Arafat Letter

A German TV program explored the life of the Tel-Aviv disco suicide bomber, who killed 21 Israeli youth. In one segment of the report the sister of the bomber is seen flipping through a scrapbook which includes letters of condolence and praise for her dead brother. Among the letters is one from Yasser Arafat. Visible portions of the letter were translated into English as follows:


"With hearts that believe in Allah's will and predetermination, we have received the news about the martyrdom of the martyr…. Al-Hotary, the son of Palestine, whose noble soul ascended to… in order to rest in Allah's Kingdom, together with the Prophets, the men of virtue, and the martyrs. The heroic martyrdom operation … who turned his body into bombs … the model of manhood and sacrifice for the sake of Allah and the homeland…"


The text of this letter seems newsworthy in light of our government's desire to portray Arafat as a potential ally in the war against terrorism and the middle east peace process. Yet, I'm not surprised that the story is shunned by our mainstream media.

Don't get me wrong: I believe Arafat is entirely capable of writing such a letter. But if I were in charge at a major news organization I would want something more than sis's word for it that the letter was actually written by Arafat. I'd insist on either a confirmation from Arafat or his people that the letter is genuine, or I'd want outside experts to look at it.


Also, I'm not sure it's "news". I don't think most Americans would be surprised by the idea that Arafat is mixed up with terrorists. There's a point where you're no longer reporting news, but just stirring up s***.


TRLS

Lin's point about authenticity is a good one, but it sort of begs the question about who is and isn't "mixed up" in terrorism.


Israel last week blew to pieces five Palestinian children engaged in the terrorist act of walking to school (they triggered a booby trap), bringing to just over 17,000 the number of civilians that have been injured and killed by Israel in it's attempt to subdue resistence to their occupation of Palestinian land. Neither the U.S. nor it's citizenry responded with widespread condemnation, the laying of wreaths, threats to cut aid, threats to retalliate by force, or anything of the sort. The reason that this didn't happen was that the U.S. supports this kind of terrorism, and tends to limit its criticism of teorrism to cases when the other side hurts it and it's allies.

About a week ago, I watched an interview with Shimon Peres, the Israeli Foreign Minister. His comment about Arafat was that all alternatives were worse. That's why everyone keeps trying to deal with him.

It can be assumed that the "booby trap" was not meant for children. It also can be assumed that the Palestinian attacks are almost always targeted at civilians. The Palestinians were offered a deal that would have given them their own autonomous state, etc..., but they did not take it. They realized that without the Israeli government, they would have no money or infrastructure. Isreal has the power to kill every Palestinian. They do not. If the Palestinians had that power, the answer would be in doubt. While both sides have somewhat valid claims against the other, Arafat repeatedly chooses to support blatent terrorism. Israeli strikes are against Hamas leaders, military targets, etc... They have even warned Arafat about pending strikes so only buildings, not people were destoryed. The suicide bombers kill shoppers. It is not the same thing.

The symbol of the Hamas, Arafat's organization is two two batinets and a grenade superimposed over a map of Israel. And yet, Israel will still negotiate with Palestinians if they will only grant Israel the right to exist. Chris, your name has come up in posts like this before and I happen to know you're a reasonable and highly educated guy so, please, what is the answer when last night CNN showed an interview from Jenin where the walls of the buildings are tributed to those who have been killed while killing civilians in Israel.

That's what they aspire to. And yet Israel will negotiate with them.


Palestinians die when Israeli attacks miss. Isrelis die when palestinian attacks are on target. Isn't there anything you can glean from that?

The booby-trap deaths were tragic. Perhaps Israel should consider refraining from using certain types of booby-traps.


You, however, are equating collateral damage with the deliberate targeting of civilians, and calling both "terrorism." The Palestinian terrorists on the other hand have no qualms against targeting civilians; it's how they usually choose to operate.


You are also calling Palestinian terrorist attacks against civilians, "resistance." If the Palestinians targeted the Israeli military or associated leaders, you could call it "resistance" if you liked. However targeting mall shoppers is not "resistance", it's "terrorism," plain and simple.

"It can be assumed that the "booby trap" was not meant for children."


I suppose this is true because dead Palestinian kid numbers 145 through 150 (Since 9/00) would finally push the U.S. to the brink of saying: "stop killing children or we'll stop sending bullets, or at least consider it."


Apparently not. Not even when they trap them “like mice” and kill them “for sport,” as reported by former NY Times Middle East Bureau Chief in October’s Harpers,’ describing the IDF’s murder of children in Gaza. Or maybe it's because Israel is fundamentally too decent and right to deliberately target children in order to provoke terrorism and demoralize moderates, and that the 150 dead kids were simply 150 accidents. Anyone who suspects as much should read the accounts of the killing of 12-year-old Muhammad Jamal al-Durah, on his way home from a shopping trip with Dad, such as the one in Amnesty International’s “Broken Lives – a year of intifada,” available at the link below. Ariel Sharon is one of the most notorious kid killers in the Middle East, and has been at it for a long time. Trivia question: which former terrorist- hating Israel Prime Minister personally blew up the King David Hotel (hint: not Sharon)?


Those quotes around “booby trap” wouldn’t be the tendentious sort, would they, as if this was something in dispute? Israel as admitted responsibility for planting the bomb in a Palestinian civilian area. What if Islamic Jihad had done the same to Israeli school kids, and then announced that the intended targets were soldiers, to be followed by apologist denunciaitons of those that dare to accuse the IJ of “terrorism?” Make you a little sick, wouldn’t it?


“It also can be assumed that the Palestinian attacks are almost always targeted at civilians.”


Why? Because the U.S. media suggests as much? At least read some European press. We’re all alone here with Israel. In fact, 2/3's of the targets of Palestinian terrorism are military and settlers, whom the Palestinians consider invaders and whom are responsible for more than their fair share of murder while receiving a fraction of the blame.

"The symbol of the Hamas, Arafat's organization is two two batinets and a grenade superimposed over a map of Israel."


Hamas is not "Arafat's organization," but the one most likely to kill him and replace him.


"And yet, Israel will still negotiate with Palestinians if they will only grant Israel the right to exist."


What are you talking about? No informed person believes that the conflict has anything to do with Israel's "right to exist."


"what is the answer when last night CNN showed an interview from Jenin where the walls of the buildings are tributed to those who have been killed while killing civilians in Israel."


You think that the IDF soldiers and pilots who kill Palestinian civilians every week go undecorated, unpraised, condemnded by their fellow Israelis as heartless animals with no regard for life? (Probably more so in Israel than the U.S.). Get real.


"Palestinians die when Israeli attacks miss."


What are you talking about? What about the Palestinian civilians that bleed to death becasue the IDF won't let be attended by medical personnel? What about the civilians deliberately shot at checkpoints for failing to slow down, or caught in Israel-imposed "no-go" areas? Or about the ones shot in the head and upper body for throwing rocks or running away from soldiers? These aren't "misses," and they aren't accidents.

"The Palestinian terrorists on the other hand have no qualms against targeting civilians; it's how they usually choose to operate."


If you had said "often" instead of "usually" in the above sentence, I'd agree with everything you said. There's an important difference between military and civilian targets. I don't think, however, that Israel considers the deliberate assasination of Palestinian political leaders a "collateral" effect.

Maybe "often" is more accurate; not sure.


Of course assassination of political figures is not a collateral effect. Certain political/military figures are targeted. That's not the same as targeting civilians.

I don't know about the checkpoint incidents you describe. I do think it is inevitable that some Israeli soldiers may overreact at times.


I really think the Palestinian homeland issue needs to be decided once and for all. They need to accept a homeland that does not include Jerusalem. I don't know all the ancient history but I do know that Israel legally owns that land and is recognized as a country. Palestine needs their own country nearby. It is not a good argument at this point that Palestine may historically have equal or greater rights to Jerusalem. For that matter, American Indians may have the greatest rights of all to Washington, D.C., but they aren't going to get it. So Palestinians need a homeland nearby. I say give them a homeland nearby whether they all want it or not, complete with U.N. recognition and sovereign nation status. The U.N. could provide some sort of economic growth assistance program for a while if needed. After they have their official homeland any further terrorist acts by organizations should result in the fast and forceful elimination of that organization, with U.N. support.

The point Chris is trying to make is that the US pressure on both sides for peace and resolution is nowhere near equal. The UN was set up for the purpose of providing a framework of international law so that peoples and countries could work out their disputes peacably. It was also set up so that people were given certain inalienable human rights, as well as the right to self-determination. Amnesty international and other human rights groups have repeatedly noted the denial of these human rights to the Palestinians. The General Assembly of the UN (where every country has 1 vote) has repeatedly condemned Israel for its actions against the Palestinians. However, the US has always vetoed any anti-Israeli resolutions that have come through the Security Council, really the only part of the UN with any bite. The point is, how come we never hear about the other side from the US media?


I agree with what you say. Give the Palestinians the occupied territories, and set up a DMZ between them and Israel. Crack down hard on any terrorism that comes thereafter.

There is only one Jewish state, and there are many Arab/Muslim states. The Arab/Muslim states of course will tend to side with the Palestinians. This is a major reason why the general assembly votes in the U.N. are so unbalanced.


Doubtless there have been some human rights abuses by Israel and perhaps this should be addressed. However if we are using the U.N. vote as a benchmark and they condemmned Israel on this basis, it is ironic if they did not also condemn the Palestinians for the same and worse due to terroristic attacks, which if anything are immense human rights abuses albeit in a different and most glaring form.


Personally, I thought the U.N. resolution was a joke--of all the countries in the Middle East which deserve censure for human rights abuses, surely Israel is not at the top of the list, and probably not even near the top. Along similar lines, outside the Middle East, China most assuredly deserves U.N. condemnation for its human rights abuses.


I don't know the answer to your question about what we hear or do not hear from the U.S. media, but my impression is that the U.S. media on average has over many years held a slightly leftist leaning, and that we are quite likely to hear about significant misdeeds of America or our allies if they are found out.

If Arafat does in fact believe in terrorism and the destruction of Israel while pretending otherwise for political and financial reasons, then it would seem that the Israelis and Palestinians are doomed to endless conflict. I believe this is exactly what the surrounding Arab governments desire, so that their peoples will continue to blame Israel and America for their hardships rather than their corrupt repressive governments.


I am not convinced that Arafat would be preferable to a Palestinian leader who was honest about his committment to terrorism and the destruction of Israel.

Begin blew up the King David Hotel.


Palestinians use their kids for shields and send them out with rocks to fight soldiers with guns. I don't think you'll see many Jewish mothers doing this.


The world is anti-semitic. Go ahead tell me that has nothing to do with it. The UN Security Council in 1947 declared Israel a Nation. That doesn't seem to hold any weight. especiallt not in '56, '67 and '73. But when the Security Council votes against Israel well, of course, let's just do what they say.


Ain't gonna work this way, Chris. The Palestinians deserve a land of their own. They can have it in peace, or every single one of them can die fighting to get Israel out of Jerusalem. Israel would be satisfied with either result.

The Palestinians have a legitimate complaint. Still, Mr. Alger was very supportive of Mr.Hanson's anti-semitic garbage last year. He stays in touch with Hanson by e-mail all the time. I'm not surprised that Chris considers the Israelis murderers and the Palestinains legitimate revolutionaries.


The truth lies probably in the middle. Innocent people get killed on both sides. Both sides have radicals that have no desire to compromise.

Notice that Chris didn't ask which Israeli Prime Minister that was a guerilla warrior in 1947, also signed a peace treaty with Anwar Sadat.

Regarding the infamous 1946 attack on the King David Hotel, I think there are two facts which differentiate it from the terrorist acts of our enemies: 1) it was the British army headquarters at the time, making it a military target, and 2) after setting the bombs, Begin's group warned the British to evacuate the hotel in an attempt to minimize the casualties.

M,


There are about 53 or so countries with majority muslim populations. Of these, only about 14 or so are Arabic nations. To pass a vote in the General Assembly I figure you need about 86 votes or so. So your argument isn't completely valid. You still need at least 33 more votes even if every single Muslim country voted for an anti-Israeli resolution.


Your comment about censure of the Palestinians is kind of strange. They don't have their own country. Their "human rights abuses" consist of sporadic suicide bombings organized by an alphabet soup of terrorist groups. Though not exactly a saintly thing to do, this doesn't fit the category of governmental human rights abuses. This puts them somewhere on the level of the Compton Crips. Besides, if you look at the death toll on both sides the Palestinian deaths are nearly triple the Israeli deaths.


I think you have hit on an important point that many people who follow independent, foreign or "alternative" media have found out. Many of those who deserve censure for their human rights abuses are glossed over if they are a US ally. The human rights abuses that have taken place in Indonesia and Turkey have received almost no media coverage in the US. You would think the only person guilty of human rights abuses in the world was Saddam Hussein, the way the US liberally bombs him.


As for your comments about the liberal slant of the mainstream US media, this is only true to a certain extent. While the US media might be liberal when it comes to pointing out social injustices within the US, it seems to be much more reticent in criticizing US foreign policy.

"The Palestinians have a legitimate complaint," but those that consider them "legitimate revolutionaries" should be considered racists. Who else but this forum's most notorious netkook?


Ray's record, sadly documented throughout the internet forum archives, of anonymous flaming, posting flames under other people's names, lying about posts, and even, most bizarrely, responding to his own posts under aliases to create the impression that others agree with him, is well-known to most regulars (and several former regulars, like Hanson and wgb, that no longer post here because of such abuse). So if you're new and discover a post under your name that you never made, or an anonymous post accusing you of racism, treason, criminality, cheating, fraud, and god knows what else, you'll now know who's behind it. Unless you want to see your name on flames you never wrote, or to be flamed every time you post, I suggest you avoid this nut like the plague. For example, I've never met Dan Hanson and don't know him at all apart from this forum. My last email (one of maybe two) to him was to chide him for writing something over a year ago that might be carelessly interpreted as anti-Jewish. I once confided this to Ray, which inspired the lie above.

Well, my point is not that the Muslim/Arab nations' numerical superiority to the only Jewish nation is the "only" reason the general assembly votes may tend to be unbalanced; it is that it is a "major" reason. I think that's accurate as long as I say "major" and not "only,", and I think we are really on the same page here.


I grant that terrorist attacks are not exactly "human rights abuses" as the term is commonly used, and that's why I specified that it is a "glaring and different form" of human rights abuses...in principle it is, in a sense, if we look beyond the common usage of the term...what could be a more flagrant violation of basic human rights than arbitrarily and randomly depriving civilians of their rights to life and to live wirthout fear of deadly attacks? And perhaps "censure" is not the most fitting term either...I'm just saying it's ironic that the U.N. would condemn Israel without mentioning what the Palestians are allowing to happen...while it's not a Palestinian country that is doing this, the Palestinian Authority is allowing organized terrorist groups to actively function from within their settlements. Here again I think any misunderstanding or lack of clarity about these points what is primarily semantic. The Palestian Authority is essentially their government so it bears great responsibility for what is taking place and I don't see why the lack of nation status should stop the U.N. from roundly condemmning them for allowing these terrorist attacks to take place if they are going to condemn Israel.


I don't know about the slant of the media you mention regarding our allies. Perhaps so, but if so, for what reason? Why would a slightly leftist leaning media (on average) do such a thing? I'm a tad baffled, unless there are just so many incidents worldwide that they can't cover them all. Also, on average our allies tend to be "better guys" than our worst enemies or our non-allies. I don'yt mean they are all "good guys" but rather I'm just talkig averagess here. So the worst abuses TODAY probably do indeed tend to come more from our non-allies than from our allies, ON AVERAGE. Maybe that's the reason for the bias you have noticed, if indeed it exists.

Use the optional password feature...it works fine and can be automatically remembered by your browser

Hey, the fact that you are an unethical attorney that supports anti-semitic garbage is a known fact. I hope that you get prosecuted. I believe that you will.

Mr Alger amd the above posts. He also frequents games in Denver run by the International Brotherhood known as the Hop Sing Tong. It is an illegal game. Mr.Alger knows this, but has no respect for the laws of Colorado.


I find the pattern of Mr.Alger supporting Mr.Hanson's anti semitism, coupled with his biased posts above about the Israelis, very suspicious. I believe that they suggest at the very least an anti-Israeli bias on Mr.Alger's part.


I have never posted as Mr.Alger. I have no desire to have my reputation tarnished by associating with him in any manner.

It's clear that you are pro-Arab. Do you donate money to their causes also?

You have a passionate way of displaying your outrage. Maybe you should move to Iraq.

If you don't like US po;icy, then get out of the USA.

Along the lines of, "if you had any respect for the freedom to dissent the least you could do is to refrain from exercising it."

"Military" target? So the U.S. reporting of Palestinian attacks on the IDF as "terrorism" is hypocritical bias? Then I'd agree.


Irgun's attempt to "minimize" the potential for casualties when it blew of the hotel proved somewhat ineffective, as 92 people were killed by the blast.

Chris,


Could you please give me your view on what will need to occur for there to be peace in the Middle East.


In other words what do you think is fair and is what you think is fair realisitic given the belligerent parties history of stubborness?

Well now I have been forced to respond in this forum again, because your idiotic lies and slander are now spilling off of me and onto others who also do not deserve it.


I do not know Chris Alger. The only communication I have had with him was exactly what he says it was. And as I recall I actually agreed with him that my initial message was poorly worded, and explained myself to the satisfaction of everyone here except you.


And for the record, I am highly supportive of Israel's right to self-defense, and not just after Sept. 11. I have been critical of the U.S.'s equal treatment of Arafat and the Israelis for YEARS. Arafat is a terrorist and a thug, who has unilaterally broken some 84 different peace agreements with Israel. Israel should have stopped dealing with him a long time ago. And Arafat's Nobel prize was an outrage.


This is part of what frustrates me about you, Springfield. I have been trying to get through your thick skull that I am anything BUT anti-semitic, but you simply won't listen. I have been defending Israel my entire adult life, and continue to do so. I have argued in the past that every time a terrorist bombs Israel the U.S. response should be to offer even more arms to Israel and make them stronger, so that terrorist acts become counter-productive. I even support the right of Israel to occupy the territories they took while fighting off an unprovoked Arab attack. And 'occupy' is the wrong word anyway. Territory gained in a defensive war is legitimately Israel's. The Soviet Union grabbed all kinds of land in WWII and no one seems to care, so why shouldn't Israel be allowed to hold territory that it gained, especially when the reason for holding it is to provide a buffer zone between itself and enemies who have attacked multiple times?


Israel gets a bad rap for killing civilians and especially children, but no one seems to mention that the reason children are killed in these attacks is because the Palestinians purposefully put them in the line of fire in order to turn world opinion against Israel. On many occasions Palestinian schoolchildren have been dismissed from school on days when violent demonstrations are planned so that they can take part. This is despicable, and puts Israel in a no-win situation with the court of world opinion. The blame for this falls squarely on the Palestinians. The U.S. would do the same thing as Israel is doing if it had to.


Israel is the only modern democracy in the area, and has never done anything since its creation other than to try to defend itself. Israel is not expansionist, and poses no threat to its peaceful neighbors. And it treats Palestinians within its borders far better than Palestinians are treated in any other Arab country.


One of the good things to come out of Sept. 11 is that people are finally starting to wake up and realize just how twisted and medieval some of these Arab states are, including (or even especially) our 'friends' the Saudis. If this all brings us closer to Israel and Britain, that will be a good thing.


And lest you think that I'm just saying this to you to hide my 'true' feelings, E-mail me and I will gladly send you links to discussions on this that I have had with people dating back many years, which are part of the public record.


But feel free to continue attacking me based on one poorly chosen phrase uttered over a year ago, which I publically and privately tried to explain to you. At this point, I think everyone has come to realize that you are a nasty little lunatic, so your opinion should be worthless.

Quote: No informed person believes that the conflict has anything to do with Israel's "right to exist."


This is not true. The PLO is still demanding the unconditional right of return for Palestinians, which would result in the end of Israel. Arafat keeps saying that they will remove that demand, but he's never done it.


Arafat turned down a peace offer two years ago from Barak which included the return of 95% of the occupied territories, creation and recognition of a Palestinian state, and shared governance over Jerusalem. That is the best offer the Palestinians will ever get, and it was so generous that Clinton was said to have gasped when he read it.


Arafat refused. That was the point at which the Palestinian cause ceased to have any moral authority so long as Arafat is leading it. He is simply unable or unwilling to be reasonable.

Dan,


I would think that most of us who remember reading and participating in the threads in question know you are a man of great integrity. I was sorry to see you stop posting and it is a shame you had to come back under these circumstances.


I (and I'm sure countless others) do hope you do consider posting again (at least on poker!). But if you don't good luck in all your endeavors.


Warmest Regards,


Rick

"The PLO is still demanding the unconditional right of return for Palestinians, which would result in the end of Israel."


I would like to see your elaboration on this point.


Accepting it at face value, means also to accept that the Jewish citizens of Israel are nothing more than squatters.


It also means that your "democratic" Israel would be the only country in the democratic west to refuse free movements of people inside its territory and to impose immigation criteria on the basis of religious practices. (But what am I saying? This is not an assumption , it is Israeli official policy.)


..I would phrase this as "it would result in the end of Israel as we know it"; in other words, we'd get a secular, truly democratic regime - an excellent prospect if you ask me!

My mother's maiden name is Zweig, that's German for Branch. It's German Jew in origin. Her people don't exist anymore. Remember that when you see posts about how evil Israel is, or how the Nazi's were preferential to the Bolsheviks.


That's the truth. At least your view's are rational towards Israel. Alger's are not.