Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
THIS IS THE ISRAELI 'CEASE-FIRE,' THIS IS THE ISRAELI 'GOOD-WILL'
For most of last month, the Gaza Strip was closed to everyone: foreigners, journalists (including CNN), diplomats. During the complete closure, Palestinians trapped inside reported intense Israeli attacks by sea, air and land, killing with impunity.
KCUT report from West Bank ISM: 10m29s
KCUT report from West Bank ISM: 10m29s
Listen now:
THIS IS THE ISRAELI 'CEASE-FIRE,' THIS IS THE ISRAELI 'GOOD-WILL'
The Palestinian Authority and the Israeli military government have agreed to a 'cease-fire.' The terminology is, of course, misleading. It suggests that there are two equal sides at war. The Israeli government, receiving more
than 12 million dollars a day from the US to supplement its arsenal of 'weapons of mass destruction,' has not ended its illegal military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Nor has it ceased imposing curfew on West
Bank towns, building settlements and checkpoints, or using APCs, Apache helicopters, tanks, jeeps, and ground soldiers throughout the West Bank and Gaza.
Yesterday Israeli Occupation Forces assassinated five Palestinians in the West Bank town of Attiel near Tulkuram.
On Tuesday the Israeli military government released 100 out of over 8,000 Palestinian political prisoners. Most of those released were being held without charge or trial in 'administrative detention' ; a six month sentence that the Israelis renew for years if they want to. Many of those released had just a few days left of their 'sentence.' A Palestinian journalist, working for a US outlet, has just told me that amongst the released he spoke with in Ramallah, "most only had six or seven days left."
Information disseminated by the Israeli government has passed the release off as a mark of 'good faith.'
Out of the 100 released, 13 are from Bethlehem. One of them is a 23 year-old man taken out of his sleep at 2 am six months ago. He was given six months 'administrative detention,' without charge or trial. The six months is up in a few days, so he was released. This is not good will. He served his illegal sentence and now he is home.
The release of Abu Sukar, a hero to many who was imprisoned by the Israelis for 27 years, was a political gesture. He told the press, "I am happy to see my children who are grown now, my grandchildren, and all of my family, but this is not complete. This is not peace. There will never be peace until the children I raised inside the prison are also released."
The Israeli military government began this 'good-will gesture' release of Palestinian political prisoners two weeks ago. Over the course of two days, they released eight West Bank Palestinians from completed 'administrative detention sentences' and deported them directly from Israeli prison to Gaza.
For most of last month, the Gaza Strip was closed to everyone: foreigners, journalists (including CNN), diplomats. During the complete closure, Palestinians trapped inside reported intense Israeli attacks by sea, air and land, killing with impunity.
This week a few foreigners were allowed in, some working with the European Commission. Israeli soldiers opened fire on their diplomatic car as they passed through Beit Hanoun on their way to Eretz Checkpoint.
For the past several months the IOF has been destroying the northern Gaza Strip area bit by bit-demolishing the houses, displacing hundreds of Bedouins, ripping up orange groves, degrading the soil. One of the women working for the European Commission has just told me, "Beit Hanoun is gone."
The Israeli military government says that it will dismantle only ten of its roughly 267 illegal settlements. The 'Road Map,' in addition to long standing UN Resolutions 242 and 338 and international law, calls for ceasing building and dismantling all Israeli settlements. The ten the Israelis are discussing dismantling are not those creating the cantons that divide the West Bank from itself, but rather those that are considered, 'out-posts' and illegal under Israeli law in addition to international law. Another empty gesture.
The Israeli military government told the international community last week that it would lift its complete closure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip so that low-wage Palestinian workers can work for the Israeli economy. A local human rights worker told me, "The Israelis have fired 20,000 imported foreign workers because they were too expensive." One strategy of the Occupation is to cripple the Palestinian economy by destroying infrastructure, agricultural land, and local industry, in addition to imposing closure and curfew, which make going to work within the West Bank impossible. All of these actions create a devastating dependence on Israeli
products and jobs.
In the same breathe that the Israeli military government said it would ease the closure, it also said that Israeli soldiers would remain throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The day after the announcement of the 'good will gesture' to ease the closure, the IOF imposed curfew on Ramallah, as they have done today as well. Soldiers were filmed beating residents in the streets. A man trapped at the Qalandia checkpoint reported to me via telephone that there were up to 200 Israeli soldiers, Apaches, APCs, and tanks. He said, "There's no where to go to get away." Residents of Jenin and Nablus are suffering under frequent curfews also. Reports from Nablus indicate that last night Israeli soldiers placed a bomb in the old city.
This is the Israeli 'cease-fire,' the Israeli 'good-will.'
For several days in a row, F16s flew over Bethlehem and helicopters circled. Israeli tank shelling and shooting is still frequent. This week Israeli jeeps drove into the center of Manger Square in front of the Church of Nativity and shot a child in the eye and another in the leg. The children threw stones. Yesterday Israeli soldiers, with tanks and jeeps, forced Palestinians to crouch on the ground with their hands on their heads near Bethlehem University.
This is happening amidst 'Road Map' talks in the Sinai, Aqaba, and Jerusalem. The 'Road Map' itself is loaded with points that have been negotiated in the past, ones the Israelis have not been honoring, and points that cannot be negotiated. UN Resolution 194 demands the Right of Return for all Palestinians as a collective and an individual right. As such, it cannot be negotiated.
The Israeli military government is openly reporting that it will not cease its illegal practice of targeted assassinations, as it demonstrated yesterday in the West Bank.
This is the Israeli 'cease-fire,' as Occupation, humiliation, home-demolitions and killings, have been part and parcel to the Israeli idea of 'peace.'
Yesterday a Palestinian journalist working for an American television network spent five hours, from 11 am to 4 pm, traveling from Ramallah to Bethlehem, a short distance that without Israeli checkpoints and soldiers obstructing movement within the West Bank, would take only 40 minutes.
He says, "Now there are more checkpoints than before this week. I think at least three or four more now around Ramallah."
I ask him why the Israelis are building more checkpoints at a time when they should be dismantling them. He replies, "When they want to show the would that they are implementing the Road Map, they will show pictures of
themselves on the news removing these new checkpoints and the regular ones will remain. They want to trick the world as usual."
Kristen Ess
6 June 2003
June 7 CKUT report from Nablus: http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=7187
Other Resources:
Under Cover of Righteousness, Shulamit Aloni
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=3202
Threats of Forced Mass Expulsion, Amira Hass
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=3077
Five-part series advocating ethnic cleansing in the name of a homogenous religious state with the usual, lies, distortions, euphemisms. 'Transfer' of Palestinians has become a common topic in Israeli political and academic discourse.
http://www.gamla.org.il/english/article/2002/july/b1.htm
Native American radio show comparing the struggles of Palestinians and Native Americans posted at http://www.nativeamericacalling.com/ (February 11 past shows)
For news and analysis from Palestine:
http://www.flashpoints.net/
http://www.zmag.org/meastwatch/meastwat.htm
http://www.between-lines.org
http://www.electronicintifada.net
http://www.ccmep.org
http://www.palestinechronicle.com
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/
http://www.karameh.net
http://www.sphr.org
http://www.ismcanada.org
To get involved in Palestine solidarity in the US:
http://www.sustaincampaign.org
http://www.justiceinpalestine.org
http://www.al-awda.org
http://www.jewsagainsttheoccupation.org
http://www.palsolidarity.org
Torture and illegal detention of Palestinian political prisoners:
http://www.ppsmo.org/e-website/
Weekly report on Israeli human rights violations in Palestine:
http://www.pchrgaza.org/
http://www.karameh.net
http://www.sphr.org
http://www.ismcanada.org
The Palestinian Authority and the Israeli military government have agreed to a 'cease-fire.' The terminology is, of course, misleading. It suggests that there are two equal sides at war. The Israeli government, receiving more
than 12 million dollars a day from the US to supplement its arsenal of 'weapons of mass destruction,' has not ended its illegal military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Nor has it ceased imposing curfew on West
Bank towns, building settlements and checkpoints, or using APCs, Apache helicopters, tanks, jeeps, and ground soldiers throughout the West Bank and Gaza.
Yesterday Israeli Occupation Forces assassinated five Palestinians in the West Bank town of Attiel near Tulkuram.
On Tuesday the Israeli military government released 100 out of over 8,000 Palestinian political prisoners. Most of those released were being held without charge or trial in 'administrative detention' ; a six month sentence that the Israelis renew for years if they want to. Many of those released had just a few days left of their 'sentence.' A Palestinian journalist, working for a US outlet, has just told me that amongst the released he spoke with in Ramallah, "most only had six or seven days left."
Information disseminated by the Israeli government has passed the release off as a mark of 'good faith.'
Out of the 100 released, 13 are from Bethlehem. One of them is a 23 year-old man taken out of his sleep at 2 am six months ago. He was given six months 'administrative detention,' without charge or trial. The six months is up in a few days, so he was released. This is not good will. He served his illegal sentence and now he is home.
The release of Abu Sukar, a hero to many who was imprisoned by the Israelis for 27 years, was a political gesture. He told the press, "I am happy to see my children who are grown now, my grandchildren, and all of my family, but this is not complete. This is not peace. There will never be peace until the children I raised inside the prison are also released."
The Israeli military government began this 'good-will gesture' release of Palestinian political prisoners two weeks ago. Over the course of two days, they released eight West Bank Palestinians from completed 'administrative detention sentences' and deported them directly from Israeli prison to Gaza.
For most of last month, the Gaza Strip was closed to everyone: foreigners, journalists (including CNN), diplomats. During the complete closure, Palestinians trapped inside reported intense Israeli attacks by sea, air and land, killing with impunity.
This week a few foreigners were allowed in, some working with the European Commission. Israeli soldiers opened fire on their diplomatic car as they passed through Beit Hanoun on their way to Eretz Checkpoint.
For the past several months the IOF has been destroying the northern Gaza Strip area bit by bit-demolishing the houses, displacing hundreds of Bedouins, ripping up orange groves, degrading the soil. One of the women working for the European Commission has just told me, "Beit Hanoun is gone."
The Israeli military government says that it will dismantle only ten of its roughly 267 illegal settlements. The 'Road Map,' in addition to long standing UN Resolutions 242 and 338 and international law, calls for ceasing building and dismantling all Israeli settlements. The ten the Israelis are discussing dismantling are not those creating the cantons that divide the West Bank from itself, but rather those that are considered, 'out-posts' and illegal under Israeli law in addition to international law. Another empty gesture.
The Israeli military government told the international community last week that it would lift its complete closure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip so that low-wage Palestinian workers can work for the Israeli economy. A local human rights worker told me, "The Israelis have fired 20,000 imported foreign workers because they were too expensive." One strategy of the Occupation is to cripple the Palestinian economy by destroying infrastructure, agricultural land, and local industry, in addition to imposing closure and curfew, which make going to work within the West Bank impossible. All of these actions create a devastating dependence on Israeli
products and jobs.
In the same breathe that the Israeli military government said it would ease the closure, it also said that Israeli soldiers would remain throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The day after the announcement of the 'good will gesture' to ease the closure, the IOF imposed curfew on Ramallah, as they have done today as well. Soldiers were filmed beating residents in the streets. A man trapped at the Qalandia checkpoint reported to me via telephone that there were up to 200 Israeli soldiers, Apaches, APCs, and tanks. He said, "There's no where to go to get away." Residents of Jenin and Nablus are suffering under frequent curfews also. Reports from Nablus indicate that last night Israeli soldiers placed a bomb in the old city.
This is the Israeli 'cease-fire,' the Israeli 'good-will.'
For several days in a row, F16s flew over Bethlehem and helicopters circled. Israeli tank shelling and shooting is still frequent. This week Israeli jeeps drove into the center of Manger Square in front of the Church of Nativity and shot a child in the eye and another in the leg. The children threw stones. Yesterday Israeli soldiers, with tanks and jeeps, forced Palestinians to crouch on the ground with their hands on their heads near Bethlehem University.
This is happening amidst 'Road Map' talks in the Sinai, Aqaba, and Jerusalem. The 'Road Map' itself is loaded with points that have been negotiated in the past, ones the Israelis have not been honoring, and points that cannot be negotiated. UN Resolution 194 demands the Right of Return for all Palestinians as a collective and an individual right. As such, it cannot be negotiated.
The Israeli military government is openly reporting that it will not cease its illegal practice of targeted assassinations, as it demonstrated yesterday in the West Bank.
This is the Israeli 'cease-fire,' as Occupation, humiliation, home-demolitions and killings, have been part and parcel to the Israeli idea of 'peace.'
Yesterday a Palestinian journalist working for an American television network spent five hours, from 11 am to 4 pm, traveling from Ramallah to Bethlehem, a short distance that without Israeli checkpoints and soldiers obstructing movement within the West Bank, would take only 40 minutes.
He says, "Now there are more checkpoints than before this week. I think at least three or four more now around Ramallah."
I ask him why the Israelis are building more checkpoints at a time when they should be dismantling them. He replies, "When they want to show the would that they are implementing the Road Map, they will show pictures of
themselves on the news removing these new checkpoints and the regular ones will remain. They want to trick the world as usual."
Kristen Ess
6 June 2003
June 7 CKUT report from Nablus: http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=7187
Other Resources:
Under Cover of Righteousness, Shulamit Aloni
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=3202
Threats of Forced Mass Expulsion, Amira Hass
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=3077
Five-part series advocating ethnic cleansing in the name of a homogenous religious state with the usual, lies, distortions, euphemisms. 'Transfer' of Palestinians has become a common topic in Israeli political and academic discourse.
http://www.gamla.org.il/english/article/2002/july/b1.htm
Native American radio show comparing the struggles of Palestinians and Native Americans posted at http://www.nativeamericacalling.com/ (February 11 past shows)
For news and analysis from Palestine:
http://www.flashpoints.net/
http://www.zmag.org/meastwatch/meastwat.htm
http://www.between-lines.org
http://www.electronicintifada.net
http://www.ccmep.org
http://www.palestinechronicle.com
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/
http://www.karameh.net
http://www.sphr.org
http://www.ismcanada.org
To get involved in Palestine solidarity in the US:
http://www.sustaincampaign.org
http://www.justiceinpalestine.org
http://www.al-awda.org
http://www.jewsagainsttheoccupation.org
http://www.palsolidarity.org
Torture and illegal detention of Palestinian political prisoners:
http://www.ppsmo.org/e-website/
Weekly report on Israeli human rights violations in Palestine:
http://www.pchrgaza.org/
http://www.karameh.net
http://www.sphr.org
http://www.ismcanada.org
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Be sure to read the report by Kristen Ess above which is DIFFERENT from the audio. As usual, Kristen does a great job conveying the reality as it exists there, cutting through the mainstream media's blatant propaganda on this subject.
--"This is the Israeli 'cease-fire,' as Occupation, humiliation, home-demolitions and killings, have been part and parcel to the Israeli idea of 'peace.' "
-Kristen Ess, ISM member
-Kristen Ess, ISM member
We need a Palestinian State with Reasonable Border NOW...
Send in a Joint, U.S., U.N. Peace keeping Force to the West Bank and Gaza for the sole purpose of trying to avoid conflicts between the Palestinian and the settlers..
Then have the Biased (biased because they will always be on the side of the settlers) Israeli Military retreat to the pre 1967 Israeli Borders, They can then concentrate their effort on guarding this Border..
If we really want Peace the U.S., European Union, the UN, and Russia (the People involved in the so called Road Map) have to do something definite now.
Otherwise for one reason or another the Road Map will fail.
Example of a possible solution:
Set the Borders back to 1967...
In return the Refugees have no Right of Return inside the 1967 Israeli Borders..
The Refugees can be helped to settle somewhere in the new Palestinian State..
The Settlements are now part of Palestine...
If the some 300,000 Israeli Settlers living in Palestine do not like living there they can move to Israel...
If the 1,000,000 or so Palestinians who now live in Israel do not like living in Israel they can move to Palestine...
If 1,000,000 or so Palestinians can live in Israel, then some 300,000 Israeli Settlers can live in Palestine if they choose to stay..
If you take Israel, West Bank and Gaza, West Bank and Gaza is only 22% of the total area in Question, This small amount is not too much to ask for millions of Palestinians who must have their freedom to have a peaceful life.
If this solution was implemented there is a good chance the so called terrorist (seen as freedom fighters by the oppressed Palestinian People) would stop their fight, if not they would be very foolish because then Israel would have a just cause to fight back and the U.S. would have a just cause to help Israel fight back.
Otherwise we will continue to have:
Israel: We have to confiscate Palestinian land and demolish Palestinian homes because there are suicide bombers???
Palestine: We have to defend ourselves because Israel is slowly confiscating all our land and demolishing our homes. We have no military to defend ourselves and our land. If we do nothing, we will soon have nothing at all???
For Details on Possible Solution:
CLICK HERE > http://dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=64554&group=webcast
Send in a Joint, U.S., U.N. Peace keeping Force to the West Bank and Gaza for the sole purpose of trying to avoid conflicts between the Palestinian and the settlers..
Then have the Biased (biased because they will always be on the side of the settlers) Israeli Military retreat to the pre 1967 Israeli Borders, They can then concentrate their effort on guarding this Border..
If we really want Peace the U.S., European Union, the UN, and Russia (the People involved in the so called Road Map) have to do something definite now.
Otherwise for one reason or another the Road Map will fail.
Example of a possible solution:
Set the Borders back to 1967...
In return the Refugees have no Right of Return inside the 1967 Israeli Borders..
The Refugees can be helped to settle somewhere in the new Palestinian State..
The Settlements are now part of Palestine...
If the some 300,000 Israeli Settlers living in Palestine do not like living there they can move to Israel...
If the 1,000,000 or so Palestinians who now live in Israel do not like living in Israel they can move to Palestine...
If 1,000,000 or so Palestinians can live in Israel, then some 300,000 Israeli Settlers can live in Palestine if they choose to stay..
If you take Israel, West Bank and Gaza, West Bank and Gaza is only 22% of the total area in Question, This small amount is not too much to ask for millions of Palestinians who must have their freedom to have a peaceful life.
If this solution was implemented there is a good chance the so called terrorist (seen as freedom fighters by the oppressed Palestinian People) would stop their fight, if not they would be very foolish because then Israel would have a just cause to fight back and the U.S. would have a just cause to help Israel fight back.
Otherwise we will continue to have:
Israel: We have to confiscate Palestinian land and demolish Palestinian homes because there are suicide bombers???
Palestine: We have to defend ourselves because Israel is slowly confiscating all our land and demolishing our homes. We have no military to defend ourselves and our land. If we do nothing, we will soon have nothing at all???
For Details on Possible Solution:
CLICK HERE > http://dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=64554&group=webcast
I was interested to read Dan's spiel.
My views are completely opposite.
Are you saying that the Palestinians should be kept in an open air prison with no freedoms, no jobs, no decent living arrangements, surrounded permanently by tanks and the IDF shooting at will?
Hmm. And you dare to mention "peace" in your post.
My views are completely opposite.
Are you saying that the Palestinians should be kept in an open air prison with no freedoms, no jobs, no decent living arrangements, surrounded permanently by tanks and the IDF shooting at will?
Hmm. And you dare to mention "peace" in your post.
That was indeed a great article. What can one expect from those God fearing people, those Eastern Europeans calling themselves children of the most high. We can expect state sponsored prostitution, state sponsored abortion(the killing of unborn children for you Zionists) state sponsored assasins, use of weapons of mass destruction upon Palestinians. The very sad and ironic fact is that in the land of the deluded and legally insane(U.S.) evengelical neo-christians whole heartedly support all of these atrocities. Schofield and the Oxford press sure did a number on the word of God. What insight and forethought. If the children of baal continue in their slaughter of the Palestinians, a total and utter destruction of what we call Jerusalem will be inevitable.
If the truth bothers you, I warn you, do not go to this web site. If you are pro Bush.pro-Blair,pro-murder.pro-baal, do not go to this url. Actually this is just an article by Joseph Sobran. It is about WMD. Since Iraq is situated close to occupied Palestine, I think there is some connection. http://www.fpp.uk/Sobran/Sobran25.html
Makes sense. Hamas drugs themselves with violence. Try separating a crack addict from his supply and get them to go into rehab by talking to them. Ain't gonna happen. Hamas won't cooperate with peace process, they'd lose power if they did.
Take out Hamas leadership who are addicted, maybe change will come and Palestinains get a state. OTherwise, Hamas will fuck up any negotiations.
Violence is a drug. Ask any hockey or football fan.
" “WE WILL MAINTAIN our jihad (holy war) and resistance until we kick out every single criminal Zionist from our land,” the wounded Rantisi told al-Jazeera television by telephone from Gaza City’s Shifa Hospital.
“This crime will not pass,” said Mahmoud Zahar, another Hamas leader. He said there would be more attacks on Israelis. “Israel can expect severe punishment for this crime,” he said."
http://www.msnbc.com/news/801833.asp?0dm=C11NN
Take out Hamas leadership who are addicted, maybe change will come and Palestinains get a state. OTherwise, Hamas will fuck up any negotiations.
Violence is a drug. Ask any hockey or football fan.
" “WE WILL MAINTAIN our jihad (holy war) and resistance until we kick out every single criminal Zionist from our land,” the wounded Rantisi told al-Jazeera television by telephone from Gaza City’s Shifa Hospital.
“This crime will not pass,” said Mahmoud Zahar, another Hamas leader. He said there would be more attacks on Israelis. “Israel can expect severe punishment for this crime,” he said."
http://www.msnbc.com/news/801833.asp?0dm=C11NN
I don't see a reason to be upset. Hamas said they don't want a cease fire. That's exactly what they got.
To okey-dokey,
You're being far too logical. The israel-haters don't want to make sense. They just want to blame Israel for everything. If terrorist groups, who at this point are more powerful than the non-terrorist palestinian groups, mount an attack on israel, it's israel's fault. If Israel responds, it's israel's fault. If israel agrees to give palesitnians a state, but wants to work out the details so it doesn't all fall apart a year or 5 years later, and israel keeps getting attacked, it's israel's fault.
See how it works?
You're being far too logical. The israel-haters don't want to make sense. They just want to blame Israel for everything. If terrorist groups, who at this point are more powerful than the non-terrorist palestinian groups, mount an attack on israel, it's israel's fault. If Israel responds, it's israel's fault. If israel agrees to give palesitnians a state, but wants to work out the details so it doesn't all fall apart a year or 5 years later, and israel keeps getting attacked, it's israel's fault.
See how it works?
You know, angie is blatantly anti-israel and pro-arab-takeover-of-israel, yet I don't actually fear "her." ... "She" wants arabs to flood into israel and take it over, and is willing to twist every single aspect of this against israel, every time, no matter what.
Brian, however, genuinely seems out of his mind.
Brian, however, genuinely seems out of his mind.
" “WE WILL MAINTAIN our jihad (holy war) and resistance until we kick out every single criminal Zionist from our land,” the wounded Rantisi told al-Jazeera television by telephone from Gaza City’s Shifa Hospital.
“This crime will not pass,” said Mahmoud Zahar, another Hamas leader. He said there would be more attacks on Israelis. “Israel can expect severe punishment for this crime,” he said."
-- Haha the crime being "being born" and we are expected to negotiate with these people? or apease them
“This crime will not pass,” said Mahmoud Zahar, another Hamas leader. He said there would be more attacks on Israelis. “Israel can expect severe punishment for this crime,” he said."
-- Haha the crime being "being born" and we are expected to negotiate with these people? or apease them
So how is it to be completly normal such as you intimate that you are? Please put on your rose colored glasses and then sit down slowly so as to not cause a major fluctuation in your blood pressure. Mama always said you were different. Guess mama only was being nice. Cheers!
And not only that, but Sharon has said every time an Israeli is murdered, the "terrorists" will pay.
What's good for one is good for the other. But this murderous attack with a helicopter gunship (no less) in the middle of a busy roadway is simply another example of the indifference israel feels towards Palestinians.
The fact that innocent bystanders were killed (and there could have been many more) not to mention all the injured is a crime that should not go unnoticed or uncriticized.
When the "terrorists" so called commit a crime, it makes the front page of Jewish owned newspapers. When a Palestinian is shot or an attempt is made on his life, one might find it (if at all) on a far away back page in small print.
Such is the abhorrent thought that one life is better than another. Like bloody hell.
What's good for one is good for the other. But this murderous attack with a helicopter gunship (no less) in the middle of a busy roadway is simply another example of the indifference israel feels towards Palestinians.
The fact that innocent bystanders were killed (and there could have been many more) not to mention all the injured is a crime that should not go unnoticed or uncriticized.
When the "terrorists" so called commit a crime, it makes the front page of Jewish owned newspapers. When a Palestinian is shot or an attempt is made on his life, one might find it (if at all) on a far away back page in small print.
Such is the abhorrent thought that one life is better than another. Like bloody hell.
I say should accelerate Israel to figure out a way to find peace with the Palestinians. I am not bias toward either side. They both have the rights to live freely and all that. But providing the situation we're in, I believe Israel has been spoiled by our aids.
Palestinians are already very poor. If we could level the playing field a bit by cutting back on our aids, peace between the two states will come much sooner.
Palestinians are already very poor. If we could level the playing field a bit by cutting back on our aids, peace between the two states will come much sooner.
hmm Brian did that make as little sense to you as it did to the rest of us.
Angie
- I am not plaining on inviting the setlers to my "prefered negotiation party either. ideally sharon wouldnt be there either (because arabs are likely to be more beligerant if they see sharons face) but by the same logic we would want to exclude most of the palistinians who are in power as members of a (present or former) terrorist organization.
At some point I have to make the practical solution ruling.. so Ill jsut say settlers and terrorists are our extreemists so we can ignore those guys and force them to accept whatever the reasonable people can accept.
---Such is the abhorrent thought that one life is better than another. Like bloody hell.
debate over whether an arab is better than a jew or a jew being better than an arab. that is the nature of the conflict. obviously getting rid of all of that would be good but as long as one side believes it the otherside must at least ACT as if it believes the opposite. That is jsut what happens when you are attacked by a racist force.
Cut Back Our Aid to Israel
- Abraham...sure cut our aid to all of the countries in the world not like its doing much good anyway.
but jsut make sure you dont cause instability when you do it. then the world will blame you for the massacare that results.
Angie
- I am not plaining on inviting the setlers to my "prefered negotiation party either. ideally sharon wouldnt be there either (because arabs are likely to be more beligerant if they see sharons face) but by the same logic we would want to exclude most of the palistinians who are in power as members of a (present or former) terrorist organization.
At some point I have to make the practical solution ruling.. so Ill jsut say settlers and terrorists are our extreemists so we can ignore those guys and force them to accept whatever the reasonable people can accept.
---Such is the abhorrent thought that one life is better than another. Like bloody hell.
debate over whether an arab is better than a jew or a jew being better than an arab. that is the nature of the conflict. obviously getting rid of all of that would be good but as long as one side believes it the otherside must at least ACT as if it believes the opposite. That is jsut what happens when you are attacked by a racist force.
Cut Back Our Aid to Israel
- Abraham...sure cut our aid to all of the countries in the world not like its doing much good anyway.
but jsut make sure you dont cause instability when you do it. then the world will blame you for the massacare that results.
And no one can blame the Palestinians for not wanting to see Sharon's face. No doubt for starters they remember their dead in Sabra and Shatila (old men, women, and children)..
Angie, you've made it clear that you will never blame any palestinians for anything, ever. Every palestinian is wonderful. Really loving people, every single one.
Surely you're not saying that Sabra and Shatila did not happen either?
Is this like Deir Yassin: History of a Lie"?
Is this like Deir Yassin: History of a Lie"?
Angie seems to think that a cease-fire is Hamas getting free-hits against Israel. If Israel responds, she protests, then it is guilty of a cease-fire violation.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Each time an Arab terrorist infiltrates into Israel, each time a Kassam rocket flies from PA territory into Israel, the ceasefire has been broken. Israel is within its rights (Article 51 of the UN Charter) to pursue those terrorists.
Hamas won't even discuss a cease-fire with the Palestinian Authority. Should we believe it wants peace with Israel?
While Monday morning quarterbacks may second-guess the timing, Israel's action makes perfect sense. On-going terrorism by Hamas is the greatest threat to the peace process. As long as the Hamas leadership believes it can keep on sacrificing their young with impunity they will keep trying. Abbas has already stated that he won't use force against the terrorists, therefore leaving Israel to do so.
Perhaps now that they know that their lives are on the line, the Hamas leadership will see the wisdom of first a ceasefire and then peace.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Each time an Arab terrorist infiltrates into Israel, each time a Kassam rocket flies from PA territory into Israel, the ceasefire has been broken. Israel is within its rights (Article 51 of the UN Charter) to pursue those terrorists.
Hamas won't even discuss a cease-fire with the Palestinian Authority. Should we believe it wants peace with Israel?
While Monday morning quarterbacks may second-guess the timing, Israel's action makes perfect sense. On-going terrorism by Hamas is the greatest threat to the peace process. As long as the Hamas leadership believes it can keep on sacrificing their young with impunity they will keep trying. Abbas has already stated that he won't use force against the terrorists, therefore leaving Israel to do so.
Perhaps now that they know that their lives are on the line, the Hamas leadership will see the wisdom of first a ceasefire and then peace.
hamas was ready to negotiate a peaceful settlement when as usual zionists proceeded to attack those they were not ready to negotiate with.
looking at the actions of israel , now, they are clearly doing the killing without Hamas doing any provoking.
Your soldiers should pay for the lives of two innocent people they took today striking at a crowded street from their aamerican planes.
the two women who who were killed and the dozens of civilians injured are the price Hamas and Palestinians are paying for choosing the road map of
peace
looking at the actions of israel , now, they are clearly doing the killing without Hamas doing any provoking.
Your soldiers should pay for the lives of two innocent people they took today striking at a crowded street from their aamerican planes.
the two women who who were killed and the dozens of civilians injured are the price Hamas and Palestinians are paying for choosing the road map of
peace
And no one can blame the Palestinians for not wanting to see Sharon's face.
-same for arafat or any fatah member.
however some people might say there is a difference between your organization actually doing the killing (in the case of arafat) and your organization failing to send troups in to prevent someone killing someone else.
Israel is guilty here in the same way that we are guilty of rwanda and what happened in iraq (due to sadam) before we sent the troups there.
"israel was indirectly responsible for not anticipating the possibility of Phalangist violence. "
hamas was ready to negotiate a peaceful settlement
- really? you have so little trust for anyone else and yet you trust hamas when they say stuff that conflicts with their own basic principles.
-same for arafat or any fatah member.
however some people might say there is a difference between your organization actually doing the killing (in the case of arafat) and your organization failing to send troups in to prevent someone killing someone else.
Israel is guilty here in the same way that we are guilty of rwanda and what happened in iraq (due to sadam) before we sent the troups there.
"israel was indirectly responsible for not anticipating the possibility of Phalangist violence. "
hamas was ready to negotiate a peaceful settlement
- really? you have so little trust for anyone else and yet you trust hamas when they say stuff that conflicts with their own basic principles.
Your take on the massacre at Sabra and Shatila is incorrect. There is no comparison between what happened in Rwanda and what happened that September night in 1982.
Israeli soldiers stood around and did nothing whilst these savages were carrying out a vile and vicious rampage. Stop trying to make excuses for Israel, Scottie. You're way too smart for such tactics.
Israeli soldiers stood around and did nothing whilst these savages were carrying out a vile and vicious rampage. Stop trying to make excuses for Israel, Scottie. You're way too smart for such tactics.
Nealy a million people (out of about 8 million) killed in 4 months because of their race.
And WE stood around and did nothing over Rwanda....
we could have stoped it.. those 1 million people would not be dead..
And we all know what the tutsi then had to do. the tutsi have protected themselves but that whole area of africa is a mess. millions more have died indirectly from our failure.
And it is the fault of all the people who should have stoped it... Everyone who had the power to stop it.
And WE stood around and did nothing over Rwanda....
we could have stoped it.. those 1 million people would not be dead..
And we all know what the tutsi then had to do. the tutsi have protected themselves but that whole area of africa is a mess. millions more have died indirectly from our failure.
And it is the fault of all the people who should have stoped it... Everyone who had the power to stop it.
The deal, in part, was that none of the refugees in Sabra and Shalila would be injured or harmed in any way. The men had been driven out of the camps, remember. I'm talking about a broken promise as well as wilful blindness on the part of the Israeli soldiers.
There is no comparison between that broken promise and what happened in Rwanda. The world, indeed, stood by and allowed that particular genocide to occur, but the "world" wasn't standing next to the activity. The Israeli soldiers were.
There is no comparison between that broken promise and what happened in Rwanda. The world, indeed, stood by and allowed that particular genocide to occur, but the "world" wasn't standing next to the activity. The Israeli soldiers were.
What I find wrong with people discussing the situation from the "Palestinian" perspective, is that people here look at the situation thru "western" eyes and western ideals of what is right, what is wrong, or just or unjust. If you listen to people in the PA territories, in the news, they do not value human life, not even their own. THeir greatest achievement in life is to die for the sake of Allah. And they dont even hide it. And please dont tell me that some so-called occupation is the cause of it. The 9-11 terrorists were not under any occupation, they could have lived a long life to the fullest, instead, they, like the terrorists in Bali, Saudi Arabia, Chechnya, Kashmir, and PA choose to die for Allah and get their 72 virgins ASAP. Even the Hamas terrorist Rantisi, who Israel targeted in a missile strike in Gaza but missed, said that he is sorry he didnt not become a martyr.. You see folks, these people, ie....muslims, do not wish to make a life for themselves but instead die and murder as many "infidels" as possible (Jews, Russians, Americans, Australians) The enlightened world has to realize that what we are dealing in the Middle east is not some tribal warfare between the JEws and the Arabs, but it is a clash of civilizations. The west versus the East, which is stuck in the dark ages of history. If im wrong, then please explain to me why the Gulf states, ie Saudi Arabia, is one of the riches moneymakers in the world from oil, but its citizens live in poverty, women are oppressed, and the royal family invests large amounts of money to the Wahhabi Islamic schools and institutions which preach world domination of Islam and death to all infidels. Remember 9-11 highjakers where mostly Saudi from well-to-do families. People, its time to realize that by Bashing Israel and the USA for everything they do, and branding the spread of democracy in the middle east as Imperialism, you are contributing your support to dictatorial, theocratic regimes who have no respect for human life or its own citizens, and poison the souls of their children.
Now I dont know if sharon secretly also controled the militia or somthing - but if we just take the facts this is the basic conclusion.............
The Israelis had no power to offer that deal. basically they "did not anticipating the possibility of Phalangist violence."
They did not break the deal except in the same way as the UN failed to live up to its implicit deal to stand in the way of genocide.
Sometimes the people with responsibility are late on the scene which is of course bad in itself (I would certainly have sacked him) however the Israelis did turn up and order them away. did the UN turn up and order the Hutus away? or did they just "never turn up"?.
"wilful blindness on the part of the Israeli soldiers." I think you can drop the "willful" part unless you can explain that more clearly.
The Israelis had no power to offer that deal. basically they "did not anticipating the possibility of Phalangist violence."
They did not break the deal except in the same way as the UN failed to live up to its implicit deal to stand in the way of genocide.
Sometimes the people with responsibility are late on the scene which is of course bad in itself (I would certainly have sacked him) however the Israelis did turn up and order them away. did the UN turn up and order the Hutus away? or did they just "never turn up"?.
"wilful blindness on the part of the Israeli soldiers." I think you can drop the "willful" part unless you can explain that more clearly.
Bad things are occurring somewhere in the World all the time, The concern for the Palestinian is because Israel receives Billion of dollars of U.S. Tax payers money (some of which goes to for the confiscation of Palestinian land and the deomolishing of Palestinian homes).
The least the the U.S. can do is allow help the Palestinian People get their State with reasonable borders that the Israeli Military are forbidden to cross into.
Since Israeli Settlements are scattered all over this land that should be used for the Palestinian State, something needs to be done to correct this problem which is the cause of so much misery.
Possible solution:
Set the Borders back to 1967...
In return the Refugees have no Right of Return inside the 1967 Israeli Borders..
The Refugees can be helped to settle somewhere in the new Palestinian State..
The Settlements are now part of Palestine...
If the some 300,000 Israeli Settlers living in Palestine do not like living there they can move to Israel...
If the 1,000,000 or so Palestinians who now live in Israel do not like living in Israel they can move to Palestine...
If 1,000,000 or so Palestinians can live in Israel, then some 300,000 Israeli Settlers can live in Palestine if they choose to stay..
If you take Israel, West Bank and Gaza, West Bank and Gaza is only 22% of the total area in Question, This small amount is not too much to ask for millions of Palestinians who must have their freedom to have a peaceful life.
If this solution was implemented there is a good chance the so called terrorist (seen as freedom fighters by the oppressed Palestinian People) would stop their fight, if not they would be very foolish because then Israel would have a just cause to fight back and the U.S. would have a just cause to help Israel fight back.
Otherwise we will continue to have:
Israel: We have to confiscate Palestinian land and demolish Palestinian homes because there are suicide bombers???
Palestine: We have to defend ourselves because Israel is slowly confiscating all our land and demolishing our homes. We have no military to defend ourselves and our land. If we do nothing, we will soon have nothing at all???
For Details on Possible Solution:
CLICK HERE > http://dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=64554&group=webcast
The least the the U.S. can do is allow help the Palestinian People get their State with reasonable borders that the Israeli Military are forbidden to cross into.
Since Israeli Settlements are scattered all over this land that should be used for the Palestinian State, something needs to be done to correct this problem which is the cause of so much misery.
Possible solution:
Set the Borders back to 1967...
In return the Refugees have no Right of Return inside the 1967 Israeli Borders..
The Refugees can be helped to settle somewhere in the new Palestinian State..
The Settlements are now part of Palestine...
If the some 300,000 Israeli Settlers living in Palestine do not like living there they can move to Israel...
If the 1,000,000 or so Palestinians who now live in Israel do not like living in Israel they can move to Palestine...
If 1,000,000 or so Palestinians can live in Israel, then some 300,000 Israeli Settlers can live in Palestine if they choose to stay..
If you take Israel, West Bank and Gaza, West Bank and Gaza is only 22% of the total area in Question, This small amount is not too much to ask for millions of Palestinians who must have their freedom to have a peaceful life.
If this solution was implemented there is a good chance the so called terrorist (seen as freedom fighters by the oppressed Palestinian People) would stop their fight, if not they would be very foolish because then Israel would have a just cause to fight back and the U.S. would have a just cause to help Israel fight back.
Otherwise we will continue to have:
Israel: We have to confiscate Palestinian land and demolish Palestinian homes because there are suicide bombers???
Palestine: We have to defend ourselves because Israel is slowly confiscating all our land and demolishing our homes. We have no military to defend ourselves and our land. If we do nothing, we will soon have nothing at all???
For Details on Possible Solution:
CLICK HERE > http://dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=64554&group=webcast
There are so many errors of fact here that it's difficult to know where to begin:
"hamas was ready to negotiate a peaceful settlement when as usual zionists proceeded to attack"
Hamas had rejected the cease-fire and was attacking Israel on a daily basis.
Various meanderings about a deal at Sabra and Chatilla.
The deal was between Israel and the Lebanese Phalange militia. The latter were supposed to go into the camps to mop up fighters but not to harm civilians. For the most part they did so, but they got carried away with vengeance. Most of the dead were not only males of fighting age, they were also foreign nationals, mercenary terrorists.
It bewilders me that Angie would attempt to compare the killing of about 1000 people with the killing of a million people, and argue that the former is worse, no comparison about it. Talk about blinders....
Blinders is what keeps certain people talking about one massacre of the dozens of such during the Lebanese civil war. Many more Lebanese Christians were killed in Damour by Arafat's PLO. Many more people were killed in Chatilla and Burj el Barajneh ain 1985 by Muslims. No one remembers or cares.
Seems as if the victims aren't the point of the exercise. They are only important in as much as they can be used against Israel. For shame.
"hamas was ready to negotiate a peaceful settlement when as usual zionists proceeded to attack"
Hamas had rejected the cease-fire and was attacking Israel on a daily basis.
Various meanderings about a deal at Sabra and Chatilla.
The deal was between Israel and the Lebanese Phalange militia. The latter were supposed to go into the camps to mop up fighters but not to harm civilians. For the most part they did so, but they got carried away with vengeance. Most of the dead were not only males of fighting age, they were also foreign nationals, mercenary terrorists.
It bewilders me that Angie would attempt to compare the killing of about 1000 people with the killing of a million people, and argue that the former is worse, no comparison about it. Talk about blinders....
Blinders is what keeps certain people talking about one massacre of the dozens of such during the Lebanese civil war. Many more Lebanese Christians were killed in Damour by Arafat's PLO. Many more people were killed in Chatilla and Burj el Barajneh ain 1985 by Muslims. No one remembers or cares.
Seems as if the victims aren't the point of the exercise. They are only important in as much as they can be used against Israel. For shame.
KL seems to know more that me about this one
hmm guess I cant be an expert everywhere.
The danger of having to debate details with only half knowledge (you end up accepting the other persons details for the sake of argument when maybe they should be challenged)
Besides that my point has always been that we need to get past the blame game. We just need a reasonable solution..
then we can take it from there.
hmm guess I cant be an expert everywhere.
The danger of having to debate details with only half knowledge (you end up accepting the other persons details for the sake of argument when maybe they should be challenged)
Besides that my point has always been that we need to get past the blame game. We just need a reasonable solution..
then we can take it from there.
"If we are evacuated, we'll return the night after and establish 10 new outposts." - Settler spokesman Yehoshua Mor-Yosef [1]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an effort to demonstrate compliance with the Road Map, the Israeli government has started to dismantle 15 of what it calls "unauthorized" settlement outposts in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
1. THE DISMANTLEMENT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH ISRAEL'S ROAD MAP OBLIGATIONS
Phase I of the Road Map requires that Israel "immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001." The word "unauthorized" does not appear in the Road Map text and its unilateral insertion by Israel is intended to allow Israel to remove only those settlement outposts that it, in its sole discretion, deems "unauthorized". Peace Now estimates that there are 62 settlement outposts erected since March 2001. US officials estimate as many as 100 such outposts.[2]
There are more than 160 illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, housing more than 400,000 settlers (nearly half of whom reside in Occupied East Jerusalem).
2. THE DISMANTLED OUTPOSTS ARE UNINHABITED "DUMMY" OUTPOSTS
Many of the outposts that are actually removed are in fact uninhabited or "dummy outposts" - empty outposts erected by the settler movement to use as a tool for negotiations or public relations. Only four of the 15 outposts Israel has slated for dismantlement are inhabited.[3] Former Israeli Knesset Member Zvi Hendel reaffirmed the use of "dummy outposts" in an interview on Settlers Radio Channel, "Arutz Sheva." He explained how settlers purchased caravans from the Jewish Agency and how other settlements contributed caravans for these dummy outposts.[4] Peace Now has confirmed this practice, affirming that all eleven outposts that were removed by PM Sharon under his former government were "dummy" outposts each consisting of no more than one or two uninhabited containers.[5]
3. THE CREATED CATEGORY OF "UNAUTHORIZED" SETTLEMENTS IS USED TO ACTUALLY FURTHER SETTLEMENT EXPANSION
Historically, Israeli governments have used the removal of "unauthorized" settlements to legitimize other settlements in a "trade-off" with settler groups. The Israeli government agrees to settler demands to authorize planned settlement expansion and to "authorize" some "unauthorized" outposts in exchange for settler agreement that some "unauthorized" outposts will be removed. For example, Prime Minister Barak's government, instead of dismantling 42 "unauthorized outposts", eventually agreed to "deal with" eleven, in exchange for authorizing the master plan for the Itimar settlement.[6] Of the eleven PM Barak "dealt with", four were uninhabited and four others were eventually authorized as "new neighborhoods" of nearby settlements.[7] Similarly, PM Sharon is expected to remove only a fraction of the outposts established after March 2001, while retroactively deeming the remainder "authorized".
4. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "AUTHORIZED" SETTLEMENTS
All settlements are illegal under international law.
The Fourth Geneva Convention expressly prohibits an Occupying Power from deporting or transferring parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.[8] According to the Commentary of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the prohibition on the establishment of settlements is "intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race."
In addition, Israeli settlements violate United Nations Security Council Resolutions, including UNSCR 452 (1979) calling upon "the Government and people of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem." This resolution has never been enforced.
Endnotes
[1] Quoted in First Posts of Settlers Torn Down by Israelis, International Herald Tribune, June 10, 2003 at 6.
[2] Ibid., at 1.
[3] Nadav Shragai, IDF Dismantles 10 Outposts; Settlers Vow to Return, Ha'aretz Online, June 10, 2003
[4] MK Hendel says all illegal outposts evacuated 'were fabricated', Ha'aretz, July 18, 2002.
[5] Interview with Dror Etkes, Peace Now Settlement Watch Coordinator, June 10, 2003.
[6] Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP), Optical Illusion at Havat Ma'on, Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, volume 10, Jan.-Feb. 2000, http://www.fmep.org/reports/2000/v10n1.html
[7] Ibid.
[8] Article 49
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an effort to demonstrate compliance with the Road Map, the Israeli government has started to dismantle 15 of what it calls "unauthorized" settlement outposts in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
1. THE DISMANTLEMENT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH ISRAEL'S ROAD MAP OBLIGATIONS
Phase I of the Road Map requires that Israel "immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001." The word "unauthorized" does not appear in the Road Map text and its unilateral insertion by Israel is intended to allow Israel to remove only those settlement outposts that it, in its sole discretion, deems "unauthorized". Peace Now estimates that there are 62 settlement outposts erected since March 2001. US officials estimate as many as 100 such outposts.[2]
There are more than 160 illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, housing more than 400,000 settlers (nearly half of whom reside in Occupied East Jerusalem).
2. THE DISMANTLED OUTPOSTS ARE UNINHABITED "DUMMY" OUTPOSTS
Many of the outposts that are actually removed are in fact uninhabited or "dummy outposts" - empty outposts erected by the settler movement to use as a tool for negotiations or public relations. Only four of the 15 outposts Israel has slated for dismantlement are inhabited.[3] Former Israeli Knesset Member Zvi Hendel reaffirmed the use of "dummy outposts" in an interview on Settlers Radio Channel, "Arutz Sheva." He explained how settlers purchased caravans from the Jewish Agency and how other settlements contributed caravans for these dummy outposts.[4] Peace Now has confirmed this practice, affirming that all eleven outposts that were removed by PM Sharon under his former government were "dummy" outposts each consisting of no more than one or two uninhabited containers.[5]
3. THE CREATED CATEGORY OF "UNAUTHORIZED" SETTLEMENTS IS USED TO ACTUALLY FURTHER SETTLEMENT EXPANSION
Historically, Israeli governments have used the removal of "unauthorized" settlements to legitimize other settlements in a "trade-off" with settler groups. The Israeli government agrees to settler demands to authorize planned settlement expansion and to "authorize" some "unauthorized" outposts in exchange for settler agreement that some "unauthorized" outposts will be removed. For example, Prime Minister Barak's government, instead of dismantling 42 "unauthorized outposts", eventually agreed to "deal with" eleven, in exchange for authorizing the master plan for the Itimar settlement.[6] Of the eleven PM Barak "dealt with", four were uninhabited and four others were eventually authorized as "new neighborhoods" of nearby settlements.[7] Similarly, PM Sharon is expected to remove only a fraction of the outposts established after March 2001, while retroactively deeming the remainder "authorized".
4. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "AUTHORIZED" SETTLEMENTS
All settlements are illegal under international law.
The Fourth Geneva Convention expressly prohibits an Occupying Power from deporting or transferring parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.[8] According to the Commentary of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the prohibition on the establishment of settlements is "intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race."
In addition, Israeli settlements violate United Nations Security Council Resolutions, including UNSCR 452 (1979) calling upon "the Government and people of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem." This resolution has never been enforced.
Endnotes
[1] Quoted in First Posts of Settlers Torn Down by Israelis, International Herald Tribune, June 10, 2003 at 6.
[2] Ibid., at 1.
[3] Nadav Shragai, IDF Dismantles 10 Outposts; Settlers Vow to Return, Ha'aretz Online, June 10, 2003
[4] MK Hendel says all illegal outposts evacuated 'were fabricated', Ha'aretz, July 18, 2002.
[5] Interview with Dror Etkes, Peace Now Settlement Watch Coordinator, June 10, 2003.
[6] Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP), Optical Illusion at Havat Ma'on, Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, volume 10, Jan.-Feb. 2000, http://www.fmep.org/reports/2000/v10n1.html
[7] Ibid.
[8] Article 49
For more information:
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article15...
Well, that is a very unique and erroneous take on the Sabra/Shatila massacre, quite different than the official news items of the day. "Mopping up"? A deal between "Israel and the Phalange militia? Mostly foreign nationals?
How deluded can one get. Anything to diminish the fault of Israel in this massacre. Rewriting history is a favourite pasttime of certain contributors to this board. Like the infamous little booklet "Deir Yassin: History of a Lie".
The shame is not with us, sir/madam. It is with a nation that refuses to accept any blame for its ongoing atrocities.
Oh, and if Hamas and others are attacking Israel "daily" give us the proof. Show us daily news bulletins for the past six months, say, wherein that has happened. Like the great and widely used comment that Israeli buses are being blown up "daily".
Or are you confusing the 24 hour attacks by the IDF? You are not as bright as Scottie seems to think you are.
There are thousands of documented reports of the refugee camp massacres. I'd suggest you both read up on it, and then come back to this board with the truth.
The thousands of decent Israeli citizens who marched in protest and demanded an inquiry into these massacres certainly would not agree with KL's version, but then on this board reality and truth seldom means a thing.
How deluded can one get. Anything to diminish the fault of Israel in this massacre. Rewriting history is a favourite pasttime of certain contributors to this board. Like the infamous little booklet "Deir Yassin: History of a Lie".
The shame is not with us, sir/madam. It is with a nation that refuses to accept any blame for its ongoing atrocities.
Oh, and if Hamas and others are attacking Israel "daily" give us the proof. Show us daily news bulletins for the past six months, say, wherein that has happened. Like the great and widely used comment that Israeli buses are being blown up "daily".
Or are you confusing the 24 hour attacks by the IDF? You are not as bright as Scottie seems to think you are.
There are thousands of documented reports of the refugee camp massacres. I'd suggest you both read up on it, and then come back to this board with the truth.
The thousands of decent Israeli citizens who marched in protest and demanded an inquiry into these massacres certainly would not agree with KL's version, but then on this board reality and truth seldom means a thing.
Angie appears to be severely misinformed.
According to the Lebanese police report, there were 460 dead, of which only 35 were women and children. Of the males, many were Lebanese, Syrian, Pakistanis, Iranians and Algerians.
If you want to learn about this subject read up on it.
http://www.israeltodamascus.com/7to11.htm#CHAPTER8
http://www.free-lebanon.com/LFPNews/Belgium/belgium.html
"Deir Yassin: History of a Lie"
An Arab study at an Arab university, interviewing many of the survivors, wrote that many of the claims about Deir Yassin never happened. They were invented to demonize the Jews. No wonder that 55 years later it is still serving this purpose for some.
See: Sharif Kanani and Nihad Zitawi, Deir Yasin, Monograph No. 4, Palestinian Destroyed Villages series, second edition (Bir Zeit: Center of Documentation and Research, Bir Zeit University, 1987), p. 6.
"if Hamas and others are attacking Israel "daily" give us the proof."
Read a newspaper. Hamas claims responsibility for these attacks, even those that are prevented. Hamas broke off talks with Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas aimed at ending such attacks.
According to the Lebanese police report, there were 460 dead, of which only 35 were women and children. Of the males, many were Lebanese, Syrian, Pakistanis, Iranians and Algerians.
If you want to learn about this subject read up on it.
http://www.israeltodamascus.com/7to11.htm#CHAPTER8
http://www.free-lebanon.com/LFPNews/Belgium/belgium.html
"Deir Yassin: History of a Lie"
An Arab study at an Arab university, interviewing many of the survivors, wrote that many of the claims about Deir Yassin never happened. They were invented to demonize the Jews. No wonder that 55 years later it is still serving this purpose for some.
See: Sharif Kanani and Nihad Zitawi, Deir Yasin, Monograph No. 4, Palestinian Destroyed Villages series, second edition (Bir Zeit: Center of Documentation and Research, Bir Zeit University, 1987), p. 6.
"if Hamas and others are attacking Israel "daily" give us the proof."
Read a newspaper. Hamas claims responsibility for these attacks, even those that are prevented. Hamas broke off talks with Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas aimed at ending such attacks.
What happened was not a "good thing" obviously.
But sometimes these events are exagerated especially where a bigger disaster makes a better book.
In australia they severly mistreated the aborigonies over a period of time particularly in tasmania. alot of these actions were recorded by historians and these historians summaries were accepted as true history by museums and text books.
however recently another author began to look into alot of these historians research. he found that many of them had exagerated numbers, guessed numbers and stated them as facts, and linked to sources for numbers that did not exist.
Bad things certainly happened but there was alot of exageration.
In general if there is a story of negligence and a story of evil a story of a small battle and a story of a massacare. you can expect the evil massacare to be the one that everyone gets told about whether it is more likely or not.
But sometimes these events are exagerated especially where a bigger disaster makes a better book.
In australia they severly mistreated the aborigonies over a period of time particularly in tasmania. alot of these actions were recorded by historians and these historians summaries were accepted as true history by museums and text books.
however recently another author began to look into alot of these historians research. he found that many of them had exagerated numbers, guessed numbers and stated them as facts, and linked to sources for numbers that did not exist.
Bad things certainly happened but there was alot of exageration.
In general if there is a story of negligence and a story of evil a story of a small battle and a story of a massacare. you can expect the evil massacare to be the one that everyone gets told about whether it is more likely or not.
Oh, it is not Angie who is misinformed. Au contraire..
The massacre at Sabra and Shatila took place a mere 21 years ago come September of this year. Some of us were able to read and watch the news back then.
I am appalled that these were the only two sites you could come up with. In keeping with your views, hmm?
A NOTE TO YOU OUT THERE DOUBTING MY WORD ON THIS. Do yourself a favour. Go out to a library, ask for any, and all, available material on this incident, and then read it with an open mind.
If you don't want to do that, search Yahoo or Google under Sabra and Shatila massacres, and you will be overwhelmed with information.
How dare you try and diminish the horrors prepretrated by Israel on the civillian Palestinians, in conjunction with the Christian Phalange? Not to mention the slaughter of over 17,000 civilians in Lebanon from June up to September of 1982? .
Given a choice of believing the reporters that were there at the time, the doctors and medical aid workers, the Red Cross reports and the body of evidence readily available, I find the suggestions you offered are pretty minor, indeed.
The death toll offered everywhere is between 800 to 3500. It's rather difficult to know, isn't it, when bodies are buried underneath the rubble of houses, isn't it? Sound familiar? In facf, mass graves are still being unearthed.
Why don't you watch Fergal Keane's brilliant documentary "The Accused". The poor lad , one of the best journalists in the world, was crucified by those who refuse to believe that their precious little state would behave in sort of manner.
And while you're at it, check the library and/or Internet and learn all about the Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians over the past five plus decades. You'll find pictures as well.
And then note how so many Israeli spokesmen dismissed the crimes their army committed just as they are doing today, just as they have done down through the fifty plus years since 1948.
Don't talk to me about being misinformed. Go and find some poor soul who hasn't heard of this massacre and convince him Israel is good and just, etc., etc. And the sky is falling.
And if all that fails, why don' t you read Chapter 5 of Norm Chomsky's "The Fateful Triangle", or read "Pity the Nation" by Robert Fisk, a definitive history of Lebanon.
When you've done all of the above come back on line, and we'll continue this discussion.
The massacre at Sabra and Shatila took place a mere 21 years ago come September of this year. Some of us were able to read and watch the news back then.
I am appalled that these were the only two sites you could come up with. In keeping with your views, hmm?
A NOTE TO YOU OUT THERE DOUBTING MY WORD ON THIS. Do yourself a favour. Go out to a library, ask for any, and all, available material on this incident, and then read it with an open mind.
If you don't want to do that, search Yahoo or Google under Sabra and Shatila massacres, and you will be overwhelmed with information.
How dare you try and diminish the horrors prepretrated by Israel on the civillian Palestinians, in conjunction with the Christian Phalange? Not to mention the slaughter of over 17,000 civilians in Lebanon from June up to September of 1982? .
Given a choice of believing the reporters that were there at the time, the doctors and medical aid workers, the Red Cross reports and the body of evidence readily available, I find the suggestions you offered are pretty minor, indeed.
The death toll offered everywhere is between 800 to 3500. It's rather difficult to know, isn't it, when bodies are buried underneath the rubble of houses, isn't it? Sound familiar? In facf, mass graves are still being unearthed.
Why don't you watch Fergal Keane's brilliant documentary "The Accused". The poor lad , one of the best journalists in the world, was crucified by those who refuse to believe that their precious little state would behave in sort of manner.
And while you're at it, check the library and/or Internet and learn all about the Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians over the past five plus decades. You'll find pictures as well.
And then note how so many Israeli spokesmen dismissed the crimes their army committed just as they are doing today, just as they have done down through the fifty plus years since 1948.
Don't talk to me about being misinformed. Go and find some poor soul who hasn't heard of this massacre and convince him Israel is good and just, etc., etc. And the sky is falling.
And if all that fails, why don' t you read Chapter 5 of Norm Chomsky's "The Fateful Triangle", or read "Pity the Nation" by Robert Fisk, a definitive history of Lebanon.
When you've done all of the above come back on line, and we'll continue this discussion.
angie is a rabid hater of israel. Every single negative thing about israel, she believes. Every single positive thing about israel is either a lie, or an exaggeration, or beside the point. You can't win talking to her. She's rabid. Civil, and apparently has hours each day to spend spewing her take on things, as if she does this for a living or something, but rabid.
You may respond with "attacking her character isn't helpful." I would respond by pointing out that you can attack her arguments with facts, balance, and a sense of reality, but she will deflect them at all costs. Her mission is to make israel look as bad as possible, and she wants to pound this into people's heads every minute of every day.
angie's take on everything: if israel attacks people, israel is being bad. If israel doesn't attack people, they're being evil and plotting to attack. If people attack israel while israel is doing something wrong, it's israel's fault. if israel is trying to work a peace agremeent out and terrorist groups respond by attacking israel, blame israel. Basically, no matter what happens, in the past, now, or in the future, in angie's word, it's israel's fault.
You can't discuss things with people like her. Unfortunately, people like her seem to dominate these message boards, and seem to be willing to spend hour after hour, day after day, spewing their junk.
You may respond with "attacking her character isn't helpful." I would respond by pointing out that you can attack her arguments with facts, balance, and a sense of reality, but she will deflect them at all costs. Her mission is to make israel look as bad as possible, and she wants to pound this into people's heads every minute of every day.
angie's take on everything: if israel attacks people, israel is being bad. If israel doesn't attack people, they're being evil and plotting to attack. If people attack israel while israel is doing something wrong, it's israel's fault. if israel is trying to work a peace agremeent out and terrorist groups respond by attacking israel, blame israel. Basically, no matter what happens, in the past, now, or in the future, in angie's word, it's israel's fault.
You can't discuss things with people like her. Unfortunately, people like her seem to dominate these message boards, and seem to be willing to spend hour after hour, day after day, spewing their junk.
Don't just rant and accuse Angie of not knowing her stuff. By all means try to read a book by Chomsky(great writer) or Israel Shahak. Why would you trust anything mainstream? The mainstream press tells us there is no such thing as Gulf War SYndrome. I think the veterans of Gulf Mirage I will say otherwise.
I know a woman whose daughter lived in occupied Palestine 10 years ago. She was with a film crew doing a documentary on the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians for PBS. Even back then the Israeli govenment was giving them a very difficult time. Somehow they managed to get the film out and back to the U.S. Of course the U.S. who is the pimp for Israel wanted portions of the film edited. This was done but there are copies of the original still floating around.
You must always question your government. It makes for a well informed citizen and it puts honesty(if there is any left) into some of our elected officials.
I know a woman whose daughter lived in occupied Palestine 10 years ago. She was with a film crew doing a documentary on the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians for PBS. Even back then the Israeli govenment was giving them a very difficult time. Somehow they managed to get the film out and back to the U.S. Of course the U.S. who is the pimp for Israel wanted portions of the film edited. This was done but there are copies of the original still floating around.
You must always question your government. It makes for a well informed citizen and it puts honesty(if there is any left) into some of our elected officials.
Yeah, Chomsky is a really good writer; I especially enjoyed reading his articles about how the notion of killing fields in Cambodia was nothing more than US propaganda.
Absolute bullshit, yet still many "useful idiots" bough into these ideas, as some still do.
Absolute bullshit, yet still many "useful idiots" bough into these ideas, as some still do.
I didn't know the US could edit TV material.
Interesting that while Angie suggests I read what can be found at a library, Brian advocates that I avoid mainstream stuff. The books written by academics of various backgrounds who have researched these issues. Only the few, those who reach special conclusions, can be trusted?
The (Arab!) sources I presented were there. You can't just dismiss them and advocate that one surf the web and read propaganda such as your posting.
"It's rather difficult to know, isn't it, when bodies are buried underneath the rubble of houses"
Angie demonstrates that what I said is correct. These people are only important as numbers by which to demonize Israel. She can't even see the victims as living people. The missing could easily have been counted. People have family and friends and neighbors who would have noticed, no?
Oh, unless they didn't really live in the camp because they were foreign fighters.
The Arab study of Deir Yassin interviewed survivors to find out who (and ultimately how many) people were killed. I see you chose to ignore that study, and as CJ says, I'm sure you'll continue trumpeting your lies in pursuit of your agenda.
Thus there is no point to have any discussion with you.
You are no better than a recording of lies.
Interesting that while Angie suggests I read what can be found at a library, Brian advocates that I avoid mainstream stuff. The books written by academics of various backgrounds who have researched these issues. Only the few, those who reach special conclusions, can be trusted?
The (Arab!) sources I presented were there. You can't just dismiss them and advocate that one surf the web and read propaganda such as your posting.
"It's rather difficult to know, isn't it, when bodies are buried underneath the rubble of houses"
Angie demonstrates that what I said is correct. These people are only important as numbers by which to demonize Israel. She can't even see the victims as living people. The missing could easily have been counted. People have family and friends and neighbors who would have noticed, no?
Oh, unless they didn't really live in the camp because they were foreign fighters.
The Arab study of Deir Yassin interviewed survivors to find out who (and ultimately how many) people were killed. I see you chose to ignore that study, and as CJ says, I'm sure you'll continue trumpeting your lies in pursuit of your agenda.
Thus there is no point to have any discussion with you.
You are no better than a recording of lies.
Why don't you go yell at the appropriate people?
I'm not the one responsible for Sabra and Shatila, nor am I the one who has curfews, checkpoints, towers, nor am I the one who is keeping the Palestinians in an outdoor prison.
If, and when, Israel plays by the rules and follows international law and human conduct, stops blaming everyone else for their own atrocities, then I shall cease my objection to the trash I read here on occasion.
For instance, If Sharon had ordered the removal of the real settlements a few days ago, one would believe that he meant what he said. It's the actions that count, not the words.
His attempt to appease GWBush was award winning. His removing a few trailers, most empty, and which HE asked the settlers to put on top "of the hills" is pretty curious, is it not?
In fact, if Israel had ceased building settlements and causing dispossession under the rules of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Oslo Agreement of '93, and the UN, what do you think we'd be dealing with right now?
I don't know about you, of course, but I would not take too kindly being forced out of my home, watch someone else take it over, or destroy it, and forced to live as a refugee in my own land.
I'm not the one responsible for Sabra and Shatila, nor am I the one who has curfews, checkpoints, towers, nor am I the one who is keeping the Palestinians in an outdoor prison.
If, and when, Israel plays by the rules and follows international law and human conduct, stops blaming everyone else for their own atrocities, then I shall cease my objection to the trash I read here on occasion.
For instance, If Sharon had ordered the removal of the real settlements a few days ago, one would believe that he meant what he said. It's the actions that count, not the words.
His attempt to appease GWBush was award winning. His removing a few trailers, most empty, and which HE asked the settlers to put on top "of the hills" is pretty curious, is it not?
In fact, if Israel had ceased building settlements and causing dispossession under the rules of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Oslo Agreement of '93, and the UN, what do you think we'd be dealing with right now?
I don't know about you, of course, but I would not take too kindly being forced out of my home, watch someone else take it over, or destroy it, and forced to live as a refugee in my own land.
You are the one that is being outrageous. Tossing two sites into the mix when there are thousands to be read by anyone, and a hell of a lot more reliable as well.
Don't tar me with the same brush that you are using, KL. I have no agenda other than to see the lies of this terrorist state proven to be just that. We didn't all fall of the turnip truck yesterday.
And your comment about US news is a joke. Everyone in the bloody world knows that the US media is more or less an adjunct to the State Department. And you think they wouldn't edit the news? Here that, folks?
You're right about one thing. There is no point in having any further "discussion" with someone who has a mind closed as tight as the proverbial drum, and who is busy rewriting history.
Good luck to you.
Don't tar me with the same brush that you are using, KL. I have no agenda other than to see the lies of this terrorist state proven to be just that. We didn't all fall of the turnip truck yesterday.
And your comment about US news is a joke. Everyone in the bloody world knows that the US media is more or less an adjunct to the State Department. And you think they wouldn't edit the news? Here that, folks?
You're right about one thing. There is no point in having any further "discussion" with someone who has a mind closed as tight as the proverbial drum, and who is busy rewriting history.
Good luck to you.
KL, I really don't consider works by academics whose bibliographies consist of notes taken from other books by other such academics. That is why I read D.Irving for WWII history. He goes to the original documents and actually interviews people who knew the major players. What is the sense in reading the same old history written by different academics? That is why I would like to read Howard Zinn for U.S. history. I hope you can understand the need for accuracy. 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1-0000000000000
--- "Sabra and Shatila massacres, "
hmm most websites push an adgenda. as dirk noted - most people search for things like the above and therefore will find information on a massacare if hey search for Sabria hoax they will probably find the opposite.
Anyway I certainly dont doubt that it happened and that alot of people got killed the question is whether the israelis were negligent or evil. I am thinking neglegent which is a much lesser acusation. I alredy asserted that on my own information and I have not seen anything that sufficiently contradicts that.
As to other atrocities for almost every single one you will find there is an israeli side less well reported available somwhere. I am certain that they are not 100% innocent but they certainly are not 100% guilty either. if you want to bring these things up as counts against israel I can argue them one by one to see if we can ferret out the truth.
- His attempt to appease GWBush was award winning.
His removing a few trailers, most empty, and which HE asked the settlers to put on top "of the hills" is pretty curious, is it not?
he can start with the easy stuff if he wants.. we will know whether he lives up to the road map or not.
---And your comment about US news is a joke. Everyone in the bloody world knows that the US media is more or less an adjunct to the State Department.
Ahh !! that is why I heard nothing but good stuff about clinton during the sex or no sex scandel. I was wondering... [ermmm]
hmm most websites push an adgenda. as dirk noted - most people search for things like the above and therefore will find information on a massacare if hey search for Sabria hoax they will probably find the opposite.
Anyway I certainly dont doubt that it happened and that alot of people got killed the question is whether the israelis were negligent or evil. I am thinking neglegent which is a much lesser acusation. I alredy asserted that on my own information and I have not seen anything that sufficiently contradicts that.
As to other atrocities for almost every single one you will find there is an israeli side less well reported available somwhere. I am certain that they are not 100% innocent but they certainly are not 100% guilty either. if you want to bring these things up as counts against israel I can argue them one by one to see if we can ferret out the truth.
- His attempt to appease GWBush was award winning.
His removing a few trailers, most empty, and which HE asked the settlers to put on top "of the hills" is pretty curious, is it not?
he can start with the easy stuff if he wants.. we will know whether he lives up to the road map or not.
---And your comment about US news is a joke. Everyone in the bloody world knows that the US media is more or less an adjunct to the State Department.
Ahh !! that is why I heard nothing but good stuff about clinton during the sex or no sex scandel. I was wondering... [ermmm]
All you have to do is remember the events leading up to, during, and after the terrorist attack on Iraq.
You could do it yourself. jsut get a book make up an interesting story and write history of palestine on the front and see if it will fly. If anyone asks you tell you you inerviewed everyone yourself (which will be true because they are all in your head).
What I prefer is to act like a judge. find one side's story find he other sides story and then ask your self "which is more plausible?" keep in mind you can not say one side is always right because NO ONE is always right.
What I prefer is to act like a judge. find one side's story find he other sides story and then ask your self "which is more plausible?" keep in mind you can not say one side is always right because NO ONE is always right.
Scottie, you are rather asinine.
your problem is the US people in general actually don't like sadam. So the US state department didnt have to worry about headlines such as
"save saintly sadam" and
"dynamic despot defies dastardly democratic dominion"
they just were not going to fly.
The government does have a little bit of influnce over the media but forcing one media outlet to be more right wing encourages others to become more left wing to pick up the slack. in general the media reflects public opinion (or more specifically the buying power of consumers) just like public opinion reflects the media.
"save saintly sadam" and
"dynamic despot defies dastardly democratic dominion"
they just were not going to fly.
The government does have a little bit of influnce over the media but forcing one media outlet to be more right wing encourages others to become more left wing to pick up the slack. in general the media reflects public opinion (or more specifically the buying power of consumers) just like public opinion reflects the media.
I disagree completely.
A news outlet, be it television, radio, or print, should be totally unbiased and should not be taking sides.
I mean, during the terrorist attack on Iraq, we were hearing such things as "we" as if the news reporters (??) thought they were actually in Iraq fighting the battles themselves or thought they were discussing a sporting event.
Their credibility would have been much more greatly enhanced had the news been delivered as it was, not sugar coated for the US citizens.
War is not entertainment, and it should never be treated as such. War is death and destruction, and we have a right to see what is happening, not what news stations think we should be seeing.
Why do you think so many people chose alternate viewing?
A news outlet, be it television, radio, or print, should be totally unbiased and should not be taking sides.
I mean, during the terrorist attack on Iraq, we were hearing such things as "we" as if the news reporters (??) thought they were actually in Iraq fighting the battles themselves or thought they were discussing a sporting event.
Their credibility would have been much more greatly enhanced had the news been delivered as it was, not sugar coated for the US citizens.
War is not entertainment, and it should never be treated as such. War is death and destruction, and we have a right to see what is happening, not what news stations think we should be seeing.
Why do you think so many people chose alternate viewing?
I just noticed a comment you made there yesterday.
Well, you've made a grave mistake there, Hello. I have no desire to see Arabs flood into Israel and take it over. Au contraire. The idea never occurred to me or does it appeal to me. Nor do I have any desire to see Israelis continue to flood into Palestinian lands.
I'll ignore the rest of your comment, but I will say that I''m glad you don't "fear" me. Whew!
Well, you've made a grave mistake there, Hello. I have no desire to see Arabs flood into Israel and take it over. Au contraire. The idea never occurred to me or does it appeal to me. Nor do I have any desire to see Israelis continue to flood into Palestinian lands.
I'll ignore the rest of your comment, but I will say that I''m glad you don't "fear" me. Whew!
I'm not "trying" to make Israel look bad. They are doing a great job of that all by themselves.
"Everyone in the bloody world knows that the US media is more or less an adjunct to the State Department"
I see. So you have no proof to support the allegation that the "US" forced PBS to edit its documentary.
"He goes to the original documents and actually interviews people who knew the major players."
This is known as original research and actually is the rule in the academic world. I wasn't talking about textbooks written for teaching purposes or for the general public. Yet you told us we should avoid such "mainstream" publications and to be sure we read only selected works of which you approve?
I see. So you have no proof to support the allegation that the "US" forced PBS to edit its documentary.
"He goes to the original documents and actually interviews people who knew the major players."
This is known as original research and actually is the rule in the academic world. I wasn't talking about textbooks written for teaching purposes or for the general public. Yet you told us we should avoid such "mainstream" publications and to be sure we read only selected works of which you approve?
I assume you're including Brian in your lilttle rant?
Perhaps you could mention what PBS documentary you're referring to? There's a lot of them, you know.
Perhaps you could mention what PBS documentary you're referring to? There's a lot of them, you know.
Yes.. there is no such thing as impartiality (of course the media should still try to be impartial without kidding itself that it has achieved that lofty goal). but most of the bias in media is unintentional as opposed to corrupt.
Of course if you go to most other countries in the world such as iraq you get alot more bias.
Note that for reporters in iraq for example the iraqi government had some influence. Note the CNN (i believe) story where they admited to being soft on sadam because of his threats. Everyone was exposed to those threats to some extent you can judge how much each person was effected.
Of course if you go to most other countries in the world such as iraq you get alot more bias.
Note that for reporters in iraq for example the iraqi government had some influence. Note the CNN (i believe) story where they admited to being soft on sadam because of his threats. Everyone was exposed to those threats to some extent you can judge how much each person was effected.
Just to be as rediculous as yourself, you may read the Harry Potter books, and then slowly advance to the Lord of The Rings Trilogy. Bon Apetitie! Ciao!
Abientot!
Abientot!
"We're supposed to purify the land of something dirty", Scottie.
What is your opinion of this?
What is your opinion of this?
Brian
one line ad hominem attacks. you are true to form but also clearly irrelevant.
one line ad hominem attacks. you are true to form but also clearly irrelevant.
dont know i cant view that.. At a guess it is some IDF member saying bad things about hamas.
as to the recent attacks on hamas i think they were a bad move. There is no point doing just enough to make them angry but not enough to stop them.
as to the recent attacks on hamas i think they were a bad move. There is no point doing just enough to make them angry but not enough to stop them.
I wanted to know where people are from??? Just curious, since you guys contribute so much of your free time posting on indybay. I live in Berkeley, and you.......
You are..................................................................................
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,?????????
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,?????????
And yet, we israel supporters don't want anyone exterminated. We just want the fucking insane terrorist asssholes to leave israel alone so all this crap can eventually come to a peaceful conclusion.
Unfortunately, if people refuse to stop attacking, and continue to call for the destruction of your country no matter what, then the matter will remain really ugly
Unfortunately, if people refuse to stop attacking, and continue to call for the destruction of your country no matter what, then the matter will remain really ugly
I live overseas. I have family on the east coast though.
wish israel would stop killing the hamas dudes for a while sure they are evil little buggers but they should calm down for the moment and wait for the road map to fail for some other stupid reason. (I am loosing my optimism) then they can do it all in one go..
doing it half heartedly is a waste of everyones time.
doing it half heartedly is a waste of everyones time.
A pause in the assassinations of Hamas (wherein its usually the innocent bystanders who get killed) is not going to happen.
Israel is never going to take its settlements and get the hell back to its pre 1967 borders, and unless one expects the people of Palestine to continue living in an outdoor prison, with curfews, checkpoints, continual assaults by the massive weaponry of Israel, there will never be peace.
That's it, my friend.
PS By the way I've been amused greatly by your "Cough" byline. Wish I had used a fun name instead of my own when I began using this board!
Israel is never going to take its settlements and get the hell back to its pre 1967 borders, and unless one expects the people of Palestine to continue living in an outdoor prison, with curfews, checkpoints, continual assaults by the massive weaponry of Israel, there will never be peace.
That's it, my friend.
PS By the way I've been amused greatly by your "Cough" byline. Wish I had used a fun name instead of my own when I began using this board!
Ok lets say there is no possibility of negotiated solution because neither side will EVER accept it.
what is the next best option?
what is the next best option?
Reality Check, I agree with you that United States is not a terrorist state. It's been hi-jacked by some radical elites to utilize the nation's resources to carry out their personal agenda. At the moment, Bush and Co. are the pirates at helm. I would call Bush and Co. terrorists with the (phony) license to kill.
The difference of course is that Americans will have a chance to vote Bush out of office in just over a year. Iraquis never voted in Saddam or his predecessor nor were they ever given an opportunity to vote in someone else. The same can be said of Arafat, Assad Sr & Jr, etc.
"Israel is never going to take its settlements and get the hell back to its pre 1967 borders, and unless one expects the people of Palestine to continue living in an outdoor prison, with curfews, checkpoints, continual assaults by the massive weaponry of Israel, there will never be peace."
What another hair ball caughed up. Prior to the intifada, Israel had already withdrawn from the areas where 98% of the Arabs in the disputed territories resided. There were no curfews, assaults or checkpoints. The people lived under the corrupt rule of Yasser Arafat.
Just to make sure you get it, the intifada was not a response to curfews, assaults or checkpoints. Those were Israel's response to the violent terrorist assaults upon its innocent civilian population.
My questions to you, Angie, are why wasn't there peace or even a movement to establish an independent Palestinian Arab state in the territories between 1949 and 1967 when they were under Arab control?
Why did Arafat reject peace and order violence in 2000?
"Israel is never going to take its settlements and get the hell back to its pre 1967 borders, and unless one expects the people of Palestine to continue living in an outdoor prison, with curfews, checkpoints, continual assaults by the massive weaponry of Israel, there will never be peace."
What another hair ball caughed up. Prior to the intifada, Israel had already withdrawn from the areas where 98% of the Arabs in the disputed territories resided. There were no curfews, assaults or checkpoints. The people lived under the corrupt rule of Yasser Arafat.
Just to make sure you get it, the intifada was not a response to curfews, assaults or checkpoints. Those were Israel's response to the violent terrorist assaults upon its innocent civilian population.
My questions to you, Angie, are why wasn't there peace or even a movement to establish an independent Palestinian Arab state in the territories between 1949 and 1967 when they were under Arab control?
Why did Arafat reject peace and order violence in 2000?
I do not appreciate the dealings of the Israelis in regards to the Palestinians. If you would like, I would dearly like 2 one way tickets to Switzerland. It is near enough Germany where they still make fine cars. Furthermore, they have the IWC watch company, of which I have desire to visit.
Brian, cheers
Brian, cheers
I never said the US was a terrorist state. Stop looking for something to jump on.
As far as I'm concerned any time a nation is invaded by another without UN and world approval, with no good reason for doing so, it's a terrorist attack. If you don't like that, go talk to your Government. A coalition of two, with a few Australians thrown in, does not a coalition make.
If someone were foolish enough to attempt to invade the US tomorrow, you'd all be yelling "terrorist attack" at the top of your lungs. Tell us the difference.
No, I don't live in the US so there is no need for your dramatics. You're making the people of the US look bad, RC, and that's not fair, is it?
You really are anxious to spend your money and that of others, perhaps, to send me somewhere! Relax, man/woman. I'm here to stay.
As for KL (back again, I see) why don't you ask Ariel Sharon why the September 2000 intifadi started, hmm? I'm sure poor beleagured Barak would have a word or two to make as well; in fact, he already has with respect to Sharon. Look that up seeing as how you seem to know everything.
Good luck to you both. I've nothing further to say to either of you, but I am sure someone else out there will be happy to respond to you -- or then, again, maybe not.
As far as I'm concerned any time a nation is invaded by another without UN and world approval, with no good reason for doing so, it's a terrorist attack. If you don't like that, go talk to your Government. A coalition of two, with a few Australians thrown in, does not a coalition make.
If someone were foolish enough to attempt to invade the US tomorrow, you'd all be yelling "terrorist attack" at the top of your lungs. Tell us the difference.
No, I don't live in the US so there is no need for your dramatics. You're making the people of the US look bad, RC, and that's not fair, is it?
You really are anxious to spend your money and that of others, perhaps, to send me somewhere! Relax, man/woman. I'm here to stay.
As for KL (back again, I see) why don't you ask Ariel Sharon why the September 2000 intifadi started, hmm? I'm sure poor beleagured Barak would have a word or two to make as well; in fact, he already has with respect to Sharon. Look that up seeing as how you seem to know everything.
Good luck to you both. I've nothing further to say to either of you, but I am sure someone else out there will be happy to respond to you -- or then, again, maybe not.
Okay, poor lad/lass, whatever.
Nowhere have I said that the US is a terrorist nation. I said "the terrorist attack on Iraq". If I wanted to say the US is a terrorist nation, I would have said, "the US, a terrorist nation, committed a terrorist attack on Iraq".
I don't know what your bloody problem is. Go read Edward S. Herman if you want to dwell on terrorism. He's a US author, well known.
How dare you accuse me of "lying"? How pompous and sanctimonious art thou?? You're doing to me what groups like the Friends of Israel or whoever do whenever they want to vilify someone. Attack the character, attack the writings, send along a death threat or two., accusations of anti-semitism. Anything to keep someone from saying a damn word about Israel. We've seen it all before. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I don't give much of a damn what you think about whether the Palestinians are armed or not. As far as I'm concerned machine guns and homemade bombs
are not helicopter gunships, missiles, tanks. And until THEY become the fourth biggest army in the world, I will continue to say they are "unarmed". Have you ever seen them with a tank? I bet you haven't.
You're not making me look bad at all, RC. People who sit around waiting for a chance to attack someone else, accuse them of lying, etc., is only making himself/herself look bad.
I won't be replying to you any more today, RC, because it's night here. You will not drive me off this board with your attempt at making me look bad, but do your best. As I've said, we've seen it all before!
.
Nowhere have I said that the US is a terrorist nation. I said "the terrorist attack on Iraq". If I wanted to say the US is a terrorist nation, I would have said, "the US, a terrorist nation, committed a terrorist attack on Iraq".
I don't know what your bloody problem is. Go read Edward S. Herman if you want to dwell on terrorism. He's a US author, well known.
How dare you accuse me of "lying"? How pompous and sanctimonious art thou?? You're doing to me what groups like the Friends of Israel or whoever do whenever they want to vilify someone. Attack the character, attack the writings, send along a death threat or two., accusations of anti-semitism. Anything to keep someone from saying a damn word about Israel. We've seen it all before. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I don't give much of a damn what you think about whether the Palestinians are armed or not. As far as I'm concerned machine guns and homemade bombs
are not helicopter gunships, missiles, tanks. And until THEY become the fourth biggest army in the world, I will continue to say they are "unarmed". Have you ever seen them with a tank? I bet you haven't.
You're not making me look bad at all, RC. People who sit around waiting for a chance to attack someone else, accuse them of lying, etc., is only making himself/herself look bad.
I won't be replying to you any more today, RC, because it's night here. You will not drive me off this board with your attempt at making me look bad, but do your best. As I've said, we've seen it all before!
.
"any time a nation is invaded by another without UN and world approval, with no good reason for doing so, it's a terrorist attack."
Thanks for sharing, but in no uncertain terms what you say is totally wrong. You're just plaiyng fast and loose with terms to abuse them.
Unless you are doing so intentionally, you might want to educate yourself here:
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_convention_terrorist_bombing.html
"why don't you ask Ariel Sharon why the September 2000 intifadi started, hmm?"
Why would he know? It was Arafat who ordered the Tanzim to violence (long before Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, as if that could justify 2.5 years of violence and the deaths of about 3000 people). In fact, the international Sharm el Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee rejected the assertion that Sharon's visit triggered the violence (which began previously).
Did Angie respond to my questions? Nope!
Prior to the intifada, Israel had already withdrawn from the areas where 98% of the Arabs in the disputed territories resided. There were no curfews, assaults or checkpoints. The people lived under the corrupt rule of Yasser Arafat.
Just to make sure you get it, the intifada was not a response to curfews, assaults or checkpoints. Those were Israel's response to the violent terrorist assaults upon its innocent civilian population.
My questions to you, Angie, are why wasn't there peace or even a movement to establish an independent Palestinian Arab state in the territories between 1949 and 1967 when they were under Arab control?
Why did Arafat reject peace and order violence in 2000?
Thanks for sharing, but in no uncertain terms what you say is totally wrong. You're just plaiyng fast and loose with terms to abuse them.
Unless you are doing so intentionally, you might want to educate yourself here:
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_convention_terrorist_bombing.html
"why don't you ask Ariel Sharon why the September 2000 intifadi started, hmm?"
Why would he know? It was Arafat who ordered the Tanzim to violence (long before Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, as if that could justify 2.5 years of violence and the deaths of about 3000 people). In fact, the international Sharm el Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee rejected the assertion that Sharon's visit triggered the violence (which began previously).
Did Angie respond to my questions? Nope!
Prior to the intifada, Israel had already withdrawn from the areas where 98% of the Arabs in the disputed territories resided. There were no curfews, assaults or checkpoints. The people lived under the corrupt rule of Yasser Arafat.
Just to make sure you get it, the intifada was not a response to curfews, assaults or checkpoints. Those were Israel's response to the violent terrorist assaults upon its innocent civilian population.
My questions to you, Angie, are why wasn't there peace or even a movement to establish an independent Palestinian Arab state in the territories between 1949 and 1967 when they were under Arab control?
Why did Arafat reject peace and order violence in 2000?
For your information:
Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount in September 2000 was coordinated with the Muslim authorities who administer the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock. They approved his visit and Prime Minister Barak knew that Sharon was going there. Sharon did not attempt to go into any mosques, and his visit was brief. Furthermore, the Temple Mount is the most Holiest site in Judaism while its the 3rd holiest in Islam after Mecca and Medina. So why shouldnt a Jewish person living in his own country respectfully visit a Holy site that is holy to 2 religions? I dont find that it was Ariel Sharon's visit that started the Intifada, instead it was the culmination of the brainwashing, the hateful sermons in mosques, and the incitement that took place during the Oslo years on the part of the Palestinians.
Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount in September 2000 was coordinated with the Muslim authorities who administer the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock. They approved his visit and Prime Minister Barak knew that Sharon was going there. Sharon did not attempt to go into any mosques, and his visit was brief. Furthermore, the Temple Mount is the most Holiest site in Judaism while its the 3rd holiest in Islam after Mecca and Medina. So why shouldnt a Jewish person living in his own country respectfully visit a Holy site that is holy to 2 religions? I dont find that it was Ariel Sharon's visit that started the Intifada, instead it was the culmination of the brainwashing, the hateful sermons in mosques, and the incitement that took place during the Oslo years on the part of the Palestinians.
Can one assume that Reality Check and KL are one and the same person, or otherwise working in tandem? As soon as one name appears, the other shows up. (And we laugh here).
I will make this as brief as I can, and you can do what you like with it., say what you like, and think what you like. Enjoy!
TO: Reality Check
a) "all you have to do is remember the events leading up to, during, and after the terrorist attack on Iraq" . . .
b) "during the terrorist attack on Iraq"
c) "as far as I'm concerned any time a nation is invaded by another without UN approval and with no good reason for doiing so, it's a terrorist attack".
Where is the US mentioned there? Point out to me one place where the US is mentioned as being a terrorist state? Now shut to hell up. Who is "lying" here?
------------------------------------
TO KL: If I want to believe, as I stated above, that "as far as I'm concerned" anything or nothing happens, I shall say so. As far as I'm concerned it was a terrorist attack. You don't like that? Ohh, too bad. I'm entitled to my own opinions, and I'll be damned if you or anyone else is going to tell me what to think or not.
-------------------------------------------
TO KL: Why didn't you finish what the Mitchell Report stated with respect to Sharon's provocative visit to the Temple Mount? The Report said, and I quote:
"The Committee said it was provided with no persuasive evidence that the Sharon visit was anything other than an internal political act".
HOWEVER it went on to state (something you decided to leave out) but you're not the only one who has read the Report. I quote:
"Neither were we provided with persuavise evidence that the PA planned the uprising".
Something else you didn't mention with respect to this report was that Israel was to put a freeze on settlements, and to restrict the "natural growth" of those already erected. (Well, we know what happened there, don't we?)
It went on to say that:
"Accordingly we have no basis on which to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the PA to initiate a campaign of violence at the first opportunity nor to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the GOI to use lethal force".
The report also stated that whilst the visit to the Temple Mount was ill timed, it was not as significant as the decision by Israel to use lethal force on demonstrators on September 29th.,
NOTE: If you want further info about this report, go read it yourself. It's not my role in life to fill in the blanks you'd prefer to leave out in your attempt to vilify me.
THE INTIFADA. Who said it was because of curfews, etc? "Israel continues to insist that the second intafada was responsible for a wave of Israeli killings, but the first Israeli wasn't killed until a month into the rebellioin. In contrast, during that same 30 day period, Israeli soldiers killed 49 Palestinians, including nine protesters, whose deaths sparked the Intafada". (Ray Hanania, award winning journalist, Chicago).
The peace talks broke down in 2000 because neither side could reach an agreement with respect to the old city of Jerusalem. If you don't agree with that, get the wonderful documentary PBS showed last year with respect to the peace process? You'll see/hear for yourself what the participants are saying, etc.
Maybe you can tell us - and we're all waiting anxiously for your response - just why the Palestinians didn't get a state in 1948? You like to think you're the "expert" here, so we await a reply.
Could it be because four hours after Israel became a state, it declared war on Syria? Not much of an environment for anyone to attempt setting up a statehood.
Could it have been because suddenly there were 700,000 plus refugees, driven from their homes (oh, right, that never happened, nasty propaganda).
Could it have been that once forced from their homes and property, the international community didn't gave a damn
Go ahead. Tell us. I'm sure you can supply us with a reason why, and then we'll check it out.
TO REALITY CHECK:
With respect to my "lying" about the issue of Palestinians being armed. One faction has an army, the IDF. Does Palestine have an army? Does it have soldiers? Hardly. A few groups with guns and home made bombs can hardly be considered an army. They are, according to Israel, terrorists, militants. If Palestinians were armed, why would they have to resort to suicide bombings? I have no further comment on the matter.
As Sharon envisioned on December 25 of 2002, he was agreeable to "a totally unarmed Palestinian state with reduced borders" . . . Wonder do those involved in the road map know about that?
----------------------------------------------------
I shall not be wasting any additional time talking with you two (or one), whatever. I have more important things to be concerned about than the nasty, accusatory comments emanating from you two (or one).
If you're going to sit and check the board for everything I write, I wish you luck. Have fun, and remember no one "lies" better than the Israeli government and its followers. In fact, they've brought it to a fine art just as they invented propaganda.
And you have the temerity to state I'm lying? Who would know more about it, pray?
Nor am I going to hide, or duck, or anything else. I'm going to stay right here and comment when I feel like it, because if your little plan was for me to get so upset by your accusations, I'd stay off the board, have I got news for you! Do you level best. I'll be quite happy to ignore anything you write in the future.
I will make this as brief as I can, and you can do what you like with it., say what you like, and think what you like. Enjoy!
TO: Reality Check
a) "all you have to do is remember the events leading up to, during, and after the terrorist attack on Iraq" . . .
b) "during the terrorist attack on Iraq"
c) "as far as I'm concerned any time a nation is invaded by another without UN approval and with no good reason for doiing so, it's a terrorist attack".
Where is the US mentioned there? Point out to me one place where the US is mentioned as being a terrorist state? Now shut to hell up. Who is "lying" here?
------------------------------------
TO KL: If I want to believe, as I stated above, that "as far as I'm concerned" anything or nothing happens, I shall say so. As far as I'm concerned it was a terrorist attack. You don't like that? Ohh, too bad. I'm entitled to my own opinions, and I'll be damned if you or anyone else is going to tell me what to think or not.
-------------------------------------------
TO KL: Why didn't you finish what the Mitchell Report stated with respect to Sharon's provocative visit to the Temple Mount? The Report said, and I quote:
"The Committee said it was provided with no persuasive evidence that the Sharon visit was anything other than an internal political act".
HOWEVER it went on to state (something you decided to leave out) but you're not the only one who has read the Report. I quote:
"Neither were we provided with persuavise evidence that the PA planned the uprising".
Something else you didn't mention with respect to this report was that Israel was to put a freeze on settlements, and to restrict the "natural growth" of those already erected. (Well, we know what happened there, don't we?)
It went on to say that:
"Accordingly we have no basis on which to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the PA to initiate a campaign of violence at the first opportunity nor to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the GOI to use lethal force".
The report also stated that whilst the visit to the Temple Mount was ill timed, it was not as significant as the decision by Israel to use lethal force on demonstrators on September 29th.,
NOTE: If you want further info about this report, go read it yourself. It's not my role in life to fill in the blanks you'd prefer to leave out in your attempt to vilify me.
THE INTIFADA. Who said it was because of curfews, etc? "Israel continues to insist that the second intafada was responsible for a wave of Israeli killings, but the first Israeli wasn't killed until a month into the rebellioin. In contrast, during that same 30 day period, Israeli soldiers killed 49 Palestinians, including nine protesters, whose deaths sparked the Intafada". (Ray Hanania, award winning journalist, Chicago).
The peace talks broke down in 2000 because neither side could reach an agreement with respect to the old city of Jerusalem. If you don't agree with that, get the wonderful documentary PBS showed last year with respect to the peace process? You'll see/hear for yourself what the participants are saying, etc.
Maybe you can tell us - and we're all waiting anxiously for your response - just why the Palestinians didn't get a state in 1948? You like to think you're the "expert" here, so we await a reply.
Could it be because four hours after Israel became a state, it declared war on Syria? Not much of an environment for anyone to attempt setting up a statehood.
Could it have been because suddenly there were 700,000 plus refugees, driven from their homes (oh, right, that never happened, nasty propaganda).
Could it have been that once forced from their homes and property, the international community didn't gave a damn
Go ahead. Tell us. I'm sure you can supply us with a reason why, and then we'll check it out.
TO REALITY CHECK:
With respect to my "lying" about the issue of Palestinians being armed. One faction has an army, the IDF. Does Palestine have an army? Does it have soldiers? Hardly. A few groups with guns and home made bombs can hardly be considered an army. They are, according to Israel, terrorists, militants. If Palestinians were armed, why would they have to resort to suicide bombings? I have no further comment on the matter.
As Sharon envisioned on December 25 of 2002, he was agreeable to "a totally unarmed Palestinian state with reduced borders" . . . Wonder do those involved in the road map know about that?
----------------------------------------------------
I shall not be wasting any additional time talking with you two (or one), whatever. I have more important things to be concerned about than the nasty, accusatory comments emanating from you two (or one).
If you're going to sit and check the board for everything I write, I wish you luck. Have fun, and remember no one "lies" better than the Israeli government and its followers. In fact, they've brought it to a fine art just as they invented propaganda.
And you have the temerity to state I'm lying? Who would know more about it, pray?
Nor am I going to hide, or duck, or anything else. I'm going to stay right here and comment when I feel like it, because if your little plan was for me to get so upset by your accusations, I'd stay off the board, have I got news for you! Do you level best. I'll be quite happy to ignore anything you write in the future.
"As far as I'm concerned it was a terrorist attack. You don't like that? Ohh, too bad. I'm entitled to my own opinions, and I'll be damned if you or anyone else is going to tell me what to think or not."
You are certainly entitled to your opinions. But don't deprive us of our right to laugh at them if you base them on nothing.
There are established definitions in international law. I cited one. You exercised your right to ignore it and repeat an ignorant opinion. You're done.
Nessie:
"He rejected peace because it was unjust. Had he accepted it, the Palestinian people would..."
1. Have an independent and internationally recognized Palestinian Arab state on a net 97% of the disputed territories (contiguous in Gaza and in what was formerly Jordan's "West Bank").
2. Including the Arab neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem.
3. And shared sovereignty over the Temple Mount.
4. And the so-called "right of return" to this nascent state.
5. And $30 Billion to compensate and resettle refugees and their descendants.
This was so "unjust" that Arafat didn't bother with a counter-offer, right?
He left Camp David and, in contravention of the Oslo process, attempted to gain international support for a unilateral declaration of independence. Knowing what he had just done, he failed to gather such support.
Thus he painted himself into a corner. He couldn't crawl back to the negotiating table he abandoned because he'd have to do so from a weak position. What to do? Re-turn to his age-old friend, violence. New information (published by Time) indicates that Arafat ordered his Tanzim chiefs to prepare for violence (even before Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount). Now Arafat would try to extract unilateral Israeli concessions as the ransom for him to return to the negotiating table.
"He didn't have to order violence. It happens anyway. There will be violence against Israel as long as Israel oppresses the Palestinians."
If Israel were truly oppressive, violence wouldn't be possible. Terrorism manifests itself in open democratic societies. And its also the case that Arab terrorism existed prior to 1967, before Israel held the territories.
The inescapable conclusion, as Hamas openly states, is that they will continue their cowardly murderous violence (directed at innocent civilians) until Israel ceases to exist. That is their stated objective.
You are certainly entitled to your opinions. But don't deprive us of our right to laugh at them if you base them on nothing.
There are established definitions in international law. I cited one. You exercised your right to ignore it and repeat an ignorant opinion. You're done.
Nessie:
"He rejected peace because it was unjust. Had he accepted it, the Palestinian people would..."
1. Have an independent and internationally recognized Palestinian Arab state on a net 97% of the disputed territories (contiguous in Gaza and in what was formerly Jordan's "West Bank").
2. Including the Arab neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem.
3. And shared sovereignty over the Temple Mount.
4. And the so-called "right of return" to this nascent state.
5. And $30 Billion to compensate and resettle refugees and their descendants.
This was so "unjust" that Arafat didn't bother with a counter-offer, right?
He left Camp David and, in contravention of the Oslo process, attempted to gain international support for a unilateral declaration of independence. Knowing what he had just done, he failed to gather such support.
Thus he painted himself into a corner. He couldn't crawl back to the negotiating table he abandoned because he'd have to do so from a weak position. What to do? Re-turn to his age-old friend, violence. New information (published by Time) indicates that Arafat ordered his Tanzim chiefs to prepare for violence (even before Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount). Now Arafat would try to extract unilateral Israeli concessions as the ransom for him to return to the negotiating table.
"He didn't have to order violence. It happens anyway. There will be violence against Israel as long as Israel oppresses the Palestinians."
If Israel were truly oppressive, violence wouldn't be possible. Terrorism manifests itself in open democratic societies. And its also the case that Arab terrorism existed prior to 1967, before Israel held the territories.
The inescapable conclusion, as Hamas openly states, is that they will continue their cowardly murderous violence (directed at innocent civilians) until Israel ceases to exist. That is their stated objective.
"That anyone supporting the Israeli terrorist state should indeed be talking about international law is astonishing, considering it's something Israel has ignored since its inception."
Thank you for yet another ignorant assertion.
I assumed that you didn't read the link I provided on the basis of your on-going display of ignorance. Perhaps you did read it but didn't understand it, in which case maybe you should try again:
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_convention_terrorist_bombing.html
"I note the question with respect to why there was not a Palestinian state in 1948 has not been answered by "the expert" in our midst."
It doesn't take an expert to realize that it was the Arabs, including the Palestinian Arab representatives (known at the time as the Arab High Committee), violently rejected the 1947 UN compromise that provided for the establishment of an Arab state.
My question has also gone unanswered. Why wasn't an independent Palestinian Arab state established in the disputed territories during the 20 years when they were under Arab control?
Thank you for yet another ignorant assertion.
I assumed that you didn't read the link I provided on the basis of your on-going display of ignorance. Perhaps you did read it but didn't understand it, in which case maybe you should try again:
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_convention_terrorist_bombing.html
"I note the question with respect to why there was not a Palestinian state in 1948 has not been answered by "the expert" in our midst."
It doesn't take an expert to realize that it was the Arabs, including the Palestinian Arab representatives (known at the time as the Arab High Committee), violently rejected the 1947 UN compromise that provided for the establishment of an Arab state.
My question has also gone unanswered. Why wasn't an independent Palestinian Arab state established in the disputed territories during the 20 years when they were under Arab control?
Scottie, in your case the addition of extra gray matter will not make up for the lacking.
That isnt why you eat brains - you eat brains to absorb the bravery of the defeated warrior.
You moron.
besides what is your IQ? top 1%? No? then shut up.
You moron.
besides what is your IQ? top 1%? No? then shut up.
The jews feel opressed by the threat of violence.
But your big problem is that if you give the palistinians what they want they WILL be the "more opressed" people so then they will have an obligation to kill palistinians (by your logic) until they have regained power and then the palistinians will again gain the right and so on and so on.
Do you really believe that?
But your big problem is that if you give the palistinians what they want they WILL be the "more opressed" people so then they will have an obligation to kill palistinians (by your logic) until they have regained power and then the palistinians will again gain the right and so on and so on.
Do you really believe that?
"Three Jews = five opinions"
What? Was one of them retarded? :)
Evidently it's ok to lump the Arabs or Palestinian Arabs and generalize that they feel "oppressed". In fact, "Who gets to judge what is opression and what isnt? The oppressed." So evidently every group getse to judge if they are oppressed, except the Jews?
Did you miss my previous comment?
"He rejected peace because it was unjust. Had he accepted it, the Palestinian people would..."
1. Have an independent and internationally recognized Palestinian Arab state on a net 97% of the disputed territories (contiguous in Gaza and in what was formerly Jordan's "West Bank").
2. Including the Arab neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem.
3. And shared sovereignty over the Temple Mount.
4. And the so-called "right of return" to this nascent state.
5. And $30 Billion to compensate and resettle refugees and their descendants.
This was so "unjust" that Arafat didn't bother with a counter-offer, right?
He left Camp David and, in contravention of the Oslo process, attempted to gain international support for a unilateral declaration of independence. Knowing what he had just done, he failed to gather such support.
Thus he painted himself into a corner. He couldn't crawl back to the negotiating table he abandoned because he'd have to do so from a weak position. What to do? Re-turn to his age-old friend, violence. New information (published by Time) indicates that Arafat ordered his Tanzim chiefs to prepare for violence (even before Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount). Now Arafat would try to extract unilateral Israeli concessions as the ransom for him to return to the negotiating table.
"He didn't have to order violence. It happens anyway. There will be violence against Israel as long as Israel oppresses the Palestinians."
If Israel were truly oppressive, violence wouldn't be possible. Terrorism manifests itself in open democratic societies. And its also the case that Arab terrorism existed prior to 1967, before Israel held the territories.
The inescapable conclusion, as Hamas openly states, is that they will continue their cowardly murderous violence (directed at innocent civilians) until Israel ceases to exist. That is their stated objective.
What? Was one of them retarded? :)
Evidently it's ok to lump the Arabs or Palestinian Arabs and generalize that they feel "oppressed". In fact, "Who gets to judge what is opression and what isnt? The oppressed." So evidently every group getse to judge if they are oppressed, except the Jews?
Did you miss my previous comment?
"He rejected peace because it was unjust. Had he accepted it, the Palestinian people would..."
1. Have an independent and internationally recognized Palestinian Arab state on a net 97% of the disputed territories (contiguous in Gaza and in what was formerly Jordan's "West Bank").
2. Including the Arab neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem.
3. And shared sovereignty over the Temple Mount.
4. And the so-called "right of return" to this nascent state.
5. And $30 Billion to compensate and resettle refugees and their descendants.
This was so "unjust" that Arafat didn't bother with a counter-offer, right?
He left Camp David and, in contravention of the Oslo process, attempted to gain international support for a unilateral declaration of independence. Knowing what he had just done, he failed to gather such support.
Thus he painted himself into a corner. He couldn't crawl back to the negotiating table he abandoned because he'd have to do so from a weak position. What to do? Re-turn to his age-old friend, violence. New information (published by Time) indicates that Arafat ordered his Tanzim chiefs to prepare for violence (even before Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount). Now Arafat would try to extract unilateral Israeli concessions as the ransom for him to return to the negotiating table.
"He didn't have to order violence. It happens anyway. There will be violence against Israel as long as Israel oppresses the Palestinians."
If Israel were truly oppressive, violence wouldn't be possible. Terrorism manifests itself in open democratic societies. And its also the case that Arab terrorism existed prior to 1967, before Israel held the territories.
The inescapable conclusion, as Hamas openly states, is that they will continue their cowardly murderous violence (directed at innocent civilians) until Israel ceases to exist. That is their stated objective.
"In contravention of the Oslo Accord"?
That's rich, considering Israel has ignored the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Oslo Agreement of September 1993, and over 70 UN resolutions. Does the words "dispossession", "facts on the ground", ethnic cleansing, etc., mean anything to you?
That's rich, considering Israel has ignored the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Oslo Agreement of September 1993, and over 70 UN resolutions. Does the words "dispossession", "facts on the ground", ethnic cleansing, etc., mean anything to you?
Fucking Retarded Israel-Hating Angie
Hi, I'm Fucking Retarded Israel-Hating Angie. I am required to counter every point you make if you defend any aspect of any action israel is involved with, NOT using actual facts or logic, but retarded, backwards semi-honest points. I am also required to cloud any issue that might cast negative light on any palestinians or islamic fundalemtalists.
Hi, I'm Fucking Retarded Israel-Hating Angie. I am required to counter every point you make if you defend any aspect of any action israel is involved with, NOT using actual facts or logic, but retarded, backwards semi-honest points. I am also required to cloud any issue that might cast negative light on any palestinians or islamic fundalemtalists.
Ethnic cleansing: what Arabs did to ALL Jews living in the disputed territories in 1948. In eastern Jerusalem alone, 52 synagogues were destroyed. (Ergo now some thus call it "Arab East Jerusalem").
Israel has not ignored the Geneva Conventions, despite the attempt of some propagandists to mis-apply it (read Article 2).
Israel did not violate the Oslo Agreement. It withdrew from the territories where 98% of the Arab population of the disputed territories resided. Name one thing that the Palestinian Authority did in return.
Israel is not in violation of any binding UN resolutions.
But if these are important to you, why did the Arabs violently reject UNGAR 181, 194 and others? UNSCR 242?
So I'm STILL waiting for explanations to my questions:
Why did Arafat reject the Clinton Compromise (see 5 ponts above).
Why wasn't there an Arab state established in the disputed territories during the 20 years that they were under Arab control?
Israel has not ignored the Geneva Conventions, despite the attempt of some propagandists to mis-apply it (read Article 2).
Israel did not violate the Oslo Agreement. It withdrew from the territories where 98% of the Arab population of the disputed territories resided. Name one thing that the Palestinian Authority did in return.
Israel is not in violation of any binding UN resolutions.
But if these are important to you, why did the Arabs violently reject UNGAR 181, 194 and others? UNSCR 242?
So I'm STILL waiting for explanations to my questions:
Why did Arafat reject the Clinton Compromise (see 5 ponts above).
Why wasn't there an Arab state established in the disputed territories during the 20 years that they were under Arab control?
nessie I am fully aware that not all jews have the same opinion. however the same would be true about all israelis (particularly since some probably support hamas) and also all zionists. I therefore used the word "jew" and THIS time didnt bother to explain that I was generalizing.
Anyway as KL suggested you also generalize.
As to the rest of it the big question is "what are the palistinians bringing to the negotiating table?"
Through the good and the bad they have recieved from israel they have not given Israel anything even temporarily.
they suggest in the future there might be some possibility of them delivering "peace" (that means failing to kill any israelis for a month or so) but I can't blame Israelis for not believing them. what reason do they have to think that promise is credible?
Anyway as KL suggested you also generalize.
As to the rest of it the big question is "what are the palistinians bringing to the negotiating table?"
Through the good and the bad they have recieved from israel they have not given Israel anything even temporarily.
they suggest in the future there might be some possibility of them delivering "peace" (that means failing to kill any israelis for a month or so) but I can't blame Israelis for not believing them. what reason do they have to think that promise is credible?
Israel has obeyed the 1993 Oslo Agreement in what manner? It is today still building settlements, or are we not to believe our own eyes?
No "binding" UN resolutions? So that explains it
Why don't you ask an intelligent question of yourself? Why don't you ask yourself why it is that you labour under the illusion that your beloved Israel is all good, never committed an atrocity in its existence? And we're so wicked to even suggest such a thing.
Talk about propaganda! But carry on. Live in your dream world. We need all the amusement we can get. I'm sure some of the sheep out there will back you up.
No "binding" UN resolutions? So that explains it
Why don't you ask an intelligent question of yourself? Why don't you ask yourself why it is that you labour under the illusion that your beloved Israel is all good, never committed an atrocity in its existence? And we're so wicked to even suggest such a thing.
Talk about propaganda! But carry on. Live in your dream world. We need all the amusement we can get. I'm sure some of the sheep out there will back you up.
Wow! Your contribution to this discussion has certainly been enlightening. And we all feel much better having read same. You'd better go see someone about that problem re swearing., though It detracts from your poisonious brain. Keep this up and no one will believe you have a brain at all.
Hey angie, what do you think is worse, an intelligent person with actual knowledge who sometimes uses curses when delivering their accurate point, or a nice, polite person who never curses but whose opinions are completely idiotic, dishonest, and not based in reality at all?
You and the thy minded contributor above (could be the same person) wouldn't know the meaning of the words "accuracy" and "truth". But you'd sure get an "A" in character assassination as opposed to any knowledge of the real thread here.
Isn't that what you people do best?
Isn't that what you people do best?
I keep answering Angie & Nessie's question but they can't respond to my question and instead launch new accusations.
"Israel has obeyed the 1993 Oslo Agreement in what manner?"
It abided by its commitments.
It withdrew from territories where 98% of the Arab population resided.
It transferred money to the PA.
It agreed to the Clinton compromise which would have culminated the process.
(Should I go on?)
A. WHICH OSLO COMMITMENTS DID THE PALESTINIAN ARABS HONOR?
"It is today still building settlements"
There was no requirement in the Oslo Agreement to prevent the growth of "settlements". This was a final phase issue. At Camp David 2000, Israel agreed to dismantle most of the "settlements".
Never mind why all groups, except Jews, get to determine if they are oppressed, but let's review some of the other unanswered questions:
B. WHY WASN'T AN INDEPENDENT PALESTINIAN ARAB STATE ESTABLISHED IN THE DISPUTED TERRITORIES DURING THE 20 YEARS WHEN THEY WERE UNDER ARAB CONTROL, 1948-1967?
C. DO YOU SUPPORT THE ETHNIC CLEANSING OF ALL JEWS IN GAZA, JUDEA & SAMARIA IN 1948?
D. WHY DID ARAFAT REJECT THE CLINTON COMPROMISE, WITHOUT AS MUCH AS A COUNTER-OFFER?
It would have:
1. Established an independent and internationally recognized Palestinian Arab state on a net 97% of the disputed territories (contiguous in Gaza and in what was formerly Jordan's "West Bank").
2. Including the Arab neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem.
3. And shared sovereignty over the Temple Mount.
4. And the so-called "right of return" to this nascent state.
5. And $30 Billion to compensate and resettle refugees and their descendants.
"Israel has obeyed the 1993 Oslo Agreement in what manner?"
It abided by its commitments.
It withdrew from territories where 98% of the Arab population resided.
It transferred money to the PA.
It agreed to the Clinton compromise which would have culminated the process.
(Should I go on?)
A. WHICH OSLO COMMITMENTS DID THE PALESTINIAN ARABS HONOR?
"It is today still building settlements"
There was no requirement in the Oslo Agreement to prevent the growth of "settlements". This was a final phase issue. At Camp David 2000, Israel agreed to dismantle most of the "settlements".
Never mind why all groups, except Jews, get to determine if they are oppressed, but let's review some of the other unanswered questions:
B. WHY WASN'T AN INDEPENDENT PALESTINIAN ARAB STATE ESTABLISHED IN THE DISPUTED TERRITORIES DURING THE 20 YEARS WHEN THEY WERE UNDER ARAB CONTROL, 1948-1967?
C. DO YOU SUPPORT THE ETHNIC CLEANSING OF ALL JEWS IN GAZA, JUDEA & SAMARIA IN 1948?
D. WHY DID ARAFAT REJECT THE CLINTON COMPROMISE, WITHOUT AS MUCH AS A COUNTER-OFFER?
It would have:
1. Established an independent and internationally recognized Palestinian Arab state on a net 97% of the disputed territories (contiguous in Gaza and in what was formerly Jordan's "West Bank").
2. Including the Arab neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem.
3. And shared sovereignty over the Temple Mount.
4. And the so-called "right of return" to this nascent state.
5. And $30 Billion to compensate and resettle refugees and their descendants.
<< Hey angie, what do you think is worse, an intelligent person with actual knowledge who sometimes uses curses when delivering their accurate point, or a nice, polite person who never curses but whose opinions are completely idiotic, dishonest, and not based in reality at all? >>
Exhibit A
"Hi, I'm Fucking Retarded Israel-Hating Angie. I am required to counter every point you make if you defend any aspect of any action israel is involved with, NOT using actual facts or logic, but retarded, backwards semi-honest points. I am also required to cloud any issue that might cast negative light on any palestinians or islamic fundalemtalists. "
Here is an example of a person who curses but whose opinions are completely idiotic, dishonest, and not based in reality at all.
Unfortunately such examples are all too common from Israel supporters on this site. A "fundalemental" problem if there ever was one.
Exhibit A
"Hi, I'm Fucking Retarded Israel-Hating Angie. I am required to counter every point you make if you defend any aspect of any action israel is involved with, NOT using actual facts or logic, but retarded, backwards semi-honest points. I am also required to cloud any issue that might cast negative light on any palestinians or islamic fundalemtalists. "
Here is an example of a person who curses but whose opinions are completely idiotic, dishonest, and not based in reality at all.
Unfortunately such examples are all too common from Israel supporters on this site. A "fundalemental" problem if there ever was one.
It (dispossession and illegal settlements) is clearly stated under the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.
The following is an excerpt from US author, higly acclaimed Edward S. Herman, in his 2001 article, "Israel's Approved Ethnic Cleansing, Part 1, Making Facts on the Ground". However, if you don't want to believe Mr. Herman, you can grab the terms and conditions set out in the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 respecting Israel and Palestine, and also re-read, if you would, the Oslo Agreement of 1993.
"Under the terms of this Convention the Palestinians are "protected persons" and violations of that Convention. including dispossession and settlements are "war crimes".
Under the "peace process" following the signing of the Oslo Agreement in September 1993, a UN Special Report on 13 November 2000 says quite clearly as follows:: -
"In the past seven years, Israel's confiscation of Palestinian land and construction of settlements and bypass roads for Jewish settlements has accelerated dramatically in breach of Secuirity Council Resolution 242 and of the provisions of the Oslo Agreements requiring both parties to respect the territorial integrity and unity of the West Bank and Gaza Strip"
In reality, since 1993 the settler population in the West Bank and Gaza has doubled to 200,000 and increased to 170,000 in East Jerusalem". (My note: Up to 2001 figures)
"The Report also describes and condemns the demolitions of Palestinian houses, the diversion of water to Israell cities and settlements, the policy of closures that has damaged Palestinian social and economic life and the widespread violation of their
(Palestinian) economic, social, and cultural rights, both within Israel and in the occupied territories.
It also assails Israel's use of 'excessive force' against Palestinians and hundreds of Intifada killings, "most of them unarmed demonstrators".
====================================================================================================================
So, KL, even without the Oslo Agreement of '93, the illegal settlements and dispossession of the Palestinian peoples are "war crimes".
Of course, the fact that Israel has continued to expand its settlements as expeditously as it has, can only iindicate one thing - it has no intention of agreeing to, or abiding by, any convention, agreement, resolution.
.
The following is an excerpt from US author, higly acclaimed Edward S. Herman, in his 2001 article, "Israel's Approved Ethnic Cleansing, Part 1, Making Facts on the Ground". However, if you don't want to believe Mr. Herman, you can grab the terms and conditions set out in the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 respecting Israel and Palestine, and also re-read, if you would, the Oslo Agreement of 1993.
"Under the terms of this Convention the Palestinians are "protected persons" and violations of that Convention. including dispossession and settlements are "war crimes".
Under the "peace process" following the signing of the Oslo Agreement in September 1993, a UN Special Report on 13 November 2000 says quite clearly as follows:: -
"In the past seven years, Israel's confiscation of Palestinian land and construction of settlements and bypass roads for Jewish settlements has accelerated dramatically in breach of Secuirity Council Resolution 242 and of the provisions of the Oslo Agreements requiring both parties to respect the territorial integrity and unity of the West Bank and Gaza Strip"
In reality, since 1993 the settler population in the West Bank and Gaza has doubled to 200,000 and increased to 170,000 in East Jerusalem". (My note: Up to 2001 figures)
"The Report also describes and condemns the demolitions of Palestinian houses, the diversion of water to Israell cities and settlements, the policy of closures that has damaged Palestinian social and economic life and the widespread violation of their
(Palestinian) economic, social, and cultural rights, both within Israel and in the occupied territories.
It also assails Israel's use of 'excessive force' against Palestinians and hundreds of Intifada killings, "most of them unarmed demonstrators".
====================================================================================================================
So, KL, even without the Oslo Agreement of '93, the illegal settlements and dispossession of the Palestinian peoples are "war crimes".
Of course, the fact that Israel has continued to expand its settlements as expeditously as it has, can only iindicate one thing - it has no intention of agreeing to, or abiding by, any convention, agreement, resolution.
.
My comments above were directed to KL, NOT to Nessie and Riobard.
That goes without saying, of course, but those waiting to pounce might misconstrue it as being otherwise.
That goes without saying, of course, but those waiting to pounce might misconstrue it as being otherwise.
"most of them unarmed demonstrators"
I would like to see them prove that.
seems with al lthe statistics going around very few people bother to distinguish between the causes of death of all of these people. As far as i can tell in the palistinian deaths due to the interfadah they include suicide bombers people who died as a result of being unable to get into israel for medical treatment etc etc and yet they talk as if all if them are direct killings by israelis if palistinians.
I would like to see them prove that.
seems with al lthe statistics going around very few people bother to distinguish between the causes of death of all of these people. As far as i can tell in the palistinian deaths due to the interfadah they include suicide bombers people who died as a result of being unable to get into israel for medical treatment etc etc and yet they talk as if all if them are direct killings by israelis if palistinians.
This comment was not mine. If you have a problem with it, talk to Edward S. Herman.
Incidentally, when some wounded Palestinian cannot make it to a hospital, be it in the occupied territories or Israel, it's usually because the IDF has ensured that ambulances can't reach the person in time. You must have read about those incidents, Scottie.
Incidentally, when some wounded Palestinian cannot make it to a hospital, be it in the occupied territories or Israel, it's usually because the IDF has ensured that ambulances can't reach the person in time. You must have read about those incidents, Scottie.
I realize that you are an intellectual giant. You gramanivorous australipithicene.
Scottie,
The perception of circumstances of Palestinian deaths is largely based on the portrayel in the media. There is also the inherent bias that results in someone accepting the opinion of someone with a name like Scottie and rejecting the opinion of someone named Ahmed.
SHOPTALK
By Ahmed Bouzid
Sept 23, 2002
Claim: U.S. Papers Downplay Palestinian Deaths
Bouzid Cites Examples Of Bias
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/editorandpublisher/features_columns/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1705398
Despite the evidence, the simple view that Palestinians slaughter civilians and Israelis at worst unintentionally or mistakenly kill them (with "stray bullets" and "errant shells") still prevails, unshaken, in the reporting of the conflict by all the major U.S. newspapers. The result is coverage that reports, as a matter of routine, suicide bombings by Palestinians with blaring headlines and Page One photographs, while the killing of Palestinian civilians (even children) is covered with little fanfare.
This occurs even though human-rights organizations on the ground report that Israel does target civilians, deliberately and systematically. Physicians for Human Rights concluded that Israeli soldiers "are specifically aiming at peoples' heads"; and Human Rights Watch issued a report May 3 concerning actions in Jenin, stating, in part, that Palestinian civilians there "were killed willfully or unlawfully" by the Israeli military, which "used Palestinian civilians as 'human shields' and used indiscriminate and excessive force."
Yet coverage of the conflict continues to sketch a far different reality. Some examples:
On June 21, Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers opened fire on the Jenin marketplace in broad daylight, killing four Palestinians -- three children and a schoolteacher -- and wounding dozens. The IDF claimed that the soldiers erred in firing the shells and said it was opening an investigation. In a survey of 20 U.S. papers, Palestine Media Watch discovered that only The Seattle Times ran a Page One photo of the attack. Of the 20, 11 did run a front-page story on the shelling, but of that number, five reported in their headlines as a matter of fact that the shelling was "a mistake" -- as in the San Francisco Chronicle's "Israeli tanks mistakenly kill 4 civilians in West Bank." Of the 11 that ran a front-page story, only four mentioned in the headline that most of the victims were children.
Or take the Gaza bombing July 22, when a Hamas leader was killed along with nine sleeping children and five more civilians. Of the 17 papers whose July 23 front page was examined by Palestine Media Watch, only six ran a Page One picture above the fold depicting the aftermath of the attack, and only two (the Los Angeles Times and The San Diego Union-Tribune) mentioned in the headline that children were among those killed.
Speaking of pictures, between March 28 and Aug. 1, The Philadelphia Inquirer published 13 above-the-fold photographs depicting the Israeli toll after suicide bombings, while publishing only one above-the-fold picture depicting the Palestinian toll after Israeli attacks. Moreover, during that same period, the Inquirer published 10 front-page photos showing Palestinians. Of those 10, six depicted militants, suicide bombers, and would-be suicide bombers.
Also quite telling is the fact that during that same period, the Inquirer ran only two Page One photos showing Israelis in a slightly negative light (one showing soldiers patrolling the streets, the other showing a soldier yelling at civilians), and both were small in size and below the fold. And this was during the height of Operation Defensive Shield this spring, when 497 Palestinians were killed.
The vocabulary used in covering the conflict also reveals how the U.S. media are entrenched in the paradigm that views Israelis as engaged in self-defense and never intentionally targeting civilians. A LexisNexis database search for the words "retaliation" or "retaliate" within the text of news reports filed from Israel/Palestine and published in The Washington Post over a 19-month period (from the start of the Intifada to this May) turned up 32 news stories that used the words "retaliation" or "retaliate" somewhere in the text and not in the context of a quotation. Of those, 31 instances were specifically in reference to Israeli actions and were presented as facts rather than as a point of view or a claim made by Israeli officials. In other words, according to The Washington Post, Israel never initiates violent actions, but only "retaliates" -- Israel always acts in self-defense.
Another LexisNexis search for the word "terror" within news reports filed from Israel and published in the Post over the 17 months following the start of the Intifada revealed that the word was used exclusively to describe Palestinian violence.
The examples I cite are not the exception but the rule. Needless to say, commitment to the prevailing paradigm is not confined to the printed press. The electronic media are just as guilty.
Unless and until American journalists free themselves from the blinders they have decided to put on when covering the Middle East conflict, we will continue to suffer reporting that avoids the obvious and often presents as obviously true what is misleading, incomplete, or outright false.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahmed Bouzid is president of Palestine Media Watch and head of the Philadelphia chapter of the National Association of Arab American Journalists.
The perception of circumstances of Palestinian deaths is largely based on the portrayel in the media. There is also the inherent bias that results in someone accepting the opinion of someone with a name like Scottie and rejecting the opinion of someone named Ahmed.
SHOPTALK
By Ahmed Bouzid
Sept 23, 2002
Claim: U.S. Papers Downplay Palestinian Deaths
Bouzid Cites Examples Of Bias
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/editorandpublisher/features_columns/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1705398
Despite the evidence, the simple view that Palestinians slaughter civilians and Israelis at worst unintentionally or mistakenly kill them (with "stray bullets" and "errant shells") still prevails, unshaken, in the reporting of the conflict by all the major U.S. newspapers. The result is coverage that reports, as a matter of routine, suicide bombings by Palestinians with blaring headlines and Page One photographs, while the killing of Palestinian civilians (even children) is covered with little fanfare.
This occurs even though human-rights organizations on the ground report that Israel does target civilians, deliberately and systematically. Physicians for Human Rights concluded that Israeli soldiers "are specifically aiming at peoples' heads"; and Human Rights Watch issued a report May 3 concerning actions in Jenin, stating, in part, that Palestinian civilians there "were killed willfully or unlawfully" by the Israeli military, which "used Palestinian civilians as 'human shields' and used indiscriminate and excessive force."
Yet coverage of the conflict continues to sketch a far different reality. Some examples:
On June 21, Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers opened fire on the Jenin marketplace in broad daylight, killing four Palestinians -- three children and a schoolteacher -- and wounding dozens. The IDF claimed that the soldiers erred in firing the shells and said it was opening an investigation. In a survey of 20 U.S. papers, Palestine Media Watch discovered that only The Seattle Times ran a Page One photo of the attack. Of the 20, 11 did run a front-page story on the shelling, but of that number, five reported in their headlines as a matter of fact that the shelling was "a mistake" -- as in the San Francisco Chronicle's "Israeli tanks mistakenly kill 4 civilians in West Bank." Of the 11 that ran a front-page story, only four mentioned in the headline that most of the victims were children.
Or take the Gaza bombing July 22, when a Hamas leader was killed along with nine sleeping children and five more civilians. Of the 17 papers whose July 23 front page was examined by Palestine Media Watch, only six ran a Page One picture above the fold depicting the aftermath of the attack, and only two (the Los Angeles Times and The San Diego Union-Tribune) mentioned in the headline that children were among those killed.
Speaking of pictures, between March 28 and Aug. 1, The Philadelphia Inquirer published 13 above-the-fold photographs depicting the Israeli toll after suicide bombings, while publishing only one above-the-fold picture depicting the Palestinian toll after Israeli attacks. Moreover, during that same period, the Inquirer published 10 front-page photos showing Palestinians. Of those 10, six depicted militants, suicide bombers, and would-be suicide bombers.
Also quite telling is the fact that during that same period, the Inquirer ran only two Page One photos showing Israelis in a slightly negative light (one showing soldiers patrolling the streets, the other showing a soldier yelling at civilians), and both were small in size and below the fold. And this was during the height of Operation Defensive Shield this spring, when 497 Palestinians were killed.
The vocabulary used in covering the conflict also reveals how the U.S. media are entrenched in the paradigm that views Israelis as engaged in self-defense and never intentionally targeting civilians. A LexisNexis database search for the words "retaliation" or "retaliate" within the text of news reports filed from Israel/Palestine and published in The Washington Post over a 19-month period (from the start of the Intifada to this May) turned up 32 news stories that used the words "retaliation" or "retaliate" somewhere in the text and not in the context of a quotation. Of those, 31 instances were specifically in reference to Israeli actions and were presented as facts rather than as a point of view or a claim made by Israeli officials. In other words, according to The Washington Post, Israel never initiates violent actions, but only "retaliates" -- Israel always acts in self-defense.
Another LexisNexis search for the word "terror" within news reports filed from Israel and published in the Post over the 17 months following the start of the Intifada revealed that the word was used exclusively to describe Palestinian violence.
The examples I cite are not the exception but the rule. Needless to say, commitment to the prevailing paradigm is not confined to the printed press. The electronic media are just as guilty.
Unless and until American journalists free themselves from the blinders they have decided to put on when covering the Middle East conflict, we will continue to suffer reporting that avoids the obvious and often presents as obviously true what is misleading, incomplete, or outright false.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahmed Bouzid is president of Palestine Media Watch and head of the Philadelphia chapter of the National Association of Arab American Journalists.
Strange. Angie wishes to convince me what it says in the Fourth Geneva Conventions and in the Oslo Declarations of Principles by quoting various sources - EXCEPT THE SOURCE DOCUMENTS!
What's the matter? Can't find it there?
"most of them unarmed demonstrators"
False. If Israel were randomly targetting Arab civilians, 50% of the casualties would be women and 50% would be under the age of 14. Yet only about 5% fall in those demographic groups. The vast majority of Arab casualties are males of fighting age, engaged in hostilities (no longer "protected" persons).
In contrast, the majority of Israeli casualties were innocent civilians killed at random.
Despite the familiar 3-to-1 overall death ratio, both as a percentage and in absolute numbers, more Israeli women, girls and elderly have been intenionally murdered by terrorists than their Arab counterparts inadvertantly killed by the IDF during anti-terror operations.
If you don't like deaths, perhaps Hamas and its ilk should agree to a cease-fire...?!
Nessie offers us:
"Oslo is a travesty. So is everything else Israel has offered."
Good to know where you really stand. Against peace. Oslo wasn't something that "Israel offered", it was a negotiated settlement conducted under international auspices (Oslo, you might know, is a city in Norway). It followed the Madrid (Spain) conference which followed events which took place in Geneva (Switzerland).
This part is funny:
"Never has Israel even considered allowing a true Palestinian state. The absolute most they've been willing to do is set up an archipelago of discontinuous ghetto/Bantustans, ruled by a puppet regime...."
A "true" state was part of the Clinton compromise (see 5 points above, which you have repeatedly ignored). Arafat rejected it and re-turned to violence.
As above, the state would have been on 97% of the disputed territories, CONTIGUOUS in Gaza and in Jordan's former "West Bank"). In contrast, South African Bantustans were islands on 14% of the territory and lacked independence and international recognition.
Following the Madrid conference, Israel held free elections in the territory (that's how Arafat was elected, though he has since cancelled further elections and turned himself into a dictator).
Once again Angie & Nessie have avoided answering my questions (they just raise new distractions and lies).
A. WHICH OSLO COMMITMENTS DID THE PALESTINIAN ARABS HONOR?
B. WHY WASN'T AN INDEPENDENT PALESTINIAN ARAB STATE ESTABLISHED IN THE DISPUTED TERRITORIES DURING THE 20 YEARS WHEN THEY WERE UNDER ARAB CONTROL, 1948-1967?
C. DO YOU SUPPORT THE ETHNIC CLEANSING OF ALL JEWS IN GAZA, JUDEA & SAMARIA IN 1948?
D. WHY DID ARAFAT REJECT THE CLINTON COMPROMISE, WITHOUT AS MUCH AS A COUNTER-OFFER?
What's the matter? Can't find it there?
"most of them unarmed demonstrators"
False. If Israel were randomly targetting Arab civilians, 50% of the casualties would be women and 50% would be under the age of 14. Yet only about 5% fall in those demographic groups. The vast majority of Arab casualties are males of fighting age, engaged in hostilities (no longer "protected" persons).
In contrast, the majority of Israeli casualties were innocent civilians killed at random.
Despite the familiar 3-to-1 overall death ratio, both as a percentage and in absolute numbers, more Israeli women, girls and elderly have been intenionally murdered by terrorists than their Arab counterparts inadvertantly killed by the IDF during anti-terror operations.
If you don't like deaths, perhaps Hamas and its ilk should agree to a cease-fire...?!
Nessie offers us:
"Oslo is a travesty. So is everything else Israel has offered."
Good to know where you really stand. Against peace. Oslo wasn't something that "Israel offered", it was a negotiated settlement conducted under international auspices (Oslo, you might know, is a city in Norway). It followed the Madrid (Spain) conference which followed events which took place in Geneva (Switzerland).
This part is funny:
"Never has Israel even considered allowing a true Palestinian state. The absolute most they've been willing to do is set up an archipelago of discontinuous ghetto/Bantustans, ruled by a puppet regime...."
A "true" state was part of the Clinton compromise (see 5 points above, which you have repeatedly ignored). Arafat rejected it and re-turned to violence.
As above, the state would have been on 97% of the disputed territories, CONTIGUOUS in Gaza and in Jordan's former "West Bank"). In contrast, South African Bantustans were islands on 14% of the territory and lacked independence and international recognition.
Following the Madrid conference, Israel held free elections in the territory (that's how Arafat was elected, though he has since cancelled further elections and turned himself into a dictator).
Once again Angie & Nessie have avoided answering my questions (they just raise new distractions and lies).
A. WHICH OSLO COMMITMENTS DID THE PALESTINIAN ARABS HONOR?
B. WHY WASN'T AN INDEPENDENT PALESTINIAN ARAB STATE ESTABLISHED IN THE DISPUTED TERRITORIES DURING THE 20 YEARS WHEN THEY WERE UNDER ARAB CONTROL, 1948-1967?
C. DO YOU SUPPORT THE ETHNIC CLEANSING OF ALL JEWS IN GAZA, JUDEA & SAMARIA IN 1948?
D. WHY DID ARAFAT REJECT THE CLINTON COMPROMISE, WITHOUT AS MUCH AS A COUNTER-OFFER?
"This comment was not mine. If you have a problem with it, talk to Edward S. Herman."
-Just saying that it would be credible only if he had statistics to back it up if he doesnt most likely he never checked. He may be right for all I know.
"Incidentally, when some wounded Palestinian cannot make it to a hospital, be it in the occupied territories or Israel, it's usually because the IDF has ensured that ambulances can't reach the person in time."
- yes but that is a different thing from saying the israelis killed him directly.
Otherwsie we will soon see terrorist bombers at the local hospital complaining aobut a doctor "killing" some paitents by prioritising some over others.
soldiers "are specifically aiming at peoples' heads";
A) your human rights people are already pro palistinian and therefore will ofcourse produce reports that are anti israel. thats whay I dont quote debka as a source for my statistics about palestine I use arab sources and surveys.
You cant expect isrealis to believe "pro palistinian sources" jsut as I cant expect you to believe everything the IDF says.
As to your description of how the media reports bombings etc at least in the media sources I get to see while more emphasis is given to a suicide bombing (because it is sexier somhow) the suicide bombings are not actually blamed upon the palistinians (except by "fringe" media sources). while killing of palistinians IS often explicitly blamed upon the israelis (by mainstream media).
The media just has different ways of dealing with the two issues. If we were to swap you would still be complaining.
-Just saying that it would be credible only if he had statistics to back it up if he doesnt most likely he never checked. He may be right for all I know.
"Incidentally, when some wounded Palestinian cannot make it to a hospital, be it in the occupied territories or Israel, it's usually because the IDF has ensured that ambulances can't reach the person in time."
- yes but that is a different thing from saying the israelis killed him directly.
Otherwsie we will soon see terrorist bombers at the local hospital complaining aobut a doctor "killing" some paitents by prioritising some over others.
soldiers "are specifically aiming at peoples' heads";
A) your human rights people are already pro palistinian and therefore will ofcourse produce reports that are anti israel. thats whay I dont quote debka as a source for my statistics about palestine I use arab sources and surveys.
You cant expect isrealis to believe "pro palistinian sources" jsut as I cant expect you to believe everything the IDF says.
As to your description of how the media reports bombings etc at least in the media sources I get to see while more emphasis is given to a suicide bombing (because it is sexier somhow) the suicide bombings are not actually blamed upon the palistinians (except by "fringe" media sources). while killing of palistinians IS often explicitly blamed upon the israelis (by mainstream media).
The media just has different ways of dealing with the two issues. If we were to swap you would still be complaining.
> most of them unarmed demonstrators"
>> I would like to see them prove that.
Considering the amount of time you invest here trying to polish that Israeli turd, Scottie, you could surely find the few minutes required to download realplayer and watch the video I attached above. (purify.rm)
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation report contains Israeli TV footage of IDF stormtroopers in action - and I quote: "purifying the land of something dirty." Outraged not by the disturbing content of the report but the fact that it was broadcast in the first place, an Israeli governmnet spokesman complains:
"I'd have expected more self-censorship from the Israeli media - like the Americans did in Afghanistan".
Watch the video, Scottie.
quote:
=================================
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE them prove that.
=================================
>> I would like to see them prove that.
Considering the amount of time you invest here trying to polish that Israeli turd, Scottie, you could surely find the few minutes required to download realplayer and watch the video I attached above. (purify.rm)
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation report contains Israeli TV footage of IDF stormtroopers in action - and I quote: "purifying the land of something dirty." Outraged not by the disturbing content of the report but the fact that it was broadcast in the first place, an Israeli governmnet spokesman complains:
"I'd have expected more self-censorship from the Israeli media - like the Americans did in Afghanistan".
Watch the video, Scottie.
quote:
=================================
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE them prove that.
=================================
That would not be proof unless it was footage of ALL (or at least most) of the incidents involving the israelis and palistinians that resulted in death as recorded in the statistics.
The fact that you THINK it is proof speaks of your bias.
Show me the statistics instead thanks.
there is pleanty of statistics on the age and gender split ... how about cause of death?
The fact that you THINK it is proof speaks of your bias.
Show me the statistics instead thanks.
there is pleanty of statistics on the age and gender split ... how about cause of death?
Ah, but the US is not about to cease aiding this terrorist state.
However, these past few days we've heard GWBush and Powell, et al, demand that anyone supplying funds to Hamas CEASE immediately. Which is such hypocrisy the mind boggles. The amount of funding the US is supplying to Israel to continue its ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians is abhorrent.
For every innocent Palestinian killed in the past 50 plus years, the US Government is as much to blame as Israel.
It has allowed this terrorist state to obtain a horrific weaponry arsenal, ignored the killings of innocent civilians (oh, occasionally someone will be "troubled" by it, which means a hell of a lot), but nothing more.
However, these past few days we've heard GWBush and Powell, et al, demand that anyone supplying funds to Hamas CEASE immediately. Which is such hypocrisy the mind boggles. The amount of funding the US is supplying to Israel to continue its ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians is abhorrent.
For every innocent Palestinian killed in the past 50 plus years, the US Government is as much to blame as Israel.
It has allowed this terrorist state to obtain a horrific weaponry arsenal, ignored the killings of innocent civilians (oh, occasionally someone will be "troubled" by it, which means a hell of a lot), but nothing more.
Hmm ok so US is responsibl for people israel kills
so US citizens are responsible for what the US does
people who trade with the US are responsible for what US citizens do (because they effectively fund them)
therefore canada is responsible for anyone israel kills.
specious isnt it?
so US citizens are responsible for what the US does
people who trade with the US are responsible for what US citizens do (because they effectively fund them)
therefore canada is responsible for anyone israel kills.
specious isnt it?
Good point Scottie! Now write a letter to the esteemed Daniel Goldhagen and tell him all of Germany was not to blame for what happended to Hitlers' enimies. Goldehagen wrote "Hilers' Willing Executioners"
We blamed germany for WWI and we almost got our assed kicked for it. we paid them money for WWII and now germany is a bastion of "limp wristed liberalism".
So if we had followed the policy you seem to have been hinting at we would already have had our WWIII or IV or V
Anyway are you suggesting that germans are somehow "more evil" than your average person?
So if we had followed the policy you seem to have been hinting at we would already have had our WWIII or IV or V
Anyway are you suggesting that germans are somehow "more evil" than your average person?
Where did Brian suggest that Germans were more evil than anyone else, Scottie? I find that a grossly unfair remark that has no basis from the comment he made above.
If he meant that I was covring my bases.
what did he mean then by his comment?
what did he mean then by his comment?
Brian will have to tell you that.
Incidentally, I trust your cold of last week has now disappeared and that you are well and happy again.
Incidentally, I trust your cold of last week has now disappeared and that you are well and happy again.
yes better now thanks angie.. just one week worth of cold.
That's great!
Scottie, I am sorry you misunderstood what I wrote. Never mind what I meant, it really doesn't amount to a hill of beans. One thing that is bothering me is my sudden propensity to badly spell words. I will have to say I caught that from you Scottie. I think though that you are typing so fast that your fingers miss a key here and there. It happens. I sometimes fail to proof read what I type, so I spell an easy word wrong. Just ask the highly esteemed (in his own mind) Gehrig
Hmm the english language needs a revamp anyway
A. WHICH OSLO COMMITMENTS DID THE PALESTINIAN ARABS HONOR?
B. WHY WASN'T AN INDEPENDENT PALESTINIAN ARAB STATE ESTABLISHED IN THE DISPUTED TERRITORIES DURING THE 20 YEARS WHEN THEY WERE UNDER ARAB CONTROL, 1948-1967?
C. DO YOU SUPPORT THE ETHNIC CLEANSING OF ALL JEWS IN GAZA, JUDEA & SAMARIA IN 1948?
D. WHY DID ARAFAT REJECT THE CLINTON COMPROMISE, WITHOUT AS MUCH AS A COUNTER-OFFER?
It would have:
1. Established an independent and internationally recognized Palestinian Arab state on a net 97% of the disputed territories (contiguous in Gaza and in what was formerly Jordan's "West Bank").
2. Including the Arab neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem.
3. And shared sovereignty over the Temple Mount.
4. And the so-called "right of return" to this nascent state.
5. And $30 Billion to compensate and resettle refugees and their descendants.
B. WHY WASN'T AN INDEPENDENT PALESTINIAN ARAB STATE ESTABLISHED IN THE DISPUTED TERRITORIES DURING THE 20 YEARS WHEN THEY WERE UNDER ARAB CONTROL, 1948-1967?
C. DO YOU SUPPORT THE ETHNIC CLEANSING OF ALL JEWS IN GAZA, JUDEA & SAMARIA IN 1948?
D. WHY DID ARAFAT REJECT THE CLINTON COMPROMISE, WITHOUT AS MUCH AS A COUNTER-OFFER?
It would have:
1. Established an independent and internationally recognized Palestinian Arab state on a net 97% of the disputed territories (contiguous in Gaza and in what was formerly Jordan's "West Bank").
2. Including the Arab neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem.
3. And shared sovereignty over the Temple Mount.
4. And the so-called "right of return" to this nascent state.
5. And $30 Billion to compensate and resettle refugees and their descendants.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$330.00 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