The following UN definition you quoted is partly acceptable to me:
>"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action,
>employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for
>idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby -- in contrast to
>assassination -- the direct targets of violence are not the main targets.
I would however like to highlight the applicability of the following aspects
of the definition to the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and
your repeated assertions that only the Palestinians are engaged in
terrorism.
The summation of the UN definition is: "terrorism is an anxiety inspiring
method of repeated violence" for "criminal or political reasons" or
objectives in which "the direct targets of violence are not the main
targets".
I would therefore assume that the term 'main target' above, represents
justifiable or prime target. I hope you understand that there is no monopoly
over violence. As the oppressor can deploy it, so could the oppressed. Again
'justification' is a relative term that could be deployed biasly and finally
as humans; most of us cannot tell the intention of others so we have the
choice of determining this either by accepting what the other person(s)
tells us as his or her intention or by judging from a pattern of their
actions. Along this thought, I will definitely consider the intention of any
person who breaks into my house and wants to take away my property, however
insignificant it could be, as desiring to steal. Similarly, the intention of
the Israeli army through its bombardment of Palestinian civilian areas is to
kill civilians.
Concerning my perception of terrorism, you argued that:
>Your misinterpretation of the term is dangerous because
>it indicates a clear aversion to the fact that what the Palestinian fringe
>groups with the complicity of the PLO led Arafat practice is the form of
>terrorism defined by a very authoritative body on this phenomenon while
>Israeli incursions in response to these ghastly acts are not a clear match.
Why should killings committed by the Israeli army against innocent
Palestinian civilians be considered 'collateral damage' and not terrorism as
you opined, while on the other hand you are adamant that killings committed
against innocent Israelis by Palestinians is terrorism. This is flawed
reasoning, after all, what is bad for the goose should be bad for the gander
as what is sauce for either should likewise be sauce for the other. We
should try to shatter this bias view of terrorism defined from a purely
western perspective. Terrorism is not exclusively the implementation of
planned terror against non-prime targets as you have been brainwashed to
belief. Please note the qualification: "the direct targets of violence are
not the main targets" and try to relate this to direct targetting and
bombing of the Yugolav TV HQ in which scores of innocent journalists were
killed by NATO during the so-called war against Yougloslavia in 1999. The
casualties (killed or maimed) from that despicable act of terrorism were
directly targetted inspite of the fact that they were not the main target
but NATO contended that they were collateral damage. If this is the
rationale, then every terrorist act in a conflicte could be reduced to
collateral damage. Maybe you will like to argue that the TV Station was a
legitimate target because of its propaganda role for the Yugoslav army
during the war. I hope not.
You classified the full-scale military invasion of Palestinian territories
by the Israeli army and the subsequent indiscriminate use of their fire
power against civilians centres in Jenin, Ramallah, Bethlehem as follows:
> These incursions, regardless of consequence, are responses to attacks on
>innocent Israelis, and the only way these acts could have been categorized
>as
>above is if the objective of these incursions were expresssedly to target
>Palestinian citizens. But IDF's actions to this point clearly disprove this
>your theory. The IDF instead has targeted Palestinian Authority
>headquarters
>and the fringe groups involved in the planning and logistics of these
>ghastly
>deeds.
I heard exactly the same arguments from all Israeli spokespersons in their
attempt to rationalise the massive disproportionate use of force against the
Palestinians in the refugee camps. If you are therefore aspiring to join the
league of pro-Zionists, then your transformation from a neutral and
objective stance on the conflict to your apparent conclusion that the
Israeli military's 'incursions' as you describe them are just
counter-terrrorist operations, qualifies you as a member. In effect, you are
asserting that the conflict stems from the terrorism of the Palestians and
not the illegal Occupation. Dore Gold, the Chief Spokesperson of Ariel
Sharon would for instance argue that the blame for the loss of Palestinian
civilian lives should squarely be on the shoulders of the Palestinian
militias since they chose to mingle and live among their people in
predominantly civilian refugee camps. Where else can they live if not within
their peoples in refugee camps in the face of the perpetual racist Israeli
policy of land confiscication in favour of Jews who mostly migrate from
Eastern Europe? The policy of the Israeli army is design to all intents and
purposes towards collectively punishing the Palestinians for their active
resistance against all components of the subjugation and oppression inherent
in the illegal occupation of their land.
Yus, my main problem with your analysis is that throughout you have
conveniently ignored the root cause of this fratricidal? conflict and
instead decided to focus on its symptons and effects. This is one of the
reasons for my contention that your neutrality and objectivity has expired
had it existed in the first place. You see the conflict exactly through the
lens of the US Jewish lobby and Ariel Sharon. why don't you for once try to
imagine yourself as a Palestinian born in a deprived refugee camp; your land
being continually confiscicated and given to foreigners by a mighty
US-backed army; you have no contact with the outside world except through
this army of occupation; and your sisters and mothers regularly give birth
at military check points instead of a hospital; you can be arrested,
detained, shot at, and killed at will upon any pretext; Brother Yus, tell me
will you under all this sub-human bondage that you face succumb as you
expect the Palestinians to do? It is just a rhetorical question because
unless you choose to be a colaborator with the enemy, i will expect you to
join the resistance for freedom.
You depicted:
> Booby trapped buildings and suicide bombers in Red Cross vans
>are indications of the type of fight this notoriously militant area put up
>against the IDF.
>Million dollar question is why would anyone even bother
>leaving their houses in the face of such a conflict? If anything this
>article shows the mission of the IDF was not to expressedly target
>civilians
>in Jenin. Most of the civilians perished due to the unfortunate side human
>casualties of war.
The reason for stating the above is that you exclusively get your news from
the pro-Israeli media and that secondly you ignore the unbias reports of
independent human right bodies and observers on the ground.
What do you expect from the indiscriminate use of force in civilian areas?
You have sorely been misinformed that most of the Palestinian deaths occured
in the streets. The fact is that the majority were killed and buried in the
presumed safety of their homes.
I will dare conclude that most of your arguments are nothing but typical
garbage mostly heard from the arrogant racist Zionists (born and bread or
converted).
There is 'no easy walk to freedom' and there is no human force in this world
that can stop the Palestinians from eventually getting to their destination
even if it will take a thousand years.
Since complications in any aspect of life are undesirable, I choose to
regard terrorism simply as the practice of terror. That is why you found my
interpretation of the term to be so encompassing for your comfort.
You ended:
>I still support the idea of a Palestinian State for this is long overdue
>but
>under the present conditions such a proposition is not feasible.
Why is it not feasible? The terrorism from both sides or the terrorism from
the Palestinian side?
What a conclusion!
The yoke of oppression must be shattered!
BMK
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
