Posted on 03/31/2002 8:34:21 AM PST by MeekOneGOP
| Palestinian minister says Israeli acts "barbaric" | |
|
|
|
CAIRO, March 31 (Reuters) - A Palestinian minister slammed
as barbaric Israel's occupation of its territories and said the
United States was wrong to describe Israel's latest moves as
self-defence.
Palestinian Planning and International Cooperation Minister
Nabil Shaath told Reuters Television in Cairo that the recent
wave of suicide bomb attacks had been prompted by desperation in
the face of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's policies.
"The situation continues to be very grave and threatening.
There is an occupation that is unprecedented in its barbarity.
People are summarily executed in the streets," he said during a
visit to Egypt where he met Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher.
"There are threats (to) the life of Mr Arafat and slow but
gradual attempts at pushing closer and closer to harming him,"
Shaath said.
Israeli forces have continued to battle with Arafat's
security forces outside his West Bank offices in an attempt to
halt a wave of Palestinian suicide bombings, which on Sunday
included an attack in the Israeli city of Haifa and on a Jewish
settlement.
"What can you do about people who are willing to give their
lives and die for their country under attack?" said Shaath,
adding that the dead were victims of "the crime committed by
Sharon and nobody else".
U.S. President George W. Bush has demanded that Arafat stop
the suicide attacks and said he fully respected Israel's right
to defend itself against them.
"Who has self-defence? A country that is being attacked or a
country that is attacking. An attacking country cannot claim
self-defence," Shaath said.
"It is people who are in the occupied territories attacked
by Israel who have the right to self-defence."
The Egyptian foreign minister was later quoted telling
reporters that the international response to Israel's actions
had been "extremely weak".
"The first and foremost of priorities is for Israel to stop
its aggression on the Palestinian people because what Israel is
doing is a type of insanity," Maher added.
((Cairo newsroom +202 578 3290/1, fax +202 577 1133,
cairo.newsroom@reuters.com))
31 MAR 2002 16:59:48 Palestinian minister says Israeli acts "barbaric"
 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
Just as revealing was the reaction from the European media. In the American press, you read things like: "An observer to the bomb-blast scene described a dead young girl, perhaps 10 or 12, lying on the ground with her eyes open, looking as if she was surprised." For Europe, on the other hand, the main significance of this development was that it was "unhelpful" to the "peace process". Before I'm accused of being more upset about dead Jewish than dead Muslim kids, let me say that I take people at their own estimation: in the Palestinian Authority schools, they teach their children about the glories of martyrdom; indeed, the careers guidance counsellor appears to have little information on alternative employment prospects; at social events, the moppets are dressed up as junior jihadi, with toy detonators and play bombs. It's not that I place less value on Palestinian lives, but that Chairman Arafat and his chums in Hamas do. So does Saddam Hussein, whose government (the subject of an admiring article in this week's Spectator) gives $25,000 to the family of each Palestinian suicide bomber. So does the Arab League, which at last year's summit passed a resolution hailing the "spirit of sacrifice" of the Palestinian "martyrs" and thus licensed Wednesday's massacre. As for the "peace process", those Europeans who, just a few months ago, were urging the Americans to cease operations for Ramadan evidently feel no compunction to demand from Chairman Arafat and his dark subsidiaries any similar "bombing pause" for Passover.
In the days after September 11, we were told that Muslims had great respect for their fellow "people of the book" - ie, Jews and Christians. This ought to be so: after all, the dramatis personae of the Koran include Abraham, Moses, David, John the Baptist, Jesus and the Virgin Mary. It's one thing to believe that the Israelis are occupiers and oppressors and that the Zionist state should not exist. But no Muslim with any understanding of his shared heritage could in good conscience blow up a Passover Seder. It marks a new low in the Palestinians' descent into nihilism - though, as usual, the silence of the imams is deafening. As for the nonchalance of the Europeans, that too should not surprise us: in my experience, the Continent's Christians, practising and nominal, find the ceremonies of Jewish life faintly creepy, notwithstanding that these were also the rituals by which their own Saviour lived.
But this year, when the Christians' solar calendar and the Jews' lunar calendar have coincided and Easter and Passover fall together, it's a safe bet that George W Bush will make the connection. The first time I ever heard him speak, he spoke openly about his faith and about Christ in a way that would be unimaginable for a British politician. He will know all the details - "the baby tried to crawl away, but it died, too".......................
Before I'm accused of being more upset about dead Jewish than dead Muslim kids, let me say that I take people at their own estimation: in the Palestinian Authority schools, they teach their children about the glories of martyrdom; indeed, the careers guidance counsellor appears to have little information on alternative employment prospects; at social events, the moppets are dressed up as junior jihadi, with toy detonators and play bombs.
I for one will not feel sorry for the Arabs when Israel starts the shelling and saturation bombing.
And, just then, the little black pot looked slyly across the stove and said to the kettle..." Oh, my you are sooooooo black, arn't you???"
I think the paletinians have gone "nutso' wacky and just need to be TOTALY removed to Saudi Arabia so the can FREELY practice their religion of peace(pieces) and KABOOM!
Israel is behaving barbarically, but the Palestinians that blow peopleAnd you'll have lots of company here on FR, me for one!
up in shopping malls and pizza parlors is wonderful and heroic.
I for one will not feel sorry for the Arabs when Israel starts the
shelling and saturation bombing.
"Who has self-defence? A country that is being attacked or aMan, these guys have the propaganda line down pat don't they? Sheesh!
country that is attacking. An attacking country cannot claim
self-defence," Shaath said.
"It is people who are in the occupied territories attacked
by Israel who have the right to self-defence."
Is this when he was informing the Egyptian that the suspected Israeli Colaborators were being killed in the streets?
Something that came out yesterday was that the West Bank was once called "Judea" -- Land of the Jews -- get it?
That's not what this article stated. The article's main thrust could be summarized as "Israeli occupation, bad". I agree. The fruit of the Israeli occupation has been bad - death and destruction.
Oh, I see, those are "summary executions". (Still working on my Arab to Earthspeak dictionary.) What, though, is with the strange Israeli innovation of giving guns to the executees and letting them shoot back? Whatever happened to a blindfold and cigarette?
I for one am tired of the use of the term "occupation". Try using it in a local sense, "it is common in their culture for 19 or more to occupy the same apartment house". It is a very impersonal word. I am also looking at the term "barbaric" in the title of this thread. How can anything be more barbaric than (1) to raise you children to commit suicide, and (2) to meet with an organization that provides C4 and detonators and batteries for your child to wear. and (3) direct the child in a trajectory that will kill and injure as many innocents as possible of another race or culture? I find the term "barbarian" and the term "palestinian" becoming one and the same. This will work to the future stagnation of palistinian goals when the world finally has enough terrorism that they realize that true terrorist behavior can never be allowed to win just goals.
If the "occupation" is so terrible, why did the Egyptians refuse to accept return of Gaza when they made peace with Israel? Why did Jordan not even ask (as I understand, correct me if I am wrong) for the return of the West Bank when they made peace? Looks to me like Israel has been purposefully STUCK with the territories (unless they should unilaterally return to indefensible borders without security agreements and recognition of their borders per U.N. resolution 242).
BLOW THE AL ASQA and DOME OF THE ROCK TO SMITHEREENS!!!! and sell the RUBBLE ON EBAY!!!!! ROFL
What do you think?
Israel and Egypt agreed that the West Bank and Gaza were entitled to autonomy.
Why did Jordan not even ask (as I understand, correct me if I am wrong) for the return of the West Bank when they made peace?
Jordan also agreed that the West Bank and Gaza were entitled to autonomy.
Looks to me like Israel has been purposefully STUCK with the territories (unless they should unilaterally return to indefensible borders without security agreements and recognition of their borders per U.N. resolution 242).
The Israeli occupation has failed to bring security to either side. It's a source of endless violence, not security.
Will someone PLEASE answer this question for me - I keep asking it periodically and no answers have been forthcoming. Why is it that the West Bank is only "occupied" when Israel has it?
Why is it that when Jordan occupied the West Bank and Jerusalem in 1948, with NO INTENTION of ever giving it back (they permanently annexed the whole area in 1950, officially declaring it part of Jordan, despite the objections of the rest of the Arab League), it was NOT a major beef with the Palestinians for the entire 17 years they had it?
But then as soon as Israel gains control of it in 1967 as a result of defense, it immediately becomes "occupied" and part of the "struggle for independence."
And while we're on it, I'd love to know why it is considered "illegal occupation" in the first place. Why is Israel required to give back land gained in defense when no other country is ever expected to do so?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Child sacraficing, murdering haters.....will NEVER settle for peaceful relations with Jews or Christian... They are simply stuck on Phase 1 of world domination.....
"Peace" will not come in this region, until one side has been bled white....and repell in horror at the sight of the devastation this hatred has brought them....
Semper Fi
Anyone just reading the headlines will think the Israelis are the aggressors here. The Palis sure understand spin. First, they claim victimhood, then they air the grievances (one more time), then they call for a truce loudly (while whispering poison pill conditions), then they bomb, bomb, bomb. When the other side responds, they call the other side barbaric and run to the UN asking for help. Then they start all over.
Of course,Reuters is complicit.
The Israeli occupation has been oppressively hostile, brutal, and destructive. By comparison, the period of Jordanian rule seems friendly and inclusive. Jordan, at least, tried to integrate the inhabitants of the West Bank. Israel, by contrast, set up a system of apartheid designed to ghettoize Palestinians while expanding illegal Israeli settlements.
No, they instituted security checkpoints designed to prevent terrorists from entering Israel. The fact that so many terrorists have been successful in carrying out attacks against Israeli civilians within the "green line" is proof that there is no "apartheid" in Israel.
However since the Arabs insist that all Jews must be ethnically cleansed from their new "Palestinian state" that would be more of the "apartheid" that you are constantly whining about.
Your cliche-ridden diatribes are becoming increasingly tedious.
OK, just so we are clear - are you suggesting that if the Israelis had been NICER, the whole "occupation" would be a non-issue?
Aside from that, you say that Jordan tried to "integrate" the residents of the West Bank. Sure they did, quite a few became Jordanian citizens. But Jordan has 10 refugee camps, 4 of which have been around since 1948. A quarter million total refugees.
If Israel is so barbaric, how is it that Israel offered citizenship to "Palestinians" as well, those who are now called Israeli Arabs? Anyone who resided in Israel upon declaration of statehood was given citizenship. Don't these count as "integrated"?
And what of the billions in aid that Arafat has gotten? What has he done to improve the lives of his adopted people regarding infrastructure, medical options, job creation and housing? If anyone has "ghettoized" the West Bank and Gaza, Arafat has - it is impossible to dispute the fact that he has squandered and squirreled away millions and millions while allowing his adopted people to live in squalor as political pawns.
Regardless, you still haven't answered my question. The point is, the Palestinians didn't complain about illegally occupied land until Israel had it. Why is that? And it can't be because Jordan was NICER. If Israel was illegal in her occupation, so was Jordan, and they still lacked their state, so why no outcry?
Good point.
However since the Arabs insist that all Jews must be ethnically cleansed from their new "Palestinian state" that would be more of the "apartheid" that you are constantly whining about.
Another good point.
Checkpoints and roadblocks are not limited to Israeli border crossings. They exist throughout the occupied territories and are designed to hinder and restrict Palestinians, in general.
The fact that so many terrorists have been successful in carrying out attacks against Israeli civilians within the "green line" is proof that there is no "apartheid" in Israel.
I didn't say there was apartheid in Israel proper, behind the green line. Israeli apartheid exists in the occupied territories.
However since the Arabs insist that all Jews must be ethnically cleansed from their new "Palestinian state" that would be more of the "apartheid" that you are constantly whining about.
They only insist on the withdrawal of Israeli soldiers and settlers. That's hardly equivalent to "all Jews".
Your cliche-ridden diatribes are becoming increasingly tedious.
Look who's talking.
Tell me about the other Jews who will not be forced to leave, who will be welcomed by the Palestinians as citizens with equal rights. Got a few names?
Yeah, withdrawal into the closest ocean
The Israeli occupation would be a non-issue if it ended. The nicest thing the Israelis could do for the Palestinians would be to withdraw all the Israeli soldiers and settlers from the West Bank and Gaza and agree to a just peace along the lines of the Saudi offer.
Aside from that, you say that Jordan tried to "integrate" the residents of the West Bank. Sure they did, quite a few became Jordanian citizens. But Jordan has 10 refugee camps, 4 of which have been around since 1948. A quarter million total refugees.
Jordan didn't require the Palestinians to surrender their refugee status and become citizens.
If Israel is so barbaric, how is it that Israel offered citizenship to "Palestinians" as well, those who are now called Israeli Arabs? Anyone who resided in Israel upon declaration of statehood was given citizenship. Don't these count as "integrated"?
First, Israeli Arabs weren't offered citizenship until 1964. Second, the offer of Israeli citizenship was not extended to the Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza.
And what of the billions in aid that Arafat has gotten?
Whatever the PA has gotten is a pittance compared to the lavish aid packages Israel receives.
What has he done to improve the lives of his adopted people regarding infrastructure, medical options, job creation and housing?
It takes a lot of chutzpah for supporters of Israel to blame Arafat for not doing enough, considering the massive harm which Israel has inflicted in all of these areas.
Regardless, you still haven't answered my question. The point is, the Palestinians didn't complain about illegally occupied land until Israel had it. Why is that? And it can't be because Jordan was NICER. If Israel was illegal in her occupation, so was Jordan, and they still lacked their state, so why no outcry?
The period of Jordanian rule was obviously much less objectionable than the harsh Israeli occupation.
After the withdrawal, with everyone settled into their new homes how would the two new states conduct commerce? Any idea what they would be called?
Yet one more question. Since the two areas are not physically touching, why isn't the land between them also considered to be occupied? If it was all "Palestine" before the Israelis occupied it, why isn't it now?
The Israeli occupation would be a non-issue if it ended. The nicest thing the Israelis could do for the Palestinians would be to withdraw all the Israeli soldiers and settlers from the West Bank and Gaza and agree to a just peace along the lines of the Saudi offer.
That's one of the sidesteps. You in fact did suggest that Israel's occupation would not be an issue - in effect, that the Palestinians would not be pushing to get the land and would tolerate Israeli rule as they did Jordanian for 20 years - if Israel would have been as kind as the Jordanians. And I rather doubt, based on history, that the occupation would become a non-issue if it just ended. There would be further political assaults as well as military ones, because they ultimately just want Israel gone. Reference the fact that Israel exists on no Palestinian maps, constant sermons from the mosques and calls to arms by Arafat himself, to name but a few examples.
Jordan didn't require the Palestinians to surrender their refugee status and become citizens.
Neither did Israel. So which is it - should Israel accept them as citizens, or let them remain refugees? Jordan did both and it was acceptable, but Israel must do what exactly? Oh, of course. Neither. Just full withdrawal, completely autonomy, right of return for 4 million "refugees", etc...next!
First, Israeli Arabs weren't offered citizenship until 1964. Second, the offer of Israeli citizenship was not extended to the Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza.
Document that for me, please. All I have read is that Israel offered all Arab residents citizenship. It was part of their declaration of independence. And why would an "offer of citizenship" in 1964 be extended to the West Bank and Gaza? Israel didn't control those areas til 67.
Whatever the PA has gotten is a pittance compared to the lavish aid packages Israel receives.
Do you know exactly what the PA has gotten? Of course not, no one really does, because Arafat has done his best to keep it out of the public eye as he squirrels it away.
It takes a lot of chutzpah for supporters of Israel to blame Arafat for not doing enough, considering the massive harm which Israel has inflicted in all of these areas.
Sure, Israel has destroyed infrastructure quite a bit in recent months. They have sent tanks and troops into Palestinian controlled areas a number of times. I'm sure we would go round in circles about whether those incursions are justified or not. Regardless, that still does in no way address the point - Arafat has done NOTHING to improve the lives and infrastructure of the people he claims to lead. Except build himself an airport, office compounds, houses, fly all over the world drumming up support, buy illegal arms, helicopters, cars, planes...even you have to admit that Arafat is scum. Come on, you can do it, I know you can. :)
The period of Jordanian rule was obviously much less objectionable than the harsh Israeli occupation.
There you go again, referencing those "nice" Jordanians. So what, it was still illegal. The whole point of my question is obvious, and that is that as long as Arabs were doing the oppressing and occupying (as Syria is currently doing to Lebanon, by the way), no complaints are made. But as soon as Israel takes over, all hell breaks loose.
Which reminds me - you never answered my other question. Why is it that Israel is the only country who is required to return land gained as a result of defense?
Neither Alaska nor Hawaii physically touch the other 48 states. Yet they're all part of the USofA.
Should Israel follow the Jordanian example?
Should Israel do to Arabs living in the territories what Jordan did to Jews?
Should Israel give the same access to the Moslems to visit their holy sites as Jordan gave to Jews to visit the Western Wall?
Should Israel desecrate Moslem cemeteries as Jordan made latrines out of Jewish cemeteries in existence since before Jesus's time.
Maybe Israel should.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
