Palestinian Word Games
By Oliver J. Olinger (06/04/03)
The current "Road Map" to peace provides a pristine example of the very weaknesses that our enemy is exploiting. They are using our inherent sympathies for the underdog (having been the underdog ourselves once) and playing us for fools through colorful, but utterly meaningless terminology and phraseology.
The truth is that our enemy is not the underdog because their support network is larger than anyone cares to admit. Anyone who wishes to truly be in control of their allegiances should visit any Palestinian Media Outlet (abundant on the internet) and read for yourselves the Palestinians' own words. (Note: all use of the words "Palestine" or "Palestinian" is only for the sake of simplified reading, because in reality there is no such thing as Palestine.) Anyone brave enough to undertake this task will find a plethora of examples of the following: 1. Palestinian news agencies and media sources, when reporting Israeli "terrorism," will always (I haven't been able to find one exception) direct sympathies toward the Palestinian "civilian activist(s)" who were the target of the Israeli attack. These civilian activists are professed members of known and admitted terrorist organizations such as Hamas or Islamic Jihad. 2. Palestinian officials, when responding to Palestinian "resistance fighting" (i.e. terrorism) with a subtle but present amount of satisfaction, will always (again I've found no exceptions) either blame Israel for provoking the violence or immediately begin talking about peace in order to make Israel's inevitable and justified retaliatory strike look like a hindrance to the newest rash of peace efforts. 3. The Palestinian leadership uses our own badly formulated treaties, negotiations, etc. to simultaneously justify further terrorism and appeal to our sympathies while they commit repeated murders.
A Jan 18th, 2003, Palestine Media Center (PMC) report begins, "Two Palestinian activists were killed after killing an Israeli soldier…The two activists succeeded in infiltrating the Illegal Israeli settlement…" Now, momentarily setting aside the killing of the Israeli soldier, does the use of the word "activist" in a situation such as the one described strike you as odd? Why are they so careful to ensure that these two are labeled as "activists." Another PMC report on Nov 10th, 2002, stated, "…reports from the occupied West Bank city of Jenin confirmed that IOF [Israeli Occupation Forces] had murdered a Palestinian activist following a raid on his family home. The Victim, a senior Jihad activist, was identified as Iyad Sawalha, whom Israel claimed was on its top 'wanted' list." By the way, Islamic Jihad reacted to Sawalha's "murder" hours later by planting a bomb in the car of two Israeli soldiers. Again the word "activist" is used in describing a shameless terrorist. And the overall tone of the news report itself suggests that the world should feel sorry for this poor, innocent "victim" of Israel's wrath against their precious resistance movement (i.e. terrorists.)
Perhaps the most comical example I've been able to find is the following, from the same Jan 18th, 2003, PMC report; "Earlier Friday, a Palestinian activist was killed when a naval Israeli boat fired at his small, booby-trapped boat, causing it to explode, a leaflet issued by the resistance group Hamas in Gaza said. The killed activist was identified as Mahmoud al-Jeemasi, of Hamas military wing…It said al-Jeemasi had been on a mission to carry out a resistance attack." (pause for laughter.) Here's an instance where the Palestinian media deceptively expects sympathy for the elimination of an identified terrorist working for an admittedly terrorist organization in the midst of carrying out a terrorist act. The absurdity of this scenario is only equaled by the actual sympathy to the Palestinian "cause" won by half-witted liberals and other traitors to liberty around the world.
After introducing a new, more subtle vocabulary of terrorism, the Palestinians begin using their terminology as if that terminology was coined and established by the entire international community, including the U.S. In other words, they create their own pretext and trick the world into accepting it by constructing new statements on the old ones, which makes the old statements look like undisputed fact. On Jan. 2nd, 2003, a PMC article states, "The (Israeli) army does not come out with a clear message that says, 'You are not allowed to assault a civilian Palestinian.' The message is vague and ambiguous." The problem is that Israel can't forbid their attacks on civilians, because the civilians are "activists" are terrorists. Israel can't prohibit their assaults on Palestinians any more than we can prohibit our own attacks on al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. The Palestinian National Authority goes even further in a PMC article dated Dec. 27th, 2002, defining these Israeli assaults as "the extra-judicial assassinations perpetrated by the Israeli occupation forces…" This statement is preposterous because it's impossible to grant someone a judicial trial while they're sitting in a boat full of explosives headed toward you with the objective of killing you, or while they sit around the Qur'an (keeping their wives and children close by so they can be martyred along with them) planning the next slaughter of your innocent country-men, women, and children. Yasir Arafat himself said on "Nakba" day (the fall of the so-called-Palestine to the "Zionists") through the Palestinian Media Center on May 17th, 2003, that "For the past 55 years, martyrs…have fallen for the sake of the homeland, freedom and the return of the refuges." (Translation: We've been getting away with terrorism for 55 years.) The evil deception rises all the way to the top.
Hamas spokesman Abdel Khaleq al-Natshe was interviewed by Crescent International in May of 2000,and the admitted terrorist said about his organization, "We are Muslim activists intent on the reinstitution of the political authority of Islam…We are the Muslim Brothers' strong arm." Firstly, he uses the term "activist" in direct reference to his (and his organizations) terrorist activity. Secondly, a rhetorical question arises from this statement; what does Hamas consider to be the full extent of Muslim political authority? In Beirut, Lebanon, Mar 27th, 2002, CNN reporter Bill Hemmer interviewed Usama Hamdan, another Hamas spokesman. Near the end of the interview, Hamdan says, "you will discover that all the Palestinians consider themselves suicide bombers. Its not all related to Hamas (There have also been) attacks by Fatah, which is led by Yasir Arafat, or by the Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian groups….they have to expect such attacks from everywhere and from any Palestinian group." So, Usama Hamden readily declares Hamas' terror practices as well as every other groups (including Yasir Arafat's.) This goes along with the previous Hamas statement that "We are Muslim activists." Islam has merely used the term activist as a synonym to terrorism, which seems easy enough to compensate for in our own policy-making decisions about Palestine, but somehow continues to be a gray cloud blinding us from the truth about Palestinian and Muslim terrorism.
An important element to exposing Palestinian propaganda is the constant referral to "Israeli State terrorism," which aims at provoking images of Israeli-led, vicious slaughters of innocent Palestinian "civilian activists" (see above). However, most statements about "Israeli State terrorism," merely blame Israel for Palestinian terrorism. The president of the Palestinian Medical Relief Committees and Director of the Health, Development, Information and Policy Institute, Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi said on Jul 23rd, 2002, about Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, "Sharon is [either] provoking a reaction or Sharon is establishing a continuum alliance with the extremist[s] from the Palestinian side because he does not want peace." This statement (coming from a health official; go figure) begins by blaming Sharon for provoking Palestinian terrorism, and finishes by going even further with that blame suggesting a conspiracy between Sharon and the very terrorist organizations that want to see his head, and the heads of his fellow countrymen, on a platter (and they call me a conspiracy theorist). The truth behind this statement, I fear, is that a gruesome picture of Israeli oppression and aggression can easily (but erroneously) be painted a number of different ways when "civilian" terror groups, which are not "officially sponsored" by their governments, provide both an outlet for state-"appreciated," uncontrollable attacks outside of the Geneva Convention, and an unpredictable source of violent rage that must be triggered by an aggressor in order to operate.
President Mubarak of Egypt was also reported by PMC on Jul 27th, 2002, as accusing "the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, of deliberately ordering Tuesday's 'abominable' air strike…in an attempt to torpedo Palestinian peace efforts." The article went on to say, "Fifteen people were killed in the strike, including nine children and a top Hamas activist…an agreement by some Palestinian factions to end attacks on civilians was in its final stages when an Israeli F-16 warplane dropped a one-ton bomb at a four-story building in Al-Yarmok area,…Mr. Mubarak warned Israel that deadly assaults, such as Tuesday's missile attack in Gaza, escalated violence in the Middle East and bred hatred" First and foremost, I don't believe for a second that there were any peace talks being conducted in the same room with a top Hamas "activist." We'll obviously never know for sure for lack of proof, and President Mubarak is aware of that. Secondly, what are nine children doing in a peace discussion between Palestinian terrorist (sorry! I meant to say activist) factions? Also, the accusation that Israel "breeds hatred" is a psychological projection (from a vile, scheming snake) aimed at excusing the heinous actions of the terrorists. Does this mean Egypt endorses the rights of terrorists to commit acts of terror whenever they feel they "hate" someone who is standing up to them? Remember, America, they hate us, too! Palestinian Officials are always the first to ask Israel to "return to peace-talks" immediately following a Palestinian terrorist attack, suggesting that they don't support further violence, but in the wake of a legitimate Israeli attack, Palestine wouldn't dream of returning to "peace" talks until after their revenge has been quenched (which is never) through terror. They want the world to assume that their despicable, depraved terrorist organizations, are simply a gathering of oppressed freedom fighters, whose egregious actions are totally dependent on provocation from outside influences.
"Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas condemned the suicide attack Monday that killed three Israelis as well as the bomber in the town of Afula and urged Israel to embark on the internationally-backed peace 'roadmap' to halt the violence." The preceding statement came from a PMC news article from May 20th, 2003. Again, we see an example of how Palestine's word games can easily provoke a feeling of sympathy in the average, unthinking person. Just as in every Palestinian suicide bombing or terrorist act, the Palestinian Authority immediately demands that Israel not retaliate, often citing either the Mitchell Report or the Tenet Plan. This statement is also designed to give the impression that Israel alone carries the burden of a "peaceful solution," and that any Israeli opposition to the "roadmap" means that Israel does not want peace. Simply by "urging Israel" to go along with the roadmap to "halt the violence," PM Abbas shifts attention from the brutal crimes being committed by the Palestinians to Israel's hesitation on accepting the notion that the Palestinians are serious about peace this time.
If there are still any doubts about the two-faced nature of Palestine, the following excerpt should clear up the confusion. The following was taken from a PMC report dated Nov 10th, 2002: "The Jewish state has openly adopted a policy of killing Palestinian activists during the past two years of Intifada-- uprising against the occupation." Firstly, it's necessary to understand the root of the word "Intifada." The root of this word, which is the same root as fedayeen (defined by Palestine as "freedom fighters") means self-sacrifice, redemption, and devotion among other related things. If they really were talking about the accepted definition of military exercises against an aggressor they would probably use any number of words from the root haraba (to fight, combat, wage war), but they are clearly unable to conceive of any military action in the traditional sense of the term. The preceding statement from the Palestine Media Center basically says, "how dare Israel take military action against the people who are rising up to kill them and their families by every unconventional, depraved means imaginable?" Once again, they prove the depths of their evil by projecting their own immoral acts onto Israel, admitting that they have no control over themselves and are therefore, in my opinion, undeserving of their own country.
Despite the blatant dishonesty and deception exercised freely and openly by Palestine, the U.S State Department, New York Times, and numerous others continue to buy each and every lie sent our way. The problem stems from our inability to conceive of the possibility that there are people on this planet who DO NOT separate religious "fanaticism" and government affairs. Our assumption that there are gaps between the "average" Palestinian people and their Islamic "soldiers" of terror leads to our acceptance of, and liberal usage of these Palestinian word games. In the "Road Map" to peace, Phase I, the section on security demands that Israel NOT carry out any "attacks on civilians." If Israel were to follow this provision, the Palestinian "civilian" population, would be granted an open season on innocent Israelis, and the nation of Israel would fall to the Palestinian "activists," who have never, and will never, agree to any type of peace agreements. The poorly-written "Road Map" also does something that I assume goes over the heads of most people. I like to call it the Deception of Imagery, or the inclusion of minimum requirements, benchmarks, and steps that enable a reluctant party to simply show the overseer that they are meeting those minimum requirements despite the absence of any real progress. How many children sit in front of an open textbook for an hour doing nothing, just to be able to tell their parents that they "studied for an hour?"
The "Road Map" to peace, Phase II states, "this goal can be achieved when the Palestinian people have a leadership acting decisively against terror, willing and able to build a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty." The last part about tolerance and liberty is simply a utopian pipe dream, conceived by the can't-we-all-just-get-along crowd. However, the rest of this statement deals with requiring the Palestinians to show that they are trying their hardest to make this "democracy thing" work. How much stronger would this statement have been if it said, "…When Palestine is truly democratic- to be determined by the rest of the world." Still, these are only statements, and no matter how strongly they are worded (which isn't very strong at all in this example) they require a fortified, resolute overseer, who is ready, willing, and able to punish harshly if guidelines are broken. The closing of the "Road Map," which is supposed to be the point where peace has been achieved, puts forth this statement; "[Phase III will]… launch a process with the active, sustained, and operational support of the Quartet, leading to a final permanent status resolution…to support progress toward a comprehensive Middle East settlement…" It goes on and on. There just seems to be a little to much inaction here, with words like "launch a process," "active, sustained support," and "to support progress toward." This is supposed to be Phase III, the final phase of the "Road Map" to peace, which I personally understand as "the end of the journey." At "the end" there shouldn't be any more statements about attempting to make progress. The entire "Road Map" plan, although it may have some colorful words, and flowery phrases that emulate the ivy-league schooling of its writers, is quite simply a giant leap in place, moving neither forward nor backward.
How can Palestine use the "Road Map" to maintain their animalistic barbarity? The CNN interview with Usama Hamdan by Bill Hemmer reveals the following quote by Hamdan about the nature of terrorism in Palestine; "…the military wing of Hamas is separate from the political wing. The military wing has their own commands, and they launch their attacks according to the situation on the ground." With this statement in mind, imagine for a moment that a civilian, openly Democratic (as in the political party) group calling themselves, the "military wing of the Democratic Party" began slaughtering pro-lifers by the thousands. The "political wing of the Democratic Party" would no doubt "condemn the military wing's actions in the strongest possible terms," while talking amongst themselves about the heroism of the killers for removing the opposition and the pro-life provocation of these attacks, simultaneously disavowing their involvement with or influence over these "civilian activists." To drive home the reality of this situation, Abdel Khaleq al-Natshe says, in his interview by Crescent International, "They [Hamas' leaders] are prominent Muslim politicians, but I don't know who they are, I don't know them since this is a secret matter." When the majority of a government (usually an Islamic government) shares common goals with terrorists to the point of sympathizing with their cause and even praising their deeds, that government can be expected to do anything that the terrorists would do, regardless of whether or not a paper trail can be found that "officially" connects the two.
How can we seriously entertain the possibility that this "Road Map" will really lead to a compromise and eventually peace? On May 16th, 2003, Palestinian Authority Minister of Negotiations Affairs, Saeb Erekat, wrote in a letter to the United States, "…we have accepted it [the "Road Map"] in good faith because of its destination: peace and security of both peoples, an independent and viable Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital, living side-by-side with Israel on Israel's pre-1967 borders." Upon reading the "Road Map" I discovered that there is no mention of Jerusalem, and only a vague reference to the year 1967. This "Minister of Negotiations Affairs," while accepting a peace-plan based on negotiations, affirms that the Palestinians will continue their "resistance fighting" if they don't get EXACTLY what they want. Some compromise, huh? He goes on to say, "We…have indeed already met many of them ["Road Map" obligations] including the appointment of an empowered cabinet and the drafting of a constitution." One question, Mr. Erekat; how many of those empowered cabinet members belong to your "civilian activist" organizations' political wings?
A statement to PMC by the Palestinian Authority on Jun 5th, 2002 reads, "…the leadership seeks through both the bilateral and international efforts to reach a just peace, that entails ending the Israeli occupation and establishing an independent Palestinian state, with Holy Jerusalem as its capital." And from Yasir Arafat, to Palestine Media Center on May 17th, 2003, "No peace will prevail without a complete Israeli withdrawal from all our Palestinian and Arab land, to the June 4, 1967 line." The purpose and definition of negotiation seems to elude all Palestinian officials. They will never accept NOT having Jerusalem as their capitol, and they will never accept any state boundaries being anything other than the pre-1967 boundaries.
Finally, a report printed on the Palestine Media Center web site entitled "Facts Worth Noting" brings any remaining doubt to rest. It says, "The 'Road Map' to the Palestinians that Bush envisions: …you stop your resistance to the occupation (which we [the U.S.] call terrorism), and… -you agree to lock up all your resistance fighters, and… -you agree not to claim Jerusalem as your capital,.." I see no reason to believe that Palestine will accept anything other than everything they want.
It's time to choose where you stand, America. Despite all our talk about the horrors of terrorism and the atrocities it brings, we have worked our way into a position where we are actually helping terrorists through our indecisiveness, cowardice, and incompetence. The only valid option with so-called-Palestine (where we truly make a stand against terrorism and its perpetrators) is to punish them for their crimes in such a way that they loose more than they gain for every terrorist act. So-called-Palestine has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that they don't deserve their own country, they don't deserve international aid, and they don't deserve to live if they continue to support and carry out murderous terror campaigns against the innocent. If they can go a few decades without the employment of terror as their weapon, maybe a real peace can be realized. It's much too late to proceed with any additional, doomed peace plans. If we do, so-called-Palestine will find the loopholes, exploit them, and play us for fools while doing it. Wake up, America!!
(Printer friendly version) Email: Oliver J. Olinger
