Yus,
You know that I admitted my biasness towards the oppressed Palestinians from
the onset of our discussion (No apologies for that!).
On the other hand, you proclaimed that you were neutral in the conflict
(Well and good). However in the aftermath of your last contribution, your
claim to neutrality can no longer hold ground. In all fairness and truth,
whether you choose to proclaim it or not your sympathy squarely lies with
Israel. Unless you admit this, which is within your rights to do so or not;
it is either
1. You are indulging in hypocrisy as far as your stance on the conflict is
concerned or
2. You are aware of the history of the conflict but potraying 'intellectual
dishonesty' in your perspective of it or
3. You do not know the history of the conflict's origin.
Yus, choose one of the above and spare me from your previous stance that
you, yourself have now completely demolished. No more vagueness please!
clarity is needed.
Should you be honest or informed about how Israel came into being in 1948,
you would not have attempted to query the following assertion:
>"The on-going conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis has its
>origins in terrorism. The conflict is sustained through terrorism practiced
>by the Israeli army and it is in part resisted through terrorism against
>Israeli civilians. Therefore terrorism is both the cause and effect in the
>conflict; it is also the symptom BUT IT CAN NEVER BE THE SOLUTION."
>
In the end you only succeeded in 'moppetting' yourself since you failed to
pinpoint any inaccuracy in my statement.
You indicated:
>This is an extremely inaccurate assertion on your part. Let's take a look
>at
>the definition of terrorism. Merriam-Webster defines this as "the
>systematic
>use of terror especially as a means of coercion. "
As far as your attempt to sell me a borrowed definition of terrorism is
concerned, I am not buying it because it is just one version of what
terrorism is. If an army that enters a refugee camp at night to bombard and
bury alive civilians in their homes on the pretext of fighting terrorism is
not engaged in terrorism, then who else is? The suicide bombers, certainly,
but not the Israeli army, insists your president: George Bush, according to
whom, the latter is just defending their state. As for the Palestinians, how
should they defend their land? forever with stones? Yet stones vs bullets
would be considered resistance but bullets vs bullets, that is terrorism by
the Palestinians.
With the following statement, you had completely ignored the fact that it is
the Palestinians that are under the brutal military occuption and siege of
the Israeli army. As it was legitimate to resist the occupation by Hitler's
Germany of other countries in World War II, so does the Palestinians have
the God-given right to resist the Israeli occupation forces and fight
against all the agents of the occupation in their land: the settlers.
You follied yourself by stating:
>1. That what you called terrorist activities were in fact started by the
>Palestinians. It is therefore more accurate to state that this violence is
>sustained through terroristic acts against innocent Israelis started by
>fringe groups and continued through the PLO and more fringe groups today.
What a gibberish dishonesty! It is hard to believe that the above emanated
from you.
Don't you know that even the UN recognises that the Palestinian are under
military occupation against their will or Is it that you do not regard
coercive military occupation as an act of terrorism?
The following scenario is most unlikely to ever happen but assuming that
Senegal invades the Gambia in a bid to annex our territory and Gambians in
reaction put up a military resistance resulting in the dead of Senegalese
and Gambians civilians, then are we Gambians to be branded as the initiators
of the terrorism? It is exactly this scenario which is going on between the
Palestinians and the Israelis from my biased perspective.
Lest you also forget,let me remind you that Yasser Arafat was awarded the
nobel peace prize for his readiness to arrive at a dignified negotiated
settlement with the Israelis.
Do you also know that Madiba Nelson Mandela was once branded a terrorist by
the US Government and that he even featured in a hit list of the CIA for
being falsely regarded as a communist agent.
Check up this fact, the year was 1962.
To you, Ariel Sharon and others, Yasser Arafat is a terrorist but to his
people and the majority of people throughout the world, he (Arafat)
represents an embodiment of legitimate Palestinian struggle for Freedom,
Dignity and Statehood against occupation.
You wrote:
>2. It is also important to note that since Arafat assumed leadership of the
>then terrorist PLO group, he is also in principle like Sharon, a terrorist.
>
Finally, I strongly detest what is now a rather desperate attempt by you to
distort my views. You may insult me, hate me, or brand me whatever you like
but please do not act so cheaply by plainly attempting to distort my
statement as you attempted to do when I condemned the hypocriticism of some
of us for remaining mute over the mass murder of the Palestinians while
condemning the suicide bombers. Then you implied that I was referring to all
those who contributed to the topic, with the exception of myself. In
attempting to do so, you are not only being unfair to me but will also be
degrading yourself in the end because as long as as there is an once of
eneregy in me, I will debunk all such lies and expose your dishonorable
motives.
How dare you state:
>What I don't like
>is your attempt to cast aspersions on George Bush by comparing his actions
>to
>those of Yahya Jammeh. This IMO is a very disingenuous comparison to be
>expected only from his supporters or sympathizers. This dishonest analogy
>has no place in this debate.
>
when what i stated here is exactly the following:
" Even the UN representative to the Occupied territories described the sight
of devastation in the Jenin refugee camp following his visit there today as
'horror beyond belief' but your President, not Yahya Jammeh this time, but
George Bush today of all days decided to hail Ariel Sharon as 'a man of
peace' instead of condemning him for the atrocities committed by his army."
In other words, What the above meant is: It was your other President: George
Bush, not Yahya Jammeh this time who hailed Sharon as 'a man of peace'.
I did not make a secret of it since i stated on this very forum that in the
early days of the AFPRC i supported them by virtue of what they proclaim to
represent. I did, no apologies to anyone; now
I do not, no apologies again to anybody.
So where in the above quoted statement did i compare George Bush to Yahya
Jammeh? Please Yus, You understand the english language very well,
therefore, you were simply engaged in dishonesty and cheap distortion of the
fact.
My case is closed!
The yoke of oppression must be shattered!
BMK
BMK
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
