🚀 go-pugleaf

I believe Mr. Ali's point of view may be biased.

--
_______________________________
Lawrence Alpert                  Fremont, CA
Sr. Extrusion Eng.
Boston Scientific/Target


"Jim Morris" <jdtmorris@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ATq08.28715$Vz3.2902189@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/db/articles.asp?ID=17769
>
> Sharon fosters unrest in Middle East
> PALESTINE: Responsibility for failures in peace process doesn't lie solely
> with Arafat
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----
>
> By Mujtaba Ali
> In their submission "Palestinian leader fosters global terrorism" (Daily
> Bruin, Viewpoint, Dec. 6, 2001), Benjamin Nabati and Jacob Zakaria suggest
> that the leadership of Yasser Arafat is the only obstacle impeding hopes
of
> peace in the Middle East.
>
> What they fail to acknowledge, however, is the sadistic nature of and
> history of atrocities committed by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
The
> writers state, "If (Arafat) had delivered, the attacks of the intifada of
> the past 15 months would not have occurred." What the writers do not
mention
> is that Sharon himself provoked the recent onset of violence when he and
an
> armed entourage visited a site holy to both Arabs and Israelis last
> September.
>
> Over the years, Sharon has acquired an infamous reputation as a violent
man
> who feels the military is the only solution to political issues. Sharon,
> with his involvement in the Israeli Defense Force, has been practicing
> state-sponsored terrorism for the past 50 years.
>
> In the summer of 1953, Sharon built the notorious IDF terrorist group,
known
> as Unit 101, whose main purpose was to conduct "retaliatory strikes"
against
> the neighboring Arab states. Unit 101 was generally independent from the
> regular IDF forces and was responsible for many atrocities, including the
> massacres of civilians and the destruction of villages in the Jordanian
West
> Bank. Most notorious was the raid and destruction of the Qibya village on
> Oct. 14, 1953 in which 40 homes occupied by Arab families were blown up
> without warning. More than 50 innocent men, women and children lost their
> lives.
>
> In the 1956 Suez War in Egypt, Sharon employed ruthless tactics and was
> charged with committing war crimes in his execution of Egyptian POWs. His
> actions led IDF Chief of Staff Moshe Dayan to force Sharon's withdrawal
from
> Egypt.
>
> Sharon was recalled to military service in the October 1973 War, where he
> led several operations. During the Great Bitter Lake Battle, which led to
> the crossing of the Suez Canal towards mainland Egypt, Sharon again
> committed war crimes against Egyptians, and once again clashed with the
> chief of staff and defense minister, resulting in his dismissal from the
> IDF.
>
> Upon being appointed Israeli Defense Minister in 1981, Sharon was held
> responsible for his involvement in the infamous massacre at the Sabra and
> Shatilla refugee camps in southern Lebanon on Sept. 16, 1982. Sharon and
> then-Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin called for the murderous
rampage
> of innocent, unarmed Palestinian refugees - mostly women, children and the
> elderly.
>
> Western journalists who reported the incident described in horrifying
detail
> the piles of dead men, raped and mutilated women, and murdered children.
The
> International Committee of the Red Cross reported 2,400 fatalities in the
> massacre. This figure was a modest estimate of the true number of lives
> lost, since many of the victims were buried in mass graves dug by the
> Israeli army and its ally, a Lebanese-Christian militia.
>
> On Dec. 16, 1982 the United Nations General Assembly condemned the
massacre
> and declared it to be an act of genocide. The rape of Sabra and Shatilla
> earned Sharon the condemnation of the world as well as denunciation by the
> Israeli parliament, the Knesset. He was forced to resign as Defense
Minister
> in 1983.
>
> The number of times Israel has been condemned by the United Nations should
> serve as an indication of the type of belligerent activity it carries out.
> Many of the U.N. resolutions against Israel were passed unanimously - the
> United States, Israel's longtime ally, was among the few countries
opposing
> the resolutions.
>
> Nabati and Zakaria state: "Israelis do not intentionally go after
> Palestinian civilians. The Israeli Defense Force gives more than 48 hours
of
> warning time before a building verified as housing terrorist functions is
> destroyed, to clear away."
>
> This statement does not explain the death of 11-year-old Khalil
al-Mughrabi
> who was playing soccer with a group of children on July 7, 2001, when a
> burst of gunfire hit him in the head, killing him and wounding two of his
> friends, ages 10 and 12.
>
> The IDF terrorist who committed this murder was vindicated by the Israeli
> Military Advocate General's office as having "acted with restraint and
> control" in an attempt to disperse nearby protesters by "firing live
gunfire
> into an open area distant from the rioters." Those bullets fired by the
> soldier somehow found their way to a playground and into an innocent boy's
> head. This is not an isolated incident. It is among the hundreds of
> terrorist acts committed by the IDF on a regular basis.
>
> The aforementioned quote neither explains the numbers of fatalities since
> the start of the present conflict, statistics which speak for themselves.
Of
> the approximately 961 people who have died in the past 15 months, 739 have
> been Palestinian; 152 of whom were under the age of 18.
>
> So, after this dose of easily verifiable evidence, employ some rational
> thought and decide who the aggressor in this conflict really is: Sharon -
a
> sadistic butcher, currently on trial in Belgium for war crimes, condemned
by
> the international community as well as the Israeli people; or Arafat, who
> had arrested 180 people in the week following the Jerusalem suicide
bombing
> in December, and who (along with Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin) won the
> Nobel Peace Prize in 1994?
>
> http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/db/articles.asp?ID=17630
>
> Oppression is same problem worldwide
> ART: Conflicts in Middle East sees both Israeli, Arab sides play out
> 'villain' role
>
>
> By Gustavo Gutierrez
> The origins and myths of Thanksgiving are ironic indeed. Most educated
> Americans are unaware of the following fact: on Nov. 25, 1492, the Vatican
> declared a "day of thanksgiving" to commemorate not only the fall of
Granada
> by the "infidel" Muslim Moors, but the subsequent expulsion of both Jews
and
> Muslims alike. After seven centuries of Islamic rule on the Iberian
> Peninsula, the Christian kingdoms of Spain unified under Ferdinand and
> Isabelle began an era that would witness one of the greatest human rights
> atrocities in the world.
>
> Initially, a "day of thanksgiving" did not commemorate the indigenous
> peoples of Massachusetts and the religious zealots known as the Pilgrims
> coming together with mutual respect for one another sitting at the same
> table. This is a cultural myth narrative used to indoctrinate Americans
like
> myself into believing in a sugar-coated version of American ethnocide or,
> should I say, holocaust. Furthermore, most people are unaware of this
little
> known fact: Thanksgiving did not become a national holiday until the
Lincoln
> administration in the 1860s.
>
> With this historical knowledge now laid out, let's examine the current
> controversy in the Daily Bruin. Many people are upset that the Daily Bruin
> would allow the publication of a turkey bearing the words "Free Palestine"
> in a section of the newspaper not reserved for opinion content. However,
art
> has always been and will continue to be used as means of political
> statement.
>
> To denigrate art as being mindless, numbing entertainment is a great
> disservice. The "Free Palestine" turkey is a prime example. We are all
> entitled to our own opinions and we should learn to "agree to disagree."
To
> label sentiments or opinions you may find objectionable, especially
> sentiments speaking out against the actions of the Israeli government as
> anti-Semitic, is wrong. An anti-Semite is one who holds prejudicial views
> towards individuals who religiously or culturally are Jewish. The
> anti-Semite will use his or her biases to oppress the Jew. This is not
> always the case for people who support Palestine.
>
> I believe in both a "Free Palestine" and a state of Israel. How can I
> possibly be labeled an anti-Semite? I am opposed to the treatment of
> Palestinians in the Occupied Territories in the hands of the Israeli
> government and their military machine. I am however, not opposed to the
> existence of Israel or those who practice the tenants of Judaism. This
> distinction needs to be made clear and obvious. Israel can alleviate the
> problems it faces with its Palestinian neighbors if its political
leadership
> is willing to compromise. The very term "Occupied Territories" infers that
> Israel infringed on the territorial integrity of Arab nations like Jordan
> (West Bank) and Egypt (Gaza Strip) since 1967.
>
> The Islamic world must accept the fact that Israel exists, but Israelis
must
> respect the rights of Palestinians and honor their call for
> self-determination and a chance at creating a viable nation-state. Both
> sides are not innocent and both have played the role of "villain."
>
> It is imperative that Israel finds a solution to this problem of three
> decades - after all, peace with the Palestinians is one effective way of
> combating America's war on terrorism.
>
> This applies to the other side of the conflict as well. It is intolerable
> that a historically persecuted group would perpetuate the same kind of
> persecution that has long been aimed at them. Although the Koran condemns
> the religious persecution of "peoples of the Book" which would include
Jews
> and Christians alike, we see anti-Semitic attacks aimed at the remaining
> 10,000 Iranians who culturally or religiously adhere to Judaism. The
Iranian
> Jewish community is an ancient one, and it is a tragedy that a nation
> governed supposedly by the tenants of Islam would purge its population of
> the religious and ethnic diversity that once characterized Iran prior to
> 1979.
>
> The "Free Palestine" turkey is an example of art that provokes thought. We
> should realize the opinions of one individual student do not necessarily
> represent the views or opinions of this school publication or the campus
as
> a whole. We should also realize that no government is more morally
righteous
> than another is. It is about time that we realize that oppression is
> oppression. All governments and all groups of people at one point in
history
> have committed atrocities towards another group. The oppressor isn't
always
> a Protestant, Anglo-American, heterosexual male; the oppressor can be
> anyone, including an Israeli Jew.
>
> If a decade ago we could speak out against legal apartheid in South
Africa,
> what makes Israel any different? If speaking out against Israel is deemed
> unacceptable, the question becomes why? Is America sensitive to the fact
> that it initially, knowingly turned a blind eye to the near annihilation
of
> European Jewry half a century ago? If this is the case, that is an
> unfortunate incident but that does not justify censorship of any kind.
> Sometimes the truth can be a little harsh.
>
> The next time you find the simple phrase "Free Palestine" displayed
> anywhere, keep this in mind. Isn't it problematic that 18 percent of the
> Israeli population that is Arab is subjugated and relegated to
second-class
> citizenship?
>
> Isn't it problematic that with the formation of a Jewish state, indigenous
> Palestinians native to the land base were forcibly removed from their
homes
> without proper compensation? Isn't it ironic that Israel wages its war
> against unarmed and poorly equipped Palestinians with American money and
> American-made military machinery and weapons while the Palestinians are
> funded by monies from "rogue" states like Iraq and Iran? Remember that a
> "rogue" state is only labeled a "rogue" state when it openly defies the
> strategic interests of the U.S.
>
> If the U.S. were deeply concerned with the plight of women in the
"volatile"
> Middle East, wouldn't we also be pointing our "morally righteous" fingers
at
> the Saudis? After all, one of the most repressive regimes in the region
> happens to be one of our closest Arab allies. But wait, we are more
> interested in maintaining our assured supply of petroleum reserves than
the
> flourishing of democracy in the "volatile" Middle East.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>