more on arabs and jews
Apr. 10th, 2002 05:50 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pluralthis letter was posted in ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
raynbo111´s journal
while it mostly provides one point of view
i felt that it was incredibly well stated
so i thought i would share it
After the murders of more than 40 innocent Jews in the course of a holiday week, why is it so important for the media to worry about Yassir Arafat's welfare?
Everybody speaks about negotiation with the Palestinians, yet the cause that fellow terrorist, Osama Bin Laden, was espousing was never heard by the American public simply because no one demanded that Bin Laden have a voice.
He eliminated his right to a viewpoint by employing a brutal and criminal terrorist act as his method of discussion. Such acts, by international agreement, render the entity responsible for them as a non-participant in a reasonable discussion. Yet we allow President Arafat, who is using exactly the same means, the same voice as if he is a Statesman and a leader even though he has done no greater good for the Palestinian people than Bin Laden did for the cause of Islam.
In Israel, since the intifada, more than 400 Israelis have been killed, not in war, but as innocent bystanders in a series of terrorist bombings and murders that include attendees at bar mitzvahs, Passover seders, nightclubs, restaurants, coffee shops and supermarkets. This would be equivalent to 20,000 Americans murdered under the same circumstances. Would the United States sit back and allow another nation to enter its borders and, with impunity, kill its citizens? The answer is obviously no. Clearly after losing a mere 3,000 citizens in two cities we completely annihilated the country that housed the terrorists. This country was not even technically responsible for the terrorism.
Israel's military action in Ramallah continues for the sole purpose of the protection of Israeli citizens. There is absolutely no economic incentive for Israel to remain in these areas nor to continue a globally televised war while the economically vital tourism industry is already at an all-time low. There is no nation, including all the Arab nations, that can or will tolerate continued terrorist activity within its own borders. The fact that Israel is expected to tolerate it and even negotiate by giving away land for an elusive peace which Arafat has repeatedly violated, most recently last week, is unprecedented. One alternative is to handle it the way Jordan solved their terrorist problem. They simply annihilated the terrorist's entire family.
The difference between the reporting on the Arabs and the reporting on the Israelis is that a claim of "equality of cause" is made without any hesitation or substantiation. There is a haste to condemn the Israelis and to commiserate with the Palestinians.
The actions of the Palestinians for their cause has provoked the only reasonable response a country can pursue, which is to curtail and prevent the activities that allow terrorist cells to prevail and flourish.
Looking at the facts in an unbiased fashion would show that Israel is demonstrating remarkable restraint given its military might, and using every means possible to prevent an escalation of violence. Israel's mission is clear: as soon as terrorist activity ceases, they will remove their troops. It is equally clear that the Palestinians have no intention of ceasing terrorist activity. Therefore, Israel is condemned to the ridicule of the world while trying to protect her own citizens.
In fact, part of the original peace agreement, and the reason that Israel provided arms and training to the Palestinian police force, was to do exactly what Israel is being forced to do now. This is exactly what Arafat agreed to because he concurred with Israel that these activities were not conducive to developing a peace plan that would lead to nationhood for the Palestinian people.
Since the start of the peace process, Israel and the Palestinians agreed that terrorists would have to be rooted out and imprisoned in order to provide Israel with the security necessary to continue in the process.
Arafat has failed miserably on his side to perform this function. In fact, there is ample evidence to suggest that Arafat never had any intention of fulfilling these promises towards peace.
It is well documented that Arab children, the future citizens of a Palestinian State, continued to be taught in classrooms, textbooks and on Palestinian TV that martyrdom in the cause of killing Jews and returning Israel to Palestine is the highest honor and the sole purpose of any agreement being made with Israel. The toppling of Israel, a basic tenet of the PLO mission statement, was never revised as was promised, and terrorist training camps proliferated.
Israel has always negotiated with an eye towards a livable peace, whereas Palestinians have always negotiated with an eye towards eventual elimination of Israel's presence from Palestine. With this in mind, one can only conclude that any Palestinian state that formed through a peace agreement would only exist as a foothold to the eventual re-conquering of Israel as Palestine.
When reporters continually fail to be appalled by the viciousness of Palestinian terrorism, their casual reporting betrays a racist bias. But this time its not against Israel, it's against the Arabs, by clearly failing to hold Palestinians to the same moral standards that are expected of the Israelis. By taking the stand that the acts of the Palestinians and Israelis are morally equivalent, journalists are essentially agreeing with the Arab viewpoint and de-legitimizing Israel's right to exist.
Michael B. Heller
Howard P. Reichman
raynbo111´s journalwhile it mostly provides one point of view
i felt that it was incredibly well stated
so i thought i would share it
After the murders of more than 40 innocent Jews in the course of a holiday week, why is it so important for the media to worry about Yassir Arafat's welfare?
Everybody speaks about negotiation with the Palestinians, yet the cause that fellow terrorist, Osama Bin Laden, was espousing was never heard by the American public simply because no one demanded that Bin Laden have a voice.
He eliminated his right to a viewpoint by employing a brutal and criminal terrorist act as his method of discussion. Such acts, by international agreement, render the entity responsible for them as a non-participant in a reasonable discussion. Yet we allow President Arafat, who is using exactly the same means, the same voice as if he is a Statesman and a leader even though he has done no greater good for the Palestinian people than Bin Laden did for the cause of Islam.
In Israel, since the intifada, more than 400 Israelis have been killed, not in war, but as innocent bystanders in a series of terrorist bombings and murders that include attendees at bar mitzvahs, Passover seders, nightclubs, restaurants, coffee shops and supermarkets. This would be equivalent to 20,000 Americans murdered under the same circumstances. Would the United States sit back and allow another nation to enter its borders and, with impunity, kill its citizens? The answer is obviously no. Clearly after losing a mere 3,000 citizens in two cities we completely annihilated the country that housed the terrorists. This country was not even technically responsible for the terrorism.
Israel's military action in Ramallah continues for the sole purpose of the protection of Israeli citizens. There is absolutely no economic incentive for Israel to remain in these areas nor to continue a globally televised war while the economically vital tourism industry is already at an all-time low. There is no nation, including all the Arab nations, that can or will tolerate continued terrorist activity within its own borders. The fact that Israel is expected to tolerate it and even negotiate by giving away land for an elusive peace which Arafat has repeatedly violated, most recently last week, is unprecedented. One alternative is to handle it the way Jordan solved their terrorist problem. They simply annihilated the terrorist's entire family.
The difference between the reporting on the Arabs and the reporting on the Israelis is that a claim of "equality of cause" is made without any hesitation or substantiation. There is a haste to condemn the Israelis and to commiserate with the Palestinians.
The actions of the Palestinians for their cause has provoked the only reasonable response a country can pursue, which is to curtail and prevent the activities that allow terrorist cells to prevail and flourish.
Looking at the facts in an unbiased fashion would show that Israel is demonstrating remarkable restraint given its military might, and using every means possible to prevent an escalation of violence. Israel's mission is clear: as soon as terrorist activity ceases, they will remove their troops. It is equally clear that the Palestinians have no intention of ceasing terrorist activity. Therefore, Israel is condemned to the ridicule of the world while trying to protect her own citizens.
In fact, part of the original peace agreement, and the reason that Israel provided arms and training to the Palestinian police force, was to do exactly what Israel is being forced to do now. This is exactly what Arafat agreed to because he concurred with Israel that these activities were not conducive to developing a peace plan that would lead to nationhood for the Palestinian people.
Since the start of the peace process, Israel and the Palestinians agreed that terrorists would have to be rooted out and imprisoned in order to provide Israel with the security necessary to continue in the process.
Arafat has failed miserably on his side to perform this function. In fact, there is ample evidence to suggest that Arafat never had any intention of fulfilling these promises towards peace.
It is well documented that Arab children, the future citizens of a Palestinian State, continued to be taught in classrooms, textbooks and on Palestinian TV that martyrdom in the cause of killing Jews and returning Israel to Palestine is the highest honor and the sole purpose of any agreement being made with Israel. The toppling of Israel, a basic tenet of the PLO mission statement, was never revised as was promised, and terrorist training camps proliferated.
Israel has always negotiated with an eye towards a livable peace, whereas Palestinians have always negotiated with an eye towards eventual elimination of Israel's presence from Palestine. With this in mind, one can only conclude that any Palestinian state that formed through a peace agreement would only exist as a foothold to the eventual re-conquering of Israel as Palestine.
When reporters continually fail to be appalled by the viciousness of Palestinian terrorism, their casual reporting betrays a racist bias. But this time its not against Israel, it's against the Arabs, by clearly failing to hold Palestinians to the same moral standards that are expected of the Israelis. By taking the stand that the acts of the Palestinians and Israelis are morally equivalent, journalists are essentially agreeing with the Arab viewpoint and de-legitimizing Israel's right to exist.
Michael B. Heller
Howard P. Reichman
