Hi Bakary:
I was going to respond to your post this weekend but an injury I sustained
while hiking a mountain trail kept me out of the office yesterday.

Anyway, while nursing my bum knee at home yesterday, I watched a CNN report
explaining how masked Palestinian gunmen hunted down and publicly shot down 3
people they deemed informants for the Israelis.  After the shooting, large
crowds prevented these folks from getting medical attention.

This is one of many instances highlighting the cycle of violence in the
region and while many, especially supporters of Israel, would like to point
to this as terrorism, it does not fit under the classic definition of this
phenomenon.  This instead is a clear case of vigilantism.  It further
highlights how easy it is to call violent incidents in this war terroristic
acts, something which you have done in your previous pieces.

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]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~