrate]

117. You Are Attempting, Mr. Englander, A Rather Crabbed Definition

It will not enable you to carry the point, for it is far too clearly tailored to the purpose. It is very important, Sir, in constructing both persuasive drama and persuasive argument, that the mechanisms employed in doing so be so concealed that the audience remains oblivious to them, for when these peek through the presentation, they are a crippling distraction.

Your claim is that "the King David Hotel bomb is first,last & always the template" for something you call "modern terrorism", and that that event "guides all others" that have come subsequently.

The first point of interest is the idea of "modern terrorism", as distinct from something else along those lines in the past. It is hard to see this as any real distinction, and clear that it is really an arbitrary cut-off to enable you to claim the attack on the English military and administrative headquarters in Palestine was some sort of watershed event distinct from anything previous. It was hardly the first instance of private use of violence for political ends even in so restricted a concept of modern times as the twentieth century; it was not the first to target the summit of a governmental organization; it was not the first to involve in the action injury to civilians wholly unconnected to any military or political arm being assailed; it was not the first to use explosives: it was not, in short, distinct in any readily identifiable way from all that had gone before. You simply use a trumped up distinction of your own device to seek to establish it as an alibi of sorts for the crimes committed in the conflict between Israel and Arab Palestine by the side you are pleased to support in that conflict.

The second point of interest is the high-sounding idea that the attack on the English military and administrative headquarters in Palestine is the template guiding all subsequent private uses of violence for political ends: the Platonic ideal, if you will, toward which all subsequent efforts in that line strive. This is palpably nonesense, though pleasantly amusing nonesense. Were it true, were all subsequent private uses of violence for political ends modeled on the template of that event, then the various private uses of violence for political ends carried out in subsequent years would have aimed at the highest peak of the governmental and military authority they opposed, and gone to great pains to strike as close, at least, to that peak as could be contrived. Yet the fact is, that a preponderance of the private uses of violence for political ends in subsequent years have done no such thing, but have, rather, taken for their specific and avowed object the killing of civilians among the populace ruled by the authority they oppose, and in the greatest numbers that could be contrived.

The real problem, Sir, seems to me to be this. You wish to view your position in the conflict between Israel and Arab Palestine as a moral stand, and conceive yourself to be ranged alongside the angels in it. This is a rather difficult conception to maintain, as the side you support has committed a great many murderous crimes in the course of this conflict. In reconciling support for a cause whose proponents have sought its advance by murderous crime with the view you are ranged alongside the angels in a conflict of good and evil, it really is not enough to show the other side has, too, pressed its cause by murderous crime, as the cause of Israel has certainly, in some instances, been pressed, for to do only this is to acknowledge the fundamental muddiness of the situation, and strips it of the moral character you seek in it. It is necessary to go a good deal further, and to demonstrate responsibility for all evil done in the conflict resides in the side you oppose. You have therefore concocted a construct which allows you to view the other side as having led your side into temptation, so to speak, and thus enabled yourself to place the blame for any wrong your side may have done squarely on the other, just a Christian might blame his sins on the temptings of the Evil One, and so avoid any sense of personal responsibility for them.

"I say unto you, each man shall die for his own sin, and for none other."

[ashiebr]

118. Englander.......

...does the word "bluster" spring to mind when you read Maggie's post??

[Englander]

149. The word I'm thinking of ......

is not "bluster"....I'll leave it to your imagination to work out what it is!!

[Englander]

132. In Response;

On the points in your 3rd paragraph,I believe that this bombing was distinct from all others,in that it combines all of the points you,& I mentioned. The bomb targeted the HQ of the occupying power,was placed in the basement of a hotel(proving the instigators had no qualms about killing any civilians,or non-combatants,however many),was designed to send a political message,(to intimidate,to "terrorize")& was successful.It was also,on a scale not attempted before(apart from Master Fawkes).I don't know a great deal about TNT,or dynamite,but 250,or 300 kilogrammes sounds like an extreme amount to use.

Moving on to the 4th paragraph,as the bar had been raised (or lowered)as to what was considered a "legitimate target",so the security for those targets has been increased,thereby changing the scope for the targets of political violence to 'planes,city centres,&tc. It was no longer ridiculously easy to smuggle 250 kgs of explosives into the basement of a military or Governmental building,so other "softer" targets were found. The last time,I think,that the HQ & civilian Government of a "occupying" power was targeted (pre-Iraq)was in 1991,when the PIRA fired mortars,in Downing Street,at the British Cabinet.

All apologies for suggesting that morals have any place in the I/P conflict,that was not my intended suggestion.The only angels here are "wreaking fearful vengeance",or something. There is no good,or evil,no black,or white,just a horrific civil "war",an unending series of retalitory attacks.

[The Magistrate]

141. The Points You Mention As Distinct, Mr. Englander

Do not strike me as particularly distinct, save in the one particular that the target of the effort was the headquarters of the power taken for enemy by the pepetrators. You leave out the consideration that the demolition of this headquarters necessarily had a great disruptive effect on the activities of that headquarters. Having such a degree of military effect, being a prime example of success in the strategic ideal of disrupting enemy command and control of its forces, renders this act something of a "white crow" in irregular actions in recent history. The other points you mention are not in the least distinct. All use of violence in a conflict between hostile parties, whether these are state actors or private actors, aims at inflicting terror on those of the enemy who are not actually killed in it. All violence in a conflict involving at least one state actor has a political dimension, for the decision to begin a war, the resolve to prosecute a war, and the decision to halt a war, all are political decisions, whether made by an autocrat or a democracy, and the ultimate goal of action in war is to break the political will of the other side to sustain the conflict. Willingness to involve non-combatants in the destruction, where the object aimed at cannot practically be contrived in any other way, is certainly not unique, and at the time of the event, constituted the normal practice of warfare. The amount of explosives involved is roughly equivalent to the load one medium bomber airplane of the day could deliver aerially, and raids involving a thousand heavy bombers were routine in the recently ended war. If one seeks demolition of a building by explosives, the lowest possible point in the structure for the detonation is generally recommended.

You seem, Sir, in your second paragraph to be conceeding the point that this action is not really a template followed by subsequent actions. By acknowledging "soft" targets are taken routiinely in subsequent attacks, it is clear you understand these are efforts of a different nature, that are aimed at wreaking carnage among a civilian mass, and not on a critical military and administrative point. It is precisely, under the laws of war, attacks aimed at wreaking such civilian carnage that are stigmatized as criminal, whether carried out by a state actor, or by a recognized partisan force. It is possible to argue an attack on a military object is criminal if the involvement of non-combatants is too great, but it is impossible to argue an attack on a civilian mass is not criminal, and thus it is clear that there is a profound difference between the two classes of action.

It seeems to me important, Sir, that advocates for both sides in this conflict be willing to recognize that some actions of the other side in it are legitimate acts of war, as well as that some actions of the side they support are criminal behavior, for both things are certainly true, and a case ought not be pressed by deliberate falsehood, or deliberate blindness: indeed, it cannot be so pressed with any lasting success.

[Englander]

150. Individually,the points I mention are not distinct;

As I have already said,this incident combines all those previously mentioned by myself & yourself. I did a wee bit of research yesterday on the subject of political violence,& what could be considered "modern terrorism";political violence instigated by organised nationalist groups against military,economic or Governmental targets.The definition is difficult to pin down,but you know it when you see it..
The Russian Anarchists,which I think have already been mentioned,Narodnaya Volya "People's Will"(organised anarchists?Go figure..)could have been labelled The Inventors' Of Modern Terrorism.Mention was made in the encyclopedia of an attempt to demolish the Winter Palace,& Alexander II was killed by a bomb thrown at his Carriage,in 1881. If the attempt on the Winter Palace was successful,then I would claim that this group bares responsibility for widening the definiton of what is considered a "legitimate target".They were not,so that dubious honour goes to Irgun.

The definition of what is a "soft" target & what is an exclusively civilian target is another point that can be difficult to define;I'm not going to defend,or explain bombs aimed at buses,or restaurants.But what of those targeting banks,or economic centres?
Again,the King David Hotel was not an exclusively military or civilian target;there was at least one cafe,I believe,that was open to all-comers.So the case can be made that this was a legitimate target,the HQ of the occupying powers.It is also possible to argue that this is an example of "modern terrorism".


"It seems to me important, Sir, that advocates for both sides in this conflict be willing to recognize that some actions of the other side in it are legitimate acts of war, as well as that some actions of the side they support are criminal behaviour, for both things are certainly true, and a case ought not be pressed by deliberate falsehood, or deliberate blindness: indeed, it cannot be so pressed with any lasting success."
These are wise words,Sir,and I repeat & support them.

[ashiebr]

23. I repeat that the Zionists..........

.......virtually invented modern-day terrorism.

The KDH Hotel was not as you suggest, just the HQ of the mandated forces. The hotel housed the Secretariat of the Government of Palestine and Headquarters of the British Forces in Palestine and Transjordan. But part of the building was still being used as a hotel.

91 people died, 28 British, 41 Arab, 17 Jewish, and 5 others. The dead included Jewish women who had been working as secretaries in the building.

Some of the terrorists then went on to lead that country instead of being banged-up in jail.

Not terrorism? My Arse!

[The Magistrate]

29. You Prove My Point, Sir

It was the seat of government and military headquarters for the colonial power. A more legitimate object of attack would be hard to find, for a force opposing that power.

The rest remains the same pernicious falsehood as before, and repetition does not improve its flavor....

[Violet_Crumble]

35. And the Pentagon was a legitimate target?

Wouldn't the same logic be involved there? Yes, civilians died in that attack also, but they weren't the primary target. I can't find a way to be consistant and describe the attack on the Pentagon as a terrorist attack, but the attack on the King David Hotel as not being terrorism...

Murdering civilians for political purposes goes back a long way prior to the 20th century, but when it comes to modern political terrorism, the King David Hotel bombing has to be one of the first attacks that gained a lot of media attention, which seems to be one of the main purposes for terrorist attacks happening...

Violet...

[The Magistrate]

38. Absolutely It Was, Ma'am

Besides which, you will never have seen me describe as "terrorism" any action: it is a useless word, insusceptible to any precise definition.

The attack on the Pentagon has never struck me as anything but a legitimate act of war.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. I'm torn on both...

But as I can't see a difference between both events, I only have a problem with understanding anyone who claims one is a legitimate act of war and the other wasn't, and I'm sure there's a few folk who hold that stance floating around...

"Terrorism" is one of those useless but emotionally charged words like "peace" that gets twisted all sorts of ways and overused to the max. Here's my favoured definition of terrorist today. It may change tomorrow depending on my mood ;)

Terrorist: Every non-American who is opposed to USA hegemony and rule, and speaks or dresses in an Arabic way.

http://www.skog.de/endiction.htm#t

Violet...

[The Magistrate]

47. My Own Definition Of The Term

Is a private individual, or body of private individuals, that claims for itself the tradition prerogative of the sovereign to engage in violence for political ends. As traditionally the sovereign claims a monopoly on such actions, such a body or individual presents a profound threat to its pretensions, and so is always reacted against severely. It is telling that the term is consistently used whether or not the actions of the individual or body refered to are criminal or no: the term will be used for those who shoot soldiers and officials and policemen interchnageably with those who wreack massacre on a the ordinary citizenry. At bottom, the thing is nothing more than a trade union dispute, a cimplaint, say, by the Carpenters Union that porches are being bult by non-union workers.

The attack on the Pentagon, of course, did incorporate some criminal elements, in my view: the method of attack was one chosen to kill a goodly number of civilians in the act, and it would have been possible to lay hands on an aircraft without involving so many civilians. But the target certainly was a legitimate one, and on balance, horrid as are some of its details, the thing was a legitimate act of war.

[Violet_Crumble]

56. I actually agree with that definition...

There ya go. Having a slow day and had to read yr post twice before I found myself agreeing...

Not that I'm arguing this - it's the civilian passengers that have me torn over the Pentagon, but wasn't the plane that hit the Pentagon a bit light on for passengers? I remember reading that the hijackers deliberately picked flights that wouldn't be full so they had more chance of controlling the passengers? And a packed 747 would have carried much more passengers and fuel and much more impact in that regard. On the other extreme, I'd be guessing hijacking a cargo plane would have been out of the picture for them, seeing as how they just couldn't stroll on and sit down like nothing was unusual till they were ready to act...

Violet...

[King Mongo]

106. Examples of this definition....

This definition includes groups like the Irgun, Stern Gang, Jewish Defense League, Kache, Hamas, El Kaida and many others. Of course, the IDF is also included in this definition is the IDF, since it harms civilians for political reasons, such as destroying homes and massacres.

[The Magistrate]

121. Your Grace Has Skipped Over One Element Of The Definition

The Israeli armed forces are state agents, and not private persons. At the root of the usage "terrorist" does reside the idea of a non-state actor, and it was certainly in relation to the private nature of the individuals attempting the use of violence for political ends that the usage arose: states are by common consent accorded the right to use violence for political ends; that is one of the traditional attributes of sovereignty, as Your Grace is surely aware. Your Grace is refering to the much more recent concept of "state terrorism", a seperate matter.

Neither "terrorism" nor "state terrorism" are, to my view, very useful terms. The real meaning of both terms, as they are actually used, is "violence of which the person using the term does not approve," with the violence disapproved being carried out by private actors in the former usage, and by state actors in the latter usage. Thus, the use of these terms does not really convey any information about what they purport to describe, but rather imparts only information about the person using these terms: they inform you that the person who uses one of them does not approve of the violence refered to, but tell you nothing about the character of the violence itself. This is serious perversion of language, quite contrary to its spirit, and opens a window to the wholly spurious nature of these linguistic coinages, which is one of pure and unadulterated propagandistic intent. The purpose of such a usage is to identify in the mind of any hearing it the badness of the object the speaker does not approve of, without providing any reason why that object is bad, and to create an identity of feeling between speaker and hearer without any bothersome persuasion to agreement. It is the intent of all good propagandists that the hearer of the propaganda think the propagandist's thoughts are the hearer's own thoughts, and such emotive usages are a chief tool of the art. That is why persons interested in a reasonable exchange of views, rational persuasion, and honest presentation of facts, ought to avoid them....

[Cassandra]

137. Officials at the Pentagon...

interviewed after 9/11 agreed that they were a legitimate target. The civilians on the plane are still dead, however.

[King Mongo]

81. Which part of the building was bombed

Was the military part of the building bombed, or the civilian part?

King David Hotel was used for things other than just the military.

[QueerJustice]

27. ``And of course Freedom Fighters occasionally use terrorist tactics``

``occasionally``...must be the understatement of the year....how about ``exclusively``?

[ashiebr]

60. Fine....perhaps then you and your chums....

...will stop defending the terrorist bombing of the KDH.

[QueerJustice]

65. I did?

Better review these forum rules methinks...

...lets talk current events and look at current terrorists ..shall we?

[ashiebr]

88. I'm happy to look at modern terrorists.......

.... - be it state terrorism or terrorism by militants. But I reserve the right to expose the inconsistencies in history. And that is the only reason I mention the KDH.

[Cassandra]

136. They blew up the military wing...

of the hotel, gave a warning beforehand which was mostly ignored, and the civilian losses were small but regretable. If the Brits had taken the warning seriously, they could have evacuated the building.

[Englander]

148. What Really Happened;

A telephone warning was given to the hotel switchboard. The warning was dis-regarded,since it was not taken seriously,as nothing like this had happened before; no political group fighting for self-determination had tried such a "terrorist" tactic.

There were 90+ people killed,mostly non-British,not a "small" amount by any standards. The bomb was set to explode after 30 minutes;it actually exploded after approximately 20+ minutes;not enough time to evacuate the hotel even if the threat was taken seriously.

[ashiebr]

18. PS...Is this terrorism?

Papers released at the National Archives in London have revealed the details of a political murder by Israeli secret services 30 years ago.

A Moroccan catering worker was killed in Lillehammer, Norway, by two Israelis who had got out of a car beside him.

[Annus Horribilis]

19. I'm Still Hoping

Abbas is just saying this to get the extremist vote for the election. I hope he realizes that if he plays it right, there is a good chance of peace between Israel and Palestine.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. I agree with the first part of what you said...

But it's not just the extremist vote he's trying to gain. Average Palestinians aren't going to vote for anyone who they see as being Israel's candidate in the elections. Abbas doesn't seem to have much going for him as far as popularity goes, so he sounds like he's really getting into electioneering mode...

I think there's very little chance of real peace between Israel and the Palestinians if Abbas wins. Israel will use him while it suits Israel, but then he'll be demonised and blamed for things that are beyond his control, I suspect...

Violet...

[King Mongo]

71. Abbas can't remove illegal settlements.

I see it the same way. Abbas won't be able to remove the illegal settlements. The only thing that Abbas is really capable of doing is helping the illegal settlements to expand more.

It's really up to the international community if peace is going to be in the future.

[Andromeda]

24. Pandering for votes is no excuse for ...

using charged-up language like "Zionist Enemy" when you supposedly are preparing the way for negotiating a peace plan.

If Abbas talks out of both sides of his mouth to get the extremist vote he'd better be prepared to deliver if he wins the election.

You can't say one thing and do another because the so-called "Freedom Fighters" are going to hold his feet to the fire.

Abbas is going to find himself in a very difficult position if he tries to placate Israel after his harsh condemnation of them.

Israelis have been dealing with this kind of two-faced treatment for centuries and Abbas is going to have a tough time convincing Israel that he is really sincere about peace talks.

[Violet_Crumble]

37. Of course!

How could I not get it!!The whole responsibility for peace is on the Palestinians! Let's just ignore the rhetoric that comes from Sharon and his ilk because negotiating a peace isn't their problem, is it??

btw, Israelis have not been dealing with anything for centuries because Israel's only existed since May 1948...

Blind one-sided support of one side (which is portrayed as NEVER doing anything wrong) while completely demonising the other (who are to blame for EVERYTHING)is part of the problem in this conflict. It's unfortunate that posts like yrs add to it...

Violet...

[QueerJustice]

44. what you think of his argument...

----or just dismissing it as a ..``Blind one-sided support ``er...

attack the message not the messanger.....

[Violet_Crumble]

46. How about reading their post?

That way you'd understand the comment about blind one-eyed support without having to ask...

Violet...

[Andromeda]

52. Your post just supports my contention...

that the Palestinians are probably not going to be interested in negotiating for peace because they seem to want things on their own terms.

You can't go into peace talks when you're calling the other side insulting names.

Palestinians calling themselves "Freedom Fighters" is an oxymoron because they haven't shown themselves to be altruistic as much as reactionary.

The term "Zionist Enemy" is way over the top and makes me doubt the integrity of Mr. Abbas. If he was really interested in a peace plan he wouldn't stir the pot but I guess he feels he has to because if the radicals don't like him he won't be elected.

It's something like Bush throwing red meat to the Christion right.

If peace was important to them {Palestinians} they would support leaders who would vocally advocate peaceful social change, not deliberately stir up feelings of hatred already present in a people who view themselves as innocent victims of "Zionist oppression."

The Palestinians deserve to live in peace as do the Israelis and this kind of rhetoric isn't helping.

[Violet_Crumble]

110. Actually, you didn't even address my post....

Wanna try again instead of repeating what you said the first time?

Why do you feel that the onus is solely on the Palestinians to negotiate a peace? Why isn't there some responsibility on Israel to also behave the same way?

I've read earlier that Abbas was responding to news that seven Palestinians had been killed by the IDF. Gosh, maybe you will now demand that he grovel and thank Israel for doing such a fine job?

Sorry, but Israel is synonomous with Zionism, and if it had killed seven of my countrymen, I'd sure be calling it an enemy too. Dunno about you, but the lives of seven human beings is a lot more important than whether or not Israel gets called the 'Zionist Enemy'...


Violet...

[Catholic Sensation]

40. I am absolutely shocked that a Holocaust denier would ever refer to Israel

as a Zionist enemy. Abu Mazen is a scumbag terrorist just like Yasser Arafat, and will only continue to hurt whatever cause the Palestinians take up if he gets power.

[Violet_Crumble]

48. Have you read the thesis?

Has it been published in English? Uri Avnery said it was about the attempts of some Zionist groups to collaborate with the Nazis. How would that be Holocaust denial? I've seen enough false quotes and quotes taken out of context when it comes to this conflict that I prefer to reserve judgement on whether or not it was Holocaust denial until I read the thesis itself. I'm sure if anyone had the inclination or time, they could go through any thesis on the Holocaust and by creatively using quotes out of context, could accuse the author of being a Holocaust denier....

Abbas is a 'scumbag terrorist' just like Arafat? In that case, so's the Pope. I think the more fitting description will end up being 'sucking up to Israel and shitting away the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination'. Not that I think that stance would particularly bother a few people in this forum, because that's the sort of Palestinian leader they'd love to see....

Violet...

[Catholic Sensation]

50. Abu Mazen said that at most 900000 Jews were killed

to claim that 1/7 the number of people murdered were "actually" murdered is denying the atrocity of the Holocaust.

Here is a brief description of his book/dissertation:

According to a translation of the text provided by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Abbas's book repeatedly attempts to cast doubt on the fact that the Nazis slaughtered six million Jews. He writes: "Following the war, word was spread that six million Jews were amongst the victims and that a war of extermination was aimed primarily at the Jews ... The truth is that no one can either confirm or deny this figure. In other words, it is possible that the number of Jewish victims reached six million, but at the same time it is possible that the figure is much smaller--below one million." Abbas denies that the gas chambers were used to murder Jews, quoting a "scientific study" to that effect by French Holocaust-denier Robert Faurisson.

Abbas then asserts: "The historian and author, Raoul Hilberg, thinks that the figure does not exceed 890,000."This is, of course, utterly false. Professor Hilberg, a distinguished historian and author of the classic study 'The Destruction of the European Jews', has never said or written any such thing.


That he would a. lie about what someone said about the number of murdered Jews, and b. seems to believe this, makes him a holocaust denier.

[King Mongo]

53. A terrible holocaust

900'000 is one hell of a lot of people and this is indeed a terrible holocaust. The idea of 900'000 thousand people being killed is exceedingly terrifying. It is fair that Abu Mazen recognizes a holocaust when one happens.

[Violet_Crumble]

55. I asked you if you'd read the thesis...

I didn't ask you to repeat interpretations by folk who may have an agenda in badmouthing him. I asked you if you'd read the actual thesis yrself. Obviously not. As for the little snippets which is what I was suggesting could be easily taken out of context from any work on the Holocaust, here's a newsflash from someone who studied the Holocaust last year. Six million Jewish victims of the Holocaust is a general figure. Historians will bicker away about numbers, and there's no holocaust denial in much of that bickering. I s'pose you can't show me what context that quote was in? I'd like to see it for myself...

I'll believe that Abbas denied in a thesis that gas chambers were used if I can see that quote in context for myself...

As for this quote, "The historian and author, Raoul Hilberg, thinks that the figure does not exceed 890,000." Which figure?? Gypsies? German victims of the Holocaust? What? Where's the citation from that quote? Or wasn't there one? I've never heard of a thesis without citations...

Uh, sorry, but if someone were to lie about something someone else said, that's not Holocaust denial. That's just plain lying, which is what I kind of suspect the Simon Wiesenthal centre may be indulging in...

Interested in a quick rundown of Daniel Goldhagen where I get to show that he's a Holocaust Denier (even though like Abbas, his thesis was about a completely different aspect of the Holocaust)? Use of selective quotations without citations and lots of .... bits where I create a patchwork quote from many sentences will show you how easy it is to do it! :)

Violet...

[The Magistrate]

64. It Would Be Interesting, Ma'am

To see the whole of the thing in print in English. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to track it doen and put it before us.

It would not surprise me particularly to find a great deal of minimization contained in the thing, however. My understanding is that it was written while studying in the Soviet Union, and it was for a very long time Soviet policy to diminish the Nazi effort to exterminate Jews. Soviet history from the late fifties particularly tended to lump all Nazi atrocities together, and to focus on Russian casualties, and as a great proportion of the Jews killed were citizens of the Soviet Union, this tended to blur matters greatly, sometimes in a most distressing manner. The memorial at the massacre ravine of Babi Yar, for instance, made no mention whatever of Jews.

[King Mongo]

67. what is a holocaust?

This makes sense. Nevertheless, one who recognizes that 900'000 were killed can't be a holocaust denier. The term "holocaust denier" is not properly used by some.

[The Magistrate]

72. It Is My Own Practice, Your Grace

To avoid use of any term with a loose definition and a great degree of emotional content.

But it seems to me that a proposal that the toll of some horror is less than a sixth of what it can be easily shown to have actually been can reasonably be viewed as an attempt to minimize the enormity of that horror.

Without making any comment on this particular paper, it seems worth pointing out that some people in intellectual circles among the Arab Nationalists of Palestine are well aware that the Nazi attempt to exterminate European Jewry forms an important element in the moral foundation of Israel's existance in the eyes of many, and so again, it would not be surprising if there were some in such circles who sought to minimize the enormity of that event, as a means of weakening the foundation on which their foe rests, since if this were successfully done, the over-throw of their foe might be more readily accomplished. People often attempt to impose a certain plasticity on history in the interest of their present purposes, though it is to me a supremely unwholesome thing to attempt....

[King Mongo]

75. the problems on both sides

I agree that both sides have been using the horrors of the holocaust to defend their views. It's quite often that I hear folks claiming that the racial cleansing of Palestinians from their homeland is justified because of the holocaust. Thus, it's only natural for Palestinians to claim that the holocaust was not as horrible as some want us to believe that it was, and thus the racial cleansing of Palestinians from their homeland is even more immoral.

[The Magistrate]

79. And It Is Here, Your Grace

That the objective record both comes to our assistance, and requires us to uphold it, else much, much more than the rights or wrongs of this petty Levantine imbroglio will be lost.

The industrialized effort to exterminate a people, that succeeds in doing to death a majority of its targets, is a greater crime than the driving from their homes of a small proportion of a people, and even than the tyrannizing over the whole of a people while killing only a very small proportion of them, as a person could argue is going on now.

This is no more debateable than the proposition that fourteen is a greater quantity than one.

[King Mongo]

84. Agreed

Agreed. Jews deserve to have their own place and need to have their own place. Palestinians, however, must be respected, protected and compensated too. We are obligated to help and protect both people and to treat them equally.

[ashiebr]

89. However, what happened to the Jews...........

......in Europe happened over 60 years ago. The crimes against the Palestinians are happening right now.

[The Magistrate]

97. And That, Sir, Affects Judgements Of Scale How?

Many years ago, a person contracted blood poisoning; today, that person suffers from a cold. When was that person most ill?

[ashiebr]

101. Since we are taking about....

...two different "people", your question is irrelevant.

[The Magistrate]

130. What Is Irrelevant, Dear

Is your unwillingness to acknowledge real differences of degree, for they exist whether you acknowledge them or no....

"In the fight between you and the world, back the world."

[King Mongo]

105. Crimes of the past

Well, the crimes against the Palestinian people have been happening since about 1904 with the second wave of immigration.

Since WWII, most crimes against Jews were the result of Jewish crimes against Palestinians. An excellent example of this is the discrimination towards Jews in Muslim nations which was hardly a propblem prior to 1904.

My opinion is simply that one should help Palestinians the same way that one helps Jews and to treat Palestinians no differently from Jews. While Jews need to have their own place, this place should not have been a place where people were already living because one should not harm others. Yet, since some Jewish immigrants to Palestine were allowed to harm Palestinians, one is forced to recognize and accept Israel since it is a non-removable reality today, and one must do everything possible to help Palestinians and heal the harm that has been done to them.

[ashiebr]

111. Seems about right! N/T

[eyl]

112. While discrimination against Jews in Muslim lands

generally didn't reach the level of persecution in Christian lands, it's a gross exaggeration to say it "was hardly a problem". For an example from that general period, look up the Damascus Blood Libel - and that wasn't the worst case by far..

[King Mongo]

114. Life's ups and downs

There were good times and bad times. Life has its ups and downs. There were many situations where Jews in Muslim states were doing very well for long periods of time.

[Violet_Crumble]

108. Yes, the Holocaust was a much greater crime...

And I doubt any of us looking at the big picture would argue that one at all, but it's pretty rancid when the Holocaust is used as an excuse to abuse the Palestinian people, or completely minimised in an attempt to detract any moral claims of there needing to be a Jewish state in the first place. Me, I think anyone on either side who dares to abuse the memory of the Holocaust in order to try to gain political points in the I/P conflict should be ashamed of themselves and should have the Holocaust card taken off them until they grow up and learn how to handle it properly...

Violet...

[DemFromMem]

90. I can't believe we're even going down this road

As for the 900,000 v. 6,000,000 discussion, it is not the difference per se that is the issue. A common tactic of Holocaust deniers is to plant doubt in people's minds by making Jews out to be people who stretch the truth to get sympathy. Once you can open up their credibility on the basic questions, everything else becomes a fair debate.

Yad Vashem actually now has memorial testimonies posted from relatives of more three million murdered people at http://names.yadvashem.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_9E. These are just from people that had surviving friends and family. The Nazis were efficient at wiping out entire families, of course, leaving no one to mourn.

By the way, I have located more than 100 family members there including my great-great-grandfather who was shot dead by the Nazis when he was almost 100 years old. I wonder if Abbas thinks I'm part of the conspiracy of liars.

[drdon326]

91. You wonder if abbas thinks you're part of a conspiracy??

first ask yourself if people HERE think you're part of a conspiracy.

[King Mongo]

115. when is a holocaust a holocaust?

If one recognizes that 900'000 people were killed, then one is not a holocaust denier. Recognizing that 900'000 people were killed is recognizing a holocaust.

How many people must be killed in order for a holocaust to be called a holocaust? 900'000 is a large enough number for a holocaust to be a holocaust, in my opinion.

As for the actual number, there's nothing wrong with debating statistics which were used as an excuse to racially cleanse Palestinians from their homeland.

[The Magistrate]

123. If Your Grace Might Condescend To Satisfy My Curiousity

What statistical elements of the historical record of European events between roughly 1933 and 1945 does Your Grace consider in doubt to the point of debateability...?

[King Mongo]

124. A holocaust recognizer is not a holocaust denier

Honorable Magistrate

Personally, I am not interested in the numbers. From my perspective, a holocaust occurred and such was very terrible. I am just pointing out that people who recognize that 900'000, 2'000'000, 6'000'000 or 15'000'000 innocent people were killed cannot be labelled as being holocaust deniers. A holocaust recognizer simply cannot be a holocaust denier, that just doesn't work. One cannot be both at the same time.

[The Magistrate]

126. Your Grace May Forgive My Pointing Out

That Your Grace has not answered my question, and it seems to me a valid one worthy of an answer....

[King Mongo]

133. statistics

Well, assuming that I undestood your question correctly, statistics regarding how many people were killed and why they were killed are debatable because there is nothing which exists that can determine accurate values on these isssues. It's simply impossible to know how or why some people were killed.

[Cassandra]

138. The Nazis were better at record keeping..

than you give them credit for.

[The Magistrate]

143. That Answer Is Beneath Your Grace

The functionaries of the Reich kept meticulous records: every prisonner had a unique number in every murderous establishment; counts were taken on each transport, both at its loading and its unloading. As defeat loomed, some of these records were destroyed, but the bulk have survived. There is some uncertainty about numbers in the early "Einsatz Kommando" efforts in the east, which proceeded by shooting, and the estimates of the responsible detachment commanders of the numbers they shot in mass actions may not be so precise as the records of the stationary industrial facilities. But it is impossible the actual toll could differ by much from what is indicated on the bureaucratic record: it is certainly impossible the variation could approximate a power of ten.

[Violet_Crumble]

145. I thought the Nazis destroyed most of their meticulous records...

..and it was more the case of most of the records were destroyed, but some survived. That's why there's no more a precise number for the victims of the second stage of the Holocaust than there was for the first stage. I thought it was a mixture of getting the statistics from relatives, survivors, deportation lists from occupied Europe, and in the case of Jewish victims as well, assessing the pre-1941 population figures with the figures at the end of the war. http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/jewvicts.html

From what I remember, historians tend to agree that the figures are between 5-6 million Jewish victims, between 2 and 4 million Soviet troops, around 2 million non-Jewish Poles, and a bunch more that I can't recall off the top of my head. When it comes to Jewish figures, anything below 1 million is not legitimate. There's just way too much factual evidence to show it's a nonsensical number, and I think personally that when a claim of under a million is coupled with claims like ones that there really wasn't an attempt by the Nazis to exterminate European Jewry, that's when the warning bells go off that there's Holocaust Denial on the loose - another warning signal is that they falsely call themselves historical revisionists...

Here's a link to an essay on Holocaust 'revisionism'...


"Revisionism" is obliged to deviate from the standard methodology of historical pursuit because it seeks to mold facts to fit a preconceived result, it denies events that have been objectively and empirically proved to have occurred, and because it works backward from the conclusion to the facts, thus necessitating the distortion and manipulation of those facts where they differ from the preordained conclusion (which they almost always do). In short, "revisionism" denies something that demonstrably happened, through methodological dishonesty."

http://veritas3.holocaust-history.org/revisionism-isnt/

Violet....

[Violet_Crumble]

107. I think it'd be essential...

...to have a read of it before rushing to pass judgement. And Abbas has been accused of Holocaust denial, not 'minimisation'. I'm more familiar with East Germany's focus on the Holocaust rather than that of the Soviet Union, but I can't see how they'd be much different. You pointed out that the Soviets focused on Soviet victims, and that's correct, and it's not markedly different than the way Western countries focus on the Holocaust to the extent of ignoring all non-Jewish victims. I never read that the Soviet focus relied on minimising the number of victims - what it did was focus on the Holocaust being an attempt to wipe out Communism and Communists, and every victim was killed because they were a Communist. What the Soviet focus ignored was that many victims were killed specifically because they were Jewish, but this oversight is no more ickky than the habit of many Westerners to carry on as though Jews were the only victims of the Holocaust, and to totally ignore the Gypsies and that they were the only other ethnic group apart from the Jews slated for total extermination...

I'd be interested in anything Abbas has had to say in recent years about the Holocaust, cause to me that'd be more relevant than possibly dodgy quotes from a thesis written long ago. Though there seem to be a small number of posters here who only give a toss what he says when it's something they can shriek and holler in fake outrage about and would ignore anything that would shatter their 'Holocaust denier!!!' hissingfits....

Violet...

[The Magistrate]

116. What Makes The Soviet Attitude Somewhat Shabby, Ma'am, To My View

Is that it followed on the heels of the final Stalinist purge, the "Doctor's Plot", which was itself a calculatedly Anti-Semitic outbreak, that having been demonstrated to be an excellent anodyn for unrest in Russia in Czarist days, and there being, on the heels of the war, a good deal of dissatisfaction, and even outright armed rebellion, in the Soviet Union. It was solidified further with the Soviet decision to repent its early support for Israel, and prefer the Arab radicals as a superior implement for breaking colonial attachments with England and France and the United States in the Middle East. Thus, it seems to me the natural elements of ethno-centrism were somewhat exaggerated for political purposes. You are quite correct to point out that many take selective views of the Nazi crimes, and ignore important elements of the whole enormity of the thing. The sufferings of ordinary Poles, and the ghastly business of "partisan suppression" in the occupied areas of the Soviet Union go particularly unremarked here in the West, though the toll of these two elements certainly is in the same league with the number of Jews killed.

[King Mongo]

125. A holocaust recognizer is not a holocaust denier

In this situation, it is correct to call someone a holocaust minimizer, but not a holocaust denier. One who recognizes a holocaust can't be accused of denying it.

[The Magistrate]

128. Your Grace Is Surely Aware

No charge of any sort against Mr. Abbas has been levied, or seconded, by me....

[TheKingfish]

93. Well at least the Palestinians

Didn't take an active part in the Holocaust, like the Catholics of Europe did.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

98. Have A Care, Mr. Fish

The Arab Nationalists, in Palestine and elsewhere, sided decisively with the Reich, and gave the Reich what aid was in their power. The Grand Mufti co-operated eagerly with Hitler, to the extent of recruiting Moslems for S.S. formations operating in Yugoslavia that were involved in a good deal of brutishness....

This alliance with the Axis goes a good way to explain the political powerless of the Arab Nationalists at the United Nations during the Partition debate.

[ashiebr]

103. Such odd alliances are not unknown.....

.....Take Israel and South Africa, for example.

[Violet_Crumble]

109. I'd also be a bit careful there, sir..

You failed to point out the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' thing, which played a very large part in alliances in WWII. Yep, it was a big tactical mistake because the Allies won the war, but to try to imply that there was a great affinity between the Palestinian leadership and the concept of Nazism is wrong...

One thing I've never been able to find out about the Grand Mufti is what knowledge, if any, he had of the Holocaust happening. A knowledge of it would damn him totally in my eyes, rather than just being a stupid fool who picked the wrong side and also failed his people. Somehow I doubt Hitler sat him down and had a long friendly chat about how the Final Solution was coming along and how it sucked that the Grand Mufti was the only foreign leader he could trust enough to tell his big secret, but on the other hand by 1943 there were definately a lot of whispers travelling around in occupied and neutral Europe, so I'm wondering how far those whispers ended up spreading...

Violet...

[The Magistrate]

120. A Valid Point, Ma'am

And despite my best efforts, given the limitations of time and energy, it does not always occur to me to treat the whole of every matter touched on in every comment here.

The hostility of Nazi Germany to England, and particularly the menace this constituted to England's colonial control, was certainly a major factor. Nor did Arab Nationalists have much affinity for a doctrine of Nordic Aryan supermen, and the cosmic strain of Anti-Semitism at the heart of Nazi doctrine. However, simple hatred of Jews was a cementing factor in the alliance of convenience, and provided much of what genuine warmth existed in it. Nazi propaganda aimed the Middle East stressed this factor greatly, using the Zionist enterprise as an illustration both of Jewish conrol over England, and by extension the world, and also as an illustration of how Jews lay at the root of all difficulties any non-Jew experienced. Anything pressed too far becomes a sin, as the proverb says, and there is little doubt that feelings in the question had passed beyond reasonable roots to race-hate in the question. As for al'Husseini himself, there is little room to doubt, from his speeches throughout the Mandate period, that he was animated by a bigoted hate for Jews, and sought to excite such hate to further his power and his cause. Assessing anyone's knowledge of Hit;ler's intentions in the matter is a difficult exercise, since the thing was of the species of open secret that, while it is hard in retrospect to believe everyone did not see, still there are many reasons to suppose passed largely unnoticed for very many people. But certainly by the time of al'Husseini's war-time collaboration, particularly in its latter stages, it is hard to imagine he was not aware, and no reason to suppose he did not approve.

[drdon326]

99. Wow.

thats incredible.

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[King Mongo]

68. What is a Zionist enemy?

What is a Zionist enemy? One who lives in the so-called holy land? It's not Abu Mazen's fault that he was born in the so-called holy land.

[The Magistrate]

74. Your Grace Is Pleased To Play The Naif Today, It Seems

"Zionist enemy" is one of the circumlocutions commonly employed to avoid saying Israel, on the well known principle, common to magicians, diplomats, and liability lawyers, that to name a thing signifies recognition it exists. As refusal to recognize the existance of Israel as a state in being is one of the elements perpetuating this conflict, and has been a staple of rejectionist propagandas for decades, Israelis show a particular sensitivity to the employment of such a circumlocution by any Arab leader. Had Mr. Abbas gone so far as to simply say "the Israeli enemy," there would not have been nearly the same outcry....

[King Mongo]

77. funny. :)

Funny. :) Just a few days ago, a neutral individual in this conflict recommended that I avoid the usage of labels so that the blame is more equally distributed instead of focus on one side. By not using labels with the idea of being more balanced, I had not imagined that such could result in me being labelled as a Zionist enemy.

As for the "the Israeli enemy", yesterday, an Israeli just described Palestinians as the Israeli enemy. Both sides seem to believe that the other side is the enemy.

[The Magistrate]

80. Who Has So Labelled Your Grace?

Certainly not me....

[King Mongo]

83. No one.

No, no one has labelled me as such. I just realized that such could happen. This is another reason to speak my words with caution. :)

[number6]

92. this is just ....

pretty stupid
a misguided thing
not helpful ...and not very clever either ...:smoke:

oh n I thot if n Arafat would jus drop over ded
everthing would be just peachy keen :silly:

[The Stranger]

134. Another leader demonized.

What's the matter, doc, you don't want peace in the Middle East? Or is this already painfully obvious.