Recent Israeli actions and massacres

[Undertoad]

I feel like I should clarify where I stand on all of this... I do believe that Sharon is a dichead and war criminal. I do believe that the visit to the Temple Mount was intended to incite. (I also believe that, when someone is trying to incite you, becoming incited is really, really dumb. I don't believe that a visit to a piece of land should incite anyone to anything.)

I believe that there is not one speck of sense amongst the leadership of either side, and that whomever wrote the rules of engagement of the current invasion is an idiot and is also possibly a war criminal.

I believe that I do not have adequate understanding of the current situation to definitely claim anything. Individual facts come at me and I react with what I think makes sense.

I believe that the real reason for the clashes is racist and cultural. I believe there is racism on both sides. I believe the only reason the Palestinians find occupation demeaning now is because they are offended by the religion and race of the forces that occupy them. I believe that religion and race are not reasons to be offended.

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
<i>There comes a time when you must answer this. Is Sharon an honest man or is he guilty of crimes against humanity? That is basically what your dispute with anything I have posted comes down to. An honest man would have stopped believing numbers from the Israelis long ago - just as honest men in VietNam called US government reports in VietNam the 5 o'clock Follies. </i>

This is, I think, your problem. Having determined that Sharon is a dichead, you have decided that the entire government is not to be trusted under any circumstance. It gives you license to entirely dismiss any facts you don't like.

Sharon has proven himself to be a dichead extraordinare. There is no doubt about his history over generations. I did not 'determine' that. Sharon has proven himself to be that dishonorable. What he is and what I have posted are irrefutible facts.

Sharon represents what has changed in Israel. When right wing extremists suddenly feared loss of the occupied territories, then a facade was removed. They remember the humiliation of peace with Egypt - and the removal of Sinai settlements. Never again. Outright racism has replaced the "ohh poor Israel has so much to fear" lie. We need only look at the Nightline Town meeting or listen the extremist 'preaching' by Ed Koch on Bloomsberg radio every weekend to see how suddenly racist and outright 'cold war' lies are being promoted. Ed Koch was an honest man. But with a new reality for the occupied territories, even Ed Koch sounds like a "Twana Brawley was raped" Al Sharpton.

Was the Barak - Arafat deal in Camp David an honest deal? Of course not because it was not complete. It suffered from the same problems with previous agreements - too many holes that an extremist Likud government would obviously utilitize to destroy the deal. The Guardian only gives another reason why the deal was unworkable. However you would not know those facts if limited to domestic news sources. Furthermore, Barak did not have Rabin's advantage. The right wing then was not yet so militant - so fearful of what is absolutely necessary to create regional peace. The right wing Likud party was not yet ready to demonstrate how racist they were.

After Oslo, Israel changed. The right wing rose up to grab power and to promote racist actions. Israel is now considered one of the world's most racist nations. This from Amensty International and from the UN Conference on Racism that convened in South Africa. Virtually the entire world considers this new Israel to be a government of racists. Racists, especially when criticized by 90+% of the world, become defensive and lie more often. We have that with the current Israeli government - outright lying in the Sharon tradition.

And so we have the rediculous number - 95% of all killed were combatants. Yes, they lived on the same block as combatants and therefore they too must have been combatants? Put this spin on it and a lie can be turned into truth? This Likud government has no credibility in the world. It exists, in part, because its members advocated the murder of an Israeli Prime Minister. A man killed because he moved in the only direction possible for peace.

Isreal will always fear enemies, real and imaginery, as long as Israeli settlements exist in the occupied territories. But extremist right wing, anti-humanity Israelis cannot even be honest enogh to admit their agenda - the total annexation of all occupied territories and ethnic cleansing therein. Tell me that is or is not Sharon's agenda. Tell me that the Likud government is not racist, and wants to annex the occupied territories.

This from Andy Rooney on 14 Apr 2002 Sixty Minutes:

Ariel Sharon does not want peace. He loves this war.

A comment based upon facts and the history of Prime Minister dichead.

[Xugumad]

Originally posted by Undertoad

Regarding Iraq's enormous sense of restraint (!), I <i>don't know</i> whether they used any chemical weapons. Do you?

Yes, I do know. Note how I referring to using chemical weapons against Israeli civilian population centers. They used C-weapons against the Kurds in northern Iraq, before and after the Gulf War, yes. They did not use any against Israel, as they'd threatened to. That's what I'm talking about. (see my reference to Haifa) They weren't stupid. If they'd gassed Tel Aviv, Israel would have wiped Baghdad off the face of the planet.


It is one possible explanation of the "Iraqi War Syndrome".

It is. The more likely explanation is that US soldiers were given a number of chemical agents prior to going to the Gulf, partly to immunize and strengthen them against potential chemical attacks. Many of those preventive measures had not undergone any long-term testing of any sort. This is the most likely current explanation, but since the US government is refusing to admit that Gulf War Syndrome even exists (malformed babies and radically increased occurences of cancer apparently don't suffice), it's difficult to do any real research.



Do you believe that they did NOT use such weapons against their own people? Did you believe that the Iraqi war propaganda showing "Baby Milk Factory" in English on the backs of Iraqi workers' uniforms was evidence that they were really producing "Baby Milk"?

They did use chemical weapons against the Kurd minorities, sure. I was talking about using those weapons offensively against population centers.



Do you believe that Iraq's seeming lack of use of such weapons in a 1991 war is indicative of their good faith against using them in 2002?

Yes. Remember George's 'we will use nukes whenever we feel like it' policy change? Remember that Sharon is in power now? It's actually much less likely that Iraq would use chemical weapons now, unless Saddam suddenly turned both suicidal and incredibly desperatel whilst he's a murderous totalitarian dictator, he probably isn't either of the others above.



Is it possible a month of preliminary strikes prevented them from employing defensive weapons effectively? Do you own a gas mask?

Yes. Scud missiles did fly against Israeli population centers, and hit. None of them had a chemical payload. Iraqi sources (defectors) have in the past indicated that those had been removed on purpose.
And no, I don't own a gas mask, or a gun, or any other type of offensive or defensive weapon or device.


By the way, you've convinced me about Krauthammer, but your "read this" source is also alarmed about the NASA cover-up of chemtrails, details the most recent UFO sightings, and has an update on the face on Mars. And sells CHI machine "brain tuners" on its front page. You might have missed this. HTH.

The 'read this' link was an article from the British broadsheet The Independent. (see link at the bottom of the article). I linked it from that site because it's a nice, speedy mirror that doesn't frame the article in 20 frames and doesn't pop up any windows.
(and it's easier to read font-wise, as well) I didn't check the rest of the site for 'dubious' material; The Cellar has stories about dhamsaic's ass - I would hope that doesn't invalidate the political discussion we're engaging in :-)

If you prefer, go to the original link:
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=284823


X.

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
I feel like I should clarify where I stand on all of this... I do believe that Sharon is a dichead and war criminal. I do believe that the visit to the Temple Mount was intended to incite. (I also believe that, when someone is trying to incite you, becoming incited is really, really dumb. I don't believe that a visit to a piece of land should incite anyone to anything.)

I believe that there is not one speck of sense amongst the leadership of either side, and that whomever wrote the rules of engagement of the current invasion is an idiot and is also possibly a war criminal.

But more details make things interesting. Those details change all perspective. When Clinton was 'short' and pushing Arafat to settle for a bad deal (Camp David and Wye Plantation), and when Barak knew his time was limited, quietly, low level diplomats met, productively, in Taba, Egypt. No leaders tied to political agendas. This was discussion about peace, security, and the technical realities of regional life.

Unfortunately, two things happened. 1) Extremists replaced Barak. 2)Israeli extremists want annexation - thereby canceling or even making everything in Taba impossible. Sharon's agenda is annexation of the occupied territories - made obvious in how he has even openly annexed Palestinian lands negotiated in Taba. Taba is described in this week's (13 Apr 2002) The Economist which includes detailed maps, or at:
http://www.economist.com/displayStor...1%21%20%20L%0A

Palestinians start from the point that they have already conceded 78% of mandated Palestine to Israel, and should not be asked to concede more of the little that remains. ... In the West Bank, under the Oslo process, they have full control only over the cities, or 18% of the territory—and since the latest Israeli incursions, this has been lost. In Gaza, they controlled about 75% of the land before the intifada, but buffer zones and new roads have now reduced this to nearer 60%. The Israelis have about 200,000 settlers in the West Bank [illegal according to international law and multiple, previous US Presidents], and roughly the same number in East Jerusalem. They also have some 7,000 zealously guarded settlers in Gaza.

At Taba, the Israelis presented a map showing 6% annexation of the West Bank, the upper limit of Mr Clinton's suggestion. The Palestinians responded with a map showing 3.1% Israeli annexation in the context of a land swap. The Palestinians have argued that any land they get in exchange should be equal in quantity and quality to what they give up; the Israelis still insist that the swap should be symbolic only. So far, all the Palestinians have been offered is a strip of desert south of Gaza that is far smaller than any proposed annexation—and even this has now been snatched from them by Mr Sharon, who says he will build Israeli houses there. Israel also wants to hold a lease on a further 2% of the West Bank in the Jordan Valley region, for security reasons.

The 6% annexation proposed by Israel at Taba would accommodate about 80% of the West Bank settlers. The idea is that Israel should evacuate all settlements in Gaza and most of those in the West Bank. But two or three blocks of settlements would remain under Israeli sovereignty: one at Gush Etzion, south of Bethlehem; one at Ariel (meaning a deep finger of land stretching from the border into the West Bank); and one at Maale Adumim, east of Jerusalem. ...

Politically, Israelis assumed that withdrawal could be made palatable to the public at home if they stressed that most of the settlers, though not most of the 145 settlements, would remain under Israeli rule. But the Palestinians at Taba, though prepared to accept the blocks at Ariel and Gush Etzion, balked at the plans for Maale Adumim, and the stretch of land between this and Givat Zeev. A lot of Palestinians live in this area, which is also East Jerusalem's most important land reserve.

The numbers of settlers are still increasing, by less than before the intifada but still well above natural growth. ...

Not so the so-called “hillcrest settlements” farther west, which are populated by hard-core ideological settlers, most of them religious, and many of them belonging to the Gush Emunim movement which sets up Jewish outposts in the heart of heavily populated Palestinian areas. Israeli peace activists believe that a quarter of all settlers are now “ideological”. They would presumably be the hardest to remove, and some might forcibly resist. ...

Jerusalem, sacred to Muslims, Jews and Christians, arouses passionate emotion. Israel annexed East Jerusalem after the 1967 war, and greatly enlarged the municipal borders. But its annexation is unrecognised by the rest of the world [only El Salvador and Costa Rica have embassies in Jerusalem].

The city was high on the agenda at Taba, and discussions, even on the most sensitive subjects, reached an advanced point. Building on Mr Barak's softening of Israel's claim to Jerusalem as its undivided capital, there was agreement that the city would one day be the capital of both states: Yerushalaim, the capital of Israel; and al-Quds, the capital of Palestine. And the Israelis no longer argued, as they did once, that a Palestinian suburb, such as Abu Dis, should masquerade as al-Quds.

... The Palestinians were ready to discuss Israeli sovereignty over all Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem, except for those, such as Har Homa, that were built after the signing of the Oslo agreement in 1993. In the abstract, both Israelis and Palestinians favoured the idea of Jerusalem being an open city, without division. But while the Palestinians argued for an open city encompassing the full municipal borders of West as well as East Jerusalem, the Israelis, their minds on security and the sanctity of West Jerusalem, wanted to restrict the openness to the Old City and nearby.

This is what Sharon had to stop. This could have resulted in a final peace settlement.

The Economist continues with information not known to most Americans. Again, I complain about how the US public remains ignorant as Liza Thomas Laurie and Jim Gardner - while maintaining emotional opinions. For example, I suspect most here have heard of Har Homa only from a previous 'The Cellar' post - and not from their domestic news sources. Har Homa has long been center to news of Jerusalem. But how many ever heard of Taba? Did you know how close the little people came to a final and lasting settlement?

Mass murder extremists could not let peace happen. When peace was visible, then extremists openly called for and got the murder Rabin. When peace was visible, those same extremists restarted the Intafada. Sharon's desecration of Temple Mount was not the only action that restarted the Intafada - it was just the only incident that was reported by most American news. However 60 Minutes also demonstrated how Jewish extremists would march though Arab neighborhoods on Muslim Sabbath banging pots and pans - as but one example of how to create violence. Land outrightly stolen for access roads to extremist right wing Israeli West Bank settlements (I believe that was NBC News). Death by one billion pin pricks, almost none reported in America, is akin to outright military attack without the corresponding TV pictures. Those are the same reasons why Colonials signed a Declaration of Independence and then conducted a terrorist campaign against the British (and why British signed up Indians to do same against the Colonials).

In short, Sharon got exactly what he wanted - all negotiations quashed because the alternative was no annexation of occupied territories. Bottom line: Annexation, including ethnic cleansing, is the objective of Israeli extermists - even if it means never having peace.

Right wing extremists will do anything, incite any violence, blame anyone else, even lie outright, and 'finger fly' to a direct order by a US President - in order to make annexation a de facto reality.

Did you know about Taba? To understand this conflict, one must appreciate reams of details. To appreciate who is guilty, one must have known about Taba. Instead most Americans have the Daily News / Channel 6 Action New / Hardcopy version.

I read a Philly Daily News article and reach a conclusion. Then read the same story in the Inky that provided the details. Because of those details, I reach a 100% different conclusion. The Daily News outright lied by telling half truths. Details of the Middle East demonstrate one thing. All conflicts would have been resolved if extremists - instead of Rabin - were massacred. One extremist group with a plan to intentionally destroy any peace process is Likud. The man with that plan of destruction is Sharon. The violence we have today was explicitly part of his strategy. The current violence is trivial compared to Sharon's past mass murders. Sharon had to escalate violence because things like Camp David, Wye Plantation, Oslo Accords, Madrid, and Taba were his enemy.

Sharon's strategic objective is the annexation of all occupied territories. That fact makes every Sharon response predictable. After every news story, ask yourself, what will Sharon do next?

Middle East peace will never happen if Palestine is not a sovereign and independent nation. IOW someone or something has to kill Sharon - or thousands of Israelis must die in numbers equal to or greater than dead Palestinians. It is a lesson of history. When extremists drive all moderates into extremist positions, then only massive death rates can bring sanity back to any negotiation table.

BTW, that is the purpose of war - to return negotiation to the table. Terrorism is war just as guerilla attacks and saturation bombing of cities (the US and UK in WWII).

I hope Colin Powell fails miserably. He cannot be successful enough to do anything but prolong the existing, painful situation. A ceasefire without concrete settlements and negotiations is counterproductive. Sharon will never negotiate when his only intention is to annex the occupied territories.

Either a fully independent Palestine is created, or the violence must escalate in numbers sufficient to drive intelligent people back out of extremist mindsets. Without the outright murder of Sharon, then the only other alternative is daily terrrorism that makes current death rates pale. Ironically, violence is the only path remaining for peace because most intelligent people (the moderates from both sides) are now working for rather than condeming the extremists.

The sooner we have massive deaths on both sides, then the easier it will be to settle peacefully. Ironic? Cold-blooded? Heartless? Callous? Maybe. But then emotion was never part of my analysis. My bottom line is a sincere and lasting peaceful settlement. There is no place for emotion in understanding the Israeli - Palestinian conflict.

[Undertoad]

Well, the UN envoy was just on CNN, I didn't catch his name, and here are the facts about what he said. Since this will be spun every which way...

He said it was horrifying, a disaster. He talked about mostly the smell of the bodies. He talked about seeing a 12-year-old boy dead in the rubble. Talked about family members trying to remove bodies. Said the town looked in places like it had been hit by an earthquake.

Asked directly whether he could determine whether it was, as the Palestines say, a masscre of innocents -- or, as the Israelis say, massive firefights in door-to-door conflict -- he said that he <i>could not determine that</i>. He asked for a further investigation to determine the truth of the matter.

So we STILL don't know what is closer to the truth.

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Well, the UN envoy was just on CNN, I didn't catch his name, ...

I assume you are not referring to Kofi Anon, Secretary General of the UN. Last week's call for an international peace force to separate Israelis and Palestinians is a first from the UN. The Europeans were demanding same - about when - end of last year?

Colin Powell's trip was such a disaster that the President of Egypt suddenly and quite bluntly cancels scheduled talks with Powell without any reason as Powell arrived. It is how a country declares an envoy as irrelevant. Powell was made to look like a buffon on this trip. Powell's resignation is a possiblity - not likely - but clearly possible in the near future.

A former member of the National Security Council (now a VA professor - name forgotten) noted (on a PBS radio news show?) that White House 'zig-zagging' helped undermine Powell. First the White House put full support behind Powell, then started undermining Powell's position after Powell left Washington and while he was wandering the Med. I swear, White House opinion changes constantly depending on who last met with the President. It really makes one wonder who is making decisions in that White House. As tough talking as Condalezza Rice sounds, I don't think she pulls any strings.

You can appreciate how furious Arafat was after his last meeting with Powell. Arafat was told that he was the problem - he was the first step to creating a ceasefire. Ironically BBC analysts put up that same list except listing total Israeli withdraw from all Palestinian areas as step one. BBC says without full Israeli withdraw, then no other steps for peace are possible.

ABC News also stated bluntly, by example. They iterated how the Israelis broke into the PA Education ministry demanding that Ministry employees, used as human shields, demonstrate there were no armed Palestinians in the building. Then, as ABC News stated it, "next they went after the computers". ABC stated it that bluntly. Israeli soldiers destroyed all Education ministry computers because computers "were being used for terrorist activities". Then Israelis broke into the safe and stole all canceled checks and $8,500 of petty cash. ABC News demonstrated that Israeli objectives are to destroy all Palestinian infastructure. That is consistent with destruction of sewers, water mains, and electric lines. That is consistent with the raid to destroy the Palestinian Census bureau (that was provided by the EU). That is consistent with the destruction of local PA TV broadcast studio and transmitter equipment. Israel's invasion was another step in ethnic cleansing. Does Powell understand that? He can't be that naive as to not see any of this.

No matter what kind of spin we have from the White House:
1) George Jr ordered an Israeli withdraw, was humiliated internationally by Sharon, and is now trying to make it appear as if Sharon did not mock George Jr.
2) The Powell mission was a total waste of time, in part, because the White House is in denial of Sharon's objectives - the total annexation of the occupied territories - and because the Executive Branch is deeply divided between Powell moderates and Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz extremists.
3) OPEC will not use oil as a weapon this time unless the number of OPEC nations can cut off more oil than Saudi and Kuwait capacity can make up for. At least that is the word from Saudia Arabia now. Saudis and Kuwaitis can make up for up to four other OPEC nations. But if more join a boycott, then a 1973/1979/1992 type oil crisis is inevitable.
4) Any talk of a unilateral attack on Iraq - the Bush doctrine of eliminating three 'axises of evil' - is no longer coming from the White House. Maybe the White House has finally heard what the entire world has has been saying for months. Maybe they just did not believe that Cheney was told this by everyone? Denial by right wing George Jr extremists?

I just cannot believe the White House does not hear what every Arab and European nation and the UN Secretary General is saying. BTW, many and maybe most Americans also have not been hearing those words.

[Undertoad]

An Egyptian english-language publication for Egyptians and Arabs has an article about a Jenin fighter who talks in great detail about their plans during the month before the invasion.

http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2002/582/6inv2.htm

If it's true, it explains an awful lot. If it's true, this was no massacre. <i>IF</i> it's true. And that's hard to know.

A key excerpt:

"Of all the fighters in the West Bank we were the best prepared," he says. "We started working on our plan: to trap the invading soldiers and blow them up from the moment the Israeli tanks pulled out of Jenin last month."

Omar and other "engineers" made hundreds of explosive devices and carefully chose their locations.

"We had more than 50 houses booby-trapped around the camp. We chose old and empty buildings and the houses of men who were wanted by Israel because we knew the soldiers would search for them," he said.

"We cut off lengths of mains water pipes and packed them with explosives and nails. Then we placed them about four metres apart throughout the houses -- in cupboards, under sinks, in sofas."

The fighters hoped to disable the Israeli army's tanks with much more powerful bombs placed inside rubbish bins on the street. More explosives were hidden inside the cars of Jenin's most wanted men.

Connected by wires, the bombs were set off remotely, triggered by the current from a car battery.

[Undertoad]

This NYTimes story tells more of the story of the Jenin booby traps: they're still there.

The story tells of several people who have been hurt by explosions from booby traps.

That, in turn, says that when the Israelis disallowed journalists and humanitarian workers because conditions were too dangerous, they weren't lying after all.

Interesting.

[Xugumad]

There's an interesting story regarding Bush's (re)actions to the whole issue. I posted it in another thread, but since it's so closely linked, I am posting a link to it right here..

http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php?threadid=1360

Link:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?u=/.../79/1fclt.html

[Griff]

I stumbled across this article linked to a libertarian website. It's an eyewitness account of the situation on Bethlehem.

http://www.hcef.org/news/news/newsvi...621&nType=News

This is the part I found interesting...


"There are more than 300 people inside the nativity church which is under siege for more than 18 days now. Among them are families with their children, priests, nuns and some security guards."


Most reports I've seen fail to mention any noncombatants other than the priests.

[Undertoad]

The official story is that, if the folks involved are not on the terrorist list, they can come out whenever they like.

And yesterday 5 guys came out, were held overnight, and released. A few days ago a kid came out because (according to him) he was hungry and bored.

But if all the innocents leave, the rest of them face a different sort of firefight, and so I'm sure that the women and children still there are being "encouraged" to stay.

"Encouraged" as in you'll be seen as pro-Israeli if you leave, and we all know what happens if you're pro-Israeli:we had an image of the day that showed it. You get strung up.

And stabbed. And shot at. All sorts of wonderful things.

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
The official story is that, if the folks involved are not on the terrorist list, they can come out whenever they like.

Tell that to Palestinian policemen, not terrorists, who early on sought refuge in the church. Long ago when the invasion of Palestine began, Israelis captured five Palestinian policemen and executed them with shots to the side of the head. Is this true? It was reported as accurate from a western news service. But does truth even matter? Those Palestinian policemen saw Israelis previously murder other comrades (before the invasion) only because they were Palestinian policemen. Now one from The Cellar will tell those policemen that it is safe to leave the church? Who are they going to believe? History, or the word of Israelis commanded by Ariel Sharon?

I cannot blame any Palestinian for staying inside that church - regardless of what they have done previously. Just down the street from Arafat is an American woman whose carpets were pissed on by Israeli troops after she claimed to be American. There is nothing trustworthy or honorable about current Israeli thugs because they are commanded by and reflect the attitudes of the mass murder and now outright "liar directly in the face of George Jr" - Ariel Sharon.

Lets keep this in perspective. Anywhere that an Israeli soldier goes, a war correspondent must be permitted - as is standard in wars far more danageous. War correspondents and their resulting honesty are historically the enemy of Ariel Sharon. But some would claim, despite facts, that Palestine is too dangerous for war correspondents. True. Israelis were doing most shooting at correspondents. Only Israelis killed war correspondents. Israelis openly shot up the NBC News amored car knowing full well who was in it. The only significant threat to war correspondents were the attitude of Sharon and the actions of his thugs - soldiers that are racists.

It is not too dangerous to keep Palestinian women and children trapped in the same 'too dangerous' location? Of course. To many Israeli commanders, all Palestinians are the enemy - even though reality says otherwise. Israelis fear to have journalists see facts until the battlefield has been sanitized - as demonstrated by comments from a Norwegian observer. And so The Ecomomist notes of a building, being used for dead bodies, then collapsed by Israeli D-9s. The Israelis were reported removing the bodies. Why? Is it really too dangerous for war correspondents - or too dangerous for Israel if the world sees evidence of a massacre?

Israel lists something like 48 Palestinians dead in Jenin. However, testimonies I have read in so many western publications - each event clearly different - amounts to about the same number. Have I read of every Palestinian death? And were so many of those women and children part of the 95% who were combatants - as Israel claims?

One thing is clear. Information from the Israeli side has no credibility unless it can be independently verified. This is what has changed with the election of a dichead. Israel is not just a racist nation. Its government statements are no longer credible. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management - which is why it is not safe for any Palestinian to leave that church without an international escort - of war correspondents.

Remember those war correspondents - people with so much credibility that Israel's Likud government fears them.

[Xugumad]

So Natalie Hershlag, better known as Natalie Portman, even better known as 'Queen Amidala', Harvard Student, 1988 immigrant from Israel, and apparently middle-east scholar extraordinaire, writes <a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=205143">this</a> to the Harvard Crimson, in response to an article claiming that the Israelis are instituting a sort of Apartheid regarding the Palestinians.

Without wanting to claim whether or not she is correct, the following passage is most interesting:

"At one point, Chaudhry even compares the situation to apartheid. This is a distortion of the fact that most Israelis and Palestinians are indistinguishable physically."

That's true, but it's also a distortion of the fact that the perceived persecution is religious, and only to a certain point racial. Or is it? israeli Muslims and Eastern Orthodox Israelis (a minority, to be sure), have spoken of persecution and aggression in the past. What is the true motivation behind that - is it racial, religious, or an inextricably linked amalgamation of the two?

X.


Links:
Washington Post <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13965-2002Apr19.html">article</a> regarding the issue
Harvard Crimson <a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=205143">letter</a> written by Natalie Hershlag/Portman (who asked the Post not to mention her actual family name, which is well-known on the Harvard campus)

[Undertoad]

NY Daily News says:

"Now, American targets are the same as Israeli targets," a senior leader of Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades told Time magazine.

The AP reports:

A group of 113 Saudi intellectuals and writers has condemned the United States and Israel and described them as the axis of evil in the world.

Some serious fecal matter is going to hit the wind-generating device. I recommend investments in precious metals and keeping your car full of gas. In fact, keep a few gallons in the garage too.