Originally posted by Echtelion
??? Never figured that these were SEPARATE, sovereign states? You seem very bad on comparisons, JuahMaccabi. Same thing with the US/Mexico border...
how could we say that the US segregates Mexicans if Mexico is not part of the US? Of course, the recent US immigration policy is segregating towards
illegal immigrants, especially hispanic, but that does not compare to the Israeli apartheid at all! South Africa has been segregating Black people for
decades (if not centuries), by enforcing strict racist law and policy on them, and by separating them from the whiete population, jsut as the Israeli
regime does with the Palestinians right now.
Palestinians have their own leadership, police, ministries and government. The Palestinian sovereignty has in effect since OSLO in 1993 with more and
more sovereignty given to the palestinians. This occured until the Palestinian campaign of terror took its toll (and I remind here that Israel sat
quietly for quite a while before actually taking the steps necessary to curb the violence. The separation fence is just part of the steps taken and
is necessary to stop suicide bombers from entering Israel - This has stopped the attacks and has proven to be effective. That is why the palestinians
are developing their Qassem rockets). Currently the Palestinian Authority is the sovereign leadership of the Palestinians who collect palestinian
taxes, provide a police force for the Palestinians, provide an education system (riddled with incitement), provide health services (with Israeli
assistance) with legislative, judicial and executive branches. For all intents and purposes the Palesinians have their own country - The only problem
is that the West Bank and Gaza (with minor border adjustments) are not sufficient. THe Palestinians want all of Israel to be Palestine. Therefore
the misconception. Palestinians and NOT Israelis much like Mexicans are not US citizens and much link Pakistanis are not Indians.
As for usgin the term terrorism... well let's say that in the context of Israel, "terrorism" applies to both sides of the fence, and even
more to Israeli's side. Alright, you gonna come with the "suicide bombers" example? Yeah right... and what about these heavily-armed soldiers and
tanks attacking Palestinian civilians?
Israeli soldiers target militants not civilians that is the difference. When civilians die as a result of Israeli anti-terror sweeps who are to
blame? THe Israeli who MUST defend their citizens from weapon smuggling? from Qassam missle attacks on residential areas? from suicide bombing
infrastructures? or are the Palestinians to blame for building rockets in civilian infrastructures? from attacking Israelis from civilian
infrastructures? Building tunnels from Egypt to Gaza for smuggling weapons into the houses of civilians in Gaza?
What about Caterpillars bulldozing Palestinian homes for the expansion of Jewish colonies?
This is just a blatant lie. Caterpillars bulldozers are used in combat against militants (see Jenin 2003), when dealing with smuggling
tunnels that lead to homes in Gaza (Rafah) or in combat zones where Palestinian houses are staging areas for shooting missles or gunning down
civilians or soldiers. These are the facts - learn the truth and not the lies of Palestinians. Palestinian homes are NOT bulldozed for building
This is why it is more accurate, in this context, to use the terms "militant action" and "genocidal policy", than the ambiguous "terrorism".
From Noam Chomsky, worldly-acclaimed linguist: "the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain political or religious ideological
goals through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear"
Who died and made Chompsky god? Noam chomsky is a left wing fanatic who became a supposed political guru. He ignores the obvious and makes
arguements based on what he sees fit.
If you would like to be fair and accurately define terrorism then you analyze what differentiates terrorists from militants. What makes a terrorist
negative and a militant less negative? Some may say bias but I try and make a definition that makes militants legitimate.
It is legitimate to fight occupation - but how? By killing civilians? NO
Targeting civilians out of policy is wrong. Targeting military is legitimate.
When terrorists are endangering their own civilian population by attacking settlements, military installations and civilians from homes of
Palestinians (in residential areas) that is wrong and against international law (but is often ignored). When Palestinians attack military targets
without endangering civilians (from both sides of the conflict) this is legitimate. This is the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters.
Look closely and you will see that Israel does not use this policy but a policy of targeting the militants (terrorists) and not the civilians.
Terrorism is politics. It's barbaric politics. And it is being used by everybody... not only by political or religious groups, but also by
governments, corporations and also the media.
It suits many people to include US, Israeli, Fundamentalist Islamic Organizations under one definition for the sake of political gain (which under
Noam Chompsky's definition can be considered terrorism itself because the reprecussions of such an inclusion is itself a threat of violence as a
result of sanctions or a circle of violence). Under the definition I made which is becoming accepted by many there would be a difference where
everybody does not have to use terrorism as you claim. Corporations and the media cannot be included unless they have a policy of physically
targeting civilians for political gain.
This differentiation needs to be made.