Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Robert Fisk Talk in Los Angeles (4/13)
Recording of Robert Fisk speaking out against the Israeli occupation of Palestine at Beyond Baroque in Los Angeles.
Listen now:
Sporting scars from his run-in in Kabul, Robert Fisk spoke for about 35 minutes to a packed house at Beyond Baroque this past Saturday (4/13/2002). The recording is of his prepared speech.
A lively discussion was held after his speech. During the discussion, Fisk criticized US reporters on their coverage of the Middle East. He noted an "osmotic relation" between US press and the US government, mentioning that the first place US reporters go when they arrive in the Middle East is to the US Embassy where they are briefed by the CIA.
When asked about the lethality of being a war correspondent, Fisk affirmed that covering war is becoming more dangerous. However, he noted US reporters over-dressing their part and mentioned one reporter he met who carried a rifle and said he was going to kill Osama.
He also mentioned a recent CNN instruction to their reporters to start referring to Palestine settlements as "neighborhoods".
A tense moment arose during the discussion when a Chicano man talked about the parallels between US occupation of Native lands with the situation in Israel. When he didn't verbalize a question fast enough, the crowd turned against him with some physical threats verbalized. When asked for comments on the parallels, Fisk declined to answer saying he had read some books on the US-Mexico war but did not know enough to comment.Sporting scars from his run-in in Kabul, Robert Fisk spoke for about 35 minutes to a packed house at Beyond Baroque this past Saturday (4/13/2002). The recording is of his prepared speech.
A lively discussion was held after his speech. During the discussion, Fisk criticized US reporters on their coverage of the Middle East. He noted an "osmotic relation" between US press and the US government, mentioning that the first place US reporters go when they arrive in the Middle East is to the US Embassy where they are briefed by the CIA.
When asked about the lethality of being a war correspondent, Fisk affirmed that covering war is becoming more dangerous. However, he noted US reporters over-dressing their part and mentioned one reporter he met who carried a rifle and said he was going to kill Osama.
He also mentioned a recent CNN instruction to their reporters to start referring to Palestine settlements as "neighborhoods".
A tense moment arose during the discussion when a Chicano man talked about the parallels between US occupation of Native lands with the situation in Israel. When he didn't verbalize a question fast enough, the crowd turned against him with some physical threats verbalized. When asked for comments on the parallels, Fisk declined to answer saying he had read some books on the US-Mexico war but did not know enough to comment.Sporting scars from his run-in in Kabul, Robert Fisk spoke for about 35 minutes to a packed house at Beyond Baroque this past Saturday (4/13/2002). The recording is of his prepared speech.
A lively discussion was held after his speech. During the discussion, Fisk criticized US reporters on their coverage of the Middle East. He noted an "osmotic relation" between US press and the US government, mentioning that the first place US reporters go when they arrive in the Middle East is to the US Embassy where they are briefed by the CIA.
When asked about the lethality of being a war correspondent, Fisk affirmed that covering war is becoming more dangerous. However, he noted US reporters over-dressing their part and mentioned one reporter he met who carried a rifle and said he was going to kill Osama.
He also mentioned a recent CNN instruction to their reporters to start referring to Palestine settlements as "neighborhoods".
A tense moment arose during the discussion when a Chicano man talked about the parallels between US occupation of Native lands with the situation in Israel. When he didn't verbalize a question fast enough, the crowd turned against him with some physical threats verbalized. When asked for comments on the parallels, Fisk declined to answer saying he had read some books on the US-Mexico war but did not know enough to comment.
A lively discussion was held after his speech. During the discussion, Fisk criticized US reporters on their coverage of the Middle East. He noted an "osmotic relation" between US press and the US government, mentioning that the first place US reporters go when they arrive in the Middle East is to the US Embassy where they are briefed by the CIA.
When asked about the lethality of being a war correspondent, Fisk affirmed that covering war is becoming more dangerous. However, he noted US reporters over-dressing their part and mentioned one reporter he met who carried a rifle and said he was going to kill Osama.
He also mentioned a recent CNN instruction to their reporters to start referring to Palestine settlements as "neighborhoods".
A tense moment arose during the discussion when a Chicano man talked about the parallels between US occupation of Native lands with the situation in Israel. When he didn't verbalize a question fast enough, the crowd turned against him with some physical threats verbalized. When asked for comments on the parallels, Fisk declined to answer saying he had read some books on the US-Mexico war but did not know enough to comment.Sporting scars from his run-in in Kabul, Robert Fisk spoke for about 35 minutes to a packed house at Beyond Baroque this past Saturday (4/13/2002). The recording is of his prepared speech.
A lively discussion was held after his speech. During the discussion, Fisk criticized US reporters on their coverage of the Middle East. He noted an "osmotic relation" between US press and the US government, mentioning that the first place US reporters go when they arrive in the Middle East is to the US Embassy where they are briefed by the CIA.
When asked about the lethality of being a war correspondent, Fisk affirmed that covering war is becoming more dangerous. However, he noted US reporters over-dressing their part and mentioned one reporter he met who carried a rifle and said he was going to kill Osama.
He also mentioned a recent CNN instruction to their reporters to start referring to Palestine settlements as "neighborhoods".
A tense moment arose during the discussion when a Chicano man talked about the parallels between US occupation of Native lands with the situation in Israel. When he didn't verbalize a question fast enough, the crowd turned against him with some physical threats verbalized. When asked for comments on the parallels, Fisk declined to answer saying he had read some books on the US-Mexico war but did not know enough to comment.Sporting scars from his run-in in Kabul, Robert Fisk spoke for about 35 minutes to a packed house at Beyond Baroque this past Saturday (4/13/2002). The recording is of his prepared speech.
A lively discussion was held after his speech. During the discussion, Fisk criticized US reporters on their coverage of the Middle East. He noted an "osmotic relation" between US press and the US government, mentioning that the first place US reporters go when they arrive in the Middle East is to the US Embassy where they are briefed by the CIA.
When asked about the lethality of being a war correspondent, Fisk affirmed that covering war is becoming more dangerous. However, he noted US reporters over-dressing their part and mentioned one reporter he met who carried a rifle and said he was going to kill Osama.
He also mentioned a recent CNN instruction to their reporters to start referring to Palestine settlements as "neighborhoods".
A tense moment arose during the discussion when a Chicano man talked about the parallels between US occupation of Native lands with the situation in Israel. When he didn't verbalize a question fast enough, the crowd turned against him with some physical threats verbalized. When asked for comments on the parallels, Fisk declined to answer saying he had read some books on the US-Mexico war but did not know enough to comment.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
Made sure to get close to the source, too.
It is evident that all those claims, some of which may be completely sincere, evince the claimants’ total ignorance of the main problem in the Middle East. I am going to sum up this problem in one sentence: The will of the non-Arab minorities in the Middle East to survive.
The two principal and largest minorities in the region are the Christians and the Jews. There are two states in which these two minorities still have their full human rights: Lebanon and Israel. In Egypt, the sole Christian who had the possibility to ascend to an important post was Boutros Boutros Ghali. He had been appointed by the former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat as delegate minister for foreign affairs, a post equivalent to that of a French cabinet chief, because Egyptian law forbids Christians from acceding to the posts of full ministers. In Iraq, the only Christian who fills an important post is the Catholic Tarek Aziz, Saddam Hussein’s long-time friend. In both above mentioned countries, and for that matter in all Arab countries, Christian rights are almost non-existent.
In 1975, Yasser Arafat and his cohorts waged their attack against Lebanon and particularly against the Christians. They hoped that within three weeks at the maximum, the Lebanese Christians would exile themselves to the United States, Europe, Australia and Canada, allowing Arafat to create an Islamic-Palestinian state in Lebanon. “The road to Jerusalem passes through Jounieh,” the Palestinian leaders were saying at that time. Jounieh is a Christian town situated to the north of Beirut, that is, in the opposite direction from Jerusalem. At present, Lebanon is laboring under the Syrian yoke, a fact to which the countries that defend human rights are totally indifferent.
Since the destruction of Lebanon and its occupation by the Arabs, the latter have decided to attack the second non-Arab country in the Middle East, namely Israel. Let us recall that Israel was created in 1948. The Arab countries rejected the partition of Palestine into two states, Jewish and Arab, and decided instead to throw the Jews into the sea (Nevertheless, a Palestinian state was founded, in Jordan. However, the Jordanian King regarded that state as his personal territory, though 70% of the population was Palestinian). From 1948 to 1967, the Arabs constantly preached the destruction of the State of Israel. During those years, the Jordanian King Hussein had made Jerusalem Judenrein (empty or cleansed of Jews), Jewish cemeteries were vandalized and destroyed., and some 58 synagogues were destroyed or turned into stables for Jordanian horses. It is ironic to note that during those 19 years, when Egypt ruled Gaza and Jordan ruled the West Bank, including eastern Jerusalem, no Arab country yearned to see the creation of a Palestinian state there. All that those Arab countries wanted was the destruction of the State of Israel. However, once Israel had conquered these territories and united Jerusalem, Arab countries started calling them ‘occupied territories,’ and, unable to destroy Israel directly, they began to call for the establishment of a Palestinian state on those territories. In addition, Egypt, in its aim to weaken Israel to better destroy it, requested at the Madrid conference the elimination of Israel’s nuclear arsenal.
Naive Israeli personages were recruited in order to weaken the State of Israel. Among these, we will cite particularly former Prime Minister Ehud Barak. He believed that by withdrawing from southern Lebanon and by betraying his Lebanese allies, he would be able to achieve peace with the Arab people of the region. What happened, however, was just the opposite. The Israeli retreat from southern Lebanon was perceived by the Arab countries as a sign of Israel’s weakness. A few short months following this retreat, Yasser Arafat gave orders to attack Israeli civilians under the cover of a Palestinian revolt - Intifadah. Weapons, financed by Iran, made their way to the PLO via Syria and occupied Lebanon. Iraq paid considerable sums of money to the families of terrorists who exploded themselves in Israel, killing Israelis.
Peace movements have always been activated when Israel was undergoing murderous attacks, in order to incriminate the Israeli population and leadership. This strategy had been used in Western Europe during the Cold War. The political parties, satellites of the Soviet Union, used to demonstrate all over Western Europe or manipulate associations, which would then demand the dismantling of American nuclear arsenals located in Western Europe as well as the departure of American troops from West Germany. Yet, the aim of these two requests had been to facilitate the invasion of Western Germany and adjacent countries by troops from the USSR.
The same method has been used for many years in Israel and against Israel for the purpose of weakening it, with a view to destroying it. Dozens of Internet sites were created to request Israeli leaders to quit southern Lebanon; huge demonstrations took place before and after the signature of the so-called peace accords between Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin. All this was for one purpose only: The political and military weakening of Israel and the establishment on its very borders of a terror organization called the Palestinian Authority, whose sole objective is the destruction of Israel.
Despite the presence of a Palestinian State called Jordan, Israel has agreed to the creation of a second Palestinian state in Gaza, Judea and Samaria. Yet, the Israelis have not relinquished their claim to a united Jerusalem that must remain the eternal capital of the State of Israel. However, regardless of this affinity for Jerusalem, Ehud Barak proposed to Arafat at the Camp David summit to surrender eastern Jerusalem in three stages. Yasser Arafat refused. Why? Because he does not believe in the co-existence of two neighboring states, one Palestinian and the other Jewish. History is repeating itself. Yasser Arafat had once settled in Lebanon and erected a state within a state before waging his murderous war against the Lebanese, the people who had welcomed him. Today, the same Arafat has decided to destroy the State of Israel. Regretfully, the Israelis have not learned anything from the past and have not understood that one doesn’t let the wolf into the sheep pen.
Some imagine that such a Palestinian state, even were it to be established without threat to Israel, could survive on its own. They are wrong. The Palestinians are also subject to internal Islamic-Christian tensions. The Christians of this Palestine will have little choice: Either live without any rights, similar to the Christians in other Arab countries, or quit.
As for those in the West who believe that they’ll make a political career by defending the Palestinians who live in Judea and Samaria, I would like to say to them: Before tackling problems that are beyond you, it would be more profitable to interest yourself in problems closer to your country and its honor. For instance, you might ask the French and American states to arrest the criminals who’ve ordered the murder of French and American citizens (civilian and military) in Lebanon. Here is a tip that might help you: In 1998, the Syrian Minister of Defense Mustapha Tlass announced publicly that it was he who, in 1983, had ordered the Hezbollah and other Moslem organizations to attack the barracks of American and French soldiers in Beirut (there were some 270 American soldiers and 85 French soldiers killed). This same minister, friend of France and the United States, had also announced that he refrained from authorizing an attack against Italian soldiers because he had a crush on Italian actress Gina Lolobrigida. How sad that neither France nor the United States had had a Lolobrigida of their own. She might have saved the lives of soldiers on a mission of peace.
----------------------------------
Jihad Renee Albanee is a senior official in the Guardians of the Cedars - National Lebanese Movement.
No one would say that Syrian forces are to stay in Lebanon, or even that it was a good intention step to walk in at first place. no one would say that the Palestinians were good to Lebanon, and no one would suggest them being good anywhere when their conditions are what they are.
because of people like you and you counter-parts in Lebanon, the small beautiful country was the best candidate to lay all the regional disasters upon.
There is no use of trying to benefit the Americans putting Syria on their terrorist list, and look whose talking,
in their fight for oil they claim fighting for freedom, and in you hate speech you claim being a freedom fighter. just ironic my friend, bitterly.
taking the role of the traitor is not a good national strategy, finding a better frind in Sharon just because of personal traumas seems like a medievian-level.
the points I made first must be a good ground to talk!! not only with me, but with you own people who do not feel that you are the real rescue anyway...
You have to read some good books that are not on May Murr's further readings, step into this one human history and learn something, Welcome to life!!
last, if you are promoting your party, try to make your comments shorter so someone reads them, if I didnt have the interest in "dialog" I wouldnt have read it!
The principles of the Guardians.
Certain basic conditions must be availed to secure:
a) The durability of political movements.
b) The realisation of their aims.
We have therefore incorporated the following principles to found our Movement on:
1.- Intellect: People vanish, while intellect lives on. Our Movement gives first priority to this matter.
2.- Alertness: Our Movement is not only aware of all our Nation's political, social and economic problems, but it is fully conscious of their causes. It is capable of the diagnosis and possesses the cure.
3.- Insight: Our Movement possesses all the solutions to our chronic crisis. These solutions, having undergone a meticulous and rational study, can radically and practically remedy our case and modernise our Country.
4.- Decency: No Movement can carry out any reform unless it enjoys morality and idealism.
Our movement, being extremely cautious about this fact, has made it impossible for immoral members to find way to its ranks.
5.- Discipline: Our Movement is distinguished by the enlightened discipline of its members, a conviction which is essential for the execution of reform by political movements and parties.
6.- Charity, Insight, Freedom: All members holding responsible positions must enjoy these qualities. by charity, we mean the love of God, of the earth and of the human beings. Our senior executives must have great concern for their subordinates and must be exemplary in their conduct, even in their personal manners.
7.- Sense of Responsibility: Irrespective of the post or the mission allocated to them, all members must act as if they were the only persons held responsible in that specific instance, and use their initiative, relinquishing dependence and resignation.
8.- Missionary spirit: All members are enticed to preach their convictions, enlighten the greatest possible number of our countrymen and prepare the national opinion to accept and support the new reform movement.
9.- Hierarchy: As many cadres as possible must be rationally availed by the Party, to accommodate the greatest number of new partisans.
10.- Ambition: We are convinced that the new State we contemplate, must be founded on national pride and manned by dynamic and resolute leadership. Ambition generates power from weakness and valiance from hesitance.
We are also convinced that small nations feed on colossal ambitions and flourish on colossal roles.
Aren't you Gods on earth,
How pure?????!!!!!!!!!!!!