April 25, 2002

The Nazification of Israel


Hello everyone

The provocative title of this compilation may seem extreme but in light of the following material, and based on the very words of 2 prominent Jews - Ariel Sharon and Norman G. Finkelstein - it may prove indeed to be an accurate description of what is happening in Israel, with the active military assistance, protection and multi-billion dollar financing of the United States of America.

Your comments are welcomed as usual ;-)

Jean Hudon
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator
http://www.cybernaute.com/earthconcert2000

P.S. See the picture at http://www.cybernaute.com/earthconcert2000/Archives2002/MediaCompilation66.htm


"You can call me anything you like. Call me a monster or a murderer.... Better a live Judeo-Nazi than a dead saint.

- Ariel Sharon in an interview published in the daily Davar on Dec. 17, 1982 (See #1 below)


"Yet, if Israelis don't want to stand accused of being Nazis they should simply stop acting like Nazis."

- Norman G. Finkelstein - Taken from #2 below "First the Carrot, Then the Stick"


CONTENTS


1. Jenin: Something Stinks
2. First the Carrot, Then the Stick: Behind the Carnage in Palestine
3. SHARON'S PHILOSOPHY
4. Is this True? Israel Issues Code 8 Global Reservist Call-up?
5. Attack on Refugee Camp Shows How Israel Fights


SEE ALSO:

Israelis to Delay U.N. Fact-Finders
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/24/international/middleeast/24MIDE.html

A Massacre by Degrees
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/04.22G.Genocide.htm

Jimmy Carter | America Can Persuade Israel to Make a Just Peace
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/04.22B.Jimmy.Carter.htm




1.

From: Gush Shalom (Israeli Peace Bloc) info@gush-shalom.org
Sent: 21 April 2002

Jenin: Something Stinks

By Uri Avnery
20.4.02

There is fill agreement between all those who were in the Jenin refugee camp on only one thing. A week after the end of the fighting, foreign journalists and IDF soldiers, UN representatives and hired hacks in the Israeli media, members of the welfare organizations and government propagandists all report that a terrible stench of decomposing bodies lingers everywhere.

Apart from that there is no agreement on anything. The Palestinians speak about a massacre amounting to a second Sabra and Shatila. The IDF speak about hard fighting, in which “the most humane army in the world” did not intentionally hurt even one single civilian. The Palestinians speak about hundreds of dead, the Minister of Defense asserts categorically that exactly 43 were killed.

So what is the truth? The simple answer is: nobody knows. Nobody can possibly know. The truth lies buried under the debris, and it smells atrociously.

But some facts are uncontestable. They are sufficient for drawing conclusions
.
First: During two weeks of fighting, the IDF did not allow any journalist, Israeli or foreign, into the camp. Even after the fighting had died down, no journalist was let in. The pretext was that the life of the journalists would be endangered. But they did not ask the army to save them. They were quite ready to risk their lives, as journalists and photographers do in every war.

Simple common sense would hold that if one forcibly denies access to journalists, one has something to hide.

Second: During the fighting and afterwards, ambulances and rescue teams were not allowed to get close. Those that tried to approach were shot at. The result was that the wounded bled to death in the streets, even if they had relatively light injuries. This is a war crime, a “manifestly illegal order”, over which “the black flag of illegality” flies. Under Israeli law, and even more so under international law and conventions to which Israel is a party, soldiers are forbidden to obey such an order. It makes no difference whether civilians or “armed men”, one person or a hundred, died in these circumstances. As a method of warfare it is inhuman.

Some journalists justified this method in advance when they alleged that they had seen “with their own eyes” Palestinian ambulances carrying arms. Even if there was such an incident, it would not justify the use of such methods in any circumstances. (Until now, only one instance has been proven: this week Israeli journalists reported proudly that undercover soldiers used an ambulance in order to approach a house in which a “wanted person” was hiding).

Third: Even after the end of the fighting, and until now, heavy equipment and rescue teams have not been allowed in to remove the debris and corpses, or, perhaps, save people still alive under the ruins.

The pretext was again that the corpses could be mined. So what? If foreign and local teams want to risk their lives for this noble purpose, why should the army prevent them from doing so?

Fourth: During all the days of fighting, no one was allowed to bring in medications, water and food. I myself took part in a mass march of Israeli peace activists who tried, after the fighting was over, to accompany a convoy of trucks carrying such supplies to the camp. The trucks were allowed, so it seemed, to pass the road-block which stopped us - but it later became apparent that the supplies were unloaded in an army camp and only four could reach their destination.

What does all this indicate? An objective person could only draw the conclusion that the army wanted to prevent the entrance of eye-witnesses into the camp at any price. The army knew that this would give rise to rumors about a terrible massacre, but preferred this to the disclosure of the truth. If one takes such extreme measures to hide something, one cannot complain about the rumors.

What is the height of cynicism? When one blocks free access to a place, and then argues that no one has the right to say what happened there, because he has not seen it with his own eyes.

The most damning evidence about what happened is the fact that immediately after the end of the fighting, top government and army officials started to discuss ways of preventing a shock reaction in Israel and abroad once the facts became known. This was no secret discussion, it was held in public, in the media talk shows. All of us heard.

The decisions made were extremely effective in Israel, and extremely ineffective abroad. I happened to be in England when the news finally broke. They filled the first page of every important British newspaper. The front-page headline in the Times was “Inside the Camp of Death”. Underneath was a giant photo and a report by a star war correspondent, who wrote that in all the wars she had covered, such as Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya and others, she had never seen such a terrible sight as this. In almost all European countries the reaction was the same.

In Israel, however, the government propaganda machine, in which all the media are now voluntarily integrated, did everything possible to prepare the public in advance. It was said beforehand that the Palestinians were about to spread a horrible lie, that they were ready to heap dead bodies (from where?) in the streets. It got almost to the point of saying that the Palestinians had blown up their houses over their families in order to create a blood libel.

The IDF did “clean” part of the camp, removing the bodies and ordering the ruins somewhat, and that is where compliant journalists and innocent foreign visitors were brought. There they met humane officers who assured them that there had not been any massacre. After all, only a tiny part of the camp had been destroyed, so-and-so many yards by so-and-so many yards, nothing really. It all reminds one of the methods of certain regimes.

The result is that again a huge gap was created between Israelis and the rest of the world. Around the world, many were horrified that Jews, of all people, were capable of doing such things. Jews were again confirmed in their belief that all Goyim are anti-Semites.

I hope that there will be a serious international inquiry, and that the truth - whatever it may be - will emerge. But if even a part of the rumored atrocity is confirmed, a question will be asked: What was the intention? Why did the civilian and military leadership decide to deal with the Jenin camp like this?

The only answer I can come up with is: in Jenin the Palestinians decided to stand up and fight. The rape of Jenin was intended to send a message to the Palestinians: This will be the lot of everyone who resists the IDF. Also, it could cause a Deir Yassin-style mass flight. Only a fool would believe that this will end the resistance to the occupation.

CLIP

---

Also included in another Gush Shalom post:

Yesterday morning, G.R. from Jenin refugee camp heard cries for help from the rubble of the Abu Zeineh home in Al-Hawashin neighborhood. Ten of the camp’s residents arrived at the place and began to clear the rubble in an attempt to reach those trapped. IDF soldiers who were near the hospital, about 150 meters from the Abu Zeineh house, shot at the rescuers and drove in their direction accompanied by a tank. The rescuers fled the area. HaMoked - Center for the Defence of the Individual contacted the IDE and gave the exact location of the survivors. However, despite the military’s pledge to rescue people about whom it received exact information, no military representative arrived at the place. In the evening, under the cover of darkness, residents of the camp returned to the Abu Zeineh home and rescued nine people alive. (Source: HaMoked - Center for the Defence of the Individual)

CLIP

---

Gush Shalom (Israeli Peace Bloc) also began an email campaign on 19 April 2002 to denounce
Microsoft's support of the Israeli army atrocities. Here is a relevant quote: "Two days ago, Israelis traveling on the main highways in the Tel-Aviv area were treated to enormous billboards bearing the Microsoft logo under the text “From the depth of our heart - thanks to The Israeli Defence Forces” on the background of the Israeli national flag."

See also:

“The Wounded Lion” (The Other Israel’s editorial overview by Adam Keller evaluating one year of Sharon rule) at http://otherisrael.tripod.com/ed.html

Full transcript of the war crimes panel available on the Gush site
http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/forumcng.html

To receive Gush Shalom's emails send a blank message at Gush-Shalom-subscribe@topica.com

http://www.gush-shalom.org




2.

Sent by Da Vid <Lightparty@aol.com> on 18 Apr 2002

First the Carrot, Then the Stick: Behind the Carnage in Palestine

Norman G. Finkelstein
14 April 2002

During the June 1967 war, Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza, completing the Zionist conquest of British-mandated Palestine. In the war's aftermath,the United Nations debated the modalities for settling the Arab-Israeli conflict. At the Fifth Emergency Session of the General Assembly convening in the war's immediate aftermath, there was "near unanimity" on "the withdrawal of the armed for ces from the territory of neighboring Arab states occupied during the recent war" since "everyone agrees that there should be no territorial gains by military conquest." (Secretary-General U Thant, summarizing the G.A. debate) In subsequent Security Council deliberations, the same demand for a full Israeli withdrawal in accordance with the principle of "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" was inscribed in United Nations Resolution 242, alongside the right of "every state in the region" to have its sovereignty respected. A still-classified State Department study concludes that the US supported the "inadmissibility" clause of 242, making allowance for only "minor " and "mutual" border adjustments. (Nina J. Noring and Walter B. Smith II, "The Withdrawal Clause in UN Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967") Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan later warned Cabinet ministers not to endorse 242 because "it means withdrawal to the 4 June boundaries, and because we are in conflict with the Security Council on that resolution."

Beginning in the mid-1970s a modification of UN Resolution 242 to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict provided for the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza once Israel withdrew to its pre-June 1967 borders. Except for the United States and Israel (and occasionally a US client state), an international consensus has backed, for the past quarter century, the full-withdrawal/full recognition formula or what is called the "two-state" settlement. The United States cast the lone veto of Security Council resolutions in 1976 and 1980 calling for a two-state settlement that was endorsed by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and front-line Arab states. A December 1989 General Assembly resolution along similar lines passed 151-3 (no abstentions), the three negative votes cast by Israel, the United States, and Dominica.

From early on, Israel consistently opposed full withdrawal from the Occupied Territories, offering the Palestinians instead a South African-style Bantustan. The PLO., having endorsed the international consensus, couldn't be dismissed, however, as "rejectionist" and pressure mounted on Israel to accept the two-state settlement. Accordingly, in June 1982 Israel invaded Lebanon, where the PLO was headquartered, to fend off what an Israeli strategic analyst called the PLO's "peace offensive." (Avner Yaniv, Dilemmas of Security)

In December 1987 Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza rose up in a basically non-violent civil revolt (intifada) against the Israeli occupation. Israel's brutal repression (extra-judicial killings, mass detentions, house demolitions, indiscriminate torture, deportations, and so on ) eventually crushed the uprising. Compounding the defeat of the intifada, the PLO suffered yet a further decline in its fortunes with the destruction of Iraq, the implosion of the Soviet Union, and the suspension of funding from the Gulf states. The US and Israel seized this occasion to recruit the already venal and now desperate PLO leadership as surrogates of Israeli power. This is the real meaning of the "peace process" inaugurated at Oslo in September 1993: to create a Palestinian Bantustan by dangling before the PLO the perquisites of power and privilege.

"The occupation continued" after Oslo, a seasoned Israeli commentator observed, "albeit by remote control, and with the consent of the Palestinian people, represented by their `sole representative,' the PLO." And again: "It goes without saying that `cooperation' based on the current power relationship is no more than permanent Israeli domination in disguise, and that Palestinian self-rule is merely a euphemism for Bantustanization." (Meron Benvenisti, Intimate Enemies)

After seven years of on-again, off-again negotiations and a succession of new agreements that managed to rob the Palestinians of the few crumbs thrown from the master's table at Oslo (the population of Jewish settlers in the Occupied Territories had fully doubled in the meanwhile), the moment of truth arrived at Camp David in July 2000. President Clinton and Prime Minister Barak delivered Arafat the ultimatum of formally acquiescing in a Bantustan or bearing full responsibility for the collapse of the "peace process." As it happened, Arafat refused. Contrary to the myth spun by Barak-Clinton as well as a compliant media, in fact "Barak offered the trappings of Palestinian sovereignty," a special adviser at the British Foreign Office reports, "while perpetuating the subjugation of the Palestinians." (The Guardian, 10 April l 2002; for details and the critical background, see Roane Carey, ed., The New Intifada)

Consider in this regard Israel's response to the recent Saudi peace plan. An Israeli commentator writing in Haaretz observes that the Saudi plan is "surprisingly similar to what Barak claims to have proposed two years ago." Were Israel really intent on a full withdrawal in exchange for normalization with the Arab world, the Saudi plan and its unanimous endorsement by the Arab League summit should have been met with euphoria. In fact, it elicited a deafening silence in Israel. (Aviv Lavie, 5 April 2002) Nonetheless, Barak's - and Clinton's - fraud that Palestinians at Camp David rejected a maximally generous Israeli offer provided crucial moral cover for the horrors that ensued.

Having failed in its carrot policy, Israel now reached for the big stick. Two preconditions had to be met, however, before Israel could bring to bear its overwhelming military superiority: a "green light" from the U.S. and a sufficient pretext. Already in summer 2000, the authoritative Jane's Information Group reported that Israel had completed planning for a massive and bloody invasion of the Occupied Territories. But the US vetoed the plan and Europe made equally plain its opposition. After 11 September, however, the US came on board. Indeed, Sharon's goal of crushing the Palestinians basically fit in with the US administration's goal of exploiting the World Trade Center atrocity to eliminate the last remnants of Arab resistance to total US domination. Through sheer exertion of will and despite a monumentally corrupt leadership, Palestinians have proven to be the most resilient and recalcitrant popular force in the Arab world. Bringing them to their knees would deal a devastating psychological blow throughout the region.

With a green light from the US, all Israel now needed was the pretext. Predictably it escalated the assassinations of Palestinian leaders following each lull in Palestinian terrorist attacks. "After the destruction of the houses in Rafah and Jerusalem, the Palestinians continued to act with restraint," Shulamith Aloni of Israel's Meretz party observed. "Sharon and his army minister, apparently fearing that they would have to return to the negotiating table, decided to do something and they liquidated Raad Karmi. They knew that there would be a response, and that we would pay the price in the blood of our citizens." (Yediot Aharonot, 18 January 2002) Indeed, Israel desperately sought this sanguinary response. Once the Palestinian terrorist attacks crossed the desired threshold, Sharon was able to declare war and proceed to annihilate the basically defenseless civilian Palestinian population.

Only the willfully blind can miss noticing that Israel's current invasion of the West Bank is an exact replay of the June 1982 invasion of Lebanon. To crush the Palestinians' goal of an independent state alongside Israel - the PLO's "peace offensive" - Israel laid plans in August 1981 to invade Lebanon. In order to launch the invasion, however, it needed the green light from the Reagan administration and a pretext. Much to its chagrin and despite multiple provocations, Israel was unable to elicit a Palestinian attack on its northern border. It accordingly escalated the air assaults on southern Lebanon and after a particularly murderous attack that left two hundred civilians dead (including 60 occupants of a Palestinian children's hospital), the PLO finally retaliated killing one Israeli. With the pretext in hand and a green light now forthcoming from the Reagan administration, Israel invaded. Using the same slogan of "rooting out Palestinian terror," Israel proceeded to massacre a defenseless population, killing some 20,000 Palestinians and Lebanese, almost all civilians.

The problem with the Bush administration, we are repeatedly told, is that it has been insufficiently engaged with the Middle East, a diplomatic void Colin Powell's mission is supposed to fill. But who gave the green light for Israel to commit the massacres? Who supplied the F-16s and Apache helicopters to Israel? Who vetoed the Security Council resolutions calling for international monitors to supervise the reduction of violence? And who ust blocked the proposal of the United Nation's top human rights official, Mary Robinson, to merely send a fact-finding team to the Palestinian territories? (IPS, 3 April 2002)

Consider this scenario. A and B stand accused of murder. The evidence shows that A provided B with the murder weapon, A gave B the "all-clear" signal, and A prevented onlookers from answering the victim's screams. Would the verdict be that A was insufficiently engaged or that A was every bit as guilty as B of murder?

To repress Palestinian resistance, a senior Israeli officer earlier this year urged the army to "analyze and internalize the lessons of how the German army fought in the Warsaw ghetto." (Haaretz, 25 January 2002, 1 February 2002) Judging by the recent Israeli carnage in the West Bank - the targeting of Palestinian ambulances and medical personnel, the targeting of journalists, the killing of Palestinian children "for sport" (Chris Hedges, New York Times former Cairo bureau chief), the rounding up, handcuffing and blindfolding of all Palestinian males between the ages 15 and 50, and affixing of numbers on their wrists, the indiscriminate torture of Palestinian detainees, the denial of food, water, electricity, and medical assistance to the Palestinian civilian population, the indiscriminate air assaults on Palestinian neighborhoods, the use of Palestinian civilians as human shields, the bulldozing of Palestinian homes with the occupants huddled inside - it appears that the Israeli army is following the officer's advice. Dismissing all criticism as motivated by anti-Semitism, Elie Wiesel - chief spokesman for the Holocaust Industry - lent unconditional support to Israel, stressing the "great pain and anguish" endured by its rampaging army. (Reuters, 11 April; CNN, 14 April)

Meanwhile, the Portuguese Nobel laureate in literature, Jose Saramago, invoked the "spirit of Auschwitz" in depicting the horrors inflicted by Israel, while a Belgian parliamentarian avowed that Israel was "making a concentration camp out of the West Bank." (The Observer, 7 April 2002) Israelis across the political spectrum recoil in outrage at such comparisons. Yet, if Israelis don't want to stand accused of being Nazis they should simply stop acting like Nazis.

---

Norman Finkelstein was born in Brooklyn, N.Y., in 1953. He is the son of Maryla Husyt Finkelstein, survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto, Maidanek concentration camp, and Zacharias Finkelstein, survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto, Auschwitz concentration camp. He dedicated his first book to his parents in which he wrote: "May I never forgive or forget what was done to them." His brothers Richard and Henry Finkelstein would like all visitors to this web site to know that the surviving family fully supports Norman's efforts to maintain the integrity of the history of the Nazi holocaust. May we never forgive or forget what was done.

Norman G. Finkelstein is the author of four books: Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (Verso, 1995), The Rise and Fall of Palestine (University of Minnesota, 996), with Ruth Bettina Birn, A Nation on Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth (Henry Holt,1998) and The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (Verso, 2000).




3.

SHARON'S PHILOSOPHY

"What you don't understand is that the dirty work of Zionism is not finished yet, far from it."

- Ariel Sharon, December 1982

"Sharon was a killer obsessed with hatred of Palestinians. I had promised Arafat that his people would not get any harm. Sharon, however, ignored this commitment entirely. Sharon's word is worth nil."

- Ambassador Philip Habib - President Ronald Reagan's Special Middle East Envoy in 1982

Just a few months after the terrible massacres of Palestinians in the refugee camps near Beirut in 1982 Ariel Sharon gave an interview to a famous Israeli journalist; and pressed by the tensions of the moment and the condemnation of much of the world Sharon revealed his true self. The U.S. was complicitous and responsible for what happened then, just as it is now. Back then the U.S. was also fronting for the Israelis and giving false promises to the Palestinians just as it is doing today. Back then it was ambassador Philip Habib representing President Ronald Reagan; now it is Colin Powell representing President George W. Bush.

SHARON'S BRUTAL PHILOSOPHY

Holger Jensen*

(Minneapolis Star-Tribune, April 12) - Nicknamed "The Bulldozer," Israel's prime minister is a soldier-politician whose career has been dogged by persistent accusations of war crimes.

But what kind of man is Secretary of State Colin Powell trying to persuade to make peace with the Palestinians?

At 74, Sharon may be the last Israeli leader who fought for the Haganah, politely described as part of the "underground" that helped create the Jewish state in 1948.

Often overlooked is that the Haganah and its offshoots, Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Gang, once were considered terrorist organizations that bombed Arab bus stops, attacked Arab villages and killed quite a few Britons in fighting to end the British Mandate of Palestine.

It also should be noted that two other former prime ministers of Israel, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, were leaders of the Irgun and the Stern Gang respectively. Among the atrocities these groups were responsible for was bombing the King David Hotel and massacring 250 Arab villagers in Deir Yassin.

So it can safely be said that some of Israel's earliest patriots were no different from the Palestinians they call terrorists today. The Haganah, which Sharon joined at age 14, formed the nucleus of Israel's new army when the Jewish state came into being, and the Israeli Defense orce, as it is called, is now the world's fourth-strongest military machine.

Besides an awesome array of American-supplied weapons, it has the largest and most sophisticated nuclear arsenal outside the five declared nuclear powers - the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain - estimated at up to 2,000 warheads. These include nuclear artillery shells and nuclear-tipped medium-range ballistic missiles (the Jericho 1 and 2).

The man who now controls those nukes has devoted his entire life to Israel's security - and ruthlessly so.

Sharon earned a bloody reputation in the 1950s when he led retaliatory attacks against Jordanian villages accused of harboring Palestinians who mounted cross-border raids on Israel. After the 1967 war, when Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Sharon pursued a ruthless hunt for guerrillas that destroyed hundreds of Palestinian homes.

When Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, Sharon was held indirectly responsible for a massacre of Palestinian refugees by Israel's Christian Phalange allies. Eyewitness accounts by journalists and relief workers in the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps, including a Dutch doctor and a Jewish American nurse, said Israeli army bulldozers helped dig mass graves for more than 800 dead.

That cost Sharon his job as Israel's defense minister and is the basis of war crimes charges filed by 29 survivors in a Belgian court.

During the Lebanese invasion, Sharon gave a revealing interview to Amos Oz, a leading Israeli author, in which he bluntly explained his military doctrine and railed against pacifist Jews who thought he was being too tough. It was published in the daily Davar on Dec. 17, 1982. Excerpts:

"You can call me anything you like. Call me a monster or a murderer. ... Better a live Judeo-Nazi than a dead saint.

"Even if you prove to me that the present war in Lebanon is a dirty immoral war, I don't care. Even if Galilee is shelled again by Katyushas in a year's time, I don't really care. We shall start another war, kill and destroy more and more, until they will have had enough.

"Let them tremble, let them call us a mad state. Let them understand that we are a wild country, dangerous to our surroundings, not normal, that we might go crazy if one of our children is murdered, just one! If anyone even raises his hand against us we'll take away half his land and burn the other half, including the oil. We might use nuclear arms.

"Even today I am willing to volunteer to do the dirty work for Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us. ... And I don't mind if after the job is done you put me in front of a Nuremberg Trial and then jail me for life. Hang me if you want, as a war criminal.

"What you don't understand is that the dirty work of Zionism is not finished yet, far from it."

Twenty years later, Sharon is still applying that brutal philosophy to a captive West Bank. And he is so obsessed with destroying Israel's enemies he won't listen to friends, including the President of the United States.

* Holger Jensen is international editor of the Rocky Mountain News.




4.

From tapa-chemtrails Digest Number 367
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002
From: "azpat0" <poconnell9@bigfoot.com>

ISRAEL ISSUES "CODE 8" RESERVIST CALL-UP WORLDWIDE

Israeli reservists have been called up world wide to return to Israel.

Bill Handel's guest DR. Steve Pieczenik discussing the Middle East situation provided a scoop. Israel has announced a CODE 8 callup for Israelis world-wide. This means that all Israelis world-wide must return and report for service. Implication is things are ready to GET HOT

http://www.kfi640.com/billhandel.html

CUTTING EDGE NOTES:

If Israel believes that all-out war is imminent, despite all the talk about a peace conference and a Palestinian State, it would make a lot of sense that they would issue a Code 8 global reservist call-up before the war actually begins, to get their reservists flowing to Israel while they can still clear customs in their respective countries.

http://www.cuttingedge.org/

Operation Protective Wall is Israel's largest military mission in 20 years. The government has called up 30,000 reservists to back up the regular army of 185,000 in a massive assault intended to root out militants.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/733053.asp




5.

Sent by "Mark Graffis" <mgraffis@islands.vi>

From: http://www.portland.com/viewpoints/mvoice/020423victoria.shtml

Published on Tuesday, April 23, 2002 in the Portland Press Herald (Maine)

Attack on Refugee Camp Shows How Israel Fights

by Victoria Mares-Hershey

Politics being made on the heads of people is what we have seen in Jenin, a refugee camp of 13,000 people in a space about 500 yards by 600 yards, churned into rubble by a thousand well-equipped Israeli soldiers in pursuit of about 200 Palestinian gunmen.

As the world debated and discussed whether Sharon was a predator or "man of peace," and just after Secretary of State Colin Powell had returned home empty-handed, Jenin's reality jumped into American faces from front pages around the world.

We must give up choosing sides and examine this destruction, as the American public examined its stand on the Vietnam War after seeing a young girl in an Associated Press photo stripped naked by napalm and running in terror over 30 years ago.

If we do not turn a critical eye on all players in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including ourselves, we might as well be playing a war game on a pinball machine, with human pinballs.

The total destruction of the two-story cinderblock homes that belonged to thousands of refugees who can now be counted as "homeless" was accomplished with what a New York Times report called a "stark mismatch of arms." The media account of this episode is like reading about a modern army testing its billions of dollars of high-tech weaponry and equipment on a football field.

Cobra helicopters, able to fire TOW missiles designed to destroy tanks, fired through the walls of houses. The media counted scores of tanks mounted with machine guns, and bulldozers to raze civilian homes. Airborne cameras hovered over battles while officers used more technology to translate what they saw into combat strategy. The resistance they met from Palestinians armed with rifles, homemade explosives and tin-can warning systems was, the Israelis say, unexpected.

The determination, the deep anger, the fear, the generations of mental conditioning to hate, that must go into launching all of that fury into a complex of human families is unimaginable. The determination to survive an attempted decimation of so many people, to fight it by hand, to hate the people who wage it, must have to be measured in mega-units.

What is Yasser Arafat, besieged in Ramallah, going to tell the families pulling children, siblings, grandparents, men and women who were really only unarmed civilians, and human parts from under stone or actually scraping them up off the roads. That they have not been terrorized beyond belief? That they should not think about fighting back?

CLIP

Read the rest at the URL above







BACK TO THE FIRST HOME PAGE OF THIS SITE