Suicide bombing to cease?

They already could do that and have had the opportunity to do it over the last few years and clearly have failed miserably.

If the Palastinians had simply stopped Hamas, then none of this would have happened, they had the rights to police themselves, they failed to do it, and Israel had no choice but to react.

DD

 

Interesting Article:

Israeli Repression and the Language of Liars
by Tim Wise


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This essay by Tim Wise, originally appeared on May 17, 2002 on AlterNet. It is reposted here with the permission of the author.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Webster's New World Dictionary defines democracy as, among other things, "the principle of equality of rights, opportunity and treatment, or the practice of this principle." Keep this in mind, as we'll be coming back to it shortly.
Now, imagine that the United States abolished our Constitution, or perhaps had never had one to begin with. No Bill of Rights. No guarantees of things like free speech, freedom of assembly and due process of law.

And imagine if Congress passed a law stating that the U.S. was from this point forward to be legally defined as a Christian nation. As such, Christians would be given special privileges for jobs, loans, and land ownership, and Christians from anywhere in the world would be given preference in immigration, extended automatic citizenship upon coming to America.

Furthermore, political candidates espousing certain beliefs—especially those who might argue that we should be a nation with equal rights for all, and not a "Christian nation"—were no longer allowed to hold office, or even run for election.

And imagine that next month, laws were passed that had the effect of restricting certain ethnic and religious groups from acquiring land in particular parts of the country, and made it virtually impossible for members of ethnic minorities to live in particular communities.

And imagine that in response to perceived threats to our nation's internal security, new laws sailed through the House and Senate, providing for torture of those detained for suspected subversion. This, on top of still other laws providing for the detention of such suspects for long periods of time without trial or even a formal charge against them.

In such a scenario, would anyone with an appreciation of the English language, and with the above definition in mind, dare suggest that we would be justified in calling ourselves a democracy?

Of course not: and yet the term is repeatedly used to describe Israel—as in "the only democracy in the Middle East." This, despite the fact that Israel has no constitution; despite the fact that Israel is defined as the state of the Jewish people, providing special rights and privileges to anyone in the world who is Jewish and seeks to live there, over and above longtime Arab residents. This, despite the fact that Israel bars any candidate from holding office who thinks the country should be a secular, democratic state with equal rights for all. This, despite the fact that non-Jews are restricted in terms of how much land they can own, and in which places they can own land at all, thanks to laws granting preferential treatment to Jewish residents. This, despite that fact that even the Israeli Supreme Court has acknowledged the use of torture against suspected "terrorists" and other "enemies" of the Jewish state.

For some, it is apparently sufficient that Israel has an electoral system, and that Arabs have the right to vote in those elections (though just how equally this right is protected is of course a different matter). The fact that one can't vote for a candidate who questions the special Jewish nature of the state, because such candidates can't run for or hold office, strikes most as irrelevant: hardly enough to call into question their democratic credentials.

The Soviet Union also had elections, of a sort. And in those elections, most people could vote, though candidates who espoused an end to the communist system were barred from participation. Voters got to choose between communists. In Israel, voters get to choose between Zionists. In the former case, we recognize such truncated freedom as authoritarianism. In the latter case, we call it democracy.

If giving names like "Operation Enduring Freedom" or "Operation Just Cause" to deadly military offensives is not sufficient to indicate that the English language is dead, this should pretty well prove the point. If what we see in Israel is indeed democracy, then what does fascism look like?

I'm sorry, but I am over it. As a Jew, I am over it. And if my language seems too harsh here, that's tough. Because it's nothing compared to the sickening things said by Israeli leaders throughout the years. Like Menachem Begin, former Prime Minister who told the Knesset in 1982 that the Palestinians were "beasts walking on two legs." Or former P.M. Ehud Barak, who offered a more precise form of dehumanization when he referred to the Palestinians as "crocodiles."

Speaking of Barak, for more confirmation on the death of language, one should examine his April 14 op-ed in the New York Times. Therein, Barak insisted that democracy in Israel could be "maintained," so long as the Jewish state was willing to set up security fences to separate itself from the Palestinians, and keep the Palestinians in their place. Calling the process "unilateral disengagement," Barak opined that limiting access by Arabs to Israel is the key to maintaining a Jewish majority, and thus the Jewish nature of the state. That the Jewish nature of the state is inimical to democracy as defined by every dictionary in the world matters not, one supposes.

Barak even went so far as to warn that in the absence of such security fences, Israel might actually become an apartheid state. Imagine that: unless they institute separation they might become an apartheid state. The irony of such a statement is nearly perfect, and once again signals that words no longer have meaning.

Interestingly, amidst the subterfuge, other elements of Barak's essay struck me as surprisingly honest—much more honest, in fact, than anything he had said while Prime Minister, during which time he supposedly made that "generous offer" to Arafat about which we keep hearing. You know, the one that would have allowed the maintenance of most Jewish settlements in the territories, and would have restricted the Palestinian state to the worst land, devoid of its own water supply, and cutoff at numerous chokepoints by Israeli security. Yeah that one. The one that has been described variously (without any acknowledgement of the inconsistency) as having offered the Palestinians either 93 percent, or is it 95 percent or maybe 96 percent or perhaps 98 percent of the West Bank and Gaza.

In the Times piece, Barak finally came clean, admitting that Israel would need to erect the fences in such a manner as to incorporate at least one-quarter of the territories into Israel, so as to subsume the settlements. So not 93 percent, or 96 or 98, but at best 75 percent, and still on the worst land. Furthermore, the fences would slice up Jerusalem and restrict Arab access to the Holy Basin and the Old City: a direct swipe at Muslims who seek access on a par with their fellow descendants of Abraham.

That this was Barak's idea all along should surprise no one. And that such a "solution" would mean the final loss for the Palestinians of all but 17 percent of their pre-Israel territory will likely not strike many in the U.S. media or political elite as being terribly unfair. If anything, we will continue to hear about the intransigence of the Arabs, and their unwillingness to accept these "generous offers," which can only be seen as generous to a people who have become so inured to human suffering that their very souls are in jeopardy.

Or to those who have never consulted a dictionary—which defines generous as: "willing to give or share; unselfish; large; ample; rich in yield; fertile." In a world such as this, where words have lost all meaning, we might as well just burn all the dictionaries.

Sometimes, the linguistic obfuscation goes beyond single words and begins to encompass entire phrases. One such example is the oft-repeated statement to the effect that "Jews should be able to live anywhere in the world, and to say otherwise is to endorse anti-Semitism." Thus, it is asked, why shouldn't Jews be able to settle in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem?

Whoever says such a thing must know of its absurdity beforehand. The right to live wherever one chooses has never included the right to live in someone else's house, after taking it by force or fraud. Nor does it include the right to set up house in territories that are conquered and occupied as the result of military conflict: indeed, international law expressly forbids such a thing. And furthermore, those who insist on the right of Jews to live wherever they choose, by definition deny the same right to Palestinians, who cannot live in the place of their choosing, or even in the homes that were once theirs.

Needless to say, many Palestinians would like to live inside Israel's pre-1948 borders, and exercise a right of return in order to do so. But don't expect those who demand the right for Jews to plant stakes anywhere we choose to offer the same right to Arabs. Many of these are among the voices that insist Jordan is "the Palestinian state," and thus, Palestinians should be perfectly happy living there. Since Palestinians are Semites, one could properly call such an attitude "anti-Semitic"—seeing as how it limits the rights of Semitic peoples to live wherever they wish—but given the transmogrification of the term "anti-Semitism" into something that can only apply to Jew-hatred, such a usage would seem bizarre to many.

The rhetorical shenanigans even extend to the world of statistics. Witness the full-page advertisement in the New York Times placed by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which ran the same day as the Barak op-ed. Therein, these supposed spokespersons for American Judaism stated their unyielding support for Israel, and claimed that the 450 Israeli deaths caused by terrorism since the beginning of the second intifada, were equal to 21,000 deaths in the U.S. from terrorism, as a comparable percentage of each nation's overall population. Playing upon fears and outrage over the attacks of 9/11, the intent was quite transparent: get U.S. readers to envision 9/11 all over again, only with seven times more casualties!

Of course, if one were at all concerned with honesty, one might point out that the numbers of Palestinian non-combatant (that is to say civilian) deaths, at the hands of Israel in that same time period, is much higher, and indeed would be "equal to" far more than 21,000 in the U.S., as a comparable share of respective populations. To be honest to a fault would be to note that the 900 or so Palestinians slaughtered with Israeli support in the Sabra and Shatilla camps during the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, would be equal to over 40,000 Americans. Even more, the 17,500 Arabs killed overall by Israel during that invasion would be roughly equivalent to over 800,000 Americans today: the size of many large cities.

In a world where words still had meaning, such things might even be considered "terrorism."

Ariel Sharon once said, "A lie should be tried in a place where it will attract the attention of the world." And so it has been: throughout the media and the U.S. political scene, on CNN in the personage of Benjamin Netanyahu, and in the pages of the New York Times.

And in my Hebrew School, where we were taught that Jews were to be "a light unto the nations," instead of this dim bulb, this flickering nightlight, this barely visible spark whose radiance is only sufficient to make visible the death-rattle of the more noble aspects of the Jewish tradition. Unless we who are Jews insist on a return to honest language, and an end to the hijacking of our culture and faith by madmen, racists and liars, I fear that the light may be extinguished forever.

 

Actually they have little power to do that. Police stations have been attacked by Israelis, there are roads that Palestinian Police agencies aren't allowed to use, and the can't violate the curfews either.

The Palestinians have little to no chance to crack down on Hamas. If they had a state, they would be able to move freely about it, and not have their hands tied by the Israeli govt.

Also there is the possiblity, that as soon as they are allowed to drill new wells, and have enough water to drink, farm, and are allowed to build actual businesses, their lives will be so greatly improved that they might either stop or certainly find fewer people willing to bomb Israel. They would know their homes were secure, and not about to be torn down, they would know that their family members couldn't be forced by the Israeli army to act as negotiators and get killed. They wouldn't have one ton bombs blowing up residential neighborhoods etc. Hell, life to them then might seem so darn cheery there wouldn't be any desire to bomb at all.

Khan,

Thanks very much for the article.

 

Then their is no moral seperation. The argument of who's right and wrong no longer applies since both parties are guilty.

Civilians no matter what side they are on, are innocent, and haven't attacked anyone, or started a fight with anybody. The logic you use, is exactly the same logic, almost word for word that Bin Laden used. He used the deaths of civilians in Iraq, to justify targeting civilians in the U.S.

Using your logic, that is a reasonable stance to take in a war.

Actually that's debatable that the Palestinians started this crap. I've posted quotes by past Israeli govt. officials and histories that show that Zionists(prior to ISrael even being a state were attack Arab villages). Also Even Begin, the former Prime minister of ISrael admits that in '67 Egypt wasn't trying to invade Israel, they were only sending a small amount of troops to the Palestinian areas.

 

I just wanted to say one thing about the double standard that exists.

When Israel went after the Hamas planner, and bombed a residential neighborhood to get him. At that time only four of the people killed were in the same building as the Hamas leader, while the ten or so civilians killed were in completely different buildings.

Despite this fact, people railed against the Hamas leader, saying that he shouldn't use civilians as shields(I still don't know how it's possible to use people in a completely different building as a shield). People claimed that the suicide bombings were awful, and now this guy was using civilians as shields.

But later when it turns out that standard Israeli procedure is to use Palestinian civlians as shields, and send them to negotiate, open doors in dangerous areas, and force these civlians into harms way, there is no outrage against this.

A palestinian civilian life is every bit as precious as an Israeli civilian's life. When one side and it doesn't matter which side it is, forces civilians to take bullets for them as part of their standard procedure, it's wrong.

If anyone doubts that this has occurred, then refer to the bbc article I posted in another thread.

Let's end the double standard placed on human life.