Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elmer Flugum who wrote (14429)	5/7/2002 5:18:45 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Respond to of 23908

For years Israel has imposed the very conditions guaranteed to push Palestinians into rebellion, or more dangerous still, into rebellious despair. And when Palestinians respond as their tormentor intends Israel brands that response terrorist, and then uses its own definition of the response as an excuse to employ the massive force of Tel Aviv's artillery and war planes. Israel's racist settlement policy, indeed, can only exist if this vicious cycle of oppression, rebellion and punitive response to expected rebellion is maintained. As if peace, or even the prospect of peace, constitutes a devastating threat to Israel's identity and to its overwhelming superiority in the Middle East, or as if peace can only be founded on Palestinian annihilation, or at least the annihilation of the sense of dignity of the Palestinian, Israel's version of the Native American. To refer to "two sides" in this context is, then, patently unjust, inaccurate and cruel. To suggest that there are two warring parties -- the illusion that Israel seeks to propagate at home and abroad -- is to miss the essence of the Palestinian tragedy. Chomsky captured the nature of this deception when he described Israel as "hunting birds with machine guns." My second question concerns [Etienne Balibar's] reference to the ethical problem pertaining to Palestinian suicide bombings that target innocent civilians. To clarify the issues involved it is imperative we eliminate the pernicious notion of parity, this equating of two sides that are anything but equal which provides the stepping-stone to the lethal formal detachment manifested in calls to condemn reciprocal violence, to condemn the two hostile parties, to stop violence and terrorism, to urge the two sides to exercise self-restraint. If, as I argued above, "the objectivity of similarity" leads eventually to equating the victim with his executioner, an ethical judgment based on such foundations can sometimes lead to condemning the victim, while exonerating the executioner. It is precisely this attitude that leads many Palestinians to characterise as "universally degenerate" the dominant political discourse that transforms Palestinians into terrorists and Sharon into a warrior against terrorism. The concerns expressed above may be condensed into a single, pertinent question: Who determines the truth? The truth, in the times in which we live, is the property of the strong. It is the monopoly of the power pulling the strings in the global decision-making process. And it is the protection of this monopoly, which necessitates eliminating the actual truth, that makes Israel impose a total media blockade on the Jenin camp, where thousands "disappear" and the dead are buried in sewers or elsewhere. It is a monopoly that meanwhile allows the "objective" media -- CNN for example -- to devote hours of exclusive coverage to the gory consequences of every Palestinian martyr operation. The media, believe its monopolists, belong to those who deserve it. Perhaps the most important ethical contribution you and other intellectuals have made has been to break this monopoly on truth to render it a universal human right, to be exercised by all members of the human race, including Palestinians driven to martyrdom by their tragic conditions. In the first days of the siege on Jenin some inhabitants of the camp let loose a donkey wrapped in the Israeli flag. When an Israeli soldier, stationed at a distance, saw the donkey he lifted up his gun to shoot it but then changed his mind. "Why didn't you shoot it?" a journalist asked him. "Because it has rights and associations to protect those rights," the soldier answered. "Then why do you shoot Palestinians?" "Because they don't have associations or rights," the soldier answered. Please accept my gratitude for your role in defending the rights of my people, victims of an open-ended massacre in this age of the "global civil society." With my best wishes to the future success of your continued efforts to discover and publicise the truth. Sincerely, Faisal Darraj ahram.org.eg

To: Elmer Flugum who wrote (14429)	5/7/2002 5:47:01 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23908

The $800 million check is in the mail.... news.haaretz.co.il U.S. government officials don't intend to pressure Sharon on the settlements issue, and it is doubtful that President George W. Bush will get involved in any serious conflict with the prime minister. According to sources in Sharon's delegation, there has been excellent coordination with White House officials in preparation for this trip. The sources expect Bush to welcome Sharon with a significant gesture in exchange for the prime minister's lifting of the siege on Arafat. ________________________