Fatah=PA, what do they support?

On 7 August 2002, The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the military arm of Arafat's Fatah Organization, published in their official website a warning against any response whatsoever in favor of the Israeli security proposal. The warning sets out the position of the Al Aqsa Brigades concerning the Israeli security proposal, making clear that the only way to bring an end to the conflict is by continuing to carry out suicide bombings...


"We have examined our options and our path, and we have chosen the path of slaughter, by acts of Jihad, Istshahad (suicide) and resistance of every form, side-by-side with our brothers in the Hamas, the Islamic Jihad and all the other Palestinian resistance groups, until the liberation of Palestine and the return of the refugees." "We call upon all those supporting the foreigners to remove themselves from our occupied land. For we shall strike at any time and place… for victory or martyrdom, the eternal glory of the martyrs."

...coming from within Arafat's own Fatah organization.


Chris Alger: just how do you reconcile this statement with your claim that the Palestinians have renounced violence against Israel and have long recognized it's right to secure borders?


The positions of Hamas and Islamic Jihad have long been clear--nothing less than the "right of return" (to Israel/Palestine), in other words, the destruction of Israel.


Now we have this statement from the military wing of Arafat's own organization, Fatah. They say "slaughter...until the liberation of Palestine..." (which doesn't mean just the settlements, it means Israel).


I just can't see how you can reconcile all this with your claim. It's patently absurd. Saying the Palestinians have renounced violence and have long recognized and agreed to Israel's right to secure borders is just pure bullshit when these bloodthirsty organizations have free rein in Palestine...including from within Arafat's own Fatah.

As a rule I try to avoid threads started by crackpots that fabricate evidence. I can only speculate about why see the need to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find some support for your thoughts.


But since you’ve asked me directly, I’ll respond: your description of the statement’s source is ludicrous, and even if it wasn’t you’d still be guilty of a racist preference for one side over the other.


The statement might well be accurate, but your claim that it comes from “Arafat’s own Fatah organization” is false. The statement purportedly came from the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, who is identified as the “military wing” of Fatah. In fact the AAM are an “offshoot,” according to the NY Times, of Tanzim, which is in turn a popular organization organized by Fatah in the West Bank. Fatah’s control, if any, over the AAM remains unclear, as it is often described as merely “linked” to Fatah, sometimes on the grounds that it’s adherence were former Fatah members grown disgusted with Arafat’s preference for negotiations. Although the notion that Yasser Arafat or the PA directly control this group is a mainstream of Israeli propaganda, I’m not aware of evidence that this is so.


A more credible account of these events comes from the NY Times on August 13, 2000 (John Kifner, “Islamic Militants Rebuff Move to Curb Bombings”):


“Islamic militants today rejected an effort by other Palestinian factions to declare a unified policy of ending suicide bombings and other attacks on civilians within Israel proper, as Israel announced plans to try a popular grassroots Palestinian leader for murder.


The opposition by Hamas and the smaller Islamic Jihad movements appeared to torpedo an effort, largely pressed by Yasir Arafat, for a formal declaration reached during secret meetings in Gaza which implied that attacks would be limited to Israeli soldiers and settlers in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. ‘Hamas will not accept any document that does not give it the right of resistance on all Palestinian lands,’ said Ismail Abu Shanab, a Hamas leader in Gaza. Mr. Abu Shenab, who had participated in the meetings that drew up the statement, told Israeli radio his group would continue to strike inside Israel's 1948 borders.


. . .


Similarly, an Islamic Jihad official, Mohammed al-Hindi, indicated that his group intended to continue attacks inside Israel, saying: ‘There is no change in our position in regard to the resistance.’


But a leader of the Tanzim, the grassroots organization of Mr. Arafat's Fatah faction on the West Bank, said it had decided to halt all attacks inside Israel and that he expects its military offshoot, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, to comply, despite a leaflet the Brigades issued last night to the contrary.


‘It is not part of Fatah's strategy," the official, Hussein al-Sheikh said, "to harm innocent people and carry out attacks inside Israel. Our strategy is to set up a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.’”


In other words, nothing new: Arafat, the PA, Fatah and Tanzim are spearheading efforts to curb suicide bombings and there’s some welcome evidence of at least a division within the AAM. Hardline zionists, however, don’t welcome this because it robs them of a pretext for the occupation and their own terrorism and oppression. As a result, instead of praising efforts to curb suicide bombings or thinking up ways to help them, which is what we’d expect from groups seeking nonviolent solutions, they minimize and dismiss such efforts and the people working for them while portraying the terrorists as having the upper hand, being more widespread and powerful than they are, which is exactly what the terrorists want.


Helping the terrorists, hurting the peacemakers: It’s a good example of the symbiosis I’ve discussed before.

Even if your interpretation was somehow correct, that mainstream Palestinian groups refused to recognize the legitimacy of Israel and were willing to use violence to achieve their goals, it would simply illustrate the double standard you apply to this conflict instead of a principled condemnation against violence and oppression.


Note that such a position would be the mirror image of Israel’s, which insists on the right to displace Palestinians, refuses to recognize any right of Palestinian sovereignty (as opposed to limited “autonomy” at Israel’s sole discretion) and insists on the right to use violence to advance these policies. Supporting one side while condemning another could only be explained as a prejudicial preference for the rights of one national group to the exclusion of the other’s, something that no thinking person should take seriously. Your constant emphasis on Hamas and IJ positions to justify Palestinian oppression is just as repugnant as emphasizing the most rejectionist elements of the zionist camp to justify violence against Israelis.


And please don't respond with your exhausted claim that Palestinian terrorists are deadlier, as a rule, than their most racist counterparts in Israel (e.g., the Shas party, the Gush Emunim movement). This is true to an extent, but the zionist fanatics can rely on the IDF and IAF to pursue their policies, and the consequences of these "terrorist groups" that you (and I, but under protest) support are far deadlier than anything the Palestinian terrorists have dished out (approx. 1600 deaths since Sept. 2000 compared to 500). I note that whenever I point out that more Palestinians than Israelis have been killed or injured, you respond with the "hatred in their hearts" argument, and when I point out that there is as much hatred in Israel (and the U.S.), you respond by counting bodies, and so forth, ad nauseum.


Why don't you try to directly refute the following statement with evidence:


"The government of Israel and certain Palestinian militant groups should be condemned for rejecting the respective rights of Palestinian and Jewish sovereignty in the former Palestine, and for committing widespread violence and other human rights abuses against innocents to further their rejectionist policies."

The only person fabricating evidence on this board is Chris Alger. He's become dangerously delusional.The initial post comes directly from the Israeli Defense Forces.


It's humorous to see Alger quoting the NY TIMES, a source he has accused of falsifying stories to benefit Israel.


Claiming that the military wing of PA deosn't represent the PA is like saying the US Army doesn't represent the USA.

It is wrong of you to categorize any preference I have for one side over the other as "racist." I do hold some preference, but it is due to both pragmatic reasons and to what I see as the relative moral issues involved. It certainly isn't due to racist ideology. Also, this isn't the first time you have made this false assumption regarding my beliefs.


I'll look over the rest of your post in more detail later and try to respond to some other specific points.

Figures. It's also a staple for proponents of Israeli state terror to accept everything announced by the IDF at face value, and to dismiss any consideration of less partisan sources as terrroristic, delusional, anti-semitic, etc.


Recall that this is the outfit that Human Rights Watch accused of war crimes in Jenin, the same good group that surrounded and sealed off the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps and sent in their Lebanese mercenaries intent of murder, and stood by and watched from watch towers while as many as 3,000 civilians were slaughtered over the course of three days, women and children indifferently, lighting the sky with flares and providing equipment to help out, standing around and doing nothing as bulldozers carted off piles and piles of bodies, stopping the slaughter only after U.S. diplomats pressured them to do so. (See the evidence compiled in "Fateful Triangle" for this). What an excellent source for issuing persuasive, "damning" accounts that prove Palestinian responsibility for evil.

Well, the military wing of Fatah may be more an "offshoot" than a "part" of Fatah--I don't know--but that was only the secondary point in my post.


You didn't address the main point regarding the absurdity of your claim (that Palestinians have long renounced violence against Israel and have long agreed to granting Israel secure borders). Palestinian actions prove this isn't so, from the prevalence of suicide bomings to the continued existence of major terrorist organizations to the cheering of thousands of ordinary Palestinians in the streets. The Palestinians clearly HAVEN'T renounced violence against Israel. I'm still amazed that you believe that they have, based on some document they signed, while their actions have clearly indicated otherwise. This latest statement by the military wing of Fatah merely supports what I am saying, and contradicts what you are claiming.

Lost any hands at cards lately?


Since you hate America and love Palestine so much, why don't you make the Americans feel safer and leave. You could then seek martydom at least overseas.


I don't believe that the Israelis would allow you in the country at this time.


Iraq or Iran probably would.

Just because the IDF mentions the fact that this brigage posts pro-suicide bombing dogma on their website, and is associated directly with Arafat, doesn't mean that it is illegitimate.


It is interestng that you claim to have a working knowledge of the internal policies, both political and military, of the Palestinian Authority.

The sad and funny part about Chris characterizing you as racist is that both sides are of the same race.

To summarize the evidence: Fatah, PA and Tanzim officials purport to be trying to stop the suicide attacks, someone in the AAM says the attacks will continue, but Tanzim says it can bring the AAM onto the peacemaking effort. Your interpretation: this proves that "Palestinians" favor terrorism, and interpreting these facts as indicating that major Palestinian leaders oppose suicide bombings is "absurd." This level of thinking requires no response.


"You didn't address the main point regarding the absurdity of your claim (that Palestinians have long renounced violence against Israel and have long agreed to granting Israel secure borders)."


I responded directly by saying that your "main point" consisted of an assumption that the statement could be attributed to all Palestinians and their leaders. You offered and continue to offer not a shred of evidence to support this, other than the IDF's conclusory statement that the AAM is the "military" wing of Fatah.


So the only reason you think this statement is damning is not for what it says, but for the way the IDF described it. It's another example of your double standard: the IDF's assertion without evidence must be accepted on face value, while Palestinian statements renoucing terrorism can be dismissed out of hand.


Of course the statement by itself is no more "damning" to the cause of Palestinian nationalism than Dr. Wogga's preference for "nuking" Palestine is a daming indictment of zionism: you can always find someone that votes for mass murder.


"The Palestinians clearly HAVEN'T renounced violence against Israel. I'm still amazed that you believe that they have, based on some document they signed,..."


Yet everything the IDF says must be assumed as true, "based on some document they signed...." Anyway, the Palestinian groups that have engaged in terrorist acts have signed no document promising otherwise, and I have never suggested they have.


"...while their actions have clearly indicated otherwise"


Since you have no evidence indicating that most or even a sizeable minority have engaged in terrorism, your logic is no different that attributing repugant statements from the Israeli right to be representative of the thinking of "Israelis" or even "Jews." Just because you don't recognize this as racism doesn't make it less so.


"This latest statement by the military wing of Fatah..."


Assume away.


"merely supports what I am saying, and contradicts what you are claiming."


There are nearly 4 million Palestinians in the occupied territories and East Jerusalem. I doubt that as many as 5,000 belong to the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. Attributing a single statement by the latter to the other 99+% of Palestinians when much larger groups say the opposite is an act of terrorism against common sense. It can best be explained as resulting from a deeply ingrained preference for thinking the very worst about a national or racial group. There's a word for it ....


I note you also ignored my point about Israeli leaders refusing to acknowledge or support peacemaking efforts by Palestinians. It's perfectly consistent with their actions, despite their statements to the contrary, indicating that they welcome terrorism in order to limit discussion about the injustice of continued occupation.

Then if I had criticized member of the KKK as "racist," this would also be "sad" because I'm a member of the same race. That's silly.

...what do you think of the idea of a baseball strike? Do you think baseball has lost its way. What must that be like - to lose your way? Just thought you might have some insight on that.

...So what about that Bruce Lee - Mike Tyson thing? Do you think Bruce is actually still alive? Could he just be under cover? Maybe HERE? But what if Tyson is really Lee's incarnation? THEN how could they fight? Like parallel universes coming into contact. Would all reality cease to exist? It's gets confusing. What must that be like - to be confused?


Eagerly awaiting your comments.

I have tremendous respect for both of you. I believe that the ongoing dialogue between you is interesting and important. Personally I enjoy following it. Nonetheless, it occurs to me that your efforts are somewhat wasted by posting the debate in this forum. Nobody seems to be paying attention anymore. I base this opinion on the number of views your posts are getting. We are in the process of doing research on a software upgrade that will include further splitting of the forums on this website. Until then you may do as you please; I have no intention of censoring your posts. It just seems to me that this topic, important as it is, is not being followed by the majority of people who come to this website. In fact, it seems to be turning them off to this forum. Just my observations. Mat.

That's not what Sammy was saying, Chris. Try rereading it.


Sammy's point was more along the lines that if someone, anyone, were to prefer the Irish over the English or the English over the Irish, that it would be silly to characterize that preference as racist because both sides are of the same race.


Anyway, nothing I have said or written should give anyone cause to consider my preference in this matter as being remotely related to race. My primary rerasons for preferring the Israeli side are, as mentioned before, based on what I see as pragmatic and moral grounds. It is however also true that I consider the modern Jewish culture to be generally more advanced and enlightened than the modern Islamic culture. And yes, I am probably more likely to favor those who hold less backward views, all else being equal. However that is NOT a racist prefeence. If you fail to understand this, look up the difference between race and culture in the dictionary.

Well, our debates on this topic seem to be going nowhere fast anyway.


Interestingly, a very good friend of mine has tired of discussing these things with me too;-) He seems to feel there aren't really any solutions to the great problems in the entire Middle East, and doesn't want to dwell on such depressing things because there are other topics he would more enjoy discussing. I feel that such tremendously difficult problems are not necessarily unsolvable, and rather enjoy the process of trying to come to some valid conclusions about various aspects of it all. However, out of respect for him, last night I decided to broach such subjects with him less often, and I will try to do the same on this forum.

I stand corrected on what Sammy said, but it still doesn't make any sense.


Just because both nations are Semitic doesn't exclude a rights preference based on ethnicity, and that's a dictionary definition of racism. Any notion that Jews but not Palestinians have rights or more rights to political sovereignty in the territories under dispute is, IMO, profoundly racist. The same goes for the idea that Israelis have greater rights to national security than Palestinians or that Palestinians should be judged by the most ferocious and uncompromising of their number while Israelis are not.


As for your "moral and pragmatic grounds," the only common thread I can find to differentiate the way you apply these grounds is by giving an unfair preference to the rights and concerns of Israel and Israelis.


Just because you're not a bigot doesn't mean you eschew racism.

Thanks for the reality check, I couldn't agree more. I welcomed the opportunity this forum and it's participants (except one) gave me to focus on issues that I hadn't paid much attention to until 9/11, but since then have obviously preoccupied me. While we haven't exhausted the issue, I've exhausted my ability to think of new things to say, so I'll give this issue a well-deserved rest.

Look, apparently we're never going to see eye to eye on this.


The one thing I really object to in your posts is your unfair characterization of my views as racist or the like. It seems you would call anyone a racist who supports the Israelis over the Palestinians, but you must know that can't be true in every case. I happen to think the Palestinians' recent actions are worse than the Israelis'; you don't--fine--but bear in mind that even Cyrus agreed with me on this point. I also happen to think that the doctrine of terrorism must be stopped at all costs from spreading and flourishing, and that this is a crossroads we stand at where one path leads to mankinds' own greatest peril.


I don't characterize nearly as many things as falling under the umbrella of "terrorism" as you do. That's one place where we differ; you have a broader definition of terrorism. Fine. But please don't erroneously call me racist, or say I don't eschew racism, because I don't share your analysis and definitions of various aspects of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Maybe you can't understand how anyone could disagree with you on these matters unless they hold racist preference. Rest assured, some people can, and they aren't all racists or racist sympathizers.

If you happen to be biased towards the Palestinians because Israeli culture is more like the US's, that is still a bias. Whether it's racism or not, I do not know. However, you should recognize that this bias probably does skew your opinion of the affair, as well as "terrorism" in general.


Many cultures glorify historical figures who had no problem killing innocents. These historical figures could be perceived to be "terrorists".


Your opinion that terrorism is a huge global threat is probably not shared by most of the people in the world. Most of what you call "terrorism" is targeted at First World nations like the US. Most people in world don't live in First World nation, so they probably don't pay it much mind.

It doesn't matter if my opinion is widely shared around the world or not. This isn't like voting on your favorite candidate or your favorite CD.


The facts are there for anyone who cares to research them. Most people would probably prefer to play ostrich to some degree. If terrorists do not get their hands on deliverable nukes in the near future it probably won't be that big a deal. But if they do, we can likely kiss a number of our major US and European cities goodbye--and wonder about what will happen with the fallout. And that just may be the tip of the iceberg, because it is inevitable that weapons will become more deadly and compact as technology marches on through decades yet to come. A philosophy and practice which allows for targeting innocents out of rage or to make political points, if widely accepted and practiced, when combined with ever more powerful weapons, may virtually doom the human race. What if McVeigh could have used a nuke??? Well the technology for destruction keeps advancing and is probably unstoppable. Only greater sanity, not greater lunacy, will save the human race from eventual destruction by madmen with access to ever-increasingly powerful weapons. And the philosophy of terrorism is a lunacy.

Again, this is where your very American-centric and Euro-centric view comes in to play. If I live in Botswana or Guyana or Indonesia or Chile, the last thing I am worried about is Al Qaeda. Of what concern is it to a citizen of one of these countries if terrorists nuke the US or Western Europe? I'd be much more worried about making a decent wage, good working conditions clean food and water and having a roof over my head.


I'm curious to see why people living in these countries should or would care about Al Qaeda.

I'm afraid you may be missing my point. I'm not saying Botswanans would or should care much, they probably have far more pressing immediate concerns.


It is inevitable that as technology progresses, the capacity for destruction increases too...and this holds true for the individual or small group to an extent, as well as for nations. In other words, at some time in the future, many individuals or small groups wil possess the capacity to do what McVeigh did, but significantly magnified. In, say, 50 years from now, a McVeigh might be able to take out a whole city block instead of just one building. So what I'm saying is that it is a very dangerous trend to see the increasing acceptance and spread of the doctrine of terrorism. Actually, if you extrapolate this to its logical conclusion, eventually technology which an individual can operate will be available to take out whole cities. We aren't nearly there yet, though the current potential for wreaking of havoc is still pretty scary. But with people thinking and being taught that attacking uninvolved innocents in order to make points (terrorism) is an OK thing, we are going to be in a lot more trouble sooner or later.


People tend to believe what they are taught and what they grow up around. And increasingly, young people are being taught that terrorism is an acceptable form of resistance or expression. They are growing up in it and around it, especially in the Middle East. This growing trend must be stopped, or sooner or later much or most of the world may be wiped out by disgruntled individuals or fanatical groups, as weapons will only continue to grow more powerful and compact.


And by the way, the Third World will suffer greatly too, if major Western cities are nuked, because the radioactive fallout will contaminate as it rides on the winds and drops and settles, and the First World will probably inflict great damage in the Third World as it goes after those who are nuking the world's major cities.


You can call it speculation if you like--and it is-- but given terrorists' avowed aims, and the inevitablility of technological progress in weapons, the future of the world at some point will almost surely hinge on the population being almost entirely sane...when the time eventually arrives when one madman can wipe out cities, the presence of many madmen will very likely wipe out the world, even if they comprise only a small percentage of the total population.


Other factors may however come into play to prevent such scenarios, but overall, this is just a logical extrapolation of continuing trends. So that's why I say we must not allow the doctrine and practice of terrorism to continue spreading, and being validated.

Thank God that you will stop posting your anti-Semitic garbage. You have done no service to the Palestinian cause. Supporting violence while advocating hate has only marked you as a dangerous, unstable mind that clearly has no resspect for the laws of the USA.

But really, I'm sure you'll agree, that Ray Springfield guy gives new meaning to the nonstop spewing of confused fantasies... right? /images/smile.gif