Santa Cruz Indymedia : http://santacruz.indymedia.org
Home
Santa Cruz Indymedia

LOCAL Announcement :: Peace & War

Film Screening: Until When? Refugee Life in Palestine (3/3)

Until When? Refugee Life in Palestine
Thursday, March 3
7 - 9pm
Oakes College, Room 105
UCSC
untilwhen.jpg
The Committee for Justice in Palestine presents...

Until When? Refugee Life in Palestine

Set during the current Intifada, this documentary follows four Palestinian families living in Dheisheh Refugee Camp near Bethlehem.

They talk about their past and discuss the future with humor, sorrow, frustration and hope. "Until When?" paints an intimate in-depth portrait of Palestinian lives today.

Location:
Oakes College, Room 105
University of California, Santa Cruz

Cost: free

Directions: UCSC West entrance follow signs to Oakes College.

Contact: lkhoury (at) ucsc.edu

Related Links
Film producers' website (Falafel Daddy)
www.falafeldaddy.org

Related Items
Film Soundtrack
www.palestineonlinestore.com/arabicmusic.htm

###

About CJP

The acronym "CJP" stands for the Committee for Justice in Palestine, which was first founded on the UCSC Campus two years ago. It is a student run organization formed in order to educate students and the local community about the Palestinian struggle for independence in the light of the ongoing Israeli occupation. Educational documentaries, controversial speakers, and cultural events will be part of the agenda of exposing the struggle to UCSC students and general community.

The CJP welcomes everyone to their meetings, and will not discriminate against anyone due to their political, social, or ideological views. The CJP is only here to educate and help create an understanding of the Palestinian people and their struggle.
cjp_meetings.jpg
 
 


New Comments are disabled, please visit Indybay.org/SantaCruz

Comments

Re: Film Screening: Until When? Refugee Life in Palestine (3/3)

They are not refugees. They are immigrants from other Arab countries that come to Israel where life is so much better.

Besides they are not Palestinians. Look on a map!!! There is no Palestine!!!
 

I didn't see the film

And if I had, I'm sure I would be able to provide a better commentary.

So the film followed the lives of four Palestinian families living in a camp near Bethlehem?

Why hasn't the Palestinian Authority, that was set up 11 years ago by the Oslo Accords, absorbed these people into the Palestinian society? The PA gets $125 million a month is foreign aid to administer to the housing, medical, educational, and consumer needs of its citizens.

In 1994, which was the end of the Israeli occupation by passing civil administrative and internal security (police powers) to the Palestinian Authority, the standard of living for the average Palestinian family was at an all time high.

Today, after four years of Arafat's Intifada, the unemployment rate has jumped from 5% (when Israel transferred leadership to Arafat) to from 37-67%.*

The only conclusion one can draw from this, is the Palestinian people enjoyed far better living circumstances when they lived under the Israeli occupation than they do now in the PA.



from: IfAmericansKnew.org
 

Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Gee. Wasn't HE Jewish?

And Jesus was born 2005 years ago!

Jewish people have both a historical, and a continuous physical presence in the land of Israel.

"Palestine" was the Roman name given to punish the Jews for their latest uprising, a failed attempt to throw off the Roman occupation.

The name of the country BEFORE the Roman conquest was ISRAEL. Jesus was born in ISRAEL, NOT PALESTINE!!

Jesus died 32 A.D.
Romans burned the temple to the ground 70 A.D.
Romans rename Israel, Palestine 135 A.D.

HAD the Arabs in 1948 accepted the UN partition of Palestine, THEN there would be a COUNTRY called PALESTINE. They didn't. There isn't.

They turned down having their own country called Palestine in 2000.

They,(by continuing to allow terrorist attacks to continue)are turning down Bush's roadmap too right now while you "peace advocates" are busy circulating divestment from Israel petitions.

If the Palestinians wanted their own state they would have had it by now.

When they say "Free Palestine" they mean the destruction of Israel, just like the Romans did way back in 135 A.D.
 

There Was No Offer For A Real Palestine In 2000

Barak's 2000 offer was not generous. In 1948 Palestinians owned 90% of the land. Since that time the majority of Palestinians have been driven from their land through Zionist violence and all are denied their basic human rights by Israel.

The "occupied territories" in the West Bank and Gaza constitute only a small amount of the lands that have been stolen from the Palestinians and occupied by the Israelis. Israel spoke of offering 95% of those "occupied lands" to the Palestinians. Yet, even if we accept Israel's definition of occupied territories a look at this plan shows that 95% is not accurate math. Under Barak's plan the Latroun area, Jerusalem, and the Dead Sea would remain under Israeli control. This means that in reality the offer then amounts to only 65% of the total area of the West Bank.

Barak also demanded that 80% of the present settlements in the "occupied territories" be annexed to Israel. This constitutes a drastic division of the West Bank into four isolated cantons. These cantons include the Ariel block between Nablus and Ramallah, the settlement block between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, and the Gush Etzion block between Bethlehem and Hebron. These settlements are connected by bypass roads, which are not only under complete Israeli control but also swallow up thousands of acres of Palestinian lands. In addition, many of the settlements are built on Palestinian water aquifers, thus depriving Palestinians access to water resources.

On the small amount of land that the poor, oppressed, and exploited Palestinian people were offered they would have little to base an economy and in fact would remain dependent on the Zionist bourgeoisie for jobs much as blacks in Apartheid South African Bantustans were dependent on the white bourgeoisie for employment. With anti-Arab hatred and discrimination prevalent among Israeli employers this is not at all an attractive proposal for most Palestinians.

According to UN resolutions 242 and 338 Palestinians are now "allowed" to take back 22% of their land. Further more UN Resolution 194 calls for the right of Palestinian refugees to return. In addition, there are other UN resolutions, including Resolution 465, which declares that the Israeli settlements in the "occupied territories" are illegal and, as such, should be removed. Resolutions 478 and 252 have declared that the Israeli
annexation of Jerusalem is illegitimate.

Meanwhile Israel has refused to comply with international law or UN resolutions as the basis for a political settlement. Each one of these resolutions has been approved by the United Nations as well as the US. Even Israel accepted Resolution 194, as a prerequisite to being accepted as a member of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Yet Israel continues to violate this agreement by not allowing Palestinian refugees the right to return, while at the same time granting Jews from anywhere in the world the automatic right to immigrate.

During the second round of meetings at Camp David, Barak would not even consider the basic right of Palestinian refugees to return. In addition, he refused to accept that Israel has any political, legal, or moral responsibility for the plight of the Palestinians. He dealt with the refugee issue within the framework of individual cases of family reunification, which violates the Palestinian right to a homeland and also is against international law. This clearly illustrates Barak's attempt to relinquish all responsibility for the destruction of Palestinian villages and the violent purging of Palestinians from their homeland turning them into refugees around the world.

Through approving resolution 194 and subsequently ignoring it the Zionist government has shown its word to be meaningless and the US has shown its real policy towards Palestinians in the billions of dollars in U.S. military aid to the Zionist Israeli regime every year. Settlement building, oppression, and violence against the Palestinian people continued and in fact were stepped up, not decreased under Barak.

Clinton's proposal in those negotiations made the assumption that the settlements of extremist Zionists in Jerusalem and the surrounding area are legal. It divided the geographic and demographic unity of the city within the framework of complete Israeli control over all Jerusalem, including the so-called Palestinian self-rule areas in the "Arab Districts."

The Palestinians rejected these offers because for any solution to be acceptable or reasonable it must begin with Israel and the United States accepting and complying with international law. Barak and Clinton clearly rejected such a framework. Thus the negotiations came nowhere near restoring basic Palestinian rights and as such should not be characterized as, "more than he (Arafat) had reason to expect."

So where is the "generous offer" of the Israeli government? Was its rejection really a lost opportunity? All Israeli proposals were simply attempts to coerce the Palestinians to accept occupation under slightly different terms. When understood properly, this "generous offer" illustrates that Israel is neither serious about a political settlement nor interested in peace. Since the beginning of Intifada 2 (September 2000), Israel has been systematically destroying the Palestinian infrastructure, not to mention carrying out its policies of assassinations and collective punishment.

The current state of the situation has shown that Yasir Arafat's strategy of negotiations with the Israeli government has achieved nothing, that the Israeli government can not even keep their word on earlier agreements, and that there will not be peace for either the Palestinian or the Hebrew speaking population until the Israeli state is abolished and in its place a democratic secular Palestine is built with a separation of church and state where the civil rights of all nationalities are guaranteed. Only a socialist movement that represents the rights of the entire working class and speaks uncompromisingly against the discrimination and violence meted out to the Palestinians by the Israeli State will be capable of making such a revolutionary transformation. Likewise such a movement can not see the Hebrew speaking population as the enemy and must instead target the repressive apparatus of the Zionist state.
 

Disputed territories not Occupied land

(And Arabs didn't own 90% of the land in 1948 either, Steve.)

Israeli historian, David Meir-Levi writes:

Regardless of one's personal views on the desired final status of the West Bank and Gaza, there is a reason why we should use the expression "disputed territories" and not "occupied territories" when referring to these areas. For if these territories are occupied and not disputed, then Israel had no legal claim whatsoever on any part of the West Bank, which is not the case.

The repeated references to "occupation" or "occupied Palestinian territories" is meant to serve three clear purposes. First, Palestinian spokesmen hope to create a political context to explain and even justify the Palestinians' adoption of violence and terrorism during the current intifada. Second, the Palestinian demand of Israel to "end the occupation" does not leave any room for territorial compromise in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as suggested by the original language of UN Security Council Resolution 242. Third, the use of "occupied Palestinian territories" denies any Israeli claim to the land: had the more neutral language of "disputed territories" been used, then the Palestinians and Israel would be on an even playing field with equal rights. (which is more reasonable -- Becky)

Additionally, by presenting Israel as a "foreign occupier," advocates of the Palestinian cause (attempt to) delegitimize the Jewish historical attachment to Israel. This has become a focal point of Palestinian diplomatic efforts since the failed 2000 Camp David Summit, but particularly since the UN Durban Conference in 2001.

Indeed, at Durban, the delegitimization campaign against Israel exploited the language of "occupation" in order to invoke the memories of Nazi-occupied Europe during the Second World War and link them to Israeli practices in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The politically-loaded term "occupied territories" or "occupation" seems to apply only to Israel and is hardly ever used when other territorial disputes are discussed, especially by interested third parties. For example, the U.S. Department of State refers to Kashmir as "disputed areas." Similarly in its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the State Department describes the patch of Azerbaijan claimed as an independent republic by indigenous Armenian separatists as "the disputed area of Nagorno-Karabakh."

Despite the 1975 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice establishing that Western Sahara was not under Moroccan territorial
sovereignty, it is not commonly accepted to describe the Moroccan military incursion in the former Spanish colony as an act of "occupation." In a more recent decision of the International Court of Justice from March 2001, the Persian Gulf island of Zubarah, claimed by both Qatar and Bahrain, was described by the Court as "disputed territory," until it was finally allocated to Qatar.

Each situation has its own unique history, but in a variety of other territorial disputes from northern Cyprus, to the Kurile Islands, to Abu
Musa in the Persian Gulf (which have involved some degree of armed conflict), the term "occupied territories" is not commonly used.

Israel entered the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the 1967 Six-Day War as a result of Jordanian aggression. Former Chief Justice of the Israel Supreme Court Meir Shamgar wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the Convention "is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign who was ousted and that he had been a legitimate sovereign."

In fact, prior to 1967, Jordan had occupied the West Bank and Egypt had occupied the Gaza Strip; their presence in those territories was the result of their illegal invasion in 1948, in defiance of the UN Security Council. Jordan's 1950 annexation of the West Bank was recognized only by Great Britain (excluding the annexation of Jerusalem) and Pakistan, and rejected by the vast majority of the international community, including the Arab states.

At Jordan's insistence, the 1949 Armistice Line, that constituted the Israeli-Jordanian boundary until 1967, was not a recognized international border but only a line separating armies. The Armistice Agreement specifically stated: "no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims, and positions of either Party hereto in the peaceful settlement of the Palestine questions, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations" (Article II.2).

As noted above, in many other cases in recent history in which recognized international borders were crossed in armed conflicts and sovereign territory seized, the language of "occupation" was not used -- even in clear-cut cases of aggression. Yet in the case of the West Bank and Gaza, where no internationally recognized sovereign control previously existed, the stigma of Israel as an "occupier" has gained currency.

International jurists generally draw a distinction between situations of
"aggressive conquest" and territorial disputes that arise after a war of self-defense. Former State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel's case: "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title."

Again, Israel took control of the West Bank in June 1967 as a result of a defensive war.

The language of "occupation" has allowed Palestinian spokesmen to obfuscate this history. By repeatedly pointing to "occupation," they manage to reverse the causality of the conflict, especially in front of Western audiences. Thus, the current territorial dispute is allegedly the result of an Israeli decision "to occupy," rather than a result of a war imposed on Israel by a coalition of Arab states in 1967.

Under UN Security Council Resolution 242 from November 22, 1967 -- that has served as the basis of the 1991 Madrid Conference and the 1993 Declaration of Principles -- Israel is only expected to withdraw "from territories" to "secure and recognized boundaries" and not from "the territories" or "all the territories" captured in the Six-Day War. This deliberate language resulted from months of painstaking diplomacy. Thus, the UN Security Council recognized that Israel was entitled to part of these territories for new defensible borders. Britain's foreign secretary in 1967, George Brown, stated three years later that the meaning of Resolution 242 was "that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories."

Actually, the last international legal allocation of territory that includes what is today the West Bank and Gaza Strip occurred with the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which recognized Jewish national rights in the whole of the Mandated territory. Moreover, Israel's rights were preserved under the United Nations as well, according to Article 80 of the UN Charter, despite the termination of the League of Nations in 1946. Article 80 established that nothing in the UN Charter should be "construed to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments." These rights were unaffected by UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of November 1947 – the Partition Plan -- which was a non-binding recommendation that was rejected, in any case, by the Palestinians and the Arab states.

Since the Oslo 2 Agreements of 1995, 98 percent of the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip has come under Palestinian
jurisdiction. Israel transferred 40 spheres of civilian authority, as well as responsibility for security and public order, to the Palestinian
Authority, while retaining powers for Israel's external security and the security of Israeli citizens.

The 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention (Article 6) states that the Occupying Power would only be bound to its terms "to the extent that such Power
exercises the functions of government in such territory." Under the earlier 1907 Hague Regulations, as well, a territory can only be considered occupied when it is under the effective and actual control of the occupier. Thus, according to the main international agreements dealing with military occupation, Israel's transfer of powers to the Palestinian Authority under the Oslo Agreements has made it difficult to continue to characterize the West Bank and Gaza as occupied territories.

Israel has been forced to exercise its residual powers in recent months only in response to the escalation of violence and armed attacks instigated by the Palestinian Authority. Thus, any increase in defensive Israeli military deployments today around Palestinian cities is the direct consequence of a Palestinian decision to escalate the military confrontation against Israel, and not an expression of a continuing Israeli occupation, as the Palestinians contend. For once the Palestinian leadership takes the strategic decision to put an end to the current wave of violence, there is no reason why the Israeli military presence in the West Bank and Gaza cannot return to its pre-September 2000 deployment, which minimally affected the Palestinians.

It would be far more accurate to describe the West Bank and Gaza Strip as "disputed territories" to which both Israelis and Palestinians have claims. As former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated in March 1994: "We simply do not support the description of the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 War as occupied Palestinian territory."

If Madeleine Albright can say this, why can't we?



Dr. Emmanuel Navon, CEO,

The Business Network for International Cooperation (BNIC)

_www.bnic.org
 

There are UN resolutions and there are UN resolutions

A note about UN resolutions. There are UN security council resolutions. And there are General Assembly resolutions. Pretty much, the Security Council resolutions have to have unanimous approval to be passed. The member states of the Security Council represent only the superpowers of the world. These resolutions have teeth.

General Assembly resolutions require a simple majority decision of the member nations. 65 member nations are either Arab or Islamic. They vote in a block against Israel in resolution after resolution. They have NEVER voted for a resolution that condemns any human rights violation in any Arab or Islamic country.

UN resolution 242 was a Security Council resolution (means it counts!)
Resolution 181 was a general assembly advisory resolution. This is what led to the partition of Palestine. Israel accepted and the Arabs rejected it. Hence, still no Palestine.

Steve argues about roads, rather than trying to facilitate the establishment of a Palestinian state he finds reasons to oppose it.

Palestinians can use the bypass roads. They must file for a permit, and if they can pass a security clearance, they can use the roads.

A real good article on the UN and Israel can be found at: www.adl.org/international/Israel_un_2000_present.asp
Steve Argue is mixing Security Council resolutions with General Assembly resolutions. He can count on many of his readers not knowing the difference.

If you tell the big lie long enough, Steve, then you can dupe a lot of people.

Why don't you just start by telling the truth, Steve?
 

Re: Film Screening: Until When? Refugee Life in Palestine (3/3)

BJ asks, "Why don't you just start by telling the truth, Steve?"

The real question is when will BJ recognize the truth?

Or a better question is when will the moderators of this site recognize that what Becky Johnson spews is racist and pro-war hate speech. Her group has a site, it is time to remove her lies from ours.
 

Re: Film Screening: Until When? Refugee Life in Palestine (3/3)

"Or a better question is when will the moderators of this site recognize that what Becky Johnson spews is racist and pro-war hate speech. Her group has a site, it is time to remove her lies from ours."

I completely agree.
 

So the Great Steve Argue is advocating for Censorship???

Steve, I am only trying to engage in a dialogue on these issues.

Israel wants peace.
I want peace.

You really just want to dismantle Israel and I can't let you go on about it with your doctored pictures and your phoney letters.

The readers can agree or disagree

But for you to call for my censorship, you are violating the spirit of this website as a way for the community to not have to use commercial media for our information.

I am not a racist. I am definitely not pro-war.

Maybe your ego just can't handle a woman who doesn't accept your "wisdom" uncritically.
 

Re: Film Screening: Until When? Refugee Life in Palestine (3/3)

On another string Johnson just stated, "Maybe every time the Palestinians move into an area, the bloodshed and the violence begin?"

Replace “Palestinian? with “Jew? and this would be regarded hate speech and removed from Santa Cruz IndyMedia. Why is racist hate-speech against Palestinians more acceptable?

Becky Johnson is a total racist who blames Palestinians for their oppression everywhere they go.

I've pointed out that Israel bares the primary responsibility for turning Palestinians into refugees, but I've never let Jordan, Kuwait, and other capitalist Arab countries off the hook. Palestinians are denied human rights and treated as a source of cheap labor by the imperialist puppet governments of the Arab world, just as they are denied their basic human rights in Israel.

I, unlike Becky Johnson, call for an end to U.S. military aid to these repressive governments. Johnson, on the other hand, agrees with the exploitative monarchies that see the Palestinians as troublemakers to be denied rights, exploited, and murdered at will.
 

Arafat's Palestinians have a bloody record

Steve, I certainly do NOT mean that every Palestinian person is a bloodthirsty killer.

What I DO mean is that Arafat and his PLO have invented airplane hijackings, were responsible for murdering the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972, they were the victims of Black September where the Jordanian king murdered about 10,000 Palestinians in RESPONSE to the murdering of his own citizens by the Palestinians.

When Arafat and his cutthroats fled Jordan, they went to Lebanon where they went on the rampage murdering innocent Lebanese Christians.

Afafat sided with the Syrian govt. and with Saddam Hussein. The PLO has ALWAYS fought for the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel.

The Palestinians have supported terror groups of their fellows and in their midst such as Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Islamic Jihad, Tanzim, Hamas, Hizbollah in Syria, PFLP, Fatah, and others.

While in English, Arafat would condemn the actions of the suicide bombers for western audiences, in Arabic he would praise them as Holy Martyrs for the cause of Jihad and name streets and schools after them. Currently, in the PA controlled areas, 90% of the streets are named after suicide bombers.
 

Jews vs. Palestinians --what is their history of violence?

STEVE WRITES: "On another string Johnson just stated, "Maybe every time the Palestinians move into an area, the bloodshed and the violence begin?" Replace “Palestinian? with “Jew? and this would be regarded hate speech and removed from Santa Cruz IndyMedia. Why is racist hate-speech against Palestinians more acceptable?"

BECKY: Of course if you replace the word Palestinian with Jew, it would no longer be true.

When the Jews got to Brooklyn, the opened delicatessens. When the Jews got to Hollywood, they opened movie studios.

When the Jews got to John Hopkins University, they became world class doctors.

When, the Jews got to Palestine, they created the 15th most prosperous country in the world out of an arid, oil-less, desert.

In fact, I'm not sure you can name a single example of Jewish agression outside of Israel, where you can make a case they are using military powers in their own self defense.

And DON'T REPOST your stupid Mrs. Serwawi's testimony for the 14th time! She is a liar! You have NO corroborating evidence. Why did she wait 21 years to testify?? It wasn't persuasive the first time. It won't the 15th time.

No Israeli killed anyone at Sabra and Shatilla.
 

Re: Film Screening: Until When? Refugee Life in Palestine (3/3)

What you are saying, Becky, is that thew Jews are SUPERIOR. This is racism, pure and simple, just the same as the KKK or Hitler. Pretty soon, you won't be able to get away with these kind of statements on this site. Be prepared.
 

Every human being is equal

ARA: That sounds like a threat. You should stop that.

This is what I believe. We, each human being, has intrinsic value, and is deserving of life, shelter, food, education, and medical care JUST for being born.

I believe this is true for Palestinians and Jews. I believe this is true for Eskimos, Aboriginies, and Northern Californian white people.

You claim I am racist for selectively pointing out history. I don't believe that I am, but it is hard to be objective about one's own internallized prejudice.

Since we live in a racist, and economically stratified society, and I am a product of that society, I most likely have racist attitudes I am not aware of. However, having studied Bahai teachings, I believe that racist attitudes have caused much human suffering and unneccessary conflict throughout human history.

And racism, since it is a human caused reality can be eliminated.

I believe that using violence to achieve a political end is wrong. That is why I can unequivocally call for the ending the use of suicide bombers against Israel because the tactic is coersive in nature (If you don't end the occupation, we will continue killing with suicide bombers), kills innocent civilians, and is collective punishment in that it makes the entire population afraid.

Likewise, I opposed Bush's armed invasion of Iraq.

In fact, I have opposed the Vietnam war, the Panamanian War, the War in El Salvador, the war in Nicaragua, the Yugoslavian War, and both Iraq wars. Why you say I am pro-war is beyond me.

In fact, those who argue for the continuted intifada, for a continued struggle against the very existance of a Jewish State which has been there for 56 years now, has a population of 6 million people, and is not going to go away no matter how many petitions you sign or protests you stage, is counterproductive, a waste of everyones time and energy and its PRO-WAR!!

Comparing me to the KKK and Hitler is a joke. And not a very funny one at that.

Threatening to have my posts pulled puts you in the same league as those people who bust up printing presses of newspapers that print an unpopular opinion.
 

Re: Film Screening: Until When? Refugee Life in Palestine (3/3)

If you continue to violate the policies set by the moderators of this site, and your RACIST posts WILL BE REMOVED. PERIOD.

We are tired of fixing up the place (SC IMC), opening the door to the public (open publishing), and have someone like you, take a big fat shit in the middle of the floor (racist, off-topic comments). From now on, I am going to be following you around with a little pooper scooper (editorial control). I figure a few weeks of that and eventually you'll just go away!
 

IndyMedia Is Under No Obligation To Promote Johnson's Thoughts

Johnson says, "Threatening to have my posts pulled puts you in the same league as those people who bust up printing presses of newspapers that print an unpopular opinion."

No Johnson, this is not true. It is more like the editor of a newspaper using their editorial skills to weed out the garbage. This is a site that is set up to provide an alternative to the kind of pro-war racist propaganda you spew. And since you seem to be working full time at this nobody has the time to respond to all of your lies and hate.

Johnson, you have your own Dafka hate site. Do you allow us to post there? No you do not. I suggest that the IndyMedia apply your same type of editorial policy here in reverse. The editors of this site are under no obligation to promote Becky Johnson hate speech by allowing here to post here.
 

The Rules should apply to everyone

I believe the editorial policy allows IMC volunteers (and I know no one is paid, so I am indebted to these volunteers) to pull posts which are racist, sexist, hate speech, or are garbled to the point of unintelligible.

In here, I have been subjected to what can only be called a character assassination for holding a pro-Israel point of view.

Anonymous posters have called me names, issued death threats, and discussed stalking me.

Most of these are clear violations of editorial policy yet many stay up unmolested by IMC monitors.

Now by your royal pronouncement, you say that my arguments constitute "hate speech" and that I am, by your royal decree "a racist" and a "war-monger" and should therefore be denied the free speech rights everyone else has to post here.

C'mon Steve. If you want to win an argument, you just have to do better research and learn to type faster!!
 

Re: Film Screening: Until When? Refugee Life in Palestine (3/3)

Becky, why do you care about Israel so much? If anyone says the Israelis are less than precious angels, you have a verbal shit fir.

Ask me if I give a shit about Israel—or any other screwed up patriarchy including the ones that tether women to a slightly longer leash.

All the patriarchies contain guys who dress alike and kill bunches of other guys who dress alike while permitting male violence against women to continue.
 

Steve Argue supports the PFLP and calls ME a warmonger!!

Steve Argue calls me a warmonger while he supports war!

HERE IS WHERE HE SAID HE SUPPORTS THE PFLP:
santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/14260

HERE IS THE ACTUAL REFERENCE FROM THE ABOVE ARTICLE:

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (Jabhah al-Sha'biyah li-Tahrir Filastin, PFLP)
www.pflp.net/

HER IS WHAT THE PLFP HAS DONE:

www.gigfoot.net/lol/facts/2743.html

www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)
From: Patterns of Global Terrorism, 2003. United States Department of State, June 2004.
Comments on the content of the material should be sent to the U.S. Department of State

Description
Marxist-Leninist group founded in 1967 by George Habash-as a member of the PLO-when it broke away from the Arab Nationalist Movement. The PFLP does not view the Palestinian struggle as a religious one, seeing it instead as a broader revolution against Western imperialism. The group earned a reputation for spectacular international attacks, including airline hijackings that have killed at least 20 US citizens. The PFLP is opposed to the Oslo process. First designated in October 1997.

Activities
Committed numerous international terrorist attacks during the 1970s. Since 1978 has conducted attacks against Israeli or moderate Arab targets, including killing a settler and her son in December 1996. The PFLP has stepped up its operational activity since the start of the current intifadh highlighted by its assassination of the Israeli Tourism Minster in October 2001 to avenge Israel's killing of the PFLP Secretary General earlier that year.

Strength
Unknown.

Location/Area of Operation
Syria, Lebanon, Israel, West Bank, and Gaza.

External Aid
Receives safehaven and some logistic assistance from Syria.

This is an official U.S. Navy web site
Page last updated: Thursday June 17, 2004
Page maintained by the DKL Web Committee


www.renewamerica.us/show/transcripts/02_04_01akims.htm

So why is a warmonger calling me a warmonger?
 

So which time should we believe you Steve?

AND THIS IS WHERE STEVE ARGUE DENIES SAYING HE EVER SUPPORTED THE PFLP

santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/14426

Parent Article: Lee Kaplan, Dafka Exposed
More False Accusations Answered

by Steven Argue 17 Jan 2005

Actually I have never cited the PFLP or Communist Party as a source, nor did I say Jews were behind the Nazi Holocaust, but you already know that don't you?
 

The Achille Lauro hijacking was carried out by the PLF, not the PFLP

Johnson, thanks for posting links to what I wrote and to the PFLP.

As I stated and you even quoted me saying, “I have never cited the PFLP or Communist Party as a source, nor did I say Jews were behind the Nazi Holocaust, but you already know that don't you??

Johnson, what part of this are you too dumb to understand?

As I stated before the link to the PFLP, “I do not endorse the political line or actions of all of these organizations.?

That said; the Achille Lauro hijacking was carried out by the PLF, not the PFLP.
 

Calendar

No events for this day.

view calendar week
add an event

Views

Media Centers

Syndication feeds

Account Login

This site made manifest by dadaIMC software