A Palestinian Womenג€™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 AN OPEN LETTER TO THE ISRAELI PUBLIC A Palestinian Womenג€™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 alan52@earthlink.net 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 security. we see what happened there; they became totally integrated with terrorist organizations like hamas. 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 option. 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 opinion." 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 oneג€™s world view is dynamic. Is each encounter with historical phenomena going to result in lucid, honest and vigorous deliberation? Or will an eventג€™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 todayג€™s anti-war left. Itג€™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. Whatג€™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 naivetי, 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 Milosovichג€™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 DONג€™T MIX" or "BUSH IS EVIL" or "STOP AMERICAN IMPERIALISM, GOD BLESS NORTH KOREA, IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN." How can anyone who demands rigor take this seriously? 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, clichיs and nonsense spewing in all directions. add your comments

John... 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 inspections. 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 aftermath. 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 prejudices. 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 date. 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 Rouge. 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 them." 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 brucam22@hotmail.com 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 Yisrael. 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 Judenstaat. shalom 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 address: 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 involentary 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