Yus,
I must concede that your arguements are sound and engaging unlike the
'emotional stance'i have taken on the conflict which has definitely clouded
my objectivity and judgments as to which of the parties is to blame in the
conflict. I have already passed my verdict: Israel is to blame; their
illegal occupation of Palestinian territory is the root cause of the
conflict in which terrorism is employed by both sides of the conflict to
attain their respective political objectives. The political objective of the
Palestinians is simply freedom from occupation and therefore the rest of
the world should insist for a complete Israeli withdrawal from the occupied
territories or else faced worldwide sanctions. If the whole world could
unite to immediately repel Saddam's Army from Kuwait in 1990, why can't the
same be done in the case of Israel vs Palestine. Probably, the latter has no
oil fields. There are no other people in this world faced with predicament,
resentment and helplessness such as currently faced by the Palestinians. I
was disheartened and really angry this evening when Channel 4 featured some
of the destruction caused by the Israeli army to the social infrasture of
the Palestinians. It is unbelievable but true; the Israeli army ransacked
Palestinian educational facilities, destroyed computers and teaching
equipment all in the name of counter-terrorism. By the way, there were no
Palestinian gunmen in those amenities for one to conclude that the
destruction occured as a result of running battles with the Israeli army. It
was sheer vandalism by an army equipped and trained by the US.
I also think that you should try to broaden your notion of what terrrorism
is. Terrorism is the act of using terror to achieve an objective, not merely
political ends. The end result of terrorism is not confined to deaths or
injuries; it could be purposed towards inciting fear, desperation or
capitulation to the desires of the initiator or agent of terror. Your
understanding of terrorism is tailor-made from the western redefinition of
it in the aftermath of tragic September 11. As the President of Syria told
Tony Blair in Damascus: Someone's terrorist could be another's freedom
fighter. Military warfare is part of terrorism; the misuse of the NIA is
part of terrorism upon Gambians; the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein is
terrorism, so is the Invasion and occupation by Israel of Palestinan
territories; the trans-Atlantics and tran-Saharan Slave trades were
terrorism; the Holocaust was terrorism upon the Jews; the denial of
humanitarian supplies to Iraq by the US and her allies is part of terrorism
etc. etc.
Mind you, terrrorism is not always obvious to the casual observer. It can be
dressesd up to potray a false image but in reality it could be causing
despair and desperation to others. This may sound very ridiculous to you but
it is my firmly-held belief that the deliberate impoverisation of the
so-called Third world by whosoever and through whatever means is terrorism.
In reality the terrorists are of two sorts: Plain and disguised. The plain
ones, we all see and hear reported about on TV such as Hamas, IRA, and the
Israeli Army etc but the disguised terrorists mostly wear respectable suits
and ties with command over the forces of coercion whom they usually deploy
at will eg Ariel Sharon and Saddam Hussein. Their orders can result in the
death of scores or thousands of innocent but they care less because they
regard most of their victims as colateral damage or casualties.
In conclusion, the definition of terrorism is not only falling buildings,
flying human bodies, flying glass, shattered buses, bulldozes buildings,
shooting stone throwers, bloodied faces, it includes all other activities
designed to incite terror in the people.
At least for now, I must end my rambling here.
Have a good time and wishing you a speedy recovery from your injury.
Take Care
BMK
>In your last piece, you attempted to label me as a supporter of the Israeli
>cause. However, unlike your clearly emotional stance on this issue, I have
>decided to take the more constructive view by looking at the actions and
>motives of all the parties involved in this struggle. Of course, like most
>crazy bearded reactionists, it is very easy to run around yelling; "Jihad
>Jihad Jihad."
>
>As I iterated in my earlier pieces, both parties (i.e., both the Israelis &
>Palestinians) should share the blame for the awful situation we have there
>today. Israeli occupation of land for settlements & war crimes do not help
>the situation, but in the same breadth, the obliteration of innocent lives
>through the actions of suicide bombers just serves to antagonize the
>conflict. This IMO is a sound foundation from which to look at this
>conflict.
> This stance should not be confused as being partial to the Israeli cause,
>especially after having expressed my support of a Palestinian State,
>encompassing the pre-1967 borders.
>
>Since you have also decided to rant & rave emotionally about the USA's role
>in this conflict, let's take briefly take a look at this player;
>There is absolutely no doubt that the USA is a friend of Israel, a stance
>which has been reinforced by many American leaders, including George Bush.
>However any insinuation that the USA is involved in some covert conspiracy
>to
>subjugate the Palestinians is way off tangent.
>
>While it is reasonable to assert that this country should bring more
>pressure
>to bear on Israel by threatening to cut off it's aid, it is also very
>important to note that the Palestinians have received tremendous amounts of
>money from the USA. For example, with the help of the World Bank and the
>USA, Jenin received almost 5 Billion Dollars in aid to assist folks there.
>
>The refugee camps created as a result of this long conflict have long been
>supported by the West and this country in particular. These actions do not
>sound entirely pro-Israel and completely anti-Palestinian. It is also
>reasonable to assume that given the amount of money being poured into these
>camps, the West & USA would like to see a solution to the problem.
>
>Finally, I would like to address the most glaring error in your last few
>pieces; i.e., your obvious misunderstanding of the term 'terrorism' in its
>classic sense. Recently especially in light of the Israeli/Palestinian
>conflict, there has been much debate about the meaning of this term. My
>understanding of it is simple.
>
>Terrorism can be explained as violent acts usually targeted at innocent
>folks
>and intended to force the agenda and prompt a reaction from the attacked
>party. Going by this definition, the suicide bombings are clear acts of
>terrorism while the Israeli incursions are reactions to these attacks.
>This
>does not excuse the war crimes & atrocities supposedly committed by the IDF
>in the territories. These in my estimation are also atrocious acts which
>cannot be justified easily.
>
>Your scenario about Senegal annexing the Gambia is a clear indication of
>your
>misinterpretation of terrorism. Your analogy with the topic of discussion
>is
>wrong because the invasion would be deemed as an illegal invasion while any
>civilians dying as a result might be either deemed as collateral damage as
>is
>the case in many wars, whereas the deliberate targeting of civilians would
>be
>deemed war crimes & atrocities. This IMO is a clear departure from the
>meaning of terrorism.
>
>But if Gambian put up a struggle against the Senegalese forces, this act
>would be deemed a legitimate struggle against invaders. On the other hand,
>if Gambians decided to go to Dakar and blow up innocent civilians the act
>would be deemed terroristic and would this fall under the classic
>definition
>of terrorism.
>
>In conclusion, I do not deem the acts committed by Mandela's ANC to be
>terroristic in nature. After all, the ANC did not send their innocent kids
>out to slaughter Afrikaner children. To the contrary, Mandela stood up and
>faced his enemies by saying;
>"We forgive you." This IMO, is the mark of a great man who should never be
>compared to Arafat, who by recent armament shipments and evidence of his
>military wing's linkage to terrorist acts is in principle a terrorist.
>Like
>I said before, two or even multiples wrongs do not make a right.
>
>-YUS
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
>Web interface
>at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
>To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
>[log in to unmask]
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
