“San Francisco and Massachusetts are proud”


 

Thursday, February 12, 2004
Rachel Gordon, Chronicle Staff Writer
Couple wedded at SF City Hall
Women had been together for five decades
History was made at 11:06 a.m. today at San Francisco City Hall when Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon took their wedding vows, becoming the first same-sex couple to be officially married in the United States.
By mid-afternoon, at least 15 same-sex weddings were performed and officials issued about a dozen more marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.
Mabel Teng, the city's assessor-recorder, officiated over the first ceremony, inserting the phrase "spouse for life'' in place of "husband'' and "wife.''
"This is a very significant day for Del and Phyllis and for all of us witnessing this historic ceremony,'' Teng said before the couple recited their vows.
About 20 people witnessed the ceremony; many of them were moved to tears as the couple, who have been together for five decades, were wed.
The wedding came just two days after Mayor Gavin Newsom announced that he wanted San Francisco to take the lead in bestowing the same marriage rights to gays and lesbians as are awarded to straight couples, saying he is duty-bound to fight discrimination.
The landmark wedding, the first of many expected to be held at City Hall today, is sure to set off a legal challenge. City officials, in fact, rushed to issue the first marriage licenses to same-sex couples as quickly as possible for fear that opponents would seek a court injunction to stop them. Officials alerted only a handful of people that they were ready to act, wanting to keep it secret until the papers were signed and the "I do's" were spoken.
The decision was made late Wednesday night, and the clerk's office spent this morning amending the marriage license documents to reflect the change.
In place of "bride'' and "groom'' on the application were the words "1st applicant'' and "2nd applicant.''
After Martin, 83, and the 79-year-old Lyon were declared spouses for life, three other couples were lined up, awaiting their turn to take marriage vows.
Lyon, who will celebrate her 51st anniversary with Martin on Saturday, Valentine's Day, got a call Wednesday from Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, asking her if she'd be willing to take the plunge.
"I asked Del and she said OK," Lyon said. The San Francisco couple isn't new to being firsts. They have been at the forefront of the lesbian rights movement for decades.
"We didn't really think about this before, because we didn't think it was possible," Lyon said. "Now, so much has changed ... and everyone's working so hard to get gay marriage. It didn't seem right to say 'no.’"
 
slide cursor here

 

Friday, February 13, 2004

EDITORIAL
To the threshold of equal rights

THE DEBATE over same-sex marriage moved out of the margins Thursday. It's no longer a matter of whether "separate but equal" — civil unions, domestic partners, marriage by any other name — is the moral and legal equivalent of a state-sanctioned declaration of "husband and wife."
San Francisco finally, officially, cut to the essence of the issue Thursday by issuing marriage licenses at City Hall to same-sex couples.
It may seem premature to some Americans, but for 83-year-old Del Martin and 79-year-old Phyllis Lyon, it was a long time coming. The lesbian couple, together for about a half-century, became the first in the United States to marry with the full recognition of a government body.
Tears flowed during the historic moment at City Hall.
There was no doubt that the euphoria of this revolutionary action will soon give way to a long, potentially tedious legal battle that may ultimately end up in the U.S. Supreme Court. The issue was forced by Mayor Gavin Newsom, who is showing extraordinary mettle in his first weeks of office. Newsom declared that his reading of the California Constitution left "no room for any form of discrimination."
There is no doubt that many Americans remain highly uncomfortable with the idea of same-sex marriage. Some members of Congress, with an assist by President Bush, are pandering to this unease by proposing a constitutional amendment to restrict the rights of gays and lesbians. Democrats are clearly worried about it becoming a wedge issue in the presidential race. Democratic front-runner John Kerry has been taking the typically hedged position of most politicians, supporting an expansion of rights but adhering to a narrow definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.
 
 
San Francisco's bold move will force the core question, whether Americans — and its elected officials — are ready or not.
We extend our best wishes to Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon; may they live happily ever after.
We extend our kudos to Mayor Newsom, who recognized that confronting discrimination is not about timing or political calculation, but about about principle.
We also offer words of caution to Americans who may be tempted to reflexively want to support a constitutional amendment in defense of a tradition they have known and cherished through their lifetimes.
Pause to contemplate whether discrimination based on sexual orientation is consistent with the constitutional principles that have defined and defended this country's precious freedoms.
The hour has arrived to decide whether there is any rationale — in a nation guided by a constitution assuring "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" — for government to deprive some Americans from the rights and responsibilities of marriage.
San Francisco should be proud to have provoked this showdown.
 
 

Friday, August 13, 2004

EDITORIAL
A setback, not an end

FOR LONG DAYS last February, thousands of gay and lesbian couples stood happily in the rain and cold outside City Hall, waiting to be married.  When this city welcomed the unions, the couples came by foot, bus and limo, carrying flowers and bringing along parents and children to mark the day.
A decision by the California Supreme Court nullifying the marriages will slow but not stop this human surge.
The some 4,000 couples who were married here will be disappointed at the ruling.  Advocates of conventional marriage will see the decision as a satisfying victory.  But the movement to make same-sex unions legal and equal hasn't ended.  It will now head in other directions, not dissipate.
Mayor Gavin Newsom's bid to issue wedding licenses to thousands of gay and lesbian couples always hung by a narrow thread.  Newsom argued that the "a man and a woman" rules for marriage were unconstitutional and unfairly restrictive.  He was duty-bound, he said, to act on his convictions.  Instead of forms listing bride and groom, there should space for two partners, gender unspecified.
It was a risky attempt, especially since more conventional challenges were advancing through the legal system, brought by same-sex couples who considered the state law discriminatory.  To Newsom, the pace was too slow, especially in an atmosphere turned chilly by a backlash against a similar same- sex-marriage trend in Massachusetts.
The 5-2 ruling from the California high court contended that if city leaders could ignore state laws based on personal beliefs about their constitutional worth, the message would be "confusion and chaos,'' according to the court.
The decision's wording was tailored to its San Francisco audience by making hot-button liberal comparisons to make the central point.  Do you really want an elected official invoking his or her own judgment of the constitutionality of assault-gun bans or coastal development?, the justices asked.
As promised in an earlier ruling, the court noted another aspect of the gay-rights debate: It may be stopping the issuance of wedding licenses for now, but the court was not ruling on the larger question of whether gays and lesbians were entitled to marry.  That question, which lies at the heart of the fight, remains to be decided.
The court action is a valuable chapter in a continuing debate on same-sex rights.  It does undercut San Francisco's bold move by invalidating the same- sex marriages, but it also reminds the public that the courts, not politics, should have the final say.  California voters chose in 2000 to define marriage as between a man and a woman, a stance echoed by Missouri voters last week.  But judges in Oregon and Washington, along with those in Massachusetts, have sided with same-sex marriage arguments.
Eventually, a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court will be needed to lift the question out a political mud pit and place it on the higher ground of personal rights and basic equality.  That would be the right ending, at last.
 
Susan Shepherd peeks over while her partner Marcia Hams fills out the couple's marriage license application as they become the first same-sex couple to register for a marriage license with the town clerk of Cambridge, Massachusetts shortly after midnight May 17, 2004. 

Massachusetts is the first state in the United States to legally sanction same-sex marriage based on a ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court requiring the state to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

Picture: REUTERS/Jim Bourg
Couples waiting for an application for a marriage license in Massachusetts May 2004.

Picture: AP/Josh Reynolds  

(left)
Susan Shepherd peeks over while her partner Marcia Hams fills out the couple's marriage license application as they become the first same-sex couple to register for a marriage license with the town clerk of Cambridge, Massachusetts shortly after midnight May 17, 2004.
Massachusetts is the first state in the United States to legally sanction same-sex marriage based on a ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court requiring the state to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.
(right)
Couples waiting for an application for a marriage license in Massachusetts May 2004.
Photos: REUTERS/Jim Bourg, AP/Josh Reynolds
Brenda Morris, left, and Eve Alpern, right, both of Boston, wait in front of City Hall in Cambridge, Mass., on Sunday, May 16, 2004. 

The couple was among the first of the same-sex couples who gathered to wait for the nation's first state-sanctioned gay marriage applications to be handed out starting at midnight.

Picture: AP/Josh Reynolds
  Carol Specter, center left, and Phyllis Dunn, center right, hold hands as they receive applause from onlookers while making their way toward a marriage application document processing room, at Cambridge City Hall, in Cambridge, Mass., early Monday, May 17, 2004. 

Carol and Phyllis, who have been a couple for 14 years, waited with hundreds of other couples before completing marriage application documents.

Picture: AP/Steven Senne  

(left)
Brenda Morris, left, and Eve Alpern, right, both of Boston, wait in front of City Hall in Cambridge, Mass., on Sunday, May 16, 2004.
The couple was among the first of the same-sex couples who gathered to wait for the nation's first state-sanctioned gay marriage applications to be handed out starting at midnight.
(right)
Carol Specter, center left, and Phyllis Dunn, center right, hold hands as they receive applause from onlookers while making their way toward a marriage application document processing room, at Cambridge City Hall, in Cambridge, Mass., early Monday, May 17, 2004.
Carol and Phyllis, who have been a couple for 14 years, waited with hundreds of other couples before completing marriage application documents.
Photos: AP/Josh Reynolds, AP/Steven Senne
Colin Hominski of Boston, and Quido Giglioni, of Boston and a native of Macerata, Italy, talk while waiting on the steps of Cambridge City Hall, Sunday, May 16, 2004, in Cambridge, Mass., for an application for a marriage license.

Picture: AP/Josh Reynolds

  Chris McCary and John Sullivan, both from Anniston, Alabama, are the first same-sex couple to file for a marriage license at the Provincetown, Massachusetts Town Hall May 17, 2004.

Picture: REUTERS/Brian Snyder  

(left)
Colin Hominski of Boston, and Quido Giglioni, of Boston and a native of Macerata, Italy, talk while waiting on the steps of Cambridge City Hall, Sunday, May 16, 2004, in Cambridge, Mass., for an application for a marriage license.
(right)
Chris McCary and John Sullivan, both from Anniston, Alabama, are the first same-sex couple to file for a marriage license at the Provincetown, Massachusetts Town Hall May 17, 2004.
Photos: AP/Josh Reynolds, REUTERS/Brian Snyder
 
 Janet Deegan and Constance Cervone of Boston show off their marriage license minutes after it was obtained at City Hall in Boston May 17, 2004.

Picture: REUTERS/Jim Bourg 
Janet Deegan and Constance Cerone react to the cheers of the crowd as they leave City Hall carrying their marriage license in Boston May 17, 2004.

Picture: REUTERS/Jim Bourg  

(left)
Janet Deegan and Constance Cervone of Boston show off their marriage license minutes after it was obtained at City Hall in Boston May 17, 2004.
The couple was among the first of the same-sex couples who gathered to wait for the nation's first state-sanctioned gay marriage applications to be handed out starting at midnight.
(right)
Janet Deegan and Constance Cerone react to the cheers of the crowd as they leave City Hall carrying their marriage license in Boston May 17, 2004.
Photos: REUTERS/Jim Bourg
 
 Hillary and Julie Goodridge become the first same-sex couple in the city to receive an application for a marriage license at City Hall in Boston, Massachusetts, as they are watched by lawyer Mary Bonauto and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino.

Picture: AFP/Stan Honda 
Successful same-sex marriage lawsuit plaintiffs Hillary and Julie Goodridge smile as they talk to the media after applying for their marriage license at City Hall in Boston May 17, 2004. 

Massachusetts became the first state in the United States to legally sanction same-sex marriage based on the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court won by the Goodridges that required the state to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.
 
Picture: REUTERS/Jim Bourg

(left)
Hillary and Julie Goodridge become the first same-sex couple in the city to receive an application for a marriage license at City Hall in Boston, Massachusetts, as they are watched by lawyer Mary Bonauto and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino.
(right)
Successful same-sex marriage lawsuit plaintiffs Hillary and Julie Goodridge smile as they talk to the media after applying for their marriage license at City Hall in Boston May 17, 2004.
Massachusetts became the first state in the United States to legally sanction same-sex marriage based on the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court won by the Goodridges that required the state to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.
Photos: AFP/Stan Honda, REUTERS/Jim Bourg



 Laura Moskowitz, left, and Robin Shore, both of Cambridge, Mass., wait on the steps of Cambridge City Hall, Sunday, May 16, 2004, to receive one of the nation's first state-sanctioned gay marriage applications. 

Picture: AP/Josh Reynolds 
Gay marriage supporters rally outside the State Capitol in Hartford, Conn., Sunday, May 16, 2004.
 
Picture: AP/Steve Miller

(left)
Laura Moskowitz, left, and Robin Shore, both of Cambridge, Mass., wait on the steps of Cambridge City Hall, Sunday, May 16, 2004, to receive one of the nation's first state-sanctioned gay marriage applications.

(right)
Gay marriage supporters rally outside the State Capitol in Hartford, Conn., Sunday, May 16, 2004.
Photos: AP/Josh Reynolds, AP/Steve Miller
 Michael Horgan and Ed Balmelli, both of Boston, listen to a blessing from Rev. Dr. Kenneth H. Orth while taking their marriage vows during a ceremony, in Boston, Monday, May 17, 2004. 

Picture: AP/Steven Senne 
Michael and Ed kiss at the completion of their marriage vows. 

The couple, who have been together for about a decade, were one of seven couples who sued Massachusetts for the right to marry their partners. 

Picture: AP/Steven Senne

(left)
Michael Horgan and Ed Balmelli, both of Boston, listen to a blessing from Rev. Dr. Kenneth H. Orth while taking their marriage vows during a ceremony, in Boston, Monday, May 17, 2004.
(right)
Michael and Ed kiss at the completion of their marriage vows.
The couple, who have been together for about a decade, were one of seven couples who sued Massachusetts for the right to marry their partners.
Photos: AP/Steven Senne
Linda Davies, 58, and her partner Gloria Bailey, 63, of Orleans, Mass., are married by Rev. Mykel Johnson, Minister of First Parish Unitarian, at their wedding ceremony on a beach in Nauset, Mass., Monday, May 17, 2004. 

Picture: AP/Bizuayehu Tesfaye
Linda and Gloria look on as the Rev. Johnson, minister of First Parish Unitarian, signs their wedding certificate.
 
Picture: AP/Bizuayehu Tesfaye

(left)
Linda Davies, 58, and her partner Gloria Bailey, 63, of Orleans, Mass., are married by Rev. Mykel Johnson, Minister of First Parish Unitarian, at their wedding ceremony on a beach in Nauset, Mass., Monday, May 17, 2004.
(right)
Linda and Gloria look on as the Rev. Johnson, minister of First Parish Unitarian, signs their wedding certificate.
Photos: AP/Bizuayehu Tesfaye
Cape Cod Times.      August 13, 2004    Associated Press
But Newsom was defiant at a news conference at City Hall, where he appeared with city officials, many of them gay and lesbian, and spoke to a number of couples who he had allowed to get married.  He said his "heart was heavy" that the marriages were voided, but vowed to carry on the city's constitutional challenge.
"There is nothing that any court decision or politician can do that will take that (wedding) moment away," Newsom said. 
"(The California ruling) is very, very sad because I remember the joy on their faces, and I know how absolutely fabulous it has been for us," said Orleans resident Gloria Bailey who, along with her partner Linda Davies, sued Massachusetts for marriage rights.   "I can only imagine how those couples in California are feeling having it all taken away.   I'm sure they're devastated."
Newsom argued that the ability of same-sex couples to marry was a "fundamental right" that compelled him to act.   He cited the California Constitution's ban against discrimination, and claimed he was duty-bound to follow this higher authority rather than state laws banning gay marriage.
The justices said when they agreed to hear the case that they would entertain a challenge arguing that gays should be treated the same as heterosexual couples under the California Constitution, if ever such a lawsuit reached the high court.
 Joanne Colucci and Marilyn Lober wear t-shirts reading 'We Waited 20 Years,' as they walk to the Provincetown, Massachusetts Town Hall to file for a marriage license May 17, 2004.

Picture: REUTERS/Brian Snyder 
Moira Barrett and Johanna Schulman, a couple from Cambridge, Mass., join with friends Janet Prince and Peter Bergh while eating dinner on the steps of Cambridge City Hall, in Cambridge, Mass. 

Moira and Johanna have been a couple for 16 years.
 
Picture: AP/Steven Senne

(left)
Joanne Colucci and Marilyn Lober wear t-shirts reading 'We Waited 20 Years,' as they walk to the Provincetown, Massachusetts Town Hall to file for a marriage license May 17, 2004.
(right)
Moira Barrett and Johanna Schulman, a couple from Cambridge, Mass., join with friends Janet Prince and Peter Bergh while eating dinner on the steps of Cambridge City Hall, in Cambridge, Mass.
Moira and Johanna have been a couple for 16 years.
Photos: REUTERS/Brian Snyder, AP/Steven Senne
 The Universalist Meeting House in Provincetown, Massachusetts is decorated with a banner reading 'Civil Rights Equal Marriage' and projected red hearts May 16, 2004.

Picture: Brian Snyder/Reuters 
Marcia and Susan are applauded as they cut a wedding cake in Cambridge City Hall.
 
Picture: REUTERS/Jessica Rinaldi

(left)
The Universalist Meeting House in Provincetown, Massachusetts is decorated with a banner reading 'Civil Rights Equal Marriage' and projected red hearts May 16, 2004.
(right)
Marcia and Susan are applauded as they cut a wedding cake in Cambridge City Hall.
Photos: REUTERS/Brian Snyder, REUTERS/Jessica Rinaldi
         San Francisco is proud — more photos         
         Gay sexuality issues around the world         
         Gay fetish: the infinite shelf life of homo- distraction         
         Christian right — fear and corporate boycott of Gays         
         Those amazing days in February         
         Sandovol County shall be proud         
         Two days before Valentine's day         
 
Politicians of disgust
Politicians of disgust.

Dalai Lama, left, and US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi look on during a public reception at the Namgayal complex in Dharamsala, India, Friday, March 21, 2008.

Pelosi speaking at a news conference on Capitol Hill November 8, 2006:

'In the words of Isaiah, we will make ourselves to Israel 'as hiding places from the winds and shelters from the tempests; as rivers of water in dry places; as shadows of a great rock in a weary land.'

The United States will stand with Israel now and forever.

Now and forever.'

A Palestine loved one lowers the body of 21-month-old Salasabeel Abu Jalhoum into a grave.

The young girl was killed early on Sunday when a US Israel missile landed on her house in the northern Gaza Strip March 2, 2008.

More killing by US Taxpayers.

Children injured and killed in Gaza by Israel using US made and paid for missiles.

Palestinians were forced from their homes 60 years ago from what is now called Israel into refugee camps in Gaza and the West Bank, Jordan and Lebanon. 

The people who stole the land from the Palestinians have been aided by American Taxpayer funding for more than fifty years.

More than Fifteen million US dollars is given by US taxpayers each day for this military use, which presently involves the imprisonment of the remaining segregated ' Bantustan - Apartheid ' parcels of land occupied by millions of Palestinian.

Total funding by the US Taxpayer for the enslavement of the Palestinian people is more than 4 billion US dollars per year.

Photo: AP/Gurinder Osan

Politicians of disgust
Dalai Lama, left, and US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi look on during a public reception at the Namgayal complex in Dharamsala, India, Friday, March 21, 2008.
Pelosi speaking at a news conference on Capitol Hill November 8, 2006:
'In the words of Isaiah, we will make ourselves to Israel 'as hiding places from the winds and shelters from the tempests; as rivers of water in dry places; as shadows of a great rock in a weary land.'
The United States will stand with Israel now and forever.
Now and forever.'
A Palestine loved one lowers the body of 21-month-old Salasabeel Abu Jalhoum into a grave.
The young girl was killed early on Sunday when a US Israel missile landed on her house in the northern Gaza Strip March 2, 2008.
More killing by US Taxpayers.
Children injured and killed in Gaza by Israel using US made and paid for missiles.
Palestinians were forced from their homes 60 years ago from what is now called Israel into refugee camps in Gaza and the West Bank, Jordan and Lebanon.
The people who stole the land from the Palestinians have been aided by American Taxpayer funding for more than fifty years.
More than Fifteen million US dollars is given by US taxpayers each day for this military use, which presently involves the imprisonment of the remaining segregated ' Bantustan - Apartheid ' parcels of land occupied by millions of Palestinian.
Total funding by the US Taxpayer for the enslavement of the Palestinian people is more than 4 billion US dollars per year.
Photo: AP/Gurinder Osan
Nanci Pelosi — U.S. House Democratic leader — Congresswoman California, 8th District
Speaking at the AIPAC agenda   May 26, 2005
Mother her two babies killed by US
More than Fifteen million US dollars
given by US taxpayers to Israel
each day for their military use
4 billion US dollars per year
There are those who contend that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is all about Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.   This is absolute nonsense.
In truth, the history of the conflict is not over occupation, and never has been:  it is over the fundamental right of Israel to exist.
The greatest threat to Israel's right to exist, with the prospect of devastating violence, now comes from Iran.
For too long, leaders of both political parties in the United States have not done nearly enough to confront the Russians and the Chinese, who have supplied Iran as it has plowed ahead with its nuclear and missile technology....
In the words of Isaiah, we will make ourselves to Israel 'as hiding places from the winds and shelters from the tempests; as rivers of water in dry places; as shadows of a great rock in a weary land.'
The United States will stand with Israel now and forever.
Now and forever.
If you find the images in this article revolting, like me, think of the following: people everywhere in Palestine see such images on a daily basis not as pictures but live and anywhere they go, and that this genocide is supported equally by ALL western countries, the EU and the UN.
If you live in any "western" country, your taxes are very probably financing what you see here.
Speak with your politicians if you do not like what you see.
When the psychopaths and moral degenerates who commit these acts with the help of your governments stop commiting them, I (and others) will stop publishing these images.
Israel had to defend themselves from her,
so they did this.
More than Fifteen million US dollars
given by US taxpayers to Israel
each day for their military use
4 billion US dollars per year
Since the criminal State of Israel denied me the right to work as a journalist in my homeland Palestine and forced me to flee to Europe, I often ask myself why the U.S.A does not stop donating to Israel the bombs which they use against the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.
What, ever, have we done to the USA?
Why did the U.S.A send military detachments to Israel after the Israeli lost the war in the south of Lebanon?
The Israeli military radio, 'Tsahal Radio' announced these news.
They said that the American detachment of officers had arrived in Israel to take part in the 'Autumn Clouds' operation in Gaza.
That they helped the Israeli military to perform their 'killing duties' without any loss.
American officers were involved in the last Beit Hanoun massacre, in which in one incident 20 Palestinians were killed, at least 60 innocent children, old men and women were injured.
Leg injuries inflicted by new Israeli weapons
The flesh is apparently burnt and disintegrates into crumbles and liquids
More than Fifteen million US dollars
given by US taxpayers to Israel
each day for their military use
4 billion US dollars per year
The question poses itself, why is the political discourse of the European countries still fixated on the crimes against the Jews over 60 years ago?
All the while allowing and even supporting the perpetration of the big disaster which befalls my homeland Palestine?
Why do all European politicians keep silence about all the crimes which the Israeli perpetrates in Palestine?
Are they scared that the Jews will return to Europe, or are they themselves involved in these crimes?
Is it logical that the European countries signed the convention against Genocide, and then they impose a siege against the Palestinian.
Create conditions for real starvation for another nation in another land?
Why does the international media impose a veil of silence over what is happening in Palestine?
The concentration camps which are Gaza and the West Bank?
Never anything comes out in the media, the TV, the newspapers.
The media only relates minor incidents, or, in a hugely inflated manner, when something small happens against the Israeli occupation terrorists.
As far as I am concerned, all the western media is complicit in this genocide.
There used to be a house here.
Now only a pool of blood remains.
More than Fifteen million US dollars
given by US taxpayers to Israel
each day for their military use
4 billion US dollars per year
The Beit Hanoun massacre, a day of bloody clouds.
On November 1, 2006, the number of the Palestinians who were killed in Gaza during the 'Autumn Clouds' Israeli military terror operation reached 86, and at least 265 were injured.
This happened before the criminals of the Israeli State perpetrated the now generally known massacre in Beit Hanoun.
The morning of November 8, 2006, Israeli tanks shelled Palestinians in their homes in the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun.
They fired eleven shells into six homes, killing at least 20 Palestinians, wounding some 60 more.
The Irony is that this attack comes a day after Israeli troops pulled out of the town after a week-long offensive in which dozens of Palestinian died, and hundreds were injured.
A person from Gaza, who also sent me most of the pictures of this article, posted this on that day:
It has been the 7th day of the israeli aggression against citizens in gaza strip town of Bieth Hanoon, till this moment they have killed more than 90 citizen withen those 7 days.
What is most important about this, is the kind of strange weapons used in the attack.
These bombs explode in a strange way to make fatal damage of human body.
Cuts and burns more than any bomb we have ever experienced ... so this is why the number of kills is very high till now.
And for the most important even the wonded, thay almost have no hope to cure, as the damage that happens to their bodys .. the Palestinian Health ministray believes that some nuclear radiations might be contented in these weapons, as they can not really understand what is going on till now.
As i said more than 90 were killed and more than 500 wonded, tens in danger ... and more than 100 handdicapped as the type of weapons they use ..
The israelis destroyed many houses, and they killed many trees in simple words a New Jenin Camp.
If you remember what happened in Jenen, they destroyed roads, electricity and water nets.. in simple words what happened was an earth quack.
During searching some houses they stole what they found, some cellphones and PCs and gold.
What is happpening now that they Israelis partially withdrawn from Beith Hanoon, but not completely as some media say.
For that more than 9 were killed yesterday morning by Israeli snipers, or air raids and the army still ocuupying and having terrorist militant activities against civils.
Tonight some thing that happened which might be good to consider here, is an Israeli airstrike against the house of Jamila AL-Shanty, the member of the Palestinian Legaslative Council.
This caused the death of her sister and her sister's husband and an other passerby.
About the school bus that happened the day before, they shot the female teacher inside the bus in front of little kids about 4 and 5 years old.
Imagine how would they grow up?
Today there has been aggression using arsenal.
The Israeli arsenal killed more than 20 civilians as they bombed houses over the heads of the inhabitants.
So many kids and women were killed or injured this morning..."
Zionists protesting against 'fascism' and 'anti-semitism' in Vienna.
What do these deluded people think that zionism is, if not fascism and anti-semitism?
More than Fifteen million US dollars
given by US taxpayers to Israel
each day for their military use
4 billion US dollars per year
Each time I read about the criminal Israeli operation in Gaza, seeing the increase in the number of the civilian victims, I swallowed my pain and closed the computer.
Until that evening, a day after the Beit Hanoun massacre, when I saw a group of Jews lead a demonstration against an Austrian rightist group which has its office near my house.
Suddenly the questions started coming:
How can it be that such a criminal nation has the gut to complain about the deplorable things which befell them in the past?
While they are perpetrating massacres and crimes on a daily basis.
Often worse than the most extreme crimes attributed to the Nazis.
Against the civilians of another nation.
The Palestinian population jailed in Gaza and the West Bank?
The face and head of this person was melted away
by the new American weapons which Israel is using
More than Fifteen million US dollars
given by US taxpayers to Israel
each day for their military use
4 billion US dollars per year
The Israeli practices in Gaza and the West Bank is indescribable.
The daily crimes of Israel in Palestine are uncountable.
Their hateful and shameless incitements against the Arab world increase day after day....
In Beit Hanoun, some of the shells landed on a home, killing 11 members of one family called Al-'Athamneh, including a 9-year-old child and a 73-year-old woman.
The other shells landed on other five homes at Hamad Street in Beit Hanoun.
Other victims were from the Al-Kafarneh family.
Muhammad Athamneh described the massacre to Palestinian newspaper Hayat Al-Jadidah.
He said that the killed were children, women, and old men, that they had killed his mother, sister, uncle and his six sons, and four sons of his second uncle.
This boy was sleeping,
so they killed him like this
More than Fifteen million US dollars
given by US taxpayers to Israel
each day for their military use
4 billion US dollars per year
Athamneh said that it was 5:30 at the morning, everybody were sleeping, when they heared the very strong blast of the first explosion which landed at his cousins house, followed by screaming and crying.
He ran out, found his relatives, old and young men running in the streets, escaping from the shelling and looking for protection in other places, but that this did not help them to escape from the Israeli shelling.
The "Autumn Clouds" rained missiles on their heads.
They all were killed on the roads.
The whole place was converted into a collective grave.
Athamneh was shocked, he did not know how to save the life of his family and relatives, everybody was bleeding and the floor was covered by a big pool of blood!
He saw the horrible death in front of his eyes.
His cousin’s wife died with her two children while he was screaming and seeking the Ambulance.
Nobody was able to come near under the heavy, blind shelling killing everybody moving in the area.
The sky rained blood that day.
He was probably running away,
so they shot him thru the head
More than Fifteen million US dollars
given by US taxpayers to Israel
each day for their military use
4 billion US dollars per year
Today Saturday, the US, who said in advance that Israel has the right to defend itself and gave the Palestinian resistance the responsibility for the massacre, vetoed a draft UN Security Council resolution condemning an Israeli attack in the Gaza Strip that killed 20 Palestinian civilians and injured more 60.
The disgusting American Psychopath Bolton described the text as 'unbalanced' and 'biased against Israel and politically motivated'.
Does anyone wonder why the Palestinian resistance is shooting missiles toward Israel, which by the way never really reach anything?
The reason is simple: the big concentration camp which is Gaza, where a million and a half people are caged, impoverished and hungry, and where almost all civilian infrastructure has been left in ruins caused by Israel.
The increased poverty and real hunger which the Palestinians suffer in their reclusion:
The shortage of food for the children,
The damaged infrastructure which the occupation left behind,
The closed entrances of the city,
The daily killings and destruction — including the bombing of the power station — in Gaza,
These reasons are enough for anyone to fight against the Genocide and look for a better life to live.
Does anyone wonder how much the face of the Israeli occupation is bloody, ugly and inhuman?
Does anybody wonder how much the American leaders are criminals in their support to Israel?
When will the world give Israel a firm ultimatum to stop the occupation, the genocide which has been going on for about 60 years now?
Carrying babies to their graves in Beit Hanoun
They died because Western politicians are cowards and racists under the heel of the Zionists
More than Fifteen million US dollars
given by US taxpayers to Israel
each day for their military use
4 billion US dollars per year
Seeking International Military Forces in Palestine
Why did the European politicians not adopt the request of the Palestinians, who asked for European military forces to be sent to Palestine to protect them and the infrastructure from the Israeli crimes?
We are really seeking International military forces to stop the bloody crimes against Palestine, to make a halfways normal life possible.
The Palestinians Authority does not really exist any more.
Abbas and the people around him don’t have even the power to protect their underpants.
The Palestinian civilians lost their trust to the P.A. long time ago, when it became evident that they are a bunch of corrupt, sold-out traitors.
The Palestinian civilians are seeking protection against the Jewish criminals, and they will be thankful for anybody who will stop the crimes commited against them.
Please, send military forces to stop the Israeli rampage in Gaza and the West Bank.
Part of the images here come from the Al-Ittihad newspaper, part of them were submitted by somebody from Beit Hanoun who lost seven friends and relatives during this last Israeli rampage.
His only comment was "that's life", because he knows, as all those who live in Gaza, that his life is worth nothing.
This child was not yet born when it was shot by an anonymous Jew
soldiering for Zionism
More than Fifteen million US dollars
given by US taxpayers to Israel
each day for their military use
4 billion US dollars per year
Pelosi
The United States will stand with Israel
now and forever.
Now and forever.
29 July 2007
Israel hails US military aid rise
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has confirmed that the United States is planning a significant increase in military and government aid to Israel.
US Democrats and Republicans Have Enough Votes To End The Palestine Israel conflict
[If They Choose To Do So]
US Democrats and Republicans simply have to block passage of any bill that would continue to fund the Israel government.
This requires not 67 or 60 US Senate votes, or even 51, but just 41 — the number of US senators needed to maintain a filibuster and prevent a bill from coming up for a vote.
In other words, the US Democrats and Republicans have more than enough votes to end the Palestine conflict — if they choose to do so.
The US Democratic and Republican leadership may believe — rightly or wrongly — that such a strategy would entail unacceptable political costs, especially with the high level funding from AIPAC and other Israel backed monetary support.
But that's very different from being unable to affect policy.
To insist that the US Congress cannot stop the Palestine conflict obscures the actual choices facing the US people — by confusing "can't" with "won't.
 RumiTheWE.ccA New Kewe