Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:24 pm Post subject: Suddenly Terror / Who's sorry now? A scenario
We sent the following op-ed over 3 years ago, when Israel suffered terror attacks on her streets almost daily. It was very frustrating to see the European media, and especially the BBC, refuse to call these attacks by their real name: terror attacks.
BBC officials insisted that the word terrorism should never be used in order to preserve what they called "neutral language."
The BBC's policy was expressed by Joanna Mills, editor of BBC World Update, who wrote the following in correspondence with HonestReporting.com in 2003: "It is the style of the BBC World Service to call no one a terrorist, aware as we are that one man's terrorist is another one's freedom fighter."
From the BBC's official producer's manual: "Our credibility is severely undermined if international audiences detect a bias for or against any of those involved. Neutral language is key: even the word 'terrorist' can appear judgmental in parts of the world where there is no clear consensus about the legitimacy of militant political groups."
From the BBC's official Editorial Guidelines: "The word "terrorist" itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should try to avoid the term, without attribution. We should let other people characterise while we report the facts as we know them."
Hundreds of terror attacks in Israel and elsewhere around the world didn't change the BBC policy.
It took one day of terror attacks in London for the BBC to give up their so-called "principle."
Media outlets in the UK, from the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph to the London Times, all used the word "Terror" in their main headline on Friday.
Who's sorry now? A scenario
By Doron Rosenblum
Ha'aretz Friday Magazine
June 27, 2002
The weather was surprisingly balmy in London that day. Bundles of thick clouds scudded across the skies above the National and the Tate Modern on the South Bank, but on the other side of the river, the sun, perched in a gash of blue, painted the leaves of the new trees and the grass in the squares a lush green.
Four elderly gents sat on a wooden bench in Berkeley Square, their eyes closed to the sun's pleasant warmth, though they occasionally watched the toddlers perking along next to their mothers. One of the small-fry, who was just learning how to walk, gripped the handle of his pram. A blue-haired old woman smiled sweetly at the sight, when suddenly something cast a shadow over her. She looked up and saw a young man pulling something out of his coat and smiling at her before everything went dark.
The explosion set off by the suicide bomber was so powerful that the entire glass facade of the nearby building shattered and crashed slowly to the ground, releasing a white storm of documents that floated gently down into the smoking ruins. Even the rescue crews could barely recognize the place. But who could have imagined that this would only be the prologue?
Even as dozens of ambulances sped toward Mayfair, the city was shaken by a tremendous blast from the direction of Covent Garden: A blue van that was parked in the Strand, next to Bush House, exploded at 3 P.M., killing and wounding dozens of passengers on a double-decker bus and setting off tremors in the headquarters of the BBC's World Service. Radio listeners around the world heard the thunderous explosion in real time during the world news hour, just as the announcer was speaking about "the cycle of violence in the Middle East in the wake of yesterday evening's attack, when 15 Israelis were purportedly killed in what Israel calls `terrorism.'"
Reporters from Sky News, broadcasting direct from the streets of London, could barely find the words to express the depth of their shock and horror at this pointless mass murder of dozens of innocent civilians: "It's murder! Nothing but insane sadistic Nazi murder!" one reporter exclaimed, holding up with repulsion nails and screws with which the terrorists had packed the bomb in order to magnify the killing. "It wasn't a nightingale that sang in Berkeley Square yesterday," The Independent lamented the next day in a paraphrase of the old song, "it was the Devil himself."
Still, the celebrated English stiff upper lip was maintained at least until the next evening, when two terrorists (or "fighters," as they were described by French television) blew themselves up within a short time of each other: one in the midst of the crowd in the foyer of the Gielgud Theater, the other in a packed Chinese restaurant in Soho. Dozens of people were killed in the two blasts. The West End emptied out in a jiff and resembled a ghost town in the flickering yellow lights. The wails of the ambulances and the rescue vehicles "transformed the metropolis into one vast scream," as The Guardian put it the next day. The entire front page of The Mirror was taken up with the word "M-A-S-S-A-C-R-E!" while the Sun demanded "R-E-V-E-N-G-E!"
The cameras of Sky News, broadcasting live from Downing Street, accidentally captured an embarrassing spectacle, which was edited out in reruns: The prime minister's wife, Cherie Blair, her hair messed and wearing a rumpled housecoat, was seen through the partially open door pounding on the chest of a bodyguard and screaming hysterically, "My children! Where are my children! Tell me they're all right! Do something! Anything!! Why doesn't someone wipe out these stinking murderers already!!" But the prime minister himself appeared shortly afterward, cool and composed as usual, albeit a bit pale, and announced that he was convening the cabinet in an emergency session and placing the army on full alert.
Five Islamic organizations and a non-group calling itself "Saxon Scalpers" claimed responsibility for the attacks and threatened that they were just the beginning. However, government and army spokesmen asserted that those directly to blame for the attacks were Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, a fanatic sect from East Timor and three individuals with a "Middle Eastern appearance" from Earl's Court. That same night, large commando forces raided Earl's Court, on which a strict curfew had been imposed by a special emergency order. Tough paratroopers set up roadblocks on Cromwell Road (the pleas of a pregnant Indian woman to let her through were rebuffed), conducted house-to-house searches and carried out mass arrests.
The public showed understanding for the unconventional measures: "All the laws of civilization and the Magna Carta are null and void in the face of bastard murderers who are capable of massacring innocent theatergoers," declared the actress and politician Glenda Jackson in an impromptu interview next to the tube station in Hampstead.
Londoners no longer ventured out of their homes, living off home deliveries of pizza and spending their time watching commercials and travel shows on television. But after the suicide bombing of schoolchildren at Paddington Station and a second explosion that targeted the rescue forces, the stiff upper lip grew flaccid, and cool and collected gave way to hot and bothered.
Speaking on the BBC, a part-military analyst and part-spokesman stated that the Royal Air Force was ready to go into action and that an operation was being contemplated against East Timor or other islands in the Indonesian archipelago.
Why there, of all places? A spokesman for Whitehall explained: "The authorities have definite proof of ideological support for the terrorist attacks on the part of Timorese - or Asian, at all events - terrorists." He declined to elaborate. In the militant atmosphere, no one bothered to ask what the proof consisted of. Reporters wanted to know if and when an attack would be mounted on the Yemenite village where candies were distributed and people were seen dancing on rooftops after the attacks. "Although we have no interest in entering Asia, we have no choice but to do what must be done," the spokesman stated. "This is a kind of rolling operation against whomever we run into."
French President Jacques Chirac expressed his country's condolences to the families of the victims, but protested vigorously against the "blow to freedom of movement and expression" at Earl's Court. He also warned against rash military operations that would only lead to an escalation of the violence. Nevertheless, on the very day he spoke, British bombers "attacked targets" in a number of villages or islands (the armed forces were vague about this and closed East Asia to reporters). A well-populated orphanage was hit accidentally, but Foreign Secretary Jack Straw rejected the criticism from Europe, stating, "I express regret, but what can you do: When you chop down trees, chips fly."
Straw reacted furiously to the warning issued by the Swedish foreign minister about possible war crimes: "I would suggest to these Scandinavian bleeding hearts not to preach to us. We'll see how those Vikings behave when their Uppsala is sent flying into space by terrorist bombs."
The BBC announcers lost a bit of their famous imperial calm, especially after the major attack at Shepherd's Bush, not far from the television studios. Tim Sebastian, who made mincemeat out of the French ambassador on his "Hard Talk" interview program, could barely restrain himself:
- "What are you saying, then? That we have no right to defend ourselves against murderous terrorism?"
- "What you call terrorism," the ambassador corrected him.
The veins on the balding brow of the interviewer seemed about to burst: "What do you mean - `What we call terrorism'? What is it if not terrorism? What should we call it? Kohlrabi? Carbuncle? What do you suggest we call it, when our people are being massacred day after day?!"
- "Attacks," the ambassador replied coolly, lighting up a Gitane with a gilded lighter. "Ostensible attacks by supposed militants."
For a moment it looked as though Sebastian was about to strangle his guest.
- "I want to make it clear," the ambassador continued. "My government and I deplore the cycle of violence and the harm done to civilians on both sides. But if I may be permitted: I personally feel compassion for those who saw fit to carry out the suicide bombings. How did Voltaire put it? `Although I ....'"
- "You can stuff Voltaire up your ass, frog!" the veteran BBC correspondent burst out and lunged at the ambassador's throat as the screen went dark to the sound of screams and gasps.
The first explosion in Paris occurred at the least expected time and place: on Sunday afternoon, next to the merry-go-round in Luxembourg Garden, not far from the puppet theater, when the place was crowded with children and with people playing petanque. The players had removed their jackets and hung them on hangers, rolled up their sleeves and were rolling iron balls across the ground. One charming mademoiselle, clad in tight jeans, bent over and with a graceful gesture of the hand, sent a slow but accurate ball toward the others - but just then, the whole park was sent hurtling into the air by the force of the tremendous bomb that went off next to the merry-go-round. The skies seemed to darken, and immediately afterward, the survivors were deluged by a downpour of blood, dirt, bits of clothing and scorched body parts.
For a moment - more precisely, for eight seconds - a bizarre silence descended on the scene, which was broken only by the beating wings of frightened pigeons that took off in a large cloud, and by the car alarms that were triggered by the shock wave. Eight seconds of eerie silence - before the horrific screams, the groans of the wounded and the endless sirens of the firefighters, police and ambulances that pierced the placid Sunday afternoon until evening.
A Parisian intellectual, participating in a television discussion later in the day, spoke of "the eight seconds of catastrophic quiet that followed the grim reaper's brandishing of the scythe. The assassin. The butcher."
Who could have imagined that the "eight seconds of catastrophic quiet" would become a nearly everyday occurrence in Paris and other French cities? A series of explosions and warnings about suicide bombers - Islamic, Senegalese, Timorese, Algerians and just plain anarchists who seemed to have entered a murderous trance - turned the streets of the cities into a maelstrom of blasts, horror, security checks, wailing sirens, flickering blue lights and roadblocks.
The attacks accumulated into a kind of nightmarish routine: the pair of suicide bombers at Flore and Deux Magots; the bomber in the floating boat restaurant; the attack on the line of people in front of Victor Hugo House by the Place des Vosges; the woman suicide bomber in the Samaritaine department store; the car bomb at Ste-Chapelle that destroyed the marvelous stained-glass windows that had survived all the vicissitudes of history and were lost forever in an instant of barbarity.
Who can remember all the attacks? Who can keep track of all the funerals?
The face of President Chirac in his speech to the nation said it all: "This is a war for our homes. Mirabeaux said that Paris is a mysterious sphinx. Today that wounded sphinx calls to us: Revenge! Revenge! Revenge!"
That same evening, a French bomber joined the British forces in carpet-bombing somewhere in Asia, though it had to return to base due to a technical hitch. A spokesman for the Elysee Palace said that the president and the government were not ruling out the possible use of tactical nuclear arms: "It is very simple. It is them - or us. It's either a few goat turds in some desert country - or the foie gras and the Beaujolais and the Pont Alexandre."
Even Emanuel Halperin was seen to lift an eyebrow. The French embassy sent an angry protest to Israeli Television for biased and one-sided reporting.
Comment on this article using the "Post Reply" button
A crappy bit of stupid journalese
The editor at Haaretz must have been drunk to have allowed it
I have seen the same thing better written sticking to known facts and actual events
Britain Suddenly Discovers the "T" Word
by Steven Plaut
Well, I am sure you were all relieved to hear that neither Red Ken
Livingston, the commie mayor of London, nor George Galloway, the British pro-Baathist MP, were among the victims of the al-Qaeda bombers in London.
Incredibly, the British press is actually using the "T" word. Yes, they
are referring to the London Underground perps as terrorists. Why is this
so unusual? Because the British media have been religiously scrupulous in
referring to all terrorists and mass murderers who attack Jews as
"activists" and "militants".
It is suddenly like a parallel universe out there, not the one with which
we are familiar. The ..activists'. and ..militants'. are suddenly
referred to as ..terrorists.'. Even the Guardian and the BBC have
discovered the ..T'. word. The governments of Europe, which ordinarily
spend their days insisting that Israel deal with terrorists through
capitulation, were suddenly enraged, expressing their disgust.
It was suddenly not a legitimate form of protest against occupation to
mass-murder civilians. The British newspapers did not not issue special
editions documenting the abuses of human rights by Britain, nor bemoan the ..grievances'. of those angry at the UK. Not a single Euro-politician
made a speech denouncing the illegal British occupations of the Channel
Islands and Gibraltar.
The World Court in the Hague did not begin an indictment of the UK for the conditions of its illegal occupation of Cornwall, not to mention Scotland, Wales and Ulster. Museum and convention hall exhibits were not opened documenting the social and economic inequalities that plague British Moslems, which obviously are what really drove the London bombers.
And the BBC has not demanded that the Brits re-examine their own behavior, to discover which manifestation of their arrogance provoked the Al-Qaida savages. The networks were not full of messages about how Moslems regard Gibraltar as their own holy land and that only their liberation to Moslem control can bring peace.
The European parliament did not send millions of Euros to fund leftist
politicial organizations in London devoted to encouraging British soldiers
to refuse orders and to desert and refure to serve in the army. There
were no protests against British plans to implement .profiling'. at its
airports and train stations. The Scandinavians did not demand that the UK
open up dialogue with the bombers, and British liberals did not lecture
their countrymen about how there are no police nor military problems to
the challenges of terrorism. Human rights groups did not demand that any
captured subway terrorists be treated as prisoners of war with full Geneva Convention privileges and good lawyers.
And unlikein Israel, British leftist professors are not (yet) marching in
solidarity with the bombers and demanding that the world establish a
boycott of British universities because of the grievances of the bombers.
British poets have not sung the praises of the bombers. Students on
British campuses are not marching with al-Qaida banners and posters of
Saddam, nor do they chant, ..In Blood and Fire we will redeem thee,
Gibraltara.'. British schools are not teaching the poetry composed by
al-Qaida poets, nor did the Opposition in the Parliament demand that the
British national anthem change its words to make British Moslems feel more welcome and less alienated in the UK. British citizens who engage in
espionage for al-Qaida are not declared candidates for a Nobel Peace
Prize, voted rector of a Scotland University, nor have their posters
carried in peace marches.
The State Department Washington did not threaten trade sanctions against Britian if it took military action against the bombers. Not a single
newscast referred to the Isle of Wight nor Wessex as a settlement. The
British left did not send reps to Geneva and Oslo to negotiate secretly
with the bombers. French politicians did not puff themselves up and
lecture the British about their cruelty and insensitivity. Kofi Annan did
not demand that talks begin. The International Solidarity Movement failed
to send crews of human shields to protect the homes of al-Qaida members in Northern London. Yale students did not announce a campaign to divest from the UK.
Tikkun magazine did not devote a special issue to the suffering
and pain of the bombers. Special teach-ins on human rights abuses by the UK were not held at Berkeley, nor did the students re-enact street theater in which cruel bobbies bully poor Pakistani passen! gers getting on trains with large suitcases. Jimmy Carter did not offer to serve as liaison
between the government of London and the bombers.
We will know that the world has reverted to normality when it discovers
that the Madrid bombings were all somehow the fault of the Jews. Some
neonazi web sites are already spreading the invention that Israeli Finance
Minister Bibi Netanyahu was warned in advance of the attacks and so stayed in his British hotel, and so the same conspiracy kooks who claim Dem Joos knocked down the WTC on 9-11 have a new "theory".
Counterpunch, always to be relied upon to support anti-Western terrorists
even when they target Alexander Kockburn.s own homeland, has already come out with an article that support the terrorist bombers. It runs a piece by notorious British neonazi Gilad Atzmon, famous for his justifying the burning own of synagogues and so openly anti-Semitic that large numbers of British leftists are urging the Socialist Workers Party in the UK to cut all ties with him. Atzmon writes about the London bombings that the real lesson should be:
"It tells us that we must never again give our votes to war criminals.
More than anything else it tells us that we have a moral duty. It is down
to us to stop our governments. It is our duty to stand up and to demand
the resignation of Blair who is responsible for the death of so many
Iraqis and arguably now many Innocent Britons. We must remember that
voting in a non-ethical politician makes us all into active shareholders
in a criminal company.. It tells us that we must never again give our
votes to war criminals."
This is the sad truth. In the past 5 years world media has been wite washing the attacks against civilians in palestine.
The people who blow buses are called militants in the mainstream media and interviewed as if what they had been doing were not a crime.
To lauch attacks against civilian targets became acceptable.
Back in march 2002 , in a interview to Al Jazeera, Arafat called for millions of martyrs to jerusalem.
In september 2003 Arafat again called for millions of martyrs.
APRIL 2002 .
" Over the weekend, Arafat pledged to send millions of martyrs to Jerusalem. In an interview with the Doha-based A-Jazeera satellite channel, Arafat urged Palestinians to participate in what he termed a mission of martyrdom.
"To Jerusalem we march, martyrs by the millions," Arafat said in a chant. "To Jerusalem we march, martyrs by the millions. To Jerusalem we march, martyrs by the millions."
On late Monday, a Palestinian bomber blew himself up in his car in Jerusalem. Israeli authorities said the attacker was on his way to the downtown district when he was stopped by a police officer. At that point, the bomber detonated his explosives, killing the officer.
In 2004 , the guardian journalist went to ramallah.
Here is how he portrayed arafat.
" Dressed in his trademark fatigues and keffiyeh, he shows little sign of the poor health that is supposed to have brought him to death's door. "Would you like a slice of mango?" he asks. "It's very good for the digestion."
In the guardian article there is No mention of Arafats call to millions martyrs towards jerusalem.
Arafat is portrayed as a friendly grandfather.
To call openly for martyrdom became acceptable for the western media.
REUTERS CAVORTS WITH the leader of al aqsa martyrs brigades in jenin, Honest reporting claims
" Zakaria Zubeidi, ringleader of the Al Aqsa Martryr's Brigade in Jenin, is on such good terms with local Reuters reporters that he played a cameo role an an informal film they produced for a friend. YNet reports:
The screening, which occurred in a Jerusalem restaurant last March, involved the showing of a video during a private party. "The video's theme was what Israel would be like in 10 years," said an Israeli government official who attended the party and viewed the video.
"All of a sudden, at the end, there is Zakaria Zubeidi, playing the head of Reuters. Zubeidi was sitting in Reuters' Jenin office, saying he was Reuters' chief," the official said. The party included guests from the BBC, ITN, the Independent newspaper, and French journalists. "They all thought the video was hilarious," the official said. He added that only a few individuals did not seem amused during the screening.".
" Anne Marie Oliver, an American academic who has spent years studying the phenomenon in the West Bank and Gaza, believes the "star factor" and the acquiring of glory could also have motivated the Yorkshire bombers. They will not have posters up in Britain or mass mourning, but they will attain glory on internet sites across the Muslim world, according to Ms Oliver, who has co-written with Paul Steinberg the newly published The Road to Martyrs' Square: A Journey into the World of the Suicide Bomber.
Ms Oliver said: "The motives ( for a suicide attack) are diverse: religion, nationalism, grievance, fame, glory and money, and, last of all and most important of all, they have to have an entire system that supports their actions (sympathetic groups round the world)."
While doing some research about wafa Idris, I found an interesting blog about palestinian female suicide bombers.
In the blog they do comment an article published in a australian magazine NEW IDEA, back in 2003.
A "home" magazine here in Australia by the name of "New Idea" has published an article about suicide bomber women called "Dressed to Kill". I don't know when it was published but my daughter saw it last week in a hairdressing salon. A person I know, coincidentally last week also, saw it in a doctor's waiting room.
The article is disgusting because it equates feminism with suicide bombings.
It is disgraceful for a wide circulation women's magazine to attempt to glamorise homicide bombers in this way. New Idea is mimicking Palestinian glorification of these murderers. What about the clothes and makeup of the women and children who were innocent victims or these deranged killers.
Posted by: Anita Oliver on August 6, 2003 05:10 PM
The media in many countrie kind of gave a positive light when it comes to suicide bombing in palestine.
In the arab world the situation is much worse.
The palestinians under ocupation and brainwashed by the arab media..., and their own media under arafat .., no wonder did blow themselves.
The west does have lots of responsibility for what happened since it send millions to the terrorist Palestinian authority run by Arafat.
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:26 am Post subject: shame on the west
in september 2003 arafat called for million of martyrs
Arafat Tells Supporters They Will Go to Jerusalem as Martyrs
Friday, September 12, 2003
RAMALLAH, West Bank — Yasser Arafat (search) emerged from his office for a second straight night Friday, telling hundreds of supporters they will go to Jerusalem as martyrs.
Arafat spoke one day after Israeli leaders announced they had decided to "remove" Arafat whenever they choose. The vague wording left room for several options: deporting Arafat, capturing him or killing him.
"To Jerusalem we are going as martyrs in the millions," Arafat told the crowd.
He also recited a passage from the Quran (search).
The crowd of hundreds held photos of Arafat and chanted: "With our blood and souls we will redeem you."
Arafat answered: "With our blood and souls, we will redeem you Palestine."
The Israeli decision prompted widespread international condemnation, and the Palestinians urged the U.N. Security Council (search) on Friday to demand that Israel not expel him and halt any threats to his safety.
On Thursday night, Arafat emerged at the same spot and declared before thousands of supporters that no one will "kick me out."
(End of quote)
No one cared.
Actually europe did condemn israel because sharon said arafat should be removed.
London is hit by bombs.
And sudenly the british did woke up to the danger of the incitement of acts of violence .
British Home Secretary announces creation of worldwide anti-terror database
The British government aims to fight terrorism at home with a global list of extremists. Home Secretary Charles Clarke announced today in the House of Commons in London that a database containing information about people who incite others to terrorism anywhere in the world in sermons, on the Internet, or in articles is to be created. People on this list could be prevented from entering Great Britain if discovered. In addition, foreigners already living in Britain could be deported if they make such statements. Anzeige
In the battle against terrorism, a newspaper is reporting, new special police units are also to search for Muslim extremists all over Great Britain. The Guardian of London states that it has information from high-ranking police officials about specially trained officers who will keep an eye on Muslims in "Muslim Contact Units." These Units will not be operating undercover. On the one hand, police officers with special language abilities are to collect information about Muslims and their groups on location; on the other, they are to prevent xenophobic attacks.
After the suicide bombings on July 7th in London, one of the main problems discussed was a lack of knowledge about Muslim communities. A high-ranking officer told the paper that "sound knowledge within police ranks about these communities is rare.” Some 1.6 million Muslims live in Great Britain. At least 56 people died in the attacks two weeks ago, and another 700 were injured. Clarke said that the number of those fatally wounded might increase even further. He said 27 people were still hospitalized.
In the meantime, Pakistani security forces have arrested 139 alleged Muslim extremists nationwide. "We are going after everyone who produces hate material, holds provocative speeches, and gives militants refuge,” Interior Secretary Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao said on Tuesday. A "high-ranking security officer” told the BBC that one of the main goals of the raids was to find out more about the reasons for the trips to Pakistan that two of the suicide bombers from London took last year. At the same time, investigations are still being conducted in London. One of the subway cars destroyed in the explosion has been excavated. Criminal investigators will be having a close look at the subway car at another location. In addition, according to the underground police almost 30 tracker dogs have been looking for clues in the far reaches of the underground tunnels under the British capital to find any other explosives.
When israelis were blown to pieces arafats incitement to terror , and the PA propaganda did not bother the british that much.
But when they got hit by attacks..., in that moment they got concerned with the incitement and new laws are swiftly approved.
As long as we are not blown to pieces its ok.
Thats the way that the west did behave towards israel .
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:32 am Post subject: Arafat's Undeserved Honor: The West's Shame
Summary: Why do the West's politicians hold in such high esteem a man who unleashed a ferocious campaign of international terrorism that, across a span of forty years, has claimed the lives of thousands of Israeli, Lebanese, Jordanian, Palestinian, and American civilians?
What made Yasir Arafat's final days appalling was not the farcical prevarications about whether he were dead or alive, nor the soap-opera quarrel between his wife and his political cronies; it was that so evil a man commanded so much respect.
Since his airlift to a Paris hospital, as the welcomed guest of the French government and with throngs of journalists on the scene, Arafat's death has been presented as the heartbreaking end of a noble man. Reacting to a premature report of Arafat's death, President Bush wished that "God bless his soul." Upon Arafat's death, Jacques Chirac lauded him as "a man of courage and conviction." The French gave him a military salute as Arafat's coffin was sent to his funeral in Egypt, which many heads of state are expected to attend.
Why do the West's politicians hold in such high esteem a man who unleashed a ferocious campaign of international terrorism that, across a span of forty years, has claimed the lives of thousands of Israeli, Lebanese, Jordanian, Palestinian, and American civilians?
Arafat specialized in high-profile attacks targeting civilians, in order to inflict the severest psychological devastation. The slaughter of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics; the assassination of American diplomats in Sudan; the massacre of school children in Maalot, Israel (a model for the recent mass murder at a high school in Beslan, Russia); the hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro, in which wheelchair-bound American Leon Klinghoffer was tossed overboard--Arafat was responsible for these and hundreds of other kidnappings, car-bombings, hijackings, and brutal murders. Also, during the 1970s he fomented bloody civil wars in Jordan and Lebanon.
But did he not renounce his terrorist ways later in life (as though this would be enough to earn forgiveness)?
Certainly in the 1990s European and American politicians embraced Arafat as a peacemaker, granting him recognition as a statesman. President Clinton met with him more often than with any other international leader (24 times in eight years). And in 1994 Arafat co-won the Nobel Peace Prize. But his willingness to make peace with Israel was a transparent lie. Though he publicly renounced terrorism in words addressed to Western audiences, he never did so in action (nor even in words, when speaking to the Arab world).
From the outset Arafat flouted practically every provision of a 1993 peace accord--most notably the provision to quell terrorism against Israel. The vast armed "police force" he created actually conspired with and often actively supported terrorists. And, calling for "martyrs by the millions," Arafat fostered the deployment of suicide bombers. In 2001 he told the family of one bomber: "The heroic martyrdom operation [of the man] who turned his body into a bomb [is] the model of manhood and sacrifice for the sake of Allah and the homeland."
None of this dissuaded Western leaders (including President Bush, who sought to marginalize Arafat somewhat) from supporting the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state in areas governed by Arafat's provisional Palestinian Authority. And this was so even though the evidence was abundant that such a state would become a sponsor of terrorism. In 2002, for example, Arafat's forces were caught trying to smuggle into the Gaza Strip 50 tons of weapons and ammunitions, including one ton of C-4 explosives, and more than 60 Katyusha rockets, capable of hitting most cities in Israel.
Politicians eager to regard Arafat as a heroic "liberator" of Palestinians were also undaunted by his dictatorial rule over the Palestinian Authority. That governing body systematically violates the rights of its citizens. Arafat's "police" force--eight or so competing gangs of thugs--arbitrarily arrests citizens, confiscates property, and murders his political opponents. (The victims were denounced under the catch-all charge of "collaborating" with Israel.) The PA's chaotic judiciary made a mockery of the rule of law; its judges served not justice, but Arafat.
But far from condemning Arafat’s vicious rule, the European Union and America supported it with hundreds of millions of dollars in aid.
This extravagant tolerance of Arafat, given his blood-soaked record, is not due to ignorance on the part of our politicians. It comes from the precept that moral judgment is an obstacle to action. This is the view that moral principles are an impediment to achieving practical aims, such as peace. One should, on this view, remain morally neutral--even though one side may be clearly in the right--and try to engage both sides in gentlemanly negotiation--even though one side may be a murderous thug.
Because moral neutrality is such an obviously immoral policy, its perpetrators must blacken the good while whitewashing the evil. Hence, world leaders condemn Israel, the innocent victim who refuses to submit, and lionize Arafat, the ruthless killer.
Arafat's elevation to the dignity of a peace-seeking statesman is due to our politicians' moral corruption. Were he judged properly, Arafat would long ago have been dealt the punishment he deserved. By sustaining him and perpetuating the delusion that Arafat was really a well-meaning statesman, politicians committed treason to his innocent victims.
As i wrote the media has been supporting war crimes in palestine.
look at this headline.
Israeli couple, 2 Gaza gunmen die in new violence
In the reuters headline it looks as if the death of a israeli couple and the death of 2 palestinian gunmen were similar events.
It happens they are not.
This is how events unfold.
2 palestinian gunmen killed 2 israeli civilians and next they got killed by israeli troops.
Under the geneva conventions the killing of 2 armed combatants is not similar to the killing of 2 inocent civilians.
A fundamental rule of international humanitarian law is that civilians must enjoy general protection against danger arising from military operations. The rule of civilian immunity is one of "the oldest fundamental maxims" of international customary law, meaning that it is binding on all parties to a conflict, regardless of whether a conflict is international or non-international in character.
"The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence, the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population, are prohibited" ( Aditional protocol of the geneva convention "
When Reuters does equate the killing of 2 armed combatants to the killing of 2 inocent civilians it does ignore the most basic rules of war and it does ignore that the targeting of civilians is a war crime.
In fact reuters does whitewash war crimes since does portray a war crime , the killing of civilians, to an action that under the geneva convention is legal.
Print this article Close This Window
Israeli couple, 2 Gaza gunmen die in new violence
Sun Jul 24, 2005 4:49 AM ET
By Nidal al-Mughrabi
GAZA (Reuters) - Palestinian militants killed an Israeli couple in an ambush at the Gaza border on Sunday shortly after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice ended her mission to shore up a fragile ceasefire before Israel's Gaza pullout.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, under pressure from Jewish ultranationalists who call the plan to cede occupied land a reward for a Palestinian uprising, promised a tough response to the shooting at Kissufim border crossing.
"Israel will not make its peace with this terrorism," he told his cabinet.
"I made clear to the secretary of state that our response will be of a different kind, using very tough new measures," Sharon added without elaborating.
Israeli troops killed two gunmen who carried out the ambush, for which the militant groups Islamic Jihad, the Popular Resistance Committees, and al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, part of President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah group, claimed responsibility.
Rice wrapped up a three-day visit to the region aimed at preserving a shaky truce Israeli and Palestinian leaders declared in February and to ensure Israel's planned pullout from Gaza next month goes smoothly in the wake of fresh violence.
The militants fired at a vehicle on its way out of Gush Katif settlement bloc, killing an Israeli couple who had made a weekend visit from Jerusalem, the army and police said.
The militant groups involved said they were still committed to the truce but vowed more attacks if Israel continued to arrest or kill Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.
"We are committed to calm but are also committed to responding to Zionist violations (of the ceasefire)," an Islamic Jihad spokesman said.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack called the shooting of the Israeli couple "a senseless act of violence."
"The incident underscores the need for the parties working individually and in cooperation to maintain an atmosphere of calm free from violence during this period in the run-up to the withdrawal and during the Gaza disengagement," he told reporters aboard Rice's plane as she flew home from Israel.
RICE PRAISES ABBAS'S EFFORTS
Rice earlier praised efforts by Abbas to stop militants but said more action needed to be taken against them, especially to ensure Palestinian attacks do not hamper Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, its first from land Palestinians want as a state.
Gaza gunmen have increased rocket and mortar bomb attacks despite the truce. Israel has vowed to strike back at militants who may try to disrupt its planned withdrawal from all 21 settlements in Gaza and four of 120 in the West Bank.
Israel has killed 15 Palestinians, mainly gunmen, since a Palestinian suicide bombing killed five Israelis earlier this month. It has also resumed air strikes against militants.
Washington sees the pullout as a step toward reviving peace talks. Israeli settlers and right-wingers, who view the West Bank and Gaza as their biblical birthright, say the pullout would reward Palestinian militants.
Palestinians welcome the move but fear Sharon will strengthen the Israeli hold on the West Bank under what he calls "disengagement" from conflict.
Rice also urged Israel on Saturday not to seal off Gaza from the outside world after the pullout, echoing a key Palestinian demand. Palestinian officials said Israel had not done enough to discuss critical aspects of the plan.
Some 8,500 settlers would leave Gaza, home to 1.4 million Palestinians. But only a few hundred of more than 230,000 settlers will be removed from the West Bank, where they live alongside 2.4 million Palestinians. (Additional reporting by Saul Hudson and Corinne Heller in Jerusalem)
It is startling how the arab world did manage to impose his own vision to the world media.
When bombs explode in egypt CNN cals them terror.
When bombs explode in israel...;
This is EXACTLY what the arab world does think.
When I did post a image of a israeli woman in a arab group called no to terror, they delete my picture.
Here is the name of the group :
Here is the picture I did post
Here is the administrator reaction :
This is exactly how the world media behaves.
To kill inocen americans..,well.., its terror ( After all the US is a super power ).
To kill inocent egyptians or saudis.., is terror.
They got oil and the muslins are over one billion.
To kill inocent israelis is NOT terror.
One man terrorist is another man freedom fighter , they claim.
(Why this rule does not apply to egypt then ? )
In short : Its disgusting.