terrorist of freedom fighter?

So this question frequently comes up (at least for me) since I live in an environment almost as biased toward Israel as Israel itself- maybe more- and I have very different feelings about the matter, having read a bit about the history and causes of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

I was listening to the radio (podcast, since I'm hopelessly behind on my daily news fix) - an interfaith marriage piece about a Catholic and a Jew. I enjoyed it for the most part, but when the Catholic described her spouse's parent as a Jewish "pioneer" in Palestine, it struck me as odd. I mean, this person was probably a part of the gangs that, using weapons supplied by Jewish groups all over the world, massacred and cleaned out entire villages of its Palestinian residents and chased many of the rest out on the fear of such atrocities. If this Jewish pioneer wasn't in that group, he or she was almost certainly in the group that walked into (and took/stole as their own) houses that had been vacated only days, weeks or months before with shelves stocked with food and dishes still on the table as though their owners just left for a few hours! How could you move into a house that looked like someone had left in a hurry and thought the land had no people (land without people for people without a land myth) and it was ok for you to take it?? You have to have been lied to and been very naive or lying to yourself.

We freely talk of Jewish pioneers and the necessity and fundamental right of Israel's security in this country. When you describe Palestinians fighting for their rights as freedom fighters, people look at you as though you are a terrorist yourself because you have obviously just expressed support for terrorism. There have been many UN resolutions saying Palestinian refugees can go home (after '48), Israel has to stay in the '67 borders, Jerusalem is to be shared. All laws and conventions governing war and human rights say refugees can go home and the Occupying Power can't transfer its population to the territory it occupies, etc. Palestinians had a history of non-violent protest (general strikes, protests, etc) before the suicide bombing years and I'm happy to see a resurgence in the popularity of non-violent protest. I just wonder why it is ok for us to expect that after so much injustice that Palestinians would bow down before and kiss the feet of Israelis and Americans who offer pseudo-states, demilitarized entities and occupation enshrined in law? Why are Jews who wipe out villages of hundreds of people heroes and pioneers and a Palestinian who bombs a pizza parlor is without question a terrorist? Why would we expect Palestinians to lay down arms in the face of oppression and injustice when Americans fought the British over the same things? In a few short weeks we'll be celebrating this very thing!

I guess it boils down to the fact that the winner writes history (but I ask, should it?). Look at our Thanksgiving story. In school, we're basically taught through pictures and activities and such that pilgrims and indians sat at a giant picnic table with a cornucopia and a table crammed with food. Everyone ate, talked and had a blast. They taught us about growing corn and gave us seeds. We taught them how to wear our more civilized pilgrim outfits. And we all lived happily ever after. This is the story the winners write to make ourselves feel better. And then there is the truth of the matter...

And so all these thoughts from one sentence. Welcome to my world! :)

New book- 'suicide terrorism due to occupation'. Go figure. And Israel's child abuse.

Wow. Accounts of Israel electrocuting children and threatening them with rape. Some people can't fathom why people would commit a suicide bombing. I'd submit that it could start there. I mean, when you're brutalized (beaten, threatened with rape, family's home vandalized, etc) by a foreign military power from the age of 12 for waving or throwing stones or walking down the "wrong road," one could easily get a sense that there will be no hope and no justice. Ever. Doe this treatment automatically get better when they turn 18? No, it's worse. Since they're adults, Israel can get away with some degree of mistreatment. They get away with it for the kids, so one can only imagine what happens to adults.

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2010/10/israel-shooting-and-electric-shocking.html


*** *** ***

And on a related note, here is a guy who now has evidence for the theory I bought into ("It's The Occupation, Stupid" as the saying goes) rather than the "Muslims want to kill us all" explanation for terrorism.

Understanding Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It
NPR, Talk of the Nation, October 11, 2010
http://news.wvpubcast.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=130492404

(More) Settler Terrorism

There was an attack on a mosque in Harawa, West Bank April 14 by settlers. This one was just graffiti and some reports describe a burning car as well.

Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me. That’s how the saying goes, but in this case it is accompanied by violent acts by people who mean to terrorize and hurt others. The words (slogans, racist graffiti, etc) take on a bit more life and significance. The latest graffiti at a West Bank mosque was preceded by more burning cars, 300 uprooted olive trees and shooting at a shop. This is the point when freedom of speech and words one can ignore cross the line into viable threats and cause for action.

What will happen to these guilty settlers? And if Israelis fail to act or set the guilty free, will it be appropriate for the rest of the world to flag all settlers or all Israelis or all Jews as threats? Will it be appropriate for Palestinian security officials to assassinate the guilty parties or kidnap, imprison and interrogate them and those who know them indefinitely? No, it’s not appropriate, but that’s what happens to Palestinians.



December 2009 mosque arson:
http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2010/01/hebrew-slogans-and-another-reason.html


April 2010 mosque attack:
Vandals Attack West Bank Mosque
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/vandals-attack-west-bank-mosque/

“…the attack was the second on the village this week. He said that settlers has set another car on fire and shot at a shop on Monday.”

Mon-Tue
No-one saw, no-one heard: 300 Palestinian olive trees uprooted
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1163243.html


Tue-Wed
Jewish settlers suspected in West Bank mosque attack
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8619741.stm

*two burning cars, mosque graffiti

Israeli soldiers showed up after the attack and erased the graffiti. They prevented journalists from taking photographs until they completed the cleanup.

quote from http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2010/04/14/105843.html



Is this to destroy evidence and protect settlers or are they doing Palestinians a favor?


“Price tag” again shows up as racist graffiti this time as it did in December '09. It has been described in the news so far as a “policy” as far as I have seen. Some would call such a policy of retaliating on innocent people for the actions of your own government for merely threatening to crack down on your illegal state of being (settlements) crazy, unjust, unfair, illegal, criminal, TERRORISM, but to most it remains a mere policy.

***I wonder if they are "reacting" to the Israeli human rights organization who condemned Israel for trying to push through a rather old measure that would make all West Bank residents illegal aliens and able to be "deported" elsewhere. They could be "reacting" to Obama's strong words (in the absence of actions), especially if the Israeli public seems swayed by them against settlements. "Reacting" is settlers' interpretation.

I haven't been able to find a description of what was written in the April 2010 attack that constitutes racist graffiti, but there are examples here if you are at a loss as for what to expect:

Dec 2009 arson:
http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2010/01/hebrew-slogans-and-another-reason.html

IDF T-shirt (March 2009):
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072466.html
http://www.khabrein.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21080&Itemid=57
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7960071.stm

IDF graffiti (March 2009):
http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/campaigns/english/aftermath/5.html
"...soldiers left behind dozens of bags of faeces in the bedrooms, despite the presence of a functioning toilet, and left crude sexual diagrams on the walls. "
"Death will find you soon”
Have you ever wondered what hell looks like? Well… look around you -----! Ha ha ha”
“Die you all”, “Make war not peace”, “Arabs need to die”, a gravestone engraved with the words “Arabs 1948-2009”
“There will be a day when we kill all the Arabs”
“Bad for the Arabs is good for me”
“A good Arab is an Arab in the grave”
“Peace now, but between Jews and Jews, not Jews and Arabs”

more on T-shirts:
http://norabf.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/dead-palestinian-babies-and-bombed-mosques-idf-israeli-destruction-forces-fashion-2009/

http://www.kuna.net.kw/NewsAgenciesPublicSite//ArticleDetails.aspx?id=1984651&Language=en

"Hebrew slogans" and another reason settlements should be razed

Maybe not razed- if they want one secular democratic state where all Jews and all Palestinians everywhere are welcome and have equal rights...


I read a BBC article and they referred to "slogans" written by students (more accurate= suspected terrorists). I mean ynetnews even recognized them as slurs.

The BBC is usually pretty good and brings out points critical of Israel where the US media fails miserably. For example, in many stories, this appears at the end:

"All settlements in the the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this."

This time the BBC was way off.


Anyway- the slogans.

One was "We will burn all of you." A slogan? Really? If this slur is in fact a slogan or mantra, then they've got a terrorist cell on their hands and heads need to roll.

When Palestinians- or anyone for that matter, says these types of things, we call them threats or worse. When accompanied by an attack, such as the arson here, it's attempted murder, except in this case.

I'll go along with "Price Tag" being a slogan (grafitti also defacing the building). Taking into account what it means, though, I'm going to have to go with slur or threat:

"Price tag" is the slogan adopted some months ago by extremist settlers who carry out reprisals against Palestinians in response to the evacuation of settlement structures by Israeli defense forces.

"Rabbi Shapira published a controversial book last year which includes discussion of interpretations of the circumstances under which Jewish law permits Jews to kill non-Jews."

"The rabbi has been condemned for writing a book called "The King's Torah" that says it is permissible to kill non-Jewish children if they pose a threat or as a deterrent for the future. It states that only a Jew who kills a Jew violates the commandment against murder."

Hmmm. Now what do we think of and do with Muslims who teach (or support those who teach*) this type of thing? I probably don't need to tell you.
*=seminary students and a Knesset member were protesting for his release

He refused to cooperate and is suspected of withholding information. He's getting off pretty easy. Ask a Palestinian what happens when they are suspected of knowing anything about a person they suspect might become a suspect. Ask a police officer what they think of someone who refuses to cooperate. I'm guessing they think that is a sign of guilt. Not, here, though.

What are they doing with this guy? Releasing him, of course! If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it must be a cow. Now at least they can say they "looked into it" and we in the US can feel good again about our support for normal life and natural growth in illegal settlements.

Fort Hood shooting

Some links about the story. I tried to get some differing opitions. You can take your pick or read them all and compare.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/link_in_ft_hood_slay_spree_DxTQPcEWvdr8WBocxSgNUI

And another whopper from NY Post:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/fort_hood_xjP9yGrJN7gl7zdsJ31vnJ
Under reasons Hasan should be considered a terrorist in the article:
*loudly criticizes US policies; (ouch!, I guess I'm a terrorist)
*refuses, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female colleagues;
*lists his nationality as "Palestinian" in a Muslim spouse-matching program,

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/12/same_old_same_old_at_fort_hood_99125.html

http://wamu.org/programs/dr/09/11/10.php#29141

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/9/when_the_war_comes_homes_iraq


I know everyone’s going to think I’m calling Hasan a v
ictim, sympathizing with terrorists, or worse. I just want to say up front that I don’t condone what he did, it was wrong and there should be consequences. That being said (lest I be accused of supporting terrorism, along with Muslims who don't say that every time they open their mouth), I think there are other things that need to be addressed. I'm not dismissing the radical imam link, but that doesn't appear to be as strong as Lieberman wants it to be and there are so many things at play in these types of situations.

I’ve heard a lot of people on the radio and internet complaining that looking at all of the facts and asking why is too PC, that the media, Dr. Phil and Obama are protecting Hasan as a victim, this proves Obama’s a Muslim, just call Hasan what he is, a terrorist, and be done with it already. I have to say something. I'm so tired of this garbage. It's ridiculous.

The facts may still show that his contact with the radical imam was a factor, I’m not saying we should discount that, but there is a huge difference (with consequences) between assuming this and determining this without assumption and by the facts alone. It’s just dumb to focus on the imam (which is far from a smoking gun if I have heard correctly) when there are so many other things to consider.

Many have focused on Hasan’s nationality and religion. They aren’t waiting to see what the contact with the radical imam amounted to, if his religion played any role, if stress and or mental problems played a role- he is Muslim, so that’s why he did it.

Maybe this puts people’s mind at ease. Maybe it helps them deal with the endless questions a tragedy of this sort produces. I think it does far more harm than good.

The most obvious repercussion is backlash to the Muslim community with knee jerk reactions and assumptions such as these. The 'Muslim therefore guilty' mentality is sure to convict the entire Muslim and Arab community and produce irrational questioning of Arab and Muslim Americans’ loyalty. I have already heard people advocating banning Muslims from service. My favorite crime shows always talk about following the evidence. I don’t know that this is reality in the real world of law enforcement; I have no experience there, but I like that. I suppose that’s why I am drawn to science myself- you might have prejudices or ideas, but you don't publish everything you're thinking when you begin the project (before you have done teh experiments) as fact, you publish when you can prove it. The media and general population certainly don’t always check prejudice at the door and just follow the facts when black/white racism or Islam/Christianity or other vs. Arab domestic terrorism is involved.

There is another danger with this line of thinking that may be less apparent or counter intuitive. To close the book at terrorism as the root cause does a huge disservice to our soldiers and “supporters”, though many who actively “support our troops” with banners, bumper stickers, and Facebook groups seem to be more than ready, even eager, to do this. Obama did it himself. He said in his remarks that no faith justifies these acts- as though it had already been determined that he was connected to Al-Qaeda and was being tried for terrorism.

The armed forces are great at breaking people down and building them up into lean mean fighting machines, but so very bad at rehabilitating these men who have endured so much, seen death, caused death, etc on a daily basis. They are thrust back into peaceful society and many aren’t equipped to deal with it. The suicide rate, divorce, domestic violence is higher among soldiers. I have heard reports of the people assigned to “help” these soldiers suffering from PTSD and other disorders relating to their military experience tell them to go kill more terrorists, rather than actually provide medical or other therapy they need. I hope things have improved since I heard that a few years ago. In order to take care of the soldiers and truly support the troops, we need to look at the facts and not just say he’s Muslim, it was terrorism, let’s move on.

What are these other factors besides terrorism that most (or perhaps just the loudest) people think are insignificant? Case load, hearing everyone’s war stories about killing, getting blown up, maybe listening to bad feelings they have toward Muslims due to the wars, etc. Secondary PTSD, like journalists can get, etc could be a possibility. People are sent to him when they are stressed and disturbed, but who helps him when he is overwhelmed? Those medical professionals should have more evaluations or more care taken with their mental state since they deal with such devastation of the human spirit on a daily basis. There are indications that he was sub par in performance, so perhaps he felt shame in this or couldn’t handle the tasks he was given and maybe this played a role.

In addition to the stress and or PTSD and medical issues he may or may not have had, I can imagine it is hard to be a Muslim in our military, especially post 9/11. A relative verified that he was in fact harassed for being Muslim.

Take the PTSD or hearing broken soldiers’ stories, harassment for being Muslim, and then he has to deal with impending deployment where he may have to kill fellow Muslims. He may have felt there was no way out- some commit suicide; others do violence to others. Maybe he couldn’t get conscientious objector status- it is hard to get, I hear. The military paid for his education, so he may have found himself stuck. He went with his profession because he couldn’t stand the sight of blood, I heard on one report, so perhaps he did what he could as the son of immigrants to get an education, but found himself in conflict with his religion and beliefs with no way out.

I just think it is too simple and possibly bigoted to assume that he’s Muslim, therefore he’s guilty, case closed. In cases like the VT shooting, school shootings, suicides there are always so many variables, angles, and perspectives to consider. There are most certainly always unanswered questions. Maybe calling the guy a terrorist serves as closure for some, but I think it is detrimental to many to draw that conclusion without considering the facts.

Free speech ?

No such thing. Guess it was only a matter of time, really. Perhaps I had way too much faith in people.