[LANMaster]

I searched under Mohammed al-Akhras.

Link CBS News story

Excerpt;

Andaleeb Taqatqa, a 21-year-old student, apparently agreed. Her studies ended in front of a bus in Jerusalem last April when she blew herself up and took six Israelis with her.

The next day, the men in Andaleeb’s village outside of Bethlehem gathered for a wedding. They were symbolically getting married to Andaleeb, who had become the village’s hero. Her father accepted congratulations, as fathers of brides do, and the women of the village sang their own song. “Oh martyr, we give our blood and our souls to you,” they chanted.

On the morning after his daughter Ayat blew up Rachel, Mohammed al-Akhras said he had no idea what Ayat was preparing to do. He even feels sympathy for Rachel’s mother. But he won’t condemn what his daughter did.

“I feel very proud. Really, when I see a postcard of a girl who bombed herself, I feel very proud,” says Ikram. “I hope that I have the courage to be like her.”

I don't have a subscription to Newsweek Magazine, so I cannot get a copy of the newsweek article that states the 80% statistic. So I don't know what the polling source is.

But reading stories like the above ... (and over the past hour I have read several) convinces me that the 80% is probably a conservative estimate and 90% is probably more likely.

[LANMaster]

Link

The more I dig into this, the worse it looks. Don't get me wrong. I'm also quite angry with the Israelis as well


Newsweek's Special Report (on newsstands Monday, April 8) focuses on "Suicide Mission," profiles of the 18-year old Palestinian bomber and her 17-year old Israeli victim.

April 7, 2002 - Recruitment of Suicide Bombers Done in Strictest Confidence; 18-Year Old Palestinian Bomber Raised on Stories of Israeli Aggression, Palestinian Flight - Friends Say the Death of a Neighbor Shot by Israeli Soldiers May Have Been the Last Straw

The process of recruiting a suicide bomber is done in the strictest confidence, according to a Newsweek Special Report: "Suicide Mission." "You send out signals at school or mosque, and those in charge of suicide attacks gather information about the candidates," says a teacher in a refugee camp, explaining that stating admiration for martyrs or a willingness to die for the cause is often enough to alert the operatives. "At that very moment everything becomes secret. The would-be martyr might then tell her friends, 'I was just kidding when I made those statements."

Jerusalem Bureau Chief Joshua Hammer profiles the 18-year old Palestinian girl who blew herself up at a Jerusalem supermarket, and the 17-year old Israeli girl who died in the blast, in the April 15 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, April 8). Experts say that Ayat al-Akhras's self discipline combined with the fierce Palestinian nationalism that she embraced as a religion made her a natural candidate for the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. Thus she probably needed little psychological or tactical preparation for her task, which helps to explain why those closest to her -- parents, teachers, siblings and friends -- all say that she didn't vary her daily routine in the weeks leading up to her death.

The anger that compelled Ayat toward her suicidal act had been building for years. She was raised on stories of Israeli aggression and Palestinian flight. Gradually, the uprising that began in September 2000 started to touch her life directly: her brother was shot and wounded by Israeli troops. Three cousins, all members of Hamas, were killed in the Gaza Strip. And a close family friend and a member of Fatah, was shot dead while planting a roadside bomb near a Jewish settlement. Her anger peaked when the Israeli Defense Force rolled into the Dehaishe camp. On the evening of March 8, a neighbor was playing with his daughter in his home when he was shot through the window by Israeli troops. Ayat's brother and a cousin tried to carry the dying man to a hospital but he died in their arms. "When Ayat saw me and our cousin carrying Isa past the doorway, she screamed out in pain and I told her to get back inside," her brother says, adding that their neighbor's death had a powerful impact on her. Shortly after, friends believe, she either sought out or was approached by the Al Aqsa Brigade's suicide unit.

As the appointed hour grew close, however, she made little attempts to conceal her hatred of Israel, and her disgust with what she viewed as the passivity of the Arab world. Watching the Arab summit on TV with her parents, she seethed at what she deemed the failure of the Arab states to take a strong stand against Israel. Days before her operation, she met in a secret location with at least one Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade accomplice, who videotaped her final message to the world and dropped it off with a local TV station in Bethlehem after her attack. With her head wrapped in the black-and-white checked kaffiyeh of the Fatah movement, she reads from a prepared statement: I say to the Arab leaders, 'Stop sleeping. Stop failing to fulfill your duty. Shame on the Arab armies who are sitting and watching the girls of Palestine fighting while they are asleep."

On that Friday morning, Ayat followed a route along footpaths and through fields, skirting Israeli military checkpoints and crossing unnoticed into Jerusalem. Palestinian sources believe that an accomplice was waiting for her in a car on the other side of the Green Line. There she received her belt of explosives, and was driven to a drop-off point near the Supersol market in Kiryat Hayovel's commercial center. She was so composed before her act that she shooed away two Palestinian women selling herbs and scallions in front of the supermarket. Then she walked purposefully toward the door, where a security guard blocked her path. At that moment, Rachel Levy brushed by Ayat. The Palestinian girl pressed the detonator, blowing herself in one direction and Rachel in the other. Their bodies, both torn to pieces, were found on the opposite ends of the market.

Mohammed al-Akhras, Ayat's father, received confirmation that his daughter was the suicide bomber when militiamen from the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades stood outside his house and fired their guns into the air in salute. Though convention calls for the father of a martyr to express pride in the act, Akhras seemed overwhelmed by grief. "Words cannot express the pain I feel," he mumbled. He said that he had received no offers of financial support from either the Palestinian Authority or the Iraqi government, which has paid as much as $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers.(Iraq) He said he wasn't sure whether he would accept such an offer, thought he conceded that he might have no other choice since as the father of a suicide bomber he was all but certain he would be fired by his Israeli employers. Ayat's fiance seemed just as uncomprehending. "If she had just told me what she was planning, I would have stopped her," he said. "May God forgive her for what she has done." Other members of her family insisted that they regarded suicide bombings as morally wrong, but explained that Israeli brutality had left Palestinians' no other choice. "Sharon has killed hope in our life," said Ayat's cousin, Mutlak Qassas. "Today Ayat went to send him a message with her blood and her body."

Rachel's mother, Abigail, says she doesn't want revenge, "but I want the government to make it clear that if another family sends their child to be killed, they will suffer. This is the only way for them to understand -- when they feel what we feel."

[LANMaster]

I don't know if this is the poll to which the article was referring;

Poll: Palestinians Back Terror Even With State

WASHINGTON - Fifty-nine percent of Palestinians believe that Hamas and Islamic Jihad should continue their armed struggle against Israel even if Israel leaves all of the West Bank and Gaza, including east Jerusalem, and a Palestinian state is created, a new survey shows.

Similarly, 80% of Palestinians say under those circumstances, the Palestinians should not give up the "right of return."

The poll of 600 Palestinians, 600 Israeli Jews, and 400 Israeli Arabs was released in Washington on Wednesday by Itamar Marcus, founder of Palestinian Media Watch, and written by pollster Frank Luntz. It was conducted in late September by two polling firms, the Public Opinion Research of Israel and The Palestinian Center for Public Opinion.

The poll also examined Israeli and Palestinian attitudes towards the US and towards terrorism.
Views on "9/11 2001", Iraq War
Ninety-six percent of Israeli Jews say the people who hijacked the planes on September 11 were terrorists, while only 37% of Palestinians share that view.

Slightly more than one in four Palestinians believe Israelis planned the 9/11 attacks.

Forty-two percent of Palestinians and 61% of Israeli Arabs stated that they support the people who are attacking Americans in Iraq. Zero percent of Israeli Jews said they did.

Marcus said he believes such opinions are "not coming from a vacuum" and that the survey demonstrates a "connection between Palestinian media and education and Palestinian beliefs and opinions." During the Iraq war, Palestinian Authority-sponsored television glorified the killing of American soldiers, a theme that has continued until now in various media, Marcus said.

Rep. Brad Sherman and Sen. Jon Kyl attended the press conference and both expressed shock at the inciting content of the Palestinian films and educational material presented. They vowed to investigate whether the US is indirectly funding the production of such propaganda in its aid to the Palestinian Authority.

Link

[columbo]

Well the numbers that I found (that I assumed to be the source) came from something called "The Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research" (http://www.pcpsr.org).

Very confusing results...Many seem contradictory....Here is a link to their most recent poll (Oct. 2003):

http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2003/p9a.html

The poll deals with Arafat’s popularity and other domestic issues, peace and security, public perception of the United States, and local elections. The total sample size of this poll is 1318 from Palestinians 18 years and older, interviewed face-to-face in West Bank (823) and in Gaza Strip (495), in 120 locations. The margin of error is 3%.

[Columbo: Here are some of the strange numbers I found]

-82% believe there is corruption in the PA and 71% believe that corruption will increase or remain the same in the future.

Yet,

-Arafat’s popularity increases from 35% last June to 50% in this poll. This is his highest level of support in five years.

And

-85% (compared to 80% last June) support a mutual cessation of violence while only 14% oppose it.

Yet,

-58% would still support Hamas’ decision to oppose the ceasefire.

[Found this in an older poll: Almost three quarters (73%) would support reconciliation between the two peoples after reaching a peace agreement leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state recognized by Israel]

[columbo]

Interesting quote from an older poll (December 2001):

It is obvious that the Palestinian perception of terror focuses on the aims of the perpetrators rather than their methods. In this case, any violent act aimed at ending Israeli occupation, regardless of the means, is not likely to be viewed as terror, while all violent acts of the Israeli occupier are seen as acts of terror.

And

For example, while 94% would view an Israeli use of chemical and biological weapons against Palestinians as an act of terror, only 26% would view the same exact attack as an act of terror if it was carried out by Palestinians against Israelis.

This strikes me as particularly interesting, when one considers the fact that (when you think about it) we share a very similar mindset...

Take the Allied bombing of Dresden during WWII for example. Very few of us would consider this an "act of terror", regardless of the fact that thousands upon thousands of civilians were killed. Why? Because we look at the aim rather than the method.

I'm not trying to get into a debate over whether or not it was morally justified to bomb German civilians during WWII....Just pointing out that a similar mindset exists.

Is dropping a bomb from miles above the sky, with the knowledge that it is essentially guaranteed to kill or wound civilians really that different from walking into a supermarket with a bomb strapped to your chest?

Why do we feel the need to lie to ourselves?

Sometimes, we do horrible things that we believe are necessary to achieve some sort of purpose. Isn't that the truth of the matter?

[columbo]

LAN,

Out of curiosity, why didn't you bold these points?

"a neighbor was playing with his daughter in his home when he was shot through the window by Israeli troops."

Or this?

"Though convention calls for the father of a martyr to express pride in the act, Akhras seemed overwhelmed by grief. "Words cannot express the pain I feel,""

Or this?

"Ayat's fiance seemed just as uncomprehending. "If she had just told me what she was planning, I would have stopped her," he said. "May God forgive her for what she has done."

It seems to me that you cherry-picked certain sections that align with your opinions, while ignoring other ones (despite their relevance).

Naughty boy.

[LANMaster]

Originally posted by columbo:
Interesting quote from an older poll (December 2001):



And



This strikes me as particularly interesting, when one considers the fact that (when you think about it) we share a very similar mindset...

Take the Allied bombing of Dresden during WWII for example. Very few of us would consider this an "act of terror", regardless of the fact that thousands upon thousands of civilians were killed. Why? Because we look at the aim rather than the method.

I'm not trying to get into a debate over whether or not it was morally justified to bomb German civilians during WWII....Just pointing out that a similar mindset exists.

I disagree.

Is dropping a bomb from miles above the sky, with the knowledge that it is essentially guaranteed to kill or wound civilians really that different from walking into a supermarket with a bomb strapped to your chest? [/b][/quote]Much different. In WW2 the fight was to oppose global domination and genicide by the Nazis. I am very weary of this blatantly flawed comparison.
You're equating that the WW2 carpet bombing that targeted cities and civilian areas was no different than PRECISION targeting a hostile tank on the ground which has been put deliberately in civilian areas. And that strapping a bomb to ones chest and TARGETING for the MAXIMUM NUMBER OF INNOCENT MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN is somehow the same.

Why do we feel the need to lie to ourselves?

All you have to do is stop.

Sometimes, we do horrible things that we believe are necessary to achieve some sort of purpose. Isn't that the truth of the matter?

[LANMaster]

Originally posted by columbo:
LAN,

Out of curiosity, why didn't you bold these points?

"a neighbor was playing with his daughter in his home when he was shot through the window by Israeli troops."

Or this?

"Though convention calls for the father of a martyr to express pride in the act, Akhras seemed overwhelmed by grief. "Words cannot express the pain I feel,""

Or this?

"Ayat's fiance seemed just as uncomprehending. "If she had just told me what she was planning, I would have stopped her," he said. "May God forgive her for what she has done."

It seems to me that you cherry-picked certain sections that align with your opinions, while ignoring other ones (despite their relevance).

Naughty boy.

I did not remove those from the article. I published it here in full.
Am I not allowed to highlight those parts of an article that I feel make my point?

How does this make me naughty?

I plagiarized nothing. I link every article that I quote.
I will highlight those areas that I feel are relevant to the discussion. But I will not chop out portions of an article, as you have done.

If you feel other portions should be highlighted, then WHY DO YOU OMIT THE REST OF THE ARTICLE?

You're the naughty one, not me!

[columbo]

I disagree.

Is dropping a bomb from miles above the sky, with the knowledge that it is essentially guaranteed to kill or wound civilians really that different from walking into a supermarket with a bomb strapped to your chest? [/b]Much different. In WW2 the fight was to oppose global domination and genicide by the Nazis. I am very weary of this blatantly flawed comparison.
You're equating that the WW2 carpet bombing that targeted cities and civilian areas was no different than PRECISION targeting a hostile tank on the ground which has been put deliberately in civilian areas. And that strapping a bomb to ones chest and TARGETING for the MAXIMUM NUMBER OF INNOCENT MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN is somehow the same.

I'm talking about the similarity in terms of "mindset"You're getting into exactly what I said I didn't want to argue about (personal opinions on the conflicts in question).

A majority of the general populaces of the Allied countries believed that dropping bombs on civilians in order to achieve their goal (defeating Germany) was justifiable.

A majority of Palestinians living in the West Bank or Gaza Strip may believe that blowing up civilian-populated stores and vehicles in order to achieve their goal (end of Israeli occupation)
is justifiable.

I find both to be completely morally reprehensible, but I have the advantage of geography and history.

Fact: Both the Allied forces in WWII and Palestinian-suicide bombers, knowingly and willingly killed civilians.

Fact: Both did/do so with the support of a majority of their populations.

Fact: Both believed that doing so was necessary to achieve their aims.

I've told you before LAN, I won't try to defend the concept of suicide-bombing. Neither would I try to defend the concept of bombing civilian-populated areas (regardless of who's dropping the bombs).

My only point in mentioning this is that there really isn't a difference in terms of the mindset of the father who proudly spoke about his deceased son "bombing the hell out of the Germans" in WWII, and the father of a suicide bomber proudly speaking about his son's/daughter's dedication to "the cause".

Both believe that they have made sacrifices for a worthy cause.

[columbo]

Originally posted by LANMaster:
I did not remove those from the article. I published it here in full.
Am I not allowed to highlight those parts of an article that I feel make my point?

How does this make me naughty?

I plagiarized nothing. I link every article that I quote.
I will highlight those areas that I feel are relevant to the discussion. But I will not chop out portions of an article, as you have done.

If you feel other portions should be highlighted, then WHY DO YOU OMIT THE REST OF THE ARTICLE?

You're the naughty one, not me!

I never said that you removed anything from the article.

I never said that you plagarized anything.

I did not include the rest of the article because you had already posted it.

I only asked why you chose to highlight points that cast the Palestinians in a negative light, while leaving the parts that reflected positively on them unbolded.

I forgive you for being bad.

[LANMaster]

Originally posted by columbo:
I'm talking about the similarity in terms of "mindset"You're getting into exactly what I said I didn't want to argue about (personal opinions on the conflicts in question).

A majority of the general populaces of the Allied countries believed that dropping bombs on civilians in order to achieve their goal (defeating Germany) was justifiable.

We're going 'round in circles on this and ain't nobody convincing nobody.

A majority of Palestinians living in the West Bank or Gaza Strip may believe that blowing up civilian-populated stores and vehicles in order to achieve their goal (end of Israeli occupation) is justifiable.

BINGO!
That is a serious problem with those Palestinians, don't you think?
Do you homestly think their plan of killing civilians (to obtain their goal) will work? I do not.

I find both to be completely morally reprehensible, but I have the advantage of geography and history.

Fact: Both the Allied forces in WWII and Palestinian-suicide bombers, knowingly and willingly killed civilians.

Fact: Both did/do so with the support of a majority of their populations.

Fact: Both believed that doing so was necessary to achieve their aims.

True
True
True

I can't argue with the facts, but I can argue with this comparison.


Fact, The bombing of civilians during WW2 WAS morally reprehensable and repugnant. On that we agree. Had the technology been around to be more precice the allies would (and did) employ that technology in an effort to save civilian lives. Thye nordin bomb sight comes to mind among other ordinance pieces.
Fact, The palestinian suicide bombings will not help to achieve their goals. (among which is the complete destruction of Israel)
Arafat could have gained 95% of the Palestinian demands at Camp David, but he sold the Palestinians out. Now that offer is off the table BECAUSE of the suicide bombings.
Fact, The support of the Palestinian population for these tactics is misguided, abd harmful to their own cause.
Why not compare them to the Kamikazi's of Japan?
Because the Kamikazis only attacked military targets.
Another non-comparable pair of circumstances.

I've told you before LAN, I won't try to defend the concept of suicide-bombing. Neither would I try to defend the concept of bombing civilian-populated areas (regardless of who's dropping the bombs).

On that we can agree to an extent. If a target for Saddam is located among 10 innocent civilians, who would surely perish, we should sieze the moment.
That is quite different from deliberately and calculatedly targeting the highest number of civilian deaths possible.
On that can you agree?

My only point in mentioning this is that there really isn't a difference in terms of the mindset of the father who proudly spoke about his deceased son "bombing the hell out of the Germans" in WWII, and the father of a suicide bomber proudly speaking about his son's/daughter's dedication to "the cause".

Both believe that they have made sacrifices for a worthy cause.

Not a worthy cause in the case of the young girl.
Her actions are a detriment to the Palestinian cause.
Always has been, always will be.

[LANMaster]

Originally posted by columbo:
I never said that you removed anything from the article.

I never said that you plagarized anything.

I did not include the rest of the article because you had already posted it.

I only asked why you chose to highlight points that cast the Palestinians in a negative light, while leaving the parts that reflected positively on them unbolded.

I forgive you for being bad.

Okay.

[plschwartz]

LAN The sad fact is is that the suicide bombings tend to keep the palestinians on page one, helping keep world attention on the conflict.
There have been a lot of bombings etc in pakistan etc which only in the NYTimes even makes page seven.

[LANMaster]

The bombings have been going non stop for years.
They have been on page one for years.
The suicide bombings have crushed the roadmap to peace.
They are crushing the Palestinian's hopes for any progress on the goal of returned lands and statehood.
I find that very sad. You see, I support the Palestinian statehood effort, and the return of certain land.
It is sad to see them throw away a steak because it wasn't a hamburger.

[columbo]

It is sad to see them throw away a steak because it wasn't a hamburger.

I would keep the steak.....as long as it was medium....hmm....possibly medium-well.