The following UN definition you quoted is partly acceptable to me: >"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, >employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for >idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby -- in contrast to >assassination -- the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. I would however like to highlight the applicability of the following aspects of the definition to the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and your repeated assertions that only the Palestinians are engaged in terrorism. The summation of the UN definition is: "terrorism is an anxiety inspiring method of repeated violence" for "criminal or political reasons" or objectives in which "the direct targets of violence are not the main targets". I would therefore assume that the term 'main target' above, represents justifiable or prime target. I hope you understand that there is no monopoly over violence. As the oppressor can deploy it, so could the oppressed. Again 'justification' is a relative term that could be deployed biasly and finally as humans; most of us cannot tell the intention of others so we have the choice of determining this either by accepting what the other person(s) tells us as his or her intention or by judging from a pattern of their actions. Along this thought, I will definitely consider the intention of any person who breaks into my house and wants to take away my property, however insignificant it could be, as desiring to steal. Similarly, the intention of the Israeli army through its bombardment of Palestinian civilian areas is to kill civilians. Concerning my perception of terrorism, you argued that: >Your misinterpretation of the term is dangerous because >it indicates a clear aversion to the fact that what the Palestinian fringe >groups with the complicity of the PLO led Arafat practice is the form of >terrorism defined by a very authoritative body on this phenomenon while >Israeli incursions in response to these ghastly acts are not a clear match. Why should killings committed by the Israeli army against innocent Palestinian civilians be considered 'collateral damage' and not terrorism as you opined, while on the other hand you are adamant that killings committed against innocent Israelis by Palestinians is terrorism. This is flawed reasoning, after all, what is bad for the goose should be bad for the gander as what is sauce for either should likewise be sauce for the other. We should try to shatter this bias view of terrorism defined from a purely western perspective. Terrorism is not exclusively the implementation of planned terror against non-prime targets as you have been brainwashed to belief. Please note the qualification: "the direct targets of violence are not the main targets" and try to relate this to direct targetting and bombing of the Yugolav TV HQ in which scores of innocent journalists were killed by NATO during the so-called war against Yougloslavia in 1999. The casualties (killed or maimed) from that despicable act of terrorism were directly targetted inspite of the fact that they were not the main target but NATO contended that they were collateral damage. If this is the rationale, then every terrorist act in a conflicte could be reduced to collateral damage. Maybe you will like to argue that the TV Station was a legitimate target because of its propaganda role for the Yugoslav army during the war. I hope not. You classified the full-scale military invasion of Palestinian territories by the Israeli army and the subsequent indiscriminate use of their fire power against civilians centres in Jenin, Ramallah, Bethlehem as follows: > These incursions, regardless of consequence, are responses to attacks on >innocent Israelis, and the only way these acts could have been categorized >as >above is if the objective of these incursions were expresssedly to target >Palestinian citizens. But IDF's actions to this point clearly disprove this >your theory. The IDF instead has targeted Palestinian Authority >headquarters >and the fringe groups involved in the planning and logistics of these >ghastly >deeds. I heard exactly the same arguments from all Israeli spokespersons in their attempt to rationalise the massive disproportionate use of force against the Palestinians in the refugee camps. If you are therefore aspiring to join the league of pro-Zionists, then your transformation from a neutral and objective stance on the conflict to your apparent conclusion that the Israeli military's 'incursions' as you describe them are just counter-terrrorist operations, qualifies you as a member. In effect, you are asserting that the conflict stems from the terrorism of the Palestians and not the illegal Occupation. Dore Gold, the Chief Spokesperson of Ariel Sharon would for instance argue that the blame for the loss of Palestinian civilian lives should squarely be on the shoulders of the Palestinian militias since they chose to mingle and live among their people in predominantly civilian refugee camps. Where else can they live if not within their peoples in refugee camps in the face of the perpetual racist Israeli policy of land confiscication in favour of Jews who mostly migrate from Eastern Europe? The policy of the Israeli army is design to all intents and purposes towards collectively punishing the Palestinians for their active resistance against all components of the subjugation and oppression inherent in the illegal occupation of their land. Yus, my main problem with your analysis is that throughout you have conveniently ignored the root cause of this fratricidal? conflict and instead decided to focus on its symptons and effects. This is one of the reasons for my contention that your neutrality and objectivity has expired had it existed in the first place. You see the conflict exactly through the lens of the US Jewish lobby and Ariel Sharon. why don't you for once try to imagine yourself as a Palestinian born in a deprived refugee camp; your land being continually confiscicated and given to foreigners by a mighty US-backed army; you have no contact with the outside world except through this army of occupation; and your sisters and mothers regularly give birth at military check points instead of a hospital; you can be arrested, detained, shot at, and killed at will upon any pretext; Brother Yus, tell me will you under all this sub-human bondage that you face succumb as you expect the Palestinians to do? It is just a rhetorical question because unless you choose to be a colaborator with the enemy, i will expect you to join the resistance for freedom. You depicted: > Booby trapped buildings and suicide bombers in Red Cross vans >are indications of the type of fight this notoriously militant area put up >against the IDF. >Million dollar question is why would anyone even bother >leaving their houses in the face of such a conflict? If anything this >article shows the mission of the IDF was not to expressedly target >civilians >in Jenin. Most of the civilians perished due to the unfortunate side human >casualties of war. The reason for stating the above is that you exclusively get your news from the pro-Israeli media and that secondly you ignore the unbias reports of independent human right bodies and observers on the ground. What do you expect from the indiscriminate use of force in civilian areas? You have sorely been misinformed that most of the Palestinian deaths occured in the streets. The fact is that the majority were killed and buried in the presumed safety of their homes. I will dare conclude that most of your arguments are nothing but typical garbage mostly heard from the arrogant racist Zionists (born and bread or converted). There is 'no easy walk to freedom' and there is no human force in this world that can stop the Palestinians from eventually getting to their destination even if it will take a thousand years. Since complications in any aspect of life are undesirable, I choose to regard terrorism simply as the practice of terror. That is why you found my interpretation of the term to be so encompassing for your comfort. You ended: >I still support the idea of a Palestinian State for this is long overdue >but >under the present conditions such a proposition is not feasible. Why is it not feasible? The terrorism from both sides or the terrorism from the Palestinian side? What a conclusion! The yoke of oppression must be shattered! BMK _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~