Reaction to Abbas' Death Shows Depth of Hatred

[JohnLocke]

Reaction to Death of Abbas Shows Depth of Hatred*
Thursday, March 11, 2004
News-Register (WV)
----
Abul Abbas, one of the most vicious terrorists of the modern era died Monday. Reaction to his death among some Palestinian organizations reminds Americans of just how blind and implacable is the hatred that grips so many in the Middle East.
Abbas, 56, was captured by U.S. forces after they took Baghdad last year. After a career spent eluding justice for his bloodthirsty deeds, he had been in captivity since last April. U.S. officials say an autopsy will be performed, but they add that they believe Abbas died of a heart attack.
Leaders of the Palestinian Liberation Front claim Abbas was murdered. They also label him as a martyr and a patriot.
But consider the terrorist assault for which Abbas is most remembered: In 1985, he led a group of PLO killers who hijacked the cruise ship Achille Lauro. Merely to demonstrate their cold-bloodedness, Abbas and his terrorists killed an elderly passenger on the ship, Leon Klinghoffer. He had been confined to a wheelchair. He was murdered and his body was thrown overboard.
Klinghoffer's offenses, in the eyes of Abbas? He was a Jewish American.
Abbas' death eliminates one vicious terrorist from the world. But the fact that some Palestinians view him as a heroic victim says much about what peace-loving people face in their campaign to eliminate terrorism.
----
Read the rest here.
----
Modified for apostrophe error.

[tinnypriv]

1. No mention

That the terrorist attack on the Lauro was in response to Israeli aggression, and in any case, the hijackers were following a precedent set by Israel.

[JohnLocke]

2. Amazing.

You can't justify the hijacking of a ship full of civilians.

[tinnypriv]

8. I agree

Which is why I called it a "terrorist attack".

Please re-read my post.

[Nederland]

3. A precedent set by Israel?

When did Israel kill someone for merely being Palestinian?

[Don Claybrook]

6. Please see my post below

...where I disagree with the poster. That's my opening disclaimer, to preface the statement that I think lots of Palestinians have been killed by Israel for the crime of being Palestinian. And yes, lots of Israeli bus-riders and club-goers have suffered the same unjust end. I disagree with the position your statement implies.

[DenverDem]

7. Uh, yesterday?

And the day before that?

et al ad nauseum.

Surely you jest?

[Nederland]

13. Really?

Where they just sitting in a wheelchair?

[tinnypriv]

16. A elderly man in Jenin was

Aid agency and Amnesty/HRW reports state that his wheelchair (with white flag attached) was smashed and broken, and his face torn into pieces.

He was run over by an IDF tank.

Obviously not an exact parallel to the Lauro, but the reactions to both are quite interesting. The former demonstrates the evil scourge of terrorism, the latter (if even reported), is "error" (despite the personnel testimony of IDF soldiers showing wanton and reckless disregard for Palestinian life).

Also, you may be unaware that there are thousands of Palestinians just sitting in wheelchairs, doomed to die a slow death due to lack of medical facilities, closure etc.

Their wounds are almost always caused deliberately by the IDF (in order to massage casualty figures). Several of those cripples have been killed in suspicious circumstances (or "unlawfully" if you prefer Amnesty's term) during the 2nd Intifada.

To be fair to Israel, each case was investigated and the IDF absolved. To be fair to the Palestinians, those investigations are mostly a joke (as admitted in the Israeli press).

[tinnypriv]

10. I'm referring to hijacking

Israel set the international precedent for hijacking planes, ships etc. in return for political/military gain back in the 50's.

The first hijacking, which was "unprecedented in the history of international practice" was of a Syrian civilian airliner in 1954.

Israeli PM Sharatt - kind of a dove - was informed by the U.S of the "unprecedented" nature of that action by the way (quoted from his Hebrew diaries). Hence, Israel set the precedent.

We could talk about whether or not Israel has killed someone for "merely being Palestinian" if you like, but that is a separate topic. I will only comment that even a Prime Minister of Israel has acknowledged (in internal discussion), that "for Jews shedding Arab blood is permissable".

That's PM Shamir, in reaction to various actions taken by current PM Sharon (who was in the IDF at the time).

Can expand on that if you like.

[_Jumper_]

14. What was the reaction to Shamir's racist comment....

...in Israel and the US?

[tinnypriv]

15. Sorry

That should say Sharatt, not Shamir. Tried to edit, but it blew me off.

In any case, the reaction in Israel was mostly nothing (save for a couple of leftists), and there was no reaction in the U.S. either.

The second is for quite interesting reasons - elements within Israel and within the "pro-Israel" community in the U.S. tried to supress publication of the diaries. Eventually, they were published by some Arab group (you can imagine what that did for sales though).

Quite an interesting back-story really - you can find it on the internet now - search for 'Israel's Sacred Terrorism'.

By the way, you can see contemporary parallels to this. To name one: the distancing of publishers from an English edition of 'Checkpoint Syndrome'. The Hebrew is obviously widely available, but nobody cares about that (Israeli peace groups do have an english version, or so I hear).

The reasons are transparent - so-called "pro-Israel" elements want to promote a picture of Saintly Israel to those that matter: the U.S. population.

Of course, (IMO) hiding the fact that Israel is a state just like any other is pretty idiotic, and likely to embolden reactionary Israeli elements since they feel they can count on support and slavish praise whatever they do.

Oh, and as you can see from just this thread, it seems that only about 0.001% of people are even aware that Israeli instigated the practice of terrorist hijackings. That's a real achievement.

[_Jumper_]

17. Thanks

Yes, I too was unaware about Israel starting the practice of hijackings.

Was Sharatt a PM of Israel?

[tinnypriv]

18. Yeah

Not a very effective one I should say, given the constraints imposed by Ben-Gurion.

He was also foreign minister a couple of times.

That sort of thing happens a lot - look at Peres, Netenyahu, Sharon etc. There's a lot of rotation.

[_Jumper_]

21. Wow

I can't believe an Israeli PM made a racist statement like that and it has been ignored by the media, which often documents Palestinian racism.

[tinnypriv]

22. Hell

Sharon says this sort of thing all the time. To quote from Kol Yisrael:

"The Palestinians are never saddened when they kill Jews"

Note: It's not that the terrorists are never saddened. It's every Palestinian. Also, if you're interested, here is another recent statement ignored by the media, and made by the current head of Israeli military intelligence:

"It's preferable for Palestinian mothers to weep"

He said this after the IDF used a new experimental weapon in a Gaza bombing, which killed many civilians, including doctors trying to treat the wounded. The IDF subsequently lied to Israeli military correspondents about the weapon used, denying any culpability until even moderate Israeli columnists and MK's began to harshly denounce the raid.

For another example of this sort of thing, the Hebrew version of Ha'aretz reports that some IDF soldiers are reportedly turning up for duty in the West Bank with the following inscription on their jumpers:

"Every Arab mother should know that the fate of her children is in our hands"

Then there is the multitude of signs around Israel saying "Deport the fuckers", posters comparing Sharon to a Nazi (for merely stating the intention to remove settlements from Eretz Yisrael), t-shirts saying "Buy from Jews". etc etc.

Two other examples:

A current member of the government of Israel (Avigdor Lieberman) has stated that Israel perhaps may have to, quote:

"Burn Damascus and Beirut"

That's in order to remove a "threat" he and Israel determine (nobody else).

Finally, Uzi Cohen, a prominent member of Likud and a former mayor of a major Israeli city recently presented a plan to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians by "transferring" them to Jordan. He published the plan at the Likud central committee (basically the Likud DNC). He had a map and everything: Israel extends to the entire West Bank and Golan, and "Jordan is Palestine", to quote old rhetoric.

Anyway, this is a minor litany, off the top of my head. Most of it from the front pages incidentially. It's just simply suppressed, as inconsistent with the prefered image of Israel.

Just ask yourself how many times the above has even been reported, never mind commented on. Interestly, all this is happening in sync with rapturous applause for Sharon as a "man of peace". Like I said above, this sort of concious lying and distortion is a real achievement.

[_Jumper_]

24. Why?

Why is the US media the only media in the world that is pro-Israeli government, let alone hardcore supporters of whatever government is in power there?

[tinnypriv]

26. Without going into too much detail

Which I've done (or attempted) elsewhere, the short answer is that major power centres in the United States support Israel.

Therefore, the media will in general follow those power centres, and trend towards "pro-Israel" coverage (I use the quotes deliberately - hiding the real state of Israel is not pro-Israel IMO, anymore than pretending the PA is lovely is "pro-Palestinian").

There are some exceptions of course, though they can be named on the fingers of one hand. It is no exaggeration to say that the Israeli press is often more critical of Israeli policies than the US press. Again, it's a real achievement to have coverage that dismal.

Regardless, you don't even have to focus this on Israel.

Take Saddam Hussein for instance. Why was there never a peep about his human rights record in the 80's and early 90's? Because major power centres in the United States supported his regime. You can look back and find the state department calling him a force for "stability" in the region, US reps/senators buttering him up, handshakes with senior officials, suppression of his human rights records in the press, and comments such as "Iraq under Hussein is moving towards moderation".

That's hardly a revelation, and as you'd expect, the coverage changed instantly the U.S. government and major centres of U.S-based power turned against Saddam. Then the press jumped to attention and suddenly noticed that Halabja happened, the Muharakbat ain't a bunch of wet nurses etc. Big surprise.

The same in this case. Israel will remain immune from honest coverage as long as it remains a U.S. ally. That's kind of an equation that almost never fails.

Oh, and the rest of the world media is mostly useless regarding this topic, and it follows the U.S. press in large part anyway. So I wouldn't be so quick to assume that there is a great deal of difference between the coverage in Europe and the U.S (at least in my experience).

Anyway, you can almost always find out what is happening on the ground just by reading the U.S. and Israeli press. I can't remember the last time I read a truly essential non-US/Israeli article on the I/P conflict. In the former case, the presentation (i.e. coverage) may be dismal, but if you're a real media addict you can find the facts if you're willing to trawl through mountains of data. In the latter case, most of it is on the front pages. It's not hidden. But then we're back to the equation again.

[bluestateguy]

4. So it's Israel's fault the Lauro was hijacked?

No matter how much we may disagree with Israeli policies I will never ever make excuses for terrorist actions, nor will I take seriously any argument that suggests the United States is to blame for the 9/11 attacks (the government's preparedness is another story).

[tinnypriv]

11. Not sure where you are getting this

I questioned the lack of historical context, nothing else.

The fact that the hijackers claimed to be responding to "armed aggression" in "flagrant violation" of international law does not necessarily mean that their claim is justifible, or excusable.

In addition, the fact that they were following a precedent set by Israel also does not mean they were correct to do so.

If you want my opinion, I happen to think any terrorist actions are unjustifiable, including the "terrorist attack" (my words) on the Lauro, and I think the precedent is shameful.

The question is, should an honest article mention both facts I gave above?

I'd be interested in your answer.

[Don Claybrook]

5. I don't excuse Israeli aggression

I don't believe in executing 7-year old rock throwers for their truancy and rock-throwing.

But, hijacking a passenger ship and murdering one of its guests can never be justified in any way.

And to reiterate from a post yesterday, if the US killed Abbas in one fashion or another, we're just as wrong as he is, because we're supposed to be a nation of laws.

But Leon Klinghoffer didn't deserve to be murdered, for Israeli aggressions or for any other reason.

[tinnypriv]

12. Good

Sounds like we agree on all points.

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. What a disgusting attempt at a rationalization

I am unpleasantly surprised at your post.

[tinnypriv]

20. Yes

I usually call an event I'm supposedly trying to "rationalise" (the intellectual equivalent of a four letter word) a "terrorist attack". :dunce:

Still, given the level of irrationality it seems there is here on this subject, perhaps I should state for the benefit of the audience that my opinion on historical context does not differ one iota in the case of Jewish, Nazi, Arab, Western, ______ (fill in blank) terrorist attacks.

For example, I think it would be remiss for an (honest) article to denounce Sharon for Qiyba without also mentioning that there was an Arab terrorist attack which preceded it.

Same in the case of Lidice (which Qibya was compared to by the Jewish-American press - rightly). Nobody sane would write an article about the Nazi attack on the town without also mentioning the assassination.

Or, specific American terrorist attacks on Cuba - you'd have to mention the revolution of Castro, the missile crisis etc.

Or, Jewish terrorist attacks on Western targets in Egypt - nobody with an IQ of above 5 would write an article about those without mentioning the ambivalent ties between Israel and the United States at the time.

As should be obvious from a moments thought, none of the above has any bearing on whether or not subjective judgments about the terrorist attacks are themselves correct. That has to be evaluated independently.

If anybody cares, in the cases I've named, I happen to think all are unjustifiable. That's honesty. Given that, anybody who has attempted denunciation in this thread would do well to evaluate whether they agree with that position.

For the record, I doubt some would even term several of the (minor) examples I've given as "terrorist attacks". That's hypocrisy.

[anti-NAFTA]

23. These who caused what arguments are futile.

You can go on and on like this. Isn't it more sensible to look forward instead of trying to rationalize murder?

[tinnypriv]

25. Yes

Look "forward" in an article dealing with the past. Makes sense.

:dunce:

[stopthegop]

9. to quote the old axiom of Texas law:

when confronted with a death, always ask..'Should the deceased have departed?'

edit: spelling

[Gimel]

27. What is faced

That is the crux of the conflict. The terrorists love death, they glorify murder; they claim a perverted form of justice.

Yet some call their attacks "justified" and peaceful Israelis "illegal". It is a topsy-turvy world, where murder is praised and living a life on the land of your ancestors criminal.