Truth, Justice and Human Rights
in the Middle East





Feedbacks

Most Recent First

For past feedbacks click HERE

NOTE: Due to the large volume of feedbacks, especially following the al-Aqsa (September 2000) Uprising, and due to the limited resources of this site, not all feedbacks will be printed/responded to anymore. Long feedbacks, especially from a single visitor, or feedbacks making similar argument to ones responded to before, might be truncated and/or omitted altogether


Thank you Mark for your concern.  Not sure what parts are missing from the
feedback.  I just looked, and they're still there. --Sam

Is it at all possible that what I say here bothered you, and your inability
to respond to my claims rationally and logically, is what made you label me
as such?

Next, please specify what "Jew-hating letters" you saw on this site.  Also you
need to show where you found that Finkelstein, Shahak and others as haveing
"made clear their complete contempt for ALL Jews as a people and their desire
that they be extinguished)".  That's slipping too much into the absurd .. a
last straw measure it seems, that's symptomatic to blind supporters of Israel.
 
Do you have anything to add aside from the Mufti case?  It is hard for the
world, and for me even, to accept that the ENTIRE Zionist cause is built on this
single Palestinian individual (not to mention the Israel-accepted-partion-but-
the-Arabs-rejected-it justification) -- an issue which is brought up again
and again by supporters of Israel, as though it justifies or even explains what
Israel later did to the Palestinians in 1948! I thought Zionism had more to
it as an ideology than simply "THE MUFTI".
 
Nevertheless, I have responded to the mufti question several times here.  Ben
Gurion relied on the Mufti's extreme REACTIONS and RHETORIC -- to Jewish
immigration and slow disposession of the Palestinians!  "Rely on the Mufti"
became his motto, used to justify Zionist crimes against the Palestinians.
 
Sam
 
Feel free to use the info on this site as you please, the articles posted are not
"mine" anyway; I merely collect them.  If possible, though, provide a link and credit
to this site.  Thanks for your support. -- Sam

That's like describing all people who try to remember the holocaust against
Jews or Jews who ask for reparations from the German government, as "Living
with hatred" (for the Nazi).
 
When I tell you about the murderous robber who killed my loved ones, took my
house and possessions; a criminal who is well known, but was never punished
(actually, he tricked many to think he's humane) how would you react?  Do you
really feel intelligent describing me as "filled with hatred for the killer/
robber"?  I am here informing a misinformed world about what Israel did to the
Palestinians --while covering itself with a humane facade-- and calling for
correcting this wrong.
 
Your reaction is largely a byproduct of Israel's PR industry -- one of the
knee-jerk responses it disseminates to cover up for its crimes.  Thomas Friedman
is part of that industry, although he's one of the more subtle supporters
of Israel, unlike Safire & Co.  So when Friedman redicules the backwardness of
the Arab world --after throwing a passing criticism of Israel to appear
"balanced"-- how is that related to justice for the Palestinians .. justice
that has been taken away by Israel?  Or is that a diversion ploy, that
supporters of Israel use?
 
Sam

That quote can be found in Ramsey Clark's "The Fire This Time" 1994 book
introduction/forward. --Sam

Thanks for the links and info.  Actually, most of them have already been on this
site, almost since inception.  Although I consider the Khazar case as secondary
and somewhat irrelevant, I included it under miscellaneous section only as
"interesting info".

Does "left-wing" and "pro-Palestinian" equal "false"?

Didn't realize that being Christian, and cheering the Crusades as one and
the same!  Just like, perhaps, being Jewish and supporting the "Jewish"
State being totally different.  If you call yourself Jewish does not mean
you should cheer crimes committed by some who call themselves "Jews".

Linked to Hizbollah?  How so, please enlighten?  Just because *A* Hizbollah
site decided to put a link to my site, does not mean that I am "linked to
Hizbollah", if that's what you're talking about.

Why? Because you're not equipped to handle, or be reminded of the horrible
truth you support?

Long live human rights, which are in contradiction with Israel being a "Jewish
state".  Until all Israel's citizens are equal, and until the refugees forced
out by Israel are allowed to return, and until Israel's occupation and
humiliation of the Palestinians stops, there won't be peace in the middle East.
 
Sam

I agree with your observation, and as a result, corrected my generalization. --Sam

Thank you for your support.  I prefer the anonymity of geocities. --Sam 

Thank you for your supportive message.
 
You pose a very good question.  My general thoughts on it follow.
 
The idea of a peaceful Palestinian resistance to occupation did occurr to me.
It will sure be nice for more world support.  But the situation here is not the
same, as say, the Gandhi in India against the British case, and is certainly
remote from resembling the civil rights movement case.
 
What the Palestinians endure is not mere occupation and repression, in the
traditional sense.  It is, in my opinion, ethnic cleansing/"Judaization" in
slow motion (following the two major ethnic cleansing campaigns of 1948 and
1967).  Israeli leaders, such as "peace man" Rabin were frank enough to admit
such -- creating miserable enough conditions that will evoke a "voluntary"
Palestinians departure.  This occupation has, furthermore, interferred with
every level of Palestinian life.
 
Unlike other, "traditional" occupation and settler colonialism, Israel's over
Palestine included/s slow and gradual eradication of the locals.  Every
Palestinian has experienced/s the occupation in more than one way, on all
civil life levels, and on a daily basis, (eg, the repeated humiliation at
roadblocks, long bureaucratic process for house-building permits which are
usually denied, etc).  The occupation reached the personal level of every
Palestinian household, a manifestation of Israel's slow encroachment on their
land, property and livelihood in general.
 
The humiliation, torture, imprisonment without trial, exploitation of
labor, endless suffocating curfews, bombardment of towns, assassinations,
being shot with the purpose of maiming, breaking of children's legs and
arms' bones, dragged out of their homes and homes demolished in front
of the eyes of the owners, endless confiscation of land, deprivation of
water, urinating in/destruction of Palestinian cisterns which the latter
placed on their roofs to collect much needed water, the denial of permits
to built houses forever, the denial of well-digging permits, (while settlers
nearby fill their pools and water their gardens), the massacres by "crazy"
settlers of Palestinians, the pregnant women who died in ambulances waiting
for long hours at Israeli check points, the cutting down of olive trees --the
livelihood of many Palestinians-- by Israel, etc.
 
Compounding the Palestinian agony is that Israel does all the above while
wearing a "human right" facade, projecting an image of a "light unto nations",
a nation working hard to fight "terrorism", a nation that's being vicitimized
anew, by local savages.  All these are images that are largely believed by the
people of the world, who rely on TV and western/US press for their news sources.
 
Most of the settlers (I am talking about all Israeli Jews) here, unlike
traditional colonialism -- eg British over India -- do not have a country
to go back to; they burned the bridges behind them --almost-- and placed
themselves in the face of the locals, competing for the same land.  They
didn't simply come to devour the resources of the land and enslave the
population, as in traditional colonialism.  They came to LIVE there, in
"THEIR" land!
 
But, there were also, the usual similarities with traditional colonialism,
however.  The settlers were way more advanced than the locals, and well versed
in PR and in understanding the importance of, and the ability to shape world
public opinion, unlike the locals.  So, the settlers' slow cleansing of the
locals was beamed to the world as "holocaust survivors resisting further
destruction," a benevolent resistance to terrorism of the crude and backward
locals, an example for the world to follow of purity of arms, of making the
desert bloom, and more of the plain'ol "civilizing mission" jargon of
traditional colonialism.
 
Under such conditions of constant pressure of humiliation and dispossession, that
is slowly building up, the Palestinians are reacting like any normal being would
in similar situation.  They are exploding in response to pressure that has built
up beyond human limitations.
 
HOWEVER, that's not to say that the peaceful resistance avenue has not been explored
by the Palestinians.  It has actually been going on for ages, but we just don't hear
about it; it simply doesn't exist in western mainstream thinking.  In addition, the
Israelis can suppress it quite easily noting the eye-aversion trait of western media,
and the Israelis' understanding of its loopholes.

An indicident that comes to my mind is when Palestinian prisonners once refused to
eat in the hope that their suffering, and possible death, would bring attention to
their situation. Then, the Israeli authorities reacted by shoving feeding tubes down
their throats.  One of the prisonners died when the tube when down his breathing pipe.
Recently, a peace activist, Thabet Thabet, recognized both by Israeli and Palestinian
groups as such, was assassinated by Israel.  When peaceful resistance is completely
ignored/goes unnoticed by the world it in turn drives the Palestinians into more
frustration, and builds the pressure further, leading to the natural explosion you see
today.  What actually surprises me is not the "violent" resistance to occupation you
see today --ie, largely, teenagers throwing rocks-- but rather the rarity of violent
acts over the past three decades noting the level of repression and injustice the
Palestinians have lived under.

One more thing, is that Israel has showed more than once that it will only address
a situation when faced by force and an enemie that is willing to sacrifice his life
for his cause.  Examples are the Hizbollah in Lebanon amd the first uprising, the
first causing an Israeli withdrawal and the second, recognition of and negotiation
with the Palestinians.

Thus, what's happening today is very spontaneous -- a collective reaction of a
community that has nothing left to lose, trying to shake off the burden of constant
humiliation and dispossession.  By no means did Palestinian leaders sit together in
dark rooms and planned the current uprising.  If anything, the leaders were caught by
surprise.  When a monkey is sitting on your back for so many years and you've tried
everything to get it off, then pressure builds up in you. And one day you explode.
The "turn the other cheek" saying applies, in my opinion, to limited number of slaps.
Even to a large number of slaps, but not infinite -- especially when it is one's
loved ones, not oneself, that's receiving the slaps.  Neither I nor you can say
for sure that we'll react differently from the Palestinians in response to what
they've been through, can we?
 
Thanks for raising an important issue.
 
Sam

As Chomsky explained: one MUST understand that the world is ruled by force, not by
law, reason or any other nice criterion.  UN is an instrument in US's hands. --Sam

See the following links:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda/message/8012
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda/message/7747
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda/message/7692

Sam

Thank you Nikhil for your words of compliment.
 
I will check the Buchanan articles posted for racism.  If there are any that once
slipped my eyes, I will remove them.  Otherwise, I regret that I will have to keep
them, despite Buchanan's other views, not listed here, which might be racist.  True
he's often an apologist for the establishment, but he also daringly and rightly
criticizes US foreign policy, especially in the Middle East.  Coming from a main-
stream guy like Buchanan, this would carry a lot of weight in the eyes of many
visitors to this site who hold his views high.
 
Regards,
Sam

The Palestinian refugee question is at the HEART of the entire Middle East conflict.
 
Israel terrorized over a million Palestinian Arabs in 1948 and 1967 to flee,
intentionally, via massacres and psychological warfare to create land and space
for a Jewish majority needed to establish a "Jewish state".  It fits accurately
the definition of "ethnic cleansing".

Israel immediately, possessed the refugees' houses and lands, or when deemed unfit for
"Jewish" habitation, were destroyed, like the 400+ Palestinian villages razed to the
ground.  Palestinian refugees, not including internal refugees in Israel, number today
over 4 million, with their decendents.  Since day one, they have been denied the right to
return and/or compensation by Israel, mostly because they will upset the Zionist dream of
a Jewish majority, or the "Jewish character" of Israel.  The hypocrisy is that in the past
decade, Israel allowed over 1 million Russian "Jews" to immigrate to Israel, although some
of these --30% at least-- were not Jews as reported by the Israeli press! So, Israel would
allow "anyone" to "return", it seems, so long (s)he is not Palestinian, or so long (s)he be
counted as a "Jew" to help maintian the "Jewish" majority, and hence "Jewish" control of
the land.
 
Best
Sam

My pleasure. --Sam

Thank you Sir for your support.  --Sam

Thank you dear sir for your input and encouragement.

Regretfully, I don't send mail out to visitors.  I don't remember where I
got the quote you mention.  Perhaps from Lilienthal's book, if that's what
you were looking for.

Sam

That's like saying because of medication there needs to be a desease! It goes
to show the extent of irrationality today in support for Israel's policies.
Truth is, of course, that people like me were created long after, and in
response to, the creation of Israeli propaganda industry and lobby organizations
such as AIPAC and ADL, that have became a front to cover Israel's crimes, and
even to silence criticism of its policies of aggression and expansion.  If these
organizations did not support Israel blindly, there wouldn't be a need for my site.
 
The "anti-Israel" content of this site represent actions committed by Israel
-- not simply "anti-Israel content".  One should not be described merely as
"anti-Nazi" when one tells the truth about the crimes Nazis committed.  I am
here exposing Israel's colossal skeleton closet, of Palestinian victimization.
The world needs to see that to stand up to Israel.  The funny thing is that
instead of supporters of Israel waking up to their brain-washedness, they
accuse me of "anti-Israelism", even "anti-Semitism".  Instead of thinking about
the enormous crimes by Israel I listed as the SOURCE of conflict in the Middle
East, they try to shut the messenger up.  I like to see my actions described
not merely as anti-Israeli POLICY (not "anti-Israel"); but more "pro-Palestinian
human rights," rights that were robbed by Israel, which I am here exposing.
 
Sam

Actually, No, the majority does NOT know "it"; and that's the problem.  I would
rather use the designation "pro-Israel" control, instead of "Jewish" control.
I am assuming that's what you meant!  Because, after all, I would love it a lot
if a Jew who's pro-fairness and justice against Israeli policies, is in control,
wouldn't you?

The silencing of Garaudy is shameful.  Everyone should have the right to say
what they want -- however absurd, as in the case of some of what Garaudy wrote.
The abuse of the Holocaust by pro-Israel people for political ends, does not
change the fact that millions of Jews were killed by Hitler, deliberately,
during WWII.

If, however, you hate all Jews and see them as conspiratorial, then please do not
comeback here -- not until you have awakened to the fact that Jews, like non-Jews,
have the good and the bad.

Sam

Thank you for your support.  Good suggestion.  There's already many pro-human
rights activists around the world doing what you suggested.  --Sam

While I would agree that the Arab (Muslim?) states, in their indifference, inaction 
and division, have made easy the exesses committed by Israel, I would not agree to the
part that "no one but us" is to blame.  The exesses are still committed by criminal
Israel, and hence, it is certainly the first to blame.

Sam

My pleasure.  --Sam

I disagree with your use of the word "caused" (not to mention the word "may"!).
Saddam's actions certainly didn't help, but "causing" the deaths is another matter.

Hint questions: Do you deny that the US has helped majorly in putting and enforcing
the sanctions?  Do you deny that the removal of sancitons by the US would end the killing;
in other words, that THE US _HAS_ A WAY TO END THE NEEDLESS CIVILIAN DEATHS?  Didn't
Iraq prosper under Saddam BEFORE there were sanctions?  Why should the ECONOMIC
PART of sanctions, devastating the population, be maintained, if the intent is
not to harm civilians?  Furthermore, if the intent is not to harm civilians,
why was the civilians infratructure of Iraq deliberately bombed in 1991?  Or why
has the US altered, with the passage of time, the criterion for the removal of
sanctions, making it impossible for Saddam to comply?

Saddam's actions elicited US leaders' wrath, (for challenging their dominance of
the region) which in turn CAUSED the devastation of Iraq by the US.  Do you deny
that?  So: By omitting the "US leaders" factor in your statement above, you
attempt -- prehaps not intentionally, but as a result of media indoctrination--
to put ALL the blame on Saddam.  No one I know would deny that Saddam is a killer, and
that he chose to let his people die at the hands of US-enforced sanctions, rather than
bow down to US diktat, lose his power (and his head).  But, THE US KNOWS THAT, and
despite it, _CHOSE_ to continue the deadly sanctions!  And, the US component is THERE,
especially since the US leaders _CAN_ stop the needless death -- if they want to!

What do you expect Saddam to do when the US imposes deadly sanctions on Iraqi civilians?
To just come out and say "I am sorry"?  Had he been given an avenue to step down without
getting his head chopped off --like what happened to Idi Amin and others dictators-- then
he might have opted for that.  Right now, the only option left for him by US leaders is
commit suicide, or step down and get killed.  Are you surprised he chose "none of the
above"?

You have to learn to think independently from mainstream frameset -- leaders' rhetoric
that is echoed unchallenged by the media.  It is not unpatriotic to condemn certain
action by one's own government, especially when these actions produce a holocaust on 
another people.

Good Luck.
Sam

Thank you for your kind words of compliment. --Sam

Thank you for your nice compliment. --Sam

Thank you for your nice input!  I am, however, unable to reproduce the problem
you mention.  I do have one article by Amos Oz.  You may suggest others, if
you want.  But the many I have seen were not too different from Israel's main-stream
propaganda.

Sam

Thank you for your kind support, Khalil. --Sam

Thank you Bilal. --Sam

Thank you sir/madam.  --Sam

Thank you, Minnesota girl. --Sam

Thanks for your feedback.  I would definitely agree that the Arab world has
been plagued by terrible leaders, whose decisions have not helped the
Palestinian problem to get resolved -- to say the least.  On many occasions,
they made the problem worse, with their negative and threatening rhetoric, 
inexperience in western morals and PR, inner fighting, selfishness, subservience
to the West, denial of freedom of expressions to the people they rule, not to
mention robbing the people's resources to buy villas and luxury cars.  With this
in mind, is it a wonder they have failed in stopping Zionism from expanding and
sucking out Palestinian resources and livelihood?  Furthermore, Arab leaders'
incompetence on the world front, coupled with unwise policies, has been capitalized
on by the Zionists to further dispossess the Palestinians of their rights and
lands.  That's why the Zionist, while claiming otherwise, prefer to have
dictatorships around them, which help keep the Arab public subdued, and their
countries and armies inefficient.

The corruption of Arab leadership would make an excellent subject for a
website.  There are many out there about that.

Best
Sam

Thank you friend.  When I hear the term "anti-Semitism", I usually avoid semantics,
and respond based on its "widely accepted" meaning -- namely, anti-Jewish.  --Sam

Probably, a geocities bug that I can't fix.  Try again later.  Best.  --Sam

Didn't realize I had a logo!  Where exactly did you see one -- let alone
one that indicate "no State of Israel"?  If you are talking about the "Right
of Return" with a map of all of historic Palestine, then, first, that is
not my logo.  Second, the map indicates where the Palestinian refugees
should be able to return to, should peace and justice take place.  Afterall,
that's where the Palestinian refugees used to live 52 years ago, before being
terrorized out, expelled and massacred by Israel, their houses demolished, or
expropriated for "Jewish" use.

If, on the other hand, you are talking about using the colors of the Palestinian
flag on the main page, then that's actually just a way to show solidarity with
the victims, but not adopting it as a "logo".  Furhermore, displaying the colors
of the Palestinian flag does not indicate "no State of Israel". On the other
hand, forbidding even the display of its colors, as Israel did during the first
Intifada, is indicative of ISRAEL's true intent - "no state of Palestine".

Sam

False!  Actually, the word "False" is an understatement.  Aid to Israel in
1996 was about sixfold the aid to the entire continent of Africa (aside from
Egypt), where many Arab countries lie.  US gives Egypt aid because Egypt
signed a treaty with Israel and entered US clients sphere, not to mention
gave Israel a carte blanche to aggression, after neutralizing the largest
Arab country bordering Israel.  The combined US aid to Egypt and Israel
is about 40% if not more of US's *TOTAL* aid to the ENTIRE WORLD!  For the
past 25 years, Israel received an average of $10,000,000 PER DAY from US.

More than who?  US Jews constitute 2% of the population.  True they are
the richest minority, but to claim they pay more than the remaining 98%
is absurd, if that was your implication.  If the implication was that Jews
pay more than their ratio in the population, then true.  That's because they're
--on average-- rich, way more so than the population average.  But still,
the overall tax amount paid by these, does not, not even remotely, approach
that paid by the overall population.

In addition, many Jews donate to Israel, TAX FREE via special organizations,
such as UJA. In other words, uncle Sam and all US taxpayers, pick-up maybe
about a third of US Jews' tax-deductible donations to Israel.  These amount
close to one BILLION some years.  Similar numbers come from fundamentalist
Christians supporters of Israel.

What you meant to say, probably, is who ALONE votes with Israel in support of
the latter's belligerence and violation of international laws?  Answer: US.
US is a pretty big country and can manipulate the UN and international law
as it pleases, almost.  It certainly does not need Israel's vote on any issue.

And who made these people reach such a desperate state that they chose
death and terrorism?

Sam

As I say on the front page of this site, I see myself a Christian Arab-
American.   But above all, however, I am a human being with compassion for
victims of oppression.  I added that important note on the front page. --Sam

Quite original. --Sam

Thank you friend.  --Sam

Thank you for your support, fellow.  --Sam

Please be specific about "evidence sent" and my "poitical wording" -- that is, if
you desire an answer.

The keyword here is "IF".  Rhetoric aside, Arab leaders have become indifferent
about the Palestinian issue, and want to bail out like Egypt did.  "IF" the Arab
countries want to, they could indeed make india suffer dearly, BUT at a loss to them
too -- something they don't want to sacrifice for the sake of the Palestinians.

Huh?  Where do I claim surprise, please specify?  What's wrong with Arab states
threatening another state to not do business with a criminal state, Israel, until
that state has ended its victimization of Palestinians?  Just like there were
boycotts of the apartheid regime, there should be boycotts --under threats of
sanctions, if necessary-- of Israel, until Israel pursues real peace based on
justice, ends the occupation of Palestinian land and enslavement of the people,
and compensates and repatriates its long-time victims.

Sam

The pen is mightier than the sword.  What Israel abhors most is a world that
is informed on the issue.  And, informing the world is what I am here for --
armed with my pen.  --Sam

[Due to limited resources, this is the last of your feedbacks to be printed
and/or responded to. --Sam]

I am not sure what you mean by "the world was available to the palestinians",
aside from rhetoric from Israeli and US leaders and media.

But, let see how this wonderful "peace" process dealt with the issues MOST
important to the Palestinians, namely, their freedom, independence and justice.

- Did Israel agree to withdraw to 1967 lines?  NO
- Did Israel agree to dismantle illegal settlement colonies, built in the
  heart of the West Bank and Gaza?  NO
- Did Israel agree to a Palestinian cotrol of E. Jerusalem? NO
- Did Israel agree to allowing the Palestinians refugees the right to
  return, as it does to all of world's Jews? NO.
- Did Israel agree to allow the Palestinians FULL control of the
  W. Bank and Gaza water sources? NO
- Did Israel agree to allow the Palestinians to control their skies? NO
- Did Israel agree to allow the Palestinians to control their borders? NO
- Did Israel agree to allow the Palestinian state to be contiguous? NO
- When you say "except Jerusalem", are you referring to the pre-1967
  known borders of the city, or the ones Israel expanded immediately after
  1967 war, manyfolds INTO the west bank, after the ususal demolition of
  homes and land confiscation?
- How different is what Israel offered Arafat under Oslo ("unprecedented
  concessions"), from what any colonialist power offered the colonized, as
  far as: have the locals (i.e. Arafat & co.) run the day-to-day lives of the
  occupied, like garbage collection, etc, while continuing the occupation?
  NOT MUCH.
- Has Israel removed the suffocating closure on Palestinian territories,
  which devastated their economy, throughout the "peace" talks? NO

NOW, can you look a Palestinian in the eyes, with a straight face, and tell
him/her that the above "peace process" is about "peace" and that "the world
was available" to him?"  I don't think so.

Yup, if not more.  And, "if I [Barak] were a Palestinian, I too would join
a terrorist group"!!!  That's what Barak slipped and admitted two years
ago.

When Palestinians started to notice that the "peace" process, was actually a
change from an occupation into an apartheid, as the above points became more
and more clear, then their desparation ran high, as their economy and
unemployment, with an ever suffocating closure by Israel, deteriorated rapidly.
When Palestinians see these clearly ill-intention of Israel, since "peace"
began in 1993, e.g. accelerated settlement building, land confiscation, home
demolitions and "Jews-only" highways construction by Israel on their land, do
you blame them for joining the only organization that opposed Arafat's "peace"
process?  Do you blame them when they Arafat & Co. erect villas, drive luxury
cars with VIP pass, while they, the people, sink deeper into poverty?   Don't
forget, also, that Hamas supported a large civilian infrastructure of hospitals,
schools, etc.

If the Palestinians saw any good intentions on Israel's part, Hamas' followership
would've likely decreased.  Not to mention that the deadliness of Hamas' attacks
worsened considerably after the Baruch Goldstein's massacre at the Ibrahimi Mosque,
noting Israel's lack of any serious action against the settlers in its wake (in
fact, after that massacre, Israel put the Palestinians under curfew, as though
they were the aggressors.)  Not to mention, furthermore, that it was Israel that
strengthened Hamas before Arafat time, in order to undermine Arafat's leadership.
Did you know about that?  If not, you got a lot of reading to do before you
continue your defence of Israel.

You are here implying that there's a "major" difference --as far as Palestinians
rights, mentioned above, are concerned-- between Netanyahu/Likud/Sharon and
Barak/Labor/Rabin.  That's a myth.  I guess there ARE some differences -- on
the amount of the crumbs each offered the Palestinians. If you disagree, please
mention MAJOR differences between them on the issues of refugees, settlements,
control of water resources, borders, E. Jerusalem -- the real issues of the
whole conflict that are core to Palestinian independence and freedom.  How do
Barak's four "Nos", or five "redlines", differ from Sharon's?

If, for the sake of argument, one agrees that Netanyahu's created "problems of
todays process", then please define them, and define how Barak, aside from
rhetoric, has done better, or has tried to "fix" them.  You are here reminded
that the number of tenders for settlements issued during Barak's time, OUTPACED
those of Netanyahu, who offered more RHETORIC about expanding settlements
than Barak did.  Barak/Labor talk more about "peace" while doing the
EXACT same thing (sometimes less, sometimes more) than Likud.  They talk about
freezing the settlements, but they do the opposite.  Guess who initiated the
Har Homa project, for example?  The likud are at least honest about it.
(Interestingly, Barak is today coutring Likud/Sharon for a unity gov.)

Past and current Israeli leaders built settlements EXACTLY so that future
people --YOU-- will say "but unfortunately, they are there" -- i.e. facts on
the ground, to hinder the creation of a viable Palestinian state, if at all
allow one to come into existence.  I have a better solution: KEEP the
settlements, BUT create a binational state in the whole of Palestine, where all
Palestinians and Israelis, irrespective of their ethnicity/religion, would get
EQUAL rights!  What's wrong with that?  The silence is deafening.

Regarding the justification of the six-day 1967 war:
<===================================================

= Egypt's army movements in Sinai in 1967 were largely symbolic to appease neighboring
  Arab leaders.  Israel knew that by the admission of its leaders.  The US and
  CIA knew that.  Egypt was trying to get out of this trap, and it was possible
  in a "brekthrough" when Nasser scheduled to send to Washington his vice president
  to help end the crisis.  But, Israel's forces struck before that avenue was
  explored, violating a pledge they made to President Johnson.

= The following are mostly from N. Finkelstein's "Image and Reality" book,
  which is STRONGLY recommended:

- In late May (67) Chief of Staff Rabin told the Israeli cabinet that Egyptian
  forces in the Sinai were still in a defensive posture.
- US intelligence in May stated that there's no evidence Egypt was planning to
  attack.
- US president Johnson told Eban that it was the "unanimous view [of US experts]
  that there's no Egyptian intention to make an imminent attack."
- Rikhye, who toured the Egyptian front, confirms that Egyptian troops were not
  poised for an offensive.
- NYT reporter James Reston observed that Egypt "does not want war and it is
  certainly not ready for war".
- Mossad Chief Meir Amit stated: "Egypt was not ready for a way; and Nasser did
  not want a war."
- Eban stated that he found U Thant's assurance --that Nasser promissed not to attack
  Israel-- convincing, and that "Nasser did not want war; he wanted a victory without
  war."
- In a speech at the Israeli National Defense College, PM Menachem Begin said:
  (Jerusalem Post, 08/20/1982) "The Egyptian concentrations in the Sinai approaches
  do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with
  ourselves. We decided to attack him"
- Rabin (Le Monde, 29/02/1968): "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions
  he sent to the Sinai on May 14 would not have been sufficient to launch an
  offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it"

= Jordan was in a defense treaty with Egypt.  Israel knew that, and hence,
can't pretend it was SURPRISED by a Jordanian bombardment, that "MADE" Israel (how
convenient) take Jerusalem which it coveted and failed to conquer in 1948.  Hint:
Israel expected Jordan to attack since it had a treaty with Egypt, and hence provide
her with the pretext to continue its 1948 conquest of Jerusalem, which it couldn't
fullfil then.  

Even if one assume that Israel was justified in occupying all of that land,
ISRAEL HAD NO RIGHT, WHATSOEVER, TO VIOLATE THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS BY MOVING ITS
CIVILIAN POPULATION INTO THE TERRITORIES IT OCCUPIED.  That's called
COLONIZATION, and, it exposes the lies of the "defensive" motive behind
Israel's 1967 war ("I need your house, car, livelihood, and to exploit
your labor to obtain security for myself", yea right).  I am still waiting
for you, or any other Israeli to answer this point.  The silence is deafening.  

In pure and simple words: Israel coveted that land.  If the above is not convincing
enough, I don't know what is.

That's quite sweet, especially the "in general" part!

First, there are two "kinds" of Palestinians living within historic Palestine
today: those living under Israeli occupation, and those carrying Israeli
citizenship.  I am sure NO rational human being would claim that the former
have anywhere near equal rights as Israelis.  No need to really discuss that
here, as I have a WHOLE site to show otherwise.

As for the latter group -- the Israeli-Arabs, I recommend a visit to the
"Zionism I" page and read sections about Racism.  For one, the fact that
Israel is a "state for Jews" and "NOT for its citizens", should give out the
first hint.  Arabs are restricted --until recently, legally-- from purchasing
land.  Their towns get the short end of funding, by admission of Israeli leaders.
They account for twice their ratio of Israeli poverty.  They are restricted from
employment opportunities reserved for those who serve in the Army (i.e. Jews and Druze).
Upper echelon positions rarely have Israeli-Arabs in them.  Israeli-Arabs are
extensively searched at airports, and when they demonstrate against their
unequal treatment, as citizens of "democracies" do, they are shot at with live
ammunition by the army, instead of water canons and tear gas thrown by riot
police.

When recently, for example, 300 Jewish settlers carried torches and marched
toward the house of Arab Knesset member Asmi Bshara, and attempted to burn it
down, none of them was harmed, let alone stopped by Israel's army.  One
could only wonder whether 300 Israeli-Arabs would even make it alive, should
they decide to go to the house of a Jewish Knesset member with torches.

Israel's birth myths, massacres, rapes and the "new" historians.
================================================================

Israel opened some of its 1948 archives in the 1980s.  Based on that,
updated history was written.  Aside from the various inflated/deflated
accounts by victims/victimzers, it turned out, on the whole, that what
Israelis grew up to know as "history", was mostly myth -- stories of noble
war of "defense", "independence", and "purity of arms", etc.  It is, therefore,
only natural that I quote for you from the "new" historians' account, which
is ever-growing today.  The "newness" of their account stems only from the
date the records were opened.  Why should I rely, as you do, on moth-eaten
dusty "heroic" history, derived from Israeli leaders' proclamations and
slogans, made mostly for public consumption and world opinion, instead of
factual, historical and governmental documents that were once kept away from
the public, but are now available for all to see?

The updated history showed that most of what the Arabs were saying
--especially that Palestinians were violently expelled or fled in terror,
and NOT that Arab leaders asked them to leave-- was true.  Israeli army behaved
as violently and as murderously as any army, it turned out: massacres, rapes,
etc.  Actually, massacres and general methods to terrorize the locals were more
common here than other armies, as there was a need to "cleanse" the land of
non-Jews.  Sorry if that doesn't match the fantasies, and fairy tales of a "moral"
army and "purity of arms" you and other Israelis grew up with, but facts are facts.

Another one of the cherished myths of Israel, was that the latter was earnestly
seeking peace after the war, while the Arabs were none compromising.  Aside from
public rhetoric, the truth turned out to be the EXACT opposite -- that Israel
was the one who refused to compromise or allow refugees to return.

On the issue of rape: from Morris to Pappe to Palumbo, to Segev, to Ben
Gurion's to Lapierre, etc, they all say cases of rape were very common as
a terror tactic to encourage the population to leave.  It is highly UNLIKELY
that testimony by arab women about being raped was exaggerated, noting the
sensitivity of Arab culture to the issue of rape.  After the Deir Yassin
massacre, Arab women who displayed the same symptoms of a raped woman, would
REFUSE and feel shame to speak about being raped.  So, in the case of rape
particularly, I would say that Arab women testimony is the OPPOSITE of exaggerated.

What better display of the Israeli "Defense" Force's "morality" than today's
shooting of children by Israeli sharpshooters or perhaps Rabin's "break their
bones" order, or Israeli leaders sanctioning of bombardment of civilian areas
throughout the decades, or the killing of POWs, etc?  All of these were/still
are being condemned by countless human rights organizations, INCLUDING Israeli
ones, like Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, B'Tselem, Physicians for Human Rights,
UN, etc. (Please, no more of the "they are all anti-Israel").

Every country has its fairy tales and myths of heroism about its past.  That helps
fuel the national identity of its citizens.  As an Arab, I too was taught about
"noble" and "moral" Arab conquests -- always called "civilizing missions".   It took
a lot of effort on my part to fight years of indoctrination, and to place myself in
the conquered's shoe.  But I have.  It is now your turn as an Israeli to follow
suite.

Arab Jews, and the Arab Israeli component
=========================================

You keep bringing the Arab dimension, as does almost all defenders of Israel and
Zionism, perhaps to justify what Israel did to the Palestinians or at least change
the subject of, and divert attention from Israel's original sin.  Be it the issue of
Arab Jews, that Arab states are non-democratic, or what have you.  That however will
NOT relieve you and other defenders of Israel/Zionism from having to answer for
Israel's major crime: the dispossession of the Palstinians.   THIS IS the core of
the conflict, which is anavoidable fruit of Zionism.    Palestine IS the Palestinians'
homeland from which they were terrorized by Zionists into fleeing or were expelled.
 Whether Arab countries agreed to settle them (Jordan) or not (Lebanon) is an
important, but a SIDE issue to the core CAUSE of the conflict.  (My neighbor is hardly
the one to blame for not housing the other neighbor that *I* kicked out of his
house.)  Just like it is an important but side issue whether the allies could
have saved the Jews in WWII by bombing Auschwitz, which does NOT change the fact
that the Nazis WERE guilty and have to compensate the victims.

On the issue of Arab Jews:  No one's denying that the Arab countries have
AT TIMES mistreated their Jews, which was a factor in their emigration to Israel
or elsewhere.  These Jews had full rights as regular citizens.  The only thing
they were exempted from is military service.  There were no institutionalized
discrimination against them like there is against non-Jewish Israelis today,
although many Arab-Jews were caught sabotaging some places (Egypt 1954) and
spying on their own countries (Eli Cohen) for Israel.

But I personnally feel very upset at the treatment these received in some of
the Arab countries, by some people or by some goverments. Be it the confiscation
of their properties after they left, or the implicit culture of equating Jews
with Zionists -- a byproduct of Zionism. These Jews, however, were not escorted
to the borders with machine guns, or terrorized away by fear of rape and massacre,
as were the Palestinians in 48.   Nor were they mistreated BEFORE the onset of
Zionism/Israel, which should raise a fairly large eyebrow as to how Israel
became a CAUSE of anti-Semitism, instead of CURE.

While I am deeply bothered, at the confiscation of Arab-Jewish property, I
can understand somewhat where the decision comes from.  When someone leaves
your country to join your enemy --the same enemy that continues to bombard
your bretheren and torment others-- you're harldy expected to be jubilant
about that?  If a WWII Jew left the Warsaw ghetto to join Nazi forces in
their genocide against the Jews, how would his Jewish friends react?  Would
they confiscate his property before he leaves?  If they do would you blame
them?  I am not saying these situations are identical, but the victim-
joining-victimizer-arousing-anger-among-fellow-victims does apply, apart
from scale.

Not to mention that changing the topic from the Palestine-Israel issue,
to Arab-Oriental-Jews issue, might demand raising the issue of how Israel
ITSELF treated these Jews when they arrived to the "promissed land" -- hardly
a rosy welcome by European Zionists one might add.  Tom Segev has written
interesting stuff on that issue (e.g. The Seventh Million/1949 First Israelis)
that you should explore before you decide again to raise the issue of the
treatment of Arab Jews by Arab countries, let alone claim that Arab Jews
"integrated into Israel perfectly". (If they were, Menahem Begin wouldn't
have become PM in 77, but that's a whole new topic).

I here acknowledge, as an Arab and above all a human being, the RIGHT of Arab
Jewish refugees to RETURN to their homes, and get compensation from Arab
governments.  When they come, I will embrace them and tell them I am sorry
for the ill treatment they might have received from some Arab people/governments.
Now, as an Israeli and a human being, can YOU do likewise, and repeat the same
thing regarding Palestinian refugees!!!!!!  I didn't think so! Afterall, if Israel
had allowed Palestinian refugees to return after the 1948 war, it is highly
likely that the Arab-Israel conflict would have ended in 1948.  Sadly, Israel
wanted a JEWISH state and wanted to expand its territory at the expense of
Palestinian land.  It is just them damn Palestinians who can't clear out the
way for the Zionists to realize their dream.

More on Palestinian refugee issue:
==================================

First, many refugees, if not most/all, would like to move on , if they are
allowed to by their host countries.  But still, I don't find anything wrong
with refugees clinging to the RIGHT to return to their ancestral homes, that
were lost just 50 years ago (or less).  In fact I know of another people who
say they clinged to their homes for 2000 years and demand a right to return!
(Hint!)  Do you still not like "how history was dictated" -- aside from the
fact that this statement absolves the victimizer, Israel, from its guilt?

You are here implying that the Palestinian refugees *CHOOSE* to live "in suffering
and hate".  How interesting.

Some Palestinians refugees have been ALLOWED to move on by their host countries.
Jordan's a prime example, as 60% of today's Jordanians are actually Palestinians.
The other extreme is Lebanon, where today 360,000 Palestinian refugees are still
NOT ALLOWED to integrate by Lebanon.  How about the 800,000 of the 1.1 million
Palestinians living in the concentration camp called Gaza, who are refugees?
Please enlighten me on how you propose these "stand on their feet", knowing that
they are surrounded by Israel, they have been living under a cruel Israeli
occupation, that sucks out their resources, uses them for cheap labor, builds
settlements on their lands, tortures them when they complain, etc.  I am all ears!

You're not the first, nor will you be the last to use that blame-the-victim
argument.  It's always been used by abusive parents and husbands "they brought it on
themselves".  The Nazis claimed "self defense" against the Jews during and before
WWII.  Colonizers do the same to the locals.

Some Arab countries do have chemical weapons.  But using them is a different
manner, however.  They might sound extreme, but Arab leaders are not so stupid
as to use chemical weapons against nuclear Israel back by the US.  They know
that that would mean total oblitaration of their countries by Israeli atomic,
neutron and hydrogen bombs that would make chemical weapons look like toys.
When Saddam used his chemical weapons against the Iranians and Kurds, he knew
there would not be grave retribution for his actions.  He knew he had some form
of a "green light" from western leaders, who helped supply him with these
weapons.  He also knows that the light is extremely RED when it comes to using
them against Israel.

In closing

Nationalism (as well as religion) sometimes makes one overstreatch his "reason"
to absurd ends to justify his countrymen's crimes.  With your nationalism for
Israel burning high, I am here reminded by the following words of George Orwell:

  "The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his
   side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."

Your have raised important questions and myths that needed a response.  But your
arguements are all clearly avoiding the central issue of the Arab-Israeli conflict:
namely Israel's dispossession of the Palestinians and not allowing them to return.
Worse yet, when the 1948 topic comes up, you try to lessen Israel's crime.  This
attitude is representative of many Israelis, with which there will never be real
peace.

Best,
Sam

Thank you Sir/Madame.  --Sam

You're very kind Imran.  --Sam

Thank you for your support.  --Sam

Thank you.  --Sam

Yes, but in the mean time what are we human beings going to do about fellow
human beings, being oppressed?  Shall we be mere spectators, or perhaps be
the good Samaritans God expects us to be?  Shall we not extend a helping
hand to end their suffering?  --Sam

Thank you for your kind support.  --Sam

See response to 2nd letter (dated 2 Nov) below.

Interesting convoluted logic of Cause and Effect.  The lack of peace IS
a result of Israel's theft of land.  Israel takes the land, then asks the
dispossessed for peace.  If I come with my army and buldozers and take your
land and house away, without even compensating you, and perhaps killing some of
your family members, would you give me peace without me at least compensating
you?

Sam

Only if you equate "hatred of Jews" with "exposing Israel's countless and
enormous crimes against the Palestinians" -- the mission of this site.  --Sam

I will not post your excerpts of the mentioned article, but, rather a link
to the whole thing!  Here it is.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_btl/20001011_xcbtl_myths_brmi.shtml

I responded several times to a similar argument posed by Mr. Farah, who
represents anything BUT the opinion of Arab-Americans.  The crux of his
argument is basically "there's never been a country called Palestine".

The answer to that is: SO WHAT?  Most countries of the world today didn't
exist before this century!  As one Arab activist, Ali Abunimah, put
it: "PEOPLE DO NOT DERIVE THEIR RIGHTS FROM THE ENTITIES THEY LIVE IN, BUT
FROM THEIR EXISTENCE AS HUMAN BEINGS."  Just because there was no country
called Palestine, does not give the right to Zionist Jews to uproot the
people living on that land, steal their houses, farms and crops, destroy
other villages, etc, as Israel did to the Palestinians.  Whether the
"Palestinians" (and for that matter, Israeli) identity existed before
this century, is not the issue.  That's becaues today THEY EXIST, whether
one likes or not.



Aside from the fact that Arab countries are seperate entities, the same
argument above by J. Farah can be applied to, say, Rhode Island, the smallest
state in the United States.  Does that fact allow the Indians to now
claim all of Rhode Island, dispossess all the population, with massacres and
ethnic cleansing, and take their places and livelihood?  After all, one
should keep in mind that "the Americans control 99 percent of the US
lands.  While Rhode Island represents minuscule percentage". 

What rubbish and misrepresentation, trying to use legalities and
technicalities to deny some people their fundamental human rights,
and treat them like animals.  Shame!

Sam

Thank you Naser for your encouragement.  It adds to my determination and resolve.  --Sam

The context you are seeking for the listed quotes is THE ENTIRETY OF THIS
SITE!

The Arabs have always been getting new weapons, but not of the quality,
and magnitude that Israel received/s from the US.  Israel's arsenal,
and her full partnership with the US, makes Israel a virtual extention of
the US military.

Iraq was the most "powerful" and "high-tech" arab country before 1991 (the same
way Iran is described by you).  Look how easy it was decimated by the US's high
tech and intelligence, which shows that the mere facts that you are "acquiring
new weapons" counts for ... about nothing, when your enemy has the upper hand
technologically and is fully backed by a super power.

Israel's existence was NEVER threatened -- outside of the propaganda realm.
As an exercise, can you name one case where it was?  In `48, when Israel was
weakest in its history vis-a-vis her neighbors, it was on the defensive
against Arab onslaught for three weeks only.  The next 10 months she was on
the offensive, beating FIVE Arab armies (sounds threatening doesn't it?).  In
`67 her offensive was a breeze, against Syria, Jordan and Egypt (same in `56).
It took her 6 days, as a previous CIA study predicted, to finish the war,
after destroying the entire Egyptian airforce in 2 hours.  A US study also
predicted that had the Arabs attacked first in `67 Israel would
still have won, but in about two weeks instead of one. In `73, with full
preparation of Israel's strongest neighbors, and with their combined attacks
from two sides, they ended up defeated losing more land, even though their
attack was a surprise to Israel, including their possession of "state of the
art" SAM missiles.  The war lasted less than 3 weeks.  In 81, Israel bombed
with ease Iraq's nuclear reactor, without any threats to her pilots.  In 82,
Israel marched over Lebanon, with minor losses (compared to those of the
Lebanese and Palestinians).  In a quick contact with the "menacing" and
"powerful" Syrian airforce, Israel downed 80+ Syrian jets, while yawning,
without any Israeli jet loss.  Syrian (Russian?) pilots didn't know what hit'em.
The 80+ Syrian planes were, I guess, part, of the many weapons that Syria
acquired, that you mention.  Saddam's mighty 37 Scuds falling on Israel in
1991 killed three Israelis -- one with a heart attack.  The Scuds inaccuracy
as a weapon was also clear.  Of course, no Arab country would dare use chemical
or bio weapons, since Israel, whose existence we are told, is always threatened,
can easily wipe out all Arab capitals with few botton pushes.  Plus the Arab
countries don't have anyway near Israel's intelligence and information
gathering, from satellites and elsewhere.  Israel can see every Arab army
move, but the Arabs don't have similar privilege.  I forgot to mention Israel's
new submarine fleet, capable of delivering nuclear head anywhere without
being detected.

So, over the past 52 years, I am still looking for "threats to Israel's 
existence" -- aside from Arab rhetoric.  Could it be that you have been, like
many westerners/Israelis, deceived into believing Israeli leaders propaganda
that they are "in danger" and hence that the West should pour its money and
armaments on it?

OK, you have two beings, ants and elephants: In reposnse to their dispossession
and expulsion by the elephants, the ants threaten, for over fifty years, to
kill the elephants, but does none of that, and anyway has no ability to match
the elephant power.  The elephants, on the other hand, don't threaten, in fact
always are careful to SPEAK about wanting peace with the ants, while simultaneously
KILLING countless ants and slowly taking more and more of their lands and houses.
Which one of these is guilty in your opinion?  Which one should be stopped?

There is a vast distance between Arab rhetoric and Arab action, that western
audience fall for.  Arab rhetoric is usually emotional, sometimes even violent,
threatening and filled with sabre-rattling, usually in response to someone who
stole what's rightfully theirs. Arab actions, on the other hand, are
almost the complete opposite (partially due to their weakness)!  Now, take that
formula of rhetoric-versus-actions and reverse it; and viola, you have Israel! While
Israel, expert in western PR, speaks softly and "sincerely" in peace-words, a
trait the western leaders supporters of Israel like (perhaphs to explain their
blind support for Israel to their public), its actions are anything but.  So,
you can literally find countless calls for Jihad and "death to Israel" in Arab
circles; however, these are coupled with almost no violent actions against Israel.
But the countless ACTS of "jihad" belong to Israel, and that's what a historian
and an observer should mainly focus on.  Usually, too, the waves of Arab rhetoric
are a RESPONSE to some atrocity by Israel.

Israel has committed many warcrimes, from massacres to deliberate and
indiscriminate bombing of civilians with outlawed weaponry, to poisoning of
Palestinian wells (Suha was right!), to systematic destruction of villages,
to assassination of opposition leaders, to torture, to land theft, etc.
That is documented by Israeli and other historians, and condemned by
endless UN resolutions and human right organizations.  Part of the Arab's
violent rhetoric is due to their inability to repel Israel's aggression and
continuous humiliations.  So, they vent their anger by cursing her in public.
In turn, to justify its atrocities, all Israel has to do now is point to Arab
RHETORIC!  Being unfamiliar with the issue of Arab rhethoric-vs-actions,
Western audience easily fall for the trap.  Have you fallen for that too?
Perhaps you will point to terrorism by some desperate Palestinians/Arabs.
But putting this terrorism in its context of Israel's much more vast and potent
terrorism, dispossession and killing of Palestinians, leads an unbiased
observer clearly to the conclusion that Palestinian terrorism is the MINUSCULE
RESPONSE OF A WEAK VICTIM TO HIS VICTIMIZATION.

The mission is to show the Palestinian side of the euqation that most westerners
lack.  More importantly, MY BIAS IS ON THE SIDE OF THE VICTIM.  When one implies
that there are two sides, one is forgetting that, in this case, there clearly is
one overall VICTIM and one overall VICTIMIZER.  It is an honor for me to be
presenting the victims case.  That's my mission.  When I expose the wrongs done
the Palestinians by Israel, then surely that may create an anti-Israel bias.
But that's the truth I am exposing.  In other words, the ANTI-ISRAEL BIAS IS
NOT *CAUSED* BY THIS SITE, BUT BY ISRAEL'S ACTIONS.  (of course, by Israel, I
mean the Israeli leaders and government, not the people who are mostly mislead
and brain-washed by their government and media).

When one exponses the crimes of the Nazis against Jews in WWII, (without
bothering to mention the crimes by Jews against the Nazis, which are REACTIONS
to their persecution by the latter) then it is not really accurate/fair to
describe that as merely "creating anti-Nazi bias".  To bring attention to the
horrors taking place in South Africa 10-20 years ago, activists exposed the
crimes committed by Apartheid regime against blacks.  That surely incited
anti-Apartheid feeling, but it also IS, more accurately, telling the world the
truth about the horrors the victims have endured/are enduring, so the world
would act to end them/remember the victims.  This is especially necessary in
this case of the Arab-Israeli conflcit when so much potent and powerful
propaganda is being disseminate by the victimzer and its supporters in Western
media.

I hope you will sit back and think about what's above. Think about how it
applies to you as a western audience (?), being manipulated by propaganda.  (I
don't mean to be patronizing).  Ask yourself this: would you be outraged
at a site showing the crimes of Apartheid against black south Africans,
without mentioning the black's crime against the Apartheid regime? I am sure
you will answer no.  Apply that to Israel then.  If you still believe that
there's an equality of guilt on both sides of Israel and the Palestinians,
since you are requesting to see the sins of the Palestinians as well, then I
can't help you.  You just have been hearing the victimizer's case for too long
that it is now "truth" to you.

Sam

My thanks to you, visitor. --Sam

Your compliments and encouragement are most welcome, Michael.  --Sam

If you've truly read this page, then your response above indicate that you
didn't allow your mind to analyze what you were reading, outside of an
ideological frame.  The response to ALL the issues you raised had been
answered before -- sometimes more than once! 

If it's the US you are referring to, then you are wrong.  I love this 
country and its people, although they are often naive and misguided. What
I hate is the horrible leaders atop it and the corporate media that allows
them to get away with criminal behavior and lying to the public.  So, I
am not sure what you are talking about, unless you consider leaders and
people to be the same.

Oh, please not the "Israel is victim" again.  Also, again, you must not have
been paying attention when you read my feedback page.  I will summarize for
you in few words, what Israel has done to "deserve all this hate".  (For detail
you still have to re-read this page.  Check out a recent book-review by
Gideon Levy).  Israel has dispossessed another people -- the Palestinians, and
maintains a brutal and humiliating occupation.  To claim that Israel took the
land in response to Arab initiating attack (not true) is absurd.  Kuwait does not
have the right to dispossess Iraqis, expell them and take their land, because Iraq
attacked her.

When some Palestinian vicitms reacted to their dispossession by Israel, the latter
"retaliated" in an-eye-for-twenty-eyes fashion, planting an even more hatred among
its victims. The rest of Israel's crimes, including many war crimes, such as the
murder of prisoners of war, are echoed in countless UN resolutions and human right
organizations condemnations, and is WHAT THIS SITE IS ALL ABOUT, my friend.  So,
start reading earnestly; this time pause, think, and analyze everything you read
outside from the frame of "Israel is right" you have been confined into.

Ask your leaders.  Again, this is related to your previous question, which
necessitates that you first MUST understand the situation.  Again, start by reading
the articles in this site, while placing yourself in the shoes of the Palestinians.
Fill your heart with compassion, then visit a refugee camp nearby. Talk to the
refugees, or to any local Palestinians.  Ask them to tell you their story.  You
will find one core issue remaining the same: Israel's original sin against the
Palestinians, and her refusal to correct it justly.

Aside from the "Lebanon is mighty and scary"/"Israel is weak and afraid"
distorted implications in the above formulation, Lebanon wants few things from
Israel.  Most immediately, the return of the hostages from Hizbollah that
Israel has imprisoned for years as "bargaining chips". Then, and most
importantly, allow the 360,000 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, dispossessed
by Israel, to return and get compensation.  Finally, apologize for all the
carnage, massacres and death Israel has inflicted on Lebanon. 

What do you mean by "my organization"?  You must be referring to one Hizbollah
site where my site happenend to be linked to.  I have NOTHING to do with that
site, or with Hizbollah.

The racist implications that Palestinians have no emotions toward their
children, that they are willing to use them as stealers of media coverage, is
sickening.  Even animals care about their offsprings, afterall.  Shame on the
descendents of Holocaust survivors for using the same racist reasoning that
their Nazi tormentors once used against them.  Shame!

Palestinians, like any other human beings, believe in freedom or death. 
The Peace Process was leading the Palestinians into a form of legitimized
occupation -- apartheid if you will, but not freedom.  Check out the map of
what the Palestinian state would look like under Barak's plan of "90% land"
returned, and you will know what the Palestinians are mad about.  You might
want to check also how much of the West Bank water will Israel control.  90%
might sound generous, until you realize that it is in the form of patches of
land, disconnected and surrounded by Israeli military.  Is this (and is Israel)
fair?  Especially after the Palestinians have relinquished their rights to 78%
of historic Palestine, and accepted to negotiate only over 22% of that, that
Gaza and the W. Bank are.  Why doesn't Israel want to give ALL of WB and Gaza
back?  Worse yet, why does Israel want to lock Palestinians in reservations of
land, disconnected, weak and economically dependent on Israel?  Is this
freedom??  If you were a palestinian would you accept such "peace"? 

I didn't think so.

Sam

If Goldstein's in "heaven", I pray that "hell" will be my resting place.
Sam

Read this page for responses to almost the same, over and over and over,
feedback as yours.  It is NOT Judaism that I have compared with Nazism;
rather, it is Israel's behavior toward the Palestinian.

Sam

Read this page for responses to almost the same, over and over and over,
feedback as yours.  The situation in the Middle East is NOT complex, and
the solution is rather easy: IMPLEMENT INTERNATIONAL LAW (res 242 and 194).
Voila.

Sam

Thank you Samy for your kind words.  --Sam

Ditto... only replace stones, kinves and fire bombs with tanks, missile,
and helocopter gun-ship.  --Sam

Thank you Soha.  --Sam

No one knows whether Arad is dead or alive.  Regardless, would Israel release
an Arab pilot who was captured in similar circumstances?  As for the three
soldiers, Israel keeps in its jails, locked for long years, about 20 Lebanese
hostages -- called "bargaining chips" in Israel's lingo.  Why is Israel not
releasing them, or even using them as "bargaining chips"?  

Also, read this page for responses to almost the same, over and over and over,
feedback as yours 

Sam

Israel's inhumanity is the main disgrace I see in this site.  Maybe
it is Israel that should be "shut down" -- or perhaps, be forced to
abide by international and human right laws for a change.

Sam

On the surface, you express a legitimate concern.  Unfortunately, below
the surface there lies in your argument an unfamiliarity with the crux of the
whole conflict.  This is reflected in an underlying assumption throughout your
argument, that happens to be badly distorted.  There seems to be an equating of
guilt and violence on both sides, rather than a more accurate "victim versus a
victimzer" and "cause and effect" formulation.  How would you feel if I tell you
that, apart from scale, "Both Jews and Nazis were guilty during WWII"?  That's
how I feel when you tell me that "both" parties here are (equally, more or less)
guilty.  I am further assured of your only-high-level familiarity with this
topic when I see you describe the conflict
as being done "in the name of religion".  Religion is one small component
exploited by supporters of the victimizers.

The magnitude of the condemnation I have for the Zionists on my site (in the
form of legitimate mostly mainstream media articles) that have bothered you,
is fully in line with the magnitude of the crime the Zionists have committed.
If you disagree, then you don't really know about the magnitude of their crime.
Even their ideology --Zionism, or an exclusively Jewish state, on a land that
has a majority of non-Jews-- should indicate to you what those bothersome
and terrorist Palestinians are complaining about.

First, everything on this site is true, and many of it from main-stream media.
The difference between this and Zionist propaganda, is that one, the Zionists',
is made on behalf of the victimizer, while the other, mine, is made on behalf
of the victim.  Of that I am proud.  The Western mainstream media has done an
evil thing, presenting the propaganda of the victimizer, while giving little
chance to the victim to balance, which is why the truth is criminally distorted
in people's minds.  My site is a minuscule contribution in an effort to balance
the endless victimizer propaganda.  In other words, I consider myself the
victim's lawyer, if you will, trying to articulate his case. Thus, I don't see
a need to help the victimizer, when his lawyer gets all the air-time and
press-space s/he needs to make, inflate, exaggerate and distort his case, while
only an extremely limited time is allowed the victim's lawyer?  Couple that
with the terror that the vicitim's lawyer faces, in an attempt to silence his
defense, at the hands of supporters of the vicitimzers.

As to suggesting a solution: You obviously have not read the mission statement!
There, it is clearly stated that the solution, in few words, boils down to
the implementation of international law, which Oslo seems to have annulled.
In few words: "IMPLEMENT RESOLUTION 242 AND 194". The first calls on Israel
to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza, the second calls on Israel to allow
Palestinian refugees it expelled/made to flee, to return.  It is that simple.
Implementing it, with a belligerent, hostile and militarily powerful Israel,
is another matter. ONLY the US, who has shielded Israel from international law
for decades, and has armed it to the teeth, has the power to make Israel
implement international law.

As long as the Zionists continue to colonize, terrorize and dehumanize the
Palestinians, I will keep on informing the world about it.  This is going on
everyday while Palestinian leaders talk "peace" with the Israelis.  Behind the
screen Israeli buldozers are "quietly" demolishing Palestinian homes, making new
"Jews-only" highways, expanding settlement colonies, while the world sleeps.

Nothing justifies terrorism.  However, the truth is had *some* Palestinians
not done their horrible 1970s terrorism, it is possible that you
would not know who they were, and they would end as "just another crushed
people like the Kurds".  Sad, but