Skip to comments.Jenin: the bloody truth
Posted on 04/21/2002 10:28:29 AM PDT by RWCon
click here to read article
The Palestinian press radicalizes people. They wouldn't be any more radical if Sharon had massacred thousands. The Palestinians and the Arab world will believe he did anyway so he might as well. Isreal and the world would be safer.
Speaking of England. The English were much more brutal in their responce to Palestinian terrorists than the Isrealis are. The US would be also. Isreal lost 28 men because they were trying to prevent civilian casualies. The US wouldn't have done that. We'd give the civilians time to leave then level the whole place from 30,000ft with no American casualties.
Some yearned for peace and wished to reach a settlement
I agree that there are some in the Palestinian community that do yearn for peace but if they say that they are murdered. A very much larger percentage of the Isreali population yearns for peace and they have proven it time and again. It's not just to compare the two. The Isrealis have tried and tried even if they have to be pressured by the US to do it. They do it. They make peace whenever an Arab state is agreeable to peace.
His brutal methods radicalize the people more and more until peace is impossible.
The Arab press radicalizes the Arab people more and more until peace is impossible. What Sharon actually does can't radicalize them any more than the propaganda does.
Peace must be imposed by outside parties and monitored.
The Isrealis are the only ones that can impose peace. No other country is going to do it. We need to step back and let them do it , after we remove Sadam and force the other Arab states back in line.
It may be possible for an Arab state to control the Palestinians but they won't do it and Isreal would be affraid to let them in to do it. That mightbe a solution eventually though.
I don't believe people need brutal, repressive rule
The evidence would suggest otherwise. They have never had any measure of peace or stability without it.
To think this suggests because you have the power you have the right
Unfortunately it's more of a duty than a right. The last thing that I would want to do is ride rouphshod over the Arabs but it must be done for the sake of civilization.
Then you build the case for his inferiority to prove to yourself you have the right to use your weapons to subjugate him and kick his a** and before you know it you've got yourself a slave--or a dead man.
I don't want Arab slaves but I don't want them to blow up the world either. We do have the right to defend ourselves whether or not their culture is inferior.
don't think of Arabs as inferior. I went to school with a bunch of Palestinians. Palestinians and Lebonese Arabs have been among my best freinds over the years. They are intelligent interesting loyal people. I do think of the society that they escaped from as inferior. Looking at the evidence it is difficult not to draw that conclusion. We must protect ourselves from it because of weapons of mass destruction. If it weren't for nukes and chem and bio weapons I'd say let them rot in their own feces. It's their bed they can lay in it.
If you want to talk about evil and barbaric you needent look much further than Arab culture.
Interesting point. I've heard that before but not about them being Jordanian.
The Palestinians like to say that they are the original inhabitents which would make them the people that God told his people to kill every last one including their farm animals and tear down every stone. That land is Isreal ; before that is was somebodies that God wanted dead.
However, all your article has in it is people of dubious histories doing a lot of handwaving and saying that, despite the fact that there are very few corpses, we just KNOW there was a massacre.
Although there is an interesting quote:
"Amnesty said it had found no evidence of mass graves or any support for allegations that women had been raped by troops."
Weak, very weak.
How about this:
Peter Bouckaert, a researcher at Human Rights Watch in New York who sneaked into Jenin on Thursday, told the Washington Post, "It's been incredibly difficult to tell the difference between fighters and civilians. If a combatant uses the civilian population as a shield in this way, the deaths incurred are the moral and legal responsibility of those who are hidings out in this grotesquely cowardly fashion.
And you STILL haven't explained away those pictures.
It sure is great to have friends in the Middle East.
While you are in fact correct, the implication is not what you think. In fact, under the 4th Convention, if an army chooses not to wear uniforms, and to hide within a civilian population, they are the ones responsible for the destruction required to root them out. In other words, it is the Palestinians who are guilty under the 4th Geneva Convention of any and all atrocities within Jenin.
Palestinians say several hundred people may have died during the Jenin offensive, part of an assault on the West Bank launched after scores of Israelis died in a wave of Palestinian suicide bombings.
Wow, you're back! So how was Idaho, eh? Still using the thin reeds of Pallie testimony to buttress your blood libel about a Jenin "massacre"?
Let's take a look at some salient facts in the story. Amnesty, an outfit not known for its friendliness to the State of Israel, sends its people into a combat zone after the IDF has pulled out its troops. They then interview Palestinian residents of Jenin, who, to a man, claim the Israelis conducted a massacre. Yet they offer no proof, no bodies, no mass graves. Where are the mass graves, anyway, my friend?
Could it be that they don't exist? Well, let's see, the Israelis would have had to cart 1600 bodies (that appears to be the accepted number that the National Socialist press is peddling. Oh, I'm sorry, you call it "The Guardian") away to a mysterious "mass grave" somewhere. Then each member of the disposal team would have had to remain silent about the massacre and subsequent removal of the bodies. Ooops! That reservist brigade was made up of guys who a week before were selling insurance and fixing up plumbing. Regular people. This might come as a shock to you Jethro, but Jews are regular people. Even Israeli Jews.
Unless of course, you believe that they make hamentashen using the blood of Arab infants during Purim. But let's go on....
Now at least one of these reservists would have had to have a pang of conscience and would have gone to Ma'ariv or Ha'aretz by now. Uh oh....no Israeli whistleblower. But you said there was a massacre!
But only Palestinians are crying "massacre", and they have a motive to cry massacre. No Israelis have come forward from the combat units and have confirmed the stories.
The fantasy that you are peddling would have had a leak by now. The story, complete with pictures, would have been out. Instead, you have massacre fantasies being peddled by left-wing Eurotrash terrorist sympathizers, and you expect us to treat it as fact? You expect us to buy into every piece of yellow journalism peddled by the likes of John Pilger and Robert Fisk? American overhead satellites, picket ships, and AURORA aircraft have been blanketing the West Bank with coverage. We have picked up and decrypted every bit of Israeli commo traffic.
Surely there would have been massive destruction. And yet...
....destruction seems to have been limited to an are about one to two football fields in size. While the rest of Jenin appears to have been left standing. They didn't bring in the bulldozers until the IDF troops approached the Palestinian last stand area in the circle. Yet you're peddling the lie that massive numbers of people were buried here or carted away, when in point of fact the IDF, at great cost to itself, took Jenin in house to house combat. Yet even the photographs expose the Pallie story for the lie that it is.
Jeez, don't you think that if Sharon had presided over a massacre, and the NSA found out about it, that Bush wouldn't be demanding his resignation by now and throwing his support to Netanyahu? Instead, Bush has reiterated his support for Israel and Sharon. Why would Bush want to saddle himself with a man who presided over a massacre?
I'm sure you have an answer for all these questions, don't you?
.....sound of crickets.....
Oooops! Guess not! I suppose we'll have to put up with more accusations of "neocon nazi", supplemented by the latest Jew-baiting articles from The Independent.
Your story is thin, watery beer. So watery that the various articles you offer as "proof" don't stand up to even the most basic, least intrusive forms of criticism. Nope, you peddle the claims of a bunch of prejudiced left-wing Eurotrash whose sympathies lie with the Palestinians, but who never said a word while Israelis were dying from terrorist bombs. And you peddle them as fact. And that is why you fail, and fail ingloriously, at that.
By the way, your idea of summerweight clothing might be a little standoffish, dontcha think?
Be Seeing You,
Don't you even bother to read the stuff before you cut & paste & call people rude names? Your own article said:
Amnesty said it had found no evidence of mass graves or any support for allegations that women had been raped by troops.
What's with your obsession with posting cartoons???
Well I oughta peepee in your cereal! I spend all this time putting up a reasoned, cogent response, complete with before and after pics of the rather minor,
You sir, are an intellectual Thunderbird Puppet.
You specialize in posting the propagandistic equivalent of Three Card Monte that is published in the Fleet Street Dailies, and expect not to be called on it. Then when rightfully exposed as the rhetorical carjacker that you are, you complain that I post a pic of Major Kusanagi as my signature masthead. That's it! This is your entire response; and you call me a "putz", to boot, as if that stands as a Quod erat demonstratum to your fatuous "arguments", such as they are.
Well, my friend, the Party Day Rally is over for you and your fellow Sturmabteilungen on this forum.
No more unanswered Jew-baiting allowed, pal. No more peddling of Pallie propaganda and blood libel without so much as an answer. Those days are gone. Soon, your buddy Arafat will be as well, along with his patron, Saddam.
As to my anime images, well, you just knew I couldn't let that go unanswered....
KUSANAGI: "Hey, Colonel Aramaki, what's with all the Jew-baiting going on around here?"
ARAMAKI: "Nothing new, Kusanagi. Intelligence reports from Section Six indicate that they've all gotten together on their own thread and they're reading the latest Justin Raimondo column. I'm sending your team in to intercept them before they start burning down synagogues."
Be Seeing You,
If that is true, why did they give back the Sinai and all the oil that went with it?
No, I SAID it was a Latin word. However, the Latin word was derived from the Hebrew word in the Bible, "Peleshet." By the time the Romans came to the area, the Philistines were long gone. They learned about the Philistines from the Jews.
It designates not an Arab people, but the Philistines who inhabited another corner of the region that was ancient Judea. That said, this does not mean the Palestinans do not have their own distinctive identity as a people. After all, before Israel existed, there were Jews. Before there was a Germany or Italy, there were people called Germans and Italians, based on a regional inhabitation.
You are ABSOLUTELY wrong. People were called "Germans" and "Italians" (and Irish) NOT because of the territory in which they lived but because of things like shared ancestry, language, a distinctive style of clothing, and other things cumulatively called "culture."
A Englishman could live in Ireland and not be Irish. A German could live in Russia and still be a German.
In the case of the "Palestinians," they have NONE of the characteristics of a nationality group. They have no distinctive language, religion or culture. They are simply Arabs living in the region that the European powers drew borders around and labeled "Palestine." Many of them have cousins on the other side of the Jordan river in Jordan. A Muslim "Palestinian" in Ramallah might very likely have more in common with Muslims in Amman, Jordan than with Christian "Palestinians" in Bethlehem.
Besides, Arabs had always inhabited the region, even in the days of ancient Judea, as we know from ancient sources. When the Jews were dispersed by the Romans, the Arabs remained till modern times.
Yes and no. There were always Arabs in the region but their numbers fluctuated. There were many reports from the region in the 19th Century that Palestine was almost deserted. There was definitely a large influx of Arabs into Palestine in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries when the arrival of the zionists created job opportunities there.
Most of the "Palestinian" Arabs are probably no more ancient in the region than most of the Jews.
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.