John Walker-Taliban Warrior

Welcome to the SDMB, Nailbomb. You’re off to a really bad start.

  1. The US did not put the Taliban into power, because the Taliban did not exist back then. The Taliban was created, and came to power, years after the Soviets had been defeated.

  2. What “terrorist groups” were funded to attack Afghanistan, might I ask?

I am fairly well acquainted with the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions deals primarily with the treatment in war of non-combatants, specifically the wounded, the shipwrecked or marooned, the prisoner of war, and the civilian, none of which Osama bin LAden qualifies as. I cannot find any part of the Geneva Conventions that makes retrieving, or killing, Osama bin Laden illegal. Would you please cite the relevant portions?

Does anyone know where these people keep coming from?

bzzzzzzzzt. Thanks for playing. The U.S. didn’t put the Taliban into power, especially not in the 80’s, since they didn’t come into power until 1996. You are the weakest link, goodbye.

**RickJay wrote:

Does anyone have any evidence that this John Walker guy actually fought against the United States? If not, what’s the case for treason?**

I question whether or not this really is John Walker. When I saw the original CNN report, the guy talking spoke English very well, but with an accent, not as if it was his native tongue. If the real John Walker is native to the US, why doesn’t this one sound like he spent most of his life here?

Since you have challenged, I respond, using my amazing abilities of quoting. Let me whip them out for you.

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

" (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely,without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
© outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."
Now, the top part may seem like it’s saying that this article only applies in situations of Civil War or within a High Parties territory. However here is Article 2, which renders the top of Article 3 moot by the last paragraph.

"Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

Both articles are taken directly from the Geneva Convention which can be found here: http://www.asociety.com/geneva1.html

Currently, Bin Laden as he is cowering in a cave is Hors De Combat by the Geneva Convention. So unless he himself is holding a rifle and capping american soldiers in the head we violate the Geneva Convention by shooting him, torturing him, strip-searching and blahblahblah, read the above in other words. But Oh no, I’m not done.

Secondly, Bin Laden is not even military personnel anyways. He’s a civilian. Thus we as a government are acting against a civilian of another government. The Al Quada are not a military unit and your applying military rules to them…however the Geneva Convention still applies due to the US being a high party member of it.

Last time I checked, that was illegal. Of course, I don’t care about that, once again, just pointing things out. After all, it’s the whole legal argument of God and Satan. We cannot prove that Satan has done anything wrong. All he does is talk to people and they do the bad things. However, God can be held accountable for numerous murders and massive acts of destruction (the plagues of egypt, destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Great Flood). That doesn’t mean I like Satan, it just means he can’t be legally tried for the things he might have commited if I believed in him. Or God for that matter.

Here’s the happy fun crap on the Taliban that we funded and put into power. Do your research people.

What is the Taliban?
The Taliban, whose name in Arabic means “religious students,” are Islamic fundamentalists who emerged after the Soviet Union retreated from Afghanistan in 1989. As the country fell into civil war, the Taliban, riding a fleet of vehicles purchased by Osama bin Laden, began seizing territory in southern Afghanistan in 1994, finally capturing the capital Kabul in 1996. The Taliban, lead by reclusive Mullah Mohammed Omar, are strongest among the Pashtun people, who comprise 40 percent of the Afghan population, and in the southern part of the country, especially Khandahar. -Washingtonpost.com

Terrorists that we funded are the Northern Alliance who were the ruling government at the time of the Civil War mentioned in the above article. Hell, we’re funding them right now and they’re still terrorists as they are not a government yet still behave in a violent manner towards one. Taken from Dictionary.com
ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons

Northern Alliance=Terrorists we are funding and training right now to attack the Afghanistan government because we don’t like the Taliban or the Al Quada.

Al Quada=Terrorists funded by people who don’t like the united states.
Nailbomb
-Give me Christ or give me Hiroshima.-

If the guy has not spoken english in a long time and has spoken a language with radically different sounds, it could be understandable he would have an accent.

I had something like that happen to one of my aunts when she went to Haïti for a year. She had a very thick accent for a couple of months when she came back.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Fuckweed, you just made me laugh. Why? No, it wasn’t your winning personality. It wasn’t your dry humor. It wasn’t your total grasp of all the subtilities of the situation.

It was the sound the clue made as it bounced off of your head.

It was the sound your mouth made as it proved that some people got on the wrong side of the Brain Fairy as it was dropping brains out of one hand and cast-iron pots out of the other.

As we know, pots like to do something special.

They like to …

call kettles black!

Now, I know that my statement is, in part, inaccurate. Why? Well, kettles are black, just like pots. That implies some similarity.

But you, in your infinite wisdom, decided to call a lily-white Doper black. Apparently, deciding the difference between black and white isn’t your strong suit. Basic observation and thought aren’t too high on your list, either.

So shut up before a mod sees a shitter flailing violently against a wall. Shitters don’t last long here.

Ok, maybe I’m posting this because I am still relativly new and I feel for the plight of the newbies. I feel I have to say something though.

Although I don’t think Nailbomb is correct in his assesment of the situation, he did state it was his opinion. How is that a really bad start? At least he didn’t start his post with “Fuck you, I’m right!”. Which, I’ve seen, is far too common on these boards (Pesky socks).

Come on, doesn’t that seem a little childish? Yes I know, this is the Pit and everyone has to be mean and nasty, but I still try to be a little witty about it. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard the “Weakest Link” retort being dished out here on the boards.

While I know the US did not put the Taliban into power directly, we may have indirectly created the atmosphere to facilitate their rise to power. I know what your going to say: “Cite?”. Well I don’t have the time to research it right now. I have to go bring in the laundry, fold it, and go to sleep. Maybe tommorow when I’m not being a cubicle slave I will jump on the net and post the cites.

Oh, and Nailbomb? Welcome to the boards. :slight_smile:

Thanks Bryan for being cool. I personally try to stray from insulting people’s intelligences and thought I had backed up what I said with my secondary post. After all, saying the US put anyone into power is pretty much hearsay and conjecture since they don’t exactly announce it in the newspapers.

“This just in! United States puts future dictators into power! Trains terrorists groups! Patriotism is still a good thing!”

But it’s not exactly like they haven’t done it before (Bay of Pigs anyone?) and it’s pretty much a given with the Northern Alliance who a month ago were saying that they couldn’t raise the man-power to capture a village, let alone the northern half of Afghanistan.

And it is my opinion but I think I’ve drawn logical conclusions from the information I have. There are many other options, such as Soviet involvement with the NA, which is highly doubtful since they were trying to get rid of them in '89. Or that maybe Osama Bin Laden didn’t have anything to do with the WTC but he thought he’d gain more power if he claimed responsibility to it? After all, imagine the volunteer draw they’d gain from that, claiming to make a major strike against America? And how many terrorist groups are there that are Islamic and claim Middle Eastern Descent? Who else is there to back-up his claim to doing this? Some Arabic guys they found in florida? Maybe they did have connections to the WTC disaster but who says they work for Osama? Maybe they were covering the trail to who they really belong to. Let someone else take the heat for this and their leader gets to continue his work.

Besides, it’s not like we’re ending this. Imagine how many groups could rise from the ashes of Afghanistan? Do you think a man is going to forgive us for killing his brother? His son? After all, if a man broke into my house, killed my sister, and then gave me dinner, I’d still want his head on a plate to parade around on a big stick. We might just be bringing larger, more determined terrorists into the picture.

We could be giving other terrorists the reason to strike at us harder. This may not be the deterrant that we hope it is, but in fact an instigation of larger attacks. Who’s to say that one of these people we leave homeless or without a family won’t be the future leader of a nation? Through shrewd deals and whatnot they gain power and may eventually rise against us due to his hatred for the US. They could even win.

Of course, these are all only possible scenarios. However they can be frightenly real. After all, at one time Spain was considered the world power. However all it took was 1 hurricane and Britain was the leader. Then the US came along and we forced ourselves into the spotlight. Also, governments and world powers are having shorter and shorter lifespans. Take a look at the Egyptians who were considered the leaders of the world for over 3,000 years. In comparison England’s rise and fall took only 500 years. We’ve been a nation for only 200 years and beginning at the end of WWI we were considered the world leaders. We got lucky with the Soviets, but maybe we won’t with China. We are approaching, on a millenia based scale, the end of our lifespans if history is correct and continues on it’s present course. Maybe in the next century, Communism will once again reign. But opression just breeds a need for freedom, and so maybe a new America will form. Or maybe not. This is after just conjecture and opinion on my part. If someone disagrees with me that’s their right. However, acting like I’m an idiot and don’t know what I’m talking about won’t make me acknowledge your opinion, that’ll just make me acknowledge your ignorance of Earth and it’s history.

And ignorance is anything short of bliss.

Nailbomb
-Give me Christ or give me Hiroshima.-

Those were some lengthy posts, Nailbomb, but you blew a few things and failed to back up a few other things. First, nothing in your quotes from the Geneva Convention back up this statement from you:

So that’s strike one.

Next:

Not that I know of. People are regularly tried and convicted in a state that they are not citizens of.

Or perhaps you are referring to the US going into Afghanistan to get him. Well, again, since there is no central government and one of the factions gave the US permission to do it, the actions of the US are not illegal.

Strike two.

Next:

Nothing in that quote backs up your assertion that the Taliban were funded and put into power by the US. In fact, it says that their vehicles were purchased by bin Laden. Who, as you pointed out, is not even a US citizen.

Strike three.

Next:

Again, you still haven’t really proven that the NA is a terrorist organization. First, which government are the NA behaving in a violent manner towards? The US doesn’t recognize the Taliban as a government. Second, your definition of terrorism of an NGO being violent towards a government isn’t the same thing as the definition that your dictionary does. The NA are not using violence for the purpose of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, they are using violence to destroy a rival faction. Thirdly, THERE IS NO AFGHANISTAN GOVERNMENT.

Strike four.

Next:

Very good, you got a hit.

You’re wrong on both counts. To deal with the sillier one first, of course bin Laden is military personnel. He’s taken up arms against the United States; he’s a partisan soldier at the very least. You can’t commit acts of war and then say you aren’t a soldier because you aren’t carrying ID tags.

If bin Laden is a soldier he’s screwed. If he isn’t a solider he’s a pirate, at best, and he’s still screwed. The INTENT of the Geneva Conventions is to give protection to genuine non-combatants. Bin Laden is very obviously not a non-combatant in any meaningful sense of the term, and the “Fact” that he’s hiding out now (if in fact he is) doesn’t change that. You don’t become a non-combatant by taking cover.

I am ssssooooo very glad I am not living in the United States at the present, where even someone with a very logical dissenting opinion is called a troll. And what a great opportunity for all of you to give MORE money to the defense (what a hilarious notion, that the US has a “defense budget” tee hee) and the Defense Department (another tee hee on that one)! Just think, maybe you can now get “Suh-dam Hoosayn.” And while we’re at it, those Cubans down there are getting pretty pesky, too, let’s get them. Oh, and we don’t like the way the Iranians operate their country, let’s get them, too, while we are at it. They aren’t democratic, and it’s our place to make sure they don’t “spread” their belief systems around. But, we the mighty US are given some higher authority to go into any country where we like and tell them how to run things. ARghhhhh…it makes me sick.

Yes, if there is a war on terrorism, go out and get the terrorists, including Israel (who is either the ranked first or second in funding from the US) and other countries in which the US supports the fascist governments. I won’t go into a list here, it’s too tedious.

You call this the beginning of a “logical dissenting opinion”?

Pretty broad brush. I see you’re from France so you’re just another cheese-eating surrender monkey? Do you consider that a “logical dissenting opinion”?

Hoe came in, made some inflammatory comments, then was unable to muster an argument to support them so he continued insulting people.

Plenty of people on this board and in America are making well-reasoned arguments against either the military action in general, or issues related to the military action. They are not called trolls.

I, and most others, have no problem with people questioning US policy. But Hoe couldn’t do it intelligently. He had his slogans memorized but is clearly out of his depth discussing this at any serious level.

I went and found some of the cites I’ve been reading, if you are at all interested in reading some non-US published commentary on the situation at present, please visit ZNet.

http://www.zmag.org/marablefailure.htm

http://www.zmag.org/fiskcrim.htm

If this is the wrong way to approach this problem, and I’m not using the correct formal “Highschool Debate Team” methodology, forgive me. I am a mere amateur, but at least I am looking into the reasons why so many people around the world hold the US in such contempt. And it’s not what the US Media-types tell us, that the other countries are “jealous” of us and that they want to be like us, that’s why they don’t like us “Wah!”

Think, people. Use your own minds, step outside of your “USA is the center of the universe” mentality for just a moment. Please. Many of you are far too clever not to question US foreign policy, past and present.

I was quoting only one paragraph of what he said, and of course, the TV reference to Americans was uncalled for, I ignored it as idiotic. But you cannot throw out the baby with the bath water. In this case, the paragraph I quoted from him is not gratuitiously inflammatory. Please reread it.
Thank you.
P.S. I am in France, but not French.

OK, explain to me how Israel is a terrorist nation. It must be the numerous incidents this past weekend of Israeli suicide bombers blowing up Palestinian civilian targets. :rolleyes: Go peddle your anti-Semitic papers elsewhere.

He was called a troll because his first posts consisted of the quote I gave in my last post, followed by posts telling people they were “dim-witted” and should read some books to gain his incredible level of knowledge.

He then finally managed to make a substantive post consisting of a misunderstanding of the US Constitution. He was answered by Tranquilis and me and has not replied to this thread since. He did, however, find time to start another thread implying that all Americans consider it unAmerican to disagree. Once again, he wasn’t able to back up his generalization.

I never called him a troll, because that’s not my call to make. I merely consider him a lightweight sloganeer.

Which just underscores the point I was making with my gratuituous insult. When you generalize, you’re very often wrong.

As I said before, many Americans disagree with all or part of the war effort. Hoe’s generalizations just underscored his ignorance. Don’t take attacks on a lightweight in the BBQ Pit as an indictment of America. Hoe did so, and that’s bad company to keep.

I am not an anti-semite.
End of my involvement in this thread.

I disagree that calling Israel terrorist means you are an anti-Semite. I think it was uncalled for to label you as such.

I’d like to see you address my explanation of Hoe. He came in and generalized. You then came in and generalized about Americans.

I’ve explained why Hoe was called a troll. Do you disagree that his posts were gratuitous at first before switching to factually incorrect? If not, do you still stand by your implication that all Americans call a person with a “very logical dissenting opinion” a troll?

I’m not a big Pit person, either. But I guess my problem is that you attempted to label Americans as ignorant by relying on an ignorant generalization and defending an ignorant poster.

Nope, it was called for. Calling Israel a terrorirst nation is an outrageous slur, especially in view of the despicable acts perpetrated by Palestinian suicide bombers in the past few days.

Indymedia, Israel October 25, 2001

STOP ISRAEL!

Tanya Reinhart

For a whole week now, The Israeli army has been terrorizing cities and villages in the West Bank. As in the darkest days at the beginning of the present Intifada, desperate voices and reports pour through the internet, telling of massive shelling, including schools, hospitals, the university and a maternity house in Bethlehem, of curfew, houses being seized or destroyed, water tanks ruined in refugee camps. In Beit Reema, the site of Israel’s latest show of horror, Ambulances were not allowed in. local residents witnessed that the wounded were left lying for 5 hours before they were allowed medical care (Ha’aretz Oct 25). Dr Majed Nassar of the Beit Sahour Medical Center reports on Wednesday evening, Oct 24 that “Today we stopped counting the dead and wounded, since the number rises hourly.”

The snipers are back, aiming carefully to kill or maim for life. They are not targeting only those that Israel selected to define as “wanted”. Of the 26 killed until Oct 23, 16 were civilians, including 4 women, a little girl, and two youths under 16 (Hass, Ha’aretz Oct 24). In the town of Sanour south of Jenin City, 18 year-old Ghada was picking olives with family members, when Israeli snipers opened fire towards them. She was shot in the neck and died instantly. “She was a very kind and loving girl,” her mother said. “She was very helpful at home and in the farm. Her sisters and brothers looked up to her. She had a whole life ahead of her and they murdered her in cold blood.” (Palestine Media Center, Oct 22).

The Israeli tanks will be forced, eventually, to pull out back to the outskirts of the cities, but this won’t bring Ghada back to life. Nor would their departure arise great expectations for Hussam Jabar’s family from Beit Jala. “The army had seized their house on Thursday, using a ping pong table to barricade the seven members of the family into the kitchen, and setting up machine-gun posts in the children’s bedrooms.” When the army started pulling out from Beit Jala, leaving his house “peppered with bullet holes from Palestinian gunmen, and strewn with the debris of some two dozen Israeli soldiers”, he told Suzanne Goldenberg from The Guardian that “the Israeli army would soon be back. ‘Do you think it makes a difference if they left? They are going back and forth. What makes you think that they have really left?’ he said. 'We have an inner feeling that we are an expendable people.” (The Guardian, Oct 24).

Indeed this has been the pattern for a long while now. The army enters the cities, sows destruction, and then ‘under pressure’ pulls out a few hundred meters, till the next time. Each time the scale is bigger.

This time, Israel describes it as an act against terror, retaliating for the assassination of Zeevi. “We are doing precisely what the US is doing in Afghanistan” - explained Raanan Gissin, a spokesman of Sharon, to CNN on Wednesday, Oct 24. Sharon’s Czechoslovakia analogy of October 4 (-the world sacrifices Czechoslovakia-Israel, to please Arafat-Hitler) did not find much sympathy even in Israel. The current analogy Sharon has been developing is that Arafat equals Bin Laden, or to give this some more credibility, Arafat and the PA equal the Taliban who host Bin Laden. “Sharon, apparently deliberately echoing President George W. Bush’s remarks after the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington last month, told an emergency meeting of senior ministers that after the killing of cabinet minister Rehavam Ze’evi, ‘the situation is different today, and will not again be like it was yesterday’.” (Ha’aretz, October 18).

The consequences of this analogy are obvious: “Israel’s Security Cabinet is understood to have sent a blunt message to Mr Arafat that unless Israel’s conditions for the extradition etradiction of the killers and the outlawing of all Palestinian terror organizations were adhered to within one week he ‘would be treated in the way in which the US treats the Taliban’.” (The Times (London), Oct 19). “We will wage all-out war on the terrorists, those who collaborate with them and those who send them” -Sharon promised in his speech to the special Knesset session in memory of the assassinated minister. “As far as I am concerned, the era of Arafat is over.” (there).

Possibly, Sharon and his cabinet count on the Western world to swallow this analogy. If the standards are that the whole Afghan people can be bombarded and starved to death as a collective punishment for an act of terror, why shouldn’t Israel follow the same standards?

Indeed, for almost a week, Israel has been allowed to carry its work of destruction undisturbed. Until Monday, Oct 23, the US and others expressed some dissatisfaction, but nothing else. This contrasts sharply with the endless international pressure on Arafat. “US Consul General in Jerusalem Ronald Schlicher met with Arafat, and demanded that he take swift action against those responsible for the assassination. European Union nations were also pressing the Palestinians to make arrests…U.N. Middle East envoy Terje Larsen met three times with Arafat, telling the Palestinian leader that he must order the arrests of the murderers” (Ha’aretz, Oct 18), and that’s how it went on the whole week.

Why didn’t anybody exert the same pressure on Israel, right at the start, not to ‘retaliate’? In the prevailing frame of mind it is unthinkable to even ask why nobody puts pressure on Sharon to arrest the Israeli army terrorists who assassinated Palestinian political leaders. But at least he could be pressed to wait the week that Arafat was formally given in the cabinet’s decision.

This may look mysterious to the many who just a long week ago attached hopes to the new ‘Peace initiative’ which the US has launched since the beginning of October. “The idea of a Palestinian state has always been part of a vision”, Bush declared solemnly on the 2nd of October. It was leaked that the US had already prepared a detailed plan for a peace settlement, that was only frozen because of the September 11 events. We heard that a draft of a speech by Powell was prepared for the event, which he will soon find the right occasion to deliver.

Only few in the Western media expressed the kind of skepticism that this was met with in the Arab media. As Michael Jansen noted in the Jordanian Time of October 5, “the timing of the Bush remark and the leak are important. They came on the eve of visits by US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Oman. Washington is eager to convince these governments to permit the use of their territory for the coming offensive against Afghanistan… Once again, Arab governments are supposed to sign on to a US program of action without any concrete quid pro quo… Thus, a vague Bush statement and a leak by an anonymous official of the existence of a plan which is not revealed are supposed to convince the Arabs that the administration has good intentions.”

The ‘peace initiatives’ intensified around the gathering of the emergency meeting (Oct 9) of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), which includes 56 countries, whose silence or cooperation were important, at the moment to the US. At this stage, more details were flared up in the air to make it all look concrete, and Bush’s spokesman, Tony Blair, has entered the picture. Blair, who returned to London from a two-day visit to the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Egypt, was quite open in explaining the urgency: “One thing becoming increasingly clear to me is the need to upgrade our media and public opinion operations in the Arab and Muslim world”. (The Guardian, Oct 12). This PR phase culminated in a joint press-conference of Blair and Arafat in October 15.

It didn’t require much creativity to generate this show. The script was ready from the days of the Gulf war. To reward the Arab world for its cooperation, the US organized the Madrid conference which marked the era of an eternal ‘peace process’, thus allowing Israel to continue the occupation undisturbed. This round, however, the US feels much stronger, as the sole ruler of the world, and it is not obvious at all that they intend to go on with even that much.

Aluf Ben reports in Ha’aretz Oct 18 that, “according to a US report”, Colin Powell is leaning towards a decision to cancel his plans to deliver a speech on United States policy in the Middle East. “According to the report, policy makers in the American administration feel that there is no longer a need for a Powell speech because President George Bush has already presented his vision for the Middle East in statements over the past few weeks. With the cancellation of Powell’s speech, most of the steps planned by the administration for increased involvement in the Middle East will have been removed from the agenda… American diplomats sent a message to Sharon this week saying that the administration has no plans to launch a Middle East diplomatic initiative in the near future, and that any steps will be coordinated with Israel in advance.” (Though this appeared in Ha’aretz web site at the day of Zeevi’s assassination, it is obvious that the US report was prepared earlier.)

Whether they do produce another fake peace show or not, the US has backed Israel in all of its atrocities, always. None of these would be possible without US military aid and political backing. Had the US wanted to stop Israel now, this could be easily done at any moment - Just freeze immediately all military aid, for starts. Instead, on Wednesday October 24, the day the headlines announced that Bush and powell’s patience with Israel is expiring, the US senate approved again $2.76 billion in assistance for Israel, more than any other country in the world. Out of this sum, $2.04 billion is a special military aid (Ha’aretz web-site, Oct 25). The US may slow Sharon down when he is becoming inconvenient, but they will not save the Palestinians and will not end the occupation. No appeal to Powell can change this.

**

It is possible to understand the hopes that many good souls attached to the new US peace promises. Despair can lead people to cling to any straw. Still, if you go in the morning to demonstrate against the US slaughter of the Afghan people, it does not make much sense to hope in the evening that the butcher will spare the Palestinians.

Hope can be found only in struggle. The times have indeed changed since the beginning of the Palestinian Intifada. There is enormous opposition to the US acts throughout the world, including the Western world. And despite the constant bias of the Western media towards Israel, the opposition to Israel is growing as well.

There is lots of room for struggle. Make ‘Stop Israel!’ a part of any ‘Stop the war’ demonstration or leaflet. Apply all pressure you can on your local media to send correspondents to Israel and bring real coverage. Some European papers already do that, but the media in the US is far behind. The presence of the press is not just a means to find out the truth, it can also help restrain the brutality of the Israeli army.

Israel still views itself as a democracy, so resistance is still possible. There is a small, but courageous, opposition - including people who stand daily in road blocks to monitor the brutality of soldiers, smuggle aid to the villages under siege, or even stay in the attacked areas to serve as human shields. There are many ways to help their struggle - from donations to actual presence and participation. (Contacts can be found through Indymedia, Israel - http://www.indymedia.org.il).

The most important is, of course, to form contacts and aid the Palestinian organizations. An exciting development in the last few months has been the international solidarity movement. Individuals from all over the world come to stay at the Palestinian areas, serve as human shields and join political struggle. It is still possible to do this, though it is getting more difficult and dangerous. (Contact: http://www.palsolidarity.org).

Finally, there is one simple thing that anybody can do: Boycott Israel - join, for starts, the consumers boycott which has been going on for a while in various places in Europe. It is easy to do - just don’t buy ‘made in Israel’ products. But it is also a useful means of political activity and education. In the days of the South-Africa boycott, people used to sneak in to supermarkets and paste ‘South Africa’ stickers on the relevant products. Leafleting outside supermarkets, explaining why we boycott Israel is a good way to get the information through.

Israel is not the US. It is a small country with hardly any economy, and with a self-image completely detached from reality. It can be stopped.

http://www.tau.ac.il/~reinhart