----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hätilässä. PsJääkäreitä. Ihan kuin me, mutta käytettiin Bmp rynnökkövaunuja, joista mun mielestä pääsi nopeammin ulos, tosin mitään "ala-luukkuja" ei ollut. Noissa Leopardeissa ole kuin isompi tykki, mutta ne ovat hitaampia ja muutenkin ylhintaisia paskoja olis mieluummin ostanu ryssiltä Bmp3:sia eikä saku Leopardeja. Eiköhän se jo sodassa nähty kumman vaunut jyräs Berliiniin?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hah hah haaa... Vitun pellet pyörähti pois edestä. Me jouduttiin makaamaan siinä niin, että tankki ajoi yli. Eikä tuntunu kivalta kun tetsarit rahisi pohjaa vasten. Jos tuossa on Suomen puolustajat niin en paljoa laita arvoa heille. PELLET! Ai olikin viestimiehiä, no kyllähän sen sitten ymmärtää.  Viestimiehiä sanottiinkin ennen "wireless" aikaa yleisemmin KELAPERSEIKSI tai MIKKIHIIRIKSI, joka kuvaa niiden rohkeutta hyvin.

Tulkaa 1.PsJK:hon katsomaan miten tankkipelko poistuu. Toinen oli, että kaivettiin potero ja oltiin siellä ja tankki ajeli edestakaisin päällä, koska niinhän ne tekee sodassakin. Helpompaa se nyt oli kun se kun poteron päälle heitettiin pari havua ja napalmia ja sitten piti tulla ulos sieltä. Siis ihan piece of cake

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jes. löytyhän se. Siis näin me se tehtiin vuonna 1995. Alle vain menee PSjääkäri. Viestimiesvässykkä ei USKALLA, Vittu mikä pelle! PsJ heittää ryssätankkia vaikka kasapanoksella jos käsky käy. Ei olla mitään leikkisotilaita kuten viestimiehet.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Kato löyty sieltä vielä Bmp-2 tankilla ampumista 20 sek. Ampumisen loppumisen jälkeen välittömästi jääkärit sitten jalkautuu ulos ja juoksee sinne mihin on ammuttu tappaen henkiin jääneet viholliset. Tässä on vain ampuminen, mutta hyvän kuvan kyllä saa.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vanha 50-luvun ryssävaunu ajaa, mutta mä olen saatana ryöminy täyspakkauksen ja tellun kanssa ton "lentokentäksi" kutsutun aukean 10 kertaa ympäri ja päästä päähän PUTKEEN ja vielä sateessaa. 6 tuntia meni, tehkää perässä.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, edes pari autoa saadaan paskaks leopardeilla.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Selaimessa toimiva versio  Paskapropagandaa. Tuolla pitäs ite olla tapettavana.

---------------------------------------

EI liian tarkka video, mutta tasan sellanen vaunu, jossa itekkin oltiin ja tie on tuttu. JA EI TASAN ole HELPPOA pysyä kyydissä tuossa.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Tämä näyttää vähän enemmän siltä, miltä pitääkin. Monet vegaanipaskapasifistit luulee, että meillä ei ole tulivoimaa niin katsokaa vaikka tästä

---------------------------------------

Tässä o hippivegaaneille Raptori ja Armeija:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sitten tulee hyvä ja vika. Tää kuvaa aika pitkälle sitä mitä itsekkin tehtiin. Ajettiin vaunujen vitun ahtaissa sisätiloissa ja välillä juostiin ulos tuhoamaan kaikki, mitä tankit ei kyenneet singoilla ja rynkyillä. Ammuin kaverinkin melkein vahingossa siinä kun oli kovat piipussa ja haudassa. Piippu puristi sen selkää, sormi oli liipasimella ja varmistin pois. Aivastanu kun olis ne sen kaverin elämä olis ollu siinä.

Siltikin vain hippihomot ei mene inttiin!

Kuvaajan oma kommentti:

Unfortunately there isn't much of actual combat footage since a battle is really not the best situation to be filming a vide

MTV3:

Betlehemissä juhlistettiin Jeesuksen syntymäjuhlaa

Betlehemin juhlallisuuksissa oli mukana myös palestiinalaisten presidentti Mahmud Abbas. Muslimi Abbas halusi ilmaista toiveensa rauhasta Lähi-idässä.

Tuhannet ihmiset ovat viettäneet jouluaaton juhlallisuuksia Jeesuksen syntymäkaupungissa Betlehemissä Länsirannalla. Juhlakansaan kuului niin paikallisia asukkaita, kristittyjä arabeja naapurivaltio Israelista sekä jokunen turisti.

Betlehemin asukkaat esittävät vuosittain perinteisiä joulun tapahtumia. Palestiinalaiset lapset muun muassa marssivat kaduilla, soittivat rumpuja ja säkkipillejä. Keskiyön messu keräsi myös satoja ihmisiä.

Betlehemin juhlallisuuksissa oli mukana myös palestiinalaisten presidentti Mahmud Abbas. Abbas, joka on muslimi, ilmaisi osallisuudellaan toivoa alueen rauhasta, jonka hän uskoi olevan lähellä tavattuaan toissapäivänä Israelin pääministerin Ehud Olmertin.

Päästäkseen Betlehemin kaupunkiin on ohitettava Israelin rakentama muuri, jolla vartioi poliiseja. Israel on perustellut muurin rakentamista sillä, että palestiinalaiset itsemurhapommittajat eivät pystyisi vahingoittamaan Israelin asukkaita.

Kaupunki on perustettu 1400-luvun lopulla joen varrelle. Nimi tulee vanhasta sillasta tai oikeastaan sen päissä olleista kivipilareista, sillankannattimista. Kaupunki oli aluksi ottomaanien valtakunnan hallintokaupunkina Hertsegovinassa, sittemmin kuului Itävalta-Unkariin. Toisen maailmansodan jälkeen kaupunki jäi osaksi partisaanijohtaja Titon hallitsemaa Jugoslaviaa.

Bosnian sodan taisteluissa kaupungin silta tuhoutui. Se oli yhdistänyt muslimien ja kroaattien valvomat kaupunginosat toisiinsa rauhanomaisesti satojen vuosien ajan. Nykyään on rakennettu uusi silta ja vanha avattiin restauroituna käyttöön kesällä 2004.

Apocalypse Near

By MERAV YUDILOVITCH

[Note from NC: "The Yediot Ahronot interview came out (on Ynet), Aug. 3, but only in Hebrew -- so far at least. What they published was a kind of amalgam of two versions, the second when the asked me to shorten the first by eliminating the part about Iranian nuclear weapons. What they published, for some reason, included the part they asked me to cut and eliminated parts I thought were more important. But worked out OK." The version posted here reproduces the original transcript in full.]

MY: You say the provocation and counter-provocation all serve as a distraction from the real issue. does the war in Lebanon is also a distraction the aims to draw the world's attention to the north of Israel while Gaza is been destroyed?

NC: I assume you are referring to John Berger's letter (which I signed, among others).

The "real issue" that is being ignored is the systematic destruction of any prospects for a viable Palestinian existence as Israel annexes valuable land and major resources (water particularly), leaving the shrinking territories assigned to Palestinians as unviable cantons, largely separated from one another and from whatever little bit of Jerusalem is to be left to Palestinians, and completely imprisoned as Israel takes over the Jordan valley (and of course controls air space, etc.). This program of "hitkansut," cynically disguised as "withdrawal," is of course completely illegal, in violation of Security Council resolutions and the unanimous decision of the World Court (including the dissenting statement of US Justice Buergenthal). If it is implemented as planned, it spells the end of the very broad international consensus on a two-state settlement that the US and Israel have unilaterally blocked for 30 years ­ matters that are so well documented that I do not have to review them here.

The US and Israel do not tolerate any resistance to these plans, preferring to pretend ­ falsely of course ­ that "there is no partner," as they proceed with programs that go back a long way. We may recall that Gaza and the West Bank are recognized to be a unit, so that if resistance to Israel's destructive and illegal progams is considered to be legitimate within the West Bank, then it is legitimate in Gaza as well, in reaction to Israeli actions in the West Bank.

To turn to your specific question, even a casual look at the Western press reveals that the crucial developments in the occupied territories are marginalized even more by the war in Lebanon. The ongoing destruction in Gaza ­ which was rarely seriously reported in the first place -- has largely faded into the background, and the systematic takeover of the West Bank has virtually disappeared. The severe punishment of the population for "voting the wrong way" was never considered problematic, consistent with the long-standing principle that democracy is fine if and only if it accords with strategic and economic interests, documented to the heavens. However, I would not go as far as the implication in your question that this was a purpose of the war, though it clearly is the effect.

MY: Do you see the world media partialy responsible for not insisting of linking between what's going on in the Occupied Territories and Lebanon?

NC: Yes, but that is the least of the charges that should be levelled against the world media, and the intellectual communities generally. One of many far more severe charges is brought up in the opening paragraph of the Berger letter. Recall the facts. On June 25, Cpl. Gilad Shalit was captured at an army post near Gaza, eliciting huge cries of outrage worldwide, continuing daily at a high pitch, and a sharp escalation in Israeli attacks in Gaza. The escalation was supported on the grounds that capture of a soldier is a grave crime for which the population must be punished. One day before, on June 24, Israeli forces kidnapped two Gaza civilians, Osama and Mustafa Muamar, by any standards a far more severe crime than capture of a soldier. The Muamar kidnappings were certainly known to the major world media. They were reported at once in the English-language Israeli press (Jerusalem Post, Ha'aretz English edition, June 25), basically IDF handouts. And there were indeed a few brief, scattered and dismissive reports in several newspapers around the US; the only serious news report in English that day was in the Turkish press. Very revealingly, there was no comment, no follow-up, no call for military or terrorist attacks against Israel. A google search will quickly reveal the relative significance in the West of the kidnapping of civilians by the IDF and the capture of an Israeli soldier a day later.

The paired events, a day apart, demonstrate with bitter clarity that the show of outrage over the Shalit kidnapping was cynical fraud. They reveal that by Western moral standards, kidnapping of civilians is just fine if it is done by "our side," but capture of a soldier on "our side" a day later is a despicable crime that requires severe punishment of the population. As Gideon Levy accurately wrote in Ha'aretz, the IDF kidnapping of civilians the day before the capture of Cpl. Shalit strips away any "legitimate basis for the IDF's operation," and, we may add, any legitimate basis for support for these operations. The same assessment carries over to the July 12 kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers near the Lebanon border, heightened, in this case, by the (null) reaction to the regular Israeli practice for many years of abducting Lebanese and holding many as hostages for long periods, and of course killing many Lebanese. No one ever argued that these crimes justified bombing and shelling of Israel, invasion and destruction of much of the country, or terrorist actions within it. The conclusions are stark, clear, and entirely unambiguous.

All of this is, obviously, of extraordinary importance in the present case, particularly given the dramatic timing. That is, I suppose, why the major media chose to avoid the crucial facts, apart from a very few scattered and dismissive phrases.

Apologists for state crimes claim that the kidnapping of the Gaza civilians is justified by IDF claims that they are "Hamas militants" or were planning crimes. By their logic, they should therefore be lauding the capture of Gilad Shalit, a soldier in an army that was (uncontroversially) shelling and bombing Gaza. These performances are truly disgraceful.

MY: You're talking first and foremost about acknowledging the Palestinian nation but will it solve the "iranian threat" will it push the Hizbullah from the Israeli boarder? today Israelis see an imediate danger in the northern front are we being blinded?

NC: Virtually all informed observers agree that a fair and equitable resolution of the plight of the Palestinians would considerably weaken the anger and hatred towards Israel and the US in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Such an agreement is surely within reach, if the US and Israel depart from their long-standing rejectionism. Before they were called off prematurely by Ehud Barak, the Taba negotiations of January 2001 were coming close to a viable settlement, carried forward by subseqnent negotiations, most prominently the Geneva Accord released on December 2002, which received strong international support but was dismissed by the US and rejected by Israel. One can raise various criticisms of these proposals, but they are at least a basis, perhaps a solid basis, for progress towards peaceful settlement ­ if the US and Israel sharply reverse their rejectionist policies.

On Iran and Hizbollah, there is, of course, much more to say, and I can only mention a few central points here.

Let us begin with Iran. In 2003, Iran offered to negotiate all outstanding issues with the US, including nuclear issues and a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. The offer was made by the moderate Khatami government, with the support of the hard-line "supreme leader" Ayatollah Khamenei. The Bush administration response was to censure the Swiss diplomat who brought the offer.

In June 2006, Khamenei issued an official declaration stating that Iran agrees with the Arab countries on the issue of Palestine, meaning that it accepts the 2002 Arab League call for full normalization of relations with Israel in a two-state settlement in accord with the international consensus. The timing suggests that this might have been a reprimand to his subordinate Ahmadenijad, whose inflammatory statements are given wide publicity in the West, unlike the far more important declaration by his superior Khamenei. Just a few days ago, former Iranian diplomat Saddagh Kharazzi "reaffirmed that Iran would back a two-state solution if the Palestinians accepted" (Financial Times, July 26, 2006). Of course, the PLO has officially backed a two-state solution for many years, and backed the 2002 Arab League proposal. Hamas has also indicated its willingness to negotiate a two-state settlement, as is surely well-known in Israel. Kharazzi is reported to be the author of the 2003 proposal of Khatami and Khamanei.

The US and Israel do not want to hear any of this. They prefer to hear that Iran "is sworn to the destruction of the Jewish state" (Jerusalem correspondent Charles Radin, Boston Globe, 2 August), the standard and more convenient story.

They also do not want to hear that Iran appears to be the only country to have accepted the proposal by IAEA director Mohammed ElBaradei that all weapons-usable fissile materials be placed under international control, a step towards a verifiable Fissile Materials Cutoff Treaty (FMCT), as mandated by the UN General Assembly in 1993. ElBaradei's proposal, if implemented, would not only end the Iranian nuclear crisis but would also deal with a vastly more serious crisis: the growing threat of nuclear war, which leads prominent strategic analysts to warn of "apocalypse soon" (Robert McNamara) if policies continue on their current course. The US strongly opposes a verifiable FMCT, but over US objections, the treaty came to a vote at the United Nations, where it passed 147-1, with two abstentions: Israel, which cannot oppose its patron, and more interestingly, Blair's Britain, which retains a degree of sovereignty. The British ambassador stated that Britain supports the treaty, but it "divides the international community" ­ 147 to 1. These again are matters that are virtually suppressed outside of specialist circles, and are matters of literal survival of the species, extending far beyond Iran.

It is commonly said that the "international community" has called on Iran to abandon its legal right to enrich uranium. That is true, if we define the "international community" as Washington and whoever happens to go along with it. It is surely not true of the world. The non-aligned countries have forcefully endorsed Iran's "inalienable right" to enrich uranium. And, rather remarkably, in Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, a majority of the population favor accepting a nuclear-armed Iran over any American military action, international polls reveal.

The non-aligned countries also called for a nuclear-free Middle East, a longstanding demand of the authentic international community, again blocked by the US and Israel. It should be recognized that the threat of Israeli nuclear weapons is taken very seriously in the world. As explained by the former Commander-in-Chief of the US Strategic Command, General Lee Butler, "it is dangerous in the extreme that in the cauldron of animosities that we call the Middle East, one nation has armed itself, ostensibly, with stockpiles of nuclear weapons, perhaps numbering in the hundreds, and that inspires other nations to do so." Israel is doing itself no favors if it ignores these concerns.

It is also of some interest that when Iran was ruled by the tryant installed by a US-UK military coup, the United States ­ including Rumsfeld, Cheney, Kissinger, Wolfowitz and others -- strongly supported the Iranian nuclear programs they now condemn and helped provide Iran with the means to pursue them. These facts are surely not lost on the Iranians, just as they have not forgotten the very strong support of the US and its allies for Saddam Hussein during his murderous aggression, including help in developing the chemical weapons that helped kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians.

There is a great deal more to say, but it appears that the "Iranian threat" to which you refer can be approached by peaceful means, if the US and Israel would agree. We cannot know whether the Iranian proposals are serious, unless they are explored. The US-Israel refusal to explore them, and the silence of the US (and, to my knowledge, European) media, suggests that it is perhaps feared that they may be serious.

I should add that to the outside world, it sounds a bit odd, to put it mildly, for the US and Israel to be warning of the "Iranian threat" when they and they alone are issuing threats to launch an attack, threats that are immediate and credible, and in serious violation of international law; and are preparing very openly for such an attack. Whatever one thinks of Iran, no such charge can be made in their case. It is also apparent to the world, if not to the US and Israel, that Iran has not invaded any other countries, something that the US and Israel have done regularly.

On Hezbollah too, there are hard and serious questions. As well-known, Hezbollah was formed in reaction to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and its harsh and brutal occupation in violation of Security Council orders. It won considerable prestige by playing the leading role in driving out the aggressors. Also, like other Islamic movements, including Hamas, it has gained popular support by providing social services to the poor. Along with Amal, now its close ally, Hizbollah represents the Shi'a community in the parliament in Lebanon's confessional system. It is an integral part of Lebanese society. And much as in the past, US-backed Israeli violence is sharply increasing popular support for Hezbollah, not only in the Arab and Muslim worlds generally, but also in Lebanon itself. Polls taken in late July reveal that "87 percent of Lebanese support Hizbullah's fight with Israel, a rise of 29 percent on a similar poll conducted in February. More striking, however, is the level of support for Hizbullah's resistance from non-Shiite communities. Eighty percent of Christians polled supported Hizbullah along with 80 percent of Druze and 89 percent of Sunnis. Lebanese no longer blame Hizbullah for sparking the war by kidnapping the Israeli soldiers, but Israel and the US instead" (Christian Science Monitor, July 28). As often in the past, Israel is doing itself no favors by failing to attend to the predictable consequences of its resort to extreme violence instead of such measures as prisoner exchange, as in the past.

It is also not wise to ignore the recent observations of Zeev Maoz (Ha'aretz, July 24). As he wrote, the "wall-to-wall consensus in Israel that the war against the Hezbollah in Lebanon is a just and moral waris based on selective and short-term memory, on an introverted world view, and on double standards." The reasons include the Israeli practice of kidnapping and the almost daily violations of the Lebanese border for surveillance: "a border violation is a border violation." The reasons also include the historical record: the four earlier Israeli invasions since 1978, and their grim consequences for Lebanese. And we should also not forget the pretexts. The 1982 invasion was carried out after a year in which Israel repeatedly carried out bombing and other provocations in Lebanon, apparently trying to elicit some PLO violation of the 1981 truce, and when it failed, attacked anyway, on the pretext of the assassination attempt against Ambassador Argov (by Abu Nidal, who was at war with the PLO). The invasion was clearly intended, as virtually conceded, to end the embarrassing PLO initiatives for negotiation, a "veritable catastrophe" for Israel as Yehoshua Porat pointed out. It was, as described at the time, a "war for the West Bank." The later invasions also had shameful pretexts. In 1993, Hezbollah had violated "the rules of the game," Yitzhak Rabin announced: these Israeli rules permitted Israel to carry out terrorist attacks north of its illegally-held "security zone," but did not permit retaliation within Israel. Peres's 1996 invasion had no more credible pretexts. It is convenient to forget all of this, or to concoct tales about shelling of the Galilee in 1981, but it is not an attractive practice, nor a wise one.

The problem of Hezbollah's arms is quite serious, no doubt. Resolution 1559 calls for disarming of all Lebanese militias, but Lebanon has not enacted that provision. Sunni Prime Minister Fuad Siniora describes Hezbollah's military wing as "resistance rather than as a militia, and thus exempt from" Resolution 1559. A National Dialogue in June 2006 failed to resolve the problem. Its main purpose was to formulate a "national defense strategy" (vis-à-vis Israel), but it remained deadlocked over Hezbollah's call for "a defense strategy that allowed the Islamic Resistance to keep its weapons as a deterrent to possible Israeli aggression" (Beirut-based journalist Jim Quilty, Middle East Report, July 25), in the absence of any credible alternative. The US could, if it chose, provide a credible guarantee against an invasion by its client state, but that would require a sharp change in long-standing policy.

In the background are crucial facts emphasized by several veteran Middle East correspondents. Rami Khouri, an editor of Lebanon's Daily Star, writes that "the Lebanese and Palestinians have responded to Israel's persistent and increasingly savage attacks against entire civilian populations by creating parallel or alternative leaderships that can protect them and deliver essential services." Syria specialist Patrick Seale agrees: "You have the rise of essentially non-state actors like Hezbollah and Hamas because of the vacuum created by the impotence of Arab states to contain or deter Israel. These actors are basically taking issue with Israel's 'deterrence,' which posits that Israel can strike but no one can strike at it." Until such basic questions are dealt with, it is likely that "the Middle East will sink further into violence and despair," as Khouri predicts.

MY: You are not refering in your letter to the Israeli casualties. is there diferentiation in your opinion between Isareli casualties of war (and I'm not talking about soldiers I'm talking about civilians) and Lebanese or Palestinians casualties?

NC: That is not accurate. John Berger's letter is very explicit about making no distinction between Israeli and other casualties. As his letter states: "Both categories of missile rip bodies apart horribly - who but field commanders can forget this for a moment."

MY: Why in your opinion the world is co-operating with the Israeli invasion to Lebanon and why isn't there any real pressure on the israeli government to stop the madness in Gaza and Jenin? What purpose does this silence serve?

NC: The great majority of the world protests, but chooses not to act. Europe is unwilling to take a stand against the US administration, which has made it clear that it supports Israeli policies in Palestine and Lebanon. The rest of the world strongly objects, but they are not even considered part of the "international community," unless they obey. The US-backed Arab tyrannies at first condemned Hezbollah, but were forced to back down out of fear of their own populations. Even King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Washington's most loyal (and most important) ally, was compelled to say that "If the peace option is rejected due to the Israeli arrogance, then only the war option remains, and no one knows the repercussions befalling the region, including wars and conflict that will spare no one, including those whose military power is now tempting them to play with fire."

With regard to Palestine, while Bush's stand is extreme, it has its roots in earlier policies. The week in Taba in January 2001 is the only real break in US rejectionism in 30 years. During the Oslo years, the US-Israel hinted at joining the international consensus, but made sure it would be very difficult to implement by steady increase in settlement, the rate peaking in 2000. The US also strongly supported earlier Israeli invasions of Lebanon, though in 1982 and 1996, it compelled Israel to terminate its aggression when atrocities were reaching a point that harmed US interests.

Unfortunately, one can generalize a comment of Uri Avnery's about Dan Halutz, who "views the world below through a bombsight." Much the same is true of Rumsfeld-Cheney-Rice, and other top Bush administration planners, despite occasional soothing rhetoric. As history reveals, that view of the world is not uncommon among those who hold a virtual monopoly of the means of violence, with consequences that we need not review.

MY: What is the next chapter in this middle-eastern conflict as you see it?

NC: I do not know of anyone foolhardy enough to predict. The US and Israel are stirring up popular forces that are very ominous, and which will only gain in power and become more extremist if the US and Israel persist in demolishing any hope of realization of Palestinian national rights, and destroying Lebanon. It should also be recognized that Washington's primary concern, as in the past, is not Israel and Lebanon, but the vast energy resources of the Middle East, recognized 60 years ago to be a "stupendous source of strategic power" and "one of the greatest material prizes in world history." We can expect, with confidence, that the US will continue to do what it can to control this unparalleled source of strategic power. That may not be easy. The remarkable incompetence of Bush planners has created a catastrophe in Iraq, for their own interests as well. They are even facing the possibility of the ultimate nightmare: a loose Shi'a alliance (including Shi'ite-dominated Iraq, Iran, and the Shi'ite regions of Saudi Arabia), controlling the world's major energy supplies, and independent of Washington ­ or even worse, establishing closer links with the China-based Asian Energy Security Grid and Shanghai Cooperation Council. The results could be truly apocalyptic. And even in tiny Lebanon, the leading Lebanese academic scholar of Hezbollah, and a harsh critic of the organization, describes the current conflict in "apocalyptic terms," warning that possibly "All hell would be let loose" if the outcome of the US-Israel campaign leaves a situation in which "the Shiite community is seething with resentment at Israel, the United States and the government that it perceives as its betrayer" (Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, Washington Post, 23 July).

It is no secret that in past years, Israel has helped to destroy secular Arab nationalism and to create Hezbollah and Hamas, just as US violence has expedited the rise of extremist Islamic fundamentalism and jihadi terror. The reasons are understood. There are constant warnings about it by Western (including US) intelligence agencies, and by the leading specialists on these topics. One can bury one's head in the sand and take comfort in a "wall-to-wall consensus" that what we do is "just and moral" (Maoz), ignoring the lessons of recent history, or simple rationality. Or one can face the facts, and approach dilemmas which are very serious by peaceful means. They are available. Their success can never be guaranteed. But we can be reasonably confident that viewing the world through a bombsight will bring further misery and suffering, perhaps even "apocalypse soon."

Pitäisikö heidät viedä Guantamoon?

Ja muistakaa:

• Clarify unequivocally to all security forces serving in the Occupied Territories, through detailed education and information programs, the absolute prohibition on abusing and beating Palestinians, even when they ostensibly violate the law;

• Seriously investigate every complaint filed by Palestinians regarding beatings and abuse by security forces;

• Suspend, until the end of the investigation against them, police officers and soldiers suspected of using force, and where the investigation indicates that the complaint is justified, prosecute the offenders;

• Require all security forces coming in contact with the Palestinian civilian population in the Occupied Territories to wear identification tags in Hebrew and Arabic to enable identification of those who used violence or otherwise violated the law.

Understanding Middle East Events and History I:

Talking Points versus Understanding

Most people do not pay attention to politics and history until they intrude rudely on their every day lives. When a dramatic event occurs, a few will rush off to find sources of information that will explain, in “capsule summaries,” what has happened. Media and Web sites provide many glib and conflicting opinions, designed to boost circulation and promote a viewpoint, not to inform. The opinion makers are polarized according their political bias, and rarely change their ideas because of facts. They assemble facts to suit opinions. Depending on whom you read, the latest disaster is the fault of the Jews, the Moslems, the infidels, the Arabs or the United States. If we believe the pundits, the latest crisis, whatever it is, has inevitably proven both that the anti-Zionist Noam Chomsky and the pro-Zionist Charles Krauthammer were absolutely right in their analyses. The Gush-Shalom movement, the Yesha Council, United Rabbis for Greater Israel, Hamas, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, all claim that they knew and warned of the impending disaster and all of their contradictory analyses and solutions could have averted it if adopted in time. Likewise the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), CAIR and the Arab League can explain to you exactly how they predicted what would happen, and how it came about because nobody listened to them. If you do not believe it, read what they write.

You may get reinforcement for your ideas from such summaries. You may get “talking points” that will allow you to become part of the great parade of demonstrations and counter-demonstrations that substitute for thinking and dialog in our region. In this way, you can impress your friends and dialog partners with pseudo-facts or one line quotes from Gandhi or Herzl or Haj Amin El Husseini or Osama Bin Laden and win arguments: “The Jews became a nation in 1312 BC - there is no such thing as a Palestinian People” or “Jabotinsky said that we have to broom all the Arabs out of Palestine.” It may impress people, but it is probably not a way to find the truth. It is not a way to solve the problem. It is a way to become part of the problem, a soldier in the armies of hate and disinformation.

If you are new to the Middle East and want to find out “who is right?” and what to do about it in three easy lessons, you will be either disappointed or misled. To get a fair idea, you will need to study the original sources, not just summaries prepared by partisan groups such as Electronic Intifada, the ZOA or the Arab League or “experts,” or lists of embarrassing quotes. You will need to understand their meaning in the context in which they were produced, and you will need to verify that the people actually said the things attributed to them. Though there are dozens of supposed "quotes" of Israeli PM Ariel Sharon from an interview he supposedly gave to Amos Oz in 1984, Sharon was never interviewed by Amos Oz!!

The way to knowledge and understanding is a long and arduous process, and that “understanding” must keep changing as events unfold, and as we learn more. That is why so much of the materials at MidEastWeb are not concise summaries or political proclamations but resources: news from different sources, maps, bibliography and historical documents.

Read the sources with care and skepticism. Make sure you understand the context of the sources. Be wary of catchwords such as “terrorist,” ‘Apartheid regime,” “Fascist,” and “ethnic cleansing.” In their original meaning they are perfectly good words. For example, a member of the German National Socialist Workers (Nazi) party, or a follower of Benito Mussolini, was a self-declared Fascist. Some Zionist dissident radicals expressed sympathy with Fascism, and some Palestinian leaders such as the Mufti Haj Amin El-Husseini, were Nazi sympathizers and collaborators. However, the mainstream Zionist movement and the current leaders of Israel, as well as present-day Palestinian leaders, do not advocate Fascism.   When they are misapplied in a deliberate way, the purpose of these terms is not to inform you but to confuse the issues and substitute emotion for reason.

If any one person, viewpoint or source had the “straight story” about the Middle East, it would an easy matter to solve all our problems. It is easy to read a biased summary of “talking points” regarding any issue and march off on a crusade, disseminating more biased opinion and rallying followers to the attack. We have far too much of that in the Middle East. If you read a “fact,” consider the source. If you hear a news story, check that that it is true. If you see an outrageous quote, make sure the person really said what is attributed to them, and check what else they said and in what context it was said. Getting the facts straight is the beginning of knowledge. Making sure that everyone gets the same facts - all of them - is the beginning of dialog and understanding.

Understanding Middle East Events and History II:

What's in a Word?

The Israel-Palestinian Conflict and the World of Words

The area of Israel and Palestine is not rich in resources. We have our famous conflict. It is our conflict, and we are happy to export it. It is our second greatest export.

What is our greatest export? It is not oil, as there is no petroleum here to export. But we have words, and have had words since words first created civilization in the middle east.  The middle east is famous for exporting words. The Old Testament, the New Testament, the propaganda of two sides in the conflict, and fittingly enough, software, are our greatest exports in all history. For the Bible and the propaganda are programs for humans, and people and history are "programmed" by them, as well as by that other great program for the human computer, the Qur'an.

The Word told Abraham to go to Canaan, and the Word told the Hebrews that Canaan is theirs. The words were written down in a book, and the book was the Old Testament and it became holy to the Jews, who built a kingdom in Jerusalem.

Then there were more Words, and the Words said that Muhamed is the prophet of Allah, and that Mohamed had made Jerusalem holy to Islam. The Christians received words too. Bishop Eusebius of Caesaria wrote that the Jews were cursed and could not rebuild Jerusalem. It was against the will of God.

History was written like a television series from the old days. "Unfortunate minorities" got bad parts - cleaning people, servants, Christ killers and money lenders. The Jews were written out of the coming episodes entirely. "A world without Jews," wrote Marx. Every culture and people would have its own home - self determination, but the Jews were to be written out of modern history. They didn't play well. "A moribund civilization," wrote Arnold Toynbee.

The Jews for their part, kept repeating the words "Next Year in Jerusalem" each year, and asking God to return them to their home each day. The words became a program for action. Theodore Herzl wrote a book, a nineteenth century utopia in the style of nineteenth century utopias, impossible places. The book was called The Jewish State. A very little book, a pamphlet, by a powerless man. Herzl organized a congress in Basle. More words, and a tiny resolution. He wrote in his diary in 1897, "...at Basle I founded the Jewish State... if not in 5 years then in 50..."  The Zionists tended to write the Arabs out of the action. They didn't fit, didn't play well, and spoiled the plot.

The words of the powerless man became flesh. Here is one way of telling about it:

Europeans came to colonize Palestine in the 19th century.

Here is another way:

Jews returned to the Land of Israel after 2,000 years.

Which one is true? It is the same fact, but it leads to different conclusions about "why," and it leads to a different way of programming people. 

Arthur Balfour wrote a small letter, the Balfour Declaration, in 1917. Palestine became a homeland for the Jews. Thirty years later, in 1947, the UN wrote another document, General Assembly Resolution 181, partitioning Palestine, and Herzl's words came true.

Words and symbols are taken seriously here. A right-wing Zionist tract explains the reason that justifies the bloodshed: "Jews pray facing Jerusalem, Muslims pray with their backs to Jerusalem." It is not written in jest. Gulliver, in all his travels in Swiftian satire, never found a more exotic reason for killing people.

Never mind what the fact is, it depends what it is called. Is it "legitimate?" If the Palestinian house is "illegal," then you can demolish it. If the settlement is "illegal" then you can blow up the children who live in it. 

A man loses his brother to the enemy. He detonates an explosive charge in a crowded bus stop in Jerusalem, killing himself and a dozen others. Is he a "terrorist?" a "militant?,"  a "freedom fighter?" or a "martyr?" Is the suicide attack "terror" or "resistance?" If the suicide attack is in Manhattan, is it also "resistance?"  A tank destroys a house with children in it, because the house also includes people set to explode themselves in a suicide attack. Is it "conducting a defensive operation" or a "war crime?" Is a leader a "partner for peace" or a "terrorist?" If we add "war criminal" to his name and repeat it consistently, does it change the facts? Are the Zionists or the Palestinians just regular folks, or are they the same as the Nazis? Does it change the facts of what people did in history? Perhaps not, but it changes the actions we will take; it changes what people will do in the history they are making now.  

The words are also used to redraw history. Nowhere else is it more true that  the pen is mightier than the sword. Nowhere is "creative writing" more "creative." Partisans, intent on stirring up hate, crank out fraudulent interviews with Ariel Sharon, in which he states that he wants his soldiers to rape Palestinian girls and kill more Palestinians. A bit of satire by an Israeli writer is turned into a fact. The excuse given for the lie is, "There is no doubt, that what has been expressed in  the interview is the kind of dangerous thinking shared by Sharon and showing through in his policies." Reality is shaped by art. First the reality is reinvented, then it is acted upon. We are acting out a trashy historical novel, a comic book version of reality.  

What is not told, is as important as what is told. The pen of the Jewish extremist makes the massacre of Deir Yassin disappear - over a hundred dead people are banished to nowhere. The pen of the Palestinian partisan erases the siege of Jerusalem and the Arab invasion of 1948. A writer in the Egyptian newspaper, Al-Ahram, waves his magic pen and the Holocaust disappears.  None of it happened. The Jewish extremist erases the Palestinian refugees. Reality is rearranged for the convenience and needs of our ever-present defense mechanisms.

Time and again, words create reality and program actions. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an anti-Semitic forgery of the Czarist secret police, is enshrined in the charter of the Hamas, and propels Muslim extremists to their death. Osama Bin Laden wrote his Fatwas against America, and the words toppled mighty buildings. The Mufti of Jerusalem said "The Jews are destroying the holy Mosque of Al Aqsa" and the riots of 1929 began. The same rumor started bloodier riots in 1997, and again in September 2000 it created the "Martyrs of Al-Aqsa."  

At this moment, as is usual in our area, a battle is raging. The words are fighting alongside the tanks and the bombs. Partisans are busy rewriting history. Suicide bombers are being written out by one side, civilian casualties are being written out by the other. They do not play well. They will not sell. Words are changing history, and people are being programmed to act on the words, never mind what happened. So the words help to create reality.

The words are not meant to be aesthetic. They are tired, grating, writing. The same adjectives and pejorative words appear a dozen times in thousands of places. For some reason, the hacks cannot write "Arafat" without writing "terrorist" and they cannot write "Ariel Sharon" in less than four words: "War Criminal Ariel Sharon." The words are meant to program violence in human computers. Computer programs do not make good reading. They are bad literature. It is worse reality. The words programmed all these impossible things we see before us, good and bad. Can we use the words to "program" Israel and Palestine for peace?

"Copyright by MidEastWeb for Coexistence R.A. - http://www.mideastweb.org All rights Reserved. "

This is just for educational purposes and not reproduced in any way.