[independent media
centre]
English
Hebrew
Arabic








.


,
,

.


.


!

,












www.indymedia.org

Projects
climate
print
radio
satellite tv
video

Africa
ambazonia
nigeria
south africa

Canada
alberta
hamilton
maritimes
montreal
ontario
ottawa
quebec
thunder bay
vancouver
victoria
windsor

East Asia
japan

Europe
athens
austria
barcelona
belgium
bristol
cyprus
euskal herria
finland
galiza
germany
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
lille
madrid
nantes
netherlands
nice
norway
paris
poland
portugal
prague
russia
sweden
switzerland
thessaloniki
united kingdom
west vlaanderen

Latin America
argentina
bolivia
brasil
chiapas
chile
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
qollasuyu
rosario
sonora
tijuana
uruguay

Pacific
adelaide
aotearoa
brisbane
jakarta
melbourne
perth
sydney

South Asia
india
mumbai

United States
arizona
arkansas
atlanta
austin
baltimore
boston
buffalo
chicago
cleveland
danbury, ct
dc
hawaii
houston
idaho
ithaca
la
madison
maine
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new jersey
new mexico
north carolina
north texas
ny capital
nyc
oklahoma
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rocky mountain
rogue valley
san diego
san francisco bay area
santa cruz, ca
seattle
st louis
tallahassee-red hills
urbana-champaign
utah
vermont
western mass

West Asia
beirut
israel
palestine

Process
discussion
fbi/legal updates
indymedia faq
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech
volunteer

 

 


technlogy by cat@lyst and IMC Geeks

Hosting sponsored by:
sweethome

indymedia news about us

The Truth of Mohammed al-Dura: A Response to James Fallows Latin
by Adam Rose 9:13am Tue Jun 3 '03

Whether or not a particular 12-year-old boy died at the hands of Israeli soldiers, the image of Mohammed al-Dura is an authentic symbol of the Israeli occupation. Avoiding this harsh truth does a disservice to Israel and the Jewish people, as well as to the Palestinians, hinders the quest for peace, and endangers everyone if the wrong lessons are drawn from the al-Dura incident. (A reply to "The Atlantic Monthly" article 'Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura?' by James Fallows)
print article

The Truth of Mohammed al-Dura: A Response to James Fallows

Support Sanity

The Truth of Mohammed al-Dura:
A Response to James Fallows

By Adam Rose

Whether or not a particular 12-year-old boy died at the hands of Israeli soldiers, the image of Mohammed al-Dura is an authentic symbol of the Israeli occupation. Avoiding this harsh truth does a disservice to Israel and the Jewish people, as well as to the Palestinians, hinders the quest for peace, and endangers everyone if the wrong lessons are drawn from the al-Dura incident.

In the June 2003 issue of The Atlantic Monthly, James Fallows reports on Israeli research suggesting that the most famous image of the Second Intifada may not be what it appears to be. That image--which the lead-in to the article calls the "Pieta of the Arab world"--is of a 12-year-old Palestinian boy and his young father crouching against a wall beside a concrete "barrel" that shields them from the gunfire of Israeli soldiers. Ultimately, however, young Mohammed al-Dura was killed and his father Jamal severely wounded.


Actually, the image in question is not really a single image, but rather a video of the 30 September 2000 incident near the Netzarim settlement in Gaza made by a Palestinian cameraman working for the French TV network France 2. Four still images from this video are particularly dramatic and have become famous.

In the first image, father and son are huddled together, backs against the wall "behind" the concrete barrel that shields them from Israeli gunfire. Mohammed is clearly terrified as he screams and clutches at his father.

In the second image, Jamal peers around the barrel in the direction of Israeli soldiers while firmly gripping his son's arm. The terrified Mohammed continues to scream and, peering under his father's arm, looks directly into the camera--you can see the whites of his eyes.

In the third image, there are bullet holes on the wall and Jamal, still forcefully gripping the now-crying Mohammed, directs a primal scream towards the camera, his white teeth starkly contrasting with his dark face.

In the fourth image, Mohammed lies on the ground with his hand covering his face. Jamal sits slumped against the wall, his head cocked at an unnatural angle, his eyes closed and his mouth open. Amidst the bullet holes and debris, both appear to be dead--though, in fact, Jamal is not.

(The continuous video captures the moment when the two are actually struck by bullets.)

From this circumstantial evidence, which Fallows himself finds "persuasive", some have concluded that Israelis did not kill Mohammed al-Dura; Palestinians did. Some have even concluded that entire event was staged and that al-Dura was not killed at all. In either scenario, the Palestinian motive is the same: "To manufacture a child martyr, in correct anticipation of the damage this would do to Israel in the eyes of the world--especially the Islamic world."

In the words of Nahum Shahaf, the Israeli physicist and engineer who instigated and led the revisionist analysis and whom Fallows quotes:

I believe that one day there will be good things in common between us and the Palestinians. But the case of Mohammed al-Dura brings the big flames between Israel and the Palestinians and Arabs. It brings a big wall of hate. They can say this is the proof, the ultimate proof, that Israeli soldiers are boy-murderers. And that hatred breaks any chance of having something good in the future.

The revisionist analysis is thus offered as proof of two things. First, that Israeli soldiers did not kill Mohammed al-Dura. Second, and in some ways more rhetorically and politically important, that Palestinians will do anything in their propaganda war against Israel--including perhaps killing one of their own children.

And the Palestinians are winning the propaganda war according to Fallows. The Arab world--and perhaps the whole world, including much of the United States and even of Israel itself--has been eager to swallow the story of the Mohammed al-Dura's "martyrdom":

Through repetition [these images] have become as familiar and significant to Arab and Islamic viewers as photographs of bombed-out Hiroshima are to the people of Japan--or as footage of the crumbling World Trade Center is to Americans. Several Arab countries have issued postage stamps carrying a picture of the terrified boy. One of Baghdad's main streets was renamed The Martyr Mohammed Aldura Street. Morocco has an al-Dura Park.

Thus, the al-Dura case has been "uniquely damaging" for Israel because, in the words of Israeli strategist Dan Schueftan, "[It was] the ultimate symbol of what the Arabs want to think: the father is trying to protect his son, and the satanic Jews--there is no other word for it--are trying to kill him. These Jews are people who will come to kill our children, because they are not human."

And as Fallow relates it, the Arab world (unlike ours?) is not about to let a small thing like "facts" produced by Israeli researchers change its opinion.

So here we have all the main elements of the perspective that Fallows finds "persuasive". Despite the actual facts of Israeli behavior on that fateful day in Gaza, the Palestinians deliberately manufactured the martyrdom of Mohammed al-Dura in order to "prove" the "satanic" nature of the Israelis, or perhaps "the Jews". And despite the actual facts of Israeli behavior on that fateful day in Gaza, the Arab world has adopted this false symbol with gusto. Why? Because that's what they want to think. And "they" will choose to think that regardless of the actual facts. Indeed, "facts" will be manufactured to support it.

Fallows's argument and article, therefore, are ultimately not about the forensic investigation, but rather about the dynamics of "martyrdom" in the Arab world. For the Mohammed al-Dura episode "offers an object lesson in the incendiary power of an icon" and thus "illustrates the way the battles of wartime imagery may play themselves out" in the future--especially in a U.S.-occupied Iraq in which Arab civilians are dying at the (apparent?) hands of alien soldiers. As Fallows ominously notes, "More of this lies ahead".

Fallows's article needs to be assessed, then, first and foremost for what it says about the image of Mohammed al-Dura's death and the relationship between that image and "truth", especially in the Arab world. I believe there are at least two significant problems with Fallows's analysis.

First, there is an obvious contradiction between claiming that a group of people will believe a particular thing regardless of the "truth" and then suggesting that someone has found it necessary to manufacture "proof" to convince these people of that very thing. After all, strictly speaking, "proof" is only useful for those who remain to be convinced. If the Arab world already believes that the Israelis or "the Jews" are "satanic", no additional "proof" is needed. (One wonders, therefore, if what is really so troubling about the al-Dura image for Fallows and his sources is not that it has influenced those who believe that Israelis can do no good, but rather that it has influenced those otherwise disposed to think that Israelis or "the Jews" can do no serious wrong.)

This points to the second and larger problem with Fallows's argument: his narrow and incomplete understanding of "truth". From Fallows's perspective, the truth that matters is who shot Mohammed al-Dura and the truth is either that he was shot by Israelis or that he was not and the Israelis were framed. And, of course, in one sense this is right and important. But there is another, even more important truth of the matter connected to its symbolic nature. And it is this symbolic truth that Fallows completely misconstrues.

In his Poetics, Aristotle writes:

The distinction between historian and poet is not in the one writing prose and the other verse--you might put the work of Herodotus into verse, and it would still be a species of history; it consists really in this, that the one describes the thing that has been, and the other a kind of thing that might be. Hence poetry is something more philosophic and of graver import than history, since its statements are of the nature rather of universals, whereas those of history are singulars. By a universal statement I mean one as to what such or such a kind of man will probably or necessarily say or do--which is the aim of poetry, though it affixes proper names to the characters; by a singular statement, one as to what, say, Alcibiades did or had done to him. (1451b1-12)

It is evident from the above that the poet must be more the poet of his stories or Plots than of his verses, inasmuch as he is a poet by virtue of the imitative element in his work, and it is actions that he imitates. And if he should come to take a subject from actual history, he is none the less a poet for that; since some historic occurrences may very well be in that probable or possible order of things; and it is in that aspect of them that he is their poet. (1451b27-32)

In other words, above and beyond "historical" truths of what actually happens in particular "singular" events, there are "philosophical" truths of what "probably or necessarily" happens "universally" in certain types of events. And it is such universal, philosophical truths, according to Aristotle, that are manifested in "poetry"--and by extension other "arts" as well.

Sometimes the portrayal of an actual event is "artistic" as well as "historic" because it represents a universal as well as a singular truth. In these cases, the portrayal reveals, in addition to the actual, the "necessary or probable" type of event of which that actual is an instance. And sometimes the portrayal of an event that never actually happened (or even never could happen) reveals a real, "necessary or probable" type of event. In these cases, the portrayal is true as a universal statement even though it is false as a singular statement.

It is in this sense that one experiences the "truth" of "art", "symbols", "myths" and the like--quite independently of whether the things they portray "actually happened". There is a truth in Macbeth quite independent of the facts of Macbeth. There is a truth in the story of George Washington and the cherry tree quite independent of the historical George's childhood. There is a truth in the image of the flag-raising at Iwo Jima that makes the issue of whether the event was staged simply beside the point.

And it is in this larger "artistic", symbolic sense of truth that the image of Mohammed al-Dura has swept the Arab world and beyond. Not because it "proved" something that people didn't already know, but because it perfectly represented something that they already "knew" too well. The critical question, therefore, is not whether the particular boy Mohammed al-Dura was or was not killed by Israeli soldiers on 30 September 2000 near the Netzarim settlement in Gaza. Rather, the critical question is whether or not Mohammed al-Dura being killed by Israeli soldiers represented a certain type of event that "probably or necessarily" happens quite regularly--a type of event that in its starkest form boils down to older adolescent males armed with the most advanced weaponry on one side killing younger adolescent males armed with the most primitive weaponry on the other.

In other words, the critical question in an examination of the dynamics of Mohammed al-Dura's "martyrdom" is not whether the singular "Story of Mohammed al-Dura" is true, but whether the universal "Mohammed al-Dura Story" is true.

And the sad, incontrovertible fact is that the universal "Mohammed al-Dura Story" is true. According to multiple, credible international, American and Israeli sources, Israeli soldiers do kill little Palestinian boys on a regular basis. Sometimes for throwing rocks. Sometimes because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. And sometimes (apparently) for sport. (See, for example: "Killing the Future: Children in the Line of Fire", Amnesty International, 30 September 2002; "A Gaza Diary: Scenes from the Palestinian Uprising" by New York Times reporter Chris Hedges, Harper's Magazine, October 2001; and "Don't Shoot Till You Can See They're Over the Age of 12" by Amira Hass, Ha'aretz, 20 November 2000.)

According to B'Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, Israeli security forces killed 2,038 Palestinians between 29 September 2000 and 11 May 2003. Of these, 366 (18%) were minors under the age of 18. Indeed, by the end of the second day of the al-Aqsa Intifada, the day on which Mohammed al-Dura died, 15 Palestinians had already been killed. Of these, four (27%) were minors. Besides Mohammad al-Dura, whose death was so graphically captured on video, B'Tselem reports these otherwise-invisible child casualties:

   Khaled 'Adli al-Baziyan, age 15, from Nablus, killed by Israeli security forces live gunfire to the head in Nablus/The West Bank

   Nizar Mahmud 'Abd al-'Ayedeh, age 16, from Deir 'Ammar/Ramallah, killed by Israeli security forces gunfire to the chest in Ramallah/The West Bank

   'Iyyad Ahmad al-Khashashi, age 16, from Nablus, killed by Israeli security forces live gunfire in Nablus/The West Bank

The day after Mohammad al-Dura died, four more minors--including another 12-year-old, Samer Samir Sudki Tabanjeh--were killed by Israeli security forces.

(By comparison, B'Tselem reports that between 29 September 2000 and 11 May 2003 Palestinians killed 483 Israeli civilians and 216 Israeli security personnel, or 699 total. Of these, 92 or 13% were minors. By the end of the second day of the intifada one Israeli soldier but no Israeli civilians, and therefore no Israeli minors, had been killed. Further information is available at www.btselem.org.)

Of course, the standard Israeli explanation is that Palestinian casualties consist of "terrorists" and unavoidable "collateral damage". And no doubt many are. But there is equally no doubt that many Palestinians, including children, are victims of Israeli predation consciously intended to "break them" physically, mentally and economically so that they will, one by one, despair and drift away to other places where life will be better and easier for them and where their children will have a future.

Such predation is an integral part of a de facto Israeli policy of "creeping annexation" of the occupied territories. This policy--which also includes the relentless demolition of Palestinian homes, the continuous expansion of Jewish settlements and Jews-only "bypass roads" and the construction of a "separation wall" that on current plans will incorporate approximately an additional 10% of the occupied territories into Israel and make the nearby Palestinian villages that remain completely untenable--is designed to preclude the establishment of a genuinely independent, genuinely viable Palestine on the land Israel conquered in 1967.

And such predation has recently been extended to include clearly-marked, clearly-unarmed international peace activists who oppose Israel's occupation and who provide the outside world with timely, first-hand, front-line documentation of this creeping annexation.

No revisionist analysis has yet suggested, for example, that 23-year-old American Rachel Corrie was not in fact run over twice (forwards and backwards) by an Israeli army bulldozer on 16 March 2003 in Gaza. Or that 22-year-old Briton Tom Hurndall was not shot in the head by an Israeli sniper on 10 April 2003 (and is now effectively brain-dead).

What is going on here?

One might be forgiven for thinking that Israelis (or perhaps even "the Jews") have lost their minds. Or their morals. Or both. One might be forgiven for thinking that Israelis are perpetrating a great evil. Not occasionally. Not accidentally. But intentionally and systematically. And one might be forgiven for thinking that the only plausible explanation for an Israel running amok is that Israelis are "satanic" (although one might alternatively agree with Edmund Burke that, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing").

It is a recognition of the deep, intentional and systematic evil of the occupation--an evil that is destroying Israel from within even as it destroys Palestine from without--that has led many Israelis to oppose it. Most dramatically perhaps, over 1,000 Israelis, represented by groups such as Yesh Gvul ("There is a Limit"), Ometz Lesarev ("Courage to Refuse") and others, have declared that they will refuse to serve as soldiers in the occupied territories. In the words of the Courage to Refuse Combatants' Letter, "We shall not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people".

And it is a recognition of the deep, intentional and systematic evil of the occupation that is driving a growing number of American Jews--represented by a range of diverse groups that includes Brit Tzedek v'Shalom ("Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace"), Americans for Peace Now, The Tikkun Community, the Refuser Solidarity Network, Jewish Voice for Peace and Not In My Name--to actively oppose it, just as they oppose the evil of Palestinian suicide bombings. Likewise with a growing number of Jews around the world.

The image of Mohammed al-Dura is thus not so much about the particular little Palestinian boy named Mohammed al-Dura as it is about all the little Palestinian boys. And the power of that image is not what it says about one, but what it says about all. For in that "artistic", "symbolic", "mythical" image all the little boys--the Khaleds, the Nizars, the 'Iyyads, the Samers, the 12-year-old killed today (22 May 2003) as I complete this essay--are Mohammed al-Dura. It is an image that serves as a kind of Tomb of the Unknown Little Palestinian Boy.

From this perspective, therefore, the actual facts about the killing of the particular boy named Mohammed al-Dura are rather beside the point. For even if the image of Mohammad al-Dura is not true as "news" or "history" (and I and many others are by no means persuaded like Fallows), there can be no doubt that it is true as "art".

And it is as "art" that the al-Dura image resonates throughout the Arab world and beyond. It is as "art" embodying a general truth that it has inspired the postage stamps and the renamed streets and parks that Fallows mentions. And it is as "art" that it inspires other art, including a recent novel by 15-year-old Egyptian-Italian Randa Ghazy (already or soon to be published in over 16 countries, including the U.S. and Canada where George Braziller, Inc. is bringing it out as Dreaming of Palestine).

In other words, it is precisely as the "Palestinian Piet" that the image of Mohammed al-Dura is most importantly and undeniably true. (And it is precisely as the "Palestinian Piet" that the image of Mohammed al-Dura has been embodied by artist Adam Pincus in a sculpture similar, if not comparable, to Michelangelo's.)

If the fatal shot was fired by an Israeli soldier, the image of Mohammed al-Dura is both historically true and artistically true. If it was not, if Fallows and the revisionists are right, the image of Mohammed al-Dura is nonetheless--to borrow Picasso's characterization of all art--a lie that can make us realize the truth.

In either case, acknowledging the truth of Mohammed al-Dura is a necessary prerequisite to ending the conditions that precipitated it.

* * *

Why doesn't James Fallows see all this? Despite the fact that he ostensibly wants to examine the dynamics of the premier case of Palestinian "martyrdom" and despite the fact that he recognizes the fundamental role that Israel's settlement policy plays in the conflict, why does Fallows ignore the symbolic truth of the al-Dura image? Or perhaps more precisely: why does Fallows's analysis hide this universal, symbolic truth by transforming it into a relativistic, "cultural truth" different from ours? A cultural truth that his article implies--and purportedly demonstrates--is willfully less true than our own. A cultural truth that, unexplained, must necessarily appear symptomatic of an inexplicable cultural hatred that Arabs have for Israel or "the Jews", and by extension, America and the West.

Is it because, as Palestinian-American writer Ray Hanania suggested recently in a syndicated column entitled "Atlantic Monthly continues with its pro-Israel propaganda", Fallows is a shoddy journalist not really interested in the truth, or "doesn't want to lose his job at a biased publication with a historical bias toward Israel that never publishes any serious essays by Palestinians who challenge Israel's government policies"?

My suspicion is that a clue to the answer is revealed in Fallows's characterizations of the two sides' respective contributions to the problem. From Fallows's pen, the Israeli contribution emerges as a bland "policy of promoting settlements in occupied territory" while the Palestinian contribution emerges as a bloody "policy of terror". In this, I suspect Fallows is simply seeing what he (or is it his readers?) wants or needs to see.

After all, how very uncomfortable for those who support Israel to open the door to the possibility that Israelis may in fact also be guilty of horrible crimes. Not just occasionally. Not just accidentally. But intentionally and systematically. How very uncomfortable to consider that Arab hatred may have origins in fact--may, "in fact", be rational and justified. How very uncomfortable it would be to live in a world in which "the Arabs" are not lunatics with a predisposition to hate the innocent, the Israelis (or "the Jews"), the West--and therefore in a world in which it is our cultural truth that is not quite right.

How much easier it is to simply avoid the issue altogether by delegitimizing the Arab perspective and then girding to defeat it. And them.

By misconstruing the "artistic" truth of the al-Dura image, Fallows sidesteps--and invites his readers to sidestep--some of the fundamental realities of the Israeli occupation. Despite perhaps the best of intentions, Fallows thus nevertheless does a great disservice to Israel and the Jewish people. For today's true friends of Israel and the Jewish people are those who force them--and themselves--to look at the image of Mohammad al-Dura and see the truth there, however uncomfortable that may be. How else can the great evil that gave rise to that image be corrected? How else can Israel and the Jewish people restore themselves to what they say they aspire to be?

More importantly, however, by sidestepping some of the fundamental realities of the Israeli occupation Fallows inevitably missteps when he attempts to draw lessons from the al-Dura episode. For the real lessons here do not include that the Arabs live in a culturally-constructed cocoon, immune to the truth. (At least not any more than anyone else does.) Or that the Arabs have a cultural predisposition to rush to judgment, or will not revisit their judgments in the light of new, even inconvenient, facts. (Arab soul-searching in the wake of the swift U.S. victory in Iraq should be proof enough of this.) Or that the U.S. should simply imitate Israel by girding for a difficult propaganda war.

Rather, the five most important lessons here are these.

First, no incident is an island. Patterns matter. Both Palestinians and Israelis see the al-Dura episode as the (potential) tip of an iceberg in which--incorrectly, as it turns out--the "historical" truth of an event-type stands or falls with the "historical" truth of a particular, symbolic event. If Israeli soldiers killed Mohammed al-Dura, Israeli soldiers regularly kill little Palestinian boys. If they did not, they do not. And it is the truth or falsity of the larger event-type that both sides really care about and that is really at issue in the struggle over the al-Dura image.

Second, Americans seem to have a hard time seeing and understanding the patterns of Arab life under occupation. I suspect that this is partly due to distance and lack of information and partly due to certain prejudices about Arabs and Muslims. And, when it comes to patterns of Arab life under the Israeli occupation, I know that it is partly due to an enormous and enormously successful campaign to color our vision.

Third, nothing could be worse than for the United States to simply assume that its situation today is the same as Israel's and that an "Israeli solution" is the answer to its problems. Whatever similarities and cultural affinities there may be between the two countries, prior to the war in Iraq there was at least one enormous difference: bin Laden and al Qaeda notwithstanding, most Arabs did not see the U.S. as directly occupying Arab land.

Indeed fourth, the United States must do every thing in its power to prevent the American occupation of Iraq from becoming a reprise of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories. We must at all costs create palpably positive "facts on the ground". We must at all costs create patterns of events in which our actions visibly contribute to the enrichment and ennoblement of Iraqi life rather than to its impoverishment and debasement. And we must at all costs refrain from anything that remotely hints at a de facto policy of creeping colonization (which, given the experience with Israel, all Arab eyes are on the lookout for).

If we do not succeed at this, we risk drawing ourselves and the Arab world into a mutually destructive, escalating cycle of violence similar to the Israeli-Palestinian one, albeit on a much larger scale. And we risk traveling down a slippery slope in which we ourselves, like the Israelis, destroy the things we hold most dear about ourselves and our way of life.

The somewhat perverse and counterintuitive upshot of the al-Dura incident, then, is that we should welcome the publication of tragic images because they enable "the state of an occupation" to be directly assessed. Every time such an image has no symbolic, "artistic" truth to it--every time such an image is true only as "news" or "history", if it is true at all--we will know that we have earned a reputation for humanity. But each time the image is another image of Mohammed al-Dura, we will know (if we want to) that something has been going horribly wrong, something that is making it possible for the image of a boy to be seen as a Piet.

If great enmities are ever to be really settled, we think it will be, not by the system of revenge and military success, and by forcing an opponent to swear to a treaty to his disadvantage; but when the more fortunate combatant waives his privileges and, guided by gentler feelings, conquers his rival in generosity and accords peace on more moderate conditions than expected.

From that moment, instead of the debt of revenge which violence must entail, his adversary owes a debt of generosity to be paid in kind, and is inclined by honor to stand by his agreement.

And men more often act in this manner toward their greatest enemies than where the quarrel is of less importance; they are also by nature as glad to give way to those who first yield to them, as they are apt to be provoked by arrogance to risks condemned by their own judgment.

Thucydides
The Peloponnesian War
c. 425 BCE


"The Truth of Mohammed al-Dura"

Support Sanity

The Truth of Mohammed al-Dura:
A Response to James Fallows

About the Author

Adam Rose is an instructor and past chairman for the University of Chicago Basic Program of Liberal Education for Adults as well as the founder and director of Support Sanity.

About Support Sanity

Support Sanity is an independent public campaign:

   Building massively-visible mass support for an evenhanded two-state solution for Israel and Palestine;

   Affirming the common humanity of Palestinians and Israelis;

   Promoting the mass display of a simple, "symmetrically-affirmative" symbol that concretely embodies this humane and practical perspective: the Israeli and Palestinian flags crossed in friendship over the motto "Justice Peace Life".

The centerpiece of the campaign is a lapel pin that we are encouraging supporters of a just peace to wear as part of their everyday attire. More information is available at: www.SupportSanity.org.

Contact Information

Please send comments, suggestions and publication inquiries to: AdamRose@SupportSanity.org

Text Copyright 2003 Adam Rose
All rights reserved. Images may be the copyright of their respective owners
and are reproduced here as "fair use".

A PDF version of this article is available at:
http://www.SupportSanity.org/user/The%20Truth%20of%20Mohammed%20al-Dura.pdf

Support Sanity

207 E Ohio Street #350, Chicago, Illinois 60611, USA

info@SupportSanity.org www.SupportSanity.org

"Truly a splendid initiative" with a website that's "an absolute must."

www.supportsanity.org/

add your comments

Source file


 

brilliant disertation, but flawed Latin
by goldberg 6:54pm Wed Jun 4 '03

print comment

a very well reasoned liberal piece, but mr rose left out the fact that the arabs have been fighting israel since its incepcion, and before then, since 1926. they have refused every peace offer, 1948 1967 1973 and camp david before this last outbreak of killing. he also left out the fact that arabs use children in their wars as a matter of course. the fact remains that if arafat had not started this last war, all of the children and all the rest of the dead and maimed wold all be alive and well today.

add your comments


 

how typical Hebrew
by @w 11:14pm Wed Jun 4 '03

print comment

blame the victim goldberg like a good little
zionist...

add your comments


 

from a zionist Latin
by goldberg 6:56am Thu Jun 5 '03

print comment

...and exactly whats not true.your pals are the victims all right. they are the victims of the worst leadership known to man and to inhuman treatment by thier fellow arab nations. while we are at it, has there ever been a human arab nation?

add your comments


 

A boycott of Israel is still necessary Latin
by John Veldhuis 8:23pm Fri Jun 6 '03

print comment

The leadership of the most democratically chosen Arab president has nothing to do with being victims of the illegal colonisation of Palestinian territory by Israel supported thugs, terrorists, racists and fundamentalists.

Boycott Apartheid
Boycott Colonialism
Boycott Israel

Send home all Israeli ambassadors.

They can return together with a Palestinian ambassador.

add your comments


 

think alittle john Latin
by goldberg 8:49pm Fri Jun 6 '03

print comment

...have you forgotten the past, arafat has led his people from disaster to disaster. let you and i discuss a deal one which makes sense. your side has only suicide crazys going for it, stop their outside money, dismantle the 100 or so leaders who profit from the terror and then a deal can be struck. without arafat i may add.

add your comments


 

Goldberg goldberg goldberg! Latin
by .......... 1:02am Sat Jun 7 '03

print comment

GOLDBERG, YOU ZIONAZIS KEEP PUTTING CONDITIONS WHICH CANNOT BE MET SO THAT YOU CAN CONTINUE BENEFITTING FROM THE STATUS QUO.

IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE BY NOW THAT IT WAS ISRAEL WHICH INSTALLED ARAFAT IN PLACE SO THAT HE WOULD BETRAY 'HIS' PEOPLE FOR THE SAKE OF THE ZIONISTS.

ISRAEL CONTINUED FUNNELING CASH INTO ARAFATS "SAFE" THROUGHOUT THE PAST DECADES, BLACKMAILING AND BRIBING HIM IN THE PROCESS.

GET A GRIP, YOU ZIONAZI SAVAGE, AND REALIZE THAT YOUR SOLE ENEMY IS YOUR COUNTRYS TRAITOROUS LEADERSHIP/

add your comments


 

Boycott Momma Veldhuis Latin
by Dutch Uncle 5:10pm Sun Jun 8 '03

print comment

Let her stop walking the streets so that she can wipe Johnie's toosh.

add your comments


 

Every Argument Ends With An Obscenity Latin
by Rowan Berkeley 5:22pm Sun Jun 8 '03

print comment

Despite the incessant references to Julius Streicher's "Der Stuermer" in this connection, the fact is that Nazi propagandists were less addicted to mindless obscenity as a mode of argumentation than right wing Zionists are.
Now what does that tell us, class?

add your comments


 

rowen Latin
by goldberg 8:07pm Mon Jun 9 '03

print comment

..sir...it seems to me that it is the left who does exactly what you blame us rightwingers for, are you a pot calling the kettle black?

add your comments


 

Goldberg, Goldberg... Latin
by John Veldhuis 1:20pm Tue Jun 10 '03

print comment

"...have you forgotten the past, arafat has led his people from disaster to disaster. "

And you believe that justifies the occupation, the torture, the assinations, the home demolitions, the apartheid wall, the abuse, murder and imprisonment of children, poverty of Israeli's, etc. ?

I sure hope your not that stupid.

" let you and i discuss a deal one which makes sense. your side has only suicide crazys going for it, stop their outside money, dismantle the 100 or so leaders who profit from the terror and then a deal can be struck. without arafat i may add."

Your side has the religious fundamentalists and other crazies in your government. The only ones profiting from the terror, either which sides it comes from, are the settlers. The settlers should be Israels problem, not the Palestinians.

add your comments


 

o.k. john Latin
by goldberg 11:56pm Tue Jun 10 '03

print comment

..ok john let the past rest, you are right we are to blame for it all, now what?,there needs to be a stop to the killings in order to move along.....will you call for the hammas and the others to stop...thats stop...even the now and then knive and hachet killings of an israeli here and there, will you do that? then and only then israel can pull back a bit, and talks can go on.

add your comments


 

The blame goes both ways Latin
by John Veldhuis 12:55pm Wed Jun 11 '03

print comment

You are not to blame for it all. Not all.

There is no justification for terrorism, like bombing Israeli civilians, maybe even when they are illegally still colonizing Gaza, Westbank and East Jerusalem, maybe even when they are busy terrorizing Palestinian civilians. So Please, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah, Please Please stop doing that.

But that goes both ways.

Collective pusishment, like house demolitions, assassinations, general disregard for the life, health and security of Palestinian civilians are terrorism too.

Blowing up an 8 year old girl in an attempt to murder an alleged organizer of terrorism is definitely terrorism.

The only difference is that the Palestinian Authority tries to act against terrorism (they would do that better of course if Israel hadn't destroyed its means), and the state of Israel supports terrorism by settlers and even orders it by its army and airforce.

add your comments


 

No Israeli enclaves in Palestine Latin
by John Veldhuis 1:03pm Wed Jun 11 '03

print comment

What I forgot to mention:

There is no immediate need to withdraw the Israeli army from the occupied territories. They can help the future Palestine army, and rebuild police station, prisons, municipal office etc. that they destroyed.

The settlers is another story: Israel will have to take them back or leave them under the jurisdiction of the Palestine Government.

add your comments


 

People speak up and up Latin
by now= 5:21am Thu Jun 12 '03

print comment

Israel is a democracy and has every ,I repeat -EVERY right to execute its policies and defend its citizens.

You as a European, should not give us your 2 cents, unless you are asked for it.

You are definitely out of place telling the players what to do, when you have no stakes in the future of Our country.

Israel can and should pursue peace without sacrificing the security of the citizens.

Israelis are not pawns to be handled.
They are strong and capable of securing peace with one another1

add your comments


 

Another 2 eurocents Latin
by John Veldhuis 12:01pm Thu Jun 12 '03

print comment

"Israel is a democracy and has every ,I repeat -EVERY right to execute its policies and defend its citizens."

I don't argue that. As long as it observes and respects international law, treaties, the Geneva conventions and UN resolutions. And it doesn't.

"You as a European, should not give us your 2 cents, unless you are asked for it."

Does the concept of "free speech" have any meaning to you?

"You are definitely out of place telling the players what to do, when you have no stakes in the future of Our country."

Telling the "players" (it is no game) to stop stupid murder, terrorism, racism, apartheid, torture, collective punishment, is never out of place. Defending Israeli terrorism as "selfdefense" is to me like denying the holocaust. Calling a suicide bombing on civilians "resistance" falls in the same category.

"Israel can and should pursue peace without sacrificing the security of the citizens."

Here is something better:
Israel should pursue peace without sacrificing the security and the rights of any citizens, whatever race, religion or nationality. I don't know if it can. Until now it proves every day that it doesn't.

"Israelis are not pawns to be handled.
They are strong and capable of securing peace with one another"

I am not so sure of that. And the problem is not Israeli's securing peace with one another.
There is another people you should secure peace with, the Palestinians.

Properties of the Israeli's:
Strong - yes
Capable to secure peace - questionable at best.
Willing to secure peace - by their words: yes, by their actions: no

add your comments


 

Don't u remember u stole their lands??? Latin
by Frdric Pageau 9:25pm Sat Jul 12 '03

print comment

First, let me point a fact at you... Dont u remember that before Israel was created that palestinian had a country???

So the one you call terrorist are just figther for their country that your country(israel) deadly colonized since 1950.

Since the begining there is more victims, specialy a lot of civilian palestinian are killed.

Do you remember Israel dont respect the oslo traitee since 1967???

Sorry but palestinian just fight with what they have because they dont have the chance to have the usa to give em new weapon and to cover their crime on humanity!!!

Because with the appartheid hapenning in Israel and the constant colonization that take place and the killing of civilian palestinian, Israel doing not let than what happened to jews in the holocaust!!!! So you think its was ok??? So its why u continu this genocide???

Don't you know that there is some israelian even some that their kids have been killed by palestinian that they want peace and that they say no peace can happen till israel stop to applicate the repression politics and let palestinian having their country and same service and peace that Isreal have!!!!

Israel will never be free... Till they recognize that palestine Is still a country!!!!

A soldier and a palestinians "terrorist" its the same fight...

They fight for their country!!!

And think of it... Dont u remember The mossad made some attentats????

Peace will never happen till Israel dont let palestinian live because there is terrorist because there is no future for palestinian...

Dont forget it!!!!

add your comments


 

Don't u remember u stole their lands??? Latin
by Frdric Pageau 9:26pm Sat Jul 12 '03

print comment

First, let me point a fact at you... Dont u remember that before Israel was created that palestinian had a country???

So the one you call terrorist are just figther for their country that your country(israel) deadly colonized since 1950.

Since the begining there is more victims, specialy a lot of civilian palestinian are killed.

Do you remember Israel dont respect the oslo traitee since 1967???

Sorry but palestinian just fight with what they have because they dont have the chance to have the usa to give em new weapon and to cover their crime on humanity!!!

Because with the appartheid hapenning in Israel and the constant colonization that take place and the killing of civilian palestinian, Israel doing not let than what happened to jews in the holocaust!!!! So you think its was ok??? So its why u continu this genocide???

Don't you know that there is some israelian even some that their kids have been killed by palestinian that they want peace and that they say no peace can happen till israel stop to applicate the repression politics and let palestinian having their country and same service and peace that Isreal have!!!!

Israel will never be free... Till they recognize that palestine Is still a country!!!!

A soldier and a palestinians "terrorist" its the same fight...

They fight for their country!!!

And think of it... Dont u remember The mossad made some attentats????

Peace will never happen till Israel dont let palestinian live because there is terrorist because there is no future for palestinian...

Dont forget it!!!!

add your comments


 

Goldberg is a racist parasite Hebrew
by Haukur Gormsson 5:25pm Mon Jul 28 '03

print comment

If there is to be any peace in Western Asia the
racist zionist Israel must be replaced with a
secular democratic palestine for both Moslems,
jews and christian.

Israel is source for every conflict in rhe
westerna asia region, hey look at south africa,
the way the problem was solved in south africa
should be an road model to the Palestinan
question.

//Haukur, Sweden

add your comments


 

uh Latin
by Shirl 11:09pm Thu Aug 7 '03

print comment

Im reading what you guys are saying, and Im reaching the conclusion that this website is not a platform for achieving peace, no website that respects itself would let such bashing go around.
When one writes an article and wants it to be truly valued by people who are not specifically biased and do not need any meds to pass the day, one should present both points, represent both sides, so its readers would be able to view more or less the whole picture. Because like it or not, no side is perfect. As most say, the Israeli-Arab (Palestinian) conflict is a cycle of violence.Which means both sides are at fault, and that a lot of miscommunication and a fundamental lack of understanding of both the jewish/Israeli mentality and the Arab one is going on.
I am wondering whether this so called peace loving website would actually provide its readers with more balanced articles, neutral ones, that do not bash Israel nor Zionism( and for that matter the Arabs) to such shameful degrees. And if you guys do that, then please do it in a tasteful way,one that would not show how biased you are, and that in fact the only thing you seek is Israel's destruction and its replacement with Palestine, which was merely a mandate....
Bet Im gonna get bashed for what Im going to write now, but what the heck, I was wondering what's so bad about being a Zionist? U guys actually make it sound bad. But as a proud Zionist, I know its not bad, according to the Israeli definition, and I repeat the Israeli one, not that one u get to hear from Al Jazeera or on the Arab propganistic Media, a Zionist is a person who believes that Jews have the right to live in Israel as well as to other people, and please dont buy the propoganda shi* of a "larger Israel", because as an Israeli I can assure you that Israel is not interested in a lump of desert, thank you very much.
The IDF is a moral army, unlike other armies, when our soldiers commit crimes they actually pay for them, as any democratic state will do. Which raises an important point, do u actually think that by creating an additional palestinian state the arab world is going to be satisfied? That is what the Israelis wonder as well. They also wonder why this conflict wins so much attention, because WE ALL KNOW, there is worse shi* going on, no one dares mentioning the plight of other occupied people around the world, the lack of the democracy the arab regimes have, the preaching of hate against the western world and Jews. This is the real problem, and no matter how much land Israel is going to give to the oh so poor arabs , they are not going to be happy! WHY?! u ask??? because Israel is an infidel state, and that's been the problem all along( dont forget the occupation of lebanon- whose majority is Christian by Syria which you guys fail to mention). No matter how much we will give the arab world, we will not be welcomed there. It's not the so called palestinians aka arabs theycare about, it's the jews they want to drive into the sea, and people like you excuse their actions.
Why is no one yelling at what's going on in the Arab world? If one actually believes that the plight of the arabs living in there is any better than the "palis"' he simply shows his ignorance. Before this current "intifadah" the Arab Palestinians had one of the best living conditions in the arab world excluding the Saudis, they had the second highest average salary in the Arab world, they had an amazing increase of literacy rate among their people, all that explains why so many started calling themselves palestinians and moved to Gaza, Jeuda and Samaria ( west bank as you would like to call it, point is it doesnt matter what the place's name is.) Of course the Arab world disliked the fact that the tool they have created to drive the jews into the sea, was now happy, by simply cooperating with the Israelis. What have they done you say? They started sending money to support terror acts against innocent people, to train little kids in camps how to kill Israelis, and have their end of year play based on the Lynch in Ramallaha( where two young men who took the wrong exit were brutally murdered by a group of animals who actually identifies with the palestinian spirit) as if it's something they should be proud of. Yes, shocking, truly sad that the same arab countries that claim to care about the palestinians provide them with less financial help than The US does, and what does the USA get in return? it gets people cheering on the streets on 9/11...it gets palstinians burning their flags with so called peaceful activisits who are a shame for humanity.
I am not being objective as well I know, But I simply seek to see a certain balance as proper to a website that pretains to be propeace, Again as I said, no side is perfect, and this is a very complicated conflict, but many are misinformed, and still consider themselves to be knowledgeable on this subject, although they do not realize that its their own bias that prevents the Israelis from making peace with the Arab world. Maybe if the Oil seeking Europeans and Americans would butt out for a change, we could reach a resolution. Cause Gd knows if it was up to me, Id say the heck with borders, the heck with names, the heck with religion, we're all equal, let's enjoy living in this beautiful world Gd gave us TOGETHER.
Peace.

add your comments


 

A zionist I could like Latin
by John Veldhuis 11:47am Fri Aug 8 '03

print comment

"a Zionist is a person who believes that Jews have the right to live in Israel as well as to other people"

If all zionists were like you there would be no conflict.

The problem is that some zionists believe that the other people (should) have lesser or no rights.

add your comments


 

Arab "World" Latin
by AKhalil 7:39pm Sun Aug 24 '03

print comment

Few points to make:

First, some zionists always bring up the argument that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. It is not. Not that there are others, but rather that Israel is by definistion, by policy and by history and current actions has nothing to do with a democracy. Israel was built on the premise that a certain group of people, an extremme minority at that time, had the right to take over the land and properties of another people, throw them out or exterminate them, and then oppen the door for people belonging to a certain religion (jews) to come a colonize the land. From that day on, Israel has represented the interests of Jews alone, not the rest of its claimed citizens, and not to mention the occupied millions.

Second, the fact that other Arab states are not democracies is not a defence for Israel. Why would the system of governance in say Mauritania afffect or jutify Israel taking over Palestinian lands. Why would the great Sultan of Oman be a cause for Israel to kill or maime Palestinian children. True, some Arab states did get into wars with Israel, but Israel has initiated all of the wars except one (1973). And further, do you think that Israel would have had it so easy if these Arab states were democracies and actually progressed and represented the will of their people. I don;t think so. It is actually not in the interest of Israel to have Arab democracies for the simple fact that corrupt regeims can and are being bought by Israel and its allies. A representative regeim would not give in so easily, for, I admit, no Arab collectivity would accept Israel in their midst. Period. They might let it be for a while, and they have the historical depth for accepting that option. But eventually, when the balance of power is changed, which it must, or when America finally let go of Israel (which will possibly happen in the end, see below), Israel would pay the price of it sbrutal arrogance. If you think that Israel can continously deal with the Arabs with force, this would be like expecting the Maldive Islands to exert it will on India forever. The whole population of Israel can fit in Alexandria with room to spare. So, Israelis better mend their wars and think of a future beyong the Prime ministerial elections. Think what will happen not just to you, or you children, but to your 3rd, 4th, etc. generations. The people of the Axial World have been around for 7 thousand years, and they are going no where. If Isarelis would repent and belong, they might actually be accepted and eventually blend with the rest. If they continue with their ways they would eventually pay. The sad thing, is that I think the root of the Israeli problem is not the Jews or Jewish zionist per se, but the fundamentalist Chritians and their messianic form of zionizm. In this, I think the Jews are actually the ultimate victims. The messianic vision does not end at the restoration of the Jews in Palestine and the rebuilding of the Third Temple, but that at the end Israel must be destroyed "again" for Christ to come. If this is true, then America's might which has been protecting Israel so far, would one day be withdrawn at the right moment for the prophecy to be fulfilled. In fact, the Christian right might suddenly shift support to ensure the right outcome. From what I hear on Christian channels, I fear this might be true.

add your comments


 

oy vey Latin
by Shirl 9:27am Wed Aug 27 '03

print comment

Akhalil,

It's too bad that a person that can express himself so nicely manages to discredit himself with baseless statements.

Firstly, by stating that Israel initiated the 1948, 1956, 1967, etc.Habibi...maybe it's time to stop watching Al Jazeera and move to a less primitive form of media.But then again, I cannot blame you, I have yet to meet an Arab that would actually admit the Arab world is at any fault, when in fact they are the only ones that are responsible for the so called palestians are not getting a second state of their own.

Again, we all know that no matter how much Israel is going to give to the so called palestinians or for that matter the arab world, peace aint gonna happen :) therefore why should it.

Secondly, what makes u say Israel is not a democracy, the fact that it lets a very wide varuety of opinions express itself and take place on its most important platforms shows how different it is from the Arab world in that matter. Where shall I start I wonder, but then again, anyone who actually believs Israel is not a democracy seems like a blinded lost cause to me...oyyy

The only way there is going to be peace in the ME is when the Arabs are going to make huge reforms, in other words stop the preaching of hate against jews and infidels for that matter. I know its hard for u as a muslim to understand that Muslims can't always rule the infidels...it just doesnt work that way in a modern democratic world ...wake up and small the coffee...maybe if ull drink it ud actually see what's really going on.

Another point is that the plight of the so called palestinians has improved greatly up until the year 2001, when they started their "intifadah". They had the highest literacy rate, second highest average salary ( after the saudis of course), newest hospital facilities, water and electricity....things Jordan and Egypt...the real occupires of JEUDA, SAMARIA and GAZA had failed to provide with the residents at their time. Which might explain why so many people started calling themselves Palestinians...not only cause it was so damn easy, but because they got a great chance to live next to a democratic state which was interested in their neighbour's satisfaction :)

Maybe that also explains why young "palestinian" gals run to IDF soldiers, scareaming they are going to bomb theirselves, knwoing that they are going to put into jails, and treated MUCH BETTER than they were at their home with their primitive families....many cases like that...pathetic...gotta thank the arab nature.

U know what khalil...I truly think its time for Israel to behave as the way you arabs say it is...maybe then you'll regret giving us the perfect solution to end your shameless brutality.
Peace :)

add your comments


 

This I reply, for now Latin
by AKhalil 7:29pm Wed Aug 27 '03

print comment

It was written in the book of Nonesense:

Akhalil,

It's too bad that a person that can express himself so nicely manages to

discredit himself with baseless statements.



I think it is not I that needs to read "books," for I have a library of

thousands on various fields, with hundreds on Israel, but you apparently need

to get yourself out of the cocoon of Israeli state propaganda and Judaic

paranoia. If you want, we can begin from the begining and go through each war

or incedent one by one and see if I or you are delusional. As for the Arab

world, I am sorry to burst your buble again, for I am one of the most devout

critics of the Arab world, in relation to Israel and on many other topics. I

actually even fault the construct of an "Arab World." It does not exist, it is

a falacy or at best a dream which everyone talks about but no one really wants

to realise, Arabs and non-Arabs alike. However, to blame the Palestinan issue

on the so called Arab world is a disgrace to your intellectual integrity. I

presume you mean that the Arabs are at fault because they did not accept and

absorb the Palestinian refugees which you pushed out in your occupation of the

land. The "so called PALESTINANS," as you say repeating Golda's famous

denials, had land with houses on them and various properties. You took these

away from them and you should solve the problem, or live with it. Do not think

that it is Kosher to pass it along to me. They are Palestinians first of all

and constitute one of the world's oldest nations, even older than yours, if we

accept yours as a nation to start with. The "Arab" in their identity is an

affinity with a larger group of people, but that does not make them one and the

same. Are the Germans the same as the British? I guess you would agree that

they are not. Well, even with the differnce of language, the German and the

British are closer to each other that a Palestinian and and Iraqi. Yes.

Between a Palestinian and a Moroccan it is even worse. The claim that you, as

many Israelis, make has the effect of saying that you are after all not at

fault, but those bastard Arabs are the source of the conflict. Just like a

child who kicks his friend and runs to his parents crying that he was abused.

They PALESTINANS are not the problem. It is you. And by the way, I don't have al-Jazeera. But hey, what do you have to fear from information. You are bilkul tika (Absolutely Perfect, as the Indians would say).





I guess we will never find out, since Israel never compromised on anything.

And they will never seek peace, their anti-matter.





Ok. Wake up from your dream. Israel is a county that is built on the idea of

exclusion, externally and internally. Israel, according to your most cherished

ideal, is a Jewish state, not a democracy. That excludes all others, which

used to be the majority of the country before you took it over. It is a racist

state which classifies and appropriates rights to its "citizens" based on

belonging to different racial and ethnic groups. It a colonial state which

usuped the rights of an indigenuous population. It is a brutal occupying power

over wat remains of Palestine. I guess if you are Jewish and of the zionist

outlook, then Isarel is heaven on earth. Otherwise, run for cover because the

state has no qualms about shooting, bombing or even runnung tanks and buldozers

over you, and claiming that it is your fault after all. Now, as for the people

whom you control but don't even consider that they exist, the Palestinians, I

guess since they don't exist they must be enjoying this non-extistent democracy

of yours.





First of all, what the hell do you know about Islam other than these stupid

propaganda remarks. If you have some intelligent insights please do share with

us, otherwise please stick to secular areas of thought. Second, you are mixing

terms and confusing the issue in your head as well as in the heads of others.

Arabs are not equivalent with Muslims. There are Muslim Arabs, Christan Arabs

and Jewish Arabs. There exists, known to us in the civilized world, a specie

called Christian in the Palestinian genre, with a close cousin called Muslim.

A much more fewer relative is named Jewish Palestinian. Last, flipping the

coin, I guess there will be no peace in the ME until Jews understand that they

cannot rule over Muslims and Christians just because they are Jews: it just

does not happen in a democracy. Oh, as for the coffee, it is an Arabic word,

not Hebrew (so is Falafel, which smells good too).






The condition of living, everywhere in the world, has improved considerably

over the last 40 years, no thanks to Israel. If I kept a bird in a cage, its

condition would improve regardless of my intentions because the wheel of

progress keeps forces me advance. Now, compared with everywhere else, the

Palestinans did not fare as well as other people. These civil services which

you talk about were not done by of financed by Israel, the occupying power, but

by the same Arab states which you deny them credit. Just look at their names,

and you will find a Faisal Hospital, not a Sharon one. Of course you would

find many prisons and concentration camps built by Isarel, as well as

settlements everywhere you go. If this is what you mean by development in

Palestinian lives, then there you go. Why do't you satify them further by and

show them how a jewish grave feels like. Just kill them all and develop the

West bank and Gaza as they should be, Jewish lands, propering with farms and

factories.





Mighty nice of you. Can I have a two bedroom cell reserved for my retirement

please. You know, the Arabs are very evil. They are cousins to the Devils.

Hello cousin.





Whatever you say is like honey to my heart. Keep your head in the sand and

things will be better eventually, when someone pours concrete over it.

Bye

add your comments


 

This I reply, for now (take 2) Latin
by AKhalil 7:59pm Wed Aug 27 '03

print comment

(Sorry, the formatting was wrong)

It was written in the book of Nonesense:

"Akhalil,
It's too bad that a person that can express himself so nicely manages to discredit himself with baseless statements. Firstly, by stating that Israel initiated the 1948, 1956, 1967, etc.Habibi...maybe it's time to stop watching Al Jazeera and move to a less primitive form of media.But then again, I cannot blame you, I have yet to meet an Arab that would actually admit the Arab world is at any fault, when in fact they are the only ones that are responsible for the so called palestians are not getting a second state of their own."

I think it is not I that needs to read "books," for I have a library of thousands on various fields, with hundreds on Israel, but you apparently need to get yourself out of the cocoon of Israeli state propaganda and Judaic paranoia. If you want, we can begin from the begining and go through each war or incedent one by one and see if I or you are delusional. As for the Arab world, I am sorry to burst your buble again, for I am one of the most devout critics of the Arab world, in relation to Israel and on many other topics. I actually even fault the construct of an "Arab World." It does not exist, it is a falacy or at best a dream which everyone talks about but no one really wants to realise, Arabs and non-Arabs alike. However, to blame the Palestinan issue on the so called Arab world is a disgrace to your intellectual integrity. I presume you mean that the Arabs are at fault because they did not accept and absorb the Palestinian refugees which you pushed out in your occupation of the land. The "so called PALESTINANS," as you say repeating Golda's famous denials, had land with houses on them and various properties. You took these away from them and you should solve the problem, or live with it. Do not think that it is Kosher to pass it along to me. They are Palestinians first of all and constitute one of the world's oldest nations, even older than yours, if we accept yours as a nation to start with. The "Arab" in their identity is an affinity with a larger group of people, but that does not make them one and the same. Are the Germans the same as the British? I guess you would agree that they are not. Well, even with the differnce of language, the German and the British are closer to each other than a Palestinian and an Iraqi. Yes. Between a Palestinian and a Moroccan it is even worse. The claim that you, as many Israelis, make has the effect of saying that you are after all not at fault, but those bastard Arabs are the source of the conflict. Just like a child who kicks his friend and runs to his parents crying that he was abused. The PALESTINANS are not the problem. It is you.
And by the way, I don't have al-Jazeera. But hey, what do you have to fear from information. You are bilkul tika (Absolutely Perfect, as the Indians would say).



"Again, we all know that no matter how much Israel is going to give to the so called palestinians or for that matter the arab world, peace aint gonna happen :) therefore why should it."

I guess we will never find out, since Israel never compromised on anything. And they will never seek peace, their anti-matter.



"Secondly, what makes u say Israel is not a democracy, the fact that it lets a very wide varuety of opinions express itself and take place on its most important platforms shows how different it is from the Arab world in that matter. Where shall I start I wonder, but then again, anyone who actually believs Israel is not a democracy seems like a blinded lost cause to me...oyyy"

Ok. Wake up from your dream. Israel is a county that is built on the idea of exclusion, externally and internally. Israel, according to your most cherished ideal, is a Jewish state, not a democracy. That excludes all others, which used to be the majority of the country before you took it over. It is a racist state which classifies and appropriates rights to its "citizens" based on belonging to different racial and ethnic groups. It a colonial state which usuped the rights of an indigenuous population. It is a brutal occupying power over wat remains of Palestine. I guess if you are Jewish and of the zionist outlook, then Isarel is heaven on earth. Otherwise, run for cover because the state has no qualms about shooting, bombing or even runnung tanks and buldozers over you, and claiming that it is your fault after all. Now, as for the people whom you control but don't even consider that they exist, the Palestinians, I guess since they don't exist they must be enjoying this non-extistent democracy of yours.



"The only way there is going to be peace in the ME is when the Arabs are going to make huge reforms, in other words stop the preaching of hate against jews and infidels for that matter. I know its hard for u as a muslim to understand that Muslims can't always rule the infidels...it just doesnt work that way in a modern democratic world ...wake up and small the coffee...maybe if ull drink it ud actually see what's really going on."

First of all, what the hell do you know about Islam other than these stupid propaganda remarks. If you have some intelligent insights please do share with us, otherwise please stick to secular areas of thought. Second, you are mixing terms and confusing the issue in your head as well as in the heads of others. Arabs are not equivalent with Muslims. There are Muslim Arabs, Christan Arabs and Jewish Arabs. There exists, known to us in the civilized world, a specie called Christian in the Palestinian genre, with a close cousin called Muslim. A much more fewer relative is named Jewish Palestinian.
Last, flipping the coin, I guess there will be no peace in the ME until Jews understand that they cannot rule over Muslims and Christians just because they are Jews: it just does not happen in a democracy. Oh, as for the coffee, it is an Arabic word, not Hebrew (so is Falafel, which smells good too).



"Another point is that the plight of the so called palestinians has improved greatly up until the year 2001, when they started their "intifadah". They had the highest literacy rate, second highest average salary ( after the saudis of course), newest hospital facilities, water and electricity....things Jordan and Egypt...the real occupires of JEUDA, SAMARIA and GAZA had failed to provide with the residents at their time. Which might explain why so many people started calling themselves Palestinians...not only cause it was so damn easy, but because they got a great chance to live next to a democratic state which was interested in their neighbour's satisfaction :)"

The condition of living, everywhere in the world, has improved considerably over the last 40 years, no thanks to Israel. If I kept a bird in a cage, its condition would improve regardless of my intentions because the wheel of
progress keeps forces me advance. Now, compared with everywhere else, the Palestinans did not fare as well as other people. These civil services which you talk about were not done by of financed by Israel, the occupying power, but by the same Arab states which you deny them credit. Just look at their names, and you will find a Faisal Hospital, not a Sharon one. Of course you would find many prisons and concentration camps built by Isarel, as well as settlements everywhere you go. If this is what you mean by development in Palestinian lives, then there you go. Why do't you satify them further by and show them how a jewish grave feels like. Just kill them all and develop the West bank and Gaza as they should be, Jewish lands, propering with farms and factories.
And by the way, your ignorace and fabrication is shown by attempting a per capita comaprison. The highest per capita income in the Arab world is for UAE (21k+), followed by the Qatar (21k+). Saudi Arabia is not actually rich at all by world standrads, on even bar with Botswana at less than 10K. Israel has a per capita of of $19,945, while the priviliged Palestinans, as you claim how great the occupation was and still is, have a per capita income of $576 in Gaza and 653 in the West Bank. Hey they are doing great, considering that they are a little above Papua New Guinea, the lowest per capita in the world of $226. Great job Israel. (yes, I have the numbers on all nations)



"Maybe that also explains why young "palestinian" gals run to IDF soldiers, scareaming they are going to bomb theirselves, knwoing that they are going to put into jails, and treated MUCH BETTER than they were at their home with their primitive families....many cases like that...pathetic...gotta thank the arab nature."

Mighty nice of you. Can I have a two bedroom cell reserved for my retirement please. You know, the Arabs are very evil. They are cousins to the Devils. Right, cousin.



"U know what khalil...I truly think its time for Israel to behave as the way you arabs say it is...maybe then you'll regret giving us the perfect solution to end your shameless brutality. Peace :)"

Whatever you say is like honey to my heart. Keep your head in the sand and things will be better eventually, when someone pours concrete over it.

Bye

add your comments


 

Great Job on burning my ass hun! Hebrew
by Shirl 12:12am Sat Aug 30 '03

print comment

Khalil,
I have read your very interesting response and I
appreciate the thought u put in it.
No one claimed to be innocent...both sides are at
fault as I have stated before.
Before I will continue I would like you to define
what a democracy is, and what countries in your
opinions truly practice it.
As much as I got the wrong idea about Islam, it
seems to me you got the wrong idea about jews in
general as well. As you mentioned, most times you
cannot employ the term "Arab World", unless the
issue involves Israel as well. I believe that the
hatred of Israel, and now the jews who live in it
is something that strongly unites "the Arabs". As
we all know, they are not huge fans of each
other, but they too, realize that it is better to
unite against the enemies of Islam ( and no Im
not saying that all arabs are muslim or vice
versa...even us ignorant Israelis know better
than that eh..), than fight each other. Enlighten
me if I am wrong, ignorance is bliss, and you
make the impression of an extremely intelligent
person, even though we disagree on many points
concerning Israel, but at times that is a matter
of a point of view, and at times, there is no
right or wrong.

Although you stated that you are a critic of the
Arab world/policies as well, you have made the
impression that they have nothing to do with the
Israeli-Palestinian/arab conflict. But the
opposite is what seems to be true, not only the
Arab world doesnt seem to treat the palestinians
very well, it's unfortunate to see them send
money to strap bombs to their bodies, engage in
terror attacks against innocent civilians, and in
addition to see preaching of hate against jews
immersed into their educational institutes and
cultural activities. It seems as if its all they
concentrate on. And at times, it appears to be
innate. Can you blame me for thinking that the
"Arab World" uses the arabs living in jeuda,
samaria and Gaza , or palestinians as they were
called since 1964 for political purposes( may of
course the vast majority of palestinians today
view their identity as real, and since 1964 it is
for the intention of destroying Israel?
It troubling to see the US is the main provider
of the PLO, yet what do the Palestinians give
them in return? They burn their flag, and cheer
on 9/11, I am sorry, but even if they do not
agree with the US' policies, do you think that
kind of violent behaviour is going to get them
anywhere?
As I am sure you know, they were offered a state
of their own on numerous occasions, yet it seems
the rest of the Arab world wouldn't want that to
happen, what would be their new excuse for
getting rid of Israel after such a state will be
created?

At least Israel is trying to take some steps
towards peace, as much as the rest of the Arab
world would love to see it "just disappear"...so
those infidels won't democratically rule a tiny
piece of "their" land. It's funny, cause I don't
remember anyone being pissed off at Trandjordan
and Egypt for ruling those same disputed areas up
until 1948 I believe.

As an Israeli, all the talk about Israel being a
"nondemocratic regime" makes me wonder, Have you
ever been to Israel? To see what it is really
like?
No, it is not a "haven for jews" not anymore. I
can totally understand that it seems racist to
you that Jews can automatically get an Israeli
citizenship, while people from other religions
have more of a problem getting one, but still it
doesnt mean there are no nonjewish residents in
Israel, in fact there many, even when you exclude
the arab Israeli citizens who chose to stay here
peacfully, and are receiving full rights,
naturally. In addition, all "races" are welcomed
in Israel, Jews returned to Israel from many
places in the world, thus I guarantee you, you
won't see the same face on the Israeli street
twice, there is an amazing cultural and "racial"
diversity, and it is something I've always
admired about Israel, and found it lacking
greatly in some other countries.

As much as you hate that excuse, it is the only
reason that appears to be logical to me, for why
Israel is so cautious about muslims entering its
borders, it may be translated as racism to you,
or an action with genocidal purposes, but it is a
tool for self protection, we've been attacked by
mainly muslims( from an arab decent). Isn't it
logical to make clear exactly who they are before
they enter a state known merely as an infidel
occupying state to them?

Well, my holy day is getting near and Id better
get going, it is a pleasure to find a voice of
reason for a change, I am yet to be convinced,
but I am very open minded ( believe it or not),
and I appreciate anyone who can back their
statements with a fact or two, and maybe a good
joke on my expense, but sometimes it just doesnt
show the whole picture.

shalom.


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.