[independent media








satellite tv

south africa

thunder bay

East Asia

euskal herria
united kingdom
west vlaanderen

Latin America


South Asia

United States
danbury, ct
minneapolis/st. paul
new jersey
new mexico
north carolina
north texas
ny capital
rocky mountain
rogue valley
san diego
san francisco bay area
santa cruz, ca
st louis
tallahassee-red hills
western mass

West Asia

fbi/legal updates
indymedia faq
mailing lists
process & imc docs



technlogy by cat@lyst and IMC Geeks

Hosting sponsored by:

indymedia news about us

A Palestinian Women’s Perspective on the Security Problem
by Jerusalem Center for Women 11:35am Sat Feb 1 '03
phone: 02 - 2347068 jcw@palnet.com

It is difficult to comprehend the bloody era in which we now find ourselves. What began at the 1991 Madrid conference as an attempt at parity and historical compromise, establishing international law and United Nations resolution 242 as the peace process terms of reference, was implemented in such a way as to destroy the very concept of “land for peace.” Only the need to provide security to Israeli citizens was considered, while the need to guarantee security to the Palestinian people has been ignored. This, we believe, is one of the gravest problems plaguing the peace process and one that continues today.
print article


A Palestinian Women’s Perspective on the Security Problem

Jerusalem Center for Women

It is difficult to comprehend the bloody era in which we now find ourselves. What began at the 1991 Madrid conference as an attempt at parity and historical compromise, establishing international law and United Nations resolution 242 as the peace process terms of reference, was implemented in such a way as to destroy the very concept of “land for peace.” Only the need to provide security to Israeli citizens was considered, while the need to guarantee security to the Palestinian people has been ignored. This, we believe, is one of the gravest problems plaguing the peace process and one that continues today.

Throughout the entire post-Oslo period, the building of illegal settlements continued. Bypass roads linking those settlements sliced up the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, destroying the territorial continuity of the Palestinian land that was become the state of Palestine (the June 4, 1967 borders). Subsequent Israeli governments placed the political responsibility for safeguarding these illegal settlements and the settlers on the Palestinian security services, while at the same time offering the Palestinian Authority security and civil control solely over Palestinian population centers (Areas A). In practice, the situation has been impossible, but even more significant was its demoralizing effect. There was, of course, no comparable safeguard for the Palestinians in their villages and on their land.

By implementing this one-sided vision of security, the Israeli government sought to protect the personal safety of its citizens and to control as much Palestinian land as possible. But the result was that Palestinians lost faith in credibility of the peace process. Palestinian despair increased as our daily conditions worsened. The loss of more land; the demolition of more homes; and the closure of our towns coupled with the experience of daily humiliation at the surrounding Israeli checkpoints led to frustration, anger and a loss of faith in the peace process—and finally to the eruption of the Intifada for Independence.

Security for Israelis will not be achieved by shelling residential areas, destroying homes, killing innocent civilians, tightening closures, harshening economic realities, subjecting 3.5 million Palestinian to siege and curfew, humiliating Palestinians at checkpoints and assassinating activists. Nor will security for Palestinians be achieved by killing Israeli civilians. But there will be no end to these great losses until the concept of security is revised to serve Palestinians as well as Israelis.

Experience has proved that only a just peace is the way to security for both sides. We call upon Israeli society, and Israeli women in particular, to pressure their government to end the occupation, and to join our quest to work together to build a new concept of security. Through negotiations that have a clear timetable for ending the occupation—in line with international law and backed by international guarantees—both sides can live securely and in peace. We are confident that the majority of Palestinians are behind this vision for security. We are actively working for, and anticipating a day when a just peace will prevail and both sides may enjoy its many fruitful results.

add your comments


The issue isn't 'occupation'
by Alan Goldstein 12:08pm Sat Feb 1 '03

print comment

While the reality of the 'occupation' draws attention, the real issue is simple- partition weakens the country and equal civil rights should be the number one concern. Those who lend support either for dominion or a two-state, separate but equal resolution are not furthering any sort of justice, or by extension, the promotion of peace.

Micah, chapter two begins:

1 Woe to them that devise iniquity, and work evil upon their beds! when the morning is light, they practise it, because it is in the power of their hand.
2 And they covet fields, and take them by violence; and houses, and take them away: so they oppress a man and his house, even a man and his heritage.
3 Therefore thus saith the LORD; Behold, against this family do I devise an evil, from which ye shall not remove your necks; neither shall ye go haughtily: for this time is evil.

Is this the legacy of Zionism? Though I am no true believer, these lines are very appropriate today. Such is the sovereignty of Herzl's dream.

So it is time to change the direction of your fight. The issue is not occupation and hiding behind the ghetto walls of a separation fence. It is not dominion and the pleasures too many get from exercising the prerogatives of the "Zionist fist". The issue is a unity of spirit and effort that rises above the pettiness of religious divisiveness.

add your comments


that's idealistic of you alan
by kristen 2:02am Mon Feb 3 '03

print comment

how do you propose to integrate, alan?
both u & the author are idealists, but offer no
practical solution to the problem, only blame &
criticism in a pointless one-sided fashion.

"Nor will security for Palestinians be achieved
by killing Israeli civilians. But there will be
no end to these great losses until the concept of
security is revised to serve Palestinians as well
as Israelis. "

--how to do this???
th e Palestinian Authority was arnmed to handle
we see what happened there; they became totally
integrated with terrorist organizations like

how do u so coveniently gloss over this?
they had a chance to try things legitimately.
they blew it.
while i think that diplomacy has to be used ,
israelis need a viable partner to deal with.
in order for the palestinians to get a fair deal,
to repair their communities & live & prosper,
they must, must, must take their share of
responsibility & lose the terrorism & violence
as a means of getting what they want.

there can BE no other way. they've prroven that
they are not willing to be equal partners, now
they have got to pull it together & get serious &
get rid of those old codes of conduct that are
outdated , backward, & dragging them down.

alan, u must know that fighting an internal
menace --& u know that the terrorist
organizations that are dedicated to the
obliteration of israel & whose sworn enemy is
the jew will not disappear after integration--
will be nearly impossible, & that's one good
reason why integration right now is now an

don't treat the palestinians as imbeciles; they
know what they need to do to follow a path to
their salvation & prosperity. the fact that they
cannot pull themselves together to do so, but
cling to futile violence as a means to solution,
ensures tragedy for all....

add your comments


Arlene Yuck
by John Veldhuis 12:08pm Mon Feb 3 '03

print comment

"Israel is fighting for her very existence and for
the way
of life to afford every idiot to express his

Only jewish idiots, or so it seems.

add your comments


radical treason
by genesio 6:26am Tue Feb 4 '03

print comment

Radicals Sans Rigueur
By Genesio Zenone
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 4, 2003

Journalist and author, Christopher Hitchens was
invited to Berkeley to give a talk at the Mario
Savio lecture series. Hitchens is a pleasure to
watch because he is consistently witty,
provocative, and intelligent. His erudition and
logical prowess make up a rhetorical arsenal that
few can match. Arguing with him can be like
stubbing your toe on the entire western canon.

Lately, there has been another reason to watch
him. He is almost always visited upon by radical
lefties that show up for the express purpose of
antagonizing in the only manner their wherewithal
will allow. They are confrontational,
inarticulate, and generally obnoxious.

Many radicals in the crowd were hostile, angry
that someone they view as a traitor could be
associated with Savio. They were relatively quiet
in the beginning, when Hitchens was discussing
his campaign against Kissinger, but when the
topic of war against terrorism and against Saddam
came up, an avalanche of boos ensued (they
sounded like moos). He was repeatedly interrupted
with expletives like "BULLSH-T!" He retorted that
the agitators were advertising their wares. Known
for not letting anyone get away with anything, he
arrived, as usual, ready for an intellectual
brawl; instead he got in some target practice.
The Q&A; period was pathetic. That it took place
at Berkley is a testament to an intellectual
decline at the hands of leftist ideology (had I
suddenly been teleported to a high school full of
misty-eyed indoctrinates?). There were perhaps
two decent questions in the entire period.

Some among the left state that the reason for why
they dislike Hitchens is that he is boorish. They
should be reminded that there was a time when the
left said of him: "he's a boor but he's our
boor!" He really only humiliates people who think
they are more clever then they are and whose
swollen egos beg for it.

It is really unclear what position Savio would
have taken after the world changed. 9-11 acts as
a litmus test for the left; it separates those
who advocate self-criticism as a responsibility
and who are willing to look beyond a stale
paradigm for new ideas, from those who are unable
to amend or renounce a model of the world that
has served them for a lifetime.

The differentiating question asks whether or not
one’s world view is dynamic. Is each
encounter with historical phenomena going to
result in lucid, honest and vigorous
deliberation? Or will an event’s
ontological status be tampered with (even
unknowingly) so that every phenomenon fits into a
pre-existing paradigm?

It is clear that Hitchens disagreed very little
with Savio's ideas about the U.S. position in the
Vietnam War. Perhaps Savio might have shared
Hitchens' ability to distinguish between, for
example, deposing Allende and removing the
Taliban. This ability seems to have been removed
from, or worn down in, the minds of so many in
today’s anti-war left.

It’s not that those of us who can make the
distinction between one act of aggression and
another (and who and reject trite moral
equivalences) are pro-war; we simply acknowledge
that war (or the threat of war) is sometimes a
necessary evil, a lesser evil. What’s
interesting is that most of the antiwar left
would agree with that proposition; they believe
(in principle) that there are some things worth
fighting for.

Of course, some are antiwar because they are
strict pacifists; killing, for them, is never
justified. While I am filled with both empathy
and disgust for their idealism and naivet,
genuine pacifists exist as a very small group; it
will be a long time before Quakers start
affecting public policy.

But most people who were and are against the wars
in Afghanistan and in Iraq are either ignorant or
hypocritical, or both (they are not mutually
exclusive adjectives). Either they do not know
that, for instance, the "Not In Our Name" and
"International ANSWER" antiwar movements are
fronts for the world workers party (the same
group that defended Milosovich’s right to
slaughter Muslims) or they do know. Those who do
not know are guilty of the sort of lazy posturing
that is all too common among those who strike the
subversive pose. Those who do know are acting in
bad faith, demonstrating anti-Americanism rather
then a desire for peace or human rights.

The left's hypocrisy is evidenced by more then a
half century of consistent anti-Americanism.
Nothing the US ever did was right: Leftist have
stood against:

The War Against Nazism; The Korean War; The
Vietnam War; The first War in Afghanistan; The
Wars in Central America; The first Gulf war; The
War Against the genocide of the European Muslim
population; The War against the Taliban; the war
against terrorism; The Bush Administration's plan
remove Hussein from Iraq….

Now, I am against some of these wars and have
reservations about others. But the left not only
opposes or opposed all of them, it has found ways
to sympathize or actively support each enemy.

The inability to make moral distinctions and the
insistence on condemning the U.S. is explicitly
demonstrated by the anti-war protesters last
weekend. Their signs show no degree of
originality or sophistication: "BLOOD AND OIL

How can anyone who demands rigor take this

If Bush is "evil," then what term could we use
for regimes that torture and kill dissidents or
for leaders like Kim Jong Il, who has reduced the
population in his dystopia to starvation or for
Saddam Hussein, who gasses his opponents and
murders his "friends"? Do those who throw acid in
the faces of women simply demonstrate a different
kind of "evil"?

It this the position of the new New Left?

The Taliban has been removed from Afghanistan,
and, while there is a long way to go, there is no
comparison between life under Taliban rule and
life now.

All that which the left foresaw (the "silent
genocide," the rush to build the pipeline…)
has not happened. In fact, aid organizations are
readjusting their projections of how many dead
because aid is flowing much more freely.

Many among the left cannot see that a wholly new
situation has risen. They insist on translating
this fresh, challenging information back into the
familiar language they already know, of empire,
and oil. What is noticed more than anything else
is the overwhelming monolithic and predictable
character of their position; everyone strikes the
same subversive pose. Nowhere in this group can
be found the philosophical calm, the objectivity
and the intellectual self-monitoring that one
would expect from a well-educated elite. And the
sycophantic followers are worse! Their
ideological miasma is a confused, haphazard,
bitches-brew of platitudes, clichs and nonsense
spewing in all directions.

add your comments


by Slim 12:07pm Tue Feb 4 '03

print comment

Dutch idiots, too, John.

add your comments


Nice way of life
by John Veldhuis 12:43pm Tue Feb 4 '03

print comment

Dutch too?

Only if they talk in favour of the repression, or if they bring enough journalists. The rest gets booted out, arrested, called anti-semites etc.

If the way of life it supposes to defend means you have to be a racist and a terrorist toward Palestinians, it is a way of life that should be extinct rather sooner than later.

add your comments


Let's Bomb Iraq Back to the STone Age
by Mitch 6:31am Wed Feb 5 '03

print comment

A Leftist's Case for War
By Mitchell Cohen
Dissent Magazine | February 3, 2003

Is Baghdad simply another miserable regime? Just
one of those unpleasant tyrannies that, sadly,
speckles our globe, but ought not to compel
overbearing concern? Much depends on how one
answers this question. The answer, I think, is
no. Saddam Hussein's dictatorship is pathological
and distinct from other rotten regimes today,
including those rooted in a similar ideology
(Syria, for example).

It is not just a matter of this regime's
fascist-like character (call it fascism-plus),
although its ruling Ba'ath Party fused
Pan-Arabism to the worst ideas of early
twentieth-century Europe. It is not just
Baghdad's brutality, although it is difficult to
imagine a more vicious, vengeful regime. It is
not just a question of Saddam's totalitarian
aspirations at home and aggressive ambitions
abroad, although Iraq's citizens and neighbors
know firsthand that these aspirations and
ambitions are beyond question. It is not even a
matter of Iraq's dogged pursuit of weapons of
mass destruction-although this is clearly
Saddam's fixation, and he has demonstrated his
readiness to use them against citizens and
neighbors (and would be pleased to do likewise
against Americans).

No, it is not "just" these things. It is their
combination with the fact that this regime never
keeps agreements. Virtually every major accord
Saddam has reached with domestic or foreign
foes-usually under pressures produced by his
recklessness-lasts only until he recovers
sufficiently to pursue his purposes. Ask
Iranians. Ask Kuwaitis. Ask Iraqi communists. Ask
Iraqi Shiites. Ask Iraqi Kurds. Recall the UN

So I conclude, reluctantly, that the options are
not "war or peace," but "sooner or later." Unless
there is a coup, force will eventually be needed
to defang Saddam's regime. The only real
questions are when, how much force, and what

Some people will, undoubtedly, protest: how can
you support the Bush administration? I worry a
great deal about the Bush administration-about
the fact that it has not thought out adequately
what happens after a war, about its cynical
exploitation of the Iraq crisis to pursue its
dreadful domestic agenda, about its
unconstructive unilateralist instincts, displayed
in matters like Kyoto and the International
Criminal Court. But I urge people on the left to
judge the Iraqi danger independently both of
distrust of Bush and of third-worldist

Sooner or later? "Sooner" will be costly, dicey,
scary. Wars always are, which is why every
sensible means ought always to be used to prevent
them. "Sensible" is the key word, however, and it
is perilous and not sensible to invent choices
that are comfortable to you, and then to choose
between them. So although I think that arguments
against preemptive war are formidable, and
although I share many of their assumptions, I
don't think that they are always persuasive.
"Kantianism has pure hands, but it has no hands,"
warned Charles Péguy, the French essayist,
a century ago.

"Later" will allow Baghdad to shore up, to
expand, and to conceal further its lethal
capacities. There can be no doubt that Saddam
will do so. UN inspectors, who are arriving in
Baghdad as I write, will, I hope, impair his
efforts at concealment, but their success is
likely to be temporary and partial. Inspectors
were readmitted only because of an immediate
American threat, not because of a Security
Council resolution-even if some Western
governments, intellectuals, and activists won't
admit it. For Saddam, inspectors are a problem to
be overcome, and he has proven staying power.
Disarmed-Saddam is an oxymoron. So, I'm afraid
that "later" just means rescheduling to his
advantage, and the likelihood of immeasurably
more suffering among Iraqis, their neighbors, and
any outside forces moving against him at another

The past inspection record is mixed. After its
spring 1990 inspection of Iraq, the International
Atomic Energy Agency confirmed Baghdad's claim to
be fulfilling its duties as a party to the Treaty
on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
("Exemplary" cooperation, said the supervisor of
the Agency's safeguards division.) A year later,
after the Gulf War, it was revealed that Baghdad
had initiated and concealed an ambitious nuclear
weapons program-between ten and fifteen billion
dollars of investment in some thirty sites, in a
workforce of twenty thousand, and, significantly,
in the production of highly enriched uranium. And
there was insurance: each important level of the
program had a duplicate.

The United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM),
established in 1991 to deprive Baghdad of its
biological, chemical, and nuclear arms and longer
range ballistic missiles, achieved a good deal.
The problem lies in what it could not achieve
because of Saddam's determination to undermine
inspections. (He acceded to them in the first
place only because of military defeat.) So UNSCOM
verified that thirty-nine tons of VX, the deadly
nerve agent, were destroyed, but it also feared
that Baghdad had sequestered chemical materials
sufficient to produce another two hundred tons of
it. Saddam manufactured mobile germ laboratories
and the like. Around a hundred and sixty bombs
and two dozen Scud missiles mounted with anthrax
could not be found by UNSCOM, according to its
final report. Its mission ended in 1998-not
because it was completed but because it was
frustrated so well by Saddam's apparatus.

In recent months, as the crisis intensified, some
voices protested: by what right does the United
States press this issue? The more important
question is this: why was Baghdad willing to
forgo a hundred and fifty billion dollars in oil
earnings rather than disarm? In some extreme
cases "right" doesn't matter. For instance,
Vietnam invaded Cambodia without right, for its
own purposes, in violation of international law,
and installed a new regime. I'm glad it did so
because it ended the genocidal rule of the Khmer

Other voices protest: isn't this Iraq business
just a ploy by Bush? "War should not start from a
bolt from the blue, but be the consequence of
demonstrated Iraqi unwillingness to accept
international rules," wrote Zbigniew Brzezinski,
Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, last
summer. He is, of course, right that war ought
never to originate from nowhere. But that is a
banality. If Saddam has not demonstrated
unwillingness to accept international rules, then
unwillingness to accept international rules is
indemonstrable. The UN-alas!-has demonstrated its
inability to enforce them adequately.

Current intelligence reports of Baghdad's
accelerated efforts to produce nonconventional
weapons surprise no one who has paid adequate
attention to and understood Saddam's pathology
and priorities. True, people don't always pay
attention. Back in the late 1990s, while Saddam
was freeing himself from UNSCOM (and while,
elsewhere, al-Qaeda was planning attacks), our
patriotic Republicans thought the nation's focus
ought to be on Monica Lewinsky.

Why deal with Saddam now? Because his menace,
especially nuclear, will only swell. The
situation was captured long ago by words
attributed to Cicero: "How can you believe that a
man who has lived so licentiously up to the
present time will not proceed to every extreme of
insolence, if he shall also secure the authority
given by arms? Do not, then, wait until you have
suffered some treatment and then rue it, but be
on your guard before you suffer; for it is rash
to allow dangers to come upon you and then to
repent of it, when you might have anticipated

I am wary of words like "anticipation" and
"preemption" because they can be abused
politically. They ought not to be a "doctrine."
But they are appropriate in some cases, and
Saddam's priorities demonstrate why he is one.
His pursuit of nuclear capabilities began over
two decades ago, although plentiful oil gives
Iraq no need of nuclear energy. Baghdad's budget
priorities after the vast carnage of the
Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), which Saddam
initiated, placed Iraq's high technology military
industry over civilian reconstruction. Saddam's
principal concern since UN sanctions began has
been his arms and not his citizens.

Sanctions permitted Iraq to sell oil to buy
medicine and food, but not military goods. Yet
for some time now a loud, scurrilous public
campaign has claimed on the basis of a UNICEF
report that sanctions helped to kill some one
million Iraqis. But why, then, did Saddam rebuff
UN appeals to buy baby formula in 1998-1999? Why
was he exporting food? Why was he importing
massive quantities of scotch for his hierarchy
and building an amusement park for the Ba'ath
elite? Why has he spent two billion dollars on
presidential palaces since the end of the Gulf
War and offered another one billion dollars in
aid to the Palestinian intifada? Why did
mortality rates fall in the semi-autonomous
Kurdish areas, where the UN-rather than
Baghdad-administers proceeds of "oil for food"?
Doesn't anyone notice that the UNICEF report was
written in collaboration with Saddam's Ministry
of Health?*

It is true that Iraqis have suffered. The reason
is not the sanctions regime (which has, in fact,
been quite porous). The problem is Saddam's
exploitation of it. I do believe that there is a
moral debt to be paid to Iraqis, but not because
of sanctions. It is due because the United States
encouraged Iraqis, especially the Kurds and
Shiites, to rebel at the end of the Gulf War, and
then stood back while Saddam slaughtered their
intifada. I am not optimistic about democracy in
Iraq, but this debt can be paid at least in part
by support for a Saddam-free Iraq, and by making
it clear that whatever the immediate post-war
arrangements, post-Saddam Iraq belongs to Iraqis,
not to the United States.

So I will not support an antiwar movement, even
if it includes many good people. I hope, for the
sake of honest public debate, that those good
people keep this movement focused on Iraq. Iraqi
suffering ought not to be exploited by
"activists" with other agendas (such as
Israel/Palestine, which has nothing to do with
Saddam's tyranny and must be addressed on its
own, unhappy grounds). In the meantime, I will
support Iraqi democrats, even if they are few in
number and their prospects difficult. I am
antifascist before I am antiwar. I am antifascist
before I am anti-imperialist. And I am
antifascist before I am anti-Bush.

*I cull these points from Michael Rubin's
devastating report, "Sanctions on Iraq," Middle
East Review of International Affairs (online),
December 2001. At various points in these
comments I also draw material from the Economist,
December 8, 2001, Chen Zak's Iran's Nuclear
Policy and the IAEA (Washington Institute for
Near East Policy Military Research Paper #3,
2002) and articles in the New York Times,
September 8 and 16, 2002.

Mitchell Cohen is co-editor of Dissent and
professor of political theory at Baruch College
and the Graduate School of the City University of
New York. He is currently visiting professor at
Stanford's Center for Integrative Research in the
Sciences and Humanities.

add your comments


Israel uber alles
by brucam 1:59am Thu Feb 6 '03

print comment

The issue is whether Palestine should be Jewish or
binational ie. allow the Palestinians some kind
of residency in their homeland, according to
politcal Zionism, and maybe labour Zionism too.
Or is it more convenient to try to justify
transfer a.k.a. expulsion of indigenous peoples
from their homeland? After all semitic Jews have
a greater claim to Palestine than semitic
Palestinians. I apologize for confusing the issue
of hatred by suggesting that these two peoples
are closer to one another than white Canadians
are to their Aboriginal peoples.
Zionism from the beginning targetted Palestine
for domination i.e. a Jewish majority tolerating
an arab minority, maybe. Well to understand, you
must read David Ben Gurion's memoirs. From the
very outset Zionism proclaimed superiority and
purity of race(this smacks of Hitler's Aryan
philosophy?) and committed whatever crime was
necessary(even sacrificing Jews) to achieve Eretz
So, for the mean time Israel is secure in the
knowledge that no one can topple them. After all,
they have the world's bully on their side. But
rest assured, somewhere out there is a Muslim
brain who will create a nuclear device to destroy
Tel Aviv and maybe Haifa and Jerusalem too
Sleep well all you israelis, but don't get too
smug. Every nation has an Achilles heal. I will
bet money on it, if not Saddam Hussein, then some
other muslim will be successful
in creating the devastation of Herzl's

add your comments


Where are your sources?
by Where? 11:42pm Sun Feb 23 '03

print comment

Please, if you could, cite the sources, book, page number, paragraph, and line that say exactly what you said about Ben-Gurion. Primary sources (primary being quotes from Ben-Gurion himself, not someone writing about him) please.

If you can't, then I suggest that you keep your propaganda to yourself.

add your comments


False Gods
by Evelyn Tyson. Woodson 3:37am Fri Feb 28 '03

1204 Lake Valrico Lane Valrico Florida 33594 USA

phone: 813-892-7590 evelyn632@juno.com

print comment

Having been Born in a Land that enslaved my
African Ancestors put in place a system to
gurantee the generations following will never
enjoy Liberty and equality; having this
knowledge, sets me apart from most Americans, who
have been desensetized to the cries of pain that
African Decendants endure generation after
generation. the devaluing of human life that is
the hall mark of the so called founding fahters:
who's curel European barbaric, instincts , led
them to kidnapp rape and comitt genocide upon
defenseless African women men and Children, with
pleaure: no remorse can be found in Generations
who are still the benificeris of the beginng of
the reign ot terror that began when the greed for
riches by the madness of uncontrolled
Lust,brought the First Explores tothis Continent.
and unleahsed the Curelty against Nieve True
Americans. Who along with the Enterprising
Africans was overcome with deception and Lies
and Out right Satanic Lordship over helpless
people with brute force, even Children were
skinned and dismembered in front of Parents and
family in order to terroize the victims into
Sumissions, Sexual brutality was emplimented
against all ages and genders. the State mandated
Liberty is only a superficial Prop with the most
hidious human rights violations as a back drop
that is used on African Decendants of all walks
of life inthe USA. From Inseption to
postmortem,in some form or another , Since This
Society is one of haves and have not's that uses
false propragands to acheive it's hidious agends
tehre has been divisions from the Beginng of the
Founding of what is errouniouly refered to as the
United States of America, the only unity is the
USA is the Bed Partnership with Big Business and
Corrupt Buracrats and Politicians; who enact Laws
that are designed to work against Equality &
Justice & Fair treatment of African Decendants
Generation after Generation, Most Africans live
and die without ever sitting foot on Forign
Soiland are only Taught English. the few who are
in the Military of manage to get In Government
Positons are Conditoned to only thnik of the
Intrest of Preserving the Crooked perverted
System that, Destroyed our Identies and Culture
Heritage as A people. any one who has the
courage to be a individual is seen as a Threat
and will be labeled as Anti American of a Threat
ot National Security Lies are Fabricated
regarding Chacrater often using family Members
who are promised favors that usually dont
materalize. Imyself have suffered thse types of
Human Rights Abuses, it began in early Childhood
before I was of any size or age to be a threat to
anyone. My male parent didnot have any Formal
academic Experience he was born at eh turn of the
19 Century when legalized Slavery was still the
Law of the Land simply camifloged under ambiguous
laws, be very much felt in every aspect of
American Experiences as it is in 2003. I was born
in 1942 and was subjectd to the identical daily
plight the earlier slaves had been the subject of
being a Girl and being of African ancestry , and
having a Steparent of Engligh and native American
and isolated from any help was traning Camp of
sher terror. I recall wetting on myself some
times three or four times . fromthe enternilized
stress and anxity from the Abuses and and
deprivations inflicted uopn me by the entire
household at eh behest of the cruel Stepmother.
who use dher whitness as a leverage. on the
entire family including the extended family. If
there is any doubt about Systematic Racism and
it's wicked coils stretching around the World and
perverting the Entire Global family, this Nation
is a Hypocrit, I suffer from racil attacks from
white's as well as my children were the victim's
of beatings and other abuses by white Teachers
who set the Stage for Failure for my beautiful
Brilliant Children who was eager to please and
well mannered, with good self emage unitl by the
Third or Fourth Yeat inthe Corrupt hands of eveil
they had began to beleiv ethe lies they were
told about themselves and me; in spit of it two
got Shcolaships to Collage the youngest graduated
from High Scholl God Blessed him with above
average gifts and talents which they teachers
resnted and set out to destroy him, This is
America that I know. I was given $1 by the white
Female Judge when three white Supremist attakced
me, the Second attack the First Time I got no
Restitution. no order to pay the Medical Bills
for Injuries to my eyes. formthe Blow to my
head, This is the American I know, I was
kidnapped and Raped when I was 8Months Pregnat
my vechile was Stoeln the Young white Rapist. who
was no even looked for, the Policwomen that I
reported the crime to joked and Laughted about
the details to the Brutality with Male Officers
who later told me , This is just the tip of the
Iceburg of my story I manged to rise above it to
middle class life style but the Civil Courts are
used agisnt me by white fraud's and The cases are
decided before I enter the Court Room; But I have
witnessed the hands of God remove many of
tormentors off the face of this Earth. suddenly
I have seen some lose thier powerful positions
after I ask God for assistance, I have hopes for
the Palastine, I greive to see what They and
Afganatan and Africa and so many others are
suffering Iraq , Philipines and Vietnam All
places of The Luters and Power Mongers, Mark I
know many of the us Senators Joe Leberman being
one,They seem to thnk everyone is stupid and knws
nothing and are unresponsive when confronted
about these serious issues. I was in Turkey For
One Months in 9-10 2002, While there I witnesed
Condtions in Palastanian Villages by Isreli
Forces that was heart breaking, Most American are
unaeare fo the Facts due to false and misleading
Infromation by American Media Outlets who under
report Isreli Violations of Human Rights. and
Opression provocations. I join the rest of God
Children on Earth for Peace. I hope to be able to
come someday whn Money is no the tool used to
keep our voices silent from the rest of the
World. If my writing is no so correct it's due to
head injuries sustained begining in eraly
childhoos untreated and amny years of abuse and
deprivation's you, edit My Love to People of all
faiths. God bless All his People, In the Name
that is above all names. Yours in Love Evelyn
Tyson. Woodson. USA If anyone wishes to contact
me my email is evelyn632@juno.com

add your comments


The Palestinian side?
by Joe 4:34am Wed Mar 26 '03

print comment

The writer would have been more convincing if she
addressed the miriad Plaestinian "contributions"
the the present state of affairs. Something on
suicide bombers and the cult that has been
created within Plaestinian society,and calling on
the Palestinian women to stop this waste of the
young, or the other very characteristic
phenomenon of killing jews as a very desirable
activity,and the women supporting this fully.
Before you ask the Israeli women maybe it would
be more desirebale to ask the Plaestinian women
to do something that shows that apart from
suffering and not being vital enugh to win, there
must be a shift in how the Plaestinian women deal
with their own society...

add your comments


(C) Indymedia Israel. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Indymedia Israel.