The Cellar - Who doesn't want a Palestinian state? Palestinian leaders, that's who

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

This just in ...

Wednesday, Jun. 26, 2002

Belgium bars Sharon war crimes trial

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- A Belgian appeals court ruled Wednesday that Belgium cannot investigate war crimes charges against Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon related to a 1982 massacre in two Palestinian refugee camps.

The three-judge panel said a case could not proceed against a person who is not in Belgium, despite a 1993 Belgian law granting Belgian courts "universal jurisdiction" over war crimes committed anywhere.

"If a person is not found on the territory, we find it inadmissible," the court said in its 22-page ruling.

http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWS/belgium_jun26-ap.html

Quote:

Originally posted by Griff
Be careful what you wish for, you'll be protesting our engagement policies next time you catch Rage Against the Machine.

Sorry Griff...they broke up almost 2 years ago. Substitute RATM with Ozo or Midnight Oil (especially in Jag's case).

I knew I was taking a chance there.:) I find it hard to believe Midnight Oil still exists though.

Quote:

Originally posted by Griff
I knew I was taking a chance there.:) I find it hard to believe Midnight Oil still exists though.

Their new CD just came out in February.

The way the interact may have to change too, time will tell.

Heres a damn scary stat out of TIME magazine: 36% of those polled who support Isreal say they do so becasue they beleive in biblical prophosies that jews must control Isreal before Christ will come again.

Quote:

Originally posted by jaguar
Heres a damn scary stat out of TIME magazine: 36% of those polled who support Isreal say they do so becasue they beleive in biblical prophosies that jews must control Isreal before Christ will come again.

hey, on the bright side, that means 63% of those supporting Isreal might not be nutcases!

Quote:

Originally posted by Undertoad
That's some very impressive bluster.

And tell me, when you take up these arms, would you kill....

http://cellar.org/2002/gal.jpg

...a little five year old, taking the bus with her grandma?

Her name was Gal Aizenman. Two days ago.

http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle....toryID=3222205

I recognized the name and searched my ass off for the picture (the "search" function never popped into my head).

Anyway, just to resurrect a nice dead thread...

I'm afraid there's no chance of this thread dying anytime soon.:(

I am quoting tw's post from June 2002:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 17704)

The Intafada II and all resulting deaths are directly traceable to Sharon who wanted this instability. Sharon's program has been glaringly obvious starting with his intentional, well publicized, and well staffed desecration of Temple Mount. Every act he has performed has been to annex the occupied territories. Every act in response to any violence has been only to enflame the violence. But then I have posted this in detail in how many posts?
...
When anyone else takes responsibility for a bombing, who does Sharon blame? Arafat. Why? Best way to create instability and even incite civilian racism.

Via history, we now have our answer. This turns out to be incorrect.

For the first time, a Hamas leader has publicly revealed that Arafat personally ordered the Second Intifada. Via a Palestinian reporter:

http://www.hudson-ny.org/1582/abbas-...terror-strikes

Quote:

Mahmoud Zahar, a prominent Hamas leader, has just revealed that Yasser Arafat, when he failed to get what he wanted at the negotiating table, instructed Hamas to launch terror attacks in the heart of Israel. Hamas obviously took Arafat's orders seriously, waging an unprecedented campaign of suicide booming and terror attacks that killed and injured thousands of Jews and Arabs.

When Arafat reportedly unleashed Hamas's terrorists against Israel, both he and the Palestinian Authority were still on the payroll of the international community, first and foremost the Americans and Europeans.

Arafat pretended back then that he was doing his utmost to stop the terror attacks that were launched not only by Hamas, but also by members of his own ruling Fatah faction. It now appears - from what Zahar has to say - that Arafat was bluntly lying to Israel and the Western donors.
...
Zahar made this revelation during a lecture at the Islamic University in Gaza City marking the 10th anniversary of the second intifada, which erupted in September 2000, a few weeks after the failure of the Camp David summit.

This is the first time that a Hamas leader openly admits that his movement carried out terror attacks against Israel on instructions from the Palestinian Authority leader.

What a long memory you have, UT. Well done.

... and mad searching skillz.

Read xoB's post above mine. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 686001)

I am quoting tw's post from June 2002:
Via history, we now have our answer. This turns out to be incorrect.
For the first time, a Hamas leader has publicly revealed that Arafat personally ordered the Second Intifada. Via a Palestinian reporter:

Palestinians were only doing what they had to do in response to aggressors. After events made Palestinian's reaction inevitable. Even a time line makes that obvious. Why did you ignore history's chronology to endorse lies? Long before Intifada II started, Sharon and the wacko extremists were working to create Intifada II. That timeline is historical fact.

Did Arafat order it? Hearsay from one person says yes. Hudson New York is somehow a responsible fact source? Nonsense. Numerous contradictions in that piece are identified. So many will simply ignore details to believe only what they wanted to hear.

First, *opinion* is not factual source. Second, where is the always required confirmation ? Third, that speculation contradicts history's chronological events. Three reasons demonstrate why some can separate hearsay from responsible news sources.

Point One: Hudson New York entertains any opinion to "Amplify dissident voices worldwide". It does not claim honest, responsible, or credible posts. Publishing even hearsay and lies is its purpose. A forum to entertain urban myths and wild speculation. UT would represent Hudson New York as fact?

To be honest and to possess facts means ignoring hearsay - especially when hearsay violates below points two and three. Hudson New York is where unsubstantiated rumors are advocated and entertained. Wild speculation - same thing that proved Saddam's WMDs.

Point Two: where are the so many responsible news services that confirm those claims? An opinion board is your only source? What kind of logical reasoning is that?

Point Three: One must ignore chronology to believe that lie. Long before Intifada II started - four years before - wacko extremists were aggressively undermining the Oslo Accords. Then publicly encouraging the assassination of Rabin. Intentional opening of a tunnel under Temple Mount to aggravate hate. Sharon even personally desecrating that mosque with 200 of his 'closest friends'. He even said he did so to encourage friendship. Hundreds of intentional actions to create hate long before Intifada II started. Or did you - UT - forget those earlier events to "endorse hearsay as fact"?

Those events were the equivalent of burning Korans to create peace and goodwill. Intentional provocations long before Intifada II started to intentionally undermine the Oslo Accords.

Did Arafat also order Jews to create hate? Sharon and other wacko extremist successfully created hate long before Arafat is *rumored* to have called for Intifada II. How much chronology do you ignore to endorse a Hudson New York accusation?

Responsible source means one can see the difference between facts and an obviously opinionated editorial. Why does the article even include this intentional distortion?

Quote:

Because of him, thousands of Palestinians were massacred by the Jordanians in the early 1970s.

One starts by asking some damning and relevant questions. Why did wacko extremist Israelis so repeatedly do things that would only create hate ... long before Intifada II started? Why does UT ignore chronology?

Likud remembers what happened in the Sinai. Likud openly defines the West Bank as their land. #1 threat to Likud's objectives was the Oslo Accords. Likud did things necessary to subvert those Accords. Created hate among the Palestinians by doing what is today called 'burning a Koran'. Even encouraged and got the assassination of Rabin. If Arafat ordered Intifada II, well, according to your own sources, it happened after Intifada II had started. And more than four years after wacko extremists Israelis started actions to create so much hate.

So how many responsible news sources are cited to confirm wild speculation in Hudson New York? Zero.

This is not about some blogger who invented speculation. This is about some so easily manipulated and deceived as to promote unconfirmed speculation - a blog - as fact. Same process also proved Saddam's WMDs. This is about why some people do not entertain lies. And why others cannot separate speculation from hard reality - by ignoring three points.

Quote:

After events made Palestinian's reaction inevitable

Nothing is inevitable, even if it's predictable.

Addressing the point would be easier, and less verbiage, than bouncing around making excuses why you sort of weren't really wrong.