Palestinians in agreement: Continue Terror

The next time Chris Alger tries to claim that terrorism is only supported by a small minority of Palestinians, and that they have renounced violence, lets remind him of this.

==============================================

By Greg Myre, Associated Press, 8/12/2002


JERUSALEM (AP) Palestinian factions meeting on Monday to create a ''national unity leadership'' to include all major groups including militant ones such as Hamas endorsed a continuation of their uprising and rejected language to end attacks on civilians inside Israel.


The Palestinian factions have been holding talks in Gaza City with the aim of establishing a unified Palestinian position in preparation for elections and other planned reforms after almost two years of Mideast fighting.


Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement was the driving force behind the meetings, and it offered a draft proposal that called for an end to attacks against civilians inside Israel, participants at the talks said.


However, that language was scrapped during debate among the factions. The final draft does not mention ending attacks, and instead appears to endorse the ongoing Palestinian uprising.


''We stress the legitimacy of our resistance against the (Israeli) aggression and the occupation, and the Israeli settlements,'' the draft now says.


All factions have agreed to the draft in principle, though Hamas was still consulting its leadership before formalizing its acceptance.


''I hope that Hamas will give its final and official acceptance of this declaration within the coming hours,'' said Jamal Zakkot, a member of the committee that helped organize the talks.


If all factions agree, the Palestinians would establish a 20-member national unity leadership which would include members from all parties. The body would consult with Arafat and the Palestinian Authority in the run-up to Palestinian elections tentatively planned for January.


However, the current Palestinian leadership would remain in place, and the powers of the new body were not clear.


''We call for the quick establishment of a national unity leadership in which everybody will participate,'' the proposal says. The body would help with ''a comprehensive reform process in all the Palestinian institutions.''


The Palestinians are under heavy international pressure to halt attacks, reform their security services and carry out political reforms.


Palestinians have also been holding internal debates over the course of the Palestinian uprising. Peace negotiations have broken down, more than 1,800 Palestinians have been killed, the economy in shambles, and Israeli troops occupy most Palestinian cities in the West Bank.


Arafat and the Palestinian leadership say they oppose attacks against Israeli civilians, but militant groups have ignored the call and are staging daily shootings and frequent bombings.


The Palestinian leadership has said it believes it could exert more influence over Hamas and other militant groups by bringing them into the fold.


However, Hamas has carried out more suicide bombings than any other group, and its possible inclusion in a Palestinian leadership body did not inspire confidence among Israel's government.


''Hamas is a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel, and all talks between them and the Palestinian Authority until now have come to nothing,'' said Mark Sofer, a spokesman for Israel's Foreign Ministry. ''As long as terror exists, you cannot move forward meaningfully with the Palestinians on any major issue.''


Despite the daily violence, Israelis and Palestinians have been holding talks in recent days, and a Palestinian delegation was in Washington last week for discussions with senior U.S. officials.


''I cannot say that we have reached a breakthrough point in our talks with the Americans, but I believe that this was a serious beginning of a dialogue,'' Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, told The Associated Press on Monday.


In violence Monday, a Palestinian militiaman was killed by Israel troops in disputed circumstances in the northern West Bank, with the military saying he was shot while trying to escape arrest and his family alleging he was killed in custody.


The slain man was identified as Ghazar Freihat, 21, a member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, a militia linked to Arafat's Fatah movement. The military said its findings were preliminary and that the investigation into the incident at Yamoun village.


Also, the army said an Israeli soldier was moderately wounded when a bomb went off as a group of soldiers was traveling near by the Palestinian village of Anza, also in the northern West Bank.

It won't do any good. Alger has said himself that he rejects non-violence, and believes that any means the Palestinians use to meet their ends are justifiable.


Of course the true end is the extermination of the Jews.

.....with the population squarely behind more and more terrorist acts. There will beno end to this in our lifetimes I'm afraid. I say Israel should do the world a favor and nuke Palestine, before they nuke Israel. Then, to show our solidarity with Israel, we should nuke Iraq before it nukes anyone and everyone, starting with either Israel or the U.S. I read today that Iraq said "Weapons inspections are over - have been over for 4 years and that Pres. Bush must be mistaken." Are these people great - or what?


We should nuke Iraq and Palestine because we don't need either country. The world will get along just swell without them. Plus, by nuking these terrorist states, the Chris Algers and Cyruses of the world will be eternally happy, because they'll have something to bitch about for the rest of their terrorism-apologist lives.


Then for the long-term, we get out of the nuking business by ridding ourselves of gas-driven vehicles. We won't have to care about Arabs anymore than we currently care about Africa - which, if you haven't noticed, is not at all. We only care about Africa when we need albino lions or zebras and giraffes for our zoos - we could could care about the Arab world when we needed extra sand for some sandboxes in one of our schoolyards or camels for our zoos. Wouldn't that be nice?

lets make a list, check it twice, and whoever we dont need, lets get those camps up and running!


brad

Why can't anyone bring themselves to say we should nuke Palestine and Iraq? These are 2 states that have unequivocably demonstrated to the world, time ad time again, that they will not coexist with the rest of the universe in peace. Both states are active sponsors of terror and refuse to behave. I am convinced we should nuke both countries, and let them start over. Can such an outrageous, shocking solution work? For historic reference: See Japan (BOOM!!!) IMO, the Japanese are both productive and peaceful membersof the world order and no longer hostile, aggressive thugs. I would say nuking Japan was a success.

I'm afraid I can't agree with nuking them, because I don't think we should be setting a precedent of using nukes so lightly. However I do think they should be defanged, occupied for a while, and have their warped systems righted.

what about the subversives who will bring down our country from within. i say lets round them up and make a clean sweep of it. padilla was the first and should set a good precedent for future large scale actions.


remember, the best defense is a good offense. we cant let a few rotten apples spoil our good and wholesome free country.


brad

Since the document you refer to says nothing about suicide bombings, terrorism or attacks in Israel, here's what you must mean by "Palestinians in agreement: Continue Terror:" "We stress the legitimacy of our resistance against the (Israeli) aggression and the occupation, and the Israeli settlements,'' the draft now says."


So you equate any "resistance" to "aggression and occupation" to "terrorism." Figures. Israel has the unique right to invade and conquer, and anyone who resists it by any means is a "terrorist," never mind the principle of resistance against foreign attack enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. Of course, if the Palestinians were the ones invading and occupying, setting curfews and building settlements, back by tanks and troops and helicopters, you'd describe Israeli resistance as "self-defense," a noble effort to defend one's homeland, etc. And you have the gall to complain about "double standards."


Reminds me of the Doonesbury cartoon during the Lebanese invasion, when Israel indiscriminately shelled civilian areas to "fight terrorism," leading Trudeau to quip about the number of "terrorist babies" killed.

Since you're not interested in any kind of intelligent debate and because I can no longer tell the difference between you and Wogga and Springfield (and his Harold, Bruce, Jennifer, Ann, etc. ec. aliases), I assume that you're only interested in sharing your racist, genocidal ravings with each other -- assuming there's a difference -- and will spare you any further responses.

Alger: "Since the document you refer to says nothing about suicide bombings, terrorism or attacks in Israel"


I suggest you re-read the article. Here, I'll make it easy on you by highlighting the important part:


Palestinian factions meeting on Monday to create a ''national unity leadership'' to include all major groups including militant ones such as Hamas endorsed a continuation of their uprising and rejected language to end attacks on civilians inside Israel.


Let me repeat that last part for you: " ... rejected language to end attacks on civilians inside Israel. "


THAT is what I was referring to when I said the Palestinians are in agreement to continue their terror attacks. You previously posted that the Palestinians had renounced violence and attacks against civilians. Obviously, their actions proved they didn't mean it, but now they aren't even trying to fool anyone.

I am interested in intelligent fair debate, but there is nothing for me to discuss with people who defend terrorist groups and their supporters.


For the record I am not Wogga, Springfield (I don't even know who that is, maybe I haven't been posting here long enough) or any of the others, and if you read my posts and theirs, you'll see the opinions expressed are quite different (for example, I never advocated nuking the West Bank or any other city, state or country). I do, however, agree with most of the opinions expressed by M, I do think all terrorism needs to be stopped, and I do think (actually, know) that the P.A. is an organization that shelters and supports terrorists.

i understand that you lost a loved one in the Sept. 11 attack so i comprehend your bitterness. the current iraq regime will probably topple easily if and when we decide to attack. the problems in palastine will not be solved with a nuclear attack. if you want to make the problem 10+ times worse make martyrs out of the palastinians. your call for isolationism is appealing but like it or not we have global committments and we simply cant abandon them.

certainly you have pointed out an endorsement and committment for further acts of terrorism inside of israel, there can be no doubt of that. mr. alger can point to all the israeli acts that he feels are just as bad but there will be no peace until the terrorist acts against israeli citizens cease and desist. unfortunately i cant see this turn of events coming about and the prospects for increased and instensified violence in palestine and israel seem to be a certainty. i also fear that woggas nuclear option for palestine will not be enacted but that the results will be equivalent.

.....a slight correction. I did not lose a loved one in the 9/11 atack. A family member, working on the 23rd floor of the North Tower, got out. There were a number of people I knew that were killed, but not a family member.


Where's General McArthur when you need him? Nuke the maggots and start over.

"i also fear that woggas nuclear option for palestine will not be enacted but that the results will be equivalent."


meant to say:


"i also fear that even though woggas nuclear option for palestine will not be enacted that the results will be equivalent for palestine."

No, I'm right: you've pointed out what's not in the document, but you can't point to any language supporting the claim you make. The fact that the drafters "rejected" language condemning attacks on civilians does not imply that they have endorsed or agreed to support terrorist attacks, which is what you are saying, any more than the absence of language in any other document implies such an agreement. I could just as ridiculously point to an Israeli document that fails to denounce torture as "proof" that Israel has promised to torture people.


To the extent that you are claiming that Palestinians have "agreed" to support terror because they endorsed the "uprising" proves my claim that you equate the intifada and all resistance to Israel's aggression and occupation with "terrorism," the standard indefensible ruse for those that support such things. (And it's just as obvious that the writer of the AP story intended to convey the impression you received by rhetorically equating terrorism with the "uprising," another example of Israeli propaganda infecting the media).

''We stress the legitimacy of our resistance against the (Israeli) aggression and the occupation, and the Israeli settlements,'' the draft now says.


Chris: since there was discussion at the meeting for a statement calling for an end to attacks on civilians within Israel, and this was apparently rejected, can't one reasonably assume that a statement which says that the resistance aganst the Israeli occupation is legitimate, means that the means used to fight that occupation are legitimate?


I don't equate resistance with terrorism. And I believe state terrorism is a much bigger problem than suicide bomber terrorism. But attacks on civilians in Israel have become a part of the tactics of the Palestinian resistance against the occupation. A statement stressing the legitimacy of the resistance without condemning any of the tactics can be interpreted as approving the tactics.


Arafat's condemnations of Hamas's tactics remind me of Ben Gurion's condemnations of the Irgun. Empty statements shielding secret approval. As each day passes, both peoples show themselves more and more unworthy of the "holy" land.

.....and B-Man does not support nuking Palestine. That is my opinion on how to solve the problem, a view apparently only shared by me. I also have no problem debating the merits of nuking the Palestinian maggots because the combined effect of their suicide bombings is just as devastating as any nuclear blast. Now if Israel can't go after the terrorist cells that sponsor and plan these bombings without violating some U.N. code or Geneva Convention resolution that Mr Alger quotes, then why not just nuke them and start over?


Also, I am not Springfield or Springsteen or Springer - just your average wogga.

CA: "To the extent that you are claiming that Palestinians have "agreed" to support terror because they endorsed the "uprising"..."


Haven't suicide bombings pretty much been part and parcel of the intifada?


When I think of the intifada, I think of suicide bombings. From what we have seen I don't think the two are separable in practice.


Technically there are surely some fine points and distinctions, and the intifada = more than just suicide bombings. But I think it's pretty clear by now that the intifada also includes suicide bombings--lots of them.


So when the Palestinians say they will endorse or support the intifada, I think it is only reasonable to take that to mean that they are saying they will endorse and support the regular suicide bombings, since the suicide bombings have been an integral and major part of the intifada--in fact probably the biggest part of the whole intifada.


So I don't but the lawyerese distinctions, I don't buy the spin, and I don't think most others do either. They have shown clearly that intifada = suicide bombings...and of course Hamas and Islamic Jihad have vowed to continue.


If the Palestinians want an intifada without suicide bombings against innocent targets, fine. But I don't think that's what they are really saying, and I don't think that's what's going to happen, and it certainly isn't what we have been seeing.

Since there is no difference betweeen you and Anony, and lonely internet prop, and Atta, and Arafat, and Hussein, and Nasser, and shoe bomb man, no honest working American wants to here your response. I take that back, the authorities I am sure closely watch your posts.


They should.

yes, sometimes they come even for anyone who has glasses, on the theory that these are the educated people, and we cant have them.


brad

....congratulations Chris. You have now hit a new low. I suspec cyber-stalker Cyrus to come chiming in for your defense any second now.


Ugggh, please nuke Palestine and take away Chris Alger's p.c. - please.

"A statement stressing the legitimacy of the resistance without condemning any of the tactics can be interpreted as approving the tactics."


I disgree, for the same reason that I don't believe a statement that Jews were justified in using some force to create a homeland in Palestine can be fairly interpreted as appoving the tactics of market place bombs and civilian massacres perpetrated by IZL, or that a statement supporting resistance to Nazism without more amounts to an endorsement of Dresden. It's not reasonable to imply that supporters of violence for a cause "agree" that all manner of violence employed was justified, although we can argue over the scope of their responsibility, consider the efforts taken to limit violence, and so forth.


Further, by the same logic, a statement stressing the legitimacy of the resistance without approving suicide bombings can just as easily be interpreted as disfavoring suicide bombings. In the context of other statements from the PA and Fatah condemning suicide bombings, this would tend to be the more reasonable interpretation rather than concluding that failure to address an issue suggests a radical about-face. Nothing in the article suggests that those condemnations have been retracted or nullified.


Obviously, the statement is ambiguous with respect to tactics and can be justly be faulted for that. But So B-Man's assertion that the statement says that "Palestinians" are "in agreement" about the merit of suicide bombings is pure fabrication.


Reading between the lines, the various Palestinian factions are trying to present a united front despite their failure to agree over terrorist tactics. We can justly condemn Fatah for making common cause with rejectionist terrorists in Hamas in IJ, but only if we also condemn Israel's ruling coalition, which includes parties that openly deny an national rights for Palestinians and advocate their mass ethnic cleansing from their homeland, and worse. I wouldn't consider doing one without the other, and take it you wouldn't either.

"Haven't suicide bombings pretty much been part and parcel of the intifada?"


No, because they weren't part of the first intifada at all, began years before the current intifada, and have been perpetrated by a handful of those that have taken part in the intifada and condemned by intifada leaders like Arafat.


If suicide bombings are an inherent part of the intifada, then it's only fair to say that settler terrorism[1] is "part and parcel" of the occupation, and that whoever supports the occupation, e.g., supplies the funds that allows it to continue, therefore "will endorse and support" settler terrorism. So unless you are prepared to admit that you "endorse and support" terrorism simply by virtue of your status as a taxpayer, it would be unfair for you to associate all those who support the intifada as supporters of suicide bombing.


[1] Like this:


"A few months ago, while on a visit to the Jordan valley settlements, Sharon told settlers that "there will be things we will take credit for, and there will be things we will deny, and there will be things we will never talk about." And it was the same Sharon who told Likud activists nearly three months ago that "we should not allow them (the Palestinians) to travel freely on the roads." Predictably, such brazen and brash incitement find receptive ears among settlers who spare no time in putting "Sharon's advise" into effect on the ground. This happened on 19 July, when Jewish terrorists from "the Committee for Safety on the Roads" murdered three members of the Etmeizi family, including a 10-week-baby, near the entrance to the village of Ithna, 10 miles west of Hebron."


Khalid Amayreh, "Killing and Mendacity, Sharon's Modus Operandi," Between the Lines, August 2001, available at http://www.between-lines.org/archives/2001/aug/Khalid_Amayreh.htm

"The fact that the drafters "rejected" language condemning attacks on civilians does not imply that they have endorsed or agreed to support terrorist attacks"


oh yes it does


"I could just as ridiculously point to an Israeli document that fails to denounce torture as "proof" that Israel has promised to torture people."


totally different circumstances. your spinning it.

still sorry about your losing people you knew.

I'm not "spinning" anything. You guys are arguing that a document that endorses "resistance" without mentioning tactics can only be interpreted as an endorsement of terrorist tactics, which is the same as defining "resistance" not only as terrorism but specifically equating it to "suicide bombing." I'll interpret your failure to explain why this must be so as an admission that you're having trouble with your opinion.

^

I think this was already covered, Chris.


Since the current intifada/uprising, or "resistance," has consisted largely of suicide bombing attacks, it seems pretty reasonable to assume that this is more or less the ESSENCE of the current intifada, at least in practice. At minimum, you cannot argue that it is not at least a very large part of the current intifada. So without Palestinian language specifically addressed to this aspect, and specifically stating that future suicide bombings of innocents will be excluded from the continuing "resistance," it is only reasonable to assume that this is what they mean--and what will happen.


I'm sure we'll find out in a few days or so, anyway...go ahead and bask in your delusional argument until we see the next wave of bombings taking place...


Also, somewhere in this thread you compared the Palestinian suicide bombings to "terrorism by settlers." Although there have been a few instances of attacks by settlers, this is not really comparable in the sense you used it. The reason it is an absurd comparison is because the settlers have not organized themselves into large bloodthirsty organizations dedicated to killing as many innocent Palestinians as they can on a regular basis.


I appreciate that there are SOME viable comparisons to be made in the overall Palestinian/Israeli matters, but you consistently try to take this concept way too far--to the extent of claiming equivalences where they simply don't exist. It is this tactic of yours which I objected to so strongly a few months ago. I'm sure you believe that all the things you claim as equivalent are equivalent, and that you're sincere, but many of these things really are not equivalent nor are they well-compared even for purposes of making a point. For instance, in comparing settler attacks with attacks by Hamas, etc., if you had said it that it simply shows that there are some bloodthirsty humans on both sides, and that neither side is perfect, I would think that point would be well-taken and that the comparison serves a useful purpose in that regard. But taking it any further than that just dsoesn't hold water--settler terror attacks are FAR fewer in frequency and scope than Palerstinian terror attacks, and they are not routinely planned by major organizations dedicated to such evil purposes.

McArthur disapproved of the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan.

"Since the current intifada/uprising, or "resistance," has consisted largely of suicide bombing attacks ...."


No, it's consisted largely of demonstrations and attacks against soldiers and settlers inside the occupied territories.


As for my finding "equivalencies," this isn't a term I use or a concept in which I've shown much interest. If my tax dollars can be traced to crimes, the crimes don't have to be "equivalent" to suicide bombings before I protest. But you use the same facts about Israel's depredations conclusion to justify the current U.S. support for everthing Israel does. When it's a case of bad guys versus worse guys, so you'll support the bad guys instead of neither side. It's a weird notion of responsibility.

Well I do tend to favor bad guys over worse guys if it comes to that. I also think one tiny island of democracy in a sea of totalitarian governments and backwards theocracies deserves some support on that basis as well.

Something tells me that nuclear fallout could be a problem for neighboring countries such as Israel and Jordan if the Palestinians got nuked. Thus this can't be a reasonable alternative.


Sorry to spoli the fun.


mason

Israel certainly is democratic in many areas (and, in fact, has a much more vibrant free press than we do), but, as a state that defines itself as a "Jewish state," can only be a partial democracy. For example, I can move to Israel and have all the rights and responsibilities of full citizenship. Dick Cheney cannot.


But the bigger problem is that Israel's occupation causes it to act with the impunity of a totalitarian or theocratic entity in regard to it's treatment of the occupied people. That, plus the impulse occupation creates to think in military terms have helped to enervate and cheapen the Zionist dream.