De La Paz

 

Houston Chronicle, December 4, 2001

It's up to Arafat to Decide if He Truly Wants Peace

By Donna De La Paz

So horrendous was the series of terror outrages that struck Israel over the weekend – two suicide bombing attacks in Jerusalem and a third in Haifa – that President Bush was moved to place the onus squarely on Yasser Arafat, leader of the Palestinian people, to end the violence. Not only were they among the most horrific acts of the daily Palestinian violence of the past 14 months. They were carried out just as the Bush Administration launched a new initiative, dispatching General Anthony Zinni to the region in an effort to negotiate a cease-fire that could bring about a resumption of peace negotiations. The inability, or unwillingness, of Arafat to ensure that General Zinni would have a productive trip is all too reminiscent of the way the Palestinian leader treated former President Clinton, as late as last January, when he, in effect, snubbed both Israel and the U.S. at Taba, Egypt, choosing to continue the campaign of violence he launched in September 2000, instead of pursuing negotiations, to achieve his political goals. Last weekend’s horrific bombing attacks were just the latest in a series of targeted, brutal terrorist attacks on restaurants, discotheques, shopping malls, open-air markets, and public buses throughout Israel. President Bush has said since September 11 that there are no distinctions between good terrorists and bad terrorists; terrorists are terrorists, phraseology long used by Israeli leaders. Over the weekend, the president, reflecting a deep empathy and understanding with what the people of Israel are facing, made clear that Arafat, long on promises but murderously deficient in action, must make a 100 percent effort to end Palestinian terrorism against Israel. “Now more than ever, Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority must demonstrate through their actions, and not merely their words, their commitment to fight terror,” Bush said. Washington clearly understands Israel’s 53-year quest for peace, as well as Israel’s right for self-defense and the military action Israel took against Palestinian Authority facilities to combat terrorism. More than a year ago, at Camp David with U.S. backing, Israel made a historic offer to the Palestinians that would have led to a resolution of all outstanding issues. A permanent peace could have been achieved through bilateral negotiations. But shortly thereafter, the Palestinian leadership made a calculated decision to walk away from the peace process and to embark on a path of violence. The significant gains in Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking made during the past decade have been effectively nullified by the daily terror attacks against Israelis since the Palestinians chose violence over negotiations. These attacks, incited and condoned by a Palestinian leadership that refuses to take consistent action against the individuals and organizations responsible, have left hundreds of Israelis dead and thousands wounded. And they have destroyed Israeli confidence in the Palestinian commitment to peace. For too long the international community has tolerated this continuing Palestinian terrorism against Israel. European leaders, apparently careful not to give offense to Chairman Arafat, have too often responded to terror outrages against Israelis with solemn calls for ‘both parties’ to eschew violence. In fact, European Union and Arab League nations, among others, are scheduled to meet in Geneva on Wednesday for the exclusive purpose of condemning Israel for supposedly violating the Fourth Geneva Convention. In 52 years, the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention have never been convened to discuss the action of any other country. It is time for the democracies of Europe, as well as America’s friends among moderate Arab states, to change course and join the United States in true solidarity with democratic Israel: to not only rhetorically condemn Palestinian terror against Israelis but to apply economic and political pressure on the Palestinian leadership so that Arafat will finally see that in the eyes of the world he has no choice but to act decisively against terror. Regrettably, European and Arab states’ acquiescence to terror has sent the Palestinians a far different and misguided message, particularly over the past year, that if they wait long enough, Israel can be brought to heel. Now, with the United States making a new effort to achieve a cease-fire and bring about the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, Arafat must make a decision. He can continue to allow the terrorists to roam freely in territories in Gaza and the West Bank under his control, or he can arrest and prosecute them, breaking terror’s grip and making a political solution possible. The Palestinian leadership cannot have it both ways – it is either diplomacy or terrorism, and it is up to Arafat and the Palestinian Authority to decide if they truly want peace. Donna DeLaPaz is the executive director of the Houston Chapter of the American Jewish Committee.


Houston Chronicle
March 15, 2001


Hate crimes law will make Texas safer for all of us
By DONNA DE LA PAZ and BEN SAMUELS


WHILE more than 3,000 hate crimes were reported in Texas from 1992-1999, our state continues to lag behind the nation in establishing laws of sufficient strength to adequately prosecute perpetrators of such despicable acts, and, hopefully, to even deter individuals from carrying out hate crimes. In fact, James Byrd Jr. might be alive today if his murderers had received the maximum penalties allowed by law for their previous hate crimes. Why? Instead of hunting for an African-American to lynch, they still may have been incarcerated.
Fortunately, there is a solid legislative initiative to enhance our state's hate crime statutes. The James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act of 2001 would enhance criminal penalties for all crimes motivated by prejudice or bias, would establish new civil penalties for hate crimes and provide aid to small counties for prosecuting hate-motivated murders. The act (Senate Bill 87 by Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, and House Bill 587 by Rep. Senfronia Thompson, D-Houston) would designate a prosecutor in the state attorney general's office as a hate crimes director and require court clerks to report hate crimes prosecutions to the Texas Judicial Council. Lastly, it would clarify the state definition of a hate crime to conform to language upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Existing hate crimes law in Texas, while important, does not identify the classifications of hate crime target populations accepted generally across the nation. They include crimes committed on the basis of race, color, disability, religion, national origin or ancestry, gender or sexual orientation. All people are protected by this language. Any notion that such legislation would establish protected population groups, as opponents of the Byrd Act suggest, does not acknowledge that all Texans are members of these so-called "protected classes." True, most Texas hate crimes are motivated by racism. But while nearly 60 percent of reported hate crimes are directed against African-Americans, Hispanics and Asians, more than one in eight are motivated by anti-white biases.
Presently, most hate crimes committed in Texas actually are not reported, and some counties, despite existing law, do not even collect any statistics on such crimes. Under Texas criminal code, many hate crimes are not prosecuted. A cross-burning, a swastika painted on a synagogue and other hate crimes involving property are often considered misdemeanors. But hate crimes are unlike any other criminal activity. They, in essence, are a form of domestic terrorism and they must be treated with the same kind of moral outrage, backed up by appropriate and stringent statutes, to combat this scourge on our society. Thus, Texas law must be strengthened to protect the rights, freedoms and security of all, including minorities, to ensure that no one is jeopardized by prejudice.
Enhanced penalties would help to prevent smaller hate crimes -- 25 percent involve vandalized property -- from becoming more serious hate crimes, including murder. It seems that most Texans agree. According to a recent Scripps-Howard Poll, 68 percent of Texans favor the passage of the Byrd Act. And such broad-based support is reflected in the ethnic and religious groups constituting the Coalition Against Hate Crimes.
As in other states that have gone through the process of enhancing hate crimes statutes, the most controversial element of the Byrd Act is the inclusion of sexual orientation as a protected category. Regardless of one's religious, political or personal beliefs about homosexuality, we should not condone the idea that it is acceptable to target individuals because they are gay or lesbian.
We have an opportunity to pass meaningful legislation about the type of society in which we want to live. The Byrd Act is critical for sending a message that it is unacceptable to act upon the motivations that translate into hate crimes. The key now is to contact legislators in Austin and let them know that we want to make Texas a safe place for all residents. Our voices can be counted and must be recognized if we are to make a difference in hate crimes legislation in Texas.

De La Paz is executive director of the Houston Chapter of the American Jewish Committee and a member of the Texas Coalition Against Hate Crimes (TCAHC). Samuels is the domestic policy chair of the Houston Chapter of the American Jewish Committee and member of the TCAHC.

 

Is The Accuser Credible?
Mark Bilk


I downloaded the recording of the "Jewish Voices" program
from this Web page: http://radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=4646 .

Given what I know about the situation, listening to the panelists
talk about the Palestinians was like listening to some calm, clever,
well-spoken neo-Nazis or KKK talk about Blacks or Jews.

I heard the following lies spoken by them. These are not
quoted verbatim; many were made in a more deceptive manner.
My additions/comments are given in [brackets].

Judging from the obvious internal and moral contradictions in the
statements they made, I think she and the others knew that they
were lying.

And if she would lie to get people to support Israel's actions,
why wouldn't she lie about Buzzanco in order to stop him
from broadcasting accurate information and analysis about
Israel's attacks on Palestinians?


Donna De La Paz:

Yassir Arafat's PLO, Hamas, etc. are trying to eradicate Jews.

The Jews own Palestine because it's been the capitol of
the Jewish state for 3300 years. [She ignored the caller's
mention of the Canaanites whom they took it from.]

It's the Arab states that are pushing out the Palestinians
within their borders. [She didn't say that those Palestinians
had been ethnically cleansed from Palestine by the Israelis.]

It's alright for Israel to kick out 630,000 Palestinians
because Arab countries kicked out that many Jews.

Israel has nothing to hide in its attacks on Palestine.
[Then why did they prevent reporters and photographers from
telling the world what was going on? They even shot a few
of them. Why have they prevented forensic teams with heavy
equipment from coming in afterward and excavating and analyzing
the piles of concrete rubble that are the remains of Palestinian
homes, bulldozed and then crushed by running tanks back and forth
over them? Witnesses said that the Israelis got rid of hundreds
of corpses by putting them in the homes before demolishing and
crushing them.]

Fox News is giving the most unbiased coverage.

There was no massacre.

She heard while driving in on the station that the Israelis
were using the drivers of the ambulances as shields. That is
completely false and incorrect.

Jews should hold neighborhood meetings, write to newspapers,
etc., to spread "the truth" about Israel and its activities.


Donna De La Paz also tacitly agreed with all these statements
by the other panelists:

The 22% of Palestine that the Palestinians live on is
"disputed territory", because they and the Israelis haven't
successfully negotiated who should live there. [The context
of the "negotiations" are that Israelis have $90billion of
US weapons, and Palestinians have some dynamite and their
own bodies.]

The 78% of Palestine that was seized by the Zionists, by
ethnic cleansing the Palestinians who lived there in 1948
and 1967, is not disputed, but belongs to the Jews.

The Jewish settlers should be able to colonize Palestine
because "they're human beings".

Israel is the only democratic state in the region.

Palestinians are able to get permits to build homes in
Palestine and Israel as easily as Israelis can.
[Contradicted by many news stories. Also, Israelis are
constantly destroying Palestinians homes, for bogus
reasons or no reason at all.]

Israel won't obey UN resolutions because they don't give
Israel a big enough defense perimeter.

Israel wants 300,000 Palestinians whom they pushed into
Lebanon to live there and not grouch about what happened in
the past.

There was no massacre in Jenin, just heavy fighting between
Israeli soldiers and terrorists. [i.e., Palestinians
defending their land from invasion]

Israel is fighting the terrorists and has no quarrel with
anyone else or intent to harm them. [No mention of their
vast destruction of Palestinian infrastructure, or shooting
any Palestinians who came out of their homes, or bulldozing
many homes with people inside.]

Reporters and cameramen were kept out during Israeli attacks
because terrorists could have disguised themselves as them,
not because Israel was killing civilians or had anything
else to hide.

Israel wants everyone to live in peace in the lands that
they've decided to inhabit. [After they'd pushed the
Palestinians out of 78% of the land that they'd been living
on for hundreds of years, and then also colonized some of
the remaining 20%.]

Rabbi: the Jews have to have a majority in their nation so
they'll be safe.

Only Palestinians deliberately kill civilians. Israelis
never do.